No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Authenticity of De Hollanda's Dialogos em Roma
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Extract
Francisco de Hollanda has been assured a modest paragraph in the ledger of history for three principal merits: he was a competent miniaturist, he was one of Portugal's most enthusiastic humanists, and he was a friend of Michelangelo Buonarroti. Curiously enough, it was this latter acquaintanceship which constituted his chief claim to fame. In the month of October, 1538, Francisco was present at three conversations on art and aesthetics in which participated, among others, Michelangelo and his good friend Vittoria Colonna. Francisco recorded these conversations for posterity. Together with a fourth dialogue in which Michelangelo does not figure, these Dialogos em Roma form the latter half of Francisco's Da pintura antigua, published at Lisbon in 1548.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1946
References
1 A. Farinelli, Michelangelo e Dante (Turin, 1918), p. 40.
2 Hans Tietze, “Francisco de Hollanda und Donato Giannottis Dialoge und Michelangelo” in Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, xxviii (1905), 295-320; Carlo Aru, “I dialoghi romani di Francisco de Hollanda” in L'Arte, xxi (1928), 117-128.
Although the contents of the present article will serve as a refutation to most of the doubts of Tietze and Aru, certain immediate answers may be made here to several of their main points. Tietze admits more readily than Aru that the spirit of Michelangelo fills these dialogues. But both feel that De Hollanda consciously introduced Michelangelo into the dialogues so that the latter's remarks on patronage would win better treatment for art and artists in Spain and Portugal. Yet, however dictated by self-interest the composition of the Dialogos may have been, this does not necessarily disprove the accuracy of the report.
Both Tietze and Aru object to certain statements attributed to Michelangelo by De Hollanda on the grounds that they resemble in a general way opinions found in other Renaissance treatises on art (by Alberti, Leonardo, et al.). Most of Aru's article is predicated on this objection, and this is its major weakness. In no way does he ever prove or try to prove that De Hollanda would be more likely to know or draw upon these sources than would Michelangelo. As a speaker in the Dialogos, Michelangelo very possibly echoed certain ideas on art which he had gathered from his contemporaries; this in no way invalidates the Dialogos as an authentic document. Furthermore, Michelangelo's poems and letters often present a closer correlation with his quoted statements than is offered by the contemporary treatises on art, as we hope to demonstrate in these pages.
3 Francisco de Hollanda, De la pintura antigua, ed. by E. Tormo (Madrid, 1921), p. xxiv.
4 Quoted in Francisco de Hollanda, Da pintura antigua, ed. by J. de Vasconcellos (Porto, 1930), pp. 337-338.
5 Carteggio di Vittoria Colonna (Turin, 1892), p. 207.
6 Vasconcellos edition (see note 4), p. 185. All quotations from the Dialogos will refer to pagination of this edition [D] hereafter. All references to Michelangelo's poetry will apply to the Rime [R] (Florence, Rinascimento del libro, 1927), edited by Papini. Letters are quoted from Lettere di Michelangelo Buonarroti [L] (Lanciano, 1910), 2 vols., edited by Papini.
7 D, p. 235.
8 D, p. 190.
9 D, p. 234.
10 D, pp. 208-209.
11 D, p. 236.
12 R, pp. 81, 129.
13 R, p. 81.
14 R, p. 52.
15 D, p. 191.
16 D, p. 239.
17 D, pp. 189-190.
18 D, p. 236.
19 D, p. 241.
20 Aru, op. cit., p. 122.
21 L, i, 155.
22 R, pp. 126, 139.
23 R, p. 3.
24 R, p. 93.
25 D, p. 206.
26 D, p. 207.
27 L, i, 137. Aru (p. 126) intimates that the terminal date is only 1512, apparently forgetting these later letters to Fattucci and Spina.
28 H. Grimm, Michelangelo (Milan, 1875), pp. 280-281.
29 R, p. 7.
30 L, ii, 16.
31 D, p. 238.
32 L, ii, 79-80.
33 D, p. 234.
34 D, p. 186.
35 Quoted in Francisco de Hollanda, Quatre dialogues sur la peinture, ed. by L. Rouanet (Paris, 1911), p. xxviii.
36 D, pp. 228, 230, etc.
37 R, p. 130.
38 D, p. 242.
39 Quoted in 1746 edition of Condivi, p. 75.
40 D, p. 227.
41 D, p. 228.
42 D, p. 230.
43 D, p. 225.
44 D, p. 184.
45 L, ii, 12.
46 L, ii, 30.
47 L, ii, 149.
48 D, p. 222.
49 Condivi, Vita, sec. xliii. Cf. further testimony in Giambattista Busini, Lettere a Benedetto Varchi sopra I'assedio di Firenze (Florence, 1861), pp. 103-115, and Donato Giannotti, Della Repubblica fiorentina (Venice, 1722), pp. 273-274.
50 Tietze (p. 307) expresses surprise that Michelangelo should condemn Flemish painting so volubly, but Aru admits that the recorded condemnation corresponds with Michelangelo's known feelings.
51 D, pp. 190-191.
52 D, pp. 228, 229.
53 D, p. 228.
54 Among these were Francis I, Emperor Charles V, and Bayezid the Turk.
55 D, p. 217.
56 L, i, 147.
57 D, p. 227.
58 Cf., Auguste Barbier, Jambes et poèmes (Paris, 1888), p. 127: “Comme Dante, on dirait que tu n'as jamais ri.”
59 D, p. 188.
60 See especially Letter xlv, postscriptum.
61 D, p. 194.
62 There is his scoffing comment that the dome of the Florentine cathedral resembled a bird cage. Or his rejoinder when told that Vasari's paintings of the life of Paul III had been executed in only 100 days: “E' si conosce!” Yet another instance may be drawn from the dialogues themselves—his observation that Flemish painting will please very young and very old women, as well as nuns and friars. Cf., also, Condivi, Vita, sec. lxviii.