Ancient and modern errors: anonymous Magliabechiano

This name is very odd to strangers to art history, it is normal but it is a source important or so presumed to Italian art history and particularly Florentine, the name of this manuscript took from  Antonio Magliabechi (1633-1714) a Florentine bibliophile of 17^th; the anonymous author uses ancient source as Pliny the Old, and his Naturalis historia, in fact doesn’t fantasy but follows directly the his source, and Pliny has said: “And the first was Gorgias, that today is unknown because we know a Gorgias from Lentin, Sicily, rhetorician(before Christ 483-376) and other rhetorician from Athens(1 century befo5re Christ) that, following the text of our anonymous could, in temple of Delphi, he has worked a sculpture of gold, that was after 40 years the foundation of Rome, it is impossible, because Pliny known alone the legendary date of foundation of Rome, because today we doesn’t know it, and it also impossible, certainly less important than the first, but we can consider, that a sculptor called Gorgias is never born. A sculptor called Butades that worked pots of earth and other things in Corinth”; it is usual legend, because today we keep sculpture of some thousand years ago, in Egypt for example; and continuing with this way: “…to motive of his daughter that was fall in love to a young, before that the father come to go away she took the shadow of his lover, and she with lines given a summary description and ended it, and hers father, after, give the earth and he given the form, and after he cook (so that it have a form and solid material)…”; the episode is false as the 7 euros, and Pliny has took it from Greek mythology, an episode when the girl, after the epiphany of his lover, by now dead, she worked a statue of the young, and when the sculpture dissolved in a fire she dived in fire; it is source of Pliny, and our anonymous follows with fidelity. We must give a compliment to this anonymous, that fortunately to him is again anonymous, otherwise a stake we could have to him very will; somebody says that Damarato, merchant of Corinth, escaped from Greece and he come to Tuscany, and where married an Tuscan woman and he was father of Tarquin Priscus, king of Roman people. And two sculptors Euciarpus and Eugromannus, and from them the sculpture in Italy is born...”; these bullshits are laughable, but a dynamic ground of truth is present, where is? Simple to trade of ancient Sicily during 5^th century before Christ to Etruria, actual Tuscany and Rome, from this commerce is born the legend of Damarato. But neither is saved from these bullshits because the anonymous took also the painting: “Hygiaenon was the first that distinguished the man from woman in painting, and Eumarus from Athens portrait it to natural…”, he following the Naturalis historia follows the fantasy. About Phidias(before Christ 490-415) one of the major sculptor in ancient Greek, that sculpted the histories on sides of Parthenon, that in narration of anonymous has come to Rome and sculpted a Venus a Jupiter, certainly it is credible, but Phidias in Rome and in Italy never come. To medieval painters the told is improved because The life of painters sculptors and architects was published and may the anonymous could read the life of painters and to Cimabue(1240-after 1302), but evidently he hasn’t seen the frescos of Giotto(1267?-1337), because he had given the natural form to human body, while Cimabue remained to Byzantine form. The name Giotto is short form of Ambrogiotto or Ambrose, common error, and proof that the author has read the life of Vasari is in this step: “…(Cimabue) coming to Bolognas  and next to Florence while he passed  to a town called Vespignano, he seen a young that one a table he was drawing a sheep…” and Vasari in life of Giotto: “Cimabue while going from Florence to Vespignano he found Giotto, that meanwhile the sheep pastured on the cleaned table with a stone he portrait a sheep…”; the contradiction of anonymous is in following step: “And he(Giotto) leaved the Greek way, that Cimabue took,…”, but some steps before he has said the contrary, this is that Cimabue used the natural image: “He was(this is Cimabue), that has found the natural outline and the true proportion, fro Greek called symmetry…and he kept  the Greek manner…”, the Byzantine, or Greek manner isn’t natural but alone ideal; hence or Cimabue was natural of ideal, but certainly he not be both. These are errors of a manuscript of second half of 16^th century, in National library of Florence, and can ascertain that he has copied Pliny and Vasari thereupon nothing of new he has added.  I hope that somebody is going to explain importance of this writer since he copied Pliny and Vasari. It isn’t a mystery of faith in conformity of Catholic mess, but alone a mystery of art history, and of art critic, because the Anonymous is very useless.

Alessandro Lusana