The Grand Canal, Venice, looking North from near the Rialto Bridge

(Giovanni Antonio Canal (il Canaletto))

The view chosen by Canaletto in our painting is taken from a point off the Campiello del Remer. Canaletto has taken liberties with the positions of the campanili both of SS. Apostoli and S. Giovanni Elemosinario in an optical deception designed to balance the composition. The latter would only appear in this relation to the visible corner of the open Erberia (the vegetable market) and the long facade of the Fabbriche Nuove at the left from further up the Grand Canal closer to the Rio S. Giovanni Crisostomo. There is no projection into the Grand Canal as Canaletto has shown in the foreground, and he may have included this as a device to break up the excessive extent of the foreground water.[1] In the distance on the left the Palazzo Pesaro and the completed Palazzo Corner della Regina, begun in 1724, are also visible. The vista as painted would not be wholly apparent from any part of the Rialto Bridge itself. On the right the Palazzo da Mosto, then the famous Albergo del Leon Bianco, may also be seen.

At this point the Grand Canal turns sharply North-North West, and Canaletto has shown the scene in the early morning with the sun rising in the East to the right, brightly illuminating the canal’s Riva Destra, while leaving the canal facades of the buildings on the opposite side in shadow. Particularly impressive is the treatment of the water, which remains unique in Canaletto’s work for its vivacity and immediacy. He has directly observed the effects of the wintry, early morning light on the water’s surface, which inspired him to abandon his more usual generalised treatment of surface movement and light.

Consul Smith’s house, fourth from the right, is shown in the form it took before alteration. Smith employed the architect Antonio Visentini, who had remodelled Smith’s villa at Mogliano Veneto, to rebuild what was basically a mediaeval house that he had previously rented before buying it in 1740. Although it had previously been believed that the house was not altered before Canaletto left for England in 1746 it can now be shown that Smith commenced rebuilding almost as soon as he completed the purchase of the house (see Fig. 1).[2] Work was completed in 1751.[3] In 1784, the house was acquired by count Giuseppe Mangilli, who made extensive internal and external alterations: it is now called Palazzo Mangilli-Valmarana.

Smith’s house appears in pre-reconstructed form in all but two versions of this composition, one of which was Smith’s himself and this is now in the Royal Collection.[4] This composition was updated by Canaletto on his return to Venice to include Visentini’s alterations. There are two other versions lit from the right, and thus also exposed to cool morning light. One is in the Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne[5] and shows Consul Smith’s house partially demolished as it might have appeared some time after April 1740 and before 1751. This picture is certainly not by Canaletto and has recently been published by Bozena Anna Kowalczyk as largely the work of Bellotto;[6] it seems likely that the Cologne version may have been based on our picture. The other version, once the property of Major Clarke-Jervoise, was recently published by Knox[7] and was sold on the London art market in 1997. Although at first sight it might be confused with the present picture, there are a number of small differences in the detailing such as sheets hanging from different windows and above all in the stance of the figures which in the Clarke-Jervoise version are also noticeably stiffer while the view gives the impression of being more ‘static’.[8] The clouds in the exhibited picture are also ‘fluffier’ with greater impasto and are more animated. Links regarded the exhibited picture to be the earlier and superior autograph version.[9]

Kozakiewicz, (op.cit.), judging from a photograph, found ‘some elements of Bellotto’s brushwork in our picture, although he considered it to be mainly by Canaletto himself. Such collaboration is now generally considered as not uncommon in many Canaletto paintings of around 1740.[10]

The Royal Collection version was acquired from Consul Smith, and was painted prior to 1735, when it was engraved as Plate VIII in Visentini’s Prospectus Magni Canalis.[11] The principal difference in our picture is the omission of the wall at the lower right and a different arrangement of the boats. While the Royal Collection picture and its derivative versions are lit from the left, ours and the Wallraf Richartz and Clarke-Jervoise versions are lit from the right.

If indeed there is collaboration between Canaletto and Bellotto in our painting a likely dating would be late 1739 or early in 1740; such a hypothesis is lent weight by the discovery that Smith commenced alterations to his house almost immediately after entering upon possession on 20th April 1740. Having now been examined by the late J. G. Links, the exhibited work has been republished in the latest supplement to the Constable/Links catalogue raisonée (op.cit.,1998) without Constable’s cautious reservations (see note 9 above) and differentiating it from the ex Clarke-Jervoise version (233bb).

NOTES:

[1] See note 8 below.

[2] I am grateful to Bozena Anna Kowalczyk for drawing our attention to the following bibliographical information attesting to the earlier reconstruction of Smith’s house. The recent publication, ‘Il Console Smith. Notizie e Documenti’, Ateneo Veneto, CLXXXII, 1995, pp. 165-167, by Federico Montecuccoli degli Erri of Venetian documents shows that upon purchasing his house, Smith described it as ‘molto pregiudicata e minacciante in qualche parte rovina’ adding that ‘o dovuto applicarvi ad un generale restauro.’ Two Marieschi views (R. Toledano, Michele Marieschi, Milan, 1988, p. 110, V. 32.2 and 32.1, location unknown and Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum (See Fig. 1 detail) record stages in the demolition of the building. Since Marieschi died in January 1743 the demolition had clearly taken place by 1742 and maybe even by 1741.

[3] F. Montecuccoli degli Erri, loc. cit., shows that reconstruction took a considerable time. Smith ran foul of his neighbours who managed to block reconstruction work with litigation. On 9th July 1748 the parish priest of SS. Apostoli sent a report to the Venetian authorities (the Dieci Savi alla Decima) describing the site as ‘di presente è in fabrica’, that is, under construction, the previous day, however, he had filed a report to the same authority stating that the house in Calle del Dragon ‘di raggione del’ illustrissimo Sig. Giuseppe Smit….attualmente è per fabbricarsi’ leaving one to believe that work had yet to begin. A document of 22nd October 1751 states that the façade had only just been ‘scoperta e commandata’ while only on 22nd July 1753 was the completed house’s taxable value estimated by the Savi alle Decime office.

[4] See M. Levey, The Later Italian Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty The Queen, London, 1964, p. 59, no. 391, pl. 147.

[5] see W. G. Constable, Canaletto, ed. J. G. Links, Oxford, 1989, no. 233(e), pl. 235.

[6] B. A. Kowalczyk, ‘Il Bellotto Veneziano: “grande intendimento ricercasi”’, Arte Veneta, 48, 1996, p. 72, fig. 2, and p. 88, note 9.

[7] G. Knox, ‘Four Canaletti for the Duke of Bolton’, Apollo, Oct. 1993, pp. 245ff. fig. 3.

[8] Patrick Matthiesen writing to Joseph Links on 1 June 1995 stated ‘…Turning to the water in the foreground to the left, you will see that the very marked greenish reflections on the water, somewhat reminiscent of Bellotto in our picture, are not apparent in the Idsworth [ Maj.Clarke-Jervoise] picture, which has a much more mechanical treatment of the water’s surface with rather uniform treatment of the wavelets.
The dimensions of the Idsworth Park picture are 58 x 93 cm., whereas the dimensions of our picture are 61 x 92.5 cm.
It may be my imagination and the possibility that the Apollo publication cropped the photograph, but I have a very slight sensation that the viewpoint of the Idsworth picture is marginally more to the left than in our picture.
Looking at the figures in the right foreground, they appear to be more loosely treated in our picture than in the Idsworth picture. The figures are extremely similar, but in our picture the gondolier in the extreme foreground centre right leans slightly backwards as he poles, a very naturalistic touch, and the figure leaning over the side of the boat is more extended, with water and the pole showing under his armpit and chest, and with white highlights on the back of his shirt; whereas, in the Idsworth Park picture, he is crouched farther down, and the poling figure stands bolt upright with rather stiff arms as if pulling rather than pushing on his oar.
Much the same marginal figurative differences apply in the gondolier in the foreground centre, where in the Idsworth Park picture the figures seem more spindly, with their arms closer to their chests, with less detail than in our picture, where the arms are outstretched, the body arched, clearly rowing the gondola. The large gondolier centre foreground left has different shadows in our picture from the rather imprecise shadows in the Idsworth Park picture, and again there are small differences in the figures, the most noticeable being with the angle of the oar in the forward part of the boat, which is more oblique in our picture and more upright in the Idsworth picture.
There are countless small differences of this kind but the differences that I first noticed relate to the building on the extreme left of the picture. On the façade facing the canal on the top floor a prominent white sheet is placed in the second window of our painting, but in the third window of the Idsworth picture.
I could go on, but I think this will be sufficient to convince you that we are dealing with two very different pictures. In passing, I would add that Knox suggests a date prior to the Visentini engravings, i.e., 1735, for the Idsworth pictures. I would be inclined to believe that this is too early for our picture, which to me in many ways seems to show the participation of Bellotto. It is hard to explain here, but I would be happy to bring the painting round to discuss it with you in front of the painting, even though I know that you are averse to trying to distinguish the two hands.’

Joseph Links Ms. Communication 4 June 1995 ‘once you alerted me to the suggestion that there were two pictures I looked and noticed the gondalier’s stance in the right foreground. This was enough to establish that you were right and I have changed my entry accordingly. I will certainly study the other points you mention…’

[9] Links, Ms. communication 12 June 1995, ‘You have asked me to confirm that your version of Canaletto’s Grand Canal: looking North will be included in the forthcoming edition of W. G. Constable’s Canaletto (‘C/L’) and I write to say that it has appeared in the original and subsequent editions as no. 233(b), formerly owned by Murray Guthrie and Viscount Rothermere. Constable knew the picture only by a photograph and described it as ‘probably by Canaletto’ (which, of course, was as far as he could go without seeing the original).

I am leaving the entry as it is in the new edition but including a reproduction of the painting, partly because, unlike other versions it is lit from the right, and partly because George Knox, in an article in Apollo, refers to a version which might be mistaken for it. I have not seen the latter but, even from the reproduction in Apollo it is clearly not your picture and in my Review at the beginning of the new edition I express the view that yours appears to be the earlier and higher quality of the two.’

[10] Constable/Links, op.cit. , 1989, pp. XIX, LVII. Both Patrick Matthiesen and Charles Beddington have suggested that the water and perhaps the foreground figures are by the hand of Bernardo Bellotto.

[11] Constable/ Links, op.cit., 1989, p.299, no. 233. See also K. Baetjer and J. G. Links, catalogue of the exhibition, Canaletto, Metropolitan Museum, New York, 1989, No. 41. A further variant, previously in the collection of H.J. Joel, was sold at Christie’s, London, 10 July 1992, lot 26. Levey (op.cit.) discusses fully the Visentini engraving, and the preparatory drawings for it.

PROVENANCE: Murray Guthrie, Duart Castle, Isle of Mull, Scotland; With Knoedler, London; Viscount Rothermere; his sale, Christie’s, London, 19 December 1941, lot 56 (1,100 guineas to Tooth); With Arthur Tooth & Son, London; J. V. Rank, London, by whom acquired from the above in 1944 and from whose widow acquired by the father of the last owner, a UK private collector.

LITERATURE: W.G. Constable, Canaletto, Oxford, 1962 (and subsequent editions, edited by J. G. Links), II, no. 233(b) ‘From a reproduction, probably by Canaletto’; S. Kozakiewicz, Bernardo Bellotto, 1972, II, p. 439, no. Z. 206; E. Camesasca, L’opera completa del Bellotto, Milan, 1974, no. 262 C, under ‘Altre opere attribuite’; Matthiesen Fine Art Ltd. and Stair Sainty Matthiesen, Fifty Paintings 1535-1825, 1993, no. 33, pp. 139-141; J. G. Links, A Supplement to W. G. Constable’s Canaletto, London, 1998, p. 24.