CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
Teofilo Monaco
Le varie arti – De diversis artibus
[On Various Arts - De diversis artibus]
Manuale di tecnica artistica medievale
Edited by Adriano Caffaro
Salerno, Palladio publishers, 2000
 |
| Roger of Helmarshausen (Theophilus Presbyber?), Portable altar, 1107-1127 ca. Source: http://www.uni-muenster.de/Kultbild/missa/bilder/realien/tragaltar04.html |
This is the
first and only Italian translation of De
diversis artibus by Theophilus Presbyter, one of the basic texts transferring
us the knowledge on the artistic techniques practiced in the Middle Ages. And
this is just a simple point, on which one should reflect. If, in fact, we ask
those who are active in restoration, or anyhow study ancient craft techniques,
on their reference books, the answer will be nearly unanimous [1]: The Book of the art of Cennino Cennini and De diversis artibus of Theophilus
Presbyter. The first printed edition of the latter is of 1781, and was
published posthumously by Gotthold Eprhraim Lessing (which found quotations in
the treatise on oil painting, which would have denied the well-known narration
by Vasari about the invention of this technique by the van Eyck brothers); in
the case of Cennino, however, we will have to wait until 1821 to have a printed
edition (edited by Giuseppe Tambroni).
Yet, although
several critical editions have been released abroad over the years (among which
we remember above all the English one of Dodwell, dating back to 1961 and still
in fact followed for all subsequent translations, including this by Caffaro)
the editorial success of De diversis
artibus in Italy is really nil. Mind you: the experts are well aware of the
existence of this treatise written in Latin and today almost unanimously traced
back to the beginning of the twelfth century, and have commented at length on
it. All that was achieved, however, is an anthological quotation of some passages
and a general introductory comment: it is the case for example of Silvia Bianca
Tosatti in her university course, first published by Cusl Publishers Milan and
then rearranged and expanded in Trattati
medievali di tecniche artistiche (Medieval treaties on art techniques)
(Milan, Jaca Book Publishers, 2007).
Why has Teophilus
been essentially ignored (and was published by a small publishing house in
Salerno without any big eco later on)? I think this happened basically for convenience:
most of those who are interested in medieval art techniques are restorers or,
in turn, artists who wanted to rediscover (also for ideal reasons) the art
making of those centuries. There is no doubt that, from this point of view, the
Book of the Art of Cennini proves to
be much more organic and complete (in particular as regards fresco painting) than
Theophilus. Yet, first of all, this kind of explanation does not explain a
fundamental fact: it makes no sense to compare Teophilus and Cennino; or, if we
want to speak in a plain language, it is like trying to put together apples
with pears.
Theophilus and Cennino
 |
| Roger of Helmarshausen (Theophilus Presbyter?), The Enger Cross, Reliquary cross from the Stiftskirche of St. Denis in Enger. Berlin, Kunstgewerbemuseum, no. 88,635. Gold, gems, pearls, and niello on wood core. |
On the Book of the Art of Cennino Cennini we
know little, but immensely more than the Treaty of Teophilus. We know, for
example, that most probably it dates back to the end of 1300; that it is the creation
work of an artist (Cennino Cennino) who proclaims himself the heir of Gaddis and
Giotto; that might have been performed on commission of the Art of painters in
Padua (see the edition by Fabio Frezzato [3]); that it is a real manual (not
self-sufficient by itself, but destined to support the training at a teacher’s
workshop) for learning the art of painting from design, using 'phantasy' and 'skill
of hand'.
Place of origin and author
 |
| The cover of an evangeliar which probably belonged to Roger of Helmarshausen. It is of silver, gilded, semi-precious stones, pearls, bone Source: http://www.wga.hu/html_m/r/roger/1cover.html |
 |
| Image from the evangeliar probably belonged to Roger of Helmarshausen (folio 54v.) Source: http://img27.fansshare.com/pic23/w/roger-of-helmarshausen/369/17844_roger_of_helmarshausen.jpg |
Most
likely, according to the citation that appears in the sample of the De diversis artibus preserved in Vienna,
the treatise is the result of a 'Rogerus', whose memory the copyist feels the
need to pass on: “Theophilus qui et
Rogerus” (Theophilus, who is Rogerus). Albert Ilg, who produced a
critical edition in 1874, as part of the famous series dedicated to art sources
founded by Rudolf Eitelberg von Edelberg [4], is the first to suggest that Rogerus
was a historically documented figure, namely Roger of Helmarshausen, a Benedictine
monk and a famous goldsmith, living in the first half of the twelfth century.
Of him are testified, albeit in some cases only through attributions, works
ranging from miniatures to goldsmith's artworks and a scriptorium. Ilg’s thesis is still shared today by a large majority
of scholars and is confirmed by the philological studies that tend to trace the
origin of the oldest copies of the treatise in North Rhine-Westphalia, that is in
the area around Cologne. That said, here end the (few) certainties.
The treatise
In its most
extensive version, De diversis artibus
consists of three books, just including art recipes. The first book is divided
into 38 chapters and deals with painting on the wall, on wood and parchment;
the second one, of 36 chapters, describes the manufacturing of glass; the third
one is by far longer: it includes 96 chapters devoted to metallurgical
techniques, obviously starting from the most precious metals, namely gold, to
continue with silver and various alloys, from brass to copper and so on. Each
of the three books is preceded by a premise that addresses issues of a
religious nature and in substance justifies theologically the work of the
artists and their use of "luxury" products for religious purposes.
 |
| Detail of the windows of the Cathedral in Chartres Source: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotico#/media/File:Vitrail_Chartres_210209_26.jpg |
The naturally
arising questions are therefore manifold: given the disparity in the length of
the books, and considering that Teophilus was primarily a goldsmith, is he the veritable
author of all three books? or did he in turn use third party sources? Are the
premises and the recipes drafted by the same author or two different ones? And,
whatever is the case on the previous question, what are the reasons that led to
the compilation of De diversis artibus?
Original work or reworking of earlier texts?
 |
| Christ in Majesty, folio 4v. from the Aberdeen Bestiary Source: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoscritto_miniato |
Here the
answers are even more numerous than the questions. To be brief: some believe
that the treatise is a distinctive product, consistent and structured by a
single individual, precisely Theophilus Presbyter; to this "camp" (to
which we are going to give ample voice in a forthcoming post on this blog)
seems to belong also Adriano Caffaro, the scholar who has curated this Italian
edition, starting from the Dodwell edition established in 1961. On the other
hand, there are researchers who, taking inspiration from text analysis and
operating reasonable (although entirely circumstantial) conjectures, have come
to completely different results. This is the case for example of Silvia Bianca
Tosatti, whose Medieval treaties of art
techniques we have already mentioned. According to Tosatti, the three books
of De diversis artibus would indeed
be the work of Teophilus, but only the third one (i.e. the one devoted to
metallurgy) would represent an original contribution of him. She reconstructs
the history of a recipe in particular: the one on the Spanish gold - or brass.
On it she signals a witness (the ms. Egerton840 A preserved in the British
Library) containing only the first book of De diversis artibus, in which
appears in the head the indication 'Tractatus Lumbardicus'. Ms Tosatti argues
that precisely the first of three chapters derives from a 'proto-treaty' (gone
lost) from the Byzantine dominions in Italy, and in particular from the Longobardia Minor, i.e. from the Duchy
of Benevento. It should also be said that the 'geographical movements' of highly
similar recipes across Europe are one of the most fascinating and insidious areas
of research of philology, and usually are based on the assumption of
transmissions occurred during visits of famous monks among monasteries of the
same order: in our case, it is thought that Theophilus (or whoever may have
been) may have found a copy of the proto-treaty at the abbey of Montecassino.
For the second book ("a small masterpiece" see Tosatti p. 74) Ms Tosatti
thinks of a compilation of existing sources with original features. But the
researcher goes further and sees in the structure of the work, and in
particular in the three prologues, a clear sign of action at four hands.
The root causes of the drafting of the Treaty
On one thing almost everyone agrees: De diversis artibus is a masterpiece,
"a great work, which draws from the best one could find in the
international arena on the respective arts" (Tosatti, p. 76).
The recognition of the importance of the work, whether
it is completely original or has a heterogeneous nature, raises the question:
why was it written? Again Tosatti (but Dodwell before her, and many others)
believe that De diversis artibus
represents a theological and structured response to the preaching of the
Cistercian order, which had most strongly affirmed itself precisely in the area
of Cologne around the twelfth century. Around the Cistercian Bernard of
Clairvaux is coagulating, at the beginning of 1100, a form of rejection against
the absence of poverty and austerity (and consequently of holiness) in the
Benedictine monasteries; the Cistercian monasteries place themselves in open
competition with the existing Benedictine ones, claiming a purer and holier
interpretation of the Rule of St.
Benedict. Bernard also objects to the luxury and pomp of artistic decorations.
De diversis artibus would represent therefore an urgent response
to the criticism of Bernard of Clairvaux, all the more necessary because the
Cistercians achieve great success in the area of Cologne. At the base of their
doctrine would be a different way to understand the "ora et labora" precept (a more meditative and spiritual one,
as well as a poorer interpretation) by the Cistercians. From this point of
view, it follows that the treatise of Teophilus would "also" be a
treatise on art techniques, which enhances the work of the monk-artist, but
would be primarily a theological project. And as such, this treatise should
have been commissioned to Theophilus by a cultivated theologian, who would have
taken the task of writing (or extensively revising) the three premises, in
which religious themes are dealt with: "in the prologues, a defence is
contained of Benedictine luxury, specifically in arts, which marks a push-back
against the Cistercian positions, threatening the Benedictine Order in several
respects, with their intact message"(Tosatti, p. 81). In this respect, the
authoress proposes either Wibald, abbot of Stavelot (a monastery with strong
ties with Helmarshausen) and former abbot of Montecassino, or Reginhard, i.e. the
abbot himself of Helmarshausen.
Hence, what
today seems just a recipe book takes on a much more complex and rich meaning.
It is very unfortunate that, in order to read it in Italian, we had to wait for
the highly worthy version of Adriano Caffaro: published however with a
substandard layout, with one of the ugliest covers I saw in the last decades
and with poor quality paper, it is nevertheless extremely valuable. A fortiori, if you think that this book
is essentially devoid of any distribution and in fact unobtainable. We are
probably facing one of the worst omissions of Italian art publishing.
NOTES
[1] Mark
Clarke, who in 2011 published his critical edition of the Liber diversarum arcium, in his view the most comprehensive
collection of techniques practiced in the Middle Ages, has a different view.
See Mark Clarke, Mediaeval Painters' Materials and Techniques. The Montpellier Liber diversarum arcium, London,
Archetype Publications, 2011.
[2] Theophilus,
The Various Arts, edited by C. R.
Dodwell, London-Edinburgh, T. Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1961.
[3] Cennino
Cennini, Il libro dell’arte (The Book
of the Art), edited by Fabio Frezzato, Vicenza, Neri Pozza Publishers, 2003.
[4] Theophilus Presbyter, Schedula diversarum artium, edited by Albert Ilg, in Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, 7 (Vienna, 1874). On the figure of Albert Ilg and the series of Rudolf Eitelberger, I am referring in this blog to: Francesco Mazzaferro, Albert Ilg and Julius von Schlosser: Two Different Interpretations of Cennino Cennini in Austria-Hungary of 1871 and 1914.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento