M I C H E L E M A R I E S C H I : A P R O F I L E

I f a radicai and comprehens ive survcv o f i 8 t h c c n t u r v V c n e t i a n v i e w p a i n t i n g s h o u l d cver

he under taken (as we hope i t w i l l i n the n o t t o o - d i s t a n t f u t u r e ) , scholars w i l l he i n fo r some

b i g surprises. T h e first w i l l c o n c e r n the uncjuest ioncd leader, Canaletto , w h o , t h o u g h not

the i n i t i a t i o r o f this b r a n c h o f ar t , raised i t t o an unsurpassed level as pure « v i e w p a i t i n g ».

But i t w i l l n o t concern his t v p i c a l w o r k s , w h e r c he is easilv recognizable and f i r m i n his

p o s i t i o n as a « p o r t r a i t pa inter » o f t o w n s a n d vi l lages ; i t w i l l concern his i n i t i a l and s t i l i

unappreciated phase. A s i f predest ined , A n t o n i o Canal carne t o v i e w p a i n t i n g t h r o u g h sce-

n o g r a p h i c p a i n t i n g ; his f irst landscapes, his f irst « fantasies » were s t i l i steeped in ideas

cul led f r o m the theatre. I have alrcadv t r i e d t o t h r o w some l i g h t o n Canaletto's realy stages;

b u t new w o r k is n o w under wav w h i c h w i l l f u r t h e r clarify the rise of his genius . A l s o his

last years o f w o r k b r o u g h t n e w stature t o his p a i n t i n g . I n that r i c h - h u e d sunset Canaletto's

art takes o n an elegiac a n d a lmost r o m a n t i c tone .

As fo r Bernardo B e l l o t t o , his n e p h e w , also called « Canaletto », there was alreadv a surprise i o

vears ago, w h e n Po land sent a magni f i cent e x h i b i t o f the p ictures that B e l l o t t o had pa inted in

Warsaw. I t was an e x t r o r d i n a r y r e v e l a t i o n , even f o r the greatest connoisseurs o f V e n e t i a n p a i n ­

t i n g , f o r B e l l o t t o ' s act iv i t ies d u r i n g his stay i n W a r s a w had been a lmost comple te lv u n k n o w n .

These « v iews » pref igure the v i e w s o f C o r o t , C o u r b e t , a n d even - i f I may be a l l o w e d

t o e m p l o v the n o w m u c h abused standard reference - the Impress ionists . B e l l o t t o , i n other

w o r d s , v e n t u r e d b e y o n d Canal's w o r k .

M o v i n g a r o u n d and i n the w a k e o f these t w o great landscape painters , were a s w a r m o f

painters dedicated to this n e w a n d h i g h l v specializcd genre: k n o w n and u n k n o w n painters ;

o r rather , fo r the most p a r t , u n k n o w n o r barely k n o w n . F o r , indeed, one does n o t usually

associate the i r names w i t h p a r t i c u l a r l y clear ideas a b o u t the i r art . T h e l ist is i n t e r m i n a b l e

and runs f r o m V i s e n t i n i t o Bat tag l i o l i , f r o m T i r o n i t o Pecchio, and f r o m M o r e t t i t o Ga-

spari and C h a r u t t i n i .

A m o n g those comple te lv u n k n o w u n t i l recently is A n t o n i o S t o m , called T o n i n o , the descen-

dant o f a f a m i l y o f artists o r i g i n a t i n g i n V a l Gardena in A l t o A d i g e : an imag ìnat ive b u t

strange artists o f o u t s t a n d i n g talent w h o appl ied « scornfuJ » brushstrokes i n the new

i l lusionìst technique i n t r o d u c e d by A n t o n i o G u a r d i , S tom's « v iews » a n d « capr icc i »

w i t h the i r s i lverv-cerulean lunar hues - o f ten a lmost « nocturnes » - were s o m e t h i n g o f

a surprise in the field o f Venet ian landscapes. O n l y a few years ago, o n the basis o f w h o

clearly s ìgncd pa int ings d i scovered i n E n g l a n d , I was able t o ident i fv another o f these

h i t h e r t o u n k n o w n v i e w painters : G i a c o m o o r Jacopo Fabris , a Canaletto art i s t o f the first

water , g i v e n t o discrete grey i sh hues and easilv recognizable bv his skis o f s i l verv c louds

and his v a r i c o l o u r e d l i t t l e t igures s t a n d i n g o u t , o r this very reason, against a b a c k g r o u n d

o f a lmost m o n o c h r o m a t i c s tructures . A considerable g r o u p o f V e n e t i a n « v i e w s » ( w o r k s

once a t t r i b u t e d to m u c h m o r e ce lcbrated artists) can n o w be l is ted u n d e r the name o f this

art i s t , w h o is the sanie « J a k o b » that w o r k e d a l o n g t i m e as a scene a n d stage pa inter i n

Copenhagen, where he d ied .

T o w a r d s m i d - c e n t u r v , Venet ian landscape p a i n t i n g was r e v i v e d , t r e n g t h e n e d , a n d s p i r i -

tual ized bv the subl ime art o f Francesco G u a r d i . I w o u l d o n l y sav t h a t Francesco b r o u g h t

t o v i e w p a i n t i n g n e w p i c t o r i a l concepts - i n t r o d u c e d b y his b r o t h e r A n t o n i o w i t h his

r c v o l u t i o n a r y ways - and appl ied t h e m i n a m u c h m o r e a i ry , m u t a b l e , a n d a t m o s p h e r i c

v i s i o n . He transf ìgured a certa in static cjualitv i n (Canaletto ( o f the m i d d l e p e r i o d , I mean) ,

b a t h i n g i t in an i m p a l p a b l e , l u m i n o u s , and effervescent « f l u i d » w h i c h gave a di f ferent

and m o r e m o d e m t u r n t o the V e n e t i a n art o f the t i m e .

B u t one o f the greatest surprises o f this i m a g i n a r y e x h i b i t o f v iews w o u l d c o n c e r n M i c h e l e

Mar ieschi . T o g ive an idea o f this art ist ' s h i g h leve l o f w o r k , one need o n l v m e n t i o n that

w h i l e Canaletto was s t i l i l i v i n g , Mar ieschi ' s « v i e w s » were b e i n g passed of f i n Ven ice as

A n t o n i o Canal o r ig ina l s , a n d Canal was m u c h m o r e famous a n d fetched m u c h h i g h e r b ids .

A n d they were passed off, I hasten t o a d d , n o t t o gu l l s a n d the i n e x p e r t , b u t t o those « e n -

l i g h t e n e d foreigners » w h o carne t o I t a l v o n t h e i r « G r a n d T o u r », c o l l e c t i n g w o r k s o f art

chosen w i t h l o v i n g care t o take back t o E n g l a n d , France, G e r m a n v , a n d e lsewhcrc . T w o

s igni f icant examples s h o u l d suffice. I n c l u d c d i n a large art c o l l e c t i o n n o t far f r o m L o n d o n

is a large « v i e w » o f the Palazzo Duca le a n d the w h a r f as seen f r o m the sea, a p a i n t i n g

acquired i n Venice bv an ancestor o f the present o w n e r . A l s o preserved is a n o t e b o o k kept

by this ancestor i n 1743, f r o m w h i c h i t appears t h a t the p a i n t i n g was b o u g h t (at a very

steep price) as a w o r k o f A n t o n i o Canal 's . Whereas , as one m u s t i n e v i t a b l v c o n c l u d e t o

judge f r o m the style, the w o r k is c lear ly Mar iesch i ' s . A n o t h e r example : the t w o « V e n e t i a n

v iews » once part o f Princess M a t h i l d e ' s Paris c o l l e c t i o n , were l i s ted i n a l i catalogues,

as i n th i s , as Canal's w o r k s , whereas they are t y p i c a l a n d u n q u e s t i o n a b l e w o r k s o f M a r i e ­

schi's.

These t w o examples, t o w h i c h others c o u l d be added, are i n d i c a t i v e e n o u g h t o demonst ra te

that since the i 8 t h c e n t u r y the very h i g h q u a l i t y o f Mar ieschi ' s w o r k has g i v e n rise t o

serious mistakes. ( A l m o s t t o o w e l l k n o w n t o be m e n t i o n e d was the d i s p u t e w h i c h t o o k

place beforc the A c a d e m y o f V e n i c e r e g a r d i n g t w o « v i e w s » a t t r i b u t e d t o Cana le t to ; a

c o m m i s s i o n o f experts was a p p o i n t e d t o decide the case i n 1789 a n d a m o n g t h e m was

Francesco G u a r d i ; the « v iews » t u r n e d o u t t o be « Mar ieschi ' s s choo l ». Canalet to , indced. ) .

T h e r e is n o need t o emphasize t h a t m a n y mistakes o f th i s k i n d were made i n the ic j th centurv

and many are b e i n g made n o w . I n the facile game o f a t t r i b u t i n g a u t h o r s h i p n o w b e i n g

played as never before, Mar iesch ' i s name has fo r m a n y people ( I a m , o f course, n o t r e f e r r i n g

t o serious a n d p r o f o u n d scholars, b u t t o se l f -appointed « experts «) become a c o n v e n i e n t

subst i tute . W h e n a Canaletto v i e w cannot be a t t r i b u t e d t o the Master himsel f , n o r even

t o B e l l o t t o , Marieschi ' s name is cal led f o r t h . A n d i n m o s t cases his name is m e n t i o n e d at

r a n d o m , as a r o u g h guess, o f ten d o i n g h i m a grave disservice.

Miche le Marieschi ' s was a s h o r t Life: he d ied w h e n o n l y t h i r t y t h r e e , w h e n the t rue w o r l d

o f his ar t had o n l y b e g u n t o u n f o l d . A t t h a t age even the grcatest painters are i n l i t t l e m o r e

than a f o r m a t i v e phase, a n d i t is easy t o con jec ture t h a t w i t h a fu r ther d e v e l o p m e n t o f

his ar t M a r i e s c h i w o u l d have been able t o achieve m u c h h i g h e r levels.

B o r n o n the i s t o f December 1710 i n the « Calle dei Caler i » o f Venice , as M a u r o n e r (1940)

i n f o r m s us, the son o f a p o o r w o o d carver named A n t o n i o , i n whose shop he w o r k e d as

a b o y , M i c h e l e , o n his father's death , became an o r p h a n at the age o f e leven. A n t o n i o d ied

at t h i r t y years o f age, after a l o n g i l lness, l e a v i n g his f a m i l y i n a state o f p o v e r t y w h i c h

necessitated the i r m o v i n g t o the « Ca' Basse » o f San A l v i s e , w h e r e they l i v e d a life o f h a r d -

ship . W e k n o w l i t t l e o r nòthtng a b o u t Miche le ' s apprent icesh ip other t h a n w h a t his earliest

b iographers w r o t e : that « h e was educated by his parents » ( L o n g h i , 1762) a n d that the

dedicated h i m s e l f t o the s tudy o f perspect ive p a i n t i n g and archi tecture » w i t h such enthusiasm

that he was able t o leave his parents ' s c h o o l i n g w i t h o u t suf fer ing m u c h loss. B u t one s h o u l d

bear i n m i n d that h a v i n g los this father i n 1721, M i c h e l e , t h e n o n l y 11, c o u l d h a r d l v have

learnt m o r e t h a n the r u d i m e n t s o f his ar t .

T h e n w h o started the y o u n g M i c h e l e o u t i n pa int ing? O n e o f his first art i n s t r u c t o r s was

u n d o u b t e d l v Gaspare D i z i a n i , w h o n M i c h e l e k n e w , as D i z i a n i h i m s e l f r e m a r k e d , since

his y o u t h . T h i s can be gathered f r o m the d o c u m e n t s d r a w n u p for Mar ieschi ' s marr iagc

i n 1737 to A n z o l a Zanetta F o n t a n a , the d a u g h t e r o f the pa inter D o m e n i c o Fontana . O n

that occasion Gaspare D i z i a n i stated t h a t he had k n o w n b o t h b r i d e a n d g r o o m since the i r

c h i l d h o o d , because b o t h the g r o o m a n d the br ide ' s father were painters , a n d since he was

o n fami l ia r terms w i t h b o t h , he was i n a p o s i t i o n t o guarantes t h a t nei ther one o f the m a r r i e d

couple h a d ever been b c t r o t h e d before. O r i g i n a l l y f r o m B e l l u n o , Gaspare D i z i a n i was

t h e n 45 vears o l d , and had settled i n Venice w h e n o n l y 20, i n the San G e m i g n a n o par i sh .

I t is therefore h i g h l y p r o b a b l e t h a t one o f Miche le ' s first i n s t r u c t o r s was Gaspare (and,

i n fact, th i s b i t o f i n f o r m a t i o n was r e p o r t e d b y N i c o l e t t i i n Pinacoteca Veneta, 1872), an

art ist w h o m w e a l i k n o w t o be a g o o d figure pa inter , n o t a pa inter o f perspectives o r « v i e w s » ,

a l t h o u g h , l ikc many others i n those days, he t o o k an interest i n scenographv a n d as a scene

painter he had w o r k e d i n M u n i c h i n 1717 and at the c o u r t o f A u g u s t u s I I I i n Dresden .

These act ivit ies are r e p o r t e d b o t h by Z a n e t t i (1771) a n d by Lanzi (1795); b u t there are n o

d r a w i n g s , engrav ings , o r o t h e r w o r k s t o s u p p o r t these statements.

T h e o n l y t h i n g certain is that f r o m his carliest years M a n e s c h i dedicated h i m s e l f t o per-

spective p a i n t i n g and scenographv, a n d as a scene pa inter fo r the theatre he w e n t t o

G e r m a n y . Th i s n o r t h e r n s o j o u r n marks the second certa in mi lestone i n his career. H i s

b iographers are a l i i n agreement o n th i s . O r l a n d i (1753) states that M a r i e s c h i was soon able

t o leave his father and g o t o G e r m a n v , where the whimsica lness a n d abundance o f his ideas

pleased manv i m p o r t a n t personages, w h o e m p l o v e d h i m i n a var ie tv o f large a n d smal l

services. I n this regard M a u r o n e r hazards the guess that the p r o m o t e r o f Michele ' s t r i p

t o G e r m a n y was none o t h e r t h a n D i z i a n i , w h o had alreadv been there as a scenographer:

a guess w h i c h is most p r o b a b l y tight.

W h e n d i d Marieschi leave fo r the N o r t h ; h o w l o n g d i d he stay; and w h a t d i d he p a i n t there?

These are a l i unanswercs quest ions . B u t O r l a n d i ' s text says n o t h i n g a b o u t easel p a i n t i n g

o r « v iews », w h i c h leaves one to suppose that the « whimsicalness » o f his ideas was appl ied

on ly in scene p a i n t i n g , as F o g o l a r i supposcs w i t h very c o n v i n c i n g a r g u m e n t s . A n d f o r

that mat ter , scenographic w o r k was the pr ince t h a t a great many painters t h e n had t o pav

i n o rder t o make a l i v i n g . A m o n g t h e m were M a r c o R i c c i , D i z i a n i , Canalet to , Crosato ,

and Piranesi .

Before 1735 M i c h e l e r e t u r n e d t o I t a l v . I n M a y o f t h a t vear, i n fact, he was i n v i t e d t o Fano

a l o n g w i t h the impresar io Tasso t o the funera l services b e i n g h c l d f o r the Q u e e n o f P o l a n d ,

Mar ia C lement ine Sobieskv. T h e e n g r a v i n g s made for the occas ion, one b v Jacopo Ca­

merata, the other bv the i m p r e s a r i o Tasso himsel f , after d r a w i n g s b v M a n e s c h i , g ì v e us

an idea n o t o n l y o f the magni f ì cence o f the funera l p o m p but also o f Marieschi ' s a b i l i t y

and prec i s ion in « i m m o r t a l i z i n g i t ». As one can see, w e are s t i l i i n the f ield o f theatr ica l

w o r k . I n 1736 his name appeared i n the V e n e t i a n « C o n f r a t e r n i t y » o f painters a n d reap-

peared u n t i l 1741.

W e fìnd Mar ieschi again in Venice as early as 1735 o r before. O r l a n d i w r i t s (1735) t h a t ,

« o n c o m i n g home he p a i n t e d the b e a u t i f u l v i e w s o f the G r a n d Canal , o t h e r churches a n d

palaces ». T h i s is the first r e p o r t o f M a n e s c h i as a « v i e w » pa inter . I n 1741 he p r i n t e d the-

z i v iews t h a t he had e n g r a v e d , e n t i t l i n g t h e m « C h o i c c V i e w s » a n d s t v l i n g h i m s e l f « p a i n t e r

and architect ». O n the 15 M a y o f t h a t ycar he a p p l i e d t o the Senate f o r the exclus ive r i g h t s

t o the p r i n t i n g o f his e n g r a v i n g s , an a p p l i c a t i o n w h i c h was accepted the f o l l o w i n g 3 [une

a n d v a l i d f o r 10 years. I t appears that M i c h e l e was i n s o m e t h i n g o f a h u r r y . These e n g r a v i n g s

were taken n o t f r o m prepara tore d r a w i n g s b u t d i r e c t l v f r o m his o w n p a i n t i n g s .

Mar ieschi d ied o n the 18 Januarv , 1743 ( a c c o r d i n g t o the V e n e t i a n r e c k o n i n g ; that is, i n

1744). T h e death certif icate states t h a t he d i e d o f p n e u m o n i a after an illness o f e i g h t davs.

Hi s b iographers c l a i m that « h a r d w o r k a n d his o v e r w h e l m i n g l v intense act iv i t ies » ( O r ­

l a n d i , M o s c h i n i ) were the cause o f his p r e m a t u r e death : w h i c h is w h o l l v c r c d i b l c , i f one

considers the n u m b e r o f pictures p a i n t e d by Mar ieschi d u r i n g the last years o f his l i fe , as

s h o w n b y the a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d engrav ings . As the records o f the parisch c h u r c h of San

Luca testify, his w i d o w p r o v i d e d for his f u n e r a l , w i t h the assistance o f the locai chapter.

A l i o f w h i c h demonstrates that w h i l e he had achieved fame, he was far f r o m wel l -of f .

I n a d d i t i o n to these bits o f d o c u m e n t a r y i n f o r m a t i o n , we can add others , as yet u n p u b l i s h e d ,

d r a w n f r o m Marsha l Schulenburg ' s archives , w h i c h carl ier t h r e w so m u c h l i g h t o n another

« obscure » f igure o f that t i m e , A n t o n i o G u a r d i .

W e k n o w , t h e n , that o n the 20 N o v e m b e r 1736 the Marsha l acquired a « p a i n t i n g o f the

Palace c o u r t y a r d », i.e. p r o b a b l v o f the Palazzo Duca le , fo r w h i c h he pa id 50 g o l d scc|uins.

A n o t h e r p i c t u r e , this t i m e a « v i e w o f the R i a l t o » was b o u g h t bv the sanie Marsha l a few

m o n t h s later, o n the 2 A p r i i 1737, fo r 55 seejuins: and they must have been t w o verv i m -

p o r t a n t canvases, c o n s i d e r i n g the h i g h pr ice . A vear later, i n fact, Schulenburg ' s agents

were able t o b u y , for o n l y 12 sequins, as m a n y as six « M i n i a t u r e v iews o f a rchi tecture »

(« by S i g n o r M i c h c l i n »), smal l a rch i tec ton ic « capricci » w h i c h Maneschi e v i d e n t l v d i d not

take t o o seriously. O n e o f the last entr ies , dated the 25 M a y 1740, i n f o r m s us that t w o

Marieschi « v iews » were b o u g h t f o r o n l y 6 sequins, as a g i f t fo r a f r i e n d . T h e d i spar i ty

i n pr ince between the first t w o v i e w s , fo r w h i c h 195 sequins were p a i d , and these last,

acquired f o r a t w e n t i e t h part o f that pr i ce , lcads one t o suspect that the latter were e i ther

very m i n o r w o r k or produets o f the Mar iesch i « school ». I t w i l l he remembered that i n

the d ispute o v e r the t w o pscudo-Canalct tos , in w h i c h Francesco G u a r d i t o o k part as an

expert , there had already been ta lk a b o u t the « Mar ieschi s c h o o l » . W e k n o w also f r o m

other sources that M i c h e l e was i m i t a t e d b v his p u p i l s ; M a n e t t e , w h o bears witness t o th i s ,

wr i tes that there was « a second Mar ieschi », one o f his p u p i l s , w h o paited v i e w s a n d fanta-

sies rather w e l l (pas mal touchès) i n Michele ' s stvle, a n d that this pa inter , t o o , l i k c his master,

d ied y o u n g at the age o f 35 i n 1758; his real name was Francesco A l b o t t a . ( I n this regard ,

Pa l lucchini - i 9 6 0 , page 196 - w o n d e r s w h e t h e r t h i s w o u l d n o t be the Francesco A l b o r o

m e n t i o n e d i n the V e n e t i a n G u i l d i n those years. I t is m o s t l i k e l y , b u t t o be sure one w o u l d

have to come u p o n some w o r k u n q u c s t i o n a b l v bv this « second Mar iesch i »). I t m i g h t

be added that i n m o r e recent t imes the landscapes a n d « v iews » o f S t o m (whose name was

then u n k n o w n ) were a t t r i b u t e d t o an a u t h o r w i t h the c o n v e n t i o n a l t i t l e o f « Pseudo-Ma-

rieschi ».

T h e t rue d e v e l o p m e n t o f Marieschi ' s art can o n l v be reconstructed bv i n d u c t i o n , f o r , as

we have said, w e have n o i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t his real masters. T h e fact that Gaspare D i z i a n i

p r o b a b l v started h i m of f i n scenography is o f small i m p o r t a n c e . Michele q u i n c k l v abandoned

scene p a i n t i n g a n d , i n any case, since we have no s igned d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f the latter (aside

f r o m the engrav ings executed after his t w o d r a w i n g s fo r F a n o ) , fo r us they are v i r t u a l l y

inexistent . Marieschi ' s t rue ta lent , t o w h i c h he owes his fame, lay i n v i e w p a i n t i n g s .

Unexpccted ly , as we said, i n 1741, a f e w years after his r e t u r n f r o m G e r m a n v , Miche le

d r e w a t t e n t i o n w i t h his 21 p o p u l a r engrav ings o f the « magni f icent sights » o f Venice ,

a n t i c i p a t i n g by o n l y t w o years Canaletto 's v i e w s as engraved by V i s e n t i n i . O n e is led t o

w o n d e r h m v Mar iesch i , w h o was so m u c h y o u n g e r t h a n Canalet to , was able t o come o u t

w i t h a w o r k w h i c h presupposed a d i rect k n o w l e d g e o f the great v i e w pa inter , t h e n at the

he ight o f his fame. I n s u m , h o w e v e r i t carne a b o u t , Mar ieschi managed t o steal a m a r c h

o n Canaletto. B u t we m u s t r e m e m b e r that Carlevaris had already p r i n t e d (1729) a c o l l e c t i o n

o f Venet ian sights, w h i c h was a grat success a n d blazcd the t r a i l fo r a l i the « i l l u s t r a t e d

books » o f Venice, a c i ty universal i}- regarded as one o f the w o n d e r s o f the w o r l d . B u t

Marieschi 's v iews are dif ferent f r o m those o f the Udinese master. Miche le ' s l a y o u t o f his

v iews is not n a r r o w , d o s e , a n d a r t i cu la ted i n smal l angles, as is Carlevaris 's ; b u t w i d e ,

wcl l -spaced, and « large-angled ». C o m p a r e , fo r example , the e n g r a v i n g o f the Santa M a r i a

Formosa « C a m p o » as executed by Carlevaris a n d by Mar ie sch i , and these differences are

clear. T h e t reatment o f the i r p a i m i n g s is, o f course , also dif ferent. Carlevaris 's b e i n g l i q u i d ,

soft, w i t h often ir idescent hues suggest ive o f w a t e r - c o l o u r s ; Mar ieschi ' s b e i n g r i c h , t h i c k -

tex tured , w i t h intense c h r o m a t i c effeets. A l s o i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the f igures there is a

dirference: I.uca's b e i n g m o r e c r o w d e d , Miche le ' s spread o u t .

W e can therefore d iscard the hypothes i s , advanced bv some w r i t e r s , t h a t M i c h e l e was

indebted to the o l d Udinese master. B u t the re la t ionsh ips , aff init ies, a n d ties between

Marieschi and A n t o n i o Canal appear t o be v e r y close: t h e i r t w o p i c t o r i a l v i s ions are a l m o s t

ident ica l .

A t this p o i n t we m i g h t cons ider w h e t h e r his real master was n o t Canal h imsel f , w h e t h e r

i t was n o t he w h o led M a r i e s c h i f r o m scenographic p a i n t i n g ( w h i c h Canal h i m s e l f had

pract iced i n his y o u t h a n d t h e n abandoned) t o genuine v i e w p a i n t i n g . U n f o r t i n a t e l y , we

are comple te lv in the d a r k o n this p o i n t , f o r there i s n o c o n t e m p o r a r y t e s t i m o n y t o e n l i g h t c n

us. B u t Marieschi ' s dependence o n Canal ( w h o was, m o r e o v e r , o n l y t h i r t e e n years o l d e r )

is unquest ionable . E v e n i f M a r i e s c h i was n o t d i r e c t l v a p u p i l o f Canal's ( a n d I t h i n k he

was), he m o s t cer ta in ly saw a n d s t u d i e d his w o r k s . Canalet to had already been a successful

v i e w pa inter f o r o v e r t e n years, a n d the C o n s u l S m i t h , was b u y i n g u p a l i his w o r k s . A f t e r

the i n i t i a l p e r i o d o f his « d r a m a t i c v i e w s » ( f r o m a b o u t 1722 t o 1728), his v i s i o n became, as

i t were , codi f ied i n a static f o r m u l a t i o n . A n d i t was this that M a r i e s c h i t o o k u p : i t m u s t

have been about 1730-1735 a n d i n a l i p r o b a b i l i t y after his r e t u r n f r o m G e r m a n y , f o r M i c h e l e

was s t i l i ve ry y o u n g i n those vears.

I t has been said that i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h Cana le t to , Mar iesch i lacks a t rue sense o f space

and that his v iews are la id o u t scenographica l lv , w i t h exaggerated perspectives. I cannot

agree w i t h this c r i t i c i s m , because i n c o m p a r i n g the e n g r a v i n g s i n the V e n e t i a n v i e w b o o k s

o f these t w o artists , one cannot fa i l t o n o t i c e the i d e n t i t y o f the l a y o u t ; a n d as fo r the

« exaggerations » i t is clear t h a t they , t o o , have been absorbed f r o m the « w i d e n e d v i e w s »

o f Canaletto himself .

A c t u a l l y , a l t h o u g h he based h i m s e l f o n the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s o f Cana le t to , Mar iesch i s o o n

acquired his o w n i n d i v i d u a i ar t i s t ic persona l i ty , his o w n wcl l -def ìned style, w h i c h makes

it possible t o recognize h i m , w h e n one has s t u d i e d his w o r k care fu l ly , a n d t o d i s t i n g u i s e l i

h i m f r o m the o t h e r V e n e t i a n v i e w painters o f his t i m e . A n d he is recognizable b v v i r t u e

o f his par t i cu lar qual i t ies , w h i c h set h i m of f f r o m (Canaletto. W h a t are these d i s t i n g u i s h i n g

qual i t ies , thenr I s h o u l d say, first o f al i (and readers w i l l excusc me i f I beg in w i t h an « acecs-

sorv » c lement) that Canaletto 's v i e w s are a n i m a t e d by l o v e l y , unminstakab le l i t t l e figures

pa inted bv the master h i m s e l f a n d by no one else; whereas Marieschi 's v iews inc lude t h i n ,

s lcnder, a n d s o m e w h a t w o o d e n figures w h e n they are pa inted bv h i m , o r they b e l o n g t o

other « hands », as we shall discuss later.

A n o t h e r characterist ic o f his is l i n e a r i t y a n d neatness i n archi tectonic d r a w ì n g , w h i c h clearly

reveal his « l o v e for perspect ive» . F u r t h e r m o r e , i t has t o be p o i n t e d out that o f ten his architec-

tura l representat ions, h o w e v e r clear the des ign , are treated w i t h paint d r i p p i n g s , w h i c h of ten

r o l l d o w n f r o m cornices, storev levels, a t c , as i f thev had just got w e t in the r a i n . V e r y

often these b u i l d i n g s are p a i n t e d w i t h daubs o r l u m p s o f t h i c k pa int , perhaps t o g tve the

feel ing of r o u g h mater ia l i n the f o r e g r o u n d ; whereas in the b a c k g r o u n d thev take o n a

translucent l ightness a n d crvsta l l ine transparencv. T h e « skies » o f these t w o artists are

r e m a r k a b l v dif ferenti Canaletto 's b r i g h t b lue skies b e i n g always swept bv sometimes grev ,

somet imes b r i l l i a n t s i lver c louds ; w h i l e Mar ieschi ' s skies are l i g h t - b l u e and pearlv , as i f

pervaded bv l i g h t v a p o u r s , here a n d there m a r k e d by vague c louds l ike flocks o f w o o l

barelv d i s t i n c t f r o m the a tmosphere .

/ \ n d t h e n , Marieschi ' s w i l d love fo r boats: W h e n e v e r possible M i c h e l e c r o w d s his v iews

w i t h great numbers o f sea-craft, r a n g i n g f r o m barges t o go ldo las , f r o m wherr ies t o f tshing

vesscls a n d warships . A n c h o r e d t o the w h a r f at San G i o r g i o M a g g i o r e , they can be a d m i r e d

i n ali the i r m a r i t i m c majesty, depic ted w i t h k n o w i n g deta i l . ( A few o f his « v iews » o f this

k i n d were q u i t e recent ly passed of f as Canaletto masterpieces i n L o n d o n auct ion-houses) .

G e t t i n g back t o the « l i t t l e figures », I s h o u l d l ike to say that many o f Mar ieschi ' s most

beaut i fu l pa int ings have figures p a i n t e d by A n t o n i o G u a r d i . I n his h o o k on Francesco

G u a r d i ( 1945), G o e r i n g had n o t e d i n a few o f Marieschi ' s « capricci » some general ly

« G u a r d i - l i k e » figures w h i c h he a t t r i b u t e d t o Francesco rather than A n t o n i o G u a r d i .

W i t h o u t g o i n g i n t o this sub jcct , w i t h w h i c h I have dealt i n var ious o t h e r studies, I s h o u l d

l ike t o repeat that , as I sce i t , these figures u n q u e s t i o n a b l y b e l o n g t o Francesco's b r o t h e r ,

and the greatest p r o o f o f th i s is the style. B e y o n d this w e s h o u l d consider that a b o u t 1730¬

1735, w h e n Marieschi ' s f irst « v i e w s » were p r e s u m a b l v pa inted , Francesco G u a r d i was

just b e g i n n i n g his career, whereas A n t o n i o was alreadv a c o n s u m m a t c pa inter in the service

o f the a b o v c - m e n t i o n e d M a r s h a l S c h u l e n b u r g .

O t h e r o f Mar ieschi ' s « v i e w s » a n d « c a p r i c c i » bear figures pa inted bv ( ì a s p a r e D i z i a n i ,

s t i l i others by S i m o n i n i . B o t h o f these names have a cer ta in i m p o r t a n c e i n o u r painter ' s

l i fe . T h e f irst , as we k n o w , k n e w M i c h e l e since his c h i l d h o o d , was certainly his t u t o r i n

a r t , a n d , i n al i p r o b a b i l i t y , i n t r o d u c e d h i m i n t o scenographic p a i n t i n g . T h e second was

an i n t i m a t e o f Schulenburg ' s , fo r he had accompanied the Marshal on his expedit ions in

D a l m a t i a , A l b a n i a , and Greece as a « d o c u m e n t a r e artist» o r « p i c t o r i a l r e p o r t e r » o f these

m i l i t a r y campaigns. F o r t h a t mat ter , also D i z i a n i b e l o n g e d t o the S c h u l e n b u r g « c lan »

w h i c h was headed by Piazzetta; a c lan t o w h o m w e can add G iambat t i s ta P i t t o n i , as a h i g h l y

considercd painter and restorer. ! cannot fai! t o recal i , lastlv, that a few o f the smal l p a i n t i n g s

w i t h courtvards and prisons (presages of the art of Piranesi , w h o is deeplv i n d e b t e d t o

Marieschi) were an imated b y smal l sp i r i t ed figures pa inted by G iambat t i s ta T i e p o l o ( n o t

bv his son , D o m e n i c o , as some have supposed, since, at Marieschi ' s death , D o m e n i c o

T i e p o l o was barelv seven vears o f age, o r thereabouts) .

T h e success that Mar ieschi en joved w i t h his « v i e w s », especiallv after the p u b l i c a t i o n o f

the v o l u m e w i t h his zi e n g r a v i n g s , m u s t have been o v e r w h e l m i n g . T h e a lmost absolute

absence o f the w^orks o f the famous Canal , w h o l e o u t p u t had been largelv b o u g h t u p bv

that s ingular Maecenas o f art ists , the H n g l i s h C o n s u l i n Venice , Joseph S m i t h , made i t

extremely diffìcult t o p r o c u r e his o r i g i n a i « v iews ». M a r i e s c h i was therefore verv useful

as a n o t u n w o r t h v subst i tute fo r the great A n t o n i o and o f ten his alter ego. ( A n d i t was S m i t h

again w h o started t o acquire p a i n t i n g s b v Mar ie sch i ) .

l ' n l i k e Canal, w h o had p a i n t e d v i e w s o f Padua, R o m e , L o n d o n , and o t h e r parts o f E n g l a n d ,

Marieschi pa inted v iews o f Ven ice a lone. I f there are anv o thers , thev are so far u n k n o w n .

Nor d i d he pa int anv o f those « ideated v i e w s », i .e., c o m b i n a t i o n s o f real b u i l d i n g s chosen

here and there at r a n d o m , w h i c h Canaletto occasional i} d e l i g h t e d i n . .

Mar ieschi , h o w e v e r , p a i n t e d m a n y smal l a n d m e d i u m - s i z e d « c a p r i c c i » , w i t h landscapes

m i x e d w i t h fanci fu l a rch i tec tura l s t ructures , i n w h i c h his t h c a t r i c a l a n d scenographic i m a g i -

n a t i o n c o n t i n u e d to bear l o v e l v f r u i t . These « capr icc i », c o n s i d e r i n g the elements m a k i n g

t h e m u p as w e l l as the i r a l m o s t « r o m a n t i c » taste, are h i g h l y o r i g i n a i . Some o f t h e i r i n s p i r a ­

t o r i may have be?n taken f r o m M a r c o Ricci ' s w o r k , b u t o t h e r w i s e they are c o m p l e t e l v

the o r i g i n a i w o r k o f M i c h e l e h imsel f , w i t h an accent a n d style al i t h e i r o w n a n d t o t a l l v

n e w . ( I t is n o t u n l i k e l v that these « capr icc i » exerted a deep intfuence o n the art o f Francesco

( ì u a r d i ; b u t we shall discuss th i s m a t t e r later o n ) .

These « capricci » o r fantasies are c o m p o s e d o f the m o s t heterogeneous elements: vague

inlets o f lakes, r ivers , o r lagoons , some set o f f b y w o o d s , others by r o c k s , w i t h a scat ter ing

o f castles o r ru ins o r rust ie houses o r far-awav vi l lages lost i n a rosy haze: i d y l l i c o r elegiac

places w h e r e y o u w o u l d l ike t o l i v e . O u t o f a surreal ist ic a n d nosta lg ie c l imate rise poet ic

syntheses o f fantasy a n d real i ty s p r u n g o f an a u t s t a n d i n g thcat r i ca l sense; a n d i t was i n this

l i g h t that Marieschi ' s v o u t h f u l years r e t u r n e d , o v e r f l o w i n g w i t h n e w p i c t o r i a l ideas. O t h e r

« capricci » feature p u r e arch i tecture : stone beds w i t h ove l i sks , temples , m i n a r e t s , a n d

equestr ian m o n u m e n t s , a m o n g m e d i e v a l g o t h i c - l i k e palaces, basilicas s h i m m e r i n g w i t h

g o l d , s u m p t u o u s c o u r t v a r d s , o r u n d e r g r o u n d pr i sons , S t i l i o rhers represcnt landscapes w i t h

trees o r w o o d s and a few rare a r c h i t e c t u r a l e lements , w i t h a thread o f water far away o n

the h o r i z o n ; these are the least c o m m o n .

I t was i n these « fantasies » t h a t Mar iesch i revealed the t r u e extent o f his absolute o r i g i n a l i t y

and independcnce w i t h respect t o Canalet to , M a r c o R i c c i , o r anvonc else. C o m p a r e , i f y o u

w i l l , the « fantasv l a n d s c a p e s » o f the ijth century : the landscapes o f Salvator Rosa, for

instance, o r the a rch i tec tura l representat ions o f Saluzzi o r Codazz i , o r o t h e r painters o f

this order . I t w o u l d be ditfìcult, I t h i n k , t o f i n d a n y t h i n g the equal o f Marieschi ' s f o r creative

i m a g i n a t i o n , sparkle, a n d w i t t v i c o n o g r a p h i c i n v e n t i o n . I t was these « fantasies » o f M a ­

rieschi 's that p r o v i d c d the first g u i d e t o Francesco G u a r d i , and even the great Piranesi

was inf luenced by t h e m . ( I n th i s r e g a r d , I t h i n k i t m i g h t be useful here t o g ive at least a

r o u g h idea o f m v o w n o p i n i o n o n the mat te r o f Pirancsi 's beg inn ings in art : they are related

n o t o n l y t o M a r i e s c h i , as I have already w r i t t e n , b u t t o A n t o n i o G u a r d i , as w e l l . T h i s ca;i

be seen i n his d r a w i n g s , w h i c h reveal a « tear ing » manner adopted f r o m G u a r d i ; again,

in certa in other pa int ings w h i c h I t h i n k b e l o n g t o his y o u t h one finds the b r u s h - s t r o k e ,

taste, and « i l lus ion i s t » stvle that were i n v e n t e d bv A n t o n i o himsel f . Th-:-n, bv p u t t i n g

i n t o his landscape a n d a rch i tec ton ic fantasies elements d e r i v c d f r o m theatr ic . i l scenography

- as Canaletto had d o n e i n cer ta in o f his ve rv v o u t h f u l w o r k s , w h i l e a b a n d o n i n g t h e m

i m m e d i a t e l y , h o w e v e r - M a r i e s c h i created a n e w k i n d o f « capr icc io » w h i c h became the

n o r m n o t o n l y fo r Francesco G u a r d i b u t fo r most o f the Venet ian « fantasv » painters o f

the t i m e , b e g i n n i n g w i t h the alreadv m e n t i o n e d S t o m a n d d o w n to C h i a r u t t i n i a n d B i s o n ;

n o t t o speak o f decorat ive p a i n t i n g ; M a n e s c h i , therefore , can he cons idcred the t r u e i n i -

t i a t o r o f this genre, w h i c h e n j o y e d f a v o u r up t o the t h r e s h o l d o f the n ineteenth century .

T h e fact t h a t he was preceded by a few scenographic p r i n t e r s does n o t detract f r o m his

mer i t s . M o r e o v e r , i n every creat ive w o r k we find the des iment o f p r e v i o u s events a l o n g

w i t h the seed o f t h i n g s t o come.

M a n e s c h i possessed an e x t r a o r d i n a r y p i c t o r i a l sens ib i l i ty , a n d he k n e w h o w t o w o r k toge ther

even the m o s t v a r i e d themes w i t h d iabo l i ca l i m a g i n a t i o n . A t t imes he m i x e d his c o l o u r s

d i rec t l y o n the canvas, w i t h plays o f i r idescent hues appl ied w i t h r i c h a n d f l u i d strokes,

w i t h « staccatos » r e d o l e n t o f mus ic a n d v i r t u o s o p l a y i n g (ti in T a r t i n i , i f i t is l eg i t imate

to compare h i m w i t h t h a t d i a b o l i c a l l v v i r t u o s o v i o l i n i s t . ) . He k n e w h o w to play w i t h per-

spectives c o n t i n u a l l v s h i f t i n g i n t o unexpected a l ternat ives . C o n s i d e r i n g these qual i t ies ,

i t is l i k e l v that he was verv effective indeed i n scenography. T h e r e were t w o great h i g h w a y s

o p e n t o V e n e t i a n painters in those years (besides the « great » genre o f figurative p a i n t i n g ,

o f course, w h i c h was headed b y Sebastiano R i c c i , Piazzetta, P e l l e g r i n i , a n d T i e p o l o ) : e i ther

scenography, w h i c h h a d already been f ìuor ishing f o r a century , o r the m o r e immedia te

v i e w p a i n t i n g . A f t e r passing his v o u t h i n the first genre , Mar iesch i t h r e w h i m s e l f head long

i n t o the second. H i s p a i n t i n g w o u l d have carr ied h i m t o even h igher levels, i f death had

n o t s t ruck h i m d o w n i n the f u l l f l ower o f his y o u t h , at o n l y t h i r t y t w o years o f age.

*

T h e catalogue o f Mar ieschi ' s p a i n t i n g s - « v i e w s » and « fantasies » - is n o t very extensive;

n o r is the i r q u a l i t y always e/'ual wintness the « v i e w s o f the Pinacoteca o f Naples , some o f

t h e m o r i g i n a i b u t n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y excel lent, others the p r o d u c t o f the « w o r k s h o p ». M o r e

than one o f Marieschi 's v iews has been c r r o n c o u s l v a t t r i b u t e d t o Canaletto : a n d there are

others w h i c h , t h o u g h Canaletto 's , they are n o w t r y i n g t o a t t r i b u t e t o Mar iesch i f o r instance,

the large carvas w i t h the v i e w o f the Chiesa d i Santa M a r i a della Salute at the L o u v r e ,

w h i c h F o g o l a r i wishes t o cross o f f the l ist o f Canaletto 's w o r k s a n d assign t o Michele ' s .

( B u t in mv o p i n i o n this v i e w is u n d o u b e t d l v Canaletto 's w o r k ) . S t i l i o t h e r canvases, l i ke

the one i n L e n i n g r a d a n d the one i n the P u s h k i n M u s e u m i n M o s c o w , have insert ions o f

small figures ev ident i } ' pa inted by D i z i a n i : w h i c h s t i l i has n o t been n o t i c e d . I n the catalogue

that we have d r a w n u p , there f igure at least f o r t v o f Miche le ' s v iews w h i c h can be cons idered

o u t r i g h t masterpieces. S o m e w h a t less n u m e r o u s are the « fantasies », a m o n g w h i c h , h o w e v e r ,

we linci some magni f icent cxemplcs , o f a picturesLjue character, a n d i m a g i n a t i v e p o w e r

unec|uallcd i n those vears i n Ven ice and elsewhere. These canvases a lone are c n o u g h t o

place Marieschi on a m u c h h i g h e r level t h a n the usuai , a n d t o take h i m o u t o f the categorv

o f « m i n o r painters » t o w h i c h he had u n j u s t l y been relegated.

A s fo r the role that M i c h e l e M a n e s c h i p layed i n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f Francesco G u a r d i ,

1 have alreadv w r i t t e n , i n m y s tudv appear ing i n the « Festschri ft » f o r G u g l i e l m o Suida

(1955), a b o u t a few pictures m i d w a v between M a r i e s c h i a n d v o u n g G u a r d i . H i s ro le was

verv i m p o r t a n t . In m o r e wavs t h a n o n e , M i c h e l e ' s ar t is the kev t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g the o r i g i n s

o f Francesco's landscape a n d v i e w p a i n t i n g .

Between Marieschi a n d the t w o G u a r d i b r o t h e r s , A n t o n i o a n d Francesco, there also ran

fcelings o f i n t i m a t e f r i e n d s h i p w h i c h , w h e n one t h i n k s a b o u t i t , clears u p v e r v w e l l certa in

aspeets o f the i r art . A c red ib le r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p m i g h t be the f o l l o w i n g ;

Mar ieschi , a p r o t é g é a n d perhaps already p u p i l o f D i z i a n i ' s , asks the latter t o p a i n t the

« l i t t l e figures » in his p ic tures , a n d D i z i a n i at f irst does so d i r e c t l y ; t h e n he entrusts the

w o r k t o his fr iends i n the S c h u l e n b u r g « c lan », f irst t o S i m o n i n i , t h e n t o A n t o n i o G u a r d i .

T h e figures that A n t o n i o paints f o r b o t h his « v i e w s » a n d his « capr icc i » are b y far the

w i t t i e s t , m o s t p u n g e n t , a n d v i v a c i o u s ; a n d i t is n o t u n l i k e l y that M i c h e l e owes some o f

o f his success t o the a d d i t i o n o f these f igures . I n t u r n , w h e n Francesco G u a r d i wants t o

start o u t in v i e w p a i n t i n g , A n t o n i o Cìuardi entrusts his v o u n g e r b r o t h e r t o the care o f

landscape-scenographer a n d n e o - v i e w pa inte r , M a r i e s c h i . A n d i f this « s t o r v » is n o t e n t i r e l y

t r u e , a l l o w me to say, as they used t o i n the o l d davs, i t ' s a g o o d one .

A greate many other remarks o n p r o b l e m s r e g a r d i n g Mar iesch i ' s ar t have been lcft unsa id .

T h e pat ient reader w i l l f i n d t h e m al i f u l l y t reated i n m v b o o k , w h i c h is n o w n e a r i n g c o m -

p l e t i o n , a n d o f w h i c h the present text const i tutes a k i n d o f « digest ».

F n g l i s h T r a n s l a t i o n A n t o n i o Marassi By James Pallas

A C H R O N O i . O G I C A F T A B U .

8 Decomber 17 i o B i r t h entered in the records o f the Parish o f Santa M a r c u o l a .

T h e records s h o w that M i c h i e l G i o v a n n i , SDII o f M . A n t o n i o Alv ise

Mar ieschi a n d El isabetta , was b o r n on the first day o f this t n o n t h

i n Calle dei Galer i .

1 1 |unc 1721 M . A n t o n i o M a n e s c h i , w o o d - c a r v e r , o f a b o u t 38 years o f age, father

o f M i c h i e l , dies o f d r o p s y after an illness o f e i g h t m o n t h s , at the

Ca' Basse, and is b u r i e d grat is ( A r c h i v e s o f the parish o f Santa M a r ­

cuola) .

1735 M a r i e s c h i is present at F a n o , o n the occasion o f the funeral rites

he ld for the Q u e e n o f P o l a n d . Bear ing witness to this is the c o m m e m o ­

rat ive v o l u m e «Solenni esequie dì Maria Clementina Sohìescki... Celebra­

to a /ano H 2$ Maggio iy^j>\ ed i ted bv Gaetano Fanell i in i73<">.

T h e v o l u m e also conta ins t w o d r a w i n g s that M a r i e s c h i executed i n

h o n o u r o f the queen: the first represents The Interior of the Church

decorated f o r the funera l r ites; the second a procession statue 78 hands

high, a n d b o t h were e n g r a v e d , the first by Giuseppe Camerata, the

second par t o f the v o l u m e conccrns the queen's funeral rites i n R o m e ,

w i t h engrav ings after d r a w i n g s bv P a n n i n l , p u b l i s h e d i n R o m e bv

G . N . S a l v i n i , 1736.

T h e r e is p r o o f , t h e n , t h a t as earlv as 1735 Mar iesch i was b e i n g e m -

p l o v e d as a pa inter fo r scenography, theatr ical sets, and perspcctives.

1736 T h i s is the date assigned by Giuseppe Camerata to an e n g r a v i n g

executed after a d r a w i n g by M a n e s c h i , s h o w i n g a tempie invaded

b y macabre skeletons. A l i o f w h i c h recalls O r l a n d i , w h o spoke o f

the art ist 's strange a n d f r u i t f u l ideas.

i o Novcmbcr 1736 Ir is r e p o r t e d i n the I n v e n t o r i e s o f F i e l d - M a r s h a l S c h u l e n b u r g that

50 sequins were pa id t o Sig. M i c h e l Mar ieschi fo r his p i t t u r e o f the

Palace C o u r t . W h i c h proves that the painter was in d irect contact

w i t h this p a t r o n o f the arts. T h e date is verv i m p o r t a n t , because i t

is the first sure c h n m o l o g i c a l fact testì fying t o Marieschi ' s v i e w -

p a i n t i n g act iv i t ies . T h e k n o w , there fore , u n t i ! o t h e r d o c u m e n t s

t h r o w greater l i g h t o n the mat ter , that at that t i m e the pa inter was

alreadv p r o v i d i n g large v i e w s o f Ven ice fo r i l lus t ra ious personages,

and that he was b e i n g pa id handsomelv for t h e m .

1736-1741 M i c h i e l Marieschi ' s name appears in the lists o f the b u i l d o f V e n e t i a n

Painters.

20 A p r i i 1737 T h e S c h u l e n b u r g I n v e n t o r i e s reveal that 55 sequins were p a i d o n

this date t o painter Maneschi for a view of t/je Riaito.

8 N o v e m b e r 1737 B e t r o t h a l o f D . M i c h i e l M a r i e s c h i , o f about 27 years o f age, and

A n z o l a / a n e t t a , d a u g h t e r o f S i g n o r D o m e n i c o F o n t a n a , 26 vears

o f age, he f r o m the par ish o f Santa M a r c u o l a a n d she f r o m the parish

o f San Luca, b o t h l i v i n g i n V e n i c e since the i r b i r t h s . W i t n e s s , D o m .

( ì a s p a r D i c i a n , 45, o f B e l l u n o ( p a i n t e r ) , resident i n Ven ice fo r 25

vears i n the per i sh o f San G e m i g n a n o . D i z i a n i testi l ìed that he k n e w

b o t h o f t h e m verv w e l l f r o m t h e i r c h i l d h o o d , since b o t h the g r o o m

and the br ide ' s father were painters l i k e h imse l f . ( A r c h . Patr iarc .

Venice) .

27 N o v e m b e r 1737 T h e tnarr iagc o f M i c h e l e Mar iesch i a n d A n z o l a / a n e t t a is celebrated

in the presence o f ( ì a s p a r e D i z i a n i . ( A r c h . Parr . o f San Luca) .

11 September 1738 ììeld-Marshal Schulenburg purchases si small pictures of architectural

Perspectives from Sig. Micbelin, for 12 sequins.

2<i May 1740 T w o o f Mar ieschi ' s v i e w s are b o u g h t b v S c h u l e n b u r g , t h r o u g h his

secretarv, a n d g i v e n as g i f ts t o H i s Ivxcellencv M a r c ' A n t o n i o D ì e d o .

T h e i r cost is 6 sequins.

19 Januarv 1745 ( V e n e t i a n date) M i c h i e l M a r i e s c h i , a b o u t 32 vears o f age, pa inter ,

after e i g h t days o f i l lness, dies (« yesterday e v e n i n g at 4 ») o f p n e u -

m o n i a . H i s w i f e p r o v i d e s f o r his b u r i a l w i t h the assistance o f the

locai chapter . ( A r c h . Parr. o f San L u c a ) .