Letteratura artistica: Francesco Mazzaferro. Cennino and Stalin's 'Neo-renaissance': the Russian Translation of the "Book of the Art" (1933)

Russian Translation (1933)

SEE CENNINI PROJECT

Foreword by Giovanni Mazzaferro

In 1933, the American edition and the Russian edition of the Book of the Art appeared almost at the same time. On the American edition, see Mark Clarke’s Pentimenti : DV Thompson's reflections on his translation of Cennini. The Russian edition is published in a radically different political and cultural context, described in the following essay. Yet, if cleaned of the introduction by Аleksey Aleksandrovich Rybnikov, which features all the prevailing themes of Stalinism, the edition of Alla Nicolaevna Luzhetskaya appears to be perfectly integrated in a cosmopolitan cultural fabric with a strong European imprint.

Francesco Mazzaferro
Cennino and Stalin's 'Neo-renaissance': the Russian Translation of the "Book of the Art" (1933)

[1] Алла Николаевна Лужецкая (Alla Nicolaevna Luzhetskaya) was born in 1899. While information is reported from the Russian State Archives (http://guides.rusarchives.ru) (Фонд: 204 Опись: 1 Ед.хранения: 346 Дело: 346 е хр. Дата: 1823 – 1997), her date of death is not included in official on line documentation. She was a Muscovite historian of art and an expert in restoration, among others working at the Tretyakov State Gallery in Moscow. She graduated at the Moscow State University in 1923, and worked as a researcher and a lecturer at the Tretyakov Gallery between 1926 and 1942. She had a broad culture, including a profound knowledge of many languages, also as a consequence of frequent travels abroad with the father. In 1933 she translated into Russian the Book of the Art by Cennino Cennini from Italian, in a version edited with Алексей Александрович Рыбников (Аleksey Aleksandrovich Rybnikov) (1887— 1949). In 1935 she translated into Russian (always in cooperation with Rybnikov) the ‘Beiträge zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der Maltechnik (XVI-XVIII Jahrhundert)’ by Ernst Berger. Afterwards she was the Secretary of the USSR Commission in charge of restoring monuments destroyed during World War II and a Professor at the University. In 1965 she authored a monograph on the History of the technique of oil painting by Russian masters from the 18^th to the beginning of the 20^th Century (thirty years before, in 1933, Rybnikov had published a Treaty on oil painting). Her life was however not a sequence of successes. She paid her support for many victims of Stalinism among intellectuals of her generation with personal and professional isolation. The historian А.Н.Королёва (A.N. Koroliova) wrote in 2005 how Alla Nicolaevna Luzhetskaya materially supported those writers and painters who had been prohibited to keep their residence in Moscow and had been forced to leave the town in conditions of extreme poverty, including among others Anna Akhmatova. She provided them food parcels, to make sure they would survive conditions of extreme distress. “Luzhetskaya finished her life in a hospice for scientists in Khimki, lonely, abandoned by all. And do you know what has been her last concern in the last days? That the shawl of the first quarter of the XIX century, which she had so carefully preserved, would not go lost. To this aim, she donated it to the Gogol Memorial Museum.” (http://www.ivorr.narod.ru/znam/culturalHeritage/articleCH04.html) We found evidence that Alla’s shawl is still exposed there (http://www.e-reading.co.uk/chapter.php/85295/41/Moleva_-_Moskva_gogolevskaya.html).
[2] This is a translation of the interpreter’s note from the Russian edition of Cennino Cennini of 1933. Ченнино Ченнини, Книга об искусстве, или Трактат о живописи, перевод с итальянского А. Лужецкой; под редакцией и со вступительной статьей А. Рыбникова; Publisher: Огиз-Изогиз, Moskva : Ogiz-Izogiz, 1933.
“ОТ ПЕРЕВОДЧИКА Алла Николаевна Лужецкая Настоящая книга написана итальянским художником конца XIV в. Ченнино Ченнини. Биографические сведения о нём крайне скудны и основываются главным образом на его трактате. Из него мы узнаём, что он родился в местечке Колле, в долине реки Эльфы и что отца его звали Андреа (гл. I). Сведения, сообщаемые Ченнини (гл. XLV), где он пишет, как они с отцом откапывали в земле охру и другие краски и пробовали их применять, дают возможность предположить, что Андреа Ченнини также был художником, или, во всяком случае, имел какое-то отношение к живописи и краскам. Точная дата рождения Ченнини неизвестна; у Меланезии Ильга, так же как и в словаре, Тиме и Беккер, она предположительно определяется 1372 годом. Далее мы, опять таки из самого трактата узнаём, что Ченнини в течение 12 лет был учеником Аньоло Гадди, в то время самого крупного художника школы Джотто во Флоренции. Меланезии за ним Ильг считают, что Ченнини учился у Гадди, умершего в 1396 г., в последние годы жизни этого художника, т.е. с 1394 по 1396 г., поступив к нему примерно 12 лет. Эти же данные послужили отправной точкой при определении даты рождения Ченнини. Далее, на основании документов, относящихся к 1398 году, найденных Меланези, мы узнаём, что 1) Ченнини жил в Падуе и был на службе у Франческо да-Каррары в качестве художника; 2) был женат на донне Рикка дела Рикка ди-Четаделла и 3) что у него был брат Матео, также падуанский гражданин, служивший у того же Франческо да-Каррары в качестве трубача. Меланези пишет: "Это даёт возможность предположить, что в 1398 г. Сенино Ченнини уже несколько лет жил в Падуе, так как приобрёл там права гражданства, женился и был на службе у Франческо да-Каррары. Кроме того, Ченнини не упоминается в списке флорентийских художников, что заставляет думать, что он уехал оттуда после смерти своего учителя Аньоло Гадди, т.е. ещё в молодости". – "Какие живописные произведения он исполнил для да-Каррара неизвестно, если только ему не принадлежат фрески капеллы дель Аньоло Гадди, т.е. которые путеводители приписывают то Таддео Бартоли, то Таддео Гадди, большинство же считает их произведениями неизвестного художника школы Джотто". ("Trattato della Pittura" di Cennino Cennini, publicato per cura di Gaetano e Carlo Melanesi. Prefazione, p. VIII) Дальнейших сведений о жизни Ченнини нет. Предположение Балдинуччи и Тамброни, основанные на последних словах рукописи – кодекс Оттобониано ("Finito libro, referamus gratias X po. 1437. Adi 31di luglio ex Stinecarum etc"), - что "Трактат о живописи" написан Ченнини в 1437 году в флорентийской долговой тюрьме Стинке, - маловероятно по следующим соображениям: 1) если бы это было так, то Ченнини, вероятно, где-нибудь упомянул бы об этом факте, например, указывая, что "предпринял работу в качестве утешения в своём бедственном положении и т.п., тогда как он указывает, что пишет свою книгу в назидание "стремящимся к искусству"; 2) самый характер заключительных слов говорит за то, что они относятся не к автору, а к переписчику (finito libro, а не обычное "scriptus et compositus per me" и т.п.); 3) в списках содержащихся, содержащихся в тюрьме Стинке за данный период времени, имени Ченнини нет и 4) в других рукописях (Медичи Лауренциано и Риккардиано) упомянутые заключительные слова о отсутствуют. Наши сведения о живописных произведениях Ченнини ещё более скудны. Сам автор о них молчит. Вазари указывает лишь одно его живописное произведение: фреску с изображением Мадонны в Лоджии госпиталя Бо-нифация, во Флоренции, исполненную по заказу Лупи, бывшую, по словам Вазари, в его время в прекрасной сохранности. В 1787 году фреска была снята со стены и перенесена на холст, но это не спасло её от разрушения, так как уже во времена Меланези (середина XIX в.), который видел её в госпитале Санта Мариа Нуова, о её первоначальном виде судить было невозможно. В словаре Тиме мы читаем: "Других достоверных работ Ченнини нет. Фрески оратория дела Компания дела Кроче в Волтерре принадлежат не ему, а Ченни ди Франческо ди Ser Cenni из Флоренции, чем опровергается и атрибуция других работ, приписанных ему Crowe и Cavalcasell на основании этой работы… Подпись Ченнини на изображении Мадонны с двумя святыми 1408 г. из собрания Тосканелли в Уффици всеми признана фальшивой. Напротив, можно принять с достаточной степенью вероятности, что художник, назвавший себя "Collensis patria", окончивший в 1388 г. фрески капелле Луккской Поджибонси идентичен с Ченнини. В этой капелле писали Таддео Гадди и, позднее, Джованни di Ser Segna, и Ченнини мог выполнять чисто орнаментальные части… Далее можно согласиться с Ильгом, что Ченнини, наравне с остальными учениками, принимал участие в работах своего учителя Аньоло Гадди". (Thime. Allgemeines Lexicon der bildenden Künstler) Сам Ченнини называет себя "piccolo membro essercitante nell'arte di dipintoria" (один из малых членов, упражняющихся в искусстве живописи). Вазари высказывает мнение, что и самое написание трактата было вызвано тем, что Ченнини как художник не имел успеха. Всё это даёт возможность заключить, как это и делают все писавшие о Ченнини, что он был заурядным художником, принадлежащим к подражателям Джотто, не имевшим ярко выраженной индивидуальности, но прекрасно знавшим техническо-ремесленную сторону живописи. По времени Ченнини принадлежит раннему Возрождению, но, однако, его книга ещё всецело проникнута идеологией эпохи феодализма. Только разве ссылка на прекрасные античные статуи (гл. CLXXXV), указание, насколько полезно для рисования делать гипсовые слепки с живой натуры (гл. CLXXXI) и, наконец, особенно совет побольше рисовать с натуры "и постоянно в этом упражняться" (гл. XXVIII) говорят о новых веяниях. Совет же побольше копировать произведения крупных мастеров (гл. XXVII), подчиниться учителю и проникнуться его духом и т.д., так же как описываемые Ченнини приёмы живописи, например, при изображении лиц, деревьев и т.п., носят ещё всецело средневековый характер (гл. LXVII, LXVIII и LXXXVI). У Ченнини мы ещё совершенно не встречаем столь любимых позднейшими писателями рассуждений о значении искусства или изложения эстетических воззрений. Кроме коротенького введения риторического характера, в котором говориться о происхождении искусства (очень близкое к введению Теофила, что говорит о возможности знакомства Ченнини с произведениями последнего), да кратких указаний о том, какова должна быть жизнь художника, Ченнини весь свой трактат посвящает очень подробному и точному изложению производственных процессов и описанию материалов. Трактат Ченнини в области техники как бы подводит итог итальянского треченто. Благодаря ему мы с большой точностью узнаём о технических приёмах Джотто и его школы, к которой Ченнини всецело примыкает. Время написания трактата неизвестно, так как дата 1437 г., как уже упомянуто, очевидно, относится ко времени переписки одной из копий трактата. Вероятнее всего, как это считает Меланези, трактат был написан Ченнини вскоре после его переезда из Флоренции в Падую, т.е. в конце 90-х годов XIV в. Основанием подобной датировки может служить: 1) то, что Ченнини, часто, рядом с названием какого-нибудь предмета на литературном тосканском языке приводит его обозначение на падуанском наречии; 2) противопоставление падуанских и тосканских дам в XXX гл. Первое упоминание о трактате Ченнини в печати мы имеем у Вазари, которому была известна рукопись, принадлежащая сиенскому золотых дел мастеру Джулиано, вероятно Джулиано Никколо Морелли. Однако Вазари отнесся к трактату без должного внимания, так как ему казалось, что все те вещи, которые (Ченнини) в своё время считал большой тайной и редкостью, теперь известны всем. Видимо, если Вазари и прочёл книгу Ченнини, то очень невнимательно, так как, например, он упрекает Ченнини в том, что последний не упоминает краски чинабрезе, хотя в трактате этой краске посвящена целая глава. Тамброни считает, что книгой Ченнини пользовался для своего сочинения Боргони (Ripso, II т., 1584 г.). Кроме того, несколько выдержек из трактата приводит в биографии Ченнини Балдинуччи. Наконец, краткое упоминание трактата мы имеем у Ланци. В конце XVII в. Боттари писал: "Было бы очень полезно, если бы эта книга (трактат Ченнини) увидела свет". Эти слова возбудили в Тамброни желание ознакомиться с трактатом, который и был им издан в Риме в 1821 г. Тамброни воспользовался для своего издания Ватиканской рукописью Оттобониана № 2974. Рукопись относится к новому времени, подписана иностранцем. Рукопись содержит много ошибок, которые были Тамброни по возможности исправлены. Кроме того, в ней не хватает некоторых глав. Другая рукопись трактата из библиотеки Лаурециана относится к XV в. и, возможно, является той самой рукописью, о которой пишет Вазари. Наконец, третья рукопись – из библиотеки Риккардиана (№ 2190) относится, по мнению Меланези, к середине XVI в. В 1859 г. трактат был с большой тщательность переиздан бр. Меланези, воспользовавшимися для своего издания как изд. Тамброни, так и всеми 3 рукописями, что дало возможность устранить многие ошибки и неточности и восполнить некоторые главы, отсутствовавшие в изд. Тамброни. Существуют следующие переводы Ченнини – на английском языке: 1) Mrs. Merrifield, London, 1846; Allen and Herringham, London, 1899; на французском: Victor Mottez, Paris, Lille, 1858; переизданный сыном Моттэ – Анри Моттэ (Edit. Ronart et J. Watelin, Paris), в котором напечатано адресованное А. Моттэ письмо художника Огюста Ренуара о значении книги Ченнини; на немецком языке: Albert Ilg. Quellenschrite für Kunstgeschichte. 2 Lieferung, Wien, 1888. Наконец, выдержки из трактата переведены Агеевым на русский язык и помещены в статье последнего "Старинные руководства по технике живописи" в "Вестнике изящных искусств" 1889 г., т. VII: перевод сделан частичный и не с оригинала, а с перевода Ильга, поэтому не всегда точен, но зато снабжён довольно ценными примечаниями. Настоящий перевод сделан с итальянского текста в издании Меланези, но для выяснения некоторых, не вполне ясных мест, использованы также переводы Ильга и Моттэ, а также примечания Агеева. Тяжёлый, несколько отрывистый и крайне своеобразный средневековый язык трактата ставит перед переводчиком почти невыполнимую задачу – сделать трактат достаточно понятным современному читателю, не отпугивать его архаичностью изложения и, вместе с тем, сохранить возможную близость к тексту. В настоящем переводе наибольшие усилия были направлены к максимально точной передаче подлинника при возможной ясности изложения технических приёмов. О трудности текста можно судить хотя бы по тому, что даже у такого авторитета, как Ильг, и такого знатока старой живописи, как художник – фрескист В. Моттэ, мы нередко встречаем неправильное понимание текста Ченнини. _____________ Литература о Ченнини (кроме справочников): Агеев. "Старинные руководства по технике живописи". Вестник изящных искусств, 1889 г., том VII, вып. 2-й; Vasari, ed Melanesi; Grove u. Cavalcaselle. Hist. of. Ital. Painting, ed. Douglas II, 1907, London; Woltmann u. Woermann. Gesch. d. Malerei I, 1879; Petate в "Histoire de l'art" Michel'я; Dini. Storia di Valdelsa, XIII, 1905 (Castelfiorentino) sir Charles Eastlake: Materials for a History of oil painting, London, 1877; E. Berger. Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Maltechnik, III Folge; Venturi. Storia d. arte Ital. V, VI; Nomi; Pesciolini. Della Vita e delle Opere di. C. C., Siena, 1892; Brogi. Invent gen. d. oggetti d'arte d. prov. di Siena, Siena, 1897.”	“From the interpreter Alla Nikolaevna Luzhetskaya This book is written by an Italian artist of the late XIV century, Cennino Cennini. Biographical information about him is extremely scarce and is based mainly on his Treatise. From it we learn that he was born in the village of Colle Valdelsa, and that his father's name was Andrea (Chapter I). Information reported by Cennini (Ch. XLV) suggests the possibility that Andrea Cennini was also a painter, or, in any case, had something to do with painting and paints, as he wrote that he and his father dug ochre and other colours from the earth and tried to use them. Cennini’s exact date of birth is unknown: Milanesi and Ilg, and the German lexicon of artist biographies Thieme-Becker supposedly defined it to 1372. Moreover, we again learn from the same treatise that Cennini for 12 years was a student of Agnolo Gaddi, at that time the most important artist of the school of Giotto in Florence. Milanesi and Ilg believe that Cennini studied with Gaddi, who died in 1396, in the last years of the artist, i.e. only 1394 to 1396, forgoing the full 12 years apprenticeship. These dates also served as the starting point in determining the date of birth Cennini. Further, based on the documents found by Milanesi and relating to the year 1398, we learn that 1) Cennini lived in Padua and was in the service of Francesco da Carrara as an artist, 2) was married to Donna Ricca della Ricca di Cittadella and 3) that he had a brother Matteo, also citizen of Padua, who served the same Francesco da Carrara as a trumpeter. Milanesi writes: "This suggests that in 1398 Cennino Cennini had already lived for several years in Padua, he had acquired there citizenship rights, had married, and was in the service of Francesco da Carrara. Moreover, Cennini was not mentioned in the list of Florentine artists, which makes one think that he had left there after the death of his teacher, Agnolo Gaddi, i.e. even in his youth." - "It is unknown what paintings he executed for da Carrara; however, he did not participated to the frescoes in Agnolo Gaddi’s Chapel, which had been credited first to Taddeo Bartoli , then to Taddeo Gaddi , while the majority considers them as works by an unknown artist of the school of Giotto." ("Trattato della Pittura" di Cennino Cennini, publicato per cura di Gaetano e Carlo Melanesi. Prefazione, p. VIII) Further information about Cennini’s life is not available. The assumption by Baldinucci and Tambroni based on the last words of the manuscript - Ottoboniano Codex ("Finito libro, referamus gratias X po. 1437 . Adi 31di luglio ex Stinecarum etc"), - that the "Treatise on Painting" could have been written by Cennini in 1437 in the Florentine debtor's prison called Stinche - is unlikely for the following reasons : 1) if it were so, Cennini would have probably mentioned somewhere this fact , for example, pointing out that he endeavoured to write his work as a consolation in his distress or something similar; to the contrary, he indicates that he wrote his book to finalise his search for an "impetus to art"; 2) the very nature of the final words speaks for the fact that they are not from the author, but from an amanuensis (finito libro, rather than the usual "scriptus et compositus per me " , etc. ), 3) there is no name of Cennino in the lists of prisoners held at the Stinche over this period, and 4) in the other manuscripts (Laurentian and Riccardiano) any reference to the concluding words is missing. Our information about Cennini’s paintings is even scarcer. The author is silent about them. Vasari indicates only one of his paintings: a fresco depicting the Madonna in the Loggia of the Saint Boniface hospital in Florence (performed by order of Lupi); according to Vasari it was still, in his time, in perfect preservation. In 1787, the fresco was removed from the wall and moved to a canvas, but this did not save it from destruction. When Milanesi saw it at his time (mid XIX century) in the hospital of Santa Maria Nuova, it was impossible to judge its original form. The Thieme [note of the editor Thieme-Becker] Lexicon reads: "There are no other reliable works of Cennini. Frescoes at the Oratorio della Compagnia dalle Croce in Volterra do not belong to him, but to the Florentine Cenni di Francesco di Ser Cenni. To him has also been refuted the attribution of other works which had been attributed to him by Crowe and Cavalcaselle after the finding of this work ... The signing of Cennino under the image of the Madonna with two Saints in 1408 from the collection of the Uffizi in the Toscanelli collection was recognised as a fake. In contrast, it can be taken with a sufficient degree of probability, that the artist, who called himself "Collensis patria", and graduated in 1388 with the frescoes of the Lucchese Chapel in Poggibonsi could be identical with Cennini. In this chapel signed Taddeo Gaddi, and later, Giovanni di Ser Segna, and Cennini could have executed ornamental pieces ... Then it is possible to agree with Ilg that Cennini , along with other students, participated in the work of his teacher Agnolo Gaddi." (Thieme. Allgemeines Lexicon der bildenden Künstler) Cennini calls himself a "piccolo membro essercitante nell'arte di dipintoria" (one of the smallest members, practicing in the art of painting). Vasari expressed the opinion that the writing of the treatise was mainly motivated by the fact that Cennini as an artist had no success. All this makes it possible to conclude, as all those writing on Cennino do, that he was a mediocre painter, belonging to the imitators of Giotto, who did not have a strong personality, but brilliantly versed in technical and craft side of painting. Cennini lives at the time of the early Renaissance; however, his book is still wholly instilled with the ideology of the feudal epoch. New trends are perhaps represented only by a reference to the beautiful ancient statues (Ch. CLXXXV), an indication of how useful is draw plaster casts of live models (Ch. CLXXXI) and, finally, more particularly an advice to draw from nature "and constantly in practice" (Ch. XXVIII). His advices to copy as much as possible the creations of major artists (Chapter XXVII), to obey the teacher and be filled by his spirit , etc. , as well as the painting techniques described by Cennini (such as the representation of persons , trees, etc.) are still of a wholly medieval character (Chapter LXVII, LXVIII and LXXXVI). In Cennini we do not absolutely encounter any to the discussions which later writers so much loved about the importance of art, or any statements on aesthetic views. Besides his short rhetorical introduction, which refers to the origin of art (very close to the introduction of Theophilus, suggesting the possibility that Cennini had made acquaintance with the works of the latter), but contains a brief guidance on what should be the artist's life, in his entire treatise Cennini devotes a very detailed and accurate presentation of manufacturing processes and materials description. Cennini’s Treatise sums up the Italian trecento in the area of technics. Thanks to him, we know with great precision about technical methods of Giotto and his school, to which Cennini entirely adheres. While the exact timing of the treatise is not known, the attributed date of 1437, as already mentioned, obviously refers to the time of productions of one of the copies of the treatise. Most likely, as Milanesi states, Cennini’s treatise was written shortly after his move from Florence to Padua, i.e. at the end of the 90s of the XIV century. The basis of such dating can be: 1) that Cennini, often accompanies the definition of an object in the literary Tuscan language with the designation of Padua dialect, and 2) the contrast between Padua and Tuscan ladies in Chapter XXX . We have the first mention of Cennini’s treatise in a printed text in Vasari, who was aware of a manuscript owned by the Sienese goldsmith Giuliano Giuliano probably Nicolo Morelli. However, Vasari took the treatise without proper attention, as it seemed to him that all those things that (Cennini) at his time had considered a great mystery and a rarity, was now known to all. Apparently, if Vasari ever read the book by Cennini, it made it very superficially, as, for example, he chides Cennini for not mentioning cinnabar paint, although the treatise devotes an entire chapter to it. Tambroni believes that Borgini made use of Cennini’s book for his work (Il Riposo, 1584). In addition, a few excerpts from the treatise are included in the biography of Cennini by Baldinucci. Finally, we have a brief mention of the treatise in Lanzi. At the end of the XVII century. Bottari wrote: "It would be very helpful if this book (the treatise by Cennini) saw the light." These words aroused in Tambroni a desire to get acquainted with the treatise, which was made known to him in Rome in 1821. Tambroni took for his edition the Vatican manuscript Ottoboniana number 2974. The manuscript belongs to a different epoch, and was signed by a foreigner. The manuscript contains many errors that were corrected Tambroni, as long as possible. In addition, it lacks some of the chapters. Another manuscript of the treatise from the library Laurenziana dates back to the XV century, and is perhaps the very manuscript, on which Vasari wrote. Finally, the third manuscript - from the library Riccardiana (№ 2190) is, according to Milanesi, from the middle of the XVI century. In 1859 the treatise was reprinted with great thoroughness by Milanesi. He used for this publication both the Tambroni edition as well as all three manuscripts, which made it possible to eliminate many errors and mistakes and make up for some of the chapters missing from the Tambroni edition. The following translations of Cennini are available - in English: 1 ) Mrs. Merrifield, London, 1846 ; Allen and Herringham, London, 1899 2) French : Victor Mottez, Paris, Lille, 1858 , reprinted son Mottez - Henri Mottez (Edit. Ronart et J. Watelin, Paris), in which is printed a letter which the artist Auguste Renoir addressed to A. Mottez about the importance of Cennini’s Cennini, 3) German : Albert Ilg. Quellenschrifte für Kunstgeschichte. 2 Lieferung, Wien, 1888. Finally, excerpts from the treatise were translated by Ageev into Russian and annexed to the article "Old manual technique of painting" in the "Bulletin des Beaux-Arts " 1889 , vol VII: the translation is however partial and not from the original, with a translation from Ilg , so is not always accurate, even if it is provided with valuable notes . The present translation is made from the Italian text edition of Milanesi, but to clarify some not quite clear places we used the translations of Ilg, Mottez and the notes of Ageev. A heavy, somewhat jerky and extremely peculiar medieval treatise confronts language interpreters with an almost impossible task - to make the treatise clear enough to the modern reader, not to scare him away with his archaic presentation, however, keep it as close as possible to the text. In this translation, the greatest efforts were directed to the most accurate transmission of the original with the possible highest clarity on techniques. The difficulty of the text can be judged by the fact that even such an authority as Ilg, and an old connoisseur of painting as an artist – the fresco painter V. Mottez –often encountered misunderstandings in the text of Cennini. _____________ Literature on Cennini (except directories) Agueyev. "Old manual technique of painting." Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1889 , Volume VII, MY . 2nd; Vasari, ed Melanesi; Growe and Cavalcaselle. Hist. of. Ital. Painting, ed. Douglas II, 1907, London; Woltmann u. Woermann. Gesch. d. Malerei I, 1879; Petate in "Histoire de l'art" Michel'ya ; Dini. Storia di Valdelsa, XIII, 1905 (Castelfiorentino), sir Charles Eastlake: Materials for a History of oil painting, London, 1877; E. Berger. Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Maltechnik, III Folge; Venturi. Storia d. arte Ital. V, VI; Nomi; Pesciolini. Della Vita e delle Opere di. C. C., Siena, 1892; Brogi. Invent gen. d. oggetti d'arte d. prov. di Siena, Siena, 1897 .”
[3] After having read these pages, it is almost shocking to go through what the editor of the book, Аleksey Aleksandrovich Rybnikov, had written in the preceding preface. Almost all Rybnikov’s arguments are in fact contested and demolished in the subsequent translator’s note. Rybnikov says that the particular value and importance of Cennino’s work is to offer a basis for restoration. To explain it, he devotes the introduction of his survey to the technical damages suffered – with time – by oil painting (a topic he knew well, as he had just published on the same year a Treaty on oil painting). This is however a topic which is certainly not at the very heart of Cennino’s work (tempera and fresco); even if some aspects were known in Middle Age, oil painting became a standard technique only at Van Eyck’s time; Cennino’s main lesson to solve this question, Rybnikov says, is that painters should very accurately follow the lessons of their masters, and indeed stay 12 years under their control. Alla Nikolaevna Luzhetskaya writes that this is a sign that Cennino still belongs to feudal world. Interestingly, serfdom had been abolished in Russia only in 1861, a few generations before 1933. She also refers to the fact that, most probably, Cennino’s apprenticeship under Agnolo Gaddi only lasted 2 years. Rybnikov justifies the absence of an original aesthetic theory in Cennino’s work, and refers to ‘individual universalism’ as a motive ‘mastering the age of feudalism’. Alla Nikolaevna Luzhetskaya almost literally contests all these points. For her, Cennino is the coronation of feudal thinking in painting (“Cennini’s Treatise sums up the Italian trecento in the area of technics”). Rybnikov pays a tribute to the drawing techniques described by Cennino. Alla Nikolaevna Luzhetskaya considers them as “still of a wholly medieval character”. Rubnikov introduces in his introductory pages some ideological motives, some inspired to Marxism-leninism (the impact of capitalism separating science and art, the reduction of artistic production to merchandise) and some to the Grand Russian tradition (Cennino inspiring the most prominent Russian masters of the 18^th and 19^th Century). All of this is completely lacking in the translator’s note.
[4] Cennino’s translation was published in 1933 by Огиз-Изогиз Искусство (Ogiz-Izogiz Art). Ogiz-Izogiz was an integral part of the official cultural policy of the Soviet Union as from the 1930s, in charge of publishing books on the history, theory and practice of fine arts.
[5] Interestingly, Cennino’s translation into Russian in 1933 was not an isolated endeavour. By way of example, Leonardo’s Treaty on painting was published by Ogiz-Izogiz in 1935. Most importantly, Ogiz-Izogiz published between 1936 and 1939 an anthology in four volumes entitled “Masters of art on art - Selections from the letters, diaries, speeches and treatises”. The first volume was on Renaissance and Baroque, the second on masters of the 18^th-19^th centuries, the third one on Western art in the second half of 19^th century, the fourth one on the Russian art between the 15^th and the 19^th century. A second edition of the anthology (in seven volumes) was published in the 1960s, expanding to the art of the Soviet Union of the 20^th century (two volumes, for Russians and for other nationalities of the Soviet Union). The general design was to prove that fine arts in Russia and the Soviet Union, including literature on arts, were indeed the climax of a universal dynamic, making of the USSR the new frontier of civilisation, in parallel to the political process.
[6] This ideological interpretation of literature on art was even more prominent in architecture. Branko Mitrovic analysed it in his study on “The Translation of Renaissance Architectural Treatises into Russian in the 1930s", Otago University (Russian Studies Research Cluster Symposium) and in a number of other publications (see http://www.unitec.ac.nz/?E9A7BBEE-145E-6A3C-4608-5057C7BE6985%20&ID=a5ac2814-b869-4666-8402-70a82118023e&PUB=OK).
[7] A reference to Renaissance architecture had a precise ideological meaning. In the first decade after the establishment of the Soviet Union, Russia had been the source of a new style (constructivism) which would very soon become one of the dominating features of the contemporary skyscrapers in Chicago and New York. Stalin wanted to turn back Russian architecture to more classical, less experimental, architecture, as part of a revision of all prevailing aesthetic features of the Soviet Union. The word ста́линский неоренесса́нс (Stalin's Neo-renaissance) is a technical terminology of the history of architecture. Its synonymous is ста́линский ампи́р (Stalin's Empire style). Russia was not any more the place for innovation and experimental thinking of the 1920s, but the centre of a new empire.
[8] This is how the Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA) comments on the same topic in “Soviet Books on Renaissaince Architecture” (http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/study-centre/597-scholars-choice-soviet-books-on-renaissance-architecture): “It is a peculiarity of Soviet cultural history that during the Second and Third Five-Year Plans of Stalin’s government (1933-1941) almost all Renaissance architectural treatises were translated into Russian. The project was a direct result of a decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. It included the translation and publication of Iacopo Barozzi da Vignola’s Regola delli cinque ordini; Leon Battista Alberti’s De re aedificatoria, De pictura, De statua, Descriptio urbis Romae and Ludi mathematici; Daniele Barbaro’s commentary on Vitruvius (never before translated into a Western language); Andrea Palladio’s I quattro libri dell’ architettura; Giacomo Salviati’s [Giuseppe Porta] treatise on the Ionic volute; Joannes Bloum’s [Hans Blum] Quinque columnarum exacta description. During the same period, two translations of Vitruvius’ De architectura were published as well. The translation of Sebastiano Serlio’s architectural treatise was also completed but remained unpublished. With the exception of one of the two versions of Vitruvius, the entire publication project was carried out by the Soviet All-Union Academy of Architecture.”
[9] Where does this leave us with the note on Cennino’s translation by Alla Nicolaevna Luzhetskaya, also published in those years? What is certainly striking is the absence in the translator’s note of any ideological motives, differently from what usual in publications those years. Even more striking that all main themes included in the preceding introduction by Rybikov are rejected. There is no affirmative and celebrative – almost patronising – tone in her language: she does not want to affirm the primacy of her translation over those published in England, Germany or Italy. Instead, she feels part of a worldwide community of specialists, crossing the fields of art history, art techniques and philology, with a common mission: facilitating the understanding by the large public of ancient and complex texts. You trace in those pages the empathy she feel for colleagues from other countries, other ages and other languages, without any discriminating factor due to opposite political systems. In an age where ideology decided upon the destiny of individuals, the notes by the translator are a space of intellectual freedom. Differently from what included in the introduction, they also offer to the reader the basic information on Cennino, and also a quite critical assessment of his work.
[10] In substance, it is not a surprise that – while having been part of a politically motivated effort to establish a Soviet stream of work on art literature in the 1930s - Alla Nicolaevna Luzhetskaya finished by not being integral part of it, to the point she suffered of emargination. Her Russia was still – most probably – the one of the previous decade, when he had graduated: this Russia was an integrated part of worldwide avant-garde. Her Russia was the one of Anna Akhmatova, whom she helped over years later on, but probably also composers like Dmitri Shostakovich, painters like Kazimir Malevich or filmmakers like Sergei Eisenstein. All of them citizens of the world.
[11] In conclusion, Russia of the 1930s anchored itself to the Renaissance’s tradition (and translated across the board Italian literature on art from Italian into Russian) not to open to the world, but to affirm itself as the ultimate universal heir of that tradition, which was considered as a mark of power and prestige. The price was to abandon any form of independent and original creation. The pages of Alla Nicolaevna Luzhetskaya – in her translator’s note to Cennino Cennini’s Book of the Art – are a rare exception to that manipulation. This may explain why she remained supportive of the generation of creative artists which had been crashed by the regime, paying with time a heavy personal price.