BERENSON and the Connoisseurship of Italian Painting A Handbook to the Exhibition David Alan Brown UB WIEN National Gallery of Art, 1979 CONTENTS 8 FOREWORD J, Carter Broun 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11 INTRODUCTION 13 BERENSONS CONTRIBUTION TO SC HOI VRSHIP, TASTE, AND COLLECTING 30 THE TRADITION OF THE CONNOISSEUR 41 BERENSONS METHOD 61 CHECKLIST OF THE EXHIBITION INTRODUCTION 1 HOI c.ll WORKS OF ART arc seldom signed or documented, it is desirable for main reasons to know bv w horn thev were made or to which school the\ belong The connoisseur seek1- to gi\c such anonvmous productions their place in the histon of art b\ trving to establish their authorship on the basis of comparison with known works Aside from attribution, the connoisseur is also concerned w ith the related question of authenticity. whether a work is original or a cop\ Bv attributing or authenticating a work of art, the scholar gains an intimate understanding of it. one that he might not otherwise obtain Still, attribution and authentication are not the whole of connoisseurship. which means to evaluate, and not merelv to classify. Having satisfactorily placed" a work of art, the connoisseur may go on to assess its quality or intrinsic value, again by comparison with other objects of the same kind The exhibition Berenson and the ( (Jiinoisseurship of Italian Painting illustrates the history and methods of connoisseurship, specifically as it relates to early Italian painting, by focusing on Bernard Berenson (J865-1959), for more than half a century the foremost authority in the field. Visually self-educated through a lifetime of looking at objects. Berenson was averse to the study of art histon, which he regarded as a form of pedantry. unrelated or inimical to the enjoyment of art. Indeed, by present-day standards he would scarcely be considered an art historian. Berenson investigated the art of the past, but as a critic might: to elucidate its tangible form rather than its historic ,il Iunction. In doing so Berenson recognized thai many works of art fail to get the attention thev deserve unless thev have first been attributed to an artist. "But for this trait of human nature," he said, "connoisseurship would at best be a form of sport . . [it] pays its way b\ assimilating the isolated work of art to its kin, thereby giving it a clear title-to the treasure of admiration and interest these have accumulated." As with the Madonna [1, illus.],* now in I. Antnm-lln da Messina, Madonna and Child National Gallery of Art, Andrew W Mellon Collection 1937 * Numerals in brackets refer to the Checklist. the National Gallery, which he ascribed to Antonelloda Messina be I iiisc of its "homely but distinguished simplicity." Berenson lamented that tin painting went unappreciated before he "discovered" it In convincingly attributing it to Antonello. he invested the unknown with meaning by relating it to the known.1 Bernard Berenson was born in 1865, the son of a poor Jewish family that emigrated from Lithuania to America when he was ten years old. A youthful prodigy [2], he gained entrance to Harvard College, where he studied literature, graduating in 1887. After this formative experience, Berenson made his way to Europe, feeling, like some character in a novel by Henry James, that he was about to enter the most decisive period of his life. The trip was meant to prepare him as a literary critic by making up a deficiency in his knowledge of the visual arts. On his first visit to Italy in the autumn of 1888, he found his true vocation; enchanted by Italian art, he decided to devote his life to studying it. Four pioneering essays on the Italian painters of the Renaissance followed. They were accompanied by the famous "Lists" of those pictures that Berenson accepted as authentic. It is on these lists, as well as other writings, that his reputation as a connoisseur is based. A colorful, even controversial figure, Berenson is also remarkable for the role he played in the history of taste and collecting, working as he did from a fascinating coincidence of talent and opportunity. By the early twentieth 12 \mriu.m millionaire". W*** banning to .cqirin rflasterpieces-or n the? hoped—ol Italian art Berefl ■m stimulated ami prided that interest 3 Garden facade of Villa I Tatti Smithsonian magazine copvnght Pmitn and, as the leading expert, authenticated paintings for dealers and collectors. The financial rewards of connois-scurship soon enabled him to purchase Villa I Tatti. near Florence There, in a great house [3. illus.]. surrounded b\ formal gardens [4, 5], he combined a life of scholarship and elegant hospitality. I rbane in manner and fastidious in dress [6. co\er], \\idel\ read and wittv. dreading \ulgaritv and lacking a social conscience. Berenson sought perfection of the self in aesthetic sensibility. More than am other scholar, Berenson cultivated the role of connoisseur [7, illus.]. Sir Kenneth Clark has recently described how Berenson made his long experience of careful observation look spontaneous.2 He would gaze intently at a picture, tap the surface 'to test whether panel or canvas;, and then dramatically murmur a name. If the mvstiquc of connoisseurship contributed to the aura surrounding him, by the time of his death in 1959 Berenson was also renowned as a sage, his aesthetic philosophy having reached a broad public through his late autobio- 7 Berenson at the Borghcsc Gallery, Rome, 1955 Villa I Tatti, Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies graphical writings. Nevertheless, it is BYrenson's activity as a connoisseur that remains his lasting achievement. HI HI \SOYS Bcrcnson's most tangible contribute to scholarship was what he tailed his library with living rooms attached [8 illus.]."3 Villa I Tatti. as be ctnceJted it. was meant to provide a congenial ambient of learning [9]—unlike the bustle of university life—where the scholar could find the solitude he needed to think and write Berenson was not inclined toward teaching. Bather, it was through personal contact, as well as his writings, that he shaped the thinking of a generation of scholars. He never formed a circle, preferring instead to deal individual with his disciples. As a consequence, he impressed each of them differentlv Lord Clark, who worked at 1 Tatti at one time, admired Berenson s humanistic criticism, and it is in this vein that Clark wrote and narrated the famous Civilisation series, ^et. his exemplary Leonardo monograph and the drawings catalogue on which it is based are equally indebted to Beren-son's example as a connoisseur 4 Bcr enson was a pioneer in another field study that Sir John Popc-Hennessy then made his own: Sienese quattrocento painting. Pope-Hennessv went on to become the authontv in attnbu ing Italian sculpture that Berenson w for painting.5 During the last dead* his life, Berenson bestowed his citi ■ visual analvsis on \et another distin guished disciple. Professor Svdncy Freedberg, who, however, hasexerci it on later Italian painting.* I eft bv I enson to his alma mater 1 lam is n the Harvard Lmversiiv Venter tor Italian Renaissance Studies It contii BLRLNSONS CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOLARSHIP TASTE AND COLLECTING Berenson's mosl tangible- contribution to scholarship was what In called his librarv with living rooms attached [8, illus 1 "•1 Villa I Tatti, as ho conceived it, was meant to provide | congenial ambient of learning [9] — unlike the bustle of university life—where the seholar eould find the solitude he needed to think and w rite. Berenson was not inclined toward teaching. Rather, it was through personal eon-tact, as well as his writings, that he shaped the thinking of a generation of scholars. He never formed a circle, preferring instead to deal individually with his disciples. As a consequence, he impressed each of them differently. Lord Clark, who worked at I Tatti at one time, admired Berenson's humanistic criticism, and it is in this vein that Clark w rote and narrated the famous C trilisation series. Yet, his exemplan Leonardo monograph and the drawings catalogue on which it is based arc equally indebted to Berenson's example as a connoisseur.4 Berenson was a pioneer in another field of stud\ that Sir John Pope-Hennessy then made his own: Sienese quattrocento painting. Pope-Hennessy went on to become the authority in attributing Italian sculpture that Berenson was for painting.5 During the last decade of his life, Berenson bestowed his gift for visual analysis on yet another distinguished disciple, Professor Sydney Freedberg, who, however, has exercised it on later Italian painting.6Lcft by Berenson to his alma mater, I Tatti is now the Harvard I nivcrsity Center for Italian Renaissance Studies.lt continues 8. Library ill I l.illi Smithsonian muga/inc. Cdpyiigjhl Dmitri kiwi 1978 to function as a research center [10], maintaining an active fellowship program and sponsoring conferences and publications. Berenson's contribution to scholarship also takes the form of published writings. The four essays on the Italian painters of the Renaissance that first appeared around the turn of this century are ordinarily ranked first among his scholarly achievements. This appraisal has gained support from the fact that Berenson occasionally belittled his painstaking and inconclusive labors as a connoisseur, leading him to exclaim, "How worthless an undertaking is that of determining who painted, or carved, or built whatsoever it be. I see how valueless all such matters are in the life of the spirit."7 Though admitting that connoisseurship was an indispensable preliminary to any valid history of art, Berenson, haunted by a sense of failure, lamented that making attributions had prevented him from continuing as an art theorist.8 When asked why he never revised the early essays upon which his initial fame as a theorist was based, Berenson replied that he could not tamper with a "classic."9 Indeed the essays remain of considerable historical interest us documents of late nineteenth-century aesthcticism. However, their lasting value in present day terms is deter mined by what they contain of criticism of individual artists, not art theory. fhe first and least original of the essays is The Venetian Painters of the Renaissance [111, which appeared in 1894. The adulation of Tintoretto, for instance, comes from Ruskin, whereas the central theme—that Venetian painting embodied the secular spirit of the Renaissance—Berenson found in Pater. Of greater interest is the volume on the Florentine Painters [12], first published in 1896. Berenson had shifted his activity from the Veneto to Florence, and he had, moreover, changed his way of thinking about art. He believed that Florentine artists were preoccupied with form and movement in their works and that the "tactile values" they created acted as a stimulus on the observer's sense of touch. Though "tactile values," or plasticity, would seem to be a specific quality of Masaccio's style, Berenson applied the notion as a uniform standard of judgment to the whole school, reproving artists who failed to measure up. Likewise, in the Central Italian Painters [13] of 1897, Berenson took a quality of a particular artist's style—in this case, Pcrugino's sweep of space — and extended it to other Umbrian painters. Lmbrian "space-composition," like Florentine "tactile ,v supposedHT0"- i I u nit values and ' spaoo-tom,'»sit.on mav ******** and Perugino, thev do not glv sum up "hole schools of , Hm nso,^ m.ssuuW amb. theorist Itil him to over padftc ijualitiia of \i.t con tion a*, a generah/c aw form ho had accurately observed The last and longest of the cssavs The Sörth Italian Painters [14] of 1907, point* up the strengths and weaknesses of Berenson's method Since those artists mostlv lacked "hat he took to be the essentials of painting. Berenson dwelt more on their individualities "Sensitiveness to the charm of femininin." for instance, was Correggio s distinguishing trait Yet despite its somewhat more catholic-treatment of certain artists, the essav adopts a uniform and inappropriate standard for evaluating Milanese painting, which Berenson dismissed as mere "prettiness in art Throughout the essav there is the sense that however correct. Bcrenson's observations lack force Thev become footnotes to more general attitudes of praise or blame, rather than forming the core of a statement about an artist's style, taken on its own terms. The four essays—collected as Italian Painters of the Renaissance in 1930, illustrated in 1952, and paperbound in 1968 — remind us. as does his person, that Berenson was a figure of the late nineteenth century and remained so long after his colleagues had broken tbeir ties with that era Thev contain impudent and paradoxical statements worthv of \\,lde: Whether, then, we are on the look-out for eminent mas-tit\ over form and movement, as for great qualities of colour and mere painting. Raphael will certainly disappoint us ' And though Berenson C aimed to have discovered the notion of tactile values while looking at „orkso.ar..lHsacs,bl,K.hcor,es;:rc hrgch derivative and undeveloped. Moreover, he was not afcwe using ,h,m jocularly, as when he wrote Jacqueline Kenned, In 1*52 thai H would life-enhance" him toaee her again. H.nnson s real potential was rccog nl/(,l,,r.ulv U ISMS In Roger In, „ho regretted that Pater makes so mat) mistakes about pictures; hut the strange, and for a Morclli itc disap pointing, thing is that the net result is mm en just What is wanted now in the wav of criticism is someone who will make appreciations as finclv and imaginatively conceived and take them into greater detail as well. Perhaps Berenson will get to this if he gets over his theories. . 12 The essential part of Bcrenson's achievement lies in his activity as a connoisseur. In his writings he VENETIAN PAINTING, CH1KF1T MPOU TITUS. IT THE EXHIBITION OF VENETIAN AKT. THI .nah GALLZBT. UK. BERNHARD BERENSON. 15 Venetian Painting Chiefly before Titian. \ ilia I Tatti. Harvard University C niter for Italian Renaissance Studies clarified artists' work by making significant attributions, precise visual analyses, and succinct definitions of what he called artistic personalities. He burst upon the field of connois-seurshipin 1895. The occasion of his debut was an exhibition of Venetian art held at the New Gallery in Lon- don Hie objects displayed consisted mostlv of paintings lent b) artstocr»rJr collectors whose attributions vv»et of a sensitive observer nsniece]. endowed with a lal memon. ma\ turn out to lief contribution to art history. is considerable than his con-i to scholarship was Berensons ic f.rmation of American taste -ctions Bv the late nineteenth roused controversy Their ap-ollectors was that, together ■ great High Renaissance mas-m belonged to a realm of art 1 from modern life. Ncvertht-Berenson s youth there were. m\ the Janes collection, prac-\<> Italian paintings of im | in Xmcricd He regarded it Italinn works of art land Incident*!!) others too* as I could persuade collet lor*, tn acquire "M Aided b\ the Pavnc Aldrich I a riff Act of IW9, which iBowed for tlutv free import of works of art our t»ent\ \cars old. Bcrenson ^ sum ss may be measured from the fact that there are now more Italian paintings in America than anvwherc else outside their place of origin. Berensons start in what might be called applied eonnoisseurship dales from as carl\ as 1890, when he wrote to his future wife Man that he had bought a picture for a friend. It was b\ Bronzino, a Madonna."14 He fur ther confided to Isabella Stewart Gardner, his first patron, that "advising about pictures is the path marked out for me. ... I could sell ten times as much as I do now, if onlv I had a larger circle I want America to have as man\ good pictures as possible 15 Bcrenson grasped that his career as an expert depended upon a coincidence of his talent w ith the opportune that America offered. For. as Henn James observed, there was "money in the air. ever so much money . . . and the money w as to be for all the most exquisite things. . . .'26 Accordingly . in the autumn and winter of 1903-1904, Berenson and Man, now his wife, traveled to America; the trip was recorded b\ Man in a journal [23].27 From it we learn that the Beren-sons sailed from Liverpool on September 30. returning to I Tatti some six months later, on April 4. 1904. Their purpose, broadly speaking, was to demonstrate how art of fine quality ought to play a large part in the education of American taste" (November 9). They shared the task of promoting carh Italian painting, Bernard reat-tributing pictures in public and private collections and Mary lecturing on eonnoisseurship at clubs and universities. How frivolously the rich spent their 2*? "-•lppi,llin*,o,,i( ****** J'arv noted that a w,,m;ln fa» J?^' when they were s,av,nR. V"1 h»«« «P "II tin organ «, ,n,l, ,, nc.r monkeys from New York for a htm! organ come,. ()t„,|„.r ,,, ,n Washington, "lure they liked the J h"' ,,,,lls< but not the Capitol. Mnn uem to see a |.....(,.||, uhoS(. Owner meant us to stay for lunch, hut when we wouldn't sh. ins1M,don showing me the gold plate I would have eHMI off of it I had stayed" (February 18). The rich who bought art wen scarcely better. A Boston collector confessed he had no taste, but said he hoped to acquire it by indiscriminate buying" (November 23). In New \ork. the Berensons "saw the Havemcver things—an awful Tiffany house! — Rembrandts, Monets, Degases ad infinitum —no real taste. . ." (March 3). The fact that latc-nineteenth-century American collectors, even Mrs. Gardner, were acquiring what was then modern art, mostly French Barbizon and Salon painting, is difficult for us to appreciate, since until recently such pictures were banished from sight. The Berensons resolved to turn American millionaires toward the Italian old masters and, partly as a result of their tour, they succeeded as arbiters of taste in the fine arts. As for providing the art, Mary Berenson—disarmingly straightforward—refers to dealing as an integral part of their program. They both "listened politely" to one possible purchaser (November 11), while she viewed the peculiarities of another "with a benevolent eye" (November 20). At dinner in Chicago, "as we staved a while after the others, we talked about forming collections of pictures, and [their hosts] said the) wanted to form one, but were afraid of the dealers. 1 think this was perhaps the most important thing for us financially we have yet met" (lanuary I In becoming tn amateur dialer, Ber enson followeil a tradition that intituled such distinguished connois* srurs as Jonathan Rii hardson and Pierre-Jean Marietta In the eighteenth i' niurv and James Jackson Janes and Morelll in the nineteenth Scholarship always went together with collecting and dealing, we should retail, until the relatively recent time when art his l"r\ bet ame a well established aca demii discipline Berenson had ton tails with emerging collectors, like-Mrs. Gardner, and so In at ted as a COnduil to America for the "discoveries" made bv him and his fellow dist i pies of Morelli.2" I he Berensons' ambition centered on New York, which seemed a "Cyclopean San Gimignano" (December 4). "We watched it gradually light up [and] were awed and overcome by the vastness and grandeur of it" (December 10). Bernard "startled me," Mary added, "by asking me whether he should let it be known that he would be willing to succeed Cesnola as director of the Museum here. I saw a thousand advantages in it, but I also think it would be a waste of a man who can think. Today's visit there confirmed me. It is a vast collection of horrors." At stake was the Metropolitan Museum, whose accumulations were already outgrowing their quarters in Central Park. While Bernard was angling for the directorship, Mary lectured. At Smith College she explained "How to Enjoy the Old Masters" (October 29). Mrs. Gardner attended another of Mary's lectures at Wellesley, wearing all her jewels because she said she had heard of a butler who stole the jewels of his mistress during her absence" (November 19). An engagement at a Chicago club "gave some of the tired men wht.se wives had dragged them there a chance for a quick nap" January 5). The following day Mary spoke at the Art Institute about "The New Art 17 18 C ntuism and soon thereafter to an other i lub on "The Art of Portraiture OKI and New" i January 8) After a Mop in Buffalo (January 15), she it piHiiil I In \e\\ Art Criticism" at the Pennsylvania Museum ( februarv b). comparing scientific connoisseur ship to the detective work of Shcrlixk Holmes Getting into her strule. she spoke in New Haven and Hartford on the same da\ 1Februarv 20). Then, after having been called back to Wcl leslev and appearing in Boston (I ebru an 27 and 29). she wrote "my Philadelphia Speech, which [B B ] had sketched out for me ( March 4 The subject was "Art Collet Hons in America and their Influence on National Taste and Art' | March 8). The Berensons frequented the more learned and discriminating collectors who met their approval Marquand in Princeton (December 4-5 i. Freer in Detroit i January 13-14 . and Johnson in Philadelphia (January 29-31. February 5). Their favorite, of course, was Mrs Gardner [24. illus.]. who, devoted to her museum, lives very sparingly, wearing old clothes and eating almost nothing" (October 17;. Though claiming that all connoisseurs dis- agree and so nothing can be known," Mrs Gardner (1840-1924) had relied on Berenson to help form the collec tion newlv installed in her Italianatc palace in Boston |2S] 29 Their cooperation made Isabella the first great collector (after Jarves) of old master paintings in America, and it enabled Berenson to gain the lame and fortune he sought At I enwav Court, wlmli remains almost unchanged todav, the Italian paintings wen displayed in a rich setting |26. illus] of furniture and decorative arts that evokes the He n.nssance periixl. "In beauty and taste," Man Berenson wrote, "it far surpassed our expectations, which were high There is verv little to find fault with . . The rest is too lovely to attempt to describe One room is more entrancing than another, and the great masterpiei es of painting seem mere decoration in the general scheme I thought there was rcmark-ablv little that was not of Bernard's choosing, but that little annoyed him 26. Interior of Fenway Court. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum 27. Jarves Collection installation. Yale University Archives, Vale University Library 24 Isabella Stewart Gardner, c. 1905 Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum immenselv anil hurt him lot) (November 14), Reattributing pictures mad. th. Berensons unpopular with must-urn officials. In New Haven, for example they "rushed at once to the Janes C ol lection [27, illus.]," then installed in Yale's School of Fine Arts, and found a nice little roomful of pictures, some really good ." (November 2). "We spent the [next] day taking notes on the gallery. It is an interesting one and there are 14 pictures we should gladlv own." On November 4 Mary returned to the collection, "into which various natives were coming attracted, for the first time in their lives, by the sensation of having all the attributions authoritatively contradicted.' Professor Niemeyer came and gave me a long lecture, telling me that the Botticelli [28, illus.] (an indifferent school piece) was the finest in existence, except possibly the Birth of Venus. He said he had copied it, so he knew far more about it than a person (like me') who only looked at it could possiblv know. There was no answer and I made none. His pretentiousness amused and horrified me, for no mat- 28. Follow er ol Botticelli U^wWC *llectorol Italian primitive was C arl U Hamilton MS. illus | I hough he hHMM i 1« I mission •rv Hamilton (1886-l7). after grad uatmg from Vale. he-came a capitalist instead His zeal then, took the lorm of an almost Victorian enthusiasm for the spiritual value- of art. long alter Carl Hamilton Courtesy of Catherine- Hamilton Lancaster and Rita Hamilton Hager granddaughters 19 Carl Hamilton «. apartment in New York Courtesy of Catherine' Hamilton Lancaster and Rita Hamilton Hager. granddaughters taste had shifted awav from religious subject matter He acquired major earlv Italian paintings, several of which are now in the National Gallery of Art, including Mantcgna's Judith [17, illus.]. The collection was displayed in an apartment [39, illus], a 40. Domenico Veneziano. St. John in the Desert. National Gallery of Art, Samuel H Kress Collection I'M? "gloomy place in a skyscraper" at 270 Park Avenue in New York. Just as the Renaissance decor of his "super-museum" was inspired by I Tatti,37 so Hamilton, an avid reader of the Italian Painters of the Renaissance, was cultivated as a collector by the Berensons. The phenomenal rise in picture prices had forced Mrs. Gardner out of the market for masterpieces, while the more fashionable collection of the Wideners favored the Grand Manner. Alerted to Hamilton's potential as early as 1917, the Berensons made his acquaintance two years later. On a visit to America in 1920-1921, they stayed with him, as they had with Mrs. Gardner seimc fifteen years earlier. Mary lectured em his pictures at Bryn Mawr and Harvard, while Bernard sat down to write no fewer than four articles featuring Hamilton's recent acquisitions.38 (Jut of friendship, Berenson even offered advice about works that Hamilton was considering for purchase. According te> an often-repeated anecdote, Mary Berenson gave Hamilton a picture from I Tatti: Domenico Veneziano's St. John in the Desert [40. illus.].39 Berenson, the story goes, regretted the loss of this rare and important little panel, which formed part of an altarpiece once in the church of Santa Lucia dei Magnoli in Florence. Nevertheless, as a letter [41, illus.], dated October 19, 1919, reveals, both Berensons presented Hamilton with the picture, presumably to encourage him as a collector. First a photeigraph and a pre>misc reached him, and then the painting. "Here I sit before St. John in the Desert," Hamilton wrote, completely charmed In it. It is more wonderful than I thought it could be even after B.B.'s enthusiastic and beautiful description of it. Never have __y.tmt*£. "y'/«, A S^.tt~— % 4d m »t*(.> rr/ «~~» tJLZL. V <*~ • ~-g 7 41 Letter f re>m Carl Hamiltepn to the- Berensc Villa I Tatti. Hanard Lmversit\ Center Italian Renaissance Studies I received a present so valuable or or which I have appreciated so much . . . I have never seen nude so chas'_. and the composition and color of th picture together with the majestv ai solemnity of the mountain peaks nl me with absolute satisfaction." Hat ton repeatedly thanked the Berensc for the picture, which was then at tributed to Pesellino.40 Onlv later Berenson grasp that he had parted with a masterpiece by Domenico Veneziano.41 Berenson was also chagrined ov the gift because Hamilton did not fill their expectations. Hamilton s petite for art exceeded his abilitv pay for it, and he was obliged to r some of his picture's, bought on C in 1921. Marv Berenson wrote M Gardner on November 2S, 1922. Hamilton has been a real disill for us, for certainlv he started c ing in a most unusual spirit, and undoubtedlv loved the pictures. J Gafien af Art. Samuel H Kress Collection 1943 en offered advice about works that amilton was considering for purchase. According to an often-repeated ecdote. Man Berenson gave Hamil-i a picture from I Tatti: Domenico neziano s St John in the Desert [40, is. J." Berenson. the storv goes, rented the loss of this rare and impor-it little panel, which formed part of aitarpiece once in the church of nta Lucia dei Magnoli in Florence, ■vcrtheless. as a letter [41. illus], ed October 19, 1919. reveals, both rensons presented Hamilton with picture presumably to encourage n as a collector First a photograph I a promise reached him. and then painting Here I sit before St m in the Desert Hamilton wrote. fnpletcJv charmed bv it It is more n after B B s enthusiastic and lutiful description of it Never have tut* >'^f'^ oi Petl he vv„n|(| be one of .I K'""-"< the yyorKI S*EL** "■■"««■•»' turn..!,,,,,,. B""^ P-ttng, seeking au,,,n,,( in,r:,w,!A,i''fh-'« ™> l'xn,bitc(l, ,h, remainder of his 1,11 "ri — .considerable W««'nc.,ll„,i„Mfll.rW(mK prd(r 42. Samuel H Kress, 1924. Samuel H. Kress Foundation ring to spend his time and money on charity. A chapter of American taste closed with Samuel H. Kress [42, illus.], a chain-store magnate who was the last great collector of Italian primitives. His pictures, ranging from the thirteenth through the eighteenth centuries, vastly outnumbered those brought together by Mrs. Gardner, the Wideners, and Carl Hamilton. For these latter collectors Berenson acted as advisor and agent, as he did for John G. Johnson (1841-1917) in Philadelphia, Henry Walters (1848-1931) in Baltimore, and Percy Straus (1876-1944) and Robert Lehman (1892-1969) in New York.44 Berenson's relation to Samuel Kress (1863-1955), on the other hand, after their first meeting in 1936, and to his brother Rush (1877-1963) was that of a distant ally. I He "•rrcs.*>„,|(,,U(l|u,N atajfeaftgai ii oka ni"< deals mnstlx W1t}, ,he future „1 U»etr lep, |« In a work! they perceived »S h-.snl, to humanism. The regional <,s,r,,H.....11"' the Km, picture* am) the republication of Bert titan's Italian Painters and Italian Pictures in illus 'ratal editions, sponsored bv (he kresses. Wen meant to regenerate the interest of the American public in traditional, .is opposed to radical, val-'"•■> ''' I ven I latti was calculated to play its part as a research center by keeping 'alive the interest in the great art of the past."4" Only one work of art was discussed in the correspondence the tondo of the Adoration oj the Magi. now in the National Gallery, whose acquisition Berenson urged as a masterpiece by Fra Angelica and Fra Filippo Lippi.47 I 43. Giotto, Madonna and C hild National Gallery of Art. Samuel H Kress Collection 1939 Berenson's authority was invoked to ensure the attribution and thus the efficacy of Kress paintings such as a Madonna [43, illus.] by Giotto which came to the National Gallery. Though at first he believed that the picture was by Giotto's pupil, Bernardo Daddi. 49. Samuel H Kress apartment. New York. Samuel H. Kress Inundation Berenson subsequently came DUl in KtoM ..( |h( QtoUB attribution 1 he naintink! hail in fait, provcil !i> be the central pom I in an altarpiccc 1» Giotto *" Berenson s change «1 mind MM reported as | new sworthv cunt I" ihe Ncii W/t Herald I rihim on (>cto ber 30. f#M The article |44l shows the public perception ol (hi significance of Berenson for establishing the statu- ol works in colhvtions such as the K If ss< v In a telegram |4S]of Max 22. »§t, Berenson was Mind to cable his esti mate ol the Kress oillection as a whole Hi- support was solicited be cause the collection was about to join the smaller but finer one of Andrew Mellon in the National Gallcrv. In his draft of a replv |4S] Berenson stated that "there are two types of collections, those like Widcner, Gardner, Friek or Bachc consisting of masterpieces onlv & those like Johnson. Philadelphia, constituting historical series Stop Kress combines both. Few Italian painters between 1300 and 1600 missing & the greatest represented bv highly characteristic examples in excellent condition 49 Berenson s remarks were quoted "in the public announcement of the Kress gift & with good effect, for the editorial writers quoted you. in much the same way as the\ cite an opinion of the Supreme Court1"*4 Before coming to the National Gallery, the Kress collection yyas displayed in a Fifth Avenue duplex apartment [46-50; 49, illus.]. decorated in Renaissance stele uith marble and tile floors, caned chests and tables, and leaded glass windows At first Samuel Kress bought indiscriminately, intending to form an exhaustive survey of Italian painting Bush Kress was led b\ John Walker, with Berenson s advice, to improve that part of the collection destined for the Gallery Fie also expanded the collection to include the non-Italian schools, without losing its original character, however. The Kress collection was no more aesthetically adventurous than those of Wiclener or Hamilton. It aimed not to be avant garde but to elevate the taste and character of those who viewed it. Berenson, whose historic role was to demonstrate the formal beauty of early Italian painting, thus found himself advising a collector who prized the religious message in art. His moral bias links Rush Kress with James Jackson Jarves, who, a century before, had tried to form a comprehensive art collection that would be broadly educational. Berenson's importance for the W idc-ncr and Kress collections, which came to the National Gallery of Art, has been described. Other Gallery paintings, including several donated by Andrew Mellon, once belonged, if only briefly, to Berenson's collector protege, Carl Hamilton. In addition, as the present director, J. Carter Brown, has noted, the Gallery is more directly a product of [Berenson's] eye and taste than many realize, for during its period of rapid acquisition in the Italian field he was virtually an adjunct curator; and his vision, shared by John Walker, of an art museum as a company of scholars, will s(x>n become a reality in the Center for Advanced Studies in the Visual Arts. "51 Before the West Building was completed, David Finley, the Gallery's first director, wrote Berenson, "I hope that, between us, John [Walker, then chief curator] and I can keep you informed about all we do. I cannot tell you how highly I value your advice and the interest you feel in our efforts to give this nevvlv born gallery the right start."52 The Gallery's Italian paintings, unrivaled in America for the earlier schools, might almost have been chosen to illustrate the Italian Painters of the Renaissance. Berenson's closest disciple, in fact, was John Walker [51, illus], who lived and worked at I Tatti during the 1930s and who returned nearly every summer thereafter. Berenson even gave him a picture from his SI Bernard Berenson and John Walker, in the garden at Villa I Tatti. Villa I Tatti. Harvard I mversity Center for Italian Renaissance Studies own collection, a Madonna [52] bv the anonymous fifteenth-century Florentine painter known as the Master of San Miniato.53 Involved as he was with the art market, Berenson has been criticized for using culture as a commodity. By the same token, his activity as an expert has also been justified by its effect of bringing great Italian paintings to America. Both viewpoints fail to take into account his place in history. Berenson was, in fact, the last great representative of a type, the connoisseur-dealer. Along with most art historians of his generation, Berenson authenticated works of art. In that respect, as an agent, he found, bought, and sold paintings. He also advised on works offered for purchase by other sources and, in this capacity, was associated with a number of dealers, at first with Colnaghi's, then from about 1907 to 1937 primarily with Duveen Brothers. It was through the latter that Berenson served yet another collector for the National Gallery, Andrew Mellon; though he was not personally acquainted with Mellon, Berenson authenticated Italian paintings Mellon purchased from Duveen. Berenson was an amateur, for whom authenticating works of art was a means of livelihood. As a young man, wishing to become a connoisseur of old master Italian paintings and drawings, he had been obliged to seek self-employment abroad. Unfortunately for his reputation as a disinterested scholar, he lived on into a world in which another major type of connoisseur arose. By the later twentieth ^nturv. With art history a well--'•'l>l^1(,|,cademicdis(,p|jn, aml Witt works ofiM ,„,w mostly in m"Mllniv "'nnoissmrs have become university trained curators The preset curatorial type „, connoisseur .lis Plays the traditional concerns of his •"rcrunners, bllthfdOM so only lor the institution by which he is ployed and without pertonal monetary Ram beyond a fixed salary.54 'he attitude of Berensonspred.es •OH toward his sort occupation was Unequivocal, Jonathan Bichardson a distinguished eighteenth-centurv connoisseur, wrote that "understanding in a science ... is the possessors property, which every man sells at as good a rate as he can for value received. ■ • • Why connoisseurs should be expected to distinguish themselves by their generosity, or prodigality is unaccountable."55 The reason is, of course, that works of art have a significance transcending, but not inseparable from, their commercial value. Berenson, less secure in his role than Richardson, has accordingly been described as living in "perpetual fear of discredit; his livelihood depended upon the maintenance of a delicate balance between his roles of critic and connoisseur of repute and that of a profitable intermediary."56 A more debatable issue than his scruples is whether Berenson's involvement with the trade affected his judgments of works of art, and, if so, how? Like other connoisseurs, Berenson provided certificates of authenticity for paintings that crossed the Atlantic. His expert opinions took the form of an artist's name inscribed on the back of a photograph or as a letter expanding on his views. This now discredited practice obviously lent itself to dishonesty, and Berenson unquestionably overpraised pictures in whose acquisition he had a stake.57 Yet we need to see his effusions in the perspective of his training as a connois- mm i ■>ii""mi; his in.mm Mwett. the voting Berenson was an iconoclast In r.'.itinliiiiini; pictures, however, he mmm% mmmmmami mam rfrbem, as he later realized C.iorgionc s Judith in the Hermitage Museum, lor in stance, he doublet! was anything more than a copv of a lost original ,s Berenson once said too that Bellini's great Feast of the (k*/s was largclv bv a minor follower named B.is.nti Some time later, when tht work was offered lor s.ilt he rciommended it. without exaggeration in this case, as one ol tht greatest imaginative conception*" of the Renaissance" At the time earlv Italian pictures began to enter American collections, the pendulum of attribution was swinging, as it was bound to do. from tht narrow and exclusive Morellian view to a broader, more expansionist approach to the problem of authorship. Though it can hardlv be coincidental that st) manv favorable opinions were given, in Berenson s case, at least, there is no evidence to suggest that he ever made an attribution he did not gcnuinelv believe at the time it was made Mature interest." he explained, "leads one at least as much to the mind of the artist as to his hand An artistic personality includes not onlv all that the artist did in his best moments, but all that his mind conceived in the terms of his art. in whatever shape it has been recorded, no matter how inadequate, nor how unsatisfactory"*0 To prevent any misunderstanding about whv he changed his mind. Berenson ought to have qualified his generous reattributions with the statement just quoted. For some thirty years Berenson worked for the dealer w horn he is said to have called the "king of the jungle' -Sir Joseph Duveen [53, illus ] The most flamboyant art dealer ol the century. Duveen (1869-1939) captured the confidence of the im-menstlv rich American collectors who competed for old masters He persuaded his clients, moreover, that the soundness of then investment tie pended. .11 least in the llalian field, upon Berenson s stamp of approval In (Vth.ingi lot authenticating pit lures, Berenson got I commission on sales and. alter the Benson collection was purthasetl bv Duvet n in 192?, an an nual retainer It is clear from the business letters exchanged that the terms of their profit sharing agreement were not fixed 1 'hey were subject to negotiation, as when Berenson wrote that "you. of course, arc asking m\ opinion for the firm 8, on the usual terms, ten per cent of what you pay out for each item Moreover, you art-going to keep all that I tell you to your- self 8c not pass it on toothers I cannot ■fiord to give mv opinion gratis " He added of another picture that had bet n obtained for "next to nothing, I expect to have a good share of the profit il you sell it at its proper value."m Because Berenson ami Duveen neither liketl nor trusted each other the v communicated through Duveen s right hand man at the Paris branch, Edward low let (1885-1971). Powlet' recently published recollections of Berenson, though not unsympathetic to him. are incomplete,* It is, rather, the almost weekly correspondence with Fovvles that plainly reveals the nature of Berenson's dealings with the firm. Beneath the pleasantries lay serious professional disagreements. The con- 53. Sir Joseph Duveen. National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution u ľ* •on m i |di Dm*íin F Ľ 54 Lrcole RoberO Uoranm II Hentivafi \aoonal Gallen of Art. Samuel H kros Collecnon 1939 triTB Bentivoglio Art. Samuel H 939 S hreole Robcm. ' National Gallen kress Collection fliet was between Fowles unwavering liivalrv to the commercial interests of the firm, in which he had worked his wav up. and Bcrenson's integrity as an independent scholar. The record shows that, although Berenson had reason to regret his involvement with the picture trade, he acquitted himself ver\ well A revealing incident concerns the pair of profile portraits of Giovanni Bentivoglio [54, illus] and of his wife Ginevra [55. illus.]. which, as part of the Kress collection, came to the National Gallery On March 29, 1935, Fowles wrote Berenson [56], then in Tnpoli, that "we are in rather a di-Iwnma. as [their client Baron] Thyssen *ems to know the two Dreyfus pictures under the name of Gossa, and he wants Cossas. If we told him you confer them to be Ercole Roberti, he M«"ld take no further interest in them and we mav lose a future good client w Italian pictures. . . . Supposing we »* these two pictures to him as 1 ^1-lrcolc RohmUs certainly as ^•nl)u.,„ns(,,n|,, What vou ask n,c t" do I had rather not call l,v its right «««' Irmm.uh I , ,,„ M] ,ha. tor 40 ywn I have resisted such lolUdta-tions. 1 hop,-toresisi .hem to the end <**e chiptrr.' fnis he the, deleted, adding more simply: 'The profiles of <"ov Bcniiv | his wife are not bv < Oisa What can I do about it?" lowles pml«ed with a telegram [57 '"•is Ion April 9: "As client believes < oasa because all Oerman experts give this attribution and as he not interested if by another master should we sell as Cossa would you flatly contradict?" Two days later Berenson fa «I di urf»n, 4 aT MMmi we pucu — — ■---- c^UkJ t^gfa__£ Chi i co™«.L dell, poto pp « .1 t p.f.r« «««é bxKotfrl. ch. cct.no per qual„„,« MM, «I» 10 cltriml rm. m. t mumi nvou nssr» imm n n Telegram from Edward Fowles to Bernard Berenson, with reply along left margin, 1935. \ .Ha I Tatti. Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies Cossas, what will your attitude be, and what can you do to help us in the matter?" Berenson annotated Fowles' letter, in its margin, on April 3 as follows: The Dreyfus pictures in question are not possibly by Cossa & almost cer- penned his reply: "Sorry, would have to."64 Though their interests were thus not always identical, Berenson, like Duveen. tried to monopolize his own field of expertise. The competitiveness that led him and his colleagues to 27 rhalrv mav be tvpical of his period. But it has also dogged eonnoisseurship, which, for all its claims to objectivity, remains a personal pursuit Berenson inherited from Morelli the most formidable o! his adversaries, \\ ilhelm von Bode (1845-1929) Aside fmm their scholarlv differences. Bl artists, just as a gtxxl secretary recognizes the handw riling ol his colleagues, and as everyone does that of his friends and relatives."72 His perception that an artist's stvle is as characteristic as his script became a commonplace in the history of connoisseurship. The difficulty was that though he could draw on his acquaintances for attributions he made in their biographies, Vasari was obliged, for earlier artists, to depend upon tradition (often unreliable) and the evidence of their works. Consequently, many of Vasari s attributions to the founders of Florentine painting were 63 Portrait of Giorgio Vasari, in Le Vite de Pui hcellenti Yitum, . . . National Gallery of Art incorrect Worse still, he ^ by his fellow painters when. ,,s gfted pupils, the) counterfeited their matter*' styles 71 Vasari's confusion arose from his identification of manicra or stvle with the exterior character of an artists work. In his view, painters could only acquire, alter, or abandon their manners in a mechanical fashion. Lacking the concept of artistic personality that lies behind modern connoisseurship, what Vasari had to say about creative imagination he couched in the form of anecdotes. His schematic biographical approach to attribution was not remedied by his later editors, and Berenson wrote of a new edition of the Lives that it should have been undertaken bv a "connoisseur . . . that is to say, one who knows the works of art intimately, subtly, and minutely."74 Vasari's concern with attribution also arose out of his activity as a collector. His Libro de' Disegni or Book of Drawings comprised several albums of studies [64] he collected, by a variety of artists, and it was meant to illustrate the development of Italian art as described in the Lives.75 In the ornamental border of one splendid sheet [65, illus.] Vasari inscribed a cartouche with the name of the artist to whom he attributed the highly finished mctalpoint studies of hands — "Fra Filippo" Lippi.78 Whatever their original relationship may have been, the decorative rearrangement ol the drawings as a pair shows that they were appreciated as related and beautiful specimens of an artist's stvle. Though he seems to have admired their spontaneous character, Vasari did not systematically compare preparatory drawings with paintings to ascertain their authorship. Lnlike Berenson later, he did not regard drawings as part of a creative process culminating in a work of art. and so he was not concerned with them as a means of defining artistic personalities. The connoisseur first emerged as a distinct type in the eighteenth centurv at the same time the French term was anglicized and widely adopted to mean "an expert judge in art, as well as other matters of taste."77 Although painters continued to advise on the art of the past for as long as thev knew about it, the amateur (meaning an art lover) at this time came to the fore. Yet if persons other than painters now played the part of connoisseurs, how were they competent to judge in such matters? Indeed, one self-appointed critic toward the end of the centurv not only questioned the expertise of the amateur but also derided htm In a ctiun forfeited their mas- infusion arose from his i of mantera or Style v\ ith vie*, painters could only . or abandon their man whanical fashion. Lacking iartistic personality that wdern connoisseurship. lad to sav about creative te couched in the form of is schematic biographical ttribution was not rem lat«.r editors, and Beren-a new edition of the Lives i have been undertaken b\ ar . . that is to sa\. one he works of art intimatelv. ncern with attribution nf his activitv as a collec-r Disegni or Book of rised several albums of collected. bv a variety was meant to illus-imcnt of Italian art he Lira™ In the ht of one splendid V asan inscribed a he name of the artist buted the highlv fin-studies of hands — Whatever their >s that they Though he seems to have admired their spontaneous character. \ asari did not svstematicalh compare preparatory drawings with paintings to ascertain their authorship Unlike Berenson later, he did not regard drawings as part of a creative process culminating in a work of art, and so he was not concerned with them as a means of defining artistic personalities. The connoisseur first emerged as a distinct tvpe in the eighteenth century; at the same time the French term was anglicized and widely adopted to mean an expert judge in art, as well as other matters of taste."77 Although painters continued to advise on the art of the past for as long as they knew about it, the amateur (meaning an art lover) tt this time came to the fore. Yet if persons other than painters now plased the part of connoisseurs, how were they competent to judge in such matters1 Indeed, one self-appointed critic toward the end of the century not only questioned the expertise of •e amateur but also derided him. In a 65. RaffaellinoelelCiarho. Study nf Hands and a Sleeve. Trustees of the British Museun watercolor [66, illus] Thomas Row-landson satirized a group of connoisseurs by implying that they were voyeurs of an erotic motif, for he shows them supposedly admiring a painting of Susanna and the Elders, in which the voluptuous lady is pursued by men like themselves. Rowlandsons drawing thereby casts doubt on the claim of connoisseurship to be concerned with artistic form. His pictorial satire seems to reflect the persistent suspicion that no one but an artist can properly evaluate whatever is artistic about a work of art. The doubts have persisted, and so has the type of connoisseur so deftly caught by Rowlandson. The figure, who, aided by an eyeglass, scrutinizes the picture in the drawing may be compared, as a type, to the image we have seen of Berenson [7, 78 illus], peering at a portrait. Despite Rowlandsons misgivings, as earlv as the eighteenth century the writings of Jonathan Richardson (1665-1745) strikingly anticipated the techniques of the modern connois- 66. Thomas Rowlamlson The ( onnoisseun >alc C enter for British Art. Paul Mellon Collection seur.79 As an amateur dealer and collector, Richardson was well qualified to provide the gentleman of his day with a two-part instructional manual [67], consisting of "An Essay on the Whole Art of Criticism" and "An Argument in Behalf of the Science of a Connoisseur."80 The book aimed first to show "how to judge of the goodness of a picture, of the hand of the master; and whether 'tis an original or a copy, and then to encourage the practice of connoisseurship. Richardson advocated a systematic analysis of works of art not to describe their uniqueness but to measure their "beauties" and "defects," the result of which, he felt, was characteristic of an artist. Our method of comparing unattributed works with documented or otherwise certain ones, and originals with copies, was alreadv highlv developed in Richardson's day. He even related particular works to the general idea he-had formed of an artist's manner. But what distinguishes his connoisseurship -in theory at least-is his emphasis 31 direct observation It Richardson pat it. tl" cowwtoeur's "bath** I* » joefe from the inrrinsh qualities «1 ,h. Sung itself * HebeBevBd thai '» an ■«*•»* "iin,l **« reflected in tht- „n,nl„)n. h,s touch conH be re«r „,/,■.! r*en hi the renderings **»*» ,s ma hand or finger"* Lattef, Bcrcn MH would Mt) that an artist WM characteristic Lagaiia*} in such m.nor details I ithtivnth-ccnturv connoisseurship al earlv Italian art centered anuind draw ings and reached a lev el ol refinement that would onlv k' achieved much later for paintings of the same period \asan remained for connois 68 Augustin de Saint Aubin (after Cochin.i. Pierre-Jean Manetle. 1765. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Hams Brisbane Dick Fund. 1917 seurs like the Parisian Pierre-Jean Mariette [68. illus] the chief source of information about the early Italian masters and their works. Mariette (1694-1774J went so far as to seek out drawings owned bv Vasari, and his characteristic blue mount may be recognized on the sheets of studies from Vasari's Libra [64, 65] that we have already encountered. Keenly responsive to the quality of drawings, Mariette was also accurate about their attribution—within the limits of his knowl- edge He based hi- iiulgmenls on \.is,,n s and on the resemblance the drawings bore to the painting sty les ol the great masters I bis limited method lends his connoisseiirship a neatness U king in that of Berenson. who was obliged M account for many rediscovered minor talents "s 69. Giorgione (?),( uptd Bending a Bou The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund. 1911 An example of Mariette's discriminating connoisseurship is provided by a red chalk drawing [69, illus.] he once owned, now in the Metropolitan Museum. It depicts Cupid bending a bow. Mariette's attribution of the drawing to Giorgione has been supported by modern art-historical research, which points to Vasari's mention of a Cupid from Giorgione's lost mural decoration of the Fondaco de' Tedeschi in Venice. It may well be that Mariette himself connected his drawing with Vasari's comment. Note the way he set the original rectangular sheet into another one, on which is drawn a semicircular niche, suggesting that Mariette associated the foreshortened figure with a wall decoration. 84 Whether or not Mariette was cor- rect in attributing this drawing to Giorgione, on the basis o| ,i bint jn Vasari, he was surely right in deducing from its fine quality that it was by a majOt Venetian master. An amateur dealer, as well as collector. Mariette, in fact, united Ixith of the traditional concerns ol the connoisseur the perception of qualit) and the recognition of individual styles among artists 1 hough methodical connoisseurship thus flourished in the eighteenth century, it was limited, where earlv Italian art was concerned, to drawings. Mariette and his Contemporaries preferred paintings bv such established High Renaissance and baroque masters as Raphael and the Carracci But between the time of Mariette and Bcren-son, radical changes in historical perception and taste brought the Italian 70. I ,ii I.in Goldsmith Mead. James Jackson Jarves. Vale University Art Gallery, Gift of Mrs. Walter Raleigh Kerr primitives to light. If Berenson's career represents the last phase of this rediscovery, the pioneer collector of Italian primitives in America was James Jackson Jarves (1818-1888). Jarves [70, illus.] brought together a well-known group of paintings that, having aroused little interest in Boston and New York, came into the possession of Yale University in 1871.85 The collection did not consist of masterpieces, Jarves admit- Plate from Art Studies The Old Masters of Italy Painting Marquand Library, Princeton University St F a 72. Fiorcnzo di Lorenzo, St Jerome Vale University Art Gallery. University Purchase from Janus Jackson Jarves ted, but of "characteristic specimens, ranging over three centuries and intended, like earlier European collcc tions, to illustrate the progress ol Italian art. Half-apologizing for his pictures, whose aesthetic significance m tAi united both ot the traditional ceptn»i of qualify and the recognition of individual -.ivies among artists rhouch methodical connoisscurship cenrun. it "av limited, where early Italian art was concerned, to drawings Manetti and his contemporaries pn fiTred paintings b\ such established High Renaissance and baroque masters as Raphael and the t arracci But between the time of Mariette and Bcrcn-son. radical changes in historical perception and taste brought the Italian V.al< ImuTsirv \n C.alK r\. Gift of Mrs Walter Rali i J Kerr primitives to light If Berenson s career represents the last phase of this rediscovery . the pioneer collector of Italian primitive*, in America was James Jackson Jarves | 1818-1888). Jarves [70. illus ] brought together a well-known group of paintings that, having aroused little interest in Boston and New Nork, came into the possession of 'ialc L ni-versitv m 1871 85 The collection did not consist of masterpieces, lanes admit -| Plan fr»m .V» 9kMW l*i< (J \Usten <>M'«'> Painting vi,ir.|uand Ubraň. Princeton I nivcrMU "2 Fiurcnzi) di Lorenzo, Si Jerome. Yale I mversify Art Gallerv. LnntTsin Purchase from James Jackson Jarves ted, but of characteristic specimens, ranging over three centuries and intended, like earlier European collections, to illustrate the progress of Italian art. Half-apologizing for his Pictures, whose aesthetic significance he failed ,„ Krasp |arv « companion!, to \tl s'/!""'''1 ,l,,Ml ,llusi- hishis,.,r, > Published i„ ,8M .......IdfiS** ^'"■"^in.lndin^on, , ? , l includes a skete b of Piero della Pram esca's fresco of Sigismondo M.il.iii sia in Himini, Willi comments about the composition and the color ol the costumes. What really distinguished Morelli i a connoisseur, however, was his back ground in the stuck ol medicine Trained in Munich as a doctor, his specialty was comparative anatomy. I his particular turn of mind is shown as I—*■ n,r»i»^. j^eniiei.. »• nu. »— m i. i „,. ,l. _. „». ojrsj^ 77. Page from Italian Painters. Critical Studies of Their Works. . . . Fine Arts Library, Harvard University in an unpublished sheet of drawings of four monkeys' skulls [75, illus.] that Morelli made as a student. More interesting even than the subject of the drawings is their origin. They have all been accurately copied from J. B. Spix's manual of comparative anatomy entitled Cephalogenesis [76, illus.] of 1815. Morelli's anatomical copies after Spix's manual illuminate his later mcthcxl of copying and thereby recording how painters rendered human anatomical details. Plates delineating hands [77, illus.] and ears [78], from one of Morelli's books, indicate I lie studs <>f art I lc sought tin n In to e»j\e his sdieK I M H nlilii basis I bough More lb believed that the whole of a work of art u,is . har.i< ti ris tic of an artist, the revolutionary method of attribution he devised emphasized the isolation and careful one-to-one comparison ol the forms ol hands and ears, among other motifs, which were peculiar to an artist Such traits, which had passed unpercened by the critics. Morelli presumed would also be overlooked by a copyist or imitator. Morphological comparisons thus seemed to him to offer objective criteria for authorship, for so long as we trust only to the general impression for identifying a work of art," Morelli warned, "instead of seeking the surer testimony of the forms peculiar to each great master with which observation and experience have made us familiar, we shall continue in the same atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty, and the foundations of the history of art will be built as heretofore on shifting sands." fie was convinced that "it is absolutely necessary for a man to be a connoisseur before he can become an art historian, and to lay the foundations of his history in the gallerv and not in the library."" Morelli's greatest discovery concerned a mislabeled picture in the Dresden Gallery that he identified as Giorgione's Sleeping Venus. Still more important than anv single reattribu-tion, however, was his reconstruction of the early work of Correggio. One of eight previously unrecognized pictures he added to the artist's oeuvre. the little Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine [79, illus.] is now in the National Gallery Morelli observed of the painting that the hands, with the broad metacarpus, resemble those of Lorenzo Costa, but the expression and movement of St. Francis are wholly Cor-reggesque, and such as we find in his later works. The form and decoration ■as particular rum of mirxl is sh„M Papt rrun lultm Pmnurrs ( ntical mHbks of / ttBr Monies Fm< .tas Librarv Harvard L niversm i unpublished sheet of drawings of monkevs skulls [75 ill us ] that ■111 made as a student Mure in ling even than the subject of the agsis their origin Thev have all accurately copied from J B manual of comparative anatomv d Cepnat'^nu s;- "6, illus ] of and therein record m Morelh s books indicate |„,w hi adapted his medical training to ,hi stiuh "I ,irl Hi *OUghl therein to Nl his stu.lv ■ scientific basis. I hough Morelh believed that the .hole ta work o( art was characters ,.| .in artist, th. revolutionary of attribution h. devised em I th. isolation and careful one to on. lomparison of the forms ol hands and ears, among other motifs, which were pecuhai to .in artist. Such traits, which had passed impcrccivcd hv the critics Morelh presumed would also be overlooked b\ a copyist or imitator Morphological comparisons thus Heaved to him to offer objective criteria toi authorship, for so long as we trust onlv to the general impression for Identifying a work of art.'' Morelh warned, instead of seeking the surer testimony of the forms peculiar to each great master with which observation and experience have made us familiar, w. shall continue' in the same atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty. and the foundations of the history of art will be built as heretofore on shifting sands ' He was convinced that "it is absolutely necessary for a man to be a connoisseur before he can become an art historian, and to lav the foundations of his fusion in the gallery and not in the library.""1 Morelli's greatest discovery concerned a mislabeled picture in the Dresden Gallery that he identified as Giorgione s Sleeping Venus. Still more important than any single reattribu-tion. however, was his reconstruction of the earlv work of Gorreggio. One of eight previously unrecognized pictures he added to the artist's oeuvre, the little Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine [79, illus] is now in the National Gallery Morelli observed of the painting that the hands, with the broad metacarpus, resemble those of Lorenzo Gosta, but the expression and movement of St. Francis are wholly Gor-reggesque. and such as vvc find in his later works. The form and decoration of the throne bear much resemblance to the throne in the altarpi... \\ uli Si I ran. is in th. Dresden < .alien . (. or reggio s first documented work * I vaminmg what Mor. Hi said alviut the painting, we nr. led lo question whether he re.i. Ii.il his r. soils Ironi si inn i .is In claimed Vlmitti dlv he iite.l an anatomu,\l form — the hand — to .I. nionslr.it.- a point he mad. else where that Gorreggio s styl. was per- il .ovmt in making attributions And if objective means ol authentication arc still sought, the lasting importance ol Mordiťi contribution—and the reaaM h. W as so often right — is that bv (ik vis ing on details even il tm exclusively, he was led to look . ,ir. f'ullv at paint ings Wc take this wav of regarding art for granted, but in Morelli s .lav. tor Berenson too, it was new. 79 t ornigp". Iht Vlvviii MarriuRr'i/Si ( athtTim National Caller. <>f Art. Samuel ii KmM t "Humm isms jy Ě rarese in origin (Gosta). And to prove that the picture was by Gorreggio he compared another minor, architectural detail to one in a work certainly by the artist. Nonetheless, we may suspect that the real basis for Morelli's attribution was the more basic features of the painting, such as the "expression and movement" of a figure that he found wholly Gorrcggcsque." 93 In any case, Morelli's approach has, partly clue to Berenson, been broadened in the twentieth century, so that not only morphological idiosyncrasies but more To Morelli's means of classification, Berenson added a quality of mind derived from yet another tradition, that of late nineteenth-century acsthcti-cism, specifically as it relates to the Italian primitives. This tradition, however, was first preceded bv approaches that were bv no means aesthetic. The identifiable beginnings of a pre-aesthelic response to early Italian art date from Just before and during the Napoleonic era, when members of the French colony in Home took up what had previously been an erudite r "J 80 Ptgcs from Pnmres Pnmmh »illa I Tatti Hanard I nivcrsiti Center tor Italian Renaissance S Uklics local interest in past culture 94 Chief among these pioneers was Scrou\ d'Agincourt (1730-1814). whose His-totre de I .Art par Us Monumens (1811-18201 provided the first survcv . ample illustrated, of medieval, as well as Renaissance art More than a century before Berenson. d Agin court came to Italv. where he emploved copyists to record the works he found in churches and collections. Unlike Berenson, however, his interest in Raphael's forerunners was essentially historical, not aesthetic. The broad scope of d'Agincourt s book is reflected in the collection of carlv Italian paintings formed bv a disciple named Artaud de Montor (1772-1849).95 Bv the carlv nineteenth century, de Montor had gathered — easily and cheaply, we mav suppose — a representative group of no fewer than one hundred and fifty pictures. We cannot assume, however, that de Montor rccogni/ed any artistic merit in these paintings, only that he meant bv att|uiring them to recover a small but significant part of the past Some years later he issued a catalogue [80, illus ] of his holdings and two National Gallery paintings we find are among them One is the profile portrait of a voung man that Berenson later called the Artaud de Montor Masaccio. "9B The other consists of three panels [81] from a polyptych, depicting a hieratic half-length Christ flanked by saints. Not much of a connoisseur, de Montor catalogued the picture as by the thirteenth-century master Mar-garitone from Arezzo. Berenson, who made a study of it, more plausibly suggested the Florentine, Cimabuc. Specialized research has since shown that the painting is by an anonymous C imabue follower.97 A different pre-aesthetic approach to the primitives was taken by painters, such as the Nazarenes, and by writers who admired what they called "Christian art."98 Their advocacy focused on different qualities as the source of value in paintings. It marks a new stage in the revaluation of a style whose artless simplicity was now found spiritually rewarding and not only of antiquarian interest. Although the pious French Catholic 1874^. gavi' no Impetus t<> eonnoisseur ship. Iiis urilings alxnil tlu <,nl\ lta|. ian masters. translateel ,is I /„ IVtn „t ( hmtitiii \rt. »Iiil arouse vv iclcspreatl svmpalhv for their vvorks"" Ums Protestant lounterpart was the miel v. ii t«tri.in moralisi l,orel I.inclsav (1812 1880). vvhuvvrolc Sketches <>f the //ist.-rv <>l ( hhstian Art in 1847 100 But it was Mrs. Anna Browncll ]ames>m [82, illus ] who was the most vviilclv 82. Portrait of Anna Brnvvncll Jameson in Sacred and Legendary Art. Library of Congress read English writer on art during the nineteenth century— to judge from the many editions of her books. In illustrated volumes, collected under the title Sacred and Legendary Art, Mrs. Jameson chided connoisseurs for their preoccupation vv ith the established masters and their indifference to the value of subject matter, which she elucidated from early Christian times onward, emphasizing the primitives. The copy exhibited of her Legemls of the Madonna as Represented in the Fine Arts [83, illus] reproduces a Perugi-ncsquc Annunciation [84]. Significantly, the illustration omits the grotesques which appear below in the painting and which, though integral to it, might otherwise have detracted from her discussion of the event portrayed. Mrs. Jameson was no connoisseur, but her descriptions came r*v Sketches of the rr in 1847 '» But >wnoll Jameson he most «idt-K Jameson in tie the of her books In ilius-collected under the ILtgembrx Art. Mrs. nnuisseurs tor their Kith the established ?ir indifference to the matter, w hich she earn Christian times 'i/ine the primitives. U*<* her Legends of represented in the Fine 'eproduces a Pc-rugi th< Ú U ami BfpnsnitHi m Fntr Arts x ,i,,.n il l.jll. n .it An fnim and prompted a careful examination of the subject of a painting The kind of iconographical variations she noted correspond to the idiosyncrasies of form that captured the attention of Morelli and Berenson Though inspired bv Rio. Mrs Jameson's contribution goes beyond his moralistic approach because she evolved what amounted to a new wav of scrutinizing works of art.10' We have seen that an antiquarian interest first readmitted the precursors of the preferred masters into the histon of art. Then, in moralizing about artists like Angelico and Perugino. Mrs Jameson gave another reason to admire their work. An aesthetic response to the early painters was beginning to emerge, however impure. Its equivocal spokesman was John Ruskin (1819-1900), the greatest and most influential art c ri tic of his time Ruskin [85, illus] was much indebted to Rio and Lindsav, w hose religious bias he nevertheless transcended in critical passages of great beauty and insight.102 He placed value not only on the religious message of a work of art but also on its form. In Modern Painters and other essns H.iskin wrote sympathy u.Hlv about ihe primitives, the Wrm that now began to be used in praise of a pre Renaiss,,,,,, painter or picture.!** By the lime Berenson came to ()N lord in IHKH. ma.ln, ss had |„m,| Rus kin from the lee tun podium, and Bt i enson afterwards claimed to have r. .id ill. author little or not at all.'04 Perhaps he agreed with Ins Wfftt, yy|,„ •mite that it is , ,is\ In sav that |Rus kin) is a great prose writer who happened to treat of art; an eloquent moralist who drew sermons from pictures and buildings. I brilliant but hopelessly contradie ton thinker who astonishes bv flashes of insight and ir ritates bv confusion and wilfulness, but it would be foolish not to acknowledge in him a sensitiveness to what is beautiful in art, unprecedented in a writer and almost miraculous in a moralist. ",os His high-mindedness aside, Ruskin's intensity of vision of art and nature permeates his writings and can hardly have failed to impress Berenson. Berenson's attitude toward early Italian painting may not come from 85. John Ruskin, Self-Portrait VftA Hint' Scckdoth. The Pierpont Morgan Library, Gift of the Fellow* Ruskm. then, hut it ctrtainlj owes much to the pre Kapha, l,„. Hrother- tmad Ruskin it i„s. believed that early Italian painting had actually been reborn in the work ol the group, first formed bv Rotten) MlQth, and Hoi man Hunt in IH4H I lies, young men claimed to have discovered then sense ol purpose while turning the pages <.| Carlo I asinios l>ook of engiatlngi alter Irescoes bv earlv Italian artists in the ( ,mi|)«. Santo at I'isa "m y., t at leatl m their formative years, the Brotherhood never went to Italy to seek what was supposed to be their source of inspiration. It was the second generation pre-Raphaelite Ed-Ward Burne-Jones (1833-1898), who, deeply involved with Italian art. made no fewer than four trips there between 1859 and 1873."" During these he made pencil and watercolor copies of works he admired, pre-photographic records that served him later as sources for his own designs. Dating from the artist's first visit, one sheet of copies from an album [86, illus.] fea- v.- -1» 37 tt6 Sir Edward Burne-Jones. Page from an Album of Copies. Fiuwilliam Museum. Cambridge tures details. «c ma\ note, from pictures in the L ffizi gallerv: a youth's head and the Chnst C'hild from two ol Botticelli s Madonnas mav fx identified more casilv than some flowers from a crimson robe m the Birth of Venus The other sheet [87] includes figures from Giotto's frescoes in the church of Santa Crocc in Florence and from Carpaccio's St. I rsula series in \ cniceJust as Yasari imposed his own taste on the artists draw ings he rearranged in his albums, so Burin Jones chose to copv those motifs em-bodving his image of a past that existed onlv in imagination Having aptly compared Bume-Jones to Mantegna in an earlv essav. Berenson never lost his liking for the artist s combination of Mantegna s contours with Fra Filip-po's wistfulness . Indeed." he admitted, I mav be his last admirer."10M Hinvever much he mav have owed to Bume-Jones in the way he lexiked at Italian art. Berenson did not share the virus of Charles I hot Norton [88, illus.]. who was his teacher and a friend of Burnt-Jones. Janes, who dedicated Art Studies to Norton (1828-1908), introduced him to Ruskin, who deeply influenced Norton's life and work.110 8S William Rolhenstein. I'nrtrail »/ Walln Valcr l.ihrarv of Congress After traveling to Italy in search of an idealized medieval past, Norton returned to America to become the first professor of fine arts at Harvard. There he preached on the art and architecture of the age of Dante, about whom he was an authority. Though as a student Berenson majored in literature, he attended Norton's lectures and made his acquaintance. One day he is said to have brought Norton a book he had been reading, Walter Pater's Studies in the History of the Renaissance, in which the author urged an aesthetic view of life and art on his young readers. Norton returned the book, saying that it was only fit to be read in the bathroom.111 Complaining afterwards that Norton's interest in art was only "historical and illustrative," like that of Jarves and of Mrs. Jameson, Berenson resented his teacher's lack of sympathy.112 To Norton's ethical approach Berenson opposed an aesthetic derived from his reading of Pater [89, illus.], who, along with Morelli, had the greatest influence in shaping his attitude toward eonnoisseurship. Thus, when the youthful aspirant to culture went to Oxford in 1888, he sought out Pater, requesting permission to attend his class. Berenson was refused, and although he treasured Pater's replv [90], he never became a direct disciple, as did his friend Oscar Wilde. The Renaissance was, nevertheless, so important for Berenson that it even inspired him, with Pater's other writings, to make of his life a work of art.113 Through the contemplation of past art, Pater sought an ideal form of existence for the present. Thus, in the famous passage on Moim Lisa, the picture becomes a symbol, not only of Leonardo's imagination but of the whole magnetic spirit of the Renaissance. On the other hand, the essay on the sch(K)l of Giorgione, added to the third edition of the Renaissance [91], contains the equally famous phrase "all art aspires to the condition of music." Such an emphasis on sensuous form may have seemed to Berenson to justify hTnul, ........« S 'n,T o P...Mh. but.forte. sake reading -I < „wn aestrw<" to Pater. dreariness and melancholy In Bom,,! lis „,,rks—b> does not mention anv Jpecitie ciualnv <>f form-thai appealed to the modern generation Bv ill. iHHOs, we gather from a Punch cartoon [92, illus 1. veneration for Bottiiclli had become the mark of an aesthetic sensibility Berenson. on the other hand, while acknowledging that his |„sc lor Botticelli came from Pater, praised the artist for his linear grace, not his sentiment.114 Attribution and appreciation are often said to be antithetical in Bcrenson's work. He himself seemed to implv such an inner conflict when, speaking of Raphael's Sisfinc Madonna in the Dresden Gallery, he related, not without irony, how he and a fellow student "stopped just for a minute or two before this masterpiece of all schools, and then we went to work 'lls Yet Bcrenson's sensibilitv served him well as a connoisseur. What he shared with Pater was chiefly a concern with the effect a work of art has on the viewer in the moment of perception. Like an artist copying a picture, he sustained contact with a work of art so that it made a deep impression his visual memory might retain. To Pater's heightened awareness, then, Berenson added Morelli's detachment, and the process by which he claimed to enter into the spirit of a work of art became, in practice, a careful scrutiny of it. Bcrenson's aestheticism. the delight h felt in works of art. did not allow for any narrow preoccupation with authorship, the trap into which Morelli had fallen. At the same time his need to bring order to the studv of Italian painting kept him from being merelv dilettante. Just how deeplv Berenson was involved in the movement of which Pa- li w as the m< Igh her in shaping his attitude to-xnsseurship Thus, when rui aspirant to culture w em m 1888. he sought out lesring permission to attend lerenson uas refused, and t treasured Pater s repjy ier became a direct dis as did his friend Oscar W tide. 'tnmssance was, nevertheless, so ant for Berenson that it even in-him with Pater s other writ-' mate his life a w ork of art"3 JUgn the contemplation of past ter sought an ideal form of exis-* the present Thus, in the pas omc lo'si ia Lisa, the pic-not onl\ of but of the iwtK spirit of the Renais-tne other hand, the essav on Giorgjone. added to the " of the Renaissance fyj], ' equally famous phrase all n< condition of music asis on sensuous form ?med to Berenvm tojustify ,jn„a work of art from history. 1,1''"iM he made an art for art's ^frMKHnR''1 Pa»« the basis for his SS -Aerie. For instance, according "v>',1 'V || was the mood of worfd-'" * ^ ,„„1 melancholy in Bottled-,u" -ks—he docs not mention any quality ol form-that appealed I*. modern generation By the IgBOs.wrgathe. from .* Punch cartoon ' gg, |, veneration lor Botticelli k^'become the mark of an aesthetic J^Mlm Berenson, on the other hand »">K acknowledging that his |ou. for Botticelli came From Pater, Mtftrf the artist tor hts linear grace. n„i his sentiment \itribution and appreciation are ,)(un said 10 be antithetical in Beren-„,„,^4 He himself seemed to imp|y such an inner conflict when, Mx-akinc of Raphael's Sisthte Madonna in the Dresden Gallery, he related, not without irony, how he and a fellow student stopped just for a minute or two before this masterpiece of all schools, and then we went to work."11* \ct Berenson s sensibility served him well as a connoisseur What he shared with Pater uas chiefly a concern with the (fleet a work of art has on the Viewer in the moment of perception. Like an artist copying a picture, he sustained contact with a work of art so that it made a deep impression his visual memory might retain. To Pater's heightened awareness, then, Berenson added Morelli's detachment, and the process by which he claimed to enter into the spirit of a work of art became, in practice, a careful scrutiny of it. Berenson s aestheticism, the delight he lelt in works of art, did not allow for any narrow preoccupation with authorship, the trap into which Morelli had fallen. At the same time his need to bring order to the study of Italian Painting kept him from being merelv a dilettante. Just how deeply Berenson was involved in the movement of which Pa- NINCOMPOOPIANA. (.4 Teat.) Tll( Sq*lTt. " i believe it's a botticelli." I'rinrhu. " Oh, no I Pardon me t It is AOr a Botticelli. Before a Botticelli I am mlte!" _ \Tht S.,u,rr t a kmghl National (.alien o( Art Samuel H Kress C'olle< ter s Renaissance was the creed is shown bv his remarks worth quoting at length about a \oung kmght [93, illus ] b\ Girolamo Savoldo. now in the National (.alien C oming upon the portrait in the Liechtenstein Collection in Vienna, Berenson wrote in his meticulous earl\ hand to Man on October 23. 1890 [94], that he did nothing for two hours but look at it. So absorbed in a picture I have not been in a long time. Gaston de Foix sits in a chair draped in a mustard colored cloth. He wears a breastplate oxer a deep crimson tunic He holds a broken staff in his hand, to signify an early death, of course. . . . His face is turned slightb to the right. The eyes are large, soft, and indescribably beautiful; the nose straight, the mouth firm and sweet A severer and more lovable face I nc\er ha\c seen. ... If Braun has photographed it, it shall hang in mv study, if ever I HI P 95. Bernard Berenson. 1891. Villa I latti. Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies have one. Who was Gaston I hardly know.... To be very beautiful, and to die very young, what greater distinction can there be; . . . I dare say you will think me—no, not you, but most people would think me, sentimental and nambv-pamby. But beauty is supreme, and its greatest manifestation is in the perfect ephebe, so rare a creature that one can count them on the fingers of one hand. Gaston de Foix certainly vvas one."6 This passage is more than a perfectly Paterean reading of a Renaissance portrait which Berenson fancifully called Gaston de Foix. Mary described the young Bernard as a "beautiful and mysterious youth," and If we compare Savoldo s portrait with a photograph of Berenson [95, illus], dating from this time, his interpretation of the painting comes to seem highly personal, even narcissistic. Though Berenson's account may tell us more about himself than it does about this picture, his pointed descriptions are generally perceptive in w hat they reveal about works of art. Fie simply looked more carefully than Pater did. A vear or so after he lirst came to Italv | in 1888, Berenson had an experience < that was decisive for his career as a connoisseur. Sitting outside a cafe in the town of Bergamo, he and a friend resolved to devote their lives to connoisseurship. "We shall give ourselves up to learning to distinguish between the authentic works of an Italian painter of the fifteenth or sixteenth century, and those commonly ascribed to him. Here at Bergamo, and in all the fragrant and romantic valleys that branch out northward, we must not stop till we are sure that every Lotto is a Lotto, every Cariani a Cariani, even Previtali a Previtali. . . **117 Connoisseurship was, accordingly, the theme of Berenson's first major essay on art, an unfinished fragment begun around 1894 and published as "Rudiments of Connoisseurship [%] in 1902. In the essay Berenson claimed that the basis for connoisseurship must be the work of art itself, no documents or tradition, which serve merely to confirm an attribution madi from style. Having assimilated the Morcllian method of saying who painted what picture, Berenson weni on to offer a logic for it. If such fonr as the ear and hand were clues left unwittingly bv the artist, thev were significant, he decided, onlv in so h as they were not vehicles of expression, did not attract attention wen outside fashion, and could be uncoi sciously repeated. In this wav Benson s dislike for emotion in art (he ferred Piero della Franccsca over Leonardo) led him, as a beginning w*oni Method A war or so after he first came to Italy n ISSS. Berenson had an experience that w«S Jn isi\( for his career as a for laJun •es about this picture, his -senptions arc generally per *»hat thev reveal about He stmph looked more n Pater did nmnoisscur Sitting outside a cafe in thc to»n of Bergamo, he and a friend rewtved to devote their lives to c-on noisseurship xx< shall give ourselves Un ta learning to distinguish between thi authentic works of an Italian painter of tin fifteenth or sixteenth centun. and those commonly ascribed to him Here at Bergamo, and in all thi fragrant and romantic valleys that branch out northward, we must not stop till «e are sure that every Lotto is a Lotto, even C ariani a Cariani, even Previtali a Previtali. . . ."m C onnoisseurship was, accordingly, thi theme of Berenson's first major essav on art. an unfinished fragment begun around 1894 and published as Rudiments of Connoisseurship" [96] in 1902 In the essay Berenson claimed that the basis for connoisseur-ship must be the work of art itself, not documents or tradition, which serve merely to confirm an attribution made from stvle. Having assimilated the iorellian method of saying who painted what picture, Berenson went on to offer a logic for it. If such forms as the ear and hand were clues left unwittingly bv the artist, thev u ere significant, he decided, only in so far as they were not vehicles of expression, did not attract attention, were outside fashion, and could be uncon-■cfoudy repeated. In this way Berenson s dislike for emotion in art (he preferred Piero della Francesca over Leonardo; led him, as a beginning (nn7T,lr' ,,,1re,"'<-»h« minor details """htehh, relied to,h. expressive structure of the work as a whole We may justly regard this method of onnoisseurship of details as part of I < han.c tcristk mid-to-late nineteenth-ccnturv vvav of seeing works of art. As a method of attribution, however, it was inadequate and misleading. For congruence of details, the essence of the Morellian system, is necessary but not sufficient to make an attribution. A contemporary novelist, like Henry James, could have cautioned the young Berenson, with whom he was, in fact, acquainted, that it is the telling detail that counts. To be meaningful, the detail that the novelist invents and the connoisseur selects for comparison must be treated as integral to the whole conception of the artist. It is the total structure of a work of art that is characteristic. Berenson limited himself in the essay of 1894 to the "more or less measurable elements in pictures with which the science of connoisseurship must reckon." Quality was more difficult to demonstrate. Berenson's subsequent concern with quality marks a significant advance over the methcxl of classification devised by Morelli.11 Here we must recall that Morelli was nearly sixty years old when he published his studies in connoisseurship. Berenson emerged upon the scene as a connoisseur at the age of thirty, with more than sixty productive years ahead. He thus had ample opportunity to discover for himself whether Morellis views were infallible or not. ^'-lu believed,ha, ,1 the method U'ISn«hV "lust be right, soon enough, however, the evidence of hi. Wn eyes forced Berenson to reject eer '■"»»1 the masters attributions and to doubt the efficacy and legitimacy of his method. Berenson grasped that eon noisseurship can never be an exact science but must depend upon the intuitive and analytical capacities of an individual. Though Berenson adopted Morelli s method, his concern with quality links him to earlier connoisseurs, like Mariettc. Quality, moreover, led bevond attribution to the more difficult yet rewarding task of defining artistic personalities.119 Berenson came to believe that if great artists differ in detail from one work to another, thev maintain a more or less consistent level and type of quality. "Level" of quality simplv means imitative skill and refinement. "Type" of quality is presumably what we mean by "structure." This notion seems to conjoin the two main traditions in which Berenson was working. For Pater the work of art stood for the artist's mind, whereas for Morelli it represented the product of his hand. Connoisseurship, as Berenson came increasingly to regard it, was no longer restricted to noting morphological idiosyncrasies but involved an analysis of more essential factors of stvle Though he never entirely gave it up. Berenson's dissatisfaction with the Morellian methcxl prompted him to write further about it in a series of articles, collected as Three tssu)s m MwWl^7]in 1926.1'9 Their stated 41 42 rh. I.ki that Mtnl offered noea plicil rmth^f (,.r Htjjltlidlingtfal school ami date ol ,i km en w ork ol art. » hen it was not a matter of attributing it to a particular master m 1 hits, although thi essays eoneern Renaissance ■ in i i iiMPHiin mm MaMM diputcd architecture, anil even iconography, a- well as morpho logical details, in order to identify the period and place id origin o* a given work I hi hook comprising the cssavs purports to show Berenson t working procedure, but it reads more like a lengthv reexamination of results reached by what must have been a more intuitive process. From defining the nature of known artists. Berenson went on to create artistic personalities in a wav that reveals much about the success and failure of modern connoisseurship Having ob-sentd that certain paintings attributed to well-known masters were apparently the work of other, unknown artists. Berenson grouped them together under temporary designations for research and reference In the case of the Master of San Miniato [52], for example, he chose a painting in the town of San Miniato to provide an identity for the unknown artist to whom he attributed other pictures in the same style.121 Or else Berenson adopted a name to stand for an artist's personality, what he would have been called, we might sav. had he been a painter only and not a person. This procedure worked for the so-called Alunnodi Domenico," a pupil of Domenico Ghirlandaio, whose real name. Bartolomeo di Giovanni, was discovered afterwards.123 Fhe most ambitious of Berenson's t nations was, of course, Amico di Sandro, that friend of Sandro" Botticelli, most, il not all of whose paint- ..,llv W I'" . n___.___i ... 100 Bernard and Marv Berenson, 1898. Villa I Tatti, Hanard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies ings turned out to be early works by Filippino Lippi.124 No fewer than four Gallery paintings once belonged to Berenson's group, including a small panel of Tobias and the Angel [98]. The original name chosen for this invented master was more conventional, the Master of the Morte di Lucrczia," referring to a work in the Pitti Gallery.125 Berenson opted for "Amico di Sandro'' presumably to lend some life to his creation, which, nevertheless, he was prepared to repudiate in the 1932 edition of the Lists. Berenson's failure to recogni/e these works as by the early Filippino is typical of Morellian connoisseurship. By focusing t(X) exclusively on details, Berenson overlooked more basic similarities of style and structure that link the Tobi with a mature and more easily recog- (is nizable production of Filippino, like the Pieta [99], also in the National Gallery. Berenson's invented personalities may be less convincing than those he defined for known artists. Yet it is such a concept of artistic personality that lends significance to observation about paintings. Thus it often happens that what scholars similarly observe, they interpret differently. For this reason, connoisseurship cannot be objective, as there is no practicable way to test a given concept of an artist's personality, except by means ol a consensus among scholars. Mary Berenson [100, illus] was the first of many collaborators that also included Berenson's longtime companion, Nicky Mariano. In the pioneering days of connoisseurship, however, Mary (1864-1945) was more of a co- .K vv III" °----- 1,1 v, |, .1 tog thl r. Bernard to ftj ti1(v ttB. h|s t.„nccntration. left . inter""i . ... N1* ht,r „wn and those prtvtinw n"US ■■ him.1" She recalled h fairlv fainting with ,|i< lateel by he "dragged me ...tiguc from the altarpiece in one church t<> t""sc'in another- and con" fined me Strictly in museums from the hour of opening to that of closing 127 All the same, to steal up to [paint ingsl in some shadowy church where the hot sunlight lay in a shining pool on the Boor bv the open door, to creep around the devout worshippers and to catch glimpses of what was glimmering on the altars, to whisper to each other in breathless excitement some name-like Falconetto' or Giolfino' or what not, gave us a joy I cannot hope to communicate. Mary claimed to have joined Bernard in drawing up the pamphlet on the Venetian exhibition of 1895 [15, illus.], and. in fact, their annotated copy of the official catalogue at I Tatti shows that it was she who crossed out the name of Giorgione for the Hoh Family [16. illus] and wrote Catena. How they worked together mav be sec in two notebooks, which reveal that Bernard and Mary actually put into practice the method thev had learned from reading Morelli. One [101], rei ording trips to Venice and the Yeneti in 1891-1893, includes a sheet with Mary's rendering of the type of ear i picted by Gentile Bellini on the org* shutters of San Marco. The other hitherto unpublished notebook [102 illus.], made in north Italv in 1892 1893 and again in Marv s hand, in dudes comments and sketches of t sort found in Morellis notebook [7 '"us.], hers relating to the Perugit altarpiece in the church of Sant'A t'no in Cremona. Her efforts to rt P^rugino's characteristic tvpc of f hd togetncr, o"..—.------ ",,U. -riini his concentration, left ih >u ^ant. Their corre though affectionate, deals ',, (ttributions Knd "hen llur, Bernard, so as \11[\ inteffupl to I* >rform the task of taking and those presumably ailed bow c her""" '"" ih» him 1,6 She r •CLdinrttrb fainting with bl fiom the altarpiecc in one '"'"'"h to those in another, and con- lhUr,C crricdv in museums from the ^^-duptoi^nt-JL] in some shadow church where hot sunlight lav in a sh.nmg pool ,he Boor In the open door, to creep land the devout worshippers and to S^wpsesofwhatwas glimmering m the altars, to whisper to each other In breathless excitement some namely falcondtn or Gtollino or what nnt gave us a |ov I cannot hope to communicate Man claimed to have joined Bernard in drawing up the pamphlet on the Unerian exhibition of 1895 [15, illus ]. and. in fact, their annotated copv of the official catalogue at I Tatti shows that it was she vv ho crossed out the name of Giorgione for the Hoh Famih [16. illus] and wrote "Catena." How thev worked together may be seen in two notebooks, which reveal that Bernard and Mary actually put into practice the method they had learned from reading Morelli. One [101], recording trips to Venice and the Veneto in 1891-1893, includes a sheet with Man s rendering of the type of ear depicted by Gentile Belli ni on the organ shutters of San Marco. The other hitherto unpublished notebook [102, '"us ], made in north Italy in 1892-1893 and again in Man's hand, includes comments and sketches of the JW found in Morelli s notebook [74, •■»•], hers relating to the Pcrugino altarpiecc in the church of Sant'Agos-jj*> in Cremona. Her efforts to render perugino's characteristic type of hand 1 he impression Berenton «c gain ol Man "Wbardd, 1;r,M,,«r;,''hi-"l'her z:::r.......... Mire - r,eogni,,(| that „ — "ho. as a line scholar in her . " n«,,'i"« contributed more than Bernard did to the hterature on Italian ZT* ^".Hwa.MarytT Bernard, who lectured on, onno,sseur-sh.p during their epochal trip to America in 1903-1904 and afterwards Among her writings, she even reviewed Berenson's F/oren/i»e Painters, referring to it as "something of a surprise"!'^ ideal subject for a feminist, we might say. Mary's writings betray early signs of interest in the female role in art and literature.130 Soon they became more specialized, as she shared Bernard's passion for con-noisscurship.131 Mary's more selective approach is suggested by her Guide to the Italian Pictures at Hampton Court [103] of 1894, in which she aimed to separate the wheat from the chaff. The catalogue, compiled according to Morellian principles, was undoubtedly a joint effort, but in this case, Mary got the credit. For all her application, though, Mary tired of the minor masters who occupied more and more of Berenson's attention, as he updated the Lists, and she gradually withdrew trom me piojs^.. The kind of painstaking effort that lies behind the laconic Lists may be •toted from a comparison ot two apprecw,------ editions, the later one incorporating erections made in Mary Berenson s hand, to the first. Appended to the for essays on the Italian painters of • of 1894-1907 were in- DCTIiaiu cii,"-----1 . Sutebook Made in Sarth Itah Barbara Straehev Halpern dexes of their ,....... .......to 104 Paps from The \ cnetian I'm mm of the Renaissance. \illa I Tatti. Harvard tniversitv Center for Italian Renaissance Studio ! hev vv ere not inclusive. However. continual research and the tracing of pictures from one collection to another necessitated an edition in which all the schools were brought together: the Italian Pictures of the Renaissance [105] of 1932 The indexes, in other words, outgrew the essays. To be exhaustive, the new Lists of works assigned to painters by Berenson included workshop products, copies, and imitations. The changes show that Berenson conceived of attributions as hypotheses, to be advanced and confirmed or discarded. Eventually the Lists got so long that they separated again. The last, illustrated editions [106] came out shortly before and even after Berenson's death in 1959.132 If lists are physical traces of a process of comparison and revision, photographs are the tools of that process. It was Morelli. according to Berenson, who first made systematic use of photographs, as well as drawings, to aid him in recalling art works he had seen. Morelli s adoption of the new medium follows logically from his selection of shapes as characteristic of an artist rather than colors and textures, which the camera failed to record adequately. Among the first generation of scholars that took to photography, Berenson in particular embraced it as the essential if "uncertain instrument" of modern eonnoisseiirship The patient comparison of a given work with all other works In ihe same master" he found to be greatly aided In photographs, whieTi could be used to confirm or even to make allril)iitions.,M Travel to study works of art was facilitated bv another modern technological innovation, fast transportation in the form of the railway and automobile. I hough at first he envisaged "the visiting not only of every public gallery in I mi rope, but of the even more numerous and frequently inaccessible private collections."134 and though he omitted paintings from the early Lists because he had not examined them,135 half a century later Berenson confessed that "on the pretext of having to see certain works of art [107] and to see them where they grow, I make costly tours and give them time that in deepest conscience I suspect of being unnecessary. For the task in hand, the time could have been better spent in the library, with books and photographs. It is there, and not picnicking around, that scholarship is apt to be native and productiveAt pur.*- <>l"rm,mn* l^/nd wh-e and b, wh.....Mover, nost cre« or Uli1 he atC,u ____....Ml. ,.Amv to tat 1 where ana nv vs.ä give! when 8«w . entcd, a good reproduc- W;,S in . . _______.„V, In his 108 ««nard Berenson examining photographs. 1956. V.lla I Tatu, Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies nc clecioeu, ■ - -ti"11- . aerenson actually came t a"',;,;;i.tograpbs prolong his capacity for stu.lv litis 1 "7 Berenson thus distin Lahed between classification, for *hich photographs are suitable, and rnioyment of the actual work of art, l(,r which there is no substitute Other scholars, likewise concerned about the proper use of photographs in research, recommended them only as memoranda of works of art.'38 The danger they foresaw was that, unlike a hurried pencil sketch, a photograph might replace the original as an object of study. Sir Kenneth Clark has recently recounted just such an abuse of photography in connoisscurship. As a young apprentice at I Tatti, he was given the Titian folder to prepare. "At that time I had not been to the Prado," he admitted, "nor Vienna, nor even Venice. Nothing could show more clearly the hollow ness of the system of art-historical studies then fashionable, and still, I believe, in certain institutions, that I should have been expected to determine from photographs alone, the authenticity of works by a supreme colorist."139 Nevertheless, photographs provide an indispensable way of comparing yvorks of art ttx> numerous and toodis tant geographically to be studied directly, and connoisseurs began at one to collect them, eventually forming ai chives that have since become availal to other qualified scholars. The phot graphs gathered by Berenson. for instance, many of them from dealers a OMfectors, have been reinstalled at I T«tti [109]. Those belonging to his. league George Martin Richter he e .11 the nucleus for the now vastly cv Ponded holdings of the National Ca °ry s Center tor Advanced Study ti ar of ti t' i I kg purpose <>/ ilifcrmining „hen -ir»*í bj whom a given I btwated, a good reprodu( JfcCJaW, i- enough " In his > Bercnson ac lna//\ came to llipH*' which enabled ifbM ''|s <■ apai itv for srudS s I ", Berenson linn ilisfin-,m ct n i Lť-MÍn ation, for ranhs are si]it;iiS/(. and tua/ work of art. • is« \t >>M i the actual w »■» l^n,,| ' no substitute. ***** u'l.rs likewise concerned ^ť^use of photographs.- ' r,,mmend^ them only as nlaot-.rbofart.1* The SSMfcres.......that, unhke a ""P 1 sketch, a photograph burned ptf» ^ original as an object fJ'T^rhenneth Clark has re-£ rented jus. such ari abuse of ^L-raphv m connoisseurshtp As a apprentice at 1 Tatti. he was Ten the Titian folder to prepare. "At Lnmclhad not been to the Prado." ht admitted, nor Vienna, nor even Venice Nothing could show more dearh the hollowness of the system of art-historical studies then fashionable, and still. I believe, in certain insti-tubons. that I should have been expected tn determine from photographs alone, the authenticity of works by a supreme colorist."139 Nevertheless, photographs provide an indispensable wa\ of comparing works of art too numerous and t(X) distant geographicallv to be studied di-recth, and connoisseurs began at once to collect them, eventually forming ar-enhes that have since become available toother qualified scholars. The photographs gathered b\ Berenson, for instance, manv of them from dealers and !*ctars. have been reinstalled at I a 11 H09] Those belonging to his col-ugue George Martin Hichter became nucleus for the now \astlv cx-pdwi holdings of the National Gal-5 • tenter for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts To supply this m.w| for large quantities of photographs, commercial archives grew up, Berenson reported on the wide ranging campaigns undertaken in the lHmu h\ \ink rson of HotM and the \linan brothers ol Florence, both with extensive Inventories ni Italian material Mn \\ hat the amassing of photographs amounts to is that the trained meniorv of connoisseurs ol Berenson s generation was supplemented or even subsrJ tilled hv a mechanical faculty of visual it call, a democratic" process parallel to the vvav photography itself enabled unskilled draftsmen to create images "Photographs' Photographs!" Berenson exclaimed in the 1932 edition of the Lists. In our work one can never have enough " How he used photo- graphs to revise (he 1 isis mU ■ isis mav he seen in relation to \ndr. I del ( astagno's Portrait of a Wan |l 10, illus ) in the National Gallery This forceful portrait was n i ofderj hv the Berensnns in the earlv ihv*k. when it belonged to the 1 orrigiani iamilv in I lorcnce Soon afterward thev saw ll again in another collection in Paris. In their entries in unpublished noli hooks tin v attributed the picture to t astagno. I hi v desi rihed as well the vivid color lac king in an old photograph 11111 ol the painting. Annotations on the back of an analogous photograph 1112, illus 1 from 1 Tatti, made at intervals of manv vears, give the provenance and attribution history of the picture. In the upper left Mary wrote and then crossed out the name ol Botticelli to 112 Annotations on the reverse' of a phototjraph of Portrait of a Man Villa I latti. Harvard Lnive Renaissance Studies whom the portrait was once ascribed. Berenson. in the larger and looser handwriting of his later years, suggested, instead of Castagno. the name "Antonio Pollaiuolo." Accordingly, from a label at the bottom we learn that he gave the painting to Pollaiuolo in the 1932 and 1936 editions of the Lists. Other scholars disagreed, preferring the Castagno attribution, to which Berenson returned, and this too we gather from yet another inscription on the back of the photograph.141 The suggestion Berenson once made of Pollaiuolo nonetheless remains worthy of consideration as an alternative to Castagno. If modern connoisscurship depends upon photographs, their reliability as Andrea del Castagno's rsitv Center for Italian records of works of art needs to be assessed We are concerned to know not only how the connoisseur makes his decisions but also on what basis, whether on the object itself or from photographs of it. Overcoming the hostility of museum officials, mid-nineteenth century photographers at this time began systematically to record works of art, which, because they are motionless, well suited the task.142 By the end of the century photography had superseded metal and wood engraving and lithography as the standard method of reproducing visual images. Belore photography, inastcrworks of painting were engraved again and again. Two such engravings of the lis. Raphael, The Alba Madonna National Gallery of Art, Andre« \V Mellon Collection 1937 Alba Madonna [113, illus], made while it was in a London collection early in the nineteenth century, each make a different statement about the original. In her introduction to the catalogue of the collection, Mrs. Jameson praised the "pure and correct style" of the plates [114, illus], drawn and engraved by F. Joubert. Much as Berenson would later use photographs, she indicated how engravings were meant to be "retranslated': "Even a slight memorandum of such a composition as . . . the Holy Family of Raphael vv ill make it start up before the fancy in all the beauty of various tints, all the magic of chiaro-scuro ,'143 This particular print (actually a lithograph after a line engraving) would prove invaluable to connoisseurs, Mrs. Jameson predicted, since the picture itself had just been acquired bv the Hermitage Museum in Leningrad. The purportedly accurate Joubert print differs from another, more elaborate folio engraving [ 1 IS, illus] by B. Desnoyers.144 The two prints dis- . 14 Plate from ColUctum of Pictures of W. C National Gallery of Art agree not onlv in scale but also in overall tonality, as well as details of costume and setting. As Berenson sa.c "no engraver, however well inten-tioned, can help putting a great deal t himself into his reproductions."14* Moreover, due to technical limitatior of the medium —ink on paper—both prints fail to reproduce the surface characteristics —color and paint handling—of the picture. They trar mit only the design. Connoisseurs h fore Berenson, relying on engraving "no matter how good a general noti< of a painter's various compositions might have drawn from this source could have next to no acquaintance with those subtlest elements of hi? style which distinguish him from i mere copyist or clever imitator."14 However inaccurate, though, e gravings were preferable to the cv photographs of paintings. The di; librium of color values in the old lodion negative led photographer-«ork from engravings after paint An example of such a copy of a e »1 to the Mrs lame rtographs cfi a cnmpr»si drs m of Ptctum oj \\ G. ( am-elt. Esq of London Art dis- jcrex not onh in scale but also in oreral! tonaiitv. as w ell as details of oxturrk jmi settine. \s Berenson said, rv engraver however well inten-ooned. can help putting a great deal of himself into his reproductions. "14* Moreover, due to technical limitations of the medium —ink on paper—both prints fail to reproduce the surface characteristics — color and paint handling—of the picture Thev transmit onlv the design Connoisseurs before Berenson. reiving on engravings, no matter how good a general notion or a painter s various compositions they might have drawn from this source. could have next to no acquaintance »«ththoM subtlest elements of his ^le "huh distinguish him from the mm u>pvist or clever imitator."1*6 "««ever inaccurate. though, en-Kj-anngs were preferable to the earliest Photcigraphs of 'paintings. The discqui 'bnumof color values in the old col-active Jed photographers to J** ,r"m engravings after paintings. exa»iple of such a copy of a cop* of the Alba Madonna appears in a monograph on Raphael [116]. The print employed mav be recognized as Des-noycr's engraving. This process seems strange to us, in view of modern screened halftone reproductions, but w ritcrs on art at that time were used to dealing with reproductive engravings. Only gradually was the practice of photographing prints after paintings replaced by photographs made directly from the original works and, in btxik illustration, by photogravure and other photo-mechanical processes.147 While- the artistic merits of photographs were debated, few critics thought to question their value as visual records. The very traits that tainted them as creative art —their objectivity and reproducibility—made them ideally suited as copies. Thus when orthochromatic photographs ol art works first appeared in the 1880s, Berenson claimed that "leaving out the color, they arc the pictures themselves on a smaller scale.",4H Yet a large format carbon print of the Alba Madonna [117], made by Braun in the Hermitage, shows that this kind of photography of art can be misleading t(H).149 The orthochromatic negative, sensitive to the cool end of the color spectrum, failed to differentiate the tonal values of the blue in the Madonna's robe and of the red in her dress; they look as if they are alike in color. Apart from this technical deficiency, the early photograph [117] reflects a way of seeing the work reproduced characteristic of engravings. It crops the painting all around, thereby enlarging the figures at the expense of the setting Raphael provided for them. Moreover, the light-dark pattern of the photograph and its rather drv quality seem to follow the conventions of an engraving like that of Desnoyers. Another way in which this photograph misinterprets the painting has to do with the arm with which the Child supports himself on his mother's lap. This attitude, the fulcrum of what Berenson called a "triumph of centralised composition,"150 is obscured in the ■ 48 photograph because the flesh tones arc too dark Hv lonlrasl. thi engraver f 11S. illus ] hail the option ol \ isii.ilb emphasizing the motif in order to eon \c\ the arlisl s ml. ntlon"" Bcrc-nson wrote Man from \ icnnn on October B, I8*H>. that he had bought torn nine small photographs and three \en large ones Don't be surprised, he added, that two of the \en lame ones an ol Diircr t I got them for scientific purposes . . Compare the hand of the glovi-d visilor in Ditto's Madonna with Si Onoph rio of the Borghese (.alien ,",M His comment indicates that, if artists manners could be broadlv distinguished on the basis ol engravings. onl\ photographs, especially those near the scale of the original, could capture the minor details upon vv hich Morellian connoisseurship was founded. The practice of making en- graved details was not new Juxtaposed with an overall rcprodiu Hon. thev scr\ed to until i si ore some point about lb, hislorx ol style A dlllerenl pur pos, giiuliil Hraun in selecting details to photograph from the 4ft* Madonna In one [ I IN] showing the Madonna and Child, the hands of the little Si |ohn have been arbitrarily removed by the photographer and the cross completed In another |l 19. illus.]. with the figures of the Child and St. John nearly in full scale, the Madonna's face has been omitted These arc pictorial details, complete in themselves. Such vignettes were better suited for use bv the public as decoration than bv art scholars for the purpose of connoisseurship.154 A modern museum photograph of the .4//w Madonna [ 120] is more reliable than those made bv Braun. It reproduces the painting entire, if at a reduced scale, and with lulK rendered tontl v alius A detail of the center of the painting 11 2 I. illus. | has a purely formal character. If engravings and old photographs were suited to their use in past connoisseurship. based on the artist's conception, the modern pholo graphic detail is equally involved with modem connoisseurship The modern photographic detail, in fact, shows the problem inherent in modern connoisseurship: a detail may be insignificant if chosen bv the art historian or photo grapher without regard to the whole painting. A second detail of the Madonna's eye 1122] is so enlarged as to be meaningless to the ordinary viewer. It too serves the purpose of scholarship. In this century a whole range of technical photographs which report specialized information about the underlying structure of works of art have been added to photographs taken under normal conditions. One made of the Alba Madonna under ultraviolet radiation [123] shows some slight retouchings to the surface. An infrared photograph [124] would reveal any more The Alba Madonna (x radiograph photograph, Sáto"1 al Gallery of Art serious 119 The Mha Madonna (detail, carbon print; Musee du Louvre 121. The Alba Madonna (detail). National Gallery of Art damage. The condition of the .., . ,re is best gauged, however, from an x-radiograph[125. illus], permitting us to peer through the paint lavers. Though Berenson never fully utilized these techniques of investigation, thev enable the connoisseur to determine what remains of an artists otherwise unseeable handiwork and. on that added basis to decide about the attribution and qualitative importance of a picture. A noted historian of visual communication may be right that "until photography came into common use-there had been no way of making pictures of objects that could serve as a basis for connoisseurship of the modem type, that is for the study of objects as particulars. "ISS Nevertheless, as connoisseurs became more and more dependent upon photographs in their work, Berenson no longer believed that "photography reproduces the object as it is."156 The kind of •nonochrome photographs normally used in art-historical research still mi« the color, scale, and paint han-^'•"8 of the original. In some cases problem of color has been met In ter,8003 V accuratt- >f sometimes Hat evc'n8tK°l0r transPar^v'cs [126], \et tr»e color photograph has not nS ihi \H'n WadtMM (l radiograph , National (.alien ol Arl serious damage The condition of the nature is best gauged, however, from an \ radiograph 1125, illus ]. permitting us to peer through the paint layers Ihotigh Berenson never fully utilized these techniques of investigation, thev enable the connoisseur to determine what remains of an artist I otherwise unseeable handiwork and. on thai added basis to decide about the attribution and qualitative Important i of a pit lure A noted historian of visual com munication mav be right that "until photography came into common use there had been no vvav of making pic tares ol ol)|( t ts thai could serve as a basis lor commissi urship of the modern type, that is for the sttielv of "hn< is ,ls partit ulars."1" iNeverthe-WM as connoisseurs became more and more dependent upon photographs in their work. Berenson no longer lx' heved ihai photograph; reproduces •hi objet l as it is ",M 1 he kind of moiKKhromi photographs normally lJsr the original - so much so that we speak oi a photographic wav of sec ing works of art an appric i.vi ion Bcrcnson's fine aPPrcu..t.on of Bor ticelh I 4* )""'h ! in ihi National Ciallcrv offers a final revealing insight into his working mcthm'("ri < tires in Western Art Hrstan (Mm York. 1971). 43-48: ami Mark Roskill. Mat* v, KaarvJ \e« York 197»), » W I Kenneth C lark Part «J it I rwrf (London. 1974). 3 Skrtrh for a Self Portrait 11 on.li.n. 1949). I 32. 4 Leonardo da Vina An Account of his Dnclnpment as an Artist C ambndgc. 193". and .4 ( ataloguc of the Drawings of Ixonardo da Vinci at Windsor (astlc 2 vols (Cambridge. 1935) Clark has reminisced about Berenson in a sequel to the Civilisation scries and in The Burhngtn,, Magazine. 102. no 690 (Sept. I960): 381-386 Chapters in both Milium 5 of his autobiography deal With B.r.nson too. See Another Part of the Wood. 123-165; and The Other Half A Self-Portrait (London, 1977). 103-108. 5 About Pope-Hennessv's debt to Berenson see Essays on Italian Sculpture London-New York. 1968). vii, ix, and especially 199-206, "Portrait of an Art Historian." (reprinted from The Times Uleran Supplement. Mar 25. 1960). 6 Pi relatic 1978 rg kindly and prcccptivelv remarked upon his renson in a letter to the author dated Aug. 31, The Stud) and Criticism of Italian Art (London, 1901), v. 8 For his inner conflict sec the late diaries (Sunset and Twilight [New Wk. 1963], 400; and The Bernard Berenson Treasury [New Wk. 1962]. 258. 272). 9 Meyer Schapiro, Mr Berenson's Values." in Encounter 16 no. 1 (Jan 1961): 57-65. 10 Self Portrait, 35-36. About Berenson's theories see Rene Wel-lek, Vernon Lee. Bernard Berenson. and Aesthetics," in Friendship s Garland-Essays Presented to Mario Praz. 2 (Rome, 1966) 233-251 11 The Selected Letters of Bernard Berenson, ed. A. R. McComb (Boston, 1964;. 270 fJuly 6, 1952). 12 Letters of Roger En. cd Dcnys Sutton (New York, 1972) no. o(J. ILS?'*'"0" "f Vmätm Art The N>" Ga/,',n' ******** l4n„!^'fTrb,[Uüd ^p^'' prin,wl at ,ht' "!«»* ff the or- Ber ens t 7 T ?f ^ — "A Dinnson s Study and (riticism (19011, 90-146. 15 \ t ~ nc 11 a n Painting ( '",''7, '"''""' ' ' IH4S)- i2 ^' ft-nrinl.-d in Stiuh and ( ritia-m I 1901 I. 133 I he painting had al rc.i.l\ been listttl ax Catena's in the 1894 edition ol the Venetian Pmintm of tht Rcnaitam, lOS Ber. lis.ill re|e. ted til. (iinrginne attribution given to a drawing in the exhibition | \ cnctian Paint ing. 41 I, Whfcfl is also exhibited here |69. illus.]. 16 | ,tlcr in the Callcrvs files dated Oct 24. 1953 I he picture appears .is (iiorgione'« In Italian Pit /"res of the Renaissance. apfa... \,nctian S./iii.)/. / llondon. 1957): 85. 17 See Venetian Painting. 8-9 or Stmh and ( riticism (1901), 97-98 18 See Study and Criticism (1901), n. 1, p. 98; The Study and Criticism of Italian Art, 2nd s. (London. 1902), 55-56; and Sörth Italian Painters of the Renaissance (London, 1907), 255. 19 "A New Mantcgna' lor America," in Art in America. 6, no. 3 (Apr. 1918): 127-128; Italian Pictures of the Renaissance (Oxford. 1932) , 328; Italian Pictures of the Renaissance. Central Italian and Sörth Italian Schfwls, I (London, 1968): 242. 20 The full title is: Drawings of the Florentine Painters. Classified, Criticized, and Studied as Documents in the History and Appreciation of Tuscan Art with a Copious Catalogue Raisonne. Later editions are: Drawings of the Florentine Painters, 3 vols. (Chicago, 1938); and / Disegni dei Pittori Fiorcntini, trans. Luisa Vertova Nieolson (Milan, 1961). 21 Three Essays in Method (Oxford, 1927), p. 83. 22 Lorenzo Lotto. An Essay in Constructive Art Criticism (New York-London, 1895), 1-3, 316-318. The picture had already been recognized as an early Lotto by Morelli (Italian Painters. Critical Studies of their Works. The Galleries of Munich and Dresden [London, 1893], 46). It was shown at the New Gallery exhibition of 1895, no. 60 (Venetian Painting, 19). 23 Sunset and Twilight. 264. About Berenson's importance for American collectors see: Gerald Reitlinger, The Economics of Taste (London, 1961), 197-202. Berenson commented on the scarcity of early Italian pictures in America in "Les Peintures Italiennes de New York et de Boston," Gazette des Beaux-Arts. IS (1896): 195-214. Berenson's Venetian Painting in America. The Fifteenth Century (New York, 1916), though no mere collectors' handbook, does survey Venetian pictures that had crossed the Atlantic under his auspices. What is remarkable about the book is that such a satisfactory account of the school could be constructed out of American holdings brought together in less than two decades. More straightforward surveys are Lionello Venturis Italian Paintings in America. 2nd id. rev.. 3 vols. (New York-Milan. 1933) ; and his "Private Collections of Italian Paintings,'' Art fa America, 32, no. 4 (Oct 1944): 168-177. 24 Letter of Oct. 5, 1890, quoted in Man Berenson's "Unpublished Life" of her husband, chap. 2, preserved In typescript in the archive at I Talti. (l,,rv (rem Berenson to Mrs Gardner. Aug §, 1902 (dc-I ;1t the Gardner Museum), published in Sato mt / teten, tftmm Satm (London, |90~> \ii lames add< Philosophical Society, ihi (0H*n«1 »as kindb brought to m\ attention In Pm| \l,n>n Grinwre who punished H In pan in 1 he Bererrsnni and , ,||., I Tain. HeceeAngsofth, \mei 120. no 1 iJan 1976): ' 12 \S Between I89S and 1401 four pu tores OMR through Bercn-m kg the Ganlnei eolleetton from J P Riehlor (1847-1937) See phihp Hi'ikK luropeananJ Annriean Paintings in the Isabella levari Ganiner Museum (Boston. 1974). nos P30vv9. P26cl7, p>w 11, and P26wS \dditional Italian paintings can be traced from the Philadelphia collection of John G Johnson (1841-1917), t,,r whom Berenson acted as an advisor, back to vet another Morcllian. Gustavo Frizzoni (1840-1919) Th e correspondence hetween Berenson and Frizzoni is preserved in part at I Tatti, and like that with Richter, it deals largely with commerce in works ot art \ic k\ Mariano, The Berenson .Archive. An Inventor* ofCorrespondence [Florence. 1965], 36). 29 About Berenson and Mrs. Gardner, sec Rollin van N. Hadlev and Frances F. Preston, "Berenson and Mrs. Gardner. The Venetian Influence, remcat Court, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum [Boston]. 1972. 11-17; and Berenson and Mrs. Gardner The Museum Years. Femca\ Court. 1974, 5-13. About her museum see Fiendv. Gardner Museum and The Connoisseur, 198, no. 795 Mac 1978,. 30 About the picture, see Charles Seymour, Jr., Early Italian Paintings in the \ale Lniversin Art Gallery (New Haven-London, 1970i. cat. no. 87. pp. 128-130. In correspondence with Jarves' biographer, Francis Steegmullcr. Berenson claimed his first acquaintance with this and other Jarves paintings was through an article on the collections by William Rankin, published in American Journal of Archaeology. 10. no. 2 (Apr-June 1895). Rankin had already observed that although the "Botticelli" at first might seem the best picture Jarves owned, it was by the artist's school (p. I46i The Berensons visited the Janes collection again on Feb. 7, 1914 (letter to Isabella Stewart Gardner of Feb. 6) and on Jan 29, 1921 (letter of Jan. 21. 1921, to Prof. Paul Sachs [Selected Letters, p. 89]). 31 Letter from Man Berenson to Isabella Stewart Gardner, Dec 5. 1908; deposited at Fenway Court. 32 Letter from Man Berenson to Isabella Gardner Dec 16 1908; deposited at Fenway Court. The Berensons returned o he colle-ction again in 19.4 (letter to Mrs. Gardner of Jan. 28, .914. deposited at Fenway Court). o.rs see W. G. Constable, Art 33 About the ^^^^Zd^N^ York. Collecting in the United States oj America v 1964;, 115-119. ■ „,.j r\ letter to Berenson, dated Mar. 5. 1912, is 34 Joseph W idencr s leu ^ (){ tnt,lr tom.sp(,ndencc. preserved at I Iatti, wi ' «alogues ol the WE . ,,",,,m's wen lnc,uded ^ 'i ini vvuienercoleiti.ini,} |om „„| iuoh i ... ■ appear in that of 1915, ' * » QttOt«d in looking at Pit York, 1974), 136 uh Bernard Bermon | \™ nt ^7 f V ' '8?' ^ " S'"-^-n,s contents mav I, gamed Irom the catalogue of a loan Exhibition oj \>a„,t ings. 1 urmture. and Art Objects from the Collection of ( arl W SrSS*.Mon*l»*rAtl Museum. Montekir, Htm |emy, Dac 10, 1925-Jan. 10, 1926. In addition, Mr Charles Pavne. on a v isit to the National Gallery of Art, kindly provided the w riter with a description of one room in the apartment rapproximately 10x15 ft.) as it appeared around 1920. On one of the shorter vvalls hung Piero della Franeesca's Crucifixion, now belonging to the I rick Collection, while on the opposite wall was Botticelli's Portrait of a Boy. which came to the National Gallery. On one of the larger vvalls over a couch was Mantegna's JuMth [17. illus], purchased by Joseph Widener, and opposite Bellini's Feast of the Gods, also acquired by Widener and also in the Gallery On either side of Bellini's picture was a pair of panels of an Annunciation by Fra Angelico, sold to Mrs. Edsel Ford and now in the Detroit Institute of Arts. 38 About Mary's lectures see Selected Letters, 90-91. Mary also wrote on Bellini's Feast of the Gods, when it belonged to Flamil-ton, in Art in America, 9, no. 1 (Dec. 1920): 3-5. Berenson's articles on Hamilton's pictures include the following: "A New Man-tegna' for America "; "A Newly Discovered Cimabue," Art in America, 8, no. 6 (Oct. 1920): 251-271 (reprinted in Studies in Medieval Painting [New Haven-London, 1930], 17-31), "A Botticelli Portrait in the Collection of Mr. Carl W. Hamilton." Art in America, 10, no. 1 (Dec. 1921): 26-30; "Due Dipinti del Deci-mosecondo Secolo Venuti da Constantinopoli," Dedalo. 2, no. 5 (Oct. 1921): 285-304 (reprinted in Studies in Medieval Painting, 63-74); and "Prime Opere di Allegretto Nuzi," Bollettiiw d'Arte. 1, no. 7 (Jan. 1922): 297-308 (reprinted in Studies in Mediexal Painting, 63-74). 39 The anecdote is repeated, somewhat varied, in Nicky Mariano, Forty Years with Berenson, 20, 22; S. N. Behrman, Duveen (Boston-Toronto, 1972), 127-128; and Edward Fowles, Memories of Duveen Brothers (London, 1976), 128. 40 The correspondence between Hamilton and the Berensons, preserved at I Tatti, contains numerous references to the paint ing. In a letter of Oct. 15, 1919, Hamilton speaks of a photograph and description of the picture, which, he anticipated, would make his apartment "radiant, and I shall become more efficient in business and richer in character 1 ight days later he wrote to Mary that "I often come direct to the lovely little Pesellino . . . And it is to vou and B. B. to whom 1 am inexpressibly grateful." On Aug. 19, 1924, he reminded Berenson of the "interesting 54 „.,, ,,„,, s, i„hn.huh j-^jj^ x« SZtmSi. lalh nmcl Berenson m pu ,v beJonaed I" »" «lunrpie h\ Dnrocnicn \ cneziano In .1 lein Malcolm I," Art \c 42 Main til thi Bi rensons tipiiiitWS an 1 f>''** Vaughan Maalupieees In the Hamilton <> < 27. M 18 \pr 41 Before thci ».r, sold. Hamiltons remaining pictures were h Ki I ID1" it Monteimr \t-n Ii rs. \ 1 urontn. and Nan " " .' "I(„,"„ ,„„„( ,h,ni .1 M«. esp. I: xiii. Walters' Italianatc palazzo completed soon after Mrs Gardner's in Boston, is illustrated in Apollo 100 I I9"4; 355 'special issue devoted to the collection Perhaps the most interesting of all these Berensonian collectors «as Robert Lehman, whose taste led him beyond the Italian primitives especially the Sienese to the modern French school favored todav See- George Szabt'i, The Robert Lehman Collection with fore-word bv loseph A Thomas (New York, 1975,. 10. 45 Letter from Rush Kress to Berenson. dated Feb. 3. 1948, deposited at I Tatti, draft of a letter to Kress from Berenson. dated Feb 12 1949. at I Tatti About the Kresses as collectors see- Constable. Art (electing. 133-137. and John Walker, Self-Portrait with Donors 'Boston-Toronto. 1974; 133-153. 46 Letter from Berenson to Bush Kress, dated July 29, 1947 at the Kress Foundation in New York. 47 The correspondence between Berenson and the Kresses is dnidt, beuten «he- 1 Tatt, Collection and the Kress Foundation in >'» Wk For Berenson s remarks on the tondo. see "Fra Angclico Fra Fihppo and their Chronology, in his Homeless ' («Wi.uU.ii-LowdoH, 1970) 198-233 'an Italian translation of the- then unpublished Lngl.sh manu "np, appeared in Bollctt.no dArte. 26. 3rd s [1932 49 66T See als, ,ht Posts.np,, l949. Th, C(X)k T(md<) .trf " "fiot Rud T v34'24i, Thl' m°S' —1 —is in Je Lv National (.allere of An 7^T^7-» * "'^ °f ^ 48 Aboul the pit lure set Fern Rusk Shipley, P«WlWlt^ from the Samuel II Kress I ollcction Italian Schools X/MX\ Crnfun I („„|,,n 19661, 20-21. 41» 1 hi Kress t ollet lion is probably the largest 1 ollt-i lion o| 11^*I ian paintings ever brotigbl together bv an individual For an idea of Us t Mi nl mi I cm Rusk Sb.iplt \. Italian St hook. XIII XV ( ,mim I'liniiings from the Samuel II Kress ( ollcction Italian Schools W \ W ( cntnn (Lindon. I'KiH IJ Paintings from the Samuel II Kress ( nil,; turn Italian Stlwols XVI X\ III (.cntnn (london, 1973). 50 I etter from David I inlev to Berenson. dated Aug 15. 1939, at I Tatti 51 J Carter Brown, A Personal Reminiscence, in Looking at Putnres. 15-20. si.- •-"•-'v;1,1" 52 Letter from David Finlcy to Bei at I Tatti. laled Aug. 15, 1939, 53 For Walker's moving portrayal of the aged Berenson see Self-Portrait. 80-101. About Berenson's collection see. Franco Russoh. Ici Raccolta Berenson (Milan, 1962); and Great Private ( ollcctions. eel. Douglas Cooper (New York, 1963), 60-73. 54 The emergence of the new type of connoisseur is exemplified bv Richard Offner (1889-1965), who taught connoisseurship of earlv Italian painting at the Institute of Fine Arts at New York University. Though Prof. Offner also gave expert opinions, it was for a fixed fee, not a percentage of the price of the work sold. For his views about the practice of connoisseurship in relation to the art market see his letter to the editor in Art in America. Feb. 1925, 102-103; and his "Connoisseurship," Art News, 50, no. 1 (Mar. 1951): 24-25, 62-63. 55 Jonathan Richardson, T110 Discourses (1719; reprint ed. 1972), 156. 56 Edward Fovvles, Duveen Brothers. 130. 57 See, for example, the quotations from Berenson in D«tmi Pictures in Public Collections in America. A Catalogue Raisonne with Three Hundred Illustrations of Paintings by the Great Masters, which have passed through the House of Duveen (New York, 1941). 58 Study and Criticism (1901), 76-77. 59 Study and Criticism (1901), 113-114, n. 2. Berenson's later v ie« is quoted in a letter from the dealer Arthur Sulley to Joseph W'idener of Apr. 23, 1917. 60 Preface to the 1932 edition of Italian Pictures, xxiii. 61 See the illustrated edition of Behrman's Duveen (see above, n. 39), which contains a list of the Italian paintings handled bv the firm (219-223). 62 Letter from Berenson to Edward Fovvles, dated June 7, 1934. at I Tatti th»' ' 1 ,L,.,I I,,, tr,.„ .raits were pure has. tl tot till isn M PP- 86 .re worth nottng here- In the l.rst a »efCn Berenson wrote Fowles on Dec 19. 1924 Maf> 1 V.,e.r letter of the 16th has JUSt com lto the embarrassing position of rele TLephdeaires-thatistos., writing S J . .bat the Firm wants to sell, or hi PU'U sure that this would end/audr. it diking as if his pen was at the service of v -nturi's and so many others. And that « arwavsbecn most careful to avoid. For the benefit of the Firm (not to s tioni it is surely a hundred times better command the opinion of an independent on his ow n lines and not to order In the doubt it would be helpful to this or that write it up. but in the end we should all 1 it is a thing he cannot do, for his mind d( way. If he did it, it would be inferior woi would that do to anv of us? At this time Fowles was attempting to get Ber mind about a Raphaelesque Madonna that Be to attribute to the master (letter to Mary, De-replied on Dec. 26 (her draft preserved, like Tatti): "Everything you say about the picture criticism if the picture were what it onlv in Raphael. . . . You can imagine that [B.B.] by that Master quite as much as you can war would have greatly preferred getting the prof accrued to him. if he only could have passed B.B. remains quite unshaken in his belief th in spite of all the qualities vou mention M The second important point in vol B.B s writing articles for pictures that iiberhaupt w riting to order Believe me he has never done and really cannot do fatal to his reputation, the second, to h such as they are, have always dcvelopet and at their own time, and reallv, dear makes him different from all the oth It is this which enables him to take noisseur but as a scholar and humanist gone around with him can have anv "hich he is everywhere received bv It would be entirely different if thev «*ns as depending on what he made did not recognize that when he w rot cause he was In exactly the phase « ^rccte-il upon that subject This ltlx rt fe"i*K °Wn W*y' as thc subJwts 'n him, he prizes more than money I mi la finished his memoirs (ie« above. n 39) (,nK n to jLm ig:(0 Hii Metropnlltan Museum is ih. repository oi ih, Ii > ( n inhiM's on « huh ihcv arc based Sei also ih, r,„n, ln hl.-ran Supplement Mar. 18. 1977. 305 the ^4 file portraits were purchased foi ih. Kress Coftectton rn ,oji Sbejdn Italian Si Imnls QWNIj nos k40N 09), K (7 Three furthei exchanges between I owlcs and the Samsons .'re worth noting here In the first, a di.ili ,,1 repK Man Berenson «rote hiwlcs on Dw 14. m>J, ils f()||,mv V'lir letter ol the Ir»th has just come It puts B B again into the embarrassing position of relusing to do w hat Sir Joseph desires —that is to sa\. writing armies to track up ,,K uires that the Firm wants to sell, or has just sold Now we are sun. that this would ,n,l fatally, it could not help lookmt as it Ins pen was at the service of his interests, like \ enturi s and so mam others And that is a thing he has alwavs been most careful to avoid. . . . For the benefit of the Firm (not to speak of B.B.'s posi tioni it is SKVsh I hundred times better in the long run to command the opinion of an independent scholar, who works on his own lines and not to order. In the short run, no doubt it would be helpful to this or that sale for B.B to wntc it up. but in the end we should all lose by it. Besides, it is a thing he cannot do, for his mind does not work that «a\ If he did it. it would be inferior work, and what good would that do to an\ of us? At this time Fowles was attempting to get Berenson to change his mind about a Raphaelesque Madonna that Berenson had refused to attribute to the master (letter to Mary. Dec. 23, 1924). She replied on Dec 26 (her draft preserved, like the former one, at I Tatti I \t rv thing vou sav about the picture would be perfect criticism if the picture were what it onlv imitates, if it were a Raphael iou can imagine that [B.B] wanted to think it was bv that Master quite as much as you can want it! He naturally would have greatlv preferred getting the profit that would have accrued to him. if he onlv could have passed it as a Raphael. . . . B B remains quite unshaken in his belief that it is not Raphael, in spite of all the qualities you mention.' Mary continued, The second important point in your letter is about B.B.'s writing articles for pictures that are for sale, and überhaupt writing to order Believe me. these are two things he has never done and reallv cannot d<>. The first would be fatal to his reputation, the second, to his talenr His gifts such as thev are. have always developed along then own lines and a. their own time, and reallv. dear Mr hdward which makes him different from all the other writers on lain art. It is this which enables him to take rank not onlv as a con-lis mi ms u,,manist No one who has not noisseur but as a scholar and humanist . K around with ^J^^^^ which he .s evervv Iure r rfT ,,js „pilv I, would fx- entirely d.Hcn n ^ * .f ( ,ons as depending on what htm*^ . ^ ^ did not rccogn./c th- tm. phase when his interest was cause he was initxa ^ )|() ^ of tJtvt,|opment. of directed upon thai su j m MMich \n. is interested *■......-....... ^«ÄS?'-mistake to ^^-t-nl-uh-maiehsis,......res which b.kn.....K ,„ I hope when vou bofc at it all round, vou will see that K?'I other antrsewouMX^Ae >a" '»^»rd and besides i, would bring scorn and ridicule on the whole affair, for evervone knows thauhis has been his policy for thirtv years All the same, we understand fullv the position vou are m which makes you urge him upon another course and it is not easy to stick by one's considered principles in opposition to you. But we are beith convinced that it is the best course Jor us all in the long run 65 See Alastair Smart, "Roger Frv and Farlv Italian Art," in Apollo, 133, no. 50(Apr. 1966): 262-271. 66 Letter of Fry to Mary Berenson, May 10, 1902. at I Tatti (published in Sutton, ed., Letters, 1: 208-209). 67 See Sutton, Letters, I: 10-13, 15, 18, 22, 63. 68 Told by G. M. Richter in "Leist and Rediscovered Works by Giorgione. Part I," Art in America, 30, no. 3 (July 1942): 161. 69 Venetian School, 185, 192. 70 In about 1490 an agent eif the duke of Milan reported to his master about the work of four fameius painters active in Florence: Botticelli, Filippino Lippi, Perugino, and Ghirlanclaio. His account, still preserved, was not simply an exercise in art appreciation, rather the painters were being recommended for employ -ment. With the duke in Milan and the artists in Florence, a sort of connoisseurship was required. The document was discovered in the Archiviodi Stato, Milan, by Paul Müller-Walde ("Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Leonardo da Vinci," in Jahrbuch der königlich preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 28 [1897]: 113-114, 165). It has often been reprinted; see Herbert Home, Samlro Botticelli (London, 1908), 109-110, 353. The Venetian Marcantonio Michiel (d. 1552) was a remarkably acute observer of works of art in north Italy He recorded his observations in a diary (see Robert Klein and Henri Zerner, Italian Art I 500-/600. Sources and Dociimmis [I nglcwood Cliffs, N.J., 1966], 25-30). In doing so, he distinguished among different artists' manners and originals from copies He even tried to identify the shares of artists working in collaboration. But Michiel was concerned with paintings which were nearly contemporary and of which he evidently had some direct knowledge, so that he does not, strictlv speaking, qualify as a connoisseur of the art of the past. Mantegna, Gian Gristoforo Rei and the sculptor called 56 facilitate comparison shi cxhihitii ing ( ttptd opposite an antiqtu m rsi, ford M Broun I hi Crotta ol IM Beaux Art-. I K I Ma) Urne 1977) ist as connoisseur in antiqmn s,-, t .mil Kivlli-inl I Polhtt. I'lir Vl ,| I Mr to authenticate an-| \| Brown. I 0 Insatiable New |),k uininls on Isahella in ( iiliuni! MM » ''"' Paul (Mat KJIINNIM, «' I HI lis |124 IS}] To M,.li.l.ini:ilos famous s/,,r „, iicribed ro Praxiteles (Clif tdk .11 st.(."Ota*» «n 62 IM J I SS "M| On the arl *e anecdote about Protogcncs „/ (irrer, N<*> ' / H < rim Cha Grir 195: o,m,«/v I iiiti. wmdi lifts N J 1*5). im Ouoted in translation from Giorgio Yasari /i Vifr *' P/« ■Uentt Pitton \-ullon ed \rchttettrk Iff*), 103 109; and I vert\an der ten. Inquiries into the Histon of Art-Historical Writing (Ycnlo. 73 Yasan noted that the voung Signorclli imitated his teacher. Piemdella Francesca. so closely that their works could hardly be told apart | Yite. 3 [1878 ] 683-684) Lorenzo di Credi successfully copied Yerrocchio and his fellow pupil Leonardo {Yite. 4 [ 1879]: 564-566 RafTacllino del Garbo had acquired Filippino Lippi's manner so well that there were few who could distinguish their works ilite. 4 [1879]: 235) Even Giorgione s friends were unable to differentiate his paintings from the early Titian's (Yite, 7 [1881]: 428-429 On the other hand. Sebastiano del Piombo's aJtarpiece for San Giovanni C nsostomo was taken for Giorgione's bv persons who. according to \asari. had little acquaintance with matters of art ( Yite. 5 [1880]: 565-566). The expert was Raphael, whose vouthful works differed scarcely, if at all. from Perugino's I''ire. 4 [1878] 317, Vasan cited the Coronation of the Virgin. now in the \aucan Pinacoteca. as an example. He claimed that if Raphael had not signed the Crucifixion (National Gallery, London,, anyone without a thorough knowledge of Perugino's stvle would assume it was bv that master Onlv in the Marriage of the \ irgin Brera did Raphaels superiority become evident (pp 318-319). 74 See the review bv Berenson of the 18% edition of Mrs. Foster's translation of Yasari's Yite (edited by E. H. and E U Blashfield and A A Hopkins; in The \ation. 114 (Mar 25 1897): 227-228. 75 Yasari s collection of drawings has been reconstituted by I iua Ragghianti Collobi in 11 Uhro tie Disegni del Yasari, 2 vols. I Ion-rue. 1974) See also Roseline Bacou. Giorgio Yasari Dessmateur et Collectioneur. exh cat. Muste du Louvre (Paris 76 See A E. Pripharn and Philip Pouncev. Italian Drawings in tin Department of Prm, and Drawings in the British Museum The F^rteenr/, and Fifteenth Centuries (London. 1950), 1 cat. nos. (hough not a practicing artist. Nlippo Baldinucci (1625-1696, followed ,n Yasari s mold of the collector as connoisseur. He also shared Vasari's hi.graph* ,il approach to art history ,\ ,„ „ l,;iinrr of Ins i.innoiss.iurshtp, however, was his role as advisor i., C ardinal I copoldo.lc Medici. I» uhoin In was employed to gather and inventory a vast number ol drawings lliat formed the nucleus ol (hi holdings of the I fli/i (.alien Miout Dal.liiiuccl, „,., Roseline Bacon and |aioh Bean, Disegni liorenttni del VfittW ,/,/ Inuin ,hlhi ( otlcziomraft hhrrn H*-1866 and continuo Crowes '"i >nh lu,h in tuu volumes in 187 ^URhlh "Valcaselle reused on hitherto ^"aissance n"' ^ myographs tian in ia-7^ mdsUrs- only two were ever C Sa"dsof a' ""other on Raphael five j Nlu^urn ,Ti1*1"* Sketch copies arc in the U)ndon and the BiWioteca Ma **ef*ech\t,in m^ftin8 see: Italiemsche Ma i89', edI I ' C;'">«'»» Mureltiun X1 Ifma anddsela Rfchterl 1m 111 -tiun An RiiK. «■ art in a «n Imian^mw, A bv the notorious en-.mj, n 1666-881, the comte dc 6. 59-60. 68 . 72-73 vmnes has been read* (London. 1722) . 102 J03 er as neJl as collector. ons dt [Jessins et -eline Bacou. Le 774. exh cat . • dual nature as slv prepared the iette th Voting tbt on was made bv Jat oh Be .in See I I u !/<• \ť paintings of the \ enctian Renaissance Re Drawings.' The Art (Juarttrh. 1, no. I (1940): Hans Ticlzc and 1 Tict/c Conral. I h, /),„„ painters /« Am / M má l&Ř (i Mart, i, \ťW io. 712. p 174 A marginal skcli h ol this draw L Gabrid A Saint Aubin is founěl in the annotated (opy „f login ol I "š i m hence the Gtorgione at-in the Museum ol Fine Arts Boston d in mind tin nudi female figure in a Ml he [■ration, as it appears engraved in Anton Pittnri« r re st i1 Venue. I7h0i.pl 3 (con . Picnatli. Gioreione \\em., Mana Zanetti u-nicnth repr |«TI]. fig 55 1 , s; About lanes see I raneis Stccgmullcr. The Two Lives of lames lacks"* Janrs | New Haven. 1951); and about his collection. \talm* Primitives The iase Histon of a ( ollection ami its ( onserva-inM. c\h idi \ali I niversitv Art Gallen (New Haven. 1972). Berenson said he had a cult of Danes] as the first American whe unite el's, nminaringh about Italian painting (letter to Francis Steegrnullcr ol Nov 25. 1944. at 1 Tatti) Berenson explaincxl, however, that his interest in Janes as a predecessor postdated his mm r*e>necnng research (letter to Francis Steegmuller. Nov. 9, 1949. at I Tatti) H P 7 IJisegni ltaliani t nos ' also \asari; lames Jackson Janes. Art Studies. The Old Masters of Italy. ing'\c\\ Wk-London. 1861). 33-52. The chapter on connoisseurship provides a colorful account of the Italian art market and eif the taking ol eild masters 8" Descriptive Catalogue of Old Masters Collected by James J. Janes to Illustrate the Histon of Painting from A. D. 1200 to the Best Periods of Italian Art Cambridge. Mass., 1863). no. 65, pp. 15-16 1st ed. I860. Few the present attribution see: Seymour, Yale Lniversih Art Gallery, cat. no. 173, p. 230. 88 About C rowe and Cavalcascllc see: Crowe, Reminiscences of Thirty-Five Years of my Life (Londem, 1895); Lino Moretti, G. B. Cavalcaselle Disegni da Antichi Maestri, exh. cat., Cini Foundation (Venice. 1973); and Francis Haskell, Rediscoveries in Art. Some .Aspects of Taste. Fashion and Collecting in FLngland and France. The Wrightsman Lectures (Ithaca. N.Y., 1976). 91-92. Crowe, an Lnglish journalist, joined forces at mid-century with C avalcaselle. an exiled Italian patriot also trained as an artist. Back in Itah, Cavalcascllc was commissioned te< compile inventories of works of art in various regions, and these he turned to account in the survevs he prepared with Crowe. Their eollabeira-tion resulted in A Seu History of Painting in Italy, hrst published in three volumes in 1864-1866 and continued as A History oj Painting in \orth Itah in two ve.lumes in 1871 Significantly, Crowe and Cavalcasellc focused on hitherto neglected artists; and though thev planned separate monographs about the great High Renaissance masters, only two were ever completed, one- on H t)an in 1877 and another on Raphael Iwars later I heir^thousands of annotate*! sketch copies are ... the \ .c.or.a and Albert Museum in London and the Bibl.oteca Mare.ana in Venice. 89 For their meeting see Italienische Malerei der Renaissance im Knefuechselion Gi.nann, Month and Jean Paul Ruhler /876- 7S9T ed Irma and Giscla K.chter (Baden-Baden, I960), 583- imtta , ,1" 'V * -1' B™""""h nm font] plumb,i i ',' 102 ™V Berentondidconi '" 1 *« 1 «" ' "alb speak to Mor.lli because he , m I 1. reatod «m maltrt (letter to Mary of I eb M 189 ,„T • 'i \„v j, myj. printed in BmmmT^mmrf.44 šlí Mon'lh „,',,hTP,"uiS ,PP,n,lttl *'* ******* S8I IM About Morelli hum. II s,, ,h, bioyirapln, al Introdtl, ..on „I b,s 'ls.pl, vusi, ,|| .nnlavard „, bis ,,,,,,„„ Painters (muni Jwb.ft* Wo* ,,,, tvúntmtd PmnflU rJafltrii, trans ( .instance Jncelvn I loulkes 11 „„don 1892, inlro PP I .39. 91 ftft**m „,„/ D„riaPamfili Galleries. 20. The quotations an tr.im the lunelamental chapter "Principle s anel Methods 92 Italian Painters. Critical Studies of their Works. The Galleries of Munich and Dresden, trans. Constance Jocelvn Ffoulkes (London, 1893), 148 (1st td.: Leipzig. 1891. p 196, \lorelli first briefly Introduced the painting as Correggios in the /eitsihnftfur hildende Kunst. 10(1875): 332. The picture, which belonged to his disciple, Gustavo Frizzoni. is also discussed in the Morelli-Richter correspondence (Briefuechsel. 6-8. 16-17, 43. 48, 76, 360, 419, 449). 93 Max J. Friedlánder, the foremost conneiisscur of northern European painting, claimed that the methexl Morelli devised was a pseudo-scientific justification for results obtained by a process that was more personal and intuitive than he admitted (On .Art and Connoisseurship, trans. Tancred Borenius [Boston. 1960], 166-167, I70[orig. German ed. 1919]). Edgar Wind reaffirmed the validity of Morelli's principles in .Art and Anarcln \t\\ York, 1964), pp. 32-51 (also in Art News, 63, no. 1 [Mar. 1964]: 26-29, 52-55). The most balanced critique eif the Morellian methexl is by W. G. Constable in Art History and Connoisseurship (Cambridge. 1938), 33-47. Morelli's investigative method has recentlv been compared to theise eif Sherleick Holmes and Freud by C arlo Ginzburg ("Spie. Radiči di un Paradigma Scientifico. Riiistdii Storia Contemporanea, no. 1 [1978], 1-14). See also the stimulat ing analysis of Richard Wollheim in On .Art and the Mind I Lon-dein, 1973), 177-201; and of Henri Zerner, "Giovanni Morelli et la science delart," Revue del Art. nos. 40-41 [1978], 209-215 94 No complete account eif the rediscovery eif the earlier Italian schools has yet been attemptexl, theiugh there are the following: Camillo von Klenze, "The Growth eif Interest in the Early Italian Masters," in AWern Philology. 4. no. 2 (Oct. 1906): 207-274; Tancred Borenius, "The Rediscovery of the Primitives," The Quarterly Review, 239, no. 475 (Apr. 1923): 258-270; Ueinellei Venturi, II Gusto tUi Přinutili (Be.logna, 1926), esp. 135-182; J. R. Hale. I iigland and the Italian Renaissance (London, 1954), 60-83, 108-126, 149-168; Andre- Chastel, "Le Gout des Pre-raphaelites' en France," in De Giotto a Bellini Les Primitifs Ita-liens dans les Musées de France, ed. Michelle Laclotte, exh. cat , Musée de I'Orangerie (Paris, 1956), vii-xxi (translated in Paragone. 79 [July 1956]; 3-16); E. K. Waterheiuse, Italian Art and Britain, exh. cat.. Royal Academy (London. I960); and Denys Suttein, "The English and Early Italian Art," Apollo, 131, no 38 (Apr. 1965): 254 256. Illuminating remarks on the subject are leiund in Francis Haskell's Rediscoveries in Art As Giovanni Previ 57 Mil hatm*m*t& **mQm P*mm*» « ^ V,,„„„ | I einn 1964]), die Italians had already begun ... re l,:,1I,,,,rLlH,alpas,«ell(.et,,, ,1,, la„ e.gb.een.h cent, irv. but their KlMiarl) interest, xerg.ng on ramrw-n/W. is 11* rele van. here I he most impresstxc instance d ft is that of I uigi [,,„/>. 5t**i m*** Mh Im/m I • k**"<* 1789). with manv later editions 95 \bout Scroux dAgineoiirt see M I .arm. "la Dec oiix erle des Pr.mitifs Itabens H \l\e Steel, Serous d AghKOUII el son Influence sur les Goll.-ctioncurs Critiques cl \rltslcs I ranva.s. *m*tktmA»tmm MaJsnw, It, no I (mi) 169 isi. a,.,i no 2(1921): 182 190; and PreMlali. IViMMM I'nmiln i IM ITS. AkMrt Artaudde Montor set Prcxilali. / «rluna dci Pnwilm 185-187 About other I rench holdings of earh Italian pictures see Muh.i I M btte and I h/ah.lh Mnngelli. Peintiir, Ihdioinc VnM* aV Prtif Palms Avignon (Paris. I976i Ignatius Hugford may have been bin mg earh paintings in I tab already in the mid-eighteenth cenlurv. see |ohn Fleming. 1 he Hugfords oil lorcncc Part II.' The Ctmnotsseur. lih. no 549 (Dec 1955): 197 206 In dc Montor's catalogue (of which the introduction had alrcadv been published in I SOS and again in 1811). the painting is no 11 5 and pi. 49 Berenson s opinion is recorded on a letter from Dtixeen Brothers dated Max 26. 1936, at I Tatti 96 In de Montor s Pernors Primitifi (Paris. 1843). of which the introduction had alreadx been published in 1808 and again in 1811, the painting is no. 115 and pi 49 Berenson s opinion is recorded on a letter from Duvecn Brothers dated Max 26, 1936, at I Tatti. 97 Seede Montor Peintres Pnmitifs, cat. nos. 35-38. pp 30-31. Of the other txxo lateral panels, one is missing and the St. John the Baptist is at Chambcrv (Phmitifi, Italiens. exh cat. [1956], cat. no. 20, p. 15). For Berenson's item see: "A Newly Discovered Cimabuc, Art in America, 8, no. 6 (Oct. 1920): 251-271 (republished in Studies in Medieval Painting, 17-31); and for the revision, Roberto Longhi. Giudizio sul Due-cento" (1939) in Opere Complete, 7 (Florence. 1974). 14-15. Another National Gallery painting that figured in the rediscoxerx of the Italian primitives was Francesco Benaglio's St. Jerome, which belonged to the Liverpool banker and historian of the Medici. William Roscoe (1753-1831). About Roscoe sec Michael Compton, "William Roscoe and Early Collectors of Italian Primitives," Liverpool Bulletin. 9. Walker Art Gallery (1960/61): 26-51. 98 About the brotherhood of German painters in Rome who, earh in the nineteenth centurv, sought to recapture in their art the mvstic spirit of the Middle Ages, see Keith Andrews, The \azarenes (Oxford, 1964;. Their chief model however, was Raphael, whose early work was classed with that of the primitives. » Alexis Francois Rio, The Poetry of Christian Art (London, 18>4i. For Angelicoand Perugino. who belongc-d to the mystic school, see respectively pp 146 153 and 162-183. Both De la Poesie Chretienne (Pans, 1836;, and De I Art Chretien (Paris. 8L. of which the Lnglish edition is comprised, deal with talian art About Rio s« von Klen/.e. "Early Julian Masters." 100 Sketches <>\ tin llistors nf Christian Art. 3 vols (London IH4T Set |ohfl Sreegmttt, lord Lindsay's History oft hristian Art'.' in Imiriial of the Warburg and ( imrtaidd Institutes, 10 (1947): 123 131. 101 Mrs Jameson, according to Nathaniel Hawthorne, could read a pie tore lik. the page of a book ( Passages from the I rench and Italian \»tchnoks I I Boston, 18991: 185,. Ruski.i. who disapproved «'l Mis lame son said she "knows as much about art as the , ,i lUtskm In \ud\ Utters to his Parents 1845, ed. Harold I Shapiro |()\lord, 1972), no. 136). 102 The Works of John Ruskin, eel In I 1 Gook anel Alexander Weelelerbiirn. 39 vols. (London. 1903-1912). 103 I he Oxford I nglisli Dictionary. 8 (Oxford, 1933): 1366. 104 One Years Readingfor Pun (1942) (New York, I960), p. 12 105 Review of William White. I lie Principles of Art as Illustrated in the Ruskin Museum, in The Studio 8. no. 42 (1896): 249. 106 Pitture a Fresco del Campo Santo di Pisa, Intagliate dal Profes-sore Car ( arlo Lasinio. Conservatore del Medcsimo (Florence, 1828). This edition of Ijisinio s book consists of forty plates after teseoes, half of which are by Gozzoli. About its Influence on the Pre-Raphaeiites see' William flolman Hunt, Pre-Raphaelitisnt and the Pre Raphaelite Brotherhood, I (New York, 1905). 130, 133 (2nd ed.: New York, 1914, pp. 19, 12), and W illiam Michael Rossetti, Dante Cahriel Rossetti. His Family Letters uith a Memoir (London, 1895), 125-126. 107 Much has been written recently about Burne Jones and Italy. See: Martin Harrisein anel Bill Waters, Burne-Jones (London, 1973), passim, Ronald Parkinson, "Two Early Altar-Pieces by Burne-Jones," Apollo, 102 (Nov. 1975). 320-323; John Christian, "Burne-Jones' Second Italian Journey," Apollo, 102 (Nov. 1975): 334-337; anel Duncan Robinson, "Burne-Jones, Fairfax Murray and Siena," Apollo. 102 (Nov. 1975): 348-351. 108 About the album, no. 1084 in the Fitzvvilliam Museum, Cambridge, see: Burne-Jones, The Paintings, Graphic and Decora-live Work, exh. cat., Hayward Gallerv (London, 1975), cat. no. 333, p. 91. 109 North Italian Painters of the Renaissance, 50-51; Sunset and Twilight, 480-481 (diary entry. May 24, 1957). 110 About Norton see: Kermit Vanderbilt. Charles Fliot Norton. Apostle of Culture in a Democracy (Cambridge, Mass., 1959); and Roger B. Stein, John Ruskin and Aesthetic Thought in America. 1840-1900 (Cambridge. Mass., 1967), 240-254. Compare also the subtle penetrating tribute by Henry James in The Burlington Mag azine, 14, no. 70(Jan. 1909): 201-204. 111 The incident is recounted in Man Berenson's "Unpublished Life," (unpublished ms , on deposit at I Tatti), chap. 2 I 12 Sunset and luilight. 23 (diary entry for June 25, 1947). Compare Berenson's Self-Portrait, 44-45; and One Years Readings I- .Ml <*( •I hi f f Cnnl and Alexander N<-« lori. /960i. p J2 l«- Principles of Art as Illustrated sc di Pisa Intagliate dal Profes- «W mmemmo (Florence. consists of fortv p/ates after About its influence on the Hunt Pre-Raphaelittsm and * Vori. J905. 130. 133,2nd i W illiam Michael Rossetti. as with a Memoir (London about Burne- (ones and iters Bmme-Jones (Lon- T«fi Fjlrk Altar-Pi.^,-.., rfax 348-351 C7MjJJiam Museum. Graphic and Decora - cat 50-5) Sunsetand t. Charles Eliot \orton fee Mass 1959 and 254 Compare also the in /"he Burlington Mag Lift tdenth did merl Patři oometime between lm 1888 anil Paler'«. death in 1894 I Sunset and hil. !)> I ontinii.il to read Paler all his M, 0m Wm0 I AnÉVnJ pNNtM H u.irih noliii({ The rWnafMNOi li m to tin exhibition In I mi "ii Mar 28 1941, lhal li. read the noleiri H»efirst linn Since 1888 lm .in .iiiihli perilling (if Paler v work both essavs and In lion in tin Ritual ol Interpretation I Ik I in, \rls as i • Rossetti and Valet ( amhrielae . Mass I97ŠI ||4 Red) ml in tin ear)) nineteenth ccntun. Botticelli be came a cull flgUW espei iall\ in I nglanel. where his works were i vtr.naganlh admirtxl Michael I e\e\. Botticelli and Nine tfcnth-t'entun I nglanel. Journal of the Warburg and ( ourtauld Institutes 23 nos * 4 Hub Hec-ember I960]: 291 -.306). It was from the Pre-Raphaelites that Pater too learned to love the artist, puWi-hint a Fragment' on him in the Eortnighth Rericu lor 87 that was included in the first edition of the Renaissance three eears later For the voung Berenson on Botticelli see the letter M Man Coste-lloc. from Florence. Jan. I892, quoted in Selected Letters. 12. 13; and in Looking at Pictures. 182; The Passionate Sightseer—from the Diaries of 1947 to 1956 (London, I960 l "6 I . and Dmkingat Pictures. I84. tu-r of Oct chap I890. quoted in Unpublished life," llh Quoted in Man Berenson's "Unpublished Life," chap. 2, and in part in Looking at Pictures. 3I4. In a book review Pope-Hennesse has suggested that Berenson would not have stood by his fanciful identification of the sitter (Times Literary Supplement. Mav 28. 1976. 640). 11" Self-Portrait. 50-51. Berenson's companion was Enrico Costa U 867-1911, 118 About the issue of quality see: Jacob Rosenberg. On Quality in Art Criteria of Excellence Past and Present. A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts. Princeton. 1964; the review by E. H. Gombnch in The Nev York Rerieu of Books. Feb. 1, 1968, 5-7; and Sherman E. Lee. Painting, in Quality. Its Image in the Arts, ed. Louis kronenberger (New York, 1969), 113-45. 119 The Study and Criticism of Italian Art (1901), vi-viii. 120 See his Three Essays The articles about Domenico Morone, Botticelli, and Antonelloda Messina appeared in Dedalo in 1923-1925. The preface to the book contains the celebrated aphorism In the beginning was the guess (p. ix). 121 Compare, for example. Two Twelfth-Century Paintings from Constantinople, first published in Dedalo. Oct 1921,.and reprinted m Studies in Medieval Painting. 1-31 The collected studies date from 1913 to 1926. The article cited concerns two Bs/diitine Madonnas now in the National Gallery (nos. I, 1048). 122 About this master see Homeless Paintings. 184-187 (reprinted in translation from Dedalo. 12 |I932J). >.....\^Tz:^:{'................... i'' Se. w, „„d t rm m limy, « » mtw* tnu res , ,"'7, 2 X^/i'"*^ and ,1,. U4 to their WOm (1909), IfK) 101 125 In | notebook On colic, ttoni If and near Paris of I89S B,T,-nson registered one item as 'Author ol Morle dl I .„, r, ill ?«o ' Marv,aAI"1 "Amk-odl Sandro" In another notebook d 1896 she related the National Gallcrv I Portrait of a Ymtth | „„ 20). when it was in the Liechtenstein Colic, tion. to th. \|„rt, ell I uc re/ia." 126 C 1900). BcniMoi (letter to Marv. of Jan. 19, 127 "Unpublished Life," chap. 3. 128 "Unpublished Life," chap. 9. 129 The Studio, 8, no. 41 (1896): 181 -184. 130 M. W. [Mary Whitall], "Pictures in Venice as Documents about Venetian Women," The Womans Herald. Oct. 29, 1892; "The Woman Question in Novels," The Woman's Herald. Jan. 7, 1893; "Ibsen's Last Play," The Womans Herald. Feb. II, 1893. 131 Most of Mary's scholarly articles, signed "Marv Logan" and then "Mary Logan Berenson," appeared in the Revue? Archeo/ogiejuf and Rassegna d Arte from about 1900 to 1915, but others, such as "The New and the Old Art Criticism," The Nineteenth Centun. May 1894, 828-837, date back to the mid-nineties. 132 About the process of revision see the introduction to Central Italian and North Italian Schools, li ix-xvii. A slightly revised version of the 1932 lists came out in Italian: Pitture Italiane del Rinascimento (Milan 1936). 133 Berenson took a deep interest in the photography of art St I his "Isochromatic Photography and Venetian Pictures," The Nation, 57 (Nov. 9, 1893): 346-347. 134 "The New Vasari," The Nation, 64 (Mar. 25, 1897): 227. 135 The Venetian Painters of the Renaissance. 2nd ed. rev. (1895), iii. The same claim was made in the companion volumes on the Florentine Painters (1896) and Central Italian Painters i 1897). By 1907 Berenson's attitude had changed somewhat: compare North Italian Painters, v-vi. 136 Self-Portrait, 43. 137 See: Three Essays, viii; Aesthetics ami Histon (London, 1948). 193; and Sunset and luilight, 432. 138 Sec I riedlander. On Art, 197-199; and Constable, ('onnots-seursltip. 13-14. Years Reading.HI r k \t,,,ihrt ľan t) the H<>" MO IVc I«íT M.iv Id 1804 h A In mi ílu Mi 148 181 hi Sr. U*U*n ftllllllll I I9U), 4f.fv DmM Hp "' ''" ' ''"■<""'" pwhm / rt lo.an.lt7,r,r„„„ M...../ i..".Ion 1*1), (47. til S Vimn Sehari Art an.l Photography I i on.lon. I968), 122-134 anil Werner N.-il. . C. Sifi.uicr Photograph ilnil kunst \crlcgcr in Hrrlin l§5l IBM," in Histon of Photographs. I, no 4 '<>. l lg~" »1 296 14} (oflrctifM. of Nmmn ->/ H B Omni*, fiif- law**. intr" Mrs J arm-son 11 ondon IS3oi. xii 144 Other prints after the painting are recorded in I I) Passavant Raphael d L'rhin ct son Pere Giovanni Santi (Paris. I86O1. 2 106 145 The \aticm 1893. 346-347 Set- also on the distortions of reproductive engravings William M Ivins. Jr.. Prints and Visual Cornmumcation Cambridge. Mass.. 1953). passim, and "A Note on I ngraied Reproducnons of Works of Art." in Studies in Art and Literature for BelU da ( osta Greene ' Princeton. 1954). 193-196; E. F. van dcr Gnntcn Consistent Formal Distortions and Peculiarities in 19th Gen tun Art Historical Reproductions, leonologia Formalis. in Sederutnth kiinsthistohsch Jaarhoek. IS < 1964. 24~-260. and Giulio Carlo Argan. "II Valore Critico della Stampa di Traduzione'." in Ess>l Ingranngs over the . arlic si photographs ,,| works of art was.ngcnllv argued by Henri I )< lalmr.li >(' la Photograph le et la (.ravure ( I8S6 in \l, lunges snr I Art ( untempo rain {Patls, IHf.'.l 159 (M) Improvi ni< ills in photography rendered rcprodiu In. I ngr.wings sup. rlluoiis. however I he last gasp ol the long tradition of engrav ing art works, as it relates to the primitives, is I tnmlhv ( ole s Old Italian Masters | New Wk. 1892). 152 Quoted in Mar\ Berenson's "Unpublished Life," ihap. 2. 153 Serous d Agincourt's plate already iniluded a number of de lads See llislim <>/ Art In its Wioiumciits From its Decline m the I mirth ( entim to its Restoration in the Sixteenth, trans, from the French of Seroux ďAgincourt (London, 1847). Plate I 39 shows details of the head. hand, and foot of Mantegna's St / aphonia 154 Berenson in 1892 referred to a large photograph of the head of the Pnmavera as "verv beautiful by itself {Selected Letters, I). 155 Ivins, Prints, 136. 156 Aesthetics and History. London. 1948, p. 190. 157 Italian Painting, 1952, p. x. 158 Letter from Mary Berenson to Isabella Stewart Gardner, dated Jan. 19, 1921, at Fenway Court. See also the letter of the same dav from Berenson to Paul Sachs, quoted in Selected Letters, 89. 159 "A Boticelli Portrait in the Collection of Carl W'. Hamilton," Art in America, 10, no. I (Dec. 1921): 26-30.