CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
Cennino Cennini: a modern or a traditionalist?
An essay by Peter Seiler on the relations between Cennini and Giotto
Giotto – das unerreichte Vorbild? Elemente antiker imitatio auctorum-Lehren in Cennino Cenninis Libro dell’Arte
Published in: Ursula Rombach e Peter Seiler, Imitation als Transformation: Theorie und Praxis der Antikennachahmung in der frühen Neuzeit, Petersberg, Imhof Verlag, 2012, 173 pagine, pp. 44-86
(review by Francesco Mazzaferro)
 |
| Fig. 1) The poster of the conference "Imitation as transformation", curated by Peter Seiler and held in Berlin in April 2008 |
Scholars of Cennino Cennini in the
German-speaking world have often debated on whether the artist should be
considered a modern or a traditionalist; therefore whether the Book of the Art should be read as the
testimony of a personality that was fully aligned with the tumultuous changes of his time, had an active
part in the humanistic revolution and pre-announced the findings of the early
Renaissance, or as the manifesto of a conservative author, who stubbornly rejected
new developments, remained anchored to Giotto’s world and perhaps even believed
that the peak of art had been already achieved with Giotto and would never be
equaled. The textual references that fueled the discussion, contained in the
first chapter of the Book, are famous:
"And this Giotto translated the art
of painting from Greek into Latin and put it into a modern idiom, and he was
more accomplished at this art than anyone else has ever been"
(translation by Lara Broecke). The phrase can in fact be interpreted in two
ways. In the first sense: since Giotto there has been a revolution in the art,
which was due to the modernization that he brought to it and in particular to
the transition from the art of Byzantine style to that of western style. In the
second sense: the art of Giotto has no longer been equaled by anyone, since he is
the only one that has managed to offer a synthesis of different traditions,
those of the past (Greek) and the local ones (Latin).
These are, of course, two very different
readings from each other. Peter Seiler, a professor at the Humboldt University
of Berlin, working at the Institute of History of Art and Image, and the author
of the essay we are reviewing (‘Giotto –
das unerreichte Vorbild? Elemente antiker imitatio auctorum-Lehren in Cennino Cenninis Libro
dell’Arte’), ends up rejecting them both. In his view, the 'modernist' thesis (which
sees its main representative in Lionello Venturi, with an essay of 1925 [1]) is
completely far-fetched: it is the result of a completely decontextualized
reading of a sentence, which has been given an altogether improbable meaning for
the personality of the author. As Cennino was most probably a traditionalist,
the latter interpretation may perhaps be more likely. If so, one could read the
book as a celebration of the art of Giotto, understood as the unreachable
culmination of art. But ultimately this is also a reconstruction with the
benefit of insight, which according to Seiler does not capture the full truth.
Cennino Cennini - Seiler writes – lacked any critical capacity to think about
art in terms of history and evolution of styles. The conclusion is that many of
the concepts used by Cennino ('style', 'manner', 'imitation'), which were often
seen as the first flowering of artistic terminology of the early Renaissance,
should instead be interpreted in a different sense, confirming the nature of
Cennini’s writing as a purely technical (and not theoretical) piece on art as
craftsmanship.
All in all, Seiler takes the same view as Albert Ilg (with his introduction to the first German translation
published in Vienna in 1871 [2]) who considered Cennini a failed artist, heir
of an art now devoid of any creative capacity, and (more than a hundred years
later) as Rudolf Kuhn in Munich, who did not recognize Cennino any ability to
be a theorist of pictorial composition, capacity instead attributed to Leon Battista Alberti [3]. The other school in the German world is based on the earliest
writings on the subject of Julius von Schlosser, drawn up in Vienna in 1914 and
then included in his masterpiece treatise on Kunstliteratur (Art literature) of 1924; Cennini is here seen
as the inventor of modern pictorial language. Cennino was perceived as a
forerunner of modernity also by Jan Verkade, with his second German translation
published in Strasbourg, then still a part of the German Empire, in 1916 [4].
More recently, this was the main thesis of the exhibition catalogue on Cennino Cennini, held in Berlin and organized by Wolf-Dietrich Löhr and Stefan
Weppelmann [5]. The German capital seems to currently host two diverging schools
of thought on the subject.
 |
| Fig. 2) The 2012 volume of Rombach and Seiler |
Seiler’s essay, a rich and dense 43 page
text, published in small fonts, with the addition of almost three hundred notes
and an extensive bibliography, has a complex title, difficult to be translated in
other languages: "Giotto – das
unerreichte Vorbild? Elemente antiker imitatio auctorum-Lehren in Cennino Cenninis Libro dell’Arte". The title uses one of the typical rhetorical devices of German
academic language: often the main theme of the writing is placed in dubitative
terms as a question, in order to examine the various arguments for and against
a given thesis, and in most cases to reject it. The English literal translation
is: "Giotto: A never equaled model?
Elements of the ancient doctrine of the imitation of authors in the Book of the art by Cennino Cennini."
Peter Seiler is one of the promoters of a
vast interdisciplinary research program involving the collaboration of several
institutions, including two universities in Berlin (Humboldt University and
Free University of Berlin), the local Max Planck Institute and the State
Museums of Berlin. The title of the project (started in 2008) is "The transformations of the antique";
the purpose is to investigate how much of the identity of every age, including
today times, depends on a process of imitation and at the same time
transformation of the image of the past; for this purpose are used
interdisciplinary instruments, including art history. The most tangible result
of the program is the publication, to date, of 34 volumes as part of a series
that is precisely entitled "Transformations of the antique". [6] Seiler's
essay is contained in the book “Imitatio
als Transformation. Theorie und Praxis der Antikennachahmung in der frühen
Neuzeit” [7], published by Ursula Rombach and Peter Seiler in 2012. The English
translation is "Imitatio as
transformation. Theory and practice of imitation of the antique in the first
modern times."
Considering the theme of imitation in aesthetic
theory, Seiler distinguishes between 'imitation of nature' and 'imitation of
the authors'. In the first case, artists imitate the forms which are directly
observable in nature; in the second case, they mimic the style of other
authors. Implicitly, the second form is considered superior, because it allows
the artist, as a creator, to 'beat' nature.
The first type of imitation goes back to
the Aristotelian observation that art imitates nature and is constantly
reflected in the writings of art literature, but also among philosophers,
writers and poets, throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages. The theme is of
course also present in Cennini, particularly in Chapter 28, which explains that
the imitation of nature is the main way to achieve excellence. Hereafter is the text quoted in the recent version by Lara Broecke: "Pay attention to the fact that the triumphal gateway of copying from
life is the most perfect guide and best helm that one can have. And this comes
before all the other models. And always find a haven beneath this with an eager
heart, especially when you develop a feeling for drawing. Make sure that every
day, without a break, you draw at least something (since it could not be so
little that it would not be plenty) and you will become very accomplished for
it."
The second type (the imitatio auctorum referred to in the title of the essay by Seiler)
identifies the model for the artist (here understood in the broadest sense,
including literates) not in the direct observation of nature, but in the reproduction
of the work of earlier artists (and authors). This second type of imitation
continues to be common in the references to literary works (writers, poets,
scholars of rhetoric continually make reference to literary or philosophical or
rhetorical works of the Greek and Latin world), but disappears completely in
the world of fine arts after the end of Greek-Latin antiquity. Seiler recalls
that even Leon Battista Alberti noticed with astonishment this absence in the
prologue to the De Pictura.
References to imitation of the works of art of the ancient model, as a model
for contemporary art, did not yet appear in art literature in 1300, remained a
rarity in 1400 (the exception being the definition of Donatello by Cristoforer
Landino as 'great imitator of the ancients') and rather spread only in 1500, as
noted by Erwin Panofsky [8]. The only possible exception was made up by Cennino
Cennini, and in particular by his exhortation to young artists to imitate the 'maniere' of the best masters, in chapter
27 of the Book of Art. Hence the question whether Cennino witnesses the
existence in 1300 of a theoretical tradition on imitation of the works of the
artists, now lost; or whether he is even the first to adapt the model of
rhetoric (that imitatio auctorum,
that had remained alive for literary work) to the fine arts; and finally whether
the apprentice painter had to imitate only the works of art of his master
(whoever he was), or he could also include the works of Giotto and the Giottesque
painters, or even those of antiquity classic.
Here is Chapter 27, in Lara Broecke’s
translation: "How you should
contrive to copy and draw after as few masters as possible. But you need to
press ahead so that you can press on along the path of this discipline. You
have made your prepared papers: it is time to draw. This is the way you should
do it: once you have got used to drawing for a while in the way that I
described to you above (that is, on a tablet), strive and delight always to
copy the best things that you can find, made by the hand of great masters. And
if you are in a place where there have been many good masters, so much the
better for you. But I give you this advice: be careful always to pick out the
best and the one that has the best reputation. And if, day in day out, you follow one like that it will be odd if
nothing of his style and manner rubs off on you. However, if you decide to copy
this master today and that tomorrow you will get the style of neither the one
nor the other, and you will not be able to avoid getting into a muddle because
you love to have every style tugging at your sympathies: now you want to do it
in the style of this artist, tomorrow in the style of some other, and as a
result you will not get any of them properly. If you follow the path of one, by
continuous practice your mind would be completely flabby not to get some fodder
from it. You will then find, if nature has endowed you with a modicum of
imagination, that you will end up taking on a style all of your own and it
cannot but be good because, if you mind is used to picking only flowers, your
hand would not know how to grasp a thorn. ''
According to Seiler, interpreting the
chapter as if it prescribed a rule, according to which any painter must imitate
only one master, and in particular the best one of his time, creating an
exclusive canon of reference for all the artists of an era, would stretch the
intentions of Cennini. Paragraph 27 in fact explicitly excludes those artists who
operate in a large artistic center (such as Florence and Padua) and explicitly
urges them (in this case) to try different models, searching the best works of
the great masters. Chapter 122 even includes an invitation to be inspired by
other masters, "and you can copy and
look at things done by other good masters, there is no shame for you in that."
The recommendation to avoid any excessive eclecticism is therefore not a general
rule, but it seems a pure teaching advice, mainly addressed to those painters
who live in smaller municipalities, where it probably would be more difficult
to find alternative models that would merit being considered a reference point
for an artist.
Seiler observes that the Book of the Art contains no mention of
artists or works of art of the ancient world (as we already said, this was the
rule in those years). There are only two indirect references to ancient art
[9], in years where the rediscovery of the antique was a fundamental theme of
the new humanist world (think of the statement of Leon Battista Alberti, who,
only a few decades later, says he wanted to establish his De Pictura on the foundations of ancient times). On the contrary,
the Book includes frequent references
to religion (the Trinity, the Virgin Mary, the saints). Seiler hypothesizes that
this may have two reasons. On the one hand, Cennino probably frequented a very
traditionalist and conservative milieu,
perhaps related to an ecclesiastical world that did not look with favour to the
growing interest in the ancient pagan world. On the other hand, he did not
possess a sufficient level of education to make specific use of textual sources
of Greek and Latin. For these reasons Seiler strongly doubts Cennino had read Horace.
The comparison between painting and poetry, which is also stated at the
beginning of the Book, originates
from him. However, Seiler does not exclude that, despite not having had access
to the texts of the ancient Greek and Latin world, Cennino used written sources
on art techniques and colors - probably medieval compendia - that he could find
in monasteries. The statement, contained in paragraph 63, that Cennino had
drawn the knowledge to compose the treatise exclusively from teaching at Agnolo
Gaddi’s and from his own experiences as a painter, is not considered credible.
Seiler also believes it possible that in many cases Cennino has also benefited
from oral sources, again through contacts with members of monastic orders. Much
less likely, in his opinion, are iterations with humanist circles in Florence
and Padua, as we shall see.
 |
| Fig. 3) Giotto, Mourning over the Dead Christ - Padua, Scrovegni Chapel, 1303-1305 |
 |
| Fig 5) Cennino Cennini, Birth of Mary, Town Museum, Colle Val d'Elsa Source: Museum Bozar, Brussels, http://www.bozar.be/dbfiles/pfile/201410/pfile254528_activity14090.jpg |
To the contrary, the cultural references to
the age of Giotto are very frequent. Giotto was born one hundred years before
Cennino, and was active in Padua probably exactly one century before his stay
in the same town. Thus, the Giotto era represented for Cennino a long-gone
period, but still sufficiently influential to elicit awe and respect, and
therefore justify imitation. Does this therefore means that Cennino inaugurates
a new paradigm, no longer recommending artists to imitate ancient artists but
always and only Giotto?
The relationship between Cennino and Giotto
is at the center of Seiler’s essay. It is known that Cennino proclaims with
great pride that he belongs to a school of art that originated from Giotto and
was continued by Taddeo and Agnolo Gaddi. Already the first few lines of the
text explain that the book was "... devised
and compiled … in honour of Giotto, of Taddeo and of Agnolo"
(translation by Lara Broecke). In the same chapter follow the aforementioned
lines on the role of Giotto, from which originates the question if Cennino
considers Giotto the starting point of a process of modernization of the art,
or the no longer reached pinnacle of art itself.
However, Seiler wants to highlight some
critical aspects. First, he notes that, in the literature of Cennino’s time, it
was obvious that the authors of treatises on rhetoric and poetry invited
students to compete directly with the works of the leaders of those disciplines
(think of the role that was always attributed to Cicero as a model for
rhetoric). Nowhere in the Book, on
the contrary, does the treatise require that the apprentice painter must learn
drawing or painting by copying the works of Giotto; Cennino did not even invite
the painters who already finished their training and were now operating
independently to use Giotto’s masterpieces as a benchmark. The reference to
Giotto in the first pages of the Book
does not intend to raise him to new art canon, but rather aims to use his
reputation in order to validate the pages of Cennino as the latest
manifestation of his school, one hundred years from the artist’s stay in the locations
where the treaty was drafted.
The reference to Greek and Latin art must
be reinterpreted too, in the light of Cennino’s coordinates. The author of the Book lacks the idea that artists can
develop their own aesthetic system, in the modern sense of a personal art style;
he considers painting as a complex manual task, requiring mastery of different
skills, but not as the expression of an independent idea of art. So Cennini
cannot refer, in Seiler’s view, to the ‘Latin’ and ‘Greek’ art as two different
art styles, justified by their aesthetic systems which would be opposed to each
other (either the hieratic Byzantine art or the naturalist Western art). The
expression "he translated the art of
painting from Greek into Latin and put it into a modern idiom" must
therefore be read differently, even with reference to similar expressions in
Ghiberti and Boccaccio, without giving a pejorative meaning to the tradition, whether
Greek or Byzantine. Giotto is praised as the one who forwarded the traditional (Greek)
know-how to the (Latin) artists of his day, while updating it.
The issue may be discussed in two different
connotations. The first is the relationship between Cennino and the art of his
time. The second is that of the relationship between Cennino and the intellectuals
of his time, i.e the humanists.
On the first point, Seiler asked whether Cennino’s
statements on Giotto’s “accomplished art"
(and even “more accomplished” that
any other art) even want to indicate that the painters have to reproduce the art
of Giotto, but not the Giottesque art that followed, and of which Cennino was
direct apprentice. In fact, critical accents vis-à-vis Taddeo Gaddi (the first
student of Giotto) are not missing in the Book.
Cennino writes that his son Agnolo (i.e. his teacher) ‘painted in a much more beautiful and fresh way than his father, Taddeo,
did”, as stated in Chapter 67 (translation by Lara Broecke). Therefore, it looks like if he wanted to take a critical distance against the art of the
immediately preceding decades. Moreover, Cennino can not have ignored that many
authors of his era had implicitly or explicitly expressed criticism on the art
of Giottesque painters. In particular Filippo Villani (although he had sung the
praises of Taddeo) had compared them to the rivulets (rivuli) with respect to the role of Giotto, who had been the source
(fons) of a new art capable of
imitating nature. Sacchetti, in his Novella 136, gives even the word to Taddeo
Gaddi for him to say that art is in full decay since Giotto: "For certain, some very talented painters existed
and they painted in a form which cannot be replicated by human beings; but this
art has disappeared and is missing every day."
Yet, Seiler hesitates again to attribute to
Cennino the critical skills of an art historian. He believes that, at the end,
Cennino simply wants to defend the tradition of Giotto as a pure form of
legitimization of his own knowledge, without mentioning any other art form, but
also without calling the ability of the Giottesque into question to achieve the
aesthetic results of the teacher.
It must be said however, in this regard,
that a scholar like Miklos Boskovits concluded, to the contrary, that Cennino
was an innovator of classic Giottism in an 'expressionist' direction, and would
therefore no longer be a follower of Giotto. This shows how, in the case of
Cennino, the interpretation of some key lines of the Book of the Art is linked to personal and interpretive criteria which
can give very different results.
Much has been discussed on the second
issue, namely whether Cennino has been part of the humanist circles in Florence
and Padua. To the relations between Cennino and the humanists in Florence is
dedicated a beautiful essay by Wolf-Dietrich Löhr in the catalogue of the exhibition in Berlin [10], which concluded that Cennino was a highly cultivated
artist, and that he had reached Padua being already part of the Florentine
humanist circles. In his recent new English version of the Book of Art, Lara Broecke argues that Cennino was completely
plunged in that environment during his presence at the court of Carrara,
between 1300 and 1400, to the point of conceiving the work as a attempt of
self-promotion, aimed essentially to compete with other personalities of that milieu
[11].
As I have already noted, Seiler has a very
different opinion. In fact, his essay comes to the conclusion that the
parallels between the Tuscan painter and intellectuals of his time are very
risky. Cennino was raised at the Gaddi’s workshop, and therefore not only in
the heart of the Tuscan artistic culture, but also in very close circles to Filippo
Villani. As mentioned above, Villani had in fact made the praises of Taddeo
Gaddi. It is also proven that Angelo Gaddi, a nephew of Taddeo, possessed a
manuscript copy of the Liber de origine
civitatis. Seiler observes that, despite occasional references to Villani,
"it is surprising that the statements of Villani did not find a more
pronounced echo" in the Book.
"The critical distance of Cennini from humanistic circles offers the most
obvious explanation."
The Berlin catalogue of 2008 also focused
on the relationship between Cennino and the humanist Pier Paolo Vergerio, counting
on a tradition of studies in this regard. The issue is important, because both
Vergerius and Cennino operated in Padua in the same years, although there is no
evidence that they knew each other. In fact, some scholars [12] - explains
Seiler - drew a parallel between the aforementioned chapter 27 of the Book of the Art and the passage in a
letter of Vergerius to Lodovico Buzzacarino dated 1396. In both texts, the
authors advise young people to identify a single master and to follow his work;
in the letter of Vergerius there is an explicit reference to Giotto for
painting. On the basis of that parallel, one can believe that, at the court of
Padua, Giotto was universally assumed to be the only source to be imitated in
those years. This would therefore be the first form of imitatio auctorum in the history of art of modern times.
This interpretation seems excessive to the scholar
from Berlin. Vergerius - Seiler explains - simply intended to contradict
Seneca, who had proclaimed an eclectic thesis and had proposed, in the Moral Letters, that the poets would owe to derive inspiration
from the largest possible number of literary sources, such as a bee collects
nectar landing on any flower. Vergerius, instead, had recommended, for
rhetoric, to always adapt to Cicero and, for art, to study the pictures of the
best artists, but then only and always to follow the example of Giotto. Seneca,
Vergerius and Cennino all refer to the same similarity of a bee.
Seiler is not convinced, however, that the
similarities between the passages of Cennino and Vergerius reveal a common
intention. As already explained, no passage in the Book of the art would contain specific exhortation to imitate the
works of Giotto, while Cennino invites students to always imitate their
masters, whatever they may be. Moreover, Vergerius had very limited knowledge
in the arts, and his references to Giotto were purely rhetorical, since he had
adapted the same claims that Cicero had made about Lysippos to the most famous
painter of his time.
 |
| Fig. 4) The essay by Peter Seiler, also available in the electronic database of the University of Heidelberg (http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/3181/1/Seiler_Giotto_das_unerreichte_Vorbild_2012.pdf) |
It is obvious that the above considerations
have important consequences for Seiler on the conceptual interpretation of the
text. Reference is made in particular to some of the terms and categories
which called for the attention of scholars in the last hundred and fifty years
of studies on Cennini.
Maniera - Style
Often we read chapter 27 as if Cennino
claimed that, only relying to the imitation of the master's style during his
long apprenticeship, the student painter can develop his own personal style.
Seiler believes that this is a misunderstanding. In fact, according to the
German scholar, 'maniera' is not what
Dante describes as 'the beautiful style
that I honoured' and even less the 'good
manner' of Vasari. "The acquired manner is instead, in the first place,
simply a way of working that is achieved through the continuous copying of examples."
Characteristic of the maniera is in
particular the fact that it can be the subject of a description, therefore
consisting of elements of a technical nature which can be learned through a
continuous and relentless repetition.
Aria - Manner
The term Aria, which is used only one time
in the Book of Art (indeed in chapter
27) can not be understood as a modern style, in the sense of the individual
characteristic of the creation of an artist. However, according to Seiler, it
consists of those aspects of the routine activity of a painter "which can
not be described with concepts and rules" but can still be acquired
through imitation. A comparative study of the use of the term by many other
authors of the fourteenth and fifteenth identifies ‘aria’ with ease of implementation.
Fantasia - Imagination
The use of the term imagination by Cennini as
one of the foundations of art - along with 'intellectual activity' and 'manual
dexterity' - has often been seen as the evidence that the author has not only a
technical concept of art, but that he also makes the first steps towards the awerness
that artists have the role of creators and as such can compete with nature and
may even beat it, provided they know how to boost their capacity and develop a
style oriented to beauty. The theme of imagination in Cennino is at the center
of the aforementioned studies by Boskovits and the catalogue of the exhibition
on Cennino in Berlin 2008. Again, Seiler is sceptical: other authors, but not
Cennino, used the term in its modern sense. Dante had already talked in this
respect of high imagination, while
Alberti would write the artist as 'alter
deus’, a second God who possesses his own ability to create. Cennini
instead would refer to imagination just as the natural ability to make full use
of personal qualities, as is clear already from Chapter 1 ("what little understanding God may have given
them" – translation by Lara Broecke).
NOTES
[1] Venturi, Lionello - La critica d’arte
alla fine del Trecento (Filippo Villani e Cennino Cennini) (Art criticism at
the end of the fourteenth century - Filippo Villani and Cennino Cennini), in: L’arte.
Rivista di storia dell’arte medievale e moderna (Art. Magazine of the history
of medieval and modern art) 28/4, 1925, pp. 233-244. See: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/arte1925/0261?sid=4e7a93ea0aae0979cfd48cee654f4b71.
[2] See: Mazzaferro, Francesco - Albert Ilg and Julius von Schlosser: two different ways of interpreting Cennino Cennini inAustria-Hungary in 1871 and 1914.
[3] See: Mazzaferro, Francesco - Cennino Cennini and Leon Battista Alberti: variations on the concept of pictorial composition.
[4] See: Mazzaferro, Francesco - Jan Verkade, Cennino Cennini and the quest for spiritual art in the mid of World War One
[5] See: Mazzaferro, Francesco - Cennino Cennini in Berlin. Review to: Fantasy and manual skill: Cennino Cennini and
the tradition of Tuscan painting from Giotto to Lorenzo Monaco.
[6] For a list of the publications, see: http://www.sfb-antike.de/index.php?id=248&L=6.
[7] Rombach, Ursula and Seiler, Peter - Imitation
als Transformation: Theorie und Praxis der Antikennachahmung in der frühen
Neuzeit, Petersberg Imhof Verlag, 2012, 173 pages.
[8] Panofsy, Erwin - Die Renaissancen der
europäischen Kunst, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1960.
[9] A reference to a 'triumphal gateway'
in chapter 28 and the quality of nudes in ancient sculpture in chapter 185.
[10] Löhr, Wolf-Dietrich - Handwerk und
Denkwerk des Malers. Kontexte für Cenninis Theorie der Praxis (Manual work and intellectual
activities of the painter. Contexts for the theory of the practice of Cennini),
in "Fantasie und Handwerk – Cennino Cennini und die Tradition der toskanischen
Malerei von Giotto bis Lorenzo Monaco" ("Imagination and manual skill.
Cennino Cennini and the tradition of Tuscan painting from Giotto to Lorenzo
Monaco"), Munich, Hirmer, 2008, 334 pages. The essay is on pages 153-176.
[11] See in this blog: Broecke, Lara -
Cennino Cennini's 'The Book of the art'. A New English translation and
commentary with Italian transcription.
[12] Bolland,
Andrew - Art and Humanism in Early Renaissance Padua: Cennini, Vergerio and
Petrarch, in: Renaissance Quarterly, 1996, pp. 469-487; Kemp, Martin - Der
Blick hinter die Bilder. Text und Kunst in der italienischen Renissance, Köln,
1977
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento