Uglow2012 Vol2.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. The “New” Giorgione: Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Pater, and Morelli Volume 2 Luke Uglow Ph. D. University of Edinburgh 2011 DECLARATION I hereby declare that this thesis was composed by myself, that the work contained herein is my own except where stated otherwise in the text, and that this work has not been submitted anywhere for any award. Luke Uglow 2 MORELLI & GIORGIONE Morelli is unique in the historiography of art. He began writing as a connoisseur in his late fifties with several articles in the Viennese journal Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst between 1874 and 1876. His first book was published in 1880, Die Werke italienischer Meister in den Galerien von München, Dresden und Berlin: Ein kritischer Versuch, and was translated into English by Louise Richter in 1883, wife of Morelli’s friend Jean Paul Richter (1847-1937). This was followed by three further articles between 1881 and 1887, culminating in Kunstkritische Studien über italienische Malerei, published in two volumes, 1890 and 1891. The first is subtitled “Die Galerien Borghese und Doria Panfili in Rom”; the second “Die Galerien zu München und Dresden”. In this chapter I will focus on Morelli’s late work, particularly the English translation: Italian Painters: Critical Studies of their Works.1 These two volumes were published posthumously in 1892 and 1893, translated by Constance Jocelyn Ffoulkes, and edited by Austen Henry Layard (1817-1894). Italian Painters is a re-publication of Morelli’s earlier writing, edited and updated. There is an additional study of the Doria Pamphilj Gallery and a new introduction entitled “Principles and Method”. Although structured around four famous art galleries, this does not limit the scope of Morelli’s criticism, the internal framework being single studies of artists and schools, passing through different collections, and tackling various art historical problems. Morelli’s 1870s articles have been described as “frammentaria e caotica”,2 and this digressive arrangement survives in the later works. Being a re-publication, Italian Painters has a self- conscious construction that shows an awareness of its own development over time. Reflexive material is included in the two prefaces, while there are also introductions to the Borghese 1 I will quote from the original German when significant changes have been made. 2 D’Angelo, 1993, p.25 3 and Dresden studies, and multiple self-considering digressions. This retrospective structure is manifested in the long “Principles and Method”, a narrative in the form of a fictional reminiscence. This is indicative of Italian Painters, which moves between conventional academic analysis and imaginary dialogues. My intention is to understand Morelli’s Giorgione, and the artist’s function, within the context of this complicated book. Morelli has an ambiguous reputation. On the one hand, Anderson introduces him as “the celebrated inventor of scientific connoisseurship” claiming he “needs little introduction as the author of one of the most revolutionary books in the history of art”.1 With his “scientific” method and attribution to Giorgione of the Sleeping Venus (Fig.A2), Morelli secured his place within the history of art history. Today, Morellian method is represented as “an inductive procedure modelled on scientific methods”, commonly understood as the comparison between paintings of anatomical details – hands and ears – “identity of form indicating identity of authorship”.2 Morelli was also politically active in Italy during the Risorgimento, Anderson arguing that he helped make connoisseurship “a powerful instrument in the development of national cultural policy”.3 However, it can be said that Morelli’s method is “not particularly evident in his discussion of individual pictures”, and it has been suggested he was merely “dando veste di scientificità a una pratica consueta dei conoscitori”.4 His politics are also problematic, Federico Zeri (1921-1998) once calling Morelli “il primo grande corruttore dell’arte italiana”.5 Pope-Hennessy argued that Morelli expressed his results in “a form which was deliberately designed to cause the greatest possible antagonism”, and accused the connoisseur of “astounding disingenuousness”.6 1 Anderson, 1999, pp.8-9 2 Hatt and Klonk, 2006, p.41; Gibson-Wood, 1982, p.222 3 Anderson, 1999, p.61 4 Hatt and Klonk, 2006, p.51; Levi, 1988, p.289 5 Qtd. in D’Angelo, 1993, p.22 6 Pope-Hennessy, 1980, pp.13-14 4 Morelli’s writings were always controversial, and in seeking to understand his “new” Giorgione, it is necessary to explain this ambiguous reputation. Giorgione plays an important role in the intentionally antagonistic design of Italian Painters. Pope-Hennessy has argued that Morelli’s motivation for publishing was to correct other histories, being “concerned with rectification rather than the groundwork for original research”.1 The texts therefore contain the names of writers as much as painters, constantly referencing and aggressively remedying other scholars’ mistakes. Sometimes, indeed, it is as if we are reading two texts simultaneously.2 In this scheme Crowe and Cavalcaselle’s New History, their status as the “New Vasari”, and their “new” Giorgione, were important targets. One of Crowe and Cavalcaselle’s reviews prophetically concluded: “[They] have rectified the errors and filled up the omissions of Vasari, and he will be a bold man who undertakes to do the same by them”.3 Almost inevitably, Morelli’s confrontational connoisseurship arrived to do exactly that. Giorgione was an important artist for Morelli, and Layard remembered how he “always talked of his favourite painter, whose name was almost the last word upon his lips”.4 Although it was not until 1879 that the connoisseur attributed the Sleeping Venus, the artist was highly significant for Morelli even in the early 1870s. Elected to the Italian Parliament in 1861 and to the Senate in 1873, Morelli helped pass legislation prohibiting the sale to foreign buyers of art works from public or religious institutions.5 However, he was also involved in 1 Pope-Hennessy, 1980, p.14 2 For instance: “Turning to Dr. Marggraff’s new catalogue...” – Morelli, 1893, p.9 [Marggraff, R., Verzeichnis der Gemälde in der ältern Königlichen Pinakothek zu München, 1865] 3 The Edinburgh Review, 1872, p.149 4 Morelli, 1893, p.[36] 5 Fernie, 2003, p.103 5 the export of paintings to the National Gallery in London and English private collections.1 Anderson has considered the connoisseur’s motives, arguing that he engineered the market so works by “lesser” artists were sold to England, while masterpieces remained in Italy.2 For instance, he intervened in the sale of The Tempest (Fig.A3), dissuading Sir James Hudson (1810-1885) from buying the work (25 May 1871), arguing that the price was exaggerated and the image “troppo lubrico” for the British public. Later, he prevented Wilhelm von Bode (1845-1929) and Julius Meyer (1830-1893) from acquiring the picture for the Berlin Museum by instigating a sale to keep the painting in Venice.3 These activities reflect Morelli’s regional patriotism, a context in which Giorgione becomes the supreme representative of Venetian painting. Morelli’s Giorgione Morelli’s treatment of Giorgione is a revealing instance of his mode of enquiry. It has been argued that the connoisseur’s novelty lay in the number of pictures he attributed to the artist for the first time: five compared to Crowe and Cavalcaselle’s one.4 However, although there are some similarities between the New History and Italian Painters, a comparison between their catalogues shows that Morelli identified a new Giorgione, implying a different approach. I will now briefly review the artist as he is found in Italian Painters, which in terms of the attributions, shows the complexities and variances in Morelli’s stance. 1 D’Angelo, 1993, p.22 2 Anderson, 1999, p.36 3 Anderson, 1996, p.113-114; and Anderson, 1997, pp.251-253 4 Hope, 2004, p.50 6 Morelli deliberately marks the change in scholarship: “Raphael Mengs was reminded in this picture of Giorgione, which would be incomprehensible were it not for the fact that no painter has ever been, and still is, so entirely misunderstood as Giorgione”.1 His main discussion of the artist takes place in the Dresden gallery study. In 1880, he denied the authenticity of several key paintings, outlined his idea of Giorgione, described the basis of his method, and enumerated Giorgione’s authentic works. Finally, with much ceremony, he attributed the Venus. In 1890-1891 he added several paintings, discussed drawings by Giorgione, and attributed a portrait in the Borghese study. Morelli introduced “Giorgio Barbarelli, known as Giorgione” with a regional