Il volume, ora pubblicato dalla Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011, con il titolo "Rocco Sinisgalli: Leon Battista Alberti. On Painting. A New Translation and Critical Edition", affronta la traduzione critica del trattato albertiano confrontando le edizioni precedenti, ivi compresa quella di Cecil Grayson. From vernacular to Latin, and not vice versa Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472), the most influential humanist of the Renaissance, wrote his well-known De Pictura, consisting of three parts or books, between the years 1435 and 1436, in two separate languages: in the local dialect of Tuscany, and in Latin. Usual opinion has it that the author first wrote it in Latin and then translated it into the vernacular for the benefit of working-class painters who had not the benefit of a classical education. Nevertheless, I can demonstrate that Alberti first wrote his Treatise in the vernacular and then, later, drafted it into Latin. In that later version, enriched both with new information and corrections of earlier errors, the author introduced many more clarifications, changing names and terms, and even rewriting several sentences just to improve the diction, and in the end produced an edition that we can now safely say was definitive. Subsequently, the original vernacular version, extant only in a few manuscripts and not even mentioned again by scholars until the end of the eighteenth century, all but disappeared. The Latin draft is the one that truly proliferated, reproduced in numerous manuscripts, and finally printed in 1540, in Basle, and which inspired many more publications in that and following centuries. It is the Basle printed text that I translate here in two modern languages, Italian and English, and align side by side in concordance with the Latin of the Basle publication and the vernacular. Cecil GraysonÕs popular English-language rendering of On Painting (1972; reprinted in paperback in 1991), on the other hand, derived from a collation of some Latin manuscripts of De Pictura, but not the Basle printing. Nevertheless, his translation and accompanying composite Latin text have been generally accepted as the most representative of AlbertiÕs intention, even serving as the prime source for two other modern translations in French and German. No fewer than twenty Latin manuscripts of De Pictura still exist. Some, but not all, contain a letter addressed to Giovanni Francesco, Prince of Mantua, apparently sent along with a copy of the treatise as a gift to the prince by the author; perhaps in 1438 on the occasion of the Council of Ferrara, when and where Alberti was in residence as a member of the Papal Court. We can thus safely presume that Alberti had already prepared the text of his Latin version before sending such a present to so prestigious a patron. However, itÕs also clear that Alberti reworked some of the text once again sometime between 1466 and 1468, and it is quite likely then that the Basle version was printed from that final draft. The wording indeed of the Basle version, especially because of certain lexical and scientific peculiarities, compels one to believe there must have been an obvious rewriting very late; an unknown, lost manuscript that I shall henceforth call the Òmastercopy.Ó Note also that in the Basle edition the letter to the Prince of Mantua does not appear, but which I reproduce in any case at the beginning of this my book because it still has relevance and must be analyzed. Johannes Regiomontanus, Albrecht DŸrer and the Editio princeps In 1461 Johannes Regiomontanus (Kšnigsberg 1436 - Rome 1476) arrived in Rome, in the suite of Cardinal Bessarion (1402 - 1472).(8) He soon made friends with Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli, Alberti and Nicholas Cusanus, and, in his Oratio introductoria in omnes scientias mathematicas presented as a lecture at the University of Padua, he expressed great admiration for the writings of each. In 1468, Regiomontanus left Italy first to relocate in Hungary and then, three years later, to Nuremberg with the intention of establishing a printing house in order to publish no less than twenty-two works of his own and another twenty-nine by other authors. In his ambitious plan to render into the newly invented printing medium a number of astronomical and geometrical treatises, he hinted at the future publication of other manuscripts which he evidently had brought from Italy, and amongst them, as we will soon see, there must have been one of De Pictura. Unfortunately, Regiomontanus died at the early age of forty. His friend and pupil was Bernhard Walther (1430 - 1504), who was on such good terms with Albrecht DŸrerÕs parents (Nuremberg 1471 - 1528) that he became the godfather of DŸrerÕs sister Christina. We know that Walther also came into possession of RegiomontanusÕs library, the volumes which he took care of to move into the same house that in 1509 was purchased by DŸrer. It was Willibald Pirckheimer (1470 - 1530), DŸrerÕs closest friend, who carried out in 1512 the first inventory of the volumes and manuscripts of Regiomontanus and Walther. In this inventory Pirckheimer recorded the presence of AlbertiÕs De pictura with the phrase De pictura babtis. In a second inventory, drafted in 1522 still by Pirckheimer, AlbertiÕs work appeared again with the title this time, Liber de pictura L. Baptiste de Albertis (Geometria). From 1512, therefore, if not before, DŸrer could have read and studied De Pictura. In 1523 he might even have come into its possession, as one of the books purchased by the artist, at a good price, from the collections of Regiomontanus and Walther. One member of PirckheimerÕs and DŸrerÕs circle of learned friends was Thomas Venatorius (1490-1551) also from Nuremberg. He was the person who edited in 1540, the Editio princeps of De Pictura for the publisher Bartholomew Westheimer of Basle, prefixing a nuncupatoria (ÒdedicatoryÓ) letter to the mathematician Jakob Milichius (1501-1559). The fact that Venatorius wrote these words in that letter: libros tres de Pictura inscriptos [...] statim ut nactus essem, and further on: Vidimus illum ipsum Durerum, is significant. Statim refers to the ease with which Venatorius had access to, and could consult the manuscript ÒmastercopyÓ; whereas, the words Vidimus illum ipsum Durerum reveal the familiarity he had with the great artist. If the manuscript had originally belonged to DŸrer, Pirckheimer may well have inherited it after DŸrerÕs death, adding it to his own famous library which already contained the finest books of those times. Venatorius could then have read and consulted the De Pictura manuscript, since he became the legal administrator of the latterÕs estate charged with preparing an inventory of PirckheimerÕs library. It is certainly not illogical to suggest that the ÒmastercopyÓ manuscript from which the Basle printed text was extracted, had actually been prepared by Alberti himself, and that it was an improved text consigned to Regiomontanus before he left Italy for Hungary in 1468, because he knew the young scientist intended to take advantage of the new movable type technology just becoming an industry on the other side of the Alps. In sum, the Basle printed Editio princeps, simply because of its unique additions and corrections, can reasonably be assumed as the ultimate Latin manuscript of AlbertiÕs autograph De Pictura. At least two printings of this edition were published, in August 1540. The copies now in the National Libraries of Rome and Paris show on the title page a wording that differs slightly from that of a third copy now in the Marciana Library of Venice. The first two have the word arte after laudata, and the word genere after scientiarum. Both again lack the particle et and transform the word Mathematices into the phrase mathematicarum disciplinarum. These differences, plus others of a more typographical nature especially in the first sixteen pages, make me suspect the existence of a second publisher, probably Andreas Cratander, perhaps as a co-financer of the printing. The vernacular text, its Prologue and Dedication to Brunelleschi There exist only three manuscripts of the vernacular text: one at the National Library of Paris, a second one at the Capitolare Library of Verona and a third one at the National Library of Florence. This last is the best preserved. It is preceded by an introductory Prologue addressed to the famous architect and sculptor, Filippo Brunelleschi (1376 - 1446), and ends with the date July 17th, 1436. Like all the known Latin manuscripts, none of the extant vernacular texts is autograph. However, in a manuscript copy of CiceroÕs De Brute, which belonged to Alberti, and now in the Marciana Library of Venice, there is a note written in AlbertiÕs own hand, that says: ÒFlorence, Friday August 26th 1435, today at the 20th hour and 3/4 I finished the work on De PicturaÓ. These are two very precise dates. Consider the earlier, August 26th, 1435, when Alberti says he completed the first drafting of De Pictura. He is clearly expressing satisfaction for having progressed this far in his project, but it is not certain that he is referring just to his Latin version, for indeed he used the same title, De Pictura, also for the vernacular which he dedicated to Brunelleschi. We may infer in fact that whatever text he had just finished was still open to revision and in this condition it might have remained if a unique opportunity had not presented itself to return to it again and associate it with a great man and extraordinary event! In just a month and a half after July 17, 1436, on August 30th, Brunelleschi, amid much public fanfare, was to officially close the ÒcupolaÓ above the Florentine Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore, just completed by him, his most illustrious architectural triumph. It was certainly a moment for all the Florentine to remember and cherish. The panorama of this great Renaissance city would forever be signified by BrunelleschiÕs ÒtrademarkÓ Cathedral dome: Òsuch an enormous structure, towering over the skies, and wide enough to cast its shadow over all the Tuscan people,Ó as Alberti himself remarked. One should also recall that Brunelleschi, just a few years before, demonstrated for the first time ever how the optical laws of mirror reflection could be applied to painting, by means the construction of the two famous perspective panels. July of 1436, as Brunelleschi was basking in all these triumphs, was the perfect moment for Alberti to dedicate his vernacular De Pictura to this Florentine genius. Alberti did it kindly and carefully, no doubt because he had had time enough to realize that his 1435 edition was still in need of correcting and enlarging - above all because he hoped that the ÒgreatÓ Brunelleschi could help him with further suggestions and advice. Who better could have been able? Proof of this is right there in the authorÕs Prologue dedication to ÒPippo architettoÓ ... Òand if occasionally you should find a moment of leisure, it would please me to have you look at this little work of mine ÔOn PaintingÕ which I composed, in your name, in the Tuscan languageÓ. Further on: ÒPlease, then, read my work with diligence, and if you think that anything in it has to be amended, do correct me. No writer was ever so learned as not to profit from learned friends. And I would like to be corrected by you first, so as not to be censured by detractors.Ó Alberti speaks almost with the ardour of an apprentice to his Òmaster.Ó The repeated phrases used by him, such as Òhave you look,Ó Òread my work with diligence,Ó Òto be amended,Ó Òdo correct me,Ó ÒI would like to be correctedÓ all reveal not only the authorÕs modesty and humility, but also his uncertainty that the manuscript was final, emphasized even more by his worry of being Òcensured by detractorsÓ. The text that Brunelleschi had in his hands was without doubt the one that our Alberti knew was still na•ve, so that, when he says in the Dedication ÒAnd I would like to be corrected by you first,Ó one might also surmise that the great architect may actually have stimulated that promising young humanist to improve his work further. ItÕs intriguing indeed to consider that Alberti did receive some advice from his Òmaster,Ó and that he included these comments in his next version, i.e. the corrected Latin text of De Pictura. Anthony Grafton expresses a very different opinion when he says, ÒAlbertiÕs dedication did not mollify its recipient. Brunelleschi, ever paranoid about his intellectual property, presumably reacted with characteristic irritation when he saw that AlbertiÕs work contained a long discussion of perspective but did not mention him or his model panels.Ó I donÕt agree. Alberti was actually describing a more simplified, step-by-step method of perspective projection, an Òabbreviated constructionÓ certainly inspired by Brunelleschi, but based on looking through a window rather than a reflection in a mirror. Giorgio Vasari (Arezzo 1511 - Florence 1574) later claimed that BrunelleschiÕs original perspective system was based on architectural drawing, that is to say, as modern scholars for the most part have assumed, that BrunelleschiÕs original Òlegitimate constructionÓ was essentially based on the method of plan and elevation. The ÒfalseÓ priority of Latin If AlbertiÕs vernacular text was merely his later translation from the Latin, why would he have included so many ÒmistakesÓ even mathematical and then give the treatise to the most competent ÒmaestroÓ of his time to ask for help? The notion of those who believe that Alberti, wishing to address the more ordinary artists, rewrote his treatise in order to make it easier for those who did not understand the language of Cicero, is illogical. Quite the opposite surely happened. AlbertiÕs first intention was to draftthe work in the Tuscan dialect and then to dedicate it to Brunelleschi. Only subsequently did he refine the text in the Latin language. Latin was, in fact it still is, the most precise language for framing complex concepts, scientific and geometric included, whereas the local Italian dialects were then quite lacking in appropriate vocabulary. Almost two centuries would have to pass before Galileo could express such mathematical thoughts in his own native tongue. It is our modern prejudice, unfortunately, to simply take for granted that if two texts of the same subject exist, one in a still-spoken language of today, and the other in ancient Latin, that the former must simply be a translation of the latter. We are too accustomed to regard Latin as always having been a ÒdeadÓ language even during the Renaissance. Nevertheless, and certainly in the early years of the fifteenth century, Latin and ÒvolgareÓ coexisted equally, and were commonly spoken together, not only by the educated humanists, but also among persons associated with the ÒuniversalÓ (Catholic) Church. Indeed, Leon Battista AlbertiÕs official job was as Òabbreviatore apostolicoÓ; that is, composer of papal briefs in Latin for the Pontifical Curia, so that in his own time and occupation, it would have been taken for granted to think of translations as just the other way around Ð always from some local native language into the more formal and universal Latin. Concerning the Paris manuscript of the vernacular text, both the sixteenth-century copyist and Count Giuseppe Mazzatinti in 1886 made the same mistake (30), as did Giammaria Mazzucchelli and Count Scipione Maffei regarding the Verona manuscript in the XVIII century, and the librarian Vincenzo Follini cataloguing the Florentine manuscript in the XIX century. (32) The copyist of the Paris Codex, by now accustomed to transcribing translations executed from Latin to vernacular, and being aware Ð as he should have Ð of a Latin text drafted by the same author, also reported what everyone would eventually claim, that the vernacular text at hand was realized from Latin by the author in order to Òmake it easier for non-literates.Ó Giuseppe Mazzatinti, who first published the title and description of this manuscript, wrote parenthetically: ÒTreatise on painting translated from Latin by Battista Alberti.Ó Regarding the Verona manuscript, Giammaria Mazzucchelli in 1735 wrote: ÒThe particular of it is that it is in the vernacular language and the translation appears to be made by Alberti himself.Ó His word ÒappearsÓ is the same as used by Count Scipione Maffei who had been the manuscriptÕs owner, and had inscribed in the margin of the last folio: ÒIt appears that this is a translation by the author himself.Ó It seems clear that Mazzucchelli based his opinion on that of Maffei.(37) Furthermore, Mazzucchelli made another deduction that casts doubt about his understanding of Latin. Regarding the printed Basle text, he stated: ÒFrom the words added in this frontispiece, iamprimum in lucem editi, it seems that an earlier edition had been made that is no longer known,Ó when in fact that Latin locution literally means Ònow for the first time brought to light.Ó Apparently, Mazzucchelli mistranslated iamprimum as iampridem, another adverb meaning Òlong ago,Ó and so rendered the phrase as indicating another edition once publidhed in the past but now lost. I must also mention the inscription on the initial flyleaves of the Florentine manuscript written by Vincenzo Follini, appointed librarian of the Magliabechiana in Florence on October 1, 1831: ÒOn Painting, Books three. Translated by the same author from Latin,Ó adding ÒV.[ide] Mazzucchel-lium,Épag. 314.Ó ItÕs thus apparent that Follini based his assertion of the translation from the Latin only on MazzucchelliÕs authority, even noting the latterÕs page number. The Florentine Tradition Interestingly, a different opinion was shared among the Florentine commentators of the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Antonio Averlino called Filarete (Florence, ca. 1400-Rome ?, 1469/70), a contemporary of Alberti, referred to the latterÕs Latin text specifically in Book One of his own Treatise on Architecture: (Finoli, Grassi 1972, pp. 9-11) Òhe [Alberti] still made a very elegant work in LatinÓ. A century later, Ludovico Domenichi, in his 1547 Italian translation of De Pictura directly from the Basle Latin, still makes no mention of a prior vernacular edition. Giorgio Vasari (Arezzo, 1511-Florence, 1574) indicated that he too knew only the Latin text when he stated: Ò[Alberti] wrote three books On Painting, today translated into the Tuscan language by Messer Ludovico DomenichiÓ (42). Similarly, Cosimo Bartoli, addressing Vasari to whom he dedicates his translation of De Pictura from Latin to Italian in 1568, wrote Òmeanwhile do not disdain that this little work on painting by the very virtuous Leon Battista Alberti is published in this language of ours translated by myself, under your name.Ó. Raffaelle Trichet du Fresne likewise affirmed this fact when republishing the Bartoli edition in 1651: Ò[Alberti] wrote then in the same [Latin] language three books on paintingÓ. In sum, it is clear that all these early authors knew only the Latin De Pictura, making no reference to any prior vernacular version as one should have expected. Only in AlbertiÕs eulogy published in Florence by Pompilio Pozzetti in 1789 do we find the first mention of an original vernacular text: Ò[His] remarks on painting [referring to AlbertiÕs Elements of Painting] differs from those three well known books [of De Pictura] that are printed, were drafted by Alberti in Italian; later on he translated them into Latin and addressed them to Theodore. [É] The same method was followed by Leone in writing his three well known books On Painting. He composed the work in the Tuscan dialect and then to dedicate it to Brunelleschi. Only subsequently did he refine the text in the Latin language. Latin was, in fact it still is, the most precise language for framing complex concepts, scientific and geometric included, whereas the local Italian dialects were then quite lacking in appropriate vocabulary. Almost two centuries would have to pass before Galileo could express such mathematical thoughts in his own native tongue. It is our modern prejudice, unfortunately, to simply take for granted that if two texts of the same subject exist, one in a still-spoken language of today, and the other in ancient Latin, that the former must simply be a translation of the latter. We are too accustomed to regard Latin as always having been a ÒdeadÓ language even during the Renaissance. Nevertheless, and certainly in the early years of the fifteenth century, Latin and ÒvolgareÓ coexisted equally, and were commonly spoken together, not only by the educated humanists, but also among persons associated with the ÒuniversalÓ (Catholic) Church. Indeed, Leon Battista AlbertiÕs official job was as Òabbreviatore apostolicoÓ; that is, composer of papal briefs in Latin for the Pontifical Curia, so that in his own time and occupation, it would have been taken for granted to think of translations as just the other way around Ð always from some local native language into the more formal and universal Latin. Concerning the Paris manuscript of the vernacular text, both the sixteenth-century copyist and Count Giuseppe Mazzatinti in 1886 made the same mistake (30), as did Giammaria Mazzucchelli and Count Scipione Maffei regarding the Verona manuscript in the XVIII century, and the librarian Vincenzo Follini cataloguing the Florentine manuscript in the XIX century. (32) The copyist of the Paris Codex, by now accustomed to transcribing translations executed from Latin to vernacular, and being aware Ð as he should have Ð of a Latin text drafted by the same author, also reported what everyone would eventually claim, that the vernacular text at hand was realized from Latin by the author in order to Òmake it easier for non-literates.Ó Giuseppe Mazzatinti, who first published the title and description of this manuscript, wrote parenthetically: ÒTreatise on painting translated from Latin by Battista Alberti.Ó Regarding the Verona manuscript, Giammaria Mazzucchelli in 1735 wrote: ÒThe particular of it is that it is in the vernacular language and the translation appears to be made by Alberti himself.Ó His word ÒappearsÓ is the same as used by Count Scipione Maffei who had been the manuscriptÕs owner, and had inscribed in the margin of the last folio: ÒIt appears that this is a translation by the author himself.Ó It seems clear that Mazzucchelli based his opinion on that of Maffei.(37) Furthermore, Mazzucchelli made another deduction that casts doubt about his understanding of Latin. Regarding the printed Basle text, he stated: ÒFrom the words added in this frontispiece, iamprimum in lucem editi, it seems that an earlier edition had been made that is no longer known,Ó when in fact that Latin locution literally means Ònow for the first time brought to light.Ó Apparently, Mazzucchelli mistranslated iamprimum as iampridem, another adverb meaning Òlong ago,Ó and so rendered the phrase as indicating another edition once publidhed in the past but now lost. I must also mention the inscription on the initial flyleaves of the Florentine manuscript written by Vincenzo Follini, appointed librarian of the Magliabechiana in Florence on October 1, 1831: ÒOn Painting, Books three. Translated by the same author from Latin,Ó adding ÒV.[ide] Mazzucchel-lium,Épag. 314.Ó ItÕs thus apparent that Follini based his assertion of the translation from the Latin only on MazzucchelliÕs authority, even noting the latterÕs page number. The Florentine Tradition Interestingly, a different opinion was shared among the Florentine commentators of the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Antonio Averlino called Filarete (Florence, ca. 1400-Rome ?, 1469/70), a contemporary of Alberti, referred to the latterÕs Latin text specifically in Book One of his own Treatise on Architecture: (Finoli, Grassi 1972, pp. 9-11) Òhe [Alberti] still made a very elegant work in LatinÓ. A century later, Ludovico Domenichi, in his 1547 Italian translation of De Pictura directly from the Basle Latin, still makes no mention of a prior vernacular edition. Giorgio Vasari (Arezzo, 1511-Florence, 1574) indicated that he too knew only the Latin text when he stated: Ò[Alberti] wrote three books On Painting, today translated into the Tuscan language by Messer Ludovico DomenichiÓ (42). Similarly, Cosimo Bartoli, addressing Vasari to whom he dedicates his translation of De Pictura from Latin to Italian in 1568, wrote Òmeanwhile do not disdain that this little work on painting by the very virtuous Leon Battista Alberti is published in this language of ours translated by myself, under your name.Ó. Raffaelle Trichet du Fresne likewise affirmed this fact when republishing the Bartoli edition in 1651: Ò[Alberti] wrote then in the same [Latin] language three books on paintingÓ. In sum, it is clear that all these early authors knew only the Latin De Pictura, making no reference to any prior vernacular version as one should have expected. Only in AlbertiÕs eulogy published in Florence by Pompilio Pozzetti in 1789 do we find the first mention of an original vernacular text: Ò[His] remarks on painting [referring to AlbertiÕs Elements of Painting] differs from those three well known books [of De Pictura] that are printed, were drafted by Alberti in Italian; later on he translated them into Latin and addressed them to Theodore. [É] The same method was followed by Leone in writing his three well known books On Painting. He composed the work in the Tuscan dialect and then to dedicate it to Brunelleschi. Only subsequently did he refine the text in the Latin language. Latin was, in fact it still is, the most precise language for framing complex concepts, scientific and geometric included, whereas the local Italian dialects were then quite lacking in appropriate vocabulary. Almost two centuries would have to pass before Galileo could express such mathematical thoughts in his own native tongue. It is our modern prejudice, unfortunately, to simply take for granted that if two texts of the same subject exist, one in a still-spoken language of today, and the other in ancient Latin, that the former must simply be a translation of the latter. We are too accustomed to regard Latin as always having been a ÒdeadÓ language even during the Renaissance. Nevertheless, and certainly in the early years of the fifteenth century, Latin and ÒvolgareÓ coexisted equally, and were commonly spoken together, not only by the educated humanists, but also among persons associated with the ÒuniversalÓ (Catholic) Church. Indeed, Leon Battista AlbertiÕs official job was as Òabbreviatore apostolicoÓ; that is, composer of papal briefs in Latin for the Pontifical Curia, so that in his own time and occupation, it would have been taken for granted to think of translations as just the other way around Ð always from some local native language into the more formal and universal Latin. Concerning the Paris manuscript of the vernacular text, both the sixteenth-century copyist and Count Giuseppe Mazzatinti in 1886 made the same mistake (30), as did Giammaria Mazzucchelli and Count Scipione Maffei regarding the Verona manuscript in the XVIII century, and the librarian Vincenzo Follini cataloguing the Florentine manuscript in the XIX century. (32) The copyist of the Paris Codex, by now accustomed to transcribing translations executed from Latin to vernacular, and being aware Ð as he should have Ð of a Latin text drafted by the same author, also reported what everyone would eventually claim, that the vernacular text at hand was realized from Latin by the author in order to Òmake it easier for non-literates.Ó Giuseppe Mazzatinti, who first published the title and description of this manuscript, wrote parenthetically: ÒTreatise on painting translated from Latin by Battista Alberti.Ó Regarding the Verona manuscript, Giammaria Mazzucchelli in 1735 wrote: ÒThe particular of it is that it is in the vernacular language and the translation appears to be made by Alberti himself.Ó His word ÒappearsÓ is the same as used by Count Scipione Maffei who had been the manuscriptÕs owner, and had inscribed in the margin of the last folio: ÒIt appears that this is a translation by the author himself.Ó It seems clear that Mazzucchelli based his opinion on that of Maffei.(37) Furthermore, Mazzucchelli made another deduction that casts doubt about his understanding of Latin. Regarding the printed Basle text, he stated: ÒFrom the words added in this frontispiece, iamprimum in lucem editi, it seems that an earlier edition had been made that is no longer known,Ó when in fact that Latin locution literally means Ònow for the first time brought to light.Ó Apparently, Mazzucchelli mistranslated iamprimum as iampridem, another adverb meaning Òlong ago,Ó and so rendered the phrase as indicating another edition once publidhed in the past but now lost. I must also mention the inscription on the initial flyleaves of the Florentine manuscript written by Vincenzo Follini, appointed librarian of the Magliabechiana in Florence on October 1, 1831: ÒOn Painting, Books three. Translated by the same author from Latin,Ó adding ÒV.[ide] Mazzucchel-lium,Épag. 314.Ó ItÕs thus apparent that Follini based his assertion of the translation from the Latin only on MazzucchelliÕs authority, even noting the latterÕs page number. The Florentine Tradition Interestingly, a different opinion was shared among the Florentine commentators of the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Antonio Averlino called Filarete (Florence, ca. 1400-Rome ?, 1469/70), a contemporary of Alberti, referred to the latterÕs Latin text specifically in Book One of his own Treatise on Architecture: (Finoli, Grassi 1972, pp. 9-11) Òhe [Alberti] still made a very elegant work in LatinÓ. A century later, Ludovico Domenichi, in his 1547 Italian translation of De Pictura directly from the Basle Latin, still makes no mention of a prior vernacular edition. Giorgio Vasari (Arezzo, 1511-Florence, 1574) indicated that he too knew only the Latin text when he stated: Ò[Alberti] wrote three books On Painting, today translated into the Tuscan language by Messer Ludovico DomenichiÓ (42). Similarly, Cosimo Bartoli, addressing Vasari to whom he dedicates his translation of De Pictura from Latin to Italian in 1568, wrote Òmeanwhile do not disdain that this little work on painting by the very virtuous Leon Battista Alberti is published in this language of ours translated by myself, under your name.Ó. Raffaelle Trichet du Fresne likewise affirmed this fact when republishing the Bartoli edition in 1651: Ò[Alberti] wrote then in the same [Latin] language three books on paintingÓ. In sum, it is clear that all these early authors knew only the Latin De Pictura, making no reference to any prior vernacular version as one should have expected. Only in AlbertiÕs eulogy published in Florence by Pompilio Pozzetti in 1789 do we find the first mention of an original vernacular text: Ò[His] remarks on painting [referring to AlbertiÕs Elements of Painting] differs from those three well known books [of De Pictura] that are printed, were drafted by Alberti in Italian; later on he translated them into Latin and addressed them to Theodore. [É] The same method was followed by Leone in writing his three well known books On Painting.
THE NEW DE PICTURA OF LEON BATTISTA ALBERTI - IL NUOVO DE PICTURA DI LEON BATTISTA ALBERTI / Sinisgalli, Rocco. - (2006), pp. 1-702.
THE NEW DE PICTURA OF LEON BATTISTA ALBERTI - IL NUOVO DE PICTURA DI LEON BATTISTA ALBERTI
SINISGALLI, Rocco
2006
Abstract
Il volume, ora pubblicato dalla Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011, con il titolo "Rocco Sinisgalli: Leon Battista Alberti. On Painting. A New Translation and Critical Edition", affronta la traduzione critica del trattato albertiano confrontando le edizioni precedenti, ivi compresa quella di Cecil Grayson. From vernacular to Latin, and not vice versa Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472), the most influential humanist of the Renaissance, wrote his well-known De Pictura, consisting of three parts or books, between the years 1435 and 1436, in two separate languages: in the local dialect of Tuscany, and in Latin. Usual opinion has it that the author first wrote it in Latin and then translated it into the vernacular for the benefit of working-class painters who had not the benefit of a classical education. Nevertheless, I can demonstrate that Alberti first wrote his Treatise in the vernacular and then, later, drafted it into Latin. In that later version, enriched both with new information and corrections of earlier errors, the author introduced many more clarifications, changing names and terms, and even rewriting several sentences just to improve the diction, and in the end produced an edition that we can now safely say was definitive. Subsequently, the original vernacular version, extant only in a few manuscripts and not even mentioned again by scholars until the end of the eighteenth century, all but disappeared. The Latin draft is the one that truly proliferated, reproduced in numerous manuscripts, and finally printed in 1540, in Basle, and which inspired many more publications in that and following centuries. It is the Basle printed text that I translate here in two modern languages, Italian and English, and align side by side in concordance with the Latin of the Basle publication and the vernacular. Cecil GraysonÕs popular English-language rendering of On Painting (1972; reprinted in paperback in 1991), on the other hand, derived from a collation of some Latin manuscripts of De Pictura, but not the Basle printing. Nevertheless, his translation and accompanying composite Latin text have been generally accepted as the most representative of AlbertiÕs intention, even serving as the prime source for two other modern translations in French and German. No fewer than twenty Latin manuscripts of De Pictura still exist. Some, but not all, contain a letter addressed to Giovanni Francesco, Prince of Mantua, apparently sent along with a copy of the treatise as a gift to the prince by the author; perhaps in 1438 on the occasion of the Council of Ferrara, when and where Alberti was in residence as a member of the Papal Court. We can thus safely presume that Alberti had already prepared the text of his Latin version before sending such a present to so prestigious a patron. However, itÕs also clear that Alberti reworked some of the text once again sometime between 1466 and 1468, and it is quite likely then that the Basle version was printed from that final draft. The wording indeed of the Basle version, especially because of certain lexical and scientific peculiarities, compels one to believe there must have been an obvious rewriting very late; an unknown, lost manuscript that I shall henceforth call the Òmastercopy.Ó Note also that in the Basle edition the letter to the Prince of Mantua does not appear, but which I reproduce in any case at the beginning of this my book because it still has relevance and must be analyzed. Johannes Regiomontanus, Albrecht DŸrer and the Editio princeps In 1461 Johannes Regiomontanus (Kšnigsberg 1436 - Rome 1476) arrived in Rome, in the suite of Cardinal Bessarion (1402 - 1472).(8) He soon made friends with Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli, Alberti and Nicholas Cusanus, and, in his Oratio introductoria in omnes scientias mathematicas presented as a lecture at the University of Padua, he expressed great admiration for the writings of each. In 1468, Regiomontanus left Italy first to relocate in Hungary and then, three years later, to Nuremberg with the intention of establishing a printing house in order to publish no less than twenty-two works of his own and another twenty-nine by other authors. In his ambitious plan to render into the newly invented printing medium a number of astronomical and geometrical treatises, he hinted at the future publication of other manuscripts which he evidently had brought from Italy, and amongst them, as we will soon see, there must have been one of De Pictura. Unfortunately, Regiomontanus died at the early age of forty. His friend and pupil was Bernhard Walther (1430 - 1504), who was on such good terms with Albrecht DŸrerÕs parents (Nuremberg 1471 - 1528) that he became the godfather of DŸrerÕs sister Christina. We know that Walther also came into possession of RegiomontanusÕs library, the volumes which he took care of to move into the same house that in 1509 was purchased by DŸrer. It was Willibald Pirckheimer (1470 - 1530), DŸrerÕs closest friend, who carried out in 1512 the first inventory of the volumes and manuscripts of Regiomontanus and Walther. In this inventory Pirckheimer recorded the presence of AlbertiÕs De pictura with the phrase De pictura babtis. In a second inventory, drafted in 1522 still by Pirckheimer, AlbertiÕs work appeared again with the title this time, Liber de pictura L. Baptiste de Albertis (Geometria). From 1512, therefore, if not before, DŸrer could have read and studied De Pictura. In 1523 he might even have come into its possession, as one of the books purchased by the artist, at a good price, from the collections of Regiomontanus and Walther. One member of PirckheimerÕs and DŸrerÕs circle of learned friends was Thomas Venatorius (1490-1551) also from Nuremberg. He was the person who edited in 1540, the Editio princeps of De Pictura for the publisher Bartholomew Westheimer of Basle, prefixing a nuncupatoria (ÒdedicatoryÓ) letter to the mathematician Jakob Milichius (1501-1559). The fact that Venatorius wrote these words in that letter: libros tres de Pictura inscriptos [...] statim ut nactus essem, and further on: Vidimus illum ipsum Durerum, is significant. Statim refers to the ease with which Venatorius had access to, and could consult the manuscript ÒmastercopyÓ; whereas, the words Vidimus illum ipsum Durerum reveal the familiarity he had with the great artist. If the manuscript had originally belonged to DŸrer, Pirckheimer may well have inherited it after DŸrerÕs death, adding it to his own famous library which already contained the finest books of those times. Venatorius could then have read and consulted the De Pictura manuscript, since he became the legal administrator of the latterÕs estate charged with preparing an inventory of PirckheimerÕs library. It is certainly not illogical to suggest that the ÒmastercopyÓ manuscript from which the Basle printed text was extracted, had actually been prepared by Alberti himself, and that it was an improved text consigned to Regiomontanus before he left Italy for Hungary in 1468, because he knew the young scientist intended to take advantage of the new movable type technology just becoming an industry on the other side of the Alps. In sum, the Basle printed Editio princeps, simply because of its unique additions and corrections, can reasonably be assumed as the ultimate Latin manuscript of AlbertiÕs autograph De Pictura. At least two printings of this edition were published, in August 1540. The copies now in the National Libraries of Rome and Paris show on the title page a wording that differs slightly from that of a third copy now in the Marciana Library of Venice. The first two have the word arte after laudata, and the word genere after scientiarum. Both again lack the particle et and transform the word Mathematices into the phrase mathematicarum disciplinarum. These differences, plus others of a more typographical nature especially in the first sixteen pages, make me suspect the existence of a second publisher, probably Andreas Cratander, perhaps as a co-financer of the printing. The vernacular text, its Prologue and Dedication to Brunelleschi There exist only three manuscripts of the vernacular text: one at the National Library of Paris, a second one at the Capitolare Library of Verona and a third one at the National Library of Florence. This last is the best preserved. It is preceded by an introductory Prologue addressed to the famous architect and sculptor, Filippo Brunelleschi (1376 - 1446), and ends with the date July 17th, 1436. Like all the known Latin manuscripts, none of the extant vernacular texts is autograph. However, in a manuscript copy of CiceroÕs De Brute, which belonged to Alberti, and now in the Marciana Library of Venice, there is a note written in AlbertiÕs own hand, that says: ÒFlorence, Friday August 26th 1435, today at the 20th hour and 3/4 I finished the work on De PicturaÓ. These are two very precise dates. Consider the earlier, August 26th, 1435, when Alberti says he completed the first drafting of De Pictura. He is clearly expressing satisfaction for having progressed this far in his project, but it is not certain that he is referring just to his Latin version, for indeed he used the same title, De Pictura, also for the vernacular which he dedicated to Brunelleschi. We may infer in fact that whatever text he had just finished was still open to revision and in this condition it might have remained if a unique opportunity had not presented itself to return to it again and associate it with a great man and extraordinary event! In just a month and a half after July 17, 1436, on August 30th, Brunelleschi, amid much public fanfare, was to officially close the ÒcupolaÓ above the Florentine Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore, just completed by him, his most illustrious architectural triumph. It was certainly a moment for all the Florentine to remember and cherish. The panorama of this great Renaissance city would forever be signified by BrunelleschiÕs ÒtrademarkÓ Cathedral dome: Òsuch an enormous structure, towering over the skies, and wide enough to cast its shadow over all the Tuscan people,Ó as Alberti himself remarked. One should also recall that Brunelleschi, just a few years before, demonstrated for the first time ever how the optical laws of mirror reflection could be applied to painting, by means the construction of the two famous perspective panels. July of 1436, as Brunelleschi was basking in all these triumphs, was the perfect moment for Alberti to dedicate his vernacular De Pictura to this Florentine genius. Alberti did it kindly and carefully, no doubt because he had had time enough to realize that his 1435 edition was still in need of correcting and enlarging - above all because he hoped that the ÒgreatÓ Brunelleschi could help him with further suggestions and advice. Who better could have been able? Proof of this is right there in the authorÕs Prologue dedication to ÒPippo architettoÓ ... Òand if occasionally you should find a moment of leisure, it would please me to have you look at this little work of mine ÔOn PaintingÕ which I composed, in your name, in the Tuscan languageÓ. Further on: ÒPlease, then, read my work with diligence, and if you think that anything in it has to be amended, do correct me. No writer was ever so learned as not to profit from learned friends. And I would like to be corrected by you first, so as not to be censured by detractors.Ó Alberti speaks almost with the ardour of an apprentice to his Òmaster.Ó The repeated phrases used by him, such as Òhave you look,Ó Òread my work with diligence,Ó Òto be amended,Ó Òdo correct me,Ó ÒI would like to be correctedÓ all reveal not only the authorÕs modesty and humility, but also his uncertainty that the manuscript was final, emphasized even more by his worry of being Òcensured by detractorsÓ. The text that Brunelleschi had in his hands was without doubt the one that our Alberti knew was still na•ve, so that, when he says in the Dedication ÒAnd I would like to be corrected by you first,Ó one might also surmise that the great architect may actually have stimulated that promising young humanist to improve his work further. ItÕs intriguing indeed to consider that Alberti did receive some advice from his Òmaster,Ó and that he included these comments in his next version, i.e. the corrected Latin text of De Pictura. Anthony Grafton expresses a very different opinion when he says, ÒAlbertiÕs dedication did not mollify its recipient. Brunelleschi, ever paranoid about his intellectual property, presumably reacted with characteristic irritation when he saw that AlbertiÕs work contained a long discussion of perspective but did not mention him or his model panels.Ó I donÕt agree. Alberti was actually describing a more simplified, step-by-step method of perspective projection, an Òabbreviated constructionÓ certainly inspired by Brunelleschi, but based on looking through a window rather than a reflection in a mirror. Giorgio Vasari (Arezzo 1511 - Florence 1574) later claimed that BrunelleschiÕs original perspective system was based on architectural drawing, that is to say, as modern scholars for the most part have assumed, that BrunelleschiÕs original Òlegitimate constructionÓ was essentially based on the method of plan and elevation. The ÒfalseÓ priority of Latin If AlbertiÕs vernacular text was merely his later translation from the Latin, why would he have included so many ÒmistakesÓ even mathematical and then give the treatise to the most competent ÒmaestroÓ of his time to ask for help? The notion of those who believe that Alberti, wishing to address the more ordinary artists, rewrote his treatise in order to make it easier for those who did not understand the language of Cicero, is illogical. Quite the opposite surely happened. AlbertiÕs first intention was to draftthe work in the Tuscan dialect and then to dedicate it to Brunelleschi. Only subsequently did he refine the text in the Latin language. Latin was, in fact it still is, the most precise language for framing complex concepts, scientific and geometric included, whereas the local Italian dialects were then quite lacking in appropriate vocabulary. Almost two centuries would have to pass before Galileo could express such mathematical thoughts in his own native tongue. It is our modern prejudice, unfortunately, to simply take for granted that if two texts of the same subject exist, one in a still-spoken language of today, and the other in ancient Latin, that the former must simply be a translation of the latter. We are too accustomed to regard Latin as always having been a ÒdeadÓ language even during the Renaissance. Nevertheless, and certainly in the early years of the fifteenth century, Latin and ÒvolgareÓ coexisted equally, and were commonly spoken together, not only by the educated humanists, but also among persons associated with the ÒuniversalÓ (Catholic) Church. Indeed, Leon Battista AlbertiÕs official job was as Òabbreviatore apostolicoÓ; that is, composer of papal briefs in Latin for the Pontifical Curia, so that in his own time and occupation, it would have been taken for granted to think of translations as just the other way around Ð always from some local native language into the more formal and universal Latin. Concerning the Paris manuscript of the vernacular text, both the sixteenth-century copyist and Count Giuseppe Mazzatinti in 1886 made the same mistake (30), as did Giammaria Mazzucchelli and Count Scipione Maffei regarding the Verona manuscript in the XVIII century, and the librarian Vincenzo Follini cataloguing the Florentine manuscript in the XIX century. (32) The copyist of the Paris Codex, by now accustomed to transcribing translations executed from Latin to vernacular, and being aware Ð as he should have Ð of a Latin text drafted by the same author, also reported what everyone would eventually claim, that the vernacular text at hand was realized from Latin by the author in order to Òmake it easier for non-literates.Ó Giuseppe Mazzatinti, who first published the title and description of this manuscript, wrote parenthetically: ÒTreatise on painting translated from Latin by Battista Alberti.Ó Regarding the Verona manuscript, Giammaria Mazzucchelli in 1735 wrote: ÒThe particular of it is that it is in the vernacular language and the translation appears to be made by Alberti himself.Ó His word ÒappearsÓ is the same as used by Count Scipione Maffei who had been the manuscriptÕs owner, and had inscribed in the margin of the last folio: ÒIt appears that this is a translation by the author himself.Ó It seems clear that Mazzucchelli based his opinion on that of Maffei.(37) Furthermore, Mazzucchelli made another deduction that casts doubt about his understanding of Latin. Regarding the printed Basle text, he stated: ÒFrom the words added in this frontispiece, iamprimum in lucem editi, it seems that an earlier edition had been made that is no longer known,Ó when in fact that Latin locution literally means Ònow for the first time brought to light.Ó Apparently, Mazzucchelli mistranslated iamprimum as iampridem, another adverb meaning Òlong ago,Ó and so rendered the phrase as indicating another edition once publidhed in the past but now lost. I must also mention the inscription on the initial flyleaves of the Florentine manuscript written by Vincenzo Follini, appointed librarian of the Magliabechiana in Florence on October 1, 1831: ÒOn Painting, Books three. Translated by the same author from Latin,Ó adding ÒV.[ide] Mazzucchel-lium,Épag. 314.Ó ItÕs thus apparent that Follini based his assertion of the translation from the Latin only on MazzucchelliÕs authority, even noting the latterÕs page number. The Florentine Tradition Interestingly, a different opinion was shared among the Florentine commentators of the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Antonio Averlino called Filarete (Florence, ca. 1400-Rome ?, 1469/70), a contemporary of Alberti, referred to the latterÕs Latin text specifically in Book One of his own Treatise on Architecture: (Finoli, Grassi 1972, pp. 9-11) Òhe [Alberti] still made a very elegant work in LatinÓ. A century later, Ludovico Domenichi, in his 1547 Italian translation of De Pictura directly from the Basle Latin, still makes no mention of a prior vernacular edition. Giorgio Vasari (Arezzo, 1511-Florence, 1574) indicated that he too knew only the Latin text when he stated: Ò[Alberti] wrote three books On Painting, today translated into the Tuscan language by Messer Ludovico DomenichiÓ (42). Similarly, Cosimo Bartoli, addressing Vasari to whom he dedicates his translation of De Pictura from Latin to Italian in 1568, wrote Òmeanwhile do not disdain that this little work on painting by the very virtuous Leon Battista Alberti is published in this language of ours translated by myself, under your name.Ó. Raffaelle Trichet du Fresne likewise affirmed this fact when republishing the Bartoli edition in 1651: Ò[Alberti] wrote then in the same [Latin] language three books on paintingÓ. In sum, it is clear that all these early authors knew only the Latin De Pictura, making no reference to any prior vernacular version as one should have expected. Only in AlbertiÕs eulogy published in Florence by Pompilio Pozzetti in 1789 do we find the first mention of an original vernacular text: Ò[His] remarks on painting [referring to AlbertiÕs Elements of Painting] differs from those three well known books [of De Pictura] that are printed, were drafted by Alberti in Italian; later on he translated them into Latin and addressed them to Theodore. [É] The same method was followed by Leone in writing his three well known books On Painting. He composed the work in the Tuscan dialect and then to dedicate it to Brunelleschi. Only subsequently did he refine the text in the Latin language. Latin was, in fact it still is, the most precise language for framing complex concepts, scientific and geometric included, whereas the local Italian dialects were then quite lacking in appropriate vocabulary. Almost two centuries would have to pass before Galileo could express such mathematical thoughts in his own native tongue. It is our modern prejudice, unfortunately, to simply take for granted that if two texts of the same subject exist, one in a still-spoken language of today, and the other in ancient Latin, that the former must simply be a translation of the latter. We are too accustomed to regard Latin as always having been a ÒdeadÓ language even during the Renaissance. Nevertheless, and certainly in the early years of the fifteenth century, Latin and ÒvolgareÓ coexisted equally, and were commonly spoken together, not only by the educated humanists, but also among persons associated with the ÒuniversalÓ (Catholic) Church. Indeed, Leon Battista AlbertiÕs official job was as Òabbreviatore apostolicoÓ; that is, composer of papal briefs in Latin for the Pontifical Curia, so that in his own time and occupation, it would have been taken for granted to think of translations as just the other way around Ð always from some local native language into the more formal and universal Latin. Concerning the Paris manuscript of the vernacular text, both the sixteenth-century copyist and Count Giuseppe Mazzatinti in 1886 made the same mistake (30), as did Giammaria Mazzucchelli and Count Scipione Maffei regarding the Verona manuscript in the XVIII century, and the librarian Vincenzo Follini cataloguing the Florentine manuscript in the XIX century. (32) The copyist of the Paris Codex, by now accustomed to transcribing translations executed from Latin to vernacular, and being aware Ð as he should have Ð of a Latin text drafted by the same author, also reported what everyone would eventually claim, that the vernacular text at hand was realized from Latin by the author in order to Òmake it easier for non-literates.Ó Giuseppe Mazzatinti, who first published the title and description of this manuscript, wrote parenthetically: ÒTreatise on painting translated from Latin by Battista Alberti.Ó Regarding the Verona manuscript, Giammaria Mazzucchelli in 1735 wrote: ÒThe particular of it is that it is in the vernacular language and the translation appears to be made by Alberti himself.Ó His word ÒappearsÓ is the same as used by Count Scipione Maffei who had been the manuscriptÕs owner, and had inscribed in the margin of the last folio: ÒIt appears that this is a translation by the author himself.Ó It seems clear that Mazzucchelli based his opinion on that of Maffei.(37) Furthermore, Mazzucchelli made another deduction that casts doubt about his understanding of Latin. Regarding the printed Basle text, he stated: ÒFrom the words added in this frontispiece, iamprimum in lucem editi, it seems that an earlier edition had been made that is no longer known,Ó when in fact that Latin locution literally means Ònow for the first time brought to light.Ó Apparently, Mazzucchelli mistranslated iamprimum as iampridem, another adverb meaning Òlong ago,Ó and so rendered the phrase as indicating another edition once publidhed in the past but now lost. I must also mention the inscription on the initial flyleaves of the Florentine manuscript written by Vincenzo Follini, appointed librarian of the Magliabechiana in Florence on October 1, 1831: ÒOn Painting, Books three. Translated by the same author from Latin,Ó adding ÒV.[ide] Mazzucchel-lium,Épag. 314.Ó ItÕs thus apparent that Follini based his assertion of the translation from the Latin only on MazzucchelliÕs authority, even noting the latterÕs page number. The Florentine Tradition Interestingly, a different opinion was shared among the Florentine commentators of the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Antonio Averlino called Filarete (Florence, ca. 1400-Rome ?, 1469/70), a contemporary of Alberti, referred to the latterÕs Latin text specifically in Book One of his own Treatise on Architecture: (Finoli, Grassi 1972, pp. 9-11) Òhe [Alberti] still made a very elegant work in LatinÓ. A century later, Ludovico Domenichi, in his 1547 Italian translation of De Pictura directly from the Basle Latin, still makes no mention of a prior vernacular edition. Giorgio Vasari (Arezzo, 1511-Florence, 1574) indicated that he too knew only the Latin text when he stated: Ò[Alberti] wrote three books On Painting, today translated into the Tuscan language by Messer Ludovico DomenichiÓ (42). Similarly, Cosimo Bartoli, addressing Vasari to whom he dedicates his translation of De Pictura from Latin to Italian in 1568, wrote Òmeanwhile do not disdain that this little work on painting by the very virtuous Leon Battista Alberti is published in this language of ours translated by myself, under your name.Ó. Raffaelle Trichet du Fresne likewise affirmed this fact when republishing the Bartoli edition in 1651: Ò[Alberti] wrote then in the same [Latin] language three books on paintingÓ. In sum, it is clear that all these early authors knew only the Latin De Pictura, making no reference to any prior vernacular version as one should have expected. Only in AlbertiÕs eulogy published in Florence by Pompilio Pozzetti in 1789 do we find the first mention of an original vernacular text: Ò[His] remarks on painting [referring to AlbertiÕs Elements of Painting] differs from those three well known books [of De Pictura] that are printed, were drafted by Alberti in Italian; later on he translated them into Latin and addressed them to Theodore. [É] The same method was followed by Leone in writing his three well known books On Painting. He composed the work in the Tuscan dialect and then to dedicate it to Brunelleschi. Only subsequently did he refine the text in the Latin language. Latin was, in fact it still is, the most precise language for framing complex concepts, scientific and geometric included, whereas the local Italian dialects were then quite lacking in appropriate vocabulary. Almost two centuries would have to pass before Galileo could express such mathematical thoughts in his own native tongue. It is our modern prejudice, unfortunately, to simply take for granted that if two texts of the same subject exist, one in a still-spoken language of today, and the other in ancient Latin, that the former must simply be a translation of the latter. We are too accustomed to regard Latin as always having been a ÒdeadÓ language even during the Renaissance. Nevertheless, and certainly in the early years of the fifteenth century, Latin and ÒvolgareÓ coexisted equally, and were commonly spoken together, not only by the educated humanists, but also among persons associated with the ÒuniversalÓ (Catholic) Church. Indeed, Leon Battista AlbertiÕs official job was as Òabbreviatore apostolicoÓ; that is, composer of papal briefs in Latin for the Pontifical Curia, so that in his own time and occupation, it would have been taken for granted to think of translations as just the other way around Ð always from some local native language into the more formal and universal Latin. Concerning the Paris manuscript of the vernacular text, both the sixteenth-century copyist and Count Giuseppe Mazzatinti in 1886 made the same mistake (30), as did Giammaria Mazzucchelli and Count Scipione Maffei regarding the Verona manuscript in the XVIII century, and the librarian Vincenzo Follini cataloguing the Florentine manuscript in the XIX century. (32) The copyist of the Paris Codex, by now accustomed to transcribing translations executed from Latin to vernacular, and being aware Ð as he should have Ð of a Latin text drafted by the same author, also reported what everyone would eventually claim, that the vernacular text at hand was realized from Latin by the author in order to Òmake it easier for non-literates.Ó Giuseppe Mazzatinti, who first published the title and description of this manuscript, wrote parenthetically: ÒTreatise on painting translated from Latin by Battista Alberti.Ó Regarding the Verona manuscript, Giammaria Mazzucchelli in 1735 wrote: ÒThe particular of it is that it is in the vernacular language and the translation appears to be made by Alberti himself.Ó His word ÒappearsÓ is the same as used by Count Scipione Maffei who had been the manuscriptÕs owner, and had inscribed in the margin of the last folio: ÒIt appears that this is a translation by the author himself.Ó It seems clear that Mazzucchelli based his opinion on that of Maffei.(37) Furthermore, Mazzucchelli made another deduction that casts doubt about his understanding of Latin. Regarding the printed Basle text, he stated: ÒFrom the words added in this frontispiece, iamprimum in lucem editi, it seems that an earlier edition had been made that is no longer known,Ó when in fact that Latin locution literally means Ònow for the first time brought to light.Ó Apparently, Mazzucchelli mistranslated iamprimum as iampridem, another adverb meaning Òlong ago,Ó and so rendered the phrase as indicating another edition once publidhed in the past but now lost. I must also mention the inscription on the initial flyleaves of the Florentine manuscript written by Vincenzo Follini, appointed librarian of the Magliabechiana in Florence on October 1, 1831: ÒOn Painting, Books three. Translated by the same author from Latin,Ó adding ÒV.[ide] Mazzucchel-lium,Épag. 314.Ó ItÕs thus apparent that Follini based his assertion of the translation from the Latin only on MazzucchelliÕs authority, even noting the latterÕs page number. The Florentine Tradition Interestingly, a different opinion was shared among the Florentine commentators of the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Antonio Averlino called Filarete (Florence, ca. 1400-Rome ?, 1469/70), a contemporary of Alberti, referred to the latterÕs Latin text specifically in Book One of his own Treatise on Architecture: (Finoli, Grassi 1972, pp. 9-11) Òhe [Alberti] still made a very elegant work in LatinÓ. A century later, Ludovico Domenichi, in his 1547 Italian translation of De Pictura directly from the Basle Latin, still makes no mention of a prior vernacular edition. Giorgio Vasari (Arezzo, 1511-Florence, 1574) indicated that he too knew only the Latin text when he stated: Ò[Alberti] wrote three books On Painting, today translated into the Tuscan language by Messer Ludovico DomenichiÓ (42). Similarly, Cosimo Bartoli, addressing Vasari to whom he dedicates his translation of De Pictura from Latin to Italian in 1568, wrote Òmeanwhile do not disdain that this little work on painting by the very virtuous Leon Battista Alberti is published in this language of ours translated by myself, under your name.Ó. Raffaelle Trichet du Fresne likewise affirmed this fact when republishing the Bartoli edition in 1651: Ò[Alberti] wrote then in the same [Latin] language three books on paintingÓ. In sum, it is clear that all these early authors knew only the Latin De Pictura, making no reference to any prior vernacular version as one should have expected. Only in AlbertiÕs eulogy published in Florence by Pompilio Pozzetti in 1789 do we find the first mention of an original vernacular text: Ò[His] remarks on painting [referring to AlbertiÕs Elements of Painting] differs from those three well known books [of De Pictura] that are printed, were drafted by Alberti in Italian; later on he translated them into Latin and addressed them to Theodore. [É] The same method was followed by Leone in writing his three well known books On Painting.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
