ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI
XLIV
ANALECTA ROMANA
INSTITUTI DANICI
XLIV
2019
ROMAE MMXX ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI XLIV © 2020 Accademia di Danimarca ISSN 2035-2506
Scientific Board
Mads Kähler Holst (Bestyrelsesformand, Det Danske Institut i Rom) Jens Bertelsen (Bertelsen & Scheving Arkitekter) Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt (Aalborg Universitet) Karina Lykke Grand (Aarhus Universitet) Thomas Harder (Forfatter/writer/scrittore) Morten Heiberg (Københavns Universitet) Hanne Jansen (Københavns Universitet) Erik Vilstrup Lorenzen (Den Danske Ambassade i Rom) Mogens Nykjær (Aarhus Universitet) Vinnie Nørskov (Aarhus Universitet) Niels Rosing-Schow (Det Kgl. Danske Musikkonservatorium) Erling Strudsholm (Københavns Universitet) Lene Østermark-Johansen (Københavns Universitet)
Editorial Board Marianne Pade (Chair of Editorial Board, Det Danske Institut i Rom - 31.08.19) Charlotte Bundgaard (Chair of Editorial Board, Det Danske Institut i Rom) Patrick Kragelund (Danmarks Kunstbibliotek) Sine Grove Saxkjær (Det Danske Institut i Rom) Gert Sørensen (Københavns Universitet) Anna Wegener (Det Danske Institut i Rom) Maria Adelaide Zocchi (Det Danske Institut i Rom)
Analecta Romana Instituti Danici. — Vol. I (1960) — . Copenhagen: Munksgaard. From 1985: Rome, «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider. From 2007 (online): Accademia di Danimarca.
ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI encourages scholarly contributions within the Academy’s research fields. All contributions will be peer reviewed. Manuscripts to be considered for publication should be sent to: [email protected] Authors are requested to consult the journal’s guidelines: www.acdan.it Contents
Signe Buccarella Hedegaard & Cecilie Brøns: Lost in Translation: An Introduction to the Challenging Task of Communicating Long-lost Polychromy on Graeco - Roman Marble Sculptures 7
Lærke Maria Andersen Funder: Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario 29
Claus Asbjørn Andersen: What is Metaphysics in Baroque Scotism? Key Passages from Bartolomeo Matri’s Disputations on Metaphysics (1646-1647) 49
Costantino Ceccanti: “Andre udmærkede Bygmestre”: Hermann Baagøe Storck e lo stile toscano nella Danimarca dell’Ottocento 73 Philology Then and Now Proceedings of the Conference held at the Danish Academy in Rome, 16 July 2019
Introduction: Making Sense of Texts: From Early Modern to Contemporary Philology 95
Minna Skafte Jensen: The Emic-Etic Distinction: a Tool in Neo-Latin Research? 99
Šime Demo: Getting Help from a Daughter: Linguistic Methodology and Early Modern Philology 113
Paolo Monella: A Digital Critical Edition Model for Priscian: Glosses, Graeca, Quotations 135
Johann Ramminger: Stylometry in a Language without Native Speakers: A Test Case from Early Modern Latin 151
Marianne Pade: Imitation and Intertextaulity in Humanist Translation 169
Julia Haigh Gaisser: Philology and Poetry in the Humanism of Giovanni Pontano 187
Karen Skovgaard-Petersen: Philological Pessimism: Henrik Ernst’s Treatise on Textual Criiticism (1652) 205
Trine Arlund Hass: The Meaning of Jul (Christmas) according to Pontanus, Vedel and Worm: Etymology, Controversy, and Foundation Myths of the Danes 217
Report
Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Claudio Parisi Presicce, Rubina Raja & Massimo Vitti:
Excavating Caesar’s Forum: Present Results of the Caesar’s Forum Project 239
Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario*
by Lærke Maria Andersen Funder
Abstract. In this paper the author constructs an object biography of the Spinario, a Roman bronze sculpture from the first century AD. In so doing, the paper will highlight the importance of a contextualizing approach to the study of the pivotal moments that have affected the reception of the Spinario from the Renaissance up to the present. The understanding of the reception of the Spinario has hitherto hinged upon a perceived total discontinuity between the medieval interpretations of the piece (which allegedly cast it as a symbol of pagan idolatry) and the Renaissance interpretation (which viewed the Spinario as a purely aesthetic object). Based on contemporary written and visual sources for the reception of the Spinario during successive periods, this paper shall argue that the bucolic connotations that attached to the Spinario in the medieval period were instrumental in propelling the piece to widespread fame in the Renaissance, making it a fitting material element in a cultural landscape influenced by bucolic poetry. The author then explores the afterlife of the bucolic frame of interpretation up until the present, to show how the shifting material and literary contexts of the Spinario created separate spheres of reception, leading to rather different interpretations in differing contexts.
The Spinario – the “Boy with Thorn” – was a mythological or heroic motif, nor was it not only one of the most popular antique discovered under fortuitous circumstances. It pieces in the Renaissance; it entered the is one of the only pieces of bronze sculpture Renaissance having already acquired a long that simply has remained above ground since history that impacted on its reception during its birth in antiquity. Today, it can be found that period.1 The Spinario was part of the in the Hall of the Triumphs at the Capitoline group of bronzes that in 1471 were moved Museums (inv. no MC1186). from the Lateran Palace in Rome to the The Spinario offers us no detailed account Capitol, given back to the people of the city by of its long life before its sudden burst to Pope Sixtus the IV (Fig. 1). Over the next two fame in the late fifteenth century. Indeed, it centuries, the Spinario became an extremely has been proposed that the popularity of the popular motif among collectors, artists and Spinario can in fact be attributed to this state intellectuals. It was replicated in miniature, of “anonymity”: that the statue’s origins were sculpture, plaster casts and drawings, and lost in history made it an easily mouldable reinterpreted by contemporary artists.2 Unlike image suited to a range of interpretations, other sculptures that gained fame in the and furthermore allowed for a heightened same period, the Spinario does not represent focus on its aesthetic qualities.3 A study of the
* This paper was written as part of the project Cul- ancient art, see McHam 2013; Bober & Rubenstein tural Encounter as a Precondition for European Identity 2011; Haskell 1995. funded by the Carlsberg Foundation. 2 Helmstutler di Dio & Coppel 2016, 16. 1 For an overview of the Renaissance reception of 3 Barkan 1999, 150. 30 Lærke Maria Andersen Funder
Spinario in the Middle Ages. Through a critical engagement with these three studies, I shall explore what the implications might be of a change in our understanding of the Spinario’s medieval reception on our understanding of its interpretative potential in the Renaissance. I shall argue that the most significant context of interpretation was formed in the late fifteenth century, leading to a substantial shift in cultural context, which changed the medieval perception of the Spinario as a symbol-laden genre figure into a unique object with its own set of connotations. I will trace how this specific layer of interpretation was challenged and transformed in two later significant moments in the Spinario’s life: the development of the discipline of classical archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and the modern interpretation of the sculpture in the Capitoline Museums. Through analyses of visual and textual sources, I will create an object biography of the Fig. 1. “The Spinario” in the Hall of the Triumphs, Spinario. The biographical method implies The Capitoline Museums (inv. no. MC1186). Roman, 1st cent BC.-1st cent AD. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons. that objects accumulate meanings over time. Courtesy of Jean-Pol Grandmont, 2013). Because the loss or conservation of these meanings is essential to the meaning-making Renaissance sources on the Spinario, however, abilities of the objects in a new context,5 indicates that it was anything but anonymous. the biographical approach highlights the The reception of the Spinario has been subject renegotiations of meaning that take place to three studies. W. S. Heckscher’s analysis of when objects are moved from one cultural 1955 of the reception of the Spinario in the context to another. It conceives objects “as Middle Ages greatly affected interpretations a culturally constructed entity, endowed with of the sculpture in subsequent research.4 culturally specific meanings and classified Gerhard Schweickhart built his 1977 study and reclassified into culturally constituted of the Renaissance reception of the Spinario categories”.6 The biographical approach on Heckscher’s conclusions, which deeply acknowledges that the interpretation of an influenced his hypothesis regarding the object always reveals just one of many aspects Renaissance interpretation of the sculpture. of its total biography. The insistence of the Rita Amedick’s study of 2005, however, object biography method on meaning as challenges both Heckscher’s and Schweickhart’s contextual and subject to change makes it a conclusions about the interpretation of the fitting methodology for exploring the dynamic
4 Heckscher 1955a and Heckscher 1955b; Panofsky to their cultural context and use. In their seminal 1972; Barkan 1999, 148–153. publication of 1999, Gosden and Marshall showed 5 Benzecry 2015. Kopytoff 1986 introduced the con- the potential of this approach in archaeology. cept of the “cultural biography of things”, where 6 Kopytoff 1986, 6. he showed that the meaning of objects is relative
Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario 31 and reciprocal processes of reception, in If you lean forward and look up to see which meaning making reflects not only what he’s doing, you discover genitals of the ancient context but also the culture of extraordinary size.10 reception, and in which all interpretations “continue to bear the traces of earlier Even a brief glance at the Spinario will meanings”.7 I shall address how we may reveal that neither does the boy seem to be explore the trajectory of these traces across in great pain, nor are his genitals prodigious contexts and media: How does the in size. Likewise, the reference to Priapus, the transference of earlier meanings into new Roman fertility god, seems at odds with the contexts imply continuity? Do some shifts appearance of the statue. Looking beyond in context represent a complete break from the Spinario, however, we may be able to earlier meanings? To investigate these themes, contextualize this description. For in medieval I have structured the inquiry chronologically, Europe we find other representations of thorn starting with the earliest direct sources for the pullers, appearing as architectural ornaments, Spinario. figurines and illustrations. Heckscher and Schweickhart have Medieval times: pagan idol or genre figure? demonstrated how many negative symbolic Our first trace of the Spinario is found in connotations were attached to the motif in the a text from the twelfth century, Narracio de Middle Ages: the thorn puller was a symbol mirabilibus urbis Romae by Master Gregory.8 Of of ignorance, physical pain, sinfulness.11 the group of Lateran bronzes, the colossal Schweickhart views the Capitoline Spinario as head of Constantine, the hand with globe and an “Urbild”, the model upon which all thorn the she-wolf or Lupa Capitolina are mentioned pullers in the Middle Ages are based, forming specifically in few medieval sources as being a new genre motif based on an Interpretatio at the Lateran, while the Camillus is not Christiana of the Capitoline Spinario as a mentioned at all prior to its move to the symbol of sin.12 He points out how, during the Capitol.9 Middle Ages, interpretations of spinarii thus Master Gregory’s guide is rather engaged solely with symbolic connotations bewildering in its description of the statue: and ignored the aesthetic, formal aspects of the sculpture.13 If Schweickhardt’s reading is There is another bronze statue, a rather correct, it would explain why medieval thorn laughable one, which they call Priapus. He pullers have very little in common stylistically looks as though he is in severe pain, with with their model; the artists were interested his head bent down as if to remove from in the figure solely as a symbol and not as an his foot a thorn that he had stepped on. aesthetic object.
7 Martindale 2013, 172. dieval times seen as the archetype of a vain youth, 8 Borchardt 1936, and Heckscher 1955b, 14 cite “The is embodied by the Spinario, arguing that long hair Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela” as the one other is one of the defining traits of the Spinario. This source for the Spinario. “In front of St. John in characteristic could however be equally applied to the Lateran there are statues of Samson in marble one of the other Lateran bronzes: the Camillus, a with a spear in his hand, and of Absalom the son beautiful youth with his long hair in an elaborate of King David, and another of Constantinus the do, Capitoline Museums Inv. No. MC1184 (Presic- Great, who built Constantinople and after whom it ce 2010, 82; Stuart-Jones 1968, 47–49). was called. The last-named statue is of bronze, the 9 Stuart-Jones 1968, 48. horse being overlaid with gold. Many other edifices 10 Translation of Latin text from Osborne (Magister are there, and remarkable sights beyond enumera- Gregorius 1987, 23. tion” (trans. Adler 1907, 7). Benjamin’s mention of 11 Heckscher 1955a; Heckscher 1955b, 289–299; a statue of Absalom at the Lateran is taken as refer- Schweickhart 1977, 244. ence to the Spinario. Heckscher 1955b, 20 argues 12 Ibid., 243–245. that Absalom, known for his long hair and in me- 13 Ibid., 245. 32 Lærke Maria Andersen Funder
Important nuances to this interpretation that in antiquity the thorn-puller motif was were added by Amedick’s 2005 study of the associated with the Dionysian, uncivilized and thorn-puller motif in medieval Europe. Based sometimes grotesque rusticus, a rural and rough on stylistic analyses of antique and medieval figure, such as a shepherd. The rustici were thorn pullers, Amedick demonstrates that the connected to the Dionysian as part of the set stylistic homogeneity of the interpretations of stock bucolic characters in both literature across contexts and media in the Middle Ages and material culture, as we shall see below.18 shows that the thorn-puller motif as genre Amedick, however, demonstrated that the was established in antiquity and continued bucolic frame of reference was more nuanced: into the Middle Ages. She thus refutes the thorn-puller motif appearing in medieval Schweickhart’s hypothesis that the Capitoline calendar imagery evoked a sophisticated set Spinario is the source of the medieval thorn of connotations that drew on tropes from pullers.14 Amedick showed that the medieval the continued tradition of bucolic poetry interpretation of the motif evolved within a and, in material culture such as mosaics and framework that focused on pastoral aspects that sarcophagi, was fused with seasonal imagery had been established in Hellenistic times and from antiquity.19 We may therefore explore the were carried forth through Roman antiquity.15 notion of the Spinario’s connotations further The relation to the pastoral is evident in the in order to nuance the concept of a solely allegorical relation between the thorn-puller negative frame of reference. motif and the month of March in late antique How the Spinario was placed physically, and medieval calendar imagery, where the and how it could be seen during its time at thorn puller symbolizes the month of March. the Lateran, is central to the understanding The month of March was connected to the of its reception in the Middle Ages. The zodiac sign of Aries, which in medieval times exact placement and thus the visibility of the was associated with herding and shepherds, Spinario at the Lateran have been the subject while Mars, the divine aspect of the month of much discussion.20 Heckscher’s hypothesis of March, was related to thorny plants. As that the Spinario was placed atop a column an allegorical figure, this motif was neutral and therefore displayed as a symbol of pagan enough in terms of religious connotations idolatry has been extremely influential on to be transferred from a pagan to a Christian the interpretation of the work’s symbolic context.16 While the relation between March value.21 Heckscher’s argument rests on Master and the thorn-puller motif is noted by Gregory’s description, which stipulates that Heckscher and Schweickhart, both see this one had to look up at the statue. Furthermore, allegorical interpretation only as evidence Heckscher hypothesizes that all statues at the of negative symbolism: neither scholar Lateran were placed on columns; but relying includes a bucolic frame of interpretation, on circumstantial inference alone does not even if this could easily encompass the offer direct evidence to corroborate this negative associations demonstrated,17 given statement.22 Master Gregory’s description,
14 Amedick 2005, 24–25. in the form of tunic-clad children is a stock char- 15 Ibid., 33–34. acter in representations of the Entry into Jerusa- 16 Ibid., 36-40. lem, symbolically denoting innocence and formally 17 Heckscher1955a, 289–299; Schweickhart 1977, used as a classicizing element (Mouriki 1972; Jevtic 245–246. 1999). 18 See Amedick 2005, 26–33, for further examples. 20 See e.g. Cocke 1980; Borchardt 1936; Barkan 1999. 19 Amedick 2005, 35–36. That the thorn-puller motif 21 For Heckscher’s argument see 1955a and 1955b could be used in neutral or indeed positive contexts 15–17. It is repeated in Panofsky 1972, 89–90. is corroborated by Mouriki’s analysis of the motif 22 Heckscher 1955a; Heckscher 1955b, 14–17. in a Byzantine context. Here the thorn-puller motif Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario 33 moreover, only indicates that it was necessary evidence shows that the sculptures in question to look up at the Spinario; so the statue were represented as statues with clear cultic must have been placed somewhat up high, connotations and functions, such as those but we are given no further details about its associated with Venus or Apollo, while placement.23 written evidence speaks of the toppling over The hypothesis that all the Lateran bronzes of columns with Jupiter on top.26 Compared were placed on columns must be critically with statues like these, the Spinario does not assessed. A fifteenth-century drawing at- appear to be an obvious candidate for a symbol tributed to Ciriaco d’Ancona shows the of pagan idolatry.27 While it is certainly naked, equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius in front in common with many cult statues, nothing in of the Lateran. To the right of the statue its iconography connects it to that genre. This are shown two of the Lateran bronzes, the evidence, combined with the fact that we do colossal bronze head of Constantine and the not know if the Spinario ever was displayed hand with globe, resting on capitals placed on on a column, makes the interpretation of it top of a gate. While this depiction is certainly as a potent symbol of pagan idolatry shaky.28 not a realistic vision of the Lateran but may, Recent studies of Master Gregory’s text also as Phillip Fehl has suggested, be a “visual question the credibility of the Narracio as a inventory” of some of the statues displayed at source for medieval Rome. William Kynan- the site, the drawing illustrates the possibility Wilson has shown that the text functions as a that statues may have been integrated into parody on the twelfth-century description of and displayed on architectural elements other Rome’s mirabilia, using elements of grotesque than columns.24 Master Gregory says that the humour to ridicule the riveting encomiums by Lupa Capitolina is placed in the portico of pious pilgrims and learned men alike of the the Lateran Palace, while Cristina Mazzoni wonders of Rome. Kynan-Wilson interprets has shown that the statue was moved several the description of the Spinario as one such times during its time at the Lateran; while we instance.29 This corroborates Amedick’s have no evidence for the statue being placed suggestion that Master Gregory is drawing on a column, written sources indicate that in on established visual connotations of the the early fifteenth century it was placed on a grotesque medieval thorn-puller motif, rather tower shelf.25 Based on this evidence we can than providing an accurate description of the hardly know whether the Spinario was on the statue. In the Narracio, the Spinario is made same spot from the twelfth century until its part of the tradition of the thorn-puller motif, move to the Capitol in 1471. rather than defining it.30 In fact, we are not even able to establish We can surmise that the Spinario, along if it ever was placed on a column. From the with the other Lateran bronzes, was deemed evidence of late antique and early medieval important enough to be displayed publicly manuscripts, we can see that the combination outside the Lateran, but the exact frame of of classical statue and column was visual reference, and indeed the actual placement shorthand for a “pagan idol”. Pictorial of the bronzes, across the centuries remains
23 See Amedick 2005, 39 for similar conclusion. She analogous to the Roman rostra, the head and hand suggests the Spinario may have been placed on a of Constantine may be more suitable candidates console attached to a wall. for the dubious honour. Master Gregory describes 24 Fehl 1974, 363. the body parts as the remnants of a heathen statue 25 Mazzoni 2010, 40 – 49. destroyed by Pope Gregory I (Magister Gregorius 26 Kristensen 2014, 276–278; Kiernan 2016, 207–210. 1987, 22–23). 27 While such a display outside the papal residence 28 Barkan 1999, 53; Amedick 2005, 38. does make sense following Heckscher’s line of in- 29 Kynan-Wilson 2018, 360–361. terpretation of the statue display at the Lateran as 30 Amedick 2005 33 and 40. 34 Lærke Maria Andersen Funder unknown.31 We may here remind ourselves Capitoline Spinario. An example of how the that the display of the Lateran bronzes may be motif, and indeed perhaps the Capitoline viewed as an expression of the medieval spolia Spinario, was interpreted in a simultaneously culture. Maria Fabricius-Hansen has shown symbolic and bucolic context and as an that the adaptation of elements of architectural aesthetic element is Filippo Brunelleschi’s remains dating from antiquity into the early scene of the Sacrifice of Isaac of 1401 (Fig. churches was intended not as a display of 2.).34 Here a thorn-pulling youth appearing in antiquity conquered, but as a material mediation the right corner may be the first direct artistic of continuity between the grandeur of the reference to the Spinario, perhaps even the past and the present.32 Indeed, the dedicatory beginnings of an aesthetic reception which inscription by Sixtus IV accompanying the imitates the style rather than referring to the sculptures in their transfer to the Capitol in symbolic aspects of the piece.35 However, it 1471 states that they are “priscae excellentiae has been suggested that Brunelleschi’s thorn virtutisque monumentum”: were there ever puller does not refer exclusively to the aesthetic any negative connotations connected with the aspects of the Spinario, but also incorporates Spinario and the other Lateran bronzes, by a symbolic frame of interpretation drawing on now they are lost. a bucolic context. The thorn puller is placed beneath the ram sent by God from heaven to Transitions of meaning in the fifteenth century: the replace Isaac in the sacrifice, referencing the birth of a unique object associations of the motif with the sign of The transition of the Spinario from medieval the Aries and with the month of March, and to Renaissance contexts of reception has the young man himself may be interpreted been characterized as a total break with its as a shepherd. The function of the Spinario negative medieval symbolic layers, with the may here be characterized as a stock figure framework of reception gradually changing providing a credible identity for one of the during the fifteenth century from content- two servants Abraham had brought with him focused and symbolic to formal and aesthetic. to the sacrifice.36 Motif-wise, he serves as a Schweickhart interprets the retaining of counterweight to the dynamic figure of the the reference to the month of March in other servant, who looks on attentively at various forms in the written sources into the action while the thorn puller is oblivious, the nineteenth century as an indication that focused on his left foot.37 the Spinario continued to be understood as Amedick’s seminal insights into the reception a personification of that month, with the process between antiquity and medieval times symbolic and negative connotations gradually make clear that we are dealing with a continuity being forgotten; by the fifteenth century, the that is conditioned by a reinterpretation from name is empty of all symbolism and becomes pagan to Christian cultural context. I shall in a simple denominator.33 the following argue that the bucolic frame of However, based on Amedick’s analysis interpretation was seminal in transforming connecting the month of March to shepherds the way the Capitoline Spinario was read from and thorns, at the beginning of the fifteenth medieval times into the Renaissance. In this century the use of the name “Marzo” may point period, the Spinario emerges as an individually to a continuation of the bucolic associations appreciated piece, fathering its own genre with of the thorn-puller motif, including the its own symbolic connotation.
31 Barkan 1999, 52–53. 35 Barkan 1999; Cocke 1980, 21. 32 Fabricius Hansen 2015. 36 Genesis 22 2:8. 33 Schweickhart 1977, 245–246. 37 Amedick 2005, 37; Snow-Smith 1989. 34 Palazzo del Bargello inv. no 209? Bronzi. Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario 35
Fig. 2. The Sacrifice of Isaac. Bronze relief by Fi- lippo Brunelleschi (1401). Palazzo del Bargel- lo inv. no 209 Bronzi. Wikimedia Commons. Courtesy of Sailko (2009).
The Spinario in the Renaissance: a life of its own dei Conservatori, since the conservators were The Capitoline Spinario is a constant featu- responsible for the preservation and upkeep re in the emerging genre of guidebooks and of public buildings and monuments in Rome.40 collections of drawings of famous Roman Written sources attest to the shifting outdoor statues during the early sixteenth century, and placements of the head of Constantine and one of the most copied ancient sculptures in the hand with globe from their arrival at the figurines.38 The move from the Lateran to the Palazzo dei Conservatori in the late fifteenth Capitol is very likely the focal point of this century; a drawing of the Capitol by Marten sudden burst of fame.39 With the act of re- van Heemskerk c. 1530 shows how the Lupa dedication of the small collection of bronzes Capitolina for some time stood over the central to the Roman people to commemorate their portico of the Palazzo del Conservatori.41 past greatness, Pope Sixtus IV provided them The earliest written source for the Spinario with a powerful context as part of the cen- on the Capitol, the Prospettivo Milanese, tells tral narrative of Rome. These sculptures had us that the figure was placed indoors, in one witnessed the history of the city through the of the rooms on the first floor of the palace: centuries, and were now placed as symbols of “Disopra allui e marzo della spina/tiene el its greatness at its very centre, at the heart of pie ritto al sinistro gienochio/sta gemmofisso ancient Rome. collarcata schina”.42 This is consistent with It is fitting, and a strong symbolic act, that Andrea Fulvius’ description of the Capitoline the Lateran bronzes were placed in the Palazzo Spinario in his Antiquaria Urbis Romae of
38 Watson 1973, 358. 41 Stuart-Jones 1968, 173–175; Hülsen & Egger 1913, 39 Barkan 1999, 53. folio 17. 40 Karmon 2011, ch. 2. 42 Prospettivo Milanese, carta 3r, col. II. My emphasis. 36 Lærke Maria Andersen Funder
1513, where the statue, here named pastor, is are an exact copy of the Spinario, but rather described as being placed in a room within paraphrase it.49 Most famous are the versions the palace.43 Indeed, the sources show us that by Pier Jacobi Alari Bonacolsi (also known the Spinario, while perhaps moving from time as Antico), of which one from c. 1496–1501 to time, has remained indoors at the Palazzo has come down to us.50 Working in Mantua, dei Conservatori since its arrival. The earliest Antico provided the Gonzaga family with at surviving drawing of the Spinario, in an least three miniatures of the Spinario at the anonymous sketchbook from the turn of the sixteenth century,44 shows the Spinario drawn in a way that indicates that it was placed at eye level, which can be confirmed by Jan Gosaert’s drawing of 1508/09 (Fig. 3).45 We can conclude that from the early sixteenth century it was therefore possible to see it up close, much as it is exhibited in the Hall of Triumphs today.46 This increased visibility, in combination with the Renaissance appreciation of the formal aesthetics of the sculpture of antiquity, may indeed serve to explain the popularity of the Spinario. Life-size bronze and plaster casts of the Spinario were sought-after collectibles among European royalty, while the large production of bronze miniatures provided an option for collectors with more modest financial means.47 This was also a medium in which artists could show their skill in the reconfiguration and reinterpretation of the original, classical motif, translating the humanist practice of imitatio from literature to material culture.48 The Spinario materialized the artistic virtuosity of classical antiquity, Fig. 3. Drawing of the equestrian statue of Marcus Au- relius, ascribed to Cyriaco d’Ancona Garrett MS 158. allowing contemporary artists who copied it to Marcanova, Collectio Antiquitatum, 8v. Courtesy of express theirs. Indeed none of the miniatures Princeton University Library.
43 Fulvius 1513, 28. statua di bronzo, che rappresenta Martio Pastore 44 Holkam, Holkham Hall: MS. 701, fol. 34v. che si cava una spina d’un piede.” 45 Prentenkabinet, Leiden University Library. 47 Stuart-Jones 1968, 47; Haskell & Penny 1981, 308; 46 While we cannot say exactly how the figure was ex- Helmstutler di Dio & Coppel 2016, 16. hibited, two etchings show him on a column (Al- 48 Syson 2012, 23; Penzenstadtler 2014, 501–502. berti 1584, plate 61; Dente, first quarter of the six- 49 Radcliffe 1994, 30–32. While the vast majority of teenth century, in Lafreri c. 1540–1580, vol 2, plate the miniature thorn pullers represent a variation of 89). The Capitoline inventory of 1641 lists him as the Spinario, two examples seem to draw on the placed on a column: “Una colonna di pietra mis- medieval type of the grotesque provided with an chia verde...”. (Cited in Stuart-Jones 1968, 361) A impossibly large thorn and a face contorted in pain. contemporary etching in Perrier 1638, shows him An ivory thorn puller today in Amsterdam is the on a low column. This may be the same column earliest example, dated to late fifteenth century (inv. it is placed on today, as the Capitoline Museums No. RBK 17226; Halsema-Kubes et al. 1973, 362), on their online catalogue trace the column (inv. no while a bronze thorn puller at the Metropolitan COL 510) and base (inv. no COL 53) back to the Museum of Art (inv. No. 24.212.1.) is dated to the inventory of 1692, where they are described in a mid-sixteenth century. strikingly similar wording: “Una colonna di pietra 50 Metropolitan Museum of Art inv. no. 2012.157; Sy- mischia verde con suo fogliame sotto con sopra una son 2012, 23. Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario 37 turn of the fifteenth century; two of them rulers, integrated pastoral poetry into court belonged to Lodovico and Gianfrancesco culture.57 In this context, with the pastoral Gonzaga.51 The posthumous inventory of now firmly established as cultural capital, it is Gianfrancesco Gonzaga’s collection from not surprising that Isabella d’Este requested 1496 describes the statuette as “... uno putino a Spinario for her studiolo. The miniature de metalo chiamate pastorello”, confirming Spinario was not the only bucolic reference that at the time the bucolic context was in the room: Lorenzo Costa’s Coronation of associated with the Spinario.52 Isabella d’Este a Woman Poet (1505–06), commissioned by acquired one for her studiolo in 1501, as part Isabella, is an allegorical representation of of a series of miniatures of famous ancient Isabella as Sappho. This image draws heavily Roman statues. This collection may have on bucolic imagery, the idyllic garden a served as a geographical allusion to the city of metaphor for d’Este’s studiolo.58 This context Rome as the site of origin for the rebirth of adds a further layer to the meaning of the antiquity, a pendant to Isabella’s collection of Spinario statuette. It would have functioned Roman antiquities.53 The studiolo was part of as a three-dimensional expression of a theme the Renaissance self-fashioning, attesting to that was represented both visually and textually the erudition, scholarly qualities and learned in the studiolo: d’Este’s library contained the taste of the owner, and evoking connotations works of the most famed of the Mantuan of an otium in isolated bliss.54 That the Spinario writers of pastoral poetry, Giovanni Battista was fitting decor for astudiolo of the erudite is Spagnuoli (Mantuan), who was immensely indicated by the inclusion of a statuette of it in influential in the development of the genre Pierfrancesco Foschi’s mid-sixteenth-century in the high Renaissance.59 Another example portrait, Cardinal Pucci as a Learned Man.55 of the pastoral connotations of the Spinario The humanist poets of the Renaissance is the incorporation of King Phillip II’s full- imitated the classical models. Modelling their size bronze copy into a fountain in the idyllic pieces on Theocritus’ and Virgil’s poems, they gardens of Aranjuez in 1615 – a fitting context not only took over themes and form, but also for a shepherd’s boy.60 continued to use the names that Theocritus The written sources for the Spinario and Vergil had given their shepherds, thus further indicate that the statue was associated creating a stock of genre figures whose with a bucolic universe: in the sixteenth- and genealogy stretched back to antiquity.56 seventeenth-century guides to Rome, the From the mid-fifteenth century, the courts figure is generally described as a shepherd.61 of Ferrara and Mantua were centres for The Roman antiquarian Bartolomeo Marliani pastoral poetry, producing poets who through likens the Spinario to the shepherd of bucolic their close association with the city states’ poetry in his Urbis Romae Topgraphia: “alterum
51 Watson & Fahy 1973, 359. piece for emulation for renaissance artists are also 52 Archivio di Stato, Mantua, Archivio notarile, notaio indicated in visual sources, such as Pieter Claesz’ Giacomo Cantalupi, b. 341, c. 9v Ferrari 2008, doc. still life from 1628 of a painter’s study materials, 10. Reproduced in Furlotti & Rebecchini 2008, 106. where a plaster cast of the Spinario is featured 53 Furlotti & Rebecchini 2008, 107. (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-3930). 54 Clark 2013, 171–172 and Ruvoldt 2006 provide a 56 Marsh 2014, 2. thorough discussion of the socio-cultural aspects 57 Ibid., 5. of the renaissance studiolo. 58 Campbell 2006, 199–204. 55 Galleria Corsini, Florence; Ruvoldt 2006, 650. 59 Marsh 2014. The statuettes of the Spinario could also serve 60 Helmstutler di Dio & Coppel 2016, 6. as inkstands (Victoria and Albert Museum, inv. 61 Pastor in Fulvius 1513 liber I, fol. / 1527, Lib. II, no. 4533&A-1858; a piece by Severo da Ravenna, fol. xx verso – xxi recto: pastore in Fauno 1548, 32; dated to 1510–1530 and The Ashmolean Museum, Palladio 1554, 17 and Aldrovandi 1556, 12: pastorello inv. no. WA1899CDEF.B1078; also by Severo da in Aldrovandi 1556, 12 and Gamucci 1565, 12. Ravenna, 1510–1530.) The Spinario’s status as a 38 Lærke Maria Andersen Funder nudum pueri sedentis, ac curvato corpore to pasture, so I will suggest that naming the spinam è planta pedis evellere conantis: non statue of a shepherd’s boy after one of the absimilis Batto, quem Theocritus sic loquentem spring months only strengthens this frame of inducit”.62 The text Marliani here refers to is interpretation. Theocritus’ fourth Idyll, where the shepherd The evidence presented above indicates Battus is stung by a thorn in his foot. The that the interpretation of the Spinario in offending object is removed by his fellow this period was founded in tradition, but herdsman, Corydon.63 The Spinario motif reformulated in a new frame based on was thus anchored in the classical sources the statue’s aesthetic qualities and the new in Theocritus’ fourth Idyll and transferred fervour for bucolic poetry. The reception of from literature to sculpture. The Spinario is the Spinario in the Renaissance continues here a material link between the past and the an aspect of the figure established during present.64 medieval times, namely that the boy is a This frame of interpretation is still relevant shepherd, yet recontextualizes this in a culture in the late seventeenth century, when an focused on the revival of antiquity in which etching by the art historian and artist Joachim bucolic literature and imagery provide a link von Sandrart shows the Spinario placed in to the past. This gives the Capitoline Spinario an idyllic pastoral landscape, resting with his life, not as a medieval genre figure, but as a shepherd’s crook cast aside. Here the figure unique object referring back to antiquity. The is called “Corydon”, the other shepherd of Spinario now attains a new role as a material the fourth Idyll.65 However, as Scweickhart aspect of the reception of the bucolic genre noted, the reference to “March” continues – a motif from antiquity that would be throughout the Renaissance and beyond. In immediately meaningful to the Renaissance a now lost inscription that accompanied the connoisseur, since recognizing it as a shepherd Spinario at the Capitol from 1609, the figure is implied knowledge of antique literature and called “Eneum martii pastoris simulacrum”.66 symbolism. The descriptions of the sculpture The reference appears again in the 1692 in guides represent it not as an allegorical type inventory of the Palazzo dei Conservatori, or symbol, but as a unique object. The cultural where the Spinario is named “Martio framework for the reception of the Spinario Pastore”. That the name of March at this across textual and material culture thus appears point in time has become the colloquial name to have been fairly uniform from the fifteenth used for the Spinario is indicated by Rossi’s to seventeenth centuries, affecting how it phrasing in 1697 when he describes the statue was seen across contexts from antiquarian in Descrizione di Roma Moderna as “... da alcuni guidebooks to collections to the visual arts. chiamato Marzo...”.67 What do we make of Through this reception, the Spinario comes to the use of this name? Has it become an empty establish its own genre, with its own set of denominator, as Schweickhart suggests, or cultural references, attached and multiplied does it stick because it still makes sense in a across various materials from etchings to bucolic frame of reference? Spring is the time statuettes. of year when the shepherds lead their flock
62 Marliani 1544, lib. II, 27. My emphasis. Paraphrase: integrated into material representations of the Spi- “ . . another naked (statue) of a sitting boy who nario, indicated by a small bronze found in the Mu- tries to pull out a thorn from the sole of his foot. seo del Bargello, Florence, bearing the inscription It is not unlike Battus whom Theocritus introduces, “Battos”. speaking as follows.” 66 The inscription is reproduced in Galletti 1760 II, 63 Theocritus 1912, 57–59. no 96. It commemorates three Roman consuls who 64 This frame of reference was again used by Totti paid for some expenses in relation the statue. What 1627, 360. they were is, unfortunately, lost to time. 65 von Sandrart 1680, 46. This identification was also Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario 39
The archaeological gaze: genre and motif in antiquity of the development of ancient art. Amedick The bucolic interpretation was challenged in presents a short history of research on the the antiquarian guides to Rome as early as the Spinario from the eighteenth century to the late seventeenth century, when the Spinario present in her pursuit of the antique identity was now identified as a runner.68 The guides of the sculpture.72 Based on this overview, show that a complex narrative was spun in we can see that throughout the eighteenth this period around the Spinario, which combi- and nineteenth centuries, prominent scholars ned the heroic with the pastoral. The Spinario believed the Spinario to be a classical piece was a young shepherd tasked with delivering of the fifth century BC – or perhaps dating a message of impending enemy attack to the even further back to the Severe style of the Roman Senate on the Capitol. So diligent had late sixth century BC. This dating meant that he been in performing his task that he only the interpretation of the Spinario motif now stopped to remove a thorn from his foot once fitted into the general tendency of the Severe he had delivered the message.69 As Claudio and Classical styles to represent noble athletes Presicce has shown, this narrative was wide- and heroes in sculpture; the Spinario was spread among European antiquarians. The interpreted as a runner by the art historian same narrative was also transferred over to Ennio Visconti, as a temple servant by the the museal context, where the 1804 invento- classical archaeologist Adolf Fürtwängler.73 ry refers to the figure as “... Il Fedele, o sia In this context, interpretation of the Spinario Pastore...”70 This new epithet “the faithful” understood it as a type, the motif retroactively implies a new symbolic character gained by fitted into the class of sculptures of which, the Spinario through the heroic narrative into based on stylistic features, it was believed to which the statue was now integrated. This be part. narrative stresses the Spinario’s connection to The origins and date of the Spinario were the history of Rome, strengthening its rela- once again subject to scholarly debate in the tion to the site where it was on display, the twentieth century. A dating to the sixth to fifth Capitol. century BC had, for both stylistic and technical In the eighteenth century, a new context reasons, to be abandoned. The casting emerged for the Spinario. This on the technique applied on the work has no parallels one hand continued to emphasize the in the few original bronze sculptures that have interpretation of the piece as a work of come down to us from the fifth century BC, but ancient art, but on the other removed it was common in Roman times.74 The Spinario from the bucolic context established in the is an eclectic piece, combining Hellenistic Renaissance. In the developing discipline of realism with Severe-style abstraction, and the classical archaeology, the main interest was combination of several styles in one unique in placing the Spinario in a chronological art- piece is a hallmark of Roman sculpture. Today historical narrative based on stylistic analysis.71 the consensus is that it is a Roman piece, and The interpretation of the Spinario was here the crux of the debate over the Spinario is reduced to a formal analysis in order to whether it is from the first century BC or the understand it as part of a temporal sequence late first century AD.75
67 Rossi 1697, 546. 71 Siapkas & Sjögren 2014, 170–171. 68 Rossini 1693, 14; See Schweickhart 1977, 251–252 72 Amedick 2005, 26–28. for further examples. 73 Visconti 1831, 163–165; Fürtwängler 1876, 81. 69 Presicce 2010, 309. 74 Stuart-Jones 1968, 46–47. 70 Inventories of the Capitoline Museums 1804, fol. 75 Stuart-Jones 1968, 47; Ajootian 1998, 121; Presicce 130v-fol. 131r. 2010, 206–207. 40 Lærke Maria Andersen Funder
Twentieth-century classical archaeology Latin by Vergil.82 Paul Zanker has argued that returned the Spinario to its bucolic context the combination of Hellenistic and Severe through comparative studies of Hellenistic style in the Capitoline Spinario can be seen genre sculpture. This interpretation was not a as a reflection of the literary genre in material return to the Renaissance frame of reference, culture. The creation of lowly characters but drew on the academically established in marble and bronze, materials which had body of knowledge of the bucolic genre in until Hellenistic times been used for religious antiquity. The Spinario was now understood or heroic statuary, is a material version of as a representative of a genre of sculptures.76 the technique used by Theocritus where In the Hellenistic age, individuals from the noble hexameters are used to tell stories of lower social tiers became increasingly popular characters from the lower tiers of society.83 motifs; grotesques in the form of statuettes In this frame of interpretation, the Capitoline of thorn pullers are known from this period.77 Spinario is an example of a refined cross- A second century BC marble statuette of a genre aesthetic, a complex composition that thorn puller found in Antioch is, conversely, in both form and motif plays on art-historical an indicator that more naturalistic forms of references, literary genre conventions, and the theme were also extant.78 The motif of conventions of material. the thorn puller was associated with bucolic Thus the discipline of classical archaeology and Dionysian themes evident from a series created a new framework of reception for of sculptures – all of them Roman versions the Spinario, one that divorced it completely of Hellenistic originals – showing Pan pulling from the bucolic context established in the a thorn from the feet of a satyr, beings that Renaissance. The Renaissance interpretation, were associated with Dionysus and with which had appreciated the sculpture for its the rambunctious, rustic way of life.79 The aesthetic and symbolic properties connecting Capitoline Spinario is most likely the lone it to the glorious past reborn, was undermined survivor of a sculpture type that existed in by the typological methodology fuelled by a several copies, attested through finds of positivistic epistemology.84 The development fragments of heads and hands.80 of classical archaeological methodology The Hellenistic period also saw the would eventually return the Spinario to a development of bucolic poetry, with the bucolic frame of interpretation through a Idylls of Theocritus the defining piece of the reconstruction of the socio-cultural context genre in the third century BC.81 The genre of the bucolic in antiquity. However, the retained its popularity through Roman times, implications for the interpretation differed with Vergil and his Eclogues as a central work widely in the potential meaning ascribed to from the second half of the first century BC. the piece. The engagement with antiquity A hallmark of bucolic poetry was the mixing during the Renaissance turned the Spinario in of traits from other literary genres, often into an object that bridged time and space in such a way as to produce juxtaposition. through the bucolic framework. The classical Theocritus lets his rustic shepherds speak in archaeological interpretation of the Spinario heroic hexameters, a mixed form adapted to established it as an object of the past, a
76 Stuart-Jones 1968, 46; Zanker 1974, 71–75; Ridg- 80 Presicce 2008. way 2001. 81 Zanker 2004, 129; Marsh 2014; Kegel-Brinkgreve 77 Smith 1991, 135–136; Masseglia 2015, 236; Bou- 1990, 3–43. cher 1978, 188; Raeder 1984, 36. 82 Zanker 2004, 131; Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990; 123– 78 Baltimore Museum of Art Inv. No 1937, 124; Brin- 125. kerhoff 1970, 38. 83 Zanker 2004, 133. 79 Pollitt 1986, 134. 84 Siapkas & Sjögren 2014, 90–91. Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario 41 material remnant of a culture lost. This break The feature after which the room is named in continuity was also marked by a division is the fresco by Michele Alberti and Iacopo between the contexts of interpretation: Rocchetti (1569) of the Triumph of Lucius during the Renaissance, the interpretation Aemilius Paulus in 167 BC after the defeat of of the Spinario as a shepherd’s boy not only King Perseus of Macedonia. The four days of played out in the guides to Rome, but was the Triumph are depicted on the four walls evident in visual and museal interpretations of the room, culminating with the ascent to of the Spinario. A look at how the Spinario the Capitol. The fresco shows the Triumph is currently displayed at the Capitoline taking place in the Rome of the sixteenth Museums will reveal that the academic frame century, merging the past with the present of interpretation is largely absent from the and making the Capitol a place of temporal present museal context. transcendence. Another painting by Pietro da Cortona (1644–1650) was commissioned in The Spinario as museum object honour of a victorious papal Roman general, The narrative of the Spinario as a bucolic gen- Alessandro Sacchetti. Depicting the general’s re piece has not found its way into its contem- namesake, Alexander the Great, in his victory porary exhibiting at the Capitol, nor into the over the Persian king Darius, it celebrates the guidebooks, where the statue is only identified parallelism between the glorious past and the as the Spinario, a first-century BC Roman pie- glory of the sixteenth century. Rome, and ce, one of the precious bronzes from the La- the victory of civilization over barbarism, are teran.85 This framework of interpretation also extant in both images, placing focus on worldly features prominently on the museum webpa- power. Religion, however, is not absent from ge, where the front page features a composi- this condensation of history. In the Hall of te picture of the Lateran bronzes, illustrating the Triumphs we also find paintings of Saint a short entry on the foundation and core of Francis (1614), the patron saint of Italy, the Capitoline collections. The webpage de- and Saint Francesca of Rome (1638). These scription of the Spinario additionally informs paintings are accompanied by two other us that the statue gained popularity in the Re- pieces from the Lateran bronzes: the Camillus naissance, and that the meaning of the pie- and the krater of Mithridates V of Pontos. ce has been subject to numerous interpreta- Finally, another of the earliest pieces in the tions, although no examples of this are given. Capitoline collection, the so-called Brutus, a None of the texts identifies the Spinario as a republican bronze given to the collection in shepherd; the texts focus on two aspects of 1564, watches over the room sternly.88 That the piece – that it is Roman and, as part of the portrait has since the Renaissance been the Lateran donation, that it forms part of the interpreted as Junius Brutus, one of the foundation of the Capitoline Museums.86 founders of the Roman republic, strengthens The display in which the Spinario forms the feeling of deep history invoked by the a part today in the Hall of Triumphs, room. The Spinario is here woven into a where it has stood since 1820, is heavy larger biographical narrative, that of the with symbolism.87 The Hall of Triumphs Capitoline Museums themselves. Here the historically functioned as a meeting room archaeologically established identity of the for the conservators, retaining its baroque sculpture is irrelevant, as the introductory interior from the restoration of 1563–1587. display text shows: “The hall contains precious
85 Presicce 2010, 75. 87 Stuart-Jones 1968, 47. 86 Capitoline Museums 2020d; Capitoline Museums 88 Presicce 2010, 82. 2020b. 42 Lærke Maria Andersen Funder antique bronzes, such as the Spinario (first was Ascanius/Iulus, the mythical founder of century BC), also called the Cavaspina, which the gens Iulia, the forefather of Caesar and represents a boy who is removing a thorn Augustus.91 This new attempt to identify the from his foot – the eclectic work is a Sixtus Spinario with a mythical, heroic figure echoes IV’s [sic] donation of 1471...”.89 The Spinario those of the nineteenth century. It establishes on the Capitol is mainly communicated as a a strong connection with the golden age of musealized object whose meaning springs Roman art, consolidating the status of the from the Sistine donations and the subsequent Spinario not only as an aesthetic masterpiece, fame won by the statue during the Renaissance, but as an example of early Roman imperial art placing him in a continuous history of Rome, from the golden age of Augustus. This stresses from antiquity, through the Renaissance, up the Spinario’s meaning as an archaeological to today. The meaning of the statue is thus object. While the identity of the shepherd is connected to a sense of place – the Capitol maintained, it is now placed in the epic world of as centre of Rome – and time – the Spinario the Aeneid: the statue exhibited at the Capitol, as a connection between now, the Renaissance civic centre of modern Rome and religious and antiquity. nucleus of the ancient, is no other than one The reception of Spinario in the of the mythical fathers of the Roman people. Capitoline Museums continues the aesthetic As of 2019, however, this interpretation has understanding of the statue established in the not been included in the permanent display Renaissance – a masterpiece from antiquity. of the Spinario.92 In the Capitoline Museums, While the other objects in the Hall of Triumphs the Spinario is part of the biography of the are placed along the wall, the Spinario is placed institution, marking a pivotal moment in the squarely in the middle, facing visitors as they history of the collections: a manifestation of enter the room. Clearly, it is the main exhibit. cultural and institutional continuity across five The meeting orchestrated here stresses hundred years. the immediate experience of great artistry and beauty. But the shepherd’s identity has Conclusions recently been revived in the museum context: In this paper I have constructed a biography a special exhibition held in 2014, “Storia e of the Spinario from the late fifteenth to the Fortuna”, explored the antique context and twenty-first century. My survey shows that the artistic afterlife of the piece. The exhibition Renaissance reception of the Spinario retai- established the Spinario as an influential piece ned a bucolic frame of reference established even in antiquity by exhibiting six antique already in antiquity, coming down through sculptures that the museum argued emulate the Middle Ages. However, significant shifts the original, the Capitoline Spinario.90 In the in the cultural context mean that we have to press material the Spinario was identified as consider the idea of continuity carefully. a pastorello, reflecting the archaeologically The sparse sources of the Middle Ages established consensus on the identity of the indicate that the Spinario was interpreted as a figure, but a new layer of interpretation was symbolic genre figure, rather than as a unique now added. The museum dated the Spinario object with its own representational potential. to the pre-Augustan period and presented a Its physical context from the twelfth to the novel identity for the Spinario in antiquity: he fifteenth century – the Lateran – implies that
89 Text plaque III, Hall of Triumphs. fortunately it has not appeared. The argumentation 90 Capitoline Museums 2020c. for identifying the Spinario is that the image of a .91 Bracci 2014. The information sheet for the exhi- shepherd in Julio-Claudian times was antonymic bition mentions a homonymous catalogue to be for the founder of the dynasty, Bracci 2014, 2. published through De Luca Editori d’arte, but un- 92 The author last visited the display in January 2019. Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario 43 the statue may also have been included in a archaeological methodology and its context display of antique sculpture drawing on the of formalized art history created a fracture spolia culture in which antique material culture between the contexts of interpretation in the was incorporated into medieval architecture late eighteenth century, marking a break with to stress the continuity between ancient Rome the bucolic frame of reference. The classical and the present. This appropriation was archaeological methodology separated contingent on Roman antiquity as an ideal, the Spinario completely from the context rather than as a pagan past to be forgotten. established in the Renaissance and created a It was this context that was stressed when new context of interpretation in which the the Spinario, along with the other Lateran Spinario was understood as an archaeological bronzes, was donated by Pope Sixtus IV to the object. This interpretation, however, had Roman people in 1471. The shift in physical little effect on the museal interpretation of context from the Lateran to the Capitol also the Spinario. In the Capitoline Museums, the marked a shift in the reception. In a cultural Spinario remains above all a museum object, mindset sustained by Renaissance humanism, appreciated for how it connects the Roman the Spinario was established as a unique and past to the Roman present. The museum aesthetic object. Interpretation stressed its reception represents both continuity and connection to classical antiquity through the break; the Renaissance interpretation of association with bucolic poetry, showing the the Spinario as a symbol of the connection close association between text and material to antiquity and the continuity of Roman culture in the Renaissance reception of cultural identity remain, but the bucolic frame antiquity. The Spinario’s context as part of of interpretation is absent. Even though the Capitoline collections can go some way the museum is aware of the archaeological towards explaining the popularity of the discourse on the Spinario, this element is not sculpture in the fifteenth to seventeenth relevant in the museum narrative – showing centuries; however, I argue that it is in the the extent to which context influences the close association with the popular genre of processes and expressions of reception. bucolic poetry that we shall find the reason for the keen interest in the sculpture. From 1471 until now, the Spinario has remained Lærke Maria Andersen Funder on the Capitol. This does not mean that Institut for Kommunication og Kultur the framework of reception has remained Aarhus Universitet constant. The nascent discipline of classical 44 Lærke Maria Andersen Funder
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, M. N. dix by Clifford M. Brown], Yale. 1907 The itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela. Critical text, translation and commentary, London. Clark, L. R. 2013 “Collecting, exchange and sociability in the Re- Ajootian, A. naissance studiolo,” Journal of the History of Col- 1998 “Praxiteles.” In: Palagia, O & Politt, J. J. (eds.), lections 25/2, 171–184. Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture, (Yale Classical Studies 30), Cambridge, 91–129. Cocke, R. 1980 “Masaccio and the Spinario, Piero and the Alberti, C. Pothos: Observations on the Reception of the 1584 Antiquarum statuarum urbis Romae quae in publicis Antique in Renaissance Painting,” Zeitschrift für privatisque locis visuntur, icones, Roma. Kunstgeschichte 43, 21–32.
Aldrovandi, U. Fabricius Hansen, M. 1556 “Di tutte le statue antiche.” In: Mauro, L. (ed.) 2015 Spolia Churches of Rome. Recycling Antiquity in the Le Antichità della Città di Roma, Venetia, 115– Middle Ages, Aarhus. 315. Fauno, L. Amedick, R. 1548 Delle antichitá della cittá de Roma, Venetia. 2005 “Dornauszieher. Bukolische und Dionysische Gestalten zwischen Antike und Mittelalter” Fehl, P. Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 32, 17–51. 1974 “The Placement of the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius in the Middle Ages,” Journal of Barkan, L. the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 37, 362–367. 1999 Unearthing the Past. Archaeology and Aesthetics in the Making of Renaissance Culture, New Haven & Fulvius, A. London. 1513 Antiquaria Urbis, Roma.
Benzecry, C. E. Fulvius, A. 2015 “Restabilizing attachment to cultural objects. 1527 Antiquitates urbis Romae, Roma. Aesthetics, emotions and biography,” The British Journal of Sociology 66/4, 779–800. Furlotti, B. & Rebecchini, G. 2008 The Art of Mantua: Power and Patronage in the Re- Bober, P. & Rubinstein, R. naissance, Los Angeles. 2011 Renaissance Artists and Antique Sculpture. A Hand- book of Sources, London. Fürtwängler, A. 1876 Der Dornauszieher und der Knabe mit der Ganz, Ber- Borchardt, P. lin. 1936 “The sculpture in front of the Lateran as de- scribed by Benjamin of Tudela and Magister Galletti, P. Gregorius,” The Journal of Roman Studies 26/1, 1760 Inscriptiones romanae infimi aevi Romae extantes, Vol. 68–70. II, Roma.
Boucher, S. Gamucci, B. 1978 Recherches sur les bronzes figurés de Gaule pré-ro- 1565 Le antichitá della cittá di Roma, Venetia. maine et Romaine (Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 228), Roma. Gosden, C. & Marshall, Y. 1999 “The Cultural Biography of Objects,” World Brinkerhoff, D. M. Archaeology 31/2: The Cultural Biography of Objects, 1970 A collection of sculpture in classical and early Christian 169–178. Antioch, New York. Halsema-Kubes, W. et al. Campbell, S. 1973 Beeldhouwkunst in het Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. 2006 The Cabinet of Eros. Renaissance Mythological Paint- ing and the Studiolo of Isabella d’Este, [With appen- Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario 45
Haskell, F. & Penny, N. Kynan-Wilson, W. 1981 Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculp- 2018 “Subverting the message: Master Gregory’s ture, 1500–1900, New Haven. reception of and response to the Mirabilia Urbis Romae,” Journal of Medieval History 44/3, Heckscher, W. S. 347–364. 1955a “Dornauszieher.” In: Reallexikon zur Deutschen Kunstgeschichte, Bd. IV, 289–299. Lafreri, A. C. 1540–1580 Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae: Man Remov- Heckscher, W. S. ing a Thorn from his Foot, vol. 2, plate 89. Met- 1955b Sixtus IIII Aeneas insignes statuas Romano populo ropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Inv. Nr. restituendas censuit, ´S-Gravenhage. 41.72(2.89).
Helmstutler Di Dio, K. & Coppel, R. Magister Gregorius 2016 Sculpture Collections in Early Modern Spain, Lon- 1987 The Marvels of Rome, [Transl. by Osborne, J.], don & New York. Toronto.
Hülsen, C. & Egger, H. Marliani, G. B. 1913 Die Römischen Skizzenbücher von Marteen van Heem- 1544 Urbis Romae Topographia, Roma. skerk, Berlin. Martindale, C. Inventories of the Capitoline Museums 2013 “Reception – a new humanism? Receptivity, 1804 “Inventario de Mobili, e tuut’altro esi- pedagogy and the transhistorical,” Classical Re- stente nel Palazzo degli Ecc.mi SS.ri ceptions Journal 5/2, 169–183. Concervatori”,
Kopytoff, I. Pollitt, J. J. 1986 “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commod- 1986 Art in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge. itization as Process.” In: Appadurai, A. (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Presicce, C. P. Perspective, Cambridge, 64–91. 2008 “Lo Spinario.” In: Catoni, M. L. (a cura di), La forza del bello. L’arte greca conquista l’Italia, Milano, Kristensen, M. T. 306–309. 2014 “Using and Abusing Images in Late Antiquity (and Beyond): Column Monuments as Topoi of Presicce, C. P. Idolatry.” In: Birk, S. et al. (eds.), Using Images in 2010 “I Musei Capitolini. Cenni storici.” In: la Rocca, Late Antiquity, Oxford, 268–282. E. & Presicce, C. P. (a cura di.), Musei Capitolini. Le sculpture del Palazzo Nuovo, Roma, 17–29. 46 Lærke Maria Andersen Funder
Prospettivo Milanese Snow-Smith, J. ca.1500 Antiquarie Prospettiche Romane composte per Pro- 1989 “Brunelleschi’s competition panel: the Spinario spettivo Milanese dipintore, [City unknown]. and the sin of heresy,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 113, 159–169. Radcliffe, A. 1994 The Robert H. Smith Collection. Bronzes 1500-1650, Stuart-Jones, H. London. 1968 A Catalogue of the Ancient Statues preserved in the municipal collections of Rome. The Sculptures of Pa- Raeder, J. lazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. 1984 Priene: Funde aus seiner griechischen Stadt in Berliner Antikenmuseum, Berlin. Syson, L. 2012 “Spinario (Boy Pulling a Thorn from his Foot)”. Ridgway, B. S. In: Recent Acquisitions, A Selection: 2010–2012, 2001 Hellenistic sculpture I, Madison. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 70/2 (Fall, 2012), 23. Rossi, F. de 1697 Descrizione di Roma Moderna, Roma. Theocritus 1912 Idylls 1-4, (The Greek Bucolic Poets J. M. Loeb Clas- Rossini, P. sical Library 28), [transl. by Edmonds], Cam- 1693 Il Mercurio Errante delle Grandezze di Roma, Roma. bridge.
Totti, P. Ruvoldt, M. 1627 Ritratto di Roma Moderna, Roma. 2006 “Sacred to secular, east to west: The renaissance study and strategies of display,” Renaissance Stud- Venturi, A. ies 20/5, 640–657. 1882 La R. Galleria Estense in Modena, Modena.
Sandrart, J. d. Visconti, E. Q. 1680 Sculpturæ veteris admiranda, Nürnberg. 1831 Opere varie, italiane e francesi IV, Milano.
Schweickhart, G. Watson, F. J. B. & Fahy, E. 1977 “Von Priapus zu Coridon. Benennungen des 1973 The Wrightsman Collection. 5: Paintings, Drawings, Dornausziehers ins Mittelalter und Neuzeit,” and Sculpture, New York. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 3, 243–252. Zanker, G. 2004 Modes of Viewing in Hellenistic Poetry and Art, Siapkas, J. & L. Sjögren Madison. 2014 Displaying the Ideals of Antiquity. The Petrified Gaze, London. Zanker, P. 1974 Klassizistische Statuen. Studien zur Veränderung des Smith, R. R. R. Kunstgeschmacks in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Mainz. 1991 Hellenistic Sculpture: A Handbook, London & New York.
SITOGRAPHY
Bracci, P. collezioni/percorsi_per_sale/appartamen- 2014 “Spinario storia e fortuna. Ai Musei Capitolini in to_dei_conservatori/sala_dei_trionfi#c> Ac- mostra una preziosa panoramica dello Spinario, cessed 17.6.2020. pastore mitico, capostipite della dinastia Iulia. Roma 4 febbraio 2014” Capitoline Museums Inventories of the Capitoline Museums 2020c “Spinario. History and Fortune”