Lucia Collavo, [The Sample of the Giunti Edition of Giorgio Vasari's 'Lives', as read and annotated by Vincenzo Scamozzi]

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Lucia Collavo
L'esemplare dell'edizione giuntina de Le Vite di Giorgio Vasari letto e annotato da Vincenzo Scamozzi
[The Sample of the Giunti Edition of Giorgio Vasari's Lives, as read and annotated by Vincenzo Scamozzi]

in
Saggi e Memorie di storia dell’arte 29/2005

Review by Giovanni Mazzaferro

Vincenzo Scamozzi's ex-libris in the frontispiece of Urbis Romae Topographiae by Bartolomeo Marliani (1588),
Biblioteca Universitaria di Padova, B.86.b.248
Source: Archivio Possessori Biblioteca Marciana Venezia.
License:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/it/legalcode

Other contributions on Giorgio Vasari in this blog

When I am thinking of myself as a reviewer, I confess that I am often smiling: I consider myself as a particularly indulgent reviewer. A well-known film critic in Italy, Mr Vincenzo Mollica, is famous for never having slated anybody on the main TV public channel. I consider myself ideally as behaving similarly. I assume that, since he must not have approved everything he saw, he merely did not mention what he disliked. I am doing pretty much the same. Am I from time to time reading books I do not like? I am just simply not reviewing them. In this blog there are only very few cases where I strongly disagreed with the texts and they were most due to objective factors (in most cases, because of plagiarism). It is a matter of respect for the writer, first of all.

Not this time. This time I cannot but speak in a frank and candid way on this work by Ms Collavo (and on a following one of her, entitled Di Vincenzo Scamozzi lettore e critico di Giorgio Vasari scrittore e architetto: dall’esperienza di analisi del postillato H.P.K (On Vincenzo Scamozzi as a reader and critic of Giorgio Vasari as writer and architect: the experience of analysis of the annotated sample H.P.K.), which was published in Arezzo and Vasari. Vite e Postille). Reading them, I was so annoyed and upset that I cannot remain silent. My reservations concern the content (and I will talk about it later), but especially the approach, the use of language, and the verbosity of the text. 

Vincenzo Scamozzi, Villa Molin at La Mandria (Padua)
Source: Milazzi via Wikimedia Commons

A reader calls for respect

If a writer must be respected, then also and above all to the reader deserves the same. The reader is a person investing the most rare resource, i.e. time, to listen to what the writer has to say (this applies to any written text, from drug leaflets to novels, non-fiction, and scientific literature). A reader must be put first of all in a position to understand what reads. When the author writes deliberately so that an average educated person does not understand what he is reading, then there is something wrong. If I write a review and nobody understands me, this means that I have a problem; if I am writing a review to make sure nobody would understand me, this means that I am the problem. This is the case of Lucia Collavo.

A deliberately difficult language, sentences full of subordinate clauses and asides lasting ten lines on average (but at time reaching thirty lines), repetitions, unnecessary and detailed lists proposed at every turn, unnecessary literary quirks proving to be troublesome, an archaic use of language, 213 pages used to say things for which fifty pages would have been enough, signify the authoress's will to mark a distance, to place herself on a superior footing with the reader, who probably (in the author's intentions) should remain astonished by this authentic prodigy of erudition. A prodigy which, unfortunately, is vitiated by hundreds of typos (so much so that one may question whether the margin comments by Scamozzi were rightly transcribed) and literally opens with this 'pearl': "Having surpassed the turn of the century, and probably already within the second decade of the seventeenth century, also Vincenzo Scamozzi (1548-1616) read (or reread) and, in part, commented at the margin a copy of the second edition of the Lives of Giorgio Vasari released in Florence in 1568 by the Giunti company ... "(p. 1). "Probably"? Excuse me, but if Scamozzi died in 1616, it seems obvious that the margin notes were written "within the second decade of the seventeenth century." Is it possible that the authoress did not notice this futile mistake? In her defence, I am mentioning the fact that, in the text, the margin comments are traced back roughly to 1611 - and I am not agreeing with it - but the beginning is really embarrassing.

In my view, all this disarray has led to an awful consequence, namely that nobody was ever able to read Collavo’s essay (which, for heaven's sake, is often cited) in its entirety. Therefore, nobody has posed himself the problem to determine whether her interpretation of Scamozzi’s notes is correct or not. For me, in many cases, it is not. A tip: first go to the text of the marginalia, read them and try to make your opinion on them. Only afterwards you should pass to take a look at everything else. And now let us turn to substance.

Vincenzo Scamozzi, Theater 'all'antica'. View from the stage towards the gallery above the seating area,
Sabbioneta (Mantova)
Source: asbruff via Wikimedia Commons

The specimen H.P.K. of Vasari's Lives

The Vicenza-born architect Vincenzo Scamozzi was, as we have seen in a previous post, a 'serial' margin commenter of books. His library was dispersed, but his books are easily recognizable even today, because they are marked in a characteristic way in the title pages. Many of these books are full of hundreds of annotations or graphic signs that testify to the reading. Scamozzi did first of all study the books he was reading; he adopted a fully-fledged system of taking margin records as the way to 'organize' his study. He used this method since his youth: it is now assumed that the method was derived from his father and refined from the education received by the Jesuits in the two years spent in Rome between 1578 and 1579.

The specimen of the Giunti version of the Lives retaining the margin comments by Scamozzi is preserved in New York, at the heirs of Hans Peter Kraus, one of the most famous antiquarian booksellers of the twentieth century [1]. Ms Collavo, who discovered it, presented here for the first time its transcript. In general, the comments give account that the Lives were read especially for study, and that this study revealed - and it could not be otherwise - the architectural interest of Scamozzi. Too many times, talking about the notations that have reached us to date, it has been neglected that readers approached Vasari's work exactly because they wanted to study it. It is evident that the most interesting records are those in which the reader updates or supplements the information provided by Vasari, or those - sometimes very tasty as those by the Carraccis - where they used very colourful expressions to challenge the writer. But it remains that most of the annotations are merely underlining or margin notes that simply recall the content of the text (a date, the repetition of a name, a work in particular). Scamozzi is no exception.

Most of the notations are gathered in the initial part of the first volume, which includes an introduction of a technical nature dedicated to architecture, sculpture and painting, and specifically in correspondence of the pages on architecture. The other margin notes are scattered across the biographies of almost all architects and of the painters with origin from the Veneto region. 

Vincenzo Scamozzi (attributed to), Villa Nani Mocenigo at Canda (Rovigo)
Source: Threecharlie via Wikimedia Commons

The categorisation of margin notes

According to the author, the records can be divided into three large classes: "the annotations belong to three broad categories [...] on the grounds of the diversified attitude taken by the reader vis-à-vis the printed text, as determined by the annotations themselves: in most cases, Scamozzi learns from the printed text (margin notes type A); in some cases, he interacts with the text (margin notes type B); in several others, he is inspired by the text to put into writing his personal reflections (margin notes type C), which, however, are hopelessly bringing him away from the topic" (pp. 16-17). Although fascinating, the method does not hold against the proof of facts. I think this categorisation is not convincing for a banal reason, namely that even when Scamozzi is inspired by the text, he actually interacts with it. Thus, the interpreter is left with the task of determining whether a margin note is of type B or type C, which obviously varies according to personal views. An example may help: when Vasari writes in the Life of Brunelleschi (to enhance the work of the architect) "that the ancients did never go so high, with their fabrics", Scamozzi notes that nobody can say it for sure, because we know only some of their achievements: "we do not see anything but the minimal part of their works". This addendum is classified as type C; personally, I would like to understand why, given that it seems to me an interaction with the text and I do not think it as being “hopelessly away from the speech”.

More generally, according to the author Scamozzi developed, as a whole, a very sophisticated marking system of the text in which any symbols (even the commas, the punctuated pipes, the crossed pipes) have their hierarchical meaning, which indicates the greater or lesser importance attached by the architect to a particular passage. Now, there is not the slightest doubt that Scamozzi’s margin comments do not fall within the canonical definition that is normally given the 'texts written in the margin': they are not notes taken in one go, they do not mark an emotional reaction, and as such, they do not lack an intrinsic organization. We already said that Scamozzi systematically commented at the margin all books he read, and certainly he did not use a random method to this aim. However I would personally raise my eyebrows if we tried to give this device a further coherence than it has. But here we are entering the discussion of the dating of margin notes.

Vincenzo Scamozzi, Church of San Gaetano, Padua
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The dating of the margin notes

Scamozzi’s annotations may have a dual form: "The majority of the annotations (220 out of 282) are in a very small lower case cursive writing; it is, in most cases, an orderly and fluid writing, which is replaced - for the remaining fifth of Scamozzi’s handwritten presences – by a classic elegant Italian chancery-type writing, performed with extreme care only in a few special cases" (p. 2). For the authoress, it is important to emphasize the homogeneity of the apparatus, and to emphasize the hypothesis that the margin notes may be the result of a decades-long reflection and have matured in the proximity of the drafting of the Idea dell’Architettura Universale (his treatise on the Idea of a Universal Architecture). In this sense, also the two different types of calligraphy would correspond to a hierarchy of notes (the more important notes in chancery style, the less important ones in italics), whereas - as it is obvious - the most banal thing to think about is that the handwritings are different to distinguish footnotes affixed at different times. Ms Collavo falls in a glaring contradiction in the section entitled 'For the dating of the notations' (pp. 33-34). She begins by saying that "several deductive elements lead us to believe that the appearance of the manuscript interventions on the copy H.P.K., as a whole, occurred within a limited period of time." Then she points out a fundamental factor, i.e. that there is a margin note in which it appears a date and the author speaks in the present tense: it is the margin note number 184, written about the facade of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, where Scamozzi notes his reserve on the facade. It says: "October 1602, this facade is made of white and black marbles, but keeps German features because of the too thin colons and the forms of the ornaments, and in true does not have good things". Properly, it means that the margin notes should be more or less originating from than that period. But, in order to argue that they were written in direct relation to the drafting of the Idea of Universal Architecture, the authoress adds that they must have been drafted between 1602 and 1615. With an obvious consequence: that the writing of the notes did not occur "in a circumscribed period", but at least in the space of thirteen years. Ms Collavo does not notice this lack of consistency, and at this point cites another margin note (number 280), this time relating to a fortification made by Galeazzo Alessi in the harbour of Genoa. Here Scamozzi writes: “questa opera riesce molto rara” (this work is very successful): this postscript, undated, would be for the author the fruit of the work's direct vision during a hypothetical (and to date no confirmed) journey which Scamozzi made to Genoa in 1611: "taking into account the results of the analytical examination of the reflections and selections made by the reader on the copy H.P.K., this is another input supporting the view that the writing period of study remarks dates after the spring of 1611...". And what about the margin note 1602, just cited in the previous page? It disappeared, eclipsed, fell into nothingness. I'm not questioning whether Scamozzi made or not that trip to the Ligurian capital; or whether he did it in 1611. I am welcoming this hypothesis. It follows directly that the most reasonable interpretation - also confirmed by many other annotated specimens - is that the notes were not written at the same time, but that they witness a prolonged interest which Scamozzi had for Vasari's work. But Ms Collavo has a preconceived thesis and sacrifices the evidence to it.

Vincenzo Scamozzi, Palazzo Contarini degli Scrigni, Venice
Source: Didier Descouens tramite Wikimedia Commons

The attitude vis-à-vis Vasari

It remains to mention Scamozzi’s attitude vis-à-vis Vasari. It is evident that the architect comes from a world (in the Veneto region) where a negative attitude gained soon ground towards the Lives and their Tuscan-centrism. Just think - to make a case - to the footnotes on a Torrentiniana version, also preserved in the United States, penned by an intimate friend of the painter Domenico Campagnola, already discussed in this blog. A reflection of this negative prejudgment is the margin note 162, in which, ideally responding to Vasari, who placed Brunelleschi above all other ancient and modern architects, Scamozzi writes: "I know these are the crazy views which the Florentines braggers say, when they mean that the vault of the Ritonda [note of the editor: the Pantheon] was not difficult, and was made thanks to tricks". However, I take the view that, if we compare this with the margin notes to the Lives written by El Greco, by Federico Zuccari or by Annibale Carracci (i.e. those most famous and most critical), Scamozzi’s attitude towards Vasari is far more 'secular', and no doubt a lot more mature. Exactly in the mentioned cases, they display an impressive series of insults and nastiness against Vasari; here there are no insults. It is true: Vasari is targeted, but as an architect, both in terms of his creations and on a theoretical level. This is, however, understandable. For Scamozzi architecture is a 'science': It is based on rationality and measure, and has an undisputed superiority over painting and sculpture. For Vasari, instead, architecture is actually the last of the three sister arts, so much so that he comments on it in a hasty talk, without recourse to 'measures' and avoiding to spend any word on prospective (Scamozzi replied: 'thank God', and it is this probably the most salacious joke against the writer from Arezzo: it is however a rosy comment compared to Annibale Carraccis, who wrote he was “a fuckface”). Then, it is obvious that Scamozzi’s taste cannot match with one architectural style, which was guilty, according to him, to have corrupted the classicism of the fifteenth and early sixteenth century. It is no coincidence that the Vicenza-born architect defines the Uffizi, designed by Vasari, as a "very weak work" (margin note number 52) because he perceives here a real reversal in the 'grammar' of orders. This fits well with a later addendum (margin note number 54) in which Scamozzi says, about Buonarroti, that "if Michelangelo had not achieved great fame in works of sculpture and painting, in these comments he would not merit lauds but blame." The criticism, as we can see, takes place on stylistic grounds, on the merits, and not in a preconceived way.

There is no overall a-priori rejection of everything that Vasari says: in essence, this is also shown by the fact that Scamozzi substantially accepts all his views on the architects, and (above all), the painters from the Veneto area, and, even more, takes into account the objective importance of the annotations placed in Brunelleschi's biography. While not agreeing - we have just seen – with the idea that Brunelleschi was the greatest architect of all time, Scamozzi identifies him (and certainly not a Venetian architect) when it comes to singling out the figure of a 'ideal' creator (the 'vir bonus dicendi peritus' – the good person, who is also smart in speaking – among the architects'), capable of ethical consistency to hold up as a model. He often drafts moralizing annotations on him, resulting in reflections also on his own professional experience.

For all these reasons, it would be wrong if we levelled out Scamozzi’s notes as similar to other much more controversial and prevented comments. Otherwise, we would fail to grasp the real wealth of Scamozzi’s thought: a system that allowed him to speak as a peer to the great architects of the Roman world and to those of the Renaissance, capturing their merits and weaknesses, with an analytical capacity which the margin notes reveal to have been much beyond what was common at his time.

NOTES

[1] See in this blog Giovanni Mazzaferro, The Annotated Specimens of Vasari's 'Lives': an Inventory.