Venetian Cinquecento Pictures and France in the 1820s: Painting, Perception, Influence

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

Venetian Cinquecento Pictures and France in the 1820s: Painting, Perception, Influence

V.D. Sedleryonok

This article deals with reassessing Venetian Cinquecento painting in France in the 1820s. This research is a series of case studies related to this problem and providing various types of historical analysis. It examines particular artworks, artistic, social, political contexts, and the influence of Venetian art on the formation of a new artistic language in France in the 1820s. Using an analysis of a wide range of both visual and verbal primary sources, I explore theoretical and practical aspects of the reassessment of Venetian Cinquecento painting in early nineteenth-century France. The paper presents a detailed examination of various French publications of that time regarding Venetian art, as well as a comparative analysis of artworks by Venetian and French artists, namely, Jacopo Robusti, Paolo Veronese, Andrea Schiavone, Eugene Delacroix, Xavier Sigalon, and Eugene Deveria. In this article, I address the following questions. What was the knowledge about Italian Renaissance art in France in the early 19^th century? What place did the Venetian school take among the Italian schools of painting in the French consciousness at that time? How was Venetian painting perceived, revisited and presented? How did it influence the formation of a new artistic language in the 1820s? This study reveals the causes, specifics, aspects, and far-reaching consequences of the reconsideration of Venetian Cinquecento painting in the 1820s and its significance for the understanding of the patterns of art development in 19^th-century France.

Keywords: Venetian Cinquecento painting, French art of the 1820s, influence, reassessment, art criticism.

Role of France in Italian Art Study in the Early 19^th Century

venetian cinquecento painting

The turn of the 18 ^th century was a period of significant changes in the study of the Italian Renaissance. These changes were introduced by France, which at that time was the main European trendsetter in art. Until the end of the first decade of the 19 ^th century, the French conducted innovative research focused mainly on the early Italian Renaissance. Studies by historian Alexis-Fran^ois Artaud de Montor reflected the interest in previously long rejected Italian Primitives. In 1808, his work Considerations about the State of Art in Italy during the four centuries preceding Raphael's was published [1]. In this essay, the author focused on the Tuscan and Venetian schools of painting, examined the works by Antonio Veneziano, Giotto, Cimabue, and many other Italian painters of the 12^th, 13 ^th, 14^th, and 15^th centuries, including anonymous ones. Earlier, connoisseur and historian Serouxd'Agincourt had written an extensive six-volume work about Italian art, History of Art by its Monuments, from its Decline in the Fourth Century to its Restoration in the Sixteenth [2]. A significant part of the study deals with Italian Primitives. DAgincourt attempted to find a correlation between artistic style and cultural context. He was among the first who rejected the biographical approach to art history, which was prevalent earlier and represented the Italian Renaissance as one of its stages. Thus, the French author applied Winckelmann's idea of phases in the development of the arts to examine the art of the later period [3, p. 317].

French studies of the early 19^th century provided various approaches to Italian art. In the 1820s, the attitude towards Renaissance painting had its own unique characteristics. The term “Renaissance” was not yet clearly defined, but it was used For more information on the notion of Renaissance in French criticism of the early 19^th century, see: [3, p. 322].. The name of the period can be found in the works of such writers as Stendhal (Walks in Rome, 1828), Balzac (Country Ball, 1829) and Victor Cousin (History of Philosophy, 1829). In the 1820s, French authors did not write extensive works on Italian art. The encyclopedic desire to explore everything became a thing of the past. The study of the Italian Renaissance in general was replaced by interest in particular artist, painting, style and specific artistic language. The French began to focus on a particular artwork, but not on the era as a construct. They began to be interested in the paintings of an entire period such as from early to High, and especially the late Renaissance. In those days, 16^thcentury Italian art was associated primarily with Venetian pictures. In the 1820s, interest in Venetian Cinquecento painting began to grow rapidly.

Creator of the Madonna dellaSeggiola: Changes in Reception

The nature of interest in Italian Renaissance painting changed in the early 19^th century. It is natural to begin speaking of these changes with Raphael. For a long time the French considered his position in the Renaissance to be a key one. Among other things, the title of the work of Artaud de Montor, which marked Raphael's activity as an important moment in the development of Italian art, proves this statement. Later, in publications of the 1810 and 1820s, Raphael's name was replaced by the words “creator of the Madonna dellaSeggiola”. The popularity of the author and his work in Paris was undoubted. This picture was being copied in painting and reproduced in engraving. Stendhal wrote, “The Quai Voltaire in Paris is full of prints that represent the Madonna dellaSeggiola” [4, p. 95].

However, this attitude of the French towards Raphael was rather a consequence, and even a lessening of that interest in this painter, which was extremely strong in the Napoleonic era. Raphael's works were of a major interest of the French, when they selected Italian art treasures for transfer to Paris at the turn of the century [5, p. 31-43]. But in the 1820s, Raphael's art ceased to be something new for the Parisian audience. This is true not only for his own paintings, but also for pictures illustrating Raphael's life. Among these were The Death of Raphael by Nicolas-Andre Monsiau (Salon of 1804), Honors Rendered to Raphael on His Deathbed by Pierre-NolasqueBergeret (1806) and Raphael in his studio by Jean-Baptiste Mallet (1814). Additionally, Raphael and the Fornarinawere repeated in works by Dominique Ingres, Fran^ois-fidouard Picot and by Coupin de La Couperie that were exhibited at the Salons of 1822 and 1824.

In the 1820s, the creator of the Madonna dellaseggiola continued to be the same “figure worthy of fine collections” [6, p. 87]. The French continued to pay tribute to his genius, but they did it often under the influence of established ideology: neo-classical tradition, on the one hand, and the centuries-old idea of Raphael's art canonicity, on the other hand. Meanwhile, sometimes the pictorial language of these works began to seem archaic and rigid. Afterwards, noting the qualities of his paintings, the audience did not forget to mention the coldness of his art. Thus, France showed a decreasing interest in Raphael and increasing one in Venetian Cinquecento painting.

Stendhal and Valery: Two Views on Cinquecento Painting

During Stendhal's lifetime, his reputation was largely based on his books on Italy dealing with the arts and with tourism. However, the key idea about the change in attitude towards Italian art in the 1820s is reflected in his work Racine and Shakespeare (1825). This pamphlet is not only about the opposition between the classical and romantic trends at all times, but also about contemporary changes. It was in this work that Stendhal discussed the appearance of an interest in art, which was previously unusual for France. It was a request for passion, movement, variety, complexity of perception of the world, simple and natural expression, and, finally, violation of unity of action, place, and time. Stendhal's view of literature in Racine and Shakespeare was related to trends in fine arts and an increasing interest in the Venetian late Renaissance.

Stendhal's authority as a writer about Italy, it seemed, was unrivaled. However, he was not the only one who had influence. Antoine Claude Pasquin, known as Valery, was one of the keepers of the library in Versailles and a widely read French travel writer. Valery became recognized primarily thanks to his travel guides. One of them is Historical, Literary, and Artistic Travels to Italy in 1826, 1827, and 1828 [7]. Thanks to author's interest in the subject matter and his subjectivity, Valery's writings reflect the ideas of his time, showing, in particular, the place of Italian art in the consciousness of 19^th century France. In his guide, the author expressed his preferences and at the same time, quite likely, preferences of his customers and many readers. Valery explored many regional Italian schools, but he was particularly attracted to Venetian painting. His description of this in the Venetian Academy of Fine Arts is exemplary, “This rich collection, more than four hundred paintings, consists almost entirely of paintings by great masters of Venetian school. The school is delightful, natural and truthful rather than ideal; more brilliance of color, courage, and picturesqueness (rather than the purity of the figure), which our young school emulates just like our young poetic school, tired of seeing the old models, refers to Shakespeare” [7, p. 346].

Some guidebooks of the 1820s considered Raphael's works as perfection. Valery contrasted to this “ideal” painting naturalness and truthfulness of Venetian school In publications of that time, truth is often contrasted with perfection. To illustrate, Valery's remark on Titian's Magdalene from Palazzo Barbarigo, “<...>sacelebre Madeleine moinsideale que vraie<...>”, “<...> his famous Magdalene is more truthful than ideal <...>” [7, p. 335].. The existence of opposites eventually leads to the choosing of one of them. The moment of choice came in the 1820s. Valery and Stendhal pointed to these changes.

Venetian Myth and Pictorial Language

The French of the first half of the 19^th century imagined contemporary Venice ambivalently as flowering and decadent. Venice seemed different from the rest of Europe, both in the negative and positive sense. There was hardly a city that caused as many historical reflections as Venice at that time. Speculations about the decadence of Venice were frequent in the 1820s, as well as before and after that period. Goethe's comparison of a gondola with a coffin in his Venetian epigrams (1790) opened an epoch of speculations about Venice's death. For the entire first half of the 19^th century the French writers were creating the myth that Venice is in decline, Venice is in ruins, Venice is in agony, Venice is dead, and Venice is “a huge cemetery of floating tombs” [8, p. 146; cit. 9 (Feuillet de Conches)]. Pierre Daru's multivolume famous work History of the Republic of Venice added fuel to the fire [10]. Daru began the first volume of his Venetian history by saying, “The famous republic, for a long time strong, remarkable by its originality, its location and institutions, nowadays disappeared, before the eyes, in a moment” [10, p. 5] However, already in the 1820s, the Venetians analyzed History of the Republic of Venice of the French author and defended their homeland against the foreign critic of Venetian culture. GiannantonioMoschini, Count Domenico Tiepolo and Count Leonardo Maninuncovered evidence of Daru's deliberate falsification.. Later, the theme of the decline of Venice was continued by Valery [7, p. 332, 246] and Jules Francois Lecomte, who, like the early writers, called Venice a ruin [8, p. 146; cit. 11]. Although statements about Venice's decline were backed by evidence, they were greatly exaggerated. After the fall of the Republic, the city, indeed, became fairly dilapidated, but to a complete collapse, which the French writers described, it did not come. It should also be noted that the idea of Venetian decadence was accompanied by the thought of Venice's flowering. For example, ArseneHoussaye in his Travel to Venice named Venice an abandoned paradise [8, p. 146; cit. 12]; Stendhal considered it as “the most gay, natural, and the happiest country in Europe” [8, p. 61; cit. 13]. What did Venice become for the first half of the 19^th century? The French remembered enthusiastically the Venice of the past, but their attempts to define it clearly were failing. Venice was retaining its inscrutability, while its image was being created anew.

The creation of the new image of Venice was not only a product of romantic imagination. It was also closely linked to renewed interest in Italian cultural heritage. The French wanted to take possession of Venetian paintings, portraying Venice as a decadent city and calling Paris the best place to exhibit these works. In the 1820s, they put forward Venetian pictorial language. The specific composition, dynamic and color of the 16^th century Italian works attracted the attention of the French. They were interested in a rich variety of shades, complementary colors, golden-cherry-ultramarincolour of Venetian paintings. Also, it is no coincidence that the name le vert Veronese the tone received from the French. The typical composition of Venetian Cinquecento paintings is dynamic. The relationships between canvas's large parts, as well as that of small forms are fundamentally important in these pictures. All these characteristic features of Venetian art were in demand in Paris in the 1820s.

New Tendencies: Discovery of Tintoretto

The reputation of Jacopo Robusti changed over the centuries. The Cinquecento was marked by his glory. Influential theorists of art, GiambattistaArmenini in his work De' veriprecettidellapittura [“On The True Precepts of the Art of Painting'] (1587) and Gian Paolo Lomazzo in Trattatodell'artedellapittura [“Treatise on the Art of Painting'] (1584), expressed great reverence for the Venetian artist. In the 17^th century due to Federico Zuccari and his poem with a telling title Il lamentodellapitturasul'ondevenete [“Lament of Painting on the Venetian Waves”] (1605) the situation changed radically. According to Zuccari, Tintoretto was the artist of decline. The fame of the Venetian painter started to lessen outside the Venetian Republic. It was not until the era of Romanticism that Tintoretto and his painting anew received a great recognition outside Venice [14, p. 31, 10].

The reassessment of Tintoretto's art in the 1820s is especially reflected in Valery's Italian guidebook. One event of his journey is a discovery of Tintoretto's painting in the sestiere of Cannaregio in Venice. The writer was attracted by the church of Madonna dell'Orto. He described it as abandoned to a periphery of cultural life, as desolate and mysterious, such as his French readers imagined contemporary Italy in a whole. Due to his romantic way of thinking, Valery presented to French readers a quite well kept church almost as a ruin, where masterpieces of Italian painting were hidden from the eyes of all of Europe. The Presentation of Virgin in the Temple, The Last Judgment and The Adoration of the Golden Calf are “works of extraordinary power, passion, courage” [7, p. 382]. Eventually, Valery termed Tintoretto's pictures as full of “amazing ease and transparency” [7, p. 382].

Nevertheless, Tintoretto's painting is not transparent and especially is not light. Apparently, Valery meant ease as virtuosity, brilliant mastery of the brush, broad brushstrokes, dynamic painting created by the artist without any visible effort. Why did the author of the guide write about it? Perhaps to a great extent it was determined by the characteristics of the French art scene of the 1820s. The language of the majority of modern paintings, which the French could regularly see in the Salon or at other contemporary exhibitions, was very different from the painting, which Valery found in the church of Madonna dell'Orto. Valery's description pointed to the appearance of French interest in this dynamic painting of spirals and diagonals, its coloristic virtuosity, “strength, passion and courage” (fig. 1, 2). In other words, it was an interest in art distinct from linear painting, characterized by local colors and static composition, which was prevalent in the French art of the early 19^th century.

Fig. 1. Tintoretto, The Last Judgment (II GiudizioUniversale) (detail), 1560-1562. Oil on canvas. The Church of Madonna dell'Orto, Venice. Photo by the author

Fig. 2. Xavier Sigalon, Athaliah (Athalie), 1827. Oil on canvas, 428 x 600 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Nantes. Photo © RMN-Grand Palais/ Gerard Blot

Picture for San Giorgio: The Wedding at Cana by Paolo Veronese in the 1820s

For centuries, the major works of Paolo Caliari were in Venice, primarily in the Venetian church of Saint Sebastian. The French knew it well and called this church a temple of the painter. They noticed, “this church has seen birth and growth of Paolo Veronese's glory” [15, p. 359, 392-3]. However, despite their attention to the works that were in Venice, the French focused on those pictures of the artist that were nearby. Therefore, to analyze the issue of reassessment of his art in the 1820s, it is more fruitful to talk about Veronese's paintings, which at that time already belonged not to Venice, but to Paris.

Although the first lines in the long list of Italian art treasures brought by Napoleon to Paris at the turn of the centuries were given to Raphael's works, a Venetian picture The Wedding at Cana of Veronese (fig. 3) also took the foreground sixth position of this register [16, p. 91]. The canvas of the Venetian became a pride of the French and received considerable attention from its first days in Paris, namely from July 1798. Upon its arrival, the work was exhibited in the Louvre's Salon Carre, and began to be studied and copied by many contemporary painters. Among them were Chataigner, Niquet, Ellston, Delacroix, Deveria, Etty, Revoil, Cibot, Jeanron,Souchon, and a number of anonymous copyists [16, p. 93-102]. But the greatest interest in Veronese's picture, and in Venetian Cinquecento painting in general, arose two decades later. In the 1820s, the Venetian artist became a symbol of innovation and revolt. Romantics focused on Veronese's painting, most oftenturning to his The Wedding at Cana [16, p. 315] (fig. 4). Stendhal even concluded that this canvas is divine [17, p. 119-20].

Fig. 3. Paolo Veronese, The Wedding at Cana (Le Nozze di Cana), 1562-1563. Oil on canvas, 677 x 990 cm. The Louvre, Paris. Photo © RMN-Grand Palais (musee du Louvre) / image RMN-GP

Created in 1563 for the San Giorgio cloister, the painting represents the first miracle of Christ in an unaccustomed place. On the one hand, the compositional arrangement of The Wedding at Cana is similar to the open views of Palladian villas. Like in these, the central open space of Veronese's picture goes not only deep “into canvas”, but also “continues” behind the viewer. On the other hand, the marble decorations of The Wedding at Cana look like graphic architecture in the first published in Venice in 1537 Quarto Libroof Sebastiano Serlio (fig. 5). Venetian artists were familiar with this book and used it in their painting practice [18, p. 147; 19, p. 56-64]. But unlike others, Veronese changed the logic of Serlio's scene. Thanks to presence of multiple vanishing points in the picture, the space of The Wedding at Cana turns out to be complicated and “wrong”. Moved from the central axis, campanile clearly demonstrates a deliberate imbalance. Veronese presented an “amphitheater” of figures slightly removed by the empty foreground, which looks like a proscenium of this stage. He created composition both moving and motionless, place filled and empty, as well as artfully painted space. In the 1820s, the French admired the characteristics of Veronese's painting. They perceived, revisited, and explored it. That was why, after leaving Venice, his magnificent Cana had a new lease of life in France.

Fig. 4. Delacroix's copy of Veronese's Wedding Feast at Cana (Les Noces de Cana), 1820/1826. Oil on canvas, 59.5 x 73 cm. Private collection (COLLINS Fine Art, Ltd), New York

Fig. 5. Sebastiano Serlio, Scenatragica from the second book, “On Perspective”, 1551. Serlio, Sebastiano, II primo [-secondo] librod'architettura (Vinetia: Per Cornelio de Nicolini da Sabbio a instantia de MarchioSessa, 1551)

Venetian Frenchman; or, French Venetian

Parisian publications of the third decade of the 19^th century stated that some French contemporary paintings were like Venetian Cinquecento painting. Not only the frequency of these statements, but also their non-triviality is striking. There was not anyone who publicly compared the art of a contemporary French artist to that of a Venetian painter until the 1820s. This comparison was prevalent in the third decade of the 19^th century, often with regards to Eugene Delacroix's and Eugene Deveria's art For more information on the comparison of Deveria's painting with Veronese's painting, or with Venetian art in general in the 1820s, see the following primary sources: [20, p. 122, 124-5; 21, p. 91-2; 22, p. 812-3; 23, p. 2; 24, p. 2, 3; 25, p. 72-4; 26, p. 1].

For more information on the comparison of Delacroix's painting with Venetian Cinquecento pictures in the 1820s, see the following primary sources: [27, p. 938; 28, p. 780; 24, p. 1; 29, p. 10; 30, p. 106].. Ultimately, it became common place in French literature and criticism. One of the most illustrative examples is the comparison of French painting of the early 19^th century with Paolo Caliari's art. Even decades later, Charles Baudelaire wrote about the magic (“feerique”) Delacroix's colors, which are like the Veronese's colors [31, p. 12]. Theophile Silvestre noticed that the Delacroix's paintings are similar to paintings by Veronese “in spirit, refinement and charm of color” [32, p. 75]. Considering Delacroix's picture Marino Faliero at the Paris Exposition of 1855 Theophile Gautier remarked, “This painting <...> could take its place in the Venetian gallery between Vittore Carpaccio and Paris Bordone” [33, p. 794 (2)]. In his book titled History of Romanticism, the writer named Deveria a great colourist [34, p. 218]. Gautier emphasized that the presence of Deveria's painting The Birth of Henry IV at the Salon of 1827 predicted that France would have its own Paolo Veronese [34, p. 218]. Despite the unanimous opinion of these critics, the following questions arise. Were there valid grounds for this comparison of Italian and French paintings? Why did conversation on this relationship emerge in the 1820s?

Today's Veronese: Origin of Eugene Deveria's Painting

In the 1820s, Journal des artistes pointed to the French opinion that the Venetian school was one of the most remarkable schools of painting. In accordance with the same columnist, painter Eugene Deveria belonged to those who had such a belief. Bold composition, crowded scene, strong and natural color are the words that can be used to characterize Venetian pictures. That was how Journal des artistes described Deveria'sThe Birth of Henry IV (fig. 6), which achieved a great success in France [22, p. 812-3].

Fig. 6. Eugene Deveria, The Birth of Henry IV (La Naissance d'Hen- ri IV), 1827. Oil on canvas, 484x392 cm. The Louvre, Paris. Photo © RMN-Grand Palais (musee du Louvre) / Gerard Blot

Fig. 7. Paolo Veronese, The Sacred Conversation (La Sacra Conversazione). Oil on canvas, 100 x 99 cm. The Louvre, Paris. Photo © RMN-Grand Palais (musee du Louvre) / Gerard Blot / Jean Schormans

Fig. 8. Eugene Deveria, Sitting Young Ladies (Jeunes femmes assises), 1827. Oil on canvas, 33x41 cm. The Louvre, Paris. Photo © RMN-Grand Palais (musee du Louvre) / Gerard Blot / Christian Jean

Fig. 9. Eugene Deveria, Christ Carrying the Cross (Le Christ portantsa Croix), the 2^nd quarter of the 19^th century. Oil on canvas, 147 x 211 cm. National Museum, Pau

Fig. 10. Paolo Veronese (a workshop?), Christ Carrying the Cross (Cristo portacroce). Oil on canvas, 57 x 72 cm. The Louvre, Paris. Photo © RMN-Grand Palais (musee du Louvre) / Franck Raux

One of the features reflecting the intense dialogue of French artists of the 1820s with the Venetian pictorial tradition was the presence of Venetian color in their artworks, but not only this. For example, Deveria borrowed details of Veronese's paintings and added them to his own compositions. Thus, brocade on the bed in The Birth of Henry IV is like a fabric of the throne in The Sacred Conversation of Veronese (fig. 7). In the 1820s, this Veronese's picture was in the Louvre, where Deveria probably studied it. The composition of The Sacred Conversation by Veronese is similar to Deveria'sSitting Young Ladies (fig. 8). One more prime example of Veronese's influence on Deveria is the French artist's canvas Christ Carrying the Cross (fig. 9). Its composition is very similar to that of the picture by the Venetian painter on the same subject exposed in the Louvre (fig. 10). Additionally, the French artist studied and copied Veronese's The Wedding at Cana⁵. It is possible to continue listing the similarities between Deveria's pictures and Veronese's works that are in the color, composition, as well as in details: dwarfs, dogs, a self-portrait of the artist, and so on. They are Veronese's hallmark that became details of Deveria's painting. Nineteenth-century art critics saw it clearly.

But was Deveria equal to the Venetians or did he just imitate them? Opinions of critics of the 1820s were quite diverse. However, almost all of them noticed the relationship between the French artist's painting and the paintings by the Venetians. A critic from a liberal newspaper Le Figaro wrote, “...Deveria follows in the footsteps of Paolo Veronese. <.. .> Mr. Deveria looks like Paolo Veronese, took his power of modeling, interesting richness of color” [26, p. 1]. Etienne-Jean Delecluze, the conservative art critic of the Journal des dibats, commented in a similar way, “At first glance one might think this is a picture of an artist, who aged in his studio and spent his entire life studying secrets of Venetian school” [24, p. 2-3]. Delecluze emphasized that Deveria studied Old Masters art “not to imitate them, but to find his own manner” [24, p. 2-3].

In the 1820s, among other French paintings, the famous Deveria'sThe Birth of Henry IV was most often equated with Venetian paintings by the Parisian press. But from this perspective, the comparison with another, little-known, French artist's work The Conversion of Saul (fig. 11) is equally interesting. Its composition is very similar to Veronese's painting on the same subject (fig. 12). Deveria did not study it directly because Veronese's The Conversion of Saul was in Russia beginning from the late 18^th century. But he definitely was familiar with it. In his The Conversion of SaulDeveria slightly changed the arrangement of Veronese's painting. The French artist made the sharp edges of Veronese's composition smooth and therefore changed its rhythm. Also, he added new elements, such as the image of God in the upper part of the picture. This detail is similar to element of The Conversion of Saul by the Venetian painter Andrea Schiavone (fig. 13). The movements in Veronese's picture are multidirectional, and there is an illusion of depth. Schiavone's painting is a frieze composition that does not create the illusion of deep space. Deveria's picture seems to be a middle way between these two compositions. The Conversion of Saul, like some other works by the French artist, is a pastiche. Deveria used the painting of his predecessors as a model changing it significantly; nevertheless, the relationship with it was not lost. The manifestation of the pictorial tradition, which Eugene Deveria claimed to follow, and which his critics wrote about, remained in the early paintings of the artist forever. About Deveria's copies of Veronese's The Wedding at Cana, see: [35, p. 140].

Fig. 11. Eugene Deveria, The Conversion of Saul (La Conversion de Saint Paul), the 1820s. Oil on canvas, 41x83 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Pau

Fig 12. Paolo Veronese, The Conversion of Saul (La Conversione di San Paolo), c1570. Oil on canvas, 191 x 329 cm. The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg. © Ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé Ýðìèòàæ, Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã, 2022. Ï. Ñ. Äåìèäîâ

Fig. 13. Andrea Schiavone, The Conversion of Saul (La Conversione di San Paolo), 1540-1545. Oil on canvas, 205x265 cm. Gallery Foundation Querini-Stampalia, Venice

Marino Faliero by Eugene Delacroix -- a Venetian Picture

2. Serouxd'Agincourt, Jean Baptiste Louis Georges. Histoire de l'art par les monumens, depuissa decadence au IVesieclejusqua son renouvellement au XVI^å.6 vols. Paris: Treuttel et Wurtz, 1823.

3. Bullen, Barrie. “The Source and Development of the Idea of the Renaissance in Early Nineteenth-Century French Criticism”. The Modern Language Review 76, no. 2 (1981): 311-22.

4. Stendhal. Promenades dans Rome. Paris: Arvensa Editions, 2015.

5. Gould, Cecil. Trophy of Conquest: The Musee Napoleon and the Creation of the Louvre. London: Faber and Faber, 1965.

6. Gault de Saint-Germain, Pierre-Marie. Guide des amateurs de peinturedans les collections generales et particulieres, les magasins et les ventes; utile aux artistes. Paris: Destouches et Didot, 1816.

7. Valery, Antoine Claude Pasquin. Voyages historiques, litteraires et artistiquesenItalie: guide raisonneet complet du voyageur et de lartiste. 2e ed. 3 vols. Paris: Baudry; Aime Andre, 1838, vol. 1.

8. Misan-Montefiore, Jacques. Venise des voyageurs romantiquesfrangais. Moncalieri: Centro Interuni- versitario di RicerchesulViaggio in Italia, 2000.

9. Feuillet de Conches, Felix-Sebastien. Leopold Robert: sa vie, ses oeuvres et sacorrespondance. 2^e ed. Paris: Michel Levy Freres, 1854.

10. Daru, Pierre. Histoire de la Republique de Venise. 8 vols. Paris: FirminDidot, 1821.

11. Lecomte, Jules. Venice ou coup doeillitteraire, artistique, historique<...>. Paris: HippolyteSouverain, 1844.

12. Houssaye, Arsene. Voyage a Venise. Paris: Ferdinand Sartorius, 1850.

13. Stendhal. Vie de Rossini.Etablissement du texte et preface par Henry Martineau. 2 vols. Paris: Le Divan, 1929, vol. 1.

14. Lepschy, Anna Laura. Tintoretto Observed: A Documentary Survey of Critical Reactions from the 16^th to the 20^th Century. Ravenna: Longo Editore, 1983.

15. M. R. C. [Colomb, M. Romain]. Journal d'un voyage enItalie et en Suisse pendant l'annee 1828. Paris: Verdiere, 1833.

16. Musee du Louvre. Les Noces de Cana de Veronese: une oeuvre et sa restauration: Musee du Louvre, Paris, 16 novembre 1992 -- 29 mars 1993: [catalogue de lexposition]. Paris: Editions de la Reunion des museesnationaux, 1992.

17. Stendhal. Chroniques pour l'Angleterre: Contribution a la pressebritannique, [1822]. Texteschoisis et commentes par Keith G. McWatters. Traduction et annotation par Renee Denier. 5 vols. Grenoble: ELLUG, 1986, vol. 1.

18. Monte, Michele di. “Veronese a Cana. De ludorevelandicum figures”. Venezia Cinquecento: Studi di storiadellarte e dellacultura 17, no. 33 (2007): 141-88.

19. Gould, Cecil. “Sebastiano Serlio and Venetian Painting”. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 25, no. 1/2 (1962): 56-64. https://doi.org/10.2307/750541

20. Jal, Auguste. Esquisses, croquis, pochades, ou tout cequonvoudra sur le Salon de 1827. Paris: AmbroiseDupont et Cie, 1828.

21. Beraud, Antony, et unesocieted'artistes et d'hommes de lettres. Annalesdu Musee et de l'Ecole mod- erne des beaux-arts <...>. Salon de 1808 A 1824. Paris: Charles Paul Landon, 1827.

22. “Musee Royal: Exposition de 1827 (6^e article)”. Journal des artistes, no. XXVI (1827): 812-3.

23. D. [Delecluze, Etienne-Jean], “Beaux-Arts. Salon de 1828”, Journal des debats: politique et litteraires, janvier 2, 1828.

24. D. [Delecluze, Etienne-Jean], “Beaux-Arts. Salon de 1827”, Journal des debats: politique et litteraires, decembre 20, 1827.

25. L. V [Vitet, Louis]. “Beaux-Arts. Salon de peinture de 1827”. Le Globe: journal litteraire 6, no. 13 (1827): 72-4.

26. “Figaro au Salon”, Le Figaro: journal non politique,janvier 3, 1828.

27. “Figaro au Salon”, Le Figaro: journal non politique,decembre 21, 1827.

28. F. “Musee Royal: Exposition de 1827. (5^e article)”. Journal des artistes, no. XXIV (1827): 780-4.

29. Vergnaud, Amand-Denis. Examen du Salon de 1827. Novembre. 2^e ed. Paris: Chez Roret, 1828, pt 1.

30. Martin, Alexandre. Visite au Musee du Louvre, ou Guide de lamateur a lexposition des ouvrages de peinture, sculpture, gravure, lithographie et architecture des artistes vivans (Annee 1827-1828) <...>. Paris: Chez Leroi, 1828.

31. Baudelaire, Dufays [Baudelaire, Charles]. Salon de 1845. Paris: Jules Labitte, 1845.

32. Silvestre, Theophile. Histoire des artistes vivants: frangais et etrangers: etudes d'apres nature. Paris: E. Blanchard, 1856.

33. Gautier, Theophile, “Exposition universelle de 1855: Peinture, sculpture. XVII. M. Eugene Delacroix”, Le Moniteuruniversel,Juillet 19, 1855.

34. Gautier, Theophile. Histoire du romantisme<...>. Paris: Charpentier, 1874.

35. Comte, Philippe. “La naissance d'Henri IV de Deveria”. Revue du Louvre et de musees de France, no. 2 (1981): 137-41.

36. Sedleryonok, Valeria. “Marino Faliero by Eugene Delacroix -- a Venetian Picture”. In Aktual'nyeproblemyteoriiiistoriiiskusstva: sb. nauch. statei, ed. by Svetlana Mal'tseva, Ekaterina Staniukovich- Denisova, Anna Zakharova, 61-70. St Petersburg: St Petersburg University Press, 2018, iss. 8. (In Russian)

37. The Journal of Eugene Delacroix: a Selection. Ed. and introd. by Hubert Wellington, transl. by Lucy Norton. 3^rd ed. London: Phaidon, 1995.

38. Hannoosh, Michele. Painting and the Journal of Eugene Delacroix. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.

39. Burty, Philippe. Lettres de Eugene Delacroix (1815 a 1863). Paris: A. Quantin, 1878.

40. Mora, Stephanie. “Delacroix's Art Theory and His Definition of Classicism”. The Journal of Aesthetic Education 34, no. 1 (2000): 57-75.

41. Lettres de Eugene Delacroix recueillies et publiees par Philippe Burty. 2 vols. Paris: G. Charpentier, 1880, vol. 1: 1804-1847.

42. Haskell, Francis. “The Manufacture of the Past in Nineteenth-Century Painting”. Past & Present, no. 53 (1971): 109-20.

43. Miel, Francois. Histoire du sacre de Charles X, danssesrapports avec les beaux-arts et les libertes pub- liques de la France<...>. Paris: C. L. F. Panckoucke, 1825.

44. Simond, Louis. Voyage enItalie et enSicile. 2 vols. Paris: A. Sautelet et Cie, 1828, vol. 1.

45. Lemonnier, Andre Hippolyte. Souvenirs dltalie. Paris: Mme de Breville, 1832.

46. Valery, Antoine Claude Pasquin. Venise et ses environs.Bruxelles: Societebelge de librairie, 1842.

47. Meslay, Olivier. “Les collections de peintures et de dessins britanniques du Musee des Beaux-Arts de Dijon”. Bulletin des Musees de Dijon, no. 6 (2000): 55-60.

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru