CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
Giovanni Mazzaferro
The Book of the Art by Cennino Cennini (1821-1950): An Example of Dissemination of Italian Culture in the World
extract from
Zibaldone. Estudios italianos de la Torre del Virrey vol III, numero 1, gennaio 2015
 |
| The cover of Zibaldone (issue 1/2015) |
This essay has been published in Italian in the online magazine Zibaldone. Estudios italianos de la Torre del Virrey with the title "Il Libro dell'Arte di Cennino Cennini (1821-1950): un esempio di diffusione della cultura italiana nel mondo" (issue 1/2015). A pdf version (in Italian) is available here.
We're publishing below the English translation, in three parts.
***
The Italian artistic literature is known
worldwide for a few major texts: the treatises of Leon Battista Alberti, the Lives of Vasari, and the Treatise on Painting by Leonardo da Vinci and the Book of the Art by Cennino Cennini. However, unlike the first
three texts, the editorial fortune of the text by Cennino is relatively recent.
[1] The first printed edition of the Treatise by Giuseppe Tambroni is of 1821.
There has been a flowering of editions and translations since then (especially in
the twentieth century), on whose size few were fully aware until some time ago.
[2] There is no doubt that the editorial fortune of the Libro dell'Arte is first of all attributable, in essence, to its
nature as a manual of medieval art techniques (although, as we shall see, this
definition can appear reductive, in many ways); thus, the printed editions
increased rapidly with the raise of the interest in the medieval techniques. However,
just as in the case of the works of Alberti, Vasari and Leonardo, there is no
doubt that Cennino’s Treatise has been interpreted differently by his exegetes.
The purpose of this essay is to outline - through
the examination of its printed editions - some trends that materialised between
1821 (the year of the first edition) and 1950 ca.
 |
| Cennino Cennini, The Birth of Mary, City Museum of Colle Val d’Elsa |
Cennino from Vasari to 1821: "as all those things
are well-known today…". The existence of Cennino’s Treaty is
known since the time of Vasari, who had in fact briefly mentioned it in his Lives. [3] One can legitimately doubt
whether Vasari had read the manuscript of the artist from Colle Val d'Elsa, a manuscript
which is mentioned to be a copy owned by a certain Giuliano, a goldsmith in
Siena. It is not clear, at least judging with modern eyes and not with those of
the contemporaries, why Vasari, wanting to describe the parable of art events
according to a Tuscan-centric artistic vision (according to which art was re-founded
by Giotto and had reached perfection with Michelangelo) completely missed the
appointment with Cennino and merely wrote that Cennini in his book had drafted
"... many warnings, on which there is no need to reason, as all those
things which he considered as very secretive and extremely rare in those times
are really well-known today." [4] After Vasari, Cennini is cited only
rarely for centuries and never seriously considered. Baldinucci even provides
the location of one of his manuscripts, but nobody bothers to publish the work.
[5] There is no need to be really surprised; the interest in the Book of the Art follows the same trend of
interest in the art of the Old Masters; thus, it is essentially nil, at least
until the early nineteenth century.
The first printed edition (1821). The first
printed edition of Cennino's Treatise dates back to 1821, and it is the work of
Giuseppe Tambroni. [6] Tambroni was a well-known personality in Italian academic
and neoclassical circles. First of all, one should try answering what pushed
him to prepare the princeps of the Book of Art. Judging by his comments,
there is no doubt that Tambroni felt the need to disseminate and raise
awareness of the artistic techniques, as opposed to the complex theoretical
standpoints that were very successful in those days:
“Among all those, who wrote treatises on the
art of painting..., all others, wanting to subtilize and theorise, entered in
disputes on the ideas, and lost sight of the main goal. Indeed, it may be said
that all the more we wanted to talk about sublime and fantastic things, all the
more we have lost art, which always profited more from practice than from
theory. In fact, we know that Raphael and many other major masters were
inspired by no other source than nature and practice, and that the many treatises
of the ideal of beauty have not
produced any talented artist. [7]
 |
| Front-cover of the Tambroni edition 1821 |
Without any doubt, Tambroni believes that the
manuscript can be of great practical use for artists, especially for those who
exercise the art of fresco, gone totally lost in his time (Tambroni is located
in Rome and, most likely, the reference is to the first German Nazarenes, who
at the beginning of 1800 have established their base there). However, he never
enters in purely technical topics (probably, he cannot) and we do not really
know whether the treaty has been of any practical use for the artists who
wanted to consult it.
My view is that the main motivation is given by
the will to use the manuscript as an important tool to solve a really famous
controversy: namely, whether oil painting had been 'invented' by Van Eyck and,
through Antonello da Messina, had been imported in Italy, as Vasari wrote in
his Lives; or whether it was already
practiced previously. On this issue, tons of pages had already been written
(and as many would continue to be written in the following decades), especially
after Lessing published the princeps
of the other great treatise of medieval art techniques in 1774, the De diversis artibus of the monk
Theophilus, considered an author of the eleventh century AD, in which already
appeared a testimony of oil techniques. [8] The treatise by Cennino is
considered another evidence in this sense, and therefore the demonstration that
Vasari was inaccurate (even if the conclusions that Tambroni drew from it, i.e.
that the oil painting had been an Italian 'invention' on the basis of the
alleged peninsular origins of Theophilus, were completely wrong).
The interest for language issues is not to be
underestimated too; it was, indeed, an outstanding issue at that time, and will
become more and more relevant as we will progress towards the completion of the
Italian reunification process (Risorgimento).
Think that Tommaseo begins working at his project of Dictionary already in 1827, from an edition of the Vocabolario della Crusca of 1806).
Tambroni writes:
“And this book of Cennini is not only really
useful for art. It is also of benefit to our language. In fact, although his
style is rough and mostly unadorned (as it could be the case for a writer who
was ignorant of good letters), also the language, albeit filled of plebeian
terms and idioms, is nevertheless good in general, and contains much of new and
excellent words, especially on art... Of these words I will give an index at
the end of this book, so the compilers of lexica can take advantage of it, and
philologists can use it to illuminate some of the quarrels, which concern the
foundation and the origins of the language.” [9]
He adds, in a footnote, at the promised index:
“The items, which I
gathered here, will serve mostly to increase the vocabulary of fine arts of
Baldinucci, who in true was too imprecise on this topic... It will be the job... of the main Italian experts in literature to acknowledge the entries which
they believe illustrious, and reject those antiquated and crude. And no one
will be more honest to provide judgment, than those noble minds as Monti,
Perticari, Giordani, Cesari, Niccolini, and the others who deal now with the
serious matter of our language. [10]
The textual problem of Cennini’s treaty: The Italian
debate between 1821 and 1859. We need at this point to make a step back. When
printing his edition of Cennino's book, Tambroni is aware of the existence of
two (not original) manuscripts who handed over the text. They are the Vatican
Ottoboni code 2974 (on which he bases the critical edition) and the Medicean
Laurentian code P.78.23. Immediately afterwards, the controversy rages on why
Tambroni preferred the first (clearly, more recent and largely incomplete)
manuscript over the second. The debate (which concerns not only the choice of
the manuscript, on which to conduct the issue, but also extends to the
vocabulary used by Tambroni, considered as too 'normalized') is almost entirely
hosted by the Antologia Viesseux monthly
magazine already in June 1821, and is the result of a very critical book review
by Antonio Benci. It was Benci, moreover, to signal in this review the
existence of a third manuscript with Cennini’s text, held at the Riccardiana
library. To recall all the terms of the querelle,
in which also Leopoldo Cicognara entered, would go beyond the scope of this
essay, but I would like to emphasize two aspects: a) the discussion was purely
on philological aspects; b) Benci himself endeavoured a new edition of the
work, but failed to publish it. Although I did not have the opportunity to see
the text (which is kept at the National Library of Florence), I understand that
Benci, aware of his limitations, turned to chemists on the one hand and to
artists on the other one, to try to check the most complex passages of the Book of Art. [11]
Without any doubt, the main problem in those
decades is to establish a philologically valid text. One can certainly say that
the matter was addressed, and brilliantly resolved, by the second Italian
edition, the one of the brothers Carlo and Gaetano Milanesi, in 1859. [12] The
edition, first of all, is conducted on the two Florentine manuscripts
(Medicean-Laurentian and Riccardiano) interpolated between each other. The
(largely incomplete) Vatican manuscript used by Tambroni is set aside. The
archival research is also enriched, and allows establishing that most probably
Cennino had composed the work (in its entirety or in large part) in Padua. The
treatise, therefore, would be the result of two (linguistic and artistic)
cultures: that of Tuscany (and Siena in particular) and the Venetian and Paduan
one. All successive Italian editions will propose adjustments in one direction
or another; they will propose, for example, a greater or lesser use of Venetian
words, a different sequencing of chapters of the work, but, in essence, they
will have the Milanesi edition as a reference point. This edition is produced
in a fully purist climate, and not by chance is dedicated to Luigi Mussini, one
of the leading artistic figures of Italian purism.
 |
| The front-cover of the Milanesi edition (1859) |
Fortunately, however, the two brothers are also clearly
aware of their limitations; they have the desire to field-test the actual effectiveness
of Cennino’s recipes, but have the courage to admit: "After explaining in general which materials Cennini’s book discusses,
we should follow him, to examine and provide evidence of his experiences; but
this would exceed our forces; neither would be enough to know about chemistry,
metallurgy and geology, but it would also require information and practices
which we do not have. Nevertheless, it is possible to say (for testimony of the
few among our artists who have deeply studied Cennino’s lesson) that not only
many of those practices can be achieved, and are confirmed by experience, but
they are good in their effectiveness, and deserve being called again into life."
[13]
The first translations: Merrifield (1844) and Victor
Mottez
(1858). It must be said that, before the Milanesi edition (and therefore
relying on the incomplete Vatican manuscript, transcribed by Tambroni), the
first two translations of Cennino were published: the first one (1844) in
English, edited by Mary Philadelphia Merrifield [14], the second in French,
according to the version prepared by Victor Mottez. [15]
Although generated by circumstances that are
very different, the English translation of 1844 and the French of 1859 have in
common the great interest in the fresco technique.
Mary Philadelphia Merrifield is a fascinating figure
of a self-taught scholar, a relentless researcher, a multi-purpose scientist of
the first Victorian England. [16] The basis of his decision to translate
Cennino is a precise programmatic choice of the British government. Following
the destruction by fire of a large part of Westminster (1834), the British
government decided to rebuild it and decorate it with frescoes illustrating
episodes of local history. A Commission
of Fine Arts is instituted, which is chaired by the consort of Queen Victoria,
Prince Albert, lover of art, and has as Secretary Charles Lock Eastlake, great
connoisseur and future director of the National Gallery. It was decided that
the occasion of Westminster should also be a way to raise the quality of
English art and that, therefore, British artists are to be in charge of the
work. The problem is, very simply, that even the slightest knowledge of wall
techniques is lacking; therefore, the study of medieval sources is promoted. In
this sense, Cennino’s Treaty is perfect. Ms Merrifield, of her own free will
and at her own expense, takes care of translating the Book of the Art, using precisely Tambroni’s text and enriching it with
her notes.
 |
| Front-cover of the Merrifield edition (1844) |
Important to notice, the interest is all on
techniques. The medieval painting is not the artistic ideal of the translator,
who clearly loves the chromatics of Venetian painting in the Golden Age; but
the translation - which has great success - is carried out, so to speak, for
patriotic spirit. The preface, moreover, says it all: "In the pictures of the period of which we are
now speaking, we meet with none of the beautiful demi-tints and broken colours
observable in pictures of a later period; every colour is distinct and
forcible, and the figures appear as if inlaid upon the ground. There is no harmonising,
or lowering, or reflecting of one colour upon another; no optical arrangement
or balancing of the colours, and a glimmering only of the light of perspective
and chiaro-scuro…". [17] Please do not overlook, also, her sense of
detachment - widely understandable if we consider that we are in an Anglican
country – vis-à-vis the religious subjects that are represented. The translator
feels the need to clarify immediately: "A few points, however, not remarked upon in the notes [note of the
editor: by Tambroni], suggest themselves. The first is, the religious feeling
which pervades the book, and which, at a cursory glance, and to a Protestant
reader, almost assumes the appearance of idolatry. But this impression soon
disappears, when we consider that to this feeling of devotion we are
principally indebted for the preservation of the arts during the dark ages, and
their subsequent revival". [18]
The case of Victor Mottez is quite different. Mottez
(a pupil of Ingres) is the first professional artist to provide his own version
of Cennini’s text.
 |
| Front-cover of the Mottez edition (1858) |
He also shows a predilection for the insights
provided by Cennino regarding mural painting; a French man, back home from a
stay in Italy, with a good knowledge of the Nazarenes, Mottez is soaked in
purist culture and tries to reinsert the fresco technique in the background
technical of the artists beyond the Alps. Of course, fresco is a synonymous of
monumental painting, of broad surfaces and, in France, of sacred painting. If
Mottez provides a translation (1858), it is because he says he executed
frescoes (unfortunately all destroyed or in poor condition) by simply following
the directions of Cennino and then he plans transferring its knowledge to
future generations. Just one year later (as we saw), the new edition by the Italian
brothers Milanesi is published. Gaetano and Carlo prove to be familiar with
both the Merrifield and Mottez editions; in particular, it seems to me that the
opinion he expressed on the latter (the result in my view of a common purist feeling)
is particularly accurate: "Mr.
Mottez estimated useful not to give rise to all that discussion [note of the
editor: he did not translate the section of Tambroni’s introduction which
speaks of the issues related to oil painting], because it has nothing to do
with the purpose of the work of Cennino. That purpose is to draw the attention
of the readers to the ways in which the old masters could conclude those great
works that are our wonder. Oil painting, whether or not invented by the
Italians, certainly produced many masterpieces; but Mottez believes that it has
destroyed monumental painting, not so much because of the introduction of the
taste and the fashion of the little things, but because it made the work so
long and gloomy and not suitable for a large enterprise. If the ancient
painters had not had in the fresco an easy, ready and speed way at their
disposal to make their paintings... how could they have otherwise made so many
and such vast works? And how could have individuals and public authorities in
Italy produced so magnificent things of art, which the great monarchies
nowadays are not able to produce anymore? Finally, the issue of oil painting
does not matter for us. If the old masters have chosen fresco and tempera, the
surviving monuments testify that they were right, and the book of Cennino proof
that they did it not out of ignorance." [19]
In summary, then, both the English and the
French translations reflect a new interest in monumental painting (and thus for
the fresco) that has ultimately been triggered by the German Nazarenes of the
early nineteenth century. In the case of Merrifield, this interest is purely
technical and can be explained by a kind of artistic patriotism, which makes her
perceive the translation as a service to the grandeur of Victorian England; in
the case of Mottez, instead, a more intimate consonance spiritual artist
operates, trying to master the techniques in order to return to an easier, more
dignified and purer painting.
End of Part One
NOTE
[1] The first
printed edition of the De Pictura by
Leon Battista Alberti is of 1540, Vasari's Lives
are of 1550 (Torrentino edition) and 1568 (Giunti edition); the princeps of the
Treatise on Painting by Leonardo is
of 1651.
[2] For a
comprehensive review of the printed editions of the Book of Art please refer to
Giovanni Mazzaferro, Cennino Cennini and the “Book of the Art”: a check-list ofthe printed editions”, published online on http://letteraturaartistica.blogspot.com.
Henceforth, all references to online Internet material means, unless otherwise
indicated, a reference to the same website.
[3] To be precise, in the second edition of the
Lives (the Giunti edition), within the life of Agnolo Gaddi: G. Vasari, Lives,
ed. Bettarini R., P. Barocchi, Vol. II, Florence, 1967, p. 248.
[4] It is not to be underestimated that Vasari’s
knowledge of Cennino’s Treatise may have been indirect only. It might have been
originated by Vincenzo Borghini, notoriously one of Vasari’s associates. In a
handwritten document, Borghini demonstrates his knowledge of the text of the Book of the Art. See: C. Cennini, Il
Libro dell’Arte (The Book of the Art), edited by F. Frezzato, Vicenza, 2003, p.
28.
[5] F. Baldinucci, Notizie dei Professori del Disegno da Cimabue in qua, (News on the
Professors of Drawing from Cimabue to date), VII volumes, SPES Publisher,
Florence, 1974-1975. In particular see: Vol. I, pp. 308-313.
[6] C. Cennini, Di
Cennino Cennini Trattato della Pittura messo in luce per la prima volta con
annotazioni dal cavalier Giuseppe Tambroni (Treatise on Painting by Cennino
Cennini, revealed for the first time and annotated by Sir Giuseppe Tambroni),
Paolo Salviucci Printing House, Roma, 1821.
[7]
C. Cennini, Di
Cennino Cennini Trattato della Pittura… quoted, pp. XX-XXI.
[8] Theophilus Presbyter, Vom Alter der Oelmalerey aus dem Theophilus Presbyter, edited by
G.E. Lessing, Braunschweig, 1774.
[9] C. Cennini, Di
Cennino Cennini Trattato della Pittura… quoted, p. XVIII.
[10] C. Cennini, Di
Cennino Cennini Trattato della Pittura… quoted, p. 158.
[11] See Gli
scritti d’arte della Antologia di G.P. Viesseux 1821-1833, edited by Paola
Barocchi, volume VII, SPES Publishers, Florence, 1975-1979. In
particular, the review of Benci is contained in the issue of June 1821 (Vol. I,
117-144), the response by Tambroni and a new critical comment by Benci in the
August issue (I, 211-220 and 220-229); the intervention by Cicognara is of
October 1822 (I, 567-586). See also the critical note by Paola Barocchi (Vol.
VI, pp. 20-24) and the footnote note 46 on p. 59 of the same volume, which shows
the outline of the introductory text of Cennini’s edition prepared by Benci.
[12] C. Cennini, Il Libro dell’Arte, o Trattato della Pittura
di Cennino Cennini da Colle Val d’Elsa, di nuovo pubblicato, con molte
correzioni e coll’aggiunta di più capitoli tratti dai codici fiorentini
(The Book of the Art, or Treatise on Painting by Cennino Cennini of Colle Val
d'Elsa, published again, with many corrections and adding more chapters taken
from the Florentines codes), edited by Gaetano and Carlo Milanesi, Florence,
1859.
[13] C. Cennini, Il
Libro dell’Arte, o Trattato della Pittura… Milanesi edition… quoted, p.
XIV. It
should also be said that it is certain that the Milanesi brothers turned to
Ulisse Forni, one of the most famous Italian restorers of that time for a
clarification of a few obscure passages. The response comments by Ulisse Forni
are included in p. 137 of M.V. Thau, Forni
e dintorni. Pittori
senesi a Roma e la cultura scientifica di Ulisse Forni
(Forni and around. Siena painters in Rome and the scientific culture of Ulisse
Forni, Florence, 2008.
[14] C. Cennini, A Treatise on Painting written by Cennino
Cennini, In the year 1437; and first published in Italian in 1821, with an
introduction and notes, by Signor Tambroni; containing practical directions for
painting in fresco, secco, oil, and distemper with the art of gilding and
illuminating manuscripts adopted by the Old Masters; edited by Mary
Philadelphia Merrifield, London, 1844.
[15]
C. Cennini, Traité
de la Peinture mis en lumière pour la prèmiere fois avec des notes par le
Chevalier G. Tambroni. Edited by Victor Mottez, Paris-Lille, 1858.
[16] See G.
Mazzaferro, Mary Philadelphia Merrifield: the Lady from Brighton Who Loved Colours.
[17] C. Cennini, A Treatise on Painting… Merrifield edition, quoted, p. VII.
[18] C. Cennini,
A Treatise on Painting… Merrifield
edition, quoted, p. VI.
[19]
C. Cennini, Il Libro dell’Arte, o
Trattato della Pittura… ed. Milanesi… cit., p. XXVIII.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento