Seaman 1

THE DEPICTION OF FEMALE EMOTION AS SEEN THROUGH THE WORK OF

ITALIAN RENAISSANCE ARTISTS ARTEMISIA GENTILESCHI AND

MICHELANGELO CARAVAGGIO'S JUDITH BEHEADING HOLOFERNES AND

ARTEMISIA GENTILESCHI AND CAVALIERE D’ARPINO’S SUSANNA AND THE

ELDERS

Leah M. Seaman

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Research Honors Program of Marietta College

Marietta College

Marietta Ohio

Spring 2021

Seaman 2

This Research Honors thesis has been approved for the Research Honors program and the Honors and Investigative Studies Committee by

Dr. Robert McManus 4/21/21

Dr. Robert McManus, Chair Date

Dr. Dawn Carusi 4/21/21

Dr. Dawn Carusi, Member Date

Assistant Professor Katy Scullin 4/21/21

Assistant Professor Katy Scullin, Member Date

Professor Jolene Powell 4/21/21 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Professor Jolene Powell, Member Date Seaman 3

Acknowledgments:

Firstly, thank you to my family for being my greatest fans, my most vocal cheering squad, and my most patient listeners. Thank you to my thesis committee, especially Dr. McManus, for their dedication and constant support as they guided me through the entire process of writing this thesis and helped me grow into the writer I am today. Finally, a heartfelt thank you to Artemisia Gentileschi, whose spunk, grit, and talent has inspired this young artist to pursue her own passions and re-discover her love for the arts. I am forever grateful.

Seaman 4

Abstract:

An Analysis of the Differing Perspectives on Italian Renaissance Gender Norms as seen

Through the Work of Artemisia Gentileschi, Michelangelo Caravaggio, and Cavaliere

d’Arpino

Western Europe has long been established as a highly patriarchal culture that has established strict and rigorous gender norms and values for men and women. Such gender norms have determined how men and women behave, dress, work, and are depicted in the arts. During the time of the Italian Renaissance, these distinct gendered divisions were apparent in the works of male artists painting both male and female subject matter and themes. When artistic pieces were not catering towards the Catholic Church’s goals, they were centered around the external male audience, focusing on appealing to male ego, arousal, and comfort. The depiction of strong female emotion during the Italian Renaissance illustrates not only the cultural and gender norms surrounding women during that time, but also how both men and women interacted with those norms. This paper analyzes the perspectives on the Italian Renaissance’s gendered norms as seen through the work of Artemisia Gentileschi and Michelangelo Caravaggio's Judith Beheading

Holofernes and Gentileschi and Cavaliere d’Arpino’s Susanna and the Elders. Utilizing feminist criticism and historical analysis, this paper examines whether the hegemonic messaging of the

Italian Renaissance permeates both male and female-created artwork, or if the differences in experience and gender brings a new narrative to the Judith and Susanna themes.

Seaman 5

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………6

Review of Literature……………………………………………………………………………25

Historical Analysis……………………………………………………………………………...42

Analysis of the Arpino and Gentileschi Susanna Paintings………………………………….69

Analysis of the Caravaggio and Gentileschi Judith Beheading Holofernes Paintings……...95

Citations………………………………………………………………………………………..141

Seaman 6

Chapter One

Introduction

Introduction

"Women are depicted quite differently from men," says Ways of Seeing author John

Berger, “not because the feminine is always different from the masculine—but because the

‘ideal’ spectator is always assumed to be male and the image of the woman is designed to flatter him” (64). For centuries, the female figure has been under the control of the (predominantly male) artist’s brush when brought to life on a canvas. She has been assigned multiple identities and fulfilled many duties required of her within the space of the wooden frame that surrounds her canvas. Women in art are used, according to Lise Vogel, as “stand-ins,” becoming “vehicles through which artists express their and society’s attitudes and ideas on a variety of issues”

(Raven 46). During the days of the early 6th century BCE Greece, the female figure was referred to as Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty, love, and fertility (Clark 71-72). The object of passion, desire, and need, the Aphrodite of Greek art later assumed the more commonly recognized title of Venus, taking on one of two selves for the pleasure of both her creator and her patron: Venus

Coelestis (celestial or heavenly) and Venus Naturalis (vulgar or desirable) (Clark 71). She became the embodiment of righteousness and purity or the embodiment of lasciviousness and lust. This duality of identity remained attached to the female figure long into Western art’s development and growth.

The rise of Christianity in Western Europe between the 3rd and 5th century CE, as well as the subsequent 8th century CE iconographic era that followed, gave Venus new identities to add to her repertoire—Madonna, the Holy Mother, Mary Magdalene, Ruth, Esther, —as well as more Seaman 7 secular women like Lucretia, Helena, and Ios. The female figure assumed a more multi-faceted identity within the art world. As Madonna, she became the Mother and nurturer. As Rahab, she took on the mantle of prostitution and lascivious and passive behavior. As Lucretia, she was the tragic martyr for virginity and chastity. However, even with new names and archetypes, the

Venus still could not shake the duties of her initial identity, to be either Venus Coelestis or Venus

Naturalis. From the moment of her conception by prehistoric artists during the Paleolithic period, the female figure was given one primary task— to fulfill the deepest desires of her audience, which were predominantly men (Clark 71).

One must wonder who bears more responsibility for constraining the Venus to the limiting and unbending archetypes of her gender—the artist who created her or the surrounding gender norms that influenced the artist. Because gender is the societal construction of how men and women should behave based on their biological sex, gendered norms have existed to tell biological men and women their assigned social roles since birth. This binds women to the restrictions and freedoms dictated by their surrounding culture, as we see through the examples of the Venus archetypes. Joan W. Scott’s definition of gender expands upon this idea, describing it as “ a [primary field with which or by means of which power is articulated” (Scott 1069)

These strict rules, collectively created and re-affirmed by the human population at large, indicated the amount of importance assigned to both genders, the culturally accepted occupations that each could assume, and how each gender could be treated and viewed. Although I understand there are multiple interpretations of gender, this thesis will be utilizing a traditional view of two genders —male and female— unless otherwise stated.

In discussions pertaining to the Western World, I am referencing both a geographic location and a specific worldview. The physical Western World of this thesis encompasses the Seaman 8 western-most European nations (specifically Italy, the Mediterranean region, Spain, Portugal, and France). The specific worldview created by the Western World draws upon ancient civilizations such as Greece and Rome, the centrality of the Roman Catholic Church and the adoption of Christianity followed by the Reformation, as well as historical periods such as the

Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution paving the way for more democratic systems of government and economic capitalism (88-92). It is within both this geographic location and worldview that the man dominated the woman in almost every area of life. During early 4th century BCE Greece, for example, Aristotle declared men the physical manifestation of the gods on earth and that women were malformed males who had not reached their true potential in the womb, making them both physically and intellectually inferior to their masculine counterparts (Walton 88). This male superiority appeared in ancient Greek artistic circles as well, with a prioritization of the naked male figure over the covered female figure. For example, although there were a small number of female images produced during prehistoric times, the sensualized Venus did not appear until the 4th or 5th century BCE, some two hundred years after the first prominent male figures were created by the ancient Greeks (Clark 71-72).

Such a separation of time is largely due to societal indignation over an exposed female figure. As the subordinated sex, ancient Greek women (except for Spartan women) were expected to remain modestly covered and hidden for the entirety of their lives (Clark 73). This modesty culture was in turn reflected through Grecian art. Some of the earliest female sculptures, such as the Aphrodite on Ludovisi Throne and the Nike of Painios, were not as nude as their male counterparts, including the Doryphoros or the Diadoumenos. Rather, these women were draped in sheer cloths and fabrics to cover their nakedness (Clark 77-78). It would take decades for the covered female form to yield to artistic progress and finally see her nudity exposed fully (72). Seaman 9

Thanks to Aristotelian philosophy, the notion of a subordinate female was popularized and widely accepted in Western culture (Walton 88). With the birth of the Venus figure into the

Aristotelian era of feminine inferiority, the female body existed only under the dominating rule of the male gaze, a concept that will be explored more fully in this thesis. Christianity carried on the Aristotelian ideas of feminine inferiority and the tradition of artistic female subordination

(Walton 89). Because the majority of artistic patrons were men, much of the art that came from the 8th century CE onward in the Western World catered only to the male gaze. When it came to painting Venus, nearly everything, from the background to the positioning of her body, appealed to her male audience's sexual prowess and power. Even if the viewer were not male, they were expected to put themselves into the role of the masculine (Foss 159). Only then might they enjoy the painted female in all of her beauty. The Venus existed in art for male pleasure alone (Berger

54). The female figure was thus confined to the role of Venus Celestial and Venus Naturalis, to the duty of fulfilling the desires and wishes of her male audience and full submission to her societal ‘superiors’ .

During the Italian Renaissance, the Venus, now known as the Virgin Mary, Mary

Magdalene, Lucretia, among other names, continued to receive similar treatment to that of her

Greek predecessors. The Venus fulfilled limited roles assigned to her under name of other

Biblical and secular women. She appealed heavenly piety (Venus Coelestis) and to sensual desire

(Venus Naturalis). Male artists affirmed the gender norms from their culture into their work in the treatment of their female subjects. There existed, however, a handful of female artists who rebelled against those culturally prescribed gender norms during the Italian Renaissance. This rejection is emphasized by Lise Vogel, who states that “When it comes to women artists and their approach to the world through a female experience, the assumptions of sex-neutrality of Seaman 10 course fail completely” (Raven 49). When a woman paints, she is painting from a woman’s experience. We will see this in later chapters as we investigate the life and art of Gentileschi.

Definitions

To maintain a cohesive flow of understanding while reading this thesis, below is a list of words and subjects that will either be important or will often appear intermittently throughout the body of this paper:

Weibermacht vs. "Women Worthies"— The “Power of Women” or Weibermacht, as is its

German translation, references the “the dangerous power of women over men” within written, spoken, and created art (Ainsworth 59; Smith 2-3). These dangerous women are identified by their exertion of power, conquest, or defeat over their male counterparts (Smith 2). Smith argues that this topos, or “theme” on the subject of women is “the representational practice of bringing together at least two, but usually more, well-known figures from the Bible, ancient history, or romance to exemplify a cluster of interrelated themes that include the wiles of women, the power of love, and the trials of marriage” (2). In this thesis, Judith fits the description of a weibermacht woman by executing a powerful Assyrian male and becoming the savior of her people.

Weibermacht women toe a delicate line with their equally powerful, but more socially acceptable, counterparts, the "women worthies" of the Western art world.

"Woman worthies" refers to historical or biblical women who, while also demonstrating female strength and power, fulfill a duty during their lifetime that was praised and valued by the artist and the essentially Christian society at large for the female gender (Garrard 143). These women display virtue or qualities that were desirable in the female sex, such as chastity, humility, and piety. “Women worthies” have not crossed the line of feminine dominance nor have they exerted any physical or sexual power over their male counterparts. Some of the most Seaman 11 famous examples include Mary, the Mother of Jesus; Esther; and Lucretia. Susanna, the sexually persecuted Israelite wife from the Book of Susanna, was well known for her piety, chastity, and dedication to God. She would be seen as a "woman worthy" more than a weibermacht woman when painted as a Venus Coelestis. Because she did not actively participate in the physical conquest of men, her story was used as an allegorical lesson for both men and women. It was not until later in the Renaissance that the narrative around the Susanna theme shifted.

The Naked vs. the Nude. It is important for the purposes of examining nude figures in this thesis to understand the difference between the naked and the nude painted body. In his lectures on the nude, Kenneth Clark states “to be naked is to be deprived of our clothes” however, to be nude is to “be the central subject of art that… [should not] fail to arouse in the spectator some vestige of erotic feeling” (Clark 3-8). When considering the female figure, by this definition, the classification of the nude is expounded further by John Berger's thoughts in his book Ways of

Seeing, in which he posits that the female nude is not simply a subject of art that insights erotic emotion (54). She is a prisoner of her audience's gaze and yearnings. She is subject to their desires and possession, existing as they wish to see her instead of how she herself might wish to be seen (54).

The female figure in Western Art was destined to be entrapped by an external constituent, such as her male audience’s gaze, her patriarchal culture's dictates, or her male creator's whims.

She existed to fulfill another's wishes. Whether clothed or not, the Venus of art is best described as a nude because of this fact. However, this thesis posits that the work of Artemisia Gentileschi allowed her nude subject, Susanna, to exist as a 'naked' woman caught in a surprising position, not posed in a desirable one. This thesis will discuss the existence of the male gaze in relation to Seaman 12 the creation of the two Judith and Susanna paintings to see whether each work catered to or rejected the demand for them to be seen as 'nudes' instead of as 'naked' women.

Male Gaze. The abstract concept of the male gaze has dominated Western Art, in part, due to the predominantly patriarchal societies that created it. John Berger in his work Ways of

Seeing explains this concept, saying that “men act, and women appear. Men look at women.

Women watch themselves being looked at. . .Thus, she turns herself into an object—and most particularly an object of vision—as sight” (47). The male gaze has been the primary influence on the creation of the female nude during the development of Western art. The Venus became an object, and her primary purposes were to meet the desires and needs of her male audience while being fully aware of her own observation. The male gaze is the manifestation of hegemonic masculinity and its dominant demands on the artistic world’s creation process. According to

Laura Mulvey in her “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” it originated, and is created, when the subconscious, which is informed by the dominant (masculine) narrative, “structures ways of seeing and pleasure looking” (Warhol 439).

Laura Mulvey goes further into her discussion on the harms that the male gaze can cause to the female body when it is catered to in cinematography (Warhol 438-439). Mulvey states that, because women lack the all-important phallus around which patriarchal societies assign power, they “stand in patriarchal culture as a signifier for the male ‘other’, bound by a symbolic order in which a man can live out his fantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing on them the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer, not maker, of meaning” (Warhol 439). This “imposing on” women results in what is known as the male gaze, in which female bodies are positioned to tell narratives and affirm desires catered solely to a male-dominated audience. Seaman 13

In her essay, Mulvey argues that when filmmakers (and for the purposes of this thesis, artists) try to entice the male viewer, they use a predetermined set of steps to determine the erotic perception of the female body. Three such steps include the punishment of the woman, the breakup of the female body into its most ‘important’ sections (such as the rear, the breasts, and the lips), and the erotization of the female character in general (Warhol 441-445). Mulvey’s point, that the application of the male gaze causes harm to its female focus, rings true even for those artistic works created long before her essay was published. The habits of the film industry that Mulvey critiques has been utilized and reinforced by artists before her for hundreds of years, and yet her points, and description of the eroticization of the female subject in art, ring just as true on fifteenth century paintings as they do on 20th century films. In order for subordinate audiences, specifically women, to fully interact and engage with the art they are viewing, they must engage in the hegemonic male gaze themselves. They are fulfilling the role of the “passive female,” according to Mulvey, who must step aside for the desires of the male gaze and accept its dominance (Mulvey 442). They need to identify with the hegemonic male and his power so that they can indirectly possess the nude as well (Mulvey 21).

Sonja Foss, in her analysis of the feminist art of the Western world, describes the creation of the Venus under the hand of the male gaze as the 'universalization' of men's experiences (Foss

159)."What happens to men, or what men find desirable and appropriate, is seen as applying to women," says Foss, “[Women] displayed for the gaze and enjoyment of men” (159). Everything caters to the hegemonic male and his desires, ambitions, and experiences in all aspects of life, religion, governance, and even art. Because women were considered the subordinate sex, their depiction in art catered to the submissive role assigned to them. The Venus often bent to the demands of her gendered roles and expectations within society. Seaman 14

Caravaggism. This term refers to the technique of Michelangelo Caravaggio, popularized around the 17th century. As a branch of the Baroque style, Caravaggism employed tenebristic tendencies that used dark shadows throughout the composition to influence the direction of the eye's focus (Waterhouse 34). Caravaggism also demanded dedication to the naturalistic and idealized representation of its subjects, often focusing on subject matter that were not popular nor well-received at the time (25). The use of chiaroscuro, or the employment of dramatic lights and shadows contrasting against each other within the work to exaggerate the depicted scene, was popularized by Caravaggio's style (Waterhouse 33). The majority of Caravaggistic works dedicated to the perfection of the naturalistic qualities of their subjects.

Case Studies

This thesis examines four paintings depicting two Biblical stories: Judith slaying

Holofernes from the apocryphal Book of Judith, and Susanna and the elders from the Book of

Susanna. This thesis will examine the depiction of the Judith and Susanna stories as seen through the work of Artemisia Gentileschi and Michelangelo Caravaggio's Judith Beheading Holofernes

(Figures 1.3 and 1.4) and Gentileschi and Cavaliere d’Arpino’s Susanna and the Elders (Figures

1.1 and 1.2). Painted through the lens of male and female eyes, each scene displays the individual artists' culturally gendered views of the female sex during the Italian Renaissance. The depiction of strong female emotion within these four works illustrates not only the cultural and gender norms surrounding women during the Renaissance but also how both men and women interacted with those norms.

The three artists of this thesis portray both female subjects through their personal gendered lenses. For example, Artemisia' Gentileschi's Judith (Fig. 1.4) comes across as strong, vigorous, and firm. Michelangelo Caravaggio's Judith (Fig. 1.3) is soft, beautiful, and Seaman 15 dispassionate, utterly disinterested in the gruesome act she is committing. Gentileschi’s Susanna

(Fig. 1.2) reveals the plight of the sexually harassed woman. Cavaliere d’Arpino’s Susanna (Fig.

1.1) fits the role of the temptress and seductress of her would-be assailants. Each of the four works either supports or rejects the gender norms of their creators’ time.

Susanna Story

Susanna was the beautiful wife of the Israelite Joakim. She lived in Babylon and was honored by her people for her righteousness and virtue. Because Susanna was so beautiful, she attracted the unwanted attention and lust of two Babylonian elders who desired to sleep with her.

Every day, she would go into her husband's garden to bathe, and every day the elders would watch her do so. One day, however, overcome with their lust, they waited until everyone had left the garden and then approached the bathing woman. They beseeched her to agree to have sex with them, saying that if she did not, they would tell everyone that they had caught her being unfaithful to her husband with a young man. Stuck between two choices that would ultimately result in either her death or loss of honor, Susanna chose to remain faithful to her husband and her virtue, refusing the elders' advances. When, in revenge, they spread their lies about the nonexistent lover around the city, Susanna was sentenced to death by burning. Before she was executed, however, she cried out to God, and He directed the young Israelite Daniel to her rescue. Daniel quickly called for a cross-examination of the elders to see if their stories matched.

When their stories did not match, they were killed, and Susanna's honor and reputation were restored (New Revised Standard Version Bible, Susanna 1-63). Seaman 16

Fig. 1.1 (Left) Arpino, Cavaliere d’. Susanna and the Elders. 1606, Private Collection. “Cesari, Giuseppe (Cavaliere d’Arpino),” https://www.wga.hu/html_m/c/cesari/index.html. Accessed 6 November 2020; Fig. 1.2 (Right) Gentileschi, Artemisia. Susanna and the Elders. 1610, Pommersfelden, Germany. “Susanna and the Elders,” Art History Project, https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/artemisia- gentileschi/susanna-and-the-elders/. Accessed 7 November 2020.

Judith Story

Judith, an Israelite widow living in the town of Bethulia during the reign of the Assyrian

King Nebuchadnezzar, was known by her people as a pious woman of dedicated faith to God. It is written in the Book of Judith that none who knew her could find “a word to say against her, so devoutly did she fear God”. The Israelite people, having angered King Nebuchadnezzar, were doomed to destruction when the king sent his general, Holofernes, along with an army of over

130,000 soldiers, to exact revenge on the Israelite cities (Good News Translation Bible, Judith

7.1-2). The first territory on Holofernes’ journey was Bethulia, Judith’s home.

Instead of immediately invading the city, General Holofernes decided to starve the people until they were weak enough to offer little resistance to his forces. Judith, upon hearing the cries for mercy that her people were sending to their God , took it upon herself to save her people by taking the life of the commanding general of the Assyrian army. Dressed in her most beautiful jewels and clothes, Judith and her maidservant Abra left the city and offered Seaman 17 themselves to Holofernes, claiming to offer inside information on the Israelite people in exchange for sanctuary (Jud. 10.1-2).

Immediately lusting over the beautiful widow, Holofernes agreed to shelter her and hear her information, with the secret intention of seducing her later. On the third night of her stay with the Assyrians, General Holofernes held a feast in her honor, intending to enact his licentious plans later that evening. Instead of successfully seducing Judith, however, he succeeded only in becoming belligerently drunk (Jud. 13.2). After the festivities had calmed down and, seeing that the prone Holofernes was unconscious and vulnerable in his bed, Judith, with the help of her maidservant, cut off his head with his own sword. Together, the two women fled the Assyrian camp and returned to Bethulia, where they proceeded to place Holofernes’ head on a spike as a warning to his armies. It was on that day that Judith became the savior of her people and was venerated for the rest of her days (Jud. 15.8-13).

Fig. 1.3 (Left) Caravaggio, Michelangelo. Judith Beheading Holofernes. 1599, Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica at Palazzo Barberini, Rome, Italy. “Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1599 by Caravaggio,” Caravaggio: Paintings, Quotes, Biography, https://www.caravaggio.org/judith- beheading-holofernes.jsp. Accessed 22 November 2020; Fig. 1.4 (Right) Artemisia Gentileschi, Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1620-21, Uffizi Gallery, Florence. “Artemisia Gentileschi: Judith Slaying Holofernes,” SmartHistory, https://smarthistory.org/gentileschi-judith-slaying- holofernes/. Accessed 20 November 2020 Seaman 18

These two Venuses, Judith and Susanna, have been the subject of hundreds of religious paintings before, during, and after the Italian Renaissance. Each time, these women appear through the biased lenses of their often-male creators, who either adhered or rejected gendered norms surrounding femineity. This thesis examines how Michelangelo Caravaggio, Artemisia

Gentileschi, and Cavaliere d’Arpino interacted with Judith and Susanna in the midst of their culture’s gendered ideals. It will explore how these artists’ biases and understandings about women influenced their depictions. Did they adhere to the predominantly patriarchal culture of their time? Did they assign one of Venus’s many archetypes (the righteous woman, the temptress, the delicate rose) to their Judith or Susanna? Or did they give their heroine a more mature and thoughtful role within their paintings?

Artists Examined in the Thesis

Cavaliere d’ Arpino, originally known as Giuseppe Cesari, was a mannerist artist whose powerful patronage propelled his work into the Renaissance spotlight long enough for him to help set the stage for Michelangelo Caravaggio’s revolutionary style. Born in 1568, Arpino apprenticed at a young age in the studio of Niccolo Circignani, where his skill and precision with the brush eventually attracted the attention of wealthy and powerful patrons (Voss 240).

Although Arpino was well known for his emotional tantrums and would frequently refuse to finish commissions because something felt ‘off’ with the project, the artist still managed to garner an impressive number of influential patrons, including Pope Clement II (243). His work was characterized by its simplicity, pastel pallet choices, and static style that resulted in the eventual disappearance of his artistic fame (Voss 238). It was during his time as one of the more sought-after artists in Rome that he began to take apprentices, including Michelangelo

Caravaggio, who would eventually outpace his teacher and leave Arpino in the shadow of his Seaman 19 artistic prowess (244). Around the 1620’s, as Arpino’s work remained stagnant and uninfluenced by the new artistic movements that had come to the forefront of the Italian Renaissance art scene, his prominence as an artist disappeared until his death in 1640 (244).

Artemisia Gentileschi was one of the most prolific female artists of her time, with work now hung in the Uffizi Gallery of Florence, the Royal Collection in London, the Gerolamo Etro,

Milan, and other exhibits of prominence around the world (Souter). Gentileschi was born to the well-known artist Orazio Gentileschi and quickly apprenticed him when her interest in the arts became apparent (Garrard 13). Brought up in the artists' quarter of the city of Rome, Gentileschi was surrounded by other painters as she developed her abilities. The artist whose style had the most profound effect on Gentileschi’s artistic career was that of Michelangelo Caravaggio, who was most likely a friend and peer of her fathers’ when she was younger (Garrard 14).

Michelangelo’s Caravaggism, a style known for its dedication to naturalism and idealism, sustained a constant influence on Gentileschi's work until she died in 1656.

As a young girl who displayed an aptitude and interest for the arts, Gentileschi apprenticed under her father and grew her artistic ability under his watchful eye. One of the first works of prominence that the then seventeen-year-old produced under his tutelage was her

Susanna and the Elders (Christiansen 298). It was immediately evident when considering both the age in which she completed the work and the mastery she displayed while doing so that

Gentileschi would become an artistic powerhouse of her time, even if she were a woman in a male dominated field. As her skill outgrew her father’s ability to instruct, Orazio Gentileschi enlisted the help of other artists to teach her daughter more about her craft. Unfortunately, although she did receive both useful instruction and practice that would grow her work, she also received the unwanted attentions of a good number of her father’s male peers and tutors. Seaman 20

In May of 1611, Gentileschi's father brought his longtime friend and tenant Agostino

Tassi, whom he had hired as a tutor for Artemisia, to trial for the rape and 'deflowering' of his daughter (Garrard 21). This trial resulted in the public humiliation and torture of Artemisia and a five-year exile from society for Tassi. After this trial, Gentileschi authored two paintings of

Judith Beheading Holofernes, each with hints of an early Renaissance feminism not seen in the work of her male counterparts. Her second painting of Judith Beheading Holofernes holds particular importance for this thesis due to the personal connection that Gentileschi had to its message and how her emotion was revealed through her subjects. Many Gentileschi scholars say that her Judith Beheading Holofernes paintings were a representation of the rage that she held against the wrongs done to her and the justice withheld from her (Garrard 21).

Michelangelo Caravaggio was a disreputable artist with a distinct dislike for authority and apt for belligerence (Hibbard 3). Born and raised near Milan, Caravaggio grew to prominence in the art world for his innovative artistic style, known as Caravaggism, which garnered many followers across Europe during the 17th century (Hibbard 25). At an early age,

Caravaggio apprenticed to the Milanese artist Simone Peterzano, and during this time, he learned of the works of the local masters like Savoldo, Romanino, and Moretto (Benay).

After the death of his mother and two siblings, Caravaggio moved to Rome to assist the artist Cavaliere d'Arpino until he eventually outgrew the role of the apprentice and began to make a name for himself (Hibbard 5). Caravaggio's work often held a striking personal touch— many times, he would insert himself into his work— and his pieces were known for their intense emotional drama. Caravaggio dedicated himself to perfecting the naturalistic painting method and bringing the chiaroscuro method of dramatic lighting to the forefront of the Renaissance artistic movement (Warwick 42). Caravaggio’s Judith Beheading Holofernes (Fig. 1.4), created Seaman 21 before Gentileschi’s, honored his dedication to naturalism and chiaroscuro, employing subtle uses of contrast, color, and excellently rendered shading to create a masterful still shot of that pivotal moment in the widow’s life.

Description of Methodology

This thesis examines four works of art within their historical and cultural contexts. This thesis also considers the commentary and impact each of these pieces had on the experiences of women who lived during the Italian Renaissance Era. The thesis will employ a historical analysis and a feminist lens to examine each of the four works.

The first methodology that this thesis will employ is feminist criticism, as described by scholar Sonja Foss, the “analysis. . . to discover how the rhetorical construction of gender is used as a means for domination” (Foss 157). Feminist criticism shines a light on previously marginalized voices and experiences of particular women to add greater diversity to a predominantly white, straight, patriarchal narrative. It also legitimizes scholarship about narratives that history has previously failed to notice (Foss 158). The feminist approach to art, according to Lise Vogel in Fine Arts and Feminism, “seek(s) to investigate how the different experience of women and men in most areas of life is expressed in art made by both men and women artists” (Raven 49).

For this thesis, feminist criticism examines the narrative of domination used to suppress women in the Italian Renaissance art world, including the sexual repression of women both before and after marriage, the denial of personal liberties including bodily autonomy, and the lack of access and opportunities regarding specific professions. After considering the historical context surrounding each artist and artwork, this thesis applies feminist criticism to see how the case studies either promoted or rejected the prescribed gender norms of the Italian Renaissance. Seaman 22

This thesis will specifically examine the impact that Artemisia’s weibermacht and 'worthy' women had on the feminist movement of her time.

Historical analysis provides context from which research on the selected artifact can build. By employing the historical analysis, this thesis expounds upon many different aspects of the time that influence the artists lives, including their experiences, and culturally accepted morals, norms, behaviors, and ideas. This thesis considers the expected gender norms surrounding both men and women of the Italian Renaissance and how those expectations were depicted in their art. The thesis examines each artist’s primary messaging within their work and considers the external influences that may have played into the creation process, such as religion, patronage, messaging, and experiences.

Their personal experiences and ideas of the artists have the most substantial impact on every decision they make within their work. This thesis will examine not only the cultural context of the works and the artists, but also the historical contexts surrounding the artists themselves. Questions that are considered are the tensions created by contrasting roles assigned to each female subject, the significance behind each female figure's positioning, and what symbolic elements have been added to the overall message of each piece. Using a historical analysis methodology, I provide my research and my readers with a thorough understanding of the context surrounding each artist, work and theme. By having an adequate understanding of the external influences on each artist's rendition, we are better able to examine each work effectively.

Conclusion

A narrative of domination versus submission influences the interaction between the

Venus and the Western art world. The female figure has long been the victim of injustice and Seaman 23 control at the hands of patriarchal creators. She has been voiceless, existing for the pleasure of those who view her. However, this thesis asks if the Venus’s mistreatment ends when a woman is at the other end of the paintbrush. If a woman controls the positioning, the colors, and narrative, does the Venus still fall victim to her societally pre-determined roles or does she find a space of rebellion against her plight? The purpose of this thesis is to look at three Italian artists from the Renaissance movement— two men and one woman— and ask if there is any difference between the men and the woman’s work. It examines two stories of powerful, Biblical women,

Judith—the slayer of Holofernes—and Susanna—the prime example of virtue— to see how each artist chose to depict their heroine: as a weibermacht or as a 'worthy woman'; as a naked or a nude woman; as Venus Coelestis or Venus Naturalis.

I believe that my research will support two important points to my readers. Firstly, while

Michelangelo Caravaggio and Cavaliere d’Arpino’s work served to support a culturally dominant and oppressive narrative, Artemisia Gentileschi's Judith and Susanna rejected this narrative. Her works, through subtle and obvious tactics, rejected the gender norms of her time and her craft in a way that was revolutionary during the Italian Renaissance. Secondly, this thesis will allow the reader to continue to understand that feminism did not first come into existence in the 19th century with Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Modern-day feminists do not only have the

Cleopatras and Joan of Arcs of the world to prove that women throughout history rejected the injustices done to them. Modern-day feminists can also refer the less well-known Artemisia

Gentileschi's of history to rebel against ‘the patriarchy’.

Outline of Remaining Chapters

Chapter Two describes and define the feminist lens and its uses for analysis and discussion. It also reviews the history not only of the feminist criticism but also of the Seaman 24 overarching feminist movement to provide context for the purposes of this theory. This chapter then offers case studies and examples of the application of the feminist lens to help the reader better understand the analysis that is used later on in this thesis to examine the four selected artifacts. Finally, this chapter provides a literature review of important works that are used to assist in the analysis of the selected artifacts.

Chapter Three further discusses the history of the artifacts. It provides a working definition and description of the historical approach and then applies that methodology to the analysis of the artifacts. The chapter goes into historical detail, providing background context for the Italian Renaissance and the important ideologies of its time, as well as the most significant artistic movements developed between the 16th and 18th century. In this chapter is a brief discussion on the gender norms of the Renaissance era, a history of the lives of each artist within that context, and a history of the Susanna and Judith themes in Western art. Finally, this chapter provides a concise summation of the history of the female nude in Western art.

Chapter Four discusses the first case study of this thesis: a comparison of Cavaliere d’Arpino’s and Artemisia Gentileschi’s Susanna and the Elders. Both paintings are set in their historical contexts, and this chapter re-discusses what was proposed in chapters two and three. A second, in-depth analysis is then conducted on both pieces to understand how each artist either supported or rejected the understood gender norms of the Italian Renaissance.

Chapter Five discusses the second case study of this thesis: a comparison of Artemisia

Gentileschi and Michelangelo Caravaggio’s Judith Beheading Holofernes. Both paintings are set in their historical contexts, with a brief re-visitation to the discussion of chapters two and three.

An in-depth analysis is conducted on both of the works to see how each piece supports or rejects the understood historical gender norms of the Italian Renaissance. Seaman 25

Chapter Six summarizes the entire thesis, re-discusses the most critical points of the paper, and reiterates the overall purpose of this research. This chapter brings the thesis to a conclusion and provides suggestions for further research.

Chapter Two

Review of Literature

Introduction

In the early 19th century, Georg Hegel and Karl Marx set the foundation for the critical paradigm of scholarship, which was later pioneered by Stuart Hall and cultural studies. Hegel and Marx helped to establish the precedent needed to examine oppressive and exclusionary narratives that men and women subscribed to, contributed to, and accepted natural in society.

The critical paradigm categorizes theories that are intent on discovering and revealing power dynamics in the hope of initiating social change and identifying areas of inequality. The cultural narrative, established by the dominant straight, white, male demographic was accepted and reiterated even by individuals who did not belong to that group. This was in part due to a lack of verbiage needed to specifically address and name that narrative for what it was. Many across the

Western world were left living in a cultural environment that did not provide them with the tools they needed to process and discuss their worldview in the same way as their dominant counterparts. However, as time, cultural thought, and language progressed, people began to examine and reject the governing narrative of Western patriarchal society more vocally.

One such academic rejection of the predominant narrative arose with the development of feminist criticism in the early-to-mid 20th century. Feminist criticism identifies and dissects systems of power to redress the grievances those systems have caused by giving voice to women and other marginalized groups, and to create more spaces for different versions of experiences Seaman 26

(West and Turner 529). It seeks to approach cultural narratives from the standpoint of oppressed groups, which initially meant women but has more modernly includes people of color, the

LGBTQ+ community, religious minorities, and the disabled community.

This chapter will be a concise summarization of critical studies, specifically feminist criticism, and its applicability to the case studies of this thesis. I will first define the critical approach and discuss the proper ways to apply it to this study’s four paintings and three artists. I will then provide a brief history of the feminist movement and review the origins of the critical theory and feminist criticism. The literature review will discuss the resources used by this study to examine and consider weibermacht, “women worthies,” and the male gaze. This chapter will then describe each resource's connection to both the artworks and the study’s thesis at large.

Finally, this chapter will provide a concise overview of how this critical theory helps analyze the artifacts through a feminist lens in Chapters Four and Five.

Literature Review

Research and essays covered within feminist theory are wide and varied, touching on more niche topics every day. For this study, the literature review shall focus on the realm of feminism and gender as it relates to the world of Western art. Below are the primary sources used in this study to assist in applying the feminist criticism to the works created by Gentileschi,

Caravaggio, and Arpino during the Italian Renaissance.

The Nude by Kenneth Clark (1953): Many early feminist commentaries on the way art history has treated women have built their arguments and theses off the works of hegemonic analyses by art historians such as Kenneth Clark. In his 1953 lecture series on the nude at the National

Gallery of Arts in Washington, Clark discusses the various archetypes and categories within the world of Western art. According to Clark, such archetypes include the Venus as the ideal female Seaman 27 model and the Apollo as the model for the ideal male. He also examines the differences between the naked and the nude subject in art.

In his lectures on the naked vs. the nude, Clark establishes that to be naked is to be simply in a state of natural undress, while to be nude is to instill a reaction through one's nakedness in the gazing male audience. The nude should never fail to “arouse in the spectator some vestige of erotic feeling,” and if it should fail to do so, it is “bad art and false morals” (8).

With this mindset, Clark continues into the conversation of the female nude in art and the purposes he believes she should serve for the assumed male audience. As Venus, she holds two roles within Western art: to inspire piety and righteousness or to represent the most sensual desires of her audience. Such duties contrast with the Apollo's, whose only goal is to represent the ideal male form in all its power and masculinity. He is free from the constraints that his female peer encounters as soon as she is created.

This compilation of lectures concisely lays out the hegemonic ideology of Western artists who work with the female and male nude body and also describes the mentality of later art historians discussing such works. When examining both the differences between naked and nude models and the purposes for Venus and Apollo nudes, Clark draws heavily upon the dominant masculine-centered narrative for his theses and arguments. Clark’s words serve as a reference point for the hegemonic standpoint in the art world, unintentionally providing proof for the male gaze, the sexualization of the female body, and the desire for women worthies within art. For example, his lecture on the Venus spends much time discussing the various ways in which she can visually satisfy the sexual desires of her male creators and audience without arousing the offenses of their Christian piety. Clark’s lectures will be referenced and quoted throughout this Seaman 28 study as representational of the hegemonic view toward the purposes of the female nude when considering the four depictions of Judith and Susanna.

Ways of Seeing by John Berger (1973): Berger’s essays on the differences between the male and the female within the world of Western art serves as a valuable response and rebuttal to

Clark’s earlier lectures on the purposes of the nude. Clark discusses the male gaze as something that is inevitable and ought to be tailored to create ‘good’ art. Berger shines a harsher light on the male gaze, describing it as something forced upon the female nude. It is an unfortunate consequence of a dominant patriarchal system, and he reiterates this idea by stating that “to be born a woman has been to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men” (46).

He discusses the differences between the male and female presence in art and the world at large. Men embody their own power and take complete control of that expression in everything they do. They control the way others perceive them through their actions (46).

Women, however, embody what “can and cannot be done to her” (46). Her meaning and power are given to her by her male audience, and she can do nothing to change the way that she is viewed or treated. Her nudity is at the mercy of the patriarchal culture surrounding her. Berger’s analysis of the male gaze and female presence in art is useful for better understanding the depictions of Judith and Susanna. He provides an excellent insight into the female standpoint in relation to the male gaze, as well as the male standpoint in relation to his societal domination within his patriarchal culture. Berger’s work also offers a prescription of the steps female audiences must take to become outsiders within, in being able to actively participate and engage with the dominant male gaze. His perspective assists this study in understanding the amount of Seaman 29 power and autonomy that women are given by their creators and whether that power is their own or that of their audience.

This book serves as an analysis of and comparison to the male gaze that Clark describes in his lectures. Berger’s view of the male gaze is the primary reference point for how this study treats and interacts with the subject. Where Clark asserts that the nude’s absolute understood function within art is to serve the male gaze, Berger sheds a different light on this idea by discussing the female nude’s lack of autonomy and control at the hands of her male audience. He posits that she should not exist as a focal point for male pleasure, and yet she has fulfilled that purpose for centuries.

In this thesis, this concept of male ownership over female autonomy shall reoccur throughout the discussion of Arpino, Caravaggio, and Gentileschi’s work. Both male artists control their female subjects and manipulate them through their masculine lens and preferences.

Gentileschi also manipulates her female subjects; however, her lens is much different and she as the artist must wrestle with her patriarchally dominated society’s desire to own her as a person, in the same way that it desires to own the women she paints.

Hall’s Cultural Studies

Stuart Hall’s cultural studies theory is a neo-Marxist communication theory that posits the idea that “mass media manufactures consent for dominant ideologies” (Griffin 334). This theory is builds upon Marx’s philosophy of examining structures and relationships that involve power dynamics. Hall believed that when such power goes unexamined, it is allowed to perpetuate false narratives and hegemonic structures and can continue to oppress those without power. According to cultural studies, mass media channels are often used to promote a specific set of hegemonic ideologies and they work to provoke a collective consensus amongst the Seaman 30 masses in support of such ideas (335-335). Hall believes that a culture contains two groups: the haves (those with power) and the have nots (those without power) (336). It is the haves’ goal to push the have nots of society to accept concepts and beliefs that support the haves’ way of life, so as to perpetuate a constant system of oppression. The haves succeed in this practice through the use of encoding and decoding. Throughout his discussion on encoding and decoding, Hall describes encoding as a practice of creating the meaning surrounding the message one wishes to send, whereas decoding entails the act of unwrapping and discovering the meaning surrounding that sent message (Hall). According to Hall, it should be the goal of communication scholars to identify those power dynamics and expose them so as to allow for more equal discourse within society (338).

The goals of cultural studies shall be fulfilled throughout the analysis of this thesis. The purpose of this study is to identify, examine, and discuss the power dynamics between genders that existed during Renaissance era Italy. By identifying the hegemony at play that has influenced the creations of the four chosen artifacts, we are able to break down the oppressive structures that worked against Gentileschi as a female artist and supported Caravaggio and

Arpino as male artists. This knowledge provides the foundation for our analysis of the two Judith and two Susanna pieces, and offers a lens through which we might understand how gender and power has been portrayed in the four pieces.

Feminist Criticism

Feminist criticism aims to “[criticize] the status quo because the status quo represents a power structure of dominance and oppression” (West and Turner 528). It also seeks to move societal rhetoric and academic study away from imbalanced narratives by creating a more balanced space in which more perspectives are taken into consideration (532). As Dr. Lyn Seaman 31

Hallstein describes it, feminist criticism and its subset of feminist standpoint theory “tries to hold together two tensions: the search for better knowledge and the commitment to the idea that knowledge is always intertwined with the issues of power and politics” (qdt. in West and Turner)

530).

This analysis’ definition of gender is the “learned behaviors that constitute femininity and masculinity in a given culture [that is] . . . changeable and reflects whatever the culture accepts at a given time for these roles” (515). Further, gender is “a culture’s conception of the qualities considered desirable for women and men” (Foss 157). Taking these two ideas, gender is defined as the created, assigned, and culturally accepted roles ascribed to male and female life and behavior.

The original focus of feminist criticism was to examine the construction of gender and its use as a means of domination or subordination in Western culture. While more goals have been added to this theory since its creation, its original purpose shall serve as the basis for this study’s examination. In understanding the societally accepted gender norms surrounding the female gender during the Italian Renaissance, this information allows for a more cohesive and rich understanding of the implications of the depictions of female subjects painted by the selected male and female artists. The interpretation of gender through the male and female artistic lens allows this study’s analysis to draw conclusive points about the interactions and opinions each artist held in regard to the gender norms of their time.

Feminist criticisms argues that we must understand experiences and perspectives of the rhetor – or in this case, the artist – to inform our understanding of the artifact in question. This comprehension requires an examination of the hegemonic influences at play around the artifact or individual. For this study, hegemony is defined as the dominance one social group has over Seaman 32 others (West and Turner 444-446). In contrast, its antecedent, counter-hegemony, uses hegemonic behaviors to challenge the power of other more dominant groups (West and Turner

444-446). Such a practice is commonly seen in the art world and makes an appearance in the works of Artemisia Gentileschi.

After identifying such influences, we must then assess how the creator of the selected artifact has decoded, received, and compared those hegemonic messages and translated them into their experiences and creations (West and Turner 444-448). This relates back to Mulvey’s observation that the hegemonic group (the male) imparts his own “fantasies and obsessions” onto the submissive group (the female) (Warhol 439). By translating hegemonic messages received from a patriarchal society onto their own works of art, we shall see the ways in which our chosen male artists have imposed the male gaze directly onto their female subjects.

Decoding information involves receiving those messages and comparing them to those one already possesses (West and Turner 448). To understand the hegemonic powers at play, we must also examine the prescribed gender roles that exist during the creation of the artifact or the selected individual’s life. These prescribed roles have a powerful influence on the artifact’s creator and selected individual’s perspectives and behaviors. We can more easily understand such a complex breakdown by drawing on the historical analysis to aide in our examination of the cultural and societal context surrounding the selected artifact or individual

In order to have a more robust understanding of the gender influences at play on the four selected artifacts, feminist criticism requires an examination of the kinds of messaging and gender rules that were imparted on the artists of each piece during the 16th-17th century. This involves understanding both the historical development of the gender rules and messages as well as the interaction that the culture of that time had with those messages. A feminist analysis also Seaman 33 requires an understanding of the life experiences that might have influenced each artists’ interactions with those gender roles. Such experiences and interactions would then have appeared in their paintings. Through the use of a historical analysis of the 16th-17th century

Italian Renaissance, this information shall be used for the examination of the chosen artifacts in subsequent chapters.

Before we can get into the history of the feminist criticism, we must first brush up on the history of the feminist movement, consisting of arguably four waves, with each making further progress and advancement for inclusive human rights. The first wave of feminism, known as the suffrage movement, focused almost entirely on granting women the right to vote in the United

States and eventually succeeded in doing so on August of 1920 when the 19th Amendment was passed (Foss 151). The second wave of feminism, beginning around the 1960s and ending in the early 1980s, shifted focus towards a greater awareness of the oppressive patriarchal Western system and concentrated on achieving equal opportunities for women in the workplace. The third wave began in the 1980s and was revolutionary because of its intentional inclusivity of the marginalized voices that the earlier straight, white-centered waves had left out. Finally, the existence of a ‘fourth’ wave of feminism is currently a controversial debate amongst feminist scholars. With the creation of the Internet, a new kind of feminist activist was born; however, older feminists and feminist scholars disagree as to whether the introduction of the Internet as an activism tool means the introduction of a fourth wave or simply means another layer of nuance has been added to the third (Munro).

Feminist criticism traces its roots back to and the German philosopher Georg Hegel (West and Turner 529). Hegel devoted much interest to examining a specific relationship created by distinct power dynamics: master and servant. In his theory, Hegel argues that there are multiple Seaman 34 sides to social interaction and that the narrative should not always come from the same dominant source. Each person approaches a situation from the perspective of their context and position.

The master’s view of life is entirely different from the servant’s perspective (529). Karl Marx also contributed this idea, claiming that an individual’s position within a society wholly informed their “access to knowledge,” meaning that a baker’s perspective of society comes from his position just as a queen’s perspective of society comes from hers (West and Turner 529). Critical studies refuted the idea that every person could identify with and wholly understand the Western world's patriarchal narrative because not every person fit within that demographic. This is important to keep in mind when considering the depiction of female subject matter by

Gentileschi, Arpino, and Caravaggio in the midst of a patriarchally control society, as we shall examine in Chapters Four and Five.

During the late 20th century, scholars began integrating the feminist criticism into communication studies. Karlyn Campbell’s “The Rhetoric of Women’s Liberation” and Cheris

Kramarae’s “Women’s Speech: Separate but Unequal” were just a few of the more significant pieces to come from this emerging feminist theory. Nancy Hartsock further developed feminist criticism by drawing on Hegel and Marx’s ideas. Hartsock published The Feminist Standpoint:

Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism in 1983, officially establishing feminist standpoint theory and inserting feminist perspective into the 1970s Marxist discourse (West and Turner 529). Hartsock centered her research around the

“master/servant/powerful/powerless” dynamic that her predecessor, Hegel, was so focused on.

She used these relationships to analyze people’s interactions with the issues of sex (biological assignment of male and female) and gender in Western culture (West and Turner 529). However, instead of using terms like “master and servant” she replaced the two with “male and female”. Seaman 35

To this day, the feminist standpoint theory is used in scholarship to continue the examination of power and relationship dynamics between specific societally developed groups of people.

Examples of Feminist Criticism

Karlyn Campbell’s “The Rhetoric of Women’s Liberation” examines the differences between the rhetoric used in the women’s liberation movement and the rhetoric used by other standard rhetorical theories. In her essay, she claims that the language women’s liberation movements use should be considered “distinctive” and “unique” from the language of other rhetorical theories and should, therefore, be given its own distinctive categorization within the rhetorical analysis sphere (Campbell 78). This is an example of Campbell discussing the women’s liberation movement and their position based on their social status.

Campbell applies feminist criticism in making her case by first explaining her positioning: there must be a re-categorization of women’s liberation rhetoric as unique and different from other theories’ rhetoric. She accomplishes this claim by using the hegemonic narratives of Americanism and patriotism to describe how unpatriotic it is of the American nation to demand that its women avoid becoming self-reliant, achievement-oriented, and independent (75). Campbell then provides examples of the normative gender ideas, such as the assumption that women derive value from their male counterparts and that their predominant roles are in domestic work. From there, she builds her argument, describing the discriminatory rulings of the Supreme Court in 1961 against women’s equality and the heavy social price that women who deviate from their assigned gender roles pay if they successfully succeed in living and behaving abnormally to their culture’s idea of an ideal feminine life (Campbell 76,77).

Finally, Campbell provides evidence as to why her claim should find support in the world of rhetorical theory. She describes how women’s liberation rhetoric is rife with “consciousness- Seaman 36 raising” or the use of democratic discourse to reach group consensus and intellectual growth.

(Campbell 78). She also discusses the abrasive, confrontational strategies designed to “violate the reality structure,” such as writing “man-hating” essays, “personal accounts of promiscuity,” and essays “attacking romantic love” (Campbell 81). She provides the necessary background, standpoint, and evidence needed to lay bare the rhetoric of dominance and suppression. She then rejects that rhetoric based on the contradictory evidence from the standpoint of the woman, the oppressed demographic in her essay.

Another example of feminist criticism is found in Cheris Kramarae’s “Woman’s Speech:

Separate but Unequal?” In 1973, this work looks at the “sex-linked linguistic signals” or the different kinds of language that men and women would often use in the United States at that time

(Kramer 1). Kramer establishes her positioning that the communication field has often treated women’s speech as being different from men’s speech for many numbers of discriminatory reasons. Throughout her essay, she cites a number of studies and papers done by men and women that emphasize some element of this central point.

Kramer also calls for a re-examination by the communication field of how it treats women’s speech. She asks that there be a revisal of what she calls the “folk-view” of research, or

“how people think women speak or how people think women should speak” instead of how they actually do speak (Kramer 19). For example, she cites “Down with Sexist Upbringing,” in which

Pogrebin (1972) discusses the existence of stereotypes attributed to femininity and masculinity found even in the beloved children’s show Sesame Street, in which “boy monsters are brave and gruff. Girl monsters are high-pitched and timid” (Pogrebin 28).

Kramer establishes the normative gendered roles surrounding her thesis and proves her point by discussing the New Yorker’s newly released book The New Seventeen Book of Etiquette Seaman 37 and Young Living. In this book, young women are encouraged to speak less and listen more because their silence is a desirable attribute that men look for in their female companions. If young women want to do well in their male-dominated world, they should abide by their male peer’s desires (Kramer 8). This is an excellent example of women being encouraged to become

‘outsiders within’ – if they were to listen to the advice of that resource, they would gain access to a more privileged location within their social groups.

Kramer touches on the point that there are gendered cultural norms in the kinds of words men and women used. In the United States, men used curse words and profanity during her time to a much higher degree than women, who often preferred more understated and non- confrontational words like “pretty,” “lovely,” and “oh dear” (Kramer 5).

Finally, Kramer urges the world of communication research to be careful in the way that it categorizes women’s speech in their research. She suggests that much of the communication research looks at the stereotypes around women’s speech instead of questioning the existence of those stereotypes in the first place (Kramer 20). Through the lens of feminist criticism, Kramer has approached the hegemonic oppression of women and provided concrete examples of the domination women experienced every day. She describes the perspectives of women experiencing the domination and demands in highly hegemonic-hinting terms that the community of communication research needs to make significant adjustments in the way it treats the study of female speech and linguistics.

In her chapter on feminist criticism in her often-cited book Rhetorical Criticism, Sonja K.

Foss provides a concise and clear history of the feminist movement and the development of feminist criticism within the communication field. She describes the first three waves of the feminist movement, the influences that each movement have had on academia, and how feminist Seaman 38 rhetoric in America has been observed. She concisely describes the hegemonic culture within academia and explains how often “men’s experiences are universalized so that the masculine is aligned with the universal” (159). In identifying this issue, she shifts the focus towards a more inclusive normalized perspective and applies that to various artifacts throughout the chapter

(159).

Foss continues to discuss the applicability of feminist criticism specifically to the world of art, providing a step-by-step model for how analysts should go about examining their artifacts in a more feminist-friendly way (157). She also describes the various tactics researchers should use when examining artifacts that reinforce or reject the ideology of domination (160).

Foss’s chapter serves as a guide for this study on the application of feminist criticism to the works of Gentileschi, Caravaggio, and Arpino. Her analysis of Judy Chicago’s The Dinner

Party contained in her chapter most closely parallels the methods that are used in this study by analyzing the artifacts closely for the influences of hegemony and counterhegemony, as well as by discussing the artifact’s messaging and influence on feminist discourse within art, as we shall similarly do with Gentileschi’s work. It also provides a useful example of how to successfully examine art by women artists in a way that gives them due credit. By approaching these analyses from the standpoint that Foss establishes, this study is better equipped to examine each work through a genuinely feminist-affirming lens and add to the growing literature of feminist art history studies. Foss’s chapter also helps to establish useful definitions and explanations for terms like gender and the male gaze, both of which are integral to understanding the results of this study.

Seaman 39

Biographical Information on Artemisia Gentileschi

Artemisia Gentileschi by Mary D. Garrard (1989): To fully understand the standpoint and voice that Artemisia Gentileschi brought to the world of Italian Renaissance artwork, it is necessary to learn more about her life, her personality, and her experiences. Garrard’s thorough biography on Gentileschi’s life provides a complete compilation of all information currently known about the artist, including letters, testimonials, and interviews that Gentileschi gave throughout her life. Gerrard’s work provides access to the information needed to understand

Gentileschi’s situated knowledge in regard to her life as a female artist in a male dominated field.

This resource also allows us to understand how Gentileschi utilized her gender and her skill as an artist to gain access to the masculine world of art, becoming an outsider within for the rest of her life as she created beautiful paintings, touched on powerful subjects, and sought out patronage to support her work even though she did not belong to the dominant male group. Garrard goes on to devote chapters to Gentileschi’s most important works, analyzing them from a socio-cultural, religious, and feminist perspective.

While describing what was one of the most impactful turning points in Gentileschi’s life, her rape and subsequent trial, Garrard touches upon the weibermacht versus “women worthies” theme that battles each other throughout the lifespan of Gentileschi’s work (147). While some of the most prominent pieces in Gentileschi’s career are examples of the power of women over men, others cater more strongly to the idea of “women worthies” as subjects. This inconsistency throughout her artistic career is what makes Gentileschi such a fascinating subject for study. The tensions she experiences between her normative gender roles and her fierce desire for independence are visually represented in her work. Seaman 40

Garrard’s analysis of Gentileschi’s life and her work serves as a helpful guide for this study's analysis of the artist’s Judith and Susanna. This in-depth analysis of Gentileschi’s life functions as an essential reference point for discovering the standpoint that the artist would have brought to her perspectives and her famous artworks. Garrard’s deft connections between

Gentileschi’s social life and her work provide much material from which to draw on to support this paper's thesis. Her definitions and discussion of women worthies and weibermacht are used throughout the analysis of Gentileschi, Caravaggio, and Arpino’s works in this paper and they serve as a foundation upon which my conclusions and analyses are drawn. Garrard’s definitions also assist in describing the role that each Susanna and Judith play in their prospective portrait concerning the pleasing or rejecting of the male gaze.

Conclusion

Critical studies and feminist criticism subset address the inequalities in relationships with power dynamics, specifically that of the male and the female. We see an excellent example of this in the counter-hegemonic artworks produced by Artemisia Gentileschi. Where many non- feminist, hegemonic theories seek to amplify and affirm voices of power, the feminist criticism does the opposite by giving a channel for minority and silenced voices to share their stories and their valid perspectives. By examining the two Judiths and Susannas created by artists belonging to different social groups with varying levels of cultural dominance, this study hopes to better understand the patriarchally dominant context that each work was created within. The selected pieces are examined to see whether the male or female artists supported or protested against the assigned gender roles and the patriarchally dominant narrative of their time.

Feminist criticism ideally assists in this goal by providing an equal playing field for male and female artists' voices. When looking at male and female artists and their work through a Seaman 41 hegemonic lens, the analysis disproportionally affirms and considers the male artists' work over his feminine contemporary's because he belongs to the dominant demographic. A feminist- influenced examination ensures that every standpoint and perspective is given equal consideration and credit, thus ensuring that both genders receive the same amount of recognition and analysis. Using the terms discussed early on in this chapter, including voice, standpoint, outsider within, and situated knowledge, our understanding of Caravaggio, Arpino, and

Gentileschi’s perspectives and experiences will allow us to look at the four artifacts of this thesis with a more educated understanding of each work’s external influences.

Feminist criticism helps this study to provide more information on the lives and experiences of women and men during the Italian Renaissance. By asking questions like “How did the X gender norm appear in this painting?” or “Does the X ideology impact the way this subject was created?”, this study better understands the impact and message behind each of the four paintings. Through the use of FST, this study also adds to the growing narrative of feminist art history that rejects hegemonic assumptions surrounding the female nude and the female artist during the Italian Renaissance.

In Chapter Three, I examine the prescribed gender roles of the Italian Renaissance that pressured Caravaggio, Gentileschi, and Arpino through the use of the Historical Analysis approach. I look more closely at each of the three artists' individual lives to make educated assumptions about their stance on such gender roles. It is then that feminist standpoint theory will come into play in Chapters Four and Five, providing my research with a channel through which I am able to give Gentileschi’s work the same attention and credit that I will pay to

Caravaggio’s and Arpino’s. Through the use of feminist standpoint theory, the female Seaman 42 perspective can express itself and explain more accurately how each artists’ Judith or Susanna interacts with various cultural standpoints.

Chapter Three

Historical Analysis

Definition and Description:

To have the most robust understanding of the impacts of the four pieces selected by this study, it is necessary to build our knowledge of the cultural context surrounding both the artists and the artworks. Grant proposes that historical analysis examines the “narrative which reflects events in sequence roughly chronological” (74). In other words, historical analysis prescribes a wholistic approach to the contextual examination of an artifact. This chapter will provide a historical analysis of the context around both the three artists and the four paintings selected.

It is necessary to understand that every artifact is the product of its surrounding cultural and historical context. To gather the most robust understanding of an artifact requires a broad comprehension of a variety of cultural contexts, including, gender norms, theological and social ideas, impactful historical events, and behavioral norms. Critically analyzing the past requires the researcher to understand and summarize highly complex ideas to create the most accurate and comprehensive picture of the selected context. To achieve such results, researchers must be prepared to draw upon many resources and incorporate as many different voices and perspectives as is plausible. Researchers can then formulate opinions from the wide range of sources collected and more fully understand the multifaceted context.

This chapter will provide social, cultural, ideological, and historical information surrounding the Italian Renaissance, the lives of the chosen artists, and the Susanna and Judith themes in Renaissance art. To do so, this chapter will first provide a general outline of the Seaman 43 historical events that set the stage for the Italian Renaissance's arrival. The chapter will then discuss the cultural contexts, such as popular ideologies, gender norms, and artistic techniques that were primary influences on the artistic world of the 15th-17th centuries. This chapter will then provide a more in-depth look at the lives of the artists selected explicitly for this study, offering context for the personal influences that played a part in their respective pieces. Finally, this chapter shall briefly discuss the history of the female nude and the Susanna and Judith themes in art to offer the reader more information to fully appreciate the works when reaching this study’s analyses chapters.

Beginnings of the Renaissance

In the century leading up to the Renaissance, the Middle Ages experienced a period of deep religiosity and concern for spiritual salvation. The 13th century Christian Church held complete control over many elements of Italian life and determined much of what did and did not happen in the practices of education, worship, and art. The Gothic Art period, so named by

Italian Renaissance scholars for the Barbarian Gothic tribes that had invaded Rome in the 5th century CE, was initially born in France and soon became the predominant art style used during the Middle Ages (Camille 9). A reactionary style, Gothic images were strongly influenced by the idea that only God could create true beauty (Sypher 57). The artist's task was to imitate and respond to that beauty, an ideology promoted and encouraged by the dominant Catholic Church

(57).

During the Gothic period, the great master Giotto (1276-1337) established the fundamental techniques that would later be used and perfected by Renaissance artists for the accurate and natural representation of the human figure (The Art of the Renaissance 17). This technique was revolutionary for the Gothic art period. Before Giotto, much of the religious work Seaman 44 that was created focused solely on iconographic representation and drew from pre-determined imagery of specific figures rather than displaying religious subjects as identifiable individuals.

This technique also paved the way for Humanist artists to explore the accurate representation of their subject matter. As Giotto’s work signified a shift away from the Gothic period's traditional techniques, a split in Medieval art began to appear. Professionals and amateurs alike demonstrated stronger preferences either towards idealism or towards a more naturalistic approach in their works (Sypher 56). This tension between naturalism and idealism would create the ideal conditions needed for the Renaissance period's Humanist styles to combine the two seamlessly.

Nine years after Giotto’s death, the Black Plague (1346-1353) struck Europe, taking more than 50 million lives over five years. A disease transmitted by the fleas carried on the rats of merchant ships returning from Asia, the Plague was unknown to doctors and took life indiscriminately. Because nations across Europe lost a large percentage of their workforce and animal stock during this time, the continent destabilized. Extreme economic shifts and famines became common, resulting in power struggles to regain some semblance of the former financial stability many nations had once enjoyed. Such uncertainty led to an intense period of violence, war, and famine during the late 14th century. However, although the upheaval of European culture was devastating to many, it did provide vital opportunities for growth for a select few nations and city-states across the continent, including the city-states of the Italian peninsula.

As support for capitalism from the Catholic Church became widespread, dozens of prominent Italian cities took advantage of this revolutionary business practice. They began profiting from their primary resources, pulling their economies out of ruin (Zophy 18). Cities like

Florence, Venice, and Milan, once floundering and split by the Black Plague's after-effects, now Seaman 45 established themselves as thriving trading ports and banking capitals. Because of its positioning between Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, the Italian peninsula capitalized on trade and banking opportunities, pulling many city-states quickly out of the financial depression that gripped much of the European continent (Zophy 48). As trade and economic prosperity returned to the Italian peninsula, financial support flowed more easily into funding and revived the sciences, the humanities, and the arts.

During this time of financial growth, the Italian peninsula also continued to maintain its claim to religious and cultural supremacy over the rest of Europe, asserting Rome to be the Holy

Roman Catholic Empire's headquarters. Throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the

Catholic Faith was one of the most prominent religious institutions in Europe. Its deeply rooted influences on European life, economy, war, and belief systems meant that the Pope was the head of the most largely followed religion on the continent, allowing him power rivaling that of the kings and queens of other European nations. Rome became the recognized home to the most powerful faith system on the continent, making the Italian peninsula the epicenter of European religion. Proximity to the Catholic Church's home ensured more immediate access and influence on the inner workings of its political decisions, meaning that Italian city-states held an advantage over their peers abroad in many cultural and financial areas.

With the establishment of financial security and cultural supremacy after the Black

Plague, the Italian Peninsula was in prime condition for a revolutionary change. Specifically, in

Florence, Italy, Europe's banking capital, funds flowed freely between the city's wealthiest families, and the Renaissance movement quickly gained traction around the middle of the 14th century. Translated to mean “rebirth,” the Renaissance period indicated a time of breaking away from the Middle Ages' ideologies and traditions (Zophy 3). Scholars often approach the Seaman 46

Renaissance with the view that it indicated a “rebirth” for many different elements of European life. With a desire to pay homage to and learn more from its Graeco-Roman heritage, the Italian

Renaissance studied and revived many of the Classical Era's teachings. The Renaissance saw the reintroduction of themes previously lost to Graeco-Roman history and a revitalization of the teachings of some of the great philosophers of the Classical Age, like Cicero and Aristotle.

Renaissance Ideology

Cicero’s teachings on the necessity of “humane studies” or scholarship “worthy of the dignity of man” focusing primarily on the study of a broad range of topics instead of the mastery of a few quickly became the chief inspiration for the revolutionary ideas that emerged from the

Italian Renaissance (The Art of the Renaissance 10). Humanism, as it was known, encouraged intense focus and study on the traditions and ideas passed down from ancient Greece and Rome

(Kren 142). The Middle Ages practice of scholasticism — educating only those in the clerical sect — was exchanged for the more equitable practice of educating urban laypeople and the wealthy upper class on many subjects that the movement deemed worthy of study (Partridge 1).

Because Florence was the epicenter of much travel and trade during the fourteenth century, its residents and governing class more frequently exposed themselves to ideas and concepts outside their cultural boundaries (Zophy 3-4). Such interactions led them to be much more willing to embrace the Humanist tradition and its progressive tendencies. This increase in education access meant that artists could integrate scientific observations of the human form, lighting, perspective, and other vital elements of composition into their pieces. The introduction of Humanism into Renaissance culture in the 1300s led to a widespread push to capture what the human eye truly saw. Artists were encouraged to create pieces that were as scientifically and Seaman 47 naturally as accurate as possible, compared to the more stylistic imagery they were producing during Gothic times of 13th century Italy (Zophy 87).

Humanism was not the only ideology to make a re-appearance during the Renaissance.

The Aristotelian rationalization for the inferiority of the female sex strongly influenced gender perceptions and norms throughout the Middle Ages and became even more prominent during the

Renaissance (Walton 90). Before the advancement of both Western medicine and feminism, the best description of the West’s attitudes towards women came from St. Paul’s words in 1

Corinthians 14:34-35 “Let your women keep silence in churches….they are commanded to be under obedience…and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.” This idea of feminine inferiority and submission originated from the philosophies of Aristotle in his

Generation of Animals (Walton 88). In this text, the philosopher declared the female to be the

‘failed’ version of the man. She was the biological inferior to the man because she was the natural deformity to his natural perfection (Walton 88). Because her weaker body supposedly took much longer to fully form in the womb, the woman always emerged as the weaker, colder sex and should therefore be subject to subordination and submission (Walton 88-89).

Renaissance Gender Norms and Values

Understanding Aristotelian ideas about gender and sex helps us better understand much of the rationale of the Italian Middle Ages and Renaissance around gender norms and behaviors.

A famous manifesto circulating Venice in the late 13th century stated that “nature always intends to make a male and never a female, for the female is an accidentally defective male and a monster of nature” (qtd. in Walton 90). In addition to being considered physically subservient, women were perceived as morally inferior to men due to their inability to control their Seaman 48

‘animalistic instincts’ (Garrard 147). These ideas permeated every facet of Renaissance culture, creating a narrative of inferiority, silence and submission for women during that time.

Although Humanists did not entirely reject Aristotelian ideas, their response did display early Western pseudo-feminism elements that had rarely appeared previously. Some of the earliest defenses of a woman’s worth arose from Humanist scholars, who coined the term

“women worthies” (Garrard 143). As discussed in previous chapters, “women worthies” referred to women who had behaviorally different qualities, often showing bravery and heroism, that were honored in their gender. They performed unusual acts of courage and valor not generally attributed to their femineity. In her research on the subject, Mary Garrard asserts that Humanists believed such women had more admirable qualities than had previously been believed (145-150).

Unfortunately, even when coming to the woman’s defense, Humanist scholars continuously perpetuated the concept that the female was only acceptable when she followed the specific behavioral guidelines laid out for her by her patriarchal society ( Ajmar 248-9; Ciletti

52-53). Those who behaved extraordinarily received the privilege of being “honorary men” or women who excellently displayed acceptable societal behavior under extreme circumstances (

Ciletti 63-65). Some well-known examples of “women worthies” who appeared in popular

Renaissance culture included Lucretia, Penelope, and Esther—all women who behaved courageously in their circumstances yet still remained within the gendered behavioral guidelines expected of them (Smith 51).

Even while Humanism allowed room for “women worthies” in educated circles as a topic of serious consideration, a distinct line existed between these kinds of women and their more

‘masculine’ counterparts— weibermacht or “powerful women.” A concept more greatly popularized in Northern Europe than in Italy between the 14th- 16th century, weibermacht Seaman 49 referred to women who asserted ‘masculine’ dominance over their male counterparts (Smith 2,

19, 59). Such actions were unacceptably threatening to ‘true’ masculinity (Garrard 144). These

“powerful women” were known to have either physically or mentally conquered their male counterparts (often times powerful Biblical men) in a way that rejected the stereotypes assigned to their sex (Smith 2). Some famous stories of such women included Samson’s ruin at Delilah’s betrayal, David’s sin when he married Bathsheba, and at times, Holofernes death at the hands of

Judith (Smith 55). Because their behavior exhibited blatant rejections of the concept of male superiority, these women helped affirm the ideology of early Christion moralists who believed that feminine dominance and sexuality was both immodest and sinister (Smith 22). These powerful women were, according to Garrard, a danger to society because of the domineering, violent temper that led them to murder the male and made them exceptions amongst their sex

(149).

However, this popular misogynist ideology did not entirely snuff out support for proto- feminist thinking during Renaissance times. As women’s role within society gradually improved

(as long as male consent allowed for such advancements), there emerged a growing feminist response by women and male writers alike within the subject of querelles des femmes, or the argument of women (Ajmar 249-254; Migiel 3; Smith 3). Some of the first women writers to assert their sex’s validity and biological equality lived during Renaissance times and included

Italians like Christine de Pizan (1364-1430) and Marie de’ Medici (1575-1642) (142).

“Women worthies” and weibermacht were used by both sides to affirm ideas and beliefs about the female sex. With the introduction of Renaissance Humanism in the early 1300s, feminist ideology found legitimized support and affirmation in a broader range of circles. Female voices on the subject received more legitimacy than their predecessors, as we see from the Seaman 50 examples of Pizan and Medici. Unfortunately, progress and validation on the subject existed only within the approval and through the lens of a highly misogynistic and patriarchal society (Ajmar

249).

Although the perception around women portrayed them as the weaker, less intelligent sex, the woman's roles within the house, and the laws that pertained to her rights, stated otherwise. According to Leon Battista Alberti, the female sex was “soft, slow, and therefore more useful when they sit still and watch over our things.” (qtd. in Kuehn 61). However, women were daily involved with trade and financial upkeep within their households (61). Not only were they in charge of managing an entire household, but they were also entrusted with negotiations and with upholding the structure of the established family to ensure that their husbands had a stable foundation from which to work. Wives were often seen as direct ambassadors of their husbands when doing work on behalf of the household. They handled the dispensation of payments and allotment of credit (Kuehn 66-67). Such tasks were societally assigned to women and were desirable abilities for a wife to have. However, in the same turn, societal understanding about the female's nature saw her as weak and incapable of handling complex matters.

Conflicting tensions such as this existed throughout Italian Renaissance cultures.

Societally determined rights and behaviors for the female were strongly influenced by the

Aristotelian ideologies previously discussed, yet they also found inspiration from Biblical theology. The worth and validity of a woman’s honor lay solely in the purity of her behavior

(Kuehn 57). The Virgin Mary remained the highest standard by which a woman could be held.

The easiest way to destroy her character was to insinuate the existence of sexual desire and licentious behavior within her (57). An obsession with a woman’s honor and purity existed in almost every aspect of female life during the Renaissance, and sexually impure experiences such Seaman 51 as the loss of virginity or rape resulted in shame and lost honor, which could reflect poorly on the woman’s family and prospects. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in addressing a young woman of noble birth in a letter on the proper behavior of those entering a nunnery, stated that

It [chastity] bows her head, smooths her brow, composes the features of her face, stops

her eyes from wandering, suppresses laughter, tempers her tongue, checks her greed,

tames her anger, and composes the way she moves about. the garb of chastity is fittingly

embellished with such pearls…. What earthy splendor should be exactly above virginity

girded thus so copiously? (qtd. Knox 5).

Even during marriage negotiations, a woman’s purity was the foundational reassurance needed to begin discussions of any kind (Kuehn 59).

The behavioral norms for the Renaissance woman also played to Aristotelian and biblical ideals, pressuring them into silent submission to the men around them (Knox 1-10). The

Christian virtue of temperance and modesty applied more strongly to women than men during

Renaissance times because the female was believed to succumb more easily to her vices than the male (Knox 5). The honorable and desirable wife, according to Giannozzo Alberti in Della

Famiglia, should “abhor those flighty gestures, that habit of throwing one’s hands about here and there while jabbering about this and that in the way that busybodies are wont to do all day long wherever they are” (Knox 3). Alberti continued on to discuss that the ideal wife displayed modestissima (modesty) at all times, being able to “temper every word with reason and judgment” (3). Such modesty during this time appeared not only in the form of sexual chastity, but also in a composed and unemotional exterior that betrayed little feeling and commanded no attention (Zarri 88). The instructions that a group of young women received in their attempt to attain perfection in the eyes of Christianity, given by the Regola della Congregazione delle Seaman 52

Vergini di Sant’Orsola, provides a clear idea of the desirable behavior such perfection demanded:

Eyes should not be raised unless it is necessary, nor should they wander, but ordinarily

they should be cast down towards the ground with modesty and with a slight bowing of

the head…..The face should never show disordered passion of the soul, with undue

sadness or gaiety, impatience, anger and similar emotions (qtd. Zarri 88).

However, the Renaissance woman not only had to worry about protecting her honor and purity at all times, but she also had to balance it with the overt sexualization of her gender by the male dominated culture around her. Women were to observe modestia in all aspects of their lives, yet, when interacting with the opposite sex, they were to balance such pious behavior with cortesia or courtesy (Knox 9). Such courtesy required the woman to be both approachable and chaste, open and closed, friendly yet removed when dealing with her male companions. If she did not find the right balance between Christian modesty and worldly courtesy, she could come off as removed and prudish (Knox 9). While modesty remained the Christian standard of behavior for women across Italy, the demand to balance such piety with worldly behavior that encouraged cross-gender interactions meant that women were in a constant balancing act of sexual desirability versus purity.

As the Renaissance woman wrestled with this cultural dynamic, she also encountered male-created barriers when trying to find work, earn an income, or have a trade of any kind. For example, upon her marriage, a Lucian woman dowry and all of her property fell under the control of her husband, and it was only upon his death that she could claim land, finances, and other belongings as her own (Meek 183-185). Because access to education was already limited to certain classes of men within Italian Renaissance society, it was nearly unheard of for women in Seaman 53 lower-class families to have access to legitimized education, let alone apprenticeships or training in areas other than household management or dressmaking. A woman of lower standing’s only chance at education outside of what was typical for her sex usually happened with the support of her father or a male patron (Garrard 17). The support of male benefactors and relatives was the catalyst for female success in Renaissance times, as we shall later see in the life of Artemisia

Gentileschi.

Were, say, a woman artist to successfully avoid becoming a wife right out of childhood, attain the support of male patronage, and have access to job training, she would then encounter a plethora of sex-based hurdles to overcome within the misogynistic, male-dominated art world should she attempt to have a career. The male artist's successes were attributed to his ignegno or

“superior rational intelligence/ absolute genius resulting from divine inspiration” (Garrard 174).

The female artist's successes, however, were often attributed not to the beauty of her work, but rather the personal beauty of the artist herself (Christiansen 283). When discussing his support for female artists, Annibale Caro stated that “There is nothing I desire more than the image of the artist herself, so that in a singular work I can exhibit two marvels, one the work and the other the artist” (qtd. Garrard 174). When painting the female nude or works that touched on more sexual insinuations, the female artist wrestled with the added layer of her male audience’s desire to own both her subjects' and her own femininity. As we shall see in Gentileschi's life, female artists also often had little protection from their male peers' advances. They could therefore be extremely vulnerable to violence, harassment, and persecution.

History of Italian Art within the Renaissance

Returning to the arts within the Italian Renaissance, the desire to follow the Classic traditions of ancient Greco/Roman times paved the way for greater thematic diversity within Seaman 54

Renaissance art. As artists studied and paid homage to their classical ancestors, a hybrid of religious iconography combined with Greco/Roman mythology was born. Throughout the

Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church was one of the primary patrons of the artistic world, requesting thousands of iconographic works representing various Biblical stories, theologies, and characters within the Christian Faith. This Christian iconographic art tradition carried into the

Italian Renaissance art world and was slowly married to Greco/Roman mythology. Such combinations often included characters of similar personalities, experiences, and physical builds whose assigned themes created multidimensional stories in the pieces they appeared.

Some of the most famous examples of this combination from the Renaissance period include Donatello’s bronze David, commissioned by the Medici Family in the mid-15th-century.

While superficially indicative of a David-esq. character, subtle undertones of David’s mythological twin, Hermes, also appear and are intricately intertwined with the Biblical character. The David/Hermes dynamic represented the heroic underdog. This duo was the physical manifestation of Florence and specifically of the Medici family, declaring to the world that size did not determine strength, and to underestimate the city or family would be a deadly mistake. Another example is in Botticelli’s Primavera. This piece placed the Holy Christian

Mother Mary in the same scene as Cupid, the Three Graces, and re-cast her as Venus (Fig 3.1).

Each of these individuals epitomized themes such as Love, Beauty, Purity, and Sensual Love.

Seaman 55

Figure 3.1. Botticelli, Sandro. Primavera. 1480, Uffizi Gallery. Le Gallerie degli Uffizi. https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/botticelli-spring. 10 October 2020

In response to the classicism and naturalism of artists like Michelangelo and Raphael that followed constricting and painstakingly time-consuming rules of creation, the Mannerist style quickly rose in popularity around the early 16th century (Zophy 104). Mannerist artists would often experiment and push the limits of the human form, exaggerating limb length and often pushing the boundaries of their compositional piece to create something that both adhered to naturalism and leaned toward reaction instead of replication. Later in the 16th century, as religious tensions between the Catholic Church and the growing Counter-Reformation movement encompassed much of Italy, many artists, like Michelangelo Caravaggio, felt that the mannerist religious iconography could no longer portray the needed connection and emotion with its subject matter (Sypher 180).

Known as one of the powerhouses of this movement, Caravaggio helped to usher in the dramatic and emotive artistic style known as Baroque painting. The Baroque period grew in popularity because of its use of pathos, natural dramatism, accuracy, and forceful appeal of emotion in depicting the religious iconography of the Counter-Reformation (B Murray 46).

Artists like Caravaggio often utilized dramatic contrasts— lights and darks, concave and convex, Seaman 56 large and small— in their pieces with the overall goal of achieving contrasting equilibrium.

While mannerist scholars deemed it a time of ‘disintegration’ of commonly used artistic techniques, Baroque later became an era of ‘reintegration’ of both traditional meanings and techniques within the field of painting (Sypher 182). This is significant for the gradual growth in popularity of the later Humanist movement that was foundational for the development of the

Italian Renaissance.

History of the Lives of Arpino, Caravaggio, and Gentileschi

Cavaliere d’Arpino

Giuseppe Cesari, known as Cavaliere d’Arpino (1568-1640), was one of the most popular

Proto-Baroque artists of his time, with his most prominent patrons being Popes Cement VII and

Paul V (Waterhouse 5). Arpino’s work thrived during the Mannerist era of the Renaissance, yet his art was singularly unique from that of his contemporaries due to his tendency to depict a simplified subject matter, offer visual clarity throughout his pieces, and exhibit an inclination towards a blatant foreshortening of the scene (Voss 238). He was highly sought after by popes, dukes, and other individuals of great importance; yet, because of his ever-changing moods,

Arpino was known for abandoning projects, regardless of his patronage, in the middle of completion. His restless, often moody, personality made him a capricious, yet sought-after artist throughout Rome (239). Such unreliability, however, did not sway the rich and powerful of

Europe from hiring Arpino’s services, as can be seen by Pope Clement VII’s well known patronage of the artist.

Cavaliere d’Arpino was born the son of a lesser-known artist in the small Italian town of

Arpino in 1568 (Voss 239). During his early teens, the young Arpino received artistic training in

Rome. Because his talent brought financial support for his family, he continued in that line of Seaman 57 work, relatively unknown, until he was introduced and apprenticed to Niccolo Circignani. It was during his time with Circignani that his talent was discovered by the papacy and Arpino began to receive uncommonly important commissions and salary for an artist so young. Arpino’s first independent work as an artist was in the Sala Vecchia degli Svizzeri, painting a chiaroscuro figure within a Samson carrying the gates of Gaza scene (Voss 240). His career continued to grow until it hit its peak in the 1590’s, when he received commissions not just from the papacy, but from other powerful figures like the Roman senate (Voss 243).

As Arpino’s reputation in the art world shifted from student to master, he took on assistants of his own. One apprentice of well-renown was Michelangelo Caravaggio whose strong personality and infamous temper, according to German art historian Hermann Voss, helped create an inevitably “bitter hostility…. between teacher and pupil” (245). Eventually, however, Caravaggio left his teacher’s lessons and guidance behind and began to establish himself as a master in his own right, developing the Caravaggistic style and becoming increasingly more famous throughout the art world for his expressive, dramatic techniques. With the rise of Caravaggio and the fall of Arpino’s most powerful patron, Pope Clement VII, the artist gradually fell into obscurity in the Roman art world until his death in 1640 (Voss 244). Up until his death, his work remained statically the same, becoming “too inflexible as an artist to be able to rejuvenate himself” according to Voss (245).

Michelangelo Caravaggio

Michelangelo Caravaggio (1571-1610), a man both famous and infamous for his achievements and behavior, was one of the most influential artists of the Baroque period during the late 17th century. His works involved intense emotional encounters and experiences that contemporary pieces often did not depict. Historian Howard Hibbard states that Caravaggio was Seaman 58

“the only Italian painter of his time to rely more on his feelings than on artistic tradition”

(Hibbard vii).

Originally named Michelangelo Merisi at his birth in 1571, the young man adopted the name ‘Caravaggio’ after the title of his small home village near Milan (Hibbard 1). At the age of twelve, Caravaggio apprenticed to the Milanese painter Simone Peterzano. Under the artist’s care, the young man learned the fundamentals of painting, such as how to grind paints and prepare canvases and frescoes. However, because of his impatience and lack of respect for authority, it is believed that he never learned the fundamentals of academic drawing, nor did he truly learn the techniques needed to create dynamic compositions in his pieces (Waterhouse 21).

He also never did fresco work of his own, preferring instead to assist with other artists’ projects or to stick with the canvas (21). Often exposed to the colorfully vibrant and expressive

Giorgionesque works of artists like Savoldo and Moretto during that early period of his career, their techniques would later subtly reappear in Caravaggio’s work (Hibbard 3).

Coming to Rome in 1592-93 around the age of 20 as a relatively unknown painter with no patrons, the young Caravaggio began working for other lesser-known local artists. One such painter was Cavaliere d’Arpino, whose simplistic yet revolutionary imagery helped set the stage for the Baroque era that Caravaggio would later usher in (5). During his time in Rome, he surrounded himself with a community dedicated to bringing Pope Sixtus V’s vision of a frescoed

Rome to life, often assisting in projects that his masters were working on (Hibbard 11).

In his first few years in Rome, Caravaggio gained the support and patronage of many members of the Congregation of the Oratory, a society of Catholic priests (Waterhouse 23).

Through the commissions earned from the members of this organization, Caravaggio began to develop a religious style in which he conveyed the powerful emotions that would later be key to Seaman 59 the technique named after him—Caravaggism (25). Unfortunately, in 1606, the hot-tempered artist fled Rome after murdering a man to whom he had lost a wager on a tennis match, setting the tone for a life of constant wandering and violence wherever he settled until he died in 1610.

Forever the rebel, Caravaggio tended to depict Italian society's ‘lower life’ in often raucous and humorous ways, as seen in his A Concert of Youths (Fig 3.2), Bacchus (Fig. 3.3), and Cardsharps (Fig. 3.4).

Figure 3.2 ( Left). Caravaggio, Michelangelo. A Concert of Youths. 1595, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Caravaggio.net http://www.caravaggio.net/concert-of-youths/ . 1 April 2021. Figure 3.3 (Middle). Caravaggio, Michelangelo. Bacchus. 1598, Uffizi Gallery. Le Gallerie degli Uffizi. https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/bacchus. 1 April 2021. Figure 3.4 (Right). Caravaggio, Michelangelo. The Cardsharps. 1595, Kimbell Art Museum. KimbellArt.org https://www.kimbellart.org/collection/ap-198706. 1 April 2021

His hot temper made him apt to be drawn towards the unexpected, unconventional imagery. In keeping with his tradition of irregularity and naturalism, Caravaggio preferred to paint his subjects as they truly were (Hibbard 47). His naturalistic tendencies, use of dramatic lighting and dark contrasts (known as chiaroscuro), and his inclination to depict unconventional subject matter quickly drew a loyal following across Italy. Caravaggism, as it was eventually known, presented itself as a continuation of the Baroque imagery. His followers, known as the

Caravaggisti, sought to imitate Caravaggio’s highly emotional tenebristic imagery in their work

(Waterhouse 34). One of Caravaggio’s most fervent followers was Orazio Gentileschi, Artemisia

Gentileschi’s father, who would later pass on his knowledge of the style to his daughter.

Seaman 60

Artemisia Gentileschi

Artemisia Gentileschi (1593-1656) was born in Rome, Italy to the painter Orazio

Gentileschi and his wife, Prudentia. From an early age, the young girl expressed a strong interest in art, so her father accepted her as his apprentice. As mentioned in the first chapter, Artemisia was raised in Rome's artistic community, exposing her to various styles, techniques, and masters within the artistic trade. Her father, an established and well-known artist himself, was known for being one of the most faithful and effective Caravaggisti of his day (Christiansen 5). The elder

Gentileschi’s style was unique to that of his fellow Caravaggisti in that he built upon the realistic foundation that Caravaggio had established and used the techniques he learned from Caravaggio to influence the personal style that had brought him to into the artistic spotlight (8). Orazio

Gentileschi’s dedication to working from live models meant his pieces held a striking realism and naturalism that many other Caravaggisti had not yet mastered. Because Gentileschi was a dedicated follower (and assumed friend) of Michelangelo Caravaggio, the bold, emotive, realistic style of both artists would later influence Artemisia’s work as she began to develop her own painting techniques.

Building off of her father's knowledge, the younger Gentileschi jumped headfirst into the art world of Baroque Renaissance, producing her first piece, Susanna and the Elders, at the estimated age of seventeen (Christiansen 298). There is contention amongst art historians whether Gentileschi was the actual author of Susanna or, if, as was a common practice, her father painted the majority of the piece and let her help with its creation (298). This debate shall be covered in greater detail later on in this thesis. The Susanna was so skillfully and carefully painted as to be a true testament to the amount of skill the young artist had. It served as an Seaman 61 excellent promotional piece for her work and her father, her most vocal advocate, would often cite it when recommending her services to potential patrons (Christiansen 253, 268; Garrard 17).

As stated earlier, Gentileschi’s artistic style pulled strongly from the Baroque and

Caravaggesque movements that were popular during her lifetime. In her Susanna and many pieces afterward, she paid homage to the natural human form, creating subjects of believable beauty and realism that demonstrated a deep understanding of anatomy and perspective. Because of her skill and fame within the Italian art world, Artemisia eventually became the first female artist to be admitted into the exclusively masculine Florentine Accademia del Disegno (Academy of Design) in 1614 (Christiansen 268). She would later have an illustrious career in the arts, receiving support and patronage from prominent individuals like Michelangelo Buonarroti, the great-nephew of the famous Michelangelo, and the Grand Duke of Florence, Cosimo II

(Christiansen 257, 276; Garrard 35).

Artemisia’s Susanna also provided a brief insight into the kinds of works she would produce later in her career, especially when the subject matter was female. Because she had little to no other female companions in her male-dominated art field, it is assumed that Artemisia was the victim of numerous injustices and harassments (Garrard 21, 207). The most well-known of such experiences occurred two years after her career began when her father's friend and her teacher, Agostino Tassi, began sexually harassing her and eventually raped her.

Because Orazio was a public figure within Rome's arts community, he was friends with many artists who would frequently collaborate with and visit the artist and his family. One such friend, the landscape and marine artist Agostino Tassi, shared work with Orazio on a project in the Sala Regia when Artemisia came to visit her father (Garrard 19). Tassi soon became a frequent presence in the Gentileschi household after that encounter, often visiting his close Seaman 62 female friend, Tuzia, who lived in the house adjacent to the Gentileschi’s. Orazio Gentileschi eventually hired Tassi as a tutor for his artistic daughter in perspective painting. Artemisia

Gentileschi would later state in her testimony against Tassi that during his time working with her, she fell victim to unwanted sexual pressures and advances not only by Tassi but also by his friend Cosimo Quorli (Christiansen 285; Garrard 21). Distressed and desperate to maintain her virginity and sexual purity, Gentileschi resisted all advances for as long as she could.

On May 6, 1611, Tuzia, also a friend of the young Gentileschi, asked the young woman to come to her house and paint her children. Unbeknownst to Gentileschi, Tassi, frustrated that his seductions had not been successful up to that point, had solicited Tuzia’s help to achieve his licentious intentions. When Gentileschi arrived at the house, Tassi followed soon after. He asked

Tuzia to leave them alone, and, taking her children in hand, the woman quickly did so (Garrard

414). Tassi then proceeded to rape Gentileschi at knife point, something that was not surprising considering his sexually violent past (412). Because of her now ‘undesirable’ status in the eyes of Roman society, Gentileschi continued to have a secret affair with Tassi, clinging to his promise that he would eventually marry her and save the honor that he had taken from her

(Christiansen 286; Garrard 416).

A year into the affair, Orazio Gentileschi discovered what had happened and brought

Tassi to court. He claimed that the man had “committed a serious and great injury and damage….like a murder and committed by a person who is used to committing even worse crimes” against himself, ignoring Artemisia’s claim to victimhood (410). The trial resulted in

Artemisia Gentileschi’s public humiliation and torture, exposing her to character slaughter, torment by a thumbscrew, and invasive physical examinations. In referencing the direct trial transcript provided in Garrard’s Artemisia Gentileschi, Gentileschi’s claim to have resisted Seaman 63

Tassi’s advances directly contradicted his assertions that she had already had multiple affairs with other men long before he had raped her, therefore clearing him of any wrongdoing (463). At the end of it all, Tassi was sentenced to a mere five-year exile from Rome. In an attempt to salvage his daughter’s honor, Orazio quickly arranged for her marriage to artist Pierantonio

Stiattesi, a witness in the trial, who moved his bride from Rome to Florence a year later in 1613.

During the course of her life as an artist, Gentileschi’s work often focused on the subject of powerful women, female violence and anger, and sexuality. She often intermixed “worthy women” and weibermacht together in surprising ways. Scholars believe that both of her Judith

Beheading Holofernes’ were direct representations of the shame, anger, and rage that the artist experienced during that traumatic time in her life. A more in-depth analysis of these themes in both her Susanna and Judith will be discussed in this study's later chapters.

History of the Female Nude:

Because most Renaissance nudes were inspired to some degree by the Classical

Greco/Roman nude, it is helpful to understand the development of the female nude throughout history, beginning with the concept of ideal beauty that manipulated her creation. The Ancient

Hellenistic period's artistic world came under the influence of an intense obsession with mathematical perfection and idealized beauty (Clark 15). With the introduction of Polykleitos’ revolutionary Doryphoros (440 BCE), a bronze statue of the standing male nude that epitomized the mathematically ideal male proportions, this obsession led to the establishment of canonical rules that sculptors of Ancient Greece and eventually Rome would continue to follow.

Polykleitos’ work with proportional perfection signaled a new era in Mediterranean art, one obsessed with the perfect alignment and proportions of the human figure to achieve beauty as close to that of the gods as possible (Clark 15). This motivation became the cornerstone not Seaman 64 only of Greco/Roman art but also later of Renaissance art. However, in much of

Mannerist/Baroque art, there existed a significant push for idealized natural beauty instead of created perfection that had been popular in Polykleitos’ time (Clark 15-25). This concept made a reappearance with the revival of Antiquity during the Renaissance.

While the male nude was commonly seen and created throughout Antiquity, the female nude appeared rarely in Ancient Greece due to cultural, social, and religious reasons. With the rise of Aristotelian notions about the female body's inferiority, the female nude was not in demand across Ancient Greece. When Venus finally made an appearance in art, artists often covered her body in drapery, a technique termed draperie mouillée by the French, to hide her nakedness as much as possible and preserve her modesty (Clark 75). One of the most well- known examples of this is the Hellenistic marble statue Winged Victory of Samothrace, also known as the Nike of Samothrace, in the Louvre Museum in Paris, France. In stark contrast to this drapery tendency, the Grecian male was celebrated for his nudity and was often encouraged to expose his full figure (72).

As the female nude appeared more frequently in Greco/Roman sculpture between the 4th and 6th century BCE, she took on two different identities: the Venus Coelestis (Celestial) and the

Venus Naturalis (Vulgar) (71-89). Venus Coelestis signified the woman as the embodiment of desirable feminine qualities: chastity, purity, humility, virginity, and righteousness. She ascended to a celestial level, one untainted by the evils of this world. She was a goal to which women aspired. This Venus served, according to Marsilo Ficino in the late 1400s, as “ a nymph of excellent comeliness, born of Heaven and…. Her soul and mind are Love and Charity….the whole then, is Temperance and Honesty, Charm and Splendor” (97) .This Venus served to rescue her sexualized alter-ego, Venus Naturalis, from overpowering their shared imagery entirely. Seaman 65

Venus Naturalis represented the woman in her most sensually desirable state, as a sexual being who epitomized male desire, her own sinful nature, and the fantasies of her audience (Clark 71).

According to Caroline Arscott and Katie Scott in their discussions on Venus, she “invites us to see art itself as consubstantial with the body of the goddess: seductive in its contours, color, texture or surface irresistibility inciting feelings of pleasurable excitation” (Arscott 5). This

Venus offered her viewers the chance for sexual liberty and freedom to explore their desire

(Arscott 6). These two Venuses balanced each other out within the context of European art, ensuring that the Venus figure was never entirely sexual nor entirely pious. This duality created a twofold identity that women outside of paintings and sculptures were expected to balance in their own lives as well.

Both of these Venuses quickly translated into the iconographic art of the Early Christian

Church. As the Christian Church exercised more substantial influence on the Mediterranean art world, and as the mighty Roman empire faded, the Venus took on new identities. Venus

Coelestis was replaced with the Virgin Mary, whose secondary identities included Esther,

Lucretia, Susanna, and other well-known Christian or pagan women in history. Such women exemplified character or behavioral traits desirable for women to emulate themselves. Venus

Naturalis took on the identities of the Mary Magdalenes, Jezebels, and Helens of the Christian and pagan world. These women were often depicted as the sultry, sexualized figures available to satiate male desire to a certain extent. Because the European female body had for centuries been under the control of a patriarchal society, her depiction almost always served to edify her male audience and creator. As Venus Coelestis, she was presumably safe from the licentious passions of the men observing her and around her (though not always, as we will go on to see in Arpino’s

Susanna). Seaman 66

By the late 1400s, as Christian influence gave way to Humanist and traditionalist sway, artists found more freedom to explore the subject of femineity and sexuality in relation to the male gaze to which they were catering (Kren 143-44). When considering the nude in general during the late 1400s, artists worked to inspire their audience with the beauty and magnificence of their nude subjects, seeking to shift the narrative of nudity away from immorality and more towards an examination of human nature and passion (Kren 143-44). This rationalization for the morality of the nude in Renaissance art did not exempt the female nude from being serving the sexual or submissive purposes assigned to her by the male gaze. As referenced earlier, Kenneth

Clark summarizes the idea of a male gaze, saying “No nude, however, abstract, should fail to arouse in the spectator some vestige of erotic feeling…and if it does not do so, it is bad art and false morals” (Clark 8). John Berger in Ways of Seeing continues this line of thinking by observing that the woman within art does not exist for her own purposes but is rather displaying what “can and cannot be done to her” and is always at the mercy of the men around her (46).

Both the Venus Coelestis and the Venus Naturalis were bound to the state of being seen, yet not seeing themselves. They existed for the satisfaction of the male audience, not for themselves.

Although the female nude’s creator sought to justify the morality of her existence through humanist logic and rational, still she bore the immoral abuse of the male gaze.

As discussed earlier, the Renaissance era was interested in exhibiting masculine and feminine perfection through the study and portrayal of the natural human body (Kren 2). Artists like Michelangelo and Da Vinci dedicated long periods of their lives towards fully understanding and mastering the ideal human form, straying far from the stylized figures of the Gothic Era.

Christian theology continued to play an integral role in many artists’ interactions with the nude form, though not in the same way that it had a few hundred years earlier. Renaissance artists Seaman 67 worked to depict scientifically and visually accurate images of the Biblical characters they were illustrating to help the audience identify easily with such venerated figures (Kren 3). Because of a rising secular influence, the scientifically perfected figures served less righteous purposes than it had in the past, helping the audience to understand, relate to, and interact with the scenes they were viewing. The virginal nude prostrated across her bed now became more accessible to her audience. The bathing Susanna now excited both sexual fervor and religious admiration. The murderous Judith now helped her audiences to comprehend the actual consequences of their sins.

Conclusion:

This chapter has established the historical context surrounding each of this thesis’s four artifacts. To recap, this chapter provided a working definition and understanding of the historical analysis methodology that it employs later on to help the reader better understand the historical context of the artifacts and their artists. This chapter engaged in an in-depth discussion on the contextualization and history of the Italian Renaissance, touching on the development not only of its Humanist ideology but also the artistic styles that developed from the Middle Ages into the

15th century onward. In this discussion, I posit that with the introduction of Humanism, a greater acceptance and debate of new ideas, techniques, and sciences was introduced, making education more accessible for artists to then apply to their works. Because of such access and acceptance, we find influences of Humanist beliefs in the realistic works of Caravaggio, Arpino, and

Gentileschi, which help to enhance the emotive power in each of their pieces.

Some of the most relevant and important gender norms encompassing the Italian

Renaissance woman was considered, so as to contextualize not only Gentileschi as a female artist but also Arpino and Caravaggio’s understandings of a woman’s role in their works. Aristotelian philosophy on the female sex, viewing her as a malformed male, permeated all facets of Italian Seaman 68

Renaissance gender norms, making it incredibly difficult for women and feminist writers alike to vouch for the equality and validity of the female sex. Such ideas also pervaded the development of the female nude, often constricting her to one of two categories: Venus Coelestis or Venus

Naturalis. The saintly virgin or the seductive temptress. Her treatment within Italian Renaissance art is important to understand, especially when looking at the depictions of Susanna and Judith in that time.

In chapters Five and Six, through this analysis of the preconceived gender norms and ideas that surround the female nude, our analysis of the Judith and Susanna works shall be further enriched. Our understanding of Aristotelian philosophy and the male gaze shall enhance and contextualize our examination of the ways in which Gentileschi, Caravaggio, and Arpino have either adhered or rejected such gender norms and ideas in their works. The themes of Judith and Susanna, two women who have been used as both Venus Naturalis and Venus Coelestis, will make Caravaggio, Arpino, and Gentileschi’s positions more apparent to analyze.

After our discussion of Renaissance gender norms, this chapter delved further into the lives of Arpino, Caravaggio, and Gentileschi, touching on some of the more important moments and experiences of each artists’ lives. Arpino’s skill using the Mannerist style established him as an artistic powerhouse of his day, becoming the favored artist of the Curia and other powerful patrons until around 1620, when pupils like Michelangelo Caravaggio began to surpass him in skill and artistic flexibility. Caravaggio’s strong temper and rebellious nature eventually led to the birth of Caravaggism, a branch of the dramatic Baroque period that often focused on the unconventional subject matter. Gentileschi’s experiences with sexual persecution and assault strongly influenced many of the themes and imagery in her work during the entirety of her career. This deeper understanding will also assist in our analysis of the two Judith and Susanna Seaman 69 paintings of, as we are able to bring each artists’ personal experiences and narratives to our analysis and apply them to the undertones and messages of the paintings.

Then this chapter continued the discussion with a brief overview of the artistic techniques that strongly influenced each artist’s styles, examining the Baroque period’s effect on

Caravaggio and Arpino’s work and Caravaggism on Gentileschi’s. Finally, this chapter moved on to provide a general overview of the development of the female nude throughout history, explaining the differences between the Venus Coelestis and the Venus Naturalis. All four of the artifacts depict the female nude as either Susanna or Judith, yet each utilized the two Venus’s differently for the same subjects. This deeper understanding of the birth and development of the female nude throughout history helps us as we analyze a dynamic Venus in both Judith and

Susanna pieces. Our knowledge of the history of the female nude enriches our understanding of the important ways in which Gentileschi, Caravaggio, and Arpino appealed to or rejected the male gaze and the predetermined narratives surrounding their heroines.

Chapters Four and Five will compare and contrast the works of the selected male artists

(Arpino and Caravaggio) against their female peer (Gentileschi) to see if the artists have treated their female subject matter in a culturally ‘normal’ way or if they have rejected such norms for a different narrative.

Chapter Four

Analysis of the Arpino and Gentileschi Susanna Paintings

Introduction:

The apocryphal Book of Susanna tells the story of the Hebrew wife Susanna and her trials at the hands of two elders in her community. After attracting their unwanted attention,

Susanna is the victim of sexual harassment and persecution as they attempt to convince her to Seaman 70 commit adultery with them. Unwilling to sacrifice her purity and honor, Susanna refuses to give in to their demands. In revenge, they slander her name to those around her, falsely accusing her of committing adultery with a made-up lover, an offense punishable by death. However, before

Susanna's execution for her alleged crime, the prophet Daniel intervenes and ensures that justice punishes the wicked elders for their lies.

Susanna's harrowing experience has long been the subject of European Christian art, appearing as early as 350 BCE in the Cemetery of Pretestato (Garrard 185). A less dramatic

Lucretia, the Susanna of early Christian iconography is a "woman worthy," often used for pictorial allegory. In denying the lustful elders' desires and willingly facing death, Susanna exhibited bravery believed to be uncharacteristic for her sex. Because of her strength, she served as a useful example for the Renaissance era's misogynistic ‘feminist’ writers who argued for a woman's worth. Such writers often praised the female sex's value by appealing to the patriarchally created qualities that women should possess, such as chastity (Chadwick 41).For example, in arguing the merit of Lucretia, a Susanna counterpart who committed suicide rather than be dishonored by rape, scholars espoused Lucretia's fidelity to her husband and faithfulness to her chastity rather than her worth as a woman (Garrard 147).

As with most other female European artistic subjects, the Susanna theme stems from the

Virgin Mary narrative, espousing the desired feminine characteristics of purity, chastity, and faithfulness. Susanna also often appears as the embodiment of innocence endangered by the vices of the external world. Susanna's story became a tale thematized by good and evil, by the strength of will and character against temptation and adultery. When the more secularized

Renaissance era began to interact with the Susanna theme, her role as a 'Virgin Mary' metamorphized into something more sinister and sexual. Her story took on greater nuance, Seaman 71 becoming not only an allegory for the chastity of a faithful wife and the victory of good over evil but also as a scenario for the taboo of rape/forced adultery and feminine seduction. Margarete

Miles observes that we can find such dichotomy throughout religiously themed nude paintings of the Renaissance, and that “nudity or partial nudity in religious paintings creates in viewers tensions of two kinds. First, there is a tension between cultural and natural meanings…(and)

Second…a tension between erotic attraction and religious meaning” (Broude 33). We shall see more of these tensions in our upcoming examination of Arpino’s and Gentileschi’s Susanna.

As patronage of the arts privatized in more significant numbers during the sixteenth and seventeenth century, greater quantities of secularized works touching on themes not approved by the Church appeared. Up until the Renaissance, and, for many centuries after, the female nude, as discussed earlier, was assigned two contrasting roles in her life: the Venus Coelestis and Venus

Naturalis. Susanna, often depicted as a nude woman bathing alone in her garden, did not escape her role as Venus Naturalis, often serving as the visual victim for male pleasure and rape fantasy

(Chadwick 42; Garrard 194). By the seventeenth century, as privatized male patronage grew in influence on Renaissance artists' works, the Susanna theme dove quickly into more intensely erotic imagery (Chadwick 41-42; Garrard188).

As Venus Coelestis, Susanna stood as the standard for the chaste and faithful Christian woman whose priority was her sexual purity (Chadwick 41). The elders served as visual reminders of the licentious threats to a woman's honor that existed in the world. Susanna also served as a reminder that good would always gain victory over evil. However, when painted for a more secularized male audience, Susanna became a "sexual opportunity" instead of the desired standard (Chadwick 42; Garrard 191). Belgian writer Max Rooses commented on one such Seaman 72

Susanna painting by Rubens, saying that the elders' persecution seemed "a gallant enterprise mounted by two bold adventurers" (Rooses 171).

The taboo desire of raping a woman who has declaratively denied the male's advances draws from traditional themes appearing in the mythologies of Helen, Europa, and Io (Garrard

192). Such heroines did not want to engage in sexual activity yet were forced to participate and then deal with the consequences of their misfortune. The victims were often depicted as licentious women, enticing the innocent male audience to commit adultery, when in reality, the male initiated the sexual encounter without the woman’s knowledge or consent (Chadwick 42) .

When explaining why such a shift in Susanna's own story occurred, American Art Historian

Mary Garrard commented that "In art, sexually distorted and spiritually meaningless interpretations of the theme prevailed because most artists and patrons have been men, drawn by instinct to identify more with the villains than with the heroine" (Garrard 94). While this may be an extreme accusation towards the male gender, it holds merit when one examines the Susanna's of Allesandro Allori, Cavaliere d'Arpino, or Tintoretto. Garrard's words also point to the importance of the female perspective on Susanna's plight, especially when that female has also experienced sexual harassment and persecution in the face of powerful men around her.

This chapter will compare and contrast the Susanna's of Cavaliere d'Arpino and

Artemisia Gentileschi. Each artist, having lived and been influenced by the same cultural and historical period during the Italian Renaissance, interacted with the Susanna theme differently.

This analysis will explore whether the Susanna created by feminine and masculine hands continues predetermined cultural traditions or if the difference in each artist's gender has influenced the Susanna theme's specific treatment. Seaman 73

Analysis of the Arpino Susanna

Fig. 4.1. Arpino, Cavaliere d’. Susanna and the Elders. 1606, Private Collection. “Cesari, Giuseppe (Cavaliere d’Arpino)”, https://www.wga.hu/html_m/c/cesari/index.html. Accessed 6 November 2020

When the Susanna theme was embraced by 16th to 18th-century Renaissance artists, the erotic potential that existed within her nudity and potential assault became a popular lens through which she was created and seen (Chadwick 42; Garrard 191). Cavaliere d'Arpino's Susanna and the Elders was one such example of the erotic nuances inserted into a story that once centered around chastity and purity.

Sitting as the focal point of the piece, this Susanna sits casually at the base of two pillars.

She is painted in the act of combing out her long blonde hair, her arms framing her face and directing attention back to the shy, almost seductive smile across her lips. Arpino's Susanna is a young woman possessing the fullness of womanhood. Her rosy cheeks and lips play well against the gold of her hair, and she is caught in the acts of undress and adornment. The golden, rosy vibrancy to Susanna’s complexion is a pallet choice that Arpino could have intentionally made to detract from the theme of ‘distress’ and ‘surprise’ that her story includes. Because she is so youthful, beautiful, and perfect, she is not tainted by the negative emotions her situation would Seaman 74 demand. The warmth of her skin and hair invites the viewer to enjoy her beauty and allows them to ignore any potential discomfort that she might be feeling at being observed in such a way.

Susanna looks directly at the viewer, entirely unaware of, or selectively ignoring, the potential danger behind her. She sits with her legs splayed apart, a flowing white and gold cloth draped to cover her womanhood. Her rounded left leg rests in full display on a pillar, directing the viewer's attention both to the separation of her legs and to the sexually spurting fountain before her (Garrard 189). Such implied lines dictate a narrative of sexual complicity. We are visually introduced to the piece through Susanna’s positional dominance as the focal point of the canvas. We initially meet her gaze, being the focal point of her body, as the eye is often drawn first to faces and to the brightest areas of a piece before moving on to take in other elements of a painting. After noticing Susanna’s shy smile and inviting gaze, our eye travels down her plump body until it is directed by the abrupt shift in angle of her right leg to what is happening near the lower half of her body. This visual journey, from Susanna’s face to the spurting fountain before her, introduces a narrative of sexual openness. After taking in Susanna’s smiling gaze and then open legs, the eye travels further along the composition to take in the ‘invitation’ of the spurting fountain, thus connecting the dots for the viewer of what Arpino is enticing us to do. Susanna sits before us on “graceful display,” using her body to provide a sexual invitation for the viewing male audience, and secondarily, for the viewing elders behind her.

Behind Susanna and the carved scene hides the two elders, depicted as older men residing in the shadow of her beauty. Their golden tunics match her hair's color and the accent lines of the cloth between Susanna's legs, possibly continuing to connect their lustful desires with their need to possess her womanhood for their pleasure. The two men seem to be conversing with each other, not looking at the young woman and yet obviously discussing her. The nearest Elder's Seaman 75 right hand seems to point to her. They are visibly aged and decrepit, very far from the vitality of their youth. This lack of vitality is important to the overall narrative that Arpino is dictating, as the male viewer will feel less sexually threatened by the presence of two men way past their own sexual prime.

The elders exist in the background of the composition, hierarchically inferior to the young woman before them. Although their actions are the reason why this scene exists in the first place, they are narratively and visually inferior to Susanna in this painting. They are a visual afterthought, especially considering their lack of vibrancy next to Susanna’s shining white skin.

The eye spends more time taking in the sexual invitation of Susanna than it does observing the older men behind her. They are a visual and compositional addendum in this piece, further emphasizing Susanna’s complicity in the sexual harassment she will potentially face in the future.

The elders are a far enough distance to present only an observational discomfort for

Susanna and not be an immediate danger to her. Nevertheless, any viewer familiar with the tale will know that the two men will soon approach her and make their intentions known, placing her in a dangerous predicament. However, Arpino has chosen not to put his Susanna in immediate danger, instead having her entice the viewing audience with her lidded eyes and seductive stance.

She is not in immediate danger from the elders and therefore does not need the pity, worry, or concern of her audience.

As discussed earlier, the Susanna theme appears to fulfill both the Venus Naturalis and

Venus Coelestis imagery. I shall support this argument through both historical and feminist analysis, proving that Arpino's work depicts Susanna as the Venus Naturalis, an embodiment of feminine sexuality and desirability under the control of her male creator and audience. Seaman 76

Application of Historical Analysis

Fig. 4.2 One of the first and most noticeable elements of the erotic undertones of Arpino's

Susanna is in the direction of her gaze (see Fig. 4.2). During fifteenth century Italian society and onward, to look directly into the male’s eyes was a sign of being a “loose woman” (Brucker, 27).

Only those women who lowered or averted their eyes were considered to poses modesty and chastity, according to Patricia Simons (Bruode 50). Arpino, by directing Susanna’s gaze to directly to her male viewer’s eye, has given her the personality of a “loose woman,” a prostitute who invites, through her eyes, a sexual encounter.

In his commentary on the female nude, John Berger makes this point: "That part of a woman's self which is the surveyor treats the part which is the surveyed so as to demonstrate to others how her whole self would like to be treated…Men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at" (46-7). In this Susanna, we find the woman as both the surveyor and the surveyed. She is consciously aware of herself and her positioning, engaging with the audience she knows watches her. Although she is about to experience danger, her coy smile and hooded eyes, open legs, and tilted head all convey feelings of engagement and welcome. She is aware of her beauty, the unattainable pleasure that she provides, and adeptly exists as the Venus Naturalis.

The positioning of Susanna's body affirms this point as well. As she grooms herself, calling attention to the beauty of her golden hair, she has situated herself to display both the Seaman 77 round softness of her body's curves and her willingness to engage in seductive behavior. This action connects her to her Venus predecessors, who were believed to often behave in the same manner (Garrard 188). Although Susanna is unaware of the elders behind her, she has recognized her male audience before her and positions herself to "arouse in the spectator some vestige of erotic feeling" (Clark 8). Such intentions are reinforced by the distinct separation of her legs and directional flow of the eye from her outstretched left leg to the spurting fountain before it. This

Susanna is no longer a 'woman worthy,' a visual representation of wifely chastity and purity. She has instead become the seductress, drawing both the elders and the audience into temptation.

The elders' age, appearance, and vicinity in relation to Susanna also affirm the theme of

Susanna as Venus Naturalis rather than Venus Coelestis.

Fig. 4.3 Arpino's Susanna is an example of the rape fantasy discussed earlier in this thesis. She is the beautiful, available young woman who has become the object of the viewer’s desire. One can interact with her gaze and consider all that could be done to her body without feeling shame or guilt, because her coy smile lets the viewer know she is open to their advances. Susanna is no longer blameless and pure and is therefore available. Such visual messaging, contrasted by the details of Susanna’s story, creates the tension needed for a rape fantasy.

It is important to note that the scene does not depict the exact interaction between

Susanna and the elders but instead portrays the moment before Susanna is fully aware of their presence. They have not yet caused her any harm nor engaged in villainous activity. They are Seaman 78 two elderly, physically unassertive figures who present little to no male prowess. Although they are the antiheroes of this story, they appear as sympathetic characters who look but do not touch.

They are not behaving as true villains, deserving of the death they will later receive. They seem to be considering their next moves instead of being caught in the middle of their sin (see Fig.

4.3). Because Arpino has chosen not to paint the two elders engaged in their wicked pursuits, yet his Susanna still sits seductively before both them and the audience, the tone and 'fault' in this narrative has shifted. The elders are less responsible for their behavior towards Susanna because she has engaged in lewd behavior before they make their presence known.

Arpino’s Susanna adheres to the strongly emerging artistic tradition of the sexualization of her story. Themes of chastity and purity are overshadowed by themes of adultery and forbidden lust. The Israelite wife seen in this painting beckons to her male audience and asks them to consider what they could do if they were in the Elder’s shoes and she prostrated her body before them.

Application of Feminist Analysis

In this painting, we find a vivid example of the duality between female chastity and sexuality that many women during the Italian Renaissance were required to balance. Before us, we see the alluring Susanna in all of her beauty. She is enticing and perfect in every way. She has made herself available for both the audience and the elders through gaze and stance. Yet as the biblical embodiment of chastity and purity, she must keep herself untouched. She can allure and seduce but must eventually refuse the sexual advances that such actions may lead to.

The Arpino Susanna nods to the Aristotelian idea that the woman is morally inferior to the male, playing on the theme of the female as the temptress, luring the male to sin and to give in to his most base desires. Such ideology removes all guilt and fault from her male counterparts, Seaman 79 placing the weight of her story, and the Elder's deaths, on Susanna rather than on the elders.

However, despite the seductive Susanna that Arpino has chosen to display, we are still forced to reckon with the Susanna we were introduced to in the Book of Susanna. The story describes her as a faithful wife, vigilant and protective of her purity and chastity, even unto death. In written word, she is untouchable and unavailable. However, visually, in the Arpino Susanna, she calls to her observers, enticing them to touch what they know they must not. We see Arpino potentially projecting his own interpretation and male perspective of the Susanna story into his painting.

Arpino is aware of his subject's strong desire for purity and chastity. Nevertheless, he depicts

Susanna as he, and the surrounding Renaissance culture, would want her to be—a willing and participatory Venus.

It is this decision that provides us insight into Arpino’s situated knowledge as it pertains to the gender norms of his external culture. He interacts with Italian Renaissance gender norms through the lens of Aristotle’s teachings, depicting Susanna as an item to be used for sexual gratification rather than as a whole person unto herself. He has placed the woman in submission to the male gaze and understands femininity only through the lens of what it can do for himself and other male audiences. His status as a male artist in a patriarchal society is revealed through this Susanna, as we notice that she is entirely under his control with little autonomy of her own.

She fulfills the role he determines, just as women in Arpino’s societal circles must also do when living in a patriarchally dominant society.

I also argue the reappearance of the gold coloring in Susanna's hair, the fold of fabric between her legs, and the elders' clothing behind her reiterates the idea of male ownership over the female body. Susanna brushes and caresses her long blonde hair, a gesture that draws attention to a beautiful, commonly sensual part of her that then directs the gaze to the rest of her Seaman 80 waiting body. Her hair is visible enough in the piece to demand the viewer's attention as they contemplate how it must feel. The same rich gold that appears to flow from Susanna's head also appears in the threads of gold that decorate the white cloth between her legs and, most importantly, the men's gold tunics behind her (see Fig. 4.4 and 4.5). This is a critical triad, as it connects the Elder's desired ownership of Susanna's womanhood, and therefore her virtue and purity.

Although this Susanna seems to be the catalyst for whatever future sexual activity might happen to her, it is the elders', and secondarily Arpino's, potential pleasure, not Susanna's, that is the primary focus of this image. John Berger asserts: "How a woman appears to a man can determine how she will be treated….That part of a woman's self which is the surveyor treats the part which is the surveyed so as to demonstrate to others how her whole self would like to be treated" (46). Susanna has submitted herself to her male audience.

What Arpino has done in this piece is dictate Susanna’s voice for her. He speaks through her in the way that he believes a woman would speak in Susanna’s situation. She is aware of her nakedness, and she is aware of the effect it will have on the men who observe her. Because of this awareness, Susanna demonstrates what she can provide for her observers by opening her legs, smiling coquettishly, and directing her gaze to the audience. She emphasizes the pleasure that she can provide for the men around her and her willingness to allow such behavior to occur.

She uses her voice to convey the script laid out to her by Arpino, in that she is open and willing for sexual engagement.

The Arpino Susanna touches on many commonly understood Renaissance gender norms.

The Arpino Susanna is an anticipatory piece, painted in the moments before the potential sexual encounter can occur. Because Susanna's recorded rejection of the elders has not yet transpired, Seaman 81 both the two men and the observing male audience are left contemplating the possibilities afforded them by this scene. In this piece, we see the ideal Venus, both chaste and yet sexual, desirable yet untouchable, available yet not. We are presented with a situation meant to entice the sexualized male gaze and turn its attention from the true purposes of the Susanna story.

Arpino’s Susanna exists as a woman of inferior morals and motivations to that of her male counterparts. She is aware of the pressures around her and submits to them. In this work, we find the woman as Renaissance gender norms would desire her to be.

Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5 Analysis of the Gentileschi Susanna:

Although many scholars affirm that Artemisia Gentileschi was the original creator of her

Susanna and the Elders, it is worth discussing some of the reasoning behind the contention over her authorship to provide a more robust understanding of the piece itself. At first glance, it does seem evident that the younger Gentileschi is the author of this painting. Her name is written out boldly in the lower left-hand side of the piece, the date 1610 is beneath the signature (see Fig.

4.6), and the accurately painted female nude seems to leave little doubt that a highly talented female artist painted the Susanna. Perhaps her name's appearance indicated a signature instead of an inscription, and Gentileschi's access and understanding of the female form gave her a marked advantage over her male peers. However, some historians have proposed that Artemisia

Gentileschi was too young in 1610 to have painted such a markedly skillful rendering of the Seaman 82 human form. It was initially believed that she was around 13 years old at the time (Christiansen

253; Garrard 184). It was not until 1968, when confirmations put her at seventeen years old and declared that the signature on the work had been part of the original piece, that skeptical historians shifted their arguments to focus on other Susanna elements to support their assertions

(Christiansen 253; Garrard 183).

Fig. 4.6 Regardless of Gentileschi's age, for someone so young to have painted such a stunning piece could be difficult to believe, especially if her father's testimony that she had only been practicing art for a year were correct. Some scholars have validly theorized that Orazio

Gentileschi might have painted the Susanna with the assistance of his daughter but then put her name as the signature as a way to promote and support her budding career (Bissell 3; Chadwick

41; Garrard 184). Keith Christiansen refuted this point in his book Orazio and Artemisia

Gentileschi by asserting that Orazio Gentileschi had not interacted frequently enough with the female nude at that time to have believably painted such a realistic figure (297). Artemisia

Gentileschi's constant access and personal understanding of the female body revealed itself through the many apparent and tiny details throughout the Susanna nude.

A more modern theory proposed about the piece's authorship is that Artemisia

Gentileschi was indeed the Susanna's creator. However, she painted it with her father's assistance and guidance, as was a traditional practice for apprentices and mentors in the arts during Seaman 83

Renaissance times (Christiansen 298). Support for this theory stems from the positioning of the model and her reference to artwork Orazio Gentileschi would have known well and could have guided his young daughter towards. Based on the evidence provided by other art historians, and to assist in supporting the thesis of this study, it will be assumed that the younger Gentileschi was the original creator of this Susanna painting.

Fig. 4.7. Gentileschi, Artemisia. Susanna and the Elders. 1610, Pommersfelden, Germany. “Susanna and the Elders,” Art History Project, https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/artemisia-gentileschi/susanna-and-the-elders/. Accessed 7 November 2020.

Artemisia Gentileschi's take on the Susanna theme is markedly different from that of her male peers. It is visually evident in her earliest piece that she has painted this Susanna not just to satisfy the demands of her patriarchal society but also to convey a woman's perspective on the potential assault of the young Susanna. The Susanna we see in this image is both Venus Coelestis and a regular woman genuinely reacting to the situation presented to her (see Fig. 4.7). She is neither idealized nor controlled in her depiction and finds freedom to respond to the elders’ advances as she sees fit.

In Gentileschi's Susanna, the young woman is again at the forefront of the image, immediately demanding the viewer's first gaze. She sits in the lower-left side of the painting, Seaman 84 caught in violent reaction to the imminent danger from the two elders leaning over her. Because she is located in the foreground of the piece, the viewer is compelled to immediately take in her tense body before they can process the rest of the scene. The eye enters the canvas in the lower left side of the scene, immediately focusing on the lightest point of the piece—Susanna’s nude body. It then travels up her form to the triangular shape of Susanna’s face and arms intertwined with the elder’s bodies and limbs. This shape engages the eye and encourages its continuous motion throughout all three character’s bodies. Susanna’s outstretched arms move the eye along the base of the triangle and up into the first elder’s extended body, where it eventually notices the second elder and then finally travels back down to Susanna’s face to begin its triangular journey all over again. This compositional choice tells us that Gentileschi intended for the eye to first acknowledge Susanna’s distress and fear before moving on to learn of the reasons for her anxiety, thus setting the entire tone of the scene.

This Susanna is naked, similar to her Arpino counterpart, and rests on the stone benches of her bathing area's outer edge. Her legs, which are slightly closed and pointed in the elders' exact opposite direction, are separated by a plain white cloth that also serves to cover her womanhood. She is in an apparent state of undress, caught moments before she is about to take her bath, and is unprepared for her visitors. This is a stark comparison to her Arpino counterpart’s similar position, in which we also found her with her legs divided by a streaming white cloth to cover her womanhood. The significant difference between the two women, however, lies in the positioning of the lower half of their bodies. Where Arpino’s Susanna directs her legs towards the oncoming elders, Gentileschi’s moves away from them. Where the white and golden cloth of Arpino’s Susanna draws a direct connection to the Elders’ ownership of her Seaman 85 sexuality, Gentileschi’s white cloth serves as a shield against the elder’s, and the external viewers, prying gaze.

This Susanna has devoted the entirety of her attention to acknowledging and rejecting her male persecutors. She has been caught existing. In reaction to being 'surveyed,' she rejects the sexual attention and male gaze laid on her nude body. Contrary to the Arpino Susanna, who directly acknowledges and engages with her male audience, this Susanna does not glance at those who might be outside viewers, gazing in at the scene. Both Susanna and Gentileschi know that others are surveying her. Instead of adjusting her body to please their gaze, the painter and the painting reject the viewers, closing Susanna's body off to potential penetration, pushing away all advances, and refusing to sexualize the nudity of her body.

Gentileschi's take on this scene captures Susanna's immediate reaction to the elders’ demands for sexual favors. Her head is flung as far from the two men as possible. Her hair, which seems to move with the action, emphasizes the violence with which she rejects them. Her hands and upper body also emphasize the gesture of refusal, taking on a defensive motion that conveys her desire to protect herself from their advances. Her expression is marked by disgust, fear, and anger at the elders' demands, also helping to emphasize this Susanna's rejection of adultery and unrighteousness. Her eyebrows furrow, her lips are curled above her teeth, and her expression is depicted not for beauty but for the communication of disgust and fear.

The elders placed behind Susanna are markedly different from Arpino's elders in a few key ways. Firstly, they are positioned directly beside the young woman, almost touching her as they whisper to her and invade her personal space. They exist in the mid-ground of the piece, and yet try to move into Susanna’s foreground position as much as they possibly can. The distinct lack of a visual hierarchy in regard to Susanna and the elders is also rather striking for this piece. Seaman 86

They lean their bodies over the wall, making their intent obvious and emphasized. This also means that their large bodies are sized similarly to Susanna’s body. This significant difference to

Arpino’s elders, who exist as miniature figures in the background, indicates that the ‘blame’ for the elders’ misdeeds has shifted entirely onto them through Gentileschi’s compositional decisions. She does not allow us to consider Susanna as singularly to blame for the predicament she is in. Because the elders are not hierarchically ‘less than’ this Susanna, their sins against the young woman are made plain to see for the viewer.

Their ages are different from Arpino's elders as well, with one of the two looking to be a man in his mid to late thirties and the other looking to be in his fifties. They are still in the prime of their manhood. They are very capable of exerting power and control over the young woman, as opposed to Arpino's elders, who are both aging and non-threatening to Susanna's immediate safety. The male viewer could easily find his own age in relative proximity to the ages of the elder’s he sees in this piece, creating another uncomfortable connection between himself and the offending party.

We do not find a distinct repetition of color in Gentileschi’s pallet that we found in

Arpino’s Susanna in regard to connecting the young woman to the elders, as well as in idealizing the young Susanna. There is little connection between the colors on Gentileschi's elders’ and

Susanna, further emphasizing the distinct divide between the two parties. The two elders exist as entities unto themselves, specifically separate from Susanna. We see this point supported through the continuous use of reds on the clothing of the elders that does not appear on Susanna’s body.

Gentileschi’s lack of ‘idealization’ through color on Susanna is similarly a striking pallet choice.

Susanna is pale, almost gray, lacking the supple golden and rose undertones of her Arpino sister.

While there is a slight rosy blush to her cheeks, it is not distinct, nor does it serve to emphasize Seaman 87 her beauty. We do not see her the glow of youth and loveliness that we find in our earlier

Susanna, pointing again to the desired narrative of surprised, unwanted attention and anxiety.

The lack of extra thematic elements, such as a fountain, a scene, and a garden, in

Gentileschi's Susanna, is also a significant difference from her male peer's Susanna (Chadwick

42; Christiansen 296; Garrard 189). This scene utilizes the barest elements from the Susanna story to convey only what is happening to the young woman at that moment. There is nothing else added to the image to communicate a different message. The audience must focus the entirety of their attention on the three actors in the scene, and they must come to their own conclusions using only the cues that they can pull from what they are seeing. This enclosed, limited space also furthers the emphasis of Susanna’s discomfort and entrapment (Chadwick 42).

Just as the eye has little negative space to navigate throughout the canvas, so too does Susanna have little space to move herself further from her assailants in this scene.

In this work, we find differences to the Arpino Susanna that must be more deeply discussed to understand the feminine influence at play. I will now examine this piece through a historical analysis both of the piece and the culture surrounding its creation, as well as through a feminist analysis comparing the gender norms of that surrounding culture to the gender norms appearing within Gentileschi’s piece.

Application of Historical Analysis

I asserted earlier in this chapter that the Gentileschi Susanna did not fulfill the demands of the Venus Naturalis who is often applied to other Susannas during the Italian Renaissance.

Instead, Gentileschi’s Susanna is painted as a Venus Coelestis and as a regular woman reacting normally to a potential sexual assault. Seaman 88

I draw my rationale for this statement, firstly, from the positioning of the Susanna nude.

Gentileschi successfully avoids allusions to the Venus of her contemporaries and instead references a popularly copied figure from a Roman Orestes sarcophagus, as noted by Mary

Garrard and R. Ward Bissell in their discussions on the Gentileschi Susanna (Bissell 5; Garrard

196). As a summary of the Orestes narrative, Orestes's mother and her lover murdered his father.

In revenge, Orestes sought the Oracle of Delphi's advice on how best to redress his father. After the Oracle told Orestes what to do, he returned to his mother and her lover and killed them, avenging his father's unjust death. Outraged that he committed matricide, the Furies began to pursue Orestes, regardless of his just reasoning. Once more with the help of the Oracle, Orestes eventually escaped the Furies' wrath after months of running. This story, carved into Roman sarcophagi, is often depicted as a dramatic scene of death, blood, and violence.

A specific figure on one such sarcophagus, Oreste's nurse, holds her arms before her in a visibly defensive gesture that was later emulated by artists like Gentileschi, Michelangelo, and

Raphael, and was most likely known to Orazio Gentileschi, who would have brought it to his daughter’s attention (Bissell 5; Garrard 196). In adopting that same defensive pose as the nurse,

Gentileschi's Susanna references the theme of the 'sympathetic character' being unjustly persecuted by forces outside of her control (Garrard 198). In avoiding the reference to Venus

Naturalis, Gentileschi has boldly asserted the idea of Susanna's innocence and visible distress at the hands of her persecutors.

Secondly, in addition to referencing the Orestes theme in this Susanna's positioning, the young woman’s facial features and lower body reject the gender norms of Gentileschi's time (see

Fig. 4.8). As described earlier, the task of the woman, summarized by the teachings of the

Ursuline Order, was to "never show the disordered passion of the soul, with undue sadness or Seaman 89 gaiety, impatience, anger, and similar emotions" (Zarri 88). However, Gentileschi's Susanna, with her furrowed brow, upturned nose, and opened mouth documents her emotional responses of disgust and anger. She does not control herself to preserve the stability of her situation. She is neither calm nor collected, nor does she shy away from assertively rejecting the elders' observation.

Fig. 4.8 Susanna's total rejection is made complete in the positioning of her legs. Closed as best as her awkward positioning can allow, Susanna has clearly emphasized her unwillingness to participate in sexual activity. A simple white cloth separates them that neither rests directly on her womanhood nor references any coloring on the Elder's attire. Gentileschi has replaced the spurting fountain, lush gardens, and beautiful scenery of Arpino's Susanna with a sturdy stone balustrade, accentuating Susanna's vulnerability and discomfort (Chadwick 42; Christiansen 296;

Garrard 189). Her lower body is turned as far as physically possible from the elders, firmly asserting her unwillingness to engage in sexual activities.

Gentileschi's elders also differentiate her Susanna from that of her contemporaries, not only because of their placement in relation to the young woman but also because of the potential identity Gentileschi may have given to one of them. Gentileschi's alleged sexual persecution and Seaman 90 rape occurred around the same time as the completion of her Susanna painting (Bissell 8).

Scholars propose that many of the themes found in the Susanna story strongly correlate to

Gentileschi's own experiences (Bissell 8; Christiansen 290; Garrard 204). This coincidence provides a convincing explanation for many of the stylistic choices that Gentileschi utilized in her first masterpiece. Garrard and Bissell observe, in their discussion of the two elders, that

Gentileschi, like Susanna, was the victim Agostino Tassi and Cosimo Quorli’s constant harassment, as well as Orazio Gentileschi’s exploitation during her trial (Bissell 8; Garrard 204).

The two assailants in both Susanna's and Gentileschi's stories threatened sexual blackmail by false adultery and promiscuity should their targets refuse their advances (Garrard 204). Garrard's assertion that one of the elders, the younger man with his arm wrapped around his older companion, was, in fact, either Tassi or Quorli, is not an implausible hypothesis, especially because both Tassi and Quorli had thick dark hair and tan skin.

Fig. 4.9 The proximity of the elders also differentiates the Gentileschi Susanna from her peer’s.

The two men are caught in the exact instant of their sexual persecution of Susanna. Gentileschi has allowed no other interpretation of the elders other than as villains, based on their proximity to Susanna and her reaction to their words (Chadwick 42). They are the rogues of this story, deserving of the justice they will later receive. They are not the victims of a beautiful woman's sexual temptations. They are not innocent bystanders observing a visually pleasing figure before them. They loom over the vulnerable Susanna, invading her personal space and causing her such Seaman 91 visible distress that she pushes them away. Art historian Whitney Chadwick also makes the interesting point that Gentileschi’s elders’ positioning seems to implicate the external viewer as a

“third witness,’ equally complicit in the conspiracy at hand (42).

In this piece, we find a woman who behaves against the historical gender norms

Gentileschi’s time. She does not cater to the male gaze of her audience and makes it very clear that she rejects all sexual advanced. Gentileschi’s Susanna pushes the audience to remember the original themes of the apocryphal story and ensures that the villainy of the situation is placed on the elders’ shoulders.

Application of Feminist Analysis

Gentileschi's Susanna, in shutting down the elders' advances, does not allow her observing male audience, nor the elders, to wrestle with the dueling values of female purity vs. sexuality. This Susanna is the embodiment of the 'woman worthy.' She both preserves her dignity and viscerally rejects the world's sinful advances around her, regardless of the consequences that threaten her. She does not sit for the pleasure of the male gaze, as Arpino's Susanna has done.

We encounter this Susanna as a young woman caught unawares during the vulnerable act of bathing, and both her expression and body language says as much. We see the woman behaving as her faith, and as her own self-preservation, would ask of her.

I would argue that Gentileschi's Susanna rejects Aristotelian and biblical ideals on female moral inferiority/submission, and in doing so, provides us insight into Gentileschi’s standpoint on the Aristotelian and biblical standards that govern her daily life. Susanna does not participate in the act of bathing to arouse the lust of the elders or her audience. The viewer is almost tempted to feel as ashamed as the elders should be at disturbing her in such an indecent manner. This

Susanna does not exist for others' pleasure, but rather to merely exist, and is persecuted for doing Seaman 92 so. In the same way, Gentileschi is declaring that she does not desire to be sexually persecuted by the “elders” that surround her on a daily basis. She has experienced sexual harassment and has come to the conclusion that she does not wish to continue to be a victim to such advances.

This Susanna shares with us the “voice” that Gentileschi has found in regard to her situation as a female artist. Through this piece, Gentileschi is declaring that she vehemently refuses the sexual advances of the men in her life who persist in harassing her.

The Gentileschi Susanna also speaks more to the female than the male gaze. In this piece, the woman can see herself sitting on the stone bench, afraid for her own safety. She can relate to

Susanna’s anger at the Elder's bold intrusion into her privacy. In painting the intimate detail of the elders' features, and their proximity to Susanna, Gentileschi encourages the female viewer to place the men who may have caused her grief in her own life in the place of the two elders causing Susanna grief. The anger, disgust, and rage that any woman might feel at being sexually harassed are justified and normalized in this piece, whereas, in Arpino's Susanna, the female audience might feel abnormal or undignified for reacting so viscerally. While the male viewer can appreciate the beauty of the Gentileschi Susanna's body, he cannot fully enjoy himself or apply his fantasy to the scene because of the pronounced discomfort Susanna is feeling and the villainy that the two elders are conveying. This Susanna's discomfort is in stark contrast to the

Arpino Susanna, who sits comfortably open, willing, and ready for whatever happens to her.

Should Gentileschi’s Susanna legitimately speak more to the female than male gaze,

Gentileschi has placed herself as an outsider within, in regard to the patriarchal artistic world. As a praised and acclaimed artist, Gentileschi gained access to the male dominated world of art and placed herself alongside other male creators and artists during the Italian Renaissance. Her work, recognized and accepted by the patriarchal artistic world, still spoke more to female audiences Seaman 93 than male. Gentileschi’s work therefore became an access point for the viewing female audience that did not previously exist in any substantial capacity within the patriarchal artistic world of the

Italian Renaissance.

As pointed out previously, the Arpino Susanna describes a moment not of sexual persecution but rather sexual potential. She lounges, untouched and unbothered, in her bath, and entices both the audience and the elders of her own free will. The Gentileschi Susanna, however, reacts differently to the narrative. By spotlighting the elders in the exact moment of their sin against Susanna, Gentileschi strips them of their public image of innocence and piety. She shows them for the shameless men their deeds reveal them to be. Susanna's visceral rejection of their advances indicates a rejection of the elders and a rejection of any advances made on her by her male audience. She does not allow, nor consent to, the sexualization of her own body.

Conclusion

The story of Susanna is uncomfortable at best. She is a beautiful young woman who is sexually persecuted and almost put to death due to of circumstances out of her control. Because of her beauty, men who she should trust and respect attempt to take advantage of her and force her to choose between her life or her purity. Her harassment should not be a beautiful nor peaceful moment to observe. Nevertheless, like Arpino, many Renaissance artists took her distressing story and painted it through the veneer of male pleasure, editing the narrative until it was difficult for the audience to understand who the villain in the story truly was. Through positioning, gaze, composition, style, and messaging, the visual Susanna narrative began to shift from one of innocence in danger to promiscuity available. Through the voice given her by

Arpino, Susanna continuously balances a line between being the “woman worthy’ that her story, Seaman 94 and Christianity, describes her to be, and Venus Naturalis, an enticing temptress inviting the sexual encounter that put her in danger in the first place.

The spurting fountain almost flowing between her open legs provides a visible description of what could be done to the bathing Susanna. Her smile, eye contact, and grooming behavior give both the elders and outside male audience the permission they need to continue imagining their fantasy without guilt. We find a vivid example of the intersection between male experience, desire, and female vulnerability in Arpino’s Susanna. She is the perfect temptation, sitting as an ideally beautiful woman whose actions describe her willingness to participate in the taboo activity of adultery. Although she is culturally forbidden, being a married woman, she still presents an opportunity for infidelity. Arpino has created a fantasy situation, either for himself, his patrons, or both, and has thus given us clear insight into his perspective of the gender norms of his time.

Artemisia Gentileschi's Susanna, however, refuses to provide such a pass for her audience and persecutors. Through expression, positioning, and reaction, both Susanna and

Gentileschi have disconnected from their role as Venus Naturalis and have given visual voice to the Gentileschi’s true feelings about unwanted male advances. When male viewers try to force their fantasies and desires on this Susanna, they have a difficult time finding any hint in her actions that she would play along. We find Susanna as the apocryphal described her, innocently accosted in a situation in which she was naked and harassed for such nakedness.

The elders, too, are not given a pass of virtue. Instead of being positioned as Arpino would have them, far from the bathing woman and in a state of physical harmlessness, they directly invade Susanna’s personal space, interrupting a private event with a request so abhorrent Seaman 95 that the young woman breaks the rules of Renaissance gender norms and displays her extreme disgust and anger.

Arpino’s Susanna depicts a scene of male fantasy and desire. Even though the young wife is culturally unavailable, her actions present the possibility of forbidden promiscuity. The narrative of this piece, while historically aligned with the desires of a more secularized patronage, twists the original themes of the Susanna story and shows the Israelite woman in a new light. Gentileschi’s female perspective on a story almost entirely dominated by male narrative gives new perspective to the apocryphal tale, and she uses her position as an outsider within to connect with generally disregarded female audiences. She presents the feminine side to a harrowing story that she and many of her peers know all too well. In this piece, the woman’s voice finds space to react to unwanted male advances. I would go so far as to suggest that

Gentileschi’s Susanna serves as a reminder to Renaissance Susanna’s of the original purposes and lessons that the apocryphal Book of Susanna intended for her story.

Chapter Five

Analysis of the Caravaggio and Gentileschi Judith Beheading Holofernes Paintings

Introduction:

According to the apocryphal Book of Judith, when the Assyrian general Holofernes came to conquer Israel's people, all hope seemed to be lost. The Israelites fell into a panic, uncertain of how they could save themselves against such odds. Judith, an Israelite widow known for her pious devotion to God, volunteered to go into Holofernes' camp and rescue her people. With her servant Abra's help, Judith successfully managed to behead Holofernes with his sword and bring it back to her people to be used as a deterrent against his army. She saved her people from annihilation and was venerated for the rest of her days. Seaman 96

This chapter will compare and contrast the Judiths of Michelangelo Caravaggio and

Artemisia Gentileschi. Although each artist was influenced by the generally same cultural and historical period during the Italian Renaissance, they interacted differently with the Judith theme.

This analysis will explore whether the Judith created by feminine and masculine hands continues predetermined cultural traditions or if the difference in each artist's gender influenced their treatment of the Judith theme.

As seen in the last chapter, if Susanna served as a prime example of a “woman worthy,”

Judith, Holofernes's killer, understandably stood in as an example of a weibermacht or “powerful woman.” Although she appears in apocryphal texts as a holy and chaste Israelite widow, Judith’s behavior directly rejects the popular narrative of male dominance and superiority. She is a woman who uses what skills and gifts she had—her seductive allure, her intelligence, and physical strength—to the fatal disadvantage of her male counterpart, exposing his weaknesses.

In early Christian iconography, the Judith/Holofernes dynamic served as an allegory for

Christian virtue being victorious over the fleshly sins of pride and desire (Christiansen 308;

Ciletti 42-45). She also epitomized the Virgin Mary’s, and thus the Church’s, victory over Satan, who is represented by Holofernes (Christiansen 308; Ciletti 42). While under the control of the church, Judith’s chastity and her, according to Ciletti, “explicit denial of any ‘pollution’ at the hands of Holofernes,” were strongly emphasized wherever possible (Ciletti 41).

The Holofernes of these Judith scenes was often the most relatable character for the male patron and audience, although he is the understood villain of the story. In early Christian iconography, he represented man’s fall from grace due to weakness, temptations, and worldly desires (Ciletti 52). He served as a warning to his male peers more than Judith served as a Seaman 97 heroine for her female audience, and the focus of many Judith scenes often centered more around

Holofernes’ death than Judith’s victory.

For example, in depicting the Judith/Holofernes theme during the late 16th century, Dutch artist Hendrick Goltiuz uses language to take the attention away from his heroine’s victory. He places Judith prominently in the work's foreground. She stands victorious with a sword in one hand and the head of Holofernes in the other. However, encircling the image are the words fastus praecedit lapsum (“pride goes before a fall”), providing a visual and written warning to men of the dangers of giving in to sin (Garrard 291). Although Judith is at the forefront of the image, visually triumphant and heroic, she does not exist for the pleasure or empowerment of the female viewer, nor does she receive credit for her victory. She is there to serve as a proverbial warning for the male (291).

There are moments where Judith does serve a purpose for her female audience, but not, as she does for male audiences, for their sexual pleasure or as a figure of inspiration. Rather, the more piously depicted Judiths serve as a reminder of the importance of chastity and submission to the patriarchal culture and dominant church surrounding her female audiences. “This comes as no surprise,” asserts Ciletti, “given the early church’s exaltation of chastity and its concomitant condemnation of the dangers of female sexuality, which are the familiar opposites of the patriarchal construction of femineity” (42). As the empowered ‘villainess’ or the pious ‘saint’, female audiences are not able to take ownership of Judith and observe her for their own pleasure or edification. She is alienated and removed from them because of their inability to relate to her or gain anything from her. The only purpose that Judith can serve for female audiences is as a mouthpiece for a church that has continuously emphasized obedience and subordination. Seaman 98

Such a narrative helped to ease discomfort at the thought of a woman’s victory over a man. However, as most Judiths were created more for the male audience than for the female, the

Judiths of these paintings were often depicted as beautiful yet unemotional figures, entirely detached from their actions (292). Although she is performing a violent and typically masculine act, Judith regularly seemed as though she had very little emotional involvement in Holofernes' conquest. We see examples of this disengagement in the Judith paintings of Boulogne (1627-

29)(Fig. 5.1), Mantegna (1495-1500)(Fig. 5.2), and Sirani (1660)(Fig. 5.3). Although her behavior directly emulates that of the male warrior she kills and contradicts what was understood to be normal for the female gender, who were expected to behave cunningly, quietly, and subtly, the connection that Holofernes might have felt to killing another person, as both a warrior and an alpha male, does not appear on Judith’s own face. Caravaggio’s Judith Beheading Holofernes popularized such a depiction of the Israelite heroine in the mid 17th century (Christiansen 311).

Fig. 5.1 (left) Boulogne, Valentin de. Judith and Holofernes. 1627-29, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta. “Judith and Holofernes,” The Met Museum, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/663680. Accessed 20 February, 2021. Fig. 5.2 (middle) Mantegna, Andrea. Judith with the Head of Holofernes. 1495-1500, Widener Collection. National Gallery of Art, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.1181.html. Accessed 20 February 2021. Fig. 5.3 (right) Sirani, Elisabetta. Judith With the Head of Holofernes. 1660, The Walters Art Museum, United States. “The mysterious death of a young art teacher,” ArtHistoryProject, https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/elisabetta-sirani/. Accessed 20 February, 2021.

When male artists portray Judith as having an emotional reaction to her crime, she generally epitomizes what the male may fear most— the powerful and empowered female taking Seaman 99 pleasure in conquering the male. This Judith develops vindictive, ugly, and disdainful qualities.

Such women became Renaissance society’s examples of the dangers of the weibermacht. These women possessed undesirable characteristics that show them to be more masculine than feminine, rejecting gender norms, and challenging male dominance. Because weibermacht often rejected cultural gender standards, they were frequently depicted as villains to prove that powerful women are undesirable and evil. Such Judiths made male audiences uncomfortable in their display of masculine behavior. For example, when the debate about the replacement

Michelangelo’s David with Donatello’s Judith (another example of a weibermacht Judith) arose amongst 15th century Florentines, one deliberator asserted that “Judith is an omen of evil, and no fit object where it stands” (Klein 41).

Because they seemed to actively participate in Holofernes' slaughter, they were villainized and became a different kind of warning to the external male audience (Ciletti 52).

These Israelite heroines seemed to say, “beware of the dominant woman and the downfall she could bring upon you should you let her rise to power”. An example of this kind of woman can be found in Rubens’ Judith with the Head of Holofernes (Fig. 5.4), which depicts a smirking, evil

Judith, who seems to relish in her victory.

Fig. 5.4. Rubens, Peter. Judith with the Head of Holofernes. 1616, Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum, Braunschweig, Germany. “Judith with the Head of Holofernes” WikiArt, https://www.wikiart.org/en/peter-paul-rubens/judith-with-the-head-of-holofernes-1616. Accessed 10 December, 2020 Seaman 100

The Judith of the Renaissance era balanced both roles as weibermacht and Christian allegory in hundreds of different depictions of her story. Some of the more notable Judith paintings to emerge from this time included Botticelli’s The Return of Judith to Bethulia (1470),

Giorgione’s Judith (1505), and Allori’s Judith with the Head of Holofernes (1613), in addition to

Gentileschi’s and Caravaggio’s Judiths. Garrard summarizes the historical complexity applied to the Judith figure when she asserts that

Judith’s decapitation of Holofernes has been regarded ambivalently throughout the ages.

In its biblical and exegetical context, it is a “good” act, carried out decisively by a heroic

patriotic woman who saves her people through her courageous deed. . .Yet Judith is not

heroic in a straightforward way. Her conquest of Holofernes is made possible

by….strategies that evil women employ against good men. . .[Judith] is perceived as

typical of [her] sex in [her] crafty and fatal deception of men (292).

A familiar third character to appear in the ‘Judith beheading Holofernes’ story is Judith’s maidservant, Abra, who keeps watch as Judith accomplishes her mission and assists her mistress in escaping the Assyrian camp. In many Renaissance pieces, Abra often appears as a juxtaposition to Judith. Her mistress, when portrayed as a beautiful, young maiden, idealized in every manner possible, stands different from Abra, who is then often illustrated as a wrinkled older woman. Although technically a ‘good’ character, Abra is commonly used as the scapegoat for much of Judith’s negative qualities (Garrard 298-99). Garrard posits that Abra allows for the transference of her mistress’s baser qualities to ensure that Judith’s lethal act is not tainted by human sin or desire but is instead a righteous act used to serve as an example for humanity (298-

99). However, Artemisia Gentileschi’s Abra rejects that narrative and serves as an equally supporting character in the lethal act, instead of as a patsy for Judith’s negative characteristics. Seaman 101

Analysis of the Caravaggio Judith

Fig. 5.5 Caravaggio, Michelangelo. Judith Beheading Holofernes. 1599, Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica at Palazzo Barberini, Rome, Italy. “Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1599 by Caravaggio,” Caravaggio: Paintings, Quotes, Biography, https://www.caravaggio.org/judith-beheading- holofernes.jsp. Accessed 22 November 2020

Caravaggio’s Judith (Fig. 5.5) is a striking example of his mastery over naturalism and his pallet's chiaroscurist tendency. As mentioned previously in this thesis, the chiaroscurist style employs dramatic lights and shadows contrasting against each other within the work to exaggerate the depicted scene (Waterhouse 33). In this painting, we see a dramatic emphasis on

Holofernes’s death through the use of bright, light colors, such as that used on Judith and

Holofernes’s body, positioned directly beside the blacks and darker colors of the surrounding background. Such a chiaroscurist technique serves to direct the eye to the main subject of the image, Judith, and then move it to Holofernes in the throes of his death. Abra is a secondary character, and her supporting role is emphasized by the fact that she nearly blends into the background compared to her peers.

In this piece, we also find a primary example of the Caravaggistic style that Caravaggio developed. The subjects, clothing, and lighting are painted with a precise realism and true naturalism commonly seen in Caravaggio’s works. Examples of this include the believable wrinkles on Abra’s face and body which emphasize her age compared to Judith’s, the intricate Seaman 102 folds of the fabric on Judith’s dress, the red drapery behind her, and the sheets of Holofernes’s bed. The ‘Judith beheading Holofernes’ theme also appealed to the Caravaggistic tendency towards depicting highly emotional and intense imagery.

In this piece, we observe the moment of Holofernes’s death through the use of a basic compositional structure. Holofernes and Judith, the main subjects of this scene, exist on three of the four points of interest in the composition, with their bodies intersecting via Judith’s hand and

Holofernes’ head in the lower left corner of the piece. The eye immediately enters the canvas through Judith’s vibrantly white dress, which stands in drastic contrast to the black negative space around her (a stylistic choice that nods to Caravaggio’s standard pallet). The eye is then pushed down the implied lines of her downward angled arms until it encounters the subject of

Judith’s attention. From there, the eye is directed along the length of Holofernes’ body until it eventually exits the canvas. It is only as an afterthought that we as viewers notice Abra, who stands in the shadow of Judith’s vibrancy and does not call much attention to herself based on the muted tones of her clothing and face.

Although the scene is narratively chaotic and violent, Caravaggio has expertly balanced his characters and created a peaceful negotiation of the visual hierarchy of this piece. Where

Holofernes’ large, horizontal body holds much visual weight in the scene, he does not entirely dominate the canvas because Judith and Abra’s combined presence takes up the other half of the canvas. Although Judith and Abra stand over Holofernes’ prone form, they do not dominate him as a male because of the distance that Judith’s outstretched arms create between the three people.

Holofernes is a visually significant part of the composition, and his size balances out Judith’s height over him, thus fighting the general visual hierarchy that we would assume we would find in this piece. Seaman 103

Judith is caught in the act of killing the Assyrian general. Yet, the assassin we see before us looks not like a villain, nor an avenging heroine of her people, but rather an innocent, beautiful young woman, who is standing as removed from the killing as is physically possible.

She explicitly denies “any ‘pollution’ at the hands of Holofernes,” as Ciletti’s earlier point had observed (41-42). She stands as the piece's focal point, clothed in a white and brown dress that draws attention to her pure skin, breasts, and beautiful collar bone. Although she is in the process of carrying out what should be a physically taxing act, she is unruffled and undisturbed in her grace. Not a hair is out of place, and not a speck of blood or sweat stains her body or clothes. In this piece, we find an intentional ‘disarming’ of this strong feminine character by Caravaggio in a way that dictates the narrative of the story while also denying her any victory.

This idea of disarming Judith can be found in her physical and metaphorical removal from the assassination comes through her body’s positioning and facial features. Although the act of pulling Holofernes’s sword through his neck should have required a considerable amount of force and leverage, Judith seems to possess neither of those advantages. She runs the blade through her victim’s flesh, muscle, and neck bones with surprising ease. The only signs of her physical strain appear in the slightly budging muscles and tendons of her forearms, leaving the rest of her person unengaged from the process of beheading Holofernes.

Although Judith is killing in a manner that was historically associated more with masculinity than femineity, Caravaggio eases the tension between gender and action through the emotional aversion evident on Judith’s face. What we see is not anger, rage, or fear as she violently kills the man who threatens her people, but rather a subtle concentration and perhaps mild disgust. Her eyebrows are somewhat turned up, and her mouth is very slightly twisted into what could most believably pass for mild repulsion. Judith’s actions and expression do not mar Seaman 104 her beauty, maintaining her position as an object to be observed, desired, and used, rather than confronted or feared. Because she does not exhibit culturally ‘masculine’ involvement in the killing (excitement, rage, enthusiasm), she is not a threat to her male audience. Caravaggio has successfully removed both blame and credit for the act from his heroine with a few subtle angles of her facial features. She can only hope to serve as a pleasantly beautiful warning at best for those who gaze upon her.

We find Abra to be the visual contrast to Judith in almost every way. The servant stands as a gaunt older woman, with no feminine beauty or grace. Her lack of visual interest helps the viewer to get past superficial splendor and directly confront Abra’s apparent bloodlust.

Caravaggio’s Abra stands as the scapegoat for all of the negative associations that should fall on

Judith’s shoulders. The old servant stands beside Judith, watching every move the young woman makes with a fierce intensity and interest. Her lips purse in concentration, eyes bulging almost out of her head with the raptness of her gaze. She is clothed in mottled browns and greys and is wrapped more in dark colors than light, making her a shadow to Judith’s vibrancy.

Abra grips the bag that will soon hold Holofernes head, ready to accept the prize from

Judith’s actions. Although what Judith has done could be considered an act of war, and therefore a justifiable execution, her intentional ending of the male life could arguably make her actions less than palatable in certain depictions of her. While Abra is not actively participating in the assassination, she is in close enough proximity to it and displays enough interest in what Judith is doing to be equally as guilty as her mistress should the execution be seen as negative rather than heroic.

Holofernes is also striking in his behavior and response to the surprise attack. Although the Assyrian general is inebriated at the time of his demise, it is surprising that he does not seem Seaman 105 to fight against Judith. He is a soldier whose first instincts, regardless of his intoxication level, would understandably have been to fight back, and yet he lies there, helpless before her blade.

He is naked and vulnerable in the bed, positioned submissively beneath Judith’s outstretched arms. Without having the scene's contextual information, a viewer might not see the enemy

Assyrian general as the apocryphal villain of the scene, but rather the victim. He glances up into

Judith’s face, frozen with recognition and shock at the unlikely identity of his assassin. What should have been a night of sexual conquest for Holofernes quickly shifted into a violent death.

Application of Historical Analysis

As discussed previously in this chapter, the Judith of the Renaissance era balanced two roles within her story's visual depiction. On the one hand, she stood as the allegorical representation of justice and Christian victory over the vices of luxury, greed, and pride (Garrard

85; Ciletti 42). It was Holofernes’ death, rather than her triumph over him, that was the central focus of many Judith pieces. His beheading served as a warning for his viewers against the dangers of the external world to Christian holiness and the perils of allowing sin to reign unchecked inside one's soul. In such pieces, like Caravaggio’s Judith, we find the Israelite heroine stripped of all ‘masculine’ qualities, who participates in the act as a beautiful, pure, ideal

Venus who is emotionally aloof from the act itself. Although in this role, Judith serves as a metaphorical judge doling out punishment for Holofernes’ sins, she still exists for the pleasure of the male gaze. This observation is affirmed by the depiction of Judith in the Caravaggio work as the epitome of Venus in perfection (Garrard 291). Because of the young woman’s beauty and lack of personal investment in the killing, she both attracts her male audience and helps them understand the lesson her crime is trying to teach them. Seaman 106

In such Judiths, Garrard observes that it is often Holofernes’ pain and agony, more than

Judith’s triumph, that is the central focus of the piece (291). In Caravaggio’s Judith, the character with the most emotional response and relatability is Holofernes. He is given a truthful response to his agony and death, and it is easy for the viewing male audience to put themselves in his shoes and understand the danger that they, too, might face should they give in to their sinful desires (Fig. 5.6). The same cannot be said for Judith. She is stripped of almost all emotional responses to her behavior. She seems to distance herself not only from her crime but also from her audience, becoming a beautiful yet distant figure (Fig. 5.7).

Fig. 5.6 Fig. 5.7 During the Middle Ages, when the Judith story centered more firmly around the allegory of Christian victory over evil forces, Holofernes frequently stood in as the visual representation of the Devil, with Judith being the Christian Church (Christiansen 308). It was Caravaggio’s

Judith that introduced a significant shift in the treatment of both Judith and Holofernes.

Caravaggio’s piece provided a more empathetic figure in Holofernes, making him relatable to the external male audience (Garrard 291). Once the villain of the story, the Assyrian general became the tragic hero, brought to catastrophe because he allowed his sins to get the better of him (291).

It is interesting to note that while the Renaissance Judith exists within multiple complex roles, the Renaissance Holofernes tends to live only as the tragic hero, brought to his downfall either through his own sins and vices or through the evil scheming of his female counterpart. Seaman 107

I assert that Caravaggio’s Holofernes is also given a reprieve from being the villain of this story. He lies beneath Judith, entirely at her mercy. He does not fight back, threaten her, or embody any elements of villainy ascribed to him by the apocryphal story. He exists more as an

Icarus, a tragic hero brought low because of his own hubris. Just as Judith’s lack of emotional and physical investment in the slaying seems to keep her from assuming the villain's role, so too does Holofernes' lack of apparent immorality alleviate him from being the villain of this story.

Who, then, stands to be the anti-hero of Caravaggio’s piece? According to the apocryphal story, the antihero should be Holofernes, who threatens to destroy God’s chosen people.

Nevertheless, we have established that Holofernes is shown as a tragic, yet empathetic, hero brought low because of his choices. The villain is not Judith since she displays none of the qualities of a weibermacht, which would have her pose as a threat to masculine dominance.

Instead, she stands acts as an indifferent vessel for divine justice. I believe Caravaggio intended for Abra to stand in as the scapegoat for this painting's evil motifs, a technique commonly employed throughout the Judith theme’s history.

When the Judith subject is used as an allegory more than an example of a weibermacht, as Caravaggio’s seems to be, Abra's character becomes a useful catalyst for the sins of her mistress. As stated earlier, Garrard theorizes that the Abra character, often painted as an older woman who contrasts Judith’s youth and beauty, allows for all the negativity associated with her mistress’ crimes to pass on to her, letting Judith slaughter without fear of being guilty (Garrard

298; Hibbard 67). Even though the apocryphal Abra is a fiercely loyal and devoted servant who assists her mistress in her mission, in Renaissance art, she transforms into a bloodthirsty character who is identifiable as the villain of the story. Seaman 108

Fig. 5.8

Caravaggio continues this tradition in his Judith, having Abra stand in rapt anticipation of the bloody deed her mistress is carrying out (Fig. 5.8). For his Judith to remain pure and unstained by her actions, in order for the young woman to fully appeal to male desire, she must be blameless. Therefore Abra, who is old where Judith is young, unappealing where Judith is beautiful, anticipatory where Judith is removed, serves her purpose well (Hibbard 67).

Application of Feminist Analysis

In a previous discussion on the gender norms encompassing the Renaissance woman, this thesis observed that the desirable Italian woman was calm, demure, and submissive in her posture and behavior (Zarri 88). Although she should aspire to be beautiful and should try to please the male gaze upon her, temperance and chastity were the qualities most strongly encouraged in the Italian Renaissance woman (Knox 5). Whether intentionally or not,

Caravaggio affirms such a desire in his own Judith, painting a young woman of remarkable beauty who seems to have complete control over her emotional response to her actions.

This provides us insight into Caravaggio’s situated knowledge as it pertains to the gender norms of his external culture. He interacts with Italian Renaissance gender norms through the Seaman 109 lens of the church’s teachings, depicting Judith as a virginal, pious figure who finds no pleasure or enjoyment in the domination of a man. He perceives this Judith to be an allegorical figurehead for the church defeating the evils of Satan, while also including gendered ideas surrounding femineity throughout his heroine’s appearance. We understand what the ‘ideal woman’ must be to him through this beautiful young heroine. His status as a male artist in a patriarchally religious society is revealed in this Judith, as we notice that she is used to both affirm cultural ideas around the ‘ideal woman’ and to teach her male audience a lesson about the dangers of sin and pride.

His Judith has found the cultural balance between Venus Coelestis and Venus Naturalis.

She is pleasing to the male gaze and stands to be observed not only by her male audience but even by Holofernes and Caravaggio himself. She fulfills male sexual desire with her perfectly clean, pure skin, supple breasts, and soft, delicate facial features (Fig. 5.9). Her lack of emotions also fulfills such a fantasy. Because she does not seem to enjoy or invest herself in the killing, she is available for male attachment and possession. What distaste does appear on her face, through the furrowed brow and pursed lips, makes her a more ‘forgivable’ executioner. She seems as though she does not want to kill the General, and therefore she is less stained by the act of killing. If this Judith expresses any gratification in her conquest of Holofernes, it would be difficult for her male audience to enjoy her.

Fig. 5.9

Seaman 110

Although it is challenging to go so far as to assert that Caravaggio’s Judith exists as a

‘woman worthy,’ she does serve as an allegory for Christian justice in the face of sin and vice.

She exists as a warning to her male audience. As Broude pointedly asserts when discussing the topic of female subjugation in art, “Images often served to exemplify and reinforce correct moral behavior for both women and men, but with the difference that messages to women were of regulation and control, while those two men were of inspiration and caution” (Broude 8).To make such an admonition easier to understand, Caravaggio has created an idealized woman who lowers the guard of her audience and permits them to accept her warning without conceding to any form of dominance or power. Caravaggio has applied a male lens to this story, depicting a pleasing message that is easy to accept for his male peers. Judith exists for purposes entirely out of her control and stands to be seen by others, not to see others herself. The vibrancy of her coloring and positioning as the focal point of the piece emphasizes this idea.

Caravaggio’s Judith was painted by and for the male gaze, and the stark contrast between her lack of emotion and Holofernes’ passionate response affirms this idea further. Garrard asserts that Holofernes’ “physically explicit, unidealized features contrast extremely with the emotionless, late maniera beauty of the mannequin-like heroine…the female conventional, the male real” (291). Holofernes’ expressive response to his decapitation is both understandable and relatable. His male audience can easily replace his features with their own and appreciate why he reacts the way that he does. Holofernes exists as the natural, actualized male.

Judith is not a natural, actualized female. Instead, Caravaggio has painted his Israelite heroine as the ‘female conventional’ or the idealized Venus (291). Judith is not relatable to a female audience because of her perfection and lack of emotion. She stands in the control of male desire instead. Her appearance holds no appeal for female onlookers because she was not painted Seaman 111 with them in mind. Although her victory over the male general should have been a victory for her gender, that connection is undone because of the male lens applied to the piece. The apocryphal Judith could arguably become a feminist icon, a woman who has rejected the idea of masculine dominance and has taken her fate into her own hands. However, in the Caravaggio

Judith and many works like it, she cannot take such a role. Should her violent behavior appear in an artistic piece, it is demonized instead of praised, denying Judith the victory she deserves.

Analysis of the Gentileschi Judith

Fig. 5.10 Fig. 5.11 Fig. 5.10 Artemisia Gentileschi, Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1611-12, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples. “Artemisia Gentileschi: Judith Slaying Holofernes,” SmartHistory, https://smarthistory.org/gentileschi-judith-slaying-holofernes/. Accessed 20 November 2020 ; Fig. 5.11 Artemisia Gentileschi, Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1620-21, Uffizi Gallery, Florence. “Artemisia Gentileschi: Judith Slaying Holofernes,” SmartHistory, https://smarthistory.org/gentileschi-judith-slaying-holofernes/. Accessed 20 November 2020

Artemisia Gentileschi created two Judith Beheading Holofernes paintings. The first, known as the Naples Judith (1612-13) (Fig. 5.10), was painted almost immediately after her rape trial and is currently exhibited at the Museo Capodimonte in Naples, Italy. The second Judith, known as the Uffizi Judith (1620) (Fig. 5.11), is a revised version of the original and is currently being held at Le Gallerie degli Uffizi in Florence, Italy. Both pieces are similar to each other, with a few noticeable differences between them. Seaman 112

For this thesis, I will be examining the Uffizi Judith. I have chosen this painting, firstly, because it is more naturalistic and believable in its depiction of the violent assassination that

Gentileschi had in mind to illustrate. Secondly, this Judith possesses additional elements not found in the original that help to further support Gentileschi’s intentions within the entire composition. Thirdly, although the original Judith was done directly after Gentileschi’s rape trial and the Uffizi Judith was done years later, I have chosen to examine Gentileschi’s revised version because it still carries with it the emotional intensity and visual messaging that she intended for her first Judith. The Uffizi Judith does not diverge from Gentileschi's message for the piece but rather enhances her meaning.

The Uffizi Judith conveys Caravaggio’s stylistic influence on Gentileschi’s work. Her chiaroscurist use of dramatic dark shadows and background contrasting against the vibrant highlights on each subject’s body is similar to Caravaggio's pallet choice in his Judith. However, where Caravaggio’s Judith emphasized a clear focal point in the piece by highlighting the young heroine’s figure, Gentileschi’s Judith does no such thing. Judith, Holofernes, and Abra all exist equally in the composition; each person is highlighted similarly to the other, directing the gaze in a triangular movement that constantly compels the viewer to keep interacting with each of the three characters. Gentileschi’s tendency towards a Caravaggistic style is continued in her use of a more naturalistic approach when painting her subjects, refraining even more than Caravaggio did from idealizing her figures in this scene. We see in the skin of Judith and Abra the wrinkles, bends, and imperfections that would have naturally been produced by such forceful movements.

Gentileschi’s tendency towards naturalism is also apparent in the spurting of blood from

Holofernes’ neck, which is often one of the singular examples used by scholars to justify the violence of the piece. Seaman 113

The Judith of this piece is not a conventionally beautiful woman. Garrard observes that

Gentileschi’s Judith is “a rare female character who escapes the stereotypes of maiden, virago, and crone” (323). Her slitted eyes, frowning face, and furrowed brow distort any potential for beauty and seems to be a more extreme elaboration of the Caravaggio Judith’s expression.

Although she is a visibly mature woman, whose breasts and curves are apparent to the viewer, they are not on display for the audience but rather make an appearance because of her body's movement (323).

Judith wears a delicate golden dress and seems to have a wig on her head, as suggested by its more stylized, stiff appearance (323). A bracelet decorates her left forearm, and a close examination reveals two identifiable figures carved into it. The first, according to Garrard, is a female holding a bow, and the second is a person with what might be an animal (326). Garrard believes that these figures refer to Artemis, the virgin goddess of the hunt who is known for her independence from masculine domination (326). Bissell contends this assertion, stating that the figure in the bracelet is in fact a “full length male warrior” that alludes to the “Mars Ultor or

Ares figure” (104). Should this figure indeed be Mars, the presence of the god of war on Judiths’ arm serves to emphasize the masculinity of Judith’s actions and her connection with her victim, the male warrior who might claim Mars as a protector deity. However, regardless of the figures’ identity, it is clear to Bissell and Garrard that Gentileschi intended to use even Judith’s decorative jewelry to convey a message of strength and feminine power.

Unlike the Caravaggio Judith, this Judith actively engages in the act of beheading

Holofernes. Her broad forearms are taught with muscle and power as she pulls the large sword through Holofernes’ neck. She grips a handful of the general’s hair, holding his head in place while she finishes separating it from his body. Her entire body is angled to support her actions, Seaman 114 lending weight both to the pulling of the sword and the holding of Holofernes’ head. Judith’s involvement is further emphasized by her victim’s blood spurting in a direct erupting trajectory back onto her beautiful dress. Her expression, one of either anger, concentration, or both, also emphasizes her investment in the slaying.

Holofernes is again caught in surprise while lying on his white-sheeted bed, but he does not accept his death without a fight, as Caravaggio’s had done. In Gentileschi’s piece, Judith and

Abra wrestle with a legitimized foe, one who fights against the inevitability of his death to the end. His upraised legs push up in an attempt to shove his body off the bed and away from the sword at his neck. Holofernes fights against his assailants with his arms, clutching on Abra’s dress and trying to push her off of him. His fight requires both women’s involvement to accomplish their mission. He looks surprised, almost resigned, as his head separates from his body. He does not see his killer and instead directs his gaze downward, emphasizing that Judith does not exist in the piece to be observed by Holofernes or the external male audience.

Holofernes’ death is more bloody and violent than his Caravaggio counterpart’s, a point that is emphasized not only by his physical struggle but also by his blood's spurting patterns.

Christiansen and Mann state that, with the blood spurting from his neck, this Judith is “among the most violent of all the representations of the biblical story” (347). The red of his blood makes a reappearance in the rich velvet drape around Holofernes’ body and the red of Judith’s sleeves, reminding the viewer of the violence of his death wherever they look (Christiansen 348).

This violence and dramatism are also emphasized by the chiaroscurist pallet and fluid composition that Gentileschi utilizes in the piece. Dramatically bright light, shining from the left side of the canvas, reveals what was previously a completely dark scene. We know we have come across an assassination committed in during the late hours of the night because of the Seaman 115 starkly black shadows and negative space that encompasses all three characters. The vibrant yellows, whites, and reds of this scene are dramatically emphasized because of the stark contrast from the shadows, and it is only because of the unseen light source that we are privy to

Holofernes’ death. We are not distracted, as viewers, from the moment before us by the introduction of new colors, as Gentileschi masterfully continues her pattern of reds, yellows, whites, and the faintest hint of dark blue throughout the piece.

Gentileschi’s compositional choice also emphasizes movement, drama, and violence.

With Abra, Judith, and Holofernes aligned once again (as we saw in her Susanna) in a symmetrically triangular tangle of limbs and fabrics, the eye is trapped in a perpetual cycle of seeing. We are always moved as viewers through the canvas via the implied lines of Holofernes’ prone body and Abra and Judith’s outstretch arms, ending with the vertical sword. The eye enters firstly on Holofernes pale, white body from the upper left side of the canvas. It travels down his frame to his head, which is the center of this pinwheel composition. Then it gradually moves up Abra’s vibrantly light arm, to her face, and then finally onto the main subject of the entire scene —Judith (Chadwick 115). From Judith’s face, to her arms, and finally to the sword in her hand, our journey as an observer is brought to a conclusion as we discover the reason behind Holofernes’ prone position. Because each person exists on the midground of the piece, holding almost equal visual weight according to their correct proportions, Gentileschi has given

Judith and Abra an equal standing with their male counterpart. This further emphasizes

Gentileschi’s motive to reject the gendered standards of her external culture.

Gentileschi’s Abra contrasts this Judith from Caravaggio’s, and many other male-painted

Judith’s. Although she appears as the servant, with an emphasized white headdress and her less fine clothing, that is where the inequalities between Abra and Judith end. In Gentileschi’s version Seaman 116 of the story, Abra is an equal participant, a companion to Judith’s actions. She actively pins

Holofernes, who looks to be as large, if not larger than her, to the bed, making it easier for her mistress to complete her task. Although Holofernes tries to push the servant off of him, her brow furrows in concentration as she holds his left arm to his chest and keeps him pinned down. Like that of her mistresses’, Abra’s face does not show enjoyment or excitement at the violence, but rather a determined intention to succeed at their vital mission.

Gentileschi’s decision to depict an Abra as the same age and with a similar amount of beauty as Judith is also a marked difference from her male counterparts’ Abra. The servant and mistress could presumably be friends outside of their societal roles. They work in tandem with each other, bearing equal weight for the death. Based on the way that Gentileschi’s Holofernes thrashes, the deed could not be accomplished without both women working together, a fact that plays a significant part in this thesis’ examination of this piece.

Application of Historical Analysis

Christiansen and Mann have asserted that Artemisia Gentileschi’s Judith Beheading

Holofernes is one of the most violent depictions of the Judith narrative to exist (347). I agree with their statement and would continue their assertion to include the point that this Judith is not only the most violent but is also entirely different from any other Judith to have come from the

Renaissance. Yael Evans and Whitney Chadwick affirm this observation, stating that

Gentileschi’s Judith played “a considerable role in constructing a female hero who transcends the female norm by displaying a capacity for moral behavior in the public realm that is normally denied to women” (Chadwick 113). The first and most important reason for this claim comes from the personal history behind this Judith’s creation. Both the Naples and Uffizi Judith’s were painted after the rape, rape trial, and subsequent humiliation and denial of justice for Artemisia Seaman 117

Gentileschi. After being persecuted and assaulted for the majority of her youth and adulthood,

Gentileschi’s father brought her rapist to the courts to demand punishment in an attempt to restore his family’s honor. Instead, Gentileschi was publicly examined, slandered, and tortured for over a year. Her rapist was eventually punished with half a year banishment, slapping him on the wrist, while Gentileschi carried the disgrace of his violation the rest of her life. When this trauma is taken into account, the violent, bloody image that the female artist produces makes more sense in comparison to the more idealized images of her male counterparts, who have presumably not endured the same kind of sexual treatment that the Gentileschi faced.

Many scholars have theorized that Gentileschi’s Judith Beheading Holofernes is an

“expression of imagined revenge against her rapist Agostino Tassi” (Garrard 278; Bissell (1968);

Levenson 126 ). The “executioner-heroine” stands as an “equation that is both biblical and

Freudian, between decapitation and castration: the just punishment for rape in an eye-for-an-eye tradition” (Garrard 278). Garrard makes a striking connection between Tassi’s rape of

Gentileschi, which occurred in her bedroom and was both violent and bloody, and the violent, bloody bedroom scene of Holofernes’ death (278). It is a common practice for artists to bring themselves and their narratives into their pieces during the Renaissance. Giorgione,

Michelangelo, and even Caravaggio were famous for doing so (278). But the identities and personal narrative that Gentileschi brought to her Judith revolutionized the entire scene and brought new context and meaning to it.

The second reason that Gentileschi’s Judith was different from other Judiths’ we have seen is that we find two women physically dominating and challenging their male counterpart.

Although this Judith is by her culture’s standards the primary example of a weibermacht in her most unfavorable state, through a feminist lens, Gentileschi’s heroine meets all of the best Seaman 118 characteristics of this same category. They are disheveled, violent, and culturally masculine in their behavior. They care not for their beauty or sexual appeal and are intent only on their mission, completely “disrupting the conventional relationship between an active male spectator and a passive female recipient” (Chadwick 115). When looking at Gentileschi’s Judith through her culture’s lens, we see a remorseless, almost sinister weibermacht who looms over her victim in deadly concentration. Her behavior, the very act of killing, is influenced by a rejection of masculine dominance and touches on themes that were uncomfortable for her audiences

(Chadwick 115).

In this Judith, Gentileschi legitimizes her rebellious desires through the heroic deeds of this apocryphal figure (Garrard 279). This piece portrays the dominance of women entirely in control of their own fate and the fate of a man (279). The women have defeated and overcome the man, who has fought back and presented himself as a viable adversary. They crush his resistance soundly, a fact that draws on thousands of years of cultural shame and ridicule. For a man to be defeated by a woman in combat is a cause for humiliation, yet Gentileschi does not shy away from portraying Holofernes’ disgrace (321).

Thirdly, not only has the Gentileschi Judith rejected the power-dynamic of her culture with her Judith’s defeat of Holofernes, but Gentileschi has also given Judith the chance to physically involve herself in the action without concern over appealing to a male audience.

Although this Judith is well-developed in her womanhood, she is so intently involved in the act of beheading Holofernes that she seems to neither be aware nor care at the attention given her by her male audience (Fig. 5.12). She and her servant are not created for the pleasure, but rather for the discomfort of those who see them. They loom over the mighty general, keeping him in a position of inferiority and submission. The Israelite widow is not the “good” Judith, who exists Seaman 119 as the paragon of “eternal feminine virtues” as determined by Renaissance culture (Garrard 293;

Ciletti 52-53). According to Gentileschi's culture, this Judith is a primary example of the negative stereotypes given to weibermacht. Nevertheless, I contend that Gentileschi meant for each attribute her culture saw as harmful to be positive in this piece, resulting in a painting that was rejected and reviled by many around her. For example, Filippo Baldinucci both praises and reacts with “not a little terror” to the work (Christiansen 348). When Marco Lastri compiled a visual history of Tuscan paintings in 1971, he said that it had been moved to the corner of the

Uffizi Gallery, because it had been too much for prominent patrons of the Uffizi to bear (348).

Fig. 5.12

The Caravaggio Judith, in using the Israelite widow as an allegorical lesson for men, denies the heroine the credit of her victory over her enemy. It ignores the fact that the widow has ultimately saved a nation from death and takes her off the pedestal of reverence and veneration that the apocryphal Book of Judith placed her on. Many Judith pieces, in focusing either on an allegorical warning or the negative characteristics of a weibermacht, have also discredited the

Israelite heroine in this way. They strip her of the prowess and power her actions should give her. Garrard says as much when she discusses the tradition of the “patriarchal Old Testament” in which represses its female heroines, who are kept in a state of subservience even as they are Seaman 120 committing gallant acts (280). Gentileschi’s Judith does the exact opposite, giving credit back to the widow for her deeds.

In the Uffizi Judith, the protagonist is neither the hero nor the villain. She is simply a person who has committed what should be an egregious sin, according to the Ten

Commandments, in order to save hundreds of thousands of lives. She participates in a morally existential killing that is equally heroic and villainous, depending on which side you stand.

Gentileschi does nothing to sway the audience to perceive her Judith as one or the other, providing little contextual clues as to why Holofernes is being put to death (Garrard 321).

Through this visually ambiguous technique, I believe that Gentileschi hands the autonomy of

Judith’s actions back to the widow, and, subsequently, back to herself as a female in a patriarchally dominated society. Gentileschi and Judith have taken control of their fortunes in this scene.

This dual autonomy is confirmed by the potential presence of the goddess Artemis on

Judith’s bracelet (Fig. 5.13). Artemis, Gentileschi’s namesake, is a powerful goddess known not only for her physical prowess as the goddess of the hunt but also for her fierce independence from male domination, a fact reinforced by her celibacy (Garrard 327). Both Judith and

Gentileschi would likely see themselves in the goddess and desire to emulate that independence in their own life choices (327).

Fig. 5.13 (Bracelet on Judith’s left forearm) Seaman 121

The fourth reason why Gentileschi’s Judith stands out amongst her peers’ is her continuance of the theme of rejection of cultural gender and artistic norms in her depiction of

Abra, Judith’s faithful servant. As discussed previously, Renaissance artists often use the Abra character as a foil character for Judith’s innocence and purity. Usually depicted as an elderly woman devoid of sexual appeal, the servant either absorbs all of Judith’s negative character traits, allowing her to be the pure figurehead of divine justice, or she enhances her mistresses’ negative characteristics, emphasizing the dangers of the weibermacht (Fig. 5.15). In

Gentileschi’s Judith, we do not encounter either kind of servant (Fig. 5.14).

Fig. 5.14 Fig. 5.15 (Gentileschi’s Abra) (Caravaggio’s Abra)

In this Judith, we find mistress and servant fighting together with equal strength, ferocity, and complicity against the struggling Holofernes, thus uniting the two women together in an eternal battle (Peterson and Wilson 29). It is theorized that the theme of female solidarity and unity recurring through many of Gentileschi’s pieces, and most prominently in her Judiths, comes from the artist’s personal experiences and longings (Garrard 21). As a young woman raised in a male-dominated field, she likely had very few close female friends in her life (21). Seaman 122

Her neighbor, Tuzia, might have been one of the few female friends the artist made during her youth, which made Tuzia’s eventual betrayal of Gentileschi to Tassi all the more painful for the young woman (21). Not only did Tuzia lure Gentileschi to her home and then leave the young artist alone with Tassi, whom she knew Gentileschi was in danger from, but Tuzia also testified in defense of Tassi in court. She stated in her testimony about Tassi’s character that “he loved her (Gentileschi) very much because he loved her father very much and was such a good friend of his” (421). This betrayal might have hurt Gentileschi deeply and have led to her decision to depict Judith and Abra working together as a team, side by side, against Holofernes (Tassi) (21).

Gentileschi’s longing for female unity, in addition to her longing for justice, seems evident in her

Judiths.

Because of the two women's visual equality, Abra does not bear the weight of Judith’s supposed villainy on her shoulders. Gentileschi has rejected the artistic standards of the Judith theme and has refused to give her audience an easy understanding of the piece's message. Both women are caught in a moment of moral ambiguity, making them beings who are taking control of their own destiny rather than villains or heroines. Holofernes seems almost to be an afterthought, a target for their repressed rage and rejection of masculinity, rather than one of the narrative's main characters. While Caravaggio’s Judith centralizes around the male’s endangerment and pain, Gentileschi’s ignores it entirely. Her female characters give voice not only to her own sentiments but quite possibly the sentiments of a secondary female audience which has also longed for independence. Because of Gentileschi's intense emotional connection to this subject, her Judith stands different from almost every Judith to be created during the

Renaissance.

Seaman 123

Application of Feminist Analysis

Although through the lens of her 17th-century culture, depicting visibly powerful female protagonists would have received an uncomfortable response at best, I would posit that

Gentileschi’s Judith was a revolutionary feminist piece for her time. We find neither Venus

Naturalis’ nor a Venus Coelestis’, but rather two weibermacht women who have escaped the confines of their gender in the Judith theme. Judith and Abra do not serve male purposes in this piece. In this work, they lack the visual beauty needed to make them the focus of sensual fantasy for their audience. Their plain, stern faces and muscular arms make it difficult to ascribe the idea of delicate femininity. Such a task is made even more challenging when one takes into consideration their actions. Even if Judith and Abra were conventionally beautiful subjects, the fact that they are actively holding down a societally powerful man, pushing him into submission, makes it even more difficult for the male gaze to find pleasure in the scene it is beholding.

As Gentileschi had done in her Susanna, we find female heroines who do not acknowledge nor seem to care about their external male audience. For example, the display of

Judith’s full breasts, which should elicit a sexual response and prove this Judith to be a Venus

Naturalis, do not put her in that category due to the fact that the only reason her breasts are emphasized at all is because her fight with Holofernes positions them in such a way as to be seen and accentuated. Additionally, Judith’s dress, which is presumably a beautiful gold gown worn for the enhancement of beauty, was used, in this case, to ensnare and lower the guard of her male target (Ciletti 45; Garrard 324). Judith’s external appearance, while normally something used by the artist, and the female subject, to attract the sexual attention of the male gaze, was used in this instance as a snare for death, thus ruining any opportunity for the male audience to find enjoyment in the Judith before them. Seaman 124

Again, this point is affirmed by the fact that Judith is not allowing Holofernes, and therefore her male audience, to gaze upon her or Abra sexually. The Israelite woman digs her fingers into Holofernes’ hair and roughly pushes his face away from them while they kill him

(Fig. 5.16). Presumably, during the dinner that the general invited Judith to earlier in the evening,

Holofernes gazed upon the Israelite woman and had plans to seduce her. However, now, his plans for sexual conquest are his undoing. This is not seen in Caravaggio’s piece (Fig. 5.17), in which Judith pulls the general’s head and gaze in her direction, reminding him that he had planned to sleep with her at one point.

Fig. 5.16 Fig. 5.17

(Gentileschi’s Holofernes) (Caravaggio’s Holofernes) However, although Judith is not Venus Naturalis, she is neither Venus Coelestis.

Religious teachings use the Venus Coelestis figure to affirm its lessons, which are often created by a male-dominated society. While Gentileschi’s Judith does exist to teach a lesson to her male audience, I would assert that it is not a lesson her surrounding religious culture would agree with.

Judith’s use of the sword, a phallic instrument culturally associated with the male, to assassinate

Holofernes, is both an affirmation of Gentileschi’s rejection of her patriarchal surroundings and

Caravaggio’s affirmation of that same culture. The difference in meaning between Caravaggio’s Seaman 125 and Gentileschi’s sword lies in the context surrounding each Judith. Because the Caravaggio

Judith is used as an allegorical warning to men, focusing on using her as a means for justice, her use of Holofernes’ sword as the instrument of his death is an affirmation of this point. It is his pride, his greed, his licentiousness that wields the sword and causes his death, not Judith. She is simply a vessel for that teaching. However, in Gentileschi’s piece, because this Judith is a weibermacht and seems to directly reject the patriarchal culture around her, the sword's use affirms in her male audience’s eyes the dangers of the empowered female. In Gentileschi’s female audience’s eyes, I would posit that the use of Holofernes’ sword encourages the empowered female to come forth. Gentileschi’s Judith is using Holofernes’s sword, his masculinity, against him. In this piece, the Israelite heroine serves as a warning to her male audience and an encouragement to her female audience. She proves that masculinity, when overpowered by the woman, will be the ruin of the male.

As she did with her Susanna, so too has Gentileschi given us clear insight into the standpoint she developed in regard to her experiences with sexual assault and being a female in this Judith piece. Her experience with sexual assault, betrayal by a female companion, and the rage after being denied justice are all vividly apparent throughout her Judith. Gentileschi uses the voice that was denied her during her assault and subsequent trial as loudly as she can in this piece. She declares to her audiences and to the world of the power that women could take up and exhibit if they were only able to find the confidence to reject the submissive role dictated to them by a patriarchally dominant society. Her situated knowledge, that she as a female in a patriarchally dominant culture is helpless to seek reparations against her rapist, has informed her artistic decisions when depicting Judith, Abra, and Holofernes. Using her previous understanding of male and female roles, both in Renaissance art and in her life, Gentileschi flipped those ideas Seaman 126 upside-down. She translated her humiliation into power, subordination into dominance, denied justice into vengeful decapitation, and abandonment into female companionship and power.

Perhaps Gentileschi’s personal feelings towards masculinity has led to her depiction of such a message. In real life, the artist was unable to use masculinity to protect her. All the men in her life failed her during the years surrounding her assault. Her teacher turned into her rapist. Her male friends became her sexual persecutors. Her father demanded justice, not for his daughter but for his own hurt pride and financial security. The male-established justice system of her home publicly humiliated her and let her assailant get away with a slap on the wrist. Under such circumstances, it would be understandable that Gentileschi would subconsciously seek revenge on Tassi and the male-dominated culture around her. It would make sense that she would use

Judith, a woman whose deeds have already historically made her patriarchal society uncomfortable, as her personal vessel to destroy the male with his own masculinity. I assert that this Judith, like Caravaggio’s, does indeed serve as a warning to the male audience. Her warning, however, is much different.

Conclusion

Throughout European art history, the Judith theme has never solely fit into one predominant premise. Her story is either one of Christian victory over the Devil's evils or an example of the dangers of an empowered woman. In a patriarchal society, Judith’s victory as her people's savior is taken from her, and the focus is shifted away from her deeds and more towards the repercussions they have on her adversary, the male general Holofernes. Through the male artist’s lens, Judith continues to exist either as a Christian allegory or a dangerous woman.

In Caravaggio’s piece, we encounter the first kind of Judith. The heroine is pristine, young, and an ideal Venus. She wields Holofernes’ sword against him and beheads him Seaman 127 successfully, but she finds little emotional investment in the act. The only part of her that is engaged in the assassination are her hands. Every other part of Judith’s body stands removed from the crime that would sully her beauty and sexual allure. Caravaggio stays true to artistic tradition and paints Abra as an unpleasant older woman who lusts after Holofernes’s blood and accepts her role as the scapegoat for all of her mistress’ negative qualities.

In this piece, we see a male artist painting a warning for his male peers against the vices of greed, lust, and pride. Caravaggio gives us insight into the perspective he has in regard to gendered roles and religious dictations. We see his belief that the female is to be used to teach lessons and provide pleasure. While conveying this warning, Caravaggio, in the same turn, appeals to the same lust he warns against and provides a Judith that stands ready to be observed and fantasized. The Judith of the apocryphal story is no more than a sensual teacher to appeal to her male audience and help them understand Caravaggio’s warning.

However, through the lens of the female artist, Judith becomes the epitome of everything that a patriarchal society fears and scorns. She becomes the empowered weibermacht, who takes control of her fate and holds her male counterpart's life in her hands. Gentileschi’s Judith is given back the credit for her victory. The focus of her story shifts back to her deeds and away from

Holofernes’ downfall. The Assyrian general becomes the recipient of female rage and power, standing in as an afterthought rather than the piece's primary focus. Although, according to

Gentileschi’s patriarchal culture, her Judith is the epitome of the evils of a powerful woman, in

Gentileschi’s eyes, her Judith is the embodiment of the advantages of a powerful woman.

Gentileschi gives Judith the voice that she wishes she could have used during her rape and humiliating trial, speaking truth to the injustices of being a woman in a patriarchally dominant society. Through the lens of the female artist, Judith finds her voice and her strength once more. Seaman 128

She ignores the male gaze and does not care to appeal to it. She uses virility against the male and serves as a warning to masculinity of the dangers of threatening a powerful woman.

The difference that a male versus a female perspective can bring to the same story is evident in the Judith theme. Each artist paints the same moment in Judith’s life, yet the outcome of their depiction is starkly singular. In this chapter, I have supported the theory that introducing the feminine perspective provides a new angle to a historically male-controlled story.

Gentileschi’s Judith rejects the gender and artistic norms of her times in a powerful way that not only tells her personal story but also appeals to the experiences of her female audience.

Chapter Six

Conclusion

In the introductory chapter, this thesis set out to ascertain whether the female artist's experiences versus the male artist had any impact on the narratives they brought to their depictions of the Judith and Susanna themes. As has been stated, the Judith and Susanna imagery have been subject to the patriarchal Church and European society for the entirety of their existence. They have appeared as seductive villainesses, guilty of leading men astray and fulfilling their male audience’s sexual desires. They have existed as weibermacht, dangerous and threatening to the male and deserving of scorn and hatred. They have also appeared as "worthy women," representing the ideal characteristics that a patriarchal society demands from the female sex.

However, this thesis set out to discover if such themes continued to be true when a woman was behind the brush instead of a man. If the same gender whom the male oppressed decided to paint female narratives herself, would the themes of domination and oppression continue to be present in her work as they are in her male peer's work? Through feminist critical Seaman 129 analysis and historical analysis in comparing and contrasting the works of Artemisia Gentileschi,

Michelangelo Caravaggio, and Cavaliere d'Arpino, I posit that the introduction of the female artist can alter the narrative surrounding a female subject or theme. We have found that

Gentileschi's experiences as a female artist were vastly different from Caravaggio's and Arpino's as male artists. The voices that each painter brought to their works reflected such a disparity. In this case study, when the male artist is behind the brush, the gendered norms and values of the

Italian Renaissance and the Judith and Susanna themes are both confirmed. However, when a female artist is behind the brush, an entirely new narrative is introduced into those norms, values, and themes.

Summary of Chapters

Chapter One states the foundational assertions upon which this thesis is built. We are moved into a dialogue about feminine oppression and the roles that women, specifically the

Venus figure, were given from the time of the ancient Greeks to Renaissance Italy. The Venus of

Western Europe is subject to her time's strict laws and gender norms, with very little freedom or wiggle room to oppose these norms. This restriction partially due to the Aristotelian and religious notions of feminine inferiority. The reader is briefly taken along the timeline of the development of both the Venus Coelestis and Venus Naturalis, following her assimilation into

Western European Christian culture.

After establishing a brief historical context surrounding the feminine figure, the reader is introduced to the most important terms to be used throughout this thesis: weibermacht, "women worthies," the naked versus the nude, the male gaze, and Caravaggism. The weibermacht, or

"power of women," refers to the culturally dangerous power that a select number of women throughout European history possessed over their male counterparts, whether physically, Seaman 130 mentally, or spiritually. Such women were generally perceived as undesirable by their patriarchal culture. “Women worthies” stood in stark contrast to their weibermacht sisters, being the historical or biblical example of women who exhibit the best qualities of the feminine sex, according to their patriarchally dominant cultures.

The next set of terminology the reader encounters draws on Kenneth Clark's lectures on the difference between the naked body and the nude body to help the reader understand the difference between Judith and Susanna's nakedness vs. nudeness. Clark posits that the primary difference between the naked and the nude figure is that to be naked is to be deprived of one's clothes. To be nude is to arouse "some vestige of erotic feeling" in the viewer (8). Readers then move on to the concept of the male gaze, which is the idea that everything is created for the pleasure, arousal, and enticement of the dominant male audience. This concept is vital for later analysis of the Judith and Susanna paintings, as we examine how the influence of the male gaze affects the depiction of the two women. Caravaggism is the final term discussed in this section and refers to the artistic style used by Caravaggio and Gentileschi in their Judith pieces.

The chapter then moves on to a brief introduction of the two case studies: two paintings of the Susanna and the elders’ story and two paintings of the Judith slaying Holofernes story from Biblical texts. Readers are also introduced to the Italian Renaissance artists behind these works: Artemisia Gentileschi, Michelangelo Caravaggio, and Cavaliere d'Arpino. Gentileschi and Arpino, a woman and a man, both capture similar moments in the Susanna story—the initial harassment of Susanna by the elders—and yet their depiction of both Susanna and the situation is markedly different. The same rings true for the second case study, our two Judith paintings.

Caravaggio and Gentileschi, again a man and a woman and again depicting similar moments, create two strikingly different imagery to capture the beheading of the Assyrian General Seaman 131

Holofernes. It is upon such differences between the male and female artistic interpretations that this study's analysis is based.

The introductory chapter concludes with a brief overview of the methodology to be used in this thesis. All four works are analyzed through feminist criticism and historical analysis. A historical lens is used to establish the cultural and historical context into which Gentileschi,

Caravaggio, and Arpino are asserting their works. The feminist lens is used to precisely understand how each artist either affirms or rejects cultural and historical norms and values in their paintings.

The second chapter of this thesis establishes the feminist criticism theory upon which its feminist analysis of the two Judiths and Susannas is built. The chapter first dives into a brief literature review, establishing the resources drawn from most frequently in this thesis. Such resources include Kenneth Clarks The Nude, in which he discusses the differences between the naked and the nude and reviews the history behind both the female and male nude and naked figure. John Berger’s Way of Seeing establishes the ideological basis upon which this thesis is built, asserting that all art, specifically involving female subjects, is catered to an external male gaze and that women act in art for the satisfaction and appeasement of men, who exist to observe and be pleased. Finally, Hall's cultural studies are briefly mentioned. This neo-Marxist theory asserts that when power goes unexamined, it is allowed to continue to perpetuate its own superiority through the use of mass media channels. Only when we begin to understand how the powerful have pushed their messaging and supremacy are we able to break down the power dynamics and equalize the playing field. We find this concept intertwined throughout this thesis’ analysis of Gentileschi’s, Caravaggio’s, and Arpino’s works. Seaman 132

The chapter then moves on to describe and define feminist criticism. We are introduced to the goals of feminist criticism, which include “criticizing the status quo because the status quo represents a power structure of dominance and oppression" (West and Turner 528). For this thesis, the ‘status quo’ is the patriarchally dominant Western European society, and the

‘oppressed’ is the female gender existing within Western European society. Feminist criticism is helpful for this thesis in that it serves as a guiding lens through which we can understand the impact that Gentileschi's counter-hegemonic paintings potentially had on her patriarchal society.

This section also establishes the cultural and historical background for feminist criticism, introducing the first through fourth waves of feminism and the works of Georg Hegel and Nancy

Hartsock.

We then move on to examples of feminist criticism in action, including Karlyn

Campbells's "The Rhetoric of Women's Liberation" and Cheris Kramarae’s “Woman’s Speech:

Separate but Unequal?”. Both works attempt to analyze and challenge established hegemonic ideas and beliefs surrounding women's lives, specifically in the United States. Their analyses uncover the harmful power dynamics that have kept women from gaining cultural equality with men within the United States of their respective times.

Finally, this chapter briefly introduces one of the most essential resources for this thesis-

Mary Garrard's Artemisia Gentileschi. This biography of the life, work, and culture of Artemisia

Gentileschi establishes the necessary groundwork upon which this thesis can analyze both her

Judith and Susanna paintings, as well as the works produced by Caravaggio and Arpino.

Garrard's extensive understanding of both of the gender norms of Gentileschi's time and the external influences at play in her two pieces are critical for a better understanding of the counter- hegemonic influences at play throughout her work. Seaman 133

In Chapter Three, readers encounter a holistic discussion of the history of Italian

Renaissance culture, the artists of the case study, and the female nude. After briefly defining and discussing historical analysis as a methodology, Chapter Three shifts into a discussion of

Renaissance history. With the establishment of the Catholic Church's superiority, the Gothic

Period of the 12th to 16th century started an artistic obsession with imitating the beauty of God’s creations. This goal eventually gave way to the introduction of Humanism, which centered not on imitating beauty, but on accurately and scientifically capturing it through the utilization of ancient Greek and Roman techniques and teachings. Renaissance ideology focused entirely on the study of a broad range of topics instead of the mastery of a few, as well as a revitalization of early Greek and Roman teachings, including ancient gender norms and values.

In this section of the chapter, readers learn more about the assimilation of Aristotelian philosophy on the superiority of the male sex into mainstream Western European culture. The philosopher asserted that women were deformed, colder versions of men who were meant to be culturally and societally inferior. This idea was perpetuated by the Church through multiple New

Testament texts and continued to be perpetuated throughout the Italian Renaissance. However, with the birth of Humanism and more widespread access to education, there began to arise factions of defenders of the feminine gender, who used examples of "women worthies" to espouse women's positive qualities. One such quality that was unfortunately used to continue women's oppression was a hyper-focus on their chastity and virginity. With the Virgin Mary being the highest standard to which a Western European woman could aspire, female sexuality was treated as a sin to be repressed at all times, even in marriage.

After discussing the cultural and societal norms of the Italian Renaissance, readers are then introduced to a discussion of the history of Italian art within the Renaissance and a brief Seaman 134 history of the artists of this case study themselves. The desire to follow the traditions of ancient

Greece and Rome and the gradual secularization of patronage during the 15th century meant that artists were more motivated to study the scientific and mathematical accuracy of their subject matter and were more apt to intertwine secular and religious themes closely together. During this time, Caravaggism, created by Michelangelo Caravaggio, was introduced to the Renaissance.

This style was heavily drawn upon by artists throughout Italy, including Gentileschi, and was especially popular because of its proto-Baroque roots.

Finally, this chapter touched upon the history of the Venus Coelestis and Venus Naturalis, or the naked and nude female, which are both found in our Judith and Susanna case studies. Born into Aristotelian times, the female nude took on the personas of Venus Coelestis and Venus

Naturalis to fulfill the two roles assigned her by her culture—to be both pure and sexual, righteous and sinful, pious and desirable. When Christianity overtook ancient Greek and Roman tradition, the two Venus’ took on multiple biblical identities, including the Virgin Mary, Esther,

Delilah, Judith, and Susanna. As the secularization of Renaissance patronage grew in popularity, the Venus figure began to focus more on her role as a pleaser of men and less as a biblical teacher for the Church. She catered more to the male gaze than she had under the Church’s control, as it became more acceptable to depict more erotic imagery in art. Within this context, the two Judiths and two Susannas, both subsets of either Venus Coelestis or Venus Naturalis, were created.

In the fourth chapter of this thesis, readers are introduced to the first case study: a comparison and contrast of the Susanna and the Elders by Cavaliere d’Arpino and Susanna and the Elders by Artemisia Gentileschi. The analysis begins with a brief discussion of the history of the Susanna theme. As a biblical paragon of chastity and virtue, Susanna generally existed in Seaman 135

Christian iconography as Venus Coelestis, or a subset of the Virgin Mary. A prime example of a

"woman worthy," she served as an excellent example of the priorities all women should have regarding their virtue versus their life. However, as more and more patrons of the arts arose from the private sector during the Italian Renaissance, this once obvious Venus Coelestis soon appeared frequently as a sensual Venus Naturalis, enticing her male audience to commit salacious acts with her.

We find an example of such a Susanna in Arpino's work. Placed prominently in the canvas's foreground, Susanna glances enticingly out at her male audience as she brushes her long golden hair. A coy smile graces her lips, and she sits with her legs apart as a visual invitation of the sexual acts she is willing to commit with her viewer. This idea of her willingness and guilt as a sexual being is only further accentuated both by the spurting fountain before her and the elders' position behind her. As a stand-in for the act of penetration, the spurting fountain directs the male audience to Susanna's open legs and what is hidden beneath the cloth between them. The elders, generally depicted as the guilty party in this tale, do not threaten or disturb Susanna in this image and seemingly are given a reprieve from guilt. Susanna exists as a seductive Venus

Naturalis with little to no prompting from any outside party. She seems to be entirely responsible for her behavior. The Arpino Susanna plays on the taboo fornication fantasy of the male gaze and provides a willing participant for the male audience. Such an image both confirms Arpino's adherence to the gender norms of his time and gives insight into the introduction of his own male gaze and desires into the narrative.

Gentileschi’s Susanna stands markedly different from Arpino's. She demonstrates that the artists' personal experiences as a woman in a male-dominated culture created an entirely new narrative for the Susanna theme. In this piece, Susanna also sits in the foreground of the Seaman 136 composition so that her emotion is immediately apparent and cannot be ignored. She sits in a position of extreme distress, with her hands outstretched to protect her, her face turned sharply away from her assailants with a look of fear and fury on her face. The obvious villains of this story, the two elders, loom over Susanna and invade her personal space. Gentileschi leaves little room for doubt that the two men are accosting an unwilling victim. Although Susanna refuses the elders' advances in this image, we do not necessarily find a Venus Coelestis in her behavior. She is not rejecting them, it seems, out of concern for her purity. Instead, she rejects them out of concern for her safety and bodily autonomy. Gentileschi, a woman who experienced sexual harassment her entire life, has rejected the gendered norms of her time in this piece and has inserted an alternative narrative of the female experience regarding such persecution.

In the fifth chapter of this thesis, we move into the second case study of this thesis: a comparison and contrast of the Judith Beheading Holofernes painting by Michelangelo

Caravaggio and Judith Beheading Holofernes by Artemisia Gentileschi. The analysis begins with a brief discussion of the history of the Judith theme and her use by the Church and creators as a proverbial warning to her male audience. Although Judith was the savior of her people through the violent act of assassination, her victory was taken from her by the Church, as well as by artists. The Judith narrative shifted to serve as a warning to men of the dangers of allowing their lusts and vices to take control of their behaviors rather than as a celebration of Judith’s strength and leadership. She became the punishing angel of God, sent to bring men low who allowed their sins to get the better of them. As the secularization of patronage increased, Judith took on the role of the weibermacht, a powerful woman to be feared and despised for her sensuality, strength, and dominance over the male. Seaman 137

In the Caravaggio Judith, we encounter the first kind of Judith, whose heroic deeds are downplayed in favor of her victim's distress and her beauty. She stands as a pure, spotless young woman who exerts little physical investment in the act of killing Holofernes. Her beautiful face is marred only by mild disgust, and her beauty is pleasurable for her male audience to behold.

Although his assassin is technically dominating Holofernes, the focus is not on this physical inferiority but instead on the idea that his own misdeeds killed him. By allowing his sins to take over his behavior, Holofernes deserved what he received. The Assyrian general was seemingly caught by complete surprise and gazes at the young woman he had planned to seduce.

Caravaggio depicts Abra, the third character of this narrative, as the scapegoat for any blame or guilt that might have fallen on the beautiful Judith. As an ugly, evil-looking older woman, she becomes the villain of this narrative and allows Judith to remain pure and blameless of her deeds.

This purity then allows the external male audience to both desire Judith sexually and accept the lesson that the entire painting teaches. In this piece, we find Caravaggio's adherence to his time's gendered norms and narratives unsurprising. He caters both to the religious gaze and to the male gaze of his intended audience and strips the scene of its potential for female empowerment.

The Gentileschi Judith is remarkably different from Caravaggio's and from any other

Judith to have been created during that time. In this piece, we find Judith and Abra as young women equally participating in the act of killing Holofernes. They stand over their victim, with large, muscular arms used to push the thrashing man onto his bed. Holofernes is actively invested in fighting against his assailants, with his arms pushing back Abra and his legs flailing in the air. However, his resistance is futile, a fact made evident by the aggressively spurting blood coming from the cut made to his neck by the sword that Judith holds in her hands. Many scholars believe that Gentileschi chose to depict such violence due to her own experiences with Seaman 138 sexual violence and rage. Before she painted this piece, Gentileschi was violently raped by a former teacher and then subjected to a humiliating trial that ended with little to no punishment for her rapist.

Garrard posits that this piece was not only Gentileschi's revenge against her rapist (with herself standing in as Judith and her rapist standing in as Holofernes) but was also a fantasy of the kind of womanly friendship that Gentileschi had longed for. In her real life, Gentileschi was betrayed by a close female companion to her rapist. However, in this Judith scene, we find two young women working arm and arm to conquer the male together, as equals. Gentileschi's experiences as a young woman in a male-dominated field and society are starkly apparent in this piece. She allows herself to rage against the pain she has experienced at the hands of many

'Holofernes' men and does not cater to her male or female audience's comfort.

Options for future study:

This research provides a foundation upon which future research in Renaissance art, feminism, feminist Renaissance art, and female artistry can be built. One of the first areas for future research, specifically in Artemisia Gentileschi's life, would be to compare and contrast other works she did in her life to the works of her male counterparts to see if she continues this theme of rejection of gender norms. Does she continue to bring her experiences as a woman into her work, or is she forced to quiet her voice to garner more patronage and support? What other subjects, aside from sexual assault and harassment, does Gentileschi speak of in her work? Is the theme of sexual harassment a common presence throughout her life? Artemisia Gentileschi's work is vital for feminist research into the world of early feminist art, and her life can serve as an excellent model by which other feminist writers, painters, and creators of her time could be compared. Seaman 139

Another area of potential research would be to apply a similar study to the work of other female artists of the Italian Renaissance to see if they created works similar to Gentileschi. Such artists who could be examined include, but are not limited to, Sofonisba Anguissola, Lavinia

Fontana, and Christine de Pizan. Suppose it is a fact that all artists bring their personal experiences to their work. In that case, it is logical to assume that Anguissola, Fontana, and Pizan presented their own perspectives on the conversations surrounding the female sex during the

Italian Renaissance. Does their work contradict their male peers’, as Gentileschi’s’ does? Or is

Gentileschi a unique case, one lone voice speaking out over a chorus against her? It would also be interesting to learn what common themes appear in the few women artists' works to come out of the Italian Renaissance. Although hundreds of miles would have geographically separated these women, it would be noteworthy to see if similar ideas and messaging appear throughout their works because of their shared experiences as women in the male-dominated fields of the arts.

A final area of research would be in the expansion upon of Hall’s work with encoding and decoding in application to this case study or others like it. Much could be learned through the analysis of the differential decoding of gendered messaging by male and female artists. An examination of the display of gender roles through Hall’s cultural studies would provide excellent insight into the communicative motivations behind this thesis’ artists’ motivations in their portrayal of their female subjects.

Conclusion

To return to the quote by John Berger that began this thesis, “Women are depicted quite differently from men, not because the feminine is always different from the masculine—but because the ‘ideal’ spectator is always assumed to be male, and the image of the woman is Seaman 140 designed to flatter him" (64). When we look at the works of Caravaggio, Arpino, and countless other male artists of the Italian Renaissance, we find that this statement rings true. Artists often reflect the culture of their surroundings, and it is understandable that the depictions of Venus would also be subject to such gendered norms and values. Artists also bring their personal experiences and perspectives to their work, which we again find to be true in Caravaggio's and

Arpino's work. As seen through the man's eyes, we find Judith and Susanna positioned for both his comfort and pleasure. These young women possess very little personal autonomy, nor do they appeal much to a woman who might gaze upon them. For most Western European art during this time, there were very few works painted for the woman's empowerment. The focus centered almost entirely on catering to the male: male comfort, male arousal, male teachings, and male enticement.

However, when a woman picks up the paintbrush instead of a man, we can sometimes discover an entirely new and unique narrative. Untold stories, experiences, and ideas are conveyed through composition, positioning, and expression. Artemisia Gentileschi was one of the few female artists of the Italian Renaissance in an almost entirely male-dominated field.

Nevertheless, despite the persistent presence of harassment, discrimination, and oppression, she managed to carve out for herself a small sliver of feminist rebellion against her patriarchal culture. She gave voice to the female experience in her Judith and Susanna pieces. In these works, the female audience can find their own stories and voices. Like her peers, Gentileschi also brought her personal experiences and perspectives to her work. This resulted in the depiction of two women, who were given what all women seek—the freedom to react as they see fit, to feel the emotions they experience, and to live with full autonomy.

Seaman 141

Honors Thesis Citations:

Ainsworth, Maryan W. Early German Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1360-1575.

Metropolitan Mus Of Art, 2013.

“Alessandro Allori :: Biography ► Virtual Uffizi.” Virtual Uffizi Gallery,

www.virtualuffizi.com/alessandro-allori.html.

Arscott, Caroline, and Katie Scott. Manifestations of Venus: Art and Sexuality. Manchester

University Press, 2000.

Benay , Erin. “Caravaggio and Caravaggisti in 17th-Century Europe (Article).” Khan Academy,

Khan Academy, www.khanacademy.org/humanities/renaissance-reformation/baroque-

art1/baroque-italy/a/caravaggio-and-caravaggisti-in-17th-century-europe.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing: Based on the BBC Television Series with John Berger. British

Broadcasting Corp., 2012.

Bissell, R. Ward. “Artemisia Gentileschi—A New Documented Chronology.” The Art Bulletin,

vol. 50, no. 2, 1968, pp. 153–168., doi:10.1080/00043079.1968.10789138.

Bissell, R. Ward. Artemisia Gentileschi and the Authority of Art: Critical Reading and

Catalogue raisonné. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.

Boulogne, Valentin de. Judith and Holofernes. 1627-29, National Museum of Fine Arts, Valletta.

“Judith and Holofernes”, The Met Museum,

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/663680. Accessed 20 February, 2021 Seaman 142

Broude, Norma, and Mary D. Garrard. The Expanding Discourse: Feminism and Art History.

Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2019.

Brucker, Gene. Giovanni and Lusanna: Love and Marriage in Renaissance Florence. Berkley,

1986: p.27.

Clark, Kenneth. The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form . Princeton University Press, 1953.

Camara, Esperança. “Artemisia Gentileschi, Judith Slaying Holofernes.” Smarthistory,

smarthistory.org/gentileschi-judith-slaying-holofernes/.

Camille, Michael. Gothic Art: Glorious Visions. , New York, 2003.

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. "The rhetoric of women's liberation: An oxymoron." Quarterly Journal

of speech 59.1 (1973): 74-86.

Caravaggio, Michelangelo. A Concert of Youths. 1595, Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Caravaggio.net http://www.caravaggio.net/concert-of-youths/ . 1 April 2021.

Caravaggio, Michelangelo. Bacchus. 1598, Uffizi Gallery. Le Gallerie degli Uffizzi.

https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/bacchus. 1 April 2021.

Caravaggio, Michelangelo. Judith Beheading Holofernes. 1599, Galleria Nazionale d’Arte

Antica at Palazzo Barberini, Rome, Italy. “Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1599 by

Caravaggio”, Caravaggio: Paintings, Quotes, Biography,

https://www.caravaggio.org/judith-beheading-holofernes.jsp. Accessed 22 November

2020

Caravaggio, Michelangelo. The Cardsharps. 1595, Kimbell Art Museum. KimbellArt.org

https://www.kimbellart.org/collection/ap-198706. 1 April 2021 Seaman 143

Christiansen, Keith, and Judith Walker. Mann. Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi. Metropolitan

Museum of Art, 2001.

Ciletti, Elena. “Patriarchal Ideology in the Renaissance Iconography of Judith .” Re-Figuring

Woman: Perspectives on Gender and the Italian Renaissance , edited by Marilyn Migiel

and Juliana Schiesari, Cornell University Press, 1991, pp. 35–70.

Demaitre L. The Fasciculus Medicinae. Classics of Medicine Library, pp. 15 and 54

Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Third ed., Waveland Press, 2014.

Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. WW Norton & Company, 2010.

Garrard , Mary D. Artemisia Gentileschi: The Image of the Female Hero in Italian Baroque Art.

2nd ed., Princeton University Press, 1989.

Gentileschi, Artemisia Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1611-12, Museo Nazionale di

Capodimonte, Naples. “Artemisia Gentileschi: Judith Slaying Holofernes”, SmartHistory,

https://smarthistory.org/gentileschi-judith-slaying-holofernes/. Accessed 20 November

2020

Gentileschi, Artemisia Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1620-21, Uffizi Gallery, Florence.

“Artemisia Gentileschi: Judith Slaying Holofernes”, SmartHistory,

https://smarthistory.org/gentileschi-judith-slaying-holofernes/. Accessed 20 November

2020

Grant, Robert. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. London, Collins, 1963. pp. 74.

Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. 7th ed., McGraw-Hill Higher Education,

2009. Seaman 144

Hall, Stuart. Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse. University of Birmingham,

www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/history/cccs/stencilled-occasional-

papers/1to8and11to24and38to48/SOP07.pdf.

Hibbard, Howard. Caravaggio. Routledge, 2018.

History, Art & Archives, U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Historian, Women in

Congress, 1917–2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2007. “The

Women’s Rights Movement, 1848–1920,” https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-

Publications/WIC/Historical-Essays/No-Lady/Womens-Rights/ (July 04, 2020)

“Judith Beheading Holofernes: Artworks: Uffizi Galleries.” Artworks | Uffizi Galleries,

www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/judith-beheading-holofernes.

“Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1599 by Caravaggio .” Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1599 by

Caravaggio, 2009, www.caravaggio.org/judith-beheading-holofernes.jsp.

“Judith.” Good News Translation Bible , American Bible Society , 1992.

Klein, Robert, and Henri Zerner. Italian Art, 1500-1600. Simon & Schuster Trade, 1966.

Knox, Dilwyn “Civility, Courtesy and Women in the Italian Renaissance.” Women in Italian

Renaissance Culture and Society, edited by Letizia Panizza, Modern Humanities research

Association and Maney Publishing, 2000, pp. 1-17.

Kramer, Cheris. "Women's speech: Separate but Unequal?." Quarterly Journal of Speech 60.1

(1974): 14-24.

Kren, Thomas, et al. The Renaissance Nude. TheJ. Paul Getty Museum, 2018.

Kuehn, Thomas. Family and Gender in Renaissance Italy, 1300–1600. Cambridge University

Press, 2017. Seaman 145

Levenson, Jon D. Esther: A Commentary. Old Testament Library, 1997.

Mantegna, Andrea. Judith with the Head of Holofernes. 1495-1500, Widener Collection.

National Gallery of Art, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.1181.html.

Accessed 20 February 2021.

McManus, Robert M., and Gama Perruci. Understanding Leadership an Arts and Humanities

Perspective. Routledge, 2020.

Meeks, Christine “Women between the law and social reality in early Renaissance Lucca.”

Women in Italian Renaissance Culture and Society, edited by Letizia Panizza, Modern

Humanities research Association and Maney Publishing, 2000, pp. 183-191.

Migiel, Marilyn, and Juliana Schiesari. Refiguring Woman: Perspectives on Gender and the

Italian Renaissance. Cornell University Press, 1991.

Mulvey, Laura. "Visual pleasure and narrative cinema.” Feminism: An Anthology of Literary

Theory and Criticism. Ed. Robyn Warhol and Diane Herndl, revised ed. Rutgers

University Press, New Jersey,1997. 430-448. Print.

Munro, Ealasaid. “Feminism: A Fourth Wave?” Political Insight, vol. 4, no. 2, 2013, pp. 22–25.,

doi:10.1111/2041-9066.12021.

Murray, Peter, and Linda Murray. The Art of the Renaissance. Praeger, 1963.

Murray, Peter, and Linda Murray. The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture.

Oxford University Press, 1996.

Partridge, Loren. Art of Renaissance Florence: 1400-1600. Univ. of California Press, 2009. Seaman 146

“Plague.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, www.who.int/health-

topics/plague.

Pogrebin, Letty Cottin. "Down with sexist upbringing." Ms. Magazine, Spring (1972).

Raven, Arlene, and Cassandra L. Langer. Feminist Art Criticism: An Anthology . UMI Research

Press , 1988.

Rooses, Max. L’Oeuvre de P. P. Rubens: Histoire et Description de ses Tableaux at Dessins. 5

vols. Antwerp: J. Maes (I am currently working with Katy to make sure that this is the

correct citation for this source)

Rubens, Peter. Judith with the Head of Holofernes. 1616, Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum,

Braunschweig, Germany. “Judith with the Head of Holofernes” WikiArt,

https://www.wikiart.org/en/peter-paul-rubens/judith-with-the-head-of-holofernes-1616.

Accessed 10 December 2020

Palazzo Venezia (Rome). Il Cavalier d’Arpino. De Luca, 1973

Petersen, Karen, and J.J Wilson. Women Artists. Harper & Row, 1976.

Scott, Joan W. “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” American Historical

Review, 91 (1986): 1069.

Sirani, Elisabetta. Judith With the Head of Holofernes. 1660, The Walters Art Museum, United

States. “The mysterious death of a young art teacher”, ArtHistoryProject,

https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/elisabetta-sirani/. Accessed 20 February, 2021.

Smith, Susan L. The Power of Women: A Topos in Medieval Art and Literature. University of

Pennsylvania Press, 1995. Seaman 147

Souter - "Artemisia Gentileschi Artist Overview and Analysis".

[Internet]. 2020. TheArtStory.org

Content compiled and written by Anna Souter

Edited and revised, with Synopsis and Key Ideas added by Kate Stephenson

Available from: https://www.theartstory.org/artist/gentileschi-artemisia/artworks/

First published on 04 Sep 2018. Updated and modified regularly

[Accessed 16 May 2020]

“Susanna .” New Revised Standard Version Bible , Division of Christian Education of the

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, 1989.

Sypher, Wylie. Four Stages of Renaissance Style: Transformations in Art and Literature, 1400-

1700. Peter Smith, 1978.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Mannerism.” Encyclopædia Britannica,

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 29 May 2018, www.britannica.com/art/Mannerism.

Taylor, John. The Bible. Printed by Fay & Davison, 1978.

Voss, Hermann, and Pelzel, Susanne. Painting of the Late Renaissance in Rome and Florence II:

The Diffusion and Transformation of Mannerism 1570-1600. Alan Wofsy Fine Arts, 1997.

Walton, Michael T., Robert M. Fineman, and Phyllis J. Walton. "Why can't a woman be more

like a man? A Renaissance perspective on the biological basis for female

inferiority." Women & Health 24.4 (1997): 87-95.

Warhol, Robyn R., and Price Diane Herndl. Feminisms: An Anthology of Literary Theory and

Criticism. Rutgers University Press, 2010. Seaman 148

Warwick, Genevieve. Caravaggio: Realism, Rebellion, Reception. University of Delaware Press,

2006.

Waterhouse, Ellis. Italian Baroque Painting. 2nd ed., Phaidon, 1969.

West, Richard L., and Lynn H Turner. Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and

Application. Fifth ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2014.

Zarri, Gabriella. “Christian Good Manners.” Women in Italian Renaissance Culture and Society,

edited by Letizia Panizza, Modern Humanities Research Association and Maney

Publishing, 2000, pp. 76-91.

Zophy, Jonathan W. A Short History of Renaissance and Reformation Europe: Dances over Fire

and Water. 4th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009.

Seaman 149