Antiquity and Affairs of State in Naples
The rediscovery of antiquity, sculptures, ancient wall paintings, objects of curiosity in Naples, happened against a backdrop of statecraft and diplomacy. Under Ferdinand IV, and with the help of his pragmatic and capable Prime Minister, the humbly born Bernardo Tanucci, the excavations of Herculaneum and Pompeii were overseen with a view to imposing a royal monopoly on the finds. Charles III, king of Spain, was kept informed of the situation in Naples through diplomatic correspondence with Tanucci and his rival, the Prince of San Nicandro, Ferdinand’s tutor. This correspondence is revealing because it offers insights on art and its reception in 18th century Naples. For example, we know that the young Ferdinand was taken to see a mosaic from Pompeii of Itinerant musicians in 1765, two years after his tutor had vetted it for the king’s visit.[1] Charles III and Tanucci were engaged in the process of imposing copyright controls on the art discovered at Pompeii and Herculaneum, and one way of doing this was to publish books of engravings of the ancient art under the imprint of the king. The ancient paintings were illustrated in a number of publications, but the most significant was Le antichità di Ercolano esposte hereafter “The Herculaneum Volumes” (8 volumes, 1757-61) which contained engravings of these ancient works facilitated by the varnishing of paintings.[2] Due to the restrictions placed on visitors to the sites and museums of Naples, drawing and copying were forbidden, note taking was banned, and removal of objects not permitted- therefore artists and scholars turned to the Herculaneum volumes. Not everybody obeyed the rules. Caylus ( above) had visited Naples in 1757 and stolen some terracotta vases, and secretly had drawings made in preparation for plates for his own book on the ancients, Recueil d’ Antiquitiés which had started to appear in 1752.[3] Yet Tanucci could admire the initiative and learnedness of Caylus who cast aspersions on the validity of the archaeological work at Herculaneum and mischievously but perceptively declared that “…at Naples, antiquity is an affair of state.”[4] Apart from art theft and the difficulty of recording the antiquities on site and in the museums, Tanucci and his court were very sensitive about criticism of the Herculaneum project. To criticise the digs at Pompeii and Herculaneum was frowned upon by the Neapolitan court, but despite this there were many complaints about the pace of the dig. The traveller Hestor Piozzi complained that the Neapolitans were too slow at excavating Pompeii. And the more informed Goethe inspecting the site at Herculaneum put in a plea for legendary German efficiency by regretting that German workmen were not available to speed up the proceedings! There was also the question of fakes of frescoes at Herculaneum circulating on the international art market which may have led to the Bourbon court giving orders in 1757 to deface some of the Vesuvian frescoes to keep them from being copied by antiquarians and artists.[5]
[1] See Carlo Knight, “Politics and Royal Patronage in the Neapolitan Regency: The Correspondence of Charles III and the Prince of San Nicandro, 1759-1767 in Rediscovering the Ancient World on the Bay of Naples, 1710-1890, (National Gallery Washington, 2013), 75-88, 80.
[2] Steffi Roettgen, “German Painters in Naples and Their Contribution to the Revival of Antiquity 1760-1799 in Rediscovering the Ancient World, 125-140.
[3] Francis Haskell gives a useful account of Caylus and his attitude towards the past in History and its Images : Art and the Interpretation of the Past (Yale University Press, 1993), 180f.
[4] John E. Moore, “To the Catholic King” and Others: Bernardo Tanucci’s Correspondence and the Herculaneum Project” in Rediscovering the Ancient World, 91-122, 105.
[5] Paolo D’Alconzo, trans Mark Weir, “Naples and the Birth of a Tradition of Conservation: the restoration of wall paintings from Vesuvian sites in the 18th Century,” Journal of the History of Collections, 2007, vol. 19, no. 11, 203-214, 205.
Comments