The Collector's Cut: Why Pierre-Jean Mariette Tore up His Drawings and Put Them Back Together Again Author(S): Kristel Smentek Source: Master Drawings, Vol

The Collector's Cut: Why Pierre-Jean Mariette Tore up His Drawings and Put Them Back Together Again Author(s): Kristel Smentek Source: Master Drawings, Vol. 46, No. 1, Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Draftsmen and Collectors (Spring, 2008), pp. 36-60 Published by: Master Drawings Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20444544 . Accessed: 08/01/2014 20:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Master Drawings Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Master Drawings.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Collector's Cut: Why Pierre-JeanMariette Tore up His Drawings and Put Them Back Together Again

KRISTEL SMENTEK

In the eighteenth century, drawings emerged as "impress"itself on themind of theviewer or lis objects of central importanceto connoisseurs. tener.1First impressions were thusthe foundation Though theyhad been appreciatedby collectors on which more complex ideaswere developed. since the Renaissance, itwas only then that they For connoisseurs,whose claimsto expertisewere became the very foundation of connoisseurial based on their study of drawings, the immediate claimsto knowledge.Deemed by theoristsof the apprehension of an artist's sheet was of pivotal period to be purer, lessmediated expressions of an importance.Securing the legibilityof artists' artist'scharacteristic maniere than paintings, draw drawings was, I suggest, a goal that ismanifest both ings became the empirical data on which attribu inMariette's distinctive mounts and inhis interven tions and art historical taxonomies were based. tionsinto the drawings themselves.2 This belief in the primacy of drawing motivated As eighteenth-centurytheorists repeatedly the collectingand scholarshipof the eighteenth stressed, it was in drawings and not in paintings century'smost famousconnoisseur, Pierre-Jean that the connoisseurcould observe the artist's Maniette (1694-1774). Yet Mariette frequentlymind and hand most freely at work. This was a altered the very fabric of his Old Master drawings, view shared by Mariette. Expanding on claims completing, trimming,and reassemblingthe advanced by Roger de Piles (1635-1709) in his works he so prized-even, on occasion, splitting Idee du peintre parfait (1699), theorists such as double-sided sheets into two separateworks. JonathanRichardson, Sr. (1667-1745), and How are we to reconcile these interventions with Antoine-JosephDezallier d'Argenville (1680 hisprofound appreciation of thestylistic purity of 1765) posited thatdrawings were ultimatelysupe artists' sheets? Part of the answer may lie in the rior to paintings. De Piles had asserted that in epistemologicalconcerns that guided eighteenth paintings artists strove to outdo themselves and centuryscholar-collectors such asMariette. thus compromised their true style. By contrast, in The eighteenth century was an age of empiri drawings, artists "let themselves be seen as they cism-a time when knowledge did not derive are."3 Drawings were therefore a truer index of an from philology or abstract reasoning but rather artist's caractere,defined by de Piles as "the way a depended on firsthandobservation of phenome painter 'thinks' things," and, deploying the na. This applied as much to the study of art as it metaphor of impression, the "seal that distin did to the natural world. Empirical theories of guishes him from others and with which he knowledge were grounded in a model of percep imprints on his work the lively image of his tion in which sensory experience was thought to mind."4 By 1727 Dezallier could proclaim that "a

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions beautiful volume of drawings by the best painters mere curieuxmore clearly than the careful and sys is a true school of painting."5 Later, in 1745, in his tematicfirsthand examination of artists'drawings. Abregede la vie desplus fameux peintres, Dezallier To be a connoisseur was to be an empiricist. repeatedde Piles's assertionthat drawings, rather "The science of the connoisseur,"~as both thanpaintings, offered the connoisseur unmediat Richardson and Mariette described it, depended ed access to an artist's defining manner: "A on experience, on the unbiased observation and painter, in painting a picture, corrects himself and comparativevisual analysis of numerousworks of suppresses the fire of his genius; in making a art,especially drawings.'4 As Carol Gibson-Wood drawing, he throws down the first fire of his has shown,Richardson drew heavily on John mind, he abandonshimself and showshimselfjust Locke's Essay ConcerningHuman Understanding as he is."6 In his Traite de la peinture et de la sculp (1689) in theexposition of his theoryof connois ture(1728), the source of much of Dezallier's own seurship." Using the metaphor of the printing theory,Richardson describeddrawings as "the press,Locke hypothesizedthat sensations from the mind itself and the quintessence of art" and went externalworld imprintedthemselves on themind so far as to claim that paintings were but pale imi as characters on a "white paper;" these impres tations of an artist'smore spirited, drawn originals.7 sions furnished themind with simple ideas or rep Mariette frequentlyexpressed his belief in the resentationsput before themind forapprehen significanceof drawingsfor the "true connois sion, reflection, and rational analysis.'6 Ideas were seur."8 In a sale catalogue published in 1750, he fixed in memory through attention and repeti wrote eloquently that, "in a drawing, refined and tion; internal reflection on them led to the build enlightened eyes discover the whole of the mas ing of complex ideas; comparison of those ideas ter's mind, the creative spirit, the sparkling and led to hypothesesbased on physicalresemblance. wholly divine fire that emanates from the soul and AdaptingLockean epistemologyto connoisseur which a moment of reflection is prepared to ship, Richardson argued that an attribution, for extinguish and make disappear."9 Writing private instance, is derived from a comparison of the ly to Giovanni Gaetano Bottari (1689-1775) in object on view with themental ideas or images of 1762, he statedcategorically that "the intellectual an artist's style retained in the memory.'7 When part [of painting] ismore clearly discerned in the agreement is reached between the object on view drawings of themasters than in their paintings."" and the image in themind, an attribution results: In one of the earliest publications with which Mariette was involved, the importance of draw For when weJudge who is theAuthor of any Picture, ings was made explicit in the very format of the orDrawing, we do the same thingas when we say who book.The so-calledRecueil Crozat, published in a portrait resembles; In that case we find the Picture 1729, was one of the earliest reproductive print answers to the Idea we have laid up in ourMinds of publications to include prints after artists' draw such a Face; so herewe compare thework under consid ings aswell as after their paintings." The inclusion erationwith the Idea we have of theManner of such a of drawings was explained in language reminis Master,and perceive the Similitude.'8 cent of de Piles: "Drawings are, so to speak, the touchstone for attaining knowledge of each The effectivenessof thisprocess depended on the author's relative merit; each reveals himself as he viewer s initial reception of clear and distinct ideas is, he cannot disguise himself."12 In the preface to such as are presented "in a well-ordered sensation thesecond volume, published in 1742,Mariette's or perception."' Given the importance of senso language is more forceful: "Nothing is more ry data in the acquisition of connoisseurial knowl appropriate than drawings for a sound knowledge edge, the clarity of sense impressions was impera of the true character of each master."''3 Nothing, tive. It was this perceptual clarity, Iwould argue, therefore,distinguishes the connoisseurfrom a thatwas one thingMariette soughtto create in

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Fhqure 1

BARTOLOMMEO _- } P

l _ k If~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tdof a Left * ~~~Hand Being * 1t- IDrawn by a Right Hand

Paris, Muhsi'e dit Lain're, Dcparteicnt des Arts Grapuliqiues

themounting and presentation of his drawings. 2 Fiznire Few eighteenth-centurymounts aremore cel MannerofJUSEPE ebrated today than thosedesigned by Mariette, RAIBERtA _ and few, I suggest, are as revelatory of eighteenth century visuality and the impression theory of Seated(raped sensation that shaped it.The practice of mounting Paris,Muisec diu drawings was not new; Mariette's mats draw on a Loui'rc,DiqJ~rtciiieiit trdto by. tradition two before detsIsArtsArt, Graphqle~s.Eni .r_ established centunes by Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) in his Libro de' disegni whose elaborate presentation was prized and emulated by subsequent collectors, especially Mariette.2 Evolved from Vasari's example, Mariette's blue paper mounts are anchored by cartouches inscribed with the name of the artist and are often embellished with elaborately drawn borders that simulate the carved moldings of pic ture frames, emulating, for example, bead-and reel or laurel motifs, or the outset corners, guttae and garlands characteristic of eighteenth-century classicizing frames (Figs. 1-2).3 Occasionally, Mariette added a line of text in Latin to the mount, elucidating the subject of the drawing or the circumstances surrounding the execution of a relatedwork.

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Unlike Vasari, however, Mariette matted his drawingsindividually. His sheetswere thusnot mi Be 111 k~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FNtir 3A confined to a fixed order, like those found in the CHARLES bound albums favored by sixteenth- and seven - NICOLAS t teenth-centurycollectors, such as Padre Sebastiano Resta (1635-1714) and the Marques del Carpio ~~~~ E. F. Gersaint, (1629-1687; see pp. 3-35), as well as some eigh teenth-centuryconnoisseurs, including Dezallier t Ski! TX 18Ail i~~~~~~~~; S ~~~des~~~~~~Catakovle div'ersesraisontil(eutrbaitss t~~~I 4,4. 41 dii cabinet deftu d'Argenville.22In contrastto the predetermined de af + w 1-% ,*1!;{2 -o- tttxJ-| Ae. Quentin organizationof albums,Mariette's individualmats I-bl a t 0 LvrangOr(Paris,

physically enabled the study, side by side, of works ~~1744) -~~~~~~

of differentperiods, schools, and artists.His stor Paris, Bibliot/rique age methods also accommodated the changes of opinion thatwere, in his view, the inevitable con sequence of a connoisseur'sincreasing knowl edge: "I am not surprised that the person who has | ^'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ationlea(deFrance reached the degree of knowledge of which I speak often sees himself obliged to give up his firstsen timents or at least correct the ideas he had made of certain masters."2 Mariette's presentation thus facilitated the construction and revision of tax onomies (orderedby school,period, or stylistic genealogy) that were not determined by a priori systemsbut foundedinstead on empiricalstudy.24 With few exceptions, Mariette's mounts are of a standard size (20 x 15 inches; 510 x 380 mm), a feature that unified his diverse collection while tionwere not antitheticalto eighteenth-century also protecting the fragile sheets from abrasion scholarly pursuits.2' By deploying balance, orna within portfolios.25Their formatalso shieldedthe ment, and a host of other features, I would con drawings from damage inflicted by eager connois tend thatMariette aimed to manage the viewer's seurs. (That drawings were subject tomuch phys initial perception of a drawing by the way itwas ical handling is suggested by contemporary prints mounted. That the mats are also beautiful does showingconnoisseurs bending mounts or bring not precludea seriouspurpose in theirdesign. ing works on paper close to their often bespecta If, in theory, drawings were transparent to an cled eyes [Fig. 3].26) Indicative of both the impor artist's mental processes, Mariette's mounts sug tance he attached to his sheets and his pride in gest that, in practice, the visual experience of owning them, Mariette matched variety to sym drawings, like that of paintings, had to be man metry in his mounts and thus conformed to con aged. A frame-like mat for a drawing marked it as temporary standards of good taste. Variety held demanding a visual attentiveness that is different the viewer's attention when going through a suc from everyday seeing; itwould solicit the viewer cession of drawings, while symmetry granted to examine the drawing with the same concentra unity to the collection. In individual mounts, a tionaccorded to paintings. The degree towhich symmetrical presentation helped the viewer to Mariette's distinctivemounts do controlviewer perceive the whole within a single glance or coup perception becomes obvious when a modern d'oeil. 7 At the same time, as historians of science museum mat (which typically conceals historic have demonstrated, tastefulness and ornamenta collectors' mounts from view) is opened, revealing

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mariette's mount for a sheet such as the Seated 1789) asking for his help in securing a drawing by Draped Man (see Fig. 2), attributed by the collec Giambettino Cignaroli (1706-1770), Mariette tor toJusepe de Ribera (1591-1652). The effect stated that the drawing should not be too big: "I on theviewer's experience of thedrawing is strik do not want it to be too large, nor for it to exceed ing and immediate.The distancingeffect of the thedimensions of thisletter when it isunfolded."32 neutralmodern mount is collapsedas Mariette's The lettermeasured 9 1/2 x 14 1/4 inches (240 x mat forcibly draws the viewer's eye to the image. 360 mm).33Elsewhere, Mariette complained to The contrastbetween the relativelydark blue Temanza that a drawing by Gaspare Diziani (1689 color of the mount and the white paper of the 1767) offered to him was too large: drawingcreates an almost tunnel-likeconstruc tion, compelling the beholder to focus on the His drawing,good as it is,would please me more if it image. As Daniel Le Marois has demonstrated, the were smallerfor all of my drawings are stored in port visual impact of Mariette's mounts is intensified folios of the same size. This makes me prefer those that through subtle means. By varying the widths of are of average dimensions; so that ifyou could engage the blue paper borders and the placement of ruled Mr. Diziani to give me one which does not exceed framing lines,Mariette (or more likely his twelvepouces on one direction and fifteen to sixteen mounter) constructeda subtle illusionof depth poucesin theother direction, I would gladly receive it and recession that visually coerces the viewer's and give it a place inmy collection.34 eye to the drawing at the expense of its frame.30 Mariette'smost commonlyencountered inter Mariettedid not refusethe Diziani sheetproposed vention-his enlargement of artists' sheets by to him,35but he did on occasion decline drawings adding stripsof paper to their sides-helps to cen thatwere too large for his portfolios. In a letter to ter the drawing in the middle of the mount and a Mr. Jenincks, probably Henry Constantine prevent themat from encroaching on the viewer's Jennings(1731-1819), Mariette politely refused perception of it. These strips also provide a sup an offer of two animal studies by Roos.36 Mariette port for Mariette's completions of fragmentary explained that the drawings were too large, and drawings, such as his wash additions at the bottom that since he could not find an acceptable way to and right edges of the sheet with the Seated Draped reduce them to his desired format, he could not Man (see Fig. 2). In everyMariette mount, a thin keep them: reserve of the cream backing is visible between the drawing and the gold border of the top ...you may rememberthat I told you at the time that mount, which prevents the mat from crowding thesedrawings could not, because of theirsize, enter into the image; the addition of an ink framing line on my portfolios,where I have reduced to a unique size all the outer edge of the drawing eliminates any visu thosewhich have entered.You toldme then thatby sup al confusion between it and the backing paper. pressing something, itwould be possible to reduce them. Further potential distraction is thus eliminated; Being inmy countryhouse, I lookedfor themeans [to nothing impedes the viewer's immediate appre do this]and Ifound that itwas impossible.Suffer then, hension of the sheet. sir, that I return these two drawings toyour portfolios. Yet no matter how carefully a drawing was presented, its legibility-and thus itsusefulness for Mariette's concern with size has been variously comparative analysis-would be compromised if interpreted as a personal quirk, as "a need for itwere too large to be viewed in a single glance. order," or as a sign of his conservatism.38 Yet Such a concern may account in part forMariette's Mariette was far from alone in his attentiveness to rejection of sheets exceeding the dimensions of issues of scale in matters of art; his insistence on his standard window mount.3" In a letter to the specific parameters for his drawings conforms to Venetian architectTommaso Temanza (1705 theidea, widely currentin theeighteenth century,

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions thatcomprehension was impossibleif theobject would deliver an immediate visual effect at the of studyexceeded thespatial range, or coupd'oeil, viewer's initialcoup d'oeil and therebylure the of thespectator's vision.39 spectator into amore sustained examination of the Implicitin thenotion of the coupd'oeil is the image. As Thomas Puttfarken has argued, de Piles's question of the viewer's field of vision. A con immediatevisual effectand Felibien's instanta noisseur could not reliably take in,much less rec neous apprehensionof the subjectcould occur ognize, the subject or authorship of a work in a only if the viewer were able to take in thewhole single glance if its scale exceeded his visual range. of a picture at once. The coup d'oeil thus had both In his Encyclopedieentry on "Comparison"pub temporal and spatial components. Immediacy of lished in 1753, the chevalierLouis de Jaucourt effect or of comprehension was predicated on the (1704-1779) emphasizedthe importanceof the canvas not exceeding the spatial limits of the spec coup d'oeil in the act of visual comparison: tator'svision.42 The conviction that a work of art should be Everycomparison proceedsfrom at least two objects.... instantaneouslyapprehensible in a single coup When onecompares, for example, two pieces of money, d'oeil was frequently voiced in the eighteenth cen eitherone views both in a singlecoup d'oeil, or one con tury.Etienne de La Font de Saint-Yenne (1688 serves the idea of thefirst& consults it during the time 1771) and Louis Petit de Bachaumont (1690-1771) one casts one's eyes over the second; since if one no applied the concept to their assessments of archi longerhad an idea of thefirst, itwould not be possible tecture, the comte de Caylus (1692-1765) dis to decide f it is equal to the second, or if it differs.40 cussed it in his lectures to the Academie Royale, and Baron Grimm (1723-1807) deployed it in his Effectivecomparison, according to Jaucourt, thus criticism of contemporary art. As Caylus stated in depended on the viewer's ability to seize one or a lecture on painting, "from themoment the eye more objects within a single glance. In the case of perceives,it shouldembrace everything."43 largedrawings, the standardizeddimensions of Connoisseurs of the graphic artswere as atten Mariette's mounts necessarily limited their size to tive to issues of scale and the instantaneous appre a scale commensurate with the viewer's field of hension of a work as were critics of painting and vision. As suggested by Jaucourt, when two or architecture. As Johann Friedrich Christ (1701 more objects were not apprehensible within a coup 1756), author of a handbook on prints, com d'oeil,the comprehension of each individualitem plained in 1750, large sheets were not only diffi in one glance was necessary to facilitate its reten cult to store but they rendered impossible the tion in thememory for future comparisons. ideal contemplation of a work on paper: French writers on the artswere attuned to the importance of the viewer's spatial limits and their ... supposeone could convenientlystore these large effectson the perception of painting, architecture, prints, that one esteems them, and that one wants to and the graphic arts. According to seventeenth contemplatethem, it isnot difficult toconceive that they century French theorists such as Andre Felibien are already too largefor this usage. Every print larger (1619-1695) andHenri Testelin(1616-1695), the than an ordinary sheet, in order to be completelycom visual effectiveness of a painting depended on the prehended, as itshould be, in thecoup d'oeil of thespec spectator's ability to grasp the subject in a single tator,demands to be seenfrom a distance of threefeetor glance or coup d'oeil.41 Paintings should be com more. This means thatone should not place it in a book posed to accommodate a single view inwhich the but ratherhang it on thewall, to see itfroma distance spectatorwill instantaneouslycomprehend the andfromits properpoint ofview. It iscertain that in this subject and subsequently be drawn into a more situation,the work of theengraver becomes invisible, extendedappreciation of thework. For Rube'nistesand one is rightto say in this case that it is an engrav such as de Piles, color ratherthan composition ingwithout engraving.44

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions When viewing a large print from a distance, one These are heavily worked drawings, burdened with takes in the full composition but not the handling. much effortas is typicalof Daniel, but theyare in such At close range, one can examine themarks of the bad orderand soworn, and in addition of such largesize burin,but one cannot comprehendthe subject. that Ifind them to have been sold at a veryhigh price." Latercommentators on theextremely large prints ofJacques Callot (1592-1635), such as the Fair at Commenting on a sheet by Raymond La Fage Impruneta (436 x 678 mm), with its 1,300 figures (1656-1684) offeredat auction in 1771 and and animals, took pains to point out how the described in the sale catalogue as "in 9 pieces,"

prints could be enjoyed despite the fact that they Mariettewrote, "These drawingsoriginally com Fiqu~rc 4 could not be apprehended in a single coup d'oeil.4' posed one large, beautiful drawing fromwhich it THOMAS Complaints such as Christ's applied also to was impossibleto derive any The BLANC HET pleasure."47 drawings. InMariette's opinion, the prices paid in largescale of La Fage's compositionprevented the StudiesofTwo 1756 at the duc de Tallard's sale for a lot of draw viewer from absorbing within a single glance both Faunls ings by Daniele da Volterra (1509-1566) were the subject and the subtleties of the artist's hand. Paris MuJs& du, excessive both because the sheets were worn and This was reason enough to section La Fage's orig Lnivre, Dfpartetnwnt dec Arts Graphiqucs because they were too large: inal sheet into nine smaller, more easily appre hensibledrawings.4x Given suchcontemporary attitudes, it is likely thatMariette's standardization of his mounts went beyond thequestion of practicalstorage constraints or personal taste. His mats have the format of a standard folio page (20 x 15 in.), and the drawings he mounted were thus the size of the ordinary sheet I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$ thatChrist recommended for optimum viewing. The concept of the coup d'oeil may also account for some of Mariette's more dramatic I As~~~~~~~~~~~ interventions into his sheets. The Studies of Two Fauns by Thomas Blanchet (1614-1689), in the Louvre, Paris (Fig. 4),4) for instance,is not exe cuted on a single sheet but is composed of two .'S separate studies laid down one above the other. Mariette arranged the drawings so that they fithis upright mount, causing the upper faun's hoof to overlap the sheet below it. This arrangement also resulted in the unusual placement of Blanchet's signature at the middle left of the recombined sheet. It is clear that the format of the original sheet with two studies-if, indeed, they were together on one sheet, perhaps a long horizon tal-was larger thanMariette's standard mount." 4-) Even in its reassembled state, the drawing's size leaves little room forMariette's blue border. By sectioningand recombiningthe figures,Mariette created a more compact composition that con forms in scale to his standard mount and accom modates theconnoisseur's coup d'oeil. Although it

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .-~ ..;

- . Libalebd~a ronar e -:";'* *'8; '

recallssimilar interventions by Vasari, such as his theRijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam (front cover), Fiqure 5 mounting together of two studies of a nursing may also be accounted for, at least in part, by a LIBERALE DA woman by Liberale da Verona (c. 1445-c. 1526), desireto imposeoptimum viewing conditions. By VERONA both now in the Albertina, Vienna (Fig. 5)5-a currentstandards, Mariette's interventionhere Two Studies of a sheet thatsubsequently entered Mariette's collec was drastic. Each head in this mount was torn Woloman Nursing tion-Mariettemodified Blanchet's drawing in from a larger sheet. The ragged edges are clearly V'ieona, Albcrtioa accordancewith thepreoccupations particular to visible, as are the mounter's extensions of the his era. As re-assembledby Mariette, Blanchet's original drawn lines; these later drawn additions studies of Faliis can, in Christ's words, "be com compensate for losses that occurred during the pletelycontained, as it shouldbe, within theeye division of the original sheets. As noted by Martin of the spectator."'2 (Mariette tended to leave Eidelberg, at least two sheets from which the Vasari's assemblages of drawings untouched unless heads were removed were intactwhen theywere theircondition warranted intervention; for him, in the collectionof PierreCrozat (1665-1740) the historical significance of the Vasari mount and when Caylus etched them in 1735.- Mariette seemed to trump the importance of the coUp purchased these sheets of sketches at Crozat's sale d'oeil).3 in 1741; it is therefore likely that itwas he who Mariette's unusual presentation of a series of tore apart the drawings before remounting them. nine heads by Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641), in His reasons for doing so have not been previous

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ly explained,57 but the primacy of instantaneous Winckelmann, as forMariette, any addition to a visual comprehensionmay have prompted the fragmentary art object had to be a judicious one. arrangement:the heads are no longerrandomly, An interventionshould not be destructive,decep and thereforeconfusedly, scattered over a single tive,or without historical foundation. It must not, sheet.Whether in Caylus's published etchings, as Tessin noted, diminish the value of the object. where theyare presentedas independentimages Mariette himselfmade a clear distinction or inMariette's mounting of them in individual betweendeceptive and desirablerestoration in his roundels,Van Dyck's sketchesare transformedTraite des pierresgravees (1750), in which he railed intodiscrete and immediatelylegible images; the againstthose who polishedand therebydestroyed individual,framed presentation of eachhead facil ancientengraved gems. Such polishingobliterated itates the viewer's formation of clear and uncon the characteristics that allowed a connoisseur to fusedideas about theartist's style. identify and classify an intaglio. Mariette com The restoration of damaged sheets was also pared such repolished gems to paintings that have importantin promotingtheir legibility. Andrew been artificially aged in order to dupe buyers.6" McClellan has argued that the cleaning and But he thenclearly differentiated such practices restorationof canvasesassumed particular impor from the restoration of damaged items: tance in the eighteenth century as the desire for transparentor unmediatedviewing increased.58I must, however, do justice to the intelligentgem Mariette's manipulation of his sheets suggests par engraverwho, when confrontedwith thefragmentof an adoxically that for drawings, as for paintings, engravedgem, discretelyadds or effacessomething to cre ensuringthe viewer's unmediated experience of ate a completesubject.... This is not to deceive; it is to theartist's maniere actually required the mediation seek topresentfrom a more satisfyingpoint of view an of a restorer. To intervene, asMariette often did, object that, although beautiful in itself,would cause would seem to compromise the purity of an some upset if one considered it in its state of ruin.62 artist'sstyle, which he, amongothers, consistent ly claimed was most visible in his drawings. Yet A judicious addition did not denature the object the evidence shows that such restorations were but rather enhanced it. By making a fragmentary not viewed as detrimental as theywould be today. subject whole, the restorer spared the viewer the In fact,Mariette's abilities as a restorerwere par sensory pain evoked by an incomplete object. ticularly admired by his fellow connoisseurs. In a Winckelmann similarly approved of restorations, diary entry of 1760, the Swedish collector Carl providing their historical plausibility were ensured Gustaf Tessin (1695-1770) wrote approvingly of by an expert. Historically accurate restorations Mariette's expertise in bringing sheets "back to were thus actively pursued since they conveyed a life"without, however, specifying how he did so: more complete impression of the art of the past.63 "I have seen faded drawings come back to life Two drawings by Parmigianino (1503-1540) under [Mariette's] hand as a result of his completed by Mariette are striking examples of patience.. .and without diminishing their value."59 restorations presumably motivated by a concern An analogy can be made to the widespread for historical accuracy. They also suggest how eighteenth-centurypractice of restoringantiqui Mariette established the plausibility of his inter ties. For antiquarians such as Johann Joachim ventions. Both sheets, one now in the Albertina Winckelmann (1717-1768), it was self-evident (Fig. 6),64 the other in the Uffizi, Florence (Fig. thatmutilated or fragmentary art objects should 7),65represent standing female figures with vases be restored.60The completion of a damaged work on their heads. In both cases, the vases are largely restored coherence to the subject and provided Mariette's work. His transformation of the vestig the viewer with a more complete sensory and ial vessel in the Albertina sheet into a two-han intellectualexperience of the original.Yet for dled vasewas likely,as A. E. Popham argued,the

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Wise Virgin

Vienna, Albertina

Fi u re 7

PARMIGIANINO

Wise Virgin

Florence, Gabinetto Disegni e Stanipe - ~~~~~degliUffizi

~~~~~~~~4II~~~~~~~~Il

ri~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions theiroriginal composition to have been. His intervention was "authorized" by the traces of vessels on the original drawings and by compara tive examples of studies by Parmigianino for the wise virgins.Fragments of Parmigianino'soriginal base, bowl, and one handle of a vase are clearly visible in the Albertina sheet, and a base is dis cernable in the Uffizi drawing. Related drawings in the French royal collection and prints after Parmigianino'sdrawings for thevirgins provided points of comparison.67 Mariette may also have supplementedhis visual analysiswith textualevi dence and eyewitnessaccounts communicated by his correspondents; he may also have seen the vault himself when he was in Parma in 1719.68 ForMariette, his completions of Parmigianino's drawings not only enhanced the viewer's visual of themby offeringcomplete rather I experience than fragmentaryimages, they underscored the connection between the studies and the artist's fresco,thereby granting the connoisseura more substantive insight into the artist's thought process. The drawing is no longer a random fig ure studybut representsParmigianino's prelimi nary thoughts for a major public commission. In another of his historical reconstructions, a Study for a Putto attributed to Giorgione (1477 1510), now in theMetropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Fig. 8),69Mariette replicated, with the addition of a niche, the original viewing condi tions of the painting for which he thought the fragmentarydrawing preparatory. He evidently related the fragment to one of Giorgione's major commissions, the fresco decoration of the Fondaco dei Tedeschi or German customs house in Venice. As Erika Tietze-Conrat argued, Mariette's niche-like setting betrays his familiarity resultof his belief thatthe study was preparatorywith Vasari's account of the frescoes and his Figure 8 forone of the artist'smost importantcommis description of "an angel in the guise of a putto."70 GIORGIONE (?) sions, the vault of S. Maria della Steccata, Parma, Evidence that the figuremay indeed be related to

Putto Bending a painted in the 1530s.i The completion of the ves this commission is found in the drawing itself Bow sel, as well asMariette's addition of a vase to the The foreshortened pose of the putto indicates that New York, Uffizi drawing,suggests that he interpretedthe itwas intended to be seen from below, a place Metropolitan drawingsas studiesfor thewise virginspainted ment thatwould accord with Giorgione's frescoes Museum ofArt along the edges of the vault, and that he restored located high on the Fondaco's facade, as is record them to an approximation of what he believed ed in the etchings after the frescoes published in

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1760 by Anton Maria Zanetti II (1706-1778).7' flawless circle was drawn.77 It is unlikely that This steepperspective seems to sanctionMariette's Dorigny would have interruptedhis freehand interpretationof the drawing as preparatory for the sketching to describe his globe with such instru Fondaco frescoes.72The pronounced red color of mental accuracy. It is, however, probable that an the niche is furtherproof thathe believed the study eighteenth-centuryrestorer, mindful of creatinga related to these frescoes.Mariette's liberal use of red plausiblebut not deceptive completion,would iskeyed to the red chalk of the drawing, but it also have done so.78 approximates the flaming red color of the frescoes In other instances, as in the Seated Draped Man describedby various commentators.73Mariette (see Fig. 2), the laid lines of the paper added to the may well have seen the frescoes himself when he right of the drawing run perpendicular to the laid visited Venice in 1719. As with the Parmigianino lines of the original sheet. This arrangement high drawings, his additions to the putto amplify the lights rather than obscures the fact that this piece viewer s experience of the sheet. The niche pro of paper and the completion of the drawing that videsan acceptablecontext for the foreshortening it supports are not a continuation of the original. of the putto and signals its relationship to an After theirfirst glance, attentive observers would importantcommission by Giorgione. Confident have noticed these interventions,as theywould of theplausibility of his reconstruction,Mariette the jagged edges of the torn Van Dyck heads restored to the tiny fragment its significance as a (front cover) or the generic character and the recordof theartist's thought process.74 lighter red chalk of the vases added to the In his commentary on the restoration of Parmigianinodrawings (see Figs. 6-7). By tracing engravedgems, Mariette stated that judicious only the outlines of the vases rather than repro completionsdo not seek to deceive.Accordingly, ducing the actual amphorae painted in the vault in the illustrations to his treatise on gems, recon (or even as originally sketched in undamaged structed areas of damaged gems were clearly drawings),Mariette enhanced the viewer's delineated by a dotted line. A similar concern to impression by conveying a complete idea of the make additions obvious to viewers can be dis artist's pensee for the Steccata frescos. A similar cerned inMariette's restorations of his drawings. process is at work in the Dorigny and Giorgione Discoloration, over time, of the papers, glue and sheets. In each case, the idea given is approximate media used by Mariette make his additions readi but not deceptive; themedia used are slightly dif ly evident today,75but I suspecthis restorationsferent, the character of the drawing ismore care were apparenteven to eighteenth-centuryview ful, and the seams between pieces of the drawings ers and were intended to be so. The frame sur and the backing paper are clearly visible, then as roundingthe niche in theGiorgione drawing, for now, particularly in raking light. Losses were con instance, is so spare as to be almost abstract (Fig. sideredjarring, even troublingin Mariette's view, 8). The stark contrast between the carefully ruled but judicious restorationswould obviate the visu precision of the frame and the freely drawn putto al distraction occasioned by such losseswhile con leaves the viewer with no confusion: the frame is veying as accurate an impression as possible of the not by the same hand as the figure. Similarly, in originalwithout deceiving the viewer. the black chalk Study for theMuse Urania by The desire for optimum viewing may also Michael Dorigny (1616-1665), also in the account forMariette's most radicalinterventions: Metropolitan Museum of Art (Fig. 9),76 not only his splittingof double-sideddrawings into two has the globe in the lower right corner been com separate sheets. This is perhaps themost extreme pleted in a different hand and in lighter chalk, it is example of mediation in the service of unmediat a perfect circle. Digital infrared photography of ed viewing. Contemporaries recorded their this area clearly shows the hole made by the com amazement at Mariette's ability to split single pass (invisibleto thenaked eye),with which this sheetsof paper into two and therebyenable both

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 9

NICOLAS DORIGNY _

Study for theMuse Urania

Nev York, Metropolitan Museum ofArt

sides to be seen and studied. Although art histori ports are evenly pulled apart. Ideally, the two sides ans have doubted theseaccounts, recent research of the original sheet come apart with them.8" has shown that it is relatively easy to split prints on Once split, the two halves are bathed in water to laid paper into two halves and that the procedure remove the supports, and what was once one has been in use since the nineteenth century. (It intact paper is now two very thin sheets. continues to be used in book restoration to this The practice of paper splitting is thought to day.7") Ifwe accept the reports of Mariette's col have begun in the nineteenth century, when the leagues,not only did theprocess emerge earlier, earliest published accounts of it appeared." but the appearance of some of the oddest sheets in Historically, it has been associated with the false Mariette'scollection begins tomake sense. margining of Old Master prints. False margining is The process of splitting a sheet of laid paper is the process by which prints are split and the recto simple, but not without risk (as several Mariette backed with half of a larger split paper, or a core sheets prove). The paper to be separated is damp paper is inserted between the two halves of the ened, fine cloth or paper of slightly larger dimen original sheet to give the print new, wider mar sions is pasted to both sides of the sheet with gins."2Since Old Master printswere almost always water-soluble glue, and the whole is allowed to trimmed to their platemarks, falsemargining cre dry under pressure. Once dry, a corner of the fac ated false rarities, that is,Old Master prints with ing paper or cloth is nicked and the facing sup their "original," wide margins seemingly intact.

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions As a prominentprint dealer ineighteenth-century Figure 10 Europe, one who was proficient in a number of printrestoration techniques, Mariette may simply FRANCESCO ______ALBANI Do F have applied to drawings a practice already in use forprints.83 Perhaps he pioneered it. ] Night Mariette'sfellow connoisseurs actually approved Frankfurt-am-Main, ; Stadel Museum of his ability to split drawings. In a letter to Padre Paolo Maria Paciaudi (1710-1785), which was sent in 1761, the comte de Caylus wrote admir inglyof Mariette's separationof a recto-verso drawing by Raphael, noting that thiswas not the only instanceof such an intervention:

Mariette[is] themost skillful and patient man alive.I willgive you but one example. He hasmore than once split [a sheet of] paper and placed on the same surface two drawingswhich the author had made on the recto and verso of the same sheet and thosedrawings were by Raphael! I don't insist that you believe...... _ me, but. I. can. , . _ . , . . _. _. _. _._ __. __ . ... _ . . _. _. _. _. ______F ig u re 1 1 hardlydescribe my astonishmentwhen I saw, in this FRANCESCO state,two drawings that I knewespecially well because ALBANI I had copied and engraved them.84 Night

Dresden, Staatliche A more public declarationof Mariette's abilities Kunstsammlungen, Kupferstich-Kabinett was made in 1775 in the sale catalogue of his drawingscollection. Under thelot describing two differentstudies of theallegorical figure Night by FrancescoAlbani (1578-1660), the auctioneer, FrancoisBasan (1723-1797), added an excursus describingMariette's splittingof theartist's origi nal double-sided ink drawing into two separate sheetsto facilitatetheir viewing:

In thesetwo [drawings], one can assess theskill of Mariettewho separatedthem despite the fact that they were made on the same sheet of paper, on the rectoand verso,but inopposed directions which made themdffi cult to see. This made him attempt the operation, in *which,with much patience, he succeeded.They are exe cuted inpen and inkand comefromCrozat's collection.85

The two halves of this sheet are in the Stadel Museum, Frankfuirt-am-Main,'6and theKupferstich

Kabinett, Dresden,87 and were published in 1962 by 4;~~~~4 Michael Mahoney (Figs. 10-11). Despite Basan's and Caylus's comments,Mahoney argued that

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Albani's inkdrawings must have originallybeen resultwas a fragmentary recto and an intact verso executedon two separatepapers, hinged togetherwith fragmentsof the recto stillattached.'" The by the artist,subsequently glued togetherby an current appearance of the two Albani drawings unknown hand, and then separated again by suggeststhey suffered similarly in theattempt to Mariette.88Mariette's contemporaries,however, separate them. The extensive later additions along understood Basan's comments to refer to the split the left edge of the sheet in Frankfurt reveal that ting of a single sheet of paper. A subsequent substantiallosses-notably of Night's feet,some of owner of one of the two halves noted on the back her drapery, the tips of her wings, and a portion of Mariette's mount that itwas "one of the two of the landscape-occurredduring the splitting sides of the drawing split in the thickness of the process. Indeed, itmay be thatMariette experi paper by Mariette."89 Basan's comment that the enced a misfortune similar tomine: the stripwith opposed directionsof thefigures on theverso and Night's feetmay have adhered to the other half of recto made the sheet difficult to read suggests that the original sheet. The Frankfurt half of Albani's the ink used to draw the figureswas beginning to drawing has been laid down on a larger rectangu bleed through the paper and thatMariette under larbacking sheet, and thecomposition continued took the process to prevent furtherdamage due to in lighter ink on the top and right and left sides. ink migration. As Basan noted, Mariette's separa However, theDresden half and the rounded out tionof therecto from the verso restoredlegibility line of the original sheet visible on the right side to ink drawings thatwere "difficult to see." The of the Frankfurtmat show that itwas originally a processof splittingmade increasinglyunintelligi tondo. The present state of the Frankfurt drawing ble sheetsnewly available forunimpeded con implies that this format did not readily lend itself noisseurial delectation while, at the same time, to the even peeling required by the splitting preservingthem for future viewers. process.The differentdimensions of the two For experiencedconservators, the process of halves suggest that almost 70 mm of the Frankfurt splittingrecto-verso sheets is not difficult;my half were lost when Mariette split the sheet: the own attempt, however, at splitting an eighteenth diameter of the Dresden tondo is 250 mm while century piece of paper went terriblywrong (Fig. the Frankfurt fragmentmeasures approximately 180 12). Instead of separating completely, part of the mm across and 240 mm at itshighest point. Losses front half adhered to the back and tore away; the were thus incurred not only on the left edge but also along the bottom. Further losses can be seen in the trees at center, though these are most like Figure 12 ly due to inkmigration. Author'sfailed A recent study of Annibale Carracci's double attempt to split an eighteenth-century sided sheet of studies for the Tazza Farnese and piece of paper the Galleria Farnese, now in the Art Institute of Chicago (Figs.13-14),9' provides convincing evi dence ofMariette's willingness to split drawings in order to forestall the problem of ink migration, though he was apparently not always successful. Laura Giles and Margo McFarland have demon strated thatMariette carefully tore away sketches of wreaths from the recto and reconfigured the resulting fragments into a more compact compo sition.92 Such compression would have made a sheet thatmay have been much larger conform to the specifications of his mounts. In this instance,

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4

l~~~~~~~~~~~~

* 1'~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

Figure 13 Figure 14

ANNIBALE ANNIBALE CARRACCI CARRACCI

Studies for the Two Putti Tazza Famnese: Fighting: Study for Drunken Silenus a Corner Fresco in and Decorative the Galleria Border (recto Famnese (verso of Fig. 14) of Fig. 13)

Chicago, Art Chicago, A rt Instituteof Chicago Instituteof Chicago

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions C . M 1-W

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mariette's documentedability to separaterecto verso sheets, it seems likely that his complicated interventionshere resultedfrom an abortiveattempt to split the drawing. IfMariette did try to separate the sheet, thewreath fragmentsmay have resulted from a split that began badly, leading him to aban don the operation owing to the risk of further damage. Faced with this situation, he resorted to extensive paper overlays to mask the areas where however, as Giles and McFarland pointed out, the ink was showing through from the other side, Figure 15 Mariette's interventions were motivated by the thus restoring legibility to both sides of the sheet. GIOVANNI problem of inkmigration. The inkAnnibale used The appearance of some of the strangest sheets LANFRANCO was apparently bleeding through the paper. To fromMariette's cabinet may be the result of paper Sheet of Studies address the problem, Mariette added at least seven splitting. A split may explain the odd losses and Paris, Musie du teen paper masks to prevent the bleeding ink from torn edges in Giovanni Lanfranco's pen-and-ink Louvre, Dipartement the drawing on the other side from destroying the Sheet of Studies in the Louvre (Fig. 15).95 The des Arts Graphiques legibility of the sheet. The most obvious of these Lanfranco drawing is not, in fact, an intact sheet masks is the large sheet of paper added to the but a series of fragmentswith pen-and-ink carica

Figure 16 verso, which leaves only the fighting putti visible ture heads and figures in pendentives pasted onto (Fig. 14). Mariette also added a rectangular stripof a backing paper. (The edges of the fragments are Diagram showing individual paper to the top edge of the verso onto which he outlined in blue in Fig. 16.) Losses at the extrem fragments that drew the top of the framing roundel, its loop, and ities of the caricature heads, such as the disappear make up Figure 15 a bow. This strip is the support for the wreath ance of a nose and strands of hair in the fragment fragments on the recto.93 (McFarland's paper-fiber at themiddle right or of chins in the fragment at analysis indicates that the fragments come from the bottom right of the sheet, have been filled in the same paper as the drawings.94) In light of with pen on the backing paper. These losses com

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 17

GIOVANNI BENEDETTO CASTIGLIONE

Four Caricatures and Woman on Horseback 4Z. .iW~i~i 5. < @. 7/ \ A & | _ Herding Animals

Paris, Muish' doi Louvre, Dtpartement des Arts Graphiques

;~~~~~~~A 4$~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T

Ap,~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions binedwith the extremelythin, chamfered edges AUTHOR'S NOTE of the fragments are telltale signs of a split sheet of Earlier versions of thispaper were presented at the paper.The unusualcharacteristics of theheads by FrickCollection andMetropolitan Museum of Van Dyck cited earlier (front cover) and of four Art,New York, at theCentre Allemand d'Histoire caricaturesattributed by Mariette to Giovanni de l'Art, Paris, and the 2002 College Art BenedettoCastiglione (1609-1664), now in the AssociationAnnual Meeting inNew York. My Louvre (Fig. 17),96which exhibitthe sameoddi deepest thanks to the Center forAdvanced Study ties,may be similarly explained. The thin ragged in the Visual Arts, theMetropolitan Museum of edges of the Van Dyck and Castiglione heads and Art, theAndrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the the losses at the edges of the Lanfranco fragments FrickCollection forsupporting my researchon suggest thatwe may be seeing the results of paper Mariette.Unless otherwisenoted, all translations splittingattempts gone awry.Mariette's mediation from the French in this article are my own. of these sheets may have restored legibility to the sketches,but notwithout cost. NOTES For eighteenth-centurytheorists, drawings 1. On the impression theory of sensation, see Karl M. were the purest expressions of an artist's style. It Figlio, "Theories of Perception and Physiology of Mind was in drawings that artists revealed their most in the Late Eighteenth Century," History of Science, 13, 1975, 177-212 essential character, and it was thus through the pp. (esp. pp. 192-97). was close and continued study of their sketches and 2. Mariette far from alone in taking liberties with his studiesthat connoisseurial knowledge was most drawings, but his interventions, inmy view, offer partic ular insights into how eighteenth-century connoisseurs advanced. In this quest for knowledge the trans thought drawings should be viewed. The seventeenth parency of a drawing to an artist'smaniere was thus century collector Everard Jabach (1618-1695), for exam of crucial importance; if the immediate legibility ple, "improved" the drawings in his collection by the addition of white Catherine of the sheet was compromised by damage, size, or gouache highlights (see "Taste and the Trade: The Retouched externaldistraction, the connoisseur's first impres Monbeig Goguel, Drawings in the Everard Jabach Collection at the sion, the one on which more complex ideas about Louvre," Burlington Magazine, 130, no. 1028, 1988, pp. an artist or school would be founded, might be 821?35). Similarly, eighteenth-century collectors in the compromised as well. Ideally, asMariette stated, Netherlands felt free to have artists add Staffage figures or washes and other to their Old Master further study would eventually rectify false rea "improvements" drawings (see Ben Broos, "Improving and Finishing Old soning, but such problems could be mitigated at Master Drawings: An Art in Itself," Hoogsteder-Naumann the outset through the proper presentation and Mercury, no. 8, 1989, pp. 334-55). judicious restoration of drawings. If Mariette's 3. See Roger de Piles, L'Id?e du peintre parfait; ed. by Xavier mats continue a tradition ofmounting drawings in Carr?re, Paris, 1993, p. 77. elaborate surrounds appropriate to the display of 4. De Piles/ed. Carr?re 1993, p. 81. French connoisseurs in precious objects, they also modify that tradition and theorists drew on Italian precedents in their discus accordance with the perceptual and epistemolog sions of drawings. During his visit to France in 1665, Lorenzo Bernini was to ical concerns of the eighteenth century. By pre Gian (1598?1680) heard remark that "the drawings of a great master were to a certain senting complete, clearly legible, and instanta extent more satisfying than the works that he executed neously apprehensible instances of an artist's style, from them after great study and care" (see Paul Fr?art de Mariette's mounts spared the viewer sensory trou Chantelou, Diary of theCavali?re Bernini's Visit to France; ble and secured drawings for the comparative ed. and trans, by Margery Corbett, Princeton, 1985, p. On de Piles's debts to Baldinucci visual analysis and taxonomic classification that 54). Filippo (1625 1697), see Mosche Barasch, "Personal Style: The was the "science of the connoisseur." Emergence of an Idea," Biuletyn Historii Sztuki, 59, 1997, p. 185. Comments made by Baldinucci in his Notizie de' Kristel Smentek, an Andrew W Mellon Curatorial professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua, 6 vols., Florence, Fellowat thePrick Collection in 2005-7, iscomplet 1681?1728, such as "works of art are not only paintings, but also the made down to their ingher PhD at theUniversity ofDelaware. drawings by painters,

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions first ideas and sketches" (vol. 6, pp. 569-80; cited in and theUses of Reproductive Engraving,"Eighteenth n. Chantelou 1985, p. 54, 54) would have supported de CenturyStudies, 38, 2005, pp. 623-65; CordhliaHattori, Piles's contentions. See also Gabriele Bickendorf, Die "Le Recueil Crozat," in Quand la gravure fait illusion:

Historisierung der italienischenKunstbetrachtung im 17. und Autour de Watteau et Boucher, le dessin grav6 au XVIIIe sie 18. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1998, pp. 273-96. cle, exh. cat., Valenciennes, Musee des Beaux-Arts, 2006-7, pp. 17-22; and eadem, "Contemporary Drawings 5. See Antoine-Joseph Dezallier d'Argenville, "Lettre sur le in the Collection of Pierre Crozat," Master Drawings, 45, choix & l'arrangement d'un cabinet curieux," Mercure de no. 1, 2007, pp. 38-53. France, ]unc 1727, p. 1317. 12. See "Recueil d'estampes des plus beaux tableaux," 6. See idem, "Discours sur la connaissance des dessins et des Mercure de France, May 1728, p. 1004. tableaux," in Abr?g? de la vie des plus fameux peintres, 2 vols., Paris, 1745, vol. 1, p. xvi. 13. See Recueil Crozat, vol. 2, p. v.

7. See Jonathan Richardson, Trait? de lapeinture et de la sculp 14. In a letter to his father (Paris, Mushe du Louvre, ture,3 vols., Amsterdam, 1728; reprint, Geneva, 1972, p. Dhpartement des Arts Graphiques, BS b9 L14, Pierre 43. (Page numbers cited here refer to the 1972 edition.) Jean Mariette to Jean Mariette, Vienna, 8 Jan. 1718), Richardson's Trait? is a French translation with numerous Mariette describedconnoisseurship (in thiscase of prints)

additions by the author of three books previously pub as a science: "nothing is closer to my heart than to per lished by him in England: An Essay on the Theory of fectmyself in this science." Similarly, the title of part 2 of Painting (1715, 2/1725), Two Discourses (1719, 2/1725), Richardson's Two Discourses, firstpublished in 1719, was and An Account of some of the Statues, Bas-reliefs, Drawings "An Argument in Behalf of the Science of a Connoisseur." and Pictures in &c. On Dezallier's of Italy, (1722). adoption 15. See Carol Gibson-Wood,JonathanRichardson: Art Theorist Richardson's theories and even, occasionally, his exact of theEnlightenment, New Haven and London, 2000, pp. see Carol Studies in the phraseology,' Gibson-Wood, 179-208. Theory ofConnoisseurship from Vasari toMorelli, New York, n. 1988, p. 305, 35, and Irene Haberland, Jonathan 16. Locke (EssayConcerning Human Understanding,London, Richardson (1666-1745): Die Begr?ndung derKunstkenner 1689; ed. by John Yolton, London, 1961, bk. 2, chap. 1, schaft,M?nster, 1991, pp. 170-74. pt. 2; see also Figlio 1975, pp. 192-97) described the mind before the impressionof sensationsto a "white was 8. This the term used by Dezallier, Mariette, and oth paper void of all characters." On the use of prints as a ers to themselves from fashionable consumers, distinguish metaphor to conceptualizeperception and cognition,see or "demi-connoisseurs," of drawings. On the demi William B. MacGregor, "The Authority of Prints: An connoisseur and the burgeoning market for drawings in Early Modern Perspective," Art History, 22, 1999, pp. see the eighteenth century, Colin B. Bailey, "Toute seule 389-420 (esp. pp. 404-11). Elsewhere in the Essay, elle peut remplir et satisfaire l'attention: The Early Locke used the visual metaphors of a wax tablet Appreciation and Marketing ofWatteau's Drawings, with impressed with the stylus and the camera obscura. On the an Introduction to the Collecting of Modern French currency of the latter metaphor in the seventeenth and Drawings during the Reign of Louis XV," in Alan eighteenth centuries, see Jonathan Crary, Techniques of the Wintermute et al., Watteau and His World: French Drawing Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth 1700 to 1750, exh. cat., New York, Frick from Century,Cambridge, 1990, pp. 24-66. Collection, and elsewhere, 1999-2000, pp. 68-92. 17. See Gibson-Wood 2000, p. 195. 9. See Pierre-Jean Mariette, Description sommaire des statues, figures, bustes, vases...du Cabinet de feu M. Crozat, Paris, 18. See Richardson 1719, pp. 107-8 (quoted in Gibson 1750, p. iii. Wood 2000, p. 194).

10. Mariette to Giovanni Gaetano Bottari, Paris, 29 October 19. See Locke 1689/ed. Yolton 1961, bk. 2, chap. 29, pt. 2. 1762 (Rome, Biblioteca Corsiniana, Mariette-Bottari 20. Useful overviews of this tradition are Catherine Monbeig Correspondence, 32.E.27, fol. 105v). Goguel, "Le Dessin encadr&," Revue de l'Art, 76, 1987,

11. The full title is Recueil d'estampes d'apr?s les plus beaux pp. 25-31; and Carlo James, "Collectors and Mountings," tableaux, et d'apr?s lesplus beaux desseins qui sont en France in Carlo James et al., Old Master Prints and Drawings: A dans leCabinet du Roy et dans celui du Duc d'Orl?ans, et dans Guide to Preservation and Conservation, trans. and ed. by autres Cabinets, hereafter cited as the Recueil Crozat. The Marjorie B. Cohn, Amsterdam, 1997, pp. 2-35. On was first volume published in 1729 and the second in Mariette's debt to Vasari's Libro, see Lorind Zentai, 1742. On the historiographical importance of thiswork, "Quelques remarques sur un (deux) dessin(s) de Fra see Bickendorf 1998, pp. 289-95; Francis Haskell, The Bartolommeo," Bulletin du Musee hongrois des Beaux-Arts, Painful Birth of the Art Book, London, 1988; Benedict 88-89, 1998, pp. 99-114 (esp. pp. 113-14). Leca, "An Art Book and ItsViewers: The Recueil Crozat 21. Paris,Musee du Louvre, inv.nos. 717 (pen and brown

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ink; 180 x 286 mm; see PaulJoannides, Mus&e di Louvre, "LesDesseins du Roi &tantde dfiferentesgrandeurs, il s'ensuit Departementdes Arts Graphiques. Inventairegeneral des que si Monsieur le Directeur General ordonne de les coller de dessinsitaliens, VI: Michel-ange, Nelves et copistes, Paris, 2003, nouveau sur une meme grandeur, autant pour leur donner une no. R2, repr. [asBartolommeo Passerotti]) and 18448 forme de recueils suivis et agrfables a la viie, que pour lesmettre (pen and brown ink, with brown wash, over traces of plus en suret6 en les montrant au public" (Paris, Archives black chalk; 165 x 126 mm; see Lizzie Boubli, Musfr du Nationales, 01 1965 (2), no. 3, "Memoire sur les frais Louvre,Departement des Arts Graphiques. Inventaire general qu'exigent les Desseins a coller du Cabinet du Roy a la desdessins de l'cole espagnole,Paris, 2002, no. 127, repr.). Garde deM. Coypel PremierPeintre du Roy," n. p.).

22. See Bailey 1999-2000, p. 74. 26. See Marcel Roux, BibliothiqueNationale. Inventairedn Graveursdu dix-huitiemesijcle, vol. 4, Paris, 23. See Pierre-JeanMariette, "Lettresur Leonardo de Vinci. fondsfranfais: 1940, p. 651, no. 299. Peintre Florentin. A Monsieur C. de C.," in Recueil de testes de caractere et de charges dessinfes par Leonard de Vinci 27. See Charlesde Secondat,baron de Montesquieu, "Gofit" florentin et gravfrs par M. le Cte de Caylus, Paris, 1730, p. inDenis Diderot, ed., Encyclopedie,on Dictionnaire raison 2. Mariette left the cartouches on his mounts empty ne dessciences, des arts, et des metiers, 28 vols., 1751-72, vol. when the attribution of a drawing was uncertain, and he 7, pp. 763-64: "S'ilfaut de l'ordre dans les choses, ilfaut also changed the attributions of his drawings when war aussi de la vari&t6: sans cela l'ame languit; car les choses sem ranted;see idem,Abecedario de P.J. Marietteet autresnotes blables lui paroissent lesmemes.. les choses que nons voyons suc inedites de cet amateur sur les arts et les artistes; ed. by cessivement, doivent avoir de la varifre; car notre ame n'a aucune Philippede Chennevieresand Anatole deMontaiglon, 6 dfficult a les voir; celles au contraire que nons appercevons d'un vols., Paris, 1851-60, vol. 4, p. 64: "J'ai deux desseins d la coup-d'oeil, doivent avoir de la symmetrie.. .on y met de la sym

plume, rehausses de blanc sur papier jaune, o6, dans Pun, se metrie qui plait a l'ame par la facilit6 qu'elle lui donne d'em reposentAdam et Eve mangeant dufruit de l'arbre de vie et les brasserd'abord tout l'objet." memes chassis du Paradis terrestre,qui me paroissent appartenir 28. See E. C. Spary,"Scientific Symmetries," History of Science, vfritablement a Lelio de Novellare, et, si cela est, ilfaut effacer 42, 2004, pp. 1-46. son nom de dessous les deux desseins mentionnes cy-dessus." For an erased and reinscribed cartouche, see Roseline 29. Mariette's mats thus prompt what Svetlana Alpers ("The Bacou, The Famous Italian Drawings from the Mariette Museum as a Way of Seeing," in Ivan Karp and Steven Collection at theLouvre in Paris, Milan, 1981, no. 52, repr. D. Lavine, eds.,Exhibiting Cultures: The Poeticsand Politics ofMuseum Display, Washington and London, 1991, pp. 24. Ulrich Keller ("VisualDifference: Picture Atlases from 25-32) has identified as the "museum effect," a way of Winckelmann toWarburg and the Rise of Art History," seeing objects predicated on their removal from the Visual Resources, 17, no. 2, 2001, pp. 179-99 [esp. p. world and their re-presentation in formats and spaces 179]) has recently argued that a precondition for the specificallydesignated for their display. Similar ideas were development of a historical hermeneutic was the repro articulated before the age of themuseum. In a letter of 28 ductive print, the "availability [in the eighteenth centu April 1639 to Paul Freart de Chantelou, Nicolas Poussin ry] of an experimental, archival arena of easily manipula (1594-1665) explained that a painting needs a frame, so ble reproductions." These reproductions helped to visu that "when in considering it in all its parts, the rays of the alize a "dynamic of change in art" and thereby facilitated eye are confined and not scattered outside by receiving the rearrangement of objects in a temporal order. Iwould [all] the kinds of other objects nearby, which, coming ple suggest that independently mounted drawings offered a mele and together with the depicted objects, would confuse similar opportunity for visual rearrangements, one that the sight" (Eng. trans. in Thomas Puttfarken, The Discovery was ill afforded by albums. of Pictorial Composition: Theories of Visual Order in Painting, 25. Writing of Louis xv's drawing collection in 1747, 1400-1800, New Haven and London, 2000, p. 231). Charles-AntoineCoypel (1694-1752) explained:"il seroit 30. See Daniel Le Marois, "Les Montages de dessins au d desirer qu'on les [the unmounted drawings] fit coller sans XVIIIe si&le: L'Exemple de Mariette," Bulletin de la quoi il est difficile de pouvoir les conserver longtems. Soci&t6de l'Histoirede l'Artfrancais, 1982 (1984), pp. ...D'ailleurs ils sont tous sur des feuilles inegales, ce qui est 87-96. I am grateful to the author for discussing his cause qu'ilsfroissent les uns contre les autres lorsqu'on remue les research with me, and I share his opinion thatMariette in Portefeuilles qui les renferment" (Paris, Archives Nationales, all likelihood directed the construction of his mounts but 01 1965 (2), "Memoire present& a Monsieur le left the more tedious process of assembling them to an Directeur General des Batimens du Roy au sujet des assistant. When I refer to Mariette as the author of the Recueils de Desseins dont Sa Majest& a bien voulu con mounts in my text, I mean his role as their designer. fier la Garde a Coypel;" cited in Thierry LeFrancois, Charles Coypel, peintre du roi [1 694-1 752], Paris, 1994, p. 31. See Bailey 1999-2000, p. 78. 92). Elsewhere Coypel suggested that uniformity was as 32. Letter of Pierre-JeanMariette to Tommaso Temanza, much an aestheticconcern as itwas a conservationissue:

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Paris, 25 January 1767; transcribed in Eug?ne M?ntz, Les and it is tempting to speculate that he was responsible for Archives des arts:Recueil de documents in?dites ou peu connus, thisintervention. Paris, 1890, p. 106. For the Cignaroli drawing, depicting 38. Bacou (1981, p. 38) interpreted this insistence as a sign of the into see Mariette, Abecedario/ed. Flight Egypt, Mariette'saspirations to "order,measure andperfection," Chennevi?res and Montaiglon 1851-60, vol. 1, p. 371; and to his conservatism, and Carlo James (1997, p. 20) and the of Marietta's estate sale on 15 catalogue (held referredto Mariette's "need fororder." November 1775-30 January 1776), written by Fran?ois Basan (hereafter cited as Basan 1775a), Catalogue raisonn? 39. Despite his preferencefor smaller drawings, Mariette did com des diff?rensobjets de curiosit?sdans les sciences et les arts qui own at least seventy-nine sheets whose scale exceeded posoient le cabinet defeu M. Mariette Contr?leur g?n?ral de la the dimensions of his mounts; see the entries marked Grande Chancellerie de France, honoraire amateur de l'Acad?mie with an t in his 1775 sale catalogue. Of a collection that Royale de Peinture, et celle de Florence, Paris, p. 60, lot 373. numbered several thousandsheets, the proportionof large-scaledrawings is nevertheless quite small. 33. M?ntz 1890, p. 106, n. 2. 40. Chevalier de Jaucourt, "Comparaison," in Diderot (ed.) 34. Letter of Pierre-Jean Mariette to Tommaso Temanza, 1751-72, vol. 3, p. 745. Paris, 22 February 1769; see M?ntz 1890, p. 121. According to Le Marois (1984, p. 94), 12 x 15 or 16 41. See Puttfarken 2000, pp. 256-58; and Michael Fried, x mm. pouces measures approximately 325 420 Absorptionand Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in theAge ofDiderot, Chicago andLondon, 1980, pp. 88-90. 35. Some authors have suggested thatMariette refused the large Diziani drawing, which depicted the Fall of the 42. See Thomas Puttfarken,Roger de Piles' Theoryof Art, Giants, but asRoseline Bacou (Le Cabinet d'un grand ama New Haven and London, 1985, pp. 97-98. teur, Mariette Dessins du XVe si?cle au P.-J. [1694-1774]: 43. See Anne-Claude-Philippede Tubieres de Caylus, "De XVIIIe si?cle, exh. cat., Paris, Mus?e du Louvre, 1967, p. la composition," Vies d'artistes du XVIIIe siece, ed. by 63) pointed out, it did figure inMarietta's sale catalogue Andre Fontaine, Paris, 1910, p. 160: "Des l'instant que ce (see Basan 1775a, p. 63, lot 391), where the lot was meme oeil aperfoit, il doit tout embrasser." See also Etienne marked with the symbol j" to indicate its large format. de La Font de Saint-Yenne, L'Ombre du grand Colbert, le

36. Which member of the Roos family executed the draw Louvre et la ville de Paris, dialogue, The Hague, 1749, and ing is not specified. Louis Petit de Bachaumont, Essai sur la peinture, la sculp ture, et l'architecture,Paris, 1751, p. 67. For Grimm, not 37. Letter from Pierre-Jean Mariette to anonymous recipient, only did "grands machines en peinture," such as vast paint 6 March 1772 (Paris, Biblioth?que Nationale, Depart ed ceilings and galleries, encourage subjects lacking in ment of Manuscripts, MS. n.a.f. 21196, fols. 126-27; unity, but their immense scale denied viewers the imme in Mariette, Abecedario/ed. Chennevi?res and reprinted diate comprehensionthey expected: "Our mind cannot Montaiglon 1851-60, vol. 3, pp. 6-7, where the embrace many objects or many situations at the same addressee is identified as "Jenincks"). On Henry time.... It wants to be struck at first glance by a certain Constantine Jennings, see Frits Lugt, Les Marques des col ensemble, without hindrance and in a strong manner" lections de dessins et Amsterdam, 1921, no. d'estampes, (see FriedrichMelchoir Grimm, Correspondancelitt&aire, 2771. Mariette trimmed most of the he drawings philosophiqueet critique,ed. by Maurice Tourneux, 16 acquired to regularize their edges. A number of drawings vols., Paris, 1877-82, vol. 3, pp. 317-21, 15 December acquired by Mariette from the Crozat sale in 1741 have 1756; reprinted and trans. in Fried 1980, p. 164). had their characteristic Crozat numbers trimmed. On

these numbers, which were likely added by Mariette and 44. See Johann Friedrich Christ, Dictionnaire des mono his assistants when he inventoried Crozat's drawings, see grammes,chffires, lettres initiates logogryphes, rebus, &c., Paris, Cordelia Hattori, "A la recherche des dessins de Pierre 1750; reprint,Geneva, 1972, pp. xlviii-xlix. Crozat," in Bulletin de la Soci?t? de l'Histoire de l'Art 45. See Joseph Strutt, A Biographical Dictionary Containing an fran?ais, 1997 (1998), p. 182; and Hattori 2007. Hans Historical Account of All the Engravers, 2 vols., London, an Mielke has suggested that Alpine Landscape by Pieter 1785-86; reprint, Geneva, 1972, vol. 1, p. 169. I am Bruegel (1525/30-1569) fromMarietta's collection, now grateful to Graham Larkin for this reference. in the Louvre (inv. no. 19.728; pen and brown ink; 236 x 343 mm; see Nadine M. Orenstein et al, Pieter Bruegel 46. Mariette's annotation to lot 472 of the Tallard sale cata the Elder: Drawings and Prints, exh. cat., Rotterdam, logue by Pierre Remy and J.-B. Glomy, Catalogue raison Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, and New York, ne des tableaux.. .qui composent le cabinet defeu Monsieur le Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2001, no. 12, repr. [in Duc de Tallard, Paris, Grignard, 22 March-13 May 1756. was color]), cropped and that the signature now seen on Mariette's annotated copy is preserved in the National the sheet is a copy of the original, which had been Art Library, Victoria & Albert Museum, London; his trimmed away. The drawing is still in itsMariette mount, notes are transcribedin theGetty Provenance Index, sale

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions catalogue database (http://piweb.getty.edu), from which ened study of the child lying on its side. See also the this quote is taken. drawings by Fra Bartolomeo in Zentai 1998.

47. Mariette 's annotation to lot 312 (Raymond La Fage, La 53. In his Lettresur Leonardo, Mariette condemned the dis Chute des anges) in the Huquier sale catalogue by F. C. mantling of Vasari's albums. He also owned an album of Joullainji/s, Catalogue de tableaux ? l'huile, ? gouasse & au architecturaldrawings assembled by Vasari, which he left pastel... dufeu M. Huquier, Paris, Chariot, 9 November-4 intact; see Mariette, Abecedario/ed.Chenneviires and December 1772. Marietta's annotated copy of the sale Montaiglon 1851-60, vol. 3, pp. 160-61, n. 1. catalogue is in the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische 54. Inv. no. RP-T-1950-392. Pen and brown ink; 331 x 272 Documentatie, The Hague. mm (format of mount); see Carl Depauw and Ger

48. Eight fragments of La Fage's drawing are now in the Luijten, Anthony van Dyck as a Printmaker, exh. cat., Louvre (inv. nos. 23385, 23387, and 27332-37; see Jean Antwerp,Museum Platin-Moretus/StedehjkPrenten Guiffrey and Pierre Marcel, Inventaire g?n?ral des dessins du kabinet,and Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, 1999-2000, no. Mus?e du Louvre et du Mus?e de Versailles, VU: Ecole 50a, repr. (in color). This mounted group is one of four fran?aise, Paris, 1912, nos. 5397-5404, five of them repr.; such Mariette mats with studies of heads by Van Dyck and R?gis Michel, Le Beau Id?al ou l'art du concept, exh. torn from larger sheets. Two others are in the Boijmans no. cat., Paris, Mus?e du Louvre, 1989, 33, repr.); the van Beuningen Museum, Rotterdam (inv. nos. MB 5015 ninth is in theMus?e Atger, Montpellier (inv. no. 223; see and MB 5016; see A.W.F.M. Meij and Maartje de Haan, Christiane and Pierre Nicq, Petits etgrands ma?tres duMus?e Rubens,Jordaens,Van Dyck andTheir Circle: Flemish Master Atger: Cent dessinsfran?ais des 17?me et 18?me si?cles, exh. Drawingsfrom the Museum Boymansvan Beuningen,exh. cat., Montpellier, Mus?e Atger, 1996, no. 55, repr.). cat., Rotterdam,Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, 2001, nos. 50-51, both repr. [in color]). The fourth 49. Inv. no. 23788. Black chalk, heightened with white mount (see Martin Eidelberg, "The Comte de Caylus' gouache, on two pieces of paper joined horizontally; 411 Tete-d-Tete with Van Dyck," Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 131, x 335 mm; see Lucie Galact?ros-de Boissier, Tilomas 1998, fig. 14), formerlyin the collectionof Richard Blanchet (1614-1689), Paris, 1991, no. D5, repr. Ederheimer, is now lost, but the sheet of drawings is pre Blanchet's fauns were studies for frescos, now destroyed, served in a private collection. in the H?tel de Ville, Lyons. An anonymous eighteenth century print shows the fauns back-to-back along the 55. See Eidelberg 1998, pp. 11-12. Caylus's etchings after bottom of the ceiling decorations of the great staircase the individual heads were published under the title (see ibid., fig. 87). Recueil des testesd'Antoine Van Dyck tirtesdu Cabinet deM. Crozat et grav&s par M. le C. de C. en 1735 (see 50. It is equally possible that the drawings were initially on Rotterdam 2001, p. 192, fig. 1, and p. 193, fig. 2). two separate papers and were conjoined by Mariette. 56. See Eidelberg 1998, p. 5. 51. Inv. no. 17617. Pen and brown ink on two pieces of paper joined vertically; 203 x 279 mm; see Veronika 57. Meij and de Haan (see Rotterdam 2001), Depauw and Birke and Janine Kert?sz, Die italienischenZeichnungen der Luijten (see Rotterdam and Amsterdam 1999-2000), and Albertina: Generalverzeichnis, 4 vols., Vienna, 1992?97, Eidelberg (1998) all attributed the dismembering of the vol. 4, pp. 2168-69, repr. Here Vasari mounted two sheets toMariette, but none of the authors speculated on sketchbook pages together and continued the lines of the why itmight have been done. drapery over the seam of the two sheets. 58. See Andrew McClellan, Inventing theLouvre: Art, Politics,

52. See Christ 1750 (reprint 1972), p. xlix. Other examples and theOrigins of theModern Museum in Eighteenth-century of Mariette's joining together of separate sheets include Paris, Cambridge, MA, 1994, pp. 6 and 72-74. his of two studies on presentation blue-gray paper by 59. Stockholm, Kungliga Bibliotheket, Department of Giovanni Lanfranco (1582-1647), which he attributed to Manuscripts, Carl Gustaf Tessin's Aker6 Diaries (1756 Correggio, one of hands and one of feet, together on the 1770), January 1760: 'Jag har sett utslocknade teckningarater same mount (Paris, Louvre, inv. no. 5939; black and upplifvas under hans hand ochgenom hans talamod, och det som white chalks on blue-gray paper; 362 x 232 mm; see [illegible] var, utanforminskning av dera pris." I am grateful Bacou 1981, p. 254). Another example is a sheet by to Sigrid Ekblad for the translation. a Giambattista Piazzetta (1683-1754) with Studies of Baby (Paris, Louvre, inv. no. 5266; black and white chalks on 60. See Johann Joachim Winckelmann, "Von der Restaurier x see fight brown paper; 344 254 mm; Venedigs Ruhm im ung der Antiquen": Eine unvollendete SchriftWinckelmanns, Norden: Diegrossen venezianischenMaler des 18. Jahrhunderts, ed. by Max Kunze, Mainz, 1996, p. 23. ihreAuftraggeber und ihre Sammler, exh. cat., Hannover, 61. See Pierre-Jean Mariette, Traite des pierres gravees, 2 vols., Forum des Landesmuseums, and D?sseldorf, Kunst Paris, 1750, vol. 1, p. 98. museum, 1991-92, no. 127D, repr.), where a sketch of the child's head overlaps a larger sheet with a foreshort 62. See ibid.

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions no. 63. See Winckelmann/ed. 1996, p. 23. Art Quarterly, 3, 1, 1940, p. 32.

64. Inv. no. 2687. Red chalk; original sheet: c. 142 x 51 mm; 71. See Jaynie Anderson, Giorgione: The Painter of Poetic enlarged sheet: 164 x 74 mm; see A. E. Popham, Brevity, Paris, 1997, fig. 174. The relationship between a Catalogue of the Drawings of Parmigianino, 3 vols., New Mariette's presentation and Zanetti's Varie pitture fresco was Haven and London, 1971, no. 617, repr.; and Birke and de' principali maestri veneziani, Venice, 1760, suggest Kertesz 1992-97, vol. 3, p. 1502, repr. ed by David Alan Brown, Berenson and theConnoisseurship of Italian Painting, exh. cat., Washington, DC, National 65. Inv. no. 1983 F. Red chalk; original sheet: 138 x 60 mm; Gallery of Art, 1979, p. 57, n. 84. enlarged sheet: 170 x 80 mm; see ibid., no. 91, repr. 72. See Bean and Turcic 1982, under no. 98. 66. Popham (1971, p. 189) noted of the Albertina drawing

that it is "not impossible that whole of the amphora was 73. For a summary of viewers' accounts of the red frescoes, an addition of this period [i.e. Mariette's or his see Anderson 1997, p. 268. mounter's] and that there is no connection with the 74. Any explanatory annotations Mariette might have added Steccata." The two drawings were inJabach's collection, were to the mount for the Giorgione drawing lost when and the descriptions of them in an inventory taken in the mat was trimmed. 1695 support Popham's attribution of the vases to use Mariette. In the Jabach inventory (see Bernadette Py, 75. James (1997, p. 194) noted Mariette's of poor-quali EverhardJabachCollectionneur [1618-1695]: Les Dessinsde ty papers that discolor much more readily than the orig l'inventaire de 1695, Paris, 2001, p. 252, nos. 1113 [Uffizi] inal sheets. and 1114 [Albertina]), the Uffizi drawing was described 76. Inv. no. 1970.242.1. Black and white chalks, on light brown as "une femme debout," whereas the Albertina sheet was x paper; 293 380 mm; see Jacob Bean and Lawrence listed as "une dittoportant une cruche sur la tete," suggesting, Turcic, 15th-18th-century French Drawings in theMetro as Py noted, that the addition of the vase in the former politan Museum ofArt, New York, 1986, no. 102, repr. and the transformation of the latter from a "cruche" or jug

into a two-handled vase was due toMariette. 77. I owe many thanks toMarjorie Shelley, Sherman Fairchild Conservator in Charge of the Paper Conservation 67. At least one drawing for the Steccata was in the French Department, Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Alison royal collection; this was a drawing of two wise virgins Gilchrest, who undertook the digital infrared photogra sold by Jabach to the king in 1671 (Paris, Musee du phy of this drawing in July 2002 and who discussed the Louvre, inv. no. 6466; see Jean Adhemar, ed., Collections me sheet with at length. I am also grateful to George de Louis xIv: Dessins, albums, manuscrits, exh. cat., Paris, Goldner and Perrin Stein of the of Musee de l'Orangerie, 1977-78, no. 54, repr.). In Department Drawings and Prints for facilitating the analysis of the sheet. Jabach's inventory of his "first collection," the figures are

clearly identified as carrying vases: "deux femmes se don 78. Mariette certainly had the necessary tools at his disposal, nant la main ayant chacune un vase sur la teste." This same as is clear from an entry in the catalogue of the second of drawing had been in the collection of Thomas Howard, his estate sales, also written by Fran?ois Basan, Supplement au 2nd (14th) Earl of Arundel (1585-1646), where it was catalogue des estampes de la succession defeu M. Mariette, a etched by Hendrik van Borcht the Younger (1614-c. dont la vente commenc? lepremier f?vrier dernier,& laquelle en 1690) as part of a series of prints after Parmigianino draw continuera mai prochain, apr?s la vente de la biblioth?que, ings, a series with which Mariette was familiar. qui finira le treize, Paris, 1775 (hereafter cited as Basan 1775b), lot 298: "Plusieurs Compas & autres ustensils ? 68. In a letter to his father (Paris, Musee du Louvre, l'usage des Dessins & It is harder to attribute Departement des Arts Graphiques, BS b9 L44, Pierre Estampes." other modifications of the Dorigny sheet to Mariette. Jean Mariette to Jean Mariette, Bologna, 2 February The head of themuse, at the left of the sheet, is on a sep 1719), Mariette described his visit to Parma where he saw arate piece of paper and has been glued down onto the works by "le Divin Correge" and "le gracieux Parmesan," larger drawing of her body. Jacob Bean (17th-century among others. Any inscriptions thatMariette might have Italian Drawings in theMetropolitan Museum Art, New appended to these drawings were lostwhen theirmounts of no. but were removed. York, 1979, 359, repr. [as Solimena?, possibly French]) suggested that the head study may have been 69. Inv. no. 11.66.6. Red chalk; original sheet: 157 x 66 mm; attached to the upper margin at right of the sheet and enlarged sheet: 237 x 152 mm; see Jacob Bean and then removed and pasted onto the lower part of the orig Lawrence Turcic, Fifteenth-and Sixteenth-centuryItalian inal paper. By removing the head and pasting it onto the Drawings in theMetropolitan Museum of Art, New York, larger sheet, the drawing's overall dimensions are reduced to x x 1982, no. 98, repr. 11 1/2 14 15/16 inches (293 378 mm), making it slightly smaller than Mariette's standard mat. It is thus 70. See Erika Tietze-Conrat, "Decorative Paintings of the to attribute this alteration to him. Venetian Renaissance Reconstructed fromDrawings," tempting However, even when scrutinized under very high magnification, it

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions is impossible to differentiate the medium used for the Paris,1877, vol. 1, pp. 256-57). The Raphael drawing(s) continuations of the lines of drapery in the head study in questionmay have been those thatwere etched by onto the backing paper from that used for the head itself. Caylus for the firstvolume of theRecueil Crozat (1727). By contrast, the continuations of the shoulder drapery Mariette's abilitiesas a restorerwere not limitedto draw and baton onto the backing paper along the upper right ings; in the same letter,Caylus mentioned thathe had edge of the sheet may be in another hand, though again, entrusteda recentlyacquired painted mummy cloth to even under high magnification, a definitive conclusion is Mariette forrestoration. difficult. Both Barbara Brejon de Lavergn?e ("New Light 85. See Basan 1775a, p. 20. on Michel Dorigny," Master Drawings, 19, no. 4, 1981, pp. 453-54) and Hilliard Goldfarb (From Fontainebleau to 86. Inv. no. C 455. Pen and brown ink, with brown wash, the Louvre: French Drawings from the Seventeenth Century, over traces of red chalk; diam.: 250 mm; see Michael exh. cat., Cleveland, Museum of Art, and elsewhere, Mahoney, "Some Graphic Links between theYoung 1989-90, no. 98, repr.) believed Dorigny to have been Albani andAnnibale Carracci," Burlington Magazine, 104, responsible for the relocation of the head study. no. 714, 1962, pp. 386-89, fig. 35.

79. See Judith Walsh, "The Use of Paper Splitting in Old 87. Inv. no. 557. Pen and brown ink,with brown wash; Master Print Restorations," Print Quarterly, 17, 2000, pp. original sheet: c. 240 x 180 mm, enlarged sheet, 253 x 383?90; and Irene Br?ckle and Jana Dambrogio, "Paper 205 mm; see Mahoney 1962, fig. 36. and Modern the Splitting: History Technology," Journal of 88. Bacou (1967, p. 22), by contrast,accepted the testimony American Institute Conservation, 39, 2000, 295-303. for pp. ofMariette's contemporaries. am I grateful to JudithWalsh, formerly senior paper con servator at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 89. Anonymous annotation on the verso of the mount in for this reference. See also Max Schweidler, The Frankfurt. Restoration Books, and Other Works ofEngravings, Drawings, 90. I am very gratefulto JudithWalsh, who generously on trans., ed., and Perkinson, Los Paper, appendix by Roy sharedher expertisewith me and supervisedmy own Angeles, 2006, pp. 104-5. attempt to split laid paper. On the mishaps that can occur

80. See Walsh 2000, pp. 383-85; Br?ckle and Dambrogio in thisprocess, see Brfickle and Dambrogio 2000, p. 311. 2000, 296-97; see also Mark Stevenson, "Print pp. 91. Inv. no. 1989.188 (Restrictedgift of theRegenstein Restoration in Northern Europe: Development, Foundation). Pen and iron gall ink, with brush and Traditions, and Literature from the Late Renaissance to brown wash; 284 x 177 mm; see Suzanne Folds the 1930s," Conservation Research 1995, Studies in the McCullagh, ed., "Manieri toMir6: The Regenstein of Art, 51, DC, 1995, p. 125, n. 49. History Washington, Collection since 1975," The Art Instituteof Chicago:

81. See Walsh 2000, p. 383; and Br?ckle and Dambrogio Museum Studies, 26, no. 1, 2000, pp. 20-23, no. 4, both 2000, p. 297. sidesrepr.

82. See the nineteenth-century description of the process 92. See their entry in McCullagh (ed.) 2000, no. 4. I am quoted inWalsh 2000, p. 387. It has recently emerged indebted to the authors for discussing this drawing with that Josef Meder, director of the Albertina from 1909 to me. Margo McFarland generously allowed me to see the a 1923, and noted authority on Old Master drawings, sheet at a time when the collection was closed to visitors, split both prints and drawings, including, presumably, an opportunity forwhich I am especially grateful. works belonging to the museum. Meder also wrote the 93. See ibid., p. 22. first detailed description of paper splitting; see Br?ckle and Dambrogio 2000, pp. 297-98 and 300-301. As late 94. See ibid., p. 93, n. 8. as 1950, the German restorer Max Schweidler advocated 95. Inv. no. 6333. Pen and brown ink; 240 x 185 mm; see splitting double-sided drawings to facilitate their viewing Catherine Monbeig Goguel and Walter Vitzthum, Le (see Schweidler 2006, pp. 105). Dessin a Naples du XVIe siece au XVIIIe siecle, exh. cat.,

83. On false margins in this period (though ones that were Paris, Mushe du Louvre, 1967, no. 53. Mariette acquired see not achieved by splitting), Antony Griffiths, "Re the drawing at the Crozat sale in 1741; the tom Crozat margined Prints" and "False Margins and Fake Collector's inventory number at the bottom right of the sheet is fur Marks," Print Quarterly, 13, 1996, pp. 62 and 187. ther evidence thatMariette was responsible for the mod ificationof Lanfranco'sdrawing. 84. Letter from the Comte de Caylus to Paolo Maria Paciaudi, Paris, 23 March 1761 (reprinted in Charles 96. Inv. no. 9465. Four Caricatures: each pen and brown ink; Nisard, ed., Correspondance in?dite du Comte de Caylus diam.: 80 mm. Woman on Horseback: red chalk; 107 x 137 avec le p?re Paciaudi, th?atin [1757-1765], suivie de celles mm; see Bacou 1981, p. 250. avec de l'abb? Barth?l?my et de Mariette le m?me, 2 vols.,

This content downloaded from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:41 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions