Tátrai Vilmos szerk.: A Szépművészeti Múzeum közleményei 95. (Budapest, 2001)
FRANKLIN, DAVID: Giorgio Vasari's Marriage Feast at Cana in Budapest
summer of 1566 in the wake of the success of the Perugia paintings. 14 So the hypothesis that the painting in Budapest was produced, along with the Uffizi Prophet Elisha (and possibly a now lost replica of the Saint Benedict), for Vincenzo Borghini, who, it seems clear, acted as the intermediary for Vasari with the Perugia Benedictines, while not supported by direct written evidence, is entirely plausible. In all likelihood Vasari produced these replicas in his Florentine workshop after the completion of the larger paintings destined for Perugia and in front of the originals, and so perhaps early in 1566. Some drawings related to the Perugia commission survive, which further support the view that the Budapest work is a commemorative record of the refectory painting and not a preparatory oil sketch. Although the drawings by or after Vasari of this subject cannot all be reviewed here, of greatest relevance for understanding the format of the Budapest painting are two sheets of ih&Marriage Feast at Cana surviving in the Istituto Nazionale per la Grafica in the Villa Famesina in Rome and a second in the Musée Magnin, Dijon (fig. 58). 15 Despite previous arguments defending their autograph status, these appear to be merely accurate copies after a lost compositional drawing made near the end of the design process by Vasari in pen and ink and wash, both measuring about half the Budapest panel. The point to be made in this context is that drawings such as these could never have provided a model for the painting in Budapest which is closer in all its details to the primary canvas in Perugia. These drawings contain numerous small differences in poses and spatial relationships compared to the paintings, despite their relatively close proximity to the final work in Perugia. The comparison reinforces the view that the Budapest picture is a fairly close copy after the primary canvas and in no way preparatory for it. This theory about the prestigious collecting of these copies has natural implications for the attribution of the Budapest painting in supporting any argument that might be produced for its autograph status. Indeed, its attribution has never been explicitly doubted. It should also be stressed that if the destination for the refectory paintings was a relatively provincial one, it was not a commission Vasari took lightly. He was as proud of the result as he had been for the earlier Immaculate Conception, and if it had been otherwise, these souvenir pictures would never have been attempted. According to a letter of 4 th April 1566 written to Vincenzo Borghini, the larger works were much praised by the Benedictines: "the Abbot and all the monastery are insane with happiness, especially the Abbot, who, in addition to having obtained what he wished for, at a reasonable price, praises you and me infinitely". 16 However, considering that by the 14 Procacci, U., Sull'Allogagione e sull'esecuzione della tavola del Vasari per l'altare maggiorc della Badia Fiorentina, Antichità Viva 30, N.6 (1991) p. 5. 15 All the drawings for this design will be fully reviewed by Florian Harb in a forthcoming catalogue of Vasari's drawings. Cecchi, A., Disegni inediti e poco noti di Giorgio Vasari, in Kunst des Cinquecento in der Toskana, Munich 1992, p. 246, published the Dijon drawing and considered as an original, though it appears to be a copy. Cecchi rightly demoted the Famesina drawing to a certain copy and the one then in an Austrian private collection reproduced by Riedl in 1963. 16 Vasari-Frey, 1930, 2, p. 226: "lo abate et tutto il convento ... anno auto a impazzar d'allegrezza, massime il padre abate, che oltra all'esser servito a modo suo, gli paiono oneste, e lodasi di voi [Vincenzo Borghini] e di me infinitamente". The translation into English is mine.
