UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Thomas Patch and the Manetti Chapel frescoes Sutherland, Valerie 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 S97.pdf [ 18.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094363.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094363-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094363-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094363-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094363-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094363-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094363-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094363-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094363.ris

Full Text

THOMAS PATCH AND THE MANETTI CHAPEL FRESCOES by VALERIE SUTHERLAND B.Ed., University of British Columbia, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Fine Arts We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA c) Valerie Sutherland,1978 MASTER OF ARTS i n April, 1978. In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives . It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of Fine Arts  The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date April 17, 1978. i i ABSTRACT Thomas Patch (1725-1782) is a relatively unknown English ar t i s t of the eighteenth century whose claim to fame so far has rested in his caricature work. He went to Rome around 1747, was banished from there in 1755 and joined the English cir c l e in Florence where he remained until his death in 1782. Patch's work in Florence included his copying of what Vasari had said to be a fresco cycle by Giotto in the Church of the Carmine. This cycle had been damaged in a f i r e that broke out in the old church in 1771, and i t had to be destroyed to make way for the new church that was completed in 1773. What led Patch to do this work? How successful was he? We see the influences of Hugford and Bottari and the l i v e l y interest of connoisseurship in the medieval and the Trecento. Patch's s k i l l as a copyist is analyzed and found to be excellent. There are now only twelve fragments l e f t of the original fresco and they have been given a variety of attributions. On the basis of dating, this paper agrees with those who reject the Giotto attribution and i t is not prepared to accept the Spinello Aretino one without additional confirmation. The cycle does not appear to f i t the style and character of Spinello in the period to which i t is usually assigned. Recent evidence however s t i l l makes i t worth while to leave the door open to Spinello though on the basis of style and spatial utilization, other artists of this period should i i i also be considered. When compared with other Saint John the Baptist cycles, the iconography shows the master of the Manetti Chapel frescoes to have been an inventive and imaginative a r t i s t whom both Masaccio and Agnolo Gaddi thought worthy of emulating and copying. His inventiveness is seen in the fact that though he seems to have got ideas from the Peruzzi Chapel and from the doors of the Baptistery, he put his own stamp on them. His angel in f l i g h t , his headless body of Saint John, his shivering Christ and his many re-arrangements of crowd scenes give ample evidence of an innovati.ve-ness which is only surpassed by his s k i l l at integrating his scenes. Patch's engravings therefore should form an important incentive to further assessment of the work of Spinello and his possible in f l u -ence on the late Trecento and Quattrocento Italian art. They also form a pathway for the study of influences of this period on eighteenth century English art. Patch represents a whole era of connoisseurship and is a possible source of valuable character study of the English emigre community of late eighteenth century Florence. His work merits a great deal more consideration than i t has so far received in the history of art. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of illustrations v Introduction 1 Chapter I: Of Bear-cubs and Banishment 7 Chapter II: Patch and the Manetti Chapel Frescoes 19 Chapter III: Patch as a Copyist 29 Chapter IV: The Attribution of the Manetti Chapel Frescoes 39 Chapter V: Thomas Patch in Florence 63 Conclusion 81 Literature Cited 86 Illustrations 90 Appendix A: Chronology of Events in the Life of Patch 131 Appendix B: Letter from T. Steavens 138 Appendix C: Text Accompanying the Giotto Engravings 139 Appendix D: Contri's Method of Detachment of the Intonaoo. 141 Appendix E: Chronology of the Manetti Chapel Frescoes and Florentine Artists of the Giotto Era 142 Appendix F: Summary of Iconographic Comparisons , 145 V ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 2 3a 3b 4 5 6 7 8 9 .10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18a 18b 18c 19a 19b Ti tl e Page Manetti Chapel frescoes - l e f t wall 90 Manetti Chapel frescoes - right wall 91 Plan of the Church of the Carmine pre 1771 93 Plan of the Church of the Carmine after 1771 92 Fragment - Head of Elizabeth 94 Fragment - Servant 95 Fragment - Saint Zacharias 96 Fragment - Women and Infant Saint John 97 Fragment - Head of Saint John Baptising 98 Fragment - Two Angels fragment 99 Fragment - Musician 100 Fragment - Salome 101 Fragment - Guest 102 Fragment - Saint John Praying 103 Fragment - Disciple 104 Fragment - Two Disciples 105 Thomas Patch, Conversation Piece, 1774 106 Patch, Conversation Piece, detail 106 The Annunciation to Saint Zacharias 107 The Birth and the Naming of Saint John 108 The Beheading and Entombment of Saint John 109 The Visitation 110 Saint John Preaching and the Baptising of Christ 111 19c Saint John in Prison and the Dance of Salome 112 20 Thomas Patch. Detail of head 113 21 Thomas Patch. Detail of head 113 22 Thomas Patch. Detail of head 114 23 Thomas Patch. Detail of head 114 24 Thomas Patch. Detail of head 115 V I Figure Ti tie Page 25 Fra Bartolommeo. The Presentation in the Temple. 116 26 Thomas Patch. The Presentation in the Temple 116 27 Thomas Patch - detail of head 117 28 Thomas Patch - detail of head 117 29 Thomas Patch - detail of head 117 30 Life of Saint John the Baptist. Peruzzi Chapel 118 31 Life of Saint John the Evangelist. Peruzzi Chapel 119 32 Raising of Drusiana 120 33 Ascension 120 34 Manetti Chapel Frescoes. Baptism - detail 121 35 Andrea Pisano. Baptism - detail 121 36 Manetti Chapel Frescoes. Baptism - detail 122 37 Masaccio. Brancacci Chapel. Baptism of the Neophytes - detail 122 38 Masaccio. Brancacci Chapel. St. Paul visiting St. Peter 123 39 Manetti Chapel Frescoes. St. John in Prison -detail 123 40 Masaccio. Pisa Polyptych. Beheading of St. John 124 41 Manetti Chapel Frescoes. Beheading of Saint John. 124 42 Agnolo Gaddi. Baptism, Castellani Chapel, Santa Croce. 125 43 Agnolo Gaddi. Feast of Herod. Nobili Chapel, Santa Croce 126 44 Giotto. Feast of Herod. Peruzzi Chapel, Santa Croce 126 45 Thomas Patch. Conversation Piece 127 46 Thomas Patch. Conversation Piece - detail 128 47 Thomas Lawrence. James Boswel1. 128 48 Thomas Patch. A Rehearsal at Sir Horace Mann's. 129 49 Thomas Patch. A Rehearsal at Sir Horace Mann's - detail 129 vn Figure Ti tl e Page 50 Thomas Patch. A Rehearsal at Sir Horace Mann's - detail 130 51 Vocabolario degli Accedmici del la Crusca Engraving. First page of fourth edition. 130. Diagram 1 Sequence of Manetti Chapel Frescoes 27 Sources: Figs. 1, 2, 18a, 18b, 18c, 19a, 19b, 19c, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 34, 36, 39, 41: Thomas Patch, Giotto. Florence, 1772. Figs. 3a, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14: Ugo Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine." Rivista d'Arte XIV (1932):141-232. Fig. 3a: Giovanni Fanelli, Firenze Architettura e Citta. Firenze: Vallecchi Editore, 1973, p. 320. Fig. 4: Giuseppe Ramali, ed. CampoSanto Monumentale. Pisa: Opera della Primaziale Pisana, 1960. Fig. 5: H. W. van 0s and Marian Prakken, The Florentine Paintings in Holland. Maarssen: Gary Schwartz, 1974. Fig. 9: R. van Marie, The Development of the Italian Schools of Painting. 19 vols. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1923-28. Fig. 12: Ferdinando Zeri. "Italian Primitives at Messrs. Wildenstein." Burlington Magazine 107 (1965):252-56. Fig. 15: National Gallery Illustrations. London: London National Gallery, 1937. Fig. 16 and 17: F. S.axl and R. Wittkower, British Art and the Mediterranean. London: Oxford University Press, 1948. Fig. 25: S. Freedberg. Painting of the High Renaissance,in Rome and Florence. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961. Figs. 26, 27, 28, 29: Thomas Patch, The Life of Fra Bartolommeo, Florence, 1772. Figs. 30, 31 , 32, 33, 44: Andrew Martindale and Edi Baccheschi, The Complete Paintings of Giotto. New York: H.N. Abrams, Inc., 1966. Fig.35: IIaria Toesca, Andrea e Nino Pisano. Firenze: Sansoni Editore, 1950. Figs. 37, 38, 40: Ferdinando Bologna, Masaccio. La Cappella Brancacci. Milano: Fr a t t e l l i Fabri Editori, 1969. Figs. 42, 43: Bruce Cole, Agnolo Gaddi, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Figs. 45, 46: Frank Davis, "Satirist of the English in Florence," Country Life July 8, 1976, p. 98. Fig. 47: F. E. Halliday, Cultural History of England, London: Thames & Hudson, 1968. Figs. 48, 49, 50: W. S. Lewis, Horace Walpole. The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts i960. New York: Pantheon Books, Inc., Fig. 51: Eric Cochrane, Tradition and Enlightenment in the Tuscan Academies, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973. 1961. vi i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank Joel E. Brink and Dr. George Knox for their advice and guidance during the last many months. It has been because of the intellectual generosity and continued interest of them and other members of the Art History Department, and the support and patience of my family, that this thesis has come to fruition. I am also grateful to the diligent and obliging staff of the library who willingly delved into the inner reaches of library storage and ventured far afield to f u l f i l l my many requests. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this thesis is to explore the events that led an eighteenth century English a r t i s t living in Florence to sketch, engrave and preserve fragments of a Trecento fresco cycle attributed at that time to Giotto. Thomas Patch was the a r t i s t , and the fresco cycle, destroyed by f i r e in 1771, was situated in the Manetti Chapel in the church of the Santa Maria del Carmine, Florence.^ In addition to the engraved sketches, Patch also engraved five large details of heads and salvaged many pieces of fallen or salvageable intonaoo. What is interesting is that Patch showed an interest in the cycle and saved these fragments at a time when i t is believed very few of his contemporaries were interested in the Italian Primitives. Surprising to say, this topic arose out of an early interest in William Blake. It came out of an attempt to prove a direct 2 influence of Giotto on Blake and possibly on John Flaxman. The i n i t i a l research had led to some of the early literature on Giotto, and specifically a book by Lord Lindsay, which noted the f i r e in 3 the Carmine and the existence of fragments and engraved sketches. ^Throughout this thesis these frescoes will be referred to as the Manetti Chapel frescoes. 2 A possible influence through these engravings is conceivable because of the forty copies which were printed. Most of them found their way to England where they were circulated by Patch's brother. 3 Lord Lindsay, Sketches of the History of Christian Art, 3 vols. (London: John Murray, 1847), 11:168. 2 Suffice to say that by pursuing the whereabouts of these engravings, fragments and the reason for their existence, the original intent had to be side-stepped. No direct link from Giotto to Blake and Flaxman has spontaneously revealed i t s e l f but another indirect influence on nineteenth century British art through Patch became evident. Tancred Borenius states that Patch's engraved record of the Manetti frescoes and others, led to similar enterprises in Tuscany--"To him belongs the credit of having opened the series of publications illustrating the work of the Primitive Italian masters." The other enterprises included L'Etruria Pittrice and a publication in 1810 by Carlo Lasinio of the frescoes in the Campo Santo, Pisa. The engravings of these pictures had so impressed Millais, Rossetti and Holman Hunt that they named their newly formed association of 2 artists , the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Yet despite this contribution of Patch's to the art historical record of the Trecento and Quattrocento, l i t t l e is known of him, his a b i l i t y or his reason for preserving the Manetti Chapel frescoes. We know that he came from an upper middle-class family whose social 3 and professional connections could open many doors to him. It is believed that he arrived in Rome during the late 1740's but in 1755 he was banished from the city and went to live in Florence. The ^The other engravings were The Life of Masaccio, 1770, and The Life of Fra Bartolonmeo, M12. The quote is from Tancred Borenius, "The Rediscovery of the Primitives," Quarterly Review 475 (April 1923):262. 2 Ibid. 3 For a complete chronology of events in the l i f e of Patch see Appendix A. 3 question of his banishment is analyzed at this time in an attempt to put the record straight. Two letters written at the time of his banishment are here introduced into Patch studies for the f i r s t time and they may help to clear away some of the misunderstandings which have tended to cloud our appreciation of him and detract from him as a connoisseur and art historian. F. J. B. Watson and Brinsley Ford have both written about Thomas Patch the a r t i s t and caricaturist who as well as his more serious work, has l e f t us a whimsical and even satirical record of the English c i r c l e in Florence. Ugo Procacci, the eminent art historian and conservator has given us detailed information regarding the construction of the old Carmine Church prior to i t s destruction by f i r e , and he has even perused the early records relating to the Manetti Chapel and the frescoes. But no one seems to have f u l l y answered the question why Patch showed this interest and recorded this cycle or, how he detached the fragments. His recording of the sinopie under-drawings where the intonaoo had fallen, reveals a man with an art historical sensitivity far in advance of his time. Therefore i t has been necessary to recapitulate the damage that the f i r e caused and record exactly what Patch must have done to preserve, as he puts i t , "at least the memory..." The contention by Vasari that these frescoes were done by Giotto seems to have had some bearing on Patch's decision to sketch them. This attribution was not questioned until the mid-nineteenth century when Grassi assigned six of the fragments to the "School of 4 Giotto."^ Then in 1906, Conte Giorgio Vitzthum on the basis of seven fragments and the Patch engravings, assigned the cycle to Spinello Aretino. In this thesis, the question of attribution will be discussed at some length because, due to Patch's work as a recorder and restorer, we are in a position to review these previ-ous attributions and suggest that the original painter may be closer to Giotto than to the a r t i s t that we have usually recognized Spinello Aretino as being. However, before entering into the question, i t will be our aim to understand Patch's copying style and his methodology in order to be prepared for an accurate assessment of the attribution. In this area his accuracy of reproduction is noted together with the fact that he claims to introduce a new method of engraving into his repertoire in order to more accurately record what he saw. A great deal of time has been spent on the attribution part of the essay because certain new evidence has become available since the time of the attribution by Vitzthum and the definitive article by Procacci of 1932. A re-interpretation of these articles is called for because in the effort to discount the Giotto and create the Spinello Aretino attribution, many significant points were over-looked. The new evidence includes two more fragments that have turned up and one or two interesting questions about the content of the third will of Manetti which seems to have been side-stepped up ^Ranieri Grassi, Pisa e le sue adgacenze (Pisa: 1851), p. 196 cited by Ugo Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine del 1771," Rivista d'Arte XIV (1932):226. 5 to now. It is also possible that Vanni Manetti died as early as 1357/8 which would change the dating considerably. Finally, there is the question of the possible existence today of certain remnants of the fresco cycle which are reported by Procacci (1932) as being on the wall of the organ l o f t stairwell, but on which no work seems yet to have been done, nor are they listed as being among the extant works of Giotto or Spinello. It appears evident now that the frescoes could not have been Giotto's nor should they be attributed to Spinello Aretino without more consideration. On the basis of chronology, style, and spatial comparisons, i t is even probable that they could be by either Taddeo Gaddi, Maso di Banco or even Nardo di Cione. With these engravings, Patch has opened up a new viewpoint on Giottesque studies and l e f t us a record of an a r t i s t who took second place to no one for inno-vative and imaginative treatment of traditional iconography, and an a r t i s t whom masters such as Agnolo Gaddi and Masaccio did not hesi-tate to copy and adapt. The Giotto attribution alone would not have been sufficient reason for Patch to preserve this record^ and i t appears from his own written statements that he was encouraged and supported in i t by two men. These were Ignazio Hugford and Giovanni Bottari who in their own right were intelligent art collectors, connoisseurs and art historians. Vatch in the introduction to his f i r s t set of engravings, The Life of Masaccio3 indicates that he does not appreciate at all the School of Giotto. He writes that Masaccio possesses "a freedom in his pencil t i l l then likewise unknown so different from the disagree-able stiffness in the horrid spectres of the School of Giotto...", p. II. 6 One of Patch's main interests was the study of physiognomy and this may have been a natural lead into his 'recording' work but there is sufficient evidence, in addition to the influence of Hugford and Bottari, to indicate that eighteenth century connois-seurship in Florence in general also played a part. This connois-seurship goes beyond what we understand i t to be. In fact there is strong evidence that throughout Europe there was a geniune interest in the medieval which flourished side by side with the interest in the classical past. With his interest in physiognomy, his talent as a copyist, his technical a b i l i t y to adapt his engraving style, and above a l l his intent in f u l f i l l i n g the specific task of preserving and record-ing these frescoes, Patch was the right a r t i s t , in the right place at the right time. He was a man who stepped out ahead of the main-stream of contemporary taste and thus prepared the way for others to follow. By so doing he has offered us the opportunity to re-examine the iconography of artists in the second half of the trecento, and has challenged us to re-assess the whole scope of the works of Spinello Aretino. Patch salvaged much more than a fresco cycle from the flames of the Carmine. CHAPTER I OF BEAR-CUBS AND BANISHMENT Neither the exact date of Patch's arrival in Italy nor the reason why he went is known, but Farington was shown letters from Patch in Italy dated as early as 1747. This was the age of the Grand Tour--a tour of Europe which included lengthy stays in Venice, Florence, Rome and Naples. A tour that was considered an essential ingredient in a young gentle-man's well-rounded education. Failure to v i s i t Italy is aptly summed up in the words of Dr. Samuel Johnson: "A man who has not been in Italy is always conscious of an inferiority, for his not having seen what is expected a man to see." Consequently, most of 3 the young bear-cubs of the leading English families would trans-port themselves and their "bear-leaders" to the Continent and follow a well-trodden path outlined in the contemporary guide books. Patch himself, may well have qualified as one of the young men, i f not as a member of the aristocracy, then as one of the upper ^James Greig, ed. The Farington Diary3 7 vols. (London: Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers), Ltd., 1926), p. 183. 2 L. F. Powell, gen. ed., Boswell's Life of Johnson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934), p. 36. 3 A term used to describe the young sons of the aristocracy often coupled with the name used for their tutors--"Bear-leaders" defined as a person in charge of a young man of wealth when making a tour of the world. It arose from the custom of leading a tame bear around muzzled and on a chain. 7 8 middle-class. There is evidence that his family was well-connected with both the Stuarts and the Hanoverian royal families. His father, who was f i r s t surgeon to the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, is reported to have been at one time a surgeon to the Old Pretender at St. Germain-en-LayeJ His mother was a great-neice of Bishop Gilbert 2 Burnet and he himself was apprenticed to Dr. Richard Mead, the noted 3 art collector who was physician to George II. In addition to a l l this, Patch is reported to have gone to Italy with one Richard Dal ton who, according to Cornelius Vermeule was a half-brother of George III However, i t is more likely that Patch as a promising a r t i s t F. J. B. Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," Walpole Society XXVIII (1939-40) :15, gives no source for this information. 2G. K. S. Edwards, "Thomas Patch," Apollo XXVI (October 1937): 217. Burnet (1643-1715), historian and theologian; preached the Coronation Sermon for. William and Mary; appointed Bishop of Salisbury by William; in charge of the Succession B i l l of 1701. 3Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 16. 4 T h i s i s reported by Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 16 who may in turn have got this information from a letter from Mann to Walpole, dated 22 February, 1771 (W. S. Lewis, Horace Walpole's Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, 11 vols. [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967], Vol. VII, p. 275). These letters were supplied to Watson for his article but since the publication of that article the letters themselves have been published, and many footnotes added to the information in the letters. One such footnote, p. 275, fn. 6, reads as follows: "Patch's earliest recorded letter from Rome was in 1747 but Mann mentions Dal ton as being already at Rome in 1743 as a student of painting." Farington in his diary, also indicates that Patch "went to Italy with or about the same time as Jenkins." This then does raise some doubts as to whom Patch went to Italy with. 5 Cornelius C. Vermeule, "The Dal Pozzo-Albani Drawings of Classical Antiquities in the British Museum," Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 50 Part 5 (1960):3. Vermeule gives no source for this information and the Dictionary of National Biography gives no information on Richard Dal ton. 9 would, along with many other young hopefuls, have been drawn to Italy to further his study of art and architecture--"the main purpose of their v i s i t being to carry out, by copying sketching and taking notes on the works of old masters, an essential part of an artist's training."^ Some of the visiting artists who, after their study in Italy, returned to England and successful careers, were Joshua Reynolds, who for a short period of time actually shared an 2 apartment with Patch, Gavin Hamilton, Richard Wilson, Allen Ramsay, Robert Adam and William Chambers. However, many of these young hope-fuls never returned to England, preferring instead to remain in Italy augmenting their income as artists by acting as cicerones. Such was the case with Mark Russell, James Byres, Colin Mori son, John Parker 3 and Thomas Patch. 4 The cicerone was "a more elevated class of personal attendant" who served the young bear-cubs and their leaders. They were highly Brian Moloney, Florence and England (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki. Edltore, 1969), p. 10. 2 Brinsley Ford, "Letters of Jonathan Skelton," Walpole Society XXXVI; 0956-58):38. They shared accommodation at the English Coffee House on the west side of the Piazza di. Spagna until just before Easter, 1751. At that time they moved to the Palazzo Zuccari where Vernet and his family also had an apartment. 3 Mark Russell acted as an agent for Ralph Howard when he purchased landscapes by Wilson, Vernet, a portrait by Batoni and "four copies, of Vernet" by Patch. Claude-Joseph Vernet, 1714-1789 (London: Greater London Council, 1976), p.4. James Byres acted as the agent and dealer for the acquisition of Poussin's Seven Sacraments and the Portland Vase. Jonathan Scott, Piranesi (London: Academy Editions, 1975), p. 311. 4 John Fleming, "Some Roman Cicerones and Artist-Dealers," Connoisseur Year Book (1959):24. 10 specialized men who would direct their patrons around the historical and a r t i s t i c sights and act as their agent in the acquisition of classical sculpture and fashionable paintings. Early in the 1700's they had been Italian but by the 17501s most of the cicerones were English and Scottish emigres. Not a l l of these artists divided their time between completing commissions for paintings and guiding. A fellow countryman and possible travelling companion of Patch's, Thomas JenkinsJ found i t more lucrative to devote his whole attention to the wants and needs of the travelling gentry. Often this included adding missing parts to damaged classical sculpture in order to obtain a more pleasing object for sale and a higher return for his pocket. Despite these 'manipulations', Jenkins earned the respect of such eminent people as Cardinal Alessandro Albani and Johann Winckelmann and he soon amassed a personal fortune enabling him to establish himself as a 2 banker in Rome. Patch's early a r t i s t i c activities in Rome are not specifically known except for a reference in the Farington Diary where Patch is 'Thomas Jenkins, b. Rome, 1722, [Dictionary of National Biography says Devon), returned to England to study under Thomas Hudson and re-turned to Rome during the 1750's. There seems to be some confusion as to when and with whom he returned to Italy. Edward Edwards, Anecdotes of Painters who have resided or been born in England (London: Leigh & Sotheby, 1808) states he was accompanied by Richard Wilson. Also see page 2, fn. 4, regarding his possible return to Italy with Patch. In 1753 he is recorded in the register of S. Lorenzo in Lucina in Rome as residing with Wilson. Thomas Ashby, "Thomas Jenkins in Rome," Papers of the British School of Rome VI, No. 8 (1913):488. 2 1692-1779, enemy of the Stuarts, famous for his art collec-tion, carried on a life-long correspondence with Sir Horace Mann. 11 mentioned as having been introduced to Vernet.1 By Apri l , 1750, he was either working with or studying under Claude-Joseph Vernet and 2 in the same year he painted a series of vedute for Lord Charlemont. We also have evidence of his involvement as an agent in art purchases as is seen in the correspondence between him and Sir William Lowther 3 when he arranged the purchase and shipping of several paintings. Vernet returned to France in 1763 and i t might have been at that time or even a l i t t l e earlier that Patch became associated with the short-lived Academy of English Professors of the Liberal Arts established principally at the instigation of Lord Charlemont. It was opened in 1748 and the director was John Parker. It would seem that this was an attempt by the British nobility to establish an institution similar to the 4 French Academy at Rome that had been established in 1666.' Greig, The Farington Diary, VI: 183. 2 James Caul f i e l d , Lord Charlemont started his Grand Tour at the age of 18 in 1746. He returned to Ireland in March, 1754. In the meantime he travelled extensively throughout Europe and also included a trip to the Middle East in 1749 when he took Richard Dalton (see p. 2, fn. 4) along as his draughtsman. Maurice James Craig, The Volunteer Earl (London: The Cressett Press, 1948), p. 44. 3 Francis Russell, "Thomas Patch, Sir William Lowther, and the Holker Claude," Apollo (August 1975): 119. 4 The following notice appeared in the Daily Advertiser, June 8, 1752: Rome, May 12 - The English Noblemen and Gentlemen now at this Place on their Travells. having taken into consideration the Disadvantages, young students of their Nation in Painting and Sculpture l i e under here for want of the Foundation of an Academy, with Pensions for encouragement of those whose circumstances will not permit them to prosecute their studies for a sufficient time at their own expence, have begun a generous Subscription towards the foundation of an Accademy, and have appointed Mr John Parker History Painter, to be the Receiver and director thereof. The Generous Pro-moters of this Foundation are the Lords Bruce, Charlemont, Tilney, and K i l l -murry. Sr. Thomas Kennedy Bart. Mess Ward, Iremonger, Lethulliere, Bagot, Scroop Cook Lypeat. Murphy, and as a l l Nations in Europe, particularly the French have Academies, and great Encouragements 'tis hop'd a l l Lovers of the Arts, will promote this generous design. Walpole Society XXVI, p.89. 12 This Academy was closed early in 1755 reportedly because while Parker was away and sick in Naples, Patch had a fight with a fellow academician named Warner, thus causing Charlemont to fear that the Academy "was becoming an asylum for a r t i s t i c scamps."^ This appears to have been the beginning of Patch's troubles in Rome. Shortly thereafter he ran into a further confrontation with the Holy Office which led to his final banishment in December of the same year. An event which would lead him to Florence and his subsequent work as a copyist and recorder of Early Renaissance art works. The exact reasons for Patch's eventual banishment from Rome during the latter part of 1755 are not known. F. J. B. Watson in 1939 used what documentation was available at that time, he presented these facts as he saw them and judiciously came to no conclusion. Unfortunately, other authors have tended to choose the least salubrious of these facts and too often have over-emphasized and even misrepre-sented them, thus overshadowing Patch's a b i l i t y as a caricaturist, copyist, art historian and connoisseur. Prior to his actual banishment he had been involved in several incidents which may have contributed to his final expulsion. The f i r s t 3 incident we have a record of is when Horace Mann wrote to Cardinal ^Craig, The Volunteer Earl, p. 90, and Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 19. 2 Ibid., pp. 15-50. 3 British Diplomatic Representative in Florence. In Charge of Affairs 1738-40, Resident 1740-65, Knighted 1755, Envoy Extraordinary 1765-82, Envoy Extraordinary Plenipotentiary 1782-6. D. B. Horn, British Diplomatic Representatives: 1689-1789 (London: Royal Historical Society, 1932), p. 81. 13 Albani on October 12, 1751, asking the Cardinal to investigate why Patch, who was f u l f i l l i n g a second commission for Charlemont, had been ordered by the Bishop of Tivoli to leave his diocese J Cardinal Albani replied October 23, 1751, that "I am more than ever convinced that i t would be of the greatest advantage i f one could prevent any dealings at a l l between Catholics and sectarians." He adds that despite a certain amount of tolerance usually exercised in these matters, the Bishop remained firm and therefore he must have had some 2 good reason for not allowing Patch to remain. There the matter rested until October 22, 1755, when Patch was ordered by the Holy Office to leave the Papal States within 24 hours. He was informed of this fact when "sited to appear before a Notary Belonging to the Governor of Rome." Patch in a later letter written from Florence to Lord Charlemont, reports the expulsion but that he 3 does not know the reason for. i t . In another letter written to Sir William Lowther on February 19, 1756, he again states that he does not know the reason for his banishment, he writes: "On the 23rd December I was ordered out of the Popes State from the Inquisition ^Letter cited by Lesley Lewis, Connoisseurs and Secret Agents in Eighteenth Century Rome (London: Chatto and Windus, 1961), p. 172. This is an interesting letter in so far as i t is believed that Patch and Mann had not met before Patch went to Florence in 1755. This letter may indicate that they had met before—perhaps Patch had passed through Florence on his way to Rome and at that time had come into contact with Mann. 2Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 18. q Ibid., p. 20. Patch writes in this letter that he "begd of Abbe Grant to Accompany me wcn he did..." 14 but without being acquainted with the Reason nor is i t possible for me to immagine unless the Old Affair of Tivoli for I have Since been so far informed that the Bishop had put me in the St. Offizzio I l e f t Rome that Night..." 1 What is interesting is the different date--a date that John Parker, who proved to be no friend of Patch's, confirmed in a letter to Lord Charlemont. He wrote on December 24, 1755 "I must confirm your lordship that this day we lost Patche,[sic] who was obliged to leave Rome in twenty-four hours..." In November, Albani had advised Mann of the banishment by the Inquisition,and followed that up with a letter dated December 12 saying that he did not know the reason for the expulsion,"but imagined i t was for 3 some outrageous talk on the subject of women." Therefore, two months elapsed between the f i r s t order of October 22 for Patch to leave the States within twenty four hours and the final banishment order of December 23. This discrepancy in the time factor does not appear to have been noted up to now and i t does raise some interesting questions. Did a high o f f i c i a l intervene and request an extension that was subsequently granted? The actual reason for Patch's banishment has never been given. John Parker, when writing to Lord Charlemont, took great delight in inferring several possible reasons—that i t was because of his homo-1 Russell, "Thomas Patch, Sir William Lowther," p. 119. 2 Historical MSS. Commission, Twelfth Report, Appendix, Part X. Manuscripts and Correspondence of James, First Earl- of Charlemont (London: 1891), p. 222. 3 L. Lewis, Connoisseurs and Secret Agents, p. 172. 15 1 2 3 sexuality, giving a potion to a nun, or madness —"Crazy he always was." However, by May 22, 1756, Parker concedes that "I am of your lordship's opinion that his oddities and loose way of talking in 4 a l l companies was the cause of his exile." This seems to be confirmed in a letter of recommendation that has never been published or quoted from in relation to Patch studies. It is part of the letter to the Earl of Huntingdon written by Thomas. Steavens and dated January 31, 1756, Rome. It reads: "Your Lordship will find at Florence a Mr. Patch. He has been indiscreet in his conduct and conversation here, and was sent out of Rome by the 5 Inquisition." F. J. B. Watson when dealing with Patch's banishment gives a l l the known facts at the time of his article and leaves the question open but others such as Brinsley Ford and Ronald Paulson tend to dwell on the 'assumed' fact that he was a homosexual and thus banished for this reason. If this is the case, why wasn't Winckelmann, whose 1Charlemont Papers, p. 222, letter dated December 24, 1755. 2Ibid., p. 225, letter dated February 28, 1756. 3Ibid., p. 222, letter dated December 24, 1755. 4 I b i d . 5 Historical MSS. Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the late Reginald Rawdon Hastings, Esq., 3 vols. (London: 1934), p. 114. For the complete text of this letter see Appendix B. 6 Brinsley Ford, "Thomas Patch: A Newly Discovered Painting," Apollo LXXVII (March 1963): 173. Ronald Paulson, Emblem and Expression. Meaning in English Art of the Eighteenth Century. (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1975), p. 144. 16 proclivity for young men was well known, also banished? The question of espionage might also be raised as this was a time when England was s t i l l keeping an ever-watchful eye on the "Old Pretender's " court in Rome in the event that there should be another attempt to restore the Stuarts to the throne of Britain. Patch had 2 friends in both camps—Abbe" Grant who was attached to the Old 3 4 Pretender's court, as were Monseigneur Maresfoschi and Belloni --5 6 On the other side there was Jenkins, Albani, and Richard Dal ton who later became librarian to George I I I — a l l this putting Patch in an advantageous position to report on either side. One other activity that might well have caused some repercussions for him has been brought to light in an article by Francis Russell, but Russell does not relate i t to the banishment. It seems that in Sep-tember, 1755, Patch outlined in a letter to Sir William Lowther, a plan whereby he, in collusion with some members of the Muti family would substitute his copy of their Claude, and they in turn would sell the real one to Lowther--all this was to be kept secret from the rest of ^Luigi Barzini, The Italians (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1966), p. 33. 2 Peter Grant, the same Grant who accompanied Patch to the Notary. Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 20. 3 Cardinal York's auditor. Cardinal York was the Old Pretender's younger son. 4 Old Pretender's banker. 5 See p. 8 for more details regarding Patch s possible trip to Italy with this man. c According to several sources including Watson, i t was Dal ton with whom Patch went to Italy. See p. 8, fn. 4. 17 the family because the painting was entailed to the estate and there-fore not to be sold. 1 What is interesting is that the transaction started just prior to the f i r s t banishment and ended in February, 1756 when Patch writes that: ...my haveing l e f t Rome in this Manner I beleive [ s i c ] has been the means of the Pictures being more easely got out for the haveing intrusted i t with two or three whom I thought might be of Service in procureing more easely the Permission was the cause of its being made Publick but haveing made believe that i t was Long Since out of Rome they inquired no farther after it.2 When one considers that in January, 1754, Thomas Jenkins had been threatened with banishment by the Government of Rome because he had purchased a bust for a client and then taken a substantial profit 3 on i t , i t is easy to see how Patch with his 'copying' and 'sub-stituting' could incur a similar type of wrath from the authorities. The final word may have been hinted at by Patch himself in a letter written to Francis, Earl of Huntingdon. It is another letter never before referred to in any of the Patch studies, and therefore i t is reproduced here in its entirety: Florence, March, 1756: I hope in two months to have near finished the pictures for your Lordship; they are the four bridges on the Arno. Before your Lordship l e f t Florence, you was pleased to give attention to the t r i f l i n g embroils I met with whilst in Rome and never before had an opportunity of mentioning 'Russell, "Thomas Patch, Sir William Lowther," related in a letter dated September 15, 1755, p. 119. The Claude in question was Landscape with Apollo Guarding the Herds of Admetus and with Muses, 1652 (1.82 x 2.90 m) now in the National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh. 2 Russell, "Thomas Patch, Sir William Lowther," p. 119. 3 L. Lewis, Connoisseurs and Secret Agents, p. 167. 18 al l the circumstances to anyone where I could confide, particularly that which you judged the main cause, and not a week since I had a letter from the party with a declaration of the fact. At present I can't speak more freely, only that I hope one day to have an opportunity of showing your Lord-ship how villainously I have been used for having been too fai t h f u l , and i f i t ' s known that I have mentioned anything of i t to anyone I am s t i l l not safe..."! What the inference and innuendo in the letter is remains for future study, but whatever his 'crime' had been, i t had l i t t l e effect upon his reception and subsequent l i f e in Florence. He went with some excellent recommendations. In addition to the previously mentioned Steavens letter to the Earl of Huntingdon, Steavens also wrote to Horace Mann and "Procured [one] for me from 2 Cardinal Albani to Mr. Mann" and as Horace Mann records in a letter to Horace Walpole, "[He] brought the strongest letters of recommenda-tion hither from the unprejudiced prelate, Piccolomini, then gover-3 nor of Rome and since cardinal." As is seen in a letter written to Charlemont within a week of his arrival, Patch quickly settled down—"I am in hope of Soon finding Florance [sic] more Agreable and Profitable to me than Rome."4 ^Hastings Manuscripts, p. 116. 2Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 20. This letter is also cited in L. Lewis, Connoisseurs and Secret Agents, p. 172. 3 W. S. Lewis, Horace Walpole 's Correspondence with S%r Horace Mann, VII, p. 275. 4Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 20. CHAPTER II PATCH AND THE MANETTI CHAPEL FRESCOES In Florence in 1772 Thomas Patch published his third volume of engravings1 in which he reproduced a fresco cycle that Vasari in the f i r s t and second edition of his vite had attributed to Giotto (figs. 1 and 2). These frescoes had been in the church of Santa Maria del Carmine in the Manetti Chapel which, according to the old plan of the church, was located immediately on the right of 2 the Cappella Maggiore (fig. 3). Between 1765 and 1771 a partial renewal of the interior of the church had been underway and i t was nearly complete "alto che la 3 •parte di doratura when on the night of January 28, 1771 , a f i r e broke out in the church. The f i r e completely destroyed the nave because the tarred and wooden roof had collapsed and taken everything with i t . However, the right transept had been saved because of a quick-thinking fireman who had chopped a hole in the roof at the crossing and thus prevented the flames from spreading along the roof 1 Patch dedicated The Life of Masaccio to Horace Mann and The Life of Fra Bartolommeo to Horace Walpole. The Giotto series was dedicated to Bernardo Manetti: "a Noble man of Florence, Thomas Patch dedicates those monuments of the Ancient Splendour of his family as a Mark of his Obligation and Esteem." 2 The chapel was 4.20 m wide, 4.90 m long, height to the center of the entry arch was 9.55 m. 3 Procacci, L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 149. 19 20 to the Brancacci Chapel and the c l o i s t e r J Even so, the l e f t side wall of the Manetti Chapel, the side nearest the burning Sacristy, suffered heat damage and this caused some pieces of intonaoo to f a l l o f f . 2 The church was completely rebuilt and in the subsequent reconstruction the Manetti Chapel had to be destroyed ( f i g . 3, overlay). In Patch's words "in its room built up one of the pears[s-£c] which 3 is to sustain the cupola of the church, which is now rebuilding." Patch, on his own i n i t i a t i v e , had been working in the Brancacci Chapel, making sketches for later engravings of a l l the heads from 4 Masaccio's Raising of the Son of Theophilus. Immediately after the f i r e , he seems to have started to record the Manetti Chapel frescoes Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 150: ""non ritrovandosi alouna traccia di legnami -per eui potesse i t fuoao penetrar nelle oappelle" i danni fui>one assai minori; anohe se "tanta e tale fu I'attivita del calore, che arrivo ad incendiare tutto cid che di combustibile ritrovavasi in oiasoheduna cappella. " Semmai ebbero a so ff rive di piu le tre oappelle di fondo a cornu evangelii... "per essere state ripiene della tavole degli altari di ohiesa. "" 2 Ibid., p. 215. It is possible as we shall see later, that one of these pieces of intonaoo- was added to those that Patch later de-tached from the wall. He himself states "I only have saved some pieces with the permission of the owners of the chapel, which I have taken of [sic] the wall..." Patch, Giotto, p. I. The complete text of the Introduction to the Giotto engravings has been thought important enough to include as Appendix C. 3Ibid. 4 This particular scene was started by Masaccio but finished in the 1480's by Filippino Lippi. Regarding Patch's engravings of these 'heads' Horace Mann writing to Horace Walpole, February 22, 1771, states: "He was always an adorer of the heads of Masaccio in the Carmine, and both drew them and engraved them himself, and well he did i t in time, for about a fortnight ago the church was almost con-sumed by f i r e , and those paintings so much damaged..." W. S. Lewis, Horace Walpole's Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, Vol. VII, p. 275-76. 21 in sketches and to remove from the wall, loose and attached pieces of intonaoo that he thought would be valuable in preserving the 'memory' of the cycle J Unfortunately, Patch has l e f t us no details as to how he detached the fragments. Federico Zeri states that Patch "sawed off the extant portions off the walls," and Moloney writes that "Patch was employed, with Ferdinando Gregori, to remove some of the latter [frescoes] from the walls and re-mount them, probably on a canvas 3 backing." There appears to be no evidence to support this statement and Patch, as we have already noted stated that he alone saved the fragments.4 No mention of the technique for detachment was made by Vitzthum when he discussed attribution, or by Procacci when he researched and presented the events before, during and after the f i r e of 1771. How-ever, in the "Introduction" to an exhibition catalogue Procacci out-lines the history of the detachment of the intonaoo {stacco method) and also of the colour layer only {strappo method). He writes that Vrocacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 220 believes that many more pieces were removed than are presently accounted for. 2 Ferdinando Zeri, "Italian Primitives at Messrs. Wildenstein," Burlington Magazine 107 (1965): 253. 3 Moloney, Florence and England, p. 13, gives no source for this information. He may be confused with the fact that Patch and Gregori collaborated in 1774 in producing the engravings and the account book of Ghiberti's Porte del Battistero di Firenze. 4See p. 20, fn. 2. 5 Conte Giorgio Vitzthum, "Un ciclo di affreschi di Spinello Aretino, perduto," L'Arte 9 (1906): 199-203. The Great Age of Fresco - Giotto to Pontormo (New York: The Metropolitcan Museum of Art, 1968), pp. 12-44. 22 true, as opposed to accidental, detachments occurred as early as 16901 and by 1730, Antonio Contri, a Ferrarese a r t i s t , had perfected a 'secret' method of removing the intonaco--a method "not very different from the one used today." Contri died in 1732 and i t was feared the secret would be lost forever, but Lansi in the latter part of the eighteenth century wrote that detachment of frescoes "was perfected by others, and the new improved method spread widely." Procacci, continuing with the history of detachment, states that despite some "disastrous results", fresco detachments became numerous throughout 3 Italy during the eighteenth century. Therefore, i t would seem reasonable to assume that Patch was aware of these developments. What method (strappo or staooo) he used when he "took them off the wall" may be answered by the description of six of the fragments which are in the Campo Santo at Pisa: "Sei frammenti di affresco staccati oon I'intonaco sottostante, poi rin-4 grossato a rinforzo," thus indicating that he had used the staooo method. 1Procacci writes that Girolamo Baruffaldi in his "Vite di pittori e scultori ferraresi" cites the case when his father Niccolb suggested to one Giulio Panizza that he attempt to salvage, from a chapel due to be demolished, "some pieces of plaster on which were painted beautiful l i f e - s i z e heads." Apparently he succeeded in detaching 14 which he reinforced with plaster and gave to Niccolb as a g i f t . The Great Age of Fresco, p. 40. 2 Ibid., p. 41. For Contri's method of detachment see Appendix D. 3Ibid., p. 42. 4 Giuseppe Ramali, ed. Camposanto Monumentale di Pisa (Pisa: Opera della Primiziale Pisana, 1960), p. 91. 23 There are now twelve existing fragments, but when Procacci wrote his article he discussed the then known ten fragments and expressed the hope that his article might help to bring other fragments to l i g h t J The twelve fragments include two from the Visitation: the head of Elizabeth (fig. 4) and the half-length figure of her servant (fig. 5): two from the Naming and Birth of the Baptist: the half length figure of Saint Zacharias writing the name of his son (fi g . 6) and a group of three women holding the infant Saint John (fig. 7); two from the Preaching and Baptism: the head of Saint John Baptising Christ (fig. 8) and the heads of two angels witnessing the Baptism (fig. 9); three from the Dance of Salome: the half length figure of the musician (fi g . 10), the half length figure of Salome (fig. 11) and the head of one of the guests 3 (fig. 12); and three from the Beheading and Entombment: the head of Saint John praying (fig. 13), the foreshortened head of one disciple (fig. 14) and the bowed heads of two disciples (fig. 15). Six of the fragments are in the Ammannati Chapel, Campo Santo, 4 5 Pisa; two are in the Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool; one in the T^wo other fragments were discovered: the half length figure of Elizabeth's servant which was recognized by Longhi in 1939 as one of the lost fragments, and the head of a guest in the Dance which turned up on the New York art market in 1963. Federico Zeri recognized i t as one of the fragments and identified i t as King Herod from the Dance. This however, is open to question because the adjacent figure wears a crown and could therefore be Herod, but this crowned figure is in the restored section and may not represent what was originally there. See p.27 , fn. 2. 2 See note 1 above. 3 See note 1 above. 4 The head of Elizabeth, Zacharias writing, Saint John Baptising, the musician, the foreshortened head of the disciple and the two angels. 5 Salome, and Women with the infant Saint John. 24 National Gallery London;^ one in the Boymans van Beuningen collection; 3 one in the Malaspina Museum, Pavia; and one is owned by Adams, David-4 son and Company, Washington, D.C. L i t t l e or no information is given regarding the present con-dition of the fragments. The Servant of Elizabeth is described by van Os and Prakken as having "...cracks over the entire surface. Large areas are repainted in o i l , " and that "she wears a green dress 5 covered by a white shawl." It does seem strange that Patch did not detach more or larger pieces of fragments. One is s t i l l tempted to ask the question: "If he successfully detached some parts why didn't he detach and preserve a l l of them? Procacci was convinced that at least four more than he listed were in existence and he was hopeful that more would turn up as a result of his a r t i c l e . ^ What is interesting is that a l l the fragments he saved were of heads or groups of heads, and when we relate this to Patch's interest in the heads of the Masaccio fresco and to his recently begun study ^The two disciples. ? Elizabeth's servant. 3 Saint John Praying. 4The 'guest' at the Danoe. 5 H. W. van Os and M. Prakken, The Florentine Paintings in Holland, 1300-1500 (Maarssen: Gary Schwartz, 1974), p. 103. ^Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 232. 25 of physiognomy, we may have a possible explanation. Patch seems to have started this study around 1770-71 as is confirmed in a 2 letter written by a relative who visited him in later years, and also by a painting entitled Conversation Piece dated 1774 where he depicts himself on the extreme right holding under his arm a 3 volume of his study Le Regole del Fisonomizare (figs. 16 and 17). Besides removing the fragments, Patch set to and sketched the 4 frescoes as a record for posterity. This is apparent when he wrote: His serious study at this time may have been the result of influences which could certainly be traced back to his early years when he was apprenticed to Dr. Richard Mead sometime during the 1740's. In 1746, Dr. James Parsons gave a series of lectures to the Royal Society on Human Physiognomy (F. Antal, Hogarth and His Place in European Art [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962], p. 242, n. 17). Mead would probably have heard these lectures since we know that he was a member of the Royal Society, even its vice-president from 1717 to his death. [Dictionary of National Biography, p. 181). Also his interest in physiognomy is shown by the fact that in his library was a copy of G. B. del la Porta's De Humana Physiognomonia of 1586 (Antal, Hogarth, p. 132) and as Patch's interest in caricature can be traced back to his youth in Exeter {Farington Diary, VI, p. 181), i t is more than likely he had free access to Mead's books and interests. 2 Gideon Caulet, Patch's brother's step-son. In a letter cited by Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 30. 3 Watson reports that there were three volumes written by Patch, which were stolen in the late 1770's by a French Duke who was pursued as far as Marseilles. Unfortunately, when he was confronted and "politely requested to restore the work he had so rudely 'borrowed'", he panicked and destroyed the volumes by throwing them into a f i r e . Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 30. 4 As previously stated i t is possible that before Patch started sketching the frescoes, he either salvaged some fallen pieces or removed those which were precariously loose. (Procacci, "L'incendio del la Chiesa del Carmine," p. 217-8). The evidence for this may be seen in the fragment of the head of Saint John kneeling and praying just prior to his beheading. Patch has recorded this part in the sketch as a portion of the arriccio and yet there is an existing fragment of fresco. Surely he would have included i t in his sketch as part of the intonaco i f i t had s t i l l been firmly attached. 26 "I was desirous of preserving at least the memory, which may give some pleasure to those, who are willing to reflect on the different stages of painting."1 Procacci believes i t was probably Vasari's attribution to Giotto that caused Patch to save the fragments and 2 make the sketches. The sketches represent six fresco scenes depicting ten episodes from the l i f e of Saint John the Baptist. They are: The Annunciation to Saint Zacharias (fig. 18a) The Visitation (fig. 19a) The Birth and Naming of Saint John (fig. 18b) Saint John Breaching and the Baptism of Christ ( f i g . 19b) Saint John in Prison and the Dance of Salome (fig. 19c) The Beheading and Entombment of the Baptist. (fig. 18c) In addition to the six scenes Patch also engraved details of five heads. Three from the Annunciation to Saint Zacharias: two of his attendants on the right and one from the group on the l e f t ; two from the Saint John in Prison and the Dance of Salome: the head of 3 Salome and the head of one of Saint John's disciples. Procacci believes i t is possible that Patch may have engraved these five heads from five fragments (figs. 20, 21, 22. 23. 24) , " p r o b a b i l e m e n t e lucidati di sopra agli stessi originali,"4but the only one where we have a 1 Patch, Giotto, p. I. 2 Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 215. 3 Ibid., p. 220, states i t is one of the heads from Saint John Preaching but this writer cannot agree with this. Those figures wear hats and the hair differs. One might also disagree with the head in the l e f t hand group of the Annunciation to Saint Zacharias. In many ways i t resembles the figure on the l e f t , behind the p i l l a r , in the Naming of Saint John. 4 Ibid. However, this might not be the case i f indeed the one head was from behind the p i l l a r . 27 1 detail by Patch and also a fragment is the head of Salome. The manner in which Patch records these sketches points to a man who possessed a sensitivity towards art historical preservation as is seen when he outlines his methodology for us in his introduction to the sketches: "I have marked out the places where only remained the outlines in red, under the coat of plastering where the painting was,.. I have likewise marked out with a dotted line, the parts which had 2 been modernly repainted, on the original outlines." Naming Birth Beheading Entombment Prison Dance Left wall Right wall Diagram 1. Sequence of Manetti Ghapel frescoes Because the plate numbering of the engraved sketches does not conform in any way to the known iconography of the Saint John cycle,' Procacci was faced with the problem of placing them in their correct order and Diagram 1 shows the order in which he suggested that they should be arranged. Procacci believes that i f Patch copied one fragment, i.e. Salome, he possibly copied the other four and hopefully there could be four other undiscovered fragments. Ibid., p. 221 2 . Patch, Giotto, p.II. 'Moderno' sections include a l e f t hand portion in the Visitation, a right hand portion in both the Birth and Dance scenes. 3r Patch's numbering is as follows: I. Frontispiece; II. Visitation; III. Birth & Naming; IV. Annunciation; V. Baptism & Preaching; VI. Prison and Dance; VII. Beheading & Entombment. 28 Procacci proposed this order on the basis of the heat damage to the l e f t wall which caused the intonaoo to f a l l and expose the arriccio, whereas no such damage is to be noted on the right hand wall. 1 (See figs. 18 a,b,c, and 19 a,b,c.) This excellent research of Procacci's on the construction of the old church of the Carmine enables us to know the location and size of the Manetti Chapel,.and his facts regarding the f i r e helped to determine the order of the frescoes. Patch's engraved sketches record the whole cycle and the detached fragments are first-hand examples of the 'master's' work. But who is the master of this cycle? Vasari says i t was Giotto. The dating of the chapel has determined that i t cannot be by Giotto but dating, spatial distribution and architecture may also indicate that Vitzthum's attribution to Spinello Aretino should be re-examined. Before doing this i t is necessary to determine Patch's a b i l i t y to copy accurately and then review the history of past attributions. One other possible arrangement to consider might be to switch the Birth and Earning scene with the Preaching and Baptism scene. All the restoration work would then appear on one wall--the right one--possibly indicating that i t had suffered from dampness. How-ever, the shadows conform with, and confirm Procacci's order. All the frescoes on the l e f t wall have a light source from the right and those on the right wall from the l e f t . Procacci indicates that some of the windows of the original chapel can s t i l l be seen on the exterior of the present building. Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 152. CHAPTER III PATCH AS A COPYIST We have seen that the two principal sources of data and analysis of the sketches and fragments of the Manetti Chapel fresco 1 2 cycle are Vitzthum and Procacci. The former deals specifically with the attribution of the cycle whereas the latter deals with the old plan of the church, the f i r e that destroyed i t , the dating of the frescoes, their sequence, a detailed analysis of the existing fragments and an indication of which scenes they belonged to. In fact the two articles seem to complement one another and yet they seem to disagree on one vital point—Patch's a b i l i t y to copy accurately. The purpose of this section then, is to establish that Patch was indeed an accurate and careful recorder of what he saw, but fail i n g this and no less importantly, to establish some form of visual yardstick against which a viewer could accept Patch's copy work. In other words, are there any characteristics common to his work which, when applied to the Manetti Chapel frescoes, will enable us to analyze and understand these copies better? Neither Vitzthum nor Procacci did any objective assessment of Patch's s k i l l as a copyist. Vitzthum states that "Le figure non sono Vitzthum, "Un ciclo di affreschi," pp. 199-203. 2 Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," pp. 141-232. 29 30 naturalemente cop-Late fedetmente nelle stampe del Patch" but adds that he would now know in what way they are contrary to the style of Spinello. 1 Despite this he bases at least f i f t y percent of his attribution to Spinello Aretino on these sketches stating in fact 2 that "Le riproduzioni del Patch rafforzano poi la nostra opinione. " 3 In rebutting an aside made by Mesnil Procacci claims that " i f the six engravings done in half-tones and treated directly from the frescoes, are not masterpieces of fineness, they have yet no small advantage of being faithful enough in respect to the originals." 4 But even so, "being faithful enough" is not sufficient to establish Patch's proficiency as a copyist so i t is necessary to review briefly some events that may help to establish his s k i l l . Part of the standard curriculum of a l l budding artists was the copying of masters and there is no indication that Patch's training was any different. In fact i t would appear he excelled at i t because by 1752 he was commissioned by Ralph Howard (Viscount Wicklow) to 5 copy four Vernets. Watson believes that even today many Patches are ^Vitzthum, "Un ciclo di affreschi," p. 199. 2Ibid. 3 Mesnil, when writing about the Brancacci Chapel,noted briefly in a footnote that the engravings of the frescoes were "made from the designs recovered f i r s t from the f i r e , by an inexperienced hand, with no idea of showing the style of the author and the character of the figures." Jacques Mesnil, "Per la storia della cappella Brancacci," Rivista d'Arte.Mlll (1912):37 n. 1, as cited by Procacci in "L'incendio, della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 216. As will be seen, Mesnil's informa-tion is completely incorrect. 4 I b i d . 5 Brmsley Ford, "Richard Wilson in Rome. The Wicklow Wilsons," Burlington Magazine, XCII (May 1951), p. 157, and Claude-Joseph Vernet, p. 7. 31 masquerading as Vernets! 1 Also, Claude's Landscape with Apollo Guarding the Herds of Admetus and with Muses is in Britain today because of Patch's a b i l i t y to duplicate the master's style so well that his copy stayed in Italy and the real one was smuggled . 2 out. Patch was therefore an established and obviously a skilled copyist. However, we are here discussing painted copies of land-scapes whereas the Manetti Chapel fresco engravings are a record of an entire fresco cycle depicting figures within or against architectural settings. His purpose in reproducing this set of engravings was quite different from his copies of paintings which were intended for individual collectors. It was also different from the motives that prompted his copying of the sets of The Life of Masaccio and The Life of Fra Bartolommeo. Before we can c r i t i -cize his work then we must understand what these reasons were, for they define the form, type and degree of accuracy which the a r t i s t wished to achieve. In his Life of Masaccio he talks of doing the engravings in these words: "I have therefore thought that i t would be acceptable to the lovers of Painting and useful to the Arts in general to preserve the memory of at least a few of the most chosen heads of 3 this excellent Painter." His emphasis was on heads and physiognomy. ]Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 16. 2Russell, "Thomas Patch, Sir William Lowther," p. 119. 3 Patch, Masaccio, p. II. 32 But there is another important statement which indicates that the aim of this work was not necessarily an exact copy of these frescoes. He had a particular method of representation which he was empha-sizing: "...having attempted by a Pictoresque manner of engraving to preserve the s t i l e and the simplicity of the fresco, which does not require the exactness or the minute touches of a more accurate engraver. Because Masaccio and Fra Bartolommeo were in the same series, though in different folios, i t is probable that we can safely infer that Patch's aim in reproducing the Fra Bartolommeo1s was the same. This seems particularly the case since he says in the Fra Bartolommeo fo l i o : "I have undertaken to publish as many of the works of this celebrated Author, as are to be found in Tuscany, "hopeing that 2 the method I have taken in this work may be useful to the arts. " However, for the Manetti frescoes he makes i t clear that "Those pictures of Giotto in the Church of the Carmelites are no 'Ibid. 2 Thomas Patch, The Life of Fra Bartolommeo, p. I. The i t a l i c s are the writer's. It is interesting to note Patch's reference to his methods and style of engraving. He was aiming to present the work in what he calls a "Pictoresque manner" which did not require the "exactness or minute touches of a more accurate engraver." This would perhaps make an interesting extension to this thesis: Did Patch actually contribute anything new to the art of engrav-ing by his work? Does he talk about i t in The Life of Masaccio and then perfect i t in The Life of Fra Bartolommeo? Note that the Fra Bartolommeo sketch of The Presentation in the Temple which will be discussed at length within the text (also the Manetti Chapel fresco engravings) appears to be a form of aquatint rather than the line engraving which is found in the Masaccios. 33 more to be seen except in the following prints...and since the whole was to have been destroyed, I was desirous of preserving at least the memory..."1 There is no emphasis hereon any one particular aspect of the frescoes such as the heads or the 'method1. He is only intent on recording the "whole". The reasons for executing the works were different and at the same time i t is necessary to establish his accuracy or to determine the visual yardstick by which to judge his 'record'. Perhaps to do this i t would be preferable to be able to compare his engraved heads with their original fresco heads and preferably those that have not been detached, reinforced or possibly repainted. Secondly, we should compare one or more engraved sketches showing an architectural background, keeping the following questions in mind: Do the figures portray the correct proportion in relation to the background? Are they accurate in detail? At each stage we should ask ourselves whether Patch has been able to retain the individual characteristics of the master he is copying. In 1771, the same year that Patch engraved the Manetti Chapel frescoes, he was engraving a series of works in San Marco by Fra Bartolommeo. In five instances he engraved a sketch of the general area of the picture and then produced engraved details of heads within i t . One such painting was the altarpiece of the Novitiates--The Presentation in the Temple (fig. 25). Patch made an engraved sketch of this altarpiece showing Saint Simeon in the centre taking the child Jesus from Mary who is on the right (fig. 26). On the 1 Patch, Giotto, p. I. 34 l e f t is Saint Joseph, and kneeling down between him and Saint Simeon is Anna. Behind her is a female saint. Behind a l l the figures there is an architectural backdrop of an altar flanked by pi l l a r s . In addition to the sketch, Patch engraved details of a l l the heads in the altarpiece,and i f we compare his heads with the originals there is no doubt that in them Patch excels as a copyist. It is worth noting the individual physiognomical details of the Madonna, Anna and Saint Joseph (figs. 27, 28, 29), they conform exactly to the originals in lighting, shading and drapery. In his general sketch of the scene the detailing of the background, the perspective, and the proportions are good. He has not given us a l l the physiognomical details because these are taken care of in the engraved details of the heads, but he has taken enough care to record lighting effects, gestures, and even such details as the sandals and the decorative hem of Saint Simeon's gown.1 We see before us a sketch that appears well copied, proportion-ate and accurate. Patch in fact has captured the main essence and ingredients of the altarpiece. However, while there appears to be no inaccuracy in his reproduc-tion, there appear to be some general differences. The figures seem to be slightly over-emphasized—not only in the detail of the clothing but also in height. The latter could be due to the fact that he ^This is barely perceptible in the photo of the original which is supplied. 35 probably had to look up at the altarpiece to sketch i t . 1 As for the former, we should not forget that' Patch was attempting to trans-late tone, colour and shading into line, monochrome and cross-hatching. Soft blending edges of colour in the painting become incisive defining lines in the engraved sketch, thus producing an emphasis and hardness to the folds of the drapery and to the figures as a whole. How much this was due to his "Pictoresque" technique we do not know, but i t is the type of thing in which the difference we find could be a result of the end result our a r t i s t want to achieve. The background architecture is beautifully balanced and its general characteristics are accurately enough portrayed. That there is a difference in detail, the apparently large round p i l l a r on the right has become narrower and is flanked by strips of architecture, is probably accounted for again in the artist's objec-tive. Our judgement of the accuracy in architecture here should be measured against the fact that we know that his main interest in this cycle lay with figures and physiognomy rather than with architecture. His reason for doing the Manetti Chapel frescoes however, is quite different and any discrepancies which occur cannot be so lightly regarded. In this cycle we do not have the original frescoes to compare the sketches with but we do have the fragments which Patch 1 Patch in his notes, stated that i t measures 3' 10" x 4' and he also described the colour and noted that some of the hands had not been finished. Patch, The Life of Fra Bartolommeo, p. II. 36 detached. All of them conform and compare favourably except for 1 2 two: Saint John Praying and the Women Holding the Child. In the Saint John fragment there is a definite difference in the pose and gesture in i t and in the sketch, but then Patch has drawn the sinopia drawing on the arriocio and this difference can be explained away by the fact that the pose and gestures were more than likely 3 changed by the 'master' when painting the final layer of intonaoo. However, the inconsistencies in the Women and Child fragment cannot be treated so lightly. It should be noted that on the fragment, two lines of architecture rise up behind the woman on the left; and the woman on the right peers out from behind the woman holding the child. In the sketch, the two lines of architecture are shown as a branching off of the arches and the woman appears much ta l l e r . On the other hand, i t should be noticed that when Cavalcaselle refers to this fragment, he describes i t and the Salome fragment in these words: "[They] have been so much damaged and are now so dark of outline that, though Giottesque in style, i t would be d i f f i c u l t to 4 affirm that they are his." It is interesting that a similar discrepan-cy is found in Salome which is also referred to in this quote. Patch shows the mouth partly open and the fragment shows i t closed, but i t may Vrom the Beheading and Entombment. -The fragment is in Pavia. 2 From the Naming and Birth. The fragment is in Liverpool. 3 This fragment was possibly one that-had to be detached before Patch ccould start sketching the cycle. See p. 25, fn. 4. 4 J. A. Crowe and G. B. Cavalcaselle, A History of Painting in Italy, 6 vols. (London: John Murray, 1914), 111:87. 37 only appear this way on the fragment because of a dark contour line that outlines the face. Was this a later addition to the frag-ment? It is more than probable that some retouching has been done but this cannot be determined at this time. Patch in fact may here be absolutely correct! In a l l fairness to him i t would seem that his a b i l i t y to copy faces is already copiously and firmly established and therefore any doubts regarding the Salome fragment can be regarded as being purely academic. It is necessary to reiterate that the importance of Patch's aim in reproducing the Manetti Chapel fresco cycle must not be overlooked. He has stated that his emphasis here has to be on the overall presentation of the whole cycle not just on faces and figures. In this regard he is precise and accurate enough to record even the disproportion of Elizabeth's servant's right arm which sticks out so obviously in the fragment! In summary we can say that Patch is capable of a high degree of accuracy and while the sketches may over-emphasize the figures slightly, the proportion, perspective and details are usually correct. 1 Because the purpose of his sketching the works of Fra Bartolommeo is different from his reason for doing the Manetti Chapel frescoes, i t is probable that the frescoes will be very accurate in form and proportion. We might be guarded enough to repeat that there is probably an intensity ^Only one comparison has been made for this paper but i f other such sketches could be found and compared they might help to establish a more satisfactory yardstick by which to judge a l l of Patch's copy work. 38 of fold in the clothing which is due more to the technique of reproduction than anything else. Also because of viewpoint, there may be a tendency for him to over-emphasize height of figures. With these points in mind, then let us be guided in our interpretation of his sketches when we review and consider attribu-tion. CHAPTER IV THE ATTRIBUTION OF THE MANETTI CHAPEL FRESCOES Patch seems to have been motivated in a l l his work by his interest in Giotto, his sensitivity to art historical preservation and probably the interest in connoisseurship which made him pre-serve the fragments. But i t is important at this moment in the thesis that we examine the history of past attributions and the reasons for the present one. Patch's engraved sketches do not seem to have been looked at until Vitzthum's attribution of 1906 and even then they do not appear to have been utilized to their f u l l e s t extent. As previously noted, Vasari had been the f i r s t to attribute this fresco cycle to Giotto when he noted that he "lavorb anco nella ahiesa del Carmine, alia oappella di San Giovanni Battista, tutta la 1 2 vita-di quel Santo divisa in piu. quadri" and subsequent writers followed along with this attribution. Patch then sketched and salvaged the fragments but no mention seems to have been made of the sketches or the fragments until 1837 when Waagen noted that there were three ^Vasari, Vol. I, p. 141, and Vasari/Milanesi I, p. 376 as cited by Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 212. 2 Borghini, 1730, p. 234, and Baldinucci (Mann edition), p. 114 as cited by Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 212. 39 40 fragments in England.1 In the same year Grassi also noted the six 2 fragments at the Campo Santo in his guide of Pisa. Both Waagen and Grassi concurred with the Giotto attribution. Grassi in his 1851 edition of his guide, changed his attribution to the School of Giotto. Cavalcaselle in the English edition of 1864, believed that the fragments came from different parts of the church and thought that the fragment in the National Gallery in London was done by 4 Giotto. However, in the second Italian edition of 1875 he changed the attribution to the School of Giotto and corrected his previous statement regarding their location. Then in 1906 Conte Giorgio Vitzthum, by studying the sketches and seven of the fragments, rejected the Giotto attribution and assigned the cycle to Spinello 5 Aretino. The purpose of this chapter will be to show on what basis this attribution was made and also review the follow-up work that was done 'Waagen, G.F.j Kunstuerke und Kilnster in England und Paris, (Berlin: 1837), as cited by Procacci, "L'incendio dell a Chiesa del Carmine," p. 226. These fragments are the two in Liverpool (then in the Liverpool Royal Institution) and the one in the National Gallery, London (then in the Rogers Collection). 2 Ranieri Grassi, Bescrizione storicae artistioa di Pisa e de* suoi aontorni, II, (1837), p. 174 as cited by Procacci, "L'incendio del la Chiesa del Carmine," p. 226. 3 Crowe and Cavalcaselle, A History of Painting in Italy, 1:311. 4 Vol. I, p. 536-38 as cited by Procacci, "L'incendio del la Chiesa del Carmine," p. 226. 5Vitzthum, "Un ciclo di affreschi," p. 199-203. He examined the six fragments at Pisa and the one in the National Gallery, London. At that time, nine fragments were known but in the following year, 1907, Venturi, Storia dell'Arte Italiana. (Leichtenstein: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1907) V:878-80 added the fragment at Pavia of Saint John Praying. 41 by Procacci regarding the dating of the cycle and his reasons for placing i t in a different chronology from Vitzthum 1s. Secondly, i t will be shown that the documents as presented by him are sub-ject to another interpretation that could open >up the question of the dating of the frescoes once again and indicate a need for a review of the whole question of attribution. It is even possible that out of this would come a complete re-assessment of the work of Spinello Aretino. In 1906, using seven of the fragments and the sketches of Patch, Vitzthum compared similarities which he believes existed in the faces, architecture and the f i l l i n g of space in the Manetti Chapel frescoes with those of the Life of Santa Caterina at Antella and the Life of San Benedetto at San Miniato, Florence. The detail of this will be discussed later. The net effect was that he placed the Manetti Chapel frescoes between those of the Antella and San Miniato, thus dating them circa 1385-87.^ In 1932, Procacci recorded the history of the old church of the Carmine and specifically the Manetti Chapel. He traced the prior story of the attribution, and stated that he whole-heartedly agreed with Vitzthum but that he did not agree with Vitzthum's sequence and "ipveferirei considerave le storie di San Benedetto a ^Vitzthum, "Un ciclo di affreschi," p. 203. 42 San Miniato anteriori agli affreschi del Carmine e dell'Antella. He believed that the composition of the Manetti Chapel frescoes was clearer and that there was a simplicity in the harmonious and balanced groups such as the Entombment, which led him to conclude that this cycle "represents the best painting of Spinello when his art was alive and genuine and has not had anything to do as yet with the collaboration of the workshop." --"Che siamo davanti al miglior periodo di Spinello, quando la sua arte e viva e genuina non tooca anoora dalla larga oollaborazione della bottega. " Procacci then traced the record of the earlier attribution to Giotto and came to the conclusion that i t was misreadings and mis-interpretations that had sustained the attribution of Vasari. He 3 believed that his primary source, the Padronati had recorded 'Vitzthum's attribution was also accepted by Siren, Giottino, (Lipsia, 1908), p. 95; Salmi Khvosinsky, I pittori toscani dal XIII al XVI see., vol. II, (Roma: 1914), pp. 51-54; as cited by Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 226; And: Berenson, Italian Painters, (1907), p. 106; however, in Berenson's Central Italian Painters, (1911), p. 186 he attributed the two fragments at Liverpool to the Florentine School and Ambrogio Lorenzetti. Cited in Foreign Schools Catalogue, (Liverpool: Walker Art Gallery, 1963), p. 187. And: R. van Marie, The Development of the Italian Schools of Painting, III,pp..591-93; G. Gombosi, Spinello Aretino, (Budapest: Im Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1926), p. 47-48; Martin Davies, Earlier Italian Schools, (London:National Gallery, 1951) p. 387. 2 Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine, p. 230. 3 . . Libro de Padronati delle cappelle e sepolture della chiesa della Beatissima Vergine Maria del Carmine di Firenze, dove sono notati ancora gli oblighi, che sono a dette cappelle. Fatto 1'anno MDCLXXXIX. Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 142. 43 correctly that the chapel was "fondata da Vanni Manetti del Buono nel tempo che ancor viveva S. Andrea Corsini,^ ohe ne fu i l promotore, come appare per memorie autentiche che tuttavia si 2 conservano appresso i signori Manetti. " In other words, Vanni Manetti and Andrea Corsini had been contemporaries, and the latter, as revealed by documents s t i l l retained by the Manetti family, had promoted the building of the church. However, when Cinelli had interpreted the statement in the late 1600's he claimed "che quando Giotto dipingeva la cappella "vi assisteva S. Andrea Corsini, ch'era di famiglia nel medesimo convento ed era confessore di'i.Vanni Manetti che lo lascib esecutore di suo testamento ordinando in quello che 3 tal cappella s^ d^p^ngesse"" thus giving the impression that Vanni Manetti was already dead, and that S. Andrea Corsini was f u l f i l l i n g the requirements of the will by having Giotto paint the chapel. Procacci points out that there were many errors in this statement. First of a l l there were three wills, not the single one that Cinelli seems to imply. The f i r s t was dated September 29, 1348, the second October 31, 1350, and the third August 29, 1357. So the dates of the last will seemed to rule out any possibility of Giotto having been the decorator of the chapel as he had died in 1336/7, and the last date proves that Vanni Manetti was alive and well as ^Andrea di Niccolo Corsini, born 1301, died 1374. Carmelite prior at Florence; Bishop of Fiesole,1349; Legate at Bologne, 1364; Canonized, 1629. 2 Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 212. 3 Ibid., Cinelli as quoted by Procacci. 44 late as 1357. It is the content of the f i r s t and second wills that also helped Procacci to date the fresco cycle because Vanni Manetti had written specifically: "Item iuxit vouit et mandavit testator prediotus quod cappella quam ipse testator fieri fecit in ecclesia fratrum Sancte Marie de Carmello de Florentia sub vocabulo beati Johannis Baptiste pingatur decoretur et addornetur quam melius fieri poterit eo tempore et prout et sicut infrascriptis commissis et executoribus suis vel quattuor ex eis placuerit et vide-bitur convenire et pro dicta cappella et ad servitium dicte oappelle ematur et emi et dari debeat de suis bonis unus liber messalis valoris usque in triginta florenos de auro ut cum illo calice qui iam est diu fuit emptus pro servitio 2 ipsius oappelle et ibidem divinum officium celebrari possit. " Procacci believes therefore, that the fresco cycle had to be commenced sometime after the third w i l l , that is after 1357, on or 3 after the death of Manetti. His argument is valid only i f we 'Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 214. Des-pite what Cinelli says, Procacci claims that Andrea Corsini was never an executor in any of the wills. In the f i r s t one he is named only as a beneficiary of one f l o r i n . He is not mentioned in the second will because he had been created bishop of Fiesole in 1349. However, in the third w i l l , a fellow Carmelite by the name of Andrea da Bonazza was named as an executor, and Procacci beliey.es that i t was the simi-l a r i t y in the names that caused Cinelli to make the mistake. See also Procacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 213, fn. 1. 2 Ibid. "[He] orders, wishes and commands that the chapel that the "Benefactor" has constructed in the church of the Brothers of Santa Maria del" Carmini at Florence, under the name of B. J. Baptist be painted decorated and adorned as well as possible at that time and in so far as the undersigned, his commissioners and executors, or four of them are pleased and will be seen to agree and the afore-said chapel ought to be bought, given and used in the service at that chapel and also from his goods [buy] one mass book in the value of 30 golden florins and with a chalice which already has been bought for the service and celebration of the divine office [in] that chapel." 3Ibid., p. 214. It should be noted that i f Manetti were 30 years of age at this time this would give a leeway to 1387 before the painting started. 45 accept his assumption that the instructions found in the f i r s t and second wills, and here quoted at length, are also to be found in the third w i l l . Procacci mentions that these instructions regarding the chapel were in the f i r s t and second wills, but he makes no specific mention of i t having been in the third w i l l . If i t wasn't in the third will (and this writer has no way of knowing at this time) then i t indicates that the painting of the fresco cycle could have commenced during Vanni's lifetime, and therefore could be dated as early as 1350--the date of the second w i l l . This earlier dating would immediately place the decoration of the chapel within the range of Bernardo Daddi, Taddeo Gaddi, Nardo di Cione, Orcagna and even Maso di Banco.1 On the other hand, the assumption of the instructions being in the third will would put the commencement of the painting well out of the range of Giotto, and into the range of Agnolo Gaddi, Antonio Veneziano, Giovanni del Biondo and even Spinello Aretino. It is obvious that the third will should be re-examined to see whether or not the same instructions regarding the chapel, as are in the f i r s t two wills, are included in i t . If they are, then the date would be after 1357 but i f not, then i t would indicate that the chapel may have already been decorated and thus advance the possible dating to a period between 1350 and 1357. The writer believes that this earlier dating is feasible and several logical reasons can be given to support i t . By 1348 the 1 Appendix E has been included to give some idea of the time frame which is under consideration and to expand these thoughts into some con-crete suggestions on some other artists who are worthy of being con-sidered as painters of the Manetti Chapel frescoes. 46 chapel had been completed and paid for except for the decoration, but 1348 was also the year of the Black Death, and i t would stand to reason that Vanni Manetti would wish to ensure that in the event of his death the chapel would be completed, hence the instructions in the wills of 1348 and 1350. We have evidence from Millard Meiss that a similar situation occurred when Buonamico di Lapo Guidalotti provided funds in 1355 for the frescoes of the Spanish Chapel. After the c r i s i s was over, there occurred an added psychological need to complete a structure as an expression of gratitude for survival and sorrow.1 It is quite conceivable that Manetti would have wished to complete this work under the same conditions. After doing so he would have had to write another will to remove the instructions regarding the chapel. This would have been this third w i l l . Also, i f we look at other reasons for Manetti 1s rewriting of his wills another interesting question arises. Two possible reasons can be given for his second w i l l . In the f i r s t he had named three of his children, Filippa, Agostanza and Lisa, as executors, and Andrea di Niccolo Corsini and Andrea di Cione da Bonnazza as two of the beneficiaries. In the second he names only two of his children, Filippa and Lisa as executors and names a com-pletely new l i s t of executors along with them. Perhaps the Black ^Meiss reports that by September, 1348, only, half the population of Florence living within the walls had survived. M. Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death. (New York: Harper Torch-books, 1964), p. 65; For reference to Spanish Chapel, p. 79. 2 Whether this person was related in any way to the a r t i s t i c 'Ciones' cannot be determined. All that is known of him is that he was a Carmelite f r i a r at the church. 47 Death had taken a heavy t o l l among his friends! Andrea di Cione da Bonazza becomes an executor in the third will in 1357 and he died in 1358.1 It is interesting to speculate that i f Vanni Manetti did the second will because of the possible death of executors, would he not have done a fourth will because of Andrea di Cione da Bonazza's death, and i f there is no fourth w i l l , does this mean that he too was dead by 1358? If he was, then an early dating of the frescoes is more than ever indicated. Although Procacci claims there is other evidence to support the attribution of Vitzthum " s i potrebbero forse aggiungere a quelli citati altri paragoni e accostamenti fra i nostri affreschi e le opere sicure di Spinello; ma credo cib inutile data 1'evidenze 2 dell'attribuzione," he does not offer any specific items because he feels that the attribution is already so obvious. Yet of the twelve fragments Procacci only based his argument on the six at Pisa. It should also be noted that neither Vitzthum nor Procacci did any colour analysis of the fragments, Procacci only referring to the 3 paleness of those at Pisa which he attributed to the f i r e . Procacci also notes that Vasari in the second edition of his Vite assigned the frescoes in both the Cappella di Santa Maria Vrocacci, "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine," p. 155. 2Ibid., p. 227. 3 Ibid., p. 232. Of these six, Crowe and Cavalcaselle say the angel fragment is more like a. Taddeo or Agnolo Gaddi, {A History of Painting in Italy, p. 87) and Van Marie says that a l l six are more directly inspired by Andrea or Nardo di Cione than by Spinello Aretino {'lite •Development of the Italian Schools of Painting, p. 594). 48 Maddalena and the Cappella del Crocifisso to Spinello Aretino. 1 But he does not follow through on the interesting question that he raises in this statement. Why did Vasari not l i s t the Manetti Chapel as also being done by Spinello Aretino? It would appear obvious that i f Vasari had recognized these two cycles as being Spinello's he surely would also have noted the Manetti Chapel frescoes at the same time, unless of course he could not recognize them at a l l as having been done by Spinello. Let us then have a look at the basis of Vitzthum's attribution to Spinello Aretino. His analysis of the fragments themselves appears to be very 2 tenuous. He only examines seven fragments. He suggests that the profiles and the hair styles of the angels in the frescoes of Santa Caterina at Antella "conoordano perfettamente" with the two angels 3 in the Baptism of Christ. He sees a similarity between the Saint Elizabeth in the Visitation of the Manetti Chapel frescoes and the wet nurse in the f i r s t scene of the Antella cycle, and notes a marked resemblance between Saint Zacharias in the Naming of the Baptist and 4 the hermit in the Baptism of Saint Catherine by the Hermit. He extends 1 Ibid., p. 174-5. 2 He does not however indicate whether he actually did this in person or by photographs. 3 The halo is similar but the diadem is f a i r l y conventional to many artists at this time, e.g. Orcagna, Nardo di Cione, and the treatment of the hair is a l i t t l e contrived whereas in the Baptism i t is more natural. 4 There is indeed a similarity between them but the same can be said when this is compared to Saint Benedict by Nardo di Cione. 49 this to a similarity that he feels exists between the faces of the two disciples fragment and the face of the elderly San Benedetto of the San Miniato cycle, specifically King Totila before San Benedetto and also the one disciple on the right hand side of the Entombment of Maria of 1385. He adds that the head of Christ in the Coronation of Maria in Siena resembles that of the Saint John fragment at Pisa. 1 He concludes by stating that the "style of Spinello is recognizable above a l l in the low forehead, in the eyebrows and straight-line noses, in the small rather grumbly mouths, in the ears and in the hair. Vitzthum then turns to the sketches of Patch which he states "rafforzano" his opinion. He believes the architecture in the 'Vitzthum, "Un ciclo di affreschi," p. 199. 2 A complete examination of a l l the fragments must be done to determine just how much repainting and restoration has been done to them. It would appear that this has never been attempted and yet a good part of the reasoning for, and subsequent support of Vitzthum1s attribution is based on these fragments—fragments that in the past have been described as being "less like a Giotto than a Taddeo or Agnolo Gaddi," (Crowe and Cavalcaselle, A History of Painting in Italy, p. 87);possessing a "rather Orcanesque" feeling, or "directly inspired by Andrea or Nardo di Cione," (van Marie, The Development of the Italian Schools of Painting, p. 592). In addition see Appendix E for "Some Thoughts on Taddeo Gaddi, Maso di Banco and Nardo di Cione as Possible Painters of the Manetti Chapel Frescoes." Also an interesting footnote is recorded in Procacci's a r t i c l e . When discussing the fate of the transept chapels in the construction of the present church he writes: "in dlcune piccdle Stanze a lato della scala che sale all 'organo, si consefiva ancora la parete sinistra della cappella, quella cioe adiacente alia cappella maggiore. " He certainly seems to be referring to the Manetti Chapel and yet he and others do not seem to have examined this wall! 50 Birth and Naming of Saint John relates spatially, structurally and perspectively to the architecture in the Expulsion of the Evil Spirit in San Miniato. 1 He notes that the corner points with statues in the Annunciation 'stay close' to those in the Antella and that the steps in the Visitation recall "le oonstruzioni del Martirio di Santo Efeso a Pisa. " When discussing the proportion of the figures in relation to the space he believes the Manetti frescoes conform to Spinello's style "in the way that they do not remain in the space 2 which is provided." He adds that the art i s t of the Manetti Chapel frescoes uses a falsa soanalatura to separate two scenes within one frame as in the Preaching and Baptising, in the same way Spinello 3 did in the Miracle of the Poisoned Wine. He sums up this section by concluding that the composition of the sketches conforms with a l l the laws O f the "ultimo grande maestro fiorentino del Trecento"^--specifically in the symmetrical placement of figures, the use of architecture as a setting for the figures and the line of the land-scape following the movement of figures in action. Finally he places the cycle chronologically within the context of Spinello's other 1 If there is a relationship i t would seem to be in the style of the roof and then the similarity would be between the San Miniato fresco and the Annunciation to Saint Zacharias. 2 Vitzthum, "Un ciclo di affreschi," p. 199. 3 In the San Miniato scene i t is cramped in between the two episodes and hardly noticeable, whereas in the Manetti scene i t becomes a natural part of the landscape and does not seem so contrived. 4Vitzthum, "Un ciclo di affreschi," p. 200. 51 works. That i s , between the frescoes of Santa Caterina in Antella and those of San Benedetto in San Miniato, thus dating them circa 1385-7. However, by applying the same technique of examining the architecture, space and the poses within the Patch sketches and then comparing them with the San Miniato cycle, we can find many more discrepancies than Vitzthum found similarities. The following can be noted in the architecture: a) In the San Miniato frescoes there is a great predomi-nance of verticals. b) In the Manetti frescoes we have a more balanced relationship between the verticals and horizontals. a) The arches in the Manetti frescoes serve a purpose--they either frame figures or enclose them. b) In the San Miniato frescoes they appear almost as appendages or as decorative detail. a) In the Manetti cycle the architecture serves as a harmonious backdrop for the figures. b) Despite what Vitzthum says this does not appear to be the case with the San Miniato cycle. The figures and architecture seem to function as two separate entities. a) No windows puncture or punctuate the blank walls of the San Miniato cycle. b) In the large expanse of wall in the Manetti cycle such as in the Saint John in Prison and in the Beheading of Saint John the a r t i s t has relieved a monotonous area with the inset of a window. a) The capitals of the.Manetti frescoes are designed to f i t the architecture. b) In the San Miniato cycle they appear decorative and stylized. a) There are varying levels seen in the Manetti frescoes: steps lead upwards in the Visitation, a dais within the Feast of Herod—in fact two of them; in the Naming of the Baptist there is a step up into space as there is also in the Annunciation to Zacharias. b) Very few of these conventions are present in the San Miniato cycle. 52 7. a) The San Miniato cycle shows a greater sensitivity to the figures than to the architecture, b) In the Manetti frescoes the a r t i s t reveals a feeling for the relationship between people and the archi-tecture. He has blended the physical relationship between the two. 8. a) All in a l l there is a beautiful integration of a l l the scenes within the Manetti frescoes, b) This is not seen in the San Miniato cycle. Now i f we look at the spatial relationships within these two series of frescoes, several things are revealed: 9. a) The San Miniato cycle reveals a shortness of foreground. In other words, the figures are right upon the ground line at the very front of the picture frame, b) In the Manetti frescoes, with the exception of the Visitation, a l l of the scenes are set back within the picture space. 10. a) In the Manetti frescoes, i t is a picture space that slopes gently back and up. b) In the San Miniato cycle the picture space has a very steep surface slope. 11. a) Space in the Manetti frescoes is layered into the depth of the picture space, b) Space in the San Miniato frescoes is layered upon the surface of the picture plane. 12. a) There is a c l a r i t y and unity of space, events and figures within the Manetti Chapel cycle, b) In the San Miniato frescoes there is a tendency to be overwhelmed by the multiplicity of events and the number of figures within each scene. Finally, by just comparing the positioning of individual figures and groups of figures, we find some interesting comparisons: 13. a) In the San Miniato cycle, groups of figures are placed in a line or stacked linearly on the surface or in very compact groups. They create a closed form, b) In the Manetti frescoes we see variable groupings. They are placed at different levels and seem far more natural. 14. a) In San Miniato very few of the heads appear above the halfway level of the scenes, b) In the Manetti cycle they are placed at variable levels. A good example is seen in the Birth and Naming of the Baptist. 53 15. a) The San Miniato cycle teems with figures in action and innumerable poses, b) The Manetti frescoes seem suspended in time--they appear to be staged and t e l l the story simply and directly. 16. a) In the San Miniato cycle, because of the interest in the action of the whole figure there is less emphasis upon gesture. b) In the Manetti cycle the staging of the figures lends to the display of gesture. In short then, this number of differences in the architecture and.in the use of pictorial space helps to cast some doubt on the Spinello Aretino attribution. In fact the Giotto attribution by Vasari, together with the overall impression created by the engravings, lends credence to the belief that they are by a master closer to Giotto and his style than they are to the style of Spinello Aretino at San/Miniato. If we should need more evidence of the strength of the associa-tion with Giotto we need only look at the Giotto frescoes of Saint John the Baptist and Saint John the Evangelist in the Peruzzi Chapel of Santa Croce only a short distance from the Carmine.1 The Peruzzi is similar in shape but larger than the-'Manetti Chapel. On the l e f t wall are three scenes from the Life of Saint John the Baptist ( f i g . 30) and on the opposite wall three scenes from the Life of Saint John the Evangelist (fig. 31). The iconography and general layout of the three scenes representing the Life of Saint John the Baptist in the Peruzzi Chapel are repeated in the Manetti frescoes. They are: The'Annunciation Patch would not have known of the existence of these cycles or of the Life of Saint Francis in the adjacent Bardi Chapel because they were covered with whitewash during the restoration work of 1714 and not uncovered again t i l l the mid 1800's. Crowe and Cavalcaselle, A History of Painting in Italy, 111:77. 54 to Saint Zacharias. (fig. 18a) which takes place in an almost identical tabernacle: The Birth and Naming of Saint John the Baptist (fig. 18b) which is divided exactly the same way; and the Feast of Herod (fig. 19c) scene which occupies a similar setting even to the placement of the musician. Architectural details from both the Peruzzi cycles can also be seen repeated in the Manetti Chapel frescoes. For instance, the detail of the right side of the roof in the Peruzzi Feast of Herod ( f i g . 30) represented in the Annunciation (fig. 18a) of the Manetti cycle. The roof lines in the Manetti Annunciation (fig. 18a) seem to echo those in the Raising of Drusiana (fig. 32), but i t is in the placement and groupings of figures that there is the strongest resemblance. The arrangement and poses of the witnesses in the Annunciation ( f i g . 18a) of the Manetti cycle relate strongly to the onlookers in the Raising of Drusiana ( f i g . 32) and even those in the Ascension (fig. 33). The tendency to frame the central event of a scene with groups of onlookers as in the Peruzzi Annunciation (fig. 30), Raising of Drusiana (fig. 32) and the Ascension ( f i g . 33) is repeated in the Manetti Annunciation (fig. 18a), Naming (fig. 18b) and Preaching (fig. 19b). The e l l i p t i c a l grouping of the right hand crowd in the Raising ( f i g . 32) seems to be repeated in the Entombment (fig. 18c) and Annunciation (fig. 18a). The placement of the figures within their architectural setting seen in a l l the scenes of the Peruzzi Chapel is just as successfully done in the same scenes of the Manetti Chapel frescoes. Even the proportion of the figures in relation to the architecture is similar and the figures of the Manetti Chapel frescoes possess the same solidity that 55 is so characteristic of Giotto. Therefore the proof of the Giotto influence is unquestionable and i f the Manetti frescoes were done by Spinello, he must have synthesized the Giotto style quite deliberately. It is in fact easy to see, on the basis of Patch's copies, how and why Vasari would arrive at a Giotto attribution. It is also obvious that the 'master' of the Manetti Chapel frescoes did not rely solely upon the Peruzzi cycle for his icono-graphy. Other Saint John the Baptist cycles that would have been seen by him would be the fifteen episodes in mosaic in the Baptis-tery, the twenty episodes on the bronze doors of the Baptistery done by Andrea Pisano, and perhaps Giovanni del Biondo's Altavpieae of the Baptist dated the third quarter of the 1300's. In comparing the iconography within these three cycles, some interesting points are noted. The a r t i s t of the Manetti Chapel frescoes seems to rely upon some elements from the doors for his scenes but does not seem to have found anything remarkable or worth copying in the Biondo altarpiece or the mosaics. The pose of the angels in the Manetti Baptism (fig. 34) bears a striking resemblance to the solitary angel in Pisano's panel (fi g . 35). The Manetti scene of the washing of the newborn child together with the gestures of the guests in the Feast of Herod, the pose of the preaching Baptist, and the gestures in the Entombment a l l seem to show an influence from the bronze doors. Yet these correspondences whether they be to the Peruzzi or the Baptistery doors, are very small elements when compared with 56 the innovative and imaginative changes that this a r t i s t has introduced into nearly every scene, even in those that rely heavily upon the Peruzzi Chapel. For example in the Annunciation in the other cycles, the angel is standing but in the Manetti Chapel frescoes i t is represented in flight surrounded by an aura that encompasses and emphasizes the main event (fig. 18a). In the Preaching, grouping is done on one side only in the other cycles, but in the Manetti scene a semi-circular grouping is utilized (fig. 19b). A frontal disposition of Zacharias in the Naming by our ar t i s t ( f i g . 18b) compares with a sideways placement in the others; his oblique placement of the executioner, Saint John, and the architecture in the Beheading (fig. 18c) compares to a sideways placement of the figures; a shivering Christ with his arms crossed (fig. 19b) compares' with a Christ whose right hand is raised in blessing; the placement of Salome on the l e f t in the Feast ( f i g . 19c) compares with her placement on the right in the other cycles; and the varied placement of the attendant figures, including a mourning woman, and the headless body of Saint John in the Entombment (fig. 18c), compares with static groupings of male figures only and an undefiled body.1 The ar t i s t that Patch copies is truly a versatile and innova-tive master of his craft. He is an a r t i s t who is not just content to settle for what others did; he follows in the footsteps of masters ^For a more detailed iconographical analysis of every scene see Appendix F. 57 like Giotto and Andrea Pisano but be builds upon their work and in so doing, forges a style which is highly individualistic and imaginative. Even more evident is his integration of episodes and his smooth transition from one episode to another when they are shown together in one frame. Giotto seems to have been at the point of solving this problem in the Feast of Herod ( f i g . 30) in the Peruzzi, where his figures on the right hand side are placed within an arch-way that leads into the adjacent Presentation of the Head. But in the Birth and Naming he did not resolve i t quite so well and there appears to be only a doorway between two otherwise isolated scenes, (fig . 30). The a r t i s t of the Manetti Chapel frescoes solves the problem in his Birth and Naming by the use of a male figure that moves from the Naming scene towards the Birth scene ( f i g . 18b), and in the Preaching and Baptism he utilizes the form of the pyramidal mountain to separate but not isolate the one from the other ( f i g . 19b). All of these seem to point to an a r t i s t who had the a b i l i t y to see what others had done and then improve upon or adapt that concept for his own purposes. One of his most startling changes seems to be the body of the Baptist without a head (fig. 18c). It lends a macabre element to an otherwise tranquil scene of quiet mourning, and reinforces the stark reality of the Baptist's brutal death.1 It would seem that this A^ similar headless body and almost exact reproduction of the tomb and interment is noted in the Matteo Giovanetti Saint John cycle at Chartreuse, Villeneuve--les-Avignon, dated 1354-62. 58 change in the iconography can be traced to the pre-roccupation with death and its gory details that came about as a result of the recent horrors and losses of the Black Death. It is a phenomenon that can be noted in such fresco cycles as Francesco Traini's Triumph of Death at Pisa, and Orcagna's Triumph of Death in Santa Croce, Florence, of which only a few fragments remain.1 Another innovation is the shivering figure of Christ (f i g . 36). As already noted, the other cycles depict a Christ with his right hand raised or partly raised in blessing. The Manetti Christ on the other hand is cold, shivering and huddled up with his arms crossed in front of him in an effort to keep warm. It is a figure that must have impressed Masaccio because, just as the master of the Manetti Chapel frescoes took note of and adopted Giotto and the other cycles for his own use, so Masaccio adapts this shivering Christ for the background figure in his Baptism of the Neophytes ( f i g . 37),=ra scene in the Saint Peter cycle which was in the Brancacci Chapel located 2 only a few meters away from the Manetti Chapel. His Saint Paul Visiting Saint Peter in Prison from the same cycle (f i g . 38), also echoes the prison setting of the Manetti Chapel (fi g . 39). His way of punctuating a large expanse of wall with windows such as in his predella panel of the Pisa polyptych, which depicts the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist ( f i g . 40), his oblique placement of the M^. Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena After the Black Death, p. 74. 2 The Brancacci Chapel is located at the end of the right transept, see figure 3. 59 architecture, his pose of the executioner, and the vigour with which his execution is taking place, a l l seem to owe a debt to the Manetti Chapel frescoes (fig. 41). It would appear therefore, that Masaccio who is known to have learned much from Giotto, also learned much from the master of the Manetti Chapel. Masaccio was not the only a r t i s t who was impressed by these frescoes. Agnolo Gaddi seems to have been directly influenced in one of the scenes of his cycle of the Baptist for the Castellani Chapel of 1384 in Santa Croce. The composition of his Baptism (fig . 42) corresponds very closely to the Manetti Chapel scene (fig. 19b). However,' where Masaccio adopted and adapted, Gaddi seems to have been content to merely copy, not only the master of the Manetti Chapel but also Giotto. For instance, in one of the predella panels in the altarpiece for the Nobili Chapel in Santa Maria degli Angeli, he copies Giotto's Feast of Herod from the Peruzzi Chapel very precisely (cf. figs. 43 and 44). 1 Both Agnolo Gaddi, one of the direct a r t i s t i c descendants of Giotto and also one of the best artists of the late Trecento, and Masaccio, the revolutionary painter of the early Quattrocento, copied and studied this master of the Manetti Chapel frescoes. It would therefore appear, that this cycle is an, important link in the a r t i s t i c heritage of Florence and i f only for this reason, is worthy of a great 1 Bruce Cole, Agnolo Gaddi. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), p. 85. This predella panel along with two others from the same altarpiece is in the Louvre. 60 deal more study. We have spent a long time arguing against the present attribution, not because the Spinello Aretino one is necessarily wrong but because the evidence and arguments presented so far are not strong enough. It would prove to be interesting i f the attribu-tion to him could be strengthened and we were to discover how much this fresco cycle influenced Masaccio, Gaddi and perhaps many other so far unidentified artists of the late Trecento and the early Quattrocento. Perhaps the evidence is yet to be found in an analysis of his general style, innovativeness and originality. In a new book Bruce Cole describes Spinello as a "vital and innovative figure" and in this he seems to be echoing the earlier claims for this a r t i s t that were put forward by Gombosi in his mono-graph of 1926 where he notes Spinello's a b i l i t y as a creative and original a r t i s t , 1 and Dal Poggetto who believes that Spinello's work is "more vigorous than many of the rather insipid attributions 2 from which he suffers." Cole also suggests that while an early work of 1377 by Spinello Aretino shows an indirect influence of Orcagna, the San Benedetto cycle of 1385-7 clearly reveals an influence of late Giotto. He sees this change as evidence of a movement of 1G. Gombosi, Spinello Aretino (Budapest: Im Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1926). 2 P. Dal Poggetto, Frescoes from Florence (London: The Arts Council of Great Britain, 1969), p. 90. It should also be noted that Poggetto suggests that "An accurate assessment of Spinello Aretino has often been hampered by the readiness of scholars to attach his name to anonymous fragments of late Gothic fresco." Any real assess-ment of the Spinello Aretino attribution then, must await a much clearer understanding of who Spinello as an a r t i s t really i s . 61 artists who sought "to move away from the style in which they were trained" and to do so they had "to look to the past for help." He clearly implies that Spinello Aretino was part of that movement and had gone back to look at Giotto. 1 But i f Cole thinks that the San Benedetto cycle shows a strong influence of late Giotto, where would he place the Manetti cycle which to this writer, would appear to be even more Giottesque? The master of the Manetti frescoes was no copyist, no mere technician, and this very fact made Patch's preservation both a sound recognition of a r t i s t i c s k i l l and an important achievement in connoisseurship. We are fortunate that i t exists to open up a new vista on Giotto and his followers and though Patch obviously believed that he was enshrining Giotto in his sketches, there is evidence that the hand that painted in the Manetti Chapel was master in its own right and had its own impact on the great artists of its day. Meantime, the question should be asked in the chapter which follows why Patch copied this Trecento cycle and the Masaccio fresco. The answer seems to l i e in eighteenth century l i f e , travel and above all connoisseurship. What brought Patch to Florence? Who were his friends, compatriots, clients? What were his a r t i s t i c activities? Most importantly, what were the influences between 1755 and 1770 ^Cole, Agnolo Gaddi, p. 85. 62 and the sum total of previous influences, that led him to "preserve the memory at least of a few..."? CHAPTER V THOMAS PATCH IN FLORENCE Patch moved to Florence at the end of 1755 and remained there until his death in 1782. Prior to this he had resided in Rome for seven to ten years. During these years he worked and/or studied under Claude Joseph Vernet and reached a level of technical and ar t i s t i c a b i l i t y that enabled him to copy Vernet's style 1 and even Claude's. It was this a b i l i t y that would stand him in good stead in later years when he copied both the Manetti Chapel frescoes and the details of the five heads. While in Rome Patch was also involved in several incidents that may have contributed in part to his eventual banishment in 1755. How-ever, whatever these incidents were, he came to Florence with some excellent recommendations and quickly settled in and started f u l f i l l i n g commissions for vedute paintings for the many English visitors. In addition to these he did fantasy seascapes and. he f e l l back upon his childhood talent for caricature and started combining caricature portraits with interior scenes—these were his Conversation Pieces that have l e f t \ \ J. B. Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 16 indicates that except for the signature, i t is very easy to mistake the 'work of the pupil for that of the master.' In addition to this several of Patch's seascapes have been sold as Vernet's: A Waterfall in the Neighbourhood of Tivoli, A Village in the Neighbourhood of Tivoli, Harbour Scene. 63 64 us a rich, amusing but sometimes puzzling record of the eighteenth century English c i r c l e at Florence. During the mid 1760's he took up engraving and started in 1770 to copy and engrave one of the Masaccio frescoes in the Brancacci Chapel of the Carmine Church. Thus by 1771 he was well equipped technically to complete the task of copying, engraving and salvaging the Manetti frescoes. But we are s t i l l l e f t with the question: What made him do a l l this? It would seem that some other influences come into play at this point and these will be examined and hopefully i t will be seen that Patch the view-painter, copyist and caricaturist will also be seen as Patch the art historian and connoisseur that he truly was. In 1755 when Patch settled in Florence there was a c i r c l e of permanent English residents in Florence headed by the English diplo-matic representative, Horace Mann.1 His main tasks were to watch and report on the movements of the Stuarts, look after any problems that the.British traders and merchants ran into at Leghorn and also act as host to the English travellers. His correspondence with his friend Horace Walpole in England has l e f t us with a rich record of the politics and the social l i f e of the eighteenth century. Often in his letters, Mann is vociferous about the crowds of English who had to be 2 feasted and presented to court. And his complaint seems to be 1 Other residents included George Nassau Clavering, Third Earl of Cowper; Lord Tylney of Castelmaine; Lord Newborough. Moloney, Florence and England, p. 34 f f . 2 W. S. Lewis, Horace Walpole's Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, 8:344. 65 justifiable because in 1769 Baretti, in his Account of the Manners and Customs of Italy estimated that in the preceding seventeen years, more than 10,000 Englishmen had been "running up and down in Italy." 1 Italy and things Italian became the rage of the eighteenth century: clothes, mannerisms, language, operas, theatre, but most of al l the interior decor of homes revealed a show case of Italian art, sculpture and antiques—mementos of the Grand Tour and the Bear-cub cir c u i t ! While Florence was a popular stopping place for the tourists, i t did not offer the same opportunity for cicerones and agents as 2 did Rome and Venice. There were no 'diggings' to f i l l the demand for antiques so Patch, very soon after his a r r i v a l , resumed his vedute works. This is noted in John Parker's letter to Lord Charle-mont where he states "I hear from Vierpyl that Patche is a-bridge-painting at Florence for Lord Huntingdon" and confirmed in Patch's 3 letter of March to Huntingdon. In addition to these souvenirs of the Grand Tour, Patch also f i l l e d several commissions for imaginary sea and harbour scenes that ^As cited by Moloney, Florence and England, p. 10. 2 Ibid., Moloney points out that Florence had no Canaletto or Guardi as Venice had. 3 Charlemont Papers, p. 228. For the letter to Lord Huntingdon see page 17. In addition to these ac t i v i t i e s , there is slight evidence that Patch was s t i l l acting as an agent for Sir William Lowther because Horace Mann in a letter to Walpole, dated June 3, 1758, mentions when discussing the availability of some "fine Poussins, paysages" for sale, that-=T "they have always asked great prices: one Patch, a painter here, offered some time ago 3,000 [crowns] for the late Sir William Lowther," (Lowther died in 1756). W. S. Lewis, Sir Horace Walpole's Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, V:209 66 he had learned to do while studying with Vernet.1 Around the late 1750's he started painting "Conversation Pieces" which for visitors, served as mementos of their social l i f e while at Florence. Horace Mann in 1771 wrote: "...the young English often employ him to make conversation pieces of any number, for which they draw lots..." In relation to this, Watson believes that a sketchbook that 3 came to light in 1959 was kept by Patch and recorded his drawings 4 of many of the visitors. But in addition he also thinks that there was a similar sketchbook of details of heads, of which only 5 a few remain because the original drawings were probably "discarded as workshop ephemera and often disappeared." 6 These "Conversation Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 23 notes that he did four for Horace Mann which had since disappeared but four similar ones were done for John Apthorp who had married Mann's neice. These were s t i l l in the possession of the family as of 1940. 2 In a letter dated February 22. W. S. Lewis, Sir Horace Walpole's Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, VI1:275. 3 F. J. B. Watson, "An Unknown Portrait of the Young Gibbon," The Times Literary Supplement, Friday, December 25, 1959, p. 760. 4 The sketchbook contains 23 drawings of f u l l length figures done in red or black chalk and touched up with water-colour or pen. For a f u l l description of the sketch book see F. J. B. Watson, "Thomas Patch, Some new light on his work," Apollo 85 (May 1967):348-53. 5 "II dentino" and "Mr. Bunberry". They were later engraved. 6Watson, "Thomas Patch, Some New Light," p. 349. Patch probably remembered the repercussions from the caricatures that he did as a young apprentice in Exeter which "at that time gave offence" (Faring-ton Diary, VI:181) so now he was "...so prudent as never to caricature anybody without his consent and a f u l l y liberty to exert his talent." (W. S. Lewis, Sir Horace Walpole's Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, VI1:275). 67 Pieces" do provide us with an excellent record of the English c i r c l e and i t s v i s i t o r s 1 at Florence and even offer a glimpse of i t s 2 Florentine associates. Usually the viewer is provided with visual clues, but often "these topical references...for the most 3 part are missed by us." One such valuable clue already noted is that in his Musical Party of 1774 which points out Patch's inter-4 est in the study of physiognomy. And one cannot help but believe that i t was this that led him to keep the sketchbook of heads— 5 heads "invariably shown in profile" and heads that he later en-graved.^ 'Some of these visitors included Gibbon (see Watson, "An Unknown Portrait,") and Boswell. Much has been written about Boswell's v i s i t to Florence and the possibility that he had been "encanvassed by Patch" but this has never been proved. Identification of people in Patch's works is d i f f i c u l t and as Brinsley Ford points out, we would "have to rely entirely on comparison with his other caricatures." (Ford, "A Newly Discovered Painting," p. 173). W. S. Lewis when describing the Conversation Piece (fig.45 ) which shows a portrait of Mann on the wall and a bust of Patch on the chimney, believes that the t a l l figure on the l e f t is James Boswell (Lewis, Horace Walpole's Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, VII:565. However, i f one compares the profile on the right(fig.46 ) with Thomas Lawrence's profile of Boswell (fig.47) we find a very much closer similarity. 2 More than one half of a series of engravings he did were of Italians. See note 6 below. 3 W. S. Lewis, Horace Walpole, The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts 1960 (New York: Pantheon Books Inc., 1961), p i . XIX. 4 See p. 25 re Patch's interest in this study. 5 Watson, "Thomas Patch, Some New Lights on his work," p. 350. H^e engraved 28 heads and 25 f u l l length figures. Of the latter group, 14 were of Italians. 68 It is believed that he took up engraving about 1765. His f i r s t seems to have been the head of Baron Stosch. 1 Mann writes 2 that he took to engraving "without the least assistance" but Watson believes he learned the essentials from his friend Giuseppe Zocchi when in 1768, they worked on a joint commission 3 for Charles James Fox. He may also have received help from 4 Ferdinando Gregori whom he sketched, engraved and later collabo-5 rated with on the engravings of the Porte del Battistero di Firenze. Therefore, i t would seem that by 1770 Patch was quite capable of engraving the heads from Masaccio's (and Filippino Lippi's) Raising of the Son of Theophilus in the Brancacci Chapel. However, what does not seem to have been noted is that this, his f i r s t set of engravings, seems to be the only one where the heads were reversed thus indicating that perhaps Patch had not yet mastered the technique of reversing his 'printing' plate. What is more interesting is that he concentrates on the one fresco out of the whole Brancacci Chapel where there are distinct portrait heads. He wrote: "...a few of the most chosen heads...for which purpose I have traced twenty four of them from the originals."^ And in his Introduction he seems to lay Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 26. 2 W. S. Lewis, Horace Walpole's Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, VII:275. 3Watson, "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)," p. 26. 4 Number 15 of the f u l l length figures. Ibid., p. 44. 5 Ibid., p. 26. They were done between 1772-74. Patch, Giotto, p. I. 69 real: stress on the fact that Masaccio in the 1400's was "boldly imitating nature and drawing from l i f e " and that Raphael by studying Masaccio learnt the "surest method of varying his Caracters by taking them from nature." 1 Something that Patch himself could identify with because he also, with his sketch book record, "varied his characters" and "sketched them from l i f e . " With this kindred feeling and interest in facial features, we can see why he might be drawn to such a fresco. But can we really say the same about the Manetti Chapel frescoes? Not really. While he did engrave the five details i t seems obvious that a fresco cycle of the Trecento would not contain the details of physiognomy so interesting and fascinating to Patch. Therefore, an answer to why he recorded this cycle must l i e elsewhere and the clue seems to be contained within the Introductions to both The Life of Masaccio and Giotto. These seemingly unrelated clues point to contemporaries of Patch whom he acknowledged in one way or another in these Introductions. In The Life of Masaccio, when referring to the portrait of Masaccio 2 that he copied and engraved, he states that a similar portrait had been engraved "for a Book entitled 'Elogi di' Pittori' and published here under the direction of Sig. Ignazio Hughford,[sic], well known for his judgement and practise in Painting as well as for the large hbid. 2 Actually i t is a portrait of Filippino Lippi. 70 Collection of Pictures which he is possessed of." 1 Ignazio Hugford was born in Florence in 1703 of English parents. He was a popular religious painter of his day but today is considered at best "a 2 competent journeyman painter," however, i t is his other accomplish-ments that prove to be very relevant to this study, but more of this shortly. The other contemporary mentioned in the text accompanying 3 the Giotto engravings is Monsignor Bottari. When Patch proposed in 1769 "publishing an example after every celebrated Author..." he "was greatly encouraged by the celebrated Monsignor Bottari." 4 Bottari in fact may be regarded as an essential missing link in understanding why Patch would have done the Manetti Chapel frescoes. By identifying him and his activities in and around Florence and Rome, we can gain a much broader and richer knowledge of Patch and his friends in Florence. 5 Giovanni Gaetano Bottari was born in Florence in 1689. He was "a man of many trades." In his younger days he had been a linguist 1 Patch, The Life of Masaccio, p. IV. 2 John Fleming, "The Hugfords of Florence," Part II. Connoisseur CXXXVI 549 (December 1955):197. 3 It is interesting to note that while a short biography and t i t l e page accompanies The Life of Masaccio, no such information or t i t l e page accompanies the Giotto, engravings. The emphasis in the latter is upon the recording and methodology. 4 Patch, Giotto, p. II. 5 Preface to the Milan edition of Raccolta di lettere sulla Pittura, Scultura ed Architettura..., (Milano:1822-1825). g E. W. Cochrane, Florence in the Forgotten Centuries, 1527-1800 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 373. 71 and a literary expert. "He had then become an ecclesiastical historian, a theologian and a church administrator." He was "a rigorist in ethics, a r e l a t i v i s t in philosophy, an Augustinian in theology, a b i b l i c i s t in piety and a staunch anti-Jesuit in questions of ecclesiastical polity." 1 He was one of the main authors of the Accademia della Crusca's fourth edition of the Vocabolario of 1729, and i t seems that his membership in, correspondence with, and presenta-'Ibid. 2 This Academy was founded in the 1500 s in an attempt to preserve and maintain the Tuscan language and protect i t from "foreign" influence and other dialects. In the 1730's its main interest was to revive the Florentine literary heritage and in "maintaining the authority of Florence and therefore of i t s e l f , as the linguistic and literary arbiter of a l l Italy." (Cochrane, Florence in the Forgotten Centuries, p. 324). Its meetings were open to foreigners. The Third Earl of Cowper was an honorary member between 1760 and 1789. The Earl of Cork presented the Academy with a copy of Samuel Johnson's diction-ary and they in turn sent Dr. Johnson a copy of their Vocabolario. (Moloney, Florence and England, p. 27). In fact the Academy corresponded with Dr. Johnson. (Cochrane, Florence, p. 94). Boswell attended between June and October, 1765 and apparently noted that the meeting was held in a room "in which the furniture allegorized the Academy's name (Crusca = bran): the president 1sat on a millstone; the members' seats were baskets, the table was a kneading trough, the lecturn a bolter." (F. A. Pottle, James Boswell. The Earlier Years, 1740-69 [New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966], p. 237. What is even more interesting is that Patch in 1765 produced a painting entitled A Rehearsal at Sir Horace 'Mann's where he depicts himself entering the room carrying a basket containing books entitled Vocabolario della Crusca (figs. 48 & 49). He is following what appears to be as yet an unidentified Italian gentleman. What has not been commented upon before is that on the wall of the room are several paintings which obviously allude to the Accademia della Crusca: a windmill, grinding m i l l , but more importantly, one of them.is based on the engraved f i r s t page of the six volumed, fourth edition of the Vocabolario of 1729 depicting a meeting of the members! The f u l l extent of the meaning in the "Conversation Piece" must await further research,(figs.50 & 51 ). 72 tion of lectures to this society kept him in constant touch with Florence despite his move to Rome in 173uJ On 20 July, 1748, Giambattista Piranesi dedicated his Antichitd romane de' tempi della repubblica, e de' primi imperatori in gratitude for "the many 2 obligations which I owe you for the favours I received in Rome." 3 • The same year he is recorded as being the chief Vatican librarian. 4 He carried on a lifelong correspondence with Algarotti and Mariette and along with a few like-minded scholars "disapproved of contempo-rary art on theoretical grounds" and helped pave the way for neo-classicism "a f u l l generation before Winckelmann arid Mengs." 'It seems he moved because of the election of Pope Clement XII (Lorenzo Corsini) and lived in the Palazzo Corsini (J. Scott, Piranesi [London: Academy Editions, 1975], p. 303). In 1744he is recorded as the keeper of the Corsini library (Ibid., p. 14). Cochrane, Tradi-tion and Enlightenment in the Tuscan Academies. (Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 76) notes that he presented a lecture on his program for a new Decamerone on March 6, 1751 and his corre-spondence is noted throughout Cochrane's book. As an aside, one would wonder whether he would not be interested in a l l aspects of the Carmine in Florence because one of its founding families was the Corsini and S. Andrea Corsini (see p. 43) was a Florentine saint. Cochrane, Florence in the Forgotten Centuries, p. 373, also notes that Bottari constantly had the ear of the Pope's two nephews: Prince Bartolomeo and Cardinal Neri Corsini. 2 Scott, Piranesi, p. 17. 3Ibid. ^Count Francesco Algarotti, (1712-64). Jean Pierre Mariette (1694-1774). Some of his letters appear in Bottari's Raccolta di lettere sulla pittura, scultura ed archi-tettura. g Francis Haskell,Patrons and Painters (London: Chatto & Windus, 1963), p. 348. 73 Between 1737-54 he wrote Sculture e pittuve sagre estvatte dai cimitevg dei Romani, from 1741 to 1755 Del Museo Capitolino^ and in 1737 he produced a new edition of Bosio's 1651 Roma 2 sottevanea. His interest in antiquities became so well known and recognized that in the early part of 1761 he was elected an honorary 3 member of the Society of Antiquaries of London. The intermediary for this was one Thomas Jenkins who may or may not have been Patch's 4 travelling companion to Rome. Jenkins had been elected a fellow of the Society in 1757 and was instrumental in gaining a similar honour for Cardinal Albani later the same year. All these activities may seem to center on Rome but i t is with Bottari's publication between 1754-1773 of his Raccolta di letteve sulla Pittuva, Scultura ed Architettura that we see his more direct influence and involvement with Florence come to the fore and this in turn brings Patch and his involvement with the Manetti frescoes back into focus. The Raccolta...is a collection of letters by art i s t s . It often sheds light on their personal lives and sometimes on their methodology. But in the text and notes that accompany these letters, Bottari reveals a keen interest and admiration for the pre-Renaissance frescoes. He praises their grandeur and simplicity. He states that the art of design which remained through the time of Cimabue and 1 Scott, Piranesi, p. 303. 2 S. Rowland Pierce, "Thomas Jenkins in Rome/' The Antiquaries Journal (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 208, 210, 212. 3Ibid. 4 See page 8, fn. 4. 74 Giotto lived on "through the hands of Masaccio in Painting; of Donatello in sculpture; and of Filippo Brunelleschi in Architecture, a l l Florentine creators." 1 And of Giotto he writes: "Blessed Giotto, who with so much excellence of genius returned art to the light... the Italian speech which gives in to no one, honoured him and made 2 of him an immortal record." Thus by linking the Cruscan interest in the Florentine literary past with its a r t i s t i c past, Bottari must have aroused some semblance of regional s p i r i t that may well have contributed to the salvaging of the 'Giotto' Manetti frescoes and we can certainly see why he would have encouraged Patch in his endeavour. This then could be one link but a stronger one presents 3 i t s e l f in the Introduction to the Raoaolta. Bottari pays homage to his many friends who have helped him in his endeavour, but he singled out three specifically. One is a Roman, Cardinal Alessandro Albani who allowed him free access to his library including the Cassiano del Pozzo collection. The other two are Florentines: Rosso Antonio Martini 4 and Ignazio Husfort [sic], --the same Ignazio Hugford mentioned by Patch in his Life of Masaccio. '''Bottari, Raccolta di lettere sulla Pittura, Scultia>a ed Avchitettuva (Roma: 1754-1773), 7 vols. Vol. II, p. 416. 2Ibid.,IV:132. 3Ibid., I:vii 4 A fellow Cruscan and sometime secretary of i t until 1745, he co-edited 17 volumes of Prose Fiov.entine vaccoXte dallo Smarrito accademico delta Cvusca (E. W. Cochrane, Tradition and Enlightenment, p. 84, n.48). 75 Hugford in addition to being a religious painter, was also a trained copyist, and art dealer, collector and above a l l a connoisseur. Fleming mentions two transactions of Hugford the art dealer and notes that neither were "too scrupulous" on Hugford's part. However, when considering them in the light of Patch's copying of Vernet and Claude, and Jenkins' 'additions' to sculpture, these transactions do not seem out of the ordinary! Fleming says, however, that i f i t could ever be proved that he was the Englishman at Florence who sold Italian primitives to Artaud de Montor then Hugford "assumes a position of great importance 3 in the history of taste." Unfortunately, Fleming has been unable 'His ab i l i t y as a copyist went back to his apprenticeship with Anton Domenico Gabbiani and i t stood him and Pierano dei Marchesi Giugni in good stead when, to f o i l Count Richecourt who wished to see the twelfth century painting of the Madonna at Impruneta, Ignazio repainted i t with a Duecento style Madonna as a replacement for the original which had become so dark that i t could not be seen. (Fleming, "The Hugfords of Florence," Part II, p. 200). 2 The two transactions were the sale of a Veronese' The Marriage of Cana which Waagen considered to be a very pleasing copy and the other, the purchase of a 'Titian' Danae by a "West-Indian nabob..." called Young who "bys pictures upon his own judgement and declares i t to be better than anybody's. Hugford, the English painter, allows the assertian, since Young gave him two hundred zecchins for a Danae which Hugford calls a Titian!"(Ibid, and W. S. Lewis, Sir Horaoee Walpole's Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, IV:330). What is interesting as an aside is that Fleming and others have not noted that this was Sir William Young, the grandfather of William Young Ottley, one of those young men who at the turn of the next century would be collecting Italian primitives and who at one time is believed to have owned the Salome fragment (now at Liverpool) having bought i t from Townley. Fleming, "The Hugfordsof Florence," Part II, p. 199. 76 to confirm this link but even without the positive identification of Hugford as the Englishman who "avait defa acquis 25 tableaux et on avait fait pour lui recherches historiques dont j 'ai profite, i t seems important to recognize that as early as 1740 there was an Englishman in Florence who was interested in the Italian primitives. Fleming believes, however, that i f indeed i t was Hugford and that he displayed this interest i t was because he "doubtless valued them mainly as historical curiosities and i f he collected them for other than purely antiquarian reasons i t would have been because they suited the fashionable Gothic taste for anything quaintly medieval." This statement seems very unjust when one considers the even earlier 3 interest of Bernard de Montfaucon who in addition to publishing 4 studies on Greek Palaeography and his L'Antiquite expliquee et ' 5 representee en figures, also prepared between 1729 and 1733 Les g Monuments de la monarchie frangaise. 11bid., p. 198. 2 Ibid., p. 199. It is known that in 1767 Hugford owned two or more Quattrocento paintings and one or more Trecento paintings. Fra Filippo Lippi, Saint Augustine (later corrected to B o t t i c e l l i ) ; Masaccio, Self Portrait (later corrected to Filippino Lippi); Stamina, The Thebaid. 3 1655-1741, a soldier who later joined the Maurist community of Benedictines--an order devoted to intellectual pursuits which included an interest in medieval French and Italian literature. (T. Borenius, "The Rediscovery of the Primitives," p. 263 and Sir P. Harvey, ed. The Oxford Companion to English Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), pp. 527 and 555). 4 Palaeographia Graeca, 1708. 51719. g Unfinished. 77 Also i t is worth mentioning that interest in ancient archi-tecture and operative masonry had been re-awakened in London with . the formation of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons in 1717. Many other lodges followed quickly throughout Europe. Hundreds of the leading figures of the day including many we have already mentioned--Walpole, Mann, Vernet--were actively involved in the erection of this living memorial to the builders and architecture of the past and to the commemoration of artisanship and the moral allegory which arose from i t . Such a lodge had been instituted in Florence in 17331 apparently by the English but i t was open to Italians and other nationals and i t is very revealing to note that many of them were important in both the Florentine and English c i r c l e : Dr. Antonio Cocchi, Count de Richecourt, Baron von Stosch, Giuseppe M. Buon-delmonti and Giovanni Lami. Buondelmonti and Lami. were both Cruscans and Lami's best friend was none other than Bottari. Unfortunately the lodge at Florence folded late in 1738 because of 3 pressure from the Inquisition and while i t may not bear directly on Patch's work of 1771, i t does seem to establish the existence of a wide interest in things medieval. 11nstituted under the leadership of the Earl of Middlesex, the f i r s t master was Fox--possibly Henry Fox, Lord Holland. John Herron Lepper, "The Earl of Middlesex and the English Lodge in Florence," Ars Quartuor Coronatorum LVIII (1945):4-77. 2 Cochrane, Florence in the Forgotten Centuries, p. 373. 3 Lepper, "The Earl of Middlesex and the English Lodge in Florence," p. 34. 78 Another demonstration of this interest came to the fore in 1770 when the Grand Duke of Tuscany opened a Gabinetto de Antichi Quadri which included works by Cimabue, Taddeo Gaddi, Uccello, Masaccio, etc J However, Fleming s t i l l maintains that this does not imply a serious interest in Trecento and Quattrocento painting and yet when we review what Bottari was writing and what Gibbon wrote on September 23, 1764 in Pisa, we cannot agree with him. Gibbon says: "The Campo Santo is really a unique and curious monument. It is a large Gothic Cloister where the walls are painted by the f i r s t restorators of painting, a Giotto and others. They.are "primitive" but they transport us to times where they were rare and precious. The taste and the grandeur of a state which could only 2 encourage the better artists of their time." In addition to his collecting Hugford had the reputation of 3 being a distinguished connoisseur and art historian. He wrote often to Bottari on matters of art and these letters appear in Bottari's Raccolta... Patch referred to him as "being well-known for his judgement..." and that he directed the publishing of the book ^Fleming, "The Hugfords of Florence," Part II, p. 199. 2 Georges A. Bonnard, .ed., Gibbon's Journey from Geneva to Rome. His Journal from 20 April to 2 October, 1764. (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1961), p. 153. The original French text reads as follows: "Le Campo Santo est rielment un monument unique et curieux. C'est un grand Cloitre Gothique dont les murs sont peints par les premiers Restaurateurs de la peinture, un Giotto &c. Elles sont mauvaises, mais i l faut se transporter aux terns ou elles etoient rares et precieuses. Le gout et la grandeur d'un Etat ne consiste qu'a encourager les meilleurs artistes de leur terns. 3 Fleming, "The Hugfords of Florence," Part II, p. 198. 79 Elogi de' Pittori. In addition to this Fleming notes several references extolling his a b i l i t y as a connoisseur. In his obitu-ary notice i t was noted that "he was quick to recognize the different style of every painter...no one in Italy could equal his s k i l l in this matter."1 Guiseppe del Rosso exclaimed that, he was "the most erudite of experts in the style of both Tuscan and foreign 2 painters." Ticozzi said he was "of such delicate sensibility and cultivated taste in every type of painting that he could distinguish not only the chief painters of each school but even the hand of their 3 pupils and assistants." Finally Fleming adds an anonymous author who wrote "There was none to equal him in expertise in the a b i l i t y 4 to recognize at a glance the author and date of any painting." It seems then that these two men, Bottari who appreciated and praised in writing the works of the primitives, and Hugford who could recognize the hand of any ar t i s t must have influenced Patch. All these facts do not point to an isolated incident of one or two men in Florence being interested in Trecento art but to a larger feeling for art that was great, simple and majestic. All 1Gazzetta Toscana, No. 34, 21st August, 1778, p. 135-6 as cited by Fleming. Ibid. 2 Memorze per serwire alia vita di Niccoto Maria Gasparo Paoletti architetto Fiorentino (Florence: 1813), pp. 14-15 as cited by Fleming. Ibid. 3 Dizionario dei Pittori (Milan: 1818), p. 273, as cited by Fleming. Ibid. 4 Supplemento alia Serie dei Trecento Elogi... (Florence: 1776), p. 802 as cited by Fleming. Ibid. 80 these influences were significant in the a r t i s t i c environment of' Florence at the time. Most importantly they helped pave the way for the salvaging of the Manetti Chapel frescoes by Patch. CONCLUSION Thomas Patch is more than a vedute painter and caricaturist. At the time of his death Walpole wrote: "He had great merit in my eyes of bringing to light the admirable paintings of Masaccio, so l i t t l e known out of Florence, t i l l his prints disclosed them."1 This alone is important but his methodology in detaching the frag-ments, his technique of engraving which he claimed to be new to his day, his accuracy in engraving the sketches, and his intent in doing so, point to a man who, in addition to being a collector, possessed a rare art historical sensitivity. To him belongs the credit for realizing the worth of sinopia underdrawings and his method of recording these was to be picked up in part by others, 3 but not really f u l l y appreciated t i l l the twentieth century. From his work has also come a better understanding of the master of the Manetti Chapel frescoes, whoever that a r t i s t may be. We know by the dating that the Giotto attribution is not valid. W^. S. Lewis, Horace Walpole's Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, IX:280. Letter dated May 18, 1782. 2 We know this from a notice that appeared in the Gazzetta Toscana on MaYch 1, 1783 (11 months after Patch's death), i t reads: "on this date at the address of the heirs of Signore Tommaso Patch in the Fondaccio di S. Spirito is for sale the f i r s t cast of the famous gate by Ghiberti for the church of S. Giovanni in this city, with other rare busts, and statues of plaster and of marble, pictures, engravings, bronzes, etc. Ibid., p. 272. 3 Ugo Procacci, Sinopie e Affreschi (Milano: Electa Editrice, 1961), p. 40. 81 82 But what about the Spinello Aretino one? Is i t any better? If i t i s , and there is no doubt that i t seems to be, then i t needs to be more firmly established and i f this is done i t must result in a complete re-assessment of Spinello Aretino because the originality and innovativeness displayed in this fresco cycle would appear to exceed that for which Spinello has so far been given credit. We will also find new examples of his influence upon other artists of the late Trecento and early Quattrocento and probably a new aspect of his relationship to Giotto because of the strong reflections of Giotto found in these engravings. If this cycle is not by Spinello then who did it? There are several possible contenders and their examination is going to depend on an analysis of their authenticated works. The main problem always thatnotmany authenticated works of theirs remain and what does exist does not always contain comparable elements or iconography. The very existence of these engravings by Patch therefore, challenges us to new direction of research on the Trecento a r t i s t s . We find a need for a complete visual and s t y l i s t i c examination of al l the fragments to determine just how much repainting and rein-forcing has been done to ;them and to check whether they do actually belong to the same fresco cycle. This research along with Patch's sketches, might enable us more easily to determine the a r t i s t i c style and characteristics of the master of the Manetti Chapel frescoes and perhaps assist in their attribution. The present church of the 83 Carmine should be thoroughly inspected to check for possible remnants of the fresco cycle in the organ l o f t stairwell and also to determine whether any other walls and frescoes of the old church and particularly those in the right transept may yet be hidden away. The content of the third will of Vanni Manetti must be examined. The date of his death must be more precisely deter-mined and a genealogical study of the Manetti family from the time of Vanni to the eighteenth century is indicated. Further iconographical work is also called for. This paper has pointed in particular to the Entombment scene of the headless body of Saint John and to the possible donor figure on the right. There should be a further and more in depth examination of the influence upon Masaccio and upon other artists. The shivering Christ figure and the prison scene so obvious in Masaccio, and the Baptism scene in Agnolo Gaddi, point to dramatic links which would make further investigation worth while. On Patch himself and his place in eighteenth century art and connoisseurship, there are equally exciting and rewarding avenues of research. Future work should include a more detailed study of his method of engravings which he claimed to be a new one. Further analysis would t e l l us a great deal about his s k i l l as a copyist, not only of other frescoes, but also of Vernet's and Claude's work. This research must also encompass his efforts as a social caricaturist of the Florentine scene because i t is obvious that many visual clues abound throughout his Conversation Pieces and work on them would no doubt prove to be an amusing and rewarding 84 area of investigation. Though there is no record, did he actually do caricatures in Rome too? We know that he started doing them in Exeter and he finished his days doing them in Florence. It would therefore stand to reason that he also did them in Rome particularly since his room-mate, Joshua Reynolds, was completing commissions for similar works there at the time.1 Most importantly, what about Patch's possible influence upon English art? Who could and would have seen his engravings? Into what collections did the forty copies of sketches of the Manetti Chapel frescoes eventually find their way? Was Patch responsible for their dispersal? One of them we know ended up in the Rogers colle c t i o n — a collection that was available to many of the leading artists , poets and connoisseurs of the day. A great deal has yet to be done on Patch as a connoisseur and on the whole story of his l i f e and art and the influences upon i t which are s t i l l vague. We have investigated the possible influences that caused Patch to copy this Trecento cycle. In addition to a well established international awareness of the medieval past, we have seen that there was a genuine contemporary interest in the art and literature of the Trecento and Quattrocento. This was being kept alive by the activities of the Accademia della Crusca which seems to have aimed at forging links with notable l i t e r a t i of other nations and i t would appear from at least one of Patch's conversation pieces, that i t played a s i g n i f i -cant part in the activities of the English circle at Florence. This area of investigation may be worth pursuing in an effort to round out ^Rusell, "Thomas Patch, Sir William Lowther," p. 116. 85 our perspective on eighteenth century connoisseurship. There are no lost Giottos in the Church of the Carmine and as far as we know at the moment, there are not Manetti Chapel frescoes there either! All that remains are twelve fragments of the original and eleven engravings by a so far unheralded English a r t i s t of the late eighteenth century. Together they create a mystique and a vision of a gentle humanity that spans the centuries and wrings from us the inevitable and tantalizing question - Who? LITERATURE CITED 86 Antal , Frederick. Hogarth and His Place in European Art. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962. Art of Painting in Florence and Siena from 1250 to 1500. London: Wildenstein, 1965. Ashby, Thomas. "Thomas Jenkins in Rome." Papers of the British School at Rome VI, 8 (1913):487-511. Barzini, Luigi. The Italians. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1966. Bologna, Ferdinando. Masaooio. La Cappella Brancacci. Milano: Fra t t e l l i Fabri Editori, 1969. Bonnard, Georges A., ed. Gibbon's Journey from Geneva to Rome. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1961. Borenius, Tancred. "The Rediscovery of the Primitives." Quarterly Review 475 (April 1923):258-270. Bottari, G. G. Raccolta di lettere sulla Pittura, Scultura ed Architettura. 1 vols. Rome: 1754-1773. [8 vols. Milano: 1822-1825]. Claude-Joseph Vernet 1714-1789. London: Greater London Council, 1976. Cochrane, Eric. Florence in the Forgotten Centuries, 1527-1800. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973. Cochrane, Eric. Tradition and Enlightenment in the Tuscan Academies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961. Cole, Bruce. Agnolo Gaddi. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Craig, Maurice James. The Volunteer Earl. London: The Cressett Press, 1948. Crowe, J. A. and Cavalcaselle, G. B. A History of Painting in Italy. 6 vols. London: John Murray, 1914. Davies, Martin. Earlier Italian Schools. London,:.; National Gallery : Catalogue, 1951. Edwards, Edward. Anecdotes of Painters who have Resided or been Born in England. London: Leigh & Sotheby, 1808. 87 Edwards, Gerald K. S. "Thomas Patch." Apollo XXVI (October 1937): 217-221. Eimerl, S. et al. The World of Giotto a.1267-1337. New York: Time-Life Books, 1967. Fanelli, Giovanni. Firenze Architettura e Citta. Firenze: Vallecchi Editore, 1973. Fleming, John. "The Hugfords of Florence." Part I. Connoisseur CXXXVI 548 (November 1955): 106-110. Part II. Connoisseur CXXXVI 549 (December 1955):197-206. Fleming, John. "Some Roman Ciceroni and Artist-Dealers." The Connoisseur Year Book (1959):24-27. Ford, Brinsley. "Letters of Jonathan Skelton." Walpole Society XXXVI (1956-58):23-82. Ford, Brinsley. "Thomas Patch: A Newly Discovered Painting." Apollo LXXVII (March 1963):172-76. Ford, Brinsley. "Richard Wilson in Rome - The Wicklow Wilsons." Burlington Magazine XCIII (May 1951):157-66. Freedberg, S. J. Painting of the High Renaissance in Rome and Florence. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961. Gombosi, Dr. Georg. Spinello Aretino. Budapest: Im Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1926. The Great Age of Fresco - Giotto to Pontormo. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1968. Greig, James, ed. The Farington Diary. 1 vols. London: Hutchinson & Co., 1923. Harvey, Sir Paul. ed. The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Haskell, Francis. Patrons and Painters. London: Chatto & Windus, 1963. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Twelfth Report, Appendix, Part X. Manuscripts and Correspondence of James, First Earl of Charle-mont. London: 1891. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the late Reginald Rawdon Hastings, Esq.: London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1934. 88 Horn, D. B., ed. British Diplomatic Representatives, 1689-1789. London: Royal Historical Society, 1932. Lepper, John Heron. "The Earl of Middlesex and the English Lodge in Florence." Ars Quartuor Coronatorum LVIII (1945):4-77. Lewis, Lesley. Connoisseurs and Secret Agents in Eighteenth Century Rome. London: Chatto & Windus, 1961. Lewis, Wilmarth Sheldon. Horace Walpole. The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts 1960. New York: Pantheon Books D i e , 19.61. Lewis, Wilmarth Sheldon, gen.ed. Horace Walpole' s Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann. 11 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960. Lindsay, Lord. Sketches of the History of Christian Art. 3 vols. London: John Murray, 1847. Marie, R. van. The Development of the Italian Schools of Painting. 19 vols. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1923-28. Martindale, Andrew and Baccheschi, Edi. The Complete Paintings of Giotto. New York: H. N. Abrams, Inc., 1966. Meiss, Millard. Painting in Florence and Siena After the Black Death. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964. Moloney, Brian. Florence and England. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1969. National Gallery Illustrations. London: London National Gallery, 1937. Os. H. W. van and Prakken, Marian. The- Florentine Paintings in Holland. Maarssen: Gary Schwartz, 1974. Patch, Thomas. Giotto. London: 1772. Patch, Thomas. The Life of Fra Bartolommeo. Florence, 1772. Patch, Thomas. The Life of Masaccio. Florence, 1770. Paulson, Ronald. Emblem and Expression. Massachusets: Harvard University Press, 1975. Pierce, S. Rowland. "Thomas Jenkins in Rome." The Antiquaries Journal. London: Oxford University Press (1965):200-29. 89 Pottle, Frederick A. James Boswell - The Earlier Years, 1740-69. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966. Powell, L. F. gen. ed. Boswell's Life of Johnson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934. Procacci, Ugo. "L'incendio della Chiesa del Carmine." Rivista d'Arte XIV (1932):141-232. Procacci, Ugo. Sinopie and Affreschi. Milano: Electa Editrice, 1961. Ramali, Giuseppe, ed. Campo Santo Monumentale. Pisa: Opera della Primaziale Pisana, 1960. Russell, Francis. "Thomas Patch, Sir.William Lowther, and the Holker Claude." Apollo (August 1975):115-19. Scott, Jonathan. Piranesi. London: Academy Editions, 1975. Toesca, IIaria. Andrea e Nino Pisano. Firenze: Sansoni Editore, 1950. Venturi, A. Storia dell'Arte Italiana. Vol. V: La Pittura del Trecento e le sue origini. Reprint edition. Leichtenstein: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1901. Vermeule, Cornelius C. "The Dal Pozzo-Albani Drawings of Classical Antiquities in the British Museum." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 50 Part 5 (1960):3-78. Vertue Note Books V. Walpole Society XXVI (1937/38). Vitzthum, Conte Giorgio. "Un ciclo perduto di affreschi di Spinello Aretino." L'Arte 9 (1906):199-203. Walker Art Gallery. Foreign Schools Catalogue. Liverpool: Published by order of the City Council, 1963. Watson, F. J. B. "Thomas Patch (1725-1782)." Walpole Society XXVII (1939-40):15-50. Watson, F. J. B. "Thomas Patch - Some New Light on His Work." Apollo 85 (May 1967):348-53. Watson, F. J. B. "An Unknown Portrait of the Young Gibbon." The Times Literary Supplement, 25 December 1959, p. 760. Zeri, Ferdinando. "Italian Primitives at Messrs. Wildenstein." Burlington Magazine 107 (1965):252-56. Fig. 1. Manetti Chapel frescoes - l e f t wall 91 92 1. Manetti Chapel 2. Brancacci Chapel 3. Cappella di Santa 4. Cappella del Crocifisso 5. Cappella Maggiore F1g. ^ ( p Y g H ^ I - C h f i ^ P C f i f O f h l h g a P i r w I n p r f f e ^ l t a f t e r >77». Fig. 4. Head of Elizabeth fragment. Fig. 5. Servant fragment 96 Fig. 6. Saint Zacharias fragment. 97 Fig. 7. Women and,Infant Saint John 8. Head of Saint John Baptising Christ Fig. 9. Two Angels fragment. Fig. 10. Musician fragment Rig. 11. Salome fragment 102 Fig. 12. Guest fragment Fig. 13. Saint John Praying 104 Fig. 14. Disciple fragment 105 Fig., 15. Two Disciples fragment. 106 b Fig. 16. Conversation Piece, 1774. Fig. 17. Detail Fig. 18a. The Annunciation to Saint Zacharias N* in Fig. 18b. The Birth and Naming of Saint John Fig. 18c. The Beheading and Entombment of the Baptist Fig. 19a. The Vis i t a t i o n Fig. 19b. Saint John Preach-ing and the Baptism of Christ Fig. 19c. Saint John in Prison and the Dance of Salome Fig. 21 Fig. 23 115 Fig. 24 116 Fig. 26. Thomas Patch. The Presentation in the Temple. 117 Fig. 29 118 Fig. 30. Life of Saint John the Baptist. Peruzzi Chapel Fig. 31. Life of Saint John the Evangelist. Peruzzi Chapel. 120 Fig. 33. Ascension Fig. 34. Manetti Chapel Frescoes. Baptism - detail Fig. 35. Andrea Pisano. Baptism - d e t a i l . Fig. 36. Manetti Chapel Frescoes. Baptism - detail ro Fig. 37. Masaccio. Brancacci Chapel Baptism of Neophytes - d e t a i l . Fig. 38. Masaccio. Brancacci Chapel St. Paul Vi s i t i n g St. Peter Fig. 39. Manetti Chapel Frescoes. St. John in Prison - detail. Fig. 40. Masaccio. Pisa Polyptych. Beheading of Saint John Fig. 41. Manetti Chapel Frescoes. Beheading of Saint John 125 Fig. 42. Agnolo Gaddi. Baptism Castellani Chapel, Santa Croce. / i n/ | ;,•„«/, I'riili'lln, 1'arh, Uiuvrc Fig. 44. Giotto. Feast of Herod. Peruzzi Chapel, Santa Croce. 127 Fig. 45. Conversation Piece Fig. 47. Thomas Lawrence. James Boswell Fig. 48. A Rehearsal at Sir Horace Mann's Fig. 49. Detail. Fig. 51. Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca Engraving, First page. 131 APPENDIX A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS IN THE LIFE OF PATCH Legend: Actual events shown in letter Gothic. Related events shown in Italics. 1725 (early) - born in Exeter - John and Hannah Patch nee Burnet. (Mar. 31) - baptised in St. Paul's Church. ? - apprenticed to an Exeter apothecary. "Gave offence by drawing caricatures of persons." 1729- 34 - publication of the enlarged 4th edition of the Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca. 1730- 40 - Ignazio Hugford collecting Italian primitives. 1741-2 - Richard Balton in Rome. (Reported in the Skelton letters.) ? - apprenticed to Dr. Richard Mead in London - collector, and physician to George II. 1746 - Dr. James Parsons discourse on Human Physiognomy. 1747 - in Rome. Had l e f t Devon? with Richard Dal ton (Jenkins?) did a walking tour through Europe. - Mann mentions that Dalton in Rome in 1743. - Farington shown letters written by Patch in Italy, and dated 1747 to 1750. - Thomas Steavens on Continent. - 1st Oct. and 5th Nov., Dalton introduced to Albani in letters written on these dates by Mann. 1748- 53 - Vernet lives with his family in Palazzo Zuccari. - Lord Charlemont arrives in Rome. 1749- 51 - Reynolds visits Rome. 1749 - Charlemont et al establish Academy of English Professors of the Liberal Arts - John Parker is made supervisor. (Apr.) - Charlemont leaves for Near East - Richard Dalton goes along as his draughtsman. Leaves orders with Patch for views of Rome. 1750 (Apr.) (Summer) - Patch works with or studies under Claude Joseph Vernet. - works at Ti v o l i , doing views for Charlemont. 132 1751 (May) (Summer) (June to Mar. 1752) (Oct. 12) (Oct. 23) (Dec.) Patch and Reynolds sharing apartment at English Coffee House --moved before Easter to Palazzo Zuccari. Reynolds wrote that Hugford had "a good collection of drawings, principally of the Florentine masters. Patch works at Tivoli doing views for Charlemont. Quarrels with Holy Office begin. Asked to quit diocese by Bishop of T i v o l i . Ralph Howard in Italy. Orders 'copies' of Vernets from Patch. Mann writes to Albani re Patch—seeks help of Albani re Patch's banishment from T i v o l i . Albani replies that Bishop must have had a good reason. "Best i f Catholics and sectarians do not mix." Farington reads letter of this date where Patch indicates that Vernet has been called to Paris for commission from king. 1752 - letter from Albani indicating that Wilson and Jenkins in Rome. (May 5) - Reynolds leaves Rome for Florence. (June 6) - James Russel to Ralph Howard--"Mr. Patch has sent me likewise his quota of pictures." 1753 (Apr. 16) (June 8) (July 31) Walpole recommends Thomas Steavens to Mann. Mann indicates he has met Thomas Steavens. Letter from Mann to Albani confirming that Jenkins presented letter of recommendation to Albani August, 1753 (Wilson had presented his in March, 1752) both letters were from Mann. 1753-54 Recorded in 'Status Animarum' of the Palazzo Zuccari 1754 (Jan. 22) - Mann writes to Albani re complaints he has heard about Jenkins. 1755 (early) - Patch has fight with Warner in the 'Academy'--closed. (Apr. 19) - Patch writes to Lowther that he has two copies of Claude paintings. (July 26) - Patch s t i l l being paid by Belloni for paintings he did for Charlemont. (Aug. 20) - Believed that Lowther wrote to Patch giving him authority to act for him and asks for assessment of Claude painting. (Sept. 15) - Patch writes Lowther outlining plan to put copy of Claude in place of real one, then send real one to Lowther. (Oct. 22) - asked by Holy Office to quit the Papal States immediately, i.e. within 24 hours. 133 1755 (Nov.) - Albani writes to Mann advising him that Patch has been banished. (Dec. 9) - Letter from Patch to Lowther re shipping of 'Claude' - indicates that he is s t i l l in Rome. (Dec. 12) - Albani writes to Mann stating that he does not know the reason for banishment but that the 'affair' had something to do with women. (Dec. 23) - Patch writes to Lowther and states that he has to leave Rome. (Dec. 24) - John Parker writes to Charlemont advising that "this day we lost Pate he.'.' (end Dec.) - Patch arrives in Florence with letters of recommenda-tion. Lives at Charles Hadfield's hotel "described as being on the l e f t bank." 1756 (Jan. 2) - Patch writes letter to Charlemont re 'affair'. (Jan. 10) - Albani thanks Mann for receiving Patch. (Jan. 31) - Letter of recommendation for Patch from T. Steavens to Earl of Huntingdon. (Feb. 19) - Letter from Patch to Lowther indicating that he was asked to leave Rome on Dec. 23, 1755. (Feb. 28) - Letter, from. Parker to Charlemont - indicating Patch now in Florence - gives some reasons that he thinks may have caused banishment. (Mar.) - Letter from Patch to Huntingdon re banishment. (Mar. 21) - Letter from Patch to Lowther indicating that he has started paintings for Huntingdon. (May 22) - Letter from Parker to Charlemont stating that Patch "is a-bridge painting in Florence for Lord Huntingdon." Believes reason for banishment was "his loose way of talking in all companies. " 1757 -Jenkins elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. 1758 (Apr. 5) - Parker writes Charlemont - gives reasons why he thinks Academy was closed. Mentions that Jenkins is also against him. (June 3) - Mann writes to Walpole re Poussins that were for sale. (Oct. 4) - Parker writes again that Jenkins is against him. 1750's late - does caricature oil painting of Cognoscenti. 1760-1770 - between., these dates Patch is believed by Watson to have kept a sketchbook of visitors. 1760-89 - Third. Earl Cowper elected member of Accademia della Crusca. 1760 circa - Painting of "John Ker, The Diike of Roxborough. 1760 - Richard Dalton appointed librarian to George III. - Visits Venice and Pbla. - Caricature painting of The Punch Party (at Hadfields) - Caricature painting of Antiquaries at Pola. 134 1761 - Painting caricature groups. - A Punch Party. - The Duke of Roxborough and Miss Mendes. - T i l l his death he lived at a house opposite Mann's --on the other side of the Via dei Santi Apostoli. (Jan. 17 - Bottari elected Honorary Fellow of the Society of - Apr. 2) Antiquaries in London. Jenkins acted as inter-mediary. (May 21) - Albani nominated to be Honorary Fellow of Society of Antiquaries. (Nov. 19) - Albani elected as Honorary Fellow of Society of Antiquaries. 1762-1771 - Between these years he was elected a member of the Florentine Academy of Design. 1762 - Dal Pozzo drawings bought for George III from Albani. 1764-1769 - Cascade Near Term' - painted at Rome? Suggestion is that Clement XIII permitted him to return to Rome for a v i s i t . (Benedict XIV had exiled him). 1764 (Jan. 1) - John Apthorp commissioned 4 landscapes from Patch--imaginary sea and harbour scenes. - Duke of York commissions painting depicting Duke leaving Mann's house. (Aug. 6) - Gibbon mentions dining with Lyttleton (Lord Palmerston) and Guise and looking at paintings by Patch. (Aug. 17) - Gibbon vi s i t s Patch to see painting for Duke of York. (Aug. 19) - Gibbon dined at Mann's with Patch et a l . 1765 - Takes up engraving - Giuseppe Zocchi may have helped him. - A rehearsal at Sir Horace Mann's - depicts himself carrying basket containing Vocabolario della Crusca. - Conversation Piece with Portrait of Mann and Bust  of Patch. (Malahide Painting). (Jan.-Jun.) - Boswell in Rome—Abbe Grant acts as cicerone. (May IS) - Work starts on the renovation of Santa Maria del Carmine. (June-Oct.) - Boswell may have been sketched by Patch - Godfrey Bagnall Clarke writes on Aug. 17, 1765, asking Boswell whether he has been encanvassed by Patch. Boswell attends Accademia della Crusca. (Aug. 13) - Boswell writes that "Yesterday morning at Patch's and then in Gallery." (Sept.) - Boswell in Pisa. 135 1766 - Painting of Sterne and Death. 1767 - Hugford known to possess "at least two quattro-cento paintings and at least one trecento painting." 1768 - Works with Zocchi on two engravings for Charles James Fox. - The Music Lesson. (Mar. 15) - Mann sends Walpole, Patch's caricature of Sterne. 1769 (circa) - Painting caricature of A Gathering of Dilettanti Round the Medici Venus. 1769 - Engraving of another Sterne. - Drawing of the Servitore di Piazza. - Drawing of H. W. Bunbury the caricaturist. - Drawing of Sir Abraham Hume. - Engraving of Portrait of Giovanni Bellori. - Engraving of Portrait of Poussin. 1770 - Engravings of The Life of Masaccio. - Patch refers to Ignatio Hugford in "Introduction" to Masaccio as being "well-known for his judgement, practice in painting as well as for the large Collection of Pictures which he is possessed of." - Grand Duke of Tuscany opens a Gabinetto de Antichi Quadri i . e . the works of Cimabue, Taddeo Gaddi, Masaccio, etc. 1771 (Jan. 20) - Walpole acknowledges receipt of Masaccio engravings. (Jan. 28/29)- Fire in the Church of S. Maria del Carmine "which was three years in repairing." (Feb. 22) - Mann writes to Walpole and in answer to Walpole's request for more information on Patch writes that Patch "took to engravings" and year or two ago "without the least assistance" and he adds that Patch always adored "the heads of Masaccio in the Carmine." Has sent two extra sets that Walpole requested and indicates that another series is underway. (Mar. 22) - Walpole replies that he will try to help Patch with his subscription but believes Patch's brother is better. (June 20) - Walpole acknowledges receipt of extra copies of Masaccio and Raccolta di lettere... by Bottari. (Oct. 15) - Mann sends two pictures by Patch (views of Florence) that Walpole ordered. (Dec. 28) - Walpole acknowledges receipt of pictures but thinks "they are a l i t t l e hard." (Fra Bartolommeo) "I see none of the great ideas I thought I remembered in him; at least he is far below the amazing Masaccio. " 1772 (Jan. 25) - Mann writes to Walpole to say he has passed on comments re Bartolommeo to Patch"who agreed and thinks you show great judgement in preferring Masaccio to Fra 136 Bartolommeo. His engravings of the latter were from copies in o i l and the want of strength which you observe, he says, is positively a defect in the original. He is about a large work of the Frate, and has sought out the best of his paintings both here and at Lucca (of which work the enclosed is a description), and he humbly begs your per-mission to dedicate i t to you." (Feb. 12) - Walpole to Mann says he cannot refuse Patch's and Mann's request. There follows a f a i r l y long monologue. Even includes card indicating what the dedication should look like. (Mar. 10) - Mann to Walpole states that Patch has gone to Rome for a few days. (July 23) - Walpole to Mann asks for Patch's caricatures "that were added to his Masaccio." (Aug. 11) - Mann to Walpole--says he will send caricaturas. Also includes portrait (engraving) of Sir John Hawkwood. 1772-73 - Zoffany had arrived in Florence some time over this period. The entry below indicates that i t had to be before August 25, 1772. (Aug. 25) - Mann to Walpole says he will let Walpole have Patch's"caricaturas"and his Gates of St. John by the f i r s t opportunity. "Zoffany is charmed by them." (Sept. 20) - Walpole to Mann "I will subscribe for anything of Mr. Patch's, but I have very l i t t l e taste for those gates; though the originals are fine." (Nov. 24) - Mann to Walpole. Mentions that in case of i.tems-that Patch has sent to his brother he has placed in i t a sort of "tabernacle representing St. John by Donatello, in basso rilievo with i t s pedestal detached; some parts of i t are good; i t may stand on a table." 1772, 1773, 1774 - Engravings of Porte del Battistero di Firenze done in collaboration with Gregori. 1773 (Feb. 13) - Mann to Walpole-- reference to Patch who was asked by young a r t i s t for advice - a r t i s t had done Trinity of Father,Son and Virgin. Patch f i n a l l y persuaded him that this was incorrect. (Feb. 17) - Walpole to Mann--advising that Mr. James Patch had brought his brother's engravings (Fra. Bartolommeo and Giotto) and the St. John by Donatello. (Mar. 12) - Walpole to Mann thanking Patch for dedication. Goes on to state that Fra. Bartolommeo's works not as good as Masaccio's. Believes his early admiration was "from the colouring, not as I thought from his great ideas, for they are far inferior to those of his two contemporaries." 137 (Mar. 30) - Mann to Walpole indicating that "Mr. Patch is very sensible of the justness of your criticism on his engravings of the Frate. Monsignore Bottari at Rome made the same, and gave the same reason for their pleasing less than those of Masaccio. These were quite new, besides their i n f i n i t e merit. 1 1774 - Painting Musical Party. Patch is depicted on the right holding under his l e f t arm a fol i o with the t i t l e : Le'Regole del Fisonomizare, Florence, 1774. 1778 - Acted as dealer for William Hamilton. - View of the Arno with Ponte Santa Trinita and seven others. (One of them a night scene.) - Zoffany leaves Florence. (Nov.) - Visited by brother's step-son. - Study of physiognomy stolen by "French Duke" and destroyed by him when followed by authorities. 1779 - Walpole records him as 'picture cleaning and restoring.' 1782 (Apr. 30) - dies after f i t of apoplexy. - Mann to Walpole states Patch was i l l the day before and went across the road to his own place and died on the morning of the 30th. (May. 18) - Walpole to Mann "I am concerned for your loss of Patch: he had great merit in my eyes in bringing to light the admirable paintings of Masaccio, so l i t t l e known out of Florence t i l l his prints disclosed them." 1783 (Mar. 1) - Gazzetta toscana notes that on this date at the address of the heirs of Signore Tommaso Patch in the Fondaccio di S. Spin to is for sale the f i r s t cast of the famous gate by Ghiberti for the church of S. Giovanni in this city, with other rare busts, and statues of, plaster and of marble, pictures, engravings, bronzes, etc. 138 APPENDIX B (Letter from T. Steavens to Francis, tenth Earl of Huntingdon) 1756, Jan. 31. Rome. "...Boyer said yesterday that his Court waited for our answer to their last memorial, and that their resolutions with regard to war or peace will certainly be deter-mined by that. The French embassador [sic] has had a reprimand from the Pope for having taken the Governor's box. He said he was sensible he had pushed the thing too far, mais qu'on I'avoit pique, and offered to give up the key, but the Pope refused i t . "C[?ardinal] A[?lbani] has again employed me in writing to Sir J[ames] G[ray] about his favourite scheme of the El[ector] of C[?ologne], which, i f we have a mind i t should succeed, seems very likely to do so; the C. has received no slight assurances from him. He has insisted on M. de G. and his newphews being recalled, and they are both gone to P[ari]s, and not content with this, he has sent away the F[re]nch comedians and a surgeon of that nation who was in his service. The El[ecto]r wants to know from the C[ardina]l where and before whom M. de G. held such and such discourse about him at Naples, for what the discourse was the C[ardina]l knew from me, and he from the C[ardina]l before. What his Eminence requires is a letter directly from Sir J[ames] G[ray] to him on this subject with a l l the particulars of i t . . . " Postscript. "...Your Lordship will find at Florence a Mr. Patch. He had been indiscreet in his conduct and conversation here, and was sent out of Rome by the Inquisition. I believe I have already mentioned him to you. He is a man of worth and merit and a person whom Lord Charlemont had the highest value for. For these reasons I take the liberty of recommending him to your favour and protection..." From: Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of the late Reginald Rawddn Hastings, Esq. (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1934) p. 114. Note:* Thomas Steavens (ca. 1728-71759), son of Sir Thomas Steavens, of Bermondsey, Surrey; he had been on the continent since 1747. W.S. Lewis, Horace Walpole's Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, IV:175, fn. 5. 139 APPENDIX C  Text Accompanying the Giotto Engravings Thomas Patch to the Reader. "Those pictures of Giotto in the Church of the Carmelites, are no more to be seen accepting in the following prints, as they have been destroy 1d since the f i r e , which happend the 28th January last year. And even the chapel i t self is no more, and in its room, built up one of the pears which is to sustain, the cupola of the Church, which is now rebuilding. I only have saved some pieces with the permission of the owners of the chapel, which I.have taken of the wall, and since the whole was to have been destroyed, I was desirous of preserving at least the memory, which may give some pleasure to those, who are willing to reflect on the different stages of painting. I have marked out the places where only remaind the outlines in red, under the coat of plastering where the painting was, and the same is likewise to be seen in the Campo Santo at Pisa. I have likewise marked out with a dotted line, the parts which had been modernly repainted, on the original outlines Here i t is necessary to observe, that some Tuscan Authors tho long since the time of Giotto engaged themselves to assert that the.art of Painting revived in Florence at the time of this celebrated Artist, who came to study in that city, and was enroled as a Citizen, and they call him the only and f i r s t restorer of the art. From hence arose and perhaps s t i l l continues a dispute both vain and uncertain, in the which i f ever their could be drawn a conclusion that perhaps might be done by examining, how far this cryed up School of Florence was different from the infinite number of Painters not Florentines at the same time. After a l l I beleive I am the f i r s t that has ever given any Prints to the publick after this Author, and to whom i t belongs to decide, as I likewise was the f i r s t in the year 1769. to propose publishing an example after every celebrated Author, in which I was greatly encouradge by the celebrated Monsignor Bottari, and there is now who carrys on this work with great success. 140 This work seems to be one of the authors last i t is is true what Cinelli says, that i t was done under the directions of S. Andrea Corsini, then a Friar in the Carmelites, that he was l e f t executor, and had been confessor of the Founder of this chapel, Vanni Manetti, i t could not be begun before 1330. i f S. Andrea return'd so soon from France of which some Authors doubt, therefor this work must have been painted within the last five years of Giottos l i f e and not before, as Vasari and Baldinucci have mentioned. In Firenze L'anno MDCCLXXII. 141 APPENDIX D Contri's Method of Detachment of -intonaoo "The method that Contri secretly used was this. He covered the painting with a piece of canvas, well-varnished with his own special bitumen or glue, which firmly adhered to the wall. Once the painting was covered, he tapped the canvas well with a wooden mallet. Then he cut the intonaoo around the canvas (just as i t is s t i l l done today). With the knuckles of his fingers he checked to see i f the painted wall was solid or showed any symptoms of blistering. Then after i t had dried well for several days, he carefully began to remove the canvas very slowly with both hands, taking with i t a l l the painted wall surface. He immediately placed the canvas on a perfectly f l a t and smooth table, attaching behind i t a second canvas, also varnished and impregnated with a mixture even more adhesive than the f i r s t . Over this he sprinkled sand and other weights in.order to press the painting uniformly, and he l e f t i t in this state without touching i t again for a week. Then, removing the weights and sand, he turned the whole work over and washed the f i r s t canvas with hot water to remove the glue. The painting appeared, just as i t had looked on the wall: beautiful and fresh, in fact, cleaner than before, since the glue had pulled off with i t the dust, which had accumulated on the painting with the passing of time. If there had been some sign of defacement or lines incised by the painter (that i s , the cartoon outlines), these too remained just as they had been on the wall." From: Introduction by Ugo Procacci to The Great Age of Fresco. Giotto to Pontormo. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1968, p. 40-1. APPENDIX E 142 CHRONOLOGY OF THE MANETTI CHAPEL FRESCOES AND FLORENTINE ARTISTS OF THE GIOTTO ERA 1275 1300 1325 1350 1375 1400 1425 Manetti Chapel Frescoes Suggested Previous New Dating Dating GIOTTO o. 1267-1337 ^ St. CECILIA MASTER ft. early 14th o. WFFMMA£CO^L^^s^ulf 14th e. *TADDEO_ GADDI a. 1300-1366  •STEFANO c. 1301-1350 • BERNARDO DADDI ft. 1328-1348 *NARDO DI CIONE ft. mid-14th a. *MASO DI BANCO ft. 1341-1346 iQRCAGNA (ANDREA DI CIONE) ft.1344-1368 AGNOLO GADDI_o. 1350-1396 A^NWJENEUM^l^nd half 14th a. ^GIOVANNI DEL BIONDO ft. 1356-1392 ANDREA DA FIRENZE ft. 1360-1377 SPWELLO^AR^TINOjfl. 1373-1410 See following pages. Adapted from: S. Eimerl et al, The World of Giotto a. 1267-1337 (New York: Time-Life Books, 1967) p. 192. 143 APPENDIX E (Continued) SOME THOUGHTS ON TADDEO GADDI, MASO DI BANCO AND NARDO DI CIONE AND POSSIBLE PAINTER OF THE MANETTI CHAPEL FRESCOES TADDEO GADDI Similar facial features to those of the Manetti cycle can be detected in his Presentation of the Virgin in the Baroncelli Chapel (1332-38) and while the architecture is far more elaborate, some of the scenes in the Manetti cycle—the Annunciation, Birth and Naming and Vance—seem to echo some of these embellishments. The overall impression of the scenes in the Tree of Life in the refectory of Santa Croce (1340-50) seems close in style to the Manetti Chapel frescoes and several similarities can be noted: 1. The use of space--the figures in some of the scenes are set back within the space of the pictures. 2. The depiction of the rocks and mountains is similar and form an integral part of the composition. 3. The figures occupy the architecture provided for them but in some scenes they seem slightly larger in proportion to the architecture. 4. The figure groupings are variable, heads are at different levels, some figures kneel on one knee. Other works by this artist would be well worth examining as i t might be argued that the Manetti Chapel frescoes could be seen as a synthesis of his two styles — the elaborate and the simple. MASO DI BANCO When looking at his Saint Sylvester cycle, one does not only note the individual and isolated similarities such as the frowns, shape of eyes and similar style of halos, one is more struck by the total effect of the whole cycle. For example, Maso ut i l i z e s : 1. Various levels: below ground, at ground and above ground. 2. Varying placement of heads: they are staggered at different heights throughout the whole cycle. 3. Variable groupings of people. 4. Smooth integration of two scenes into one. 5. Solid, expressive, tranquil figures, a sense of timelessness. In this instance, the architecture is quite different from that in the Manetti Chapel frescoes. The buildings occupy the whole space 144 and the figures seem smaller in proportion. Yet perhaps such differences are unimportant as they can often be seen in two fresco cycles by the same master. They can be seen in Giotto's Bardi and Peruzzi frescoes and in Taddeo Gaddi's Baroncelli Chapel and the refectory at Santa Croce which will be discussed shortly. There-fore this difference need not rule out Maso as a strong contender for the Manetti cycle.: NARDO DI CIONE When comparing the fragments with his known works the following similarities are quickly noted: 1. The facial features, frown, scowl, hair style, of Saint Benedict (Stockholm) closely resemble the features of the Saint Zacharias fragment. 2. The hair, half-beard and nose of Saint John the Baptist in the polyptych at New Haven, Connecticut, reveal a close relationship with the two fragments of Saint John. 3. The f i r s t angel in the tenth row of the Paradise fresco in the Strozzi Chapel of Santa Maria Novella, possesses the same soft, natural face and hair as can be noted in the 'two angels' fragment. 4. Several similar comparisons can be made when comparing individual figures from among the 'Chosen' of the Strozzi Chapel fresco with the Manetti frag-ments. For example, the figure of an elderly nun seems to bear a striking resemblance to the fragment of Elizabeth. The profile of a gentleman resembles the Saint John baptising fragment. Unfortunately, we have no examples of any authenticated Nardo di Cione works which have architectural backdrops which would enable us to compare his proportion and integration of figures with the architecture. We cannot even compare the groupings of figures in the Strozzi Chapel because the iconographical program is so different. But does the ar t i s t need to supply evidence of previous form and space utilization when he has such an excellent model to follow in the Peruzzi and could apply his imaginative s k i l l s to it? 145 APPENDIX F SUMMARY OF ICONOGRAPHIC COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MANETTI CHAPEL FRESCOES AND THE SAINT JOHN CYCLES OF THE BAPTISTERY MOSAICS (1260's), PERUZZI CHAPEL (1320's), BAPTISTERY DOORS (1330's), AND GIOVANNI DEL BIONDO'S ALTARPIECE OF THE BAPTIST (1350-75).  Scene Annunciation Visitation Bapti st Preaching Main Points Compared Angel placement and form Grouping and position of figures and architecture. Gestures and poses Birth and Placement and attitude Naming of figures. Placement of Elizabeth Placement of Zacharias Architecture Pose of Baptist Number of listeners Accoutrements Outstanding Differences* and important similarities in the Manetti Chapel frescoes. *Angel in flig h t *Grouping on both sides. Similarity to Peruzzi. *Two handed grasp of Eliza-beth's hand by Virgin. *Linking with moving figure. Elizabeth on right except in mosaics. •Placement of Zacharias is frontal. •Grouping on both sides. •Large congregation placed on both sides. Baptism of Christ Placement of figures and angels. Pose and attitude of Christ. Accountrements. •Shivering figure of Christ. Baptist Visited by Disciples Placement and poses of Baptist and disciples Dance of '. Placement of Salome Salome Gestures, attitudes and placement of other figures. Archi tecture. Beheading Placement and attitude of Saint John and executioners •Baptist centrally placed in other cycles he is placed on one side. •Salome on l e f t , other-wise similar to Peruzzi. •Executioner on l e f t •No attendants. •Semi-crouch of Saint John. 146 Scene Presentation at Feast Entombment Main Points Compared Poses of figures Position of head Who presents to whom. Placement and attitude of Body. Grouping, posing, sex and gestures of attendants Outstanding Differences* and important similarities in the Manetti Chapel frescoes nil *No head on Body. *Women included *0ne figure l i f t i n g feet, and one 1 if t i n g head. *Lone figure on right may represent donor. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094363/manifest

Comment

Related Items