Carlo Cesare Malvasia. [The Paintings of Bologna 1686 ]. Edited by Andrea Emiliani. Part One

CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Carlo Cesare Malvasia
Le pitture di Bologna 1686
[The Paintings of Bologna 1686]

Facsimile reprint accompanied by research indexes, a bibliographic and informational commentary and an illustrated repertoire

Edited by Andrea Emiliani

Bologna, Edizioni Alfa, 1969

Review by Giovanni Mazzaferro. Part One

Fig. 1) The front-cover of the version edited by Andrea Emiliani
Source: https://www.ebay.it/i/281904794312?chn=ps

Exactly fifty years ago, Andrea Emiliani printed Le pitture di Bologna (The Paintings of Bologna) by Carlo Cesare Malvasia (1616-1693) in the original version of 1686. The text was shown in a photographically reduced facsmile reproduction, accompanied by an introductory essay, a rich iconographic apparatus and a dense series of notes referring to the approximately 2400 works cited by the canon of Bologna. The apparatus aimed at identifying those artworks, including their modern location, and providing the main bibliographical references referring to them.

What is the point of reviewing The Paintings of Bologna today? It is, first of all, a dutiful homage to Emiliani, who died just over a month ago. However the main rationale is, at least for me, to (re) propose Malvasia’s 'critical problem' to the attention of the scholars. Fortunately, the critical edition of the Felsina pittrice (1678), edited by Elizabeth Cropper and Lorenzo Pericolo, has been published for seven years now. However, as far as I can see, there is still no monograph dedicated to Carlo Cesare and, with specific reference to The Paintings of Bologna, the edition edited by Emiliani has remained the last one. I think its main limit (albeit in a "pioneering epoch") is not to propose an adequate historical contextualization of the work. In many ways, therefore, this is a review that proposes questions and raises doubts about a text that, in my opinion, is too often quoted simply as the first printed artistic guide of Bologna (since those by Lamo and Cavazzoni, had remained manuscript at the time,  the first one being even unknown to Malvasia). Unlike the Felsina, however, the Paintings of Bologna had a great editorial fortune, with four reprints made until 1766 and an overall rethinking and updating starting in 1776 thanks to Carlo Bianconi, Marcello Oretti and Francesco Maria Longhi; however, its fortune is based on a reductive interpretation of the work, that is, on its ‘being a guide’ and therefore a mere consultation tool for the traveler. It's not just like that. Too often we forget that The Paintings of Bologna had their genesis in the controversy that broke out following the publication of the Felsina pittrice and that they therefore should be seen as the second stage of a historiographical project (which probably included a third one) aimed at the revaluation of the Bolognese pictorial school [1].

Fig. 2) Vitale da Bologna, Saint George and the dragon, about 1330-1335, Bologna, Pinacoteca Nazionale
Source: Web Gallery of Art via Wikimedia Commons

Malvasia in the 1960s

Emiliani himself clarified immediately, in the introduction to the volume, that he was producing a simple compilation. The statement was extraordinarily humble, considering, for example, the very rich apparatus of notes. Certainly, fifty years have passed: the bibliography (already deliberately reduced to some key texts) has obviously aged since and the studies (especially as much as attributions are concerned) have gone ahead. Nevertheless, it is certainly worth mentioning the climate in which the version edited by Emiliani materialized. The work came out in 1969 in the catalogue of the publisher Edizioni Alfa. The company had been established in Bologna in 1954, thanks to Elio Castagnetti; among others, it produced catalogues that have made history, such as the one on the Guido Reni exhibition of 1954 and the Carraccis of 1956. Around the Edizioni Alfa gravitated, in fact, a nucleus of art historians of the calibre of Cesare Gnudi, Gian Carlo Cavalli, Francesco Arcangeli and, precisely, Andrea Emiliani who undoubtedly represented the best of the post-war Bolognese art criticism (on the history of the publishing company see http://bimu.comune.bologna.it/biblioweb/mostra-edizioni-alfa/80-2/, which is an online report of the exhibition held in Bologna, at the Biblioteca dell'Archiginnasio from 25 September to 19 November 2017). Perhaps not everyone knows, however, that The Paintings of Bologna was not the only exegetic commitment taken by Emiliani to study Malvasia. In fact, in the mid-1960s the Milanese Edizioni Labor gave life to a series entitled Gli storici della letteratura artistica italiana (The historians of Italian art literature) curated by Bruno Dalla Chiesa and Angela Ottino Dalla Chiesa, planning to reproduce a facsimile edition of the twenty-five most important texts of Italian art historiography. As one can read in the specimen that I have already presented in this blog, the intention went beyond a simple facsimile reproduction (which, in a world without Internet, had the merit itself of putting back into circulation the work), but to promote “the compilation of introductions and indexes supplementing the texts and based on the results of studies. Each work will therefore be accompanied by a bio-bibliographic introductory essay on the author, his sources of information and subsequent studies to date, and a meticulously analytical index concerning the artists mentioned, the characters, the places, the monuments, the movable works, and furthermore the terminological, technical and linguistic intricacies contained in the text. These editorial parts have been entrusted, work by work, to highly and particularly qualified scholars.... At the end of the publication of the series, a general alphabetical directory of concordance will serve as a guide and as a link to all the reprinted works". The twenty-five titles in question also included Malvasia’s Felsina pittrice, which was to be edited by Giancarlo [sic] Cavalli and Andrea Emiliani. Unfortunately the Edizioni Labor went bankrupt a few years later and only five of the promised works were published. It must also be said that, in a few cases, the curators compensated the disappearance of the publishing house by benefiting from the financing of bank foundations, which published the results of their efforts. This did not happen, however, with the Felsina pittrice, so that we cannot know how much material had been collected at the time. However, there is a faint trace of the initiative of the Labor editions in the introductory essay by Emiliani to The Paintings of Bologna, where he wrote that "the work done here will be better refined and conducted in the commented edition of the Lives of Painters Bolognese, politely urged by Bruno Della Chiesa’s wise assessment and prepared together with G.C. Cavalli" (p. XVII). Apparently, the project was quickly abandoned: in 1971 the Alfa Editions published an anthological edition of the Felsina Pittrice curated by Marcella Bragaglia, in which the lives of some art creators were transcribed, without indexes or annotations, but with an introduction that clearly revealed the literary formation of the authoress, a pupil of the scholar of Italian literature Ezio Raimondi. In other words, the focus was on Malvasia’s language (an aspect that is extremely important) rather than on the specific artistic aspects. 

Fig. 3) Lippo di Dalmasio, Polyptych from S. Croce, about 1390, Bologna, Pinacoteca Nazionale
Source: Sailko (Francesco Bini) via Wikimedia Commons

An act of debunking

The complete title of the guide of Malvasia is "The paintings of Bologna, which further prove - through the proposed evidence - their unparalleled higher antiquity and excellence, thereby debunking and instructing the travellers". As author, it mentioned a member of Bologna’s Accademia dei Gelati called 'Ascoso'. Of course, he was none else but Malvasia himself, a member of that Academy (founded in 1588) and known, precisely, with the name of "Ascoso". In sum: the paintings would serve to eradicate biased views (the Italian verb disingannare was here used in the sense of ‘debunking’) and instruct the visitor, through the evidence the Bolognese author provided of their greater antiquity and excellence, compared to other schools.

Who were the adversaries? There is no doubt that the main one was Filippo Baldinucci. In order to explain ourselves better, we must take a step back. The publication of the Felsina Pittrice was accompanied, as it is known, by many controversies. In particular, critics blamed Malvasia’s challenging of the Tuscan-centric vision of art in Vasari's Lives; they argued against the resulting conclusions, which denied the Lives’ narrative and in particular the idea of a resurrection of past dead art (due to the well-known medieval events) thanks to Cimabue first and Giotto later on. The claims against Malvasia, in fact, did not end there: he had also disputed Vasari's assertion that Francesco Francia would have passed way immediately after seeing Raphael's Saint Cecilia (fig. 7), overwhelmed by the beauty of the work and, last but not least, defined Sanzio as 'boccalaio urbinate' (i.e. a ‘mug seller from Urbino’) an expression, as Malvasia would claim later on, would have been inserted into the printed text without him having been previously informed. Malvasia’s alternative view aroused the immediate reactions of the "custodians" of the Tuscan supremacy, but also of those who, starting from the Tuscan origins of arts, had built a narrative that saw classicism moving from Florence to Rome. With regard to the disputed supremacy over the antiquity of art, Filippo Baldinucci published in 1681 the first tome of his Notizie dei professori del disegno (Notes on the Teachers of Drawing), in which he inserted a text which was entitled: About those who restored the art of drawing. Apology for the glories of Tuscany as asserted by Giorgio Vasari from Arezzo, and at the honour of the Florentine Cimabue and Giotto [2]. The never mentioned addressee of this critical text was, of course, Malvasia. In support of his theses, Baldinucci cited a series of authorities on the subject, starting with Dante and ending with Bellori, and precisely made reference to the 'auctoritates' (authorities), building a real 'genealogy' of painting from which it turns out that its first founders were indeed Cimabue and Giotto.

The debunking that Malvasia promised was, therefore, with respect to the theses of Baldinucci, who was also never mentioned, but was indicated generically as the "Apologist" (the introduction also contained literal quotations from the Apology). I have already had occasion to talk at length about the issue in the review to the first volume of the critical edition of Felsina Pittrice, to which I am referring. In short, it will suffice to recall that Vasari’s concept of history was different from that of Malvasia: the former proceeded according to temporal "cleavages", the second preferred continuity, that is an unravelling of artistic phenomena that proved uninterrupted even in moments of crisis. Malvasia, moreover, widely recognized the work carried out by Vasari, for the simple fact of transcribing faithfully his text in various passages of the Felsina (think of the Life of Marcantonio Raimondi). But Baldinucci was the real danger, as Elizabeth Cropper wrote: "Baldinucci’s design of an artistic genealogy descending from the ancient masters [...] was going against the «universal good taste» and ignored the different talents and hidden inclinations of the artists"[3]. 

Fig. 4) Ercole de' Roberti, Mary Magdalene weeping, about 1478-1486, Bologna, Pinacoteca Nazionale
Source: Sailko via Wikimedia Commons

The modern use

How did Malvasia structure his guide? He contested any abstract genealogy based on the so called ipse dixit method, or on the use of past citations that, by definition, could not be challenged any more. To the contrary, he proposed a 'modern use', to be practiced by the 'wise investigators of truth'. In essence it was a matter of practicing the ‘ocular inspection’, physically going to see what had remained of the Bolognese public artistic heritage. And here Malvasia explicitly made recourse to two "foreign" experiences based on modern use: it was "today's experiments both in the remote England as well as in the neighbouring Florence" (p. 14). Carlo Cesare knew the English experimental method well because the Royal Society of London had among its members the Bolognese anatomist Marcello Malpighi (1628-1694) and the astronomer Gian Domenico Cassini (1625-1712), whose patron was his cousin Cornelio Malvasia. But the low blow was the inclusion of the Florentine Accademia del Cimento (whose life was actually very short), based on the practice of the experimental method, evidently in contrast to the Accademia della Crusca also based in Florence, of which Baldinucci was a member since 1682 [4]. Therefore, the "ocular inspection" was the true point of reference to which the amateur as well as the traveller had always to refer. This concept was taken up again in infinite occasions within The Paintings of Bologna, and it is clear that the guide of Bologna was not 'just' an artistic guide, but had its own precise historical setting, and was born as a 'second stage' of Malvasia’s historiography project. It is therefore not at all true what Malvasia himself wrote on April 1, 1687 to the Florentine Antonio Magliabechi apologizing for not having sent him a copy of the work, namely that, if The paintings of Bologna had been an answer to Baldinucci, it was requested and funded above all by Bolognese booksellers to sell it to visitors to the city [5]; all this would explain its humble physical appearance and the many typographical errors. But, all in all, I do not believe that any occasional booklet could be dedicated to none less than Charles Le Brun, President of the Academie Royale de Peinture et Sculpture in Paris (we'll see later).

Fig. 5) Niccolò dell'Arca, Lamentation over the Dead Christ (detail), Bologna, Church of Santa Maria della Vita
Source: Paolo Villa via Wikimedia Commons

The continuity of the Bolognese school

What emerges from Malvasia’s guide is, in fact, a historical framework which is identical to that already proposed in the Felsina Pittrice. The primitives came first; Carlo Cesare redefined (in a more or less arbitrary way) their presence since 1100. Then followed Francesco Francia and his school. From here Malvasia proceeded towards the end of the century with the Mannerists, to reach the Carraccis. Ludovico Carracci was further seen as the principal exponent of their school ("the most founded, the most resolute, the most terrible, and the most gracious Master who has ever lived" – p. 27). Ludovico was the pinnacle of Bolognese painting compared to his cousins, and especially to Annibale, who had 'become' a Roman with his transfer to Rome (and in any case, in order to paint the Farnese Gallery, he also brought Ludovico to Rome, who advised him what to do in thirteen days). After the death of Ludovico, the generation of the Carraccis ran out, and their inheritance was taken over by a series of pupils among whom four figures stood out, in turn generating other disciples. None of them was able to reach the perfection of Ludovico, but, considering separately single aspects, they brought progress to art. Malvasia thus introduced us with Guido Reni and his "nobility and heavenly ideas", Domenichino, famous for the "erudite findings and the expression of affections", Albani, who stood out for his "poetic tales" and for the grace and finally Guercino, who imposed himself for the strength of his chiaroscuro and for the "beautiful compartment of colours". In his introduction, Malvasia summed up what he had already said in the Felsina; he would stress again those concepts when examining the individual works. If anything, the only somewhat different aspect was the attitude towards Raphael, defined in 1678 as 'boccalaio urbinate' and instead here as "divine and never praised enough" (p. 21) and "first painter of the world" (p. 197).

Fig. 6) Francesco Francia, Adoration of the Child, 1498-1499, Bologna, Pinacoteca Nazionale
Source: Web Gallery of Art via Wikimedia Commons

The visit itinerary

Emiliani wrote that, in his guide, Malvasia mentioned around 2,400 works. They are a lot. about one thousand of them - the curator continued - have reached the present day, whether in excellent or disastrous conditions. It must also be said that the visit itinerary did not include the examination of private collections: Malvasia, thanks to its status as an aristocrat, knew them very well, but obviously here he referred only to the 'public' heritage and in the case of private individuals most of the time he limited himself to indicating the buildings containing art collections of particular relevance. Malvasia led the visitor along four paths within the city walls (obviously, the third circle of walls, completed around 1400), following the subdivision into four districts of the city: the Porta Piera district, that of Porta Stiera, then Porta Procola and Porta Ravegnana. Finally there was a fifth chapter, dedicated to artworks placed in churches and convents in the immediate vicinity of the city, but outside the walls (this is the case, for example, of the Chartreuse, Saint Luke and Saint Michael in the Woods). In the latter church, i.e. San Michele in Bosco, moreover, the cloister was reported in particular as "one of the most amazing works of the Carracci, which can equal, if it does not exceed anything else done in this City, and even the Farnese Gallery itself in Rome [ ...]. In San Michele [Lodovico] wanted to show that he knew how to work in a great site, to adopt the manner of all best masters, and to astonish the world" (p. 225).

Obviously, the very structure of the guide, whose task was to show what was preserved in Bologna, obliged Malvasia to a in some way amazing conciseness compared to the verbose style of the Felsina. This proves that Malvasia, in literary terms, knew how to adopt different registers. In this context he used, in particular, some withering expressions. Among them, I quote the few lines dedicated to the Lamentation over the Dead Christ by Niccolò dell'Arca in Santa Maria della Vita: "The Marys of relief, so immeasurably crying over the dead Christ, have been made by Nicolò da Puglia, Master of the many times mentioned Alfonso Lombardi”: to tell the truth, it is not excluded that the term ‘sterminatamente (immeasurably) piangenti’ was used to express some negative nuance, in the context of Malvasia’s taste. It might have implied that the Marys were excessively expressive. Nevertheless, it is certain that, once you read the text again today, those ‘immeasurably crying’ Marys enter your head indelibly, so much so as to think that none could describe them better today. 

Fig. 7) Raphael, The Ecstasy of Saint Cecilia, 1518, Bologna, Pinacoteca Nazionale
Source: Web Gallery of Art via Wikimedia Commons

Alternative routes: the issue of the asterisk

Of course, Malvasia was aware that ‘forcing’ the visitor into a single mode of visit, imposed by the itineraries, can be somewhat reductive. For this reason he invented a technical solution, aimed at favouring those who (for example, having little time) wished to see only the masterpieces (naturally considered such at the unquestionable judgment of Carlo Cesare). He highlighted the latter with an asterisk on the side. Of course, most of the asterisks belonged to the Carraccis (to Ludovico in particular) and to the works realized in the seventeenth century, but I would like to record here only what is perhaps not just a coincidence.

I don't know the editorial history of the asterisk. I can imagine that it was used as a substitute for the maniculae with the spreading of the press. I read, for example, that, in liturgical books, the asterisk indicated "the pauses for singing or the recitations of the psalms" [6] (and, therefore, had the function of highlighting the pauses). I would like to point out that Malvasia, as a man of the Church and Canon of Bologna Cathedral, i.e. Saint Peter, had to know those liturgical books very well. It might be the case (and this is also a circumstance that should be confirmed) that the asterisk was used for the first time in travel literature precisely with The Paintings of Bologna, in order to indicate a hierarchy of values. Well, it is curious that about eighty years later (to be precise in 1769), in Paris, Jean-Baptiste Descamps used exactly the same graphic solution to highlight the most deserving works in his Voyage pittoresque de la Flandre et du Brabant. Gaëtane Maës, who recently proposed a commented edition, still spoke of it as an experimental solution, a sign that at the time the use of the asterisk in artistic guides was not yet very common.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying that Descamps browsed a copy of The Paintings of Bologna and decided to copy Malvasia’s method. However, I believe it is possible (and I think it is one of those phenomena that allow us to study the 'karst' circulation of ideas) that, at least indirectly, the French academic native to Normandy may have benefited from a graphic solution invented by Malvasia eighty years before.

But at this point, as we are speaking of France, we cannot avoid the question of the dedication to Charles Le Brun.

End of Part One

Go to Part Two 

NOTES

[1] For a better comprehension of the topic, please see Elizabeth Cropper, A Plea for Malvasia’s Felsina pittrice in the first volume of the modern critical edition of Malvasia's Lives (pp. 1-47).

[2] See the essay by Elizabeth Cropper quoted at note [1], pp. 11-16.

[3] Elizabeth Cropper, A Plea for Malvasia’s quoted. p. 17.

[4] Baldinucci entered the Accademia della Crusca (a prevailing literary Academy) in 1682 as a consequence of publishing, in 1681, the Vocabolario toscano dell’arte del disegno (Tuscan Vocabulary of the Art of Drawing). See Cropper, A Plea for Malvasia’s quoted. p. 15.

[5] See Cropper, A Plea for Malvasia’s cit. p. 14.

[6] See Manuale enciclopedico della bibliofilia, Milan, Sylvestre Bonnard, 2à ed, 2005, ad vocem.