DOI Artikel:
Krasny, Piotr: Exempla viva: the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church as inspirers of Charles Borromeo’s instructions on shaping sacred srt
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.38234#0043
42
Gl ГЫ О Г OMINO
emittore с « //-£• /иteûtt?placetue / anno
i j. ej'j. nron /anna 154.6.
Л«. ,4. JW ,
7. Giulio Romano, copper engraving by Giovanni Domenico Cam-
piglio, after Titian, 2nd quarter of the 18th century
his main advisor for issues related to improving Church
institutions, may have contributed to implementing in the
Archdiocese of Milan the experiences acquired during the
organisation of the synod of Westminster.45
It may therefore be stated that the aforementioned prel-
ates were for Borromeo explicit ‘exempla viva’ of exercis-
ing episcopal authority in the difficult times that called for
deep reforms. Yet, the Archbishop of Milan adapted their
concepts to significantly different circumstances, since all
his predecessors had worked in the period of legislative
confusion in the Church administration, and thus were
able, or had, to solve many problems quite freely, but often
at the risk of being accused of heresy or episcopalism.46
Borromeo, in turn, undertook to reform the Archdio-
cese and province of Milan after the pope had signed the
promulgations of the Council of Trent, which precisely
45 Ibidem, pp. 59-60; A. Filipazzi, ‘L’influsso di Gian Matteo Giber-
ti’, pp. 76-80 (as in note 42).
46 D. Fenelon, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy. Cardinal
Pole and the Counter Reformation, Cambridge, 1972, pp. 1-99;
RV. Murphy, ‘Rumours of Heresy in Mantua’, in Heresy, Culture
and Religion in Early Modern Italy. Context and Contestation,
ed. by R.K. Delph, M.M. Fontaine, J.J. Martin, Kirksville, 2006,
PP- 53-67
regulated many aspects of the Church life. So, he could
draw only those elements from the experience of his pre-
decessors that were in accord with the current Church
legislation.47 Therefore, he had (and likely also wanted) to
regard these exempla viva’ in keeping with the principles
of classical rhetoric, namely, he isolated in the activities of
his predecessors particular motifs that might have been
useful in his model of the local Church reform. Only in
this way could he have approached also their patronage of
sacred art, imitating above all the solutions that, as he had
put it in the introduction to his Instructiones fabricae et
supellectilis ecclesiasticae, ensured in the church the mag-
nificence of the cult in keeping with its forms prescribed
by the decrees of the council.48
THE BISHOP’S COLLABORATION WITH
THE ARCHITECT IN FORMULATING THE
PRINCIPLES OF SHAPING SACRED ART
In the pages of Borromeo’s Instructiones one can repea-
tedly find a directive that the bishop should consult with
the architect his key decisions related to the appearance of
sacred art in his diocese.49 This regulation testifies to the
fact that Borromeo shared the views of Leon Battista Al-
berti (1404-1472) that the understanding of architecture,
as well as of other arts which serve its decoration, was so
difficult a challenge that only a thoroughly trained pro-
fessional was able to handle it.50 According to Borromeo,
an experienced artist should be able not only to suggest
the prelate an appropriate terminology or verify the feas-
ibility of realising a given idea, but also should see to it
that this idea be in keeping with the prevailing artistic
conventions, in order to ensure a widespread and un-
ambiguous understanding of the message carried by the
artwork. Borromeo instructed to take advantage of the
latter kind of consultation, which was preconditioned by
the advisor’s good orientation in the conventions of reli-
gious art, especially when the bishop had to evaluate new
and unusual iconographie solutions.51
Further, Borromeo’s instructions seem to suggest that
the bishop should not ask advice from various architects,
but rather seek help from one trusted specialist, which
47 L. Prosdocimi, ‘Il diritto nella formazione e nell’azione riforma-
trice di San Carlo’, in Carlo Borromeo e l’opera di “Grande Rifor-
ma”. Cultura, religione e arti del governo nelle Milano del pieno
Cinquecento, ed. by F. Buzzi, D. Zardin, Milan, 1997, pp. 59-68.
48 C. BORROMEUS, Instructionum fabricae, p. 4 (as in note 8).
49 Ibidem, pp. 8-9,12-21, 24-25, 70-71, 80-81. See also G. Simonci-
Ni, La memoria del medioevo nell’architettura dei secoli XV-XVIII,
Rome, 2017, p. 175.
50 See C. Wilkinson, ‘The New Professionalism in the Renaissance’,
in The Architect. Chapters in the History of the Profession, ed. by
S. Kostof, Berkeley, 1977, pp. 125-126; G. Simoncini, La memoria
del medioevo, p. 139 (as in note 49).
51 C. BORROMEUS, Instructionum fabricae, p. 70 (as in note 8).
Gl ГЫ О Г OMINO
emittore с « //-£• /иteûtt?placetue / anno
i j. ej'j. nron /anna 154.6.
Л«. ,4. JW ,
7. Giulio Romano, copper engraving by Giovanni Domenico Cam-
piglio, after Titian, 2nd quarter of the 18th century
his main advisor for issues related to improving Church
institutions, may have contributed to implementing in the
Archdiocese of Milan the experiences acquired during the
organisation of the synod of Westminster.45
It may therefore be stated that the aforementioned prel-
ates were for Borromeo explicit ‘exempla viva’ of exercis-
ing episcopal authority in the difficult times that called for
deep reforms. Yet, the Archbishop of Milan adapted their
concepts to significantly different circumstances, since all
his predecessors had worked in the period of legislative
confusion in the Church administration, and thus were
able, or had, to solve many problems quite freely, but often
at the risk of being accused of heresy or episcopalism.46
Borromeo, in turn, undertook to reform the Archdio-
cese and province of Milan after the pope had signed the
promulgations of the Council of Trent, which precisely
45 Ibidem, pp. 59-60; A. Filipazzi, ‘L’influsso di Gian Matteo Giber-
ti’, pp. 76-80 (as in note 42).
46 D. Fenelon, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy. Cardinal
Pole and the Counter Reformation, Cambridge, 1972, pp. 1-99;
RV. Murphy, ‘Rumours of Heresy in Mantua’, in Heresy, Culture
and Religion in Early Modern Italy. Context and Contestation,
ed. by R.K. Delph, M.M. Fontaine, J.J. Martin, Kirksville, 2006,
PP- 53-67
regulated many aspects of the Church life. So, he could
draw only those elements from the experience of his pre-
decessors that were in accord with the current Church
legislation.47 Therefore, he had (and likely also wanted) to
regard these exempla viva’ in keeping with the principles
of classical rhetoric, namely, he isolated in the activities of
his predecessors particular motifs that might have been
useful in his model of the local Church reform. Only in
this way could he have approached also their patronage of
sacred art, imitating above all the solutions that, as he had
put it in the introduction to his Instructiones fabricae et
supellectilis ecclesiasticae, ensured in the church the mag-
nificence of the cult in keeping with its forms prescribed
by the decrees of the council.48
THE BISHOP’S COLLABORATION WITH
THE ARCHITECT IN FORMULATING THE
PRINCIPLES OF SHAPING SACRED ART
In the pages of Borromeo’s Instructiones one can repea-
tedly find a directive that the bishop should consult with
the architect his key decisions related to the appearance of
sacred art in his diocese.49 This regulation testifies to the
fact that Borromeo shared the views of Leon Battista Al-
berti (1404-1472) that the understanding of architecture,
as well as of other arts which serve its decoration, was so
difficult a challenge that only a thoroughly trained pro-
fessional was able to handle it.50 According to Borromeo,
an experienced artist should be able not only to suggest
the prelate an appropriate terminology or verify the feas-
ibility of realising a given idea, but also should see to it
that this idea be in keeping with the prevailing artistic
conventions, in order to ensure a widespread and un-
ambiguous understanding of the message carried by the
artwork. Borromeo instructed to take advantage of the
latter kind of consultation, which was preconditioned by
the advisor’s good orientation in the conventions of reli-
gious art, especially when the bishop had to evaluate new
and unusual iconographie solutions.51
Further, Borromeo’s instructions seem to suggest that
the bishop should not ask advice from various architects,
but rather seek help from one trusted specialist, which
47 L. Prosdocimi, ‘Il diritto nella formazione e nell’azione riforma-
trice di San Carlo’, in Carlo Borromeo e l’opera di “Grande Rifor-
ma”. Cultura, religione e arti del governo nelle Milano del pieno
Cinquecento, ed. by F. Buzzi, D. Zardin, Milan, 1997, pp. 59-68.
48 C. BORROMEUS, Instructionum fabricae, p. 4 (as in note 8).
49 Ibidem, pp. 8-9,12-21, 24-25, 70-71, 80-81. See also G. Simonci-
Ni, La memoria del medioevo nell’architettura dei secoli XV-XVIII,
Rome, 2017, p. 175.
50 See C. Wilkinson, ‘The New Professionalism in the Renaissance’,
in The Architect. Chapters in the History of the Profession, ed. by
S. Kostof, Berkeley, 1977, pp. 125-126; G. Simoncini, La memoria
del medioevo, p. 139 (as in note 49).
51 C. BORROMEUS, Instructionum fabricae, p. 70 (as in note 8).