[German Connoisseurs between 19th and 20th Century], edited by Francesco Caglioti, Andrea De Marchi, Alessandro Nova. Part Two

CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

I conoscitori tedeschi fra Otto e Novecento
[German Connoisseurs between 19th and 20th Century]
Edited by Francesco Caglioti, Andrea De Marchi, Alessandro Nova

Milan, Officina Libraria, 2018

Review by Giovanni Mazzaferro. Part Two

Moretto da Brescia, Saint Justina with a donor (attributed to Moretto by Carl Friedrich von Rumohr - see p. 20), Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Go Back to Part One

Chiara Battezzati. 

Carl Friedrich von Rumohr (1785-1843) tra Milano e Brescia: riflessioni e nuove letture 

[Carl Friedrich von Rumohr (1785-1843) between Milan and Brescia: reflections and new readings].

(pages 15-26)

Chiara Battezzati’s contribution referred to the presence of Carl Friedrich von Rumohr in Lombardy and, more in general, to the skills of connoisseur which he proved to have on Lombard painting. The survey started with the Drey Reisen nach Italien [Three Journeys to Italy] (1832) and then analyzed a much less well-known article, dedicated to Moretto, published in the magazine «Echo» in 1837. Battezzati had already dealt with it in a more extensive survey published in the magazine «Concorso», to whose review, already published in this blog, I would like to refer. On the Drey Reisen, which highlighted, in addition to the skills of von Rumohr, his interest in the sources (which are the highest expression of the Italienische Forschungen (Italian Researches, 1827-1831)) and the substantial mix between aesthetic issues and art history, still typical of those years, please refer to the review also brought out on this blog by Francesco Mazzaferro.

Alfonso Litta, Miriam Laffranchi
Johann David Passavant (1787-1861) in Lombardia, fra i taccuini di Francoforte e gli articoli sul «Kunst-Blatt»
[Johann David Passavant (1787-1861] in Lombardy, between the Frankfurt notebooks and the articles on the «Kunst-Blatt»
(pages 27-38)

Alfonso Litta and Miriam Laffranchi are the scholars who researched most about Johann David Passavant. With a difference: while Litta published his research in Johann David Passavant, Contributi alla storia delle antiche scuole di pittura in Lombardia [Contributions to the History of the ancient schools of painting in Lombardy. Silvana editoriale, 2015], to whose review we are referring, Ms Laffranchi has not (yet) managed to print the transcription of the first and part of the second of thirty-seven notebooks that the scholar left as a legacy at the Städel Museum in Frankfurt, a museum institution which owns enormously to Passavant. I will therefore concentrate mainly on this last aspect. Passavant's notebooks began chronologically with the second Italian trip (1834-35) and terminated just before 1860. Naturally, they did not include the notes relating to the stay in Italy alone, but were extended to all study trips following, in fact, 1834 (I insist on the date, because the famous trip to England, which led to the publication of the Kunstreise durch England und Belgien in 1833, then translated into English by Lady Eastlake in 1836 [3], was obviously earlier and therefore not contemplated).

Laffranchi was able to transcribe (I understand, without being particularly facilitated in his task by the administration of the archives of the museum) the first notebook and part of the second, for a total of eighty manuscript pages referring to the second Lombard trip. This finally allowed reconstructing the tour, and the meetings with antique dealers, collectors, painters and restorers. It is certainly not a coincidence (given the relatively contained period of time between the two events) that many of the figures mentioned are those encountered by Mary P. Merrifield in her Italian voyage of 1845-46 [4]. From the notes it emerged, according to the scholar, a more spontaneous picture of Passavant’s research activities, necessarily more measured and less 'courageous' in the articles he wrote for the «Kunst-Blatt».

Passavant showed, moreover, that he had difficulties to evaluate the late 15th-16th Lombard style (Bramantino in particular), but was capable of 'prophetic' attributions, as in the case of the Grifi Altarpiece of the Berlin Museum, attributed to Marco d'Oggiono (at the time, believed to be by Gaudenzio Ferrari, and later attributed by Wilhelm von Bode to Leonardo). In any case, the study of sources was an element that Passavant always had in mind as a complementary and additive element to attributional activity. In this regard, I would like to recommend reading the recent essay by Susanna Avery-Quash and Corina Meyer on the correspondence between Passavant and Eastlake between 1845 and 1846 [5].

Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio and Marco d'Oggiono, The Resurrection of Christ with Saints Leonardo and Lucia (or Grifi Altarpiece)
Source: Web Gallery of Art via Wikimedia Commons

Dóra Sallay
«Pratichissimo della scuola senese»: Johann Anton Ramboux (1790-1866) conoscitore
[«Most expert of the Sienese school»: Johann Anton Ramboux (1790-1866) as a connoisseur]
(pp. 39-51)

Johann Anton Ramboux is best known for his extraordinary activism of iconographic 'popularizer' of religious art of Italian primitives. His life choice was determined by a profound religious sense matured in the shadow of the German Nazarenes. During two or three extended stays in Italy (certainly, two took place in 1816-1822 and 1833-1842/3) Ramboux copied an impressive number of sacred works especially in central Italy. Ramboux's ability as a draftsman and copyist (recently an online photographic exhibition organized by the «Kunst» was dedicated to his drawings and watercolors) was however only the prerequisite that led him to publish a series of volumes of lithographs intended to make the works known to the general public.

Between 1837 and 1842, moreover, Ramboux did not limit himself to continuing his incessant activity as a visual witness of the works, but also began collecting them, with particular reference to the Sienese primitives. In fact, Siena was where the scholar focused his research activities, making a long and lasting friendship with the educated community of the city, from the Milanesi brothers to Carlo Pini. A friendship that continued even when Ramboux returned definitively to Germany (between 1842 and 1843), becoming curator of the Wallraf Museum in Cologne and remaining there until his death.

The researcher did not publish studies on Sienese art and for this reason his connoisseurship went unnoticed, compared to the skills of illustrator and copyist. A careful examination of the catalogue that he himself published in 1862 to describe his personal collection (dispersed after his death) shows, however, some characteristic aspects: in the absence of certain data on his formation, it highlighted how Ramboux knew very well ancient and modern sources (see page 42), and, in principle, tended to refer to what was previously published. His good qualities of connoisseur emerged, obviously, in his works on art sources which were historically 'forgotten' but, thanks to Ramboux, returned to the spotlight. This is especially the case for primitives. The corpus of the works of the Sienese Giovanni di Paolo, Sano di Pietro, Matteo di Giovanni, Guidoccio Cozzarelli, and Neroccio de' Landi grew thanks to the German connoisseur and, even when the attributions proved to be incorrect, opened up new avenues of research on which other scholars would enter later.

David Ekserdjian
Gustav Fredrich Wagen (1794-1868) and the Treasures of Art in Great Britain
(pp. 52-60)

The author gave examples of Gustav Waagen's connoussership from his main work, the Treasures of Art in Great Britain (three volumes published in 1854), followed immediately by an additional volume titled Galleries and Cabinets of Art in Great Britain (1857). The translator of the German volume was, once again (see Passavant above), Elizabeth Rigby, or Lady Eastlake. As a result of the expansion of the previous Kunstwerke und Künstler in England und Paris, with regard to the English part only (an English translation had come out with the title Works of Art and Artists in England in 1838), the Treasures and the Galleries were brought out when Waagen had been director of the Berlin Gemäldegalerie for more than twenty years, conducting campaigns for the acquisition of hundreds of works in collaboration with von Ruhmor, and professor of art history (the first chair of the discipline at all) at the local University since 1844.

Through the reference to a series of attributions Ekserdjian basically pointed out some aspects: the criteria with which Waagen took notes on the works he saw are not known, but it is extremely probable that he had notebooks like all the great connoisseurs of the time; it is certain that Waagen demonstrated an extraordinary visual memory (see the case of attributions to Giorgio Gandini del Grano, a minor parmesan painter of the early XVIth century - see page 57); and above all, the scholar developed an innate ability to recognize quality in the works (one of the most important aspects of the connoussership, according to what Mina Gregori wrote in her introduction to the present volume).

As for me, it seems right to recall at this point two writings of Waagen reviewed in this blog by Francesco Mazzaferro: nothing directly to do with the 'prototype' of the connoisseur, but, in my opinion, something testifying how, in practicing daily this role, the scholar still had a particular attention (marked by philosophical idealism) to the individuality of the artist: these are the two reviews he wrote on the anthology Letters of artists by Ernst Karl Guhl, published between 1853 and 1856. 

Hans Holbein il Giovane, The Ambassadors (seen by Waagen in 1835 in the Earl of  Radnor's collection - see. p. 54), 1533, London, The National Gallery.
Source: https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/bQEWbLB26MG1LA 

Patrizio Aiello
Gustavo Frizzoni (1840-1919), Wilhelm Bode e l’eredità del Cicerone
[Gustavo Frizzoni (1840-1919), Wilhelm Bode and the legacy of the Cicerone]

Frontispiece of the first edition of Jacob Burckardt's Cicerone (1855)
Source: https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/burckhardt1855/0001/image

The editorial events of Il Cicerone. Guida al godimento delle opere d’arte in Italia [Cicero. Guide to the enjoyment of works of art in Italy], published by Burckhardt (1818-1897) in 1855, are of particular interest and introduce us in some way, in the context of the facts we are commenting, to the great connoisseurs of the second half of Nineteenth century, whether Italians or Germans. One of these was precisely Gustavo Frizzoni, while on Wilhelm von Bode (1845-1929) we will return to the next essay. Frizzoni was, in fact, the alter-ego of Giovanni Morelli. The title of Aiello's contribution recalls in particular an episode, a letter that Frizzoni sent to the old Burckhardt in 1888 to comment on the fifth edition of Cicero, in which, in fact, he suggested a series of modifications to the attributions presented in the work.

We must, however, first take a step back by returning to the enormous editorial success of Burckhardt’s work (but not in Italy, where it was translated only in 1952). In the German-speaking world, there were about ten editions up to the end of the XIX century. The second one was dated 1869, almost fifteen years later than the first one, and already showed a characteristic that would be, in a much more evident way, of all the others. It was not edited by Burckhardt (who still maintained a general supervision), but by Alfred von Zahn, who relied on a group of collaborators and experts for the necessary updates and completions. They also included Gustavo Frizzoni. Close to the exit of the third edition (1873), Zahn passed away and the introduction was therefore written by Wilhelm von Bode; precisely von Bode (a great friend of Burckhardt and a pivotal figure of the Wilhelminian art world) edited the fourth (1879). As from now on, we are facing with an editorial distortion: while Zahn had taken care to keep the original setting, Bode reviewed it in its entirety and Burckhardt (who also maintained an apparent supervision) became almost a brand, a bit like we could say today of those well-known dictionaries of language first printed in the late XIX century and now produced online with modern technologies under the supervision of new teams. These were years in which Bode and Morelli expressed very different opinions on nodal issues of attributionism (for example on Verrocchio's pictorial work), and above all Morelli’s 'scientific method' was not very appreciated by the great German scholar, which in many ways appeared closer to Cavalcaselle. Personal relationships were difficult and even the opinions expressed on the new edition of the Cicerone were affected: Frizzoni expressed reservations about the work. In the middle of all, of course, there was still Burckhardt, who, however, as a personal friend of Bode and probably closer to his sensibility, made it clear that he was outside the connoisseurship world, and had an idealistic perspective that had little to do with attribution matters. He wrote in 1882: "It is indeed a wonderful thing to get to know a master through his works, to penetrate his spirit; but there is a reason and an advantage also in the other thing, in not worrying if the attribution of the picture is correct, provided it generates in us the sensations of beauty, provided it appeals to our intimate ideal and appears to us as a symbol of sublime" (p.65).

The fifth edition of Cicero (1884) was the last straw. Frizzoni did not even review it. Only four years later, after skirmishes involving Hugo von Tschudi, a pupil of Bode, and Morelli himself, he made an assessment in which he made a sort of inventory of all the unresolved and contestable issues present in the work. A few months later he wrote directly to Burckhardt, essentially repeating the same complaints. Burckhardt, once again, abstained from joining the quarrel, but made it clear that he had lost all enthusiasm for a work that, about thirty-five years after its initial publication, no longer felt as his own. In fact, very few of Frizzoni's observations would be accepted in the sixth edition of the work (1893), but in the meantime Morelli’s front was reinforced thanks to the arrival of a very young Bernard Berenson (1865-1959) from America, who, in one writing in 1894, whose paternity is not certain, but very probable, enhanced criticism and above all highlighted a fundamental aspect, namely that, in forty years, the Cicerone has lost its rationale, the "quality of a distinctly individual artwork", turning into a sort of repertoire and thus underlining the need to return to the 1853 edition to fully grasp its undoubted qualities. 

Francesco Caglioti
Su Wilhelm von Bode (1845-1929)
[On Wilhelm von Bode (1845-1929)]
(pp. 73-86)        

Leonardo da Vinci, Portrait of Ginevra de' Benci (attributed to Leonardo by Wilhelm von Bode - see p. 79), about 1474-1478, Washington, The National Gallery
Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Ginevra_de%27_Benci_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Wilhelm von Bode was a fundamental figure in the Wilhelmin artistic world. His personal professional parable coincided, in fact, with the second German Empire. Bode took up service in the Berlin museums as an assistant in 1872 and left at the end of 1920, after the defeat of the First World War, the fall of the Hoenzollerns and the birth of the Weimar Republic. In those fifty years, climbing all the steps of the Berlin museum institutions, Bode asserted himself as the true embodiment of the Wilhelminan cultural policy in the artistic field, creating a museum pole of absolute excellence in the German capital. Caglioti wrote about him: "All his frenetic industriousness was spent, with enormous successes, in delivering in Berlin that wealth and articulation of public collections necessary to one of the greatest European capitals, recovering the delays that the neo-imperial city had matured in the meantime compared to Paris, Vienna, St. Petersburg and London" (page 76). The real reference models of Bode were the English museums: the British Museum, South Kensington (today Victoria and Albert), the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery. It is to them that the scholar was inspired (and he was not the only one in the German-speaking world: think of Gottfried Semper for the South Kensigton) and with whom he came into competition, always looking for works of art (especially Flemish and Italian) to be purchased at low prices and then demonstrate, with his attributions, that they were authentic masterpieces. Bode's methods, in this anxiety of acquisitions, were not always orthodox. Camillo Miceli, in his article on Hermann Voss and the post-war reopening of the "Kunst" in Florence, in autumn 1822 (see Part Four), highlighted how von Bode had often sent young scholars to the Tuscan capital, not only to deepen their research, but also with the task of trying to identify particularly attractive purchase opportunities. And Caglioti added: "If we Italians wanted to reconstruct from an unprecedented point of view the difficult history of the first protective measures in the new unitary state, at least until the 1902-03 laws, we could follow the moves of Bode, an indefatigable traveler and buyer in regions of the Center and North, and resolved to take away even, and fortunately in vain, the altar with the Saint Sebastian byAntonio Rossellino in Empoli, or the polyptych by Luca Signorelli in Arcevia, or the Triptych Portinari by Hugo van der Goes"(pp. 78-79). After all, it is well known that Adolfo Venturi himself (since 1888, head of the Italian Central Direction of Antiquities and Fine Arts, when faced with the behavior of Bode above all, sought a meeting point with the directors of foreign museums, inviting them to be part of the commissions, which decided which Italian works of art to export, trying thereby to make them responsible for the conservation of the Italian heritage [6].

As often happens when dealing with a great connoisseur (and, in this case, a connoisseur with almost universal skills compared to artistic production), what is most discussed are the mistakes, rather than the correct assignment of the works. Regarding Caglioti, he signaled two of them, trying to contextualize them. The first concerned the Medicean San Giovannino, which von Bode considered to be the work of the young Michelangelo (today, it is attributed instead to Domenico Pieratti, and then subsequent to almost a century later in terms of execution). It must be said that, even at the time, the work was the subject of debate, and precisely the doubts on his paternity made that Van Bode (convinced of Michelangelo’s hand) could buy it at a relatively low price. It should not be forgotten that, at the time, the Berlin museums did not possess Michelangelo's sculptures and it was therefore also a matter of international prestige: almost all European capitals could boast one (and there too fakes abounded, to be honest). Very similar is the question of the so-called Pala Grifi, which already Passavant, as we have seen, had assigned to the catalogue of Marco d'Oggiono. Rediscovered in the deposits of the Gëmaldegalerie, Bode had not hesitated to assign it to Leonardo: even here it was the consequence, in truth, of the urgency of owning a work of the famous artist.

And always with regard to Leonardo, one cannot keep silent about the attributional affair that most criticism raised against von Bode, namely that relating to the wax bust of Flora, bought in 1909 in England at a very low price and then declared to be the work of Leonardo. Even in this case, the political implications were obvious: the German experts had played a cruel trick on the English ones. However, a few months later, an article was published in the English press saying that Flora was the work of contemporary sculptor Richard Cockle Lucas. The story and all that ensued had a huge echo throughout Europe and risked to undermine the credibility of Bode, the director of all the museums of Berlin since five years. On this, Caglioti took a firm stance and stated that "the time is now ripe certainly not to greet in the Flora a masterpiece of Leonardo, but just as certainly to recognize an interesting plastic exercise of Leonardo’s circles" (p. 86).

The plate of the wax bust of Flora published in Francesco Malaguzzi Valeri, Leonardo da Vinci e la scultura, Bologna, Zanichelli, 1922 attributed to a 'Leonardesque manner'
Source: https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Pagina:Francesco_Malaguzzi_Valeri_-_Leonardo_da_Vinci_e_la_scultura,_Bologna,_1922.djvu/154

Nevertheless, the enormous visual quality of von Bode's connoisseurship remains intact: to be noted, almost all the connoisseurs of whom we will speak from here onwards practiced under his aegis or, if in professional contrast with him, could not help but recognize his authoritativeness; it remains - I would like to add - that it is also thanks to von Bode that the center of German art moved from Munich to Berlin; and (rightly not the subject of this survey), one should stress his relationship with contemporary artists (starting from his decades-long friendship with Max Liebermann) and with the directors of art galleries and the great merchants [7].

End of Part Two
Go to Part Three 

NOTES

[3] On Lady Eastlake, see what Julie Sheldon wrote in Susanna Avery-Quash, Julie Sheldon, Art for the Nation. The Eastlakes and the VictorianArt World, London, The National Gallery, 2011.

[4] See La donna che amava i colori. Mary P. Merrifield: Lettere dall’Italia(1845-1846) [The woman who loved colors. Mary P. Merrifield: Letters from Italy (1845-1846)], edited by Giovanni Mazzaferro, Milan, Officina Libraria, 2018.

[5] Susanna Avery-Quash and Corina Meyer, ‘Substituting an approach to historical evidence for the vagueness of speculation’: Charles Lock Eastlake and Johann David Passavant’s contribution to the professionalization of art historical study through source-based research in Journal of Art Historiography, N. 18/2018.

[6] See Giacomo Agosti, “Storici dell’arte”,“Conoscitori” e “Funzionari di musei”: i colleghi tedeschi di Adolfo Venturi acavallo tra XIX e XX secolo ("Art historians", "Connoisseurs" and "Museum officials": German colleagues of Adolfo Venturi at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries) in Kunstliteratur als Italienerfahrung [Artistic literature as an experience of Italy], edited by Helmut Pfotenhauer, Tübingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1991.

[7] In this regard, I would like to signal the conference in Bern, on 8 and 9 November of this year, on “Wilhelm von Bode and the Art Market”, which seems to be an important occasion for reflection on the subject.