CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
Francesco Mazzaferro
Gustav Friedrich Waagen and his Two Reviews of the Artists’ Letters by Ernst Karl Guhl
Part One: Review of Volume I (1854)
 |
| Fig. 1) Portrait of Gustav Friedrich Waagen in the weekly magazine "Über Land und Meer", 1868. The original drawing is signed Reincke. |
Introduction
Gustav
Friedrich Waagen (1794-1868), one of the founders of the Berlin school of art
criticism, published in the journal Deutsches
Kunstblatt two book reviews (one after the release of each volume) to
appraise the Artists’ Letters by Ernst Karl Guhl (1819-1862), to which was dedicated a previous post in this blog. Guhl [1]
had provided the German public with a collection of letters written by artists
in a period extending from the early Renaissance to the late Baroque. He had,
in short, inaugurated a genre that, from then on, would experience great success in
Germany for at least a century.
Waagen was very
well known throughout Europe. He was the director of the Berlin picture
gallery, the Gemäldegalerie, since the
early 1830s; he had written art books of great importance on artworks held in
Britain and in Paris; in Italy, making use of his undoubted skills as connoisseur (also clearly perceptible in
the book reviews) had purchased many works for the Berlin museums; in 1844, he
became the first professor of modern art history (which in those years
coincided with the art from the Renaissance to the late Baroque) at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität. Yet, the focus on the two Guhl
books (who, after all, at the time, played a marginal role in the Berlin
academic hierarchy) demonstrates his ability to perceive new developments, and
in particular to appreciate the attempt of his younger colleague to organize
the discipline not only basing it on connoisseurship, but also on a historical
and scientific basis.
Waagen
reviewed Guhl’s volumes in the journal Deutsches
Kunstblatt. This magazine, directed by Friedrich Eggers (1819-1872), an art
historian from Berlin, aspired to fuel the debate among the Kunstvereine (Art Committees) within the
multifaceted German-speaking world, far beyond the Berlin reality, so much so
that it was published first in Leipzig and then in Stuttgart. Although it was
published only between 1850 and 1858, the journal played an important role for
the country, bringing together, under one roof, as prominent personalities as
Kugler, Schnaase and Waagen in Berlin, Passavant in Frankfurt and
representatives of the other art centres throughout Germany: Munich, Dresden
and Düsseldorf. Vienna was also included. Although
conservative Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire had just smothered the
first attempt at unifying Germany via a democratic constitution (Constitution
of Paulskirche, 1848-1849), art historians seemed to keep the national ambition
alive.
 |
| Fig. 2) The cover of the Deutsches Kunstblatt collection, in the first year of publication, 1850 |
In fact, it
is hardly necessary to recall that, at the time of the book reviews, Germany
was still far from unity. The term 'deutsch-German' in "Deutsches Kunstblatt" should therefore be
identified as a common cultural area, yet to be filled. Doing it was not
necessarily easy, since the magazine was trying to promote unity of purpose
between groups that historically belonged to still rivals military
administrations, and perhaps this explains why the publication was ceased in
1858. In 1866 the Prussian armies clashed with those of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and German
allies (Saxony, Bavaria and others) and only in 1871 Germany was unified, after
a season of fratricidal wars.
What was the
role of ‘art literature’ in the Deutsches Kunstblatt and more generally in the artistic
culture of German mid-nineteenth century? It should immediately be noted that
also the founder of the Vienna School, namely Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg
(1817-1885), was among the members of the editorial board. However, although his name was printed in the front page of the journal – he never contributed with a single article to it, nor was any review published on his writings. In fact, there were open tensions between the Berlin and Vienna schools. Eitelberger was the
one who in those years (1854) was about to found the Imperial and Royal Institute for Historical Research in Vienna and gave
the first university classes on "Quellenschriften
zur Kunstgeschichte", i.e. the sources of the history of art, in the
capital of the Habsburg Empire in 1868/1869. This was the first attempt to give
art criticism a more systematic profile; in the name of the principles of
positivism, he was looking for the sources of art in historical and verifiable
elements. In 1871, he also opened the famous first series of texts of art history sources, with the same title. The series was published in a first
series from 1871 to 1888 under his direction and in a second series from 1888
to 1898, under the direction of Alberg Ilg and Camillo List.
The works by
Guhl 1853 and 1856 and their reviews by Waagen 1854 and 1857, however, show
that, in the mid-nineteenth century, the interest in art history sources was
strong not only in Vienna, but also in Berlin. Guhl, whose formation was
substantially that of an ancient philologist and a classical archaeologist, was
self-taught in the field of art history. He was a great admirer of Leopold von
Ranke (1795-1886), and from him gained the conviction that art history should
be based on a solid documentary and archival basis (the motto of Ranke was ‘to
write what had actually happened’). As well as Ranke, Guhl both considered
positivism as outmoded and rejected Hegelian idealism, which was prevalent in
Berlin in those years; this explains why the introductory essays to the two
volumes contain very critical ideas against idealism.
In his book
reviews, Waagen did not take any stance in the historicism vs. idealism controversy.
However, he agreed, in principle, with the general aims of Guhl’s work:
collecting and studying in a methodical way the letters of the artists should
allow a new and more personalized reading of art history, which should not,
therefore, only be a history of styles, but also a history of people. That
said, Guhl did not manage to impose his views swiftly [2]. It is true that the
anthology won a gold medal from the University of Berlin in 1856, but his
academic career was notoriously slow [3] and again in 1859, when deciding
whether to create an extraordinary chair of history of ancient or modern art
(in the latter case, by assigning it to Guhl), authorities had to opt for a
Solomonic solution: the extraordinary professorships became two, and there was
no harm to no one.
The Berlin
idea that art history was a history of ingenious spirits would only gain
terrain with the next generation of scholars, when the study of the artists’ mind
state was placed at the centre of art criticism. This would be the era of
Hermann Grimm (1828-1901), who authored a series of biographies of artists such
as Raphael, Michelangelo, Dürer, volumes that will become the model of modern
monographs on artists. And yet, it must be said that Grimm declared several
times that he was inspired in his studies dedicated to Michelangelo and Raphael
just by the first volume of Guhl’s Letters
[4].
I already
mentioned that the success of Guhl’s work helped to spread in Germany the
fashion of the publication of letter collections and anthologies of writings or
(using a very popular term between 1800 and 1900) of artists’ confessions, both
for ancient and modern artists. And this is perhaps one of the main differences
between Vienna and Berlin: history of art sources in Vienna was part of the
study of art of previous centuries, from the Middle Ages to the eighteenth
century, while in Berlin a 'modern trend' emerged, specialized in history of art
sources of the nineteenth century.
In the German-speaking
world, then, the discovery of history of art sources as a field of autonomous
studies was a collective phenomenon (and not only a Viennese expression). In
fact, it was certainly a larger phenomenon than a German one: Waagen himself
was able to capture, in the Deutsches Kunstblatt, the expressions of interest for
the discipline outsideGermany, for example, reviewing two works by Léon
Laborde (1807-1869), curator at the Louvre for Middle Ages and Renaissance art as
well as great archival researcher; these are works that the Berlin scholar read
just from the perspective of the birth of the history of art sources also in
France: Les Ducs de Bourgogne: études sur les lettres, les
arts et l'industrie pendant le XVe siècle in 1849 and Le Renaissance de l’art á la
cour de France in 1850 [5].
 |
| Fig. 3) Ludwig Knaus, Portrait of Gustav Friedrich Waagen, 1855 |
Lastly, some
words seem necessary on the use of terminology. Just in the article about
Laborde, Waagen uses the term "Quellen der Kunstgeschichte", which exactly means
"history of art sources". Years later, Eitelberger would use in
Vienna the already mentioned term "Quellenschriften zur
Kunstgeschichte",
difficult to translate into other languages, to indicate all those writings
that serve as sources for the history of art. And what about the term Kunstliteratur, i.e. art literature?
The journal
Deutsches Kunstblatt hosted a column called Kunstliteratur, and just this column hosted the Waagen’s
reviews on the Letters. Guhl himself,
in introductory essays, had qualified his work as part of ‘art literature’. But
we must go beyond appearances: the term was not used in the sense of 'history of
art sources', as would happen in the work published by Julius von Schlosser decades later, in 1924. In the middle of the previous century, it was regarded
as part of Kunstliteratur any monographic text dedicated to the art,
which would deal with art criticism or history of art or art theory, whether it
was written by artists or academics or literates or connoisseurs. Thus, for
example, in the first year of the Deutsches Kunstblatt (1850) the column Kunstliteratur hosted - in addition to reviews of
works by artists and architects (like Heideloff), also texts of art historians
(Blanc, Schnaase), connoisseurs (Eastlake), theorists (Laurens), and local
history scholars (Merlo). And, to tell the truth, even after the seminal work by
Schlosser the term Kunstliteratur continued to be used in an ambiguous way in
German, sometimes becoming synonymous with any art monograph and sometimes
indicating history of art sources only.
Review of the First Volume of the Artists' Letters by Ernst Karl Guhl (1853)
The book review
appeared in two issues, respectively on the numbers 13 and 14 of March 30 and
April 6, 1854 [6]. The present is - as far as I know - the first English translation.
The letters of artists, translated and commented by Dr. Ernst Guhl
First volume, 8th, Berlin, T. Trautwein'sche Buch- und Musikalienhandlung. (J. Guttentag) 1853
By G. F. Waagen
Part One (30 March 1854)
With the edition of this work, the author has
made an essential service both to art historians as well as to the entire
audience of experts, filling a very obvious gap in the history of art. In the
numerous and partly very successful works that have been released in the last
thirty years in Germany, France, England and Italy on the art of the Middle
Ages and the modern era, a much more prominent role has been given to artworks than
to artists. However, since the works of art are conditioned by the specific
nature of artists, and the latter can be greatly influenced by the destiny of
life, their social status etc. ..., it is very important both for the
researcher and for the art lover to have the best possible knowledge of these
things. Yet the information about the lives of the majority of the great
artists is extremely scarce. Under these conditions, the letters written by
artists take on extraordinary value, since they provide the most direct and
fresh expression of their spiritual disposition. Even in the case of those
artists such as Michelangelo, for whom we have extensive documentation, they
allow us to glimpse in their peculiarities, and therefore to complete their
image in so much a revealing way. Moreover, in the case of many other artists,
the letters must be considered as the main sources of information. First of all,
thanks to these letters we get acquainted with the relationship between the
artists and the authorities, on the income sources of the artists, on who their
patrons were, as well as on their social position and the mutations which it experienced
in one direction or another.
 |
| Fig. 4) Michelangelo, Madonna of Bruges, 1501-1504, Bruges, Church of Our Lady |
Therefore, the conviction of the importance of
these letters led to the publication of numerous and rich collections. Bottari’s
compilation in numerous tomes was followed in the present day by the excellent
work of Dr. Gaye and the very commendable one by Gualandi. For many reasons,
however, these works did not have the influence on the history of art that
their content would have deserved. Bottari and Gualandi operated a selection
that was supplemented by an insufficient critical apparatus, mixing a limited
number of letters that are really interesting, with a large number of letters which
are very little relevant or not at all. The work of Gaye, at least, always had very
broad and varied contents; nevertheless, this made it difficult to keep an
overview and to use it. In the first of these works, moreover, comments are completely
lacking, leaving some excerpts unclear even for experts in art history. And
also the understanding of the letters, often written in various dialects, with
cryptic abbreviations and often sloppy and incorrect writing, requires a qualified
knowledge of the Italian language that only a few people can exhibit. Finally,
the exorbitant prices of the works made them affordable only to a few. In his
work, the author [Guhl] has remedied so much happily to all these difficulties.
The choice of the 150 pieces in this first volume, which deals with the history
of Italian art of the fifteenth and sixteenth century, was carried out with
great care, even including individual letters taken from other works. It is with
reason that also several letters from non-artists were included which brought into light the particular situation in which the artists lived, together with some
wills of artists, as well as with some contracts for artistic commissions. Only
thanks to the comments, where the author made a great effort and demonstrated a
wealth of vast readings, the letters acquire a general sense. And finally the
translation, very difficult in terms of meaning and form, testifies both to a
good knowledge of Italian and to the ability to understand, exactly and in subtle
ways, expressions which are sometimes simple and naïve, sometimes accurate and
well chosen, sometimes forced and laboured.
 |
| Fig. 5) Filippo Lippi, Madonna and Child with two Angels, 1450-1465, Florence, Uffizi Gallery |
In the introduction, the author offers evidence
of the meaning of the letters in the above mentioned sense. For example, he
draws the reader's attention on how the letters of Fra Filippo Lippi and
Benozzo Gozzoli reflected their characters, as well as, in certain cases, the different
tone of the letters mirrored the different attitude to life of the artists.
Thus, for instance, Leon Battista Alberti’s male and solid way of talking corresponded
to the conditions of his home city, the city-state of Florence, while the
submissive tone of Giovanni Santi matched his role in the small court of
Urbino.
 |
| Fig. 6) Agnolo di Cosimo called Bronzino, Eleonor of Toledo and her son Giovanni, 1544-5, Florence, Uffizi Gallery |
About the relationship between the artists and
their patrons, the author rightly stresses the fact that, until the
mid-sixteenth century, it was characterized by substantial equality, so that
the artist was considered independent and free from the customer. This
strengthened his self-esteem and therefore exerted a beneficial effect on his
creations. And, in fact, in some cases a relationship of friendship and trust
arose between the two parties like, for example, between the elder Cosimo de' Medici
on one side and Donatello and Michelozzo on the other. The letters bring many
examples of the more difficult and faltering relationship, that took shape around
1550 between client and artist, both in their tone and in the more explicit
differentiation of rank, to a great disadvantage of the art. A very striking
example is constituted by the expression that Angelo Bronzino used in a letter
addressed to the false and equally devious Duke Cosimo I of Tuscany in the year
1548, in which he proclaimed he wants to "kiss his most holy hand." In
his collection, the author also presents several examples of how - something
already known - since the beginning of the sixteenth century the commissions
were described in much detail and how their performance was often subject to
careful surveillance. The constraints which were thus imposed on the artists did
however not prevent that they would produce wonderful works. In some cases,
moreover, artists were no doubt even prompted by similar constraints to develop
unique and specific beauty, in the same way that the architects with great
spiritual wealth are often driven by the unfavourable conditions of the plan
and the ground to motives that surprise for their originality and beauty. In
the first half of the sixteenth century, the opposite situation arose: the
desire to own artworks was spreading and, according to the author's
observation, the buyers, happy to get whatever works from the great masters, let
them the complete choice of the objects. In my opinion, this contributed to the
neglect of art in Italy in the second half of the 16th century. Referring to
the prices that the artists obtained for their work, the author notes that they
were very modest by rule in the fifteenth century, but that artists
nevertheless seemed to live in wealthy conditions. This is also explained by
their modest standard of living, which in those days clearly did not differ
much from that of the artisans. The glittering lifestyle which artists such as
Raphael, Michelangelo and Titian enjoyed marked a completely opposite trend.
But if the prices that the artists obtained seem very high compared to the
previous ones, they are nevertheless very low in comparison with those, which the
best contemporary artists to us are seeking after, even taking account of the
effect of the depreciating value of money.
 |
| Fig. 7) Raffaello, Stanza della Segnatura. Vatican Museums |
In conclusion to his introduction, the author
focuses his attention on other important aspects, which supported especially
the flowering of the arts in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century in
Italy. A first feature, primarily, is the beauty of life in all its external
aspects, as a homogeneous element that accommodated the artist's effort. More
important seems the general enthusiasm that the humanity of those years felt
for art, in consequence of which artworks belonged to the needs of life. In
this way, it was possible to greatly enhance the moral awareness and the joyous
mood of the artists, who felt themselves as necessary and honored members of
the society. And finally, it is of the utmost importance that, in turn, the
artists themselves felt the need to capture the whole general culture of the
time, had respect for sciences and always sought a close relationship with
those who cultivated them. It were the scientists who introduced the artists (like
at the court of Lorenzo the Magnificent, or at the Dukes of Urbino, or in more
intimate groups, as in the gardens of Ruccellai and workshop of Baccio d'Agnolo
in Florence) with those practices and cultured forms of the life of society,
for which Italy beat all other countries. Thus it happened that, to use the
author's words, "without distancing themselves in any way from the originality
of artistic creation, the entire educational process and the entire wealth of
ideas of that era could improve and take shape in the works of the artists."
As best example, here I would like to mention Raphael’s Stanza della Signatura, which required the noblest mastery of the reference ideas that
characterized those times. The School of Athens reflects the
study - carried out with so much love – of science, philosophy, geography,
mathematics, astronomy and natural science, as depicted in the writings of the
ancients. The avid study of Roman law is equally well mirrored in the Virtue
and Law, while the enthusiasm for the ancient
poets is reflected in the Parnassus.
Only the Dispute captures the visual
literal translation of the idea of the Church as in medieval spirit, even
though it was already the end of the spirit of the Middle Ages, when an
important laicization had already emerged in the Church itself. If you think
how deeply and how broadly those above mentioned studies, related to the
ancient world, have been continued to the present day, then we must say that
these wonderful works were reflecting at the same time past, present and
future.
 |
| Fig. 8) Raffaello, Stanza della Segnatura, Disputation of the Holy Sacrament , 1509-1510, Vatican Museums |
With reference to the individual letters – the theme
to which I am now going - I cannot but limit myself to a narrow number of
observations, taking into account the wealth of contents. Since the book is
very attractive to a wide circle of readers, it would have been appropriate if
the author had placed at the beginning of the letters the dates of birth and death
of each artist. The number of letters of the fifteenth century, at the
beginning of the volume, is very limited, for obvious reasons. And immediately
the first letter of Ottaviano di Martino Nelli from Gubbio to Catherine, the Countess
of Montefeltro and Urbino, deserves special consideration, even if its content
seems insignificant. Even art lovers with a multifaceted culture will ignore the
name of this master, which is not visible among the three thousand Italian
painters mentioned by Lanzi. And yet his fresco of 1403 in the church of Santa
Maria Nuova in Gubbio (also cited by the author) with Mary and the child, and eight angels belongs to the best works that Italy had to
offer in that time. Anyone who recognizes the delicacy and heavenly purity in
the features of his Maria (a purity reminiscent of Gentile da Fabriano in the
forms, but of Fiesole [Beato Angelico] in the warmer feelings) cannot help but
get excited when that artist, now old, wrote a letter dated 1434, offering to
build himself the scaffolding to paint a fresco that the duchess had
commissioned, and even to mix lime and sand plaster. And yet, the fact that top
artists could be found not only in large centres such as Florence, Rome and
Venice, but also in smaller towns, as is this Gubbio, or here in Foligno, like
the case of the excellent Nicolò Alunno, was the most visible representation of
the general cultivation of fine arts in Italy.
 |
| Fig. 9) Nicolò Alunno, Ecce homo, 1480-1500, |
A letter of the famous Jacopo della Quercia to
the government of Siena, his hometown, where he informed the authorities of an
important event of war (certainly from Lucca, where he was), is particularly
important because we can see through it what role artists played also on these events external to art, and what public confidence they enjoyed.
 |
| Fig. 10) Jacopo Della Quercia, Trenta Altarpiece, 1416-1422, Lucca, Church of San Frediano |
Leon Battista Alberti’s letters are extremely
appealing because of their sense of nobility and freedom, as well as the beautiful
and simple expression, in the sense of the ancients. Like Leonardo, he belonged
to those men who are as perfect in body and in spirit as nature only rarely
produces. His remarkable personality is then dashed by the author with emotion.
How free and independent is the tone of the letters addressed to persons of
considerable rank, like to Piero Medici, son of the old Cosimo, or to Meliaduse
d'Este! In the dedication to Filippo Brunelleschi, his famous contemporary and
friend, included in the Italian translation of the treatise on painting
originally written in Latin, it is notable that, in addition to Brunelleschi,
he mentioned only Donatello, Lorenzo Ghiberti, Luca della Robbia, and, among
painters, only Masaccio as those who did not need to imitate the ancient
artists, whom he so much revered. The author dates this dedication between 1441
and 1446, because Alberti returned to Florence from northern Italy in 1441,
while Brunelleschi died in 1446. Because we are talking about Masaccio as
living, and the latter already passed away in 1443, the letter must have been
dated more precisely between 1441 and 1443.
In one of the letters written by Benozzo
Gozzoli about his so fascinating frescoes on the walls of the Palazzo Riccardi
chapel with the procession of the three Kings, the amiable artist wrote with a
touching modesty: "I am working as much as I can; it will remain to be
done what I cannot do, because I do not know how to do it. God knows that there
is no other thought that torments me more than this, and in the future I am seeking
ways and means to achieve something that at least in some parts may be
sufficient." I would also like to point out that the chapel is no longer
devoid of windows, as the author says. About twelve years ago, the building was
purchased by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who opened a large window, so that you
can see again the paintings in daylight.
 |
| Fig. 11) Benozzo Gozzoli, Adoration of the Magi, Florence, Palazzo Medici Riccardi, Chapel of the Magi |
We already know from Vasari that the enthusiasm
for the ancient architecture, which had awakened in Italy already in the first
part of the fifteenth century, had led at the same time to a strong feeling of
rejection against the Gothic architecture, which had spread in Italy two
hundred years before. There is no other text in which such rejection is better
expressed than in a passage proposed by the author. It is a writing of the excellent
architect and sculptor Antonio Filarete in his work on architecture, of which I
am reproducing here only the final words: "And so I beg everyone to abandon
this new style (i.e. the Gothic one) and not to be advised by those teachers
who follow such a wrong practice. Damn those who built in this way! I believe it
may have been only a barbarous people to take it to Italy."
Among the great letters of Andrea Mantegna, the
last refers to a painful episode in the artist's life, on which also Goethe informed
us. After completing so wonderful works to see the echo of his glory resounding
in entire Italy, at the end of his life he found himself in conditions of extreme
need. And in fact, in order to repay a maturing debt, he was forced, with
maximum sorrow, to offer the Duchess of Mantua an ancient statue of Faustina
for purchase, which for him was of great sentimental value. The way she exploited
the state of necessity of an artist, who has served the Gonzagas for 50 years
with the utmost dedication, forcing him to sell his most beloved statue at the
lowest possible price, sharpens even more our feeling of regret for the painful
situation of the artist.
Perugino's letters give us a new proof to the
contrary against his alleged greed, mentioned by Vasari (and already rightly
rejected by Passavant), namely the indication of a very moderate price
contracted for the completion of the famous fresco in the oratory of Maria de' Bianchi
in Città della Pieve, the birthplace of the artist. I think I am able to proof what
the [other] work was, for which Perugino acknowledged having received 80 ducats
from the aforementioned Isabella Gonzaga: it shows the Struggle between Sensual Love and Chastity, and is now in the Gallery of Louvre [7]. Yet Gaye and the author are right when they say it belongs to the
least successful works of the master, like everything he painted after 1500. I also
have the same opinion. Moreover, in this case, the subject corresponds insufficiently
to the spirituality of the teacher. Along with paintings of the same size by
Mantegna (like the Expulsion of vice by virtue, or the Apollo on Parnassus with the dancing muses), or by Lorenzo Costa (like the Coronation
of Duchess Isabella by Love), it was used to decorate the room of the Duchess
in Mantua. It has come to its present location after the sale of the Gonzaga Gallery
to King Charles I of England and the inclusion in its collection, and with the
sale of the same by George Cromwell, albeit through a third person (probably Eberhard
Jabach).
 |
| Fig. 12) Pietro Perugino, Struggle between Sensual Love and Chastity, 1503, Paris, Louvre Museum |
About Leonardo da Vinci, whose letters
immediately follow, the author very correctly said that he represented the
moment of transition of art from the fifteenth to the sixteenth century. As an
artist of the former century, to which he belonged in his first phase, he was
insufficiently studied, in my opinion. I intend to enter into more detail in another
place. The universality of his spiritual qualities and his very successful
scientific approach in a number of completely different disciplines among themselves
are rightly the subject of appreciation. Yet, it would also be appropriate to
mention his achievements in the fields of anatomy, since I do not think there
is none of his contemporaries who would have surpassed him in the accuracy of
the studies (not only for artistic purposes, but also for the ultimate purposes
of this discipline). The letter he addressed to his patron, Ludovico Sforza (a most
important letter for the life of Leonardo), where he promised to create
extraordinary things in the arts of war and weapons construction, as an
architect, as a sculptor and as a painter, is unfortunately without date (as it
is well known). The author still limited himself to make the general suggestion
“Milan 148*”. I believe however that, almost certainly, one could choose the year
1483. I share the opinion of L. Schorn and of the author that this writing was
already completed during the presence of Leonardo in Milan; however, from the
overall content it can be concluded that it was not written long after his
arrival, and was drafted even before he began working at the aforementioned
equestrian statue of Francesco Sforza. Now, however, a contemporary of
Leonardo, Monsignor Sabba Castiglione [also known as Brother Sabba da
Castiglione] [8] mentioning the destruction of
the model for the monument by the French in the year 1499, said that the artist
had worked there 16 years. So, the beginning falls in the year 1483. Judging
from the haste with which the Duke Lodovico wanted to provide the artistic
apotheosis of the founder of the greatness of the Sforza family, it can be
concluded that this work was not initiated long after our writing. We can draw
elements to visually imagine that monument from the very inspired draughts,
drawn in ink by Leonardo, who are in the valuable collection of original
drawings of the Queen of England in the Windsor Castle.
As for the famous, but lost, cartons on the
Battle of Anghiari, prepared for the city of Florence, on whose contents the
author reports the handwritten record of Leonardo, I have long been of the same
opinion of the author that its object was not only the episode of the struggle
of the four horsemen for the banner, which is known to us thanks to the etching
by [Gérard] Edelinck, but included an entire battle, and probably a few more
moments preceding it. It is known that more recently [Pierre Nolasque] Bergeret
has made an engraving based on a drawing that is located in Paris, and which
contains, in addition to the four horsemen, some other figures, which Passavant
tends to regard as a modern addition, but which I consider original.
 |
| Fig. 13) Gérard Edelinck, The fight for the banner, ca. 1665 - ca. 1699 |
 |
| Fig. 14) Pierre Nolasque Bergeret, The Battle of Anghiari, ca. 1800 |
End of the first part
Second part (April 6, 1854)
Although letters and other passages referring
to Raphael are well known to scholars thanks to Passavant’s work on Raphael,
his letters cannot certainly miss here, also because Passavant’s book is in the
hands of only very few people, due to the very high price. I will not repeat
here what Passavant and the author said about the importance of these writings.
I must confess, however, that I cannot but read with a deep melancholy the writings
concerning the assignment of Raphael as architect of St. Peter and the task that Leo X gave him to rebuild cartographically ancient Rome. In both cases, which
occupied most of his time in the last and most mature six years of his so short
life, posterity did not receive that a minimum feedback of the activity of
Raphael. Yet, these duties were the reason why he had to leave to his own disciples the execution of his paintings in the Room of the Fire in the Borgo, at the Farnesina, in the lodges, in the
cartons as well as for the majority of oil paintings, with few exceptions. For
those to whom a work of art arouses full satisfaction only if to the level of
education of the individual corresponds the same level of beauty of creation, this
is an immeasurable loss, because the distance between the realization of all above
referred works with his earlier works, executed by Raphael's hand, is
surprisingly large. So I agree with Rumohr that Pope Julius II, using Raffaello
only as a painter, but entrusting him work of great importance, understood much
better than Leo X the area in which his genius was unbeatable. In fact, his
talent as an architect always remained minor, and the task of restoration of
ancient Rome through charts, for which extensive and prolonged antiquarian
research was necessary, was an irresponsible use of such a creative genius,
like nature produced in very few cases. I consider, therefore, that the death
of Julius II was the only major calamity in which the artist has stumbled in
the otherwise wonderfully lucky parable of his life.
 |
| Fig. 15) Raffaello, Portrait of Pope Julius II, 1511, London, National Gallery |
At this point, the author discusses the
relationship between Raphael and Michelangelo. He is of course well aware that it
eventually ended up in pure hate between their followers, which was
never present between the two masters. However, if the author wants to state
the principle that Michelangelo never have fed any jealousy of Raphael, in that
case I cannot take sides with him. And I think I can beat the author with the
same reasons that he wants to apply to his case. He cites the generous praise
that Vasari, a follower of Michelangelo, spent for Raphael at the beginning and
end of his life, and argues that "Vasari was always perfectly aligned -
both in literature and in art - with his adored teacher, so that Vasari's
statements, particularly those made on these issues that concerned Michelangelo
himself, seem to be mostly attributable to Michelangelo himself, unless there
are reasons that speak to the contrary." I agree with it, also for the
praise addressed to Raphael (while noting that it most related to his
personality, more than to his art). But if so, then Michelangelo must also be
at the origin of the whole narration on Sebastiano del Piombo. Vasari told that
when many preferred Raphael’s paintings to those of Michelangelo, in particular
for their beautiful colour, the latter took Sebastiano under his protection,
since he liked his colour. In fact, he planned to [secretly] support Sebastiano,
providing him his own designs, so that he could refute the supporters of
Raphael, without having himself to intervene personally, and indeed could even judge
himself who of them was the best. And in fact this story is already included in
the first version of Vasari’s Lives published by Torrentino in
1550 [9], which Vasari handed over to Michelangelo.
Should one not think that Vasari had consulted him in advance, especially as
regards his relations with the other most famous painters? It is indeed highly
likely that, if Michelangelo had found there things which did not contribute to
his fame and had seriously misrepresented the truth, he would have not dedicated
him the sonnet full of lavish praise [10], to thank him of having sent the book (presented by the author in
German translation at page 228). To the author’s objection (page 315) that
Michelangelo would have got nothing to gain if a third [Sebastian] had painted
just as well as Raphael, I reply that he cared only to create from nothing a
rival for Sanzio. And, in some way, he accomplished to do it, because - in the
competition with Raphael’s Transfiguration - Sebastiano got the job by Cardinal Giulio Medici to paint the Resurrection
of Lazarus, and after Raphael's death he
was generally regarded as the first painter in Rome.
 |
| Fig. 16) Raphael, Transfiguration, 1518-20, Vatican Museums |
 |
| Fig. 17) Sebastiano del Piombo, The raising of Lazarus, 1516-1519, London, National Gallery |
The truth of Vasari’s story receives full confirmation
from various statements contained in a letter from Sebastiano del Piombo to
Michelangelo of October 15, 1512, reproduced by the author on page 316 ff. A
report, which he wrote about a conversation with Pope Julius II, states that the
Pope said that he liked so little the images of Raphael and his pupils in the Stanza di Eliodoro to be ready to destroy them, unless
corrections had not been operated within 4-5 days; if the frescoes were
destroyed, the new office would be entrusted to Sebastiano [11]. The latter would have answered the Pope
that he was ready to perform miracles with the help of Michelangelo. When
Sebastian shortly after called Raphael and his disciples "those young guys"
(quei giovanetti), the term could
only represent the way in which Michelangelo used to call them, because
Sebastian was two years younger than Raphael, then twenty-nine. Even the
affirmation of Michelangelo according to which Raphael had acquired his art not
due to nature, but to the study, contained in Condivi’s Life of Michelangelo,
as well as that (contained in Michelangelo’s letters discovered by Ciampi) in
which he wrote that Raphael owed to him what he knew in the art, do not certainly
testify to a positive personal attitude towards Raphael. Moreover, these are
negative judgments that today very few would share. Spurred by the perception
of his own greatness, Michelangelo treated brusquely other prominent artists
such as Leonardo da Vinci [12]. And indeed
the history of art shows us, in different times, examples that demonstrate that
the artists did not have a good opinion of each other, and more often were
related to each other with mutual dislike feelings. This was the case between Squarcione
and Jacopo Bellini, in the fifteenth century, and Titian and Pordenone in the
sixteenth century. Even to this day there is no shortage of famous examples.
 |
| Fig. 18) Correggio, The adoration of the shepherds (The night), 1528-1530, Dresda, Gemäldegalerie |
On no other major Italian painter -
notoriously - the documents are so scarce as on Correggio. As the author notes,
the awards which his art received in his time were as limited as the prices which
he obtained for his work. In the contract reproduced here, he received about
140 tolars for his famous Night of the Dresden Gallery. Even
his social relationships were very modest in comparison with those of Raphael,
Michelangelo and Titian. We need instead to the researches of Pungileoni the information
that he had nevertheless acquired an honourable position in the small court of
the Lord of Correggio: he was invited as a witness of the investiture of his patron
by Charles V, and as a guest on the occasion of his daughter's wedding.
 |
| Fig. 19) Michelangelo, Battle of the Centaurs, 1492, Firenze, Casa Buonarroti |
For no other artist we have instead so many
letters and relevant content as well as in the case of Michelangelo. The
section dedicated to him was then edited by the author with particular
attention. Of the resulting great personality, the author rightly emphasizes
gentleness, generosity, and benevolence, as features that can only surprise in
a character capable of resisting a so energetic pope as Julius II, whom
Michelangelo himself called a "terrible man". His main relationships
(with the Popes, with his hometown Florence, with Vittoria Colonna) are
discussed with foresight; the attempt to preserve the republican liberty in
Florence is justified. To everybody whose heart beats for art and for the fortune
of every ambitious spirit, it cannot but arouse pain to observe the innumerable
difficulties (first of all for the tomb of Pope Julius II) which persecuted
Michelangelo during most of his life, such as the loss of valuable time at the
marble mines of Carrara. Regarding the letter from Michelangelo to Lorenzo de' Medici
of July 2, 1496, published by Gualandi, the author [Guhl] was the first to
prove that the statue of a young to which reference is made, is the sculpture, considered
antique, of a cupid, cited by Vasari. Here we must also consider the first
letters of Pietro Aretino to Michelangelo; Aretino, in his day, was adored like
a deity, but the author, citing other letters, demonstrates convincingly his
spiritual depravity, which led him to not stick to his word. The fact instead that
Michelangelo did not disregard the value of his contemporaries after their
death, even in cases where he believed they had intentionally damaged him, is
demonstrated by his statements on Bramante, at the beginning of a letter to
Bartolomeo Bettini, in which he wrote: "There is no denying that Bramante
in architecture was more competent than any other who has lived since the
ancient times until today."
 |
| Fig. 20) Michelangelo, Dying Slave, 1513, Paris, Louvre Museum |
Towards the middle of the sixteenth century,
Benedetto Varchi, the Florentine scholar, had placed at the centre of the
debate on art the issue of the relationship between sculpture and painting, and
which of them deserved the primacy, and had collated the views of different
artists; among these, there was the opinion of Michelangelo. In a letter he addressed
to Varchi, the master, who was so expert in both arts, assigned the primacy to sculpture, and defined it the lantern of painting; he said, in fact, that they
are different as the sun and moon. The author comments that this letter as well
as Michelangelo's work proved that his artistic activity was mainly plastic,
and also in painting he was more addressed to the element of the form than to
the charm of the colour. This is an assumption on which we can agree, although it
seems to me that his attitude to fine arts was mostly typical of painting and
in such a pronounced form that even in his sculptures, both in style and in the
variety of features, the pictorial element predominated. This applies to his
first sculptures (like a relief with a frantic battle in the house of the
Buonarroti family in Florence) as well as for the works of the subsequent
period, such as Mary
with the child and four allegorical figures
in the funeral chapel of the Medici [13].
 |
| Fig. 21) Michelangelo, Medici Madonna, 1521-1534, Florence, Sagrestia Nuova di San Lorenzo |
When artists and art lovers wondered, after the
death of Michelangelo, which was the ranking to set up in relation to his
output in the four arts in which he had tried his hand, they put the
architecture in the first place, the sculpture in the second, the painting in
the third and the poetry in the fourth. In this hierarchy - according to the experts
of art of our time - only poetry should maintain unchanged the previous position
assigned to it, although his verses in themselves are very significant. As for the
other arts, painting should take the first place, sculpture the second and
architecture just the third. It would be really hard to find someone who would
now deny, based on a modern interpretation of art history, that the ceiling of
the Sistine Chapel is positioned as painting work to a level that cannot be
attributed to any of the sculptures of the artist. And therefore it is really
strange that Michelangelo himself assigned to painting, where he produced his
best output, such a less pronounced position compared to sculpture and even (as
the author himself notes) that he accepted the task of painting that ceiling,
namely his masterpiece, with so big a hesitation. This subjective discomfort of
such a wonderfully gifted genius hides something very humiliating and bitter on
the insufficiency of human nature. Even his main work in architecture, the dome
of St. Peter (however admirable it may be) did not reach the peak in painting
of the ceiling of the Sistine chapel. Finally, I would like to stress among the
numerous letters the one in which Vasari announced to Michelangelo the death of
his faithful servant Urbino. The noble suffering of a great spirit, the security
to meet the deceased in Paradise, the deep feeling of pain in this world,
everything is here expressed so movingly, that I really regret that the space
of these pages prevents me to play all in a comprehensive manner. Then for what
concerns the beautiful relationship of Michelangelo with Vittoria Colonna, the
author did well to include the sonnets addressed to her, according to the
translation of [Johann Gottlob] Regis. The flame of love that burns in them is
so pure and noble, and goes so far beyond any earthly thing, that rarely the
heart of a man was so inflamed.
 |
| Fig. 22) Michelangelo, Sistine Chapel, Creation of Adam, 1508-1512, Vatican Museums |
 |
| Fig. 23) Titian, Venus and the player of the lute , about 1555–65, |
At the beginning of the subsequent letters
(those of Titian), the author rightly proposes a comparison between him and Michelangelo.
And yet, Titian’s painting (with its vital fresh strength and the sensual tones
rich of the warmest colours) really corresponded to his cheerful spiritual
world, as lover of exterior luxury and of beautiful festivities. The contrast
between him and Michelangelo is absolute: the latter was the sublime loner who
despised all earthly splendour, and was all directed to the spiritual and
eternal (like the majestic sentiment which was expressed on the ceiling of the
Sistine). Which position of excellence Titian had taken in the world is clearly
reflected in the way in which princes and lords were competing in these letters
for his paintings, despite they had reached high prices, as if they were
particularly valuable assets. At the same time, the letter of Francesco
Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, shows how, even then, a great difference had been recognized
between his rushed and diligent works, which is so obvious to the eye of the
art lovers today. Gonzaga wrote in fact about a Christ which he wants to have,
"Please, therefore, be so good and do it with the same attention and
meticulousness that you like to use for those things with which you want to
earn your honour ... , so that it can be counted among the great works of
Titian." As for the Battle of Cadore, which was destroyed by the fire in
the Doge's Palace in 1577, (battle referenced by Titian in a petition to the
Senate Venice to obtain the mandate to make the painting), I would note that
fortunately a sufficiently large sketch of this masterpiece of the master has been
preserved in the Uffizi in Florence. In this almost excessive composition, so
alive and full of poetry, the main battle is unleashed on a bridge. In the
background is the army and, next to the men, one can see the nature at the same
time upset by a fire and a storm. This sketch evidently inspired Rubens for the
motif of the bridge in his famous Battle of the Amazons in Munich, for example
in the representation of some figures that are falling from the bridge. Both
Titian’s letters to Charles V and his son Philip II as well as their letters to
Titian offer us interesting information about the particularly high favour which
he enjoyed with these princes. In all these cases, the painter appears to be
well-placed in the forms of high society. You read that a letter from Titian to
Don Giovanni Benavides, an influential noble at the court of Philip II, would
honour also the noblest members of the court. His numerous letters also informs
on his other personal relationships as well as on many artworks of the artist.
 |
| Fig. 24) Anonymous XVI, Copy by Titian, The Battle of Cadore. Photograph of Giacomo Brogi (1822-1881). Source: Federico Zeri Foundation |
 |
| Fig. 25) Pieter Paul Rubens, Battle of the Amazons, 1619 |
I have already referred to Sebastiano del
Piombo. In his letters, which follow those of Titian, I would say that the
author gave an overly negative evaluation on him, when he said that
"though not without talent, he had devoted himself more to life than to
painting, and as for the latter he practiced it more due to external
circumstances that because of an inner impulse." The latter criticism is
justified only after Sebastiano took the profitable position of 'Friar del
Piombo'. Most of his pictures are, however, of such a noble quality, of such
purity and mastery of workmanship to be considered of equal dignity compared to
those of Raphael, Titian and Correggio.
 |
| Fig. 26) Daniele da Volterra, David slaying Goliath (about 1555), recto and verso, Paris, Louvre Museum |
Among the many letters that artists addressed
to Varchi on the relationship between sculpture and painting (which I have
already referred to) that of Agnolo Bronzino (together with the author’s notes)
is distinguished by clarity and beautiful writing style, although in my opinion
the one of Pontormo is peculiar for the correctness of the arguments. To the accusation
that painters can represent an object always and only on one side, and the
sculptors rather from all sides, the painters tried to replicate with facts. To
this replies belongs the famous painting by Daniele da Volterra in the Louvre,
showing on the recto David cutting off the head of Goliath and on the verso the
same scene displayed from the back. Even previously, Giorgione had already tried
to respond to these critics, representing from the back a man who bathes, but
with the front image reflected on the water, and thus visible in the mirror.
The author has very well done to include only
three of the many letters of Bandinelli, describing very well his reprehensible
nature and his art exclusively, aimed at an affected self-promotion. The letters
of Vasari to Duke Cosimo I, which shows the lowest level of adulation, are less
important than those of Michelangelo, as Vasari’s artworks are equally minor compared
to those of the master. Vasari appears instead in his amiable side in the
letters to his honoured teacher. All in all, the author was perhaps too
generous in the number of Vasari's letters included in the work. Moreover, in
them - as well as in those of the sculptor Ammannati - is reflected in a very
vivid way the decay of those years in Italy.
 |
| Fig. 27) Giorgio Vasari, Apotheosis of Cosimo I, 1563 - 1565, Florence, Palazzo Vecchio, Salone dei Cinquecento |
It remains for me only to express the ardent wish that the second part of this book, so rich in content, will follow very soon.
End of Part One
Go to Part Two
NOTES
[2] See: http://www.arthistoricum.net/themen/portale/gkg/quellen/guhl/
[3] Garberson Eric - Art History in the University II: Ernst Guhl, in: Journal of Art Historiography, Number 7 December 2012. The article is avaialble at: https://arthistoriography.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/garberson-article.pdf
[4] Schlink, Wilhelm - Herman Grimm (1828–1901): Epigone und Vorläufer. in: Aspekte der Romantik : zur Verleihung des „Brüder Grimm-Preises“ der Philipps-Universität Marburg im Dezember 1999 / edited by Jutta Osinski und Felix Saure, Kassel, Brüder-Grimm-Gesellschaft, 2001 (Schriften der Brüder-Grimm-Gesellschaft Kassel ; 32), pages 73-93
[5] The two volumes are available on Internet. See: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k164542d.r=laborde+l%C3%A9on.langFR and http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5511287d.r=.
[6] Deutsches Kunstblatt, Stuttgart, No. 13, March 30, 1854, pp. 112-115 http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/dkb1854/0120?sid=4517c5f5d31aaec5032a3393971f15c3&nixda=1&ft_query=guhl&navmode=fulltextsearch and Deutsches Kunstblatt, Stuttgart, N. 14, April 6, 1854, pp. 119-122. http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/dkb1854/0127?sid=d899ec13aea84eb1a1ef2a5ddf56e21c
[7] See: Waagen, Gustav Friedrich - Kunstwerke und Künstler in Paris (Artworks and artists in Paris), page 413. On these pages see ibidem, page 414 and ff. and page 414
[8] See his Memoirs Nr. XVIII, Vinegia close to Farri, 1560
[9] Part 3, Page 896 ff.
[10] [Note of the translator: Michelangelo’s Italian original is available at https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Rime_(Michelangelo)/277._Se_con_lo_stile_o_coi_colori_avete]
[11] The author notes rightly that we must absolutely not give full credibility to these statements. If the Pope had really not liked the paintings of Raphael in the Stanza della Segnatura, certainly he would have not destroyed those of Bramantino from Milan and Piero della Francesca in the Stanza di Eliodoro, to make room for the paintings of Raphael.
[12] A similar attitude of Michelangelo with reference to Perugino, Francesco Francia and others has been proven by Passavant in his Life of Raphael. See Part I, page 182 ff.
[13] Ibidem, Tables LVI and LVIII.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento