Virtu and Fortuna - Renaissance Students Association Academic Journal 12/13

Virt첫 and Fortuna Renaissance Students Association: Academic Journal 12/13

Issue: 1

Contents

Virtù and Fortuna

Renaissance Students Association Issue: 1

Chapter 1 ∰ A Woman’s Role in the Renaissance in the Novelles of Matteo Bandello and Giovanni Boccaccio by Justine Genova Course: CCR199

Editor In-Chief: Jonathan Weigand Design Editor: Sabrina La Mantia Text Editors: Sam Nankivell, Klara Kovar, Shaun Midanik, Kyle Quinlan, Nick Morra

Boccacio’s Decameron Response by Jonathan Weigand Course: VIC140 Crime in Renaissance Florence by Fiona Kovacaj Course: VIC140 John Milton Paradise Lost Response by Jonathan Weigand Course: VIC140 Sir Thomas More, Utopia by Jonathan Weigand Course: VIC140

Chapter 2 ∰

∰ Contributors: Justine Genova, Fiona Kovacaj, Shaun Midanik, Jonathan Weigand, Klara Kovar, Sabrina La Mantia

The Artist as Courtier: Giorgio Vasari and the Constructed Self by Klara Kovar Course: VIC240 The First Renaissance Man by Sabrina La Mantia Course: VIC240 The Invention of the Galilean Telescope: an Exploration of its History and Importance by Shaun Midanik Course: HPS201

Chapter 3 ∰ Genre Paintings of Women in Domestic Settings: Mistresses and Maids by Klara Kovar Course: FAH440 Sculptural Practices and Material Culture in Vasari’s Lives by Klara Kovar Course: FAH438

Chapter 1

A Woman’s Role in the Renaissance in the Novelles of Matteo Bandello and Giovanni Boccaccio Justine Genova

∰

In this essay, I will argue that both Giovanni Boccaccio and Matteo Bandello display through their novellas how a Renaissance woman should act and the implications this code of conduct has on the woman’s right to marry. In the story of Romeo and Giulietta by Matteo Bandello, it is evident that Giulietta has to follow a set of rules which dictate everything she does. She is controlled by her parents and by society regarding who and when she can marry. In the story of Tancredi and Ghismonda by Giovanni Boccaccio, Ghismonda is expected to act according to these standards as well, but reacts differently than Giulietta to her father’s demands. Although both of these stories contain the themes of the role of women, parental authority, and the social hierarchy, the two authors respond to these Renaissance problems differently in each novella.

Matteo Bandello explicitly shows the readers what the role of a woman in the Renaissance entails: she must be silent, obedient, and most importantly, chaste. In Romeo and Giulietta, Giulietta is aware of this code of conduct and this is how she knows she cannot tell her parents about her marriage to Romeo. Many reasons complicate their secret union, but the largest obstacle is the fact that Giuletta’s family, the Capelletti’s, have been in a feud with Romeo’s family, the Montecchi’s, for generations and the feud is nowhere near ending. Once Romeo was exiled to Mantua, Giulietta was depressed and her parents believed she was still mourning the death of her cousin, Tebaldo. After Mrs. Capelletti consoled her daughter for a little while, she instantly assumed that Giulietta was depressed because all of her friends have recently been married off except for her. While speaking to her husband, Mr. Capelletti, she states “I believe it is now time you sought a good and honorable match for her rather than leaving her unwed, because she is not merchandise to be kept around the house” (Bandello 247). Through this quote, Mrs. Capelletti makes an assumption as to why Giulietta is sad. When Mrs. Capelletti states “she is not merchandise to be kept around the house” (Bandello 247) it is evident that a woman is property of her father. In the essay Renaissance Codes of Conduct and Matteo Bandello’s Novelle by Venna Carlson, she states that through Bandello’s novelles, he “presents a glimpse of society, its expectation, and each protagonist’s reconciliation with these expectations” (Carlson 1). Therefore, Bandello exhibits the Renaissance tradition of the father choosing a suitor for his daughter and after the marriage, the daughter becomes property of the husband rather than the father. Giulietta must keep silent and cannot choose her own husband because Bandello clearly displays that if a Renaissance woman thought for herself, it is considered a sin. Giulietta has already committed the sin of acting independently, and does not want her father to find out about any of this because then she will be condemned by her parents and by society. Furthermore, Giulietta keeps quiet about everything that she is feeling in fear of her father’s wrath and the backlash of society.

In contrast, Giovanni Boccaccio’s Ghismonda, in the story of Tancredi and Ghismonda, acts in a different manner than Giulietta does. Ghismonda is fully aware of what is expected from her by society and by her loving father. In Boccaccio’s Tancredi and Ghismonda, Ghismonda acts boldly and rebels against the quiet and obedient role that her father, Prince Tancredi of Salerno, expected her to fulfill.

Boccaccio introduces Ghismonda by describing her as “youthful and vivacious, and she possessed rather more intelligence than a woman needs” (Boccaccio 291). Through her introduction, the readers have already learned that Ghismonda does not necessarily fit the description of a Renaissance woman. An intelligent woman is able to think for herself, which is a sin in Renaissance society. Ghismonda does exactly this, and by thinking for herself she selects a lover from her father’s servants and engages in a sexual affair with him. Through Ghismonda, Boccaccio shows that he is against the passive role of women and Ghismonda is a perfect example of a woman

who does not fit the passive role, but thinks for herself. Through Tancredi’s weakness and Ghismonda’s strength he also comments on the fact that women can be smarter than men. Ghismonda’s abundance of intelligence is Boccaccio’s way of showing to the readers that she is able to think for herself and does not need the approval of her father. In The World at Play in Boccaccio’s Decameron by Giuseppe Mazzotta, Mazzotta states “In contrast to the mixture of delusion and vision in the prince’s speech, Ghismonda’s sharp rebuttal is ostensibly unclouded by sentimentality or rhetoric. She impugns her father’s arguments by an impressive display of mastery of language and reasoning power which far exceeds his” (Mazzotta 146). Through her intelligence and mastery of language, Ghismonda rebels against the role of a Renaissance woman in many ways. Through her infinite intelligence, Boccaccio displays that her biggest rebellion is her amazing speech in which she identifies that she is property of herself and not of her father. Her father cries but she remains composed, displaying that he is the weak one because he cannot control his emotions. Unlike Bandello’s Giulietta, Boccaccio’s Ghismonda is rebellious and uses her intelligence to act boldly. To Ghismonda, acting and thinking independently is not a sin. While Bandello warns women of what can happen if they do not obey the Renaissance code of conduct, Boccaccio displays that women have the ability to rebel and the misogynistic views of women in the Renaissance can be changed.

In Bandello’s Romeo and Giulietta, the two lovers commit suicide because it is the only way they can be together due to pressures from society and the strong presence of parental authority in Renaissance marriages.

As stated previously, Mrs. Capelletti proposed that Mr. Capelletti find a suitable husband for Giulietta in hopes that this will solve all of Giulietta’s woes. This causes Giulietta to go into a deeper depression because she does not want to be unfaithful to her true love, Romeo, but she knows she cannot disobey her parents. Since a daughter is property of her father until she is married, Bandello displays that Giulietta cannot go against her father’s wishes because he threatens her, “She was to offer no objection or resistance to the proposal if she did not want him to beat her to a pulp and make her the most wretched daughter that had ever been born” (Bandello 248). Her father’s proposal to marry the Count of Lodrone made Giulietta uncertain about “what else she wanted, except to die” (Bandello 248). Furthermore, Bandello makes it clear that the reason Giulietta seeks the Friar and is even willing to commit suicide is because she is not granted any say in the matter of marriage. If Giulietta’s parents had not insisted on her being married, she would not have considered this extreme exit from reality. In the article Romeo and Juliet before Shakespeare, Jill L. Levenson speaks of how the Juliet character in many versions of Romeo and Juliet often seek rational actions because they are blinded by their passion. She states “When a reasoning character confronts a passionate one, passion frequently yields and redirects its energy into schemes which at the moment seem rational. Juliet, periodically subject to despair during her ordeal, figures most often in these confrontations” (Levinson 334). Therefore, Levinson’s argument exhibits that Giulietta’s ultimate demise is caused by her parents. If her parents had not interfered with her life, the two lovers, with the help of Frate Lorenzo, would have told their parents about their secret marriage and hope to put an end to the feud. Through the star-crossed lovers, Bandello is able to show how a parent’s belief in what is best for their child can contribute to rash decisions and end tragically.

Similarly to Mrs and Mr.Capelletti, Tancredi believes that he has the ultimate authority over everything in Ghismonda’s life because he is her father. Although she has been married before and is a lot older than most women who live at home, Tancredi still sees her as his little girl and tries his best to control his daughter as if she was still a child. Boccaccio makes it clear throughout the novelle that Ghismonda is rebellious and does not listen to her father. After their discussion about Ghismonda’s affair with Guiscardo, Tancredi kills Guiscardo and has his heart delivered to Ghismonda in a gold chalice. During her speech, Ghismonda foreshadows that she is ready to die. This shows that she has an idea of what her father is planning and she will not allow him to rule her life in this way. After Tancredi kills Guiscardo, he directly causes Ghismonda’s death. Ghismonda proves that her father is the direct cause of her death when she states “Who ever heard of anyone, other than yourself, who wept on achieving his wishes?”

(Boccaccio 301). Therefore, although Tancredi shows that he controls Ghismonda’s death, he does not like the consequences of such control. Giuseppe Mazzotta argues that Ghismonda’s suicide displays to Tancredi and the reader that she is ultimately in control of her life. Although it is her father’s actions that cause her to commit suicide, the choice to end her life was her decision. David Wallace also argues that by dying with Guiscardo’s heart on top of her, Ghismonda “forces her father to see again that which he cannot bear to remember, namely the site

of Ghismonda beneath Guiscardo on the bed” (Wallace 59). Once again, Ghismonda repents against the obedient and chaste role of a woman during the Renaissance and makes Tancredi suffer the consequences of his control.

Finally, the ranking of people in a social hierarchy and the approval of society was necessary for a marriage to be allowed during the Renaissance. In the situation of Romeo and Giulietta, it is not social rank that is a problem but the stigma that the feud provides to both houses. It is evident throughout Bandello’s story that Giulietta is passive and will not stand up for herself because she is afraid of the consequences. She states after her first confrontation with Romeo that their love is doomed, “And being swayed by her lover’s incredible beauty, the more difficult and dangerous she perceived her situation to be, the more her desire appeared to increase as her hope diminished” (Bandello 238). Giulietta knows Romeo is a man of noble heart but the social stigma that he carries because of their feuding families prevents them from sharing their happiness with their parents. Once again, Levinson makes a valid point when she states that “The opening scenes, thick with detail and causality, reveal a peculiar tension in the novellas: sound judgement tenacious in the presence of intense feelings” (Levinson 333). Levinson acknowledges that Bandello tells the readers the tragic ending to this love story through the tone of their first encounter. Bandello describes their meeting as blissful and full of love, but makes the reader aware that this passionate affair can only end badly. Bandello makes it evident that during the time of the Renaissance, happiness in love and marriage were not the most important factor. He clearly shows through Romeo and Giulietta that the important factors in a Renaissance marriage are the thoughts of society, the parents, and social status of both parties.

Both Bandello and Boccaccio display the importance of nobility and society’s approval of a Renaissance marriage. While Giulietta’s lover is stigmatized by a feud, Ghismonda’s lover is stigmatized by the social hierarchy.

Boccaccio displays that Tancredi believes nobility of class overrules nobility of heart, while Ghismonda thinks the opposite which is why she chooses Guiscardo herself. Tancredi does not have his daughter’s happiness in mind when he condemns his daughter for her actions, but his honor. Ghismonda’s choice to interact with a servant will reflect badly on Tancredi and he is afraid of what society will think of him if they find out.

Once again, Ghismonda opposes her father’s authority by telling him that it is his fault that the servant is a peasant because he does not pay him well and although he may not be noble of class, he is noble of heart.

She also makes it clear that she had no intentions of harming her father’s reputation when she states “But I thought I was prepared to commit a natural sin, I was determined to spare no effort to ensure that neither your good name nor mine should suffer any harm” (Boccaccio 297). Having grown up with Tancredi for many years, Ghismonda is aware of her father’s fear of being looked down upon by others therefore she was going to conceal her affair so that their reputations are safe. Giuseppe Mazzotta acknowledges that Tancredi puts his honor above all else and Ghismonda rebels against this, “The main indictment of Ghismonda is not so much for indulging in a sexual act, as it is political, for choosing, that is, as a lover a man of humble origin” (Mazzotta 144). It is evident that Boccacco depicts Guiscardo as a humble man because he is part of Ghismonda’s further rebellion from the Renaissance norms. Through Ghismonda’s belief that nobility of heart is more important than nobility of class and Giulietta’s disregard for social stigmas, Bandello and Boccaccio display that love has no boundaries and objection from a parent will only result in further rebellion.

In summary, Matteo Bandello and Giovanni Boccaccio both display the hardships that women had to endure during Renaissance times. The code of conduct they were forced to follow caused Giulietta to be forced into a marriage while Ghismonda rebelled against her father and society’s expectations of her. Both novellas ended tragically with the death of all four lovers but the stories are not that similar. While Bandello displays what happens when a woman doesn’t observe the specified code of conduct, Boccaccio displays what is wrong with the expected role of women and urges them to rebel like Ghismonda did. Furthermore, the authors display their beliefs of a woman’s role in society during the Renaissance through their novelles and how their characters act.

Works Cited Boccaccio, Giovanni. The Decameron. London: Penguin Books, 2003.

Carlson, Veena. “Renaissance Codes of Conduct and Matteo Bandello’s Novelle.” Web. 24 Mar. 2012. <http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/RLA-Archive/1999/Italian/CARLSON.HTM>.

Levinson, Jill L. “Romeo and Juliet Before Shakespeare.” Studies in Philology 81.3 (1984): 325-47. Web. 10

Mar. 2012.

Boccaccio’s Decameron Response Jonathan Weigand

∰

Mazzotta, Giuseppe. The World at Play in Boccaccio’s Decameron. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 1986.

Prunster, Nicole. Romeo and Juliet before Shakespeare: Four Early Stories of Star-Crossed Love. First ed.

Centre for Reformation & Renaissance Studies, 2000 Wallace, David. Landmarks of World Literature: Boccaccio Decameron. Cambridge, Great Britan: Cambridge

UP, 1991. Print.

Works Consulted Griffith, Thomas Gwynfor. Bandello’s Fiction: an Examination of the Novelle.Oxford : Blackwell, 1955.

Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron skillfully expresses the societal changes that were accelerated by the perfection of printing with moveable type. The invention of printing with the use of moveable type cannot solely be attributed to Johann Gutenberg, Johann Fust, and Peter Schöffer. As the textbook suggests the perfection of printing was the result of incremental improvements upon the original method of printing originating from 8th century China. The Decameron was as much a ‘social product’ 1 of Boccaccio’s 14th century Italy as the perfected printing press was a ‘social product’ 2 of seven centuries of progress. Giovanni Boccaccio’s life and the popularity of his masterpiece the Decameron fully reveals the rise of the middle class and the use of vernacular as a literary medium which otherwise would not have been possible without the easy dispensation of knowledge that the printing press brought about.

The life of Boccaccio is an excellent portrayal of the rise of the middle class within Italian society of the early Renaissance. Giovanni was born illegitimately to Boccaccio of Chellino in 1313 either in Florence or in the neighbouring village of Certaldo. The life that Giovanni had led during his youth was proof that it was possible for an ordinary individual of the middle class to live a reasonably lavish lifestyle without being part of the nobility. Giovanni’s father was a wealthy entrepreneur who was employed by the Bardi Banking House, which at the time was a prosperous business. Eventually Giovanni was legally recognized by his father which meant that he received a formal education. Giovanni was then apprenticed into banking by his father and moved to Naples, the place where the majority of the business took place. He did not find an interest in banking however, and began to study law, at which he was equally unsuccessful. It was in Naples that Giovanni had completed some of his earliest literary works and was able to explore the vibrant city thanks to his father’s prominent status in society. The prosperity experienced by the middle class, including Giovanni, during the reign of the Bardi and Peruzzi Banking Houses was interrupted by the Black Death.

The Black Death that struck Florence in 1359 and was the backdrop for the Decameron also played a significant role in giving rise to a new era of wealth for the middle class during the Renaissance. A large portion of the population was killed indiscriminately by this plague leaving a small number of able bodied workers. Once the Plague had ended there was a sudden scarcity in the number of available workers leading them to have better diets, increased wages and subsequently an excess of wealth that was now available for luxury items. This anomaly, the increase in the wealth of the working class, was the first condition needed in order for the middle class to be prosperous.

Another cause for the rise in the middle class can be attributed to the banking collapse in the mid 14th century. The Florentine banking houses, Bardi and Peruzzi, became bankrupt because their principle debtors, including Edward III of England, had defaulted on their debts leaving the banks poor. The large number of investment opportunities that existed before the banking collapse were no longer present leaving the new working class with excess wealth and little opportunity for investment. With the humanist movement emerging and the reviving of values from Classical Antiquity, the middle class began to invest in humanist scholars and artists. New humanist ideals gave the middle class a comfort in knowing “...that wealth played vital, positive functions in ordinary life.”3 It had become virtuous to spend money on one’s private possessions such as creating vast personal libraries or a collection of artwork. This new found infatuation amongst wealthy individuals regarding humanist scholars and their works would undoubtedly have sparked a desire to create a collection of their works. Before the perfection of printing, establishing such a collection would have been incredibly difficult seeing as any book which was commissioned had to be printed by hand. The access to knowledge and

availability of books, such as the Decameron which printing made possible created a substantially larger audience for these humanist writers. This increase in exposure would have unquestionably assisted the humanist scholars in receiving funding or prominent positions in society from wealthy individuals. Along with this, the writers also received praise for their abilities from any literate individuals who had the pleasure of reading their works.

The rise in the middle class prospered from the use of the vernacular accompanied by the availability of printed material as a result of the perfection of the printing press in 1450. Boccaccio wrote the Decameron in the Italian vernacular which made it more accessible to individuals who were not educated in Latin. Latin was reserved exclusively for scholars who dedicated a great deal of time to mastering the language as well as extensively studying literature. Many of the tales contained within the Decameron are comic in nature or satirical which served to entertain this audience as well. Boccaccio, unlike Dante or even Petrarch, made the conscious decision to write and assort a collection of “...a hundred tales or fables or parables or histories...”.4 These tales were written in such as way as to convey a message to the reader without the use of complex imagery or long and intricate plots. They are short enough that they maintain the readers attention but long enough that they are able to engage the reader with controversial moral issues through common themes such as love, lust, wit and deception. The use of vernacular, controversial moral issues and traditional themes accompanied by the large volume of production that resulted from the perfection of the printing press meant that a book such as the Decameron was available to a larger variety of readers. Commoners who were literate had access to the Decameron as a means by which to be entertained. A scholar, however, had the ability to study as well as analyze the complex and important moral questions that were raised throughout the course of the book.

Decameron only exists as it does in the vernacular, filled with entertaining stories laced with contemporary moral dilemmas because of the societal conditions of the time. The middle class was experiencing a sudden increase in economic wealth while the printing press was augmenting the availability of the written word simultaneously. Without the printing press allowing books to be easily obtained, it would have been unlikely that the use of the vernacular in literature would have been as common as it was. It cannot be denied that the life of Boccaccio, as the son of a merchant banker, as well as the use of the Italian language in his Decameron exemplify the printing press’ influence on the rise of the middle class.

Bibliography Boccaccio, Giovanni. Decameron. Trans. By J.G. Nichols. New York: Everyman’s Library, 2008.

Rice Jr., Eugene F., Grafton, Anthony. The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559. New York: W.W.

Norton, 1994.

Crime in Renaissance Florence Fiona Kovacaj

∰

Crime in the society of Renaissance Florence affected the social, economic, and religious structure of a citizen’s life. In the compilation The Society of Renaissance Florence, Gene Bruckner brings together a wide variety of documents composed in fourteenth and fifteenth century Florence that he himself translated.

Records of crimes dominate this collection and are important in revealing the manner in which the system of justice, run by the Signoria of the Commune, operates and its role in society. Bruckner chose these documents with care, selecting pieces that revealed the behaviour of Florentine citizens rather than their own personal reflections about their society.1 These documents therefore make it possible to extract a more objective view of Florence. Bruckner considers them important to understanding this complex society and particularly notices the dominance of crime, providing a number of criminal records and petitions. Through these documents it is evident that the system of justice in Renaissance Florence failed in establishing peace and order within its society as it furthered, rather than diminished, crime. It did so by necessitating and encouraging vendettas, failing to judge criminal cases objectively, and ignoring, rather than confronting, the corruption within the system.

Being a compilation of documents, there are various people whose words are present in this book. Most of them are not writers but common people, mostly middle class with a few peasants and highly influential men.

The content, therefore, is very stark and to the point, as these are not literary or philosophical texts but social and legal texts that outline and appeal a case. Therefore, they provide historians with a wide view of this complex society giving them room for their own conclusions. Yet, the disadvantage to this being a compilation is that Bruckner selected texts that he found significant and this acts as a bias. Furthermore, having translated these pieces himself there may have been aspects of the texts lost; as with any translation. In fact, Bruckner admits that these documents have been “passed through a series of filters”, one of these filters being its translation.2 So, this compilation consists of property records, letters, personal wills, petitions, and criminal court records.

These documents provide clear insight into the social, economic, and religious lives of Florentines in the fourteenth and fifteenth century and ultimately reveal the complexity of the society. The undertones of violence and the recorded cases of murder, rape, fraud and thievery that are present throughout the book reveal the instability of the justice system and really bring into question if it was doing its job of protecting the people.

Since family honour was an important aspect of this society, vendettas were common amongst all classes, including the Signoria, and were regarded as necessary for preserving this honour. In some cases, such as the vendetta between the Strozzi and the Lenzi, the court would authorize a judicial vendetta. When hearing of the assault against Lenzi by Strozzi, the court declared that “Giovanni and Piero Lenzi…and their children and descendants are herby authorized with impunity to pursue a vendetta…and to offend (the Strozzi family) by any means and to any degree…”.3 By allowing this feud to continue, the lords are not only encouraging further criminal behaviour but also increasing the hostility between these two groups. A division between two great families is also a division in the society. If other families chose to get involved this would escalate into an even greater problem.

An example of the involvement of others is in the case of Luca da Panzano in which a family who were outside the conflict assisted them in their escape since these crimes could be justified by honour.4 So, by not properly persecuting vendettas, the justice system, instead of limiting crime, cultivated the soil for further fatal conflicts.

Furthermore, criminal cases were often judged subjectively, taking into account the class, wealth, and influence of the accused and the victim. This is particularly evident in the petition of Monna Nicolosa who reported that her daughter’s husband, Duccio, killed Monna Nicolosa’s husband when he ended the marriage and

took his daughter back because Duccio was brutally beating her. Yet, both men involved in the murder belonged to important families: “Agostino and Duccio all belong to a powerful clan…they are among the wealthiest and most powerful members of that family…”5 Not only had the power of these men kept them from getting persecuted for the murder of the father but they continued to torment the family who were offered no protection from the law because they did not have the advantage of rank. Another example of a similar case is that of Bardi who committed awful crimes against the Commune such as killing several men, one of them his best friend yet he had “never been placed under ban for his arrogant behaviour because he belonged to a great family.”6 By not distributing justice fairly, crimes of this nature continued to plague the citizens. While the criminals from fortunate families received immunity, it was usually those without money and influence who suffered.

This system of justice, therefore, did not impose the peace and order that was the objective of the Commune.

Finally, corruption within the system was often ignored and it was months before it was condemned.

In the case of Lorenzo, a rector at Barga, this man was given the position of rector and his authority went unchecked so that his misdeeds continued to harass the citizens. “Night and day, he went through the region with this gang of armed hoodlums, eating and drinking and carousing in the houses of the citizenry.”7 By ignoring this kind of corruption within systems of authority, criminal activity went unpunished. This gave the citizens the message that they too could overlook laws and abuse them in the way their figures of authority had. This was counterproductive in the attempt to establish peace and order. There was further abuse of clerical authority in the case of Father Coppino who misused his power over the people by demanding things from them that they could not spare.8 Father Coppino went unpunished for a long time.

This ineffectiveness in establishing justice due to the corruption within the system meant further abuse of the law, as there was not a strict enough enforcement against crimes, especially for those of influence.

Peace and order, although sought, were not established by the justice system in Renaissance Florence since it furthered crime. By encouraging vendettas, failing to judge criminal cases objectively, and ignoring rather than confronting the corruption within the system, the lords of the Commune established crime as a more prominent feature of this society. Crime overall shaped Florence into a hierarchal structure, carving out the difference between social classes.

Notes 1 Gene Bruckner, introduction to The Society of Renaissance Florence (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1971) xiv.

2 Bruckner, introduction to Renaissance Florence, xvi 3 Bruckner, Renaissance Florence, 113 4 Bruckner, Renaissance Florence, 116 5 Bruckner, Renaissance Florence, 70 6 Bruckner, Renaissance Florence, 123 7 Bruckner, Renaissance Florence, 134 8 Bruckner, Renaissance Florence, 137 Bibliography Bruckner, Gene. The Society of Renaissance Florence. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1971

John Milton Paradise Lost Response Jonathan Weigand

∰

Book 6 in Milton’s Paradise Lost is a portrayal of the battle between the angels led by Michael and Gabriel in their fight against the fallen angels under the guidance of Satan. Milton, through his literary style and choice of diction resonates the negative attitudes, albeit erroneous, held by society towards the use of gunpowder in war. In contrast to the glorification of gunpowder presented by Eugene F. Rice, Jr. and Anthony Grafton’s The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559, Milton promotes the grandeur of the knight through his depiction of magnificent angels.

Milton, when recounting the first day of battle, describes the elegance and grace of the angels who were faithful to God. Milton makes his admiration of the knight as a defender apparent through his description of Michael the Archangel dressed in his full battle armour.1 As the battle raged on Michael was able to land a blow against Satan with his mighty sword creating a large gash in his right side.2 Angels lack a bone structure however, meaning that the fatal blow that Michael landed on Satan would heal with time.3 Although Michael was unable to kill Satan, Michael’s ability to, in fact, wound a warrior as prominent as Satan is another example of the way in which the strength of such a valiant and noble knight surpasses all. Milton’s choice to include such an act emphasizes the reverence paid to angels. It expresses as well the power that they were believed to hold. It was this awe and admiration of the fully armed archangel dressed in knightly attire that gave rise to a disdain of the lowly satanic angels.

The demons’ actions which began as soon as night fell are described at length by Milton. He communicates the plotting and scheming that occurred during the night as the demons frantically mine the earth for minerals and experiment with various formulas in order to create a weapon to destroy the angels.4 In doing so Milton portrays the substance of gunpowder as the creation of demons which society already loathed.

After having recounted the events of the night Milton depicts, in detail, the second day of battle and the horrors that occurred with the introduction of gunpowder in their battle. Milton uses vivid imagery to describe the destructive power and the simplicity of operating a device powered by gunpowder. With the introduction of the power of gunpowder weapons, the demons were able to cause much damage to the angels and maintained the upper hand in battle. Gunpowder allowed for demons to have an advantage over the angels because of both the speed and destructive capabilities of this amunition. The angels did not stand a chance against the gunpowder. Covered in heavy armour, the angels were slow and as a result, an easy target. The battle between the demons and angels contrast two groups of individuals: a knight who was trained from childhood to fight on horseback as cavalry and another who was trained briefly to operate a canon or any other gunpowder weapon.

It would seem, however, that Milton himself is not promoting the view that gunpowder is something evil as a matter of personal opinion; but, rather is echoing the concerns of the society into which gunpowder was born.

Within this society the knight was viewed as the protector of the town and subsequently was a powerful figure.

As is the case with anyone who has an abundance of power, there existed the possibility for the knight to take advantage of the townsmen. If gunpowder presented an alternative for the townsmen to defend themselves without the necessity of a traditional knight and the possibility of exploitation, then gunpowder would win popularity.

The Fundamentals of Early Modern Europe1460-1559 describes the rise in power of the lower class of individuals as a result of this new technology. The ability to fight in war had become a job that could be accomplished by a greater number of people with less specialization. The power of the knight as a domineering figure in society who was the only one capable of protecting a town no longer existed as such. The knight had become obsolete giving way to soldiers armed with lighter armour that allowed for greater mobility and speed in order to cater to a warfare ruled by canons and eventually guns.

The introduction of gunpowder in my opinion was an invention which benefited society significantly. The age of the infantry was at hand and warfare would forever be changed by the invention of guns which to this day are still in use. Never again would cavalry be as prevelent as it once was.

Bibliography Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Ed 2nd ed. Ed. Alastair Fowler. Longman Annotated Poets. London: Longman, 2007.

Sir Thomas More Utopia Jonathan Weigand

∰

Book one of Sir Thomas More’s Utopia is used as a brief introduction in order to provide a setting and acquaint the reader with integral characters. Its importance however extends much farther than being merely an introduction. Book one is a condemnation of the Wars of the Roses and the 100 Years War, revealed through More’s diction and style. A sound understanding of the situations which led to the commencement and eventual conclusion of the Wars of the Roses is crucial to recognizing More’s basis for aggression. Book one is used by Sir Thomas More to expose the irresponsibility and reckless actions of the nobility that were witnessed during the Wars of the Roses as well as the 100 Years War. These actions and their negative consequences worsened by the reign of the Tudors in the late 15th and early 16th century. More expertly personified his own feelings through clever wordplay in Utopia and thoughtfully used allegories accompanied by characters he created in order to expose the foolishness of both Henry VII and VIII.

A solid foundation to understanding the Wars of the Roses must precede an analysis of the life of Henry VII as a monarch. The Wars of Roses was a string of bloody English Civil Wars fought between the House of York and House of Lancaster starting in 1455 and reaching its conclusion in 1485. It was the campaign of Henry VI in France fighting the 100 Years War which aided in giving rise to the Wars of Roses. Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, was a very wealthy individual and in 1436 was appointed the Lieutenant of France. The Duke of York’s status and wealth forced him to invest a large sum of money, from his own assets, in England’s campaign in France. Rather than receiving a reward or praise, the Duke of York was replaced by one of his enemies, Edmund Beaufort, the Duke of Somerset. The Duke of Somerset, likewise, was not fond of the Duke of York. The dreadful relationship between these two individuals was further strained when the Duke of Somerset not only became the Lieutenant of France but, in addition, was granted war funds from the King. Henry VI, the monarch at the time, quite obviously favoured the Duke of Somerset over the Duke of York which would naturally have enraged him because the Duke of Somerset had comparatively made little contribution to England’s welfare.

To make matters worse the Duke of Somerset was a terrible soldier and, under his guidance, the English had been almost completely pushed out of France which was a terrible reality for Henry VI. Subsequently, Henry VI began to suffer from bouts of madness which left him incapacitated. The first bout occurred in 1453, leaving the Duke of York as the protector of England. With this power the Duke of York was able to imprison his enemy, the Duke of Somerset, in the Tower of London until 1455 when Henry VI recovered from his illness.

Once Henry VI was well, he released the Duke of Somerset from the Tower and stripped the Duke of York of his title. These chain of events subsequently led to the struggle for the Crown between the House of York and the House of Lancaster from which Henry VI was derived. The bloody civil war between the two houses continued until the 22nd of August, 1485 when Henry Tudor the Earl of Richmond, more famously known as Henry VII, challenged Richard III of the House of York for the crown at the Battle of Bosworth. Having achieved victory Henry VII was able to name the House of Tudor as the monarchy. Henry VII then married Elizabeth of York in 1486 which united the two houses securing his position on the throne. Although another unsuccessful attempt by Yorkist loyalists occurred to regain the throne in the battle at Stoke, Henry was able to defeat the uprising and eliminate the rival faction for good thus concluding the Wars of the Roses.

The Wars of Roses undoubtedly had a strong influence on Sir Thomas More and subsequently the negative opinions which he portrayed in his Utopia, as he was born in 1478 and the feuding did not end until 1485. Despite the fact that there were no battles which actively took place until 1485; with the arrival of Henry VII, the political environment in England was rather hostile despite the lack of violence. It was not until the battle of Bosworth that mercenaries were used in warfare by Henry VII. Sir Thomas More would have been seven years of age when the battle of Bosworth occurred, and although he would have been rather young it is safe to assume that he would have known what was happening. Throughout the majority of the Wars of the Roses, the soldiers belonged to the private armies of the Lords. The use of private armies led to the death of a large number of the nobility throughout the course of the Wars. More was not alive to witness the majority of the Wars of the Roses and, as a result, would have heard of previous battles through second hand sources. As with any recounting of a story, it is likely that the details would have been skewed so as to make these horrific battles even more violent and tragic. This would undoubtedly have led More to decide to employ the use of mercenaries in the fictitious society he created as opposed to sending its own citizens into battle.1 As early as page seven of Utopia, within the first few pages of the book, More, the character, is arguing with Peter Giles and Raphael as to the size of the “bridge over the Anyder at Amaurot”2. In doing so, More, the writer, uses a play on words because the word Anyder in Greek, as the footnote on the page reveals, translates literally to waterless place. This appears to be More’s criticism of the English nobility for the Wars of the Roses in which the supposed leaders of the society fought childishly over the Crown of England. The reasoning behind their motivation in the Wars in which they fought over the Crown was just as ridiculous in More’s opinion as ‘squabbling over the size of a bridge over land with no water’. This point leads the character More to say “I’d rather be honest than clever”3 which is an interesting statement for the individual More to make given that More is sentenced to death, after Utopia is published. This occurs because of his honesty in relaying his opinion on the matter of King Henry VIII’s divorce, his embrace of Protestantism, and self proclamation as head of the Church of England(Protestant Church), as well as his eventual break from the Roman Catholic Church. More’s statement that he would rather be honest also provides an indication More’s admission that book one of Utopia is an attack on the actions of the nobility. More would rather have the ability to make his opinion more obvious than having to cleverly disguise it.

There is further evidence in book one of Utopia that More employs characters to criticize the conditions associated with Parliament in England. On page fifteen Raphael is replying to a statement that the character More made with regards to Raphael being useful in the court of a King. Raphael responds by arguing that the knowledge and ability which More prescribes to him are not present within his character and if they are, they would be of no use to the King. Raphael comments on the royalty’s continuous obsession with warfare as well as the arrogance of the royal counsellors. This comment towards warfare could be directed at the atrocities of the Wars of the Roses in which the greedy and narrow-minded attitudes of the nobility were exposed. Another possible explanation for the object of the comment’s criticism is the invasion of France by Henry VII in 1491. Henry VII sent troops into France for the sole purpose of creating the Treaty of Etaples which included a large payoff from France for ending the occupation by English soldiers. With regards to the comment about the counsellors made

by Raphael, it is fairly obvious that More is chastising individuals who work within Parliament making decisions either based on their ego or from a desire to obtain the King’s favour. More was a man who always upheld his beliefs no matter the consequences as exemplified by his execution in 1535 under the charge of treason.

Throughout pages seventeen through twenty three, in the historically fictitious conversation that occurred between Raphael and Cardinal Morton, Chancellor to Henry VII, there was discussion regarding the conditions of England more specifically, the best way in which to deal with thieves. Within England it was common practice to either kill the thief or, demand the thief pay retribution to the Crown. Raphael begins to recount a city he visited, which infact is geographically non-existent, but representative nonetheless. Here it was customary for thieves to pay restitution to the individual by returning the items that were stolen or paying their equivalent. More, through the facade of the character Raphael, illustrates a valid point in acknowledging that the money paid to the Crown for theft belongs no more to the King than it does to the thief who stole it.

From this argument arises the question as to why individuals are forced to steal and the translator, in the footnote on page twenty personally addresses this issue. There is a discussion as to the greedy and lavish lifestyles in which the individuals of the upper classes partake. On page twenty in the last paragraph of the page there is a quote which emphasizes the fact that apart from these individuals who were wealthy in the society, there were other quite poor individuals who had trouble feeding themselves. The footnote raises the possibility that the openly lavish lifestyle More was referring to was that of Henry VIII. More continues to poke fun at the elites of his society through Raphael’s description haircut of the slaves’ within the fictitious society. The slaves cut their hair close to their ear and according to the footnote, it is the same style of haircut that the servants of nobleman wore who believed it to be stylish. Although this is not an academic attack on English elitists, it is, a humorous way of denouncing them and confirms that More is opposed to their behaviour.

On page twenty nine More is quite openly attacking England for the 100 Years Wars and the Wars of the Roses when Raphael recounts the Anchorians, which in Greek means the ‘people without a country’. Once again More is using his knowledge of the Greek language in order to create a witty and insightful commentary on the situation. More could be using this play on words to refer to the thirst for power that plagued the nobility.

English monarchs were constantly trying to acquire more land and were subsequently ‘people without a country’ because their boundaries kept changing. Although it is unclear what More is trying to convey with this play on words, that which is apparent is that the war the ‘Anchorians’ had entered into for their king was the 100 Years War. The Anchorian’s king had inherited two kingdoms, just as Edward III had inherited both England and France. The king of Anchoria sent his troops into a foreign land to claim the second realm, in the same way Edward sent English troops into France to claim his territory. This English invasion of France led to the 100 Years War in which the French fought heavily to retain their country and repel the English invasion. Raphael continued to note that the occupation of the foreign land by the Anchorians was not only tedious and incurred a large amount of debt but it also led to civil unrest. The equivalent to such a circumstance for the English would have been the Wars of the Roses. More shows the way in which the mismanagement of one’s country and the attempt to seize control of another one led to a disaster. He is correct in arguing this point as More continues to show through Raphael, the problems and mismanagement of England was caused by the monarchy feuding amongst themselves as well as with other nations. Raphael begins to concoct ways in which a monarch could raise funds from his subjects in a deceitful manor. One of the schemes which Raphael concocts is a “makebelieve war, so that money can be raised under the pretext of carrying it on; then, when the money is in, he can conclude a ceremonious peace treaty”5 with the anticipation that such an action will make himself seem to be a wise and cunning ruler to the commoners. In the footnote in Utopia as well as earlier in the essay it was mentioned that Henry VII had done exactly what Raphael was describing in his hypothetical situation. Henry VII invaded France for no particular reason other than to attain a large amount of personal wealth from it; however, Henry most likely promoted the image that he was trying to reclaim what was rightfully England’s.

On page thirty three in the footnotes the translator brings mention to More’s commentary on Henry VII’s lavish living. Raphael is commenting on the way in which it is better to have a poor king who cares for his people rather than a rich king who leaves his country in shambles. Henry VII died the wealthiest British Catholic monarch and was more than likely the least liked by, ‘combining unscrupulous greed with skinflint stinginess’.6

The last noteworthy comment that fully expresses the frustration which Sir Thomas More had in dealing with the Parliament and Monarchy is expressed in the quote from the bible which says, “people who have made up their minds to rush headlong down the opposite road are never pleased with someone who calls back and tells them they are on the wrong course.”7 This comment reveals the difficulty in dealing with the ignorance and stubbornness that was present in the reigns of Henry VII and VIII. Sir Thomas More had just entered into Parliament towards the end of King Henry VII’s reign and as the commentary hidden within the text of Utopia suggests, More gravely detested Henry’s illogical and irresponsible mismanagement of England. More denounced Henry VIII to a much more limited degree than the way in which

he avidly condemned the actions of Henry VII. More was in Parliament for only five years during the reign of Henry VII and did not receive as prominent a position in government as More had during the reign of Henry VIII. During Henry VIII’s reign, when More was involved in Parliament for seven years before the publishing of Utopia, it was the meshing of their personalities which led More to be held in high position as a favourite of the King. More assisted in Henry VIII’s writing of Defence of the Seven Sacraments by editing, the publishing of this document directly led to Henry VIII being awarded the title ‘Defender of the Faith’. It is likely that More’s lack of promotion during Henry VII’s reign was due to his inability to change his views in order to fall into favour with the king as More commented many politicians of the time had done.8 This favouritism under the reign of Henry VIII is undoubtedly the reason for the lack of chiding of the actions of Henry VIII during the period of his ascension to the throne and the publication of Utopia.

Such strong and frequent reprimanding of the actions of the Tudor Kings, Henry VII and VIII, throughout book one of Utopia cannot be ignored. Through careful analysis of the written work and observation of the comments by the translator within the footnotes it is obvious that book one of Utopia is not only a segue into book two; but, is also a corresponding harsh and clever analysis of the flaws of the English nobility. More is successful in discreetly inserting his opinions with regards to the nobility of his time within the text through his diction, characters and fictional situations.

Bibliography More, Thomas, and Clarence H. Miller. Utopia. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2001. Print.

Chapter 2

The Artist as Courtier: Giorgio Vasari and the Constructed Self Klara Kovar

∰

Over the course of the Renaissance, the social status of the artist significantly changed and developed from that of craftsman, valued for the manual labour of their profession, to a profession that also encompassed intellectual and creative elements, like those of the humanist, and in some cases the respect and position of courtier.1 This development can be seen both in Giorgio Vasari’s The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (1568), and in Vasari’s own career. Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) is known as painter, draughtsman, architect, writer, and collector, however, he is most famous as the author of The Lives; the first critical history of artistic style.2 Although it has sometimes been perceived as a controversial source, The Lives are used as the primary reference on Renaissance painters, sculptors, and architects.3 Vasari came from a family of potters and saddle painters in Arezzo, a city not far from Florence.4 His career developed in such a way that over the course of his life he worked, as painter and architect, for many different patrons, including confraternities, nuns, princes, dukes, and popes. In addition, he made many friends and acquaintances among the humanists and writers of his day, including Pietro Arentino, Vincenzo Borghini, Annibale Caro, Paolo Giovio, and others.5 Yet it is his position as court artist to Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici that reflects a key development of the role and social position of the artist in Italian Renaissance culture. This development is both a personal achievement of Vasari’s, yet it also reflects that the artist was more than a craftsperson occupied with manual labours. In fact, Vasari’s career and development to court artist shows that one could, in the sixteenth-century, rise from a family with no noble heritage and enter the social and professional spheres of princes, popes, and men of letters, rising in status as a result of one’s profession.6 By looking at Vasari’s education, some of his aspirations and achievements, and the connection between himself and The Lives, both Vasari’s personal and the general change in the social position and possibilities of the Renaissance artist can be delineated.

In the Renaissance, painters were traditionally educated in the workshop of the master painter under whom they were apprenticed, learning the basics of drawing, design, and the technical aspects.7 Vasari, however, also received a basic Latin education, and although he was somewhat invested in his studies, when he realized that his natural inclination was to become a painter, he moved on to pursue that career.8 Arezzo was a city proud of its intellectual reputation, and Vasari aimed to both continue and expand upon this tradition in following a career as a painter.9 His Latin education (1520-1524) was most likely led by Antonio da Saccone, and also included ancient mythology and religion, developing Vasari’s ability to express himself in writing, and creating his predilection for learned allegorical subjects, something that was unusual for a painter of his time.10 Vasari’s early painterly accomplishments in Arezzo attracted the attention of the Cardinal of Cortona, Silvio Passerini (1470-1529), who took Vasari with him to Florence in 1524.11 There he became a type of court companion to Alessandro and Ottaviano de’Medici, taking lessons with them under Pierio Valeriano, in addition to continuing to study painting with Andrea del Sarto and Baccio Bandinelli.12 It was in this setting that Vasari first came into contact with the Medici family, who would later become his patrons and provide him with an important position within their court. In studying under Valeriano at the Medici court, Vasari would have learned the traditions, mannerisms, and characteristics of a courtier, and combined with his ambition to become famous and respected as a painter, he was later in his life able to enter into the court of Cosimo de’Medici and become his primary court painter (1554-1574).13 This education also assisted Vasari in creating works of art that conformed to the requests of the patrons, as he was capable of fusing contemporary visual language with classical principles.14 This becomes particularly evident when he entered

the services of Cosimo I de’Medici, such as the frescoes in the Palazzo Vecchio, where he artfully created a cycle of allegories and histories that reflect both Florentine and Mediciean history and accomplishments.15

Vasari’s experience at the Medici court in the 1520’s, his self-conscious desire to obey norms, and wish that his career would be perceived as the result of virtuous endeavours and not enforced (material) necessity, led him to aspire to higher social positions.16 In The Lives, Vasari states that: “...I used to say to myself at time: ‘Why should it not be in my power to obtain by assiduous study and labour some of that grandeur and rank that so many others have acquired? They, also, were of flesh and bones, as I am.’ Urged on, therefore, by so many sharp spurs, and by seeing how much need my family had of me, I disposed myself never to shrink from any fatigue, discomfort, vigil, and toil, in order to achieve that end…”.17 Here Vasari clearly presents the reader with his rationale and approach to achieving a higher social position, which led him to working for both Alessandro and Ottavian de’Medici, and finally culminating in the court of Cosimo I de’Medici by way of the labours of his own hands. His many achievements and patrons reflect his success in this respect, and show how an individual of common means could rise to becoming the primary advisor to Cosimo I on all artistic affairs;18 emphasizing nobility of talent, not that of birth.19 In addition to personal aims to attaining fame, the early death of his father in 1527 left Vasari with the responsibility of providing for his mother and three sisters.20 The many achievements of Vasari were possible because he had a large and efficient workshop to execute his works, taking on the manual aspects, whereas Vasari himself was responsible for the intellectual elements (the disegno of a commission, which means both design and drawing).21 In addition, since his education involved a solid schooling in Latin and the humanist tradition, it allowed him to enter into an understanding of the literati, and in fact he made many friends among them, thus developing a relationship among those who would have been present at the court of any prince or duke in Italy at the time. Finally, his goal to achieve fame and a solid career were what drove him to develop the contacts and type of career that he did. Visually, Vasari’s own home in Arezzo, depicts his perspectives on the importance of fame and the definition of the arts, as can be seen in the Sala della Fama.22 The ceiling of this room depicts a personification of Fame surrounded by personifications of Painting, Poetry, Sculpture, and Architecture, thus depicting the equality of the arts in attaining fame in history.23

The Lives are the first critical history of artistic style, and contain 142 biographies, spanning a period of approximately 300 years to outline the rinascita.24 This text was published in two editions, the 1568 edition reflecting the historical approach of Vincenzo Borghini, who helped with some of the research and the editing.25 Organized in three parts, representing youth, manhood, and maturity, the autonomy of the artists in terms of creativity develops and the way in which they are rewarded by satisfied patrons. In a way, this reflects the development of Vasari’s own career, where, over time, he gained more freedom and creativity, and his patrons grew both in number and in social importance. The artists are presented as unique creative personalities, whose specific works and experiences are subject to separate critical appraisal.26 The biographies of The Lives are laced with autobiographical elements,27 and Vasari paints an image of himself, consciously constructed, and based on classical traditions and courtly norms. It is thus appropriate that he ends The Lives with his own life, indicating that he is the ultimate culmination of the artists of the Renaissance, using the other lives as a vehicle for self expression, while focusing on the factual elements in his own life.28 He presents himself as a rational and amiable individual with a solid humanist basis, who can interact with all his patrons with great ease, while being strongly devoted to the development of his career. These are qualities, which he praises in other artists throughout The Lives, also become the end of the lives and careers of some artists when they neglect to follow them. The qualities of grace that Vasari attributes to the artist in The Lives was modelled on Baldassare Castiglione’s description of the behaviours of the ideal courtier from The Courtier (1528), which Vasari most likely read.29 In addition, Castiglione also notes at one point that the ideal courtier should know how to draw and paint.30 It is this vision of the artist that pervades throughout The Lives, thus indirectly commenting and reflecting upon Vasari’s own social and professional development.

Over the course of his life, Vasari consciously constructed an ideological self, by conforming with the ideal behaviours associated with the learned and the courtly.31 This was dependent on his education and the value he placed on aspiring to fame, and he was able to express this both using his pen (The Lives) and the brush. It was his attention to the form and rules that made him the ideal painter for patrons, as he

was able to produce what they wanted, and thus allowed him to attain the position of primary court artist to Cosimo I de’Medici. Vasari’s devotion to the Medici family is evident throughout the Lives, first because he dedicated bother versions to Cosimo I de’Medici, but also because he attributes the development of arts from darkness to light to the patronage of this family.32 It is through a deep-rooted belief in the dignity of his profession that Vasari’s career culminated in that of courtier at the court of Cosimo I de’Medici.33

Notes 1 Patricia Lee Rubin. Giorgio Vasari: Art and History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995, 1-4 2 Rubin, 1.

3 Rubin, 4.

4 Julian Kliemann and Antonio Manno. “Vasari.” In Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http:// www.oxfordartonline.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/subscriber/article/grove/art/T088022pg1 (accessed March 3, 2012).

5 Leon George Satkowski. Giorgio Vasari: Architect and Courtier. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993, 3.

6 Philip Joshua Jacks. Vasari’s Florence: Artists and Literati at the Medicean Court. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998, 1.

7 Kliemann and Manno.

8 Kliemann and Manno.

9 Rubin, 63.

10 Kliemann and Manno.“They (the mastery of acceptable manners and modes of behaviour from the ancients, Cicero, Plutarch, Seneca, and Aristotle) gave him a recognized, shared, mode of address while offering a systematic structure of goals, desires, and rules with which to establish an identity: one that had the authority and moral weight of its sources. Vasari’s artist and Castiglione’s courtier were closely related in this respect.”

(Rubin, 52).

11 Kliemann and Manno.

12 Kliemann and Manno.

13 Kliemann and Manno.

14 Kliemann and Manno.

15 Rubin, 34.

16 Rubin, 52 – 58.

17 Giorgio Vasari. The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. Translated by Gaston du C. de Vere.

Edited by Philip Jacks. New York: Modern Library, 2006, 1022.

18 Satkowski, 122.

19 Rubin, 58.

20 Rubin, 22 – 89.

21 Kliemann and Manno.

22 Kliemann and Manno.

23 Kliemann and Manno.

24 Rubin, 1.

25 Rubin, 187.

26 Rubin, 1. “The Vasari of The Lives, the biographical and historical Vasari, is consistent with the one found in other types of records. Vasari’s life is richly documented. The legacy from pen and brush is substantial.” (Rubin, 35) 27 Jacks, 1.

28 Rubin, 26-27.

Bibliography Bertelli, Sergio, Franco Cardini and Elvira Garbero Zorzi, eds. The Courts of the Italian Renaissance.

8-33. New York, N.Y.: Facts on File, 1986.

Gahtan, Maia W. and Philip Joshua Jacks, eds. Vasari's Florence: Artists and Literati at the Medicean Court, Yale University Art Gallery, 14 april-15 may 1994. 5-55. Yale University and Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. [New Haven, CT]: Yale University Art Gallery, 1994.

Goldstein, Carl. “Vasari and the Florentine Accademia del Disegno”. Zeitschrift Für Kunstgeschichte, no.38 (1975): 145-152.

Jacks, Philip Joshua. Vasari's Florence: Artists and Literati at the Medicean Court. 1-10. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Julian Kliemann and Antonio Manno. "Vasari." In Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http:// www. oxfordartonline.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/subscriber/article/grove/art/T088022pg1 (accessed March 3, 2012).

Rubin, Patricia Lee. Giorgio Vasari: Art and History. 1-105, 187-215. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Rudolph, Stella. “Arezzo. Giorgio Vasari.” The Burlington Magazine, no. 124 (February 1982): 121- 122.

Satkowski, Leon George. Giorgio Vasari: Architect and Courtier. 3-14, 121-123. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Vasari, Giorgio. The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. Volume 1, 3-9, Volume 2, 1019- 1065. Translated by Gaston du C. de Vere. Edited by Philip Jacks. New York: Modern Library, 2006.

The First Renaissance Man Sabrina La Mantia

∰ “For what is the worth of a human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?” (Cicero 395).

Francesco Petrarch was the first renaissance man because he embodies all the values that characterized humanism, which was at the core of the Italian renaissance; especially his intense dislike of his medieval predecessors. Humanism marked an important shift in ideology from the medieval scholasticism that preceded it, and places a special emphasis on the secular values of Roman antiquity.

Petrarch wrote in a new style that closely imitated the prose of the great Latin thinkers many years before him. His writing style flourished because of his intense dislike of the old style that the scholastic’s used. Professor Kenneth Bartlett explains that Petrarch had three main complaints against the old, scholastic theologians.

The first was that he considered the style ‘barbarous’ compared to the eloquent prose of Latin antiquity.

The second was that he believed most of the content to be irrelevant. Although Petrarch was a devote believer in God, he thought that the fickle manner of discussing trivial details of the bible was useless in modern context.

There was a distinct turn towards the value of the secular life that was lacking in medieval writing. The final reason that he disliked the scholastic’s writing was because he was concerned with humanity. The focus of the recent past was on the eternal life after death; not the human condition. Petrarch immersed himself in writing about the human condition and was the first to approach writing in the style he reinvented. “He believed that his experience on earth had validity, value, and significance and that his self was worthy of knowing” (Bartlett 26).

Petrarch’s belief in the importance of the self was reflected in the self-awareness of the renaissance period. This self-awareness was a defining quality of the epoch, and it was the renaissance men that first named the years before them the ‘dark medieval ages’. This was meant to contrast what they believed was a new age of rebirth for Roman antiquity after enduring a long tyranny under medieval thinkers.

In a warped way, the importance of the self translated as an arrogant, narcissistic, yet beautiful tone of writing that Petrarch excelled in because he was convinced that he was an important person; therefore historians would want to know of him. Petrarch went to his store of letters that he sent to others and tailored them with future historians in mind. With that as his primary motivation, he began a version of the ‘psychological biography’ which hadn’t been practiced for almost 1000 years since Augustine’s Confessions (Bartlett, Oct. 9 2012). The psychological biography is a style of writing about oneself, and analyzing the different emotions that one feels. Petrarch wrote a Letter to Posterity in that exact fashion, with his intended audience as his future readers. He writes, “If, however, you should have heard of me, you may desire to know of what manner of man I was, or what the outcome of my labors...” (Petrarch 1). The Petrarch that is known today is almost entirely self-fashioned from the deliberate written pieces that he left behind; he was very accurate with his foresight.

The attention given to remaking the glory of the antiquities is at the core of the renaissance because Petrarch was inspired by Cicero, and had he not been, it is very possible that the renaissance would not play out

as it did. Petrarch developed a new relationship with the texts of old. Central to the philosophy of humanists is the devotion to literature and education. There was a widespread belief that knowledge in these subjects would lead to one being a moral, just and cultured person. This led to a new understanding of the old texts, taking their ideals about human experience and relating them to the modern context; notably making them cohesive with Christianity. The humanists lamented that their Roman ancestors never had the opportunity to know the Christian God; Petrarch ends a letter to Cicero’s Shade with the words “in the year of that God whom you never knew” (Bartlett 34). There is a clear cynicism and disappointment in these words because the humanists of Italy were all devote Christians, even though they prided themselves on secular values.

Petrarch held all the values of the humanists close to his heart, as he lived his life inspired by the culture of Roman antiquity. With a smug, self-awareness rivaled only by the arrogance of his time, Petrarch truly was the first renaissance man.

Bibliography Bartlett, Kenneth R. The Civilization of the Italian Renaissance: A Sourcebook. North York, Ont.: University of

Toronto, 2011. Print.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, The Orator, trans. H. Hubbell (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), pp.

395, 397, 421. Print.

Petrarca, Francesco, and David Thompson. Petrarch: A Humanist among Princes: An Anthology of Petrarch’s

Letters and of Selections from His Other Works. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. 1-13. Print.

The Invention of the Galilean Telescope: an Exploration of its History and Importance Shaun Midanik

∰ The invention of the telescope is an extremely interesting and highly debatable topic of discussion. The common person believes that Galileo Galilei, a world-renowned Italian mathematician and astronomer, invented the device. After much research, the consensus from historians seems to be that the telescope was invented in the Netherlands before Galileo created his first telescope. This is not to say that Galileo does not play a role in the invention of the telescope. He made the telescope popular to the masses in Europe and was generally seen as the ‘face’ of the telescope. This is when the false rumours of him inventing the device were imagined. Galileo made many vastly superior telescopes in comparison to the telescopes of the Netherlands.

Using his superior telescopes, he was able to make great discoveries in the field of astronomy. This research contributed to Galileo’s influence on the telescope. Galileo clearly played an important role in the early days of the telescope. Nevertheless, Hans Lipperhey was the actual inventor of the telescope and his story, along with other important claimants, must be explored in order to better understand Galileo’s later work.

Furthermore, there shall be a discussion of Galileo and his versions of the telescope. This will be followed up by a description of his most basic (and first) telescope and how it functioned. As well, there will be an exploration of the importance of Galileo’s telescope. This includes an account of what he discovered through his device and the various reactions he received (although in Galileo’s case, it was almost always negative).

Galileo did not invent the first ever telescope: it was invented in the Netherlands around a year before (1608) his creation. There is still considerable debate as to who actually invented the telescope though, with three major claimants. The first major claimant is Jacob Metius. He claims to have invented the telescope before Lipperhey while in Alkmaar.1 Metius argues that he had been working with glass for the previous two years and, during this time, discovered that glass had “’stretched’ vision so that one could see distant things.”2 Even if this is true (and it is difficult to prove this conclusively), he did not contact the States-General (the parliament of the Netherlands), until October 17th, 1608. Lipperhey proposed his patent to them on October 2nd of the same year.3 This fifteen day advantage is key in Lipperhey’s debate against Metius. Also, most scholars of the time seem to believe that the telescope was not invented in Alkmaar, but in Middelburg, a small town in the Dutch province of Zeeland.4 Metius’ case indeed appears to be the weakest and was really only brought to popularity as Rene Descartes advocated for his name in 1637 through his famous Dioptrique.5 The next claimant’s case has much more credence than Metius’ claim. Sacharias Janssen was from Middelburg, the generally accepted birthplace of the telescope. Pierre Borrel, a French ambassador to the Netherlands that visited Middelburg to find the true inventor of the telescope, believed that Jansen invented the device. He asked people of the town who had known both Jansen and Lippershey about his work. He concluded in 1655-56 that Jansen was indeed the inventor.6 In 1682, Christiaan Huygens, who almost certainly read Borrel’s report, found a document dating from October 15th, 1608, stating that a citizen of Middelburg had invented an instrument, “for seeing faraway things as if they were nearby.”7 Huygens did not say if it was Lipperhey or Janssen who invented it, but scholars of that time saw this as further proof that Janssen invented the telescope. In fact, up until 1816, Janssen’s status as the true inventor of telescopes was the consensus of scholars in Europe. The Zeeland Academy of Sciences had renewed their interest in order to honour Janssen’s achievements. All they found, to their dismay, was document after document proving that Lipperhey had in fact patented the telescope, not Janssen.8 Lipperhey is the last claimant. His claim was unclear, especially when the Zeeland Academy of Sciences found out that Lipperhey was born in Wesel, Westphalia.9 However, one of these documents they found belonging to the

States-General stated, “On the petition of Hans Lipperhey, a native of Wesel, an inhabitant of Middleburg, spectaclemaker, inventor of an instrument for seeing at a distance, as was proved to the States (Netherlands)”.10 Rumour has it that “two children were playing in Lipperhey’s shop with some lenses and noticed that, by holding two of them in a certain position, the weather-vane of the nearby church appeared much larger.”11 The children’s discovery inspired him to make his first telescope. It is unclear as to what the design was of his first telescope: some people say that he used two convex lens, which made the steeple of the local church appear upside-down, while other people say that he used a convex and a concave lens.12 In any case, Lipperhey’s efforts greatly influenced Galileo’s work later on.

Galileo had heard about the intricacies of Lipperhey’s telescope model and decided to recreate it. He initially heard about the telescope in July of 1609, when he asked Sarpi, a famous Venetian, if the rumours of the telescope were true. Galileo “was shown a letter from his former pupil Jacques Badovere, at Paris, confirming their truth.”13 Galileo then returned to Padua, the location of the famous university that he lectured at, and immediately started to recreate a telescope.14 He had heard when he arrived in Padua that a man had gone through town with a telescope and was on his way to sell the device to the Venetian government. Galileo felt he had to make a better telescope that he could sell as well. He very quickly received results by trying a combination of convex and concave lenses and decided to keep working with this idea.15 He was able to get a magnification of roughly three times.16 He kept working on a stronger telescope and on August 24th, 1609, he presented his superior telescope, with a magnification of about eight times, to the Venetian Doge (the leader of the Republic of Venice).17 He was rewarded with a high-paying, life-long position at Padua.18 Already, he seemed to have the most powerful telescope in all of Europe (certainly more powerful than anything out of the Netherlands), but he did not stop there: in November of 1609, he created a telescope with approximately 15x. In January of 1610, he had a telescope of about 20x. Finally, in March, he had a device that had roughly 30x. This final telescope was the one that he used to make his many astronomical discoveries (which shall be discussed later).19 His vastly superior telescopes had “made spyglasses from the Netherlands obsolete.”20 As well, Prince Federico Cesi had given Galileo’s device a more ‘scientific’ name than spyglass, as a result of his achievements in astronomy.21 He combined two Greek words: Tele means “at a distance” and skopeo means “I observe”.22 Although Galileo created numerous kinds of telescopes, their basic designs all stem from his first telescope.

The first telescope would obviously lay the foundation for the rest of his inventions and thus it is a great place to start. The optical system of Galileo’s first telescope has many intricacies (see attached image). In the image, ‘O’ is the objective lens, the main lens of Galileo’s telescope23 (which in this case is convex24) and ‘e’ is the eyepiece, where the eye is “placed immediately behind” (which is concave in this example).25 Also, ‘l’ is the length of the telescope. This is different than focal length as the focal length of the telescope is “the distance between the objective (and in this case, eyepiece) and its focus (“the point where incoming light is imaged by an optical system”).”26 There are two focal lengths, ‘Fe’ and ‘Fo’, and obviously one focus, ‘F’, on the diagram.

This may sound confusing but it is quite simple: the focus is the eye, O and e are the two lenses, l is the length of the telescope, and Fe and Fo are the distances between the two lenses and the Focus (F). Simple mathematical equations from this diagram can be used to confirm information about Galileo’s telescope. Two equations can be derived from the diagram: ‘l = Fo – Fe’ and ‘m(magnification) = Fo / Fe’.27 Historians believe that telescopes were about 12-14 inches long and it was already stated that Galileo’s first telescope had a magnification of about 3x.28 Once this is calculated, Fo is equal to 18-21 inches while Fe is equal to 6-7 inches.29 These results function extremely well within the time period: spectacle-makers’ weakest convex lenses and strongest concave lenses were equal to these measurements. This meant that a Galilean telescope was only becoming possible in 1609.30 Galileo’s masterful designs for the telescope would not be as significant if he had not made his crucial astronomical discoveries. The first major discovery pertained to the surface of the moon. Scholars before Galileo believed that the Moon had a smooth surface. However, Galileo discovered “that the surface of the moon is not smooth, uniform, and precisely spherical as a great number of philosophers believe it (and the other heavenly bodies) to be, but is uneven, rough, and full of cavities and prominences, being not unlike the face of the Earth, relieved by chains of mountains and deep valleys.”31 This not only radically changed science but also changed the perception of the universe: the heavenly bodies were no longer perfect. Of course, some Christians (who supported this Aristotelian idea of the universe) of the time would never accept his discovery, as with many of his findings.

Before Galileo’s powerful telescopes, people could only see stars with the naked eye, and thus they could only

see the brightest stars in the night sky. However, Galileo was able to see countless numbers of stars: “with the telescope such a great number of others, invisible to natural sight, as almost not to be believed.”32 Furthermore, on January 7th, 1610, Galileo noted that he saw three ‘stars’ near Jupiter.33 On January 8th, when he looked back, it appeared that these stars had moved toward the east instead of towards the west (as he had predicted).34 He concluded on January 10th after more observation, that the four ‘stars’ (he discovered a fourth one later) moved around the planet, like the Moon on Earth.35 He considered this his greatest accomplishment, as it was undeniable proof of a Copernican system: a heliocentric universe. Other planets would surely have satellites like Earth. This proves that the Earth is not a special planet, the entire universe does not revolve around it.

Galileo’s next discovery was originally written in a letter (to Giuliano de Medici, an important family in Florence) in latin: “Cynthiae figures aemultaur mater amorum.”36 This translates to “The mother of love (Venus) emulates the configurations of Cynthia (the Moon)”. Essentially, Venus has phases like the Moon does.37 Galileo noticed that the phases of Venus didn’t match the phases that should have existed in an Aristotelian universe.38 It was thought that this was further proof that the universe was heliocentric. However, Tycho’s theory in 1584, in which every body revolves around the Sun except Earth, makes it possible for there to be a geocentric universe and the correct phases of Venus.39 Nevertheless, it made it more likely that the universe was heliocentric. The last major discovery that Galileo made caused a massive debate with the Jesuit Christoph Scheiner. Galileo had discovered dark spots when looking at the surface of the Sun.40 Scheiner, who wanted to keep the perfect Artotelian view of the universe intact, said that these dark spots were actually groupings of smaller planets that revolved around the Sun.41 However, Galileo argued against this notion with multiple pieces of evidence. He said that the sunspots disappeared and reappeared constantly, they had irregular shapes and sizes and they had a period of about one month (roughly how long it takes the Sun to rotate).42 Paolo Del Santo says it best: “the sun was subject to continuous and random changes [that] profoundly undermined the whole edifice of Aristotelian cosmology.”43 All of the discoveries that Galileo made were simply not possible without the telescope. Thus, it dramatically changed how Europeans viewed their place in the universe.

As evident, Galileo played a vital role in the invention of the telescope. This is in spite of the fact that he did not actually invent it himself. A Dutchman named Hans Lipperhey did invent the device. Nevertheless, Galileo’s many telescopes and their varying magnifications had a profound impact on astronomy. As well, there was an examination of Galileo’s first telescope. Finally, the discoveries that Galileo made with these new telescopes were crucial to the field of astronomy. Without Galileo’s telescopes, the undeniable evidence for a heliocentric universe would not have existed at this time, or any time in the foreseeable future.

Notes

9 Ibid, 7.

10 King, The History of the Telescope, 31.

11 Ibid, 30.

12 Ibid, 30-31.

13 Drake, Stillman. Galileo: Pioneer Scientist. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), 132.

14 Ibid, 132.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid, 133.

17 Del Santo et al., “Galileo’s Telescope”, 43.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid, 45.

21 Ibid, 45.

22 Ibid, 45.

23 Baker, Robert H., and Laurence W. Frederick. An Introduction to Astronomy . 7th ed. (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1968), 353.

24 Van Helden, The Invention of the Telescope, 11.

1 Van Helden, Albert. The Invention of the Telescope . (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1977),6.

25 Ibid.

2 Del Santo, Paolo, Jim and Rhoda Morris, Giorgio Strano, and Albert Van Helden. “Galileo’s Telescope.” In: Galileo’s Telescope The Instrument that Changed the World. (Florence: Giunti Editore , 2008), 36.

26 Baker, Robert H., and Laurence W. Frederick, 353.

3 Ibid, 36-37.

4 Van Helden, The Invention of the Telescope, 6.

5 Ibid.

6 King, Henry C. The History of the Telescope . (London: Charles Griffin and Company Limited, 1955), 32.

7 Van Helden, The Invention of the Telescope, 6.

8 Ibid, 7.

27 Van Helden, The Invention of the Telescope, 11.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Del Santo et al., “Galileo’s Telescope”, 49-50.

32 Ibid, 51.

33 Ibid, 53.

34 Ibid.

Chapter 3

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid, 53-55.

39 Ibid, 55.

40 Ibid, 55.

41 Ibid 56.

42 Ibid, 56-57.

43 Ibid, 58.

Attached Image

Bibliography

Baker, Robert H., and Laurence W. Frederick. An Introduction to Astronomy. 7th ed. Princeton: D. Van

Nostrand Company, Inc., 1968.

Del Santo, Paolo, Jim and Rhoda Morris, Giorgio Strano, and Albert Van Helden. “Galileo’s Telescope.” In:

Galileo’s Telescope The Instrument that Changed the World. Florence: Giunti Editore , 2008.

Drake, Stillman. Galileo: Pioneer Scientist. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990.

King, Henry C. The History of the Telescope. London: Charles Griffin and Company

Limited, 1955.

Van Helden, Albert. The Invention of the Telescope. Philadelphia: American

Philosophical Society, 1977.

Genre Paintings of Women in Domestic Settings: Mistresses and Maids Klara Kovar

∰

Seventeenth-century Dutch society was highly preoccupied with the home as a site for the repository of cultural ideals1. Although huiselijkheid (domesticity) had been important in the sixteenth-century, it became particularly valuable to the development of the Dutch Republic as an independent country.2 It is for this reason that politicians, moralists, theologians, and painters focused on the theme of domesticity, in particular during the second half of the seventeenth-century3 when the Dutch Republic was officially recognized as an independent country, after the Treaty of Münster in 1648.4 Domestic space was defined as the domain of women, and thus genre paintings of this theme often lack the presence of male figures.5 The concept of ‘home’ existed as a polar opposite to ‘world’, where the street was understood to connect these two opposing concepts of social and physical space.6 The spatial construction of genre paintings of women in domestic settings permits a view into the exterior world, either through a doorway or a window, thus creating a constant reference to the exterior world. Although there were numerous themes of domestic scenes, the genre paintings that depict mistresses and their maids uniquely convey ideals of the proper household, while complicating the distinct definition of domestic space as feminine, in contrast to public space as masculine, through spatial and social interactions between the home and the exterior world.

The definition of the home as feminine coincides with the development of defining the home as a private space, away from public life, which became a defining feature of modern life.7 In addition, the home was considered a microcosm of the state and of the church.8 Described by politicians as a smaller version of the state, it allowed for the ideals of the newly developed Dutch society to be established in the daily lives of its citizens.9 Thus, the household was understood to function as the building blocks in developing and defining the Dutch Republic in contrast to other countries in Europe. As a result, it was encouraged, through literature, that the homes be kept ordered and economically sound, as this would reflect the development of the country as a whole.10 In paintings this is manifested in the depiction of the home as an immaculate space, where the painter’s hand has controlled the interior space.11 Theologians described the home as a kleyne kerk (small chruch), where cleanliness was comparable to godliness, and the home was a site where one could engage on a personal level with God.12 The idea of the home as a reflection of the sate and of the church was expounded in moralizing literature, which assisted in establishing these ideals in seventeenth-century Dutch society. One of the staple texts on the home and family life was Jacob Cats’s Houwelijck (1625) (Figure 1), which divides a woman’s life into six stages, and describes her responsibilities in order to echo societal ideals.13 Similarly, genre paintings are intellectual repositories of societal ideals, some of which are shared with those that can be found in Cats’s Houwelijck. These ideals functioned as reflections of the stability of society, yet they were not the lived realities of seventeenth-century Dutch society. The antithesis of these ideals of the home are also depicted in paintings, such as brothel and tavern scenes, which can be understood as a reflection of some of the realities of life, and as a source of pleasures that could not be found within the boundaries of the ideals of society.

Genre paintings of women in domestic settings have a number of general subjects, which reflect prevailing ideals of society. Focusing specifically on the interaction of women with their maids, these paintings synthesize societal ideals and stereotypes with depictions of plausible realities in a domestic setting. A multiplicity of mistress-maid associations exist in genre painting, where one can find a symbiotic relationship of household duties between mistresses and maids, mistresses and maids interacting on the threshold of the home with sellers of goods, and misbehaving maids seen by their mistresses. These

genre paintings provide invaluable contemporary examples on the ideals of mistress-maid relationships, while also illustrating the rather complicated relationship between the domestic and the public spheres.

In addition, these paintings allow a view of the ideal layout and furnishings of seventeenth-century Dutch houses, aiding in the overall development of the specialization of rooms over the course of the seventeenth-century. These genre paintings were hung in the homes of the upper and middle class, where they conveyed prevailing ideals of social behaviour and also helped to construct these ideals.14

Jacob Cats, and other moralists, emphasized that the relationship between a housewife and her maids should be one of symbiosis, where the housewife works alongside the maids, rather than simply delegating household work, and treats the maid as a member of the family.15 In Cats’s perspective, the maid, whose social situation and age was marked with the temptations and dangers of worldly possibilities, could be guided to a virtuous lifestyle by the mistress.16 In reality, the treatment of maids did not reflect the ideals of Cats. Rather than being treated as members of the family, who were loyal and trustworthy, they were usually hired contractually,17 for only brief periods of time, in about ten to twenty percent of Dutch households.18 Although it is impossible to make a direct parallel between the ideals of literature and those depicted in paintings, it is clear that a close relationship between mistresses and maids in keeping the household functioning was a prevalent ideal in seventeenth century Dutch society. Pieter de Hooch is one of the Dutch genre painters who best illustrates this relationship in Interior with Two Women Beside a Linen Chest (Figure 2), where a mistress and maid work together on the household activity of organizing linen.

Interior with Two Women Beside a Linen Chest depicts a dark and simple interior occupied by three figures; the housewife, the maid, and a child. The main action of this scene takes place in the foreground on the left, where the mistress and maid stand by the open linen chest, into which the viewer cannot see. The mistress is clearly identifiable by her costume, as her ermine-trimmed jacked contrasts with the simpler attire of the maid.19 It is not certain exactly what activity these two women are engaged in, whether organizing or counting linen, but they are clearly both engrossed in this domestic activity, which reflects the diligent care of the order of the household.20 The two women, although clearly distinguished in terms of social class by their attire, are working symbiotically, reflecting Cats’s ideal. Behind them is a basket of dirty linen, and in the doorway of the room a child is playing kolf.21 The function of the child in this painting is ambiguous, as neither the mistress nor the maid place any attention on her. It may be a reference to the idea that childrearing was considered directly related to the home, where moral and spiritual education began, taught by the housewife.22 However, kolf, an outdoor game, often associated with folly and wasteful pleasure, may be a metaphor for proper household order.23 In kolf the ball must be hit correctly in order that one may succeed in the game, and thus associated with the idea of working toward a clear goal, reflecting the symbiotic relationship between mistress and maid.24 Whatever the function of the child, this painting shows an ideal household situation between a mistress and her maid which follows the one described by Cats in Houwelijck.

The interior space of this painting is impeccably painted with the use of perspective to emphasize the order of the household. From architectural plans, it is clear that the space occupied by the figures is an adjoining room to the voorhuis, the semi-public space of the home.25 On the right is a winding staircase leading upstairs to other parts of the household into which the viewer has no access, and thus insinuates the privacy of the rest of the domestic space. The room is dimly lit, reflecting the lighting of seventeenth-century Dutch homes.26 Through the artistic technique of doorsien, commonly employed by seventeenth-century Dutch painters of interior scenes, the domestic space is connected to the exterior world.27 Almost as a side-note the eyes moves from the central space through the doorway to the ancillary exterior space seen through the open door. There, the viewer is faced with a light-filled exterior, and the view of a neighbouring home. It is thus, through the construction of the space, that the domestic scene is connected to the exterior world. In considering this painting by Pieter de Hooch, it is also important to note his method of painting; he painted the setting before he painted the figures.28 This emphasis placed on the setting reflects the importance of domestic spaces, particularly for Pieter de Hooch, who came from Delft, where due to fires many of the houses were rebuilt in the architectural design of Philip Vingboons, reflecting the modern approach to household architecture that developed in the seventeenth-century, where rooms began to have specialized functions.29 In addition, since de Hooch placed his figures in the painting after he had formed a proper setting, it is clear that their placement in relation

to one another has been constructed by the artist, and functions to convey a particular social message.30 Interior with Two Women Beside a Linen Chest also conveys ideals of the interior setting, lacking the many furnishings commonly found in Dutch households, and artistic capabilities of rendering familiar daily objects.31 Thus, the culturally understood ideals of mistress maid relationships conveyed in Interior with Two Women Beside a Linen Chest also exemplifies architectural and artistic aspirations of the seventeenth-century.

The interaction of the domestic space and its urban context assumes a certain tension within the context of a distinct separation of these physical and social spaces in seventeenthcentury Dutch ideals of society.32 An interaction between these two spaces is illustrated in genre paintings of sellers at the threshold of a home, which were painted by Quiringh van Brekelenkam and Jacob Ochtervelt, among other painters. Unlike Interior with Two Women Beside a Linen Chest, these paintings, which include mistresses and maids interacting with sellers, emphasize the necessary interaction of the domestic sphere with the public world for the purpose of acquiring food, without taking women from their domestic setting.33 These paintings can be contrasted with market scenes, where housewives, often accompanied by their maids, purchase food outside the domestic context. Market scenes depict housewives, symbols of domesticity, in a public space, while these paintings show women in domestic settings interacting with sellers who have entered into their homes.34 Although the mistress is in charge of the decision to purchase the food, and of the economic order of the household, it is the maid who primarily interacts with these sellers, thus implicating that the maid’s function was that of an intermediary between the domestic and worldly spheres.35 In this context, the common understanding of the maid as closely-related to the exterior world, in contrast to the mistress, may be seen to function as an aid to domestic order. Once again, these paintings convey a clever synthesis of observed fact as well as established societal ideals. Looking specifically at Quiringh van Brekelenkam’s Mistress Choosing Fish (Figure 3) and Jacob Ochtervelt’s The Grape Seller (Figure 4), the delicate interaction of the domestic space with the exterior world, as described in Cats’s Houwelijck and other domestic literature, becomes obscured by these paintings that construct a natural and safe interaction of these two social spheres, mediated by the maid.

Quiringh van Brekelenkam’s Mistress Choosing Fish is an interior scene that depicts a maid showing her mistress a selection of fish. The women are distinguishable by their social class via their attire; the mistress wears an ermine-trimmed jacket, while the maid’s clothing is much less expensive. The mistress has been working on some needlework, but has stopped in order to inspect the fish.36 The setting is a room with no reference to its specific function. Below the open window on the left is a table, while in the foreground a chair is located with a brush and a rag. In the background hangs a painting of a shepherdess in a landscape and a clock. Lying on the floor is a single shoe, the other one still on the foot of the mistress, as can be seen sticking out from under her dress. The removed shoe is a traditional symbol of domesticity, and paired with needlework, these motifs convey the domestic virtue of the mistress.37 By inspecting the fish, the mistress shows her diligence in the proper care of household matters. On the right, in the background, the open door allows for a view into the adjoining room, where a man is standing, most likely the fish seller.38 His subtle presence reminds us that the fish came from the exterior world, and conveys the necessity of interaction between the domestic and worldly spheres.39 The fish seller is in a separate room from the space occupied by the mistress and the maid, likely the voorhuis, thus exemplifying the specific function of the voorhuis as the semi-public space of the home in contrast to the rest of the home, which is conveyed as private.40 The mistress has no direct interaction with the seller, but rather it is through her maid that a purchase can be achieved. In this situation the relationship between the mistress and the maid is one of dependence, where the maid acts as the intermediary between the domestic space and the exterior world, while the architectural layout of the household specifies the extent to which the exterior world may enter into the home.

Jacob Ochtervelt’s The Grape Seller is of a similar theme as Mistress Choosing Fish, however, the scene has been moved to the threshold of the home. Set in the doorway between the home and the street, the interaction of the grape seller with the mistress, maid, and child permits neither a full view of the interior space nor of the exterior world, but rather conveys an ambiguity of both spaces. Through the open door the interior is flooded with light, and an unidentifiable landscape can be seen outside. On the wall hangs a map, referencing the world, and below it is a simple chair.41 In the foreground is a small lap dog, and stick and a hoop, a toy of the child, placed to the side in order that she may be a part of this purchase, rather than acting

as an auxiliary figure, as in Interior with Two Women Beside a Linen Chest. The grape seller is framed in the doorway of the house, neither fully inside nor fully outside. Her monochrome brown attire contrasts with the salmon pink dress of the child, the black blouse and violet skirt of the maid, and the yellow velvet dress of the mistress of the house.42 Through costume the specific social functions of the figures are understood, and their physical location in the scene also conveys a relationship to the domestic and worldly spheres. A circle of figures is created around the basket of grapes, the grape seller weighing the grapes as the child feeds the kneeling maid a grape. The maid, holding out the bowl, is ready to receive the grapes, while the mistress hovers behind the child, preparing to pay for the goods. The mistress, however, seems removed from the action of the scene, as though hesitant or afraid of interacting directly with the grape seller. The direct interaction with the grape seller occurs through the maid and the child, and thus, the maid, who was understood as related to the exterior world, acts as an intermediary between the domestic sphere, symbolized by the mistress, and the exterior world, symbolized by the grape seller, as all the figures occupy the transitional space of the threshold.

The relationship between the home and maids was also considered dangerous, as maids were seen as purveyors of vices and disorder from the exterior world.43 They were considered responsible for the breakdown of domestic order,44 and this was the most common view of maids in the sixteenth- century, modified with the major political, social, and religious changes that occurred in the seventeenth-century.45 There are fewer existing paintings of misbehaving maids than there are of the idealized relationships, where the family-like relationship between maids and the household are exemplified.46 Nevertheless, the association of maids with negative influences continued to be a part of seventeenth-century society. The merging of the old and new attitudes toward maid is visualized in the eavesdropper series by Nicolaes Maes, of which six still remain.47 These paintings contain conventional motifs of the misbehaving maid and the breakdown of the order (moral and religious) of the household, yet, in the context of the eavesdropper theme, this didactic element is not completely evident. In this series of paintings the mistress and the maid are not found working together, but rather separated by physical location in the household and the activities in which they are engaged. Focusing specifically on The Eavesdropper (Figure 5), the interaction of the figures and the complicated conversation created through the relationship of the events in the central and ancillary scenes provides a unique social and physical structure of the house.

The Eavesdropper is a painting that shows a mistress standing on the stairs, looking out at the viewer with a knowing smile and a finger to her lips. According to her stance, it seems that she has just left the group of people in the room upstairs and is listening in on the maid and the man downstairs. The maid is leading the man into anther room of the house, and it has been assumed that he is a soldier, because of the sword and cloak in the foreground on the right.48 These clues are placed under a map of the world, thus emphasizing the particular association of soldiers with the exterior world. Soldiers, although important, were typically seem as marginal figures in society, not quite fitting into the daily life of seventeenth-century Dutch culture.49 They are also often depicted in scenes of brothels and ill behaviour, and thus were not always associated with morally correct ways of life. In the room on the right, into which the maid is leading the soldier, is a cat eating food, a typical motif to signify a maid neglecting her duties, which result in a breakdown of household order.50 The motifs of worldliness and disorder, connected to the maid neglecting her duties, are not depicted as resulting in the breakdown of domestic order, but are obscured by the amused expression of the mistress. Thus, the misbehaving maid, rather than providing a traditional image of the breakdown of household order, conveys the introduction of the exterior world (the soldier) into the household, and obscure its private function of the home.

The location of the housewife in this painting not only permits a view of the order of the social event in the upstairs scene and the misbehaviour of the maid downstairs, but also provides a visual construction of household architecture.51 The Eavesdropper elucidates the important function of the stairs in seventeenthcentury Dutch households, as they act as the connecting space between different floors and rooms, but also, in the case of this painting, function as the neutral household space that allows one to see numerous activities occurring in the home. The doorsien of The Eavesdropper allows the viewer to explore the interior space of this home, while at the same time the open door, in the background on the right, permits a view into the street outside, where the façade of another house can be seen. This view to the outside acts in a similar way as in Pieter de Hooch’s Interior with Two Women Beside a Linen Chest, where the view into the world

outside the home is illustrated almost as an after thought, reminding the viewer that the domestic space always exists in contrast to the worldly space. However, as a result of the maid interacting with the soldier and the party of both men and women upstairs, The Eavesdropper seems to employ the reference, through doorsien, to the exterior world as a reminder of where the men came from. This space is not rendered as primarily female, but rather a space of social interaction that is overseen by the housewife on the stairs.

Nicolaes Maes provides a unique view into the construction of the domestic interior, influenced by the popular seventeenth-century with perspective boxes that showed capabilities in rendering spatial depth. Although stairs were sometimes depicted in paintings, they were rarely the place for the central action, as is the case here. There are two main events that are depicted in this painting; the group of people dining upstairs, and the maid interacting with the soldier downstairs, which do not seem to influence one another. It is through the ancillary space of the stairs, the central setting of the painting, that a connection is made between these two events, reflecting the private on-goings in the rooms of seventeenth-century Dutch households.

It is not certain exactly how the contemporary viewer would have understood these genre paintings of women in domestic scenes, where plausible realities and social ideals are merged, as it would have been clear to them that these were ideal images placed in ideal settings.52 However, these paintings were a part of seventeenth-century Dutch culture, they actively assisted in constructing these ideals, just as the literature of moralists, such as Jacob Cats, had a role in constructing these, and other seventeenth-century Dutch ideals of society. Many ideas were conveyed through these paintings, creating various statements on the relationship of mistresses and maids, and the domestic and worldly spheres. Pieter de Hooch’s Interior with Two Women Beside a Linen Chest reflects an ideal symbiotic relationship between mistress and maid, where the exterior world is depicted as an afterthought. Ochtervelt’s The Grape Seller, and van Brekelenkam’s Mistress Choosing Fish show commercial interactions occurring in a household setting, where the maid mediates between the domestic and the worldly spheres. In contrast, Nicolaes Maes’s The Eavesdropper merges the negative understanding of maids with a description of the interior space, which, combined, provide a definition of the interior space and obscure conventional understandings of maids. Overall, these genre paintings help to construct seventeenth-century Dutch society and the architectural space of the home.

The home was such an important space for seventeenth-century Dutch culture that in paintings the distinction between genre paintings and portraiture is sometimes obscured. Many families had their portraits done in a domestic setting, such as Pieter de Hooch’s Portrait of a Family Making Music (Figure 6), and Hendrik Sorgh’s The Family of Jacob Bierens (Figure 7). Although these portraits show families engaged in a domestic setting or domestic activities, it is clear that they are portraits, unlike the genre scenes discussed above, because the hierarchy of the family is illustrated through traditional portraiture motifs.53 However, these portraits provide further intellectual interpretation of social ideals of the value of the home, the family, and the relationship of the people who made up the household. The domestic setting was certainly of value to the Dutch Republic, whether in genre paintings, portraiture or literature, and the ideals that were expressed act as fundamental reference points for the development of the Dutch Republic as an independent and unique country. Just as the ideals of society and domesticity were constructed using the sphere of the daily lives of citizens, so the domestic space functioned as a constructed definition of the Dutch Republic in its seventeenth–century context.

Notes 1 Mariët Westermann. “Costly and Curious, Full of Pleasure and Home Contentment: Making Home in the Dutch Republic”. In Art and Home: Dutch Interiors in the Age of Rembrandt, edited by Mariët Westermann.

Netherlands: Waanders Publishers, 2001,15.

2 Westermann, 47.

3 Perry H.Chapman. “Home and the Display of Privacy”. In Art and Home: Dutch Interiors in the Age of Rembrandt, edited by Mariët Westermann. Netherlands: Waanders Publishers, 2001, 132.

4 Wayne E. Franits. Dutch Seventeenth-Century Genre Painting: Its Stylistic and Thematic Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008, 95. The Dutch Republic had already be conducting its business as an independent country since the early seventeenth-century, as is evident with the necessity for, and establishment of the Twelve Years Truce (1609-21) for the prosperity of trade in the North and South Netherlands. However, there were a number of countries that were reluctant to accept the Dutch Republic as separate from the Netherlands ruled by the Spanish Hapsburgs, and it was the Treaty of 1648 that finally solidified political independence.

5 Wayne E Franits.. Paragons of Virtue: Women and Domesticity in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 84. Men were often the absent presence of genre paintings of domestic interiors, since the man was considered the “ruler” of the home, even though it was the responsibility of the woman to keep it in order. In addition, men are often painted as figures whose presence is temporary in the home, illustrated by motifs of the cloak, which is often painted as if set aside only for a short period of time.

6 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 3.

7 Martha Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes: Space and Meaning in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002, 164-167.

8 Chapman, 133-152.

9 Chapman, 133-152.

10 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 177.

11 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 124- 177. The interior spaces that are described in these scenes of domestic interior do not directly reflect the realities of the furnishing of seventeenth-century Dutch homes.

Inventories show that homes had many more items than the sparse interiors of these paintings, and dollhouses, a preoccupation of upper class women, confirm the visual reality of Dutch homes.

12 Westermann, 54.

13 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 5-6. Houwelijck is a comprehensive treaties on marriage and family life with an alphabetical index for easy reference. Although it was not the only seventeenth-century book on marriage and the family, it was certainly one of the most popular, and one of the few to address the text primarily to women.

It is divided into six stages; maeght (maiden), vryster (sweetheart), bruyt (bride), vrouwe (wife), moeder (mother), and weduwe (widow). Originally, the engravings were done by Adriaen van de Venne, thus indicating that it was originally intended for the elite, but later editions had simpler woodcuts, and was published in a quarto rather than an octavo. By mid-century, 50,000 copies of Houwelijck were in print, reflecting the particular importance of this text, and of domestic life in general.

14 Chapman, 129.

15 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 107.

16 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 137. “As Cats’s poem makes clear, the virtuous wife succeeds and controls her former self--the lovesick girl--just as she must maintain control of her lazy, possibly dishonest, sexually loose servant. The freedom of women, young and old, was interpreted by native writers as a threat to the patriarchal order of social and domestic life. All women, regardless of age or social position, had the anarchic potential to threaten the delicate balance between active control and passive obedience.”

17 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 109.

18 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 109. And Klaske Muizelaar and Derek Phillips. Picturing Men and Women in the Dutch Golden Age: Paintings and People in Historical Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press,

2003, 14. In addition, disputes over wages seem to have one of the common issues.

19 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 104. “De Hooch’s use of dress as a signifier of social position would have certainly met with the approval of contemporary moralists for “apparel is one of those outward signs whereby the wisdome of masters and mistresses in well governing their servants is manifested in the world.” Moreover, they would have been pleased by the motif of the housewife actively assisting her maid. According to the authors of domestic conduct books, the mistress was not to supervise her servants by delegating every single task; rather she was to work alongside them.”

20 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 104-107.

21 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 106.

22 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 106-107.

23 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 106-107.

24 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 106-107.

25 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 154.

26 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 163.

27 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 163-170.

28 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 162.

29 Martha Hollander. “Public and Private Life in the Art of Pieter de Hooch.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 51 (2000), 274.

30 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 162.

31 Muizelaar and Phillips, 54.

32 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 3.

33 Susan Donahue Kuretsky. The Paintings of Jacob Ochtervelt, 1634-1682: With catalogue raisonné. Montclair: Allanheld, 1979, 34-39. The Grape Seller and the Mistress Choosing Fish show commercial interactions, which connect the domestic and the worldly spheres. In fact, Ochtervelt painted numerous scenes of these threshold interactions between domestic figures and spaces, and musicians, and sellers of fish, fruit, and poultry. There are also many copies of these scenes, which merge an idealized visual example of daily life with the complex relationship between the mistress and the maid, and between the domestic and the worldly spheres.

Van Brekelenkam, on the other hand, focused on fish sellers and the description of the interior space only insinuating the exterior world through the subject matter of the painting. Regardless, both painters convey a complex interaction of the domestic and worldly spaces, where the maids act as the intermediary figures.

34 Kuretsky, 34-39.

35 Kuretsky, 35-36.

36 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 102-105.

37 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 30-76.

38 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 103-104.

39 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 103-104.

40 Hollander. “Public and Private Life”, 274.

41 Kuretsky, 35-36.

42 Kuretsky, 76.

43 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 104.

44 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 104.

45 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 136-139.

46 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 107.

47 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 104.

48 Martha Hollander. “The Divided Household of Nicolaes Maes.” Word and Image 10 (1994),139.

49 Martha Hollander. “The Divided Household of Nicolaes Maes.” Word and Image 10 (1994),139. And, Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes, 110. The conflicts of the domestic settings of Maes reflect the stock situations of rederijkes comedies.

50 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 108. Johan de Brune’s proverb: “a kitchen maid must have one eye on the pan

and the other on the cat.”

51 Hollander. An Entrance for the Eyes,104-150. 52 Westermann, 15-20.

53 Franits. Paragons of Virtue, 88.

Figure 1: Jacob Cats Houwelijck (1625)

Figure 3: Quiringh van Brekelenkam Mistress Choosing Fish (1664) Oil on canvas Manchester City Art Gallery, Manchester

Figure 2: Pieter de Hooch Interior with Two Women Beside a Linen Chest Oil on canvas 72 x 77.5 cm Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Bibliography Brown, Christopher. Scenes of Everyday Life: Dutch Genre Painting of the Seventeenth-Century. 140- Boston: Faber and Faber, 1984.

151.

Chapman, Perry H.. “Home and the Display of Privacy”. In Art and Home: Dutch Interiors in the Age Rembrandt, edited by Mariët Westermann. 129-152. Netherlands: Waanders Publishers, 2001.

of

Fock, Willemijn C.. “Semblance or Reality? The Domestic Interior in Seventeenth-century Dutch Genre Painting”. In Art and Home: Dutch Interiors in the Age of Rembrandt, edited by Mariët Westermann. 83101. Netherlands: Waanders Publishers, 2001.

Franits, Wayne E.. Dutch Seventeenth Century Genre Painting: Its Stylistic and Thematic Evolution.

Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

Franits, Wayne E.. Paragons of Virtue: Women and Domesticity in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

New

Hollander, Martha. An Entrance for the Eyes: Space and Meaning in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art. 1- 5, 103-200. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Figure 4:Jacob Ochtervelt The Grape Seller (1669) Oil on canvas 81 x 66.5 cm The Hermitage, Leningrad

Figure 5: Nicolaes Maes The Eavesdropper (1657) Oil on canvas 92.5 x 122 cm Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht

Hollander, Martha. “Public and Private Life in the Art of Pieter de Hooch.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 51 (2000), 272-293.

Hollander, Martha. “The Divided Household of Nicolaes Maes.” Word and Image 10 (1994), 138-155.

Kuretsky, Susan Donahue. The Paintings of Jacob Ochtervelt, 1634-1682: With catalogue raisonné.

34-39,76, 186, 191. Montclair: Allanheld, 1979.

Muizelaar, Klaske, and Derek Phillips. Picturing Men and Women in the Dutch Golden Age: Paintings and People in Historical Perspective. 1-63, 113-137, 161-174. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.

Schama, Simon. The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. 375480. New York: Distributed by Random House, 1987.

Westermann, Mariët. “Costly and Curious, Full of Pleasure and Home Contentment: Making Home in the Dutch Republic”. In Art and Home: Dutch Interiors in the Age of Rembrandt, edited by Mariët Westermann.

15-81. Netherlands: Waanders Publishers, 2001.

Figure 6: Pieter de Hooch Portrait of a Family Making Music (1663) Oil on canvas 100.3 x 119.4 cm The Cleveland Museum of Art

Figure 7:Hendrik Sorgh The Family of Jacob Bierens (1663) Oil on panel 52 x 71 cm Rijksdienst Beeldende Kunst, The Hague

Sculptural Practices and Material Culture in Vasari’s Lives Klara Kovar

∰

The parte teorica (technical preface) to Giorgio Vasari’s The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (1568), although omitted from most translations, is an informative and insightful portion of the Lives on the various materials and techniques of art-production within the Renaissance.1 Looking specifically at reductive sculpture, the technical preface provides an understanding of the relationship between the innate properties of the raw materials, the techniques employed, and the final product as envisioned in the mind of the sculptor (disegno). In reductive sculpture (including engravings), the raw materials employed by the artist are not a mixture prepared by human hands, but have rather been created by the laws of nature, and are thus subject to more restricted handling.2 In the preface to the entire Lives, Vasari introduces the parte teorica, where “...discoursing of sculpture, I will tell how statues are wrought, and the form and the proportion that are looked for in them, and of what kinds are good sculpture, with all the most secret and necessary precepts.”3 This serves both intended readers; for the courtly reader the technical preface was as an informative source on the manual side of art-production, while for the artist, it could serve as instructive lessons. Vasari reminds the reader, in the parte teorica, that “After all however, good stones and well tempered tools apart, the one thing essential in art, the intelligence, and the judgement of those who use them, for there is the greatest difference between artists, although they may all use the same method, as to the measure of grace and beauty they impart to the works which they execute.”4 Yet, the technical preface serves also to remind the reader that, although the intellectual side of art production is the focus of the Lives, it cannot be considered independently of the manual aspects of artistic creation. Thus, the parte teorica provides the complementary manual perspective to the rest of the Lives, which primarily focus on the biographies and works of artists, thereby demonstrating an indivisible dichotomy between the material and the intellectual aspects of reductive sculpture.

In order to understand the relationship between the material and the intellectual side of sculpting, the parte teorica must be considered in conjunction with the biographies in the Lives. The technical preface is written in three parts, ascending from architecture to sculpture, finally culminating with painting.5 Although the first section is on architecture, the detailed descriptions of the sources, colouring, and hardness of the stone, as well as the order of tools and approaches necessary to sculpt successfully from particular stones, are also applicable to sculpture.6 For this reason, the section devoted to sculpture alone does not suffice in considering reductive sculpture through Vasari, as it only touches upon sculpting from stone, focusing on wood, clay, wax, and bronze sculptures.7 The parte teorica provides an insight into the workshops of the craftsmen whose biographies are the main purpose of the Lives; Vasari describes how Renaissance craftsmen successfully handled their tools and materials, as well as the difficulties they could face. Thus, the technical preface emphasizes the importance of an understanding of the innate properties of these materials, which is the means by which sculptors may successfully impart their concept (concetto) onto the material they are sculpting.8

Through the biographies of the third part of the Lives, numerous sculptors demonstrate the ingenuity of coupling their designs with their understanding of the stone or wood they employ. Through Matteo dal Nassaro and Michelangelo Buonarroti, Vasari describes the ability of these sculptors to triumph over the inherent properties and “defects” of the stones they employ, thereby emphasizing artistic genius.9 For the former, the challenges are derived from creations by nature, while for the latter, the material challenges are created by other sculptors. The technical virtuosity of sculpting is particularly evident in the small-scale, such as the microsculpture of the Passion of Christ by Madonna Properzia de’Rossi.10 Vasari’s description

of this sculpture exemplifies a mastery over nature through a masterly use of tools and techniques upon the peach-stone. Finally, the coupling of the material side and the intellectual side is best visualized in Michelangelo’s four unfinished Slaves for the tomb of Julius II, now in the Galleria dell’Academia. Here the idea and the manual processes of sculpting are juxtaposed at a half-way point,11 where these two sides of sculpting can be seen to contribute equally to the value of the sculptures. The raw material of a sculpture is not only the material though which the design of the sculptor is expressed, but its innate properties are also the determining law to which the design is subjected, and it is thus that the two elements, which encompass the essentials of the dichotomy of the material and the intellectual side of reductive sculpture, are present.12 Vasari describes the various properties of stones for sculpture in the parte teorica, where the two predominant concerns are colour and the unity of the structure of the stone.13 Although each type of stone, and each individual piece may have different properties, Vasari notes a preference for stones with the “...fewest blemishes and free of knots and nuts which very often occur...occasioning no little difficulty to the worker, and spoiling the statues even when they are finished.”14 Unlike sculptures of clay and bronze, where the material is manipulated by the artist in order to create required properties, reductive sculpture requires the sculptor to work with the properties that have been endowed to the material by nature.15 For Vasari, unity in colour, and lack of imperfections provide the best raw materials for the expression of the idea in the sculptor’s mind, as this allows for the sculptor to more freely express the design without too many technical concerns.16 However, sculpture is limited by “...the stubbornness and the imperfections of the material…”17, and thus artists must contend with these elements. It is the ability of the sculptor to make use of the inherent properties of the materials in expressing their design which endows the sculpture with material and technical value. Through Matteo dal Nassaro’s carvings on gemstones, Vasari describes and extols the way in which he masters nature by employing the speckles of colour, innate in the semi-precious stones of his engravings, to express the subject matter, while Michelangelo triumphs over damaged marble in the David. Together, these examples demonstrate how the difficulties and challenges of the innate properties of the raw materials used for sculpture are employed to furnish these sculptures with value from the technical and material perspective, in addition to the design.

Matteo dal Nassaro’s biography is written within the one biography which Vasari dedicates to engravers of cameos and gems.18 Vasari is impressed with Matteo dal Nassaro’s ability to make creative use of the disunity of colour in two particular works; one from a piece of jasper, and the other from a piece of chalcedony. Looking at Vasari’s description of the two engravings, it becomes evident how Vasari valued the technical creativity of Matteo dal Nassaro in terms of his use of the nature of the colours of the jasper and chalcedony; “...it chanced that there fell into his hands a beautiful piece of green jasper, marked with red spots, as the good pieces are; and he engraved into it a Deposition from the Cross with such diligence that he made the wounds come out in those parts of the jasper that were spotted with the colour of blood, which caused that work to be a very rare one, and brought him much commendation.”19 The second instance was when “...a very fine chalcedony, found in a river, Matteo engraved divinely well the head of a Deianira almost in almost full-relief, wearing the lion’s skin, the surface being tawny in colour; and he turned to such good advantage a vein of red that was in that stone, representing with it the inner side of the lion’s skin at its juncture with its head, that the skin had the appearance of one newly flayed. Another spot of colour he used for the hair, and the white for the face and the breast, and all with admirable mastery.”20 Although for the jasper, Vasari notes that the red is not uncommon in the nature of the material, he is amazed with the “diligence that he made the wounds come out of the jasper that were spotted with the colour of blood.”21 The chalcedony, on the other hand, contained “a vein of red”, which in Vasari’s terms is a blemish in the purity of the colour of chalcedony.22 Yet, once again, he is impressed with the manner that Matteo dal Nassaro “turned to such good advantage a vein of red that was in the stone, representing with it the inner side of the lion’s skin at its juncture with its head.”23 Matteo dal Nassaro’s ability to employ the innate qualities of colour within a stone to better visually express the narrative, exhibits one of the ways in which the creative processes and the understanding of the innate properties of a material and the design are coupled.

Although these two examples described by Vasari no longer exist, similar qualities can be seen in Judith with the Head of Holofernes (figure 1), and in a cameo according to Albrecht Dürer (figure 2),

both in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Both of these carvings exemplify the role that the colour of the gemstone can have on the overall expression of the figures in the image. In the case of the intaglio, the natural colouring of the agate seems to cause the image of Judith with the head of Holofernes to be outshone by the veins and planes of browns and blue inherent in the material.24 The design that the artist sought to express seems to have been superimposed onto the agate, rather than amalgamated with the natural colouring of the stone to create a unified object and image. Here, one can see how the variety of colour in a stone may cause problems for the expression of the image that the sculptor wished to express. In contrast, the cameo copy of a Dürer, made from a shell, shows full use of the colours and features inherent in the shell material for expressing Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden by the Tree of Knowledge.25 The blue layer shows through the upper white layer, creating depth, while the light brown of the surface of the shell is employed to give shadows and substance to the otherwise white tree, and the figures.

Like Matteo dal Nassaro with the piece of jasper and the chalcedony, the cameo shows how the colour, inherent in the material, can create a truly unified piece, whereby technical mastery and intellectual genius are merged.

In contrast to employing the inherent colour of a stone to enhance the design, sculptors also faced the difficulties in sculpting materials that had “damaged” properties. The damages could be created by other sculptors or contained in the inherent nature of the materials. Vasari advises sculptors to avoid such materials, as they can cause tools to break, and the material may crumble at the wrong places, thus ruining the entire sculpture.26 Within the stone itself, there can be smerigli (emery veins), which, due to their harder nature, can easily cause slips of the chisel, very dangerous for the sculpture.27 In other cases, stones can also be damaged by other natural elements, such as water or fire or even by the unskilled hand of a sculptor, thus affecting the properties of the original block.28 Stones with such damages were considered ineffective for sculpting, as they allowed less control over the materials. However, in sculpting the David (figure 3), Michelangelo chose to work with a damaged block of marble, an act which was greatly impressive.29 With struggles and compromises, Michelangelo triumphed over the damaged nature of the marble in expressing the figure of David, thus showing a true unity of technical and intellectual side. The block of marble, from which Michelangelo sculpted the David, had a tragic history, having been begun by Maestro Simone da Fiesole, the marble had been worked so terribly that “...it was altogether misshapen and reduced to ruin, inasmuch that the Warden of Works of S. Maria del Fiore, who had the charge of the undertaking, had placed it on one side without troubling to have it finished; and so it remained for many years past, and was likely to remain.”30 Michelangelo chose to sculpt this damaged piece of marble, because he had envisioned sculpting from it for a long time,31 and although he was not able, according to Vasari, to bring his design to the best level due to the state of the marble, nevertheless, he made great use of it; “... in some places it was not enough to satisfy the wishes of Michelangelo for what he would have liked to do with it; and he therefore suffered certain of the first marks of Maestro Simone’s chisel to remain on the extremity of the marble, some of which are still to be seen. And truly it was a miracle on the part of Michelangelo to restore life to a thing that was dead.”32 Michelangelo, through his technical abilities, gave value (“restored life”) to the otherwise damaged piece of marble. Although the figure of David, the design of the piece, is an important feature to “restoring life” to this block of marble, nevertheless, the technical and manual skills through which this sculpture was produced are the true “miracle”.

The understanding of nature through the innate properties of the stone allowed Matteo dal Nassaro and Michelangelo to couple the manual side of sculpting with the intellectual. It is for this reason that Vasari places emphasis on the technical skill of the sculptures he discusses in this context. Michelangelo’s David and Matteo dal Nassaro’s jasper and chalcedony engravings exemplify the mastery over the inherent properties of the material to produce works of excellence, wherein the technical and intellectual side are amalgamated in such a way that they create a single unity. The technical and manual skills for this are of parallel importance to the intellectual side of sculpting when considering the value of the sculpture. Michelangelo and Matteo dal Nassaro contended with the inherent properties of the material, however, through a skilful use of tools and thorough an understanding of the nature of the stone they carved, the materials were mastered and used to further exemplify the value of their pieces.

In the technical preface, Vasari provides a very detailed description of the types of tools and the order of their use in sculpting stone.33 First, the block has to be roughed out with a subbia, then one progresses

from broader to finer tooth chisels to reach the shape of the sculpture, followed by rasps and pumice stone, which leads to a smooth and polished surface (figure 4).34 Thus, the sculptor gradually progresses from an intensive manual labour to finer techniques in order to express their design. However, in considering small-scale sculptures, the use of tools is much different, and quite marvellous from Vasari’s perspective.

As opposed to large-scale sculptures, where more violent measures need to be employed to remove stone, the use of the tools becomes a refined art in the small-scale. Looking at the details achieved in miniature and micro-sculptures, the skills of the hand of the artist are emphasized, in addition to the subject matter of the sculpture and its use.35 The artist must have a sure handling of the tools, the intermediaries between the hand of the artist and the small piece being sculpted, as this technical mastery is necessary in order to convey figures on a small surface. It is through the small-scale that the technical virtuosity of the sculptor develops a prized value in the finished product, different from that of large-scale sculptures.

Within the parte teorica, the description of small-scale sculpting is minimal, focusing on a quick description of cameo and gemstone engravings, as well as fruit stone carvings.36 Vasari writes:“We have all seen carvings on fruit stones such as those of the cherry and the apricot executed by the hand of the skilful Germans with a patience and delicacy which are great indeed. And although foreigners do not achieve that perfect design which the Italians exhibit in their productions, they have\ nevertheless wrought, and still continue to work, in such a manner that they being their art to a point of refinement that makes the work wonder…”37 It is awe that Vasari expresses in describing the micro-sculpting of fruit stones, which he elaborates with a specific example in the biography of Madonna Properzia de’ Rossi, sculptor of Bologna.38 Vasari describes the wondrous quality of a carving that de’Rossi made on a peach stone “...which she executed so well and with such patience, that they were singular and marvellous to behold, not only for the subtlety of the work, but also for the grace of the little figures that she made in them and the delicacy with which they were distributed. And it was certainly a miracle to see on so small a thing as a peach-stone the whole Passion of Christ, wrought in most beautiful carving, with a vast number of figures in addition to the Apostles and the ministers of the Crucifixion.”39 In describing this piece, Vasari’s tone is one of admiration at the technical ability of the sculptor. This micro-sculpture interested Vasari, because it represented the artist’s triumph over nature through her ability to apply the same forms on a minute-scale as could be done more easily in large-scale.40 Using a small piece of nature, Madonna Properzia de’Rossi’s Passion of Christ exemplified that the tools of a sculptor can be skilfully active on a small surface, and convey the same scenes as can be seen in larger sculptures.

Looking specifically at Madonna Properzia de’Rossi’s Cherry Pit Carving (figure 5), and a boxwood rosary bead (figure 6) as visual examples of Vasari’s description of de’Rossi’s peach-stone carving, the amazing details on such a small-scale can be seen. Even with the naked eye it is difficult to make out all the details with ease, and thus it is even harder to imagine that an artist could have done this with their hands. The heads on the Cherry Pit are both numerous and detailed, seeming rather like something that nature could create than human hands and tools. Similarly, the figures in the scenes of the Queen of Sheba visiting King Solomon, and the Adoration of the Magi in the rosary bead, which recede into the wood itself, seem innate in the wood, and one can hardly imagine how it was sculpted.41 This admiration that arises from trying to make sense of how anyone could have carved such detail, and the difficulty in even seeing it at all with the eye, provides value to these otherwise value-less pieces of nature.42 The awe that is bestowed on the technical virtuosity of the sculptor, and the necessity of a close and personal viewing of such micro-sculptures, places value on the technical and manual labour of the sculptor, enhancing the value of the subject matter of the sculpture. Madonna Properzia de’Rossi was one of many Renaissance sculptors to produce on the small-scale, exemplifying her manual skills, however, she also worked in large-scale marbles, applying her tools and skills in another manner.43

The textual emphasis in the Lives on both the material and its handling, and the intellectual sides of sculpting can be visualized in Michelangelo’s non finito.44 The unfinished Slaves in the Galleria dell’Academia are indicative examples of unfinished pieces, and part of an unfinished grand project for the tomb of Julius II.45 The gradual progression of the nude figures from the raw marble provides not only a pedagogical visual source on the production of sculpture,46 but also the emergence of the design of Michelangelo through his technical abilities and understanding of the nature of the marble.

Through these unfinished sculptures, Michelangelo presents a conglomeration of the process of sculpting

marble;47 the half-way point toward a finished product, and a clear destination in the otherwise symbiotic relationship that exists between the material and the intellectual side of the sculpture.

In the parte teorica, Vasari’s description of the process of attaining the figure in sculpture parallels the current state of the Galleria dell’Academia Slaves. Looking at Atlas and Awakening Slave (figures 7-8), we see what Vasari means when he says that “First would appear the body, the head and the knees, the figure gradually revealing itself as it is raised upwards…”48 Indeed, the torso and parts of the legs and arms are nearly finished in both of these sculptures, yet the feet, the hands, and the faces are barely emerging from the raw marble. It is only frontally that we see the male figures emerging, chisel marks, symbolizing the sculptor’s presence and the process of sculpting a figure. Atlas is emerging from the marble, holding up the weight of the stone that we, as viewers, can only imagine will be removed to show the head. His body is grounded by his legs, which press against the uncarved marble, and if Michelangelo had finished this, he would have helped the figure out of the marble. Similarly, Awakening Slave seems to be pushing out of the marble, the shoulders pressing upward, as the strain in the muscles in the neck show the effort of the figure. These two Slaves show the very raw elements of sculpting, where the raw marble and the design have been thrown together, and through the chiseling of the sculptor, visible upon the surface of the two figures, these two elements begin to merge into one unified piece.

The next stage of the sculpture is exemplified in Young Slave and Bearded Slave (figures 10-12), where Michelangelo has chiselled labouriously and worked the figures “...till there would come into view the relief more than half completed...”49 Although these two sculptures are also unfinished, they are much closer to being finished than Atlas and the Awakening Slave. Both figures are still partly fixed in the raw marble, but it is possible to imagine exactly how these sculptures would be finished; through manual work and technical skill, the design has begun to triumph the raw material. At the same time, the chisel and rasp marks are still clearly visible, especially when considering the faces of both figures (figures 11-12). This is juxtaposed with the areas that are polished and finished, such as the torso, thus showing the emergence of the intellectual side of the sculpture from the raw marble, strenuously worked by the sculptor, “...and it is certainly a miracle that a stone without any shape at the beginning should ever have been reduced to such perfection...”50 Although this is a description of Michelangelo’s Pietà, it exemplifies the importance of the manual process to the final product from raw marble. The symbiosis of the details described in the technical preface, and the importance of disegno, reiterated throughout the Lives, is visualized in the Galleria dell’Academia Slaves, where the unfinished quality of these sculptures shows the progress toward the unification of these elements.

The application of the parte teorica to the biographies of the Lives provides an insight into Vasari’s understanding of the importance of a sculptor’s knowledge of the nature of the raw material they are sculpting. A part of the argument for sculpture is the paragone, which Vasari discusses in the preface to the whole work, involves the manual and technical aspect of sculpting: “Nor do they (sculptors) ever refrain from quoting the difficulties experienced before the materials, such as the marbles and the metals, can be got into subjection, in their value, in contrast to the ease of obtaining the panels, canvases, and the colours for the smallest prices and in every place; and further, the extreme and grievous labour of handling the marbles and bronzes, through their weight, and of working them, through the weight of the tools, in contrast to the lightness of the brushes, of the styles, and of the pens, chalk-holders, and charcoals; besides this, that they exhaust their minds together with all parts of their bodies, which is something serious compared with the quite and light work of the painter, using only his mind and hand.”51 Thus, even through the argument of the paragone, the debate between painting and sculpture, the technical and manual components are of paramount importance to the overall value of sculpture. At the same time, it is the more manual part of sculpture that resulted in it being placed below painting, which was also Vasari’s perspective.52

On its own, the technical preface is an informative and descriptive source on the manual labour employed in creating sculpture, and one of the few remaining technical manuals of the Renaissance.53 The “ingenious” application of the technical skills in order to express a design, creating “miraculous” objects, wherein the sculptor has merged the inherent properties of the material with the design evokes the Renaissance concept of natura potientior ars (art is stronger than nature).54 This is achieved through the knowledge and understanding of the nature of the raw material, through which the sculptor is able to triumph over the challenges

that could hinder the realization of their design. The parte teorica provides the reader with an insight into the symbiosis that was present in Renaissance reductive sculpture, between the raw material, the technical approaches (to best express the sculptor’s design), and the sculptor’s image of what they wished to create.

In the gemstone carvings of Matteo dal Nassaro, we see how the natural variety of colour in stones are employed creatively by the engraver to symbolize blood in the image he was working to express in the jasper and the chalcedony pieces. By employing the colour in a creative manner, Matteo dal Nassaro exemplified that his skills with the material can unify, rather than superimpose the scene that he was trying to create with the nature of the material. Similarly, Michelangelo’s ability to work with a piece of marble that was considered “damaged” to create the David, shows his deep understanding of the nature of the material, and skill in handling the marble and his tools. In the small-scale, the admiration of the viewer is placed on the technical ability of the sculptor to create so many figures within the context of a few centimetres. The viewer is not only amazed and interested in the subject matter depicted, but also in the technical side of the production of such a piece. Finally, Vasari’s descriptions of the gradual emergence of the idea of the sculptor through the removal of marble with chisels and rasps, which are in the end polished to a smooth surface, is visualized in Michelangelo’s four Slaves in the Galleria dell’Academia. Here, the manual side of sculpting slowly disappears, as the image in the sculptor’s mind takes form. It is here that the dichotomy of the manual and the intellectual sides is best seen, and, applied to finished sculptures, this can lead to a better understanding of sculptures, particularly, but also to a reconsideration of the importance of the technical side of art-productions in general within the context of the Italian Renaissance art.

Notes 1 Giorgio Vasari. Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the Three Arts of Design, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, Prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, edited

by Louisa S. Maclehose, and G. Baldwin Brown. New York: Dover Publications, 1960, 2-3. The technical preface is generally omitted from French, English, and German translations of the text, including the British translation by Mrs. Jonathan Foster, the American translation by Blashfield and Hopkins, the French translation by Leclanché, the German translation by Ludwig Schorm, as well as many others. The reason for this omission is generally attributed to the less interesting value of the technical preface for the reader in comparison to the rest of the Lives. Yet, it is a distinctly valuable part of the Lives, not separate from it, but a part of the overall understanding of the whole of Vasai’s oeuvre of the Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. In reading the technical preface, it is also important to note that Vasari does not include all the materials and techniques employed in the Renaissance, but rather a selection of materials and techniques that he thought to be the best to include.

2 William R. Newman. Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 118. “...early modern practitioners of the visual arts were keenly interested in alchemy as a body of technical processes, especially those of pigment-making, metallurgy, and the low cost simulation of precious metals.” Unlike stone or wood, sculptures that employed clay, bronze, and other mixed materials are also related to alchemical practices and interests in the Renaissance. This complicates the understanding of the materials, as alchemy was also a form of contending with the replication of and triumph over nature. In considering materials that the artist mixes, there is a certain element of power over nature that is parallel to that which alchemy exhibits. Thus, it is important to differentiate between these two possible types of materials in sculpting.

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 148-163. In fact, Vasari provides the “recipes” for wax, clay, and bronze within the technical preface: “To render it (wax) soft, a little animal fat and turpentine and black pitch are put into the wax, and of these ingredients it is the fat that makes it more supple; the turpentine adds tenacity, and the pitch gives it the black colour and a certain consistency, so that after it has been worked and left to stand it becomes hard.” For clay, Vasari notes that “To ensure that the large clay model shall support itself and the clay not crack, the artist must take some soft cuttings of cloth or some horse hair, and mix this with the clay to

render it tenacious and not liable to split.” Finally, for bronze Vasari provides a recipe, although rather vague: “The artist prepares the metal as he sees fit, and for every pound of wax he puts ten pounds of metal.”

3 Giorgio Vasari. The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects.Translated by Gaston du C. de Vere. Edited by Philip Jacks. New York: Modern Library, 2006, volume 1, 24. Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 143, 179. Although Vasari states in the technical preface that “Sculpture is an art which by removing all that is superfluous from the material under treatment reduces it to that form designed in the artist’s mind.” , in a letter to Benedetto Varchi in 1549, he clearly distinguishes between per forzadi levare and per via di porre.

Thus, it is clear that it is important to distinguish between these two forms of sculpting.

4

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 61.

5 Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 1-22. Vasari’s structure of the technical preface parallels the title of the Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, where he develops three categories of the visual arts. Under each of these categories fall some of the more obscure arts, which in a very stick definition would not fit under any of the categories. It is also important to remember that, although there is little discussion in the Live on the techniques of art production, there are, nevertheless,several passages that consider the techniques and processes of art production.

6

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 25-61.

7

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 143-177.

8 Joachim Poeschke. Michelangelo and His World: Sculpture of the Italian Renaissance. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996, 31. Vasari, and Renaissance sculptors valued sculpting from one block or piece, rather than adding more pieces. This was greatly influenced by Pliny the Elder’s description of the Laocoon, and that it was made from one piece of marble.

9 Giorgio Vasari. The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. Translated by Gaston du C. de Vere. Edited by Philip Jacks. New York: Modern Library, 2006, volume 2,62-67, 643-715. In this sense, the artistic “genius”, a challenging term, refers to the sculptor’s ability to overcome the challenges that nature of the material provides.

17

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 1, 19.

18

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 62-73.

19

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 66.

20 Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 67. Both of these works were considered amazing from Vasari’s perspective, but also from the perspective of the owners of the pieces: “That jasper was sold by Matteo to the Marchioness Isabella d’Este.” and “This head came into the possession of King Francis, together with other things; and there is an impression of it at the present day in Verona, which belongs to the goldsmith Zoppo, who was Matteo’s disciple.”

21

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 66.

22

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 67.

23

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 67.

24

Victoria and Albert Museum.

25

Victoria and Albert Museum.

26

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 47.

27

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 47.

28 Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 40, and Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 276. Vasari notes, in the technical preface, that granite, when subjected to fire or sword, it will not be destroyed, unlike the marble that Baccio Bandinelli used for the Hercules and Cacus, which was damaged as a result of having been submerged in water.

29

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 653.

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 653.

10

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 1, 857.

30

11

Poeschke, 32.

31 Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 653. “Letters were written to him from Florence by some of his friends, saying that he should return, because it was not unlikely that he might obtain the spoiled block of marble lying in the Office of Works, which Piero Soderini, who at that time had been made Gonfalonier of the city for life, had very often talked of having executed by Leonardo da Vinci, and was then arranging to give it to Maestro Andrea Contucci of Monte Sansovino, and excellent sculptor, who was seeking to obtain it. Now, however difficult it might be to carve a complete figure out of it without adding pieces (for which work of finishing it without adding pieces none of the others, save Buonarroti alone, had courage enough), Michelagnolo had felt a desire for it for many years back; and having come to Florence he sought to obtain it.

12 Creighton E. Gilbert. “What is Expressed in Michelangelo’s “non-finito”.” Artibus Et Historiae 24, no.

48 (2003), 61.

13

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 25-61.

14

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 64.

15 Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 25-61. In some cases Vasari attributes these qualities to the environment in which they are found, such as in his description of porphry, where he attributes the hardness of the stone to the effects of rain, frost, and sunshine of Egypt on the stone (since it cannot be found in other places).

16

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 46.

32

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 654.

33 Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 47-49. It is important to also note that of the three main subjects painting, sculpture, and architecture - Vasari never worked in sculpture, which may be one of the reasons why he dedicates so much to the techniques and processes of sculpting.

34 Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 48.

Joy Kenseth. “The Age of the Marvellous: An Introduction.” In The Age of the Marvellous, edited by Joy Kenseth, and Hood Museum of Art. Hanover: Hood Museum of Art, 1991, 33. “Just as God, through his divine handiwork, had the power to create the most extraordinary things, so the artist or artist/engineer had the capacity by means of his technical skills and his imaginative powers, to rival God’s work on earth in the fashioning of exceptional, unusual, and surprising objects.”

35 Joy Kenseth. “The Virtue of Littleness: Small-Scale Sculptures of the Italian Renaissance”. In Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, edited by Sarah Blake McHam. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 134. “The micro-sculpture as well as cameos and engraved gems appealed to Vasari and his contemporaries because they represented the artist’s triumph over natural materials. It was expected that works of art be rendered flawlessly and so when the artist had the skill to fashion without fault figures from exceptionally fragile or extremely hard materials, he or she was all the more deserving of praise.”

36

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 143-177.

37

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 174.

38 Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 1, 856-860.39 Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 1, 857. In addition, it is interesting that Vasari, in describing the peachstone carving, places an emphasis on describing de’Rossi’s hands “...little hands, so tender and so white...braving the roughness of marble and the unkindly chisels, in order to attain to their desire and thereby win fame…” Although this description of the “little hands” in relation to the sculpting may be gender oriented, it also speaks to the importance of the hands in sculpting, and the physical relationship that the sculptor has with their material in creating their design.

39

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 1, 857.

40

Kenseth. “The Virtue of Littleness.” 134.

46

Gilbert, 58.

47 Gilbert, 60. “When the works show finished and unfinished areas adjacent to each other, disproportion is the effect, but the contrast heightens the effectiveness of the finished parts.”

48

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 151.

49

Vasari, Vasari on Technique, 151.

50

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 2, 652.

51

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 1, 15.

52

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 1, 13-25.

53 Susan Blake. “Introduction.” In Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, edited by Sarah Blake McHam. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998, 2.

54

Kenseth. “The Virtue of Littleness.” 137.

Bibliography

Blake, Susan. “Introduction.” In Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, edited by Sarah Blake McHam. 1-17.

New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Brunius, Teddy. “Michelangelo’s non finito.” In Contributions to the History and Theory of Art, edited by Per Bjurström. 29-67. Uppsala: Universitet, 1967.

41 “Prayer Bead: The Queen of Sheba Visiting King Solomon, and Adoration of the Magi.” Art Gallery of Ontario, http://www.ago.net (accessed November 20, 2010).

Balas, Edith. “Michelangelo’s Florentine Slaves and the S. Lorenzo Façade.” The Art Bulletin 65, no. 4 (December 1983): 665-671.

42 Luke Syson and Dora Thornton. Objects of Virtue: Art in Renaissance Italy. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2001, 182.

Gilbert, Creighton E.. “What is Expressed in Michelangelo’s “non-finito”.” Artibus Et Historiae 24, no. 48 (2003): 57-64.

43

Helms, G.M.. “Materials and Techniques of Renaissance Sculpture”. In Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, edited by Sarah Blake McHam. 18-39. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, volume 1, 857-860.

44 Juergen Schulz. “Michelangelo’s Unfinished Works.” The Art Bulletin 57, no. 3 (September 1975): 66-373. Michelangelo’s non finito makes up a rather substantial portion of his surviving works, and has puzzled scholars. As unfinished, it is difficult to understand these works, because the general approach in the Renaissance was to finish a work, something that Vasari emphasizes, especially since he writes negatively about Leonardo da Vinci’s notorious quality of leaving his works unfinished. However, in the case of Michelangelo, Vasari gives two main reason for the unfinished works and projects; the result of events out of Michelangelo’s power, or that his ideas were so great (so divine) that he was unable to produce them.

45 Schulz, 368. Although it is not certain, due to the lack of plans and the size of the Slaves, it is likely that these sculptures were began for Pope Julius II’s tomb in 1521. These were to replace, not supplement, the two Slaves produced in 1516 for the original plan of the tomb.

Hirst, Michael. 1985. “Michelangelo, Carrara, and the Marble for the Cardinal’s Pietà.” The Burlington Magazine 127, no. 984 (March 1985): 152-159.

Johnson, Geraldine A.. “Touch, Tactility, and the Reception of Sculpture in Early Modern Italy.” In A Companion to Art Theory, edited by Paul Smith, and Carolyn Wilde. 61-74. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.

Kenseth, Joy. “The Age of the Marvellous: An Introduction.” In The Age of the Marvellous, edited by Joy Kenseth, and Hood Museum of Art. 25-59. Hanover: Hood Museum of Art, 1991.

Kenseth, Joy. “The Virtue of Littleness: Small-Scale Sculptures of the Italian Renaissance”. In Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, edited by Sarah Blake McHam, 128-148. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Lazzaro, Claudia. “Gendered Nature and its Representaion in Sixteenth-Century Garden Sculpture”. In

Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, edited by Sarah Blake McHam. 246-273. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Lowden, John. Medieval Ivories and Works of Art: The Thomson Collection at the Art Gallery of Ontario.

Toronto: Art Gallery of Ontario, 2008.

Mack, John. The Art of Small Things. 69-75, 94-103. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Newman, William R.. Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature. 1-124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Paoletti, John T.. “Familiar Objects: Sculptural Types in the Collections of the Early Medici.” In Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, edited by Sarah Blake McHam. 79-110. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Poeschke, Joachim. Michelangelo and His World: Sculpture of the Italian Renaissance. 23-35, plates 35, 56-65.

New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996.

Potts, Alex. The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist. vix-x. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

“Prayer Bead: The Queen of Sheba Visiting King Solomon, and Adoration of the Magi.” Art Gallery of Ontario, http://www.ago.net (accessed November 20, 2010).

Quiviger, François. “Renaissance Art Theory.” In A Companion to Art Theory, edited by Paul Smith, and Carolyn Wilde. 49-60. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.

Figure 1: Unknown artist, Judith with the head of Holofernes Intaglio, banded agate Italy, ca. 1500 Source: Victoria and Albert Museum. Victoria and Albert Museum, http://www.vam.ac.uk/ (accessed November 20, 2010).

Figure 2: after Albrecht Dürer, Adam and Eve

Cameo, carved shell Germany/France, 1580 Source: Victoria and Albert Museum. Victoria and Albert Museum, http://www.vam.ac.uk/ (accessed November 20, 2010).

Schulz, Juergen. “Michelangelo’s Unfinished Works.” The Art Bulletin 57, no. 3 (September 1975): 360-373.

Seidmann, Gertrud. “Gem-engravings.” In The Dictionary of Art, edited by Jane Turner. Volume 12, 258-259.

New York: Grove’s Dictionaries, 1996.

Syson, Luke and Dora Thornton. Objects of Virtue: Art in Renaissance Italy. 7-11, 182. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2001.

Vasari, Giorgio. The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. Volume 1, 3-47, 617-970. Translated by Gaston du C. de Vere. Edited by Philip Jacks. New York: Modern Library, 2006.

Vasari, Giorgio. The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. Volume 2. Translated by Gaston du C. de Vere. Edited by Philip Jacks. New York: Modern Library, 2006.

Vasari, Giorgio. Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the Three Arts of Design, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, Prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, edited

by Louisa S. Maclehose, and G. Baldwin Brown. 1-61, 143-177. New York: Dover Publications, 1960.

Victoria and Albert Museum. Victoria and Albert Museum, http://www.vam.ac.uk/ (accessed November 20, 2010).

Wallace, William E.. “A Week in the Life of Michelangelo”. In Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, edited

by Sarah Blake McHam. 203-222. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Figure 3: Michelangelo, David Marble sculpture Italy, 1501-04 Source: Joachim Poeschke. Michelangelo and His World: Sculpture of the Italian Renaissance. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996, plate 35.

Figure 4: tools Source: Vasari, Giorgio. Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the Three Arts of Design, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, Prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, edited by Louisa S. Maclehose, and G. Baldwin Brown. New York: Dover Publications, 1960, 48.

Figure 5: Properzia de’Rossi Carved Cherry Pit in Jewelled Mount Museo degli Argenti, Florence Italy, sixteenth-century Source: Joy Kenseth. “The Virtue of Littleness: Small-Scale Sculptures of the Italian Renaissance”. In Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, edited by Sarah Blake McHam, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 133.

Figure 6: Prayer Bead: The Queen of Sheba Visiting King Solomon, and Adoration of the Magi Boxwood, 6.5 cm (diameter) Northern Dutch (Duchy of Brabant), ca.1520 Source: “Prayer Bead: The Queen of Sheba Visiting King Solomon, and Adoration of the Magi.” Art Gallery of Ontario, http://www.ago.net (accessed November 20, 2010).

Figure 7: Michelangelo, Atlas Marble Galleria dell’Academia, 1525-30 Source: Poeschke, plate 65

Figure 8: Michelangelo, Awakening Slave Marble Galleria dell’Academia, 1525-30 Source: Poeschke, plate 64

Figure 9: Michelangelo, Young Slave Marble Galleria dell’Academia, 1520-25 Source: Poeschke, plate 58

Figure 10: Michelangelo, Bearded Slave Marble Galleria dell’Academia, 1520-25 Source: Poeschke, plate 59

Figure 11: Michelangelo, Young Slave (detail) Marble Galleria dell’Academia, 1520-25 Source: Poeschke, plate 57

Figure 12: Michelangelo, Bearded Slave (detail) Marble Galleria dell’Academia, 1520-25 Source: Poeschke, plate 61