Sources & An extract from the Commentaries of Lorenzo

Documents Ghiberti, London, Courtauld Institute of Art [1949?]

[For ease of reference, the original Italian words relating to Ghiberti’s vocabulary
of skill as discussed in the article by Jim Harris that follows this extract have been
inserted in square brackets at the appropriate points in the text.]

(This section should be read carefully, and the sense and general approach
noted; but it should not be studied in such precise detail as Parts II and III)

Ghiberti begins his book with an introductory passage taken over from
Athenaeus, a Greek author who wrote on engines of war. This treatise must
have been known to Ghiberti in a Latin translation which has not come down
to us. The substance of this passage is an assurance of brevity, as time is the
most precious of all things and “we shall concern ourselves only with what
the ancients have left us in writing, and, as we seek to perfect our own new
inventions, it will profit us to learn from them”. Isocrates wrote a speech for
Philip of Macedon on the occasion of a war, but the war was won before the
speech was written. Ghiberti is writing as a sulptor [sic] and painter, not a
rhetorician, and will come to the point. (here the passage from Athenaeus
stops, but the next passage is closely based on Vitruvius).1 “The sculptor or
painter should be instructed [amaestrato] in all the Liberal Arts: in Grammar,
Geometry, Philosophy, Medicine, Astrology, Perspective, History, Anatomy,
Theory of Design and Arithmetic… For unlettered sculptors and painters
work, as it were, with their hands alone and so lack the authority which
would enable them to bring their tasks to a successful conclusion, while
those who rely upon theory and letters alone possess the shadow, but not
the substance. Those, however, who master both are fully armed and reach
their goal with far greater speed”. Everything, and sculpture in particular,
has to be regarded both from the standpoint of that which is expressed and
that which expresses: therefore a sculptor must be thoroughly grounded
in his craft for theory will not make him perfect if he has not mastered his
technique. Yet the craftsman must be instructed in the liberal arts, and,
adds Ghiberti for himself, “he must be proficient [docto] in perspective, and
above all, a first-class [perfectissimo] draughtsman, for drawing is the head
and front of both painting and sculpture…” Further, he must have studied
the ancients, particularly the mathematicians and perspectivists. Philosophy
will enable his mind and teach him that without faith and chastity no work
can be perfect; without such study he cannot grasp the laws of nature. Again
Ghiberti interpolates “Anatomy must be studied, that the sculptor may know
the disposition of bones, muscles, nerves and ligaments in the body and may
fashion his statues accordingly”. Astrology teaches the movements of sun,
moon and planets, and of the twelve signs (of the Zodiac): without it, these
things cannot be understood. The future painter or sculptor must be trained

99  | Ghiberti’s Commentarii https://doi.org/10.3828/sj.2017.26.1.11

in these branches of knowledge from childhood onwards; though he need
not excel in any, yet, adds Ghiberti, Phidias claims to have done so, in his
Commentaries [commentarii].2

3.

The third section begins by praising ancient writers, thus revealing Ghiberti’s
own motives in writing. Vitruvius is still a main source, but he now adds
Pliny’s Natural History as well.3 “The ancient philosophers wisely [saviamente]
and carefully wrote down their ideas in the form of commentaries
[comentarii], so that they should not perish, but in the cause [sic] of ages, be
refined upon on the writings of others and thus attain to the greatest subtlety
of doctrine [sottigleza delle doctrine]. Therefore we owe them not only average
but infinite thanks since they were careful to preserve written records for
posterity. Had they not done so we should not have known the history of
Egypt and the other ancient nations: and the Egyptians claim that drawing,
which is the original and basis of the arts of sculpture and painting, was
practiced first in Egypt, about six thousand years before it came to Greece
and was practiced there. But this is idle talk, for, of the Greeks, if some do
not claim the discovery, some assert that drawing was discovered by the
Corinthians all, however, maintain that the observation of a man’s shadow
cast by the sun, was the cause of the invention”. Whoever made the discovery
was the inventor of both painting and sculpture, for skilful draughtsmanship
underlies both these arts, as can be seen in the works of those ancient
sculptors and can be seen in the works of those ancient sculptors [sic] and
painters whose fame lives after them: such were Phidias, Polycletus, Myron,
Lysippus and others.
Following Vitruvius, Ghiberti introduces at this point a passage reflecting
on the fact that many other artists of no less skill may well have been
forgotten, for what is not known cannot be admired. He enlarges this with
further Vitruvius borrowings, into a discussion on the difficulty of true
critical judgement, since artistic skill may be hidden in obscurity. Those with
wealth and position may delude our judgement by lavish hospitality, while
the true artist remains unknown; hence the importance of establishing a
sound basis of knowledge. “We will begin, then, with those who invented and
began the arts of statuary and sculpture. The first, according to Pliny (who
now becomes a main source), was Butades Sicyon of Corinth, who found that
his daughter loved a youth who was about to part from her and go abroad.
She drew round the shadow of his face, cast by the lantern on the wall, so
perfectly [perfectamente] that the likeness was marvellous. Seeing the skill
[ingegno] of the drawn contours, her father took clay and modelled the
youth’s face in such a way that it seemed really his own head: this head was
in the museum at Corinth until the destruction of Corinth by Mummius:4 at
that time statues were made only of clay and plaster. Some say that this art
was discovered much earlier in Samos. The inventors are said to be Rhecus

100  |  Sculpture Journal 26.1 [2017]

and Theodorus, long before the expulsion of the Bacchiadai from Corinth,
and when Damaratus fled from that city to Etruria he was accompanied by
the potters Eucheir, (Diopus) and Eugrammus. Under Tarquin, King of the
Romans, they practiced clay modelling in Italy. Varro also praises Pasiteles
and commends his works in clay most highly: he (Pasiteles) called modelling
the mother of statuary art, or rather sculpture; although he was highly
skilled [sommamente docto] in sculpture, he always made a clay model before
commencing any important work, so that he could say clay was the mother of
all his works. This art was of great antiquity in Italy and much practised there;
in Etruria it was much praised by all men of education [periti], and even by the
common people. In Italy King Tarquin greatly honoured the working of clay
and making of statues. He took great delight in it, and especially in Lysistratus
of Sicyon, brother of Lysippus, who was the first to make a mask in plaster
from a man’s face, in such a way that he could breathe and recover his breath
while the plaster set.5 This art was discovered by Lysistratus and was not in use
before then”.

4.

After a passage dealing with other artists, Ghiberti, still following Pliny,
describes the origin of sculpture in bronze: first, the varieties of Corinthian,
then that of Delos are described by Pliny. “Then the next to become celebrated
was the bronze of Aegina, and the statue of Jove was taken away from Delos
to be worked in Aegina. The ancients made the thresholds of their temples in
bronze. Manlius, in his Triumph after the conquest of Asia, first introduced
bronze tables to Rome: finally, this art began to flourish everywhere and they
began to make images of the gods in Rome. I find that the first of these to be
made of bronze was that of the goddess Ceres; it was made from the property
of Spurius Cassius, who was put to death by his father because he had aimed
at becoming King. They began to make statues of everyone, tinting them with
bitumen: I do not know if this was invented by the Romans, but certainly,
in ancient Rome, statues of men were made only for cogent reasons and for
perpetual distinction. At first they were for victors and made from weapons
of war. At Mount Olympia,6 in particular, it was customary to dedicate statues
of the winners in the Games and portrait statues of those who were novice
victors.7

6.

The Athenians, perhaps the first to do so, erected statues to the tyrants
Harmodius and Aristogeiton:8 this was done in the same Olympiad as the
expulsion of the Kings from Rome, and from then on human ambitions were
gratified by statues and all the towns were adorned with them; and thus the
memory of a man was kept alive and his honours handed down to the ages.

101  | Ghiberti’s Commentarii

Inscriptions were cut on vases (pedestals?) and statues of ancestors were
erected in houses – the ancients called the togaclad figures ‘statues’. Nude
statues, in the Greek fashion, holding a spear in the hand, as was the Greek
custom, also came into favour: but the Romans draped them and added
armour and weapons”. More anecdotes follow (para. 6–11), all from Pliny and
some misunderstood, dealing with the early use of sculpture. The following
passage is typical, and contains a reference by Ghiberti to an extant work in
Rome.

12.

Zenodorus surpassed all others; his statue was a marvel for its size in this
period, being 400 feet high.9 It took 10 years to make and was of very great
cost. After this he was sent for by the Emperor Nero Claudius, and he made
an image of the said Nero in bronze; that is to say, a fifty foot statue of which
the head and one hand with the orb are today set up in Rome near the church
of S. Giovanni in Laterano.10 It was dedicated by him solely (solamente)11 to be
worshipped. This Zenodorus was a most excellent master in sculpture”.
An account of the works of Phidias, Praxiteles, Myron and others, all taken
from Pliny, follows next (para. 13–18). Then Ghiberti returns to Vitruvius, in a
passage which reveals his own enthusiasm for perspective.

19.

“Agatharcus at Athens with Aeschylus presented [ammaestratamente fece] a

tragic setting, and left commentaries [comentarii] upon it, so that Monisti,12
Democritus and Anaxagoras wrote on the same subject; showing how it
was visually necessary to draw the lines in relation to a fixed centre, so that
by natural law they correspond to the lines of vision. Thus, the flat painted
planes will seem to show images and edifices apparently in different planes.”
Ghiberti then quotes many other ancient writers on the subject and explains
that these have been his example. After this he passes to Greek painting,
leading up to the famous anecdotes from Pliny about the painter Zeuxis.

***

[The following paragraphs, omitted or paraphrased in the Courtauld version in

section 3 above, have been translated by members of the Early Italian Studies
research cluster at the University of Bristol. Ghiberti here is relying heavily on
Vitruvius, De architectura, but he reorders and rewrites elements of this source
text in ways that are not always easy to follow (although this may also reflect
confusions introduced in the surviving manuscript copy). The passages that are
occasionally impenetrable without recourse to Vitruvius have been deliberately
retained here in order to give the modern reader a flavour of the original. For

102  |  Sculpture Journal 26.1 [2017]

similar reasons the translation stays reasonably close to Ghiberti’s syntax and
vocabulary. The numbering here follows Bartoli’s edition.]

These were the inventors of the art of painting and of sculpture, they
demonstrated the theory of design; without this theory it is not possible to
be a good statue maker nor a good painter, [and] the sculptor, or indeed the
painter, is as good as he is excellent [perito] in the aforementioned theory,
that is in the aforementioned design, which is not acquired without great
study nor without great discipline.

V.1

Above all, we can observe this in ancient statue makers and painters, for amongst
these, those who had a recognised dignity and the favour of recommendation
have been the ones who have been eternally remembered by those who come
after, such as Phidias, Polyclitus, Myron and Lysippus13 and others who have
pursued the nobility of art. And it is, moreover, the case that they completed
their works in great cities or rather for noble kings and citizens. Of those who
with no less study and artifice and ingenuity [studio et astutia et ingegno], were
more modestly received and although they made their works no less excellently
or perfectly, we remember nothing except that they were betrayed not by their
artistic endeavours but by fortune, such as Hegias of Athens, Chion of Corinth,
Myagrus the Phocean, Pharax of Ephesus, Boedas of Byzantium and many more
besides; and painters no less: Aristomenes the Thasian, Polycles and Androcydes
of Cyzicus, Theo the Magnesian and others great in industry, study and artifice
[studio dell’arte et astutia]: but whether through lack of family resources, or
the weakness of good fortune, or rather, in doubt of the certainty possessed by
superior rivals, or in conflict with their dignity.14 Therefore it is not surprising if,
through ignorance about art, their virtues are obscured.
But through the replies of the Delphic Apollo, the Pythian Priestess
proclaimed Socrates wisest of all. And he is prudently remembered to have
wisely taught15 that men should have open hearts so that they do not have
their feelings hidden but open to view. If only the nature of things had
followed God’s judgement, they would be clear! For if that had been the
case, not only the merits or the vices of men would be clearly seen at hand,
but also the knowledge of disciplines laid out for consideration before the
eyes,16 they would not be reached with uncertain judgements but, to wise and
learned men [li sapienti e dotti], stable and excellent [egregia] authority would
be added. Therefore, since this is not the case, but how the nature of things
wants it, they are not constituted so that men, within hidden hearts, might be
able in some way to judge the knowledge ultimately hidden in the minds of
artists [ingegni degli artifici]. These showed their prudence, if not in acquiring
great wealth but rather through age; they became familiar with these things
through eloquence, when industry has prepared them for study, since among
these, those who confess to know this should be believed.

103  | Ghiberti’s Commentarii

V.3.

Above all it is to be scorned when for reasons of social connections one often
supplants true judgements with false approbation. Therefore, as was pleasing
to Socrates, if feelings and judgements and knowledge of the disciplines grow,
transparent and clear, then there could be neither favour nor doubt that with
true and definite efforts of learning [ fatiche delle doctrine] that they should
arrive at the peak of knowledge, beyond producing works that are worthy of it.
For if these things are not well known or apparent, as we are able to know to the
extent that would be necessary, and I consider instead that the ignorant [non
amaestrati] who through favour outdo the learned [lli amaestrati], and judge it
not to be from competing with the ignorant [non e amaestrati]; beyond these
commandments just made, I will demonstrate the virtues of our knowledge.
Nevertheless, we will follow the first who were the inventors and origin of
the art of making statues and of sculpture.

[The text now reverts to the Courtauld translation but jumps to the very
end of Commentary I, omitting some material translated or paraphrased in
the Courtauld translation along with sections of the original that are as yet
untranslated.]

***

31.

“Learned reader [Dottissimo], I have in this first volume explained those things
which the sculptor, or rather the maker of statues, and the painter need to know
[essere amaestrato], and I have treated of the origin and beginnings of the art of
sculpture and of painting. These arts were created by the shadow of the sun, cast
by the body of a man. The Egyptians claim to have been the first to draw a line
round this shadow: this was the beginning and origin of the arts of painting
and sculpture. Philocles (‘Flode’) was the inventor, and he was an Egyptian. Thus
began design and the whole noble theory. Here I have recounted the ancient
and illustrious [egregii] sculptors and painters, as also the works which they
produced with great study, discipline and skill [grande studio e disciplina et
ingegno], so that they came to such excellence in art [excellentia d’arte]. From
their knowledge [ furon sì periti] they wrote commentaries [comentarii] and
an infinity of books which have illuminated the path of their successors. They
formulated the art by the measure of Nature, and thus reached such heights
that neither before nor since have there been created works of such genius [tali
ingegni] and such perfection [tanta perfectione]”.

104  |  Sculpture Journal 26.1 [2017]

Note that footnotes 1–12 belong to Ghiberti’s, representing the practice i.e. ‘Following his suggestions, detached from this opening part of
the Courtauld translation. Footnotes of his own day. Democritus…’ the clause in Italian as ‘amaestrati’
13–16 have been newly introduced 6.  A confusion of Olympia and Mt 13.  It is interesting here that Myron and is supplemented by the word
here. Olympus. and Phidias have switched places in ‘fictamente’ that has no correlation
1. Vitruvius: De Architectura 7.  Ghiberti’s text is not clear: the this list compared to Vitruvius, De in the Latin, confusing the syntax.
Libri X, dedicated to the Emperor translation given is in accordance architectura, the text that Ghiberti See Vitruvius, On Architecture, ed. and
Augustus. Manuscript rediscovered with Pliny, XXXIV, 16. is following closely at this point. trans. Frank Granger, Cambridge MA,
in S. Gall early in the 15th century. 8.  Harmodius and Aristogeiton For the (shifting) importance of Harvard University Press, 1934, vol. 1,
Vitruvius based his work on were not tyrants but tyrannicides: Phidias and Polyclitus in Renaissance pp.152–53.
Greek authorities and on his own They assassinated Hipparchus in BC Florence, see Ulrich Pfisterer, ‘Phidias 16.  Note that hand and eye
observations and practice. English 514. The Tarquins were expelled from und Polyklet von Dante bis Vasari: are paired in the phrasing of this
translations, with original text, in Rome in BC 510; the passage in Pliny Zu Nachruhm und künstlerischer sentence as ways of knowing (alle
Loeb Classics series, ed. F. Grainger is explicit, so Ghiberti’s ‘tyrants’ may Rezeption antiker Bildhauer in der mani si guarderobbono … sotto
[sic]. be a copyist’s error. Renaissance’, Marburger Jahrbuch für la consideratione degl’occhi).
2.  No classical source mentions 9.  The height is not given by Kunstwissenschaft, 26, 1999, pp. 61–97. This reflects the Latin: ad manum
any such work. Pliny: Ghiberti seems to have 14.  The Latin phrase obstitit aspicerentur … sub oculorum
3.  Pliny, the Elder (AD 23/4–79). misunderstood the contracted form eorum dignitati (their reputation consideratione subiectae. In the
The Naturalis Historia deals with of its cost, 40,000,000 sesterces. was hindered) seems to have been third commentary (at III.1), Ghiberti
the arts in Books XXXIII–XXXVI: he 10.  Ghiberti adds the location absorbed into the list of reasons in famously discusses a statue of a
depends on earlier Greek authorities, of the fragments, which remained the Italian. hermaphrodite discovered in Rome,
now lost, and on Vitruvius. The Elder there until 1471: they are now in the 15.  The Italian here – ‘E questo observing that ‘[t]here were many
Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art, Palazzo dei Conservatori. prudentemente si ricorde, amaestrati subtleties in it, imperceptible to the
K. Jex-Blake and E. Sellers, London, 11.  A mistranslation of Pliny’s fictamente avere detto’ – corresponds eye alone and revealed only to the
1896. ‘dicatus Soli veneratione est’, i.e. to the Latin phrase Is autem touch’ [Courtauld translation, p. 33]
4.  146 BC. The sack of Corinth dedicated to the Sun God. memoratur prudenter doctissimeque (‘In questa era moltissime dolceze;
marked the completion of the Roman 12.  ‘Monisti’ as a proper name is dixisse in Vitruvius. The Latin can nessuna cosa il viso scorgeva, se
conquest of Greece. an invention, brought about by a be translated as ‘He is recorded to non col tatto la mano trovava’ [L.
5.  The note about the man misreading of Vitruvius VII praef. have said with wisdom and great Ghiberti, I commentarii, ed. L. Bartoli,
breathing is an interpolation of 31 ‘Ex eo moniti Democritus….’, learning’, but ‘doctissime’ has been Florence, Giunti, 1998, p. 108]).

105  | Ghiberti’s Commentarii

Copyright of Sculpture Journal is published by Liverpool University Press, and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without Liverpool
University Press's express written copyright permission. However, users may print, download,
or email articles for individual use.