Commissions by scuole or guilds for altarpieces or decorative schemes within churches in
Venice were common,86 and they make up the largest proportion of known patronage of
Fialetti’s paintings.87 The church of San Canziano underwent a series of successive
restorations from the mid-Cinquecento,88 however, unlike other churches, the archival records kept by this church are extensive, and include regular inventories of the church goods, including lists of pictures with their location and condition. The three paintings, a
Pietà, the Adoration of the Magi, and San Rocco curing the sick, are no longer in the church, having been replaced from the mid-Seicento. Though the locations for both the
Pietà and the Adoration of the Magi are listed, there is no indication as to whether the
painting of San Rocco was an altarpiece or a wall painting. From late Cinquecento
pastoral visits, one can see that by November 1591, the altar dedicated to San Rocco (described as being in the right side of the nave) was consecrated, but the decoration is not described.89 While it is uncertain whether Fialetti’s painting was associated with this
86
See P. Humfrey and R. MacKenney, “The Venetian Trade Guilds as Patrons of Art in the Renaissance”,
The Burlington Magazine128, 1986, 317-327+329-330. P. Humfrey, “Competitive Devotions: The Venetian Scuole Piccole as Donors of Altarpieces in Venice around 1500”,The Art Bulletin70, 1988, 401- 423.
87Also of particular note, and discussed in detail in the Catalogue of Paintings are the works for the church
of La Maddelena. The archival records present an interesting situation in which the likely patronage of a picture may be substantiated based on a known relationship between Fialetti and thegastaldoof the Scuola di SS. Sacramento, Giacomo Sarzina, with whom Fialetti would later work on the 1625 illustrated edition of Torquato Tasso’sGerusalemme Liberata, discussed in Chapter III. The Scuola Grande di San Teodoro also marks a unique case, given Fialetti’s membership in the Scuola (as discussed in Chapter I). The form of those paintings (which are no longer in situ, as of July 2008), and their original locations within the Scuola are discussed in the Catalogue of Paintings.
88
U. Franzoi and D. Di Stefano,Le Chiese di Venezia, 159.
altar, it seems likely given the subject matter, and the description of the work as one of Fialetti’s best. Later records, from October 1604, suggest that the altar was maintained by a scuoletta of San Rocco,90 which may indicate that they commissioned the work by Fialetti. Pastoral visits do not indicate whether the painting of the Pietà, which is described as being under the organ,91 was physically painted on the underside of the organ, or hung below it.
The archives concerning the fabric of the church are extensive and also contain a short history written in 1851, though it does not describe earlier decoration.92 The earliest inventories included date from 1720 and 1737, and contain only the property of the Scuola della SS. Sacramento, including a small number of paintings. In both inventories, there is a list of works, beginning with a Last Supper by Veronese, and ending with a description of three paintings by un-named artists: “one of the flagellation, one of the crowning with thorns, and one of the Dead Christ which was under the organ, and is now above the Sacristy”.93 The description of the third painting as being of the dead Christ under the organ matches that of Boschini and Malvasia, suggesting that this was the painting by Fialetti, even though he is not named. Therefore we can assume that this painting was commissioned by the Scuola of the SS. Sacramento, and survived in the church until at least 1737. The next inventory dates from 1812, and the majority of entries only include brief descriptions of the locations of the pictures (for example, all the
90
“Visite Pastorali: Zane”, b. 7, no. 7, October 1604, 2r. [APV] No. 16, Appendix II.
91“Sotto l’organo”. The organ itself was restored in 1764, though the shutters by Giovanni Contarini were
kept. For more information on the organ, and its restoration, see: S. dalla Libera,L’Arte degli Organi a Venezia, Venice 1979, 163-164.
92
“Inventari”, Fabbriceria di S. Canciano, Atti Generali, b. 12, 1-4 April 1851, 1r-1v. [APV] No. 17, Appendix II.
altarpieces are listed together). One of the few entries for which the subject is given is described as “a painting representing the adoration of the Magi with a carved gilded frame”.94 While there may have been a later representation of this subject, without a named artist, it seems likely that this is the Fialetti painting.
The subsequent inventory of 1843 contains a more specific account of the paintings in the church. Fialetti is not named, however, there is one work listed as “a painting hanging above, with a gold-coloured frame representing the birth of Jesus Christ”.95 Though this is not strictly synonymous with theAdoration of the Magi, it is similar enough to warrant consideration as an entry describing the Fialetti painting. Additionally, the lack of information concerning the artist suggests that it was a minor figure historically, or that it was unsigned. The fate of the painting after 1843 is suggested by a short note written to the right of the entry, which seems to indicate that it was removed from the church in the following year.96
Thus from these records, in conjunction with early accounts, we are presented with at least a partial history of the three paintings by Fialetti, and their relationship with the scuole and decoration of the church. ThePietàunder the organ was commissioned by the Scuola of the SS. Sacramento and remained in the church until at least 1737, but does not appear in later inventories. TheAdoration of the Magi, though of uncertain commission, potentially remained in the church until 1844, when it was removed (perhaps because of
94“Inventari”, Fabbriceria di S. Canciano, b. 12, 5 December 1812, 7r. [APV] No. 19, Appendix II. 95“Inventari”, Fabbriceria di S. Canciano, b. 12, 1843, 1v. [APV] The condition of the painting is listed as
bad (cattivo), though whether this also indicates its quality is uncertain. No. 20, Appendix II.
96
“Alienato nel 1844”.Ibid. The 1851 inventory repeats this information. “Inventari”, b. 12, 1-4 April 1851, 5r. [APV] No. 21, Appendix II.
its poor condition). Interestingly, it is the San Rocco, described as one of the most beautiful, for which we have almost no information concerning patronage, date and its eventual removal.