Časopis ARS 43 (2010) 2

Eva KOTLÁRIKOVÁ

Vincenzo della Greca: Lettioni date da me... Taliansky rukopis v zbierkach Východoslovenského múzea v Košiciach
[Vincenzo della Greca: Lettioni date da me... Italian Manuscript in the Archives of the East Slovakian Museum in Košice]

(Resumé)

The Lettioni date da me... is a manuscript written in Italian. The document, which is a theoretical work on architecture, is archived in the East Slovakian Museum in Košice (Východoslovenské múzeum v Košiciach). Its existence was revealed thanks only to a scant mention published by Ladislav Šášky in 1958 in the journal Pamiatky a múzeá (Historical Monuments and Museums), which informs that “the manuscript consists of 58 double-faced pages sized 32.5 × 22 cm, and another 6 pages, most probably blank, which had later been cut away. The manuscript is written in 17th-century italics, and does not feature any heading or author’s name, with only the year 1638 in the upper right corner of the first page and a margin note next to it, saying: Lettioni date da me Vincenzo della Greca Architetto di N.S.PP. Orbano VIII. The note’s handwriting is different from that of the rest of the manuscript; however, it is very similar to it.” The same source also informs us that “there are no records with regard to how and when the manuscript reached Slovakia and the museum’s archives”. So far, this mention is the only record in both Slovak and world literature on the history of arts regarding the existence of the Lettioni date da me... manuscript.

The manuscript is divided into three parts. The first part, up to page 26, is an introduction to the actual work on architecture. It commences with general geometric definitions and concludes with instructions on measuring planes and determining the height of a tower. The second part consisting of pages 27 through 34 is dedicated to descriptions of columns used in ancient architecture. On pages 35 to 58, the third part deals in greater detail with dispositions of palace constructions. All three parts are illustrated with numerous drawings.

Manuscript pages are numbered 1 to 58, always in the upper right corner of each sheet of paper. However, the opposite left sheets bear no marking whatsoever. The sheets were numbered later than at the time of the manuscript’s origin; the numbers were inscribed in pencil.

After a closer inspection of the manuscript in the archives of the East Slovakian Museum in Košice, its basic description can be further elaborated by stating that its front page includes an inscription reading “latin mértan”, with the word “latin” having been later crossed out. The same page also bears a note reading “K. Sz. Kassa város”, signifying the manuscript came into the museum’s possession even prior to 1918. The acquisitions log of the East Slovakian Museum in Košice does not reveal any more regarding the manuscript. The full text of Šášky’s short article from the journal Pamiatky a múzeá is a transcription from the acquisitions log. This record, which describes the tractate as an item of the museum’s collection, dates to a period after 1918. However, with respect to the manuscript’s provenance or the means of its acquisition for the museum’s collection, the log provides only the word “storage”, accompanied by a question mark. Thus, any chance of directly determining the work’s origin end here, together with all direct information regarding the way the East Slovakian Museum in Košice could have acquired it.

The East Slovakian Museum in Košice was founded in 1872 as an association museum entitled the Upper-Hungarian Museum Association in Košice (Felsőmagyarországi múzeum) on the basis of an initiative by the Klimkovič brothers, František and Vojtech, Viktor Myskovszky and Imrich Henszlmann. In 1899, the museum’s administration was transferred under the authority of the city of Košice, hence the change of its title to the Museum of Košice (Kassai múzeum). In 1901, Jozef Mihalik was sent to Košice as a ministerial appointee (later served as the museum’s director from 1903 – 1907). Perhaps being the first professional museologist, he created the Descriptive Collection Register of the Museum of Košice (A Kassai múzeum gyüjteményeinek leiró lajstroma). The museum started registering its collections in the acquisitions log in 1904. In 1918, the then museum director Elemír Köszeghi-Winkler ordered the most valuable items in the collection to be moved to Budapest. Following the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, under the first Czechoslovak Republic the museum became a state-run institution entitled the East Slovakian Museum, with director Josef Pollák.

On the basis of the currently available information and conclusions, it is possible to make an assumption the Lettioni date da me... manuscript came into the possession of the East Slovakian Museum in Košice sometime between 1872 and 1918, i.e. between the year of the museum’s foundation and the date of the acquisition log entry, which states “storage” as its provenance. This time frame of the manuscript’s acquisition date is also confirmed by the inscription on its front page – it is in the Hungarian language, which was officially used in state administration only until 1918. Despite the fact that acquisition logs were introduced in 1904, the Italian manuscript was recorded in them only after 1918. We can therefore assume that only new acquisitions had been recorded since 1904, and the inventory of older collections was performed later – in the case of the Italian manuscript after 1918. On the basis of this assumption, we could further limit the period of the manuscript’s arrival in the museum collection to 1872 – 1904.

The most extensive unit in the museum’s document collection is the collection of manuscripts and other documents inherited from one of the museum’s founders Imrich Henszlmann, who, among other subjects, studied also the History of Arts and Architecture in Rome and Venice. In his prolific publishing work, Henszlmann also dealt with the history of visual arts, with specific focus on architecture.

Thus, the manuscript could have been acquired by the East Slovakian Museum in Košice from the inheritance of Imrich Henszlmann following his death in 1888. This version is also supported by the fact that Henszlmann studied history of arts in Italy, even directly in Rome, where he could have purchased the manuscript into his private collection. Another argument supporting this theory is that the manuscript could have been passed onto the museum from Henszlmann’s inheritance at the time when the system of recording items in the acquisition log had not yet been introduced. This would also explain why the current acquisition log does not state the manuscript’s provenance.

The only factor that could dispute this theory is the inscription reading “latin mértan” on the document’s front page. Henszlmann studied in Italy, thus it is very unlikely that he would have made a mistake in noting the manuscript’s language. It is sound to assume this mistake was made only later, when the manuscript was already in the collection of the Upper-Hungarian Museum Association, probably by a member of the museum staff.

However, at this stage of research, such theory cannot be fully verified. Despite the significant probability of the Henszlmann theory, there still exists a possibility the manuscript had been donated to the museum by a completely different person. In a further research stage, it would be necessary to consult in detail the complete list of Imrich Henszlmann’s inheritance, however, existence of such a list is more than unlikely.

The Issue of Authorship

The first step towards a closer research of the manuscript’s contents and its interpretation with regard to the context of the history of arts was its transcription into the Slovak language. The author’s handwriting itself is an interesting aspect of research. In his short article, Ladislav Šášky notes that “the inscription was written by a different hand, but in a handwriting very similar to that of the manuscript”. At any rate, it is necessary to add that the issue of the manuscript’s handwriting is slightly more complicated. We can speculate about no less than two and no more than three different handwritings, with the difference being most evident on the document’s first page. The handwriting on page 2r and throughout the middle of page 2v is neat and clearly legible. The inscription Lettioni date da me Vincenzo della Greca Architetto di N.S.PP. Orbano VIII. is in sharp contrast to the rest of the first page. Compared to the precision of the first page, the handwriting is “trained” – the speed of writing is evident here, and the note has a character of signature. Thus, the character of handwriting on page 2r is consistent with Šášky’s note regarding two different handwritings in the tractate. An interesting variation is present on page 2v, where approximately halfway throughout the text the handwriting changes. From being neat and precise, it shifts to still legible, yet “faster”. It then retains this style all the way to page 57v. Here, approximately in the second sentence, the handwriting changes character again, creating an impression of a note having been written by yet another hand.

Another interesting aspect of research is the language of the manuscript. On the basis of several grammatical mistakes or phonetic spelling that contradicts the elementary cadence of the Italian language, we can spell out a supposition the author of the manuscript might not have been a native Italian.

This theory is supported also by the fact that from a linguistic point of view, the writer’s phrasing is relatively simplistic, with each new professional term in the manuscript being explained and clarified. It is due to this simplicity of language that a strong and sudden change in the richness of phrasing is strongly evident, starting approximately from the second line on page 57v. In this short paragraph, the writer suddenly uses expert terms that had not been previously explained to the reader, with the phrasing suddenly being more sophisticated and professional. One explanation could be that the writer returned to the work after a longer pause, during which he had acquired deeper theoretical knowledge. However, it is also possible that the note was written by a different person. Comparison of the handwriting on page 57v with the one on page 2r – in both of which we see similar elongated lines of the letter “l”, or a similar way of writing the letter “a” – indicates the shift may be a result of a tutor’s intervention into his pupil’s notes, i.e. a direct note of Vincenzo della Greca into the work’s text itself.

In connection to the hypothesis of the manuscript’s multiple authors, it may be assumed the manuscript was written by an architect, probably of non-Italian origin, who was probably Vincenzo della Greca’s apprentice.

This version is supported by several facts. The first are the records in the documents archived in the Historical Archives of the Academy of Saint Luke (Accademia di San Luca) in Rome, where on page 16v of volume 43 under the Miscellanea documents, we find a mention that on April 13, 1636, Vincenzo della Greca was instructed to “lecture the young in civil and military architecture”. The date on the Lettioni date da me... manuscript is January 20, 1638, which corresponds with the verifiable fact that at that time Vincenzo della Greca was really tutoring young architects. This then supports the theory that he could have been a teacher, lectures of whom were being recorded by a young student. Vincenzo della Greca could have consequently signed the front page of his lectures’ transcript.

Another fact in support of this theory is a finding that in the collection of the Courtauld Institute of Art in London, namely in the Anthony Blunt Collection, exists a treatise on architecture entitled Lettione di architettura date da me Vincenzo della Greca Architetto di N.Sre. Urbino VIII. Although the inscription on the front page differs slightly – the manuscript in Košice is entitled Lettioni date da me Vincenzo della Greca Architetto di N.S.PP. Orbano VIII. – it is more than likely that this is another of several records of Vincenzo della Greca’s lectures. The London manuscript was purchasedin 1970 by Anthony Blunt, the then director of the Courtauld Institute, from Paul Grinke, a merchant with antique books. This manuscript became the property of the Courtauld Institute in 1984.

According to the description of the tractate’s London version provided in the Courtauld Institute’s library catalogue, this document consists of two parts containing 63 and 25 sheets respectively, which include 7 empty sheets that are not paginated. Content-wise, the manuscript consists of two unrelated parts: a treatise on architecture by Vincenzo della Greca, and a collection of bills dating from 1664 to 1666, which pertain to a construction and expansion of a house in Liège, written in French. The catalogue entry also informs that the manuscript includes “pen and wash drawings of architectural nature”. The catalogue does not provide information on the date when the Vincenzo della Greca’s lectures, i.e. the first part of the manuscript, were recorded.

It is here where another possible point for discussion opens regarding the authorship of both the London and the Košice version of the manuscript. The London version contains records of bills in French language, hence it is likely its writer was from a French-speaking region and after many years (when Vincenzo della Greca was no longer alive) used the notes from his lectures during reconstruction works and the vacant pages for recording relevant bills. With regard to the possible authorship of the London manuscript, Anthony Blunt, who owned the document and until today also exerted the greatest effort in researching it, offers an interesting opinion. In his study entitled “Roman Baroque Architecture: The Other Side of the Medal”, published in 1980 in the journal Art History, he opines that the text part of the manuscript was “probably written by a Flemish priest named Grimald de Nuvelara, who was a canon in Saint-Jean in Liège”. He believes so also due to a note in an unspecified book by this canon, which implies that Grimald de Nuvelara was in Rome in 1638, where, as Blunt assumes, he took a training from Vincenzo della Greca. Blunt believes Grimald de Nuvelara “must have made detailed notes and then transcribed them, or perhaps he was recording what the tutor was dictating to him”. However, Blunt attributes authorship of the drawings illustrating the text to della Greca himself with almost absolute certainty, “since the inscriptions they bear are in the same handwriting as the signature on the first page”.

Another argument that Blunt uses to support his theory is the comparison of della Greca’s signature on the manuscript with the “della Greca” signature on the reconstruction plan for the Basilica of St. John Lateran, which is now stored in the Vatican Library in Rome. In addition, Blunt develops a theory that the reconstruction design presented in 1646 and signed with only a surname was incorrectly attributed to Vincenzo’s son Felice. After comparing both signatures, he opted to believe that attributing the authorship to Felice was in fact incorrect, and that the true author of the plan is Vincenzo.

Vincenzo della Greca’s authorships of the Košice manuscript could be definitely proved only by a direct comparison of the two manuscripts, which could also definitely prove or disprove Grimald de Nuvelara’s authorship of the Košice manuscript. However, since the Courtauld Institute did not allow such direct comparison to take place, for the time being, we may resort to the conclusion that the Košice manuscript has two authors. One is Vincenzo della Greca, signed on its front page, being the author of the recorded lectures on architecture. The second is an unknown student who recorded della Greca’s lectures. His name remains unknown and provides an opportunity for further research of this manuscript.

Tractate's Content

The Lettioni date da me... manuscript is not a theoretical work on architecture that would describe Vincenzo della Greca’s specific opinions or new approaches with regard to the history of architecture, changes in trends, or to any other issue related to the history of arts. As is evident from the opening sections of its first mathematic-geometric part, the manuscript is first and foremost a manual for students of architecture. The first part, spanning on pages 2r-27r, focuses on basic geometric rules and their practical application in the work of an architect. This section of the manuscript bears the unmistak¬able character of a school-text.

The second part of the tractate focusing on period-style orders consists of pages 27v-35r. In this part, the text and the drawings are positioned more evenly; the text is always on the left page of the manuscript’s volume (paginated “v” – verso), the drawings always on the right page (paginated with numbers written in pencil; we can mark them “r” – recto). Such transparent arrangement is present from page 27v all the way to the end of the manuscript.

Here it is necessary to mention that in a certain sense the manuscript preserved in the collection of the Courtauld Institute in London is a continuation of the Košice manuscript. The Košice tractate details the Tuscan and Doric column orders, the London version describes the Ionic and Corinthian orders. According to Anthony Blunt, in the London tractate Vincenzo della Greca continues in the path of his tutor Montana. In addition, Blunt sees another source of inspiration, namely with regard to the drawings on pages 17 and 18 of the London tractate, in Michelangelo’s designs for the Palazzo dei Conservatori.

Thus, resemblance to Montana’s designs is confirmed also in the London tractate. In addition, comparison of the two tractates brings forth a possibility that the London version could have been a follow-up to the one in Košice, since at the time of their origin, it was customary for analysis of the column orders to start with the Tuscan order and proceed through the Doric order to the Ionic, Corinthian and Composite orders.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the manuscript is its third part (on pages 35r-57v), which deals with palace ground plans. Following an introduction to the topic (on pages 35r-40v), the manuscript turns (from page 40r) into an overview of various types of houses and palaces with different styles of internal space organisation. An architect could also use it as a well-organised catalogue of construction types for palaces and residential houses.

The architectural opinion presented in the manuscript is based on the works of Michelangelo, Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola and Giacomo della Porta. The selection of buildings recommended by Vincenzo della Greca in the overview of construc¬tion types comes predominantly from the mid- and late-16th century. This selection fully corresponds with the academic tendencies to apply classical and tested schemes, however, it does not necessarily have to reflect also the architectural opinion of Vincenzo della Greca. His innovative approach is proved by the staircase of the SS. Domenico e Sisto church in Rome, where he used the element of the indented staircase for the first time in urban environment; until then, it was used only in designs for countryside villas. This approach possibly provided the foundation for the Porto di Ripeta by Alessandro Specchi and the Spanish Steps by Francesco de Sanctis.

English translation by T. Beňo