Susanne Adina Meyer, Chiara Piva. The Art to Properly Restore. The 'Collection of Ancient Statues (1768-1772) by Bartolomeo Cavaceppi

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Susanne Adina Meyer, Chiara Piva

L'arte di ben restaurare
La Raccolta d’antiche statue (1768-1772) di Bartolomeo Cavaceppi
(The Art to Properly Restore. The Collection of Ancient Statues (1768-1772) by Bartolomeo Cavaceppi)

Firenze, Nardini Publisher, 2011

Anton von Maron, Portrait of Bartolomeo Cavaceppi (before 1794)
Rome, Accademia Nazionale di San Luca
Source: http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/25758

Bartolomeo Cavaceppi and his Collection of Ancient Statues

Text of the back cover:

"Bartolomeo Cavaceppi, Roman sculptor and collector, is considered one of the most famous restorers of the eighteenth century. His workshop, which hosted a copious collection of plaster and marble works, was a reflection pole and a meeting place for scholars, collectors and agents of the great European courts, to whom the sculptor sold both his original works and the restored antique pieces. Between 1768 and 1772, he published three volumes of the Raccolta d’antiche statue busti bassirilievi ed altre sculture restaurate da Bartolomeo Cavaceppi scultore romano (Collection of ancient statues, busts, bas relieves and other sculptures restored by Bartolomeo Cavaceppi, Roman sculptor), Collection now republished after more than two hundred years.

Written with sometimes very opinionated tones, in a luxurious folio edition, accompanied by engravings, it had not been published again so far. Decidedly experimental in editorial terms, the collection combines a promotional catalogue of the restored sculptures with a series of theoretical considerations not only on restoration but more generally on history of art.

The text, often cited but little known and seldom fully analysed in its historical and theoretical complexity, is of fundamental interest for art history, the history of the restoration and the history of taste. A description of Cavaceppi’s journey to Germany is also included, which he accomplished together with Johann Joachim Winckelmann, the only direct evidence of that episode and of the last days of life of the German historian.

The text is presented by two detailed essays that discuss Cavaceppi’s proposals for the restoration and the antiquities market, his promotional strategies, his links with scholars and artists of that age, the cultural context and the art world in which he had performed the journey to Germany."

The Raccolta (hereafter, Collection) was published in three volumes between 1768 and 1772. To be precise, the first volume in 1768, the second in 1769 and the third one in 1772. The first thing to say is that the iconographic apparatus surely played a key role: each volume contains sixty tables displaying an equal number of ancient statues restored by Cavaceppi, with an indication of potential buyers (all works published in the first volume had already been sold; of those in the second volume, forty art works were still to be purchased; in the third one, they were twenty-three). Each "album" is accompanied by a series of writings; sometimes they are real short treatises; in other circumstances, they are simple announcements to the public; in other cases they are writings clearly intended to satisfy the curiosity of the reader. What is important to point out is that the goals of the publication are clearly self-promotional. Cavaceppi is a sculptor (indeed, he is rather a restorer – as we shall see later -) of international fame, and his Collection is intended for a select audience of kings, nobles, collectors - especially English and German - with respect to whom the author tries on the one side to accredit his high professionalism, and on the other one to place himself on a collaborative plan, such as providing useful information to discover fakes. The iconographic apparatus is not reproduced in this volume, and therefore it is not entirely correct to say that this is the first re-issuance after two centuries. Only the writings in the three volumes were replicated. 

Among the others three writings by Cavaceppi stand out sharply for their importance:

 Hermes as a sandalbinder (restored by Bartolomeo Cavaceppi)
Munich, Glyptothek
Source:Wikimedia Commons

Dell’arte di ben restaurare le antiche statue (On the art to properly restore ancient statues)

It is part of the first volume. Probably the most interesting from a theoretical point of view. First of all, the author provides herewith some theses to frame the importance of sculpture in the education of the artist, but also of the collector, and then provides to better define the job of a restorer. The overall picture emerging is, in some way, a self-representation of the artist and his own work. It should also be said that, in many of the statements provided, one could read the influence (if not the active participation in the drafting of the paper) by Winckelmann.

"To understand in what perspective Cavaceppi wanted to place his own thoughts, it is significant that his treatise initiates by attributing a key function to the restoration of the ancient sculptures, for the formation of the artists and the advancement of the arts" (p. 31). Ancient statues are all what remains of the ancient art and therefore artists should form themselves observing them. A case of school is, of course, that of Raphael. "In agreement with the aesthetic theories of the time, the restorer calls ‘deviating from the true way’ those painters and sculptors that criticized Raphael and believed they could do without the example of the ancients, and be simply inspired by nature. (...) To the imitation of nature, Cavaceppi opposes the imitation of the ancients "(p. 32). And if this is true for the artists, it is also - and even more - so for the collectors, and therefore for the formation of their taste.

The Emperor Galba (restored by Bartolomeo Cavaceppi)
Rome, Museo Pio-Clementino
Source: Wikimedia Commons Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto

If the world of art making on the one hand, and the world of the collectors on the other one are all based on the study of antiquity, the question is what the role of the restorer should be. It should be said from the very outset: forget about any “modern” awareness of restoration. The restorer "completes" art works. If anything, the problem is how he should complete those. Some guidelines derive from what mentioned above (pp. 39-40):

• First of all, the restorer must identify the subject of the sculpture and decipher its iconography. The restorer can use the advice of scholars for this, but must have a basic culture that allows him a personal assessment. "In the face of uncertainties on interpretation, the duty of a good restorer is therefore to reconstruct the statue without placing any distinctive details that would identify the subject and leave intact those that are incomprehensible. In this way, one would not make any errors of attribution and especially would not alter the possibility for future scholars to grasp the iconography" (p. 39);
• once the integration intervention is decided, to use the same type of marble of the ancient statue;
• to maintain a uniformity of style with the old art work: this is definitely the fundamental concept of the treatise: the distinction between the profession of restorer and of sculptor. The sculptor is the one who carves a beautiful head or a nice leg; the restorer is the one who integrates the ancient parts with other modern ones of the same style of the initial model: "discriminant is the ability to give up his own dress code, his own creativity, to integrate by way of imitation the manner of the ancient" (p. 40). The merit of the restorer, therefore, is to add a head or an arm or a leg, adapting himself to the old design in such a way that no one will notice, provided that the author himself must then indicate what are the redone parties and those which are not. Recommendations to which, to be honest, Cavaceppi does not abide by in his own tables on restored statues, something which many commentators, years after, will not fail to point this out.

It is worth spending a few words on the relationship between Cavaceppi and Winckelmann. Destiny wanted that, in some way, their relationship related basically to the last episode in the life of the German antiquarian: the journey to Germany in which the two embarked in 1768, and the sudden decision by Winckelmann to return to Rome, followed by his assassination in Trieste (see below). But the acquaintance among the two probably dates back from the time of the permanent stay of Winckelmann in Rome (1755) and became more important, on a professional level, in the common attendance of Villa Albani circles. There is no doubt that thanks to Winckelmann and the recommendations at the courts, Cavaceppi experienced an increase of his prestige and his public; it is equally out of any question that the joint journey to Germany gave Cavaceppi the opportunity to access new circles thanks to the German. It should also be said that the coincidence of views among the two, especially in this text which - it is to be remembered - was written before the journey and therefore is the only one to which can be tentatively ascribed a supervision by Winckelmann, is absolute. It is not, however, a case that, in the Treaty, the only reference to a modern author is obviously to Winckelmann.

Statue of Alexander the Great (restored by Bartolomeo Cavaceppi)
Paris, Louvre Museum
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Degli inganni che si usano nel commercio delle antiche sculture (On the trickeries that are used in the trade of ancient sculptures)

The writing on the trade of faked ancient sculptures appears in the second volume of the collection, in 1769. Once again, one can interpret it as part of a (largely successful) attempt to accredit himself as a partner worthy of full trust by the customers. Here Cavaceppi develops a cooperative strategy: he puts himself in the shoes of the buyer (maybe, not quite an insightful one), and provides him a few tips to avoid being duped. In Rome, at the time, a bit of everything probably happened (and it is not at all certain that the author himself was free from malice). Cavaceppi, therefore, invites the public to beware of the false, clarifying that this encompasses both the store of modern statues passed off as antique as well as the sale of antique statues adequately retouched to make them of greater economic value.

The recommendations are basically of two types. First of all to know about the evolution of the styles of ancient statuary; and here Cavaceppi demonstrates that he fully understood the lesson of Winckelmann referring to his Storia dell’arte dell’antichità (History of Art of Antiquity). But even those who know perfectly the style of Greek sculpture cannot be considered completely safe; and thus Cavaceppi provides a number of practical suggestions that, in his opinion, allow understanding whether the treatment of a statue was ancient or modern. "The holes that draw the pupils in the eyes, for example, in ancient times were never made on statues of gods" (p. 44). Similar comparisons are also possible paying attention to the hair and so on. "Cavaceppi also explains the profound differences in the use of the drill. While in antiquity it was used to create interspaces, although having the ability to merge them into a continuous groove, it was later used leaving divided holes. So much, that one can identify them individually "(ibid).

Bartolomeo Cavaceppi, Bust of'the Emperor Caracalla (1750-1770)
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Descrizione del viaggio in Germania (Description of the Journey to Germany)

Needless to ignore it: The most famous writing by Bartolomeo Cavaceppi is this (it also appears in the second volume). The reason is obvious. Cavaceppi had been a traveling companion of Winckelmann in the tour that was to take them to visit a number of German courts in the year 1768. Winckelmann was planning a long journey to his homeland, probably to personally take care of a new translation of his History of Art of Antiquity. That journey ended tragically. Winckelmann decided, after a stay in Munich, to return to Rome and, after other stops in Regensburg and Vienna, he actually did so. Cavaceppi instead continued his German tour. Winckelmann was murdered in Trieste by a certain Francesco Arcangeli, during an attempted robbery. The echo of the murder was enormous: not only for the reputation of the German scholar, but also - let us face it without any problem - because Winckelmann was openly homosexual and did nothing to hide it. The morbid curiosity of the people ended up naturally to be attracted by the episode of blood on the one hand and the sexual tastes of the victim on the other hand. In the European courts and among collectors everybody was frantically looking for stupid gory details.

Anton Raphael Mengs, Portrait of Johann Joachim Winckelmann (after 1755)
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Source: Wikimedia Commons

In a situation of this kind, Cavaceppi is fortunate to have been the traveling companion of Winckelmann and therefore does not hesitate to draft an account of events, which actually is not really special. He probably hopes in this way to sell a few more copies of the second volume of his collection (released a few months after the murder). The most striking thing is that the report does not terminate with the separation of the two travellers, but continues with the description of the additional steps taken by the author. It seems clear that, under the guise of providing information on the deal Winckelmann, Cavaceppi informs his audience of readers and potential customers that he has been received and has worked with Frederick II of Prussia and other German nobles, again clearly in order to achieve self-promotion. Moreover, with reference to the Winckelmann affaire, Bartolomeo does not provide any certain information on the reasons that led the famous German antiquarian to return to Rome. He speaks generically of strange disturbances of his soul and of a general state of melancholy of which he had suffered. It seems very doubtful that things have gone this way. The fact is that, at times citing Cavaceppi and at times not, all later sources refer to this imaginative reconstruction, in which to be questioned is basically the psychological stability of Winckelmann.

Why did Winckelmann interrupt his journey? We do not know and perhaps we will never know. However a few relevant and reasonable hypotheses may be advanced; Susanne Adina Meyer does it in his commentary to the writing. One of the stages of the journey was Dresden. In Dresden, Giovanni Battista Casanova had taught for four years. Previously a very close associate of Winckelmann, he had then left him for a bad history and false accusations. It is not even excluded that Winckelmann had the fear of being arrested, just after having arrived in Dresden (pp. 67-68). In short, the reasons for the return to Rome were probably very different. On Giovan Battista Casanova see G.B. Casanova, Theorie der Malerei (Theory of Painting) (Wilhelm Fink Publishers, 2008). On the murder of Winckelmann see also L’assassinio di Winckelmann. Gli atti originali del processo criminale (The assassination of Winckelmann. The original proceedings of the criminal case), by Cesare Pagnini and Elio Bartolini.