In seventeenth-century Rome the prices for paintings were often not established in advance. Notarial contracts were rare, but private written agreements might be used for works with a public destination, such as a church. For private patrons, painters often worked on the basis of an informal, and oral, understanding or without any kind of agreement as to price. It was widely believed that the value of a painting could only be determined upon completion: any work could be refused if it did not satisfy the patron, who would  sometime ask for the opinion of a number of experts in order to settle on a compensation. Valuation of a painting or a fresco was thus a common way of establishing its price. In a world of unwritten rules, painters not fully aware of them often met with disappointment.

Portraiture is the most homogeneous pictorial genre; only a few standard formats exist and subjects tend to be depicted in a similar fashion. Such homogeneity lends itself well to statistical analysis. The activity of some portrait-painters in seventeenth- century Florence (Domenico and Valore Casini, Giusto Suttermans, Antonio Franchi) can be thoroughly evaluated on the basis of important documents (among these two rare account books belonging respectively to the brothers Domenico and Valore Casini, and to Antonio Franchi) which highlight the earnings of these artists and the relationships with their patrons.

The instrument rogated by a notary belonging either to the Curia Capitolina or to the Reverenda Camera Apostolica, is one the most interesting documents when investigating the activities of sculptors in Baroque Rome. It customarily set delivery dates and honorary of the sculptor, as well as the cost of the raw marble and of its transport from the quarry to the artist’s workshop.
The sculptor was also asked to carve the marble di sua propria mano (by his own hand), without the help of pupils. Small and large models had also to be delivered to the patron along with the finished work.
The dramatic increase in production of plastic works led in some cases to the compilation of private agreements, drawn up directly by the contractors without the notary’s assistance. This kind of documents, in which formulas are repeated more or less regularly, reveals a number of changes that contribute to the understanding of the growth of sculpture in seventeenth-century Rome, as well as of the market, the costs of materials and timing of production.

This essay focuses on Giovanni Baratta’s relations to the Savoy court (ca. 1714-1736), and investigates how the agreements between the artist and his patrons were influenced by the sculptor’s residency in Carrara as well as by his relations to Filippo Juvarra and his involvement with the marble trade.

Commissioning sculpture in Italy was a complex and risky business for grand tourists, but sculptors too increasingly found themselves at risk towards the end of the seventeenth century. Gentlemanly agreements, based on the word of the most distinguished aristocrats were increasingly not honoured and sculptors ended up lumbered with very expensive works that could not be sold easily. This situation led to the widespread introduction of written contracts, either signed in front of a public notary or conceived as private agreements. Agents chosen among the English mercantile community or among trusted resident artists supervised the execution of the works and the keeping of the agreements.

In the gradual improvement of the Art History instruments, the recording and the comparison of the constructive solutions of funeral monuments isn’t an acquired methodological use.
By analising Francesco di Simone’s monuments the essay explains how important is to conduce this type of study: the constructive solutions used by Ferrucci tell about his relation with the Rossellinesque school, through the apprenticeship with Desiderio da Settignano. Ferrucci’s tombs will find precise correspondences with the archetypes of Florentine funeral sculpture of the second half of the XV century: Leonardo Bruni’s tomb by Bernardo Rossellino and Carlo Marsuppini’s tomb by Desiderio da Settignano. The comparison between the different methods of stone cutting and assemblage used by Ferrucci and the relieves of Bruni and Marsuppini tombs (made by Opificio delle Pietre Dure on occasion of their restoration), reveals the most specific features of  Ferrucci’s projects, offering also new insights for the art of Bernardo and Desiderio (for example, how an itinerant sculptor like Ferrucci divides in a large number of slabs the different parts of a monument, in order to reduce the waste of marble). The essay ends with the analysis of the Vianesio Albergati tomb, which shows how Ferrucci looks at Andrea Bregno’s Juan Dìaz tomb, reproducing it with Florentine constructive solutions.

During his career Anton von Maron accepted in his workshop many different artists, from Italy and other European countries. Even of some of these artists we just have few paintings or drawings, these are enough to compose the mosaic of the artistic world of Anton Maron and understand his influence towards contemporary art.

At the beginning of the 20th Century the idea of a strong correlation between history, art and nature became important in the context of the development of German legislation of cultural heritage. The author shows, how the historical concept of their relationship in content and their integration in legal form seems to be partly lost, since the constitution of the German Federal Republic does not take into account this particular aspect of the history of law. However, it is still possible to retrace some terminological influence in several constitutional laws of the German States, which have been reestablished in a federal system after the Second World War.
The author also discusses the question of federal responsibility in the fields of nature conservation and protection of cultural heritage and the difficulties of the German federal system to create a consistent and efficient legislation even after the federalism reform of 2006.