The iconography of the first generation mannerists

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Barber, Betsy Ann, 1940-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 23/09/2021 10:27:39

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/317975 THE ICONOGRAPHY Of THE FIRST

GENERATION MANNERISTS

by ’ Betsy Ann Barber

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF ART In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS in the History of Art

In the Graduate College THE UNITERSITT OF ARIZONA

1 9 6 6 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable with­ out special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quo­ tation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: QUh m *

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

10BERT M. QUINN Date Proyfessor of Art History TABLE OF COHTBBTS

.Page

I. ISTROBUGTIOS ...... 1

II. M C S C m o W B : POETRY, POLITICAL S0ISICE AND HISTORY ...... 7 III. mCKG-EOUHBi POLITICAL, SPIRITUAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS ...... ♦ . . . , 23 • IV. POETOESO'S JOSEPH SCENES ...... 49 V. NAB3RATIVB CYCLES ...... 59

VI, ALTARPIBCBS 'L ...... 89 ■ VII. GROTESQUE STYLE ...... 108 1 VIII. THE MARTYRDOM OF THE 10,000 ...... 117

IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 125

APPENDIX I ...... 129 APPENDIX II ...... 131 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 132

ill ABSTRACT

By traeing developments lia other selected phases of eiiaqnecento activity that seem to be similar to art it can be shown how the mannerist style, 1b its earliest groping stage and, its more uniform man 1 era, was related to the situation surrounding' it both historically and in other arts. As the cultural and stylistic stability of the High Renaissance dis­ integrated the first generation of mannerist art emerges stylistically and icomographically, and emphasises its de­ pendence on the painting of the preceding decade. However instead of comparing the individual works of art with those that precede or follow them it is more illuminating to jux­ tapose the productions of Rome and Florence. The different, almost opposite, backgrounds are seen to reappear in some related aspects'of the art of the two cities. This is demon­ strable in the following subjects: narrative cycles, reli­ gious altarpieces,the Martyrdom of the 10, 000, the Joseph scenes, and the grotesque style. I. INtKOBUeriOB

This study will be oenfined withia certain aecessary limits. Chronologically it is restricted to the period, from 1515 to 1530» Although suggestions of mannerist style occur before, its complete and coherent expressions emerge in I51S in Florence and in 1521 in Borne, Obviously it does not appear unannounced, but occurs by degrees in the immediately preoed- img painting', and as. Freedberg 1 has observed there is nothing " in the painting of these first mannerists which has not been anticipated in their own earlier paintings or those of their contemporaries, After the third decade most of these paint­ ers1 styles approach that of later mannerism, for example that of Bosso’s at Fontainebleau, while there is much greater diversity in the style of early mannerism; a time of experi­ ment. Finally, the point of 1530 has the merit of coinciding naturally with a period of radical change, marking the com­ plete less of Italian independence.

Within this period paintings of the two cities most instrumental in creating the renaissance and mannerism will be studied. Some and Florence, .’Each city has a certain degree of stylistic unity, home mere so than .Florence, They also have

1. Freedberg, Painting of the Sigh Renaissance in Borne and Florence, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard UnTveFsTtv""™ Press, 1961, I, p». 5^9, the advantage &£ being more fully documented and more, coher­ ently studied than secondary centers. While met in the form of a comparison, since the material does not lend itself to this method of presentation, a comparison sometimes helps to distinguish their differing courses-of development. Within these chronological and geographical areas am

added distinction has to be made between mannerism and the various.other styles which existed beside it. 4 large part of this thesis is devoted to background material. It attempts to establish.a bread and pervasive framework which could not but affect artists as well as be affected by them. It shows that a parallel attitude to that of art existed in other fields, in some more clearly than in others. Among the subjects undertaken, the second chapter po­ larises the two most typical pursuits.of Home and Florence; poetry, and political science and history. It sketches the diametrically opposed literature of the two cities. The third,

chapter touches on the political situation. This chapter

traces the religious■actions and attitudes characteristic of each city which are governed by the dominating forces of

Savonarola and the papacy. The social background concerns the patronage of art and the changing status of the artist. In summation, theorising and attempts to standardize, as among the foremost trends in the intellectual life of the sixteenth century, are depicted briefly in several fields since they seem to have had their genesis in the period mmder discussion, or slightly later in some areas. The remaining chapters analyze the art under catego­ ries of subject matter. The Joseph scenes by Pontormo in. chapter four document the earliest appearance of mannerism in Florence* and compare Pontormo to the other participants in the decoration of the Borghisi Bridal chamber. The narrative cycles in chapter five continue a major kind of High Renais­ sance painting and are the only cycles of this kind in Rome and Florence in the first generation,. Since Madonna and Child altarpieees were so common to the earlier renaissance and so rare to later mannerism* they come under consideration in the sixth chapter , - The Roman preoccupation with the remains of antiquity relates to the altarpieees and is in that chapter. Also Included in this" chapter are altarpieees of a different subjects Pietas and Depositions, produced primarily in Flor­ ence, The seventh chapter contains a discussion of the gro­ tesque style. It changes little in style at this time but was painted, in great quantity in Rome and.is an apt expression of Roman taste. The eighth chapter concerns the Martyrdom of the 10,000. It offers a unique opportunity to compare.the two cities and summarize their differences. A stylistic analysis has been integrated into the dis­ cussion of the iconography of these subjects. In such a sub­ ject as the Madonna and Child altarpieees, a certain degree of standardization exists that makes stylistic changes as meamiagfml as strictly iconographic ernes.- Bat besides this, and the impossibility of separating style and iconography, the justification for such, an inclusion lies in the relation of style to iconography in this particular period. In mannerism, the style itself often serves ds i. t-ehieie of expression as much as the usual attributes or actions attached to a situa­ tion that give it ieonographical meaning. This proves to be more valid for some subjects than for others. Per example, mannerism is most expressive in battle scenes. Major paintings or cycles have been selected for icon­ ographic discussion so that the question cannot arise as to whether they are representative of the mannerist style. This method of selection also has the advantage of concentrating on works that are historically the most important commissions and artistically the best work. In some instances they are taken from a group of lesser works and in others they are isolated examples. Usually iconographic analyses are not conducted in this way, but a single .-theme is studied and the changes in it followed through a period of years. It is hoped that in this paper a .cross section will reveal characteristics of the two cities which may be connected with the historical background. The first appearances of mannerism in the second dec­ ade are merely individual explorations and attempts to find 2 new solutions to artistic problems. They cannot be directly

2. Craig Hugh Smyth, .11 Manner ism. and Man! era. " Acts of the XX International Congress of the History oF^Ar^T Princeton, Princeton University Press, 19^3, II, p. 197. cotmected with events ©utside of art, at least partly because

they are se diverse, especially in Florence, Art does p&ral- lel ether areas in many respects» But about 1525~2S- 3 ■man,iera

arrives simultaneously in the painting of Some and Florence and determines the style of Italian art for most of the rest of the century. It is characterized by abstraction, artifi­ ciality and complication. It. reflects the sophisticated yet academic character of scholarship, literature and art through- • out the cipquecento. Tt took its inception in the third dec­ ade at the time of the crisis which culminated in the loss of Italian independence, the schism in the church.and great so­ cial upheaval. The thesis of this paper is that this appear­

ance is a result of the historical situation surrounding it, that artists turned to the stability of the imitative manner­ ist style for the same reasons that academic work was valued

in other fields,- such-as literatmre; and that this man1era had been anticipated by degrees in the immediately preceding painting mere so in the decorative art of &ome in the first generation, than in that of Florence. Some notable productions of this period have been

omitted. Parmigianino lived in Rome from 152-4- to 1 5 2 7 . But J4, ■ .only five paintings are attributable to these years, none

3. S.J. Freedberg, 8Observations on the Painting of the Maniera,» Art Bulletin, XLVI1, 1965, p. 196.

4-. S.J. Freedberg,- Parmigianinot His Works in Paint- ing, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, .1956"■ remarkable far tixelr leenegrapbie innevatleBs. His style was on® of the most influential, if not the most influential, of the early mannerists but it was his mature style of 1527-1537* In addition, portraits have not been considered. The masters of the High. Renaissance painted few portraits whereas the

first mannerists appear to have increased their production of this subject, and portraiture was certainly one of the repre­ sentative genres of later mannerism. Host of the stylistic variations of portraiture are described with equal validity in other phases of painting, with few exceptions, such as Pontormo's -Cosimo II Teoohio and Parmigianino's Self-Portrait,5 The largest omission consists of the engravings of the early Roman mannerists. ©iulle Romano, Ferine del Vaga, Polidoro da Caravaggio, Parmigianino and Ross© Florentine all had their works engraved in-the third decade. In the case of

6 . . • Rosso, for example, engravings constitute the largest part of his Homan work, .thirty-one,- while only three paintings are

extant from this time. These prints usually have antique mythological subjects. An analysis of such a' vast body of material lies beyond the compass of this thesis. With two exceptions this paper will consider only paintings. The pre­ paratory drawings for the Foggio a Oaiano fresco and the two drawings'for the Martyrdom of the 10,000 have been included. . 5. He painted this while still in Parma and sent it on to Rome as a.sample of his work. 6, Eugene Albert Carroll, The Brewings of Rosso Pioremtimo (unpub. diss.), Cambridge, Mass., 1964, II, p. 7 6 , II. BACKEROTJSB; POETRY, POLITICAL SCIBHCE . MB HISTORY

As poetry is the best index to the society of Rome im the first three decades of the cinqaecento, so political % science and history are the same to Florence. The contrast

of the two preoccupations reveals better than any description, the basic difference between the two cities.

The High Renaissance occurs about the same time in literature as it does in art, during the first two decades of the sixteenth century. At this time poetry, mere than any /.other literary form was the favored medium im Rome, Its, re­ lationship to painting was recognized beginning with the end O of She'fifteenth century, and according to Horace's Ars Poetica, widely studied at this time: mt piotara poesis, “as is painting, so is poetry.M Poetry provides the clearest insight into cultured society in Rome. It extends over a wide range of occasions, subjects and styles. With the versatility of the age, the art of the dilettante writer of sonnets was extremely common. Accounts vary but there must have been hun­ dreds of poets practicing during the reigns of the two Medici

1. Freedberg, High Renaissance, p. k-Z6„

■ ■ 2 , Rudolf Witthower, "Italian Renaissance Art," The Hew Cambridge" Modern History, vol. I, The Renaissance 1^93- 1528 (Ik R." Pet'ter'' ed. ),'u'Cambridge, University Press, 1957, P0 1510

7 popes."3 Poets flocked to Seme because of the ready patronage of aristocrats and ecclesiastics. Most poets could write in either Latin or Italian. The Latin was that of the classical Homan period, not Medieval or church Latin. But this was not as far removed from the ' ' u life of the sixteenth century as might seem to be implied. Schools taught entirely in classical Latin and the educated learned to writ© and speak it almost as well as their own dia­ lect. The vernacular was on an equally far removed, plane from common speech, for poets modeled it on the earlier Italian of

Petrarch and Boccaccio which had evolved into an entirely different idiom in current usage. Mot until the end of the

sixteenth century did spoken Italian coincide with written Italian, The poetry most symptomatic of the period turned to Petrarch as its model, and since Petrarch had looked to Vir­ gil, he and other Romans became objects of study. They brought one of the dominant themes to this poetry,- that of

the arcadian ideal.' The imagery of the time spills over with bucolic scenes in which nothing seems to happen, but life is portrayed in an idyllic ether-world inhabited by pans

3. Ludwig Pastor, The History of the Popes, London, Bputeledge and Megan Paul,'195®* 'VIII,-p. T5¥. John Sparrow, ^Latin; .Verse, of the High Renais­ sance,ft Italian Renaissance; Studies: A."Tribute to the La.te Geoilia H. Ady (S.P. Jacob ed,jLondon, .Taber and Taber, I9 6 0 , pp. 358-362.

5. John Addington Symoads, Renaissance in Italy? Italian Literature, lew York, 1888, II, pp. Ibf-TS’L..... and satyrs„ These eclogues show an endless round of feasts and music and sensuous beauty that has great appeal. Actu­ ally Italian poetry succeeds best when creating this enchant­ ed atmosphere, Symends observed that these poems paint a visual picture, A work such as Sanazarro-s Arcadia (1$Q2) contains a great variety of illustrations similar.to'those, found in the painting of the time, especially in Venice, A tremendous volume of love and religious poetry al­ so can be traced to the influence of Petrarch, but unfortu­ nately his courtly devotion to Laura could not be successfully recaptured two centuries later. Religious poetry did not fare much better,- The Be partu virginis of Sanazarro^ print­ ed in 152b is the major contribution to this species and does not lack conviction in spite of some rather unlikely inter­ polations, such as the scene in which the shepherds recite Virgil's eclogue, Great power and depth should not be expected from these poems for the contemporary audience did net leek for such qualities. They merely provided amusement for a highly educated public and were evaluated almost entirely on the basis of form. Too often Petrarch served as a model to imi­ tate slavishly. When imagination failed there were a whole series, of aids to composition, Canzoaiere or rhyming dic­ tionaries of Italian words, phrases and sentences from

Petrarch and' Boccaccio were compiled, and there were rules

6, Sparrow, Op, clt,, p, 3 6 6 , formulated, for their application. It is obvious why these poets "east® to be called purists, Yet this did mot entirely preclude the opportunity to be original, Pietro Bembo, the major Petrarchiam poet,, recommends what might be called, in 7 the language of this poetry, creative imitation. He states that a poet must actually try to improve on his model, and Vida in the Be art© peetica (1527 ) explains the proper "art of stealing", A common method consists of appropriating a word, phrase or idea by concealing it, but even more praise­ worthy and mere difficult is the method of borrowing some­ thing and placing it obviously in a new and changed context,

A- whole system of cliches and words accumulated that could be applied to a given subject, sentiment or situation, For ex­ ample, the description of a paramour was set to the extent that "her hair is always golden, her eyes of tepaa, her neck and breasts milk white, her lips coral, her teeth pearls, her mien humbly proud,"■ 8 The study of grammar became a refinement to which much time and effort was devoted. Scholars developed the practice of commenting on and annotating-the most trivial details. The great literary battles over form that occupied the sixteenth century came from this tradition of humanistic learning. As poets grew proficient in form, it became fashion able to play with it and thus display the artist's virtuosity

7» Ibid., pp. 364ff.

8, Jefferson Butler Fletcher, Literature of the Ital­ ian Renaissance, Port Washington, Hew York, Kemnikat Press,. 19&*-, p. 2.23.. XI in verbal acrobatics, Bemho wrote an extreme example of stack a poems

Ah me, at one same moment forced to cry And hush, to.hop© and fear, rejoice and grieve, The service of one master seek and leave, Over my loss latagh equally and sigh! ' My guide I govern$ without wings 1 fly; With favoring winds, to rocks and sandbanks cleave; Hate haughtiness, yet meekness misbelieve; • Mistrust all men,■ nor on myself rely, I strive to stay the sum, set snows on fire; Yearn after freedom, run to. take the yoke; Defend myself without, but bleed within; .Fall when' there1s none, to lift me from the mire; Complain, when plaints are vain, of fortune1s stroke; And power, being powerless, from impuissance win.° The art of the Itaprevisateri is another example of this facil-- ity. 10 Some were - ■ organised in formal companies as in the the­ ater Or they could act in a small circle of friends. Thus the display of erudition became an end in itself. This pedantry resulted in some abstruse and very heavy verses, that have lit­ tle appeal outside the society for which they were written. While considerations of form were so important, sub­ ject matter was distinctly secondary, yet a great variety of subjects found their way into literature. Almost any occa­ sion provided an excuse to be commemorated in poetry, from a ceremony of state to such events as the pope’s hunting expe­ dition. The life particularly of Leo X was praised in every detail. 11 But there is not just a lack of serious subjects.

9» Symonds, Op. pit.* 11, pp„ 22ff. 10» Pastor, Op. oit., ¥111, pp. l#f .

11. Ibid., ¥111, pp. I87f. 12

Poets seem to ferret ©at- the most trivial possible themes, completely ignoring that species of Petrarch"s work that ex­ presses patriotic sentiments and showed deep involvement in 12 contemporary oecnrrences. They seem to be completely ma- aware that the balance of power in Barope was being worked out at the expense of Italy.. The connterpart to the poetry of the pnrlsts, parody and barlesqme, shares many of its characteristics. These were at least as popmlar as Petrarchian poetry.and represent anoth­ er side of the mentality of the age. The courts of Leo X and Clement ¥11 were flooded with this kind of literature. There it owed one of its forms to the antique statue of Pasquin©^ which stood in a square. The citizens wrote satires attack- I ing anything and anybody and attached them, often anonymously, to Pasquin©, These lampoons came to be known as pasquinades.

Bach year in April a festival was held with a particular theme and everyone directed his pasquinades to that subject or person. But the best known satirical form la Tuscany was the eapitefi. This grew out of the carnival songs made artistic and popularized by Lorenzo de"Medici. It took its departure from the poetry of the purists by affecting the same style but pushed the method to absurdity. Francesco Bern!

12.. Symonds, Op. olt., II, pp. 2%kf, 13. Pastor, Op. cit., ¥111, pp. 233ff.

1%. Symonds, Op* cit., II, pp. 312-324. 13 practically invented this form. He wrote several kinds hut the capitoli most used by other writers was the one in which a ridiculous subject .would be praised to a ludicrous extent, usually with double entendres. The range of subjects includ­ ed the paint brush .and radish of Bronzino, debt, eels, noses, spittle and a wide range of other subjects. Other capitoli mocked in a more serious tone using the puristic style with, a bizarre twist: . I was lying down, quite alone, in the shade, and pasturing my goats in the green fields,, and no thought was "working my free mind and no care 'making me scratch ay head, when suddenly, ,0 cwpid, thou didst wound my bouncing heart? thy arrow did not miss its mark. Thou didst wound me from be­ hind, in my back, following the custom of brave men-. .'What a lovely #md brave deed, 0 traitor, thou didst do to me!'1' Such works apparently aimed only at effect, at titillating a satiated public imagination.

Another form of the burlesque style was developed by IS Girolamo I'olengo. His raaccarouie poetry depended for its effect on the most erroneous mixture of grammar in which ver­ nacular words were treated as Latin, ."not a mere mingling of Latin and Italian but a mangling of Latin by Italian". The effect would be lost anless the reader were educated in

15. Francesco de Sanctis, The History of Italian Literature, Hew York, 1931, II, p. & — — —

16, Symonds, Op. oit^, II, pp. 272-311. 1?. Fletcher, Op, cit., p. 2k3» Ik- Latin and, eemld appreciate the conceit, and it does not lend

itself to translation. Images too* convey the impression of satire. Symonds observes of the Maeoaronae. folengo1s work ■in this style, that “his Pegasms is a showy hack, who arables on the bypaths of Parnassus,, dropping now and then a spavined

hock and stumbling back into his paces with a snort. His war- trumpet utters a sonorous fanfarennade; but the blower loses breath, and breaks his note, or suffers it to lapse into a lament able quaver A serious attempt at epic poetry is Q-iangiorgio Tris- sino1 s Italia liberata, dai .goti, on which ' he worked for 2©

years and had, printed in 1529. Such poems as this nearly al­ ways took Homer or Virgil'for their model. The poet then com­ posed according to a strict set of rules that, as the century progressed, became standardized. Trissino uses Homer as his model and interprets from Homer the cardinal rule of being specific and including much detail, as he notes in his pref- 19 ace, ' The Italia liberata,is especially interesting in the

light of Trissino''s Ats poetica, (1529) one of the many ren- ditions of the poetic ideas of Horace, Although impeccably correct as poetry, Symonds points out that this epic lacked the lofty theme such a work should, have ? Italy liberated from

IS. Symonds, 8p. clt.» XX, p.

19* Fletcher, Op. clt., pp. Ehkff, 15 the Seths sigslfled bqthing more than the arrival of the Lorn- bards.20 "'■V Strict adherence to rales and precepts thas had a

stultifying effect on poetry♦

While Romans spent their energy on the elegant pas­ time of composing poetry,. Florentines became involved with the problems of present day Italy and tried to solve them. The reasons for this difference are extremely complex but some can be suggested. From the earliest days of their history, Flor­ entines participated more closely in their government than did Romans. They prided themselves on their republic of the trecento in which all citizens had assembled in the square and voted on matters of importance. Even more recently in the sixteenth century, one of the characteristic features of their government was the short tenure of office and the rotation of office among as many citizens as possible,^ But the hew con­ stitution of 1%9% was ©specially effective in promoting citi­ zen participation. Its creators considered it to be a return to the form of the early republic. The changes it effected considerably broadened the base of government by establishing

20, Symonds,-'' ©p. cit., ' II. p. 2 6 7 .

21, Its effects were similar in tragedy and comedy. 22, Felix Gilbert, Maohlavelli and Galooiardimi; Politics, and History in SIxteenth-SenTury Florence, 'Princeton, Princeton University Pre‘s^7~19^5T ppT^lW, 16 a Great 0oiaBGll« Ttie membership ©f this body eeBsisted of all oitiaens of twenty-nine whose fathers or grandfathers had been selected as candidates for the three most important executive

boards,.. Thus, the Great Council had a membership of some three 23 thousand,“ Another reason for this orientation of Florentine

thought was the opportunity presented when Piero de*Medici fled in l4-g4. Suddenly the political power which had for years been exercised by the oligarchy of the Medici and their aristocratic circle, was returned to the hands of the people who had to define and enact their own government» The entire European situation also posed urgently the opportunity for re­ flection on the concept of the state and relations between states, and forced involvement in international polities, But only in Florence was this challenge met by study and consid­ eration, and the implications of the Italian dilemma recog­ nized, But probably most important in this tangled web of causality was the activity of a -few individuals who, in their writings, set a new course for thinking in political science and history. Previous political treatises as written by renaissance humanists had been similar to Erasmus* The Institution of a Christian Prince dedicated to the Emperor Charles V in 1516, It concerned the method of educating a Christian prince and

23, Ibid,, pp. Iff, 17 had, heavy moral and religious overtones. Although intended as a practical guide, it had little relevance to the polit­ ical situation that confronted Charles, The political works written in Florence during the second and third decades of the sixteenth century differ from their predecessors precisely in i. this way. They arose as a result of meditation on the par­ ticular problems that confronted the’Florentine government by those who had actively participated in it, both in Florence and abroad, Francesco Guicciardini composed the first of these

/ - j 2% works in 1512, the Bi-seers© di Logrono composed when he represented the Florentine government at the court of King

Ferdinand at Logrono, It must be remembered that Guicciar­ dini was the scion of am old aristocratic Florentine family and his interests were strongly tied to those of his class. The other primary orientation of this discourse was related to the immediately preceding occurrences in the Florentine government. In the constitution of 1%9% by the establishment of the Great Council the aristocrats lost the control they had exercised in the preceding years. All during the repub­ lican period they tried to regain their power and when

Soderini fled in 1512, they succeeded,,only to be ousted again a few weeks later when the Medici returned, Guicciardini1s

Disperse aimed at critically examining the occurrences of

2%, Ibid., pp. 8 1 -8 8 , this period and by his recommendations restoring the aristo­ crats to control, since he considered aristocratic control was best for Florence. It contains his evaluation of the three foremost constitutional issues that had been before the republic | the fir eat Council, the G-onfaloniere a vita, and the

Senate.The new criteria he brought to these institutions was that of expediency and reasons that is, how these insti- 26 tutions fulfilled the purposes for which they were created.

He was often forced to compromise between what he, thought should be the extent of aristocratic control and what was pos­ sible and efficient in this particular situation. Per exam­ ple, he realized that the republican practice of short tenure of office did net contribute to stability,. .even, though elec­ toral procedure repeatedly brought aristocrats into the gov­ ernment.2^ Considering O-uiceiardini ‘ s humanistic education and background one of the.most original aspects of his thought is his criticism of the humanists1 reverence for the writers of antiquity. 28 He believed that these writers en­ joyed mo particular pre-eminence over others. Yet he certainly

2 5 . Ibid., p. 34.

26. Ibid., .p. 97. 27. Ibid.,. pp. 85f. - 28. Francesco Guicciardini, Maxims and Reflections of a Renaissance Statesman (trams, by Mario Bomandi,' ‘“intrdd. by Wic'oTaT^RubinsteinrjTnfew York, Harper and Bow, 1 9 6 5 , p. 12. 19 did not discomit the benefit to be gained from experience, but models must be selected critically. For Guicciardini, as for many of his contemporaries, the examples of Venetian and early Florentine history contained valuable lessons, while he did not share the reverence for Roman history and the blind application of ancient theories to present day Florence, • But the supreme example of the pragmatic approach to politics is liccolo MachiavelllVs The Prince, written in 1513*

Unlike Guicciardini, Maohiavelli was mot allied with the Florentine aristocracy or with any such interest group. His concern derived solely from his fanatic interest in polities and commitment to the welfare of the state, whether under the Redid, aristocrats, or republic. If either do his writings champion the cause of the Christian, prince. The Prince is in this sense divorced from all the traditions that had preceded it. It could be considered as a continuation of humanist ideas on politics in its didactic purpose but the lessons taught by politics as envisaged by Maohiavelli and the human­ ists were diametrically opposed. Jfaehiavellits highest good was the well being of the body politic. To attain this goal he examined events from the time of Alexander the Great to contemporary Italy, showing special admiration for the actions of Cesare Borgia. Success is his criterion of evaluation.

The radical departures of The Prince from the customs and be­ liefs of the time in regard to mercenary soldiers, the dig­ nity of'man, and the role of the prince are well known and only attest to his remarkable originality= The practical orientation of tlachiavelli* s thought emerges even more clearly in his alliance of two previomsly separate fields of thoughts polities and history, in his Florentine History, written between 1520 and 1525« The differ­ ence between this and his previems work is not radical but merely a matter of degree. This work follows closely the hu­ manistic prescriptions for the writing ©f history, but as in the Prince, the Florentine History extracts from history mean- 2° ing for the present situation. Hor was this an isolated trend. After 1525 Guicciardini wrote a Florentine History and Francesco Vettori wrote a Summary of Italian History from 1511 to 1527. Gilbert^0 finds in these treatises a crisis in historical writing. Realizing the impossibility of combining the humanist historical methods to which they all aspired, with the more pressing exigencies of their time, Guicciardini discontinued work on the Florentine History leaving it ineem- plete, and Vettori entirely reoriented his history placing it 31 in context in place and time in European polities. This cri­ sis resulted in a shift about1527 from the writing of polit­ ical science to a concentration on history, albeit a different kind-of history.

2 9 , Gilbert, Qp, cit,, pp. 23fff.

3®, Ibid,, p, 243.'

31, Ibid.. p. 248, This indicates a prevalent spirit of disillusionment, among thinkers at this time, as seen in the opinions on the ever current Florentine debate om the power of Tortnna and 32 Briefly, rr^TirirMoi»)»i','ifi'»'iTOitui;:iini';;.'iinir)qiiiiiiiiriii[Hecessita as opposed•** •6' to teBgaatepimumiinCTiU.-^-jaragione„' .i.rT “ » ' Zorttma rrsrsa w -R iii i r - .i'Yii mi m had, pre- * viously differed from Hecessita in that it allowed, man some­

times a chance to change its coarse if he took the.initiative at the proper moment, whereas Hecessitk as the name implies, compelled events absolutely to follow its dictate's, Most Florentines fluctuated between- these three solutions, ascrib­ ing to each some degree of validity, Machi.aveil 1 obviously believed, in the power of man1 s ability to shape, events or he ■ would not have written the Prince, He even ascribed, a certain pliability to Hecessita that admits man’s power to influence it most of the time, 33 and at least half of the time reason is in the ascendancy over Fortana. Guicciardini also in the Disoorso di Logrono implicitly affirmed, the traetibility of . 3^ • events. ' Yet in the third decade a new sense of awareness de­ veloped in response to the ravage of Italy by the great ua- tioas.'^ When Charles Till.attacked. Italy in he was

32. Ibid,, pp. %0-W.

33. Ibid,., pp. 193f. 3b. Ibid., p. 35. drireia out after a year and, Italy1 s eupkorle state of lsola~ tioB was preserved, but-wliem S'raaoe retmrued, iu the person of Louis XII and Spain and Germany joined tire melee, the reali­ zation began to develop that Italy was going to be ruthlessly crushed in the power struggle. The opportunist habits of con­ ducting diplomacy during these years were net new to the Ital­ ian states but the devastating effect of total war with its accompanying inhumane measures shocked the consciousness of . people accustomed to a mere courtly and medieval tradition of 36- war-makimg. Thus the Italians acquired a pessimistic out­ look and a sense of helplessness in the face of overwhelming power. Whereas Haehiavelli had 'predicated the great ability of man to use and control fate, Prancesee Tetteri,*^ writing fifteen years after him, had lost all confidence, in' ragione and considered the fate of man to be a plaything in the hands of Portuha, Guicciardini■ reiterates a new belief in the power of chance over events and the inability of man to re­ sist its dictates in his record! of 1528 and 1530» Certainly these beliefs follow naturally from'the catastrophes of these years.

36. J.B, Hale, •“War and. Public Opinion in Renaissance Italy,” Renaissance Studies, Op. eit., pp. 111-1%.

37o Gilbert, Op. eit., p. 251.

3 8 . Guicciardini, Op. eit., pp. 2%f, III. MCKSBOmms POLITICAL, SPIIITUAL AHB SOCIAL' COHDITIOIS

The pepied ©f 1^.94 to 1530 is a logical'BHit in Ifcal-

sion of Charles VIII of France. Italy then passed through a period of alternating defeat and victory oulmimatimg in the complete loss of independence symbolised by the crowning of the Emperor Charles V at Bologna in 1530« Momentous changes were effected in these years. With the ending of the High,

Renaissance in Borne and the diffusion of Italian culture to other countries, Italy lost the cultural superiority she had enjoyed over the rest of Europe. Internationally, Italy was rudely awakened from her isolation and forced into the stream of European power politics, for which she was ill prepared and destined from the beginning t© be defeated. But probably noth­ ing was more instrumental in demolishing the culture of the renaissance and Italy's prosperity, than the sacks of Home and Florence. The extreme instability of Italy evidenced in the governments of home and Florence and the fact that Italy was rapidly emerging from its isolation, proves Freedherg8 s statement that the classical style was am unnatural creation

1 See Appendix I 2 . Freedberg, High Renaissance, p. 263

23 2k

and inevitably would be of short dmration since It existed against a very traclassical background.

The church, as exemplified in the papacy, became in­ creasingly materialistic and corrapt during the renaissance.

The public was fully .aware of the situation and along with more demonstrative and fanatical displays of religion., there were more frequent and intense demands for reform. These fi­ nally culminated in the drastic measures taken by the Council of Trent, The reign of Alexander VI witnessed the most ex­ treme corruption of the papacy although the courts of follow­ ing popes were no less secular. There were a few weak attempts at reform, such as those made by Pius III, but they were to­ tally ineffective, Julius 11 undertook the first large scale

improvement when he called an ecumenical council to meet in 1 5 1 2 , the first in more than 80 years. A rival schismatic council that met in Pisa and Milan, claiming the authority of

the council over that'of the pope, indicates the precarious state of unity, The actions of the Fifth Lateram Council (1512-17) were hampered in several ways. Especially detrimental, was the dissension between the cardinals, bishops and orders that eb- 3 soured all other issues. The most notable declarations of the council related to dogma, and a wide range of abuses were

3. Pastor, 0p. clt., VIII, pp. 393-#. 25 densored,^ but mot severely enough.. I'urtheriaore, they were mot smfflelemtly enforced,^ for only Spaim and, Portugal and some parts of Italy took them serioms.ly, and even Lee X some­ times ignored them.

The meed for broad reform so strongly voieed in the cetmoil was little noticed in Rome after its adjournment, but was felt abroad. The pope either did not realize or chose to ignore one of the most pressing sources of discontent, the heavy ecclesiastical taxes exacted by the papacy from other countries,^ In the next year this grievance developed rapidly into the controversy over indulgences and culminated in the schism in the church. This affair is notable hfere for the lack of concern evidenced over It in Rome. The pope and Sa­ cred College were 'aware of it and took action against it, but it has been observed that the conflict in 151$ between the two literary parties, one under the leadership of the frenchman

Longueil and the other \a patriotic Roman party, caused more consternation than did the schism in Germany.^ It is symptomatic of the worldly state of the church that the most.'successful religious movement in Home in the first three decades did not arise from the machinery of the

4. Ibid., VIII. pp. 390-93. 5. Ibid., VIII, pp. 410-13.

6. Ibid., VII, p. 328.

7. Ibid., VIII, pp. 229f, papal ceartr but originated with a few individuals, However it was laoi the intensely personal kind of religion of the Savonarola®s in Florence. Rather the members of the Oratory of Divine .Love,® begmn in 151?, devoted themselves.to the sim­ plest practices of prayer and preaching, going back to the

spirit of early Christianity. Their practices aimed at re­ viving the inward life of contemplation but at the same time they led an active life in contact with the world by teaching and performing works of charity# Their success prompted the

foundation of other organizations such as the Confraternlta della Carita. But the Oratory and the confraternities that followed it were too loosely formed to work on a large scale. As a result a new order based on the Oratory came into exist- Q ence, the Theatimes. This organization struck at one of the most corrupt and thoroughly outmoded faculties of the church, the orders. This new order consciously put itself off frofij many of the customs of the older ones. Its members began by developing their own spiritual life and thus set am example of seriousness which had not existed in Rome for many years. Furthermore' they took a strict- vow of poverty which forbad them even to beg for alms. Several other orders later fol­ lowed the course outlined by the fheatimes, prefiguring the work of the Council of Trent,

8. Ibid., X, pp. 390-95. 9. Ibid. , X, pp. 397 et seq, The only pope of this time to show a serious interest in improving the spiritual level of the church, was Adrian T£; (1522“23}= He had a much stronger grasp on reality than ei­ ther his predecessor or his successor. When he first came to office he stated that his two primary Concerns were the reform of the church and the continuance and successful conclusion of ' ■; 10 the war against the Turks.' Immediately he proceeded to ef­ fect the most drastic reforms* He put the nearly bankrupt ecclesiastical bureaucracy in sound financial working order by cutting down expenses and offices. He abolished prefer­ ences of all kinds and literally swept away the mass of cour­ tiers who depended on-the beneficence of the pope for their livelihood. Home itself changed' from a gay lively center of culture into an empty silent, tomb. Projects in the plastic arts, so dependent on the papacy, were completely discontinued, Per all this the pope was thoroughly hated and ridiculed. The better liked Clement VII attacked the problem of reform through the usual dilatory channels of the church and his pro­ posals bogged down in the machinery and yielded to more pressing political matters. Thus the official organs of the church were totally ineffective in spiritually guiding the disintegrating Christian world,

Rome, like Florence, had its individual fanatics and prophets of doom in the tradition of Savonarola but they only 28 made isolated appearances whereas they occurred, regularly in XX Florence. Fra Bonaventura appeared in 1516, and about two weeks before the, sack of Home as the pope delivered a message t© 10,900 people, a prophet named Brandano climbed up a flag- 12 pole and predicted that Rome would be destroyed, However most of the corruption and attempts at reform in Home derived from the papacy, with the exception of the foundation of the orders which progressed in close co-operation with it. 13 • In Florence the spiritual mood proceeded entirely from 1 % the hypnotic figure of Savonarola, When alive he had con­ trolled the spiritual and political life of Florence, After his death his cult grew in spite of the efforts to suppress, it by the papacy, the Florentine government and the ecclesi­ astical superiors of San Marco. In the first two decades of the sixteenth century several of his works were published.

In 1516 Leo X ordered a reappraisal of his beliefs and he was exculpated both in Florence and at the Lateran Council.

Savonarola had established a pattern taken up by other preachers in Florence and throughout Italy, It consisted of

11, Ibid., V, p. 22h. 12, Ibid.. IX, pp. 37&f.

13, Frederick Hartt, in his essay 11 Power and the Indi­ vidual in Mannerist Art," International Congress, Op. cit,. re­ lates the spiritual situation'' in' Rome to the art.

lb. Roberto Eidolfi, The Life of Girolamo Savonarola, Hew York, Alfred A.' Knopf, 1959 ? pp. 287 -9E., .2.9 veh-ement sermons- advocating penance and making dire predic­ tions, both, religious and political. Orators^ of this stamp tormented Florence almost every year after 1512. Two of the most famous.were' Francesco da Heleto and Francesco da - Mentepnlciano* The persistence of Savonarola1s ideas is shown by the dialogue of Bartolomeo Cerretani; Storia in 17 dialage della awtatiene di Firenze, written at the begin­ ning of the 1 5 2 0 1 s. Xt recalled in particular two predic­ tions of the Frate, that the church would be purged and reformed and that the republican regime of 1%9^ would never pass away. Gerretani1s conclusions from this examination supported Savonarola and decided - that he had., been correct. With the overthrow of the Medici and the reinstate- 1 g memt of the republic the ideas of Savonarola also returned in force. He had become associated strongly with patriotism and the republican sentiment, especially the republic of 1^94 since he had been instrumental in-establishing its form. A witness reportst Xt would be hard to describe and scarce possible to believe with what gladness...men and women, young and eld, noble and plebeian, priest and lay­ man gave themselves to rejoicing, and how quickly

15. Gilbert, Maohiavelll, p. 1%5« 16. Faster, Op. pit.. ¥, p. 221.

I?. Gilbert, Machiavelli, pp. l%7ff..

18. lidolfi, OE^^cit., pp. 29.9-3 0 0 . - .30 the belief revived, nay multiplied a thousand­ fold, that^Zra Q-irolarao had been a saint and a prophet..„

In a final attempt at purgation of the guilt felt for his death, in 1530 the records of his trial were destroyed.

The period from to 1530 witnessed almost a rever­ sal of the artistic situation in Home and Florence. During the life of Lorenzo the Magnificent, Florence was the center of culture in Italy with its own style and school of artists, but with the advent of the High Renaissance, Home became the axis around which artistic activity revolved. This resulted from a complex interpenetration of forces, not the least im­ portant of which was a shift in the center of patronage. All Italy -looked with envy on the combination of gen­ ius and wealthy patronage that flourished in the Florence of Lorenzo. But when the Medici were driven out in ibgb the 20 wealthy aristocratic class entered on a period of struggle with the other citizens that ended in their complete exclu­ sion from power in government. When the newly-established republic created the Great Council in the middle class was admitted to a position of privilege in government on an equal basis with the aristocrats. The latent conflict in­ evitable in the unification of these two classes was subli­ mated during the life of Savonarola, but after his death and

19. . Ibid., p. 2 9 9 . 20. Gilbert, Maohiave111* pp. 7-10%. and with, the enset of more pressing external difficulties, it erupted, in- feree and. characterized the rest of the republican period. At the beginning of the sixteenth century it was manifest in the two opposing governmental forms proposed in deliberations on changes in the constitutionj the governo stretto or government of the few, the aristocrats, and the governo largho or government of the many, the republic of But besides such general considerations contention &- rose over sueh issues as taxes, in which the aristocracy were expected to bear the greater part of the burden. In protest against this they completely withdrew from governmental ac­ tivities for a short time. They felt that they were mot ac­ corded fair representation in proportion to their contributions, financial and diplomatic, to the operation of government. Another source of altercation concerned the necessary amend­ ments to the constitution of l%-9%. The aristocrats thought the introduction of the gemfalomiere a vita in 1^02 would mean the strengthening of their influence, but Sederimi practically ignored their claims and the relative period of prosperity that followed, helped to keep them pacified. When Soderini fled in 1512 they seized control of the government for two weeks only to be summarily deposed when the Medici returned. The resurrection of Medici domination did not in the least resemble the financial oligarchy that had ruled under

Lorenzo the Magnificent. This time the Zedici did not dis­ guise their autocratic ruling methods. However some attempt 32 was made to return to the golden age of Lorenzo, bat it was h.abdly successful„ All were aware that the golden age had passed. During the second decade also, Florentines looked with nostalgia to the times of Lorenzo and Savonarola as hold­ ing the possible solution to the difficulties of their own age, ’ Even Leo X, in taking up the reins of government in Florence, intended to effect a recreation of the liberal pa­ tronage of the arts and atmosphere of cultural opulence that had existed under his father, Lorenzo, 22 But this did not materialize5 instead he concentrated all his material re­ sources in Home, In fact Florence lagged considerably behind Rome in financial resources and was subject to Rome financially as well as politically, as discussed elsewhere. For example, in

1525 .the Florentines were.assessed 100,000 ducats in a treaty between the emperor and the pope^ and this is not the only time this happened. Florence, became increasingly poor during the first third of the century, due in part to the almost continuous warfare necessary to keep her provinces under con­ trol, At one point in 1502 the government was, to all effects, bankrupt and all spending ceased. ' Florence had previously

21. Ibid., p. 1 5 2 . 22. Ibid., p., 1 W . •

23. Pastor, Op, cit., IX, p. 2 7 8 . 2&. Gilbert, Machiavelli, p. 6%. led Italy fimaacially due t© her trade and baakimg oonoerms. But throughout this first third of the century, the center of trade shifted away from the Mediterranean to the Horth and Atlantic coasts. Within Italy, Q-enoa emerged as the center of commerce.^ This financial situation, combined with lack of a strong or centralized patronage such as Lorenzo and the papacy exercised, was not conducive to expenditure on great projects in the arts. There were actually only two large scale commissions assigned is Florence during the second dec­ ade of the oiaguecento. Only one of these, the atrium of Ss. Aamraziata,' employed several artists. They certainly in­ fluenced each other and there is even a classical unity to the style of their frescoes, but their work could not be said to constitute a school. Other than this, commissions were as­ signed on a relatively small scale by individuals or religious organizations. Eaturally, since there was no large school or even centralized meeting place for artists, much mere diver­ sity was possible in artistic styles, permitting the emergence of such expressive personalities as those of Pontormo and Ross©. Bven the secondary masters attained greater differ­ entiation of style.^

2 5 . Arnold Hauser, Bannerisiat. The Crisis of the Renaissance and the Origin of'"Wod'ernr'Art I London, Routledge and Eegan Paul, 1965, p. 59.

26, jfreedberg. High Renaissance, pp. b26f. 3%

Tla.6 painting ©£ Rome was much more closely uniform, within its own classical Bo man style. But Rome had. not long had, this style itself. 27 _ Baring the quattrocento there were no particular artists or school characteristic of the city. Some artists visited, such as those gathered by Sixtus IT, but none stayed long enough to leave their stylistic imprint.

It was only under Julias II that a distinctive Roman style be­ gan to develop. At the beginning of his pontificate, records show eight or ten artists living in Home while twenty-five years later there were as many as 12%. 28 Most of these, how­ ever, were not major artists. The High Renaissance in art was above all, socially, am expression of the strong patronage of the court of Julius II. It was an impressive, large scale art that glorified the court of Julius as much as the obvious­ ly ecclesiastical themes to, which it was dedicated.Roman art of the first third of the oimqueeemto, then, depended to a great extent on the papacy for its support, and also on the wealthy families, who were not necessarily aristocrats, but bankers and merchants.

27. Arnold Hauser, The Social History of Art, II, Hew York, Vintage Books, 195§f" "pp. ~ 8'jfcf. ' 2 8 . ibid., p. 8 7 . ' . ' • ' • 29. Ibid., p. 8 6 .

30. Ibid., p. 8 7 . 35 Under Lee X artistic projects grew to such dimensions that it necessitated the development of the workshop method of production. The workshop had, certainly existed before this, but the art. of Raphael * s shop differed from earlier ones in that the great majority, particularly of his late work, was executed by assistants. The system had the effect of giving rise to a style characteristic of the school in which all but the strongest personalities .of the pupils are lost and unrec­ ognizable. & naturally conformist style, like that of the High Renaissance in its period of refinement in the second decade, was particularly well suited to such a system. These two factors then, the class id s tic High Renaissance style it­ self and the sociology of its production, acted to limit strictly the scope of originality in Rome. .And finally, add­ ed to this was the almost exclusive preference of Leo X for ^1 the productions of the school of Raphael.''

Leo enjoyed a widespread reputation as the Maecenas of the arts, and his prodigality as well as his appreciation of the arts became almost legendary. But the munificent wealth lavished on art, and in fact, the whole atmosphere of splendor that radiated from Rome was a facade beneath which the actual plight of the city could not long remain hidden.

The renaissance was bequeathed to Leo almost matured, and his m3M.atnr.noi-' !■ liiiMM»^TOinTr.CTim^niiw:^ily-niiii.

3 2 . 1'reedberg, High Renaissance, pp. 261-64. 33. Pastor, Op. cit,, VXXX, pp. fOf.

34. Ibid., VXIX, p. 95, ' 35. Ibid., ¥111, pp. 99fo

3 6 . Ibid., ¥1 1 1 , p. 1 0 1 ,

37.. Ibid.. IX* p. 75. ' - 37 greatest minds of fids day sueh as Arlsst®,^ Leoaardo^^ and Brasmas,^® Art farms like sculpture and, architeetmre, of major concern under Julias, were relegated to the background ' ' ki by Leo, and painting enjoyed unprecedented favor.' In these areas he did mot continue the work ef Julias bat scattered his energies among many new projects,^ It is appropriate to his character and that of his reign, that he had am affinity for decorative projects and the minor arts which his prede- cessor did mot. It is difficult to appreciate the extent of his preference for the minor arts since so much of this genre has been destroyed or transported elsewhere. He seems to have been especially partial to goldsmiths,•who with musl- ciams, were most numerous among artists in the employment ef the Vatican,^ According to an inventory at his death, the

Vatican held a fortune in jewels worth 20t-,655 ducats. . The papacy of Adrian VI was completely lacking in pat­ ronage of the arts. By comparison, the greatest expectations

3 8 « Ibid., VIII, p. 220.

39. Ibid., VIII, pp. 3llf» W, Ibid., VIII, pp. 253 et seq

ti. Ibid., VIII, P. 379. %2. Ibid., VIII, pp. 376f.

%3. Ibid., VIII, p. 377, 41. Ibid., VIII, pp. 35lff, wer.id aroused by th.e election of Clement ¥11, because be was a Medici, and the family name had by now become associated with 2*5 liberal patronage of the arts. But because of the chaotic course of his reign he could not derote much time or money to anything but political and military affairs and the rebuild* , irag of Home, Clement continued some of the tastes and, proj­ ects of Leo, sometimes showing even less discretion, as in his partiality for Bamdimelli,^^ He.also shewed favor to mi- nor artists in particular illuminators ' and goldsmiths. But except for St, Peter1s, there were not many major projects available and, for example, Francesco Penal and GHovanni da Udine were only able to secure minor work in Borne such as the painting of banners.^ The results of Leo1s extravagance were by now painfully evident.

It is generally agreed that during the renaissance, the social position of the artist altered radically but this is difficult to demonstrate with precision, .especially in so short a time span as that to which the present study.is lim­ ited, This change took three forms$ the emergence of eccen­ tric behavior in artists, a theoretical justification and

Ibid,. X, p. 346,

• - 46. Ibid., X, p. 3 6 0 ,

i m - '* P" 35I, 43, Ibid.', X, p. 356.

49. Ibid., x, p. 33&. elevation of the labor of working in the visual arts, and, the material improvement of the status of the artist in society. The many stories of the eccentricities of such early sixteenth century; artists as Piero di Oosimo, Pontormo, Eos so Michelangelo, Leonard,© and Parmigianino are well known. They moved Wittlcower 50 to refer to the early cinquecento as a

Mproto-Bohemian*1 period. But later in the century public opinion turns against the unorthodox artist and some of the most influential writers such as Armeniai and JLomazzo urge artists to conform to social conventions, This is merely 'another aspect of the conventional regulated character of man nerist society.

The elevation of the profession of art through phil­ osophical reflection began in the renaissance with Alberti and had notable proponents in Leonardo and Michelangelo, Theoreticians attempted to ennoble art by placing it among the liberal arts, 51 thus separating it from the work of mere craftsmen and affirming its intellectual basis. Previously, in the quattrocento and even to the beginning of the cimque- oento, the best known artists accepted commissions for thea­ tre and festival designs, beads, boxes and household articles This was no longer as generally true after the tarn of the

50• Rudolf and, Margot Hittkower, Born tinder Saturn, Sew York, Random House, 1963» pp. 90~35»

51. Sir Anthony Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy 1^50-1690, Oxford, Olarenden Press, 'lE5^2i”K p r ^ 8 -5 2 , 52 century and it is not coincidental that about the same time the visual arts were admitted to the rank of a liberal art,^ . The status of art, and. consequently of the artist, greatly improved, then, about the time of the High Renaissance. One of the most direct and tangible ways of demonstrating this change lies in a study of contracts and fees. Contracts nego­ tiated at this time' allow the artist more freedom than ever before, in such areas as choice of subject and the necessity of providing a guarantor.^ Changes in fees perhaps reveal most clearly the new public regard for artists. 5 5 The first indication of substantially higher prices being paid for art occurs in .Tlorenee in the last quarter of the fifteenth eem- tury, where fortunes were paid for single works. With the rise of the papal court as a serious competitor to the Flor­ entine aristocracy, for the first time some artists received much higher prices than others. This indicates the future path of manneristie patronage.v'56 Fully developed mannerism was a court style associated, for example, with Francis I at Fontainebleau, and the Medici in Florence.

52, Wittkower, Cambridge History, p. ■152.

53, Blunt, 0£»_cit*, - P. 53, 5^, Hauser, Social History, pp. 58f.

5 5 , Ibid., pp. 6 0 f« 41 Baring the ointej flee eat© the historian first meets art­ ists whose lives are almost legendary, sack as Michelangelo and Raphael„ Hot only do they acqaire fortanes and mix as equals with the most learned humanists of their day, bat princes and kings cater to them,_ and try to lure them to their courts. The new social prestige of artists brought with it a whole series of ramifications. One of the foremost was the consciousness of the unique individuality of the artist and

.the effort to preserve records of him as am Individual. Be­ sides signatures and self-portraits, the artistic biography came into prominence in the qmatfrocento, 57f reaching full ex­

pression in the opus of Vasari. from this veneration of the artist it. is a short dis­ tance to the valuation of the potentiality to achieve as much as the achievement itself in the finished work of art, and ■58 then to the concept of genius. Unlike the middle ages or even the earlier renaissance- the cinqneeento appreciated the process of creation and preserved the spontaneous record of it, the sketch, for itself. This in turn relates to the con­ cept of art for art's sake, much too complex and intangible to be dealt.with here.

57. Ibid., pp. 65f.

58. Ibid., pp. 68ff. TIi© results of the upheaval and consequent insecurity evident in the political, spiritual and social background of art in the first third of the sixteenth century appear throughout the rest of the century in the prevalence of theo­ rizing -and the attempts to standardize. There were also oth­ er reasons for these activities. At the beginning of the renaissance, the culture of Imperial Home had so dazzled its rediscoverers that they at­ tempted nothing less than its restoration. Petrarch, one of the earliest humanists, did not realize the impossibility of reviving yery literally the spirit and the fact of antiquity, and the way in which Rienzi tried to restore the Soman Repub­ lic also shows the deep admiration generated by the remains of Home and the impropriety of trying to refound that civili­ zation.^ The patriotic ideal of such a visionary restoration in effect ended with Rienzi, following him, - Italians were con­ tent to cultivate antiquity on an academic basis. By the first third of the sixteenth century humanism was in its final stage, in which stylistic and formal scholarship dominated the broader considerations of learning. 6l In almost every field

59“ John Addington Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: Italian Literature, Ft. IT vol. 2 , Hew^orkT'^apricorn Books, this period, witnessed the rise of theorizing and abstract speculation. From such, philosophizing rules were formulated within which future works should, be created. Often these precepts derived from antique sources or at. least used an­

tique examples$ the last vestige of the more material ambi­ tions of the earlier renaissance. Theorizing and attempts to standardize appear in at least, four subjects of cinquecento speculations political science, linguistics, poetry and art.

One of the areas of study that changed most decisive­ ly at this time was that of political science, as exemplified by the many commentaries on the Florentin© government and the writings of Baehiavelli and Guicciardini, as discussed pre­ viously, Much, of this political thinking took shape in the discussions held in the Bucellai Gardens. These meetings of the Orti Oricellari were active for two periods of time, from 1502 to 1506 and from about 1510 to 1522.^ Earlier discus­

sion groups like the Platonic Academy under Ticino had eon- 63 centrated on philosophy and literature, whereas politics

emerged as a vital issue in the Bucellai discussions.0 This

speculation was not entirely abstract, but aimed at applying

62. Felix Gilbert, ^Bernard© Bucellai and the Orti Qricellari,” Journal of the Warburg and Oourtauld Institutes, fiiT'iiwr ppms=Tfr**" ' ■ - ^ ...... 6 3 . Ibid,, p. 1 2 6 * .

64. Edgar Wind, "Platonic Tyranny and the Renaissance For tun a on Ticino* s Reading of the Laws .Xv, 709 A, - 712 A, $t‘ Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky (ed. by Millard Meiss), Mew York, Sew York University Press, i9 6 0 , p. 493, • its find,lags to th.e preseat situation in Florence, The 1522 plot against the Medici arose from them and when it was dis­ covered the meetings were discontinued. The difference be­ tween the two periods of the Orti Oricellari appears in their study of antiquity. The first period 1502 to 1506 treated antiquity as archaeology, as in Pontius* collection of inscrip­

tions and Crialto1s analysis of classical terms and state-

' meats,' By the time Hachiavelli came to participate in these gatherings, history and Roman history in particular was stud­

ied for its applicability to the current government of flor- ence. 66

The argument over the vernacular as opposed to Latin and the relative merits of the different dialects was one of the most hotly contested issues of the day ahd it was natu­ rally discussed by the participants in the Qrtl Oricellari meetings, In fact the first Italian tragedy, Giovanni @neel- lai * s Rosmunda was produced for this gathering,^ The debate ever language had been going on for years . but it reached a climax in the first part of the sixteenth

68 ' century, 1 At this time three major works relating to this

6 5 » , Gilbert, “Bernardo Bucellai,tf p. 119,

6 6 . ■ Ibid., p. 12%.

6 ?. Ibid., p. 118.

6 8 . C. Grayson, “Lorenzo, Maehiavelli and the Ital­ ian Language,y Renaissance Studies, Op. Git., p. %10, problem were publish eel; EaohiaTelli 1 s Bialoffo in tor ho alia lingua, written in lj>l%, Bembe1 s Prose della yolgayr llngna published in 1 5 2 5 , and Dante’s Be vulgar! eloquio, written of course, much earlier, but published by Trisslue in 1529. Ga.stigllone even makes' it an important part of the discussion ef his educated circle im the Courtier. These works proposed various solutions to the problem but were alike in the attempt to give Italy a unified language, an irony in view ef its po­ litical disunity.

5®race's Ars poetica was the point of departure for all poetic criticism im the first half of the sixteenth century. It was considered to contain all there was to know about poet- 70 ry. After the middle of the century, the Poetics of Aris­ totle rose to a position of equal importance. from the first of the century the pattern of commentary set. Badius Ascem- sius in 150® published a work in which he reduced Horace’s recommendations to twemty^flve rules derived from the first twenty-five sections of Horace’s work, the first commentary to take such a dogmatic approach.’71 After this a commentary appears regularly every few years, ranging from a paraphrase

69. Ibid.

7®. Bernard Weinberg, A History of Literary Criti­ cism in the Italian RenalssaneeT I, Chicago, University of ©f Horace's text t© more catalogues of rules,A few authors exercised a more profound, influence than others, such as Marco Sir®lame Vida in his Be arte poetica of 1527 and S-ianglergi©-- Trissino in La poetica of 1529, Treatises like these contin- tie to appear throughout most of the century. As a postscript it may be added, that as the century progressed these pedantic interests turned to. the three great literary quarrels of the latter clnquecento. Literary effort was -consumed in. endless arguments orer the form of the Divine

Comedy as an epic poem, the tragedy in Canaee _e macaree, and the epic romance in the Orlando furloso and G-erusaleiame 73 - liberata.

, The visual arts are closely allied with the preceding areas in this methodology. It is ©pen t© demonstration in two particular ways $ the emergence of academies and art the­ ories, The gradual breakdown of the guild system naturally prepared the way for the establishment of academies, The

first part of the sixteenth century appears to be an interim, • period when the guilds were merely a formal structure without

any real role in relation to the artist. The first official

academies of art, in the usual sixteenth century sense, did not start until the 15^0's. Academies.in a more general

72, Ibid,, pp, 88-97,

73, Ibid,', II, p, 812, 7^, Hickolaus Pevsner, Academies of Art, Past and Present, lew Jerk, Macmillan, 19^0, p,, 7, sense had existed in the qmattrocento» The difference be- tween the academies of these two periods is characteristic of the changes that took place in the first part of the cen­ tury, Earlier groups such as I'icia©,'s academy in .Florence had been meetings in which humanists discussed philosophy and almost any other learned 'subject, usually based, on the writ­ ings of antiquity. After 153© academies were founded that were devoted to specialized interests, such as fencing, music and art,"75 But many academies■concerned r themselves mere than any other question with language and .literature.'*'0 Thus of­ ten they became organs for the dissemination of pedantry that ruled in these fields. There were highly formalized and ab­ stract aspects to these academies. Members customarily took names by which they wer.©' called in the academy. 77 The activ­ ities which occupied these groups, the banquets, orations and quarrels also betray the artificiality and lack of serious. . scholarly interest that was their prevailing spirit. 78 As they developed, their formal organization hardened. Whereas previously their organization had been flexible,, now it be- came fixed by rales, 79

75. Ibid., pp. IQff.

76. Symonds, Op. eit., IV, 2, p. 2 3 6 .

77. Pevsner, ,. P* 3-3*

7 8 . Symonds, Op. oif., IV, 12, pp. 236f, 79. Pevsner, Op,,...cit,, pp. 12f. w This oenfemry saw a parallel dLevelopmeiat in art theory. The earliest generation of mannerists did, not write theoreti­ cal treatises on art, bat starting aboat the middle of the centary with Paolo Pino in 1 $k8 and Ludovico BoIce in 155? 80 there were many works written and printed. Such a widespread regularization of thought and activ­ ity seems to imply a distrust of creativity and originality, or at least the belief that it was not a positive value. As traditional organizations like the city-state and.the church were battered by forces more powerful than they, intellec­ tuals apparently felt the necessity for erecting a stable framework within which there would not be the danger of change and instability.

80, Blunt, Op, eit.pp, 82 et seq. XT. POSTOBMO’S JOSEPH SCEEES

1 la 1515 Salvi Borgkeriai oommissleaed. to be painted

a series of small panel decorations on the order of passage>

These were intended to ornament the walnmt farnitnre and

walls of a room that he gave as a wedding gift to his son Pier Francesco and his wife Hargherita Aceiaiuoli. Fire art-= ists made coatribmtioas to the series over the next three year Baechiacca, ©ranaeoi, Andrea del Sarto, Pnligo and Pontormo. Thus the three different strata of artistic styles that ex­

isted side by side in Florence im this second decade are rep­ resented! Andrea had fully developed his interpretation of High Renaissance classicism, but in his contributions it was

considerably modified by his less able executant, Puligef'

Baoehiaeea and G-ranaoci worked in a backward-looking quattrocentesque style with a certain additive degree of

classicism; and Pontormo, who started out im this series im a very ordered, controlled High Renaissance style and fin­ ished the last .panel entirely as a mannerist. Pontormo's, series will be used as a point of departure for the dual pur­ pose of tracing the changes im his work and comparing his se­ ries with that of his contemporaries painting the same subject

1. Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Host Eminent Paint­ ers, Sculptors and Architects (trams, by Gr. .9uG, SeVere), London, 1912-1*, V p. 9 8 , Tx"p, 60, VII p. 159f.- Tlae Story of Joseph had, not been particularly popular before this» although, a few- examples are extant. The earliest panel, Joseph Eeveals Himself to his Brothers, is the most classical of any of the decorations of this room. The composition of this picture, as analyzed by 2 ' " ' Freedberg,' is organized im two interlocking circles in depth. The larger circle, placed most forward, surrounds the seated

figure of Joseph in the left half of the composition. It

creates an open space, while the more rearward circle to the right encloses the solid structure of the grainery. The two

circles interlock but one clearly dominates the other. A. hilly landscape placed behind the figures follows the circles in the foreground and swells up around Joseph in the center of the primary circle. The figures already move away from their classical composure and serenity. Several in the group sur­ rounding Joseph have knees spread apart in postures of the ut­ most strain. One man directly opposite Joseph with the bearded upraised face, and the figure beside him with face buried in hands seem to be im the throes of violent emotion.

The standing figures im the smaller circle prefigure manner­

ism in a different way. Their poses seem graceful and rather affected. They have long slender arms and legs which taper

off into nothingness. Ordinarily the long cassone shape dic­ tates a frieze-like organization of the incidents with sever­ al different scenes strung out in sequence. Here Pontormo 51 bias depleted only one scene and the incidents in the right background merely provide a setting for it. In the primary event to the left Joseph sits on a triumphal cart and re­ veals himself (O-enesis %5:1)» This highly emotion-charged scene is translated here into a very ordered, and especially in the figure of Joseph, very controlled representation. The background scene to the left shows the distribution of grain. The panel by Bacchiacoa illustrating the same sub­ ject shows in the left half the brothers arriving' with Ben­ jamin, divided by a caesura from Joseph revealing himself to - his brothers on the right. The two scenes, both strung out along the front plane, are about the same size and importance.

Joseph revealing himself does not have the clear dramatic unity of Pontormo's interpretation„ The brothers gossip among themselves and Joseph, while gesturing•towards Benja­ min, turns away from him toward a soldier. Only the figure bowing down before him indicates that he presides over the scene. I It Both Rparlck" and Preedberg have noticed in Pontor­ mo’s first two Joseph panels similarities to the Joseph scene on Ghiberti's Gates of Paradise. Preedberg believes, fur­ ther, that such a deliberate referral to quattrocentesqae motives explicitly intends a retrogression.

3. Janet'Oex Seariek,. The Drawings of Pontormo, - Cambridge, Hass,, Harvard■University Press, 196%,'2 vols., p. 116.

4. Preedberg, High H.enalssanee, p. 512. Altliotigh iTeedberg states that the first three Joseph

seeties do not deviate markedly from the canons of the clas­ sical style, except in the "sense of an intensified existence11, there are some disturbing changes in this second Joseph panel» These may be due in part to the change of picture shape to one that is higher than it is wide. The foreground leaves little empty space with the figures pressing close on it*

Even the figure groups themselves leave little space but seem packed together. Kiddie ground is indicated only by the lone figure in the center. The background rises higher than eye level and is much too close for natural perspective recession. The architecture lacks the distinguishing qualities of arch­ itecture and the two windows are especially unusual. That cm the right derives from erne with the head of a prophet to the upper right of the Joseph scene in the dates of Paradise,0 But the vagueness of the iconography is what disturbs most of all in this panel. Host plausibly it illustrates Joseph Sold to Potxphar (Genesis.37$ 36). The right foreground group of Joseph .and Fotiphar contains practically mo action at all while in that of the left foreground the figures hover around in a circle where something is happening. Other than the two figures of Joseph and Potiphar, all others are apparently in­ tended as setting for the market -place, or else have me par­ ticular meaning.

5, Ibid,, p. 516. 6, Hearick, Op. pit., p, 11b, 53 Andrea del Sarto designed for the same chamber at ap­ proximately the same time a panel of Joseph Being Sold to Pot- 'iphar which Pmligo executed under Andrea’s close direction,^ The monumental High Renaissance style naturally demands larger surfaces and more simplified compositions than those offered by these cassone narrative scenes, but even though this par­ ticular one is•packed with narrative incident, it still re­ tains a definitive order« The craggy landscape may be due to te 8 some Barer prints which Vasari says arrived in Italy about this time, As in Pontormo1s interpretation, the landscape builds up to rather unlikely heights but here the continuity

from the foreground seems plausible. The events read from the left midground where Joseph relates his dream to his fa­

ther and brothers; to the background where Joseph, under Ja­

cob’s direction, goes to join his brothers tending their flocks near Botham; to the two incidents in the right back­ ground, one where his brothers lower Joseph into a well, and the other where the Israelite merchant buys him; to the right foreground where Reuben gives Joseph’s coat of many colors to Jacob who rends his garments; and finally the chronological order turns to the center foreground where Joseph is sold to Potiphar* • Bach.scene in this way builds up to the final one of Joseph being sold, which marks a divisive point in his ’

Treedberg, High Renaissance, p. hgS.

6 , Vasari, Op. cit., V , p. 96- life and the beginning of bis stay in Egypt. Thas Andrea’s panel has a narrative unity completely lacking, sr at least not apparent in Fonterao’s work. Puligo1s contribution to

the style of this panel takes the form of am almost quixotic quality which became more preneameed in his 1$2Q Joseph pan­ el. The close dating of these two Joseph Sold, to Potiphar panels makes it impossible to say which came first, but as •Reariek noted, ^ they shar e the manner of grouping Joseph and Potiphar, The incident of the Butler and Baker (Genesis 1^0$1-23) has as little relevance to the actual story of Joseph as any that could have been selected, and the four scenes here por­ trayed are the least important to the fate of Joseph, It merely proves that he has the gift of prophecy which was shown on other occasions. On the upper level the butler is dragged out bodily to prls.cn while the baker is led more peaceably down the stairs. Then their roles reverse and the baker is led off in agony and consternation by four soldiers while the butler serves his master and mistress,their cups at table. Here for the first time the /same figures appear twice in different incidents. There is even less depth in this pic­ ture .than "!m the previous Potiphar scene by Pontormo. The background presents a more wall-like appearance, and the one opening is so vague that it does hot lead the eye back into 55 it* The stairway lends a diagonal to the composition» con­ tinued by the left foreground group. The spot where the bak­ er struggles as he is led be execution is almost on eye level while the ground - tilts slightly downward in the foreground where the butler kneels,. #ramacei' painted a scene of a similar, though net identical subject, the- Arrest of Joseph (Genesis 39:20}, This panel contains only one scene and is situated in a huge space whereas Pontormo's four scenes had, by comparison, been balanced on a ledge. To the far right is a building in ruins, one of the very few painted in Florence, At the baelc of the grassy area stands a large building and through its arcade in clear perspective behind the figure of Joseph is part of a landscape. The figures above this arcade appear to be sol­ diers , Two figures seem to be worshiping the statue on the column to the right which is very similar to the middle sta- true in Pontormo's last scene, Joseph in Egypt, . both of which were painted in 1 5 1 8 , 11 Vasari considered the last Joseph>** *panel, ' crxaraiLA-THvii'.TtifJoseph ^ iihT-ai in tenmua Egypt, the best painting that Pontormo ever did. Such un- ' stinted praise implies a great deal about the mannerism of this picture. .It was completed'in 1518 and.is one of the earliest thoroughly mannerist paintings,

10, Tfeedberg. High Renaissance, p. 11, Vasari., Op. eft,, VII, p. 1 6 0 , But Vasari said the same thing about Pontormo's Visdomimi Altarpiece. 56

The earliest incident 12 is situated in the middle back­ ground, where Joseph -s brothers and father lean against a boul­ der waiting to be summoned by Joseph, The small figure of a brother rushing toward them bringing word repeats the pose of 13 the figure in the left front corner. According to Vasari the main incident to the left front shows Jacob being present­ ed to Joseph, but actually it must be Joseph presenting his father to pharoah (Genesis h'f 17 5» while other members of the family hover around them. At the bottom right .Joseph mounts a triumphal cart to go to the death bed of his father (Gene-, sis. 48 $ 1), drawn by three' putti. The messenger kneeling be­ side the cart gives him the message, while Bronzino sits on the steps, Joseph then climbs the curving steps at the right accompanied by his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. At the upper right at Jacob's death bed, Joseph's sons kneel before

Jacob for his blessing as Joseph guides the oldest, Manasseh forward. These incidents have some semblance of unity encom­ passing Jacob's arrival and finally death in Egypt. The mob scene directly in the center led by the man holding a bowl out must be Egyptians coming to Joseph for grain. Unfortu­ nately Pontormo did not label the main characters as Utili had done in his cassone Story of Joseph, in the quattrocento and there remains doubt about some of the subject matter,

1 2 , Baehel Wisehnitzer, 8Jacopo Pontormo's Joseph Scenes,” Gazette des Beaux Arts, ser, 6 , 4l, 1953, pp. l%-5-'56, 13, Ya.sax-i,-Qp»,.„clt. , VII, p. 160. Wisehsiitzer * notes that the three stataeg esald represent Mars, Teams, and Cupid, or mere likely the three ages of mans referring to the three generations depicted here, Jacob, Jos­ eph and Joseph’s children. The child at the right looks down at the earth, symbol of his preoccupation with.earthly things;

the young woman at center holds a staff and bowl, a caritas figure symbol of maturity; and the old man at left points up, symbolic of old age’s preoccupation with.the life of the spirit. The only trouble with this theory is that old age is not old but seems to be a peak of strength and vigor. Hone of them relates to the story of Joseph except that possibly caritas could refer to Joseph’s feeding and traveling activ­ ities .

The formal characteristics of the two previous works are intensified in this one. Freedberg 15 compares .the com­ position to a fan moving out' from the bottom right.into depth

with repeated swirls back towards the right, first towards the

figure of pharoah, then the background group and finally up the stairs resolving in a circle in the deathbed scene. The background rises very sharply and the mob scene nestles in a rather unlikely pocket of space in the midground. The two background buildings are directly quoted from Lucas van Ley- "X. 6 den’s Bece Homo" ' and the other buildings may also be adapted

1%. Wischnitzer, Op. cit., pp. 155f« - lj). freedberg, High Renaissance, p,

IS. Ibid., p. 5 2 5 . Beariok, Op. cit., p. 1 5 5 . 58 from this, as are some head, dresses and eostwaes. The figures often twist and turn in thoroughly mannerist posturing, swell­ ing in the middle and tapering off in hands and feet. Heads tip to one side or the other and are small in comparison to the body. Hot much relation cam be expected between Pontormo's Joseph panels because of the differences in size and intent. They were executed over a three year period and the first three were intended to be placed on cassone while the last much larger one was to be placed on the wall. I1? The last to

some extent sums up the whole story of Joseph. While paint­ ers had never adhered closely to the story in such narrative scenes, some continuity.was attempted between scenes and they were usually clearly decipherable, as they are not here.

17. Sizes are; 35 % 1^2 cm., 58 x 50 cm., 58 x 50 cm., and 96 x 109 cm. V. HAHHATXVB CYCLES

Tke foremost praotltlemers of the maaaerist-style la Rome aad, Florence each, participated, in the decoration of a room containing a narrative cycle. G-iulio Romano partially executed, the Sala di Costantino in the Vatican and Pontormo worked in the Great Hall at Poggis a Saiano within a few years of each other. The iconography of these two rooms reveals seme of the differences between'the painting of the two cities.

Large scale narrative cycles in palaces, churches and the Vatican were the form which expressed the grandiose am­ bitions of High Renaissance Some. They were the medium by which the ideas and themes, literal, moral, allegorical, metaphysical or a combination of these, could be presented. The frescoes of the Sala di Costantino- are unique in the third decade in Some as being the only surviving example of this genre which had dominated the High Renaissance, In this, one of the last great efforts of the school of Raphael, the style of the High Renaissance-has been decisively altered into that of mannerism. Besides- the style, the iconography itself re­ flects the mannerist mentality,

1. Wittfcower, Cambridge History, p. Ih5*

39 Tke three great staaze of Raphael; Segaatara,. Eello~ dero, and Znoendie, in the adjacent rooms were exeonted in the preceding thirteen years and constitute the immediate frame of reference from which the Sala di Costantin© was cre­

ated, Raphael1s pupils under Oiuli© Romano painted the Sala di Cestantlne from 1520 to 1^2% with a long interruption dur­ ing the pontificate of Adrian VI, When they- resumed, work on

it under Clement VII, all that had been done previously, ex- 2 cept two figures, was destroyed, 3 Berenson suggested to Harit that the icon©graphic

.X _ program for this stanza may have been influenced by the fres­ coes in the church of Santi Quattro Coronati in.Rome, The oratory of 8* Sylvester adjoining this church contains ten pictures executed in the thirteenth century including the

Leprosy m&FFssf.of ■Constantine iwcW M pm m and the Baptism swaBmes*of • wrr.niia»iW^rtHthe Emperor .g gnna i o t ait iif.il r ■ ■mr.umtim by w Sylvester, The Leprosy of Constantine refers to an early jU legend of his conversion, ' James of Sarug, a bishop of the early sixth century relates the story of how the emperor was born afflicted with leprosy. So cure for it could be discov­

ered until finally some Chaldean physicians were summoned. They recommended a bath in the blood of infants, and just as

2, Vasari, Op, bit,, VI, p, 148. , 3, Frederick Hartt, Q-lulio Romano, Mew Haven, 1958, > v %, Christopher Bush Coleman, “Constantine the Great and Christianity,n Studies in History, Economics and Public Law (ed, by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia Uni­ versity), LX, Hew York,' 191%, pp, 15%f, 63. a group of children were about to be pat to the sword. Cob- - stantxBe,s chief slave recommended instead that baptism might care his illness. In preparation for baptism lie was anointed with oil which cured his leprosy and then he was baptised. Later versions elaborated cm this story. This leprosy inci­ dent occurs in the first tentative list of subjects. According to Vasari Raphael drew up the plans for ■ ^ this stanza before his death, but Hartt1- proves that this could mot have, been possible. Sebastiemo del Piombe tried to get Michelangelo to intercede with the pope and help him to obtain the commission. He writes in a letter on September f, 1 520:. "...I told you...the stories...in such a general way because the pope told them to me so vaguely...M. The fres­ coes. were to depict; the story of the Bmperor Constantine, how a cross and a light appeared"to him in the air, in sign of which he would have the victory.,.Then on the main wall a battle., .so say those who. wish to be­ gin it. Then in the next wall a presentation of prisoners to Constantine. Then in the other wall the preparation of the burning of the blood of children, and there come in many women and little children and executioners to slay them to make . the bath, of the Emperor Constantine./

The two incidents of the Presentation of Prisoners and the Preparation of the Blood of Children were" not executed and the events substituted for them, the Baptism of Constantine

5. Vasari, Op. clt., TV, p. 2*0.

6 . Hartt, Op. clt., p. *3 . •

7. Ibid., pp. %3f. 62 and, th'e Donation of Constantine, do form a more logical narra­ tive progression in the context of the whole series„ But .even mere notable,. these last two scenes .pay tin equivocal and, direct homage to the church, as the first suggestions had not. The four scenes from the life of Constantine 8 are painted on simulated tapestries. In chronological order the cycle begins With the Adloeatio, the Vision of Constantine. This commemorates the incident in which, according to early 9 ' Christian legend, Constantine received the sign that brought him great military victories. ..in 313 Constantine'.invaded Italy to challenge the dominion of the Bmperor Maxestins.. As he camped outside Home with his army, a sign appeared in the heavens, the cross with the inscription; .IN EOC'SIQ-NG VINCES, In a dream the following night he was instructed to put this insignia on the shields of his soldiers, and he was victor­ ious 1m the following, battle, ; In the fresco in the Sala di Costantino, the Bmperor stands at the left and in the right background is an imaginary recreation of architecture; the Ponte Sant’ Angelo spans

8. Breedberg, High Renaissance, pp, 568-755 Hartt, Op, cit., pp. h2—51; FredericSTHarttf '^fiaphae 1 and Criulio Romano,' with Notes .on the Raphael School,H Art Bulletin, XXVI, 19%%-, pp. 78-8 3 ? Jakob Hess, *0m Raphael and Giulio Romano,* Gazette-des Beaux Arts, ser, 6, XXXIX, pp. 7h~95»' 9. Coleman, Op, cit,,. pp. 77ff « 10, Richard A. Turner, "Two Landscapes in Renaissance Rome," Art Bulletin, XLIII, 1 9 6 1 , p. 279. 63 the Tiber with, fiadrlaa1 s Tomb on one side and the Tomb of Au­ gustus on the other side. Obelisks and columns are visible in the background„ The cross appears in the sky carried by three angels» but only a few of the crowd even look at it. 0oostantime himself gazes off into the right distance. Sev­ eral heraldic devices are scattered throughout the military accoutrementss the dragon, the eagle and the sun. In the language of late Homan paganism turning into Christianity, this last symbol represents the monotheistic creative force of the universe and Constantine may have been connected with

11' . this cult, ' or it could, be the device of Clement VII. The masterpiece of this cycle, the Battle of Constan­ tine, occupies the largest wall space. Here the two armies meet on the banks of the Tiber in furious conflict, commem­ orating the event of 313» The rival Emperors, Constahtine on a white horse and Haxentius on a black horse drowning in the Tiber, confront each other surrounded by a chaotic battle scene. The Battles of Casolna and Aughtar-i, the most influ­ ential of the renaissance, had been tightly controlled and centralized, while the•Battle of Ostia was a little more dif­ fuse but still had a recognizable central incident. The Bat- tie of Constantine contains many incidents, not clearly dis­ tinguishable, but massed together. Limbs literally pile on top of each Other. The foremost figures are next to the ground

- 11* Coleman, Op.,, eit., pp. 33ff . 6b or partly submerged is the river and. as the ground moves back

in the picture the figures stand as, at the same time, the ground plane rises. This great mass spreads out horizontal­ ly across the picture plan© and seems to be abruptly curtail­ ed at each side. The long expanse of sky reinforces this. Such a frieze arrangement and movement in shallow planes is

the foremost compositional distinction between the art of Raphael and that of his most original pupil. 12 Whereas Raph­ ael and the High Renaissance painters concerned themselves with the harmonious distribution of plastic figures in a real­ istically created space,this ceased to be of value toithe mannerists.

These attributes of continuous frieze effect and densely packed figures are partly attributable to antique models. ^ Va sari^ notes that Grlulie studied the columns of

Trajan and Antonins for this battle piece. Several other re­ liefs have been conclusively connected with it, such as the Arch of Constantine and the Battle Sarcophagus at the Huseo

Hazionale in Home as well as the cartoons for Raphael1s tap-. estries and the Battle of Caseina. ^ A. comparison of the

12. ' Hartt, Giuljo Romano, p. 10. 13, , Craig Hugh Smyth, ^Mannerism and Manlera,B Xmbernat 1 onal Congress, Op . olt. , • pp. l8j$f. 1%. Vasari, Op. eit., VI, p. Ih9.

1 5 . E.II. C-omforich, "The Style all1 Antica; imitation and Assimilation," International Congress, Op. eit., pp. 35-38. 65 models with. G-iulio1 s Battle shews his method, of adaption,, He jpraotioally never copied them exactly, bat instead, assumed them into his 01m style.' Sften as his later works show, he reversed, the position of the figure to a mirror image in this process of assimilation, According to the legends 36' Constantine was baptized either by Eusebius, Bishop of Home, in 3.99 or 310, or by Syl­ vester (3.1.4-336), his successor. The Sala di Costahtino ren­ dition of this occurrence takes place, inside of the Lateral* .17 Baptistry,' which has been altered by the imposition of a coffered instead of a vaulted ceiling,creating a more op­ pressive effect. The emperor kneels before the pope who. per­ forms the ceremony. A diverse assortment of spectators are scattered around this central group including portraits of cinqaecento noblemen, Roman soldiers and ecclesiastics, among whom there are some very' -disturbing spatial and size relation­ ships. Three of these witnesses look directly out the front of the picture. Yet this remains probably the most classical and conservative of all the. four paintings, because of the pyramidal central group situated in an architecturally created space. Even here the pyramid works toward the destruction of

3.6, Coleman* Qp» eit., pp. 152f, 17. Vasari, Op, ext., VI, p. 150, 18. Hartt, Giulio Homano, p. .46. 19. Ibid., p. %7. classicism, by the amphitheater form given the steps which situates the main group lower than the rest of the figures in an inverted pyramid. It is,indicative of the atmosphere in Home in the third decade that the subject of the last fresco was accepted 20 . • to be fictional. - The gonsti.tutum Constantlnl containing the historical justification for the Donation of Constantine had been critically examined by the scholars lieholas of Cusa in 1453 and Lorenso Valla in 1440 and proven by them to be a for-

21 • gery of the middle ages. This did not prevent its repre­ sentation as fact in the Vatican, along with three widely

accepted incidents. According"to the Constitutam Constantin! the Donation grew out of the incidents connected with the Vita Silvestri» It was a gift of thanksgiving fop,Constantine's cure from leprosy. In the Qon.stitu.tam Comstamtimi the emperor paid great honor to the papacy giving it dominion over the city of Borne and Italy as well as various incidental privi­

leges . He even changed his capital to Constantinople so as not to interfere with the divinely established authority of the papacy. Thus the depiction of the Bonation was an exam­ ple of wishful thinking by the popes. The four scenes, the Vision„ Battle, Baptism and Donation form am iconograpiiic

20. Ibid., p. 4-5. 21. Coleman, Op, oit.. pp. 188-93, ...

22. Ibid,, pp. IfSf, ' - m i t y of f o w of 0oastantiae1 s mest • pertlaeat aets ia-rela­ tion to Christianity. They begin with the giving of divine assistance to him, by which he is able to build his empire? and end with the Boaatlom in which he returns the balance of

power to the papacy. The whole cycle of the Sala di Cos tan-, tin® contains a lesson in the humanist tradition on the ideal relations of church and. state. In showing incidents from the career of the first Christian emperor, it implies a model for the contemporary princes of Europe to fellow, an example that 23 was rudely disregarded in 1527» It is ironic that later

historical methods revealed Constantine to have been more pa- gam than Christian. He used the cress as a- fetish, * ignored the moral and theological teachings of Christianity'^ and, al­

though sympathetic to Christianity, was baptised, if at all, right before his death. 26 The Donation in the Sala di Costantino shows Sylvester

and Constantine at the left, with spectators spilling in from either side of the nave.. Several incidents take place in the background and among the crowd, but most of the psychological emphasis is concentrated on the central group. The figures on the foreground plane form a wide ¥, again a seeming inver­ sion of the renaissance pyramid. The ceremony occurs in a

23- .Jfre-edberg, High Renaissance» p, 57©.

24. Coleman, Op. cit., p. 7 9 * "

25- Ibid *, pp. 89-94. .

26. Ibid., p. 8 7 . 68

slightly altered St. .Peter1s basilica.^ This interior forms

a large empty space with two semi-circles of -.figure8 on either 2g side opposing each-other... .'Raphael had created am entirely

different spatial effect in the Blspnta, for example, by plac­

ing a large semi-circle frontally to the picture plane. The Donation is located on the wall opposite from the Battle and is characterised by a large spatial void in contrast to the crowded effect of the Battle. The width of both these pic­ tures and the emptiness of the upper two fifths of their area

ais well as the sheer number of figures with their animated and varied postures gives them impact and force. The other two scenes appear closer and- mere'specific because of their nar­ rower size and fewer figures. The spatial representation in the Battle scene is er­ ratic and fractured into many disunited parts. It is almost

impossible to even find a ground line under the mass of figures and it never appears continuous. In all the scenes the ground tilts sharply upward and ends in a horizon line about

three fifths of , the height of the .picture and in this way brings the iiiages closer to the spectator. - Several other mechanisms accomplish the same thing. The original .ceiling

-was flat and started at the architrave above the tapestries, ' but in 1585 it was raised to the present high vaulted

2 7 . Earth, G-iulio Somano, p. %6. 28. Ibid. , p.

29. Earth, ^Raphael and Giulio Romano,.11 p. 79. 30 eeiliag. The lower selling overhead would have brought the spectator more directly in touch with the walls and have forced his involvement. Besides the ceiling, several figures on the front plane of the Donation and Baptism seem to have no part in the milieu of the painting but look out at the spec­ tator and appear to be more a part of his space. Bven more - effective in this calculated confusion of real and painted space are the varied effects of illusionissa to be described subsequently. But just as important as this, and illusionis- ' ' Q1 tie in its own way, is the cold hard surface of the painting.

Each image is so clearly and intensely present that it im­ pinges itself on the spectator. Dnselective depiction of de­ tail helps achieve this sense of visual immediacy. These forms, then,, are- mere plastically concrete and. present than those of Raphael. Such exclusive emphasis on psychological considera­ tions and external articulation of what is visible necessi- 32 tates a loss of content. ~ What Tree&berg calls the shell of humanity leaves nothing unstated, nothing just partly indicat­ ed, Such painting lacks true humanistic significance and be­ gins. the aesthetic of the facade. These forms state visually the meaning of the term mannerism in its most common connota­ tions. figures and space are 'incapable of meaningful action

30. Treedberg, High Renaissance, p. 57Z,

31. Ibid., p. 573. 70 or eomt-ent and derive their expressiveness entirely from their manipulation. They transmit an artistic message more urgently than a thematic one„

The figure' style also of Raphael’ s stanz© has disap-*- peared. His poets and philosophers assumed varied posture's and sometimes showed quite lively movement but as individuals they never lost their equanimity and, self-contained calm, and as elements of the composition they did not detract from its stability„ Details were - subordinated to the larger effect„ Usually they did not show facial expressions the Expulsion of ■Hellodorus being a notable exception. Backgrounds and shadows blurred and became indistinct. By far the most significant element of High Renaissance art was the human figure, but its presentation was governed by the larger considerations of art, and it was treated with a certain levity. In contrast to this, in early mannerism, the figure of man still constitutes the substance of'painting, but it has lost its subservience to the totality of the composition» In the'Battle bodies twist in the most contorted and wrenched postures. Even such'a static composition as the Donation-presents a great surge of vivacity and life in the spectators. Faces wear intensely pained or concerned expressions and robes flutter and swirl as if windblown. Details number extensively and take on an ornamental caste as in the hair or foliage of the Battle. It .is apparent that this painting has come full cycle from that of Raphael in many respects, . - 71 In the preceding pages, the form and, content of the fear large simalated tapestries hare been analyzed: just as effective in conveying the mannerist impression of this room are the eight; figares of popes seated in niches er- surround.ed by cartains, and their relation to the narrative scenes, from them the room derived its original name, the Sala de* Pontefici, The series has been much altered by later restora­ tions, and the identity of some of the popes is questionable. The series 33 opens with St, Peter over the entrance and mov­ ing to the right the popes are identified as Gregorius, Sil­ vester I, Clement ¥11, Bamasus I, Urban 1 or Clement VII,^

Silvester or .possibly Alexander, and finally Clement I who is actually a portrait of Leo X, Thus the series of the popes opens with the first, St. Peter and conelndes with the pon­ tiff reigning at the time the frescoes were begun, Leo X. Each pope is placed at one side of a. narrative scene in a fietive architectural creation and attended by two virtuesc' and two caryatids. The pope seated beside the Baptism of Constantine may be used as am example. Hess believes the en­ tire wall to be a tribute to Clement VII. This pope, Clement VII, sits between his two oarya-

i. .. ■ tids at the top, one taking the form of Apollo representing

33= Hess,' Op. cit., pp. 80-84.

34. Frederick Hartt, "The Chronology of the Sala di Costamtimo»H Gazette des Beaux Arts, ser. 6, 3 6 , 1949, p. 304. 35= Hess, Op, cit., pp. 84f» 72 th& pope’s symbol of the sun, aiad the ether representing the moon im the form of Blaaa, They hold streamers with CMflQIl

ILLBSOS Inscribed on them. The corresponding virtues below take the form of Veritas and Xnnocentia respectively. Heral­ dic devices are scattered, throughout the painting. Twelve of the caryatids im the upper register support yokes while streamers float about them bearing the motto SUAVE* both sym­ bols of Leo X. The upper edge of the Adlocutio tapestry bears again the yokes alternating this time with a ring in front of three ostrich feathers and the inscription 'SIMPER* a Medici symbol that cemM refer to either Lee X or'Clement Til. The Baptism and Donation borders are decorated with■the sun and CAMBOR"XLLESUS again. There seems to be extensive use of de­ vices and insignias both in Rome and STorenee at this time. In Rome as here, they were usually incorporated into large compositions while in Florence single heraldic devices were often painted over doors. However it is difficult to make comparative generalizations with the preceding and following periods because there is no comprehensive study of these sym­ bols..30 - ' :

This presentation of the popes contrasts strongly with their position im the Stanza d ’Eli.odoro and Jaeendi©.

In both those rooms the popes and their retinue were passive spectators and were the same size as the other participants.

36. Hartt, ’’Chronology," p. 302. although, they might be separated from the aetioa and placed off to one side. In the Sal a di Oostantino however-, the or­ ganization of the entire room is built around the explicitly stated opposition' between the enthroned popes and the secular narrative scenes they surround. Their larger than life size, 37 larger even than the other figures, and their surrounding architecture and symbols give them as much or mere impact than the narrative scenes, which actually cover a greater space, Gregory IX who is enthroned in much the same manner in the Stanza della Segnatura, compared with the Oostantino popes, seems insignificant and completely devoid of personal dynamism. These.popes preside from much more articulate sur­ roundings, Their robes ripple voluminously around them and the angels holding the drapery of their canopies and in par­ ticular the filmy drapes of the caryatids above, give them an active, almost flickering setting, 38 Qiali.® has exploited several devices of Illusion!sm as part of what might be called a new aesthetic, in which psy­ chology has an unprecedented part. The architectural niches in which the popes are seated recede in two levels. On the bottom level on a slightly lower plane than the popes are the virtues. They sit precariously in front of the architectural jambs and appear to project into the space of the room, an

37. Pastor, X* P* 3*8. 38. Hartt, "Raphael and Siulio Romano," pp. 77ff. freedberg, High Renaissance, pp. 370ff. 74

Impression farthered by their feet which everhang the edge of the platform. The gestmres of their arias often move in front of the tapestries. The caryatids on the upper plane are sit­ uated on a slightly more receding plane, but their feet still project into the room. If the ceiling had remained as low as originally planned, they would also give the illusion of sup-. porting it. The caryatids effect another oenceit in that, within a pair, each is the reverse of the other. 39 The re­ lation between the tapestries and the architecture contains a calculated degree of ambivalence. There is me stable plane of reference because of the illusiomistio recession and advance­ ment of the wall. This scheme does not include a tangible background but instead, several planes with no indication on which one of thfe tapestries, for example, are situated. The ambiguity increases as a result of the opposition between the- relative solidity and enclosure of the popes and the openness of the narratives,' There is also a disparity in the direc­ tion of perspective. That of the papal thrones points down and makes it seem as though the spectator looks up from below, increasing incidentally the grandeur of these apparitions, while the perspective lines of the tapestries aim-high in the picture making 'it appear that the spectator looks down from . above. Stucco plaques and crests appear on the same wall as

39. Hess, Op. eit., p. 90. 40. Freedberg, High Renaissance, p. 572, 75

She Benation and increase the ceafasiea of receding and ad­ vancing areas, The painted tapestries themselves are a final• illssionistic artifice. The school of Raphael had produced

several precedents for this idea, among them the Sala di Psiohe and the ceiling of the Stanza d fBliodore, bat in these instances the illasionism aimed only at simalating the flat

effect of the tapestries themselves, not at confusing the space between the real and the painted area. The school of Raphael never attempted a transfer between the two areas. The Gostantino tapestries do attempt such an interchange. The edges roll Inward on each side suggesting that the wall surface is too small to contain them and giving a crowded ef­ fect. ■ Yet the picture itself does not follow the roll of the material but is treated as if the tapestry edge were a frame. The Sala di Gostaatino takes its point of'departure in almost every respect from the classicism of the school of t-1 Raphael. But this first complete exposition of Roman man­ nerism twists the ideals of stability, harmony and balance, the striving for a refined peak of perfection by the classi­ cists, into a jarring discord of oppositions, which are forced relentlessly cm the observer. Zreed'berg stated the situation

succinctly: “Hothing is left of the classical precepts of design except the clarity and force with which this system makes its opposite effects.

%1. Ibid., pp. $68f, 573. 42. Ibid., p. 573. 76

Tlb.ese fear stanze, Segnatora,' Heliedero» laeeadie and Cestaatia©, were planned at different times and were mot in­ tended to form am leonegraphlo progression or amity. However ifittlcower finds the unifying effect of the church; the Segnatura contains the other elements of life in relation to the church, the Sliodoro commemorates its temporal victories,

the laoeadie immortalizes its dogma, and the Cestaatino its foundation. The last three stanze are net unified in their reference to the church, and the first is more humanistic in its.program than ecclesiastical. He also asserts that each of these inaugurated a major category of style,

A fifth stanza was proposed after the Sala di Cestan- uu tino. The Sala di Carlomagno or as it was then called, the Sala fiegia or Sala delli Be, was intended to complement the Sala del Pontefici, as Costantino was them called. The pro­ gram for this room, like that of Costantino, had enthroned figures alternating with narrative scenes. The figures were kings and the events commemorated further great donations to the church besides that of Constantine, The painting began under Perin© del Yaga^ in t$hZ but was mot completed as planned.

4.3, Wittkower, Cambridge History, p. 143.

44. Hess, Op. cit., pp. 95f.

45. Vasari, j g ^ c i t . , VI, p. 219. 77

As the SaXa di Costantioo is the only representative of large scale narrative painting in Rome daring the first generation, so the Great Hall of Peggie' a Cajano is its only counterpart in Florentine art. There were innumerable pre­ cedents for such schemes in Rome, but there were only two in Florence, that of the Confraternity of the Sealzo and the

atrium of the Church of the Annuaziata. ‘ Moth had religious themes„ The Sealzo (1510-26) contained sixteen grisaille frescoes about two-thirds life size, illustrating the life of St. John the Baptist, the patron saint of Florence, • The gro­ tesque decoration surrounding these scenes harmonizes appro­ priately with their grisaille color and the penitential nature of the confraternity. They have death symbols such as the urn, death.* s head and the Veronica's veil surmounted by a cross. The virtues, faith,, hope, charity and justice, are depicted on four opposite center walls. The Anmmziata con­ tains the life of St. Philip and other scenes such as the Adoration of the Magi and the Birth of the Virgin. The hall

at Peggie a Gajaao is the only extant work of Florence anal­

ogous to those created in Home'in 'that if is a scheme of pro- lf,7 digioms size with a subject from Roman sources, The idea of having this hall decorated originated with Leo X, who wanted' the work done in memory of his father,

W . Freedberg, High Renaissance, pp. %%2f. %7» about thirty feet wide. 78 Lorenz® tiae Mag$iificent.^® He delegated, tlie work to G-ialio de'Mediei, wh.o in turn gave it to Ottavian© de1 Medici, who actually selected the artists, Ottavian® assigned one third of the hall to Andrea del Sarto, one third t© Zraneiabigio and the remaining portion to Pontormo, probably in 1520,”^ The latterfs share consisted of the two opposing end walls from floor to ceiling, with a lunette on each side pierced by a large,circular window. The icon©graphical scheme was created by Paolo Giovio, Bishop of Heeera, who was the foremost historian at the court

of Leo X* According to his directions, Andrea illustrated the Captive lations Paying Tribute to Caesar while Jfrancia- bigio painted the Triumph of Caesar. Triumph scenes number greatly in previous renaissance painting, taking their popu­ larity from the triumphal processions on days of festivity. The procession in honor of Leo X in 1515 used this motif on a large scale.

Within the styles of each of the three participants, the work in- this- hall, represents a period of exploration and experiment, Andrea pushed his High E-enaissance classicism to a proto-baroque grandeur and vigor.Traneiabigio1s explor­ ations, although somewhat similar to Andrea*s, merely bring

1*8. Vasari, Op. oit. . V, pp. l§3f, p. 221; VII, p. 162. .

Bearick, Op. cit., pp. 173f. 50. Treedberg, High Renaissance, p. %7^» 79 kirn fro® his backward looking gnattroperatesque style well in- 51 to the classical style itself.' Pontormo's inmovatloms are more tmique., both to his style and to that of this early mannerism. Apparently the subjects for Pontormo's frescoes changed during the execution of the first projects. Two extant studies show roughly the

first proposals for the two opposing walls. The first is the

most finished and detailed of the drawings and shows the Anointing of am Athlete in a tripartite illusienistic arehi-

teotural setting. Berenson suggested it might represent Seneca, in his Bath. The three lunettes above formed by the arches contain two Medici crests on either side and Leda and the Swan.in the center.. -Such differentiation between levels came to be a typically mannerist conceit, and the upper part may have been intended to be painted in grisaille a,md the

lower in color,^ since Andrea's and Zranciabigio's paintings for this room were executed in grisaille, while the one that Pontormo finished was dome in color. The other early sketch by Pontormo planned for the

opposite wall, probably represents a Rape of the Sabines, al­ so with an architectural framework indicated in the

-51* %bid., pp. 1*8.1 f. 52, Bernhard Berenson, The Drawings of Florentine Painters, II, Chicago, - University of Chicago :PresT7™T9357” P. 300, ",

53- Bearink. Op, cit., p. 3 9 . 80 background. These two earliest drawings and, the one that fol­ lows them betray the decisive impress of the Boman style of the previous -decade, from this and other evidence Bearick^ has deduced a visit to Rome during 1519-1520 by Pontormo* not incidentally- recorded. The Rape of the Sabines was not a com­ mon theme in Florence and Pontormo's approach to such a scene of violence was possibly influenced by other Roman precedents such as the Expulsion of Heliodorus and the Battle of Ostia, In Rome two projects in particular* however, left their im­ print on him: the Sala di Prospettive of Perezal and espe­ cially the Sistiae Ceiling of Michelangelo, The painted architecture of Pontormo's first projects could be traced generally to these two Roman works. But the figure style of Michelangelo is most apparent. There are other Michel- angelesque drawings by Pontormo that tend to confirm this

55 - impression, Considering that these compositions would have covered the whole end of the room, the figures would have been gigantic in size. This is new to Pontormo's art only in degree, and cannot be taken as proof of a visit to Rome, His figures had. certainly been this powerful before but they had not been expanded to the proportions that these would have been, if the drawings had actually been executed,

5^, Ibid., pp. 37-k0, 55« Ibid., pp. kl-kk. 81 Tli© subjects ©f tlaes© tw© projected, studies, the Amolatimg of as Athlete or the Bath of Seneca and the Rape , mtwmw ww***i- FWrnwaaiyMasi i u^wmw/.wiB emdsaeSrefmw of the Sabines would have harmonized with the other momentous scenes from Roman history ip this room better than the subject of the one scene finally executed by Pontormo. But the style is quite different from that of Andrea and Franciabigio. It relies less on the architecture and the creation of a large space for its imposing appearance and focuses exclusively on its figural groups. Pontormo1s adaption of Roman style has not been as unproblematieal as Andrea's and Pranciabigio's.56 Two more compositional studies for this room survive by Pontormo but both are for lunettes, generally thought to be different stages of the plan for the same lunette. The first is still strongly liohelaagelesque, The figures are tightly packed into a. constricted space. The tree trunk wrapped a- round the window to which the figures cling provides the ten­ sion of a spring held in check. The last of the four large preparatory studies retains the tree trunk but it is hardly noticeable. This scene is made up of eight people as com­ pared with six in the last one, but they are smaller, clothed and distinctly less Miehelangelesque and forceful looking. Pontormo must have become aware how little this heavy style would have lent itself to the subject of this fresco and the

56, Ibid., p. - 3 8 . 82 57 grotesque mood it would have created. 1b this respect it forms a traasition to the finally executed fresco, which is why both these sketches have been thought to be for the same lunette. The narrow wall on which the figures are distributed in receding levels is the same in both these last two studies as in the final lunette, Pontormo’s method of compiling sketches and organizing the finally executed, fresco is equally <8 new to the working procedure of the High Renaissance, Only one lunette was executed by Pontormo, Both his and the work of the other two participants were curtailed by the death of Leo X in 1521. Franoiabigie returned to finish his fresco in 1532 but Andrea never did finish his painting and, of course, Pontormo never completed the other lunette or the walls below.

Pontormo’s lunette draws its subject of Yertumnus and Pomona from the Metamorphoses of Ovid, •• According to it the goddess Pomona had devoted her life to the care ef her or­ chard, ■ She barricaded her gate against any divinities who might approach. But one ingenious god, Yertumnus, used a variety of disguises, reaper, hedger, vineyard hand, soldier and fisherman, as excuses to see her. One time dressed.as an old woman, he even managed to give her some kisses and then

57. Preedberg, High Renaissance, p. 5 6 0 .

5 8 . "Bearick, Op. cit., pp.

59. A.S, Watts, (trans,), The Metamorphoses of Ovid, Berkeley, Waiversity of California Press, 1954,"pp. 337-5T. 83 told her how devoted to her was the fine young man Vertmmems, However this did, not sway Pomona, nor did the story the old woman told her about the hard-hearted maiden Anaxarete and the way she was punished by Terras. But when Vertuimus finally changed himself into his natural youthful form, she immediate­ ly fell in love with him. The Sala delle Prospettive of Peruzzi also derives its fifteen scenes of the architrave on the upper wall from the same source, and is the largest extant mythological nar- SO rative cycle of the High Renaissance. It could be respon­ sible for the architectural setting of the first scheme's, but besides this both projects have much the same spirit of light­ ness and fancy•proper to Ovid, quite different from the ser- 6l iousness of most High Renaissance subject matter. But Peruzzi^s stories are filled with action whereas Pontormo's is extremely static. Pontormo’s interpretation bears little resemblance to other earlier representations of Vertumnus and Pomona. The. Hypneroporaachia Polophili of Francesco Colonna (ib&y), for example, pictures the two gods in a triumphal chariot.62

Pontormo merely distributes his Vertumnus and Pomona along the wall of a garden. They do not act or even imply any

6 0 . Preedberg, High Renaissance, p. WO.

6 1 . Bearick, Qp, cit., p. 37« 62. Ibid., p. 173. action. As characters they are completely severed from the plot of the story. There would be no.way of identifying them go if Vasari ^ did not state who they represent. .Vasari iden­ tifies Vertumraus as being on the left, although he could be any one of the three figures in one of his disguises, and Po- " i mona on the right. But nothing else connects them with Ovid. Vasari also says that one of the female figures is Diana, a logical association since she was another goddess disdainful of love and famed as a huntress. The branches shooting out on either side of the .-window are the only remnant of the tree trunk wound around it in the earlier studies. The group of figures on either side form a pyramid, but instead of the High Renaissance pyramid in depth, this one exists only on a flat plane and has an empty center. Preedberg compares the deli­ cate formal relations in which the figures are woven to a spi- der-web.0. But the figures lack any conscious relation between each other. The wall and sky combine to form an ef­ fectively flat backdrop, very close to the picture plane rath­ er than leading the eye of the viewer back into an illusion!s~ tic space. The figures are scattered along the wall in such a way that they are as close to the front as possible, and sev­ eral look out. These elements have the function of bringing the images closer to the viewer. Pontormo transmits an

6 3 , Vasari, Op. elt., VII, p. 1 6 2 . . 6-4-. Treedberg, High Renaissance,' p. .564% 85 expressive urgency by means of a technique apparent in the preparatory drawings but absent in the finished painting. This motif, characteristic of Pontormo alone during the years 65 under consideration, consists of what Hearick calls a #for­ ward dislocation11 of the upper part of the body, where the shoulders and neck of the figure lean aggressively out of the picture and the face has a haunted look achieved by round dark eye sockets and a partly open mouth. The arcadian mood of the lunette makes it unique in the painting of Florence at this time. Its lightness and clarity give a typically Florentine solution to a Venetian

problem. It holds a similarly unusual place in Pontormo1s

work. The bucolic tenor does not convey any of the torment ( of his immediately preceding works such as the Yisdomini &1 - tarpiece and the Expulsion of Adam and .Eve, or the oppositely detached and abstracted works of 1522 to 1525. Instead the Poggio fresco oommunicates a complete lack of complication. Perhaps the most striking change between the studies and thefinished lunette is the diminution in the dimensions of the. f i g u r e s Even though they are still larger than life size, they look of almost life size proportions. They do not have the tense musculature of Michelangelo!s figures and ap­ propriately represent only women, boys and old men. Their proportions are slighter and they seem more believable and

6 5 . Rearick, Pp.. oit., p. 4l, less ideal. Their attitudes and casual poses reinforce this lack; of classical aloofness and, psychological distance. They seem to have been interrupted from a leisurely afternoon spent in the garden. Sot only is all the imposing Homan no­ bility subtracted, but quite an opposite spirit is present in its place. In this way Pontormo has successfully negated the monumental High Renaissance style apparently intended for this room and substituted instead the creation of an actuality, by bringing the persons of the imagined scene as close as is possible to real iife .^ In a sense, this is similar to the recreation of reality and the illusionism of the Sala di Cos- tantino. But the difference results from two almost opposite personalities, and entirely different spirits pervade the two works. The changes in Pontormo1s style and iconography ap­ parent in his successive projects for this hall shew the pro­ cess of trial and error by which he arrived at the final fresco. Vasari even mentions how, while working on this proj­ ect he kept "destroying and doing over again every day what he had done the day before...but all the time he was always making new discoveries which brought credit to himself and beauty to the work."^ The stages of its progression were not smooth, nor was the coarse 1m geaeral, u In fact, Pontor­ mo's entire life repeats the erratic way he worked on this room, Vasari reports that he had, some very strange notions, "He was solitary beyond, all belief, He built his house in such a way that he could draw the stairs to his room up after 70 him so that he would not be disturbed,’ and, never liked to go out into crowds or gatherings because he was afraid he 71 might be mashed. He never completed his last work in San Lorens© but worked in absolute solitude on it for eleven years without showing it to anyone,His style does not unfold in a predictable and logical direction as did the development of High Renaissance painters. 73 He was continually groping for new means of intensely personal expression. The result is a highly variable style oast in a mannerist mold, typifying Pontormo as well as the whole first generation of mannerism iti Florence, Zrora the latter half of the third decade Ital­ ian mannerism followed the course indicated b y the Roman'man­ nerists, primarily the school of Raphael, This intense personal inquiry on the part of Florentine artists and lack

68, Ireedberg, High Renaissance, p, 5 6 0 ,

69, Vasari, Op, pit., VII, p, 182, 70, Ibid,, VII, p. 17%,

71, Ibid., VII, p. 182.

-72, Ibid., VII, p. 179. sf eoa.formity t© the school mentality of Rome, caused Smyth^ to question the validity of applying the term mannerism to some of the productions of Florence. But there is no doubt that this style in differing degrees does contain elements of manneris®.

7*. Smyth, Og^cit. , p. 198. VI. M.'TARPIBCBS

Two kia&s of well known 0b.rist.ian subject matter made into altarpieees are noteworthy in early mannerist painting! the Madonna and Child alfarpiece and Depositions and Pietas.

The form most expressive of the High Renaissance ideal on a smaller scale than the narrative and decorative cycles. was the Madonna and Child altarpiece. Usually they were arranged in a strictly hieratic grouping, surrounded by saints, against a landscape or architecture or combination of the two. This grouping of figures that does net tell a story or have any' significance beyond the portrayal of religious personages is actually a very artificial creation and well suited to the High Renaissance style.• The subject was meant to convey the formality and grandeur of its straightforward religious theme» The leaders of the renaissance in both Rosie and Florence, Raphael, Fra Bartolommeo, and Andrea del Sarto rendered this them© repeatedly. The subject continued into the first generation -mannerism with appropriate and charac­ teristic changes. After 1530, however, this subject rarely occurs in the period of mannerism.. If painted-at all it was usually incorporated into a mere complicated iconography, such as the Adoration of the Magi o r 'the Marriage of St, Catherine,

Apparently this subject did not present a problem - that 90 interested later mannerist painters. To judge by the Iconog­ raphy they produced, they preferred mere complicated and ab­ struse themes to the simplicity and direct religions symbolism of the High Renaissance altarpiece of this subject. The two leading mannerists of the.first generation in Rome and Florence did altarpieeef within five years ef each ether, that are as instructive of the styles and orientation of their respective 'cities as of their personal styles« 64a~ lie Romano painted the Aniiaa Altarpiece probably in 1523, 1 and Jacopo Pontormo painted the Visdemiai Altarpiece in 1518«

These works shew some surprising similarities, .and in them the two schools come the closest of any time in the first gen­ eration.

Pontormo1 s Madonna 'and Saints was his first large oil painting, 2'. ft is completely anti-classical and yet it evolves directly from the precedents of the classical style of Fra Bartolommeo and, Andrea del Sarto, . Both Andrea and Fra Bartolommeo had placed the Virgin in a niche as she is here, sermoianted, by drapery which is held, back, by angels on either side. The morphology of this setting, as in Fra Bar- tolomme© 1 s Marriage of St, Catherine was clearly artienlated,, and the eontinnity of the parts ef the background revealed.

1. Hartt, a-lmllo Remanc, p. 57* •

2 . Eearick, Qp,. cif,, p, 1 2 3 . 3. Freedberg, High Renaissance, p, 517* 91 Xja Pontormo's painting the architecture, drapes and steps on which the whole group sit are obscured altogether or only vaguely indicated. The 1'edges upon which, the two angels stand' are on slightly- different levels. The setting does not estab­ lish an area of space, but rather presses forward close on the figure group, creating a vacuum. But the figures them­ selves and their organization disturb the most, Pontormo places them, in a classical triangle, but like every other classical device used, here it is just distorted enough to

entirely change its meaning,"1 The pyramid is higher than it is wide, giving the composition a vertical orientation.1 Sev­ _ eral diagonals in the form of a f counteract this stability, and leave a spatial void in the center. This V, as much as any one system, characterizes mannerist composition. The figures are disposed uniformly and symmetrically on either .side. In bodily pose and psychological direction the figures pull upward and away from a point in the bottom center.where John the Baptist sits. Hone of the people are aware of the others except St, ?.ranci..s who gazes at the Christ child. All seem wrapped up in a personal kind of ecstatic experience.

Even the Madonna directs attention away from the center by her pointing gesture. The psychological direction bears to the left although plastically the sides are equal.

Space and light are equally disruptive of classical unity, Andrea’s chiaroscuro has become the method of

Ibid., p. 518, . revealing ferm in a way mncommon to Florentine painting. Strong contrasts highlight certain surfaces that form an an­ gular pattern. The fact that all these surfaces are ora about the same plane increases the effect of lack of focus or selec­ tion. The area around, the Virgin ’ s head, is the only place that does net contain forms. All the rest of the surface is covered. The way this painting is organized and unified is

almost a reverse of the High Renaissance'camon. But it has lost the High Renaissance self-containment and composure. In­ stead it practically demands the response and involvement of 5 the spectator. It cannot remain neutral in his conscious­ ness.

G-iulio Romano1 s altarpiece for S, Maria dell1 Araima is the most manner!stio of his Homan altarpieces. He preb-- ably painted it just at the end of his Roman period before leaving for Mantua, It naturally bears a close resemblance to altarpieces by Raphael» particularly to his Madonna dell * Xmparanata, which G-iulio helped hist paint in 151^. The pose of the Madonna and Child is reversed between the two paintings and in each, St, John directs attention to them, G-iulio places his Madonna.and Child group against a screen of dra­ pery with a release on the other side into the background, as does Raphael. But the close cohesion of the earlier work is lost. As in Pontormo’s altarpiece the figures tend toward the

5. Ibid...p. 5 2 2 . 6 . Hartt,' iwmwnfiiniimHWrwG-iulio m riB Remano, rm-nmn-niwrniw ' p. 57»f frame, ^ The Hadoniaa herself spreads oat more across the pic­ ture and again her hand gestures beyond her own group. The order of the composition is not obvious or reiatable to any simple geometrical shape, 8 The weight of the composition is off balance to the right. The three angels overhead and the arms and legs of the saints and, other participants are so strongly highlighted as to be given equal emphasis with the central part of the composition. The extreme contrasts of light and shadow give a very dramatic aura to the painting, Vasari 9 objected to the extensive use of black. It obscures much of the outlines and dissolves the background, floor and areas that might create continuity and stability. The ground plane slants sharply upward and the connection between fore­ ground and background is ambiguous, The space is lost be­ tween the steps leading to the back from the platform on which the Virgin is seated. The artist has not attempted to repro­ duce the gradual and logical recession into the background of ■ 10' the High Henaissance, . Vasari " states that Sts, Anne, Joseph, James, John and Mark surround the Virgin but St, Anne does not actually appear. St, James, to the left, wears a shell and has a

7« Ibid. ■ " ■

8 . Hartt, ^Raphael and G-iulio Romano," p. 92, finds a hollow square in it,'.

9. Vasari, Qp, cit.. VI, p. 152.

10, Hartt, “Raphael and Simile Romano,“ p, 92. 9% staff, symbolic of bis travels to Spain„ St. Mark, in the foreground, holds a book and pen referring to his gospel, while his winged lion lies beside him. The inclusion of these two saints could be attributable to the fact that the picture was commissioned by Jacob lugger. 12 His patron saint was St. James and St. Marie mightsymbolize his trade with Venice. The meaning of the objects in the background and their connec­ tion with the foreground is not at all obvious. It may refer to a passage in , the'S-ospel of St . Matthew (S3i 37-39) • ^ 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, then that killest the . prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would 1 have gathered thy cMlf dren together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye'would not! Be­ hold, your house is left unto you desolate. For 1 say unto you, ye shall net see me henceforth, till ye shall say. Blessed is he' that cometh in the name of the Lord. This explains the presence of the hen and chickens in the left background but it does not account for the old woman with the spindle. Hartt believes it could also be the rea­ son that St. John the Baptist, who said the Benedictus qui venit» presents St. James to the Virgin. But St. John had often been represented previously in a similar relation to the Virgin and Child. Finally, these three verses from Matthew would account for the ruined condition of the archi­ tectural fragment in the background.

12, Hartt, "Raphael and G-iulio Romano,11 p. 92, This architect;tire coastitmtes one of the primary dif­ ferences betfereen the two altarpieces of Rome and Florence, The architecture in the background of the Florentine painting had been of the most summary kind. The only detail was a barely indicated cornice. The niche fit well as a background to the Madonna and Child, The painting by Gd.ulio Romano, how­ ever, follows the Roman High Renaissance by placing more em­ phasis-, on the surroundings and background of the figural group, luring the High Renaissance the background and fore­ ground were mutually complementary. But as previously re­ marked , Gialie1s background does not continue the space of the foreground but is on a different level' and seems, to be an en­ tirely separate- area. ft has been delineated in great detail, even the coffering ef the ceiling and the niches with sta­ tues. It also probably represents a particular antique ruin, as the High Renaissance, with its tendency toward generaliza­ tion, would not have: the S-allery of the Forum of Trajan. It is further separated from the foreground, by having its own light source unrelated to that of the foreground, which sheds a strong light giving it a romantic quality. The build­ ing itself adds to this impression by the fact that it is in ruins. The antique fragments have not been restored as they often were in the backgrounds of the High Renaissance but have been left in their decaying state and diulio seems to

1%. Hartt, Slulie Romano, p. 56. 96

kaTe tried, to increase this effect* Several other mannerist paintings in Rome within a few years of this one also make use of imaginatively mined Roman arehiteotmre. Exterior and in­ terior vistas may lead back into a deep space on one side of the painting and at least once Sinlio himself uses both in the same painting. Light beams pomr across the spaces of this' fancifni atmosphere* The backgrounds of Roman paintings show that these artists placed more 'value on the spatial setting and environ-

r- , meat of 'the painting, partly due to the fact that Soman paint- - lags had more narrative content. The objects and details of their surroundings were necessary to their subject matter.

Obviously antique architecture whs most meaningful to them. The permutations in the attitude of artists towards the ruins that had always surrounded them reveals much about a given period. It is by now a clichS in art history to observe that the period of the High Renaissance reintegrated classical form and content.This was accomplished not by a quotation of detail or parts, as it had been in the quattrocento, but in

a recreation of antique sources within the High Renaissance style. Sources cannot usually be recognised because of this assimilation. But the High Renaissance selected its sources

more discretely than had the quattrocento, concentrating on

1:5« Phyllis Pray Bober, Drawings after the Antique by Amice Aspertini, London, Warburg Institute,.University of London, '1 9 5 7 ,' PP*''20-21$-. 97 the predQotions of the first centuries B*C. and AvD, or cop­ ies of fifth century Greek statues, both of which were con­ genial to their style. Since High Renaissance painters subsumed antiquity into their own style, it was at this time that the aesthetic interest in antiquity became separated from the maselective approach to it of the archaeologist. Mannerist painters'^ and printmakers incorporating antique prototypes into their work strove for a more imagin­ ative recreation of their sources. They sometimes engaged in elaborate reconstructions or depicted haunted, ruins with dramatic lighting effects, as previously noted. Antique ruins are rarely seen in the High Renaissance» but with the manner­ ist paintings of G-iulio Romano t and even in the backgrounds of Sebastiano del Piom.be, wild and fantastic ruins appear. At this time the nostalgic longing for a return to an unreal antiquity arose, similar to that of contemporary idyllic poe— 17 try. The most notable extant examples of this are the work of Polidoro da Caravaggio at the Church of San Silvestro al 18 Quirinale in Homed Even though these paintings represent

16. Ibid,, pp. 2h-2 7 ,

17. Turner, Op. 0 it. , pp. 27.5 -8 7 .

1 8 . Ibid,, pp. 2 7 9 -8 5 * Turner believes that the pre­ cedents for this landscape began with the backgrounds of the Vatican Loggia landscapes executed by Polidoro da Caravaggio, Other landscaped backgrounds were also painted by Polidoro in the Villa Lante of unknown date but possibly in the early 1520*s. Baidassare Peruzzi also apparently figured in this evolution. 98 stories from the lives of S. Catherine of Siena and, S. Mary Magdalene, the landscape completely dominates the human fig­ ures and at the same time the classical orientation is far more in evidence in the ruins than the Christian content. Thus figural and Christian themes and even to some extent classical ones, substance of much High Renaissance painting yield, in this case, to the unhumaaistic one of the Outer world. The condition of the paintings is partially ruined but it is still possible to discern the illogical, massing of the land. The landscape divisions in each painting and the connections between them are confusing. This was the begin­ ning of a bucolic, fanciful landscape that was to undergo many changes in the next centuries, Panofsky and Saxl4"^ sug­ gest that this artistic creation in both poetry and art served the purpose of an escape from a world that was too chaotic and complicated,. In this case the simple pastoral ideal of ar- cadia would, have served the same purpose, on a different lev­ el, as did the grotesque style. The mannerists who referred to antiquity preferred models different from those of the High Renaissance, They turned to Hellenistic sculpture and to Roman sculpture of the 20 later second century through the third or fourth." The

19. Erwin Painefsky and Fritz Saxl, ^Classical Myth­ ology in Medieval Art,M Metropolitan Museum Studies, 1S33, p . 277. . ' ' : , 20. Bober , Op. cit., ' pp, 25ff .- '

21. Smyth, Op. cit., p. 185. statuary, architectural and sarcophagi relief, and coins found in these periods had movement and emotive content, G-iulio Romano seems to have been particularly influenced by the Column of Trajan, 22 He was very vulnerable to the antique tradition. Whereas other well known High Renaissance paint­ ers came from other centers to Rome, he had been born there 23 and considered it his home."^ The architecture and sculpture, especially relief sculpture# extant on the street where he lived were very similar to his stylistic bent and choice of subject matter,He often arranged figures in a frieze in which the narrative unfolds continuously from side to side in 25 a series of loosely related incidents or crowd scenes. Plastically his figures are close to Roman bas-relief in that they have a hard sculpturesque surface and little depth. The agitation and lack of direction could also be traced to this source. The crowd scenes leave no space between figures and, particularly in his later works, their forms press close to the surface and sometimes figures seen from the side are treated frontally. Even the lack of differentiation among figures and their repetition could also be derived from this source. Historical and ceremonial scenes, subjects proper to

22, Eartt,"Giulio Romano, p, 9,

2 3 . Ibid... p. 6",

2h, Eartt, "Raphael and Biulio Romano,", p, 71$ Smyth, G 'P ° ext,, p , IS^, »

25, Eartt, S-iulio fiomano, p. 10. i©o Romaa sculpture, appealed t© G-iulio aad fortunately ills com-. miss leas demanded representations snob, as these, both ia tbe papal eatemrage ia Some aad later at the Palazzo del Te ia Mantua. Besides the preference for differeat prototypes, this new mannerist way of regarding antiquity^ also had the effect of reviving the qnattrooentesqne practice of copying directly particular figures or motifs, which retained their antique appearance and were met reabsorbed. But this was much mere extensive and complete than that of the quattrocento. Many £7 of these figures can consequently be recognized„ This practice had. the interrelated effects of helping to set the style of mannerism as one that attached a positive value to imitation, and also later in the century gave rise to manuals of iconography. Bvem earlier in' the century the archaeolog­ ical data of notebooks like the Sedex Goburgensis provided material for artists. . ' , . There does-not seem to be any reason in the history of the excavation of antiquity throughout,the early cinque- oeate for the changed attitude of the first mannerists toward- the ruins of Rome. Leo Z did much less‘toward the recovery ■ _ - OR of antique art than had his predecessor. In a brief of

Z&l Bober, Op. cit., pp. 24—27.

27« Treedberg, ^Observations," p. 190. 28. Pastor, Op. cit,. Till, pp.. 373f. ' 101

1515 he directed Raphael, as architect of St. Peter's, to oversee the appropriation of the materials of antique build­ ings and to be selective in their use. The Mile and Tiber were perhaps his most important acquisitions. Another large project consisted of drawing up the plan of ancient Rome by- Raphael, based on careful measurement and documentation, but at his death only.one of the fourteen sections had been fin­ ished.^ Studies like this had been undertaken before.

Archaeology and art had to await the Counter-Reformation be­ fore a historical situation altered its artistic outlook on antiquity. 30 '

• ■ . In most instances-, changes, in iconography between the High Renaissance and.the. first generation of mannerism were qualitative rather than quantitative. The only subject pro­ duced in greater number in the first generation were Seposi- X tions and Pietas. Yet it is difficult to connect this change with the style of mannerism, because these subjects were also more numerous in the work of other artists, living at the same time as the mannerists, who did not paint in a mannerist style. x Even though many Pietas apd. Depositions had been painted in the quattrocento, the masters of the High Benais- 32. sauce did relatively few. But after 1515 they were produced

29. Ibid., pp. 2&W&9.

30. Panofsky and Sari, Op. cit., p. 2 7 6 . 3 1 . Hartt, "Power and the Individual," p. 229. in great numbers„ In addition to all that have survived, Vasari cites a great number that have apparently disappeared, However, this production is limited almost exclusively to

Florence, with the exception of two done in lj>lj> and 1516 by Sebastiano del Piombo and two by Perino del Vaga just after he arrived in Rome from Florence, Rowland notes that the sub 32 ject is extremely pessimistic. The representation of the

dead Christ being taken from the cross or mourned certainly represents the most hopeless moment of Christianity, The fact that this subject was in such demand in Florence might

be attributable to the heightened spiritual fervor that clung t o ,the city of Savonarola, the same city that produced the personal phase of the first mannerism.in the painting of Pon­ tormo and Rosso, There is great variety among the Fietas and Depositions, They were done in the form of altarpieees, frescoes, .predellas, sketches and even engravings,■ " 33 A study of .four of these is particularly instructive. In 1521 Rosso painted a Deposition for Wolterra. .In 1523—24 Pontormo painted a Pieta as part of the Certosa passion series. In

1526-27 Rosso painted a Dead Christ and finally in 1526-28 Pontormo painted a Deposition for Santa Zel-icita. Of these

Rosso's Bead Christ was the only one -painted in Rome, The various iconographica1 types have antecedents in the immediate ly preceding years, ‘ '

32, Daniel B, Rowland, Mannerism - Style and Mood, Hew Haven, Tale University Press, p, 4% 33. See Appendix II. 103 3 k- Tke two Depositions' utilise the same arched format and share several mannerist traits in common, even though, painted five or six years apart, and though they document two widely different moments in the two artists1 work. Hosso or­ ganises the framework of his version around the structure of the cross, while Pontormo has abstracted the cross from the scene and because of this.the iconography becomes ambiguous, It could, just as plausibly be termed a Pi eta.. or Entombment, and has elements of both, in it, Hosso1 s Deposition is one of 3 K the most willfully anti-classical paintings he ever did. He, deliberately forces each element in the classical vocab­ ulary to convey something almost its opposite, The figures are greatly elongated and if the St, John at the right were to stand up straight he would be a giant compared to the oth­ er figures around him. In addition to this they have geomet­ ric shapes blocked off in angular planes. They appear to have been done in a great hurry for they are simplified to the point that the work is. almost a sketch. The drapery that enshrouds them displays, the same lack of detail and resolu­ tion into inhuman shapes., with practically mo finish. The scene is not located in three-dimensional depth'but in a shallow plane extending up the vertical length of the paint­ ing. 'The composition revolves close to .the edges, leaving a hollow space in the center of the painting. But the

3%. Rowland,. Op. elt.,, pp. 3-20,

35, rreedberg, High 'Renaissance., pp. 5*9f » 55*, strictly 1e©aographica1 eopslderations dlsrapt more thao these stylistic ones„ This is the first scene that shows the deposition taking place at night,The light and lack of detail give the ■atmosphere an abstract and unreal cast. Ac­ tions are strongly expressive. The Magdalene lunges at the legs of Mary, The soldier who holds- Christ’s legs looks away from him while the man- above him on the ladder illegioally points, horror struck, at the wound in Christ’s side. Two of the soldiers’ expressions are macabre while Christ seems to be in a state of limp ecstasy. As previously observed in

Florentine painting, the images have been pushed as close as possible to the spectator, spatially by placement on the pic­ ture plane and psychologically in their extreme expressions.

To help effectsthis the figure of St, John, representing Eos- so himself according to Freedberg, 37 seems to exist both in the space of the painting and of the spectator at the same time.

Pontormo adjusts these same characteristics to his own style. The figures lengthen but extremities, and espe­ cially feet, are very small while the figure at the -right with her back to the front swells in the torso. The surfaces are smooth, hard and studied. Spatial recession extends on a diagonal plane into depth and the ground seems to tilt sharp­ ly upward, but the ground line is not clear. The organization

36. Ibid., p. 556. 37. Ibid,, p. 557. tends toward the periphery with, a hole in the oeater. Ges­ tures serve merely as pretexts and have no strong narrative meaning. The men supporting Christ balance on tip-tees, and the Mary holding the hand of Christ tarns away from him. Figures in the background stand in gracefully affected poses.

Though they appear distressed, the faces are drained of any genuine affective power and, in fact, seem barely capable of moving. All of Pontormo1s paintings of this time in Santa . I'elicita lack the involvement of some of the earlier works. Several of these figures look out of the picture, but the en­ tire effect communicated is one of graaia and a smooth and af­ fected rhythm. The almost opposite degrees of urgency and intensity communicated in these paintings reinforces Freed- berg*s^u observation that after the middle of the third decade Florentine painting nearly always transmits the - aesthetic grace of later mannerist painting rather than the more human content of the earlier painting. But both Depositions share the mannerist techniques and methods, observable itr the ico­ nography and particularly in a certain disjunction and com­ plication.

Hesse1s Dead Christ, painted in Home, transmits the same aesthetic message as Pontormo*s Deposition. The huge body of Christ presses close to the picture plane in a wrench­ ed position and has no apparent support. The angels1‘hair

38. I'reedberg, ^Observations,* p. 196.. 106 forms into schematized curls. This ioonographic type has a precedent in the form of Andrea del Sarto’s Christ Supported by Three Angels, so unsuccessfully engraved in 1515"15l6, But Rosso enlarges his Christ, makes his head smaller, brings him closer to the front and obscures the background. One final Pieta by Pontormo is notable for its separ­ ation from his previous style and in some-sense from his

'following style as w e l l .This was painted as part of the

Certosa fresco series and has been lost, but survives in a copy by Jacopo da Empoli, so it is not as important stylis­ tically as iconographlcally. This whole series records the complete submersion of Pontormo in the art of Borer*^ - ki Vasari severely censured him for attempting to learn the [email protected] style, when'he was heir to the Italian tradition, which the Hortherners themselves tried to learn, Vasari could not understand from his mid-century viewpoint why any artist would renounce the best tradition and turn instead to the ©xpressionistio•art of the Herth. This particular Pieta

39, Reariek, Op. oit., pp. &$£»

W . Lavim believes that this gothicism never quite left Italian, art but persisted through the quattrecento in, for example,. Bonatello1 s reliefs; was dormaht*'di^in'g” the High Renaissance$ and was revived by Pontormo and utilized con­ sciously for its Inherent contradictions. See Irving Lavin, “An Observation on Medievalism in. Early l6th Century Style,11 Q-agette des Beaux Arts, ser, VI, L, 1957» pp. 113-18.

ti. Vasari, Op, oit., "fII, pp. 163-6 7 . ' probably derives from the wooctout of Surer The Laiaeutatiou. of Christ 1498-99» The disposition of the body, of Christ is somewhat similar 1m eaeh, as are the Marys standing behind him'and especially the woman leaning over his shoulder. But of course» the round and well-draped heads of the women could have been derived from many of these prints. The tree of

Durer has been translated by Pontormo into two crosses and two ladders which disappear at the t o p 'of the painting, Pon­ tormo did not copy literally as Bacchiacca had done. Even the very graceful and affective meaning of the northern print, combining two strains of early Florentine mannerism, has been translated into a more reserved Italian idiom. ¥11. GROTESQUE. STYLE

A kiiad of painting particulariy cultivated by tlie sixteenth century was that of grotesqaerie. This arose as a natural outgrowth of the High Renaissance and continued, has- 1 ically unchanged into the first generation of mannerism. Here it must have served much the same purpose as it did dur­ ing the High Renaissance, Then, the grotesque style was an­ other side of the renaissance personality, in fact almost the opposite of the impressive significant classical style and acted as a relief from its epic seriousness. In some respects it is the antithesis of the High

Renaissance, for example, in its size and subject matter. 2 It does not present a history, allegory or mythology and is not didactic. So reference at all is stated outside itself except to the minute beasts, birds, fish, flora, men and com­ binations of these pictured in antique grottos. They are adopted for their content of decorative grace and expressive flexibility. The grotesque style was thus formally oriented. It could be described as almost pure form divorced from mat­ ter, and in this .way it parallels the architecture it dec­ orates. At the same time it serves as' a relief from the

1. Freedberg, High Renaissance, p. 5 6 6 . 2. Ibid., pp. 312f.

108 monumentality of scale of the architecture*"3 This unity be­ tween grotesque painting and the structure on which it is painted is furthered by their three-dimensionality. After SAovanni da Udine mastered the antique method of making white stucco to use bn the Vatican Legge it enhanced much of the painted surface and in the Logge, stucco covers more than half the area below the vaults,^ In this style then» a formal aesthetic evolves, the purpose of which is purely decorative. It aims only at delighting the eye and amaaing the spectator by its bizarre forms. Artists take great liberties with all life forms and architecture as well, dissecting and recombin­ ing them in wild, displays of fantasy. Although grotesques had been painted during the quat­ trocento , most notably by Pinturicchio, the first entire rooms painted in this style since antiquity were dene during the High Renaissance by the school of Raphael. One of the main differences between Raphael’s work and earlier gro­ tesques, is that his is more exact and archaeologieally cor- rect.^ The specific impetus to the school of Raphael, occurred when Raphael and Giovanni da Udine visited S. Pietro in Vincula where the underground rooms of the Palace of Titus

3. Ibid., pp. 3l8f.

' Vasari, Op, cit., VIII, p, 7 6 . 5- Freedherg, High Renaissance, p. 328. 110

decided, to learn the secret of recreating the white stucco, which he successfully did for the Legge. Suck a literal and formal orientation, toward the past parallels that of the hu­ manists. This, grotesque style and the poetry of the purists and Bemfoo demonstrate the close coincidence between the vis- 8 ual and plastic arts. During the High Renaissance two great projects alia esca were undertaken: the apartment and stuffeta of Cardinal Bibbiena (151.6') and the Great Legge of the Vatican (1518-19). 'These were reflected on a smaller scale in border decoration and basamenti of seme of the major narrative cy­ cles, But the Legge was the most successful work in the grotesque style throughout the.whole century, • Whereas pre­ viously grotesque painting 'often.literally appropriated forms of antique decoration, here the classical models are recreat­ ed and assimilated, into the High. Benaiss&iice style. Since it is a mere complete integration of the High Renaissance aes­ thetic , it is mot as direct in its adaption, of archaeological motives and cannot be causally connected with a particular antique style as the- Bibbiena apartment can,^

Smother element has been added to the the Logge,■a Christian content. Each of the thirteen vaults

8 , Freedberg, Renaissance, p. 3 1 8 „

9. Bober, Op, cit,, p. 2 2 ,, Freedberg, High Renais- Ill contains four scenes of biblical narrative situated, in an il- lusionistic framework against the sky. These remain entirely within the traditional repertory of subject matter* but some of these later vault scenes are a radical departure, and, the ■ - 3_0 earliest in Rome, toward the mannerist style. There were

fifty-four narrative scenes to be painted in these vaults,

and - even with G-iulio’s many assistants the completion of this work in a short time necessitated that the scenes be rapidly executed. Their size and distance from the floor also pre­ cluded. detailed or painstaking craftsmanship. In the hasty production emerges what could be called one of the few prin­ ciples of the style of mannerism in this early stage; it ape- pears most insistently in drawings 11 and hastily organized paintings. This is especially true of the most emotionally communicative mannerism of Florence. Except for these small scenes, the grotesque style in the second decade remained well within the classical tra­ dition, not only in its archaeological material but in its usually classical balance of form. However the style has a mere natural affinity to mannerism than it does to High Ren­ aissance classicism, in both form and.content * The archae­ ological, trivial, unknowable,or absence of subject matter contrast sharply with High Renaissance moral, allegorical

10. Ibid., pp. &12-22,

1 1 . Bearick, Op. cit., p, -3 3 , • and. multiple levels of meaning, but more important, it makes caprieiousiaess and sheer visual effect ends desirable in themselves. Thus it seems likely that there was no change in the grotesque style between the High Renaissance and the first

generation mannerism because it was already congenial to the mannerist temperament, and expressed a mannerist ideal. Thus two of the mo're important early mannerist grotesque decora­ tions, the Villa Madama and the Sala Pontefiei continue with­ in the classical framework except for some of the small 12 narrative insert scenes, ~ and as noted previously, this kind of scene in the Vatican Logge broke first with the classical style. .

The Villa Madama was commissioned by Cardinal Q-iulio de’Mediei who stipulated only that the subjects be-intelli­ gible so that they did not have to be labeled.Cardinal

Maffei selected the subjects for the Great Hall from Ovid’s -ah Met amor pho s e s .<■ ' This room is divided into three sections. The one to the right holds the lunette fresco of Polyphemus

and the apse of this room has ten small stucco compartments containing incidents from the life of Galatea. Ovid^

1 2 . Preedberg, High Renaissance, p. 5 6 6 . 1,3. Hartt, G-lnlio Romano, p. 59-

1^, Augusta Ghtdiglia, "Di alcune opere Romane di Giovanni da .Udine, "L ’Arte, 3 0 , 1927, pp. 162-6 7 , relates, the story of Polyphemus* unrequited lore for Galatea

and his jealousy of Acis-. Ho continuity or order is manifest

between the individual scenes. The central vault has four

tondi alternating with each of four hexagons, representing the

four gods and possibly the four seasons. The vault of the

last room pictures four scenes of child life while the ten

squares of its apse show scenes of love. The work was appar­

ently divided between Giovanni da Udine, who did the central vault and the groined vaults, and Q-iulio Romano who did the

apses at the side and the lower walls.Harti notices a difference of style explicable im terms of these two differ­

ent personalities. Giovanni's grotesques have the delicacy

of his earlier works while Giulio's are integrated closer to

the architecture and are more three-dimensional. The connect­

ing soffits, for example, have several three-dimensional per­

spective scenes in stucco. But besides the structural and plastic orientation the tone of Q-iulio* s work is threatening and contradictory prefiguring the later extremes to which he went at Mantua,

The Sala del Pontefici joins the grotesque mode with an. astrological theme. The astrological tradition enjoyed widespread belief during the renaissance. By the turn of the century, some protests had been lodged against it, but belief

in the efficacy of the stars- was not .by any means dispelled,

l6, Harti,. Gin lie Romano, pp. SOff, 11% Julius 11 set'the time of his oorouation on the basis of as­ trological predictions and Leo X established a chair in as- 17 trology at the Sapieiaza,' Astrological cycles had. been painted for many years. In Eome Agostino Ghigi showed a spec­ ial preference for this theme in works commissioned by him. Peruazi's ceiling of the Sala dei Galatea (1510-11) is a graphic illustration of the sky on December 1, 1%66, Ghigi*s 18 birthday. Another astrological work painted, for Ghigi was the cupola of his funerary chapel, S. M* del Popolo (1515- 1520), This is the perfect High Renaissance embodiment of the astrological theme. The Sala dei Pontefici continued both the astrologi-. cal and grotesque traditions and conjoined them. The gro­

tesque mode lent itself to the illustration of this theme, which required the depiction of many small individual sym­ bols and figures, and required an overall design by which they could be organized. The ten vaulted side areas contain inscriptions dedicated to preceding popes while the four cor­ ners display the emblems of Leo X. The six spandrels contain cameos with the seven planets in chariots drawn by their ani­ mals; Venus by doves, Jupiter by eagles, the Moon by women. Mars by wolves, Mercury by cocks, the Sun by horses, and Sat­

urn by serpents, while the twelve signs of the zodiac and

17 »■ Jean Seznec, The Survival of the Pagan Gods, > Hew York, Harper and Bros, , IS^ST^pT” ? * 18.- Ibid., p. 79. • 115 representations of some of the forty-eight constellations are 2_ o in the eenter» "•y In the' largest single section of the room? four Mikes as Christian angels, hover in a wheel' formation carrying a papal tiara, scroll, bell, -and, trumpet, and may be

intended to supervise: the destiny of Leo X «"^ Hie whole room

could, be a glorification of Leo similar to Ghigi1 s in the

farnesiaa. Like the cupola of S«S, del Popolo this eculms affords the spectator an illusionistic. glimpse iate the empy­ rean. But Berime del Vaga imparts to these angels a .sharp and clear sense of presence, in spite of the artificially or­ namental robes fluttering around them, mot found la earlier decorations. The painting_of this ceiling modifies somewhat the style' of the . apartment of Cardinal Bibbiena and the Logge. The grotesques themselves are less-in evidence than in the apartment of Bibbiena and are much more tightly controlled, by

their architectural frames. . The rigid compartmentallaatiea of the design bears a- resemblance also to the Logge decora™

ti©B, but there it had, been closely governed, by the architec­

tural character of the vaults and followed the design of the vaults. This room of the Borgia apartments is differently shaped, and spread across the larger' area of am entire ceiling as compared with the small Logge passage. This kind of

19. Vasari, p. 196. 20. Treedfoerg, High Renaissance* pp. 566f » 116 abstract, organization presages later mannerist ceilings for which, artists invented a variety of complex and bizarre shapesfor example the Palazzo Oersiml executed by the 21 school of I'ederieo Zn.ech.eri.,

' 21, Another media® of decorative art flourished in Borne and met in Florence, that of the goldsmiths, Perino del fag a and. Pol id. ore da Garavaggio made designs to be executed by goldsmiths, as did fliulio Romano. See John ■ Forrest Hay-, ward, wTh© Mannerist - Geldsmiths (1 Italian Sources),* Con­ noisseur, 1*9 , I.9 6 2 , pp. 1 5,9-62., , ' . .Till. THE MARTYRBOM OT THE 10,000 '

Yasari relates ia great detail an incident in the life of Ferimo del Vaga, In 1522 to escape the plague ’in Home, Ferine returned- to Florence, the city of his birth. As he was.going through the Brancaoci Chapel containing Masaccio paintings, a large group gathered to hear him. It consisted of artists of all kinds: painters, architects, sculptors, and goldsmiths. They were admiring Masaccio‘s figures, cre­ ated, as they said, without reference to almost any other art than that of Odette. Bat Ferimo commented: ^I know many both more resolute and richer in grace, whose works are no

less "lifelike la the painting than these and even much more

:• 2 beautiful.'f Such a ■claim aroused the curiosity of these art

ists who were evidently unfamiliar with the Roman art of re­ cent years. Am unidentified master, whom Vasari'calls the foremost painter ia Florence, suggested that Ferine leave an example of his figure style there in the Brancacci Ohapel next to the figures of Masaccio. Perino intended to leave a monument in Florence showing the beauty of the modern manner so that the Florentine artists could compare it with that of the older masters themselves. If his work proved 118 to be more beautiful, the Zloreutine artists planned to adopt it. The space was provided and Perino executed a cartoon for a S. Andrew. But before the fresco could be painted he ac­ cepted a more complicated commission at the Camaldoli for the

Martyrdom of the 110,000 also called the Legend of St. Achati- ag, He made two preparatory studies for it, one a small draw­ ing and the other a large cartoon. He never completed the commission, but left Plorene.e to avoid the plague. The cartoon remained at the house of Piloto who would freely show it to young artists. The small study that survives, probably identical with the one described by Tasari, . depicts two scenes from the life of St. Aohatius. Another' study by Pontormo h exists which con­ tains two complimentary scenes from the life of St. Aohatius, in the same arched format as Perino1s study, and of approxi­ mately the same date.^ Prom this evidence it is believed that a competition was held between these two artists to compare the Roman style with that of Florence.^ If this is true the

3, H. S. Merritt, '''Legend of St, Aohatius: Baeehiac- ca, Perino, Pontormo," Art Bulletin, TL, 1963, pp. 260f. . By 1522 Pontormo had gained fame in Florence, and he could well be the master referred to by Tasari,

5 - Rearick, Op. cit. . pp. .210ff,

6 . Merritt, Op. cit., p. 261, This was tentatively postulated by .leariokT Op. cit, , pp. 2 11f, while Shearman be­ lieves that this competition.was crucial to the future devel­ opment of Florentine art. John Shearman, "Maniera as an Aesthetic Ideal," international .Congress, Op. cit.» p. .2 1 7 . 119 r©salts should be most instructive, because both artists would be consciously trying to sum up the best qualities of their respective schools, The Legend of St. Aehatius 7 concerned a pagan primi- cerius, Achatius., under the Emperors Hadrian and Antonies, .to whom an angel appeared before a battle and told that he would gain victory through belief in Christianity. This he did and as a result he and his 9,000 soldiers ascended Mount Ararat to receive instruction in the new faith and be baptized. However the rebels he had defeated reassembled in greater force under seven kings, and captured him and his 9,000 sol­ diers, The new Christians were ordered to renounce their faith, and. when they refused, they were put to torture.. But Achatius and his soldiers were miraculously rescued from ev­ ery form of torture: stoning, whipping and being forced over spikes. When he saw these miracles, one of the rebel leaders, Theodoras, with 1,000 of his men, converted to Christianity. Finally the whole army of 10,000 was subjected to a passion like that of Christ, crowned with thorns, pierced with lances and crucified.

This medieval subject had only recently arrived in Italy and consequently there are few precedents for it in painting. The earliest account of it° appears in the

7, Merritt, Op. clt., p. 259.

8. Ibid. Catalog's Sanctorum of Fetrms de Satalibas written in the late trecento and, first printed in 1493« A lost fresco in the Camaldoli by Lorenzo di Bicci depicted the Condemnation and Martyrdom and, mast have imflaenced Ferine and Pontormo as g Vasari' notes that many prominent artists studied it. But the immediate precedent to their work was the main altar- piece of the Camaldoli which illustrated the Sruoif1aion of St. Achatius by Sogliani and its predella painted by Bacohi- -TmwgiehurT?.w ^ aoca. The tripartite predella illustrates the Baptism, Bat- tie and Martyrdom. Baechiaeca’s method of painting was unique in his time for its obvious and straightforward lack of originality, even in an age heavily reliant on proto­ types. He would repeatedly copy directly individual fig­ ures, groups and entire compositions from previous paintings or prints and reproduce them, in his own rather quaint - style. This St. Achatius series relies on prints of Lucas van .Leyden and Barer. Van Leyden's Baptism of Christ and Cracifision

serve as models for the corresponding scenes in the Legend of

mwflawwliiiM'St. .«WM^ri!mp^g''iMiiiiiJi«iiiii|iii'w-i».inmAchatius, T as the rcru-Battle ■■ ■igiiiJaifanjisuinn-Ejrji refers to the rConversion n . i, L ..i/miuranL’i*!m w .iiiiiiiiiiiiiTiiirii'i uw m u m s , of !?nmr.rmaEBaSt. Paul. Merritt also finds a dependence on Barer1s Martyrdom of the 18,000. His adaption of, for example, the drummer from: the Conversion of St. Paul was very literal. The principal source of Baochiacea*s ecclectieism reflects a whole new

9. Vasari,' Op. cit., II, p. 6 9 .

18. Merritt, Op. cit., p. 268. 121 reservoir of material bat recently made available to Floren­ tine artists, the prints of northern artists. Pontormo owed one phase of his ever-changing style to the influence of Barer, that of the passion series at the Certesa. Ferine1s stady for the frescoes in the Oamaldoli rep­ resents the Oondemnatiea and Martyrdom. The two emperors seated-at the left on a pedestal, pass judgment on the pris­ oners, a group of nudes kneeling' and standing at the right, . This placement of figsres along the front plane of the pic­ ture recalls the Roman paintings of Siulio Romano, this one in particular the Adloeutlo in the Sala di Oestantino. 11 The spatial representation is prop-like, being a series of flat layers placed progressively higher and further back in the picture. The craggy landscape ends' on a hill with crucifixes distributed, along its crest,.'while angels line up in two lev­ els on the clouds above. ..As this scene progresses towards the back the stages pile up vertically, as already observed im the Sala di Oestantino. But the figure style most ob­ viously differs from that of Florence, The figures in the foreground, though powerful and muscular, pose in stances having maximal possibilities for display of facility by the artist, and minimal, communication of any true human content,

11. The story of Constantin.©, a pagan leader given divine assistance to win a battle who subsequently becomes a Christian,- is remarkably, similar to that of Aehatius, 122 Farther in the background, the figures in the clouds are mere delicate and slender and they move with danee-like grace. The lost cartoon detailed the figures, naturally, much more than the study, and Vasari 12 describes the expressions on the faces and in particular the antique armour, the ornate and curious clothes and the decoration of the shoes, helmets and other accessories. This emphasis on grace and charm and beauty of external finish at the expense of serious meaning is certainly one of the most apparent differences in the painting of Borne and Florence, and most characteristic of 13 later mannerism,, Pontormo-'s drawing of the Battle and Baptism shows a im uv rn riiL iii u n iii"li ic w w r.;r n . furiously intense battle scene in the foreground, with fig­ ures hunched over and knotted together until they become al­ most a solid mass. Compared with it Ferine * s composition seems abstract and aloof. The spatial progression into the background of Pontormo's drawing looks much like Perino's, Pigural groups interspersed with hills build up to a group on top of the bill in the background and finally to the angels in the sky which actually seem much closer to the foreground in Perino's sketch. Even though they depict the same subject and are dat­ ed within two years of each other, there is no basis- of

, 12, Vasari, Op. eit,, VI, pp. 204-205, 13« Smyth, Op, clt, p, 18%. 123 eemparlsoKi between Baccb.laeea1 s and Pontormo1 s Battle and Baptism.. Baoohiaooa's scenes are clear narrative in the kind of miniature style of the quattrocento. His characters dress modishly, stand upright graoefmlly and are only perfimctorily involved in the sitaatiea. His predella completely ignores the mannerist style by mow evident in Florence. Pontormo's figures have a rotmded. babbling plasticity of heads and shoulders packed tightly together. ib

The drawings of Ferine and Pontormo have certain man­ nerist characteristics in common, saeh as extreme expressive­ ness, of two different kinds, and crowding and complication of spatial relations. 15 *< Neither apparently were executed as intended but Pontormo later, in 1529=30,^ or possibly just after the sack of Florence,17 ' painted a Martyrdom of the 10,000. The back left scene is a literal transposition of the drawing but since there would, be no other picture to com­ pliment this, it had to incorporate the two scenes that Ferine had done earlier, the Conderanatiom 'and Martyrdom. The changes show the resalts of observationof"Ferine*s draw­ ing, for example in the judging figure seated on the platform

lb. Merritt, Op. cit., p. 26l,

15. Ibid.

16. Be&rick, Op. pit,, p. 2 7 7 , 17. Merritt, Op. cit., p. 262. 124 18 1m the feregroimd.' In the act of painting the figures from the drawing and adding the other scenes to the front, the IQ painting has lost most of its fierceness and anguish. The relations of figures and platforms are bizarre. In spite of the added Michelangelesq-ue emphasis in the foreground figures of Pontormo1s painting, 20 it is less communicative and more of a display of pageantry. This competition and juxtaposition of the Roman and Florentine styles elucidates the stylistic differences be­ tween the cities. In addition, from thecomplicated inter­ relations. of the iconography of these drawings and paintings, at least four factors relevant to mannerism in geheral, 21 emerge: Bacchiacca’s additive method later to be extolled as the best way to compose by Vasari;■ 2 w^ his admiration and adaption of northern prints; the availability of Perino1s Ro­ man style to Florentines through his cartoon; and finally Pontormo's change from a tortured style to more of an aesthe­ tic decorative style characteristic of later mannerism, but only intermittently of Pontormo.

' 18. Ibid., pp. 212 and 2 7 8 . 19.' Ibid., p. 211.

20, Ibid., p, 2 7 8 ; Merritt, Op. oit., p. 262, 21, Merritt, Op. oit,, p. 261 pointed out the impor­ tance of Bacchiacea's method and Ferine’s manner.

22. Smyth, Op, oit., p. 177» Vasari believed in imi­ tation in a much more selective sense than Bacchiacea. IX. SUMMARY AID C01GLUSIGH

The literary production of Rome and Florence in tlxe first three decades indicates some of the differences between' the two cities. The tremendously wealthy and cultured socie­ ty of Rome produced a great mass of very formal and artifici­ al poetry which'placed a positive value on imitation. These writings conspicuously lacked serious sentiments even on the subjects of religion and love. Florentines seised the opportunity to control their government in the new republic and consequently their polit­ ical science and history become more pragmatic and critical than when written by the humanists. In the latter part of the third decade the catastrophic events befalling Italy be­ come evident in these writings in two ways. Writers aban­ doned political science .as hopeless and turned to history instead. At the same time thinkers evinced a new pessimism about the ability of man to control his surroundings.

Political events betray the weakness of Italy. Rome, seat of a corrupt and. worldly papal court and faced with schism in S-eriaasy, preferred to continue its pleasurable and precarious existence- with only isolated protests, Florence felt the continuing presence of Savonarola with regular out­ bursts of religious fanaticism. Florence had been the center of culture but with the High Renaissance the power, patronage,

125 - 126 wealth and consequently the artists shifted to Rome under the papacy, and there the sehool of Raphael presided over art production. The High Renaissance also witnessed an elevation of the profession of art as well as the appearance of a num­ ber of eccentric artists. finally, in several fields human­ istic scholarship culminates in the codifying of rules and the abstraction of principles. The background, them, depicts a debilitated society obsessed by academicism which has little hope for the cre­ ativity of the future but prefers to look backward in the hope of retaining the past high standard of culture. Sophis­ tication, over-refimemeat and artificiality pervade thought and action, especially in Rome. Such generalizations des­ cribe amazingly well the style of the manlera. The chapters on art begin with the Joseph scenes and show how this earliest example of mannerism evolved out of the High Renaissance and existed beside it and the older quattro- centesque style. In Heme the Sala di Costaatiao, one of the last great productions of the school of Raphael, uses conflict, strain and illusionism. to impress the spectator with its most uncladsieal effects. An implicit comparison of it with the fresco at Poggio a Oaiano in Florence reveals the latter to be the product of the isolated strivings of one artist which re­ sults in a casual and charming style and iconography, just the opposite of the grandiose aspirations of Roman work. ' 127 Host of the iconographie types of the first generation merely continue a subject of the High Renaissance with little change in quantity. An example of this is the Hadoana and

ehild altarpiec©:, but this subject was painted less often, in- fact rarely, in later mannerism than in the first generation. It also elucidates the characteristics of the two cities. Pontormo’s altarpiece lacks details and focuses on the tortur­ ed and unstable people* It systematically inverts High Ren­ aissance principles. The paintings influenced by Surer and those of Poggio a Oaiano are other aspects of Pontormo’s ex­ periments in the mannerist vocabulary. These widely differ­ ent styles have in common a consistently greater human content than do the productions of Some. Siulio’s Madonna and Child group evinces a theatrical interest in lighting and backdrop, again surface effects. Romantic antique ruins placed in a newly articulated landscape in Roman works emphasize surround­ ings at the expense of,the figures. Antiquity enters into this art in several other ways. It comprises the subjects of

most of the prints produced by these early mannerists, which facilitated the spread of the style. Study of antiquity gave

impetus to the grotesque style. The many emblems and crests, the prevalence of such minor arts as that of the goldsmiths, and the grotesque style attest to .the decorative and ornamen­ tal character of Roman taste, in contrast to the often tor­

mented style of Florence. Thus the artificiality of the aamlera is anticipated more im the art of Rome than that of 128

Florence. TMis artistic difference between the two cities is reflected, most clearly in the literary,, historical, religions and social occurrences. The pictures of the Martyrdom of the .10,000 sums up the differing styles. Rosso-1 s .Dead Christ .and Pontormo's Deposition, both 1 started about lj$26, document the establishment of the maniera" in' hpth-'-citl.es., ^ Manlera replaces mannerism when the quotient of decoration and ornament exceeds that of human content.

This style achieves its expressiveness in the creation of an elegant and detached exterior. This leaves little importance to the transmission of a dramatic message. Later mannerism portrays very little direct action. Sveta when it is shown, painters of the mamiera seem to make a point of avoiding the coincidence of fqra and content, a hallmark of the High Ren­ aissance. In addition the themes chosen are often esoteric. Several art historians have objected to the causal connection between the historical events of the Second decade and the first emergence of the traits of mannerism. The var­ ious levels of art and history do seem to run parallel. But the ascendency of mamiera in the "third decade is certainly 2 closely connected with the disastrous events of that time, and has been anticipated in the directly preceding art.

1, Freedberg, 11 Observations,T p, i$6, 2. Ibid., p. 195* APPOTBIX I ■BTESTS BETFEBS 1 # % and. 1530

Invasion of Gharles Till of Framee

Piero {te*lledioi flees and. Florentine Bepablle estab­ lished' ' Eeibellion of Pisa against floreiaee and beginning, of war tbat lasts until 15^9

1 If,9If™ 114,98 Savonarola dominates Florence II1.9 9 -I512 lew French, invasion e endue ted by Louis XII and capture of Milan 1502 Arezzo rebels against Florence 1503-1513 Papacy of Julias II 1508 League■of Cambrayt France, Spain„ Sermany andPapacy unite against Tenice

1509 Pope joins Venice to drive out foreigners, especially Franc e Florence reconquers Pisa

15H Formation of the Holy League: Spain, Venice and Papacy unite to drive France out of Italy Schismatic council held at Pisa and Milan

1512 Battle of Eaveanat French win but later in year the Holy League forces French to leave peninsula

1512-1517 Fifth Lateran Council Restoration of Medici te Florence

1513-I5 2 I Papacy of Leo X

1515 Francis I ascends throne of France' and again attacks' Italy: wins Milan at Battle of liar iguana

129 130 1519 SI alio de* iledioi (Gleiaeiiit ¥11) seat t© govena Flereaee

1520 Lather burns papal bull

1521 Mays' Alliance between Le© Z and Charles ¥ and expiai- sion of French from Milan

X522-I523 ..Papacy of Adrian ¥1 1522-1524 Plague

Abertire rebellion against the Medioi in S'lorenoe planned in the Orti Oriceilari

1523-1534 Papacy of Clement ¥11 Alessandro and Ippolit© sent to rule Florence under Cardinal Passerini • 1524 Francis I again crosses Alps into Italy

1526 Mayi Holy League of Cognacs coalition against emperor by France, Venice and pope with secret clause including Florence

1526 September: Colomaa rebellion and sack of Home

1527 Februaryt Plot discovered to assassinate pope 1527 May 6: Sack of Borne

May 171 Passerini flees Florence and Republic declared 1527-1528 Plague■and famine © Sew French army enters Italy and is defeated February: Imperial army decamps from Rome 1529 June: Pope and emperor sign peace at Barcelona 1530 February: Crowning of Charles T'by Clement at Bologna August: Seven month siege of Florence ended by sack APPENDIX II FIBTAS M l DEPOSITIONS

Fra Bartolommeo with Bmgiardirii Pi eta e 1516-17

Fra PaoliHO Pi eta 1519 Andrea del Sarto Pietd Predella c 1508

Andrea del Sarto Pieta eagrav. 1515-1516 Andrea del Sarto Pieta 0 1521

Andrea del Sarto Pieta 152% Andrea- del Sarto Dead Christ 0 1524. Pmligo Deposition e 1518-1520

Baechiaoea Deposition c 1515 Baeehiaeea Deposition c 1518

Pontormo Pieta Pred„ 1518 Pontormo Pieta St tidy (3) early

Pontormo PietafCertosa) I523-I524 Pontormo Deposition 0 1526-1527 Rosso Deposition 1521

Rosso PietafBorgo) I527-I528 Rosso Dead Christ 1526-1527

Bronzino Pi e ta(Trialta) c 1528

Ridelfo Ghirlandaio Pieta" I521 Haehuea Deposition

131 SELECTS? BIBLXO&MPHY

Baroeclal, P», II lasso fioremtimo, ■ Rome» 1950. Berensen, BermlaardThe Brawings of I’loremtlne Painters, Oiaioago, University of' Ohio ago Press, 1938, j vols, Blnfet, Sir A,a thorny, Artistic Theory in' Italy l%-50-l608, Ox­ ford, Clarendon Pre'ssT^l^Ss. Bober, Phyllis Pray, Drawings After the Antlqne by Amloo Aspertlai, London, .¥a:rburg”Institute, University of London, l"957. : Briganti, Q-iuliano, t:,Una Madonna del Sosso,11 Paragone, IV, . PP. 51”’53« ■ , - Briganti, Giuliano, Italian Mannerism, Leipzig, VEB Edition, 1 9 6 2 . — —

Carroll, Eugene Albert, The Brewings of Rosso Florentine (un­ pub. diss. ) , Cambridge, Mass. , 3“=voTsT=w*"“ Carroll, Eugene Albert, ,:!Soiae Drawings by Rosso Fiorentino,M Burlington Magazine, 103, 1 9 6 1 , pp. Lii-6-5-4-. Chat©let, Albert,'"Two Landscape Drawings by Polidoro da Caravaggio,11 Burlington ..Magazine, XCVI, 195*, pp. 181-

Clapp, Frederick Mortimer,.Les Besaims de Pontormo, Paris, .Edouard. Champion, IfjfTW, Clapp, Frederick Mortimer, Pontormo; His Life and Work, Mew Haven, Yale University Press, 1916.. Coleman, Christopher Bush, ^Constarntine the Great and Chris-' tianity,'' Studies in History, Economics and Pabiio Law (ed, - by the Faculty o f Po litTcai^ScTenTe"^?*^*” Columbia University), vol . JLX, Mew York, 191*.

Cox, Janet, $1 Pontormo1 s Drawings for the Destroyed Vault of the Capponl Chapel,11 Burliagton Magaz in e, EGVIII, 1 9 5 6 , pp. 15-1 8 . .- .. ■:

Fletcher, Jefferson Butler, Literature of the Italian Ren­ aissance, Port Washington,' Mew York, ’ ICennikat Press, 133 Zreedfoerg, S. J,, Paiatlpg of the High Ileaaissaiaee in Rome and •' Florence, Cambridge, Mass,, Harvard, University Press, l§6i, 2 vols. Freedberg, S. J,, Parmigianino t Els Works in Painting, Cam­ bridge, Mass., Harvard, University Press, 1950'. Preedberg, S. J* , 11 Observations on the Painting of the Man!era,t! Art Bulletin, XL?I1, 1965, pn. 189-97. ■

Preedberg, S. J*. and, J.C. Reariok, ,M Pontormo ’ s Predella for the S.' Michele Yisdomini Altar,ff Barling ton Magazine, 103, 1961, pp. 7-10. Priedlander, IT.P., Mannerism and Anti-Mannerism in Italian PaintIng, Hew York, Columbia 'University PressT^1957• Q-hidiglia, Augusta, MBi aloim© opere romane di Giovanni da Udine,M L'Arte, 30, 1927, pp. 150-70.

Gilbert, Felix, . ’’Florentine Political Assumptions; in the Per­ iod of Savonarola and Soderini,,11 Journal of the War­ burg and Courtauld institutes, XX, 19^7, pp. 187-214,

Gilbert, Felix, “Bernardo Sueellai and the Orti Or Ic el lari,*1.

Journal ^.f. of M^^rnT-rrr the ^ T-^-T1,^-^fnn,,TT.^ Warburg 7r."T> TTirr^tr-r^'iTHrvnt'irTBii and i-rrrr-i'nr;-t^v Courtauld irTiTin— lri-iiMi-*Tn^n'vnr^T'r7-vrrr Institutes, n rrr ^nTtj'rrrT-

Italian Renaissance Studies i . A Tribute to, the Late , Cecilia II, Adv (S.F. Jacob, ed„ ), London, 'Faber and Faber, I960.

Guicciardini, Francesco, Maxims and Reflections of a Renais­ sance Statesman {transT by "M«. ■ Bomandi, in trod, by ' H. Rubinstein), Hew'York, Harper and Row, 1 9 6 5 . Hale, J.R., "War and Public Opinion in Renaissance Italy,8 Italian.Renaissance Studies; A Tribute to the Late Cecilia S"^"%d y ^T^TF. Jacob, edT), London, Paber”and faber, iffiO. - 134 Hartt, Frederick, "Raphael emd Simile Romano, With. Motes on the Raphael School," Art Bulletin, XXVI, 1944, pp. 6 ?- 94, . ■ ' Hartt, Frederick, "The Chronology of the Sala di Oostantino,# Gazette des Beamx Arts, ser. VI, 36, 1943, pp. 301- . 0-8 ...... Hartt, Frederick, "Rosso Florentine," .(Beview of Pa©la Bar- rocchi), Art Balletin. XXXIV, 1952, .pp. 63-6 9 . Hartt, Frederick, Sialio Romano, lew Haven, Yale University Press, 195^, 2 vol's, ' Hartt, Frederick, "Power and the Individual in Mannerist Art, ” Acts ■ of the International Congress ef the Ilis- tory - of Art, II, Princeton, Princeton .'University pFiis’Ti W . Hauser, Arnold, A Social History of Art, II, Hew York, Vintage Books, x^ 55 7 ~— * . ” ~

Hauser, Arnold, Mannerism; The Crisis of the Renaissance and the Origin of Modern Art, London,' RduteTeSge""'and"Ke- gan Paul, 196 5. - ' ... Hayward, John Forrest, "The Mannerist Goldsmiths (1 Italian Sources)," Connoisseur, .149, 19-62, pp.; 156-6 5 * Hess, Jakob, BQn Raphael and Giulio Romano," Gazette des Beaux.Arts, 32, 194?, pp. ?3-104. . . : ' " Hirst, M , , "Rosso: A Document and a Drawing,B Burlington - Magazine. 106, 1964, pp. 120-26, Khsenberg, Kurt,-Le Rosso, Paris, 1931« Lav in, Irving-, "An Observation on Medievalism in Early loth Century.Style," Gazette.des Beaux Arts, ser. VI, L, 1957, PP. 113-181 — — Longhi, R. , ''Gomprimar j spagnuoli della maaiera italiana, " -agone,- 43, 1953, pp. 3-15* - ' Marcuoci, Luisa, "Contributio al Bacehiaeea," Bollettino d'Arte, XLIII, '1958, pp. .26-39* - • - Mather, P., "A Drawing for Pontormo's Lost Raising of Lazarus," Art in America, 192?, pp. 132-3 6 .

MeComb, A., "Francesco Ubertini," Art Bulletin, 8, 1926, pp. 141-68. - Merritt, Howard S. and Gertrude Rosenthal, (text), Bacchiacca and. His Friends (Baltimore Museum of Art Mews Quarter­ ly) , XXI¥, 1961, Merritt, Howard S., “Legend of St, Aeliatiusj BaoeIa.iaeoa, Ferine, Pontormo,11 Art Bulletin, L5 , 1963> pp. 258-63 = Paeehiotti, Clara, “I'nore attribnaieni a Polidoro da Caravag­ gio in Rome,-® L ’Arte, 30, 1927, pp. I89 -2 1 3 . Panofsky, Srwin and Fritz Saxl, “Classical Mythology in Medie­ val Art,® Metropolitan Emsemm Studies, A, 1333, po. 228-80, . ' , Pastor, Ludwig, The History of the Popes, Y-X, London, Route- ledge and Kegim Paul, 1950.

Pevsner,* Hickolaus, AcademiesintTitfi^^fm>nwrrr»nnrnrmir7i-i- nn urn- of n- Art, — rimnm-r^r- lew n-in ^ York, * Macmillan, * .

Poggi, Giovanni, “Due affresehi di Ferine del Vaga nella Gal­ leria degli Bffizi,n Bollettino d*Arte, 1908, pp. 270-

Popham, A.E,, “On Some-Works by’Perino del Yaga,R Burlington Magazine, 86, 19^5» pp. 58-6 6 . Popham, A.I., The Drawings of Parmigianino, Hew York, Beeoh- hurst Press, 1953.

Rearick, Janet Cox, The Drawings of Pontormo, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, Igob, 2 vols.

RideIfi, Roberto, The Life of Girolamo Savonarola, lew York, Alfred A. HopfTT359. ^ .

Rowland, Daniel B . , Mannerism - Style and Mood, Hew Haven, Yale University Press, 196#» ... •. de Sanctis, Francesco, The History of Italian Literature, Hew 'York, 1-931» 2 . voTs'Z""' Schevill, Ferdinand, Medieval and Renaissance Florence, IX, lew York, Har'c'oart' " Brace "am^"%6 .T 1 9 6 3 . Seznec, Jean, The'Survival of the Pagan Gods, Sew York, Harper.' and'BrosA'r "1963. - "

Shearman, John, “Gitilio Romano, H (Review of Hartt 1958), Bar ling ton Magazine, 101, 1959, pp. - '^56-6 0 , - Shearmaa, JeM, i!Sosso, PoBterrao, Bandiselli aad Others at - SS. Annmziata,n Barlingtom Magazine* 1 0 2 , i9 6 0 , ppe 152-5 6 .

. ' Shearmaa, John, ^Pontormo a$ad Andrea del Sarto 1513»" Burling­ ton .Magazine, 10%, 1962, pp. 478-83.. . Shearman, John, ,rManiera as an Aesthetic Ideal,81 Acts of the International Congress of the History of Art,.II, PrincetpnT^Princeton University Press, 1903*.

Smyth, Craig Hugh, “Bronzino’s Earliest Works,* Art Bulletin, XXXI, 1 9 4 9 ,-pp. 184-210. Smyth, Craig Hugh, “Mannerism and Haniera,11 _ Acts of the Inter­ national Congress of the History ""of Art, ll, Princeton. WiWoeton University Press,' 1 9 6 3 . , Sparrow, John, "On Latin Terse of. the High. Renaissance,” Ital­ ian Renalssanee Studiest A Tribute- to the Late . Cecl- lia M« AdV'TE.’F'. Jacob, ed., ), London, Paber and. Paber, Tg^oT - • ;. Symonds, John Addington, Renaissance in.Italy$ Ft. II, The Revival of iearniiT^i^FTorkT^lllST^Pt."TFvel.~Tf Itallam Literature, lew York, Capricorn Books,

Treves,■ M.lgto^ , "Haniera, _ r-^:i_g8o The . History ^ of a Word, . Marsvas, ^ I,

Turner, Richard A., "Two Landscapes in Renaissance .Rome," Art Bulletin, XLIXI, 1961, pp.'-275-8 7 . Vasari, Giorgio, Lives 'of the Host Eminent Painters, Sculp­ tors and, Ar chi t ec'ts"Ttraps. by S„ BuC. B eV er @7*7 Lob - don,' 1912-14. "

Venturi, Adolfo, Utopia dell’arte italiana, IX, pt. 2 , 5 , Milan , 1901-1939,' " Wallis, Anne Armstrong, "A Pictorial Principle of Mannerism,8 Art Bulletin, XXI, 1933, pp. 280-83. Watts, A.B., (trams.}, The Metamorph0 ses of Ovid, Berkeley, University of California Prop's, Weinberg, Bernard, A History of Literary Criticism in the Italian Renaissance, Chicago, University of Chicago 137 Wind,. B&gar, “Platonic Tyranny and the Renaissance Zcrtmna on Ticino's Reading of Laws IV-, 709 A - 712 &■■->n Sssays in Honor of Erwin Pan of sky, X {lii.lla.rd ■Se-iss, e d «.)., lew York, Hew York University Press, i9 6 0 . Wischnitzer, Rachel, MJacopo Pontormo's Joseph Scenes, 0-azette des Beanx Arts, ser, 6, %1, 1953? pp. 145-66, ifittkower, Rudolf, H Italian Renaissance Art, ".The Hew 0 am- bridge Modern History,, vol. I, The Ren^s^amce""T%99'=. 15^0 tG-.R. Potter ed, ), CambridgeT™#mTversity'''Press', 1957. Wittkower, Rudolf and Margot, Born Under Saturn, Hew York, Random House, 19S3 .

Seri, T., “Una Madonna eon S. Giovanni,M Paragone, 43, 1953» pp. 4 9 -5 1 . - . Zmpnick, Irving L, "The. Aesthetics of the Early- Mannerists, B Art. Bulletin, XIXV, 1953, pp. 302-06'. ■ '■ .

.Zupsick, Irving L., "Pontormo' s Early Style," Art Bulletin, XLVXI, 1965, -PP. 345-53. ■ “ '