Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Culture in Europe and Latin America, 1450-1650 [1 ed.] 0300062958, 9780300062953

How did the extensive cultural exchange between the Old and New Worlds that took place during the sixteenth century affe

469 12 58MB

English Pages 408 [404] Year 1995

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Culture in Europe and Latin America, 1450-1650 [1 ed.]
 0300062958, 9780300062953

Table of contents :
1-129
REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE
New Problems, New Paradigms: Revising the Humanist Model
Renaissance Theories of the Image
Reframing the Renaissance
CLAIRE FARAGO
Whose Renaissance? Revisiting “The Renaissance Problem”
INTRODUCTION
Theorizing Cultural Interaction
INTRODUCTION Critical Studies in the Migration and Reception of Visual Culture
New Problems, New Paradigms: Revising the Humanist Model
Renaissance Theories of the Image
REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE
Early Collecting Practices
Mediating Images: Developing an Intercultural Perspective
Tkz Pathos of Distance: Byzantium in the Gaze of issance Europe and Modern Scholarship
Byzantium in, and after, the Renaissance
THE PATHOS OF DISTANCE 27
Byzantine Art in Modern Scholarship
THE PATHOS OF DISTANCE
REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE
Art an “Oriental” Art?
.' ■ ian Sculptors and Sculpture Outside of Italy >Chiefly in Central Europe): Problems of Approach, Possibilities of Reception'
I H MAS DACOSTA KAUFMANN
7ALIAN SCULPTORS AND SCULPTURE OUTSIDE OF ITALY 57
“I mon Itself Has Its History”: Race, ” Nation, and Renaissance Art History
Burckhardt’s Notion of Italian Culture
Coining of the “Visual Arts”
- :.:ghtenment Definitions of Art and Culture
The Emergence of Modern Anthropology and the Redefinition of Culture
.:nd Cultural Evolutionism
Theorizing Cultural Transition: a Retrospective View
Re-visioning Raphael as a “Scientific Painter”
"Popular” Art in Renaissance Italy: Early Response to the Holy Mountain at Varallo
ALESSANDRO NOVA
Art Theory as Ideology: Gabriele Paleotti’s Hierarchical Notion of Painting’s Universality and Reception
PAMELA M. JONES
Paleotti’s Claim for the Universality of Sacred Art
Star-gazing, the Viewing Process
ART THEORY AS IDEOLOGY
130-155
The Reception of Sacred and Profane Painting
The Viewer
Languages of Gesture in Sixteenth-Century Mexico Some Antecedents and Transmutations
PAULINE MOFFITT WATTS
Introduction
Antecedents
Transmutations
From Lies to Truth: Colonial Ekphrasis and the Act of Crosscultural Translation
THOMAS CUMMINS
156-193
Christian Doctrine
History: Tovar, Acosta, and Duran
History and Fiction
“Todo aca es mentira”
“Wrought by No Artist’s Hand”: The Natural, the Artificial, the Exotic, and the Scientific in Some Artifacts from the Renaissance
194-394
Animals as Cultural Signs: A Medici Menagerie in the Grotto at Castello
CLAUDIA LAZZARO
I
II
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE
XI
Collecting Cultures: A Mexican Manuscript in the Vatican Library
ELOISE QUINONES KEBER
236 REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE
TSJonfcernermjettwelf
Wild Woman in Colonial Mexico: An Encounter of European and Aztec Concepts of the Other
CECELIA F. KLEIN
WILD WOMAN IN COLONIAL MEXICO
Colony and Cartography: Shifting Signs on Indigenous Maps of New Spain
DANA LEIBSOHN
COLONY AND CARTOGRAPHY
A la Carte: Maps and their Makers
Cartographic Palimpsests
An Edifice of Signs: the Christian Church
COLONY AND CARTOGRAPHY
Of Grids and Maps
COLONY AND CARTOGRAPHY
Figures of Place: Between the Church and the Grid
Luca Signorelli’s Rule of Antichrist and the Christian Encounter with the Infidel
JONATHAN B. RIESS
Iconology, Ideology, and Cultural Encounter: Panofsky, Althusser, and the Scene of Recognition
EPILOGUE 295
EPILOGUE
mmm
NOTES TO PP. 9-11
NOTES TO PP. 18-30
BIBLIOGRAPHY
n.54

Citation preview

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE Visual Culture in Europe and Latin America 1430-1630

Edited with an Introduction by

C LA IR E FARAGO

Yale U niversity Press V

Haven and London

f

CONTENTS

Vll

A cknow ledgm ents

IX

N otes on the C o ntribu to rs E d ito r’s Introduction R e fra in in g the Renaissance

Claire Farago

PART ONE

New Problems, New Paradigms: Revising the Humanist Model

21

T h e Pathos o f Distance: B yza n tiu m in the G aze o f Renaissance Europ e and M odern Scholarship Anthony Cutler

23

Italian Sculptors and Sculpture O utside o f Italy (C h ie fly in C entral Europe) Problem s o f Ap pro ach , Possibilities o f R e ce p tio n Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann

47

“ V isio n Itself Has Its H is to ry ” : “ R a c e ,” N atio n , and Renaissance A rt H isto ry Claire Farago

67

PA R T TW O

Renaissance Theories of the Image R e -v is io n in g R ap hae l as a “ S cie n tific Painter”

89

Janis Bell

9T

“ Po pu lar” A rt in Renaissance Italy: E arly Response to the H o ly M ountain at Varallo Alessandro Noua

IT3

A rt T h e o ry as Ideology: Gabriele Paleotti’s H ie rarch ical N o tio n o f P ain tin g’s U n iversality and R e ce p tio n Pamela M . Jones

127

Languages o f Gesture in Sixte e n th -C e n tu ry M exico : Som e Antecedents and Transm utations Pauline Moffitt Watts

140

From Lies to T ru th : C o lo n ia l Ekphrasis and the A ct o f Crosscultural Translation Thomas Cummins

152

CONTENTS

VI PART TH REE

Early Collecting Practices 9

“ W ro u g h t by N o A rtist’s H a n d ” : T h e N atural, the A rtificial, the E x o tic, and the Scie n tific in Som e Artifacts from the Renaissance Martin Kemp

10

11

175

*77

A n im als as CAiltural Signs: A M ed ici M enagerie in the G rotto at Castello Claudia Lazzaro

197

C o lle c tin g C ultures: A M exican M anuscript in the Vatican Lib ra ry Eloise Quinones Keber

229

PART FO U R

Mediating Images: Developing an Intercultural Perspective 12

13

14

243

W ild W o m an in C o lo n ia l M e xico : A n Encou n ter o f European and A ztec Co ncep ts o f the O th e r Cecilia F. Klein

245

C o lo n y and Cartography: S h iftin g Signs on Indigenous Maps o f N e w Spain Dana Leibsohn

265

Lu ca S ig n o re lli’s Rule of Antichrist and the Ch ristian En co u n ter w ith the In fid el Jonathan B. Riess

283

Epilo gue Ico n o lo g y, Ideology, and C u ltu ra l Encounter: Panofsky, Althusser, and the Scene o f R e c o g n itio n IV J . T . Mitchell292 N otes

3 0T

C onsolidated B ib lio g ra p h y H isto rio graph y and C ritic ism The o ries o f Im ages E arly C o lle c tin g Practices M ediating Images

345 345 35^ 367

373

Photographic C red its

381

In d e x

382

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T h is project germ inated in a conference session, entitled “ R e e valu atin g the Eurocentrism o f Italian Renaissance A rt H is to ry ,” that G ail G eige r and I organized for the C o lle g e A rt Association A n n u a l Co nferen ce in C h ica g o in February 1992. Eloise Q u in o n e s K eb er and C e celia K le in , w h o encouraged this project since its conception, generously co n trib ­ uted their papers from that session in revised and expanded form . T h o m as C u m m in s, w ho acted as discussant for the C A A session, has contributed his ow n paper here. I w o uld like to take note o f another conference, entitled “ C ro ss-C u ltu ra l E n cou n ters,” co ­ sponsored by the N atio n al Renaissance Society o f Am erica and the N o rth ern C alifo rn ia Renaissance So ciety at Stanford U n iversity in M arch 1992, w h ich has been a stim ulating 'Ource o f ideas for this volum e. C la u d ia Lazzaro and Jonathan R ie ss contributed articles based on papers presented at Stanford. Th o m as D a C o sta Kaufm an n and Alessandro N o v a participated in this vo lum e on the basis o f conversations we began at the same event. M y contribution to the volum e has been enriched by o n g o in g conversations w ith all m y contributors, whose collaboration on the Introduction made a w o rld o f difference (in all senses). I ow e them in d ivid u al thanks for their devotion to this project, and I am also grateful to other friends and colleagues w h o acted as valuable so unding boards at various points along the way: Janis B e ll, C h risto p h e r Braider, A lin e Brandauer, T o m C u m m in s, A n th o n y C u tle r, Steven Epstein, M argaret Ferguson, W e rn e r G undersheim er, K e n Iw -amasa, T h o m as D aC o sta K aufm an n, M artin K e m p , C e ce lia K le in , Pamela Jones, C lau d ia Lazzaro, D ana Leibsoh n , K e ith M o xe y , Alessandro N o va , Eloise Q u in on e s Keber, D o n ald Preziosi, Y v o n n e R e in e k e , Jonathan R ie ss, Jo y ce R o b in so n , Antonette R o sato, Pauline W atts, and K athleen W e il-G a rris Brandt all read earlier drafts at crucial unctures. M elanie M c H u g h and Shanna W addell contributed in m any essential ways as my research assistants. R a n d i Jenne prepared the m anuscript for press. I am also pleased to record accum ulated debts to institutions that have encouraged this w o rk. M y initial interest in exchanges between Euro p e and the Am ericas was supported : y a N ational En d o w m e n t for the H u m anities Fellow ship at T h e Jo h n C arter B ro w n L.brary in 1991—92. Generous support from the Graduate C o m m itte e on the Arts and Hum anities at the U n ive rsity o f C o lo rad o supported the expense o f illustrations. O f : >urse, in every institution, real people give it life. A t the J C B , N o rm a n F ie rin g and his staff made their exceptional resources exceptionally available. A t C U , the Steering C o m m ittee for C ritica l Studies o f the A m ericas gave this project a hom e in its form ative uges: I am particularly grateful to M an ning M arable, W illia m W e i, and R a y m o n d L . W illiam s for their encouragem ent and excellent advice. T h a n k s to m y editors at Y a le U n iversity Press, G illia n Malpass and M iranda H arriso n, for expertly shepherding the -manuscript through press w ith great alacrity. A nyone w ho studies hum an activities considered lim inal by the dom inant culture is : ntributing to the reform ation o f the canon. Before this project took shape as an :hology, I developed the m ain outlines for a critical study o f Italian Renaissance art

Vlll

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

view ed in terms o f cultural exchange by taking m y research into the classroom .1 It is almost needless to say that this experience made an im portant difference to the critical fram ing o f these collected essays. As this b o o k is g o in g to press, I have becom e aware o f an insightful and forthright contribution to the embattled topic o f canon reform , Jo h n G u illo r y ’s Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation (1993), to w h ich this volum e is a readymade response. L ik e H e n ry L o u is Gates Jr., G u illo ry observes that the relationship between our critical postures and the social struggles they reflect is h ig h ly mediated. I f I had kn o w n o f G u illo ry ’s argum ent for considering the history o f asethetic ju d gm en t as “ a privileged site for re -im a gin in g the relation between the cultural and the eco no m ic in social life ,” I w o uld have discussed it in the In troduction. A t this point I w o u ld just like to note that G u illo r y ’s concern w ith the need to historicize the concept o f value should encompass the fifteen and sixteenth centuries. W hat G u illo ry and others (R a y m o n d W illia m s and T e rry Eagleton, for tw o) describe as the eighteenth-century struggle to distinguish w orks o f art from com m odities is, undeniably, significant. B u t this explanatory m odel does not acknow ledge that the concept o f a w o rk o f art as an object intended for in divid u al aesthetic contem plation is also a historical, culturally specific form ation. A responsible account o f the history o f canon form ation cannot neglect this significant aspect o f its ow n developm ent. T h a t is w hat m uch o f this b o o k is about - crossing and recrossing the boundaries o f the concept that a w o rk o f art is an object intended for in divid u al aesthetic contem ­ plation. T h e re are no timeless categories and there is no know ledge that is not a product o f its ow n time. Fo r this reason, and to h onor the significant contributions that research and dialogue in the classroom made to revisio n in g the Renaissance for me, I dedicate this volum e to all students, past, present, and future, o f Renaissance art “ out o f the can o n.” C .F . B oulder, C o lo rad o A p ril 18, 1995

NOTES ON THE CONTRIBUTORS

Janis B ell is an associate professor of art history at Kenyon College. She has published on Raphael’s coloring and its reception, on Caravaggio’s coloring, and on the color theories of Leonardo da Vin ci and Matteo Zaccolini in the Art Bulletin, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Achademia Leonardi Vinci, and elsewhere. She is currently preparing an edition of Zaccolini’s Prospettiva del Colore. T o m C u m m in s is an assistant professor in the Art Department at the University o f Chicago. He works in Latin American art and has published articles on Pre-Columbian Ecuadorian ceramics and colonial Peruvian painting. He is co-editor with Elizabeth Boone o f Native Traditions in the Postcolonial World (forthcoming). A n th o n y C u tle r is Research Professor o f Art History at Pennsylvania State University. His most recent publications are The Hand of the Master. Craftsmanship, Ivory and Society in Byzantium (1994), and articles in the Art Bulletin, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Burlington Magazine, and Dumbarton Oaks Papers. C la ire Farago is an associate professor o f art history at the University o f Colorado at Boulder. She is the author o f Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Paragone’ (1992) and articles on Renaissance art theory published in the Art Bulletin and elsewhere. She is currently completing a book, Art as Institution, on the history of the category “visual art,” and writing on the ethnic complexity of devotional images produced in colonial New Mexico. Pam ela Jones is an associate professor o f art history at the University o f Massachusetts at Boston and a specialist in Italian Baroque art and religious thought. She is the author o f Federico Borromeo and the Ambrosiana. Art Patronage and Reform in Seventeenth-Century Milan (1993) and articles appearing in the Art Bulletin, Studies in the History of Art, the Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, and elsewhere. She is currently writing 011 Caravaggio, and researching genre, audience, and display in Italian religious art from 1550 to 1650. Th o m a s D a C o sta Kau fm an n is Professor in the Department o f Art and Archaeology, Princeton University. A recent recipient o f a Guggenheim Fellowship, his books include The Mastery of Nature: Aspects of Art, Science and Humanism in the Renaissance ( 1993 ); Central European Drawings 1680-1800 (1989), and The School of Prague: Painting at the Court of Rudolf II (1988), which won the Mitchell Prize for art history. His Court, Cloister, and City: The Art and Culture of Central Europe, 1450-1800, is being published in 1995. Eloise Q uiñones Keb er is Professor o f Art History at Baruch College and The Graduate Center of the C ity University of New Yo rk, where she teaches pre-columbian art and the art o f colonial and modern Mexico. Her most recent book, Codex Telleriano-Remensis: Ritual, Divination, and History in a Pictorial Aztec Manuscript, 1995, is a facsimile edition and commentary. She has published and lectured extensively on ancient Mexican manuscripts, Aztec art before and after the Spanish conquest, and on issues surrounding the encounter between indigenous and European traditions in sixteenth-century Mexico.

X

NOTES ON THE CONTRIBUTORS

M artin K e m p is British Academy Wolfson Research Professor at the University o f St Andrews, Scotland. In October 1995 he takes up the Professorship in the History o f Art at the University o f Oxford. He studied Natural Sciences and Art History at Cambridge, and at the Courtauld Institute o f Art, London. He is the author o f Leonardo da Vinci, The Marvellous. Works of Nature and Man (1981, winner o f the Mitchell Prize), and The Science of Art, Optical Themes in Western Art from Brunelleschi to Seurat (1990). He is currently researching issues in scientific representation and writing a book on anatomical, physiognomic, and natural themes in art from the Renaissance to the nineteenth century. C e celia F . K le in is Professor o f Pre-Colum bian/Colonial Art History at U C L A where she is currently writing a book on Mesoamerican art as seen through the lens of colonial writers and artists. She is the author of numerous articles on Aztec art and religion, including several on Aztec women and female deities. C la u d ia La zza ro , Professor and Chair o f the Department o f the History o f Art at Cornell University, is the author o f The Italian Renaissance Garden (1990) and several articles on villas and gardens. She is currently w orking on two projects involving visual representations of cultural identity - that o f Italy in the three centuries o f the Italian garden tradition and that o f Florence under the sixteenth-century Medici. Dana Leibsohn is an assistant professor at Smith College where she teaches art history. She has written articles on literacy, colonial studies in Latin America, and indigenous maps and manuscript paintings from New Spain. Her current research focuses on Pueblo and Spanish histories from seventeenth-century N ew Mexico, and on Nahua books and images created in Mexico. W . J. T . M itchell is Gaylord Donnelley Distinguished Service Professor o f Art and English at the University o f Chicago, and editor o f Critical Inquiry. His recent books include Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology (1986) and Picture Theory (1994), and he has edited two recent collections o f essays, Art and the Public Sphere (1993) and Landscape and Power (1994). A lessandro N o va is Professor of Art History at the Kunstgeschichtliches Institut of J. W. Goethe Universität in Frankfurt. His most recent book is a monograph on Girolamo Rom anino (1995), and he has published widely on art and patronge in Rom e, Florence, and Northern Italy. Editor of a forthcoming volume o f essays on Velasquez’s Las Meninas, he is currently writing a book on the Franciscan Osservanta movement in fifteenth-century Italy. Jonathan B . Riess, Professor o f Art History at the University o f Cincinnati, is, most recently, author o f The Renaissance Antichrist: Luca Signorelli’s Orvieto Frescoes (1995). He publishes on political aspects o f medieval and Renaissance art in Central Italy. Pauline M offitt W atts is a member o f the European history faculty at Sarah Lawrence College. She is the author and editor o f books and articles in medieval and early modern religious and intellectual history, including several studies dealing with cross-cultural contacts in sixteenthcentury Mexico. Her publications include Nicolas Cusanus (1982), and she is currently writing a book 011 the evangelization o f Mexico, entitled From the Desert to the New World: Monasticism, Resistance, and Reform in Sixteenth-Century Mexico.

Modem scholarship has been far too much influenced by all kinds of prejudices, against the use o f Latin, against the medieval church, and also by the unwarranted effort to read later developments, such as the German Reformation, or French libertinism, or nineteenth-century liberalism or nationalism, back into the Renaissance. The only way to understand the Renaissance is a direct and, possibly, an objective study o f the original sources. We have no real justification to take sides in the controversies of the Renaissance, and to play up humanism against scholasticism, or scholasticism against humanism, or modern science against both of them. Instead o f trying to reduce everything to one or two issues, which is the privilege and curse o f political controversy, we should try to develop a kind o f historical pluralism. Paul Oskar Kristeller, “ Humanism and Scholasticism in the Italian Renaissance,” 1945

O ur intelligent and conscientious moderator seemed constantly to summarize me out o f the group. After hearing us make our preliminary statements, he said that we were all interested in culture as process rather than object o f study. No, I would not privilege process. After the next batch o f short speeches, he said that it was evident that we wanted to formulate a coherent notion o f explanation and culture that would accommodate all of us. No, I would not find unity in diversity; sometimes confrontation rather than integration seemed preferable. Gayatri Chakravorti Spivak, “Explanation and Culture: Marginalia,” 1979

Jan van den Velde, Instruction in the writing of the Italic Hand. Engraved by Simon Frysius, from Spieghel der Schriifkonste, Rotterdam, 1605. London, Victoria & Albert Museum. (Photo: Martin Kemp.) See Chapter 9 for full discussion.

INTRODUCTION

Reframing the Renaissance C L A IR E F A R A G O

T h e in itial idea for this collectio n o f essays arose out o f m y ow n interest in the sixteenthcentury change in status o f the visual arts in Italy. I wanted to learn w hether and h ow extensive global com m erce affected sixteenth-century Italian discussions o f art. I soon realized that existing accounts o f the history o f western aesthetic theory do not consider contact w ith non -Eu ro p ean societies to have been a co n trib uting factor before the nineteenth century, so I began to w onder how com plete our historical understanding really was. It never occurred to academicians discussing the problem o f the arts at the seventeenth-century Academ ie R o y a le de Peinture et de Sculpture, or to writers w ho popularized systematic classifications o f the beaux arts in the eighteenth century, to include nonw estern styles o f artistic p ro d u ctio n .1 Y e t the history o f the classification o f the arts and categories fo r ju d g in g artistic excellence deserves to be studied from a point o f vie w broad enough to take into account the extensive m igration o f visual culture lo n g before global contact was initiated at the end o f the fifteenth century, and even m ore so d urin g the era w e still call the Renaissance.2 N o n -E u ro p e a n art and artifacts w ere present in E u ro p e throughout the M id dle Ages and, after the O tto m an T u rk s captured C o nstan ­ tinople in 1453, great quantities o f new material began arrivin g from the eastern M editerranean basin, then A frica, the Am ericas, Asia, and elsewhere. D u rin g this period, the appreciation o f art increased dram atically in Italy and elsewhere in Europe. A few extraordinary records - such as A lb rech t D iire r’s frequently cited adm iration for A ztec g o ld - and silvervvork — even attest to the appreciation o f n on -Eu ro p ean objects as products o f extraordinary artistic in gen u ity.3 A t the same time, the value o f certain kinds o f artifice became the subject o f vio len t controversy. W h at did new awareness o f other cultures contribute to European conceptions o f the arts d urin g this initial period o f global contact? A n d h o w did the exportation o f Renaissance ideals and material culture, from Italy to other parts o f Europ e and w o rldw id e, fare in this environm ent o f intensified cultural interaction? I also had to ask w h y the contribution o f n o n -E u ro p ean cultures to western aesthetics and to the theoretical literature on art that preceded it was not w id e ly acknow ledged w hen the discipline o f art history was professionalized in the nineteenth century. T h e hierarchy o f the fine arts, o f course, but also the organization o f the discipline in terms o f national cultures suggest some prelim inary answers. It is a co m plex matter, how ever, to exam ine the history o f our m odern categories o f artistic p roduction and aesthetic

2

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

appreciation. T h e recorded w onders o f architecture and portable artifacts, even live specim ens, that reached Euro p e d urin g the Renaissance w ere classified in a variety o f ways. M y initial investigation o f the history o f the sixteenth-century status o f the arts view ed in historiographical and crosscultural terms opened up a vast interdisciplinary field o f research that invited a collaborative approach. T h is volum e, w h ich pools the resources o f specialists in m any subfields o f sixteenth-century studies, is the result o f that collaboration. Refraining the Renaissance tries to define a new program for the study o f Renaissance visual culture focused on cultural exchange. T h e essays throughout are addressed to Renaissance specialists and the subjects w ill, w e hope, interest an interdisciplinary audience concerned w ith the early m odern period. T h e collection grew out o f the awareness that any attempt to reim agine Renaissance art as a culturally and historically specific style that originated in C e ntral Italy and was disseminated around the globe should carefully reexamine the function, reception, and pow er o f specific kinds o f images and other objects o f hum an manufacture. T h e first, historiographical section o f Refraining the Renaissance, entitled “ N e w Problem s, N e w Paradigm s: R e v isin g the H u m anist M o d e l,” identifies significant problem s o f ethnocentrism in past conceptualizations o f Renaissance art. T h e second section, entitled “ Renaissance T heo ries o f the Im age,” presents specialized studies o f various conceptual fram ew orks in w h ich visual representa­ tion functioned. T h e third section, “ E arly C o lle c tin g Practices,” treats an im portant source o f inform ation about sixteenth-century cultural exchange. T h e in divid u al studies throughout the volum e emphasize the essentially heterogeneous character o f the m any kinds o f objects and activities we n o w loosely call art. T h e final section, entitled “ M ediating Images: D e v e lo p in g an Intercultural Perspective,” presents case studies o f culturally hybrid images — o f u nruly w om en, colonial maps o f Central M e xico , and a negative ethnic stereotype p rom inently depicted in an Italian Renaissance religious fresco. T h e authors adapt traditional techniques o f art history - formal analysis, ico n o g ­ raphy, connoisseurship - to study the asym m etrical process o f cultural exchange. An E p ilo g u e relating the central issues explored in this volum e to contem porary discussions o f h o w we construct the hum an subject com pletes the study. T h e quincentennial observance o f C o lu m b u s’s fateful first voyage encouraged m any scholars w ith interests in crosscultural studies to focus on exchanges between “ O ld ” and “ N e w W o rld ” cultures. I have retained this focus in Refraining the Renaissance, m ainly for pragm atic reasons. First, in attem pting to control a very large topic, it seemed prudent to restrict some o f the parameters. Second, there already exists an interdisciplinary field o f study concerned w ith cultural interaction in the Spanish colonial w o rld. A s the five contributions to this volum e that treat relations between transplanted Europeans and indigenous Am ericans in Latin A m erica demonstrate, crosscultural investigations o f early m odern visual culture in this area are able to draw upon an extensive, theoretically sophisticated foundation o f recent scholarship. T h is is a great advantage in d efining a new program for the study o f Renaissance art focused on the m igration o f visual culture and the conditions o f reception.

%

%

^

INTRODUCTION

3

Whose Renaissance? Revisiting “The Renaissance Problem” N e arly every réévaluation o f the Renaissance — this one is no exception - begins by ackn o w led gin g Jaco b B u rckh ard t’s The C ivilization of the Renaissance in Italy/D ie Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, first published in 1860. Supplem ented by B u rckh a rd t’s historical guide to the visual arts in Italy and his other w ritin gs on art and architecture, this study - and w ritings by his im m ediate contem poraries in clu d in g M ichelet, R u s k in , and Tain e - established the concept o f the Renaissance as central to the discipline o f art history. M ore than any other scholar, B u rckh ard t also established a role for visual evidence in the w ritin g o f cultural history.4 A s a result o f extensive interest in the social and intellectual history o f the visual arts over the past thirty years, we have becom e increasingly aware that our m odern distinctions o f art matured out o f the particular historical and cultural circum stances in w h ich B urckh ardt lived and w rote.5 R e a liz in g that art defined as the object o f in divid u al aesthetic contem plation is a relatively recent construct, Peter B u rk e , in his ow n reassessment o f the Italian Renaissance, recom m ends a shift in the focus o f our attention to a w ider range o f “ com m un icative events,” such popular songs, sermons, graffiti, and rituals.6 B u rk e ’s revisionist approach to cultural nistory retains the spirit o f B u rckh a rd t’s C ivilization : both historians exam ine ritual, popular images, and other cultural activities w ith regard to a w id er range o f purposes :'han the category usually im plied by “ w o rk o f art.” Refraining the Renaissance also exam ines a broad range o f com m un icative events. T h e present collection o f essays tries to suggest, how ever, that m uch m ore is in vo lved in reassessing the history o f Renaissance art than trading one m odern category for another, presum ably less restrictive, one. T h e aesthetic system o f the “ fine arts” that designates the :nad o f painting, sculpture, and architecture em erged gradually over several hundred • ears. T h e system o f classification that distinguishes the “ fine arts” from the liberal arts and from the sciences was codified o n ly in the eighteenth century, on the foundation o f in extensive b ody o f theoretical and critical literature in French, G erm an, Italian, and English, and institutionalized artistic instruction at the professional level.7 B u rck h a rd t’s stin g s are firm ly grounded in this hum anist m odel o f culture. Y e t his inclusion o f 7 ;jular culture to characterize the Italian national spirit in the early m odern period, : pether w ith his famous characterization o f the state as a “w o rk o f art,” presents a m uch broader concept o f w hat constitutes a w o rk o f art than his predecessors in aesthetic theory had envisioned. T h e terms o f his argum ent about the state as the product o f reflection and deliberation w o u ld take us far afield from the present discussion. Y e t it is rth notin g in the present context that B u rckh ard t constructed a generalized concept • - it by b o rro w in g a m etaphor from political theory and analytical p hilo sop hy.8 T h e concept that a w o rk o f art can be som ething produced for in divid u al contem t .n o n in any m ed iu m or style by any culture or period is even m ore recent. A t the 'r u n n in g o f the nineteenth century, A m erindian art was considered o n ly to be o f hisncal interest.9 Som e o f B u rckh ard t’s contem poraries challenged existing artistic norm s - dated w ith the revival o f classical antiquity, b eing the first to suggest that the entire i Liman race was engaged in the spiritual activity o f m akin g “ visual art.” It has been w id ely f ilm e d , how ever, that nineteenth-century art historians and theorists such as Sem per, K ir p l. and Fiedler (w ho claim ed that a w o rk o f art is the product o f perception, regardless

4

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

o f its stylistic conventions) m erely naturalized the Renaissance m etaphor that art imitates nature. M ost o f the criticism has com e from art historians w ho , ju stifiab ly, point to the untenability o f this scheme. Y e t they have considered the problem s o f p rivile g in g representational art o nly w ith in the narrow ly circum scribed lim its o f European art.10 In ligh t o f all the attention that art historians have paid to the history o f our form al categories o f art, it is surprising that no one has drawn a connection to the issues raised b y H e n ry Lo u is Gates, Jr., and others, such as Sam ir A m in , concerned w ith the history o f Eurocentrism . W h en B u rckh ard t’s conception o f the Italian Renaissance first became the “ Renaissance p roblem ” in historiography fifty years after the publication o f The Civilization of the Renaissance, ju stificatio n for his concept o f periodization gravitated to the center o f discussion. T h e n it was argued, largely on the basis o f early hum anist histories, that B u rckh ard t’s scheme was ju stified because early hum anists like Alberti and Vasari had used metaphors o f revival and rebirth to define their historical position as separate from the past.11 T o d a y V asari’s hum anist m odel o f culture should m ake us ask different questions. V asari’s famous account o f the birth o f m odern art (the “ huona maniera moderna” ), the most com plete history w ritten d urin g the Renaissance, follow s the established hum anist m odel o f historical change as a process o f cultural decline and revival: the revival o f the ancient art o f im itating nature arrested a lo n g decline instigated by “ barbarians” w ho practiced the Byzantine m anner (maniera greca or maniera uecchia “ e non an tich i” ) in p ainting and the G erm an m anner (maniera tedesca) in architecture.12 N o one w o u ld w ish to dispute the historical influence o f Vasari’s hum anist scheme, or deny the popularity o f metaphors o f rebirth durin g the period we still call the Renaissance. W h at counts as historical truth has, how ever, shifted considerably since the first co n tri­ butions to the “ Renaissance p roblem ” nearly a century ago. Vasari’s praise o f Italian artists at the expense o f “ barbarian” others could once be unselfconsciously used as evidence ju stifyin g the concept o f periodization. Gates and other critics like Edw ard Said have charged that contem porary scholarship keeps itself pure by not taking certain kinds o f contexts into acco u n t.13 Said h im se lf has been criticized for im p osin g his ow n binary oppositions (such as the oversim plistic concept o f cultural dom ination and subordination). Y e t his critique o f the conflictual se lf-o th e r relationship embedded in the European construction o f the O rie n t provoked a rich ly conceived field o f th eorizing about the com plexities o f cultural interaction. W riters like Said w ho adopt the position o f the form erly co lo n ized subject are entirely new voices in the discursive space o f cultural history w ritin g - and their o n g o in g contributions are radically ch anging our understanding. T h is collectio n o f essays accepts Said ’s challenge o f exam in in g the assumptions on w h ich “ Renaissance” art history is co n ven tio nally based, not by rejecting historical schemes like Vasari’s arti del disegno, but by m akin g the history o f our categories part o f our subject o f study. As the fo llo w in g specialized studies in d ivid u ally and collectively m ake clear, the m echanism s by w h ich we discern differences in other cultures and the values w e attach to these differences are not lin ke d in any stable u nion. Sam ir A m in , the author o f a leading study on Eurocentrism , defines Eurocentrism as a phenom enon that emerged fu lly in the nineteenth ce n tu ry.14 A cco rd in g to its most sophisticated critics, the term Eurocentrism describes a co m plex set o f dom inant ideas associated w ith the rise o f m odern national identity, colonialism , and capitalism .15 Said, A m in , and other critics

IN T R O D U C T IO N at art imitates point to the >t p rivile g in g pean art.10 a f our formal “ issues raised th the history i first became ration o f The gravitated to arly hum anist :e Alberti and al position as 1 m ake us ask t (the “ buona e, follow s the 1 decline and line instigated liera vecchia “ e itecture.1- N o lem e, or deny .» Renaissance, le first co n trirould once be on. Gates and lip keeps itself lse lf has been stic concept o f tual se lf-o th e r coked a rich ly n. W riters like new voices in ntributions are issumptions on cting historical tegories part o f n d collectively ultures and the im ir A m in , the enom enon that ated critics, the ^vith the rise o f id other critics

regard the academ ic practices they associate w ith Eurocentrism as m isleading because they are based on the flawed assumption that “ internal factors peculiar to each society are decisive for their com parative e vo lu tio n ” cu lm in atin g in the achievem ents o f European c iv iliza tio n .16 T h e Renaissance is regularly charged w ith p ro v id in g the roots o f these nineteenth-century practices.1 E m e rg in g interest in the institutional history o f the d isci­ pline is b egin n in g to reintegrate art history into a broader field o f discussion centered on issues o f m etho d o lo gy.18 T o open a discussion o f m ethodology here is not meant to discredit the vigorous scholarship that goes on w ith in the established perimeters o f Renaissance art history, but rather to ask w hether the categories into w h ich our discipline is currently subdivided are really w ell suited to analyzing questions o f intercultural exchange - significant historical questions that Said and m any others have been pursuing and asking others to pursue in recent years. T h e re already exists an established field o f historical study, greatly envigorated by the C o lu m b ia n Q u in c e n ­ tenary, that exam ines the global expansion o f E u ro p e in the early contact period o f the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. A s m ight be expected, how ever, historians like Lew is H an ke, Jo h n E llio tt, Edm u nd o O ’G orm an, A n th o n y Pagden, and others have grounded their studies in texts, not visual im ages.19 It is not an easy matter to explain w h y Renaissance art historians have rem ained isolated from these debates and from interdisciplinary attempts to recognize Euro centric practices and institute a m ore pluralistic historical vision. N o doubt part o f the answer lies w ith the p o larizin g effects o f the “ Eu ro ce n trism ” and “western canon” debates them ­ selves. O n e o f the m ajor obstacles to revision is the nationalistic concern at the foun­ dations o f the scholarship. Perhaps another partial answer is embedded in our formal procedures o f stylistic analysis, w h ich are still closely associated w ith the typological th in k in g o f the nineteenth century.20 O u r understanding o f Renaissance culture, fundam entally shaped by B u rckh ard t’s 'tudy o f Italy, has been changed and enriched b y generations o f debate over his characterization o f historical periods, o f in d ivid u ality, o f the M iddle Ages and, most recently, o f his treatment o f gender.21 Y e t w e still need integrated accounts that allow the disparate voices that have contributed to European conceptions o f art to be heard. Parallel accounts that represent the same events from m utually exclusive points o f view do not offer this perspective - the narratives presented b y Paul O ska r Kristeller and Gates, respectively, can serve as examples. Kristeller exam ines o n ly the dom inant in tel.ectual tradition w ith its roots in classical antiquity, w hile Gates dismisses western iesthetic theory out o f hand for its racist elements. W h at are still m issing are integrated attempts to define the issues that produced m utually exclusive narratives in the first place. Gates g rim ly rem inds us that w ritten language, historically speaking, has been a significant, ethnocentric m arker o f cultural difference: in his revised narrative o f aesthetic : _.eory, K a n t was the first to posit differences w ith regard to m ental capacities and -r'th e tic capabilities on the basis o f skin color; H e ge l added a new feature w hen he claimed that, because Africans had not mastered the European art o f w ritin g languages, they had no history, and w hat Africans presum ably lacked collectively, they also lacked ndividually: the ch ild like nature o f slaves was due to their absence o f m em o ry.22 Y e t ~tten language (written in European terms — that is, by means o f an alphabetic script) r not the o n ly ethnocentric indication o f cultural difference. In the western tradition,

6

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

other im portant criteria have been social organization: that is, forms o f governm ent, civ il codes and customs, educational system, and artifacts or productions, in clu d in g ritual and utilitarian objects, drama, m usic, and dance - w hat we loosely call art. A ll o f these areas — language, societal organization, and art — have been pow erful indexes o f humanness. M an y o f the E u ro ce n tric practices that Gates and others associate w ith the rise o f the slave trade and other eco nom ic conditions have a m uch longer history co n cern ing the respective roles o f mental operations such as reasoning, m em ory, and the im agination in defin in g humanness. It is w ell k n o w n that d u rin g the same period w hen European painting, sculpture, and architecture first came to be defined as “ theoretical" pursuits that depend on intellect and im agination, European images were exported on a global scale and artifacts also entered European collections from other parts o f the w orld. These circum stances provided a particularly rich setting for the developm ent o f new cultural boundaries (inside and outside Europe) in w h ich artistic production played an im portant role. W e are, how ever, o nly b egin n in g to form ulate strategies for studying the co n tri­ bution o f fluctuating sixteenth-century senses o f “ art” to later ideas about cultural identity and aesthetic sensibility.23 T h e essays in this volum e suggest some avenues for undercutting anachronistic cultural and aesthetic boundaries that interfere w ith our ability to see the co m p lexity o f artistic interactions d urin g the sixteenth century. T h e history o f the category “ w o rk o f art” is a significant part o f our subject o f in qu iry. Consid ered as a w hole, this vo lum e “ reframes” the geographical, cultural, ch ronological, and conceptual boundaries o f the Renaissance as it is usually defined. Part o f the challenge o f redefining the Renaissance in terms o f cultural interaction is the m anner in w h ich n ew ly em erging nations in the nineteenth century im agined themselves as antique. W h y, asks Benedict Anderson, “ [was] supposing ‘antiquity’ at a certain historical ju ncture, the necessary consequence o f novelty?” - w h y should awareness o f a radically changed form o f consciousness in the nineteenth century lead to the construction o f a “ nationalist m em o ry” reaching back in time?24 U tiliz in g a “ double v isio n ” — to b orro w a term from Joan K e lly — o u r essays in d ivid u a lly and co llectively lo o k “ inside” and “ outside” the fram ew orks traditionally associated w ith the R enaissance.25 T h e “ inside and outside” that the problem o f “ national id en tity” poses for the study o f Renaissance art is this: the history o f the concept o f national identity emerged along w ith the history that national identity frames. C o n sid e rin g nationalism in this light, scholars have helped to construct the m odern idea o f a nation as an enduring collective. A significant aspect o f the problem o f nationalism for historians o f Renaissance culture, therefore, is to take into account the role o f scholars w ho produced histories o f “ national cu ltu re.”

Theorizing Cultural Interaction T h e 1990—92 seasons offered an unprecedented num ber o f m useum exhibitions co n ­ cerned w ith the early phase o f European expansionism in a revisionist fram ew ork. B lo ckb uster exhib itio n formats were both d iachronic (the “ splendors” o f M e xico spanned thirty centuries) and synchro nic (the theme “ 1492” suggested reasons to survey artistic production around the globe).26 As even the most spectacular o f these exhibitions

INTRODUCTION

7

iem onstrated, how ever, political and ideological issues that had been on the table o f : cussion in other fields, such as history, anthropology, literary and film criticism , for .nd three decades have not made a m ajor im pact on m useum practice. It is w orth : - .:enng the negative im plications o f a display strategy, con ven tio nally regarded as neutral, for exhibitions w h ich claim to represent all cultures on equal footing. T o give j - : ne exam ple, for the sake o f in tro d u cin g broader m ethodological concerns, cultural i~ . 3n w hat m ight be called the perform ative level o f Circa 1492: A rt in the Age of !xjr .'t.11ion, organized at the N ational G allery in W ashington, D .C . , becom es apparent ■ b e n we com pare the presentation o f the Asian section w ith the European Renaissance le cn c n o f the same exhib ition. T h e selection and presentation o f the European objects : a» :ed 'p e cific visual com parisons from the audience - an audience inform ed, m oreover, text panels g iv in g the p u b lic access to the specialized scholarship in the catalogue. T h e n re se objects, how ever, displayed in the m anner o f m any older m useums o f Asian art, ■ :*r encased in large glass vitrines accom panied by the barest o f labels, leaving view ers ■ be ■ rm ed about the o riginal cultural significance ot the diverse materials gathered for n f a e d c contem plation.27 I c not w ish to lay blame for standard m useum practices at the feet o f any in divid u al, • r : deny the extraordinary visual experience that Circa 1492 and other Q u in cen te nn ial ■¡binons presented, nor to discount the im portant scholarly co ntribution that these fcfcr*inons and their m onum ental catalogues made. M y point is that there is a pressing ■ x : ' revise d isciplinary practices at a fundam ental, epistem ological level. T h e shortf the collaboration am ong different subdisciplines o f art history (or rather, lack « i : llaboration) for Circa 1492 as a w hole was that it encouraged v ie w in g practices European cultural im perialism . Fo r did not Am erican view ers learn a great deal № Renaissance Europe, about w h ich they w ere already relatively w ell inform ed, ■ A - r the decontextualized presentation o f objects categorized by national culture as C * nese" reinforced longstanding stereotypes o f the exotic east in western eyes? T : r r problem atic ideological im plications were not lost on review ers - even those as rt : trom one another as Sim o n Scham a and H o m i Bhabha registered sim ilar rs :o the e xh ib itio n .28 Bhabha charged that the m ajor narrative message, nam ely e - re id o n o f a global culture around 1492, w h ile it avoided the idea o f progress by rsc horizontal survey, failed to develop a “ useful critical response” to cultural f i r : - .7 - C u ltu ra l parallelism as an exhib itio n strategy, Bhabha elaborated, promotes cr n-hip” and, therefore, the parallels begin to lo o k “ distinctly circu lar” w hen they rt~- rd w ith in a relatively uncom plicated western aesthetic realm. W h y, he asked, has m s - 7 ririo n tailed to problem atize the notion o f the human? * : -r - reached a sim ilar conclusion co n cern ing the failure o f the exhib itio n to cultural interaction: he charged the N atio n al G allery e xh ib itio n organizers w ith : consider the phenom enon o f C o lu m b u s and the historical experience o f his j r ' as a European encounter w ith other cultures.30 It is n ow com m onplace, Schama, that m any syncretistic societies “ have m anaged to mutate into forms that ■~r possibility o f a shared historical e vo lu tio n ,” so w h y could the mingling of : have been the focus o f m ore C o lu m b ia n com m em oratives?31 ! - • : ^rc good questions - but they have no ready answers. In the terms used by agyrr.," K u h n to discuss the nature o f scientific revolution, w e fin d ourselves w ritin g at

8

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

a time w hen our inherited paradigm s cannot be taken for granted because they do not seem to assimilate the phenom ena that need explanation.32 Som e readers may disagree, but I th in k that the activity o f paradigm form ation does not usually fall to large museums, w h ich always have to please their sponsors b y pleasing the pub lic, or to review ers whose suggestions, how ever insightful, are still lim ited to a few pages o f criticism on someone else’s project. Scholars co n ce ivin g o f research program s, on the other hand, have the academ ic freedom (at least in theory) and the intellectual responsibility to assess, revise, and propose paradigms — those fundam ental intellectual armatures that determ ine w hat data to seek and h ow to organize the material on w h ich conclusions are based. W h at w o u ld the questions posed by Scham a, Bhabha, and other critics sound like if art historians were p ro v id in g extended answers? Refraining the Renaissance takes up the challenge o f theorizing the hum an co m plexity o f visual culture d urin g the initial period o f extensive interaction on a global scale. As editor, I in itially framed the m ain areas o f in q u iry around epistem ological issues raised b y changing definitions and functions o f art in the last four centuries. T h e conceptual skeleton o f the volum e was greatly enriched by o n g o in g exchanges w ith all the collaborators, w ho raised m any m ore issues, grounded in diverse kinds o f historical evidence. T h e w ide variety o f our interests and critical approaches allows Refraining the Renaissance to sustain a broad m etacritical perspective and sim ultaneously to present a rich b ody o f prim ary source material. W h at w o u ld the history o f Renaissance art lo o k like i f cultural interaction and exchange, and the conditions o f reception, became our prim ary concerns? H o w can we change our existing paradigm to define this new puzzle? These are the o verridin g questions that circulate throughout the in divid u al essays. A ck n o w le d g in g the difference between the actual effects o f em erging nationalistic practices and idealized European notions o f cultural integrity and discreteness is central to the revisionist enterprise o f Refraining the Renaissance. T o historians o f art - and especially to historians o f Renaissance art - I hope that the organization o f the volum e appears as a systematic attempt to reground the discipline in the historical circum stances o f its ow n m aking. Y e t I do not w ant to m ake unjustified claims for the u n ity o f w hat is, after all, an anthology. T h is vo lum e is still an eclectic representation o f the shifting o f fields and fram ew orks that are currently under w ay in a num ber o f academic disciplines. T h e form at o f an anthology is w ell suited to our interdisciplinary effort o f reconceptualizing the Renaissance because anthologies, by their nature, avoid the im pression o f a u nified narrative. A t this p re lim i­ nary stage o f d efin in g new analytical categories, it w o u ld be m isleading to claim that the specialized papers included in this vo lum e frame all the significant issues. V isib le sym bols are prom inent indicators o f cultural identity yet, as Francis H askell emphasized in History and its Images, it is notoriously difficu lt to establish the value o f art as historical evidence. A potentially im portant contribution that this volum e hopes to make to interdisciplinary discussions about cultural interaction grow s out o f the authors’ o ve rrid in g concern w ith interpretations o f visual representation. In the fo llo w in g section o f the Introduction I have tried to suggest h ow the contributors’ shared interest in m ethodology intersects conceptually w ith the b o o k ’s focus on the m igration and recep­ tion o f visual culture, by draw ing a concrete exam ple from m y o w n research.

INTRODUCTION

77it Grotesque in the Mirror of European Theories of the Imagination z - m the m id fourteenth to the m id seventeenth century - the period broadly designated : :ne term Renaissance — as painting, sculpture, and architecture “ rose” from their medieval association w ith the m echanical arts and productive sciences, they became riated w ith other theoretical branches o f know ledge, such as optics, anatom y, and the discourse.33 W h ether the “ n o b ility ” o f painting and the other tw o arti del disegno, v: _ ture and architecture, depended on their association w ith the mathem atical sciences - ::h letters, how ever, their intellectualization was granted by a neo-Aristotelian m odel : • : jii t io n that privileges the role o f visio n above all the other special senses. In the с o f the Renaissance, European writers put increasing emphasis on the distinctly .m a n ability to th in k abstractly and to in vo lve the visu alizin g powers o f sight in г .nation w ith the im agination in the process o f gain in g a rational understanding o f created w orld and revealed know ledge o f G o d .34 Transform ations in a neo-Aristotelian theory o f the im agination that granted increasi _ r.itional powers to the artist’s mental deliberations, together w ith the classification ■ f hum an know ledge in a hierarchical scheme that had always subordinated fictio n and . to rational thought and divin e revelation, are tw o very im portant factors in the г ■ n cal notion o f a hierarchy o f the arts. Renaissance painting, sculpture, and architectc r r — defined as theoretically grounded pursuits associated w ith poetry or perspective, or : ■" and based on experience — provided the norm ative standards against w h ich zt - -te r n cultural products were measured b y Europeans for hundreds o f years. :nportant to bear in m ind that the w o rd art did not yet mean w hat it does today, bn sixteenth century, art most often signified skill, as defined b y the rhetorical i r , err n, or procedures, and as such it was the equivalent o f terms like m ethod or ■ r r : iiu m .35 B o th skill and procedures were associated w ith artists’ mental activity, i r : * ib ility to invent new things out o f their im aginations. T h e e vo lvin g definition o f i_ < nly one thread in a co m plex weave o f changing attitudes towards hum an - шзчг edge d urin g this period, but perhaps a concrete exam ple can clarify the negative : .-¿r. ns glim psed in the new sixteenth-century understanding o f art for n o n ocean cultures. T o anticipate a point raised by W . J. T . M itchell in the E p ilo g u e fee -• the relevance o f an A frican spoon to the Sistine C e ilin g , w hat w o u ld have been f t ; : r r - ' for European audiences o f the late fifteenth- or early sixteenth-century iv o ry Tuguese saltcellar w ith an Italian provenance reproduced in the Frontispiece? i rm rn ly . a sixteenth-century Italian (or any hum anist) collector w o u ld have appreci■ o : “ • m agnificent object, com m issioned from Sapi artists b y Portuguese traders, for its pecMXzs material, skillful carving, and especially the figures as products o f the artist’s -jin atio n . But at the same time, the figures’ elongated proportions and disproIv large heads m ay have signified the artist’s deficient know ledge o f anatom y ■ 4: izro ran ce o f classicizing principles o f proportion. Consequently, the m aker o f this c ir.ould the Sapi carver’s identity have been considered at all, m ig h t have been .." r r c e d as possessing an active but irrational im agination, unaccom panied by the n.^ 7 veers exem plified in contem porary Italian and Italianate productions, where cr f scientific know ledge in anatom y and perspective was manifested in the w o rk. E u r эеап audiences, the value o f A frica n -P o rtu g u e se ivories and sim ilar objects

10

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

m ight even have dim inished had the am using, grotesquely proportioned figures (am using and grotesque in European eyes, that is) becom e vehicles o f crosscultural com m unication instead o f decontextualized signs o f otherness and o f universal artistic ingenuity. Fo r the native inhabitants o f Sierra Leone, as Suzanne B lie r has recently show n, such carved images belonged to an entirely different conceptual fram ew ork.36 T h e large seated figure at the top, despite its negroid p hysiognom y, was probably meant to represent an ancestral spirit incarnated in the form o f a Portuguese trader (since both were w hite in the Sapi im aginary), made b y artists w ho m ay not have had access to a liv in g Portuguese m odel. T h e function o f this hybrid object as a container o f salt was foreign to the Sapi culture, but the severed heads and the m ain figu re ’s seated position can be connected specifically w ith Sapi burial traditions. B y contrast, the same scene is like ly to have encouraged European fantasies o f decapitation and cannibalism am ong “ savages” - to ju d g e from the popularity o f such stories in sixteenth-century travel literature. Sensationalizing fantasies m ay even have prom pted the com m ission o f the object, although w e are lik e ly never to k n o w because no records survive. T h is lack o f docum entation - w h ich is characteristic o f the entire class o f fifteenth- and sixteenth-century A frica n -P o rtu g u e se ivories further suggests that these hybrid cultural products were valued p rim arily as exotic collectors’ items, not as representations o f Sapi beliefs, by the Europeans w ho sought them and assimilated them to their o w n frames o f reference. T a k in g part in a co m plex cultural exchange, exotic objects did not carry ju st one set o f connotative m eanings. A w ide range o f artifacts, regardless o f their origins, m ay have evoked sim ilar responses from European audiences. It seems to me that we have not considered the co m plex discursive field about artistic in ventio n that m ay have encour­ aged such generalizations. T h e artifice o f any w o rk o f art was m ost often evaluated as part o f a contest between nature and art but, w hatever the narrative fram ew ork, the artist’s in ve ntio n was always conceptually co n jo ined w ith the needs o f both the subject and the particular v ie w in g audience. In this three-w ay relationship am ong subject, artist, and audience, the intentions o f the artificer were considered manifest in the w o rk o f art.3' T h a t is, as early as the sixteenth century (and m u ch earlier, in fact), European view ers thought it was possible to read the m entality o f the artist out o f his artistic productions. A rtistic in ventio n, conceived in sixteenth-century terms as any kin d o f artifice invented by the artist, is a historical, culturally specific category for assessing the epistem ological status o f a w o rk o f art as w ell as its m aker. Grotteschi — the w o rd refers literally to a kin d o f pictorial em bellishm ent com posed o f playful, m onstrous figures in ancient p ainting and architectural ornam ent - had lo n g been associated w ith the active powers o f the im agination. In the circle o f M ichelangelo, grotteschi were regarded as em blem atic o f the procedure o f in ve ntio n in architecture, w here the parts are com posed in a w ay not to be found in nature.38 Such com pounds, according to V in ce n zo D an ti, define an entirely new genius o f the art o f design, separate from painting, sculpture, and architecture, the arts that'can “ imitate or truly portray all things that can be seen.” 39 Grotteschi and sim ilar artistic inventions signified in a doublehanded w ay, how ever. O n one hand, they stood for artists’ freedom and capacity to invent images out o f their im aginations that nature could never create; on the other hand, and for the same reasons, grotteschi were associated w ith irrational mental activity, the active im agination unre­ strained by hum an reason. T h e centrality o f pure artifice to discussions of artistic

INTRODUCTION am using Binication .. F o r the ch carved :ed figure 1 ancestral i the Sapi se model, pi culture, ^ e cifically ncouraged r io m the _• fantasies r. r.ever to jracteristic h o rie s — as exotic h sought one set , m ay have b are not c encour■ed as part ■be artist’s in d the and f a r t.37 ■sewers rrions. .vented >gical kind and the the :o be : r. rely the wsl

On :heir >ns, _r.restic

11

invention is suggested b y the circum stance that in 1563 the C o u n c il o f T re n t adopted a v'.eory o f images w h ich effectively censured all unnecessary em bellishm ents in sacred im ages.40 T h e religious decorum o f sacred images decreed by the p o st-T rid en tin e C h u rc h redirected previous appreciations o f artistic license: too m uch artistic freedom manifested - :oo great a display o f art was perceived as a threat to ecclesiastical authority. R e fo rm e d r. les o f optical naturalism were often considered outward signs o f the tru th-tellin g г nver o f im ages.41 '.'л the sober religious clim ate o f the latter part o f the sixteenth century, the subject o f ¡rjtteschi gravitated to the center o f discussions about art in Italy.42 U n d e r pressure to - :irv and reform devotional practices, writers w h o once m igh t have praised grotteschi, . : n:ii, and other pure fantasie as inventions intended solely to delight and amaze the 1iew er, emphasized other possibilities in the age-old European contrast between the r m o ns o f hum an im agination and the mysteries o f divin e revelation. O n e interesting ¿change w hich suggests that n on -Eu ro p ean objects directly affected these considerations к place in 1582 between A rchbishop G abriele Paleotti, author o f a famous treatise to re t: n n contem porary pain tin g (discussed in another context in C h apter 6 o f this volum e ч Pamela Jones), and his close friend Ulisse A ld ro van di, renow ned natural scientist and "ector o f Am erican m aterial, a professor at the U n ive rsity o f B o lo gn a.43 Paleotti’s ¿2 ;v " io n o f grotteschi (some fifty pages in the m odern edition o f his treatise) points to a em ploys v iv id colors and other forms o f artifice (that the C o u n c il o f T re n t я г : : rejected for their “ sensuous charm ”). These visual docum ents contribute to p H —' know ledge, sometimes they even revise written authority.46 T h e ideas that Paleotti and

12

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

A ld ro van di exchanged about the nature o f representation, w hile exceptional in p ro vid in g historians w ith direct connections between A m erind ian artifacts and theoretical dis­ cussions o f art in Italy, were not unique. These and m any other such conduits o f cultural transmission that w ait to be assessed suggest that n o n -E u ro p ean art played an im portant role in the construction o f European conceptions o f the perception o f art.47 F o r texts can docum ent h o w exotic objects, regardless o f their cultural origins, resonated for European cultures in sim ilar ways. V isual hom ologies made it easy to project ideas specific to one culture on to another, as m any o f the contributors to this vo lum e elaborate. A n th o n y Pagden has named the m echanism for translating varieties o f experience under these circum stances in literary texts the “ principle o f attachm ent” that leads to (m is)recognition.48 In the process o f detaching a m o tif from its o riginal cultural context, Pagden explains, expropriation also encourages positive b elief in a universal category o f hum anity. A t present, we need to learn m ore about the various ways that the so-called visual arts have contributed to this co m plex process o f collective identity form ation. T h e term “ hybrid im age” used throughout this study to designate certain types o f culturally co m plex objects is indebted to contem porary colonial discourse analysis. H o m i Bhabha, w ho has developed a concept o f hyb ridity as a “ problem atic o f colonial representation,” m aintains that, w hen the colonial subject m im ics the forms o f the dom inant culture, the resulting hybrid forms introduce slippages and excesses o f m ean­ in g .49 T h e doubled form or hybrid repeats the fixed and em pty presence o f authority by articulating it w ith differential know ledges and positionalities that take the form o f m ultiple or contradictory beliefs.50 These hybrids pose a threat to “ norm alized” k n o w l­ edge and d isciplinary p ow er.51 Bhabha shifts the study o f cultural interaction away from determ inistic fram ew orks o f interpretation, and the discussions o f hybrid images in this volum e are indebted to his m odel. Y e t there are also problem s w ith B habha’s description o f cultural authority. H isto rically, h yb rid ity is far from b eing a neutral concept. T h e possible effects o f hum an hyb ridizatio n w ere debated at length b y nineteenth-century racial theorists.52 T h e overdeterm ined language o f polygenism is inscribed (inadvertently, to be sure) in B habh a’s negative vie w that the “ m utation” (i.e., the hybrid) “ w eakens” and “ deform s” cultural authority. T h e studies o f hyb rid images w h ich fo llo w here do not take issue w ith B habh a’s u nd erlyin g critique o f cultural authority, but they focus on a different problem : this collection o f essays stresses the ability o f the hybrid to revise and envigorate cultural identity. C o nsequently, our understanding o f “ h yb rid ity” is different. T o restate this difference in the nineteenth-century language o f racial theory, the anti­ evolutionist anthropologist Franz Boas introduced the concept o f fertile hyb ridizatio n at the turn o f the tw entieth century.53 Fertile hyb rid images, accordingly, produce a surplus o f m eanings - that is, the same im age can be interpreted in m ultiple ways and no single interpretation is authoritative, ju st as is the case in Bhabha’s m odel o f h yb rid ity — but they exem plify the notion o f culture as a constantly em erging form o f collective identity, always in a state o f transformation. A hydraulic m etaphor can illustrate the difference between the tw o representations o f culture, B habh a’s critique o f cultural authority and our critique o f existing m odels o f cultural identity: u n ivo cal authority is emptied out by hybridity, identity is o ve rflo w in g for the same reason - it is m ultiple and contradictory.54

IN T R O D U C T IO N

13

Critical Studies in the Migration and Reception of Visual Culture A responsible history o f the dramatic transform ation in the status o f painting, sculpture, and architecture in the early m odern period - and a better understanding o f w h y the arts were hierarchically classified at all — m ust take m any factors into account: the form ation o f critical literary practices, the rise o f academ ic artistic theory and training, the em erg­ ence o f aesthetic theory, the institutionalization and professionalization o f the discipline o f art history, the origins o f museums and the history o f collecting, the ch anging function o f images - from devotional icons, for exam ple, to objects o f aesthetic contem plation. As anthropologist Jam es C liffo rd observes, the corpus o f texts we produce and reproduce about culture constitutes w hat w e call culture.55 T h e fo llo w in g studies, some reconstruct­ in g forgotten European fram ew orks for the reception o f visual culture, others recon­ structing the contributions o f dispossessed indigenous cultures to com posite collective identities, acknow ledge the pow erful assimilative m echanism s o f individuals and cultures. These m echanism s, Stephen Greenblatt quips, “ w o rk like enzym es to change the ideo­ logical com position o f foreign bodies.” 56 O u r m odel o f diversity is based less on autonom y and cultural “ p u rity” and m ore on interrelations and the zones o f contact and intersection.57 T h e fo llo w in g subsections o f the In trodu ctio n briefly introduce the p rin ­ cipal argum ents o f the contributors and set them into the conceptual fram ew ork o f the volum e.

New Problems, New Paradigms: Revising the Humanist Model

i r r re do not f : ;us on a d revise and [eé different. :he antization at l rrod u ce a * iv s and no * hvbridity o : jo llective _ _ 'trate the t cultural _ .::nority is c . .tiple and

T h e three historiographical contributions to this section continue the line o f in q u iry begun in the Intro du ctio n b y addressing the m anner in w h ich Italian Renaissance art came to o ccu py a norm ative role in the history o f art. T h e authors stress that the hum anist m odel o f cultural opposition was applied to a w ide variety o f historical situations. A n th o n y C u tle r leads o ff w ith an exam ination o f the hum anist m odel o f cultural opposition that made B yza n tiu m into E u ro p e ’s inferior other over a fo u rhundred year period o f historical w ritin g. In Ch apter 1, “ T h e Pathos o f Distance: B yzantium in the Gaze o f Renaissance Europe and M odern Scho larsh ip,” C u tle r criti­ cizes the attempt to treat the o rthodox C h ristian East as em erging from the same classical m old as the “ W e st,” because this interpretative fram ew ork, initiated by early hum anist writers, does not evaluate Byzantine culture on its ow n terms. Ju d g in g B yzantine cultural products by Renaissance standards has emphasized factors o f m in o r significance over matters o f central im portance to B yzantium . C u tle r calls for a better interpretative m odel, one that scrutinizes the “ lim inal p ositio n ” attributed to qualities o f B yzantine art that do not fit the classical m old. T h e construction o f East and W est as antithetical subjects was considerably assisted by the process C u tle r describes. W h at justifies this crude binarism today? T h e presence o f B yzantine art in Euro p e, especially in Italy, is considerable. T h e co ntribution o f B y za n ­ tine art (and Byzantine theories o f images) to European art and western aesthetics urgently demands reexam ination in ligh t o f the obvious fact that, w hen Italian hum anist writers and artists associated themselves directly w ith their ancient G re c o -R o m a n roots

H

R E F R A M IN G T H E R E N A IS S A N C E

(hence the term “Renaissance”), they neglected to mention prolonged cultural inter­ actions with Byzantium (and elsewhere) that had taken, and continued to take, place on home soil. Th o m as D a C o sta Kaufm an n makes a sim ilar case for the m anner in w h ich the hum anist m odel o f cultural opposition has affected studies o f Renaissance style outside Italy. In C h apter 2, “ Italian Sculptors and Sculpture O utside o f Italy (C h ie fly in Central Europe): Problem s o f Approach, Possibilities o f R e ce p tio n ,” Kaufm ann argues that the transformations of Renaissance style in central Europ e and elsewhere outside Italy have been inadequately conceptualized, above all due to the nationalist interests o f (initially, m ostly G erm an) art historians. Kaufm ann presents evidence o f sim ilar transformations o f Italianate forms that occurred in places w id ely separated by geography and culture. H e proposes a m odern anthropological m odel to track the diffusion o f these forms through interaction and circulation, and to account for the m ediating conditions o f active reception, even rejection, o f the im ported style in differing local circum stances. M y ow n contribution, C h apter 3, “ ‘V isio n Itself Has Its O w n H is to ry ’: ‘R a c e ,’ N atio n , and Renaissance A rt H isto ry ,” also exam ines nationalistic categories constructed by nineteenth-century G erm an-sp eakin g art historians, but the focus o f this study is the paradigm atic role played b y Renaissance art in theories o f artistic change. T h e argum ent develops the prem ise that W o lfflin , R ie g l, and other art historians participated in an interdisciplinary dialogue centered on racial theories o f cultural evolution that was disrupted by tw o w o rld wars; in the interim , in the increasingly hostile nationalistic clim ate o f social dem ocracy, Panofsky and his peers reinstituted the Enlighten m en t concept o f hum anist culture that their im m ediate predecessors like R ie g l questioned. B y neglectin g the broader cultural context in w h ich theories o f artistic change developed, we inadvertently reproduce the nationalistic biases o f our predecessors w ith o ut under­ standing that their arguments were meant to counter p revailing ethnocentric assumptions o f the day. T h e next section o f Refraining the Renaissance turns to the prim ary evidence for the function, reception, and pow er o f specific kinds o f visual representations in the sixteenth century.

Renaissance Theories of the Image Sixteen th -centu ry European appreciations o f naturalistic images are grounded in an Aristotelian theory o f the im agination w h ich holds that the m ind transforms sense im pressions into internal images w h ich are stored in the m em ory and becom e the basis for higher form s o f thought.58 T h e next five essays deal w ith the reception o f various kinds o f naturalistic images in the sixteenth century. A ll the authors emphasize that lifelike images w ere thought to be pow erful m n e m o n ic tools w o rk in g on the im agination. Since B urckh ardt associated the Renaissance w ith the revival o f optical naturalism cu lm in atin g in R a p h a e l’s late w o rk, it is o n ly fitting to open this section w ith a reassessment o f R a p h a e l’s pivotal role in d efin in g Renaissance classicism. Janis B e ll, in Ch ap ter 4, “ R e v is io n in g R ap h ae l as a ‘Scie n tific Painter,’ ” compares four centuries o f

INTRODUCTION

15

R ap h ae l criticism , arguing that m odern aesthetic appreciations o f classical style, cast in term o f its form al order, are sym ptom atic o f an epistem ological break w ith Aristotelian theories o f images that emerged in the latter part o f the seventeenth century. O u r understanding o f naturalism should encompass a range o f m eaning consistent w ith its earlier historical use because (here B ell draws conclusions sim ilar to C u tle r and Kaufm ann) visual qualities that fit the nineteenth-century stereotype o f classicism over­ emphasize certain qualities w hile neglecting the scientific innovations in R a p h a e l’s treatment o f color, shadow, and atm ospheric effects — visual effects that find support in recent p hysiological theories o f perception. T h e next tw o essays, b y Alessandro N o v a and Pamela Jones, exam ine ways in w h ich “aesthetic” response (i.e., an appeal to the m ind through the senses) was incorporated into sixteenth-century religious practices in Italy. In com plem entary studies dealing w ith institutional attitudes towards sacred images in Italy, both authors indicate that the modern category o f “ high art” is inadequate to circum scribe the functions o f sixteenthcentury images because our secular approach to style has obscured the m anner in w h ich naturalistic detail in devotional images was intended to elicit em otional reponses from the newer. T h e ir researches corroborate C u tle r’s vie w (in C h apter 1) that the kin d o f relationship between view er and the D iv in e established through the m ed iu m o f the icon indicates fundamental cultural differences. In the western C h u rc h , contact w ith the D iv in e is mediated through hum an inter-r'sors. N o v a ’s C h apter 5, “ ‘Po p u lar’ A rt in Renaissance Italy: E arly Response to the H o ly M ountain at V ara llo ,” studies docum entation for the late fifteenth-century recon :ruction o f Jerusalem at M onte Varallo in the Piedm ont, founded b y the Franciscan '^servants and a popular pilgrim age site throughout the sixteenth century. T h e narrative tableaux at Varallo featured lifesize figures em bellished w ith “ real” details such as actual ~ nr. clothing, furniture, and candles that are con ven tio nally regarded today as appealing ' an uneducated audience. T h is interpetation, N o v a argues, does not explain w h y Sacro M >nte was patronized by a fashionable, sophisticated M ilanese aristocracy. C u rre n t vznolarship is m issing the m ain point: p ilgrim age sites docum ent a sixteenth-century form ■ :::aterial culture that offered a participatory religious experience to all ranks o f society, ~r_-^rdless o f taste and education. N o va cites the early sixteenth-century hum anist G irolam o M o ro n e ’s enthusiastic •. ..irk that the dramatic episodes at Varallo w ere com pletely artless (made “ w ith o ut n z ’). Does this mean that period writers could consider veristic representations in general be artless, or that posed figures clothed w ith actual clo th in g and hair w ere “ artless” in ay that painted representations could never be? Based on a close reading o f the textual i.r 1 material evidence for Varallo, N o v a concludes the latter; but the fo llo w in g chapter, w -;c h exam ines slightly later statements about painting, makes one suspect that deeper ¡ ■ - r ' about the nature o f im itation were ro utinely im plicated in sixteenth-century jp m ssions o f “ art.” O u r m odern, secular readings o f Renaissance discussions o f life lik e r e in art need to be reconsidered carefully in ligh t o f the fu nctio n o f religious images, constitutes the effective im itation o f a liv in g , divin e presence was always a h ig h ly :_ rd issue for the C h u rc h im p licatin g both artist and audience — lo n g before the jO_:. Jil o f T re n t in t 563 tried to legislate w hat kinds o f artistic license exceeded the 1 a its o f religious decorum .

R E F R A M IN G T H E R E N A ISSA N C E Pam ela Jo n e s’ essay, C h apter 6, entitled “ A rt T h e o ry as Ideology: G abriele Paleotti’s H ierarchical N o tio n o f Pain tin g ’s U n iversality and R e c e p tio n ,” is significant for d ocu ­ m enting the emergence o f consciously aestheticizing attitudes and a hierarchy o f vie w in g practices based on education (and, therefore, on class). In the tense atmosphere o f discussion about the lim itations o f artistic license after 1563, a central problem that preoccupied Paleotti in his w id ely disseminated Discourse on Sacred and Profane Images (Italian edition, 1582; Latin edition, 1594) was h o w to ju stify aesthetic enjoym ent o f landscape and other n o n -religio u s elements. H e argued that elite view ers, u nlike the uneducated masses, w o u ld not be seduced by artistic em bellishm ents designed to delight the senses. T o w hat extent, Jones wants to kn o w , did p o st-T rid en tin e theories o f the im age succeed in creating a category o f designated “ illiterate persons” at the bottom o f the vie w in g hierarchy, a hierarchy that m ight have assimilated laborers, peasants, w om en, and perhaps all the native inhabitants o f “ new w o rlds,” in a single category? Styles o f scientific naturalism were intended to com m unicate w ith view ers through the supposedly universal language o f sight. B u t the actual reception o f naturalistic images outside Italy presents a very different vie w o f the negotiations circu latin g am ong patron, artist, and view er in the early colonial period. T h e last tw o studies o f this section, by Pauline W atts and T h o m as C u m m in s, cross disciplinary, geographical, and cultural boundaries to ask h ow the same European theories o f images w ere translated to Latin A m erica. B o th authors exam ine records o f crosscultural exchanges b y e xp lo rin g the translation o f classical and C h ristian values in Latin A m e rica at a time w hen visual co m m unication was considered an absolutely necessary instrum ent to overcom e the language barrier. In C h apter 7, “ Languages o f Gesture in S ixte e n th -C e n tu ry M exico : Som e Antecedents and Transm utations,” Watts discusses a w ide range o f colonial texts to reconstruct perform ative aspects o f a purportedly universal language o f gesture and expression grounded in classical/Christian rhetorical theory. She finds that the negotiated Christianities o f state spectacle and religious drama record an active process o f indigenous reception and strong indications o f European p hobic reaction to native ritual customs. L ik e Watts, C u m m in s investigates h o w the m im etic aspects o f images w ith m nem o nic functions w ere used to correlate tw o unrelated cultures. C h apter 8, “ From Lies to T ru th : C o lo n ia l Ekphrasis and the A ct o f Crosscultural T ra n slatio n ,” exam ines prim ary source m aterial for slippages between the western sign and its colonial significance. T h e single co m m o n thread am ong all the categories o f visual evidence that C u m m in s exam ines in clu d in g indigenous colonial paintings used in legal cases and M exican pictorial m anu­ scripts — is unexpected: C u m m in s finds that, regardless o f their conventions o f represen­ tation, colonial images were ju d g ed to contain truthful inform ation i f they gave evidence o f a p rior oral dialogue. It could be argued further that M exican calendrical illustrations were ju d g e d to contain “ truthful” inform ation because astronom ical calculations had scientific status in Europe. T o state this in the broader terms o f C u m m in s’ argum ent, the relationship o f the M exican calendrical diagrams to p rio r evidence, and the relationship between the legal pictorial evidence and p rio r testim ony, are based on the same assumption o f d em onstrability. Indeed, C u m m in s speculates that the m estizo w riter D ie g o Valades discussed the reliability o f the M exican calendar in his Rhetorica Christiana ( 1 5 7 9 ), written in R o m e and published three years before the institution o f the G rego rian calendar, as an inten­

INTRODUCTION f Paleotti’s for d o cu o f vie w in g sp h e re o f >blem that fane Images oym ent o f unlike the : :o delight r-.es o f the bottom o f *5. w om en, through the eric images or.g patron, section, by - d cultural lid to Latin r ' rm g the s. h en visual B c o m e the cr. M exico : texts to rare and . »otiated u.genous rustoms. m nem onic - Tru th : b ty source Tr.e single m ines — m anu-esenm evidence : • contain Europe. o f the die legal :t:n o n nscussed - л о те л inten-

17

tional allusion to the im p en ding reform . In other w ords, Valades defended the truth value o f M exican images in terms that could be recognized b y Europeans. In this process o f cultural exchange, N ahua pictorial traditons w ere resituated in a European frame o f reference.

Early Collecting Practices T h e third section continues to exam ine the construction o f new epistem ological cat­ io n e s and the tearing dow n o f old ones as people and things m igrated on an unprec­ edented scale. A rapidly g ro w in g field o f publications on the history o f co llecting suggests that private m useum s constitute a distinct form o f docum entary culture that preserves a n ch font o f u nd er-u tilized inform ation about the contributions that n on -Eu ro p ean cultures made to European conceptions o f the visual arts.39 T h e three essays included here discuss the theories that supported the practice o f collecting in some unusual areas. T h e objects considered o ccu p y a lim inal position in the history o f the visual arts in that :hey were in itially sources o f sensual and intellectual delight for European audiences, but ere later excluded from the aesthetic systematization o f the fine arts. E v e n the present j e a t interest in the early history o f collecting tends to m arginalize these early collecting ;::vities, treating the objects as mere curiosities o f the “ m in o r arts” or relegating them ■ :he history o f science - thus reproducing eighteenth- and nineteenth-century aesthetic :itego ries and v ie w in g practices that are anachronistically applied to the m aterial under ;: nsideration. O n e o f the dom inant themes to emerge from the three studies included here is the :ei tral role played by the Aristotelian parallel between nature and art across a broad spectrum o f co llecting activities. M artin K e m p , in Chapter 9, ‘“ W ro u g h t b y no A rtist’s r iin d ': T h e N atural, the A rtificial, the E x o tic , and the Scie n tific in some Artifacts from the Renaissance,” emphasizes the inadequacy o f any rigid system o f classification to . . : unt for contem porary m otivations behind the m akin g and v ie w in g o f objects. From tudy o f virtuoso examples o f hum an craftsmanship that incorporate natural objects { uch as coconut shells and deer antlers), K e m p argues that these “ cultural m igrators” . .tionally defied stable classification and interpretation o f m eaning. A s K e m p discusses r rrids o f nature and art invented b y W entzel Jam nitzer, Bernard Palissy, and others : the context o f the intellectualization o f the crafts, he finds that their display pieces w r r . ::ieant to confer status on a w id er range o f patrons than w e usually assume. These € r e-cts were o rigin ally ordered b y p rince ly rulers, university scientists, courtly craftsm en— c _ - w e r s , even city councils (as the illustration o f the Uppsala cabinet in Figure 9.18 w ho displayed not only their pow er but also genuine piety before G o d ’s ~ ^ r .::ic e n t creations. process o f expropriating objects from cultures sacked and colo n ized b y European cc as C la u d ia Lazzaro and Elo ise Q u iñ o n e s K eb er both discuss, also created new th in k in g about culture. Lazzaro, w ho takes a sem iotic approach to fifteenth- and r . : t-century images o f animals, finds that the display o f w ild and dom estic :red a new category o f culture against w h ich the fam iliar could trr 10, “ A n im als as C u ltu ra l Signs: A M e d ici M enagerie in the GroiCnan, as for the poet, the past is a foreign country. N o matter h o w reflective -V:- philosophiques m ay be, they are self-reflexive. So it was in the case o f : the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries w hen they loo ked at B yzantium ; so it uggest, w ith m odern scholars w hen they lo o k at this same slice o f space and ind after the Q uattrocento, Italians for the most part disdained the C h ristian : - — r rheir needs lay elsewhere, they at least gave vo ice to those needs, treating ::rst as an alien culture and, after its demise, as an irrelevance. M odern ■ e ra p n y . on the other hand, w h ile cla im in g that som ehow B yzantine art still has our concern, has treated it as som ething little different from that o f the . ' :r T h is attitude has misrepresented its nature and thereby clouded that w h ich I . ; . j m to our interest - a society that had its roots in the classical and Ch ristian ► :ne same intertw ined legacy as was inherited by the Renaissance) but w h ich d r r som ething other. - i generation and m ore one or another form o f “ O rie n talism ” has been held to be 'in of western intellectuals, a notion that has at last permeated to those w ho : -- _■ zantine art professionally.2 Y e t the nature o f G reek O rth o d o x culture is as ill 4" Treating it in terms devised for European societies as it is b y seeing it as a

24

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

schism atic variant on m edieval civilizatio n or, in the Renaissance view , as a portion o f “ prehistory” — a fetal, i f not abortive, state, beyond w h ich the W est has progressed. F o llo w in g expositions o f both these stages, I shall argue that B yzantine art is better regarded as the expression o f an “ O rie n ta l,” that is to say, quite alien culture. Stupendous spectacle that it m ay have been, it w ill not best be recovered by chasing after its G r e c o R o m a n vestiges. Som e archeologists believe that Boadicea is buried under platform 10 at K in g ’s C ro ss Station. B u t d ig gin g her up w ill not in itself tell us m uch about the nature o f early Britain. Tam Britannia quam Byzantium. A n understanding o f these (or any other) cultures requires the recognition o f our ow n theoretical attitude towards such accounts; and this depends upon an awareness o f the historiographical m atrix on w h ich our present stance is grounded. W ith o u t these Boadicea can be o n ly a skeleton or, at best, a corpse.

Byzantium in, and after, the Renaissance W e m ay as w ell begin w ith C e n n in o C e n n in i, pupil o f A g n o lo , the son o f Taddeo G addi w ho was G io tto ’s pupil. It was G io tto w ho , in C e n n in i’s construction, “ changed the profession o f painting from G re ek back into Latin, and brought it up to date.” -’ T h is famous form ulation, along w ith Vasari’s n otion o f the maniera greca moderna,' is a locus classicus for the invention o f Renaissance painting. B u t it has been inadequately scruti­ nized. A c co rd in g to C e n n in i, G io tto did tw o seem ingly contradictory things: first, he restored p ainting to the w ay in w h ich the Romans had practiced it; secondly, he m odernized this m anner. T o understand this declaration requires us to recognize w hat was obvious to all c. 1400: the Byzantine m anner was the w ay in w h ich all Italians had painted. E ve ryw he re C e n n in i and his contem poraries looked they saw the art that we call m edieval — in the layout o f cities, in the buildings that lined their streets, in the frescoes in those buildings. T h e re is no contem pt for this m anner (as there is in Vasari), no trium phalism in C e n n in i’s conception. T h e maniera greca was sim ply the past, a past whose superannuation was proved by the fact that the b u ild in g and p ainting o f his ow n day w ere different. T o be aware o f difference here means to have a sense o f history, to be able to see the past as passed. T o be passed over is to go unnoticed and it is precisely this absence o f attention to things o f the T re ce n to in records o f the Renaissance that is a source o f controversy am ong historians o f the period. A prim e exam ple is the panel o f the archangel M ichael today in the M useo di S. M atteo in Pisa (Figure 1.1). Frustrated by the fact that this object w ent unrecorded until 1923,5 the art historical debate over its place o f o rigin continues. T h e means o f ascertaining this o rigin can proceed from neither a general theory o f Byzantine “ influence” on T u scan art nor one o f Byzantine painters w o rk in g for foreign clients. M ore revealing than any plausible account of the picture’s source is the am ount o f scholarly effort that has gone into the attempt to determ ine this. Fo r our present purposes, the significance o f the controversy lies in its participants’ disinclination to accept the one undebatable, i f m inim al, co n clu sio n that it allows — the Italian refusal to distinguish local productions from those o f the east C h ristian w orld. (W heth er this refusal represents a surrender to the B yzantine m anner is another, and secondary, issue.) A panel that em ploys an ico n o graph y shared by both regions, one that “ lo o ks” G reek but

THE PATHOS OF DISTANCE portion o f progressed, rt is better Stupendous its G r e c o itform 10 at c the nature r any other) ;h accounts; our present •st, a corpse.

addeo G addi ‘changed the date.” ’ T h is Hrt,4 is a locus uately scrutiings: first, he secondly, he cognize what ill Italians had i t that we call in the frescoes in Vasari), no e past, a past ng o f his ow n ■ o f history, to 01 Attention to o f controversy i^-.gel M ichael c tact that this place o f o rigin ¡¿ter a general ir- w o rk in g for ”s ^urce is the e -his. For our fc disinclination : Italian refusal < •. hether this ■ dary, issue.) " G re ek but

25

» e sc rib e d in Latin , affirms that very com m o nality that w o u ld fall victim to the selfш а a r usness made explicit in C e n n in i’s assertion. p ::ion is an ideological one; it is also one that explains w h y Q uattrocento artists ■ r ? fundam entally uninterested in B yzan tiu m . F o r a larger audience, in 1400 the G reeks e r r ? n a t i o n o f beggars: their em peror was then (and not for the first time) in western E a r c : : 7 r id in g for funds, for assistance against the T u rk s then besieging the inhabitants :^:.:inople. T h e ir mental h orizo n, acco rd in g to G ib b o n , could never acco m m occ г Renaissance achievem ent: T< scandalous figures stand quite out from the canvas: they are as bad as a group ir It was thus that the ignorance and b igotry o f a G re ek priest applauded the -'. - - - г - f T itia n , w h ich he had ordered, and refused to accept.6 rr the story is true or not, it speaks volum es about the En lig h te n m e n t’s attitude B yzantium . It is w orth investigating this co gnitive posture not o n ly because its in the Q uattrocento but also because w e, for all our protestations to the - ir likew ise its heirs. In essence, I shall argue that precisely because B yzantine n was irrelevant to the humanists, except insofar as it appeared as a w ay-station I i ?.ick to antiquity, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it had to be :*r_: B y the nineteenth and tw entieth such was E u ro p e ’s remoteness from this ■ e that a variety o f Byzantium s co u ld exist - one, in the prism o f colonialism , an east ieurs et misères tantalized artists, architects, and their publics; the other, no less r b e : ittainable and made safe for scholarship w hen view ed through the classicizing ж z Enlightenm ent. R a y s from an object, even one in fin ite ly distant, prove that тс т .: .rice existed. W h en they fail to meet at a single focal point, they also crû :he presence o f astigmatism. Ш. 'iep towards correction, w e need to recognize the difference between the ¿nd the sym bolic roles o f B yzantium in the Renaissance; the uses made o f this m rre by no means congruent w ith the W e st’s sym pathy (or lack th ereo f) for the pn “ upported it. T h e distinction is apparent in a num ber o f areas. F o r exam ple, r . r nm e as the La tin church was u n w illin g ly discussing papal prim acy and the ■ p i — j* iire o f the eucharistie host w ith Jo h n V I I I and his Patriarch at the C o u n c il o f rence (1438—39), Pisanello borrow ed the em peror’s profile for a famous T ■ '.ikeness lived on in Italian art not as the portrait o f a specific in divid u al but ж . гшгое. for images o f Pontius Pilate and the O ttom an sultan. In the hands o f a i G entile B e llin i, the B yzantine, deprived o f his race and faith, offered a ■ cut tvpe for exotic costumes and headdresses, one am ong m any that included I b b . : M am luks.8 W h ile the classical and Patristic learning exhibited by Bessarion, rmi: ar i George A m iroutzes at the conclave led one scholar to describe the C o u n c il “ir* zrr :r 'i historical sem inar o f the Italian Ren aissan ce,” 9 the im pact o f their t v ■■ rerhaps better assessed by Ih o r Sevcenko: “ w hen looked at, these turbaned, ■ f a : an-d lon g-ro b ed Platonists appeared m ore like the denizens o f Susa than " A t least at the level o f appearance, then, in Latin eyes there was little to ^ a x С reek from T u r k . T h e Byzantines got part o f w hat they wanted - the ill-fated ■ в . < * V ,m a preached b y Eugenius IV - but the Italians got more. In A p ril 1438 m z > 7 r - . ersari w rote excitedly from Ferrara to his friend F ilip p o dei P ie ru zzi o f

26

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

the books brought b y the supplicants from the Bosporos - a beautiful Plato, a Plutarch, Aristotle, D io d oro s, D io n ysio s o f Halikarnassos, and “ C y r il’s b ig b oo k against Ju lian the Apostate w h ich we shall take care to cop y i f we can find the parchm ent.” 11 In short the Latins were aroused by w hat the B yzantines had conserved; the preservation o f the conservators was far from their m inds, even though the predictable flurry o f protests w ent up w hen Constantinople fin ally fell fifteen years later.12 T e n m onths before this event a hum anist had already proclaim ed one aspect o f the W e st’s superiority in the area o f its greatest desire, and the m echanism that brought it about: I, Lo re n zo Valla, corrected this codex o f Th u cyd id e s, o f w hom I believe even the G reeks have no m ore splendidly w ritten or illum inated text, at the com m and o f our blessed lord by divin e grace, Pope N ich o la s V , w o rk in g w ith the very Ioannes w ho w rote it so w e ll.” 13 N o matter that this was a translation - the text had been saved, the desire satisfied. L ik e the knights o f m edieval romances, the humanists ju stified their lust by exagger­ ating the threat to their beloved objects. Im m ediately after the T u rk is h conquest o f the capital, the Venetian Lauro Q u irin i, w ritin g to the same pope, claim ed that 120,000 books had been destroyed.14 B u t the great tenth-century Paris Psalter (B .N . gr. 139) was available in the capital w hen brought out b y the French ambassador, between 1557 and 1559 , for K in g H e n ry I I I ; 15 and the huge co p y o f the w orks o f H ippokrates (B .N . gr. 2144), com m issioned by A le xio s A p o kauko s about 1338, was am ong the books selected for L o u is X I V from the Seraglio library in Istanbul and sent to Paris 350 years later.16 T h e num ber o f unillustrated books preserved, both C h ristian and “ pagan,” was vastly greater. I f ever “ O rie n talism ” was viru le n t it is in these tales o f T u rk is h destruction, rum ors whose spread w e can actually w atch in hindsight. Q u irin i claim ed that he had the figure o f 120,000 books from Isidore o f K ie v , the G re e k-b o rn cardinal o f K ie v , later appointed Latin patriarch o f Constantinople by Pius II P ic c o lo m in i.17 P icco lo m in i him self, before b eco m in g pope, described the T u rk s as “ the enem y o f letters, both G reek and Latin " and saw a “ second death for H o m e r, Pindar, M enander, and all the other famous poets.” 1* Y e t, w hile scholarly contem pt for the B yzantines m etam orphosed into fear and loathing o f the Ottom ans, it is clear that such prejudice was not shared by Italians in other circles. Venetians w h o for centuries had traded along the G olden H o rn soon resumed their activities and, in Florence and elsewhere, pragmatists saw in successive sultans not A siatic terminators but opportunities no less appealing than those that com m ercial treaties w ith the G re ek emperors had afforded. C o n d iv i tells the story o f M ich elan ge lo ’s and Ju liu s I I ’s m utual pique: sensing in Bayezid II a patron less tyrannical than the pope, the artist threatened to accept the sultan’s offer to b uild a bridge across the G olde n H o rn and other structures in Istanbul.19 W h eth e r M ichelangelo (or C o n d iv i) was telling the truth is less im portant than that, early in the C in q u e cen to , the offer w ould have been credible. A century after the T u rk ish conquest o f the city the m ajor part o f B yzantine history had slipped from European awareness. Left were the M uslim present and a rem ote early C h ristian past, w illed into consciousness b y the tw in forces o f confessional appropriation and scholarly antiquarianism . W e shall see in a m om ent h ow these engines operated upon

T H E PA TH O S OF D IS T A N C E

27

), a Plutarch, igainst Ju lia n it.” 11 In short vation o f the protests w ent aspect o f the lat brought it

ieve even the nmand o f our Ioannes w ho

re satisfied, st b y exaggerDnquest o f the I that 120,000 ». gr. 139) was '.een 1 5 5 7 and rates (B .N . gr. books selected ars later.16 T h e > vastly greater, a;n o n , rum ors rad the figure . .:er appointed him self, before ¿:id L a tin ” and ~.ous poets.” ,s nto fear and i by Italians in len H o rn soon r :n successive In n those that £b :he story o f 1 Ie>s tyrannical — :.^e across the cr C o n d iv i) was d r offer w o u ld

B

- ne history remote early rrro p riatio n rrated upon

ter P. Coecke van Aelst. Procession qf Sultan Süleyman through the Atmeydan (detail). -T. ¿fter 1553. New Yo rk, Metropolitan Museum o f Art. (Photo: muséum.)

• : tuel provided by Renaissance p h ilo lo gy. V isually, the vo id is suggested b y a a :._ : after Pieter C o e c k e van A e lst’s Procession through the Atmeydan (the “ Square o f I n e ). i.e., the H ip p o d ro m e that had been C onstan tino p le’s civ ic core for m ore than 1 : : 1.1m (Figure 1.2). O n e or tw o o f the smaller domes in the b ackground may M id dle B yzantine churches, but the scene is dom inated by B ayezid IP s F iru z Aga ■- n the D iv a n Y o lu in the center and, to the right o f this main avenue (the old Nlese, or M id dle Street), the remains o f T h e o d o siu s’ obelisk, the serpent ~ 111 D e lp h i, and the sem i-circu lar sphendone, the h em icycle at the southern end B : H ip p o dro m e. N o t one o f these m onum ents is Byzantine: in C o e c k e ’s gaze it is as f t : pen >d between the fifth and fifteenth centuries had vanished. Caryatids line the wrt : ,rches and trabeated structures, like so m any H o lly w o o d props, m ake a classical roc for the oriental spectacle undisrupted b y the hieroglyphics on the obelisk. T h e even this m onum ent was rewritten: for the reliefs o f Theodosius, his fam ily isub jects on its base were substituted scenes from G re co —R o m a n m ytho lo gy. T h e t n t one o f a series, drawn on the spot in Istanbul in 1533, has been described as a- - B u t the act o f reporting, and the content o f a report, depend upon a as to w hat is w orth reporting, and this decision, o f course, upon the audience ifr : rep >rter has in m ind. I f C o e c k e ’s draw ing echoes the cerem onial entry into cities ind H o ly R o m a n Em perors o f his day, and the classical precedents upon t «_ . \ entries were based, its im m ediate context was Suleym an I ’s stunning victo ry

28

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

at M ohacs seven years earlier, a trium ph w h ich brought the T u rk s to the doorstep o f western Euro p e. C onstantinople, w h ich had fallen to the O ttom ans in the previous century, was the least o f E u ro p e ’s worries. W ere cultural attitudes toward Byzantium from south o f the A lps any less affected by current events? It has been claim ed that Lo re n zo de’ M ed ici, w hen he instructed Janus Laskaris to find h im not o nly classical m anuscripts but also the “ histories o f the m ore recent G re eks,”21 consciously acknow ledged a distinction between G re co —R o m a n and B yzantine texts. But the difference between, say, T h u cyd id e s and N iketas Ch on iates is a matter o f vastly m ore than ch ro n o lo gy. 1 k n o w o f no self-evident declaration that Renaissance Europeans conceived o f B yzan tiu m as an objectively alien society, possessed o f a m entality that, other than in its religious faith, differentiated it from the w orld o f the Caesars. A n d it was the use that could be made o f this faith that was the w ellspring o f a renewed interest in the literature o f eastern C h ristianity. T h o u g h its m ain expression did not com e until the Fuggers, the m erchant princes o f sixteenth-century G erm any, financed the Corpus byzantinae historiae o f H ie ro n ym u s W o lf and W ilh e lm H o ltzm an n (“ X y la n d e r”), the beginnings o f this revival can be detected on the eve o f the R e fo r ­ m ation. A t a pub lic disputation at L e ip zig in 1519, Luther presented the thesis that the O rth o d o x G reeks w ere the repository o f a religious tradition and a theology older and purer than that o f the R o m a n ch u rch .22 As so often, revolutionary rupture was supported b y appeals to the illusio n o f conservation. N o such artifice was needed to drum up interest in V e n ice , w here the Byzantine past was a matter o f current political concern. T h e E m p ire ’s enduring struggles w ith enemies from the east were seen as precedents for the history o f the Serenissim a w h ich , in 1204, had been party to the d ivision o f the Byzantine state and had profited m ig h tily from these eco no m ic and material spoils but w h ich , in the sixteenth century, lost to the T u rk s ever m ore territory and the com m ercial benefits that this entailed. Popular anger was enflamed, though not kindled, b y the production in 1564 o f a Volo a Turco perform ed in the Piazza San M arco beneath the bronze horses looted from the H ip p o d ro m e o f Constantinople and the most pub lic witness to V e n ice ’s quondam greatness.23 A t least parallel to, i f not contingent upon, this hostility was a resurgent fascination w ith the events o f 1204. V ille h a rd o u in ’s O ld French chronicle o f the Latin conquest was translated b y Giovanbattista R a n n u sio and in 1556 the C o u n c il o f T e n com m issioned from the translator’s son the huge (and neglected) study o f the context o f that conquest and the benefits that had accrued to V e n ice .24 Published first in Latin in 1573 and again in that language and in V enetian dialect in 1604, Paolo R a n n u sio ’s b oo k depended heavily on editions o f Byzantine historians made from manuscripts assembled in and after the Q uattrocento. Italians got their first im pressions o f the erstw hile rulers o f Constantinople from the engravings in this b o o k w here their regalia and even poses were applied to the figures o f the Latin em peror Bald w in and his fam ily.25 I f in sixteenth-century V enice Byzantine history was turned to contem porary and local purposes, in R o m e it was exploited for doctrinal reasons. W h ere the Protestants had appealed to an evangelical tradition fantasized as su rvivin g am ong the Greeks, the C o u n te r-R e fo rm a tio n effectively invited C a th o lic scholars to prove through their researches the co n tin u ity and uniqueness o f the apostolic legacy. Pertusi acutely detected the relationship between Trid e n tin e emphasis on the authority o f the Fathers and Jesuit

THE PATHOS OF DISTANCE ; doorstep o f the previous ss affected by itructed Janus o f the more r-R o m a n and Choniates is a claration that iety, possessed e w o rld o f the w ellsp ring o f ain expression ury G erm any, in H o ltzm ann o f the R e fo r :hesis that the logy older and was supported

preoccupation w ith Patristic and later texts.26 B u t to conclude that this interest resulted in an investigation o f m edieval G re ek history for its ow n sake w o u ld be as far from the truth as to suppose that, w hen he painted the T ru e Cross cycle in A re zzo ,2, Piero della Francesca had been prim arily concerned w ith the Eastern Em pire. W h ile o f course Constantine, H elena, and H e raklio s b u lk large in the frescoes, they are no more im portant than Adam , the Q ueen o f Sheba, C h osro e, and other protagonists in the story. A purely circum stantial B yza n tiu m is likew ise evident in such epigoni as G u id o R e n i’s cycle in the funeral chapel for Paul V (1605—21) in S. M aria M aggiore. A concern w ith early C h ristian rather than later church history is predictable in the age o f B aronius and Bellarm ine but now here is B yzantium quite so effaced, w h ile rem aining the ostensible subject, as in the frescoes in the arch directly inside the Cappella Paolina. Painted by B aglione after t 6 t i , 28 these purport to show the deaths o f tw o im perial adversaries o f images29 — C onstantine K o p ro n y m o s (“ called d u n g ,” an epithet due to his alleged defecation d urin g baptism; Figure 1.3) and Leo V , w h o was assassinated by supporters o f his rival and successor w h ile at prayer on Christm as D a y, 820 (Figure 1.4). Constantine is 'h o w n as a M ichelangelesque giant, m oribund (if appropriately diapered) in his tent at

Byzantine past - w ith enemies ■.'rich, in 1204, brilv from these the T u rk s ever «lar anger was perform ed in riippodrom e o f mess.23 A t least Uir.on w ith the - - .is translated ;i> rd from the l - _:uest and the a^ain in that 1 heavily on ir.d after the k L nstantinople . rrlie d to the m y and local - -r'tants had -reeks, the -\ - ugh their . 7 . detected and Jesuit

G* vjnni Baglione. Death of Constantine V mmjmos. Fresco, after 1631. Rom e, S. Maria M . _ - re. Cappella Paolina. (Photo: author.)

1.4 Giovanni Baglione. Death of Leo V the Armenian Fresco, after 1631. Rom e, S. Maria Maggiore, Cappell; Paolina. (Photo: author.)

30

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

Stro ngylo n, w hile Leo, bare-chested and w earing a R o m a n fig h tin g skirt, falls like C arava gg io ’s blinded apostle. A n angelic figure points to his successor, M ichael the A m o rian , anachronistically equipped w ith a radiate crow n, as heavenly radiation pierces the vault o f “ the temple o f the M o th er o f G o d ,” the architecture o f w h ich w o u ld not have struck the early Seicento spectator as in any w ay remarkable. These Baroque figures w rith in g in allegory m ay seem odd in a R o m e n ew ly endowed w ith the G reek C o lle g e o f St. Athanasius, a papal institution founded in part to demonstrate to its pupils w hat their most famous m em ber argued was “ the perpetual consensus between the western and eastern churches.” 30 Earlier in his career, one o f its students, the G re ek-b o rn Leone A llacci, had advised C a th o lic scholars on the mysteries o f O rth o d o x architecture and litu rg y.31 B u t his p hilo lo gical procedure was innocent o f archeological concern, b eing addressed solely to the b u rn in g issue o f the day, the reunification o f the churches. A lth o u gh A lla c c i’s w o rk was drawn on heavily by D u C a n g e , the most im portant French B yzantinist o f the seventeenth century, it, like the “ Lo u vre C o rp u s” o f m edieval G reek texts begun in 1645,32 is o n ly partially understood i f view ed as a product o f disinterested antiquarianism . W h ere in the sixteenth century French m onarchs had been content to patronize scholarly m issions to the Levant,33 by the early seventeenth Lo u is X I I I personally participated in a clim ate that has been described as “ a certain ferm ent o f anti-O tto m an ideas and philobyzantine id e o lo gy .” 34 In 1612 he translated the Ekthesis o f the deacon Agapetos, 72 chapters addressed to Justin ian I 35 that constituted a proleptic version o f the genre later k n o w n as the M irro r o f Princes. R o y a lly sponsored B yzantine studies provided, first, raw material for Je su it scholarship and then, in the second h a lf o f the century, a set o f targets for the em piricist criticism o f the illuminés. M ore broadly considered, they played their part in that orientalism w h ich was so abiding an aspect o f European taste, one that neither started w ith M arlo w e ’s Tamburlaine (1587) nor ended w ith M o zart’s Magic Flute (1791). B u t it was for its didactic potential that the Byzantine vein was most th o rou ghly m ined. Surpassing the visual preachm ents o f the Cappella Paolina, Jesuit dramaturges found in the legends o f its celebrated m en and w om en (Th eo d o ra became as w ell kn o w n on eighteenth-century stages as she had been, accord­ in g to the story, on those o f Ju stin ian ’s time) a seem ingly inexhaustible lode. B y far the most popular, and enduring, o f these was the tale o f Belisarius, Ju stin ian ’s great general, disgraced and blinded in his old age, b e ggin g in the streets o f Constantinople. In 1607 there appeared (in M unich?) a piece w ith the splendid title, “ the T ra g i­ c o m e d y o f Belisarius, the C h ristian Leader, Fallen from the H a p p y H eights o f G lo ry to Beco m e an O b je ct o f D e risio n .” 36 W e are not told h o w this Latin version fared, but some in d e x to the success o f this historico -m o rality play in early m odern Eu ro p e is suggested by the fact that the same theme was exploited by Caldero n (1659) and G old o n i (1734), not to m ention versions by a dozen nonentities.3 Instead o f w an in g d urin g the R e v o lu tio n , the subject seems to have becom e even m ore popular. A laco nically named Bélisaire was w ritten by Je an -Fra n ço is M arm ontel, secretary o f the Académ ie Française and “ H isto rio graph er o f France.” B ut, i f it still existed, the most telling docum ent m ight w ell be the huge canvas on the same theme b y François Gérard, unsuccessfully submitted for the grand prize at the French A cad em y in R o m e in 1795.38 In the absence o f visual evidence, we have o n ly his audience’s response b y w h ich to ju d g e this w o rk: Gérard was

THE PATHOS OF DISTANCE m axe p die ■¿rces ■ i n not B kr-ved fc trt to fc-r rTual : its . ".es r 't o f k - . the W by l i k e the t - ' od

ennobled by L o u is X V I I I and w ent on to becom e N ap o le o n ’s portraitist. As late as 1847 the picture was saluted in the fo llo w in g terms: “ the misfortunes o f Belisarius were destined to draw tears from those w h o had kn o w n the rigors o f e xile .” 39 Its disappearance may thus be one o f the great losses o f European painting. O r perhaps not: its full title was "Belisarius carrying a ch ild bitten by a serpent.” G ive n the co n tin u in g attention to such figures as H e ra klio s,40 it w o u ld be an exaggera­ tion to say that by the early nineteenth century B yza n tiu m had been trim m ed to a m yth :o n cern in g the era o f Justinian. B ut, even in its in visib ility, G erard’s picture leaves little doubt that, drow ned in sentim entalism , this ico n o graph y disappeared into the m aw o f - uropean history painting. N o doubt the digestion o f the eastern R o m a n em pire was .:ded by the view that it was R o m a n , but this understanding is itself the product o f :.:::eteenth-century historiography. T h e themes o f D a v id ’s and G erard’s time jo in e d eamlessly w ith the R o m a n ticism o f D e la cro ix , w h o returned tim e and again to the

jnnze anally

oinan beacon __o f the L 'Hjdies ■It o f the » b ro a d ly I asrect o f me ended B~- zantine C ^ppella I w om en % iccord Bv far the 0: general,

he T ra g iI G lo ry to ¿re d , but Europe is 1 G oldo n i lu rin g the fly named Française cm m ight submitted ■ o f visual erard was

jusjders into Constantinople. O il on canvas, 1840-41. Paris, Musée du

32

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

subject o f the Latin conquest o f 1204. A n early version (1823; Aachen, Suerm ondt M useum ) was effaced in 1840 by his im m ense canvas, The Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople, n o w in the L o u vre (Figure 1.5). Both the size and the content o f this w o rk — almost five meters across — are explained by its com m ission by Lo u is-P h ilip p e for the Galeries historiques at Versailles. T h e re , like a fresco in some Venetian hall o f state, it dom inated the Salle des Croisades, a m onum ent to what, b y the time o f the Ju ly M o narch y, had lo n g been the m yth o f a m onarch w h o leads his armies into battle. A t the center o f the picture, B a ld w in o f Flanders enters the B yzantine capital, the very m odel o f a francophone m ajor-general but proleptically equipped w ith a turban w h ich , for D e la c ro ix , lent a properly oriental air to the m an w h o w ould becom e the first Latin em peror o f Constantinople. O th e r elements have gone m isunderstood or ignored. T h e bearded figure to the left, assaulted b y a soldier in the porch o f a church outfitted in the C o rin th ia n order, has been read either as the blinded Byzantine em peror, Isaac II C o m n e n u s, but he is not blind; or as a “ priest." I f he is that, given his papal tiara, he is a very im portant priest indeed; most lik e ly he is the Patriarch, Jo h n X Kam ateros, protesting the outrage in the coffered loggia o f a classicized H agia Sophia. But the identification o f details is less revealing than the nature o f the canvas’s reception. In 1855, for instance, M axim e du C a m p declared it “ un m o tif à colorations savantes” and its subject as “ absolum ent indifférent” to D e la cro ix .41 T h e latter’s interest, in truth, w ould seem to have been confined to the victim s, and their setting a variant on the painter’s Scenes from the Chios Massacres. B ro ke n je w e l-b o xe s lie am ong the dead and d yin g w ho w o u ld not be out o f place on the raft o f M edusa. T h e dom ed precinct to the right could be the B o u ko le o n (“ bull lio n ” ) palace, if its naively sign ifyin g anim al statuary is to be taken seriously. T h e pathos o f the c ity ’s inhabitants m ay have appealed to European sympathies w ith the G reek rebellion against the T u rk s, but this distress is played out against the backdrop o f Renaissance facades. B yzan tiu m has becom e a culture conceived in terms o f its G re c o -R o m a n inessentials.

Byzantine Art in Modern Scholarship T h e m elange o f the classical, the O riental, and the C h ristian that was manifested in D e la c ro ix ’s C o nstantinople became the standard constitution o f Byzantine culture for m any nineteenth-century French historians.42 Y e t before the century was out, trained archeologists were advocating a m uch narrow er form ula for this co m plex body o f production. T h u s, for exam ple, in 1893, A lo is R ie g l m aintained that “ B yzantine art is n o th in g m ore than the late antique art o f the eastern R o m a n em pire.” 43 W e m ay q u ickly pass over the acrim onious debate, epitom ized in the label Orient oder Rom, that racked scholarship in the first tw o decades o f the present century w ith out m ore ado than to point to the source o f the argum ent’s aridity: any attempt to define a culture in binary terms, in the Aristotelian m ode that governs m odern com puter science - a proposition is either so or not so, a m achine is either “ o ff ” or “ o n ” — is bound to fail. C u ltu res are not m achines, their lo g ic is not binary but “ fu zzy” as logicians n ow use the term. T h e y are m ultivalent, not bivalent, and exist not as “ bits” but as patterns w h ich com puters and their absolutist hum an equivalents can discern but not understand.

T H E PA TH O S OF D IS T A N C E

33

1.6 Washing of the Feet. Panel, tenth century. Sinai, Monastery o f St. Catherine. (Photo: courtesy o f the Princeton-MichiganAlexandria expedition to Mt. Sinai, and Kurt Weitzmann.)

W ere the definition o f B y za n tiu m ’s essence as G re c o -R o m a n , the description o f its i u r e is European, m erely passing mistakes in lo g ic, these too could be passed over. I k r ¿> encapsulated in the title o f the largest ever international exhib itio n o f Byzantine zan tine A rt an [sic] European A rt - staged in Athens in 1964, this m anner o f • - _ has becom e endem ic in our field. Indeed the Athens e xhib itio n, perpetuated in ^ue o f 740 item s,44 m erely canonized the interpretation o f B yza n tiu m that had the com m on denom inator o f western European and Am erican scholarship for at r . generation. A n d even today the “ yo u n g T u r k s ” (if, in this context, the phrase m ay rgiven) w ho reject m u ch o f their predecessors’ intellectual fram ew ork, still rail wgm ssc those w ho ju d g e B yzan tin e art to be not “ Eu ro p ean .”45 T h a t this is not the case C2B. : r rem onstrated w ith any num ber o f quotations from recent com m entary in a dozen E c ' ; : : reas ot cultural activity. W h ile docum ents o f Byzantine epistolography, history, : ? - 'o p h y self-consciously bristle w ith classical allusions and quotations, the field in the G re c o -R o m a n achievem ent is most often used as a reference point by m odern csrs is w ith o ut doubt that o f art. “ T h e classical” — as a system in v o lv in g such *' as hum an proportion, the illusionistic hand ling o f ligh t and shadow, drapery «. ¿nd notional overall “ elegance,” still used as touchstones in the analysis o f Italian ■ - ¿nee art - is applied both as a principle o f m easurement and as a set o f particulars : ristian objects, as the fo llo w in g citations m ake clear. (T h e identity o f their is .ess im portant than the attitude that they display in co m m o n towards the : their study.) O f a tenth-century panel o f the Washing of the Feet (Figure 1.6), f c - * K o n c e , it has been observed that:

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

34

Stylistically, the ico n painter stresses com paratively slender b ody proportions and he w orks w ith a strong emphasis on the highlights, revealing the im pact o f the revival o f classical painterly forms after the iconoclastic p erio d .” 46 A n d o f a steatite sh o w in g the Hetoim asia (the throne prepared for C h ris t’s second com ing) w ith tw o angels and four martyrs: T h e majestic rhythm o f the presentation, the elegance o f attitudes and the classical canon o f the figures evoke those o f the most beautiful ivories o f the “ R o m a n o s G ro u p ” . . . [and] restore the antique spirit sought for d u rin g the M acedonian R enaissance.47 In these examples, the unsurpassable nature o f classical Greece, the mantle of W in cke lm an n w ith its folds beautifully draping the hum an figure, w eigh heavily on the historian o f B yzantine art. T h e fault here is not the fact that w o rks are treated in terms o f their form al qualities. Stylistic analysis remains one o f the most pow erful weapons in the arm ory o f the historian o f culture and one w h ich art historians are especially w ell equipped to deploy. R ath er, these quotations exem plify the analytical tangle that arises w hen the criteria applied are largely irrelevant to the objects under scrutiny. It m ay be objected that such criteria w ere those that the B yzantines themselves em ployed. I f the literature o f the same period rejoices in classical references, are such standards not equally appropriate to contem poraneous w orks o f visual art? T o this plea tw o responses m ay be made. First, the citation o f pagan authors b y Byzantine writers was a co nvention, a socially sanctioned modus operandi that was norm ally pursued in the service o f C h ristian argum ent — an argum ent ignored in the com m entaries ju st cited. Secondly, to treat Byzantine art “ on its o w n terms” is, as Paul Lem erle once observed, to fall into a trap that the Byzantines themselves set.48 W e can th in k o nly in our ow n term sf'even w hen w hat w e are th in k in g about is not som ething o f our ow n devisin g.49 T h e Byzantines called themselves “ R o m a n s” (Rhom aioi) and, from the thirteenth century onwards, Hellenes. Fo r us to use such language today, except insofar as w e refer to the Byzantines’ ow n awareness o f the political, ethnic, and religious overtones that these terms carried, w o u ld be not o n ly confusing, but to w alk open-eyed into the trap. Y e t to insist on “ the classical” as a prim e standard b y w h ich to ju d g e their civilizatio n is to accept co m p licity in the confusion. T h e use o f “ classicism ,” “ naturalism ” (or “ realism ), and sim ilar norm s constitutes w hat philosophers call a category m istake. It has also led to the sort o f circular argum ent by w h ich w orks that are said to be o f high quality, i.e., those w h ich are perceived as possessing an elevated quantum o f “ G re co —R o m a n n e ss,” are regarded as m etropolitan productions, w h ile those o f lesser m agnitude in this respect are deemed to be pro vincial. A lm ost needless to say, so theoretically feeble an axiom is both easily and frequently extrapolated. T h e massive iv o ry b o x object k n o w n as the “ D a v id C aske t,” n o w in the Palazzo V enezia in R o m e , was lo n g ju d g e d to be Arm enian (or, in a later interpretation, Sicilian ) because o f its u ngainly figure carving; in fact, it is a w o rk o f Constantinopolitan m anufacture and an early product o f the era w hen “ Renaissance” values and style are said to have been the horses on w h ich the best people in tow n were putting their m o n e y.50 S u ch delusions have done m ore than induce factual mistakes. T h e y have led to the exaltation o f questions o f m in o r significance over those that could direct our attention to

THE PATHOS OF DISTANCE

35

• central im portance. T h e best exam ple is perhaps the already m entioned Paris the "classicizin g” features o f w h ich led to fifty years o f dispute: were these ivals or revivals o f antique prototypes? Su ch far m ore interesting problem s as _rr at a culture that, w ith in the pages o f one b ook, could accept both the _ "P o m p e ia n ” com position o f D a v id and his m use-like com panion and a (one means b y w h ich early Byzantine emperors w ere chosen) in w h ich a=ached to any figure dangle beneath the shield,51 were left unconsidered. ■ - nere is an issue that transcends aesthetics. T h e paradigm atic role o f m ajor is a matter that goes to the heart o f this society. Byzantine buildings and ■r m ments in sequences that can be traced both backwards and forwards in - c a r num ber can be seen to be w hat R o la n d Barthes called “ prophecies in v 7::;:ig both the tone and topic for future generations, they rehearsed an :: metim es m illennial past, recapitulating not o nly w hat the B yzantines knew determ ining w hat they wanted. T h is does not m ean that no change, no « k . occurred:32 new subjects and m odifications o f m eaning are the stuff o f all ire-inest histories o f B yzantine art. B u t this art’s norm ative tenor results in a IP"»~ r. that art historians attempt to deconstruct: an overall consistency in the its expressions. T h e resemblance between an icon of, say, the tenth century the late twelfth (Figures 1.6 and 1.14) is m ore m arked, and therefore surely r rt to us, than the differences between them. T o dismiss this sim ply as the r. :>r~ a “ co n ven tio nal” or “ traditional” society is not only a thoroughly in d traditional observation but a misrepresentation o f the dynam ics o f its F T sim ilarities between icons o f quite different dates are better seen as the r a sort o f intertextuality: the later im age draws on and proclaim s its o an exem plary ideal. In this sense Byzantine art m ay be considered derivative : ' that d efinition b eing supplied by O rth o d o x theology. T h e role o f the r 1 . • ipotna) and its relation^ to the derivative (paragogon) are set out in extenso in r .jo n o p h ile polem icists.53 These w orks — canonical reading till the end o f z r z em pire - prom oted the idea that, in depicting the holy, an ico n , instead representing it, participated in all but its essence. T h e y thus form ed the core o f mages and a doctrine o f m im esis utterly at odds w ith the principles o f M P ji d ir . m d European art in and after the Renaissance. ■ —r* has i-'een said at least to suggest that the standards o f both the ancient and are inapposite to B yzan tiu m , there rem ains to be considered its C h ristian :ne m edieval W est. In this case, the grounds for differentiation are more * awareness o f this society is sim ilarly founded on w ritten records prepared t ~ faich, notw ithstanding its diversity o f o rigin , used a single, official language as responsible for the material circum stances o f a state-sponsored, and ace -se rvin g , church. B yzantium has often been treated as the alter ego, w ith ai : v. estem Europe. Y e t the latter, w h ich consisted first o f the fragments o f : _ " the R o m a n em pire and then, from the tenth century, o f m utually ui • ms, presents a clear contrast to B yza n tiu m w h ich saw itself as a unit, r empire. and thus as an entity that should assimilate its neighbors, in co rr-rcc.r- b om into different faiths and customs and, w here this was not possible,

R E F R A M IN G T H E R E N A ISSA N C E T h e capacity to realize this end, progressively m ore asserted than demonstrated, translated into a society w h ich , like m edieval C h in a , was exclusive. T h e barbaroi w ho could not be com pelled or, like the Slavs in the n inth and tenth centuries, persuaded to com e into the E m p ire w ere considered im placable enemies against w h o m its forces (themselves increasingly com prised o f non -G reeks) were properly arrayed. F o llo w in g the Persians, Arabs, Pechenegs, and T u rk s, the Latins occupied this frame in the Byzantine gaze. B u t no later than the late twelfth century — and the period essentially coincides with the reduced im pact o f Byzantium on their native art and architecture - the Latins saw the Eastern Em p ire as later western nations regarded T u rk e y : as the S ic k M an o f Europe, a legendarily rich, autocratic state liv in g on its past glories and g ro w in g ever feebler. T h i' d ebility was proved by the capture o f Constantinople in 1204 and the loss o f most o f the territory that it still possessed. T h e Byzantine em pire, like love, was eternal as lo n g as it lasted. M om en tarily m ourned, as w e have seen, w hen it fin ally fell to the O ttom ans in 1453, in the eyes o f Europe it became the bedraggled tail o f the ancient w orld. Its culture, because C h ristian, was considered a curiosity, an attitude that still survives in the aw kw ard agglom eration o f “ E a rly C h ristia n ” and B yzantine art o f o u r handbooks. U n ab le to see in the beliefs o f this civilizatio n an ythin g m ore than a source o f “ sym bol­ ism ,” these same texts yet prefer extinct classicism to generative credence as a justification for our interest in B yzantium . A s a consequence o f this choice, m u ch that is characteristic o f B yzantine society has been supplanted by notional concerns that were never concerns o f its m embers. T o lim it ourselves o nly to aspects that pertain to art, w here in any b oo k not intended for specialists can one find useful accounts o f such diverse phenom ena as the theology o f the ico n , the stylite saint (Figure 1.7), the eunuch (Figure 1.8), or the aulic cerem onies ot Constantinople, all lo n g -liv e d phenom ena in search o f even a b rie f explanation? T h e first tw o o f these institutions are regarded as in fin ite ly m ysterious and virtually abandoned to R u ssia n scholarship (or further m ystification); the last tw o I shall touch on b riefly below , i f o n ly because they exem plify the “ oriental” and thus alien nature o f m uch that w ent on in B yzantium . It m ay be that such negligence is unavoidable. A ro n G u revich has observed that w hen the student o f a later culture looks at the activities o f an earlier society he w ill notice above all that w h ich is close and understandable . . . anything that responds in some w ay to his ow n culture’s intentions or that strikes him , on the other hand, by force o f contrast and is understood precisely because o f the sharp contrast w ith his ow n culture.54 I have argued that m any differential aspects o f B yzantium have yet to find adequate representation in our ow n scholarship. Y e t the first part o f the R ussian historian’s observation conform s to w hat has been suggested above. W h en w e lo o k at Byzantium w e recognize the little that w e kn o w — the allegedly “ classical” aspects o f that culture. T h is m ay yet change, as G reek and Latin disappear from the field o f m odem awareness. Y e t w here the means o f co m m un ication are not verbal but visual - i.e., in carving and p ainting w here the raw material upon w h ich stylistic analysis operates is not directly dependent on language - recogn ition o f the inappropriateness o f criteria derived from antiquity is lik e ly to com e m ore slow ly. M ore is in vo lved here than a matter ot

THE PATHOS OF DISTANCE

37

icy W h en the history o f tw entieth-century pedagogy and scholarship comes to be some social psychologist m ight w ell observe the extent to w h ich w e have been :he illusion o f closeness to cultures very different from our o w n, a strategy that a sr , ur discom fiture in the face o f palpable evidence for “ otherness.” T h is reduces w hat *:h calls “ the pathos o f distance” 55 between “ us” and “ them .” T h e shedding o f ns is always a difficu lt task and one that is made no easier b y the fact that our rcr.rnc stance towards B yza n tiu m is a learned position, inherited from the R e n a is at and canonized b y the concerns o f the E nlighten m en t. T h e sincerity o f these d e b « was the sincerity o f self-interest. B u t today we have little to gain and m uch to v ^rpropriating cultures that were (and are) m anifestly distinct. T o do so is to repeat : zir.rin e mistake, to persist in the autistic b elie f that o u r civilizatio n is the clim ax d e n c product o f history. T h e d ifficu lty o f u nlearning a learned posture m ay, how ever, ¿ r r .e d by the recognition o f analogies. (In our ow n day, the rate o f change in social ¿es towards both w om en and our society’s “ m in o rities” has doubtless been acceler• -::. ntion to the m odel o f relations between w hites and blacks.) Fo r the art -:;h precedents are available in Asian cultures, the study o f w h ich , I submit, can ~ r_ ~ -:ic value for a better understanding o f Byzantium .

Art an “Oriental” Art? w h o undertakes to show that m uch that is essential in the nature o f B yzantine i > rr to that o f eastern societies than it is to. western Euro p e w ill be arraigned for ir.e center o f this achievem ent aspects that are “ in fact” m arginal. I f this n o is levied, I accept the charge, and do so not o n ly because “ facts” are hard to r in the study o f m edieval art but because w hat is deemed to be central is as m uch n L ;' - the concept o f the peripheral. In the foregoing pages I have suggested the rhy. in our historiography, that w h ich resembles the dom inant characteristics o f m.-.n art has been the focus o f attention. It is time n o w to scrutinize the i : this center and their consequence - the lim inal position attributed to those r Bvzantine art and thought that do not appear to fit the classical m old. ■ notorious exam ple o f this topology is the preponderance in architectural wr church design and construction, as against the relatively m in o r place accorded _r ru iding. W h ile it is true o f B yzantine palaces that “ we have so little left,” this ... not hold for m ore ordinary structures. I f we kn o w little o f dom estic : is because w e have scarcely looked for them. It m ay be no accident that, o f mp-enal Palace in C onstantinople (now largely under the foundations o f the m osque), the parts best recorded in Byzantine literature are those o f the je n tu ry em peror T h e o p h ilo s w ho , at least at Bryas (modern Bostanci, an ■ ■ b a rb t Istanbul), b uilt “ in im itation o f Arab |palaces] and in no w ay differing r U s e r either in form or decoration.” 56 An oth er area o f the m ain palace due to o s *-7 K ananos w h ich , in the tenth century, was “ used as a vestiarium for storing t S k a i garments. It is in this field that Arab (and earlier, Persian) elements in ~ most in evidence. Indeed, except where a textile bears names and I -rrr.v. it is often difficult to distinguish Byzantine products from textiles made

38

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

1.7 St. Symeon Stylites. Illuminated manuscript, early eleventh century. Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana gr. 1613, page 2. (Photo: author.)

elsewhere in the N e ar East. These cultures shared a com m o n repertoire o f m otifs and techniques and borrow ed from each other the names o f both particular types o f stuffs and the garments into w h ich they were made up; B yzantine texts witness to the em ploym ent o f M uslim and Je w ish w orkers.'’ T h e evidence, in sum, is sufficient to call in doubt the enterprise o f assigning “ national” origins to silks in and after the ninth century. M ore im portant for our present purposes, the stylistic and iconographical norm s o f antiquity are all but silent in this artisanal lingua franca. T o this irrelevance we have a sizable b ody o f testim ony, produced under optim al conditions, for a test of the uses o f textiles in m iddle and late B yzantium (ninth to fifteenth century) and in the West. In the form er, dedicatory and portrait m iniatures in books, as w ell as the likenesses in fresco o f scores o f donors, show their patrons in the garb in w h ich they chose to present themselves to eternity: these are never the garments historiated w ith biblical scenes that w e find in the early C h ristian and early Byzantine w orlds. In an early eleventh-century picture the group o f m en to the left, revering St. Sym eon the Stylite (Figure 1.7), are Arabs, as their turbans and the tiraz band on the arm of one of them m ake clear. Y e t the ornam ent o f their costumes w o u ld have been unexceptionable to the m anuscript’s first audience; rather, such clo th in g w o uld have helped persuade the B yza n tin e spectator that in Syria, the land o f this long-dead saint, he was still venerated by Christians. M edieval Latins, for their part, declined to distinguish G reek from other eastern M editerranean silks: both were sufficiently exotic to serve as shrouds for the earthly remains o f kings and saints and precious enough to line the cliasses that contained such relics. B y concentrating on fu nction rather than form , it should be clear that the similarities (and differences) between B yza n tiu m and its M u slim neighbors were not prim arily matters of style, as the term is norm ally used. T h e formal means b y w h ich B yzantine culture separated itself were reserved for its overtly C h ristian expressions: in this dom ain it is as distinct from Islam as it is from G re co —R o m a n art, and there can be as little doubt about the self-consciousness o f these stylistic choices as there is about the painstaking

THE PATHOS OF DISTANCE

39

t> that the O rth o d o x used to separate their theological positions from the often sim ilar tenets o f m onotheistic Islam .59 beyond the realm o f ideological protestation, Byzantines and M uslim s lo o k h' akin. W hether w e lo o k at the pragm atic or the decorative in these cultures, blances are obvious. C o n sid e r the case o f Leo the M athem atician, an ornam ent : urt of T h e o p h ilo s, a renow ned student o f Ptolem y and Archim edes, and the : an early w arning system against Arab raids. T h e Abbasid caliph M a ’m u -n is : r - e offered T h e o p h ilo s eternal peace and 2000 pounds o f gold i f he w o u ld allow □ reside for a w hile in Baghdad.60 Leo , apparently like M ichelangelo, declined the — :he East. B ut the invitation is m ore significant than the refusal: it rem inds us •%: . com pete o nly w hen they share the same interests. O f course the Arabs ■ i : Le . as the Am ericans wanted G erm an rocket scientists in the 1940s or, as today, ns practice industrial espionage. It w o u ld be vain to distinguish between fc s . irt, and statecraft w hen considering the automata, the m echanical lions that I an the Byzantine court o f the ninth and tenth centuries, as they did beside the ■ Baghdad and C a iro . H ere, too, were thrones that rose and fell, elephant clocks K o i r trees alive w ith (pneumatic?) singin g birds. W e k n o w next to n oth in g o f B a r . m achines w o rked in Constantinople. T h e Arabs produced several versions o f ' illustrated Book of Mechanical Devices61 w h ich leave us little wiser. T h e point — ignorance but the shared m echanics and com m on purposes o f the cultures r it r deration. 6 : ' ra>tem societies likew ise display greater affinities w ith B y za n tiu m than the 1 *.i or the m edieval west. O n e o f the signs o f Co nstan tino p le’s transform ation re n " late antique city to a “ closed” m edieval enclave was the progressive : j f im perial rituals to the palace. T h e audience to w h o m these played was an elite, appointed by the em peror rather than constituted by inheritance Europe. M ore like the Forbidden C it y o f P e kin g than the itinerant : >urt, the palace was a sanctum inaccessible to “ the people” w ho had been seat o f authority in the R o m e o f the R e p u b lic and Principate. W ith in this o r laooes both bureaucracy and cerem ony fed upon themselves, m u ltip ly in g in -• d num ber. A11 intrinsic role in both was played b y the class o f “ beardless reached high positions and, as suggested by im ages like that o f Leo the -s i . .;'ccIlarios in the B ib le that he com m issioned (Figure 1.8), played a perhaps rely large role in the sponsorship o f art. O rig in a lly associated w ith a notion e ^ then, because they could found no dynasty, as especially loyal to the BBtiochs became leading generals (Narses) and top financial adm inistrators (Jo h n rr >phos). These high governm ental positions were analogous to those that - in both C h in a and Islam but alien to their functions in the W est w here, ' r exam ple, the c h ie f use o f castrati was in the ch o ir o f the state church, iategr : Leo sakellarios, show n in his “ Sunday best” presenting his b ook to the r : rhr ugh her to C h rist, epitom izes the tenth-century court w hose protocol o f costume w ith in the course o f even a single cerem ony.62 B u t it also . ■: die co gnitive parallels in Byzantine systems o f m orality, ritual, and patronU _ f ambassador presenting his credentials; 011 bended knee he assumes the f 7 submissive barbarians on the base o f the O b e lisk o f Theodosius. B u t his

40

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

1.8 (right) Leo Sakellarios Offers his Book. Illuminated manuscript, mid-tenth century. Vatican, Biblioteca Apostólica Vaticana Reg. gr. i, fol. 2v. (Photo: author.) '

1.9 (opposite page, left) John V I Kantakouzenos Presiding at a Church Council. Illuminated manuscript, 1370 - 75 . Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale M S gr. 1242, fol. 5v. (Photo: library.)

1.10 (opposite page, right) Monarch Enthroned among his Courtiers. Illuminated manuscript, c. 1218-19. Istanbul, Millet Kütüpharesi, Feyzullah Effendi 1566, fol. ir (from Ettinghausen, La Peinture arabe, page 65).

i< I I . j v u m

i \ ( - \ » v u 11 .

\ \ » >i # i e M .V A. a > t * » o

--------

*ï • • * * f «« M i i '

>ycvM-cvi

h A>^

Y*r*f V K ti

R'-mV,;Vr » I'S wki Ils j'rp*« Of pXrtAM »1 ‘« e o ro h

7 Ç,^JiKo

° V C!' • n.lv If M 'iS r .u i. u r i

i i i ’t ' e K i c i '

k m

i h

\

m

«.»>»«

offering cannot be accepted directly b y the L o rd , remote in an arc o f heaven and distinguished by the attribute o f his nimbus crudger and his gesture o f blessing. D w a rfin g these male poles, the M o th er o f G o d is the mistress o f cerem onies, the m ediatrix necessary to the transmission of hum an pleas and oblations. T h is message is conveyed by her eyes w h ich , u n like those of C h rist or the donor, are upon the m iniature’s beholder. In contrast to European art w here, no later than the Trecento, the spectator is just that, a vo yeu r vouchsafed a glim pse o f a scene from w h ich he or she is excluded, in B yza n tiu m the beholder is a privileged participant, at once active witness to the transac­ tion and potential recipient of the saint’s intercession. Renaissance art in both north and south know s num erous instances where the protagonist in the picture and the observer exchange gazes, but in such cases almost never is the depicted figure a sacred personage; in the art o f G reece and R o m e direct visual engagem ent between the hum an and the

THE PATHOS OF DISTANCE

4i

rare as to be negligible. Suprem ely in B yzan tiu m , how ever, C h rist or his the beholder w ith their stare — a gaze no less terrifying for the inertia and that are the hallm arks o f this art in the m odern, popular view . T h e r 't presented the divin e in sim ilar ways (for exam ple in the tym pana o f srcrsque churches) but did not pursue the lo gic o f the im age to the conclusion the East - the im age o f the earthly lord in the same n um inous m anner. T h is etui." larger-than-life attitude is assumed b y Jo h n V I Kantakouzenos presidjh u rc h co u ncil in a copy o f his Works in Paris (Figure 1.9). Painted d urin g the ::r::m e but some tw enty years after he had retired into a m onastery, it shows T T ii-: □rreenth-century em peror w ith the insignia o f his office as the lin ch p in o f a presented by the bishops and m onks about him . T h is is no “ illustration,” for direct relationship between the picture and the texts that it precedes. A n d v this absence o f dependence characterizes the frontispiece o f a Book of Songs : ri 1 finished in M osul in 1219 (Figu re 1.10). Form al resemblances (and i-—does aside, it is clear that w hat Ettinghausen calls “ the p rincely style”63 in Iraq served m any o f the same purposes as b oo k production in Palaeologan C aw ir 1 1 ople. -- ir they were G re co —R o m a n papyri or lu xuriou s books prepared for Italian r clients, B yzantine “ illustrated m anuscripts” have been studied as i f extensive a r ;. v'. particularly those representing the Scriptures, w ere their prim e form o f trr.r:::. Considered at least quantitatively - surely a valid m ode o f analysis i f we

i .11 (above) Koran frontispiece, 1368-88. Cairo, National Library (from Ettinghausen, La Peinture arabe, page 174).

I

JÜ ^^Â Îlr

1.12 (above right) Headpiece to Matthew. Illuminated manuscript, early twelfth cen­ tury. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Cod. Auct. T . inf. 1.10, fol. 24r. (Photo: courtesy of I. Hutter.)

1.13 (right) Abu Zayd Addressing an Audi­ ence. Illuminated manuscript, 1222. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, M S arabe 6094, fol. I47r. (Photo: library.)

> ^ j ^ X ^ l ; » ^ / - - > > j > U a ^ } - - ^ )]*—?jp‘s

THE PATHOS OF DISTANCE

43

understand the norm s o f a society’s production - n othing could be further from cnith. As everyw here else the m ajority o f books was undecorated. Statistically, the ^■¿jest category included books w ith o n ly bands or headpieces o f geom etric or ;_ -;i -ioral ornam ent. Such decoration has rem ained a stepchild neglected by scholars, : the present w rite r ,64 as they rush to celebrate the anthropom orphic achieve: m edieval painters. Y e t in the m anner o f the splendid frontispieces in m edieval Figure i . 11), w here the “ im age o f the w o rd ” 65 is inlaid in fields o f ornam ent, rich a liturgical b oo k as the C o d e x Ebnerianus in O x fo rd 66 has as m any bands calligraphically an no u ncing the readings from the Gospels and sim ilar decora5 :t does figural scenes. E v e n w here the greater portion o f the page is given over -~.::ient and the titles rem oved to a position directly above the text (Figure 1.12), t polychrom e vegetation is subordinated to the dictates o f a sym m etry that defies V jc h carpets “ represent” n o th in g save a splendor w o rth y o f their divine : r.. em bellishm ents that speak at the same time o f the m ortal patron w ho has seen _> B yzantine dedications put it, to create this glory. i -zK neither to ignore nor to m in im ize the conceptual g u lf that yawns between zn e and Islam ic art. T h e latter delights in, even w h ile it form alizes, events in the w orld: the old scoundrel, a l-H a riri, stupefies the m en o f N ajran w ith tall tales p -T - -: 1.13) where the archetypal C h ristian teacher demonstrates his h u m ility to an d r - ;r :hat is the spectator gazin g at the m osaic (Figure 1.14, com pare Figure 1.6). Y e t

Wafting of the Feet. Mosaic, late twelfth century. Monreale. (Photo: Alinari.)

44

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

both scenes, the profane and the holy, are conventions, repeated across centuries w ith the same m in im al attention to spatial setting and the same emphasis on the m esm erizing pow er o f the protagonists’ gestures. Scores o f versions o f both incidents exist and few differ from the essentials depicted here. R e p e titio n over time assured the Byzantine beholder that he was in the presence o f an O rth o d o x im age; rehearsal o f a l-H a riri’s stories, always w ith the same figure types, in manuscripts from a variety o f regions lent to the Maqamat, for all its roguery, the air o f an Arab national epic. T h e narratives o f

1.15 (above) St. Eiistratios. Ivory, tenth cen­ tury. Luton Hoo, Wernher Collection. (Photo: author.)

1.16 (right) Priest Seshin. Wood, 1163-1223. Nara, Hokuen-do o f Kofuku-ji (from Lee, H is­ tory of Far Eastern Art, fig. 422).

THE PATHOS OF DISTANCE

45

. —R o m a n m ytho lo gy, like depictions o f the Passion o f C h rist in and after the Q —— cento, show far m ore diversity in their telling. rhr variation am ong such western w orks is a measure o f the distance that separates us m edieval B yzantium and Islam. N o one today w o u ld try to naturalize M uslim to constrain its otherness in the Procrustean bed o f European standards and - ements. Y e t the attempt to squeeze B yza n tiu m until it fits our ethological and presuppositions has been scholarly practice since the Renaissance. T h e reasons, ■ Jed ju stificatio n, for these efforts lie first, I have tried to suggest, in the illusion d - ;> m that the B yzantines themselves prom oted and, secondly, in the extent to s . - recause they were Christians, we demand that they should be accessible to us in n - zr.1t the civilization s o f the East are not. B ut, I have also argued, the study o f ¿negations is not susceptible to binary methods; each is a special case o f “ gray,” a c t a black or w hite phenom enon. In this ligh t it is silly to argue that B yzantine artwas art. B u t to do so is no sillier than to insist that it was “ E u ro p ean .” 67 T h e : ~ ot the first proposition is evident i f w e com pare a h oly im age from B yzantium ( h r —r : i s) w ith one from Japan (Figure 1.16). T h e w o o d figure from Nara represents _ eing, the priest Seshin, possessed o f all the inw ard intensity that we expect o f r Buddhist. T h e iv o ry icon, on the other hand, is a fantasy, the conjured likeness o f • ndary martyr. Y e t, i f we go beyond the traditional procedures o f p h ilo lo g y and * : j v . approaches that turn everything to facts, and acknow ledge that w e explore is r res in the o n ly w ay w e can — that is, through our responses to them — it is both i : ind profitable to recognize w hat they have in com m on. I leave this exercise to reader in the hope that, even as he or she perceives the differences between these i~ r the distance between them and, m ore im portantly, their distance from us Secn r.r-' a little less than it seems at first.

HAPTER 2

ian Sculptors and Sculpture Outside of Italy >Chiefly in Central Europe): Problems of Approach, Possibilities of Reception' .'



I H M AS D A C O S T A K A U F M A N N

n r .ace sixteenth century Latinate culture as first introduced in the form o f Italian ■□asm provided a m odel for gram m atical instruction and rhetorical practice from : M in sk .2 B y the same time w orks o f the visual arts possessing a definite r . z character had also expanded throughout the globe. T h e iconography o f h um an l * m eed by author portraits and frontispieces, was spread in books by authors as r disparate as the M exican -b o rn D ie g o Valades and the Belorussian Francisk - :he sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries w orks com parable in form to me peninsula could be found in churches scattered from M acao or G oa (w h ich r r _::.::ngs o f the sixteenth century) to the highlands o f the Andean region in mszzz \ m rr.ca, w here Bernardo B itti, a native o f C am e rin o , was active in an area j rrom Q u ito to Sucre d urin g the later sixteenth century, and where the i— cn o w n as Pedro de Gante designed the Franciscan C h u rc h in Q u ito , w h ich _ tacade that recalls a trium phal arch.4 r a\ deals w ith some o f the best kn o w n and most strikin g instances o f the spread m ce (and later) visual forms, Italian sculptors and sculpture outside o f Italy.5 Italy supplied a source o f fine m arble. T h e skill and training o f Italians as r- in d bronzecasters were also appreciated elsewhere. T h u s Italian sculptors and were lo n g in broad dem and, especially from the fifteenth century. Y e t j the topic m ay be, this seem ingly straightforward case o f the expansion o f the ■e remains to be integrated into a com prehensive picture o f w hat the r and its consequences m ight mean outside Italy, as indeed do so m any other :: related phenom ena, i* ; p ssible historical significance o f m any such w orks, especially those found r Europe, is hardly acknow ledged in A n g lo -A m e ric a n art history. Studies o f the c - .:r.'pean art in the early m odern period also continue largely to ignore two the continent, w here m any m ajor m onum ents are contained, nam ely the area r * : R h in e , particularly after about 1530, as they also ignore the area east o f the ■ . any period. V e ry few Am erican art historians study the Iberian peninsula, : r ‘ re the so-called G olden A ge o f seventeenth-century Spain, for that matter. * existence o f objects located or made outside Italy that can be considered

48

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

w ith in the terms o f standard definitions o f the Renaissance, there is little attention given to w hat they m igh t reveal about the broader applicability o f the idea o f the Renaissance, w hat they m ight perhaps even im p ly for a reconsideration o f the m eaning o f the conception, and finally w hat they m igh t indicate m ore generally about cultural exchange and interchange. W ith all the concerns that are voiced for a m ore com prehensive art history, and the extensive debate they have provoked, new er trends in A n g lo -S a x o n art history hardly appear to have affected the discussion o f these issues. Instead, m any o f the older paradigm s and canons that had also determ ined the geographical boundaries and national concerns o f the discipline o f art history as it was “ traditionally” practiced still stay in force/' I f the term “ R enaissance” is used to indicate som ething m ore than m erely the time period o f the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries, then little has changed in scholarship on the early m odern period. W hatever the ideal o f the “ Renaissance” m ay mean in regard to Italy, w hen applied to the visual arts elsewhere, the term is still usually taken to signify, even celebrate, som ething described as quite distinct from that in Italy. B o th scholarship and teaching on the so-called N o rth ern Renaissance, w h ich effectively still stands in the U n ited States for the Renaissance outside Italy, concentrate almost exclu sively on N etherlandish painting in m anuscript and on panel from V an E y c k to B rueghel, w ith attention also being given to Germ an paintings and prints, and some sculpture too, o f the era o f the O ld G erm an masters around D iire r. T h is point o f vie w is found both in standard textbooks, and in supposedly new er approaches.7 T h e re is, how ever, n othing new in the emphasis on N etherlandish pain tin g up to B rueghel and G erm an artists o f the Diirerzeit. T h e consideration o f “ R enaissance” art outside o f Italy has dem onstrably often in vo lved a different set o f assumptions than that w h ich has governed the study o f Italian “ Renaissance” art. From at least the early nineteenth century, w hen art history became an academic discipline in G erm any, art o f the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in the north has been understood as som ething different and distinctive from that in Italy. T h e “ R enaissance” has been used largely either to define a ch ron o lo gical period, as it often still is, or else to designate art o f a quality com parable to that o f the Italian masters, but distinct from them. T h is idea is found in literature c. 1800, as W ackenro d er and T ie c k ’s Herzensgiessungen eiues kunstliebeneden Klosterbmders suggests. It was developed by art historians in the form ative years o f the Gründerzeit o f the m id-nineteenth century, and passed on by im portant figures in the field such as H e in ric h W ó lfflin and G e o rg D e h io . T h e idea o f a national G erm an Renaissance was even used for purposes o f political propaganda, both d u rin g the 1914-18 w ar and the years o f N atio n al Socialism . T h e notion o f a distinctive N o rth ern Renaissance, largely unrelated to and even contrasting w ith that in Italy, continues to recur in m uch recent w ritin g, especially in E n g lish , where the local or native element is privileged, and the cosm opolitan, Italianate is dow nplayed or ignored.8 T h e result has been that like m any related topics, the subject o f Italian sculptors and sculpture outside o f Italy not o nly remains to be integrated into the history o f the Renaissance, but also even to be adequately conceptualized. In response, this paper w ill endeavor to strive towards this process o f integration and conceptualization. It w ill offer a critical review o f p rio r treatments o f the topic, and suggest some alternatives to them.

ITALIAN SCULPTORS AND SCULPTURE OUTSIDE OF ITALY

49

Harder essays have a further interest in that they im p ly a v ie w o f the general course o f : ry o f European art d urin g the early m odern period. T h e literature to date thus ■ Г : . - the general developm ent o f historiography o f the Renaissance. A critique therettz - - rlirther relevance to a collection o f essays that is devoted to a reconceptualization o f — e Renaissance. В - id ly speaking, it w o u ld seem that the tendencies that have dom inated the ■crrrreradon o f Italian sculpture and sculptors outside o f Italy may be described as ■ rr.p h ic , nationalistic, stylistic, and anthropological. First, a traditional m onographic ИЩТ-: ach could easily ignore the problem o f synthesis. O n e w ay o f treating the presence F l- _ r r . sculpture or the w o rk o f Italian sculptors outside Italy was sim ply to regard such f t - " m ena as examples o f an artist’s oeuvre. In this kin d o f account, as it has been r : : ::i historiography since G io rg io Vasari, a w o rk o f sculpture is seen as the product fact in divid u al master. Fro m the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century, writers on 1^ ijs considered sculpture a product o f genius. Sculpture m ight acco rd in gly be rd as the m ark o f biographical incident. In the approach that results, the historical m ay thus consist o f the linkage o f a chain o f w orks b y in d ivid u al masters, that are :ed by bonds o f personal association, or perhaps, as also described by Vasari, by i r r rowards the achievem ent o f some artistic goal. O th er, later, treatments o f Italian e ir * for instance a history o f sculptors in Poland, often take over this m odel even w b - - they do not fo llo w Vasari in other regards.9 ~ -7 .-.ted perspective, nam ely that from the peninsula, m ay how ever open up a fc~r-m view . Fro m this perspective, w orks by m ajor Italian sculptors found outside Italy ■ к з г as scattered pieces o f evidence o f Italian genius. T h is v ie w is anticipated b y the т : _ rtu re is handled in V asari’s account o f the pieces by V e rro cch io that Lo re n zo de’ Ш Ы ш п '•ent M atthias C o rv in u s in the fifteenth ce n tu ry.10 Y e t m any subsequent PBcnis - o f such w orks as the marble V irg in and C h ild by M ichelangelo (Figure 2.1) U L . Vasari also m entions, was acquired b y a Bruges m erchant in the early sixteenth ic r >r the bust o f the k in g and the other projects that B e rn in i carried out for Lo u is f < ■ France in the seventeenth century, or the w orks made by R o m a n sculptors for in Portugal in the eighteenth century - often do not differ substantially. In m any f Italian art, such objects m ay be regarded as im portant docum ents o f their ruvres. Nevertheless, they rem ain distinctive examples o f in d ivid u al genius, tr is dated in that they are often unconnected to the m ilieus in w h ich they were r-.r_7r.tly, or are now , found. O r e m erit o f the most com prehensive series o f studies directed to the w o rk o f Italians « ¡ . a i : Italy was that it overcam e this sense o f in divid u al isolation. T h is series treated the ■ в 1 - Italian artists, in clu d in g sculptors, as examples not o f in divid u al genius, but o f the ■ u i f the nation or, it m ay be said, the race. T h e series thus appeared under the title m u с saiio italiano all’estero. T h e products o f this genius were to be found throughout с i—. г and throughout Euro p e, as presented in books devoted to il genio italiano in ■ r . Austria, G erm any, H u n g ary, R ussia, and other countries. In their emphasis upon r a rrehensive, collective picture o f the national genius o f the Italians, these books l e t , how ever, display m uch concern for local context elsewhere. TV : : dective approach taken in the series L ’opera del genio italiano a ll’estero derives rather from the R o m a n tic vie w o f cultural products as expressions o f the Geist

50

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

or genius o f peoples or Volker, that is to be traced to authors such as H erder. In nineteenth-century histories o f w hat is n o w most often called culture (Kulturgeschichte). the view o f history as an expression o f a Volk was also spread b y H egelian th in k in g about art as a form o f Volksgeist.u These ideas were also fam iliar in Italy (through Benedetto C ro ce , am ong others), and it is significant that the series dedicated to i l genio italiano was published under the im prim atur o f m inistries o f the Italian governm ent, at first o f the M ussolini epoch. Som e o f the earlier volum es in the series bear dates measured in the recko n in g o f the Fascist era, w hen some o f these ideas w ere given a fateful tw ist.12 U nder M ussolini, the idea o f Italian genius b rin g in g art and civilizatio n to E u ro p e was one theme o f fascist propaganda, that, rem arkably enough, was in a w ay still b eing prom oted as this series was continued into the 1960s.1’1 A spirit not so dissim ilar in its chauvinism has often led to widespread neglect ot Italianate phenom ena outside Italy, and nationalistic presuppositions have also been w oven into other approaches. T h is tone o f cultural nationalism has, how ever, fortunately been alien to m uch Italian historiography related to the topic, even w hen the clam or ot campanilismo still seems to resound in volum es devoted to the im pact o f individual regions, such as those 011 the art and artists o f the Lom b ard lakes,14 and w hen nationalistic presuppositions have also been w oven into other approaches to these questions. It is precisely the international or transnational aspect o f artistic contacts that such chauvinistic o r culturally nationalistic approaches ignore. Y e t as significant as Italian sculpture and sculptors m ay be outside o f Italy, it is also true that w hat could sim ilarly be called il genio estero had a significant presence in Italy. T o m ention ju st sculpture in one site, in addition to a host o f other rather m in o r talents from beyond the Alps, such m ajor figures as G io v a n n i D alm ata in the fifteenth century, G iam bolo gn a in the sixteenth, François D u q u e sn o y in the seventeenth or, at the end o f that century and the b egin n in g o f next, Pierre Legros, along w ith a flo ck o f other French academicians, were all active in R o m e . A ll these artists, along w ith w ho m we should rem em ber the presence in R o m e o f other im portant northern painters such as C la u d e Lo rrain , N ico las Poussin and Peter Paul R u b e n s, give evidence that the process o f artistic exchange was not one-sided, that there was not m erely one source o f artistic genius in European art. M oreover, an alternative m odel has lo n g existed, that developed alongside the atten­ tion given to the form ulation and evolution o f concepts o f stylistic periodization in art history. T h is approach treats Italian artists and art outside o f Italy in relation to the general course o f developm ent o f artistic styles. In this perspective, the activity o f Italian sculpture and sculptors, and also o f painters and architects, belongs to a co n tin u in g history o f styles, w h ich Italians con vey to the north. In this w ay Italian artists are regarded not m erely as translating w orks o f in divid u al or national genius, but as co n trib uting to the e volution o f style epochs outside o f Italy. As in Italy, these are seen to progress from the Renaissance, to M annerism , to the Baroque, to neo -Classicism . It m ay even be said that this account has directed so m any previous discussions that it has almost becom e a standard line, at least for older generations o f scholars. Jan B ialo sto cki articulated a position that has been adopted by m any other art historians, w hose opinion he m ay thus be said to represent. In num erous papers B ialo stocki regarded the Renaissance as “ a system o f forms, qualities, artistic functions and themes w h ich dom inated art and architecture, decoration and design, and w h ich we call the R e n a is-

ITALIAN SCULPTORS AND SCULPTURE OUTSIDE OF ITALY

51

ac ce style.” 15 Bialostocki treated this (and other styles) as, on the one hand, the product f in divid u al Italian artists and, on the other, an indigenous response to them. A n d so w hen B ialostocki says that the Renaissance came first to the north in eastern Europe, he ■ ra n s quite literally that Italian sculptors and masons o f the Q uattrocento came first to . .:ke H u n g a ry .16 In this vie w Italian forms, in clu d in g sculpture, were then taken up f local courts, used for particular purposes and functions, and then spread m ore w id e ly W the local artists and craftsmen w h o responded to them. M though it has m any virtues, this approach has also created num erous problem s, not ~ r least o f w h ich is im plicated in the very terms em ployed: the use o f stylistic terms to i e m b e unrelated phenom ena in regions other than that for w h ich they w ere created has produced several difficulties. T h u s m any o f the problem s that the Floren tin e—R o m a n l o i r , has entailed for studies o f art and culture o f the quattrocento and cinquecento ¿vr here in Italy itself seem to have been com pounded w hen these conceptions have r . z applied to art outside Ita ly .17 In the first instance, forms related to style epochs such js t ' r Renaissance and M annerism that are not regarded as contem poraneous in Italy b s v appear sim ultaneously in the north. E ve n w here terms m ight seem to be suitable, a ~ ~ r - r :s o n o f Italian w ith northern exam ples m ay also indicate the apparently belated or ■ cco se d ly incorrect nature o f stylistic manifestations in the north, thus slanting the w rz— retation. M oreover, w hen analyzed further, a term such as M annerism in any event Bern* to have lim ited applicability to phenom ena outside o f Ita ly .18 Even when Italians made w orks in situ outside Italy, it was o n ly exceptionally, at least n r.rral Europe, that the Italian artists w ho came north w o rked in modes sim ilar to the t t — - n the Renaissance, or M annerism , as they have been defined acco rd in g to the ln*r:.:::ie or R o m a n paradigm . M any artists came from other regions in Italy, such as tr z L mbard lakes. T h e w orks they produced are different from those o f Tuscan A«*CL>m, and its successors, and m ay acco rd in gly seem m annered in contrast,although r : _r_r.:imacy o f this description in this context is questionable.19 I ' answer to some o f these conceptual difficulties B ialostocki reform ulated another hcansdc notion: the local stylistic variant. H e opposed his understanding o f the concep■ .: M annerism and other international m odels to the national styles he otherwise also ■ : define. E c h o in g earlier Polish and C z e c h art historians, B ialosto cki identified a ■pposedly m ore local style, w h ich he distinguished from M annerism , w ith w h ich it r : re confused. H e called this the vernacular. In this he follow ed the m anner o f the bi ikuttde o f historians such as W fadislaw H usarski in Poland and A n to n ín Balsanek in M fcrm ia. in id en tifyin g various motifs as pertaining to the vernacular.20 \lth o u g h the examples o f the vernacular that have hitherto been adduced are drawn ¿r_-r rrom the realm o f architecture, it m ight nevertheless seem that the m ore general d L ir i-e r is t ic s used to describe the vernacular pertain particularly w ell to sculpture. In S -T jk i's w ords these are a lack o f interest in space com position, an enthusiasm for g r^ rr.e n t. and lack o f functional th in k in g — disruption o f links between form and ■ that take on a picturesque or fantastic character o f their o w n .21 B u t these features ■: : not to be identified w ith any characteristic genius loci o f eastern Europ e, as s: jk i w o u ld have it. Sim iliarities have also been declared to be distinctly Germ an V k a lia n . In any event, atticas resem bling so-called Polish parapets are found independ% * the presence o f Polish artisans in H u n g a ry (i.e., Slovakia), Austria, and G erm any;

2.2 (above) Boim Family Chapel. Lw ow (L ’viv). Polish Academy o f Sciences.)

1609—1615. (Photo: The Institute of Art.

2.3 (opposite page) Main facade on the Calle de Liberos, Salamanca University. C.1520 (Photo: Bildarchiv Foto Marburg, courtesy o f Art Resource.)

ITALIAN SCULPTORS AND SCULPTURE OUTSIDE OF ITALY

53

o attiri and gables that are said to m ark an indigenous B ohem ian Renaissance are likew ise * and frequently in G erm any and Austria. Furtherm ore, in the same time period that stocki finds them in eastern Europe, a sim ilar decorative inventiveness, and a E E sie n cy towards the planiform , are found for exam ple in Spanish and Spanish Am erican __r~:re.r T h e com parison o f the B o im C h ap e l in L w o w ( L ’v iv , Lem berg; Figure 2.2) ndh the portal to Salamanca U n ive rsity (Figure 2.3) m ay be telling in this regard, but w orks in Latin A m erica, such as the facade o f the church at Tepoztlán (Figure 2.4), as.: suggest sim ilar deviations from the classic norm . T h e treatment o f a particular material for sculptural details, nam ely stucco, has also a t r r 're n as the sign o f vernacular style. B u t there is n o th in g particularly localized about i t use o f this m edium , either. T h u s one needs to treat w ith caution, i f not skepticism ,

2.4 (right) Dominican Church, Tepotzlán, Mexico. Completed 1588. (Photo: Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas)

2.5 (below) Houses o f Mikiolaj and Krzysztof Przybyla Family. Kazim ierz D olny 1615. (Photo: The Institute of Art, Polish Academy o f Sciences.)

IT A LIA N S C U LP T O R S AN D S C U L P T U R E O U T SID E OF IT A L Y 55 se g m e n ts advanced by B ialostocki to the effect that the use o f stucco, w h ich is said to :r~.ze the sculptors and masons o f the Lu b lin school (Figure 2.7), or the flattened in plastervvork seen at K a zim ie rz D o ln y (Figures 2.5 and 2.6), are vernacular.23 ñattened plastervvork forms are found in interiors in other northern realms, c Bohem ia and England , w here, as in Poland, they are ultim ately to be traced to ngins. T h e plasterw ork figural decoration on the exterior o f N o n su ch castle ■ D - - rro b ab ly not have been so dissim ilar to Po lish exam ples.24 Ib is '^arch for a vernacular therefore seems to have produced exceedingly elusive B L . : i M otifs that have been identified as vernacular in eastern Europe have also been i t . a t various times to be distinctly G erm an, or Italian. C e rta in ly none o f these is unique to the specific regions in w h ich they are supposedly o rigin ally located. > .ilso 110 w ay o f situating their origins in any one place in C entral Europe, k quite telling that Italians m ay in fact have been responsible for the origins o f m any t r : : n ils that are regarded as vernacular. A rchitectural m otifs that have been associm: uh the eastern European vernaculars such as stepped gables, parapet-like atticas, fcr_: w ith their constituent forms, com e from northern Italy. O n e can point to the cercan or northern Italian source o f m erlon cresting, the Paduan origins o f the K ra k ó w fa H all, lo n g attributed o f course to Italians, and the north Italian origins o f sgraffito : :~ ~ o :i. I11 sculpture, the use o f stucco also derives from Italy (the L u b lin masters came from the Lom bard lakes), and it was spread to France by Italians at

i . detail, house of Kryzstof Przybyla Kazim ierz Dolny, 1615. (Photo: The Institute o f h Academy o f Sciences.)

2.7 Vault o f the side aisle, Bernardine Church. Lublin. 1603-1607. (Photo: The Institute o f Art. Polish Academy o f Sciences.)

7 A LIA N S C U L P T O R S AN D S C U L P T U R E O U T SID E OF IT A L Y 57 ■¡■om ebleau (Figure 2.8) and thereafter b y em ulation to England: stucco was indeed in ■ t / r v . untries an Italian speciality.25 In another paper, B ialo stocki raised the possibility ■ " a : he elsewhere called the vernacular m ight be a local redaction o f a m ore general - : ~ : rbrm .26 R a th e r than considering the phenom ena adduced by evidence for a ia c r : r .. e kin d o f vernacular, it m ight indeed be better to call them examples o f the ¿ s u : an international language, com parable to variants such as types o f Am erican — ~ k w orth d w e llin g on the problem o f the conceptualization o f the vernacular in ■ ■ a c tio n to the international Italianate, because this w ay o f treating supposedly local jk n s r c forms illum inates the difficulties that art history has in extracting itself from a ■kt-sb: n w h ich is still ultim ately grounded — better, troubled - by nationalist premises. 15 problem is presented by the conception o f il genio italiano, and it also has m any other e m r r a t io n s in the historiography o f C e n tral European art. T h is sort o f approach has mitrz i so dom inated the discussion to date that it has im peded the form ulation o f m any A r"rv.: alternatives, as w ell as developing other insights, such as B ia lo sto cki’s ow n idea : rTtheless, another m odel o f diffusion, that is anchored m ore firm ly in anthroft . Already exists (although it does not seem to have been inspired by other, more r _ i rrends in A n g lo -S a x o n art history). T h is diffusionist m odel has been frequently

: L ;n e o f Francois I, view from die Vestibule o f Honor, Fontainebleau. 1528. (Photo: ^ L r : : : v Foto Marburg, courtesy o f Art Resource.)

58

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

2.9 Giovanni Dalmata. Fragment o f an altarpiece from Diôsgyôr. Stone, ¿.1490. Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery. (Photo: museum.) em ployed in discussions o f the Renaissance outside o f Italy b y scholars other than art historians, and it has begun to be utilized in art history as w ell.27 A m odel o f cultural diffusion helps to bolster the insights gained from an approach related to style history, w ith o u t in tro d u cin g problem s stem m ing from a possible over-em phasis on n ovelty or uniqueness, such as is often im plied b y style history. In this diffusionist approach questions o f influence and interaction - not those o f original genius or in vention, or those posed b y a national problem atic - are at stake. T h e m odel o f cultural diffusion, derived from the anthropological conception o f accultura­ tion, makes it possible to deal w ith issues o f cultural influence and intersection, w ithout regarding Italian culture as superior, and hence in reaction needing to lay stress on local identities or national characteristics. T h e re remains, h ow ever, a further problem in u tilizin g the idea o f influence, nam ely that o f underestim ating the other side o f the question, reception. A m odel o f influence that is related to acculturation still largely suggests an im age o f a passive recipient, to w h ich influence flows. If, how ever, a m odel o f diffusion is really meant to suggest a coherent cultural process, w ith o u t at least an equal emphasis upon the recipient, it may nevertheless be m isleading. As Peter B u rk e has rem arked specifically in relation to the question o f the “ reception” or “ d iffusion” o f the Renaissance abroad, it m ay seem that “ w hile the Italians were active, creative, and innovatory . . . the rest o f Euro p e was passive . . . a b orrow er eternally in debt to Italy.” 28 Y e t both the activity o f northern artists in Italy, and the continuation o f indigenous traditions, show that this was obviously not the case.

ITALIAN SCULPTORS AND SCULPTURE OUTSIDE OF ITALY

59

T h e picture o f circu latio n is certainly m ore com plicated than a sim ple im age w o u ld lA o w o f traffic in one direction, from Italy north. Careers o f artists w h o came from ur- ad to w o rk in R o m e , and elsewhere in Italy, and then passed on (or back) to Central Е _ т:р е , either to rem ain there or else to stay for o n ly a lim ited tim e, evoke a m ore sccr.plex picture than that suggested by the notion o f Italy as a source, even i f it be Jirsired to retain this notion for lim ited cases. G io va n n i Dalm ata provides a good e u m p le . A s his name im plies, Dalm ata, properly D u k n o v ic h , came from T ro g ir (Trau) the present area o f D alm atia, Croatia. A fter w o rk in g for the pope and other patrons [ R o m e , he m oved on to the court o f Matthias C o rv in u s in H u n g ary, where he a r. ited the M adonna o f D io sg y o r (Figure 2.9).29 T h e re are m any other examples o f the s a ~ r phenom enon, o f w h ich the w o rk o f Pietro Francavilla or Adriaen de V ries towards U c c ire fam iliar. k is time to consider other approaches. W e m ight try to exam ine the other side o f the r ro see w hat the active aspects o f reception were that led to the w ay in w h ich Italian « --T to rs and sculpture were treated outside Italy. In this connection B urke has proposed m odel like that o f literary reception (as used by some scholars o f literature) is m uch e * r helpful.30 N o t o nly should we lo o k, as Burke says, at the presence o f in divid u al fc. > abroad, and find out where they w ent, at w hat tim e, and even, as in B ialo sto cki’s : ant, for w hat purposes, but h o w they w ere received. U ltim ately there thus may i involved a m ore subtle process, as B u rk e suggests, o f creative m isinterpretation i" r :night also say reinterpretation). In the exam ple considered here, Italian sculpture :nus be seen to have been assimilated, absorbed, rew orked, domesticated, and ■ H f b n n e d .31 P_r:rierm ore, other anthropological m odels than that o f acculturation are available for аг- r im o n in art history. These include that proposed by M arshall Sahlins.32 Sahlins ■ e cn ts examples illustrating h ow cultures interact, m utually m isinterpret each other, and (Hecnvely adapt elements from each other in a historical manner. T h e use o f such a ■ o r . m ight lead to a m ore com prehensive conceptualization o f the relation o f the t -■ ot European art to broader considerations o f European culture. T o stay w ith the particular subject o f Italian sculpture and sculptors outside Italy: one k b t :.ius rather w ish to investigate w hat conditions or factors (to use this rather ■■¿equate, but perhaps still necessary, term) there were that either facilitated, and thus H e -7.: possibilities for, Italian sculpture and sculptors, or made problem s (to use the m ~ i m another context) for them . In this sort o f investigation a foundation is offered die inform ation and insights gained from other scholarly or interpretive approaches. Г feoc developm ents and in divid u al accom plishm ents m ay consequently also be set in : ". to issues o f taste and fashion, theoretical m otivations, education, and other bases tam iliarity w ith Italian culture. C o n verse ly other issues, in clu d in g conditions o f Щ: :nent, o f generic and technical lim itation, o f religious in h ib itio n , and even o f т r:::io n not o nly from alternatives in the kin d o f forms and practitioners o f sculpture, k r akc from other m ediators o f Italianate forms, m ight be considered as “ factors” that Н ж Ь с rr.pede reception o f Italian sculpture and sculptors. z . ^ ' t o c k i h im se lf suggested that the Renaissance came to eastern E u ro p e as a royal f t n r r . and the role o f taste or fashion can be emphasized, even m ore than in his account, rr z .adaptation o f new er forms o f art, and their spread.33 F o llo w in g Je rzy L o zirisk i and

6o

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

Helena and Stefan K o z a k ie w ic z, am ong other scholars, B ialo sto cki suggested for instance h o w such a taste for the Italianate, in sculpture as in other media, began at the Polish court and spread throughout the co u ntry.34 B u t Poland is not unique in this pattern. Jolan B alo gh and G y o n g y T o ro k have suggested that a sim ilar pattern can be established for sculpture in H u n g a ry .3’' It m ay also be argued (to contradict B ialostocki, w ho regards the Habsburgs w ith their m ultinational em pire as alien to the local tradition, w hile he deals w ith the Jagellonians w hose dynasty was ultim ately Lithuanian) that the Habsburgs as w ell as the Jagellonians set sim ilar patterns, for architecture and sculpture, not o n ly for the Austrian lands, but also for Bohem ia. In G erm any, too, the courts set the tone for patronage o f Italians and the Italianate, as Frederick the W ise o f S a xo n y’s com m issions for sculpture to A driano Fio ren tin o , as w ell as his patronage o f Jacopo de’ Barbari, suggest. In all these instances a court center created a fashion that raised expectations for other rulers to fo llo w i f they w ished to be au courant. In fact, one o f the best examples in dicating h o w the adaptation o f Italianate forms in architecture and sculpture follow ed the demands o f fashion is suggested b y a selfp ro m o ting letter that the Lü b e ck T o w n C o u n c il (Rat) received from the steenhower Paul van H o fe in T548. In it van H o fe announces his presence in the city “ in order to m ake some buildings in the antique m anner, w h ich antiques one n ow considers as the highest art, but o f w h ich art one finds n o th in g in the c ity .”36 In Lü b e ck , as in m u ch o f the Baltic region, a N etherlander m ight stand for an Italian, but the letter also demonstrates the appeal o f fashion in the adaptation o f the antique style, o f w h ich Italian artists and artisans w ere the purveyors par excellence. Indeed the stile all’Italiana m ight often serve as a stand-in for those w ho desired som ething done in the “ antique” style, the stile a ll’antica or alia Romana .37 H ere especially Italians or Italian-m ade sculpture often assuaged a desire for the ancient. T h is is evinced in the area o f co llecting as w ell as that o f patronage for, as we have kn o w n since E rw in Panofsky’s essay on D ü re r and the antique, often the classical was seen through the veil o f the Italian.38 A treatise on h o w a Kunstkammer should be form ed that G abriel Kaltem arkt drew up in t 587 is notew orthy here. Kaltem arkt gives first place to w orks o f sculpture, and esteems antique statuary as the most desirable o f all collectors’ items. A m o n g contem por­ ary sculptors, how ever, he places Italians first. S ign ifican tly, Kaltem arkt also m entions h ow copies can be made o f ancient w orks, or casts taken from them .39 In this realm Italian sculpture again assumes a preem inent position. Kaltem arkt almost seems to suggest that in this regard Florence equals i f not surpasses R o m e , since it is from Florentine w orkshops that good copies can be obtained. In any event, this m ay be w h y from the time o f Filarete’s copy o f the equestrian statue o f M arcus A u re liu s (Figure 2.10), w h ich also belonged to the Kunstkammer in D resden w here it is still to be found, copies o f ancient w orks o f art b y Italians found their w ay into northern collections.40 T h is practice continued in later centuries, as is evinced by the copies made b y G io van n i Susini, M assim iliano Soldani Ben zi, and other sculptors w ho made bronzes after ancient w orks for the Prin ce o f Liechtenstein.41 A taste for the antique can o f course be related to several aspects o f Renaissance culture, a huge and com plicated subject to be sure. Even the revisionist critique o f hum anist education provided by A n th o n y Grafton and Lisa Jardine w o u ld allow for the

:TAL IAN SCULPTORS AND SCULPTURE OUTSIDE OF ITALY

61

2.10 Antonio Averlino, called Filarete. Marcus Aurelius on horseback. Bronze, 1465. Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsamm­ lungen. (Photo: museum.)

ot hum anist education, founded on ancient sources, on the form ation o f ethical : at least from the late fifteenth century,42 and it is striking h ow m any future ■ ■ r o c s ot Italian sculptors w ere actually educated b y humanists. T o m ention but a few, ¿and these include notably kings Jan O lb rach t and Sigism u nd Stary, w h o were ■need by F ilip p o B uonacorsi, and P io tr T o m ic k i, bishop o f K ra k o w , w ho studied in _• w ith Filip p o Beroaldo, am ong m any other figures. In H u n g ary, outside o f SBw ho were actually Italian, the most notew orthy figure in this regard is To m as the patron o f the B ako cz Ch ap e l, to w h o m Filip p o Beroaldo dedicated his ■r r: .tary on A p u leiu s.43 In G erm any Electo r Augustus o f Saxo n y was educated by the jferavian translator R iv iu s ; later Habsburgs such as R u d o lf II received a thorough 3 . »nist education, but the examples could be m ultiplied. H e n ce a new er m otivation VQ. articulated for the patronage o f sculpture from the fifteenth century on. A m o n g d rt rions revived or encouraged by hum anist thought was the ideal o f m agnificence, m ch ^ifected m any endeavors. In his Ten Books on Architecture (7:16), L . B . A lberti h ow this conception m ight apply to statuary:

5 -_:. unless I am m istaken, the greatest ornam ent o f all is the statue. It m ay serve as a m m e n t in sacred and profane b uildings, pub lic and private, and makes a w onderful ■Memorial to man or deed.44 C irta in lv contem porary hum anist critics related patronage in Central Europ e to themes ■ c f c c in g the ethic o f m agnificence. P o litia n ’s remarks on Matthias C o rv in u s are note­

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE w o rth y here: “ Y o u also b u ild the m ost m agnificent palace by far, and adorn yo u r cou~ [forum] w ith statues o f every kin d, either bronze or m arble.”45 T h is text indicates th^: one leading hum anist’s assessment o f a ruler’s realization o f the ideal o f m agnificence could thus not be m erely a theoretical desideratum, but a critical tool used to refer to _ patron’s actual use o f sculpture. Patrons did not need to learn from humanists h o w conspicuous consum ption m ight be a sign o f status or, as is n o w said, m ight help to constitute charisma. N evertheless hum anist doctrine m ay have helped direct expenditure towards sculpture and thus ma\ have affected patronage both in an ecclesiastical and in a secular setting. T h is suggests a m ore precise connection, and thus provides a better w ay o f understanding the relevance o f hum anism to the reception o f Italianate style than more general statements b y scholar' like B ialostocki to the effect that the history o f fourteenth- and fifteenth-centun hum anism in C e n tral Euro p e provides a background to the arrival o f Italianate forms there. It m ay even be that the incu lcatio n o f doctrines led to a predilection for Italianate w orks. In other w ords, as hum anist ideas percolated north, so did a need, or taste, for Italian sculpture. O n the other hand, the adoption o f stylistic notions that w e associate w ith the hum anist ideal o f eloquence w o uld also have played an im portant role in the assimilation o f classicizing art. A cco rd in g to principles o f rhetorical (and also poetic) decorum , forms w ere m atched appropriately w ith the content they were meant to express, and w ith the audience to w h ich they were directed. In this instance noble, m agnificent forms that w ere endow ed w ith the charism a o f antiquity w o uld have been appropriate for im portant m onum ents o f sculpture.46 Edu catio n and hum anist theory were o f course not the o n ly conduits for the spread o f Italianate cultural ideals. T ra ve l was another stim ulus. T h is is such a fam iliar topic that it can be passed over briefly; one need but recall Frederick the W ise ’s jo u rn eys through Italy, or M a xim ilia n I H ab sb u rg’s Italian cam paigns. O n e o f the clearest examples o f the im pact o f travel, though not necessarily on sculpture, involves the Bavarian D u k e L u d w ig X w ho, after visitin g M antua, had a place resem bling it (to his m ind) built in Landshut. O th e r elements than taste and fashion, or hum anist ideals and education, contributed to the change in taste and fashion. T h e role o f Italians in bronzecasting and in carving m arble is o bvio u sly pertinent. Italian manufacture o f terracotta sculpture is also w orth m en tio n in g.4 B u t despite Italian pre-em inence in these fields, none o f these was exclus­ iv e ly an Italian preserve. O n the other hand, stucco was for a large part o f the early m odern period definitely an Italian specialty. T h e predom inance o f Italian sculptors in this m ed iu m throughout the region and throughout the era is w ell kn o w n if, as rem arked above, sometimes forgotten in historical accounts that over-em phasize indigenous w o rk in other media. In the eyes o f one sixteenth-century artist, stucco was, how ever, distinctly an Italian gift to Central Europe. A b erlin Tretsch, the designer o f the Stuttgart Schloss, w rote in 1561 that “ h andw ork in stucco is am ong us a new craft, that Italians brought into the land around 1540.” 48 C e rtain ly Italian stucco in the Star V illa near Prague, or in G iistro w in M ecklen bu rg (Figure 2.11), or in the so-called Italienisches Ban in the Landshut residence b uilt for L u d w ig X w o u ld bear this observation out.49 In contrast, it is useful to consider w hat conditions or elements m igh t have im peded

ITALIAN SCULPTORS AND SCULPTURE OUTSIDE OF ITALY

63

Doorway (detail), entry o f church, Sabinov (Kisszeben), Slovakia. Stone. (Photo: Institute : History, Slovak Acadey of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic.)

e adaptation o f Italian sculpture or the em ploym ent o f Italian sculptors. Bialo sto cki has r ,-xe d on h o w the adoption o f Italian Renaissance solutions was very selective, ■M eed prim arily to tom b sculpture o f the variety set in niches.50 B y selectivity, p U o s to c k i means that, in com parison, other Italian Renaissance forms, such as iutarsie or r r : —e n d in g tombs, did not find their w ay to Poland. B u t the question is a broader one. T h e broader issue o f taste m ay w o rk in a w ay w h ich suggests w hy, conversely, Italian f c c r • .-.nd sculpture could also have lost some o f their popularity. W h en , for instance, in : Late seventeenth and especially in the eighteenth century a taste for things French 3c* _ ; r i that for the Italianate, Fren ch sculptors began to assume the places that Italians fca.: once occupied. B u t this does not entirely explain w h y from the b egin n in g patrons r s ents were m ore sensitive to Italians’ endeavors in some areas, such as tom b sculpture wchitectural ornam ent, than in others. W h ile in general Italians m ay have w o rked in the north in a variety o f sculptural m edia d c d in g m arble, stucco, or occasionally bronze, even though D o natello also w o rked in m i tr.ere was no co n tin u in g m ajor tradition in lim e w o od or oak in Italy to rival the muse o f these m edia in the north in the late fifteenth century. I11 the north b . ..1 tradition o f w o rk in g in w o o d also rem ained a live ly alternative w ell through the ig z~ :rr::rh century for altarpieces, pulpits, baptismal fonts, and even epitaphs. In certain : central Europe, in clu d in g Silesia, Poland, and U p p e r H u n g a ry (Slovakia), there ■ - r r . en have existed d ivision o f m edia, o f sorts, in w h ich some w o rks were executed j I m s in stone, whereas retables rem ained tied to the local tradition o f w o rk in g in n 2 T h is is seen in places like Sabino v in Slovakia, w here Italians did the doorw ay in ■ z igure 2.12) w h ile presum ably G erm anic sculptors w o rked on the altarpieces

2.12 (opposite page) Master o f the Altars o f St. Anne (follower o f Parol z Levoca). Annunciation Altarpiece from Sabinov (Kisszeben). Polychromed wood, c. t 515— 1520. Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery. (Photo: museum.)

2.13 (left) Master o f the Altars o f St. Anne (follower o f Parol z Levoca). St. Anne Altarpiece from Sabinov (Kisszeben). Polychromed wood, c.1510—1515. Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery. (Photo: museum).

. r r ' 2.13 and 2.14). T h e same phenom enon m ay be encountered through the -centh century7 elsewhere.51 is also a social dim ension to the question o f artistic reception. O ppo rtu nities to - - perm anent positions as court sculptors w ere infrequent. T h u s Italians, w h o m ight - r J to w o rk on individ u al projects, often in effect had to take on em ploym ent ad Furtherm ore, w orkshop and guild restrictions w o u ld have otherwise inhibited

66

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

foreigners from settling in m any cities or towns. In m any places the qualifications needed to becom e a master w o u ld have included the dem and that one be a citizen, and th: qualifications for citizenship m ay have depended on property ow nership or local birth, or even religion in Protestant regions, thus e xclu d in g C a th o lic Italians. A s is w ell know n, itineracy was therefore a feature o f the career o f m any Italian sculptors. It is relatively rar. that a co n tin u in g presence m ight be established in one place for long. T h e result was that there often existed extrem e lim itations to the lasting local im pact o f Italians.52 R e lig io u s beliefs also co u ld have presented im pedim ents. R e lig io u s differences per st seem in general to have been less o f an issue. T h u s in Protestant northern G erm any an.: Scandinavia, Italian stuccoists were em ployed, as they were in o rth od ox R u ssia . Y e t in R u ssia other sorts o f controls could have been placed on the activity o f sculptors. T h r p ro hibition against m akin g graven images was interpreted in such a m anner that oppor­ tunities for m akin g statues w ere seriously reduced.53 T h u s in R u ssia until the late seventeenth century Italians served m ore often as masons or architects than as sculptor*. In the end, it m ay even be their very success that also restricted chances for Italians. Masons and sculptors w ho w ere drawn to Italy to be trained b y Italian masters m ay in m any instances have created com petition for them. A s van H o fe ’s letter suggests, m any Netherlanders often took up in places w here Italians did not reach. T h is is suggested by the pupils o f G iam bologna, Netherlanders or Germ ans w ho had been trained by h im in Italy. M oreover, indigenous traditions were often created to challenge Italian hegem ony in some fields. A n d so by the early seventeenth century south G erm an and Tyrolean stucco decoration was th rivin g in or not far from areas w here Italians had earlier been in vo lve d in sim ilar projects. As these last rem arks indicate, this essay can at best be considered m erely a sketch suggesting w here further investigations m ay be pursued. Nevertheless, a good place to start refram ing a m ore com prehensive vie w o f the Renaissance is w ith the exam ination o f Italian art and artists outside o f Italy.

CHAPTER 3

mon Itself Has Its History” : Race, ” Nation, and Renaissance A rt History

“ I

( _ \ IR E

FA R A G O

die last tw o decades, the nineteenth-century epistem ological foundations o f art history c been the subject o f great debate. Despite some fundamental disagreements over the E - - - - o f visual images, there is a general consensus on tw o m ajor issues.1 First, most art nans n ow regard as problem atic the assumption that all images are at base naturalfick r in fact, almost everyone recom m ends severing the lin k between images and nature has historically been postulated by resemblance theories o f representation. Secondly, K kxs been w id ely claim ed that an adequate theory o f representation must take into ex the culturally specific circum stances in w h ich visual images function. Y e t current r *r::cal discussions stop short o f specifying h o w w e are to define these circumstances. I \_: .vould be in vo lved in draw ing out the im plications o f our theorizing? H o w m ight w t establish a relativistic epistem ological foundation for art history that adequately defines "culturally specific circum stances” actually means? 7 . ith these issues in m ind, the fo llo w in g essay explores the possibility o f reconstruing ic disciplinary paradigm based on national culture so that it focuses on cultural exchange nsce-id. T h e history o f our discipline has been w ritten as a m odernist enterprise. M ost H ít a m e accounts have been concerned w ith the formal features o f theory at the expense ihw cultural circum stances out o f w h ich accounts o f artistic change emerged. A n — — -i.)rinn o f these cultural circum stances reveals that some o f our predecessors were g M e n g e d by problem s sim ilar to the ones w e face today - to revise resemblance theories : representation, to incorporate a m ulticultural fram ew ork, to overcom e the E - t centrisms o f our inherited academ ic practices. M reover, the norm ative status o f Italian art established w ith in the discipline by Ptarckhardt, M ichelet, R u s k in , and others played a catalytical role over several gener­ ar:' o f art historical revisionist w ritin g. I f w e treat the w ritings o f our fo un d ing fathers m ¡J cuments o f cultural history, rather than purely theoretical contributions, we discover tr:_: nineteenth-century theories about the nature o f artistic developm ent on the co llecr or “ cultural” level em erged in connection w ith w idespread debates about the _::ion o f civilizatio n . First, Social D arw in ist theories o f cultural evolutionism p ro Iñ f c d the leading paradigm . W h en Social D a rw in ism per se was no longer the issue, G erm an N ational Socialism made new demands on art historians and other European

68

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

intellectuals, w h o responded to the racism o f H itle r’s G erm any b y reinstating an earlier, internationalist vie w o f culture. T h e revival o f the E nlighten m en t concept o f Bildun? initiated d urin g the W e im ar R e p u b lic, as C a rl Landauer has recently argued, fee Am erican cultural aspirations in the p o st-W o rld W a r II period w hen a g ro w in g appre­ ciation for hum anist culture was fueled by the presence o f recent G erm an émigrés like E rw in Panofsky.2 W e are still debating the paradigm atic status o f Renaissance art and culture — the Renaissance no longer has the same cachet in disciplinary' discussions o f m ethodology' a> it did for B urckh ardt or Panofsky, but m any o f us lament its decline along w ith other historical subjects in university curricula. I th in k we can reinvigorate Renaissance studieand other traditional historical fields w ith o ut b ecom in g m ired in old polem ics, b-. reconsidering our inherited assumptions about national culture based on a nineteenthcentury assim ilationist paradigm . A rt historians have, m oreover, w eighed the m ethod­ o logical problem s o f using visual evidence in w ritin g cultural history m ore exhaustive!' than scholars in any other discipline. W e have im portant contributions to m ake in constructing a w o rk in g m odel o f transnational cultural process.3

Burckhardt’s Notion of Italian Culture A good place to begin reassessing categories o f national culture that interfere w ith our perception o f the co m plexity o f cultural interactions is w ith B u rckh ard t’s Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (i8 6 0 ). B urckh ardt and other nineteenth-century historians helper to construct the historical m em ories o f m odern nation-states - not that I w ish to sugge^r that a directly proportional relationship exists between historians and the form ation o f nation-states. Burckhardt, tor instance, refused to take any active political role and became deeply disillusioned w ith contem porary p olitical trends. A n increasingly reclusive m em ber o f the Sw iss intellectual elite, he opposed the im p en ding form ation o f the G erm an nation-state. H is political view s are in directly expressed in his characterization or “ Italian national spirit” as a natural bond that transcends any centralized bureaucratic structure. T h e terms for his understanding o f national co m m u n ity as som ething bound b\ co m m o n interests rather than any specific form o f governm ent had been defined in the late seventeenth century, before m odern European national boundaries w ere established. A cco rd in g ly , B u rckh ard t w rote about Italy as a country organized into political units bv regional governm ents. H e saw h im se lf as a m odern D ante or a Petrarch, the conscience o f the spiritual nation, not as an advocate o f large industrial interests.4 In ligh t o f B u rck h a rd t’s e xp licitly contem porary investm ent in the history o f Italy, and his dread o f G erm an unification — even m ore apparent in his personal letters and historical reflections - it is som ewhat perplexing that the concept o f Italian Renaissance art and culture that is still associated w ith his w ritings has becom e so detached from the political circum stances in w h ich B urckh ardt and his contem poraries w rote history.5 W lr is there no b ody o f critical literature - as there is for other aspects o f his thought — thar has considered the effects o f B u rckh a rd t’s view s about m odern nation-states 011 our characterization o f the Italian Renaissance? A cco rd in g to one o f B u rckh ard t’s mosr

“VISION ITSELF HAS ITS HISTO RY”

69

i_ statements, in the o pening discussion o f Civilization of the Renaissance, in the I — an republics and despots o f the fifteenth and sixteenth century • r the first tim e w e detect the m odern spirit o f the state [Staatsgeist] o f Europe, s_—rr.dered freely to its ow n im pulses, often displaying the w orst features o f an _r.rr.dled selfishness, outraging every right, and k illin g every germ o f a healthier r_.rare [Bildung], B ut, w herever this tendency is overcom e or in any w ay com pen-:rd . a new fact appears in history - the state as the creation o f reflection and rr.:reratio n , the state as a w o rk o f art [Kunstwerk ].6 M ichael A n n H o lly , one o f the few art historians w h o has expressed a m ethodological nnrrr>: in B u rckh ard t’s w ritings for its effect on d isciplinary practices, argues that t srckhardt’s historical narrative was influenced by the actual paintings that he adm ired, tsm icted on the principles o f centralized geom etric perspective (w ith its single focal ek T h e key to B u rckh ard t’s frequent verbal portraits and other rhetorical strategies, n ever, appears to be even m ore profound - and m ore interdisciplinary. N o historians k v e traced B u rck h a rd t’s use o f the w ord Kunstwerk to describe the “ State.” I f w e did, ■H: uld find its precedents in philo so p hy and political theory. In political theory, the ■ w iistic/A risto te lian notion o f a “ w o rk o f art” appeared as a paradigm for productive .n o n in discussions by seventeenth-century p olitical philosophers such as Tho m as *c-re>. w ho referred to the state as a “ w o rk o f art,” ju st as the m etaphor appears in ■ ■ rck h a rd t’s C ivilization .8 E _-;khardt also drew on longstanding associations between philosophical “ reflection” tn-e quintessential activity o f hum an ju d g m e n t and the order that actual w orks o f art rarest. T h is connection underlies H o lly ’s insightful observation that B u rckh ard t’s =r-¿r_ve structure resembles Renaissance painting constructed on the principles o f ~ ,.:ze d perspective. B u t the shared structural traits have a m ore co m plex relationship r the stylistic analogy between p ainting and prose can suggest. Jo h n L o c k e ’s 1690 r Concerning Human Understanding is an im portant philosophical precedent for • ir r k h a r d t ’s abstract idea o f the w o rk o f art as the product o f “ reflection and deliberand the o riginal audience o f B u rckh ard t’s cultural history, at least its educated mbers, w o u ld surely have recognized this connection from B u rckh ard t’s choice o f =r_r__-e. K n o w le d g e is acquired in successive stages, according to Lo ck e . A s described iiA r r é de C o n d illa c in his supplem ent to L o c k e ’s treatise, w hen know ledge is finally r i. the order o f things w ith in the m in d w ill be displayed sim ultaneously.10 W h ich is the activity o f reflection disposes know ledge, arranges it in a m anner that is r r r ¿rabie to visual order. T h is analogy7 should not surprise us, given the lo n gevity o f tneory that co gn itio n proceeds on the m odel o f vision. Descartes and m any other c r ners com bined the language o f rhetoric and optics to distinguish the “ clarity” or Em ctness” o f ideas represented in the m in d from “ dark” im pressions at the “ low est” sr -- : conscious attention." v r.g the m any routes that optical metaphors o f co gn itio n traveled from seventr.-century philosophy to B u rckh ard t’s characterization o f the state as the product o f B x n o n and deliberation, one o f the most im portant to single out is the path through wder. for w ho m C o n d illa c ’s essay on hum an understanding was a fundamental r : - 2 H erd er shifted history into the center o f philosophical th in k in g in his effort to

70

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

establish aesthetic theory as a philosophical science that dealt w ith the reception beauty. In his day, H e rd e r was unique in approaching w orks o f art created by ot cultures and epochs w ith the analytical m odel o f co gnitio n developed by p h ilo so p h y H erd er came to understand that it w o u ld be im possible for a philosophical theory ot thi beautiful to exist w ith o ut history, arguing that time and environm ent give w orks ot their particular appearance. B urckh ardt, w ho frequently cited H e rd e r in positive ter:: •drew on this association: he saw the enduring “ Italian national spirit’' manifested in it in divid u al w orks o f art, be they despots and republics or paintings, sculptures, w ork" e architecture, rituals, and cerem onies. N o t that all these categories were equally accessib.r as historical evidence - Francis H askell is quite right to emphasize that Burckh ardt nevr* in vo ked the fine arts in d ivid u ally w hen he w rote his famous cultural history ot the Renaissance or established a theoretical rationale for their use as historical evident? probably because the relationships between art and history are not straightforward illustrative ones.13 M y line o f argum ent w o u ld be hopelessly derailed i f w e were to consider the status Zeitgeist theories in general; the o nly point I w ish to make about the im p licit analogie in B u rckh ard t’s w ritin gs between actual w orks o f art (as w e define them still) and hi n otion that states are also w orks o f art is that B u rckh ard t’s verbal picture ot the Renaissance in Italy testifies to the role that scholars have played in constructing im age o f national culture. In a sense, B u rckh ard t’s cultural history o f Italy is also a self-conscious “ w o rk o f art” — an artistic im itation o f the Italian national spirit insofar as his narrati ■e exem plifies the coherence o f the “ Italian national spirit” he defines. T h is is H o llv argum ent, also H a sk e ll’s. Bu rckh ard t gave the Th o m istic/A risto te lian definition ■ a w o rk o f art as any com position created by hum an art a new concrete dim ension: future investigation m ight inquire to w hat extent his fundam ental contribution i. Kulturgeschichte was responsible for fusing separate discussions o f the notion “ w o rk ^: art” drawn from the literature o f art, analytical philosophy, and political theory. B u rckh ard t’s praise for the Italian national spirit, manifested in local forms o f govern­ m ent as w ell as civ ic cerem onies and other visible sym bols o f collective identity, is nc: o n ly a m onum ental w o rk o f historical w ritin g , it is a nineteenth-century hum anist’critique o f current politics. In this regard, it is im portant to bear in m ind that there werr no nation-states in the sixteenth century. W e lo o k in vain for national boundaries o: sixteenth-century maps: “ G erm ania” was a geographical location bounded b y topo­ graphical features, like “ Italy,” w h ich referred to the Italian peninsula, even as it did a: the m om ent that B urckh ardt w rote C ivilization .l4 D istin ctio n s between sixteenth- and nineteenth-century forms o f national identity arr im portant to our present investigation o f disciplinary paradigms. U nfortunately, how ever as im portant as nationalism is as a historical phenom enon, there are no satisfactory critem for d efin in g w hat constitutes a nation. In the sixteenth century, England probably came closest to q ualifying as a m odern nation-state. As R ic h a rd Helgerson has recently argued, the em erging E n g lish sense o f national identity was produced by disenfranchised writer w h o defended themselves against Italian hum anist claim s that all foreigners were “ bar­ barians.” 15 C u ltu ra l boundaries defined in opposition to, or in com petition w ith, Italia: hum anist values were an im portant ingredient in the em erging concept o f national identity for several hundred years. T h e rise o f centralized, unified, bureaucratic states is.

“VISION ITSELF HAS ITS HISTO RY”

71

ir -

modern phenom enon fo llo w in g changes due to the French and Industrial -> In the last quarter century, a new generation o f scholars has significantly la lt h e concept o f nationalism on w h ich the d isciplinary paradigm o f art history was • Ernst G ellner, E ric H obsbaw m , B en e dict Anderson, and others o f the new g q - . r. restrict the m odern concept o f a nation to the large-scale political units that m z z i :r :he nineteenth century .17 Anderson, in a study o f nationalism outside E u ro p e lir-- a ne far to shift the older definitions, defines a “ nation” as an “ im agined political — “ an im age o f co m m un io n , as opposed to an actual m eeting” that seeks to li& e ii w ith large cultural systems that preceded it, such as the religious co m m u n ity I m A e rvr.astic realm . 18 t w'hat a productive line o f in q u iry for this undertaking m ight be.

.:nd Cultural Evolutionism C -r nineteenth-century predecessors frequently expressed their ideas about collective 1

nty in racial categories.53 H e in ric h W o lfflin , the G erm an Swiss art historian w ho in Basel w hen Jaco b B urckh ardt was still alive and succeeded him in the C h a ir o f h r : H isto ry there in 1893, is generally acknow ledged as the founder o f form alist analysis. :?iin, regarding h im se lf as co n tin u in g B u rck h a rd t’s w o rk, defined the “ essential” n :ent o f specific w orks o f art w ith in the narrow ly circum scribed frame o f reference f risual characteristics as m anifesting the collective psychology o f the “ G e rm an ic” ■r M editerranean,” “ classical” or “ Late antique” or “ R o m a n tic ” spirit. As W o lfflin ’s ■ - - ¿ le d distinctions can begin to suggest, “ race,” epoch, and national identity were ■Ken interchanged and conflated in the practice o f cultural history. Since the 1790s, the w o rd “ race,” sign ifyin g perm anent hereditary differences between f c m ly groups, was considered an im portant factor in determ ining peculiar cultural Ikffacteristics. T h e anatomist G eorges C u v ie r, w h o claim ed that negroes were stupid S: _.;>e they lacked civilizatio n , was an early and influential proponent o f the idea that permanent differences in mental capability were inherited “ racial” characteristics.34 R a cia l 1 __::ies, like national characteristics, were considered in some sense innate, inherited, m i distinguishing features o f fam ily groups. B u t the scientific concept o f race was never « early distinguished from the older notion o f a nation or race o f people. W h at W o lfflin Rassencharakter was som ething held to be the source o f all structures o f feeling and . jh t, naturally determ ined b y b lood and intellect, a shared assumption over and above I: : in divid u al.55 T h e form al vocabulary o f art history, like m odernist concerns w ith the .. ige o f the text that developed around the same tim e, rendered these assumptions r r r j c it : : remains no mean problem to discover the conditions w h ich , as material element -

. ill it temperament, Zeitgeist, 01* racial character [Rassencharakter] — determ ine the style : individuals, periods, and peoples. Y e t an analysis w ith quality and expression as its objects by no means exhausts the acts. T h e re is a third factor - and here we arrive at the cru x o f this enquiry - the

78

R E F R A M IN G T H E R E N A IS S A N C E m ode o f representation as such. E v e ry artist finds certain visual possibilities before him. to w h ich he is bound. N o t everything is possible at all times. Vision itself has its history. and the revelation of these visual strata must be regarded as the primary task of art history.-'

Q u a lity, expression, and “ m ode o f representation” w ere the m ain com ponents in W o lfflin ’s history o f art as the history o f collective vision, based on the assumption shared w ith most o f his contem poraries - that the outward forms o f art manifest the inw ard feelings o f artists.5' T h e g ro u n d in g o f form alist analysis in G erm an idealist thought has received a great deal o f critical attention from art historians in recent years.58 In light o f all the attention to the history o f our formal categories o f art, is it not curious that no one has ever pursued the obvious connections between racial character and “ mode o f representation” in these texts? W hat G o m b rich calls the dangerous “ p hysio gn om ic fallacy” is n o th in g other than the racial theory that m ental capabilities o f entire peoples can be read out o f their physical features and, b y extension, out o f their collective cultural achievem ents.59 A lo is R ie g l's theoretical contribution, m ore than the w ritin gs o f any other in divid u al art historian, is the logical place to begin a serious investigation o f h ow the discipline o f art history has struggled to redefine its inherited m odels o f national culture defined in nineteenthcentury terms o f racial identity. R ie g l’s open-m indedness to the aesthetic values o f other cultures is still considered extraordinary. A n d , significantly for the present discussion, his career effort to establish art history on a new, m ore theoretical foundation (still w id ely recognized as a m ajor con trib utio n to m ethodology) stemmed from his attempts to reground a discipline form ed for the study o f Italian Renaissance art. Y e t art historians have isolated R ie g l’s ideas from the pressing contem porary social and p olitical concerns that R ie g l e xp licitly addressed. T h e most recent studies still consider prim arily the philosophical precedents o f his argum ents - in H e ge l, n e o -K an tian p h il­ osophy, Herbartian p sychology, and positivist history in the tradition o f Leo p o ld von R a n k e .60 A s H e n ri Ze rn e r acknow ledged tw o decades ago, how ever, there is a curious disjunction between the intellectual context in w h ich w e discuss R ie g l’s theories and the evidence o f the texts themselves: R ie g l’s w ritings, Z e rn e r found, are a “ philosophical bricolage” - and the o nly philosopher R ie g l m entions b y name is not a philosopher at all, but the n eo -C lassical sculptor A d o lf H ildebrand, one o f the first to use the category7 “ visual art.”61 M argaret Iverson suggests that R ie g l’s strongly w orded condem nations o f contem porary historical practice were directed against the prom inent Viennese architect O tto W agn er.62 W h ile this interpretation m ay be valid in the narrowest sense - and Iverso n ’s contribution is certainly to be com m ended for b eing the first to acknow ledge that the issue o f race was a factor at all - it atomizes R ie g l’s social concerns, neglecting his e xp licit and far-reaching objective to elim inate Social D arw in ism from the w ritin g o f art history. M ore has been w ritten about R ie g l’s revolutionary concept o f KunstwoUen (most literally, “ w ill to artistic expression” or “ w ill to [make] art” : there is no consensus on the best translation) than about any other aspect o f his thought, yet no one has seriously considered that R ie g l’s coinage is addressed to theories o f cultural evolutionism . R ie g l devoted some fifty pages at the b egin n in g o f his first m ajor theoretical publication, Stilfragen/Problems of Style (1893) to refuting the idea o f evolutionary cultural progress proposed by some o f his contem poraries. T h a t is, R ie g l e xp licitly criticized the appli-

“ V IS IO N IT S E L F H A S IT S H I S T O R Y ”

79

Ib km i o f So cial D arw in ism to art history. In the introduction and open in g chapter, ere R ie g l set out his theory o f geom etric style to refute the materialist theories o f his ^ te m p o ra rie s , his position is absolutely clear. H e rejected theories o f cultural history 4 ^ : r ost a parallel between the physical evolution o f the hum an race and the progress o f Rkr iliza tio n .” H e blames this trend on theories o f racial difference that have steadily - t : into the w ritin g o f art history: :his [the predom inant intellectual tendency o f the last thirty years], I mean the ~ ^terialist, scientific w orld view , first prom ulgated by Lam arck and G oethe and Inbsequently brought to m aturity by D a rw in , w h ich has left such grave consequences i ' :rs w ake even in the field o f art history. A s parallel to the effort to explain the r ution o f the species by means o f the purely physical drive for survival, there was an effort to discover prim ary and intrin sically physical m echanism s for the in telir.ru a l evolu tio n o f the human race. A rt o bvio u sly represented - o r so one thought — . ~:gher stage o f intellectual evolution and therefore could not have been present from die very begin ning. First came technology, w h ich concentrated on purely practical —-liters; then, out o f this experience, and o nly after the culture had som ewhat advanced, did art appear on the scene.63 - - historians have been content to refer R ie g l’s objections to S o cial D a rw in ism to ■ _ 'r-...list theories o f artistic developm ent. I th in k w e have not sufficiently considered R ie g l’s opposition was e xp licitly addressed to controversies over cultural develop­ e r - : extending beyond d isciplinary concerns w ith m ethodology. C h e va lie r de Lam arck, i e ll-kn o w n early nineteenth-century biologist cited by R ie g l in the above passage, ■ L -—.rd that genetic characteristics are culturally acquired.64 T h e fundam ental issue at ■ I I r was w hether racial differences in mental ability existed - and i f so, h ow were they i.*r-.:ed: could cultural acquisitions be passed on from one generation to the next? T o r^r ::gate these questions, Lam arck searched for perceptible characteristics that could ■ ,:re hum an intelligence in a vertical scale classified b y “ race.” Lam arckians are, for H h t Trason, racial formalists w h o believe that genetic im provem ents in “ races” w ould m- ~ : from p ro v id in g individ u als w ith a better social environm ent.65 Lr. Stilfragen, in the same discussion we have begun to exam ine, R ie g l condem ned m methods that trace m otifs to their o rigins on the basis o f technique, unaided by ■ -_-;ious artistic in vention, citin g the G erm an D arw in ist archeologist H acke l by nam e.66 ' objections to materialist histories o f artistic developm ent m ake far m ore sense p e n considered in the context o f the w id e debate over hum an evolution between the n : pmentalists (D arw inians) and the degenerationists (Lam arckians) that extended to : end o f the century and beyond. These discussions, b e g in n in g in the 1860s, revived « L r:re n th -c e n tu ry issues o f racial difference. In the 1860s, in G erm an, French, and ■ . 'r ►-Am erican discussions, anthropology provided a new means for reform ulating the li jr.:en m ent theory o f the essential u nity o f m an kin d by ackn o w led gin g cultural ifeerence according to racial categories. T h e proposed theories are im portant to consider ■ nnection w ith R ie g l’s theories because, like his arguments, they revolve around the k n c a l difference between the industrial arts and m oral culture.67 O ften , as R ie g l objects, r :he latter was considered to in vo lve “ spiritual progress” in the acquisition o f I « rriiz a tio n .

8o

R E F R A M IN G T H E R E N A IS S A N C E

T h e anthropological discussions, extending beyond scientific debates to the popular press, em phasized that aesthetic capability manifested in artistic productions helped : define the degree o f cultural progress, and hence the degree o f humanness. D a rw in Descent of Man (1871) suggests h ow evolutionary theory was applied in its crudest form : cultural history b y R ie g l’s contem poraries. D a rw in placed savages at a point interm edian between man and animals — and even low er than some animals: “Ju d g in g from the hideous ornaments and the equally hideous m usic adm ired b y most savages, it m ight be argued that their aesthetic faculty was not so h ig h ly developed as in certain animals, fc r instance in b irds.” 68 E . B . T y lo r ’s Primitive Culture (1871), according to G eorge S to ckin g, set the stage fc* later definitions o f culture as a universal phenom enon by suggesting that all areas : culture can be com prehended as one natural process rooted in p rim itive savagery. W it: this m ove, cultural differences came to be explained in terms o f degrees o f cultural progress through w h ich every society passes.69 Fo r our purposes, how ever, the most significant innovation o f T y lo r ’s argum ent is that for him “ spiritual progress” en­ compassed technology and the crafts as w ell as the fine arts. T h e concept o f art as a universal and sim ultaneously “ spiritual” phenom enon encom passing crafts was w idel. disseminated by T y lo r ’s publications and by w ritings associated w ith the British arts ana crafts m ovem ent. Basically the same argum ent that all forms o f hum an artistic production are “ spiritual” rather than “ m echanical” by nature is at the core o f R ie g l’s concept o f Kunstivollen and constitutes his fundam ental objection to materialist theories o f artisti; developm ent. A sim ilar theory had been articulated even a few years before T y lo r ’s publication bv the architect and historian G ottfried Sem per. It is w ell kn o w n that the m aterialisttechnical theories of stylistic change developed by Sem per’s follow ers w ere the p rim an object o f R ie g l’s criticism . " R ie g l and Sem per, how ever, agreed in tw o fundam entally im portant respects: neither ancient G re ek culture nor the hierarchy o f the “ fine arts" should be the source o f absolute aesthetic norm s. Sem per’s ideas on “ p rim itive art” — ^ term he is credited w ith co in in g - w ere soon popularized by his associate in the British arts and crafts m ovem ent O w e n Jo n es.71 Sem per insisted that all the arts, in clu d in g the utilitarian crafts, are concerned w ith beauty. H is vie w that w eaving is the fundam ental source o f aesthetic developm ent argued, like T y lo r ’s theory o f “ p rim itive cu ltu re,” for the fundam entally spiritual nature o f all hum an artistic p rod uction .72 L ik e R ie g l, Sem per e xp licitly criticized the exagger­ ated claim s that can be made for technology at the expense o f the spiritual nature o f all artistic e nd eavo r/3 A n d R ie g l, in keep ing w ith the theories o f both T y lo r and Sem per (but not the crude sim plifications o f their Social D arw in ist follow ers), avoided associating inherited aesthetic capabilities graded in a vertical scale w ith national differences. Instead, he granted every culture its ow n, incom m ensurable Kunstivollen. Kunstivollen - a concept introduced in Stilfragen and developed m ore fu lly in Spatrdmische Kunstindustrie/Late Roman A rt Industry (1901) - overcom es R ie g l’s tw o central objections to the Social D arw in ist accounts proposed by his contem poraries and im m ediate predecessors: hier­ archical distinctions in m ental capacity am ong different cultures or peoples, and the reduction o f hum an agency to technical or m aterialistic causes. Y e t R ie g l e xp licitly did not reject D a rw in ’s theory o f evo lu tio n .74 Indeed, w ho w ould

“V IS IO N IT S E L F H A S IT S H I S T O R Y ”

81

: / 7 :A e n R ie g l’s scientific theory o f art seriously i f he had objected to the dom inant d r ' : : : : c paradigm o f his day? N o r did R ie g l com pletely reject the hum anist m odel that g s r r e d pre-em inence to ancient G re ek civilizatio n . Again , w ho w o uld have taken * - theory o f art seriously if, instead o f exp lain in g cultural developm ent, he had r r~ e d the cultural values o f his day? R ath e r, R ie g l restricted the use o f evolutionary t v and he qualified W in ck e lm a n n ’s aesthetic preferences by placing G reek culture . its Egyptian sources, w h ich W in cke lm an n had rejected as “ m onstrous” ) at the k : rea l (rather than metaphysical) foundation o f a continuous artistic progression fczcrer than a continuous drive towards “perfection” ). R ie g l’s scheme consciously avoids ■ the com parative m ethod o f racial science that had steadily crept into theories o f c a m r a l evolutionism and the teleological assumptions o f the hum anist m odel o f cultural - : - :;rio n and degeneration. R ie g l’s contribution, w id ely recognized today, countered w id ely held E nlighten m en t vie w that as the R o m a n E m p ire degenerated its G re ek arn nc heritage also declined, b y creating a new , positive identity for late antique art. V. dern contem porary critical historians, im patient w ith essentialism in any form , w ant 9 dismiss the Idealist underpinnings o f art history altogether. B ut can we really succeed ■ this endeavor w ith o ut considering carefully the fabric o f concerns w ith cultural i n elopm ent into w h ich Idealist philosophy was w o ven in the foundational era o f art e ry? M y ow n reassessment o f nineteenth-century theories o f artistic change began v :\ - :he abrupt (and, I recall, embarrassing) realization that W o lfflin ’s form alist categories rf analysis were inextricably tied to a racial theory o f cultural identity. I tried to separate, 9 * an undergraduate audience in a survey o f “ western art” I taught in 1 9 8 9 , the analytic “rrn iq u e w h ich I respected from the racial theory I could o n ly despise. I found I could H o w m uch m ore im possible this intellectual task w o u ld be to perform for a :: crim in atin g audience o f professional peers!

Semper, Kugler, and Burckhardt x » easy to demonstrate that R ie g l addresses key issues in the nineteenth-century debates »*7- racial inequality because he tells us that he did. W hat Z e rn e r and others call R ie g l’s »Tempt to overthrow the suprem acy o f the in divid u al creator is also, in reference to r_ rural evolutionism , an attempt to explain co n tin u in g cultural identity w ith o u t resortr _ to the notion o f a cultural hierarchy grounded in innate mental and aesthetic : - r-ences am ong “ races.” R ie g l’s theory accounts for the developm ent o f various : rr.mant cultures as exactly parallel events, the products o f form al laws and historical : dent rather than inherited mental capabilities. B y his ow n adm ission, R ie g l’s o bjec: - - to Social D arw in ism , central to his program o f theoretical reform , were not an 3 :ed reaction: he participated in a project that spans several generations o f art historical rn g . In the context o f fittin g the idealized naturalism o f G re ek art into a relative scale ■ dues, Sem per and R ie g l proposed the first histories o f w orld art defined in 11011•rT'r'entational terms .75 B y tu rnin g to the w ritings o f G ottfried Sem per, w e can suggest, r 7 in a prelim inary m anner, how R ie g l’s im m ediate predecessors also revised existing a a ns o f national cultural identity. v .-riper was am ong the first writers w ho system atically tried to dismantle the category

82

R E F R A M IN G T H E R E N A IS S A N C E

o f the “ fine arts” by advocating the study o f other objects o f hum an m anufacture. I hav e already suggested that the argum ents o f both Sem per and R ie g l participated in deba:r over the developm ent o f civilization . T h e terms o f this debate becom e m ore appareni how ever, w hen w e consider h o w Sem per directed his theory o f relative aesthe::. sensibility against the Swiss historian Franz K u g le r, B u rckh ard t’s teacher and mentor. K u g le r’s Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte (1841—42) — organizeci by national culture and issu-.-; in m any editions through the end o f the century — was the first (and very successfu. autonom ous history o f w o rld art based on visual evidence. A cco rd in g to H askell, K u gle r was the most w id e ly read and influential scholar in the field anyw here in Europe. K u g le r has also been portrayed recently as a watershed figure for the recognition t A m e rin d ian cultural achievements. A cco rd in g to G eorge K u b le r, K u g le r ’s Handbu: marks the m om ent w hen anthropologists and art historians w ent their separate ways. T h r result of this separate evolution is the aesthetic recogn ition o f A m e rin d ian art and K u g lris to be com m ended 011 tw o counts: he rejected diffusionist fantasies that had Io n s provided O ld W o rld roots for all other cultures and, in K u b le r’s ow n w ords, he rejectee “ the history of tools, w h ich differs from the history o f art as does the artisanate from thr liberal arts.”78 Y e t, w here K u b le r sees o n ly the aesthetic reco gn ition o f ancient A m erind ian art, we can also observe the construction o f hierarchical cultural boundaries in a new institutional setting — nam ely the systematic, academ ic survey o f “ w orld art.” F o r if K u g le r’s treatment o f ancient A m e rin d ian art is a form o f aesthetic recognition, it is o f a very patronizing sort. K u b le r traces K u g le r’s ideas to W in ck e lm a n n ’s concept o f periodization, Alexander B aum garten’s adm ission o f the u gly and monstrous into the realm o f sensory awareness A lexander von H u m b o ld t’s illustrations treating w o rld civilizatio n , and G . B. V ic o notions about the prim acy o f im agination in “ h um an ity’s ch ild h o o d .”79 K u b le r ackn o w l­ edges the need to em ploy a historiographical fram ew ork in co n ju n ctio n w ith a theoreti­ cal m odel, but one wishes that he had drawn m ore attention to the assimilative m echanism s o f European w riters - for exam ple, w hen he notes in passing that the question o f distingu ish in g between art and artifact first arose in the sixteenth c e n tu n . w hen A m e rin d ian objects entered the collections o f European courts.80 T h e perniciousness o f distinctions between “ art” and “ artifact” and o f equations between “ p rim itiv e ” and “ ch ild ” becom e obvious w hen we consider their appearance ir. nineteenth-century racial theory, w here the adult prim itive was w id ely believed to be a' evolved as the w hite European child on the basis o f his artistic productions and assumed aesthetic capabilities. M oreover, K u g le r’s treatment o f ancient A m e rin d ian m onum ents a' an interm ediate stage between the “ ch ild h o o d ” o f h um anity and “ true art” has direct historical links w ith B u rckh ard t’s treatment o f the Italian Renaissance. K u g le r’s Handbuch evolved in collaboration w ith B urckh ardt, w ho provided additional text and the illus­ trations for the second edition (i8 4 8 ).sl T h e extensive collaboration between K u g le r and B urckhardt, w h ich extended over m any years, provides an unusual opportunity to eavesdrop on the construction o f m odern subdisciplinary boundaries drawn along cultural lines that, in the final analysis, grants European culture the upper hand. A ru n n in g debate between K u g le r and Sem per also extended for m any years. T h e ir generational disagreements provide an unusual opportunity to observe the paradigm atic role played by Renaissance art in the construction o f theories o f national culture.82

“ V IS IO N IT S E L F H A S IT S H I S T O R Y ”

83

It iper, far from agreeing w ith his predecessor K u g le r (or w ith G eorge K u b le r) that the xatts and the “ fine arts” should be m aintained in separate categories, defined “ art” as a rversal phenom enon. Sem per disagreed w ith K u g le r b y granting non -figu rative * o f n on -Eu ro p ean cultures the status o f “ art,” and he attacked K u g le r’s theory ~ all ancient G re ek art and architecture were constructed o f “ noble w hite m arble,” : - r extensive archeological evidence in a scathing rebuttal to K u g le r’s reading o f the nent literary testim ony (w hich conform ed closely w ith W in ck e lm a n n ’s aesthetic prefrrm ce s).83 Sem per’s alternative thesis (w hich still followed W in ck e lm a n n and H u m b o ld t) 1 _ clim atic theory o f hum an developm ent com bined w ith an Aristotelian analogy between nature and art: populations im itate nature in various ways, but always derive z : aesthetic preferences from their natural e nvironm ent.84 Kugler, Sem per, and R ie g l were all com m itted to revising the exem plary role o f Renaissance art, but they instituted some culturally exclusionary categories o f their ow n. 4 : er recognized the artistic merits o f civilization s other than those associated w ith B*: classical w o rld, but he m aintained and even helped to institutionalize long-standing ■Neural hierarchies. Sem per disagreed w ith K u g le r by granting “ crafts” o f n on -Eu ro p ean «■fcures the status o f “ art,” arguing that the aesthetic preferences o f each nation or cu lu r : are inextricable from the functional value o f their m anufactures and depend on their ■ --_ :u l environm ent.85 Sem per’s idea o f cultural relativism was influenced by his k n o w l# i_-r o f art forms in n on -Eu ro p ean cultures, notably the Assyrian discoveries o f the r i_ > . the Lo n d o n Great E x h ib itio n o f 1851, and w hatever he found in the ethnographic B im a ls he is kn o w n to have read. O n the other hand, Sem per’s n ew ly coined category (hmmitive art” is still grounded in a European system o f values that has n othing to do the values o f the society it is meant to describe.86 H is com parative study o f art is, ■oreover, directly indebted to the scientific principles o f his contem poraries such as the m . : mist C u v ie r, w ho ranked the “ human races” acco rd in g to the beauty o f their design, r r~ devising a scale o f intelligence on this visual basis, that gave 30 percent to apes, 70 percent to N egroes, 80 percent to Europeans, go percent to ancient Greek sculptures of men, too percent to sculptures of divinities.8 / R ie g l rejected evolutionary theories o f cultural developm ent m ore com pletely than ¡r_~ rr Sem per or K u g le r. Y e t R ie g l, like W o lfflin and in keeping w ith most writers o f f : r day, thought it was possible to discern p sychological characteristics over and above tr z individ u al in cultural “ forms o f art.” 88 A n d , although he restricted the use o f * ludonary theory in cultural history (b y rejecting the com parative methods o f racial t ence adopted by Social D arw inists) and although he abandoned the hum anist m odel o f r cural grow th and decline, R ie g l still placed W in ck e lm a n n ’s ideal o f G re ek cultural bdnevem ent at the foundation o f his history o f artistic progression.

R m o js k y M ben Panofsky grounded the in d ivid u al w o rk o f art in a richer historical and cultural ; ~:ext than any o f his predecessors, he had in m in d the difficu lty o f using visual ■'U rnce to w rite history. Panofsky was certainly aware that cultural bias creeps into & £ ncal w ritin g. H is most famous discussion o f m ethod is probably the essay that

84

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

introduces Studies in Iconology, first published in 193 9.89 T h e fo llo w in g b rie f analys:- v this essay does not pretend to address the co m plexity o f Panofsky’s proposal for elim inat­ in g bias by means o f an internal set o f “ correctives and controls.” T h e fo llo w in g anah 2* aims to u nco ver Panofsky’s own cultural biases, grounded in a m odel o f nationalism :r . w e can no longer accept. Panofsky revised R ie g l’s form alist notio n o f Kunstwollen and he rejected W olffi:: "1 distinction between form and content as an o ver-sim p lification that confuses visi w ith higher m ental processes o f apperception and co g n itio n .90 A t the first stage “ p re -ico n o g ra p h ic” interpretation, Panofsky proposes, the co n ditio n o f b ein g hum ar sufficient to interpret the m eaning o f certain gestures and expressions - “ everyone css. tell an angry face from a jo v ia l o ne,” he writes, though w e m ight have to w iden : r : range o f our practical experience by “ co nsulting a b ook or an expert.” 91 Panotek qualified these remarks by n otin g that first im pressions are no guarantee o f a corrr. interpretation. B u t even in this qualified form , is Pan o fsky’s claim for the universalit) gesture and expression justified? R e ce n t studies o f co lo n ial art and drama leave no roc n for doubt that gesture and expression are far m ore culturally specific than Panofsky g¿- t them credit for bein g.92 Panofsky evidently sensed that his d efinition o f the universality o f p ainting did n * com pletely resolve the problem o f h ow w e “ naturally” understand visual images, becai:-: he added a qualification, w h ich he called “ a peculiar problem ” - that a w o rk o f art ma be unrecognizable because o f the “ incom petence” or “ m alice aforethought” o f the artist.9'' H e thus elim inated m any hybrid w orks o f art from prolonged consideration a n reinforced the norm ative status o f representational practices associated w ith Europe..' styles of optical naturalism. Furtherm ore, P an ofsky’s argum ent makes undocumented as­ sum ptions about hum an agency. Products o f intercultural contact like colonial maps and pictorial calendar books w o u ld not qualify for consideration according to Panofsky criteria. T h is is not because maps and calendars fall outside the range o f the “ fine art' - Panofsky m igh t have applauded the in gen uity o f the art historian w ho chose thi subject matter — but because they conflate European optical naturalism w ith other incom patible systems o f visual signification. T h e results often com prom ise the Europe pictorial conventions they im itate, but the reasons for these com prom ises - as Paulir.r Watts, Th o m as C u m m in s, Eloise Q u iñ o n e s Keber, C e celia K le in , and D ana Leibsohdiscuss in this volum e — are m ore co m plex than Panofsky allowed. A n indigenous, partially assimilated artist o f the colonial period, w ith know ledge o f different pictor... conventions, w o u ld have understood European images w ith a different conception w hat and h ow they com m unicate from a native European artist. T h e artist might br m alicious and he m ight not be professionally trained - but these are separate issues with their ow n social circum stances. F o r a European v ie w in g audience, as the case o f the Sapi-Po rtugu ese saltcellar I discussed in the Introduction suggests, the hybrid w o rk o f art w o uld reflect on the m entality and intelligence o f the artist. W e are far from b eing com pelled, however to evaluate such hybrid objects as the inferior artistic products o f cultural miscegena­ tion - as “ incom petent” versions o f “ o rth o d o x” representational practices. W e car. conceptualize the interaction o f different pictorial conventions across cultural boun­ daries in other terms than aesthetic considerations (“ incom petence” ) or fear (“ malice

“VISION ITSELF HAS ITS H ISTO RY”

85

aforethought”). W e can th in k o f them rather as evidence o f em erging colonial identities. Panofsky did consider some hybrid images w hen he turned to the art historian’s rroblem o f dealing w ith regional differences in representational conventions. Such r.:z z lin g aspects o f images b elong to the second stage o f interpretation, d u rin g w h ich the m historian exam ines “ forms under va ryin g historical co n d itio n s.” 94 A t this stage, the art historian learns w hat the artist “ k n e w ” — for exam ple, that a certain portrayal o f Ju d ith : mbines G erm an and north Italian motifs. Panofsky argues that “ a correct ico n o grap h ical analysis” is always possible, presupposing a “ correct identification o f the m otifs.” Y e t rrtain hybrid objects, such as the collectors’ items that com bine natural and hum an .- .'t r y w h ich M artin K e m p discusses elsewhere in this volum e (Chapter 9), intentionally ¿ety stable classification as w ell as determinate readings. H o w should w e treat these : ejects? In the most com plicated cases o f iconographical exchange, between com pletely -'.related cultures, visual m otifs can act as permeable m embranes, p ro v id in g access across natural boundaries. Y e t because sim ilar visual representations usually hold different ■lean in g for previously unrelated cultures, visual sym bols can be a fundam ental source o f - 1'com m unication and reinterpretation. T h e m ediating functions o f visual sym bols in Ifaese situations deserve to be carefully studied and articulated. W hat i f every view er has c oh partial access to the visual codes? A n d w hat if this has always been the case for most mjtges? Such fundam ental questions about the nature o f signification and visual co m ­ m unication raised by hybrid images encourage theoretical concern w ith the unstable and ¡¿rrfang signification o f signs. P anofsky’s modes o f interpretation, on the other hand, nn.tute the third in a series o f strategic m oves that prevent him from adequately ■ o ce p tu a lizin g the process o f cultural interaction in situations where determ inistic Readings are im possible. H o w could one interpretation be “ correct” i f the same im age ggnm es differently for different audiences? Panofsky’s form ulation o f correctives and controls at the final stage o f analysis is the :m? • nroblem atic aspect o f his discussion. H e proposes that art historians com pare their ■ r ; n rotations o f the “ intrinsic m eanin g” o f in divid u al w orks o f art w ith the intrinsic ■ c H im g o f other docum ents from their m ilieu, to compensate for the in divid u al i i ■ r u n ’s “ personal psychology and w o rld v ie w .” T h e various hum anistic disciplines t l —: rhis ultimate stage o f ico n o lo gical analysis “ on a com m on plane instead o f serving ■ kandm aidens to each other.” 95 W e are fundam entally indebted to Panofsky’s interdisa p c ary vision, but the history o f the hum anist values that Panofsky praised should also c r'o u r subject o f study. As G eorge Mosse has emphasized in his study o f Jew ish ■s£ranon im m ediately before and d urin g W o rld W ar II, scholars, professionals, artists, ■in ocher producers o f European culture overcam e the racism they experienced in their l a o f e a n setting w ith a global vision o f h um anity.96 Panofsky and other assimilated So— ¡an Jewish intellectuals sidestepped the embattled issues o f “ racism ” and “ nationalr.en they revalidated the Enlightenm ent concept o f self-cultivation, or Bildung, m d a nceived o f themselves as members o f an international co m m unity. I.:i the interval between two w o rld wars, cultural values associated w ith Italian -n.ee hum anism were reinstituted by a European co m m u n ity w h ich saw the H e a t h century through the filter o f eighteenth-century W e im ar classicism. C a rl argues that the view s Panofsky developed in G erm any were entirely in keeping

86

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

w ith the R o m a n ticist sensibility o f W e im ar culture. Later, in the post-w ar period, ' e presence o f Germ an scholars in the U n ite d States fed A m e rican aspirations for a :. t r cultural identity associated w ith hum anism .97 T h e theoretical and cultural refocusing o f disciplinary practices associated, above L w ith P an o fsky’s ico n o lo gical approach created a m ajor epistem ological break in tre form ation o f art historical discourse. Panofsky, like other refugees from N azism , el in inated all direct consideration o f racial theory from his w ritings. T h is distinguished generation o f scholars rarely hinted directly at the contem porary societal pressures : r.jr encouraged them to embrace an internationalist v ie w o f culture at the expense o f thex ow n Germ an loyalties.98 G iv e n the political circum stances in G erm any in the 1930s, it not surprising that Panofsky and other liberal intellectuals o f his generation dealt w itr racism by d en yin g the historical role o f racial theory altogether." W h e n PanotVcs developed a m ethod o f art historical interpretation that relocated Italian Renaissance hum anist values at the center o f the discipline, how ever, he not o n ly glossed over R ie e : s objections to a hum anist m odel o f culture that grants p rio rity to G reek antiquity and it m odern revival, he gave Renaissance hum anism an unprecedented status to govern t’interpretation o f all forms o f art.100 W h at should we m ake n o w o f such ideas about the authority o f Renaissance culture?

Theorizing Cultural Transition: a Retrospective View T h e narrative history o f art history w o u ld sound quite different i f it w ere to emphasizr the investigation o f cultural exchange rather than the taxonom y o f national culture. Pride o f place after Sem per and R ie g l w o uld go, I think, to intentional transgressions national and cultural boundaries - confrontations w ith the border polizei, as A'r W arb urg called them. Such a history w o u ld construct a different genealogy' foundational texts than those w ith w h ich w e are currently most fam iliar. A rth u r K in g s L Porter’s 1923 study Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads, for exam ple, w o uld gain in stature because, as Lin d a Seidel has recently argued, his findings w ere initial" considered problem atic because they im plied that there were no real regional or n a tio n boundaries for art d urin g the R o m anesq ue period o f French h istory.101 A revised narrative history o f the discipline w o u ld also p rom inently feature O tto K u rr for his lifelo n g interest in cultural transition, the sim ilar interests o f his close friend at the W arb u rg B ib lio th e k , Fritz Saxl, and the Institute’s visionary founder A b y W arburg. W a rb u rg ’s transcultural interests in m agic and science, w h ich substantially determ ined the holdings o f his famous library and the research interests o f its users, w o u ld surely be the centerpiece o f any revised narrative that stresses the d iscip lin e ’s interest in cu ltu ri transformation. W arburg, like R ie g l and Sem per, broadened his theoretical understanding o f a r through the study o f n on -Eu ro p ean culture. In the final analysis, how ever, we arr com pelled to dw ell upon the lim itations o f the W arburgian approach to the study o f cultural developm ent. A n incident from the b eg in n in g o f W arb u rg ’s ow n career can serve as an illustration. In 1896, W arb u rg traveled around the southwestern U n ite c

“VISION ITSELF HAS ITS H ISTO RY”

87

where he witnessed a Pueblo cerem ony — w hat W arb u rg called a “ serpent ritual” - ± i r reportedly changed his attitude even towards Florentine art.1"'' T h e published essay d eventually resulted from this trip is evidence o f W a rb u rg ’s sincere theoretical interest 1 :he universal problem o f h o w art com m unicates w ith its audience."’4 H is stated r "r:.::on, how ever, was to decipher the w o rkin gs o f contem porary “ p rim itive m in ds.” 1"3 I irb u rg assumed that Pueblo culture evolved acco rd in g to its ow n internal dynam ic o f ■ aim ral progress, despite the fact that N ative A m ericans in the Southw est had lived in contact w ith Europeans since the arrival o f the Spanish in 158o.1"'' W arb u rg showed 0 interest in the historical process o f cultural assimilation am ong the fo rcib ly acculturmtd Pueblo people. H is assumptions about “ p rim itiv e ” m entality w ere grounded in ^ c re d ite d nineteenth-century theories o f cultural evolution and racial identity. n the other hand, even though Idealist assumptions about “ p rim itive culture” are no csrer tenable, W a rb u rg ’s em piricism , manifested in such observations as “ w hat appears »b e purely decorative ornam ent m ust in fact be interpreted sy m b o lically,” and his « -_ -n .il interest in the inherent tension that visual sym bols em body, contain the seeds o f a- -r>proach to cultural interaction that is still considered viable today. A t present, the m ;'^te nature o f know ledge production through visual images in colonial situations « - r - ' a real test o f the sem iotic and p henom enological m odels that have developed in p p o ro e to resemblance theories o f representation. D espite the organization o f the n cip line in terms o f outm oded assumptions about collective identity that take for — :ed the hom ogeneity o f “ national culture” and the hierarchy o f the “fine arts, ’ r* .reness o f cultural difference has contributed sign ificantly to the ways in w h ich d ^ - .rlin a ry m ethodologies developed. It is understandable that the discipline focused on p ao nal culture, m odeled itself on the dom inant scientific paradigm (evolution), and au^r:ed current scientific procedures, such as typological analysis, to its o w n forms o f Ibdence w hen it was professionalized d u rin g the em erging period o f m odern nation: r' ' D ifferent questions are potentially most interesting to contem porary scholars, ■ r ver, and these questions demand different m ethodologies and different claim s to ■■owledge. v h ow should we define “ culturally specific circum stances” now? C e rtain ly not : "ding to nineteenth-century notions o f national culture or racial identity. T o develop a theory o f representation on a relativistic epistem ological foundation that treats the social fccu m stan ce s in w h ich visual images circulate, it is essential that we take into account r -.'.story o f the discipline as it developed out o f a broad discursive field about the o f hum an civilizatio n . A n d the longer history o f these discussions, as I have tried : suggest, revolved around the respective roles played in western thought by mental iT r - ,:io n s , such as reasoning, m em ory, and the im agination, in d efin in g humanness. Dfcih by understanding our lin g e rin g epistem ological assumptions can w e go beyond fcem. W ritin g parallel accounts o f the history o f art from m utually exclusive points o f mi: w ill not free us from the chains o f the past. N o t a wholesale rejection o f the v::- ;em philosophical tradition, nor refusal to see beyond the historical boundaries o f our i ~ ::iant cultural tradition, nor any other dom inating fram ew ork, w ill allow us to see nceptualize the Renaissance and other historical periods as the international, I n i n cultural phenom ena that they were. \n o th er m ajor difference between the static notions o f cultural identity held by

88

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

Panofsky, W arburg, and their colleagues, and any m odel w e m ight w ish to devc : today, should be our greater awareness that the discourse o f the historian is not u nivc :_r it shifts ju st as the significance o f the w o rk changes according to the historian’s intere o f perspective according to the view p o in t o f the observer.71 R a p h a e l’s R o m a n feescoes w ere cited as superlative examples o f the fourth category, the frontal vie w at eyeevel to the figures, w h ich he explained “ had the least am ount o f foreshortening but was considered ju st as difficu lt as the others.” 72 R ap hae l’s mastery o f perspective is rather obvious w hen we com pare his first two - ::ian istorie, the School of Athens (Figure 4.3) and the Disputä (both Vatican M useum , kanza della Segnatura) w ith fifteenth-century paintings o f crowds. Indeed, it is co m n io n : ;e to observe R a p h a e l’s in no vatio n in disposing figures b y means o f a deep sem i-circle b

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE that fu lly uses the fictive architectural space and to com pare this w ith his earlier M an..:: o f the Virgin (Figure 4.12) w here the figures are splayed across a narrow sh elf in thr foreground and the deep space o f the piazza recedes like a b ackdrop.73 R e c e n t stud.r have confirm ed R a p h a e l’s great facility in perspective in the Stanza della Segnatuna frescoes: the b ackground architecture o f the School of Athens was constructed directly < 11 the w all w ith o ut a cartoon, using a nail and strings to incise lines in the w et intonaco as a guide to the perspective construction.74 Nesselrath reported sim ilar results from techni­ cal studies in the Stanza d ell’ Incendio: the architecture o f the Coronation of Charlemagm was projected right on the w all, but the Fire in the Borgo seems to have been construct. : from a full cartoon w h ich was pounced.75 Nesselrath and O b erh u b er have also pointer out R a p h a e l’s rem arkable experim ents w ith new view points and dispositions o f figures in space in his later Vatican frescoes.76 Y e t w e tend to forget this or dismiss it w hen lo o k in g at R a p h a e l’s influence in the seventeenth century. O u r tendency is to assume that R ap hael mastered perspective and then w ent on to master m ore interesting things. T h is pattern is then applied to thr history o f art 011 a larger scale: w e argue that fifteenth-century artists struggled to master perspective w hile artists in later centuries mastered it q u ickly in their early training anc then concerned themselves w ith less technical problems. T h is schema does not fit w ith the details o f early biographical sources — for example, that B ello ri and Passeri tell us that D o m e n ich in o turned to Z a c c o lin i to learn perspectivr and optics, or that Poussin im m ersed h im se lf in the 1630s in a study o f “ classic” optical

4.11 Raphael. Fire in the Borgo. Fresco. Vatican, Stanza di Incendio. (Photo: Vatican Museums.

RE-VISIONING RAPHAEL AS A “SCIENTIFIC PAINTER”

107

4.12 Raphael. Marriage of the Virgin. Milan, Pinacoteca di Brera. (Photo: Alinari/Art Resource, New York.)

treatises by Alhazen and W itelo as w ell as Z a c c o lin i’s m ore recent one.7’ N o r does it jiv e :th the prevalence o f artistic collaboration in the seventeenth century, w hen a w hole group o f artists suddenly emerged as perspective specialists w ho prepared the architectural rrrspectives for D o m e n ich in o , G u e rcin o , Lanfranco, and a host o f others. H ere w e are r. >t talking about p oo rly trained figure painters from p ro vincial backwaters, but about those artists w ho had the benefits o f the most advanced artistic education in the academy -un by the C arracci. T h e obscure names o f m any o f these perspective specialists testifies : another aspect o f the problem . Perspective mastery has becom e devalued as a mere technical skill, believed to be la ckin g o rigin ality and invention. Y e t, i f w e seriously consider the im pact o f R a p h a e l’s perspective as a m odel for nutation by some seventeenth-century artists, the picture changes. D o m e n ich in o w ill serve as a typical but especially telling exam ple for, as noted earlier, B e llo ri argued that he studied the Vatican stanze w ith a devotion b ordering on obsession. T h e im pact o f this study on his ow n production is revealed in the Bolognese artist’s mastery o f those features :: R a p h a e l’s perspective cited as notew orthy by Lo m a zzo and G agliardi: o f the “ frontal view at e ye -le vel,” the disposition o f figures w ith in a recessional space, and the mastery : t herringbone and other geom etric pavement designs. T h e first fruits o f this study are revealed in the Flagellation o f St Andrew (T609) at S. G re g o rio M agno, R o m e (Figure 4.13)

io8

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

4.13 Domenichino. Flagellation of St Andrew. Rom e, S. Gregorio Magno. (Photo: Alinari/Art Resource, New York.)

but the Bolognese artist’s full mastery is revealed several years later in the frescoes o f the Polet chapel in S. L u ig i dei Francesi, R o m e (1612-15). Spear righ tly presents the Pole: chapel as D o m e n ic h in o ’s most “ n eo -R ap haelesq ue” phase.78 In particular, one notes thr rhyth m ic sem i-circu lar disposition o f figures in the Martyrdom of St. Cccilia (Figure 4.14 and St. Cecilia G iving Alm s as w ell as the construction o f co m plex architectural space' w ith assertive pavem ent patterns. W h y then do “ classicism ” and R ap h ae l also get associated w ith D o m e n ic h in o ’s late w orks, such as the pendentives at S. C a rlo ai Catinari, R o m e (Figure 4.15), and S. G ennaro, Naples, w here, in contrast to the Polet chapel images, D o m e n ich in o ha< constructed the figures like a sculptural relief, densely packed into the foreground, p rojecting outwards towards and overlapping the frame? Spear cites the dense, relief-likc com positions o f R a p h a e l’s Lo Spasimo di Sicilia (Prado) and A n n ib a le ’s paintings in the Herrera chapel as “ spiritual” precedents, and connects the changes in D o m e n ich in o '' style w ith sim ilar changes in the art o f contem poraries like G u id o R e n i. H e argues that the “form al, rig id designs and cooler, lighter co lo rs” o f R e n i and D o m e n ich in o testify to a m ovem ent away from “ B aro q u e ” naturalism, as manifested in D o m e n ic h in o ’s S. Andrea della Valle frescoes in the 1620s.79 B u t is “ classicism ” the appropriate w ay to refer to these changes? W hat does this style labeled “ hyper-classicism ” really have to do with “ classicism ” in m odels such as Raphael? T h e legitim acy o f the Baroque/classic d ich o to m y as a conscious schism in the R o m a n art w o rld has been righ tly questioned by several writers, am ong them Spear and especially H arris.8" A s Harris points out, one o f the consequences o f focusing on the baroque

RE-VISIONING RAPHAEL AS A “SCIENTIFIC PAINTER”

109

4.14 Domenichino. Martyrdom of St. Cecilia. Rom e, S. Luigi dei Francesi. (Photo: Alinari/ Art Resource, New York.)

classical d ich oto m y in R o m a n seventeenth-century painting is that “ scholars and critics, blinded b y the stereotypes suggested b y the tw o terms, o verloo k or m in im ize those qualities in a particular w o rk that do not fit the stereotype w h ile over-em p hasizin g those that d o .”81 S u ch questioning can be taken even further w hen w e recognize that this d ich oto m y is essentially based upon a n otion o f classicism as “ unnatural,” as the im p o ­ sition o f order and sym m etry on an unnatural, irregular w o rld .82 T h is paradigm n o w seems inaccurate in ligh t o f the fact that perceptual scientists have ceased to talk about perception as the im position o f order on raw visual data and n ow talk about a visual system developed to perceive variants and invariants.83 In the old m odel, w e “ perceived” blobs o f ligh t and co lo r w h ich we then “ ordered” into shapes through co gnitive processes that we could recognize as a table edge or as our grandm other. In the new m odel, we directly perceive shapes, edges, m ovem ent, light, and color; even our grandm other is recognized by direct perception because, after learning w h o she is, w e instantaneously connect to the proper neuronal pathway. V isual art involves a m ixtu re o f both, and realism has been reconstrued as a relativistic concept related to the balance between a given culture’s emphasis on the variant and invariants perceived.84 R e ce n t scholars have pointed out h o w m u ch later constructions o f classicism as form al order have distorted our view o f G re ek art, causing us to d im inish and devalue the remarkable naturalism o f fifth -ce n tu ry art.85 W e can say m uch the same for the art o f R ap h ae l and his contem poraries, art w h ich was exalted by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century view ers for its rem arkable naturalism; our m odern construction o f classicism has led us to m in im ize these very aspects in our w ritin g o f history. W e have been so intent upon

I1 0

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

4.15 Domenichino. Justice. Rom e, S. Carlo ai Catinari. (Photo: Alinari/Art Resource, New York.)

distingu ish in g Renaissance concepts of realism and im itation from photographic and the pictorial ideals o f nineteenth-century p lein -a ir painting that we often fail sufficient emphasis to this aspect o f R a p h a e l’s art that was greatly adm ired, and aspect of art through the Renaissance: the ability to m ake things look real. M uch ability depended upon R a p h a e l’s “ scien tific” know ledge o f colore, o f perspective, anatomy.

realism to give to this o f this and o f

In co n ju n ctio n w ith this p olarizin g o f Baroque naturalism to Renaissance classicism, co lo r and chiaroscuro have been shunted into a polarized position. N aturalism is coupled w ith a dynam ic, “ B aro qu e” style; chiaroscuro is equated w ith tenebrism and strong contrasts; and both are allied w ith colore as opposed to disegno. Classicism is w hat Baroque is not — static, ligh t-co lo re d, linear: the heritage o f W o lfflin . T y p ic a l o f this approach is an analysis o f Poussin’s The Death of Germanicus as havin g “ hot colo u r and dramatic lig h tin g w h ich are said to “ exem plify the painterly m ovem ent away from classicism and to give it an im precise and em otional “ B aro q u e ” flavor in contrast to the “ cool unem phasized co lo u rin g ” and “ em otional detachm ent” o f Extreme Unction w ith its “geom etrically placed shadow s.”86 T h e false construction o f classicism has pushed “B aro q u e ” into the untenable position o f b ein g unclassical, a m uddle w h ich seventeenthcentury scholars are still w o rk in g to straighten out. T h e w ritings o f Z a c c o lin i and Félibien on chiaroscuro, G ag liard i’s p airing o f R aphael and Veronese, and the extensive discussions o f chiaroscuro in contem porary w ritings of Pietro Testa and Pietro A cco lti, w h ich have been discussed elsewhere,87 testify to

RE-VISIONING RAPHAEL AS A “SCIENTIFIC PAINTER”

m

n 3\v m uch we have overlooked by co u p lin g “ chiaroscuro” w ith the “baroque” side o f seventeenth-century stylistic alternatives. C h iaro scu ro was o f great im portance and inter­ est to all painters; it is ju st that we have failed to pay sufficient attention to it in the w orks painters categorized as “ classicists.” Elizabeth C ro p p er, how ever, has show n that PDussin and Testa undertook serious study o f chiaroscuro, Poussin even consulting copies t Z a c c o lin i’s m anuscripts.88 D ufre sn oy and Felibien also w rote about chiaroscuro in _~eat detail, as did other “ classicizing” Frenchm en (although D ufre sn oy is often categor­ ized as “ baroque” because o f de Piles’ later publication o f his text). In conclusion, this discussion o f R a p h a e l’s colore and perspective b y seventeenthcentury writers alerts us to m isguided conclusions that often arise from the application o f anachronistic concepts to cultures that did not embrace the same values. H o w e ve r, I am not suggesting that we discard the baby w ith the bathwater. T h e terms “ classicism ,” “ baroque,” and “ naturalism ” still have a certain usefulness as distinctions, and concepts -i-veloped b y m odern artists and scientists can bear fruitful results w hen applied, even anachronistically, to the art o f the past.89 W e cannot circu m ve n t the co n d itio n in g o f our vision by our verbal constructs. B u t w e must becom e aware o f the values and historical conditions encoded in these verbal constructs so that we can use them ju d icio u sly . Baroque,” “ classicism ,” and “ naturalism ” should not be exclusive, polarized categories. “ naturalism ” is an ideal em bracing artists as diverse as B am b o ccio , B e rn in i, A n nibale Carracci, C aravaggio , R ap hael, and R u b e n s, our use o f the term ought to account for this range o f m eanings. Perhaps w e can devise new historical categories b y d eveloping a greater sensitivity to the issues that engaged the artists, critics, collectors, and historians io m the cultures we are studying. W e must be careful, how ever, not to fo llo w them b lin d ly for, as C u tle r has show n in C h apter i o f this anthology, contem poraries can often be m isguided b y their ow n ideals; and furtherm ore, we can be misled b y g iv in g greater value to a few o f the better-preserved texts w h ile o ve rlo o k in g those that are less articulate, unpublished, or difficu lt to access. E v e n so, we w ill still be culturally relative, for the process o f sifting and sorting past ideas is structured b y our o w n contem porary categories and perceptions. B u t we can supplant the b la ck-an d -w h ite illustrations and linear texts from w h ich m any o f us learned art history by w o rk in g to construct a rich, varied palette in a m ultilayered hypertext environm ent. T h is m odel gives equal prim acy :o images and text, thereby b rin g in g us closer to the cognitive experience o f p erceivin g images.

5-1 Gaudenzio Ferrari. Christ on his Way to the Praetorium (detail). Polychromed sculpture with other media. Varallo, Sacro Monte. (Photo: Riserva del Sacro Monte di Varallo.)

CHAPTER 5

"Popular” A rt in Renaissance Italy: Early Response to the H oly Mountain at Varallo A LESSA N D RO N O VA

T h e first Sacro M onte, or H o ly M ountain, was founded in the late fifteenth century by :he Franciscan O bservant Bernardino C a im i. It was established at Varallo (Piedm ont), w h ich at that time form ed part o f the M ilanese duchy, and the p rincipal function o f the Sacro M onte was to offer an accurate reconstruction o f Jerusalem w ith its environs for :hose p ilgrim s w h o could not travel to the H o ly Land. Indeed, an inscription painted over the entrance to V a ra llo ’s reproduction o f the H o ly Sepulchre, recording its com ple­ tion in 14 9 1, could not have been m ore explicit: “ T h e M ilanese friar B ernardino C a im i designed the sacred places o f this m ountain, so that those w ho cannot m ake the pilgrim age see Jerusalem here.” 1 T h e original scheme was fairly modest, but the num ber ) f structures b uilt to display the sculptural groups and frescoes representing C h rist’s life and Passion, as w ell as the life o f the V irg in , increased considerably d u rin g the sixteenth century. T h e Sacro M onte reached its apogee under the guidance o f Charles Bo rro m eo and his collaborators, w ho created a netw ork o f Sacri M onti in the region between the Lom b ard .akes and the Swiss border. T h e reasons for V arallo ’s later decline, how ever, were inherently connected to its particular, distinctive characteristics. Indeed, the strong realistic effects o f some o f the sculptures - such as the use o f actual hair, beards, and clothes (Figure 5.1) - w h ich became a hallm ark o f the Sacro M onte and w h ich had been em ployed b y both artists and patrons to elicit em otional responses from the original viewers, were subsequently regarded as over-dram atic and too “ popular” ; although what :s meant b y popular is never further described in the literature on the Sacro M onte.2 T h e -tudy o f this unique creation, therefore, became the dom ain o f local historians, w h o were often m ore interested in the Sacro M o nte’s devotional significance than in its artistic features. In recent years, how ever, a num ber o f erudite and scholarly publications have been devoted to the art o f the Sacri M o n ti.3 W e are m uch better inform ed about the origins, histories, and functions o f these unusual architectural com plexes; and Varallo, the oldest .is w ell as the most im pressive Sacro M onte, has been extensively investigated. Y e t some o f the most co m p e llin g issues posed by this extraordinary m onum ent o f devotion have -ttracted little or no attention: first, the close rapport between the Milanese aristocracy

114

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

and the founders o f the Sacro M onte, that is the Franciscan Observants o f the M ila n a : P ro vin ce; second, the relationship between the friars’ sermons and the w o rks o f art the com m issioned to decorate the “ chapels” built at Varallo; third, the w ay in w h ich the>r sculptural groups were used by the friars to elicit specific responses from the original audience; fin ally, the social m ix o f that audience. A ll these themes are in e xtricaK interlinked, and here they must be dealt w ith sim ultaneously even if, regrettably, in a sum m ary way. As A n dre V au ch ez has pointed out, we k n o w little about the m endicant friars’ social b ackgro u nd .4 I f we analyze the role they played in fifteenth-century Italy, how ever, n becom es easier to determ ine their social origins and education; or at least this is the ca.icro M onte and encouraged the pilgrim s to supplem ent the veristic narratives w ith their vn im agination; in other words, the im pact o f these images varied according to the : ewers’ culture and education, because it was the in vo lvem ent o f the spectator that completed the reality effect. W e should rem em ber that the art o f the Sacro M onte is still all too frequently discussed in its post-sixteenth-century m o rp h o lo gy after drastic alterations had been introduced. F o r exam ple, in one o f the projects designed b y G aleazzo Alessi (Figure 5.6) : transform one o f the o riginal structures into a centralized b u ild in g w ith a classical portico - a project w h ich wras later im plem ented — the purpose o f the elaborate grilles » .is to keep the pilgrim s outside the chapels and increase the effect o f distance.34 T h is was a deliberate rejection o f the purpose o f the original structures, w h ich pilgrim s had been encouraged to enter and experience more directly. In the “ chapel” o f the M agi, for instance, the spectator had been intentionally caught between tw o spaces and hence ;o u ld not help b eco m in g part o f the action. In exactly the same w ay, o f course, was the ■eader o f Bonaventure’s Tree of Life encouraged “ to becom e a com panion o f the h o ly kin gs.” 35 It was in the tableau vivant o f Crucifixion, executed b y G aud en zio Ferrari in the r 520s, :hat the empathetic strategies were most consistently and successfully exploited (Figure ' .7).36 O n the w all opposite the G olgotha are frescoed groups o f onlookers w ho were not n gin ally visible from the exterior o f the chapel, and this suggests that the pilgrim s : n gin ally entered from the door on the right, stopped in front o f the cross, where they were surrounded on all sides by carved as w ell as painted figures, and finally w ent out through the door on the left. L ik e the reader o f the Meditations on the Life of Christ,

5-6 (right) Galeazzo Alessi. Design for the Chapel of Adam and Eve. Pen and ink with wash. Varallo, Biblioteca Cívica. (Photo: Riserva del Sacro Monte di Varallo.)

5.7 (below) Gaudenzio Ferrari. Crucifixion (detail). Polychromed sculpture with other media, 1520s. Varallo, Sacro Monte. (Photo: Riserva del Sacro Monte di Varallo.)

“POPULAR” ART IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

123

therefore, the view er o f Varallo was not a spectator but an actor-participant.37 Sim ila r niprehensive experiences are also described in the 1514 tract: for exam ple, the “ chapel" dedicated to the Apparition to the apostles displayed a statue o f C h rist, w ith open arms, -rrounded by the figures o f H is disciples frescoed on the w all o f this circular structure; ¿r.d the p ilg rim was encouraged to place h im se lf or herself between the sim ulacrum and the paintings, thus b eco m in g p hysically as w ell as em otionally part o f the action.38 T h is performance engaged most o f the view ers’ senses: not o n ly sight, but also hearing and touch. Understandably enough, art historians tend to concentrate their analysis on the visual evidence. Y e t the narratives o f the Sacro M onte elicited a response from the ' embers o f m any different social strata because they also affected the spectators’ other 'cnse organs. For exam ple, as the pilgrim s loo ked at the narratives, they w ere encouraged by the ~.^rs to recite the most fam iliar prayers, such as the O u r Father and the C reed. A n d it possible that the Observants did not reject such practices as those recom m ended to the Benedictine m onks o f the C o ngre gatio n o f Santa G iustin a by L u d o v ic o Barbo in his Fsnna orationis et meditationis o f 1441. Fo r the m editation o f G o o d Friday, Barbo advised the m onks to becom e com pletely absorbed in the events im m ediately preceding the rrection o f the cross in this w ay: “ im agine that you hear the sound o f the ham mers used : crucify yo u r L o rd .” 39 In other w ords, not o n ly the mental im age o f C h rist b eing nailed : the cross, but also the im aginary sound o f the nails p iercin g H is flesh must be used to stimulate the C h ristia n ’s appropriate em otional response. A n d it was not o nly an appeal : the auditory sense: references to w eeping and cryin g in Franciscan devotional texts are innum erable. Space perm its me to m ention o n ly the m any vernacular translations o f the Meditations on the Life of Christ published in M ilan d urin g the 1480s and 1490s, as w ell as the 1514 devotional tract, all o f w h ich repeatedly insist that the reader lam ent the .:nerings o f the Lo rd . Fin ally, the sense o f touch should not be forgotten. A t Varallo the pilgrim s w ere encouraged to touch the facsim ile tom b o f C h rist or other relics. For stance, those w h o touched the replica o f C h rist’s footprint in the chapel o f the Ascension were granted a plenary indulgence. It is not difficult to see h ow such a c am plex ritual, in w h ich the verism o f the narratives, com bined w ith total view er r^rticipation, could appeal to m any different types o f audience. T h e w orks o f art that the triars com m issioned w ere not as flexible as their sermons, but the level o f the spectator-jto r ’s in vo lvem ent could be adjusted acco rd in g to his or her religious feelings and education. In the foregoing, I have attempted to reconstruct the w ay in w h ich the p ilgrim s’ responses to the Sacro M onte narratives were directed, although, as we have seen, not entirely preordained by the friars. N aturally, how ever, it w o uld be useful to possess some vritten evidence as to the response elicited b y Varallo. Fortunately, one such docum ent exists, and it is an invaluable source w h ich records the im pressions o f an unusually sophisticated visitor. In Septem ber 1507 the hum anist G iro lam o M orone traveled to this region as the ambassador o f the k in g o f France; and, notw ithstanding his busy diplom atic agenda, he did not o verlo o k the o pportunity o f v isitin g the Sacro M onte. L ik e m any Franciscan '’bservants, M orone also belonged to one o f the oldest and most aristocratic M ilanese ■ nnlies. W ell k n o w n to M achiavelli and G u iccia rd in i, he was one o f the most interesting

124

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

political figures o f his tim e. H e was in contact w ith num erous humanists, and his Lar. orations are often praised b y m odern scholars for their stylish elegance. M orone a'.' w rote extrem ely polished letters in Latin , and in one o f these, w ritten in T507 and addressed to the poet La n cin o C u rz io , he inform ed his friend about his profound] m o v in g experience o f the Sacro M onte at V arallo .40 Before exam in in g this docum ent, how ever, it is necessary to say som ething about the artistic tastes o f these tw o remarkable personalities, because — as w e shall see — M orone was concerned w ith the form al aspe:: o f the H o ly M ountain. C u rz io , w h o is often m entioned in M atteo B an d e llo ’s short stories, was a bizarrr figure. H e roam ed the streets o f M ilan dressed in a R o m a n toga and kept his hair long as a sign o f his opposition to the French invaders, w ho had im posed a different fashior. H is poem s were p rofoundly influenced by V irg il, and his tom b, w h ich was designed b Bam baia, reveals all the qualities o f Lom b ard classicism. H e was w ell acquainted w ith the most im portant artists o f the tim e, such as Leonardo, Boltraffio, and C risto fo ro Solari. all o f w hom are m entioned in his w orks. M oreover, w e k n o w that C u rz io was also :: contact w ith Andrea Solario since he provided the elegant Latin inscription w h ich is ai the bottom o f the portrait o f C risto fo ro L o n g o n i.41 Solario, w ho was one o f the most im portant follow ers o f Leonardo, also painted the portrait o f M o ron e (Figure 5.8).42 A n d w hat we k n o w about M o ro n e ’s artistic patronage is sufficient to reassure us that he h .ii im peccable taste: w hen he was appointed Great C h a n ce llo r by the last Sforza duke, hr wasted no time in h irin g Bram antino as court painter and architect.43 Fro m these sparse notes about their m ilieu , education, careers, and patronage, it is obvious that M o ron e and C u rz io were perfectly w ell aware o f the best artistic achievem ent in Renaissance M ilan. Y e t M o ro n e ’s letter reveals h ow deeply he was affected b\ his visit to the Sacro M onte. H e writes: “ because o f the difficulties and dangers endures by the p ilgrim s w h o visit M o u n t C a lv a ry in Jerusalem , the Franciscans have built in Varallo a copy o f the H o ly Sepulchre. T h e events o f the Gospels are represented in man chapels into w h ich I was introduced b y a pious friar w ho has seen the place where the real body o f C h rist is buried. A n d m y guide told me that the distances between the.

r

A,

8.12 Martín de Murúa. D raw in g o f A k lla ’s Dream . Historia del Perú, 1590. Form erly Loyola, Jesuit Archive; location now unknow n (illustration taken from Historia del Perú, ed. Constantino Bayle). Stgunfopirre dt ¿en en el margen por anotac¡ó.Dixelc que me la dJseeffe.y el fm Jetar latifa.dixo: Eflá.como he d!cf10, jqu: en el mar ge eferico eflo.Efla Duliinea del To bofo,CiDCaJVMetcncftahiAoria referida,diz ¿que timola irc;ornianoparafalirpuercoí,quco:rarr.a gc< de ioda I» Mancha. Q«ando yo ohi 'deiir DuU ¡cincadcl Tobofo,quedé atomto.y fufpenío,j>or* que luegoremerepreíeni&quc aquello! carian», cío» contenían lihiíloriade don Quixote. Con e/l» inuginacton.lc di pricflaque leycITce! orincipio.y hj7.lendo!oanfi,bo!uiendo deimprouiíocl ArauigoenCaftellano,dixo que dezia: Hirtoriade don Quitóte déla Mancha,eferita por Cide Harncie Ucneogeli l'Wlori.idor Arauigo. Mucha difcrecion fue men¿ft;r,para difsiinular el cometoquercccbi quandollegóa mis oydo» el titulo dellibro:y íaiteandofele al federo,compre a! muchacho todos los pipclcs.y cartapacios por medio real: que fi el tumera difcrecion,y Cupiera lo que yo lo* dcfTeaua, fienfe pudietaprometer.y licuar mas de ley* re*lej de la compra. Apárteme luegoeon el Moriíco por el clauílro de I» Iglefia mayor,y roguele mebol uiefle aquello» cartapacioíitodos los que trauum de don Quixotc.enlengua Caftellana.linquitarle», ni añadirles nada,ofrcciédolel»pagaqueelouificífe. Contctofe codos arrobas de palla»,y do» fanegas de trigo,y prometió de traduzirlosbien.y ficlmcnic.y có muchabreuedad. Pero yo por facilitar mas cliicgocio.ypornode.rardelamjnoian buen ha­ llazgo,le tiuxeamicafa.dondeenpocomasdc me* ymedio.latraduxoioda.delmefmomodoqucaqui íe refiere. £ft*ua en el primero cartapacio pintada

Quixttt Je la M ancha.

33

é n tcW lrill-Tcníaaloíp ie *efefitoel VilCiynova titulo quedezia, Dó Sancho de Azpetia.que findedadeuiade fer fu nombre, y a los pies de R o ¡tinime cAiua otro que dezia, D ó Qu ix o ic . fcflaua Rozante marauillofamentc pintado, tan largo, y tendido,tan atenuado,y flaco,con tanto cfpina70, t í el¡coconfirmado,que moftraua bien a! defeubier 10 conquanta aducrtccia.y propriedad fe le aoia puef • toelnombredeRozinante. luntoael cílaua Sancho Par.( j.qoe tenia del cabeftro a fu a(no:a los pies delqoaleíbuj otro rétulo qt¡e dezia, Sancho Van* ci*,y deuia de fer,que tenia a lo que moftraua la pin tura labarriga grande,cl tailecorto,y las yancas lar gaí.y por cftolele deuio deponer nombre de Pan­ sa^ de^jncas/^ueconcflos do* fobrenombres 1c lUcia tlgur.aj ve7.esU hifloria. Otras algunas me­ nudencias auiaque aduertir.pcro todas ion de poe* imsortancia.yqueno hazcn alcafoa la verdadera « ;.c,0dfUhilton,-Cninso...« ra.lacom of« erda.ira.Siaeílafelep u ed eponeraleu n ao bre* '»»ecit.defu,e,dad.nopodrafcroira.íino.íce aooe& Ü SÍ aiorourpropiod elo¡d e n u rft !o nfe rm em iroroí:aim q u eporfertan Sed d Ln " f « p u ed eentendera„er Pareícam i1°C n 3“' dem afiado. Vanfi m e fcIa,l«nÍ r'!< 1 “1 n í'>P1 ,li‘" a• ),deuieraeftení “m a.tnlaialabanjajd era rabuí.c,uallero, E pare-

8.14 (above) M iguel de Cervantes Saavedra. E l Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha, Madrid: Juan de la Cuesta, 1605, pages 32-33. (Photo: author.)

8.13 (left) Martin de Murua. D iagram o f A k lla ’s Dream . Historia del Pern, 1590.

FRO M LIES T O T R U T H

171

M u rú a p ro v id e s here is co m p le te ly fabricated, as he ack n o w le d g e s, based u p o n his transcriptio n o f the oral prayer in to the E u ro p e a n alphabet, bu t u n lik e his o th er illu s­ trations, it is presented as d irect p ro o f. T h u s w h a t becom es the au th e n tica tin g so urce is not a p r io r native im age (there is n o n e ); instead it is the oral text itse lf w h ic h becom es fix e d no t in a textual narrative tra n scrip tio n w ith illu stratio n , bu t in a patterned fo rm o f a m a g ica l te x t/im a g e .47 It is n e ith e r one n o r the other. W h a t m ust be suspended here for belief, and in fact is n o t a c k n o w le d g e d b y M u rú a , is that the cro sscu ltu ral act o f c o n v e y in g the m ira cu lo u s o ra lity o f the o th e r’s dream becom es v isib le o n ly b y assign in g to Q u e c h u a w o rd s w h ic h existed p re v io u sly in a sp o ken state, w estern alp habetic values w ith in a spatial m atrix. T h e ir representation as an anagram and a p a lin d ro m e is thus no t a literal translation o f Q u e c h u a in to Sp a n ish , n o r w o rd s in to im age in the sense o f illu stratio n , rather it is the transfigu ratio n o f sp oken Q u e c h u a in to a fo rm o f k n o w le d g e 111 w h ic h w ritte n Q u e c h u a w o rd s can be sh o w n to re p ro d u ce (and therefore sh o w / prove ) the alm ost ind escrib a b le m o v e m e n t o f so u n d in a dream . M a rtín de M u rú a ’s im age b e gin s as p r o o f to h im s e lf and then is offered to the reader as the truth o f w h at M u rú a has been told as h isto ry, b u t the fantasy o f dream s m o v e s his histo ry p e rilo u sly close to fictio n . T h u s the visu al gym n a stics th ro u g h w h ic h an im age is g iv e n to the translation o f a Q u e c h u a w o rd /d re a m seems, today perhaps, lu d ic ro u s and false. Y e t M u rú a , at one level o f cro sscu ltu ral c o m m u n ic a tio n , p e rfo rm s no d ifferent an act than C o r te s ’s la w ye r, Valadés, M o to lin ia , T o v a r , o r D u ra n . T h e y are all sim ila r attem pts to fin d an acceptable, neutral site u p o n w h ic h the doubts to truth can be put to rest b y m eans o f visu al c o n firm a tio n . T h a t all b u t M u rú a ’s im age have been used alm ost

e x c lu s iv e ly

by

m o d e rn

scholars

as

the

site

o f ic o n o g ra p h ic

exegesis

on

P re c o lu m b ia n sy m b o lic system s dem onstrates h o w p o w e rfu l this tactic rem ains. Y e t the c re d u lity that an im age engenders fo r the v ie w e r as the site o f cro sscultural truth w as lo n g ago g iv e n the lie , b u t n o t in a c o u rt o f la w , 1101* h isto ry (h o w m a n y h isto ry b o o ks are still illustrated?), n o r p h ilo so p h y , bu t in fic tio n . In C h a p te r I X , Part I o f D on Quijote, C e rv a n te s re co u n ts the d isc o v e ry o f the A ra b ic m an u scrip t that a llo w e d h im to c o n tin u e the narrative “ de nuestro fam oso E sp a ñ o l D . Q u ijo t e de la M a n c h a .” H o w e v e r, the im a g in e d d isco ve re d m an u scrip t, C id e H a m e te B e n e n g e li’s Historia de D o n Q uijote de la Mancha, is w ritte n in A ra b ic and C e rv a n te s tells h o w , in a fre n zy o f desire, he had it im m e d ia te ly translated fo r h im

b y a ladino, a b ilin g u a l A ra b .48 A t the sam e tim e,

C e rv a n te s describes v e ry ca re fu lly w h at is “ pin tada m u y al n atu ral” o n the first page o f the m an u scrip t. C e rv a n te s perfo rm s this act o f ekphrasis because he notes that the translator is an A ra b and therefore b y his v e ry nature can n o t be trusted; h o w e v e r, the p a in tin g c o n firm s the id e n tifica tio n o f the m a n u scrip t and its translation as true because the im age agrees in alm ost eve ry detail w ith the verbal d e scrip tio n fro m the m an u scrip t o f the A ra b .49 T h a t is, the A ra b , a lth o u g h b y nature a liar, has his translation c o n firm e d as b e in g true b y an im a ge that p re -e xists the translation and thus it m ust first refer to the o rig in a l A ra b ic text b u t then, because it also fa ith fu lly illustrates the translation as w e ll, it form s the neutral site /sigh t o f co n firm a tio n . B u t, o f co urse, C e rv a n te s p ro v id e s 110 im age fo r his reader (F ig u re 8.14). T h e re is n o site o f c o n firm a tio n o f the truthfulness o f the translation o th er than the au th o r w h o is at o n ce o ther (A rab ) and se lf (Sp an iard ), but the reader is b e g u ile d b y the pro m ise o f the tru th said to exist in a p a in tin g that is so m e w h e re else.

172

R EFR A M IN G T H E R EN A ISSA N CE

“Todo aca es mentira” I have argued here that in the sixteen th ce n tu ry a part o f the cu ltu ral space that allo w ed fo r a place o f agreem ent betw een the w o rd s o f different languages and the shared co ncep ts that they sig n ifie d cam e to be lo cated in the p icto ria l im age. In part, this neutral te rrito ry, co m p o sed , lik e w ritin g , o f g ra p h ic lines and co lo rs bu t ap p e alin g to sight not so u n d , is based o n the b e lie f in the m u tu a l re c o g n itio n o f w h a t is represented re gard le " o f h o w it is expressed in the tra n scrip tio n o f lan guage in to alp habetic text. T h e w ords, i f w ritte n , w o u ld n o t lo o k a lik e i f seen and n o t p ro n o u n c e d alik e i f sp o ken , b u t the im age to w h ic h they m u tu a lly appeal reveals th e ir tru th fu l relatio n sh ip . T h is relatio nship assum ed n o t o n ly an u n p ro b le m a tic relatio n be tw e e n im age and its o b ject o f im ita tio n but an u n p ro b le m a tic relatio n betw een cu ltu ral readings as i f the p ic to ria l im age w ere a natural sign e q u a lly available to a ll.50 T h e re fo re , to describe an im age , to discou rse o n an im age , to a llo w an im age to stand p rio r to the text as that w h ic h authenticates it w ere acts that c o u ld be b e lie ve d to co n v e y truth because o f the acceptance o f the p ic to ria l im age itself, bo th E u ro p e a n and native, as an u n m e d ia ted access to k n o w le d g e across cu ltu ra l bo u n d aries. T h e se acts are w hat c o u ld be called the ekphrasis o f cro sscultural translation. T h a t is, the translation, the te llin g o f a n o th e r’s w o rd s, has a referent that appears b y its nature to be u n p ro b le m a tic and hence that translation too b ecom es u n p ro b le m a tic i f the translation is b ro u gh t th ro u g h the screen o f the “ o b je c tiv e ” p icto ria l im age in to text. B u t i f ekphrasis, as a E u ro p e a n p o e tic co n ce p t, is the “ illu sio n a ry representation o f the u n r e p r e s e n t a b le ,t h e n this in h e re n t p a rad o x, w h e n it becom es apparent in the relation o f text and im age in the N e w W o rld , reveals the absurd nature o f the u n p ro b le m atic acceptance o f the truth co n ten t o f the im age and thereby the translation w h ic h is attached to it, because it m asks the act o f translation itse lf as b e in g bo th cu ltu ral and verbal. T h e p arad o x, h o w e v e r, is d o u b le because w hereas the E u ro p e a n im ages are m im e tic , the native im ages, as in M e x ic o , are p r im a rily m n e m o n ic . Y e t d ifference here, too, is repressed fo r the Sp a n ia rd , at least in

the early n e go tiatio n s, so that the

p ic to g ra p h ic, m n e m o n ic im ages c o u ld be seen to be m im e tic th ro u g h th e ir transfor­ m atio n in to alp habetic text; that the narrative o f the w ritten text o f an oral translation co u ld be b e lie ve d to be seen in the im age w h ic h exists p rio r to b o th . U ltim a te ly , this repression o f d ifference was effaced b y the transfo rm atio n o f m n e m o n ic im ages into m im e tic im ages so that, fo r e xa m p le, a lth o u g h the F ra n cisca n , B e rn a rd in o de Sa h agu n , set ab ou t in 1536 stu d y in g N a h u a cu ltu re and so cie ty b y u sin g p re -c o n ta c t m n e m o n ic p a in tin gs and th e ir oral exegesis, the im ages fo u n d in his 1569 F lo re n tin e C o d e x are m im e tic illustratio ns o f his w ritten te xt.52 N o w co m p le te ly u n p ro b le m a tic, to a w estern v ie w e r at least, S a h a g u n ’s im ages stand in that “ n e u tra l” g ro u n d be tw e e n the text w ritten in S p a n ish o r L a tin an d the text w ritte n in N a h u a tl and p e rta in in g “ n a tu ra lly ” to both b y th e ir im ita tio n o f the m u tu a l o b je ct described (F ig u re 8.15). I f then there is a c o m m o n thread to w h at I have called the ekphrasis o f cro sscultural translation, it is the act o f in v e n tio n / d is c o v e ry that carries in it the desire fo r co m p le te ­ ness and closure: the existen ce o f so m e th in g p rio r that allo w s fo r the te llin g , often in spite o f the ly in g nature o f the teller. C e rt a in ly the In d ie s p re -e xiste d the d isc o v e ry o f the In d ia n s b u t, o n ce th e ir d isc o v e ry becam e n am ed, the search fo r a k in d o f no rthw e st

FROM LIES T O T R U T H

173

j i e f 'p it rn tiv Itù iû

,juc iamas scfnc/lc hv pardande j)M t: : cc/no yn.ts.Kta,

C \ 'M / / a n ,

y /n p s///!#

ccn J/M jmjrc/u. yUcjrf tldtndc J„r CMC/CICÇU ci " yalltflcTc s/n -i¿K*r rafhè a£u no. s/¿ JK pjfhd*' *>*W€M, nti aanh’dc, „1noiohcj./faritfaje/i bl¿M fttrtpO , SC M S JCdA* /a Vr ,/íí : 7 w rm tn zaflze ,-Kjrawas,

Je h«n¿ vníí'- Jc/icactü/ijc/wj ¿//4/,

C#

rrici/rg'f/drfd J>C/l

fiiicfhc /ri‘il ^Vtu/z. &. ~ht/cstv

£.

SAS Jixczcn Its J/LnuibM w lïn

fia ne, :c/igiMiJtj's/nw .iokr Ac

tt ijn jm c , tu h yu u n , y m » c f c f M j, v r um¡XXM>, x x i/ lÚ U L U ¡h rt / , y n y v .h c J K A / /rte ic //h

Su xraax, } W ¿1**1* Jc g .in

////*«•'• JÙtn/7juimis//n^/ii/tX. .vyy

hisks¿ . y\ort -Mgrtmjs no tente

0 cdiCU/\J.û&*.

! Utiles ■

n v f/ t t w jp u . y y / / a *

W .fM S/ClM iOM

ltmfutntna tuttjtrtv \ ycpetir, rt'~vinte çatfunVifimhajaiti'ftr, i •1- y r r y i—

9.2 (left) Georg Hoefnagel. Allegorical Frontispiece. Engraved by Jacob Hoefnagel, from Arclietypa, Frankfurt, 1592, book IV . Glas­ gow , U niversity Library. (Photo: author.)

9.3 (right) Georg Hoefnagel. Plants, Insects, Snail, and Sea Horse. Engraved by Jacob Hoefnagel, from Arclietypa, Frankfurt, 1592, book IV , plate 4. Glasgow, U niversity Library. (Photo: author.)

objects in su ch a w a y that th e ir o rig in a l c o n fig u ra tio n rem ains apparent, and ind ee d p ro vid e s the ge n e ratin g m o t if fo r the o verall design. It is m y co n te n tio n that objects in this cate go ry o f the “ ap p lie d arts” are “ cu ltu ral m ig ra to rs” o f the m ost p eripatetic k in d , and that an e xa m in a tio n o f th e ir m a k in g and use u n d e rm in e s an y rig id system s o f classificatio n w h ic h c la im to p ro v id e categories o r classes th ro u g h w h ic h the spectator’s reactio n (then o r n o w ) m ig h t be co n tro lle d w ith in cle a rly d e lim ite d param eters. I w ill be a rg u in g that a c o m p le x flu id ity , a m b ig u ity , and d iv e rsity o f m e a n in g characterizes the v ie w in g o f su ch item s even in a n u m b e r o f ap paren tly sim ila r co n texts in R e n a issa n ce societies, and that such v ie w in g u n d e rm in e s an y p ro p e n sity to characterize them neatly in term s o f the k in d o f histo rical “ m eta -re alitie s” - such as p o w e r, c o lo n ia lism , p o s-

9.4 (right) Tree-Column. From the portal o f the Chapel o f St. Hubert, stone. Am boise. (Photo: author.)

9.5 (below) G iu lio Ro m an o. Design for a Vine Dish. Pen and ink w ith wash. Chatsworth, C o llection o f the D u ke o f Devonshire. (Photo: Courtauld Institute o f Art, courtesy o f the Trustees o f the Chatsworth Settlement.)

“W R O U G H T B Y N O A R T IS T ’S H A N D ”

181

'ession, o ppressio n, p a triarch y, E u ro c e n tris m , and otherness — w h ic h n o w tend to be taken as h a v in g a p riv ile g e d e xp lan a to ry p o w e r. A lth o u g h it w ill n o t be possible in this paper to tease o u t all the possible flu id itie s and potential su bversio ns o f cate go rizatio n , I w ill e n d e avo r to keep a representative selection o f them in p la y and to signal th e ir presence in re latio n to som e o f the in d iv id u a l item s I have chosen to e x e m p lify m y o w n a rtificia lly d e fin e d catego ry. L e t us, as a p re lim in a ry m o ve , signal som e o f the “ p o le s” betw een w h ic h the objects p o te n tia lly m igrate. T h e y jo u rn e y betw een re lig io u s and secular, C a t h o lic and Protestant, go dliness and v a n ity. T h e y cross bo u n d aries b etw een p u b lic and private, the secret and the accessible, artisan ind n o b le , h ig h and v u lg a r taste, fu n ctio n a l and de co rative, se lf-aggran d ise m en t and disinterest, fin a n cia l va lu e and p e rce ive d w o rth in o th er valu e system s, cen ter and p e rip h ery, d o m estic and e xo tic . T h e y effect transfo rm atio ns betw een artist, artisan, te ch n o lo gist, e n gin e er, scientist, p h ilo so p h e r, and m a g ic ia n in v arie d co m p o u n d s. T h e y jross neat d iv isio n s betw een G o th ic and R e n a issa n c e , classical and n o n -cla ssica l, w estern and n o n -w e ste rn , sin gle style and plu ral styles, m e ch a n ica l and in te lle ctu al, ap plie d arts and fine arts. T h e m o tiv e p o w e r b e h in d these p lu ral m ig ra tio n s is the co n scio u s and co n tin u a l re d ra w in g o f the b o u n d a ry betw een the artifice o f nature and the artifice o f the hum an agent. A s m y lis tin g o f “ p o le s” ind icates, I am setting up an ab su rdly p r o lix agenda, bu t I b e lie ve that w e can gain a p ro v isio n a l sense o f the k in d o f m ig ra tio n s that .ire in v o lv e d th ro u g h the classic strategy o f lo o k in g at a selection o f illustrated exam ples w h ic h c o lle c tiv e ly serve to pose the m ost te llin g questions. T h e m o t if o f the essential c o n tig u ity o f the natural and the a rtificia l in the co n c e p tio n o f h u m a n artifacts w as v e ry m u c h present in G o t h ic design , p a rticu la rly in those later phases o f c o u rtly G o th ic w h ic h display a h ig h ly se lf-co n scio u s w it w h ic h is little less de velo p e d than that o f the M annerists. A m odest b u t apposite e xa m p le is p ro v id e d b y the n ice tre e -c o lu m n in the portal o f the fifte e n th -ce n tu ry C h a p e l o f St. H u b e rt in the C astle at A m b o ise (F ig u re 9.4), the chapel that n o w co n tain s w h a t are taken to be the m ortal rem ains o f L e o n a rd o da V in c i — w h o had h im s e lf used this visu al p u n in the Sala delle Asse in M ila n , som e tw e n ty years before his death at A m b o is e . In R e n a issa n ce term s, the m o tif d re w su ppo rt fro m A lb e rti, perhaps o n the basis o f V it r u v iu s ’s a cco u n t o f the earliest d w e llin g s, b u t the late G o t h ic exam p le show s that the R o m a n sa n ctio n w as no t strictly re q u ire d .9 T h is co n scio u s p a rad in g o f natural sources fo r h u m a n designs w as to b ecom e a m o t if w h ic h

ran stro n g ly th ro u g h o u t M a n n e rist p ro d u c tio n . A s a self­

co n sc io u sly “ rustic m o t if ’ it features in one o f G u ilio R o m a n o ’s designs (F ig u re 9.5), w ith o v e rtly b a cch ic resonances, and, as w e shall see, it gains special p o w e r in the hands o f those designers w h o in co rp o ra te d direct casts o f natural objects in to th e ir w o rk s, such as Ja m n itz e r and P a lissy .10 T h e c o n tin u itie s here seem to erode an y system o f p e rio d lab elin g, e specially an y attem pt to describe this aspect o f the w o r k o f G iu lio and the ir successors as “ n e o -G o t h ic .” M o re strictly ge rm ane to o u r present in q u iry are those m e d ie va l objects that d ire ctly in co rp o ra te re co g n iza b le natural item s. In d e e d , the fact that the natural objects re m ain e d re c o gn izab le w as essential fo r the m e a n in g and fu n ctio n o f the item s. T h e re is bo th w ritten and visu al te stim o n y to the use o f e xo tic treasures fro m

nature as sacred

co ntain ers in ecclesiastical co ntexts — chalices, reliqu aries, and m onstrances co m p o sed fro m o strich eggs and c o c o n u t shells - and as objects o f w o n d e r w h ic h testify to the

1 82

R EFR A M IN G T H E REN A ISSA N CE

9.6 Coral Tree Table Ornament with “Serpents’ Tongnes.” C oral, metal, and fossilized teeth. Vienna, Schatz des Deutschen Ordens. (Photo: Schatz des Deutschen Ordens.) 9.7 Table Ornament with “Serpents’ Tongues” and Topaz. C o ral, metal, topaz, and fossilized teeth. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sam m lung fur Plastik und Kunstgewerbe. (Photo: museum.)

m arvels o f G o d ’s cre atio n, attracting a p u b lic in to the c h u rc h and in d u c in g reverent aw e, as w e ll as p e rfo rm in g m o re o v e rtly m agical fu n c tio n s .11 C o r a l w as p a rticu la rly p rize d for its talism anic p o w ers, v a rio u sly p ro te c tin g against illness and the e v il eye, and p ro m o tin g the g ro w th o f teeth in c h ild re n . O n e p a rticu la rly spectacular piece in V ie n n a (F ig u re 9.6) do ub les up on its m a g ic attributes. F ro m co ral branches h a n g a series o f detachable “ serpents’ to n gu e s” (natterzungen) w h ic h acted as antidotes to p o iso n w h e n d ip p e d into d rin k o r fo o d .12 T h e m a g ic “ to n gu e s” (in fact the fossilised teeth o f ch o n d ricth y te s, such as sharks) w ere p rize d item s in the high est circle s o f c h u rc h and state. In 1295 P op e B o n ifa ce had acq u ire d no few er than fifteen “ branches o f trees w ith serpents’ to n g u e s.” 13 T h e tw o m ost spectacular s u rv iv in g exam p les, b o th d a tin g fro m the fifteenth cen tu ry, dem onstrate that the designers responsible fo r th e ir m o u n tin g have c o n sc io u sly h a rm o ­ n ize d the natural and the a rtificia l. T h e d e sign er o f the seco nd o f them (F ig u re 9.7) has d evised m etal branches and calyxes to su p p o rt the b lo o m -lik e to ngues, w h ile at the top is a fru ctifo rm g ro w th , at the heart o f w h ic h is a grand to p a z.14 T h e c o m p o u n d

“W R O U G H T BY NO A R T IS T ’S H A N D ”

183

9.8 W illib ald Stoss, after Albrecht D iirer. Dragon Chandelier. R eind eer antler and metal, 1522. Nurem berg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum . (Photo: museum.)

ensem ble e xp lo its a co n scio u s b lu rrin g o f the d e m arca tio n be tw e e n the prod ucts o f nature and m an th ro u g h the use o f the late G o th ic v o c a b u la ry o f o rg a n ic a lly styled shapes, in a m an n e r w h ic h is no less k n o w in g than the M an n e rist pu ns o f the later sixteen th cen tu ry. I n case, h o w e v e r, w e sh o u ld feel that w e are se ttling too co m fo rta b ly in to a cate go ry o f “ late m ed ieval m a g ic ,” it is w o rth n o tin g that co ral c o u ld serve as e x o tic d e co ratio n w ith o u t an y ap paren tly d irect e xp lo ita tio n o f its m a g ic po ten tial. A r o u n d 1519, the E le c to r A u g u st o f S a x o n y b o u g h t a set o f co ra l-h a n d le d c u tle ry, w h o se p rim a ry fu n ctio n cle a rly w as to im press guests o n special o c ca sio n s.13 T h e tro uble and expense that was e ntailed in o b ta in in g such objects fro m specialist suppliers in distant places w as part o f the p o in t o f the exercise. La te r in the ce n tu ry, Battista de N e g ro n e V ia le in the port c ity o f G e n o a becam e k n o w n as a specialist su p p lie r to E u ro p e a n p rinces o f item s based on coral o btain ed v ia S ic ily . 16 S o m e idea o f the response o f designers to the im p o rta tio n o f e xo tic m aterials and the designs can be g ain e d fro m C e llin i’s Autobiography, w h ere he describes in ty p ic a lly d e clam ato ry fashio n his co nquest o f the e xo tic art o f d am asce n in g w h ic h had been in tro d u ce d to Sp a in b y the M o o rs.' A co m p a ra b ly secular co n te xt, b u t a c iv ic rather than a c o u rtly one, p ro v id e d the setting fo r one o f the m ost spectacular o f all item s o f in te rio r d e co ratio n w h ic h in c o rp o r­ ated an e xce p tio n a l naturalium. In 1522 A n to n T a c h e r II presented a rem arkable and p rize d set o f 3 4 -p o in t re in d e e r antlers to the c ity o f N u re m b e rg fo r th e ir “ n e w ly b u ilt upstairs ch a m b e r” (F ig u re 9 .8 ).18 T h e antlers had been transform ed in to a se v e n -lig h t can d e lab ru m in the guise o f a three-headed d rag o n b y W illib a ld Stoss on the basis o f a d e sign b y A lb re ch t D iir e r . T h e c o n jo in e d q u alities o f an e xtra o rd in a ry p ro d u c t c o n triv e d b y nature and b y the artists o f N u re m b e rg w as de sign ed to le n d special d istin c tio n to the c ity ’s n e w ro o m , w h ic h w as b u ilt sp e cifica lly to house the m eetings o f the seven E le cto rs. T h e re is little d o u b t that D iir e r ’s c o n triv in g o f seven lights w as inte n d e d to allude to the seven lu m in a rie s w h o w ere to deliberate u n d e r its g lo w . T h e ap p ro p ria tio n o f a w o n d e r

184

R EFR A M IN G T H E R EN A ISSA N CE

9.9 Ostrich Egg Cup with Coral. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches M useum, Sam m lung für Plastik und Kunstgewerbe. (Photo: museum.)

o f nature here serves a g o ve rn m e n ta l fu n ctio n , b u t it is no t d iffic u lt to envisage the same sp len d id antlers h a n g in g w ith m am m o th bones and o strich eggs in a c h u rc h , o r alterna­ tiv e ly b e in g p o in te d o ut as a h u n tin g tro p h y in a S a x o n p rin c e ’s wunderkammer. N o e x o tic item had a lo n g e r o r m o re varie d h isto ry o f use than the o strich egg. T h r o u g h the e xte n sive literature o n P ie ro della Fra n ce sca’s Montefeltro Altarpiece, the egg has b e co m e so m e th in g o f a se t-p ie ce o f the ic o n o g ra p h e r’s art in a w a y that has w o rk e d against its w id e r co n sid e ratio n in re lig io u s and secular fra m e w o rk s.19 D u ra n d u s had already d raw n attentio n to the a b ility o f o strich eggs as “ m arve lo u s rarities” to draw p eo ple in to c h u rch , as i f G o d has p ro v id e d a p a rtic u la rly effective visu al m agn et fo r his o w n ends.2" W e k n o w that in 1435 tw o eggs w ere lo cated on e ith er side o f D u c c io ’s Maesta in Sie n a C a th e d ra l, and the M e d ic i in v e n to ry o f 1492 records one in the rather

“W R O U G H T B Y N O A R T IS T ’S H A N D ” different setting o f the private d e v o tio n a l space o f the chapel in the P alazzo M e d ic i.21 A lth o u g h the bestiary legends o f the strange and rather n e g lig e n t habits o f the o strich in in c u b a tin g its eggs m ig h t, as D u ra n d u s a c k n o w le d g e d , su ppo rt th e ir in te rp retatio n as s y m b o liz in g the w a y h u m a n b e in gs forget the true o bservance o f G o d , it seems m ore lik e ly that th e ir presence w as g e n e rally ju stifie d in the sam e w a y as w as used to sanctio n the display o f g riffin s’ claw s and serpents’ to ngues in ch u rch e s. T h e h u ge eggs w ere also item s that an o p p o rtu n istic trader m ig h t add to the go od s he sh ipped fo r sale to w e ll- o f f clients, as happened in the case o f Fra n ce sco D a t in i, the m u c h -tra v e le d m erch an t o f Prato, w h o im p o rte d o strich feathers and eggs, as w e ll as iv o r y tusks.22 O n c e purchased, it w o u ld be open to the o w n e r o f an e gg to e n d o w it w ith w h ic h e v e r o f the p o ten tial sign ifican ce s m ig h t be m ost appropriate in w h ate v e r c o n te x t it w as placed. It is n o t su rp risin g that o strich eggs becam e star item s in the wunderkammer, o c ca sio n in g som e o f the m ost elaborate settings o f an y natural item s. T h e spectacular e xa m p le in V ie n n a (F ig u re 9.9), m ade fo r the A u g s b u rg cab inet o f A rc h d u k e F e rd in a n d II o f T y r o l, uses liberal quantities o f coral to p ro v id e a dense tangle o f o rg a n ic shapes a ro u n d the sm o o th g e o m e try o f the sh ell.23 T h e e gg itse lf is d ire c tly supported b y an o strich , w h ic h is held cap tive on co lla r and ch a in b y a “ n a tiv e ’' h u n te r and ho lds in its m o u th a horsehoe -

a llu d in g to its le gen d ary appetite. T h e fu n c tio n o f such an e xtra o rd in a ry

ensem ble in a cab inet w as in a sense o b v io u s: it served as a m arvel w h ic h gave pleasure and pride to its o w n e r and in d u c e d pleasure and aw e in the p riv ile g e d v isito r. B u t the v e ry c o m p o u n d nature o f the o strich cu p gave it a m u ltiv a le n t qu ality, in w h ic h it c o u ld play w ith equal e ffica cy o n the sp ectator’s p o ten tial interest in aspects o f m a g ic , in P lin ia n natural scie n ce , in the m e a n in g o f an im als as o u tlin e d in the m ed ieva l bestiary, in the surpassing sk ill o f the d iv in e A rtife x, in the v irtu o so ach ieve m e n ts o f the h u m an hand and eye, and so on. T h e w a y that different cabinets w ere laid o u t su p p lie d different k in d s o f p rim a ry o rd e r w ith in w h ic h the sam e o bject c o u ld p o te n tia lly co nverse in a n u m b e r o f rather different languages. T h e m a g n ific e n t cab inet assem bled b y A r c h d u k e F e rd in a rd o f T y r o l at A m b ras w as arranged b y m aterials in P lin ia n fashio n, w hereas the E le c to r A u g u st o f S a x o n y co n cen trate d on to ols and instrum ents in his c o lle c tio n at D re s d e n .24 Sa m u e l Q u ic c h e b e rg , w h o m ay ju s tly be regarded as the theorist o f the wunderkammer, advocated an elaborate schem e o f m ic r o - and m a c ro c o sm ic analogies th ro u g h w h ic h the cab inet w o u ld b e co m e a teatrum sapientiae, m u c h lik e G iu lio C a m illo ’s “ m e m o ry thea­ tre .” 25 H o w e v e r,

I be lie ve that m u c h o f the life and sustained fascination

o f the

c o lle ctio n s fo r h ig h ly so ph isticated v ie w e rs lay in the refusal o f m a n y o f the in d iv id u a l objects to su b m it d o c ile ly to precise cate g o rizatio n . R a th e r, they m anifest the in te r­ co nnectedness o f th in gs in the m a n ifo ld o f nature, w h a t F ra n cis B a c o n w as to call the “ shuffle o f th in g s” in his p re scrip tio n fo r a “ g o o d ly h u ge c a b in e t,” w h e re in w h atso e ver o f the hand o f m an b y e xq u isite art o r e n gin e has m ade rare in stuff, fo rm o r m o tio n , w h atso e ver sin g u la rity , chance, and the shuffle o f thin gs, hath p ro d u ce d ; w h atso e ve r nature has w ro u g h t in th in gs that w a n t life and m ay be kept; shall be sorted and in c lu d e d .26 T h e re is in d e e d a certain su b ve rsio n in v o lv e d in the m a k in g o f an o b ject lik e the V ie n n a o strich cu p , w h ic h m ay be g e n e tica lly cate go rize d as a d r in k in g ch a lice bu t w h ic h has b e co m e elaborated to the p o in t w h ere fu n c tio n b ecom es m o re a m atter o f visu al type

R EFR A M IN G T H E REN A ISSA N CE than ge n u in e u tility . A n ice re c o g n itio n o f this issue o ccu rs in a letter o f 1550 to D u k e C o s im o in F lo re n ce fro m Ja c o p o da T r e z z o , a specialist m o d e le r and carve r o f ro c k crystal, w h o in q u ire d w h e th e r the D u k e w an te d “ a cup fo r d r in k in g o r ju s t to lo o k g o o d .’”

L o o k in g at the vessels, it is n o t alw ays easy to tell w h e th e r they w ere “ u t ili­

tarian” and w e k n o w that som e o f the n o tab ly e x o tic vessels w ere actu ally used fo r d rin k in g . T h e Fu g g e rs possessed a “ m o u n te d o strich e g g w ith a silv e r c o v e r in a bla ck case, to gether w ith the b o o k used fo r w e lc o m in g .” 28 B u t the u tility w o u ld have been at m ost strictly lim ite d to p a rticu la r occasio ns o r fu n ctio n s, lik e the F u g g e rs’ c e re m o n y o f w e lc o m e fo r prestigio u s visito rs. T o d a y su ch “ cu p s” are re m o v e d bo th fro m their u tilita ria n and in te lle ctu al co ntexts. W e are n o w lik e ly to see the m displayed as w o rk s o f “ ap p lie d art,” b u t an o b ject lik e the V ie n n a o strich cu p , w h ic h w e are n o w m ost lik e ly to see in the c o n te x t o f a m o d e rn display d e vo te d to G e rm a n g o ld sm ith s’ w o rk , w o u ld co e xist at least as co m fo rta b ly w ith an astrolabe, a landscape in pictre dure (the variegated stones fo r w h ic h the F lo re n tin e s w ere fam ed), a p a in tin g b y A r c im b o ld o , o r an in g e n io u s m e ch a n ica l m o d e l.29 T h e k in d s o f co n scio u s and artful flu id itie s in v o lv e d in the c o n c e iv in g o f such objects are perhaps best e x e m p lifie d in the h ig h ly regarded nau tilu s and strom bu s shell cups, o f w h ic h

som e superb exam p les are displayed in the Paston p ictu re. S u c h

indianische

Schneggen w ere the su bject o f h ig h -le v e l in te rn a tio n al e xch a n ge and trade. F ro m P h ilip p H a in h o fe r in 1610 w e learn that the D u k e o f W ü rtte m b e rg had b o u g h t a c o lle c tio n o f shells fo r som e 1,200 flo rin s, an d that 6,000 flo rin s -w o rth had been presented b y the D u t c h states to the k in g o f F ra n c e .30 T h e be au tifu l m aterial o f the shells, w h e n po lish ed , and th e ir m ira cu lo u s design b y G o d in his “ M a n n e rist” m o d e , m ade them p a rticu la rly treasured item s w h ic h o cca sio n e d elaborate m o u n tin g . W h e n d e v isin g the se tting for a shell, the m ost k n o w in g designers e xp lo ite d a deliberate co n fla tio n o f h u m a n an d natural design. A B ritish N autilus C u p o f 1585 in the F it z w illia m M u se u m , C a m b rid g e (F ig u re 9.10), stands as a typ ica l representative o f the E u ro p e a n fash io n .31 In d e e d , it has been suggested that it w as m ade b y a D u t c h g o ld sm ith w h o fled fro m the Sp a n ish in 1576. T h e stem o f trito n and d o lp h in serves to em p hasize the w atery them e w h ic h ru ns th ro u g h o u t the design , and the artist has taken the o p p o rtu n ity to e ch o the design o f the natural shell, bo th in the a cc o m p a n y in g “ c re e p y -c ra w lie s” and in the m ore abstract o rnam ental m otifs. T h e natural objects w ere them selves often w o rk e d b y the h u m an h a n d in som e w a y this p a rticu la r e xa m p le had been cu t b y a C h in e se artist, e n h a n c in g its e xo tic status - to disclose the in h e re n t beauty o f n a tu re ’s co n trivan ce s. T h e d e sig n e r’s co n sp ira cy w ith nature is e q u a lly w e ll expressed in those “ sh e ll” cups in w h ic h the shells are carved b y the h u m a n hand fro m a p rize d substance lik e ro c k crystal. In m a n y o f the engraved designs (F ig u re 9.11), w h ic h played such an im p o rta n t role in b ro a d castin g the latest styles across E u ro p e , it is often u n cle a r w h e th e r the b o d y o f the o b ject is a decorated shell o r an e n tire ly m a n -m a d e co n fe ctio n . F ro m the p o in t o f v ie w o f w h at w as b e in g im p lie d ab ou t the h u m a n and natural design , the a m b ig u ity w as a large part o f the p o in t. A general air o f exo ticness w as cle a rly a m a jo r factor in m a n y o f the p ie ce s’ im pact. T h e m o re e x o tic the better. C o c o n u ts had lo n g been k n o w n and h ig h ly regarded, in secular and ecclesiastical settings alik e , and the Se ych e lle s n u t - the coco de mer - cam e to assume an even h ig h e r le ve l o f rarity and g e o g ra p h ica l n o v e lty . In spite o f the so m e w hat un prepossessing surface qualities o f the nuts, the v e ry w o n d e r o f them as su rp risin g

“W R O U G H T BY N O A R T IS T ’S H A N D ”

9.10 Cup until Engraved Nautilus Shell. Cam bridge, Fitzw illiam Museum. (Photo: museum.)

187

9.11 Cornelius Floris, after Enea V ico . Shell Cup. Engraving. Private collection. (Photo: author.)

artifacts o f nature ju stifie d th e ir w o r k in g and setting in the m ost stylish m an ner. A notable e xa m p le o f a co co n u t cu p , m ade in N u re m b e rg a ro u n d 1540 b y M e lc h io r B a ie r and Peter F lo tn e r and o w n e d b y the H o lz s c h u h e r fa m ily , has been ad orned w ith w h at is lite rally an o rg y o f d e co rative m o tifs, in c lu d in g a base w ith a p a ir o f ru ttin g sheep, and a w o m a n re a ch in g o u t to rouse a m a n ’s penis, and a c o v e r decorated w ith a satyr m in iste rin g large qu antities o f w in e to a se m i-re c u m b e n t fig u re .32 T h e shell itse lf is decorated w ith vario u s e ro tic activitie s carve d in lo w re lie f in a s trik in g ly “ an tiq u e ” m anner. T h e cup illustrated here (F ig u re 9.12) is m o re sober in design and co n ten t, but it shares the se cu larism o f the H o lz s c h u h e r cu p , in this case b y reference to h u n tin g in the scenes carved o n the n e c k and the statue o f the arm ed P a lla s-A th e n e o n the co ve r. T h e v o c a b u la ry o f the design associated w ith su ch Se ych e lle s nuts is ge n e rally different fro m that called forth b y the m aritim e shells. L ik e the H o lz s c h u h e r cu p , the stem is here co m p o sed fro m the k n o ttily o rg a n ic m o t if o f a creeper sp ira lin g aro u n d a gnarled tru n k, as favo u re d b y D iire r . T h e character o f the artifact o f nature suggests, as it w ere, the m od e that the h u m an d esign er sh o u ld adopt. A p a rticu la rly in v e n tiv e response b y a designer, p ro b a b ly N ik o la u s Pfaff, to a rh i­ no ceros h o rn - one o f the m ost p rize d and m a g ic a lly po ten t o f all the rarities — show s

R EFR A M IN G T H E REN A ISSA N CE

9.12 Coconut Cup with Cover. Sey­ chelles nut and metal. Cam bridge, Fitzw illiam Museum. (Photo: m u­ seum.)

9.13 N ikolaus PfafF (?). Rhinoceros Horn Cup with Wart hog Tusks. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum. Sam m lung für Plastik und Kunstgewerbe. (Photo: museum.)

h o w an e x o tic o b je ct can e v o k e an ap p ro p riate ly e x o tic m o d e fro m a v irtu o so m aster (F ig u re 9 .1 3 ).33 T h e h o rn itse lf is carved w ith scary and m yste rio u s o rg a n ic m otifs. Strange heads, h u m a n and an im al, em erge fro m co ra llin e branch es, w h ile o n the co ve r tw o A frica n w a rth o g tusks are set on e ith er side o f a d e m o n ic , d r a g o n -lik e head that o p e n ly recalls o rie n tal designs. S u c h an o b ject no t o n ly m akes articulate sense in the co n te x t o f the naturalia, exotica, and artificialia o f the cab inet o f m arvels, but it can also be

“W R O U G H T B Y N O A R T IS T ’S H A N D ”

189

9.14 (left) Jan van den Velde. Instruction in the Writing of the Italic Hand. Engraved by Sim on Frysius, from Spieghel der Sch rijfkonste, R o tte rda m , 1605. London, Victoria &' Albert Museum. (Photo: author.)

9.15 (right) Jan van den Velde. Instruction in the Writing of the Netherlandish Hand. Engraved by Sim on Frysius, from Spieghel der Schrijfkonste, Rotterdam , 1605. London, Victoria & Albert Museum. (Photo: author.)

located in a c o m p le x d ia lo gu e betw een E u ro p e a n co lle cto rs and p ro d u cts o f other cu ltu res.34 A n adequate d iscu ssio n o f this d ia lo g u e cle a rly lie s outside the feasible scope o f the present essay, b u t I sh o u ld lik e fo r the m o m e n t to say that the types o f v ie w in g and interpretation acco rd e d to objects fro m , say, C h in a , A frica , In d ia , P re c o lu m b ia n A m e ric a , and Persia, sh o u ld be seen as resistant to sim p le g e n e ra liza tio n as the contents o f the wunderkammer w ere resistant to a sin g le type o f cate g o rizatio n . T h e re w as a p lu ra lity o f reactio n to objects in w h at w e w o u ld call d ifferent styles, and the M a n n e rist designers them selves c o u ld operate in a p lu ra lity o f g e o g ra p h ica l and c h ro n o lo g ic a l styles b o th betw een and w ith in p a rticu la r item s. S o m e th in g rather co m p arable to the v irtu o so changes o f m an n er w h ic h a d esign er lik e P fa ff c o u ld a cco m p lish in g o ld sm ith e ry is p ro v id e d b y Ja n van den V e ld e in his w r it in g -b o o k o f t 6o $, in w h ic h F ry siu s’s stylish e n gra vin gs sh o w the v irtu o so han d o f the w r it in g m aster lite ra lly c o m in g to grip s w ith a v arie ty o f o ld and n e w “ h a nds,” in c lu d in g Ita lic and D u t c h styles (F ig u re s 9.14, 9 .1 5 ).35

190

R EFR A M IN G T H E REN A ISSA N CE

9.16 W enzel Jam nitzer. The Merckel Table-Centre. Amsterdam, R ijksm useum . (Photo: museum.)

V a n den V e ld e ’s b o o k also serves to in tro d u c e us to an oth er su b versio n — o r at least an in te n d e d su b versio n — o f sto ck fram es o f reference, that is to say the in te lle c tu a lizin g o f the “ crafts,” in su ch a w a y that w h at had p re v io u sly been taken as ru d e ly m ech an ica l pursuits acq u ire d a theoretical base. W h e th e r w e are d e a lin g w ith a social art lik e d a n c in g , a m ilita ry craft lik e g u n n e ry , the sk ill o f w ritin g , o r the trade o f the potter, w e fin d w ritte n tracts b e in g p ro d u ce d to p ro m o te the in te lle ctu al and social status o f their practitio n ers. T h e g o ld sm ith w h o e m b o d ie d the in c re a sin g ly insistent in se rtio n o f the m ost select o f craftsm en in to a p h ilo so p h ic a l o rb it w as W e n z e l Ja m n itz e r in N u re m b e rg . A s the d e v iso r and illu strato r o f a m ost sp ectacular treatise o n the perspective o f the five P la to n ic solids, in w h ic h the co sm o lo g ic a l c o n n o tatio n s o f his h ig h ly de co rative variatio ns are u n d e rlin e d , Ja m n itz e r left no one in an y d o u b t ab ou t his cla im s.36 In d e e d , his w h o le practice as a “ craftsm an” u n d e rta k in g w o r k on c o m m issio n fro m n o b le patrons cast h im in the guise o f a u n ive rsal artifex w h o w o u ld fear n o aspect o f the in te lle ctu al, visu al, or te ch n ica l challen ges posed b y G o d ’s creation. Ja m n itz e r’s m ost sp ectacularly “ d e co ra tiv e ” co m p le xe s in the “ de corative arts,” the great table fo u n tain s and ornam ents, are in fact his m ost in te lle c tu a lizin g creations, in v o lv in g p h ilo so p h ic a l program s, h ig h aesthetic a m b itio n , and e xtrem e te ch n ica l v irtu ­ o sity in a w a y w h ic h rivals in co n d e n sed fo rm the b u ild in g and d e co ratio n o f a co m p lete

“W R O U G H T B Y N O A R T IS T ’S H A N D ”

191

suite o f ro o m s - in c lu d in g the p lu m b in g . T h e tw o greatest schem es, bo th co m m e n c e d in 1556, n o lo n g e r su rv iv e . O n e w as plan n e d fo r A r c h d u k e F e rd in a n d o f T y r o l and w as to in v o lv e the an tiquarian , e n gin e er, and c o u rtly entrepreneur, Ja c o p o Strada.37 T h e them e w as to cen ter o n A d a m and E v e in Paradise. In 1557 and 1559 there are records o f the casting o f sm all an im als and insects d ire c tly fro m nature, in v o lv in g a specialist in such item s, M atthias Z iin d t . A lth o u g h the grandio se p ro je ct w as ab and on ed in 1561, F e rd in a n d ’s taste fo r the nature casts had been fired, and in 156$ he o rdered tw o d o ze n sm all anim als and grasses. T h e o ther m a jo r p ro je ct w as a table fo u n ta in fo r M a x im ilia n II, and, th o u g h no lo n g e r extant, it w as described in a w a y that allo w s a partial re co n stru ctio n .38 A b o u t ten fo o t h ig h , its o ve ra ll c o n fig u ra tio n assum ed the fo rm o f the Im p e ria l C r o w n , and its su b ject-m atte r w as based on a co m p re h e n siv e p ro gram o f m ic ro m a cro co sm ic analogies, in v o lv in g the elem ents, seasons, rivers, h u m a n pu rsu its, and so on, w ith m o v in g parts d rive n b y m arve lo u s displays o f w ater p o w e r and c lo c k w o rk . T h e d e scrip tio n records, in tones o f aw e, that e v e ry th in g w as in c lu d e d in its com pass “ P h ysica , M e tap h ysica, P o litic a , and m a n y fin e P h ilo so p h ic a l and P o e tic ideas.” S o m e idea o f the v isu al richness o f such ensem bles can be g ain ed fro m a m o re “ m o d est” piece co m m issio n e d in 1549 b y N u re m b e rg C it y C o u n c il (F ig u re 9.16). In this case, the d o m in a tin g im age is o f the earth and its ab und ance , w ith a fig u re o f M o th e r Earth su p p o rtin g the elaborate “ fru it b o w l.” 39 D e n s e ly ab und ant life casts are c o m b in e d w ith d e co rative m otifs in classical and m auresque styles, w h ile the volu p tu o u sn e ss and e xo tic co stum e o f Earth suggests a m e rg in g o f antique and In d ia n sources. T h e v irtu o so stylistic p lu ra lity and the b lu rrin g o f the dem arcation s betw een the natural and the artificial w ere design ed to in cu lca te w o n d e r p recisely because the transfo rm ative s k ill o f the artifex has transcended the n o rm a l bo u n d aries o f thin gs. L ife casts fro m anim als and plants becam e sp e cia lly p rize d objects in the ir o w n rig h t, and re lative ly few artists m astered the secrets o f m a k in g them . P h ilip p H a in h o fe r reported to D u k e P h ilip p that C h ris to p h L e n c k e r, the g o ld sm ith , “ has a large snake cast e n tire ly o f silve r and a n u m b e r o f little lizards that w ere cast b y o ld L o re n z [D h e m , the A u g sb u rg g o ld sm ith ], . . H e paid e ight flo rin s fo r a liza rd and refuses to sell an y o f them , lo o k in g o n them as treasures: there is n o chased w o r k o n them , bu t th e y are e n tire ly cast fro m life .” 40 T h e m ost fam ous o f all the artists w h o m anaged to an n e x the skills o f nature h e rse lf was the great potter, B e rn ard Palissy. H is nam e to d ay is alm ost w h o lly id e n tifie d w ith a special k in d o f rustique jigeurine (F ig u re 9.17) in w h ic h life casts o f notable fid e lity and detail are sc in tilla tin g ly c o m b in e d w ith the v itre o u s glazes w h ic h cost Palissy m a n y years o f hard e x p e rim e n t.41 T h e aim w as, in his o w n w o rd s, to create w o rk s w h ic h “ do no t appear to in v o lv e a n y appearance o r fo rm o f the art o f scu lpture, n o r an y lab o r o f the hand o f m a n .” 42 L ik e the gro tto described b y O v id , the bo un daries o f art and nature appeared to have b e co m e perm eable: the “ arch ite ctu re ” aro u n d D ia n a ’s b a th in g p o o l was apparently “ w ro u g h t b y n o artist’s hand, b u t nature b y c u n n in g hand had im itate d art, fo r she had shaped a native arch o f the liv in g ro c k and soft tufa.” 43 P alissy’s o w n grottoes, tor w h ic h he becam e e specially fam ed, m ay le g itim a te ly be regarded as the suprem e realizatio ns o f the m e ta m o rp h ic m o t if in the late R e n a issa n c e .44 P alissy was, h o w e v e r, m o re than a su p re m ely in g e n io u s craftsm an-d esigne r.

H is

w ritin g s, too little read b y historians o f art and science alik e , set his creations in a stro n g ly argued fra m e w o rk o f natural p h ilo so p h y , in w h ic h he b ecom es the c u n n in g a cc o m p lic e

192

R EFR A M IN G T H E R EN A ISSA N CE

9.17 Bernard Palissy. D ish with Animals Cast from Life. Glazed ceramic. London, Wallace Collection. (Photo: Wallace C ollection.)

o f nature th ro u g h the u n d e rsta n d in g o f her secrets. H e w as, n o t su rp risin g ly , fu ll o f aw e fo r the d iv in e creator. L o o k in g at the lustrous shell in the cab in e t o f M . R a sc e , he challen ges the h u m a n artifice r to m ake a cu p fro m the sam e m aterials. T h e result w o u ld be “ m o re p re cio u s than g o ld ” : W h y do they [the craftsm en] no t o bserve fro m w h at the fish has fo rm ed such a beau tifu l house, and take sim ila r m aterials to m ake a beautiful vase? T h e fish that m ade the said shell is n o t as g lo rio u s as m an - it is an an im al w h ic h has little fo rm - and yet it is able to do w h at m an is un able to a c h ie v e .45 W h e n he cam e to devise a ra d ica lly n e w fo rm o f secure fortress to prote ct those w h o , lik e him self, suffered attack and pe rsecu tio n on re lig io u s gro u n d s, he fo u n d e d his design on the spiral o f a sh e ll.46 T h e debate ab ou t the houses o f an im als and m an w as an o ld one, w ith A risto te lia n antecedents.47 P alissy ’s o w n p o sitio n - that a d ire ct in q u iry o f nature p ro vid e s the basis o n w h ic h true k n o w le d g e o f design can be acq u ire d - is the central them e o f his tw o treatises, p u b lish e d in 1563 and 1580. C a st in the fo rm o f v ig o ro u s argum en ts betw een “ th e o ry ” and “ p ra c tic e ,” his w ritin g s sustain a to u gh p o le m ic against m e ta p h ysically in c lin e d p h ilo so p h e rs and ab ove all against alchem ists, w h o w o u ld claim

“W R O U G H T B Y N O A R T IS T ’S H A N D ”

193

p re su m p tu o u sly to assum e G o d ’s creative m antle. C a s tin g h im s e lf as an “ u n lette re d ” m an o f practice - th o u g h in re ality he espouses qu ite a so ph isticated ve rsio n o f the m ic ro m a cro co sm ic analogies - he p ro c la im e d ly stands as the true in ve stig a to r o f “ the beautiful o rde r w h ic h G o d has placed in the e arth ,” lite ra lly e xc a v a tin g his u n d e rsta n d in g o f the earth’s ge nerative p o w e rs w ith his hands w h e n m a k in g his po ttery, grottoes, and fo u n tain s.48 It is n o t d iffic u lt to im a g in e P a lissy’s m a g ica l creations t h r iv in g in the co n te x t o f the alch e m ica l cu ltu re o f the M e d ic ia n C o u r t in later six te e n th -c e n tu ry F lo re n c e , and he was h im s e lf the re cip ie n t o f n o b le and ro yal patronage o n a large scale in Fran ce . B u t his e m p iric ist attitudes w ere c o n sc io u sly o pposed to the alch em ists’ sp ecu latio ns, and w ere acco m p a n ie d b y .un shakeable H u g u e n o t c o n v ic tio n s w h ic h placed his c o u rtly career in jeo pardy. A s in o th e r in cid e n ts that w e have e xa m in e d , the in te llectu al m o tiv a tio n s and social associations o f ap paren tly sim ila r cu ltu ral artifacts m ig h t n o t be sim ila r at all. T h e k in d o f item s o f nature ad m ired and recreated b y P alissy w ere v e ry m u c h those o f the c o lle c to r’s cab inet, and he had established o ne o f his o w n - “ in w h ic h I have placed m a n y ad m irab le and m o n stro u s th in gs, w h ic h I have d raw n o ut o f the m a trix [matrice] o f the earth .” 49 H is cab in e t ce rta in ly co n tain e d objects w h ic h w o u ld have graced any p rin c e ly wunderkammer, bu t his c o lle c tio n w as n o t p rin c e ly and its p rim a ry thrust was id io sy n c ra tica lly Palissian. S u c h differences serve to re m in d us that sim p le gene ralizatio n s about p o w e r and possession need to be care fu lly sc ru tin ize d w h e n w e lo o k at the E u ro p e a n v o g u e fo r cabinets in the later sixteen th and early seventeenth cen turies. T h e founders o f the great cabinets w ere no t all p rin ces a im in g to c o n q u e r te rrito ry and p ro m o te p o litica l p o w e r th ro u g h o w n e rsh ip . T h e fam ous cab in e t established in B o lo g n a b y U lisse A ld ro v a n d i, Pro fesso r o f fossilibus, plantis, et animalibus, w as a p e d a go gic to o l fo r the p h ilo so p h ic a l u n d e rsta n d in g and o rd e rin g o f nature, w h ile the character o f Ferrante Im p e ra to ’s c o lle c tio n in N a p le s w as g iv e n a p a rticu la r shape b y his professional interest in m e d ic in e s.50 H o w e v e r, even in su ch “ s c ie n tific ” cases w e w o u ld p ro b a b ly be w ro n g to im p u te ju s t one d r iv in g m o tiv a tio n to the assem blers o f the cabinets. T h e sheer a cq u isitive m o m e n tu m needed to assem ble a grand cab inet o ve r a p e rio d o f tim e appears to have co n su m e d e n e rgy fro m a set o f in te rlo c k e d m o tiv a tio n s. E v e n i f w e m ay regard the p rin c e ly cabinets o f R u d o l f I I and Fe rd in a n d as e xp ressio ns o f th e ir personas as rulers, w e sh o u ld n o t d o u b t that o th er m o tive s, su ch as c u rio sity , d e ligh t, sc ie n tific w o n d e r, and m a g ic , w ere necessary acco m p an im e n ts and co ro lla rie s to the m o re p o litic a l im pulses. A lth o u g h w e n o w tend to th in k o f p o w e r as a secular m eans and end in itself, it c o u ld be c o n jo in e d in the R e n a issa n ce w ith g e n u in e p ie ty in a w a y that w e n o w fin d d iffic u lt to grasp. I am prepared to be lie ve that there is a m easure o f truth in A n se lm de B o o d t ’s c la im in his 1609 b o o k o n gem s and stones that “ the E m p e ro r w as n o t attracted to them in o rde r w ith the help o f th e ir luster to increase his o w n im p o rta n ce and m ajesty, b u t to understand th ro u g h the m e d iu m o f p re cio u s stones the g ra n d e u r and in fin ite p o w e r o f G o d , w h o w as able to co m b in e in such m in u te particles the beau ty and the fo rce o f all o th er th in gs on earth, and in this w a y to have before his eyes a p e n n a n t re fle ctio n o f the b rillia n c e o f the D e it y .” 51 C o n firm a tio n o f the m u ltiv a le n t pe rso n ality o f the cabinets is fo u n d in the activitie s o f P h ilip p H a in h o fe r, w h o se co rre sp o n d en ce has already p ro v e d to be a ric h so urce in this study. H a in h o fe r created w h at m ig h t alm ost be called “ o ff-th e -p e g ” cabinets o f natural

194

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

y.18 P h ilip p H ain h o fe r. Kunstchrank. M ixe d m edia, (Photo: U n iv e rsity.)

1632. U ppsala, U n iv e rs ity o f Uppsala.

a n d a rt ific ia l w o n d e r s . In 1632 h e s u p p lie d an e la b o ra te kunstchrank fo r p re se n ta tio n to K i n g G u s ta v u s A d o lp h u s o f S w e d e n b y th e C o u n c illo r s o f A u g s b u r g ( F ig u r e 9 .1 8 ). T h e s tru c tu re h a d o r ig in a lly b e e n a sse m b le d fo r a n o th e r p a tro n , b u t H a in h o f e r r a p id ly s to c k e d it to m e e t the C o u n c illo r s ’ u r g e n t re q u e st. T h is

in c id e n t su gge sts th at H a in h o f e r ’s

ca b in e ts w e re n o t n e c e s sa rily p a tr o n -s p e c ific to a h ig h d e g re e , a n d th a t th e y re su lte d fro m a m ix t u r e o f p la n n in g a n d o p p o r tu n is m . T h e y w e re set u p in s u c h a w a y that th e y c o u ld b e in te rp re te d p h ilo s o p h ic a lly b y a le a rn e d r e c ip ie n t lik e th e S w e d is h k in g w it h o u t n e c e s sa rily h a v in g b e e n c o m p ile d at e a ch stage a c c o r d in g to a r ig id ly p r e c o n c e iv e d

9.19 (opposite page) P h ilip p H a in h o fe r. Kunstchrank. D e tail o f decoration w ith coral and Sey­ chelles nut cup, 1632. U ppsala, U n iv e rs ity o f U ppsala. (Pho to : U n iv e rsity .)

196

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

p r o g ra m . E a c h kunstchrank w o u ld h a v e b e e n c o n t r iv e d to e x e rc ise p lu ra l a p p eals, so th at it h a d th e a b ilit y to re s p o n d to th e in d iv id u a l d e m a n d s o f its p u rc h a s e r (a n d b y im p lic a t io n

o f su b se q u e n t o w n e r s ). T h e

s u rv iv a l, v ir t u a lly in ta c t, o f th e kunstchrank

p re se n te d to G u s ta v u s A d o lp h u s testifies to a n o ta b le s ta y in g p o w e r .52 L i k e a w a lk - in w underkam m er, th e U p p s a la

c a b in e t can b e a p p ro a c h e d at v a r io u s le v e ls , fr o m

h ig h

p h ilo s o p h ic a l se rio u sn e ss to a m u se d c u r io s ity . It c o n ta in s in m ic r o c o s m a ra n g e o f n a tu ra l, m a g ic a l, s c ie n tific , a n d a rtific ia l c u rio s itie s fr o m th e fo u r c o n tin e n ts , s im ila r to th at in a fu ll-s c a le c a b in e t, in c lu d in g sm a ll s ilv e r casts fr o m n a tu re , d rie d a n im a l s k in s , s c ie n tific a n d d o m e s tic to o ls, m u s ic a l in s tru m e n ts o n a d im in u t iv e scale, a n d d e v ic e s d r iv e n b y c lo c k w o r k . In se t in to th e c a b in e t is a d iv e rs e a sse m b la ge o f c a m e o s, re lie fs, e n g ra v e d p la q u e tte s, pictre dure, e tc ., in w h ic h the a n c ie n t a n d th e m o d e r n , a n d th e se c u la r a n d the r e lig io u s jo s t le fo r a tte n tio n . O n th e to p is a m o u n t a in o f r o c k cry sta l a n d v a r io u s ly c o lo r e d c o ra ls, at th e s u m m it o f w h ic h is a e w e r c o m p o s e d fro m a d e c o ra te d S e y c h e lle s n u t w it h a V e n u s c o v e r ( F ig u r e 9 .1 9 ). T h e w a y th at th e e w e r c a n u n e x p e c t e d ly be d e ta c h e d fo r use e x p lo its fu n c tio n as a fo r m o f su rp rise . W e s h o u ld r e m e m b e r th at the n u t w a s an a n tid o te to p o is o n , as w e re th e c o ra l b ra n c h e s, tw o o f w h ic h h a v e b e e n c a rv e d to d is p la y lit e r a lly re p e lle n t ge stu re s (Jig he) at t h e ir tips. T h e w h o le e n se m b le has b e e n d e s ig n e d w it h s u ch c o m p le x it y o f f u n c t io n a n d m e a n in g as to u n h in g e a n y gross g e n e ra liz a t io n a b o u t its in te n d e d a n d a ctu a l a p p e a l -

b e y o n d th e c o m m o n p la c e s that

p o sse ssio n o f su ch a c a b in e t s ig n if ie d status a n d in fe rre d in te lle c tu a l s o p h is tic a tio n . L o o k in g b a c k o v e r th e n e ce ssa rily lim it e d s e le c tio n o f o b je c ts illu s tra te d h e re , I t h in k w e ca n see h o w th e y le n t th e m se lv e s to o r d e r in g a n d c la s sific a tio n in v a r io u s w a y s — o fte n w it h e x p lic it o r im p lic it re so n a n c e s to m ic r o c o s m s a n d m a c r o c o s m s — a n d y e t at the sam e tim e

a c h ie v e d m u c h

o f t h e ir p o w e r a n d fa s c in a tio n

b e ca u se th e y se e m e d

to

tra n sce n d th e m o s t o b v io u s d iv is io n s , m o st n o t a b ly that b e tw e e n art a n d n a tu re . T h e s ix t e e n t h - c e n t u r y v ie w e r , lik e

th e p re s e n t-d a y v is it o r to a m u s e u m , a p p ro a c h e d the

e x tra c tio n o f m e a n in g fr o m artifacts th ro u g h a series o f c la s s ific a to ry c a te g o rie s o f a m o re o r less d e fin ite k in d , b u t the n a tu re o f th e o b je c ts th e m se lv e s p la y e d a d e lig h t fu l g a m e w it h th e v ie w e r ’s e x p e c ta tio n s . A b o v e a ll, th e y w e re o b je c ts o f w o n d e r , w h e t h e r that w o n d e r aro se fr o m

h u m a n in g e n u it y , lo c a l a n d d ista n t, o r fro m

n a tu re ’s p r o d ig io u s

p o w e rs o f g e n e ra tio n , f a m ilia r a n d e x o t ic . T h e in s t itu t io n a liz e d r ig id it ie s o f o u r p re s e n td a y c la s sific a tio n s h a v e o fte n re su lte d in th e k in d o f ite m s w e h a v e s tu d ie d b e in g h o u se d in d iffe re n t b u ild in g s fr o m o b je c ts th at w e re o r ig in a lly th e ir c o m p a n io n s . T h e n e x u s o f a sso c ia tio n s a n d th e f lu id tra n sg re ssio n o f b o u n d a r ie s w h ic h w a s so im p o r ta n t fo r th e ir f u n c t io n in g has b e e n la r g e ly o b s c u re d . C o n s id e r e d

m o re

f u lly w it h in

th e ir o r ig in a l

c o n te x ts th e y can be seen a g a in as o b je c ts o f in c r e d ib le v is u a l a n d c o n c e p tu a l ric h n e ss — as p o t e n tia lly restless m ig ra n ts in a r ic h ly c o s m o p o lita n w o r ld w h ic h can be c o m fo r ta b ly s im p lifie d o n ly at th e h is t o r ia n ’s p e ril.

CH A PTER

10

Animals as Cultural Signs: A Medici Menagerie in the Grotto at Castello CLAUDIA LAZZARO

In the R e n a is s a n c e a n im a ls w e re u n d e rs to o d in a v a r ie t y o f w a y s , b u t a b o v e a ll in term s o f c o n t e m p o ra r y c o n c e p t u a liz a t io n s o f n a tu re , w h ic h r a n g e d fr o m a d o m e stic a te d n a tu re , a lte re d o r ta m e d b y h u m a n s , to w ild n a tu re , an u n c o n t r o lla b le fo rc e in o p p o s it io n to c iv iliz a t io n . In th is sense, a n im a ls are c u ltu r a l sig n s, e m b o d y in g a c o m p le x o f id eas a b o u t n a tu re w h ic h also d e fin e a n d su stain c o n t e m p o r a r y n o t io n s o f c iv iliz a t io n a n d c u ltu r e . In th is s o c ie ty , th e p a ra d ig m s o f n a tu re a n d c u lt u r e , w ild a n d c iv iliz e d , w e re b o th in o p p o s it io n a n d in te r lo c k e d . T h e w ild n e s s o f a n im a ls co n tra ste d w it h h u m a n c u ltu r e , b u t a p p r o p r ia t in g th at w ild n e s s w a s also a d e m o n s tr a tio n o f h u m a n p o w e r a n d m a g n ific e n c e . S u c h a s s u m p tio n s a b o u t a n im a ls a n d t h e ir r e la tio n s h ip to h u m a n s in fo r m v is u a l re p re se n ­ tatio n s, c o lle c tio n s o f b o th liv in g a n im a ls a n d im a g e s o f th e m , sp e ctacle s, a n d ritu a ls fro m p u b lic a n im a l fig h ts to d ip lo m a t ic g if t - g iv in g . C la s s ic a l a n t iq u it y p la y e d a p r o fo u n d ro le in th is, p r o v id in g m o d e ls fo r the p a ra d ig m s o f n a tu re a n d c u ltu r e as w e ll as the s p e c ific re p re se n ta tio n s o f th e m , fr o m w o r k s o f s c u lp tu re to th e sp e cta cle s o f a n im a l sla u g h te r. A n im a ls w e re g e n e ra lly c o n c e iv e d o f n o t in d e p e n d e n t ly o f h u m a n s , b u t in c o m p le x re la tio n sh ip s w it h th e m . A n im a ls p ro v id e c i fo o d , c lo t h in g , a n d m e d ic in e , b u t e q u a lly , th e y re fle c te d h u m a n v a lu e s , v irtu e s , a n d c o n d u c t in h e ra ld ry , s y m b o ls , e m b le m s, a n d m a n y o th e r w a y s .1 T h e e n th u sia sm fo r a n im a ls in th e R e n a is s a n c e w a s n o t d isin te re ste d . A n im a ls w e re

u n d e rs to o d w it h in

a sy ste m

o f a sso c ia tio n s: th e y w e re s ig n ific a n t to

c o n te m p o ra rie s b e ca u se th e y e m b o d ie d m u lt ip le a sso c ia tio n s (fro m

lite ra tu re , h isto ry ,

m y t h o lo g y , a n d so o n ) a n d s y m b o lic m e a n in g s o n m a n y d iffe re n t le v e ls. T h i s w a y o f t h in k in g d e riv e d fr o m c la ssica l a n tiq u ity , b u t it w a s v a s tly e x te n d e d b y th e e n d o f the s ix te e n th c e n tu r y . T h e s tu d y o f a n im a ls in cre a se d d r a m a tic a lly as w e ll, f o llo w in g th e p re c e d e n ts

o f c la ssic a l te xts a n d

a c c o m p a n ie d

by

a new

e m p ir ic a l o b s e rv a tio n .

In

the s ix te e n th c e n t u r y , th e d iffe re n t w a y s o f k n o w in g a n im a ls, fro m a n c ie n t a u th o r ity , d ire c t e x p e rie n c e , s y m b o lic m e a n in g s , a n d m u ltip le a sso c ia tio n s, c o e x is te d , e v e n i f in d ire c t c o n flic t . A g re a t im p e tu s to th e s tu d y o f a n im a ls w a s th e v a r ie t y o f u n fa m ilia r o n e s th at e n te re d E u r o p e t h r o u g h th e e n c o u n te rs w it h o t h e r c o n tin e n ts fro m th e late fifte e n th c e n tu ry . S in c e th e a n c ie n ts h a d a lre a d y k n o w n A s ia a n d A f r ic a , the e x p lo r a t io n o f these tw o

198

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

c o n tin e n ts w a s fra m e d as o n e o f r e d is c o v e r y o f cla ssica l a n tiq u ity . A s a n tiq u ity p r o v id e d th e fr a m e w o r k

fo r u n d e r s t a n d in g a n im a ls

in

g e n e ra l,

so it also

gave

a m e a n s fo r

c o m p r e h e n d in g th e n e w a n im a ls to a p p e a r in E u r o p e . T h i s w a s o n e o f th e strategies o f a s s im ila tio n a n d d o m e s tic a tio n t h r o u g h w h ic h th e stra n g e w as m a d e f a m ilia r .2 T h e n e w ly k n o w n a n im a ls w e r e also a ssim ila te d in t o e x is t in g id eas o f w ild , sava ge , a n d b a rb a ria n , as w e re th e c o n tin e n ts that th e y s ig n if ie d .3 In th e e n s u in g h ie r a r c h ic a l c o n c e p t u a liz a t io n o f the w o r ld , b y th e e n d o f th e s ix te e n t h c e n t u r y the s p e c tru m fr o m c iv iliz e d to w ild c a m e to c h a ra c te riz e th e r e la tio n s h ip o f E u r o p e w it h th e o th e r k n o w n c o n tin e n ts a n d c u ltu re s.

I T h e p o in t o f d e p a rtu re fo r m y in v e s t ig a tio n o f these issues a n d th e p r in c ip a l v e h ic le fo r p r e s e n tin g t h e m is an a rt ific ia l g ro tto in a s ix t e e n t h -c e n t u r y M e d ic i g a rd e n fille d w it h s c u lp te d a n im a ls, b o th n a tiv e sp e cie s a n d th o se fr o m A s ia a n d A fr ic a . M y a im is at the sam e tim e to p r o v id e an in te r p r e tiv e fr a m e w o r k fo r th is g ro tto a n d to ad dress th e la rg e r issues in s ix t e e n t h - c e n t u r y c u lt u r e th at h a v e b e e n su g g e ste d h e re , a lo n g w it h th e ro le in th e m o f v is u a l re p re se n ta tio n s. I b e g in w it h a n d re p e a te d ly re tu rn to the e x a m p le o f the g ro tto , b u t in te r m it te n t ly th e te x t d igresses to fo c u s o n v a r io u s aspects o f a n im a ls a n d the c ro s s c u ltu ra l e n c o u n te rs that th e y illu stra te . T h e g a rd e n at C a s te llo ( F ig u r e

10. i

to . i

) , o n th e o u ts k irts o f F lo r e n c e , is th e first o f the

V ie w o f the garden, V illa M e d ici. Castello , begun 1537. (Photo: A rt R e so u rce .)

199

ANIMALS AS CULTURAL SIGNS

10.2

G ra n d D u c a l C r o w n in the G ro tto V a u lt, V illa M e d ici. Castello . M osaic, 1565—1572.

(Photo: author.)

g ra n d g a rd e n s cre a te d b y th e M e d ic i ru le rs in th e s ix te e n th c e n tu r y . It w as b e g u n a b o u t 1 $37 fo r C o s im o d e ’ M e d ic i im m e d ia t e ly afte r h is e le c tio n as h e ad o f th e g o v e r n m e n t o f F lo re n c e . F r o m th e start a g ro tto w a s p la n n e d fo r the r e t a in in g w a ll at th e b a c k o f the g e o m e tr ic g a rd e n , b u t th e e x is t in g in t e r io r d e c o ra tio n -

th e su rfa ce o f r o u g h c a lc ifie d

c o n c r e t io n s o r stalactites a n d th e c a rv e d a n im a ls - b e lo n g s to a s e c o n d p r o je c t, fr o m 1565 to 1572. T h e date a n d s o m e t h in g o f the s ig n ific a n c e o f th e g ro tto d e c o ra t io n can be d e d u c e d f r o m th e m o s a ic in th e v a u lt re p re s e n tin g the g ra n d d u c a l c r o w n ( F ig u r e 10.2), w h ic h w a s g ra n te d to C o s im o in 1569. A t that tim e G io r g io V a s a ri w a s in c h a rg e o f c o m p le t io n o f th e g a rd e n , a n d p r e s u m a b ly h e also d e s ig n e d th e g ro tto . T h e s c u lp t o r o f the a n im a ls m a y h a v e b e e n the lit t le - k n o w n A n t o n io d i G in o L o r e n z i. T h e p re se n t n e o ­ c la s s ic a l e x t e r io r o f th e g r o tto dates fro m th e e ig h te e n th c e n t u r y .4 In s id e th e s p a c io u s g ro tto th e re are th re e n ic h e s , at th e b a c k a n d sid es, e a ch w it h a gre at tu b a b o v e w h ic h sta n d o v e r 36 la rg e -s c a le s c u lp tu re s o f a n im a ls (F ig u r e s 10.3, 10.4, a n d t 0 .5 ). D is t r ib u t e d a m o n g th e th re e g ro u p s are n a tiv e sp e cie s, b o th d o m e s tic a n d w ild - a g o a t, la m b , a n d w o lf , a h o rse , th re e d iffe re n t E u r o p e a n d e e r, a b e ar, b u ll, th e a u ro c h o r w ild o x o f E u r o p e , a n d v a r io u s o th e rs. T h e r e are also o n e o r tw o p r o m in e n t n o n E u r o p e a n a n im a ls fro m A s ia a n d A fr ic a in e ach n ic h e - in th e c e n te r n ic h e ( F ig u r e 10.3) an In d ia n e le p h a n t in a d d it io n to th e fa m ilia r lio n ; a N o r t h A f r ic a n c a m e l in th e r ig h t (F ig u r e 1 0 .4 ); a n d in th e le ft a g ira ffe a n d an In d ia n r h in o c e r o s ( F ig u r e 10.5). T h e s e are jo in e d b y s m a lle r n o n -n a t iv e sp e cie s, a g a ze lle in the c e n te r, a le o p a rd , In d ia n g o a t, a n d m o n k e y in

th e r ig h t, a n d a n o th e r m o n k e y in

th e le ft n ic h e . T h e

a n im a ls in

th is

re m a rk a b le c o lle c t io n are c a rv e d o f c o lo r e d h a rd sto n es — so m e c o r r e s p o n d in g w it h the a n im a l’s n a tu ra l c o lo r a tio n , as in th e g ra y g ra n ite o f th e r h in o c e r o s ; so m e k n o w n b y th e ir a sso c ia tio n w it h th e a n cie n ts, as in th e giaUo antico, th e y e llo w m a rb le fr o m S ie n a c a lle d



200

10.3

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

C e n tra l n ich e o f the G ro tto , V illa M e d ici. G astello, 1565-1572. (Pho to : author.)

a n c ie n t y e llo w , o f th e lio n ; a n d o th e rs o n ly r e c e n tly d is c o v e r e d , s u c h as th e v e in e d m a rb le s o f th e h o rse , th e m o n k e y in th e le ft n ic h e , a n d th e c e n tra l t u b .5 T h e tu b s in the sid e n ic h e s are c a rv e d w it h frie ze s: o n e o f fish , th e o th e r o f s h e llfis h . B r o n z e b ird s, s c u lp te d b y G ia m b o lo g n a , w e re also o r ig in a lly a tta c h e d to th e w a lls . M o s t are h o u se d in th e B a r g e llo M u s e u m in F lo r e n c e - a p ig e o n , N e w W o r ld t u r k e y , th ru sh , fa lc o n , eagle , a n d o w l.6 I n th e v a u lt o f th e g ro tto p la y fu l m ask s are fa s h io n e d o f sh ells a n d p e b b le s. A lt h o u g h

th e g r o tto d isp la y s a gre at v a r ie t y o f fau n a a n d a w id e

ra n g e o f n a tu ra l

m a te ria ls, th e a n im a ls d o n o t re p re se n t an e n c y c lo p e d ic c o lle c t io n o f k n o w n sp e cie s in th e late s ix te e n th c e n t u r y , b u t ra th e r o n e th at p rese n ts s p e c ific m essages a b o u t th e p o w e r a n d m a g n ific e n c e o f th e M e d ic i, c o n v e y e d t h r o u g h g e n e ra l c o n c e p ts o f n a tu re a n d c u lt u r e , w ild n a tu re a n d c iv iliz a t io n .

II M o d e r n stu d ie s o f th e g ro tto h a v e e x a m in e d it in th e c o n t e x t o f M e d ic i im a g e r y a n d the th e m e s in th e rest o f th e g a rd e n . M o s t p o s it an a lle g o r ic a l m e a n in g fo r the w h o le , w it h re fe re n c e to a lite ra r y te x t o r m y t h o lo g ic a l f ig u r e .7 Im p lic it in these in te rp re ta tio n s are v a r io u s a ss u m p tio n s o f th e d is c ip lin e o f art h is t o r y a n d a b o u t the It a lia n R e n a is s a n c e . T h e tra d itio n a l art h is to ric a l a p p ro a c h is to ask th e m e a n in g o f th e s p e c ific a n im a ls in this

ANIMALS AS CULTURAL SIGNS

201

p a rtic u la r c o n t e x t a n d to see k a lite ra ry te x t w h ic h th e c o lle c t io n in so m e w a y illu stra te s. M y a p p ro a c h in c lu d e s th e ic o n o g r a p h ie , b u t also go e s c o n s id e r a b ly b e y o n d it. S o m e o f the a n im a ls d o h a v e s p e c ific s y m b o lis m a n d th e y m a y c o rre s p o n d w it h a te x t, b u t th e y d o so b e ca u se th e s y m b o ls a n d sto rie s, lik e th e a n im a ls g e n e ra lly , d ra w o n c o n t e m p o ra r y c o n s tru c ts o f n a tu re a n d c u ltu r e a n d c o n v e n t io n a l w a y s o f re p re s e n tin g th e m in im a g e s, texts, a n d s o c ia l p ra c tic e s. T o u n d e rsta n d h o w c o n te m p o ra rie s c o u ld h a v e a p p re h e n d e d the m essages in th e g r o tto , it is n e ce ssa ry to lo o k at b o th th e s p e c ific m e a n in g o f in d iv id u a l a n im a ls f o r th e M e d ic i a n d th e la rg e r m e a n in g s fo r th is c u ltu r e o f a n im a ls in g e n e ra l as w e ll as p a rt ic u la r c o n fig u r a t io n s o f th e m . S in c e th e c o n c e r n h e re is w it h v is u a l re p re se n ta tio n s, it is also n e ce ssa ry to e x a m in e the p ic t o r ia l c o n v e n t io n s , c u ltu r a l a ssu m p ­ tio n s, a n d in te lle c tu a l e x p e c ta tio n s th at m e d ia te b e tw e e n th e a n im a ls a n d th e ir re p re se n ­ ta tio n .

In

th e g ro tto

th e m o s t fa m ilia r a n im a ls, th e d o m e s tic a n d n a tiv e o n e s, are

g e n e ra lly the m o s t n a tu ra lis tic . T h e stra n ge c o u ld n o m o r e b e “ t r u t h f u lly ” re p r o d u c e d in im a g e s th a n in to w o r d s . V is u a l re p re se n ta tio n s c a n d o m e stic a te a n d a ssim ila te th e w ild a n d stra n ge as w e ll as c o n v e y a sso c ia tio n s, s y m b o lic m e a n in g s , a n d c u ltu r a l c o n s tru c ts . T h e s e a p p ro a ch e s to th e a n im a ls in th e g ro tto are e ssen tial to its in te r p r e ta tio n s in c e th ere are n o h u m a n fig u re s o r n a rra tiv e re fe re n c e s, o n ly th e a n im a ls th e m se lv e s a n d th e ir ru stic se ttin g . In the s ix te e n th c e n t u r y , s c u lp te d a n im a ls w e re an a p p ro p ria te d e c o ra t io n fo r s u c h a g ro tto , s in c e it w as a c o m m o n p la c e th at a n im a ls liv e d in ca v e s, m o u n t a in o u s areas, a n d forests. In th e p la y fu l re ite ra tio n o f n a tu re in R e n a is s a n c e g a rd e n s, re p re se n ta tio n s o f

10.4 R ig h t n ich e o f the G ro tto , V illa M e d ic i. C aste llo , 1565-1572. (Photo: author.)

10.5 Le ft n ich e o f the G ro tto , V illa M e d ic i. Castello , 1565-1572. (Pho to : author.)

202

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

10.6 W ater tricks in the G ro tto , V illa M e d ic i. Castello , 1565-1572. (Photo: R a lp h Lie b erm an .)

a n im a ls, w h e t h e r m a d e o f t o p ia r y , p a in t, o r sto n e , w e re a c c o r d in g ly lo c a te d in g ro tto e s, the bosco o r w o o d , a n d p a rk s. T h e r e are n u m e ro u s r e c o r d e d e x a m p le s in c e n tra l Ita lia n g a rd e n s, b e g in n in g w it h M e d ic i in

th e to p ia r y a n im a ls in th e fift e e n t h -c e n t u r y g a rd e n s o f the

F lo r e n c e a n d o f th e R u c e l l a i o u ts id e o f to w n . In

th e s ix te e n th

ce n tu ry

fo u n ta in s w e r e o r n a m e n te d w it h a n im a ls o f e v e r y k in d , a n d s c u lp te d a n im a ls in h a b it e d the w o o d s a n d p a rk s o f L a t iu m — th e S a c re d W o o d at B o m a r z o , th e p a rk at B a g n a ia , an d the B o s c h e t t o o f th e V illa M a tte i in R o m e . T h e y w e re also fe a tu re d in se ve ral g ro tto e s, a ll o f th e m in M e d ic i g a rd e n s in T u s c a n y : in a d d it io n to G a s t e llo ’s, th e r a m ’s h e ad , go ats, a n d s h e -g o a t in th e B o b o li G r o t t ic in a , th e a n im a ls c a rv e d o n th e e x t e r io r o f th e G r o t t o o f C u p i d at P r a t o lin o , a n d th e s c u lp te d a n d p a in te d a n im a ls in th e G r o tta G r a n d e at the B o b o l i. 8 A lt h o u g h c o m m o n to R e n a is s a n c e g a rd e n s, the re p re se n ta tio n o f a n im a ls seem s to h a v e h a d a s p e c ific s ig n ific a n c e to th e M e d ic i. T h e g ro tto at C a s te llo w a s the a d m itte d in s p ir a tio n fo r an im a g in a r y g r o tto in a te x t fr o m th e e n d o f th e s ix te e n th c e n t u r y b y A g o s t in o d e l R i c c i o , w h ic h d e sc rib e d an id e a l g a rd e n o f a k in g . T h e fan ta stic g ro tto in

R i c c i o ’s id e a l bosco c o n t a in e d 29 d iffe re n t

a n im a ls. In h is a c c o u n t , re a s o n in g v is ito rs p u z z le o u t th e id e n t ity o f e ach s p e c ie s.9 In c o n tra st to th e m , th e a n im a ls (th e re as w e ll as in o th e r g a rd e n sites) s ig n if y n a tu re in at least tw o o f th e w a y s it w a s c o n s tru e d in th e R e n a is s a n c e . T h e d o m e stic a te d sh ee p , go ats,

ANIMALS AS CULTURAL SIGNS a n d ra m su g g e st th e p a sto ra l v ie w

203

o f n a tu re , in h a r m o n y w it h h u m a n s , w h ic h w a s

c e le b ra te d in th e p o p u la r lite ra r y g e n re . T h e w ild a n im a ls, in c lu d in g th e n o n - E u r o p e a n e x a m p le s, a n d th e r o c k y c liffs, caves, a n d forests w h e r e th e y ro a m , re fe r to a n a tu re that is not d o m e stic a te d , th at is w ild o r sava ge , selvaggio in It a lia n . ( D r a g o n s a n d u n ic o r n s , b o th o f w h ic h h a v e s p e c ific g a rd e n a sso c ia tio n s, are a m o n g th e fe w m y t h o lo g ic a l a n im a ls in R e n a is s a n c e g a rd e n s.) In R i c c i o ’s e v o c a tio n o f h is im a g in a r y g r o tto , th e gate s u d d e n ly slam s sh u t, a n d , as at G a s te llo , th e v is ito rs are s o a k e d b y u n s u sp e c te d to rre n ts o f w a te r fro m the h id d e n w a te r je ts in th e f lo o r ( F ig u r e 1 0 .6 ). T h e s e scherzi d ’acqua, w a te r tric k s o r jo k e s o f w a te r, re c a ll th e jo k e s a n d tric k s o f n a tu re , w h ic h c o u ld be u n c o n t r o lla b le a n d d e stru c tiv e . T h e re c re a tio n o f th e m t h ro u g h p la y , in w a te r t ric k s , is a w a y o f d o m e s ti­ c a t in g the fo rc e o f n a tu r e .1" G a rd e n g ro tto e s f u n c t io n e d s im ila r ly : th e y im ita te w o o d la n d caves a n d th u s d o m e stic a te w ild n a tu re . A lt h o u g h th e g r o tto at G a s te llo w it h its re g u la r in t e r io r fo r m d o e s n o t lo o k v e r y w ild to o u r eye s, c o n te m p o ra rie s w o u ld h a v e re a d it as su c h fo r the s ig n if ie r o f w ild in th e r o u g h c o a t in g o f stalactites l in in g th e w a lls a n d v a u lts. E x e m p lif y in g th e p la y fu l, s h ift in g re la tio n s h ip s o f art a n d n a tu re in R e n a is s a n c e g a rd e n s, these stalactites were in fact n a tu ra l m a te ria ls, w h ic h c a m e fr o m th e h ills b e y o n d the g a rd e n , o r so V a s a ri c la im e d ." T h e g ro tto at C a s te llo d o m e stica te s w ild n a tu re t h r o u g h im it a t io n a n d also t h r o u g h th e reu se o f n a tu ra l m a te ria ls in a p a te n tly a rtific ia l se ttin g . T h e re p re se n ta tio n s o f a n im a ls (w ith real h o r n s a n d tu sks) s im ila r ly d o m e stica te th e fo rc e o f n a tu re .

Ill I n the c it y , a ctu a l liv in g a n im a ls, n o t o n ly s c u lp te d o n e s - in d e e d w ild a n im a ls - w e re k e p t in c a p t iv ity . H e r e , th e fo rc e o f n a tu re w a s n o t d o m e stic a te d , o n ly re stra in e d , d o m in a te d b y th e c a p to r w h o th e re b y a p p ro p ria te d its p o w e r .12 In F lo r e n c e w ild a n im a ls w e re a c o n s p ic u o u s p re se n ce f r o m at least the th irte e n th c e n tu r y . W ild a n im a ls, p a r t ic u ­ la r ly lio n s , th e o ffic ia l a n im a l o f F lo r e n c e , w e r e k e p t b y th e S ig n o r ia fr o m th e e a rly fo u rte e n th c e n t u r y in stables n e a r P a la z z o V e c c h io (th e re w e re 2 4 in 141 o). T h e y w e re m o v e d to a site n e a r th e b o t a n ic g a rd e n at S a n M a r c o , w h e r e th e y r e m a in e d fo r o v e r tw o h u n d r e d ye a rs, fr o m 1550 u n t il 1 7 7 7 .13 T h e M a r z o c c o , th e e m b le m a t ic re p re se n ta tio n o f the F lo r e n t in e lio n , a n d th e liv in g e x a m p le s th at it s ig n ifie d w e re c o n fla te d in th e c a g e d lio n s a n d in th e p u b lic ritu a ls in w h ic h th e y p a rtic ip a te d . O t h e r a n im a ls w e re also k e p t, so m e o f th e m a c q u ir e d t h ro u g h g ifts, in a lo n g a n d w id e sp re a d tra d itio n o f c o lle c t in g w ild a n im a ls, a n d o v e r tim e in c r e a s in g ly e x o t ic o n e s, as s ig n ifie rs o f p o w e r a n d m a g n if i­ c e n c e . In F lo r e n c e th e c u s to m d ate d fro m at least 1291, w h e n a le o p a rd a n d o th e r w ild a n im a ls w e re g iv e n to th e C o m m u n e , a n d le d u ltim a te ly to th e m u c h m o re e x te n s iv e c o lle c tio n s o f th e M e d ic i in the s ix te e n th c e n t u r y .14 T h e s e a n im a ls c o n fe rr e d p re stig e o n the g o v e r n m e n t o r r u le r w h o possessed th e m b y t h e ir ra rity , g ra n d e u r, a n d fie rc e n e ss, b u t also b y t h e ir c a p t iv ity . T h e a n im a ls in th e F lo r e n t in e m e n a g e rie a c q u ir e d th e ir v a r io u s m e a n in g s fo r c o n t e m ­ p o ra rie s t h ro u g h the s o c ia l p ra c tic e s in w h ic h t h e y w e re in v o lv e d . N o t m e r e ly k e p t, b u t e x p lic it ly d isp la y e d , th e y im p re sse d , e n te rta in e d , a n d e p it o m iz e d th e w ild a n d stra n ge a g a in st w h ic h c u ltu r e a n d th e fa m ilia r c o u ld b e d e fin e d . T h e lio n s - t o g e th e r w it h th e

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

204

b u ild in g s , re lic s , a n d n u n n e r ie s th at th e k in g o f N o r w a y to u re d in 1474 th e r e n o w n o f F lo r e n c e .15 L a te r , in b e o b s e rv e d b y p a sse rs-b y o n

c o n s titu te d

th e ir lo c a t io n at S a n M a r c o , th e a n im a ls c o u L

th e street a n d fr o m

a v ie w in g area in

th e a d ja ce n :

a m p h it h e a t e r .16 T h e F r e n c h m a n M o n t a ig n e ’s jo u r n a l o f h is v is it to F lo r e n c e in 1580, lik r so m a n y o th e rs, c o n s id e r e d th e a n im a ls w o r t h y o f e n u m e r a tio n . In a d d it io n to th e stab’ r o f h o rse s, h e sa w a c a m e l, so m e lio n s a n d b ears, a n d tw o a n im a ls that w e re u n fa m ilia r t h im : “ a sh ee p o f a v e r y stra n ge sh a p e ” a n d a t ig e r (“ an a n im a l th e size o f a v e r y b:_m a s t iff a n d th e sh ap e o f a cat, all m a r k e d in b la c k a n d w h it e ” ) 17 — t y p ic a lly , th e stra n gr w a s d e sc rib e d in te rm s o f the fa m ilia r . T h e S c o ts m a n F y n e s M o r y s o n , at th e e n d o f the c e n tu r y , n o te d y e t m o r e o f th e “ fie r c e w ild e b easts” k e p t b y th e d u k e : fiv e lio n s , fiv e w o lv e s , th re e eagles, th re e tig e rs, a w ild cat, b ears, le o p a rd s , a n d w ild b o a rs. T h e la rg r a n d fe r o c io u s a n im a l th at he id e n t ifie d as an In d ia n M o u s e (“ w it h a h e a d lik e o u r M is c . b u t a lo n g h a irie ta ile ” ) m a y h a v e b e e n a m o n k e y . S o m e v is ito r s w e re p r iv ile g e d to vie v. th e a n im a ls in th e c o m p a n y o f t h e ir u ltim a te m asters: th e k e e p e r to ld M o n t a ig n e tha: G r a n d D u k e F e r d in a n d o a n d D u c h e s s C h r is t in a c a m e w it h “ g e n t le m e n ” to w a tc h th r a n im a ls .18 T h e s e c a g e d a n im a ls also a p p e a re d in p u b lic sp e ctacle s, w h ic h w e re c o n t r o lle d d isp la y ' o f w ild n e s s , staged fo r F lo re n t in e s a n d fo r e ig n v is ito r s a lik e . T h e s e in c lu d e d h o rse race ' a n d jo u s t s , a n im a l fig h ts 011 a s m a ll scale in th e v ie w in g a m p h ith e a te r, a n d , a b o v e a ll, the s p e c ta c u la r fig h ts o r caccie, lit e ra lly “ h u n t s ,” as th e y w e re c a lle d , in th e gre at p ia zza s. In these caccie m o s tly w ild a n im a ls, b u t also so m e d o m e s tic o n e s, w e re p itte d a g a in st each o th e r a n d in c it e d to v io le n c e . In th e fifte e n th c e n t u r y tw o su ch a n im a l fig h ts w e re h e ld in F lo r e n c e in h o n o r o f v is it in g fo r e ig n d ig n ita r ie s a n d th e re w e re m a n y m o r e in the s ix te e n th c e n tu r y . T h e e arlie st caccie w e re in 1439 a n d a g a in t w e n ty ye a rs late r, fo r the v is it o f C o u n t G a le a z z o M a r ia S fo r z a , son o f th e M ila n e se d u k e , t o g e th e r w it h P o p e P iu s I I . 19 In th e gre at sp e c ta c le in 1459, as in la te r o n e s, th e P ia z z a d e lla S ig n o r ia w a s b lo c k e d o f f a n d b le a c h e rs set u p w it h in it. W i l d b o a rs, w o lv e s , b u lls , w ild h o rse s, d o g s, a n d o th e r a n im a ls w e re let in to th e sq u are . T h e n lio n s w e re in tr o d u c e d in a n tic ip a t io n o f a b lo o d y b a ttle .20 L io n s — k in g s o f th e beasts, s y m b o ls o f p rid e , a n d e m b le m s o f F lo r e n c e — w e re p itte d a g a in st o th e r w ild a n im a ls w it h a h o p e d - f o r s h o w o f fo rc e in e n te rta in m e n t m e a n t to b e rea d o n m u lt ip le le v e ls, all o f w h ic h t o g e th e r w o u ld im p re ss fo r e ig n v is ito r s w ith th e p ro w e s s o f th e ir h o sts. A c o n t e m p o r a r y p o e m c h a r a c te ris tic a lly in te rw e a v e s d iffe re n t r e a d in g s o f th e e ve n ts, e ffo rtle ssly c o m p r e h e n d in g th e lio n s as m u lt iv a le n t sig n s, signs w it h se v e ra l, s im u lta n e o u s ly p e rc e iv e d m e a n in g s . T h e

poem

e x p la in s h o w

th e lio n s

w a lk e d a ro u n d the p ia z z a w it h a p r o u d s p irit, w h ile th e o th e r a n im a ls tre m b le d . T h e lio n a tt a c k in g a h o rse is re fe rre d to as a M a r z o c c o (th e e m b le m o f F lo r e n c e ) , s h o w in g its e lf to be th e r u le r o f th e b e asts.21 O n th e o th e r h a n d , w h e n th e lio n s d id n o t fig h t after this s h o w o f fo rc e , t h e ir p a c ific b e h a v io r w a s in te rp re te d as an in d ic a t io n o f th e frie n d s h ip b e tw e e n th e S fo r z a c o u n t a n d th e C o m m u n e o f F lo r e n c e .22 B o th

s y m b o lis m

a n d v io le n c e in cre a se d in the m u c h m o re p re v a le n t caccie o f the

s ix te e n th c e n t u r y w it h in th e a lte re d p o lit ic a l c lim a te o f th e M e d ic i d u k e s a n d g ra n d d u k e s . In 1514 (th e y e a r o f th e e le c tio n o f P o p e L e o X , th e first M e d ic i p o p e , a n d tw o ye a rs afte r th e re tu rn o f th e M e d ic i to F lo r e n c e , o u ste d in 1492) a m e m o ra b le a n im a l fig h t n u m b e re d a m o n g th e e n te rta in m e n ts fo r th e feast o f S a n G io v a n n i, th e c it y ’s p a tro n sain t. A c c o r d in g to a c o n t e m p o ra r y , tw o lio n s , b ears, le o p a rd s, b u lls , b u ffa lo e s, stags, and

205

ANIMALS AS CULTURAL SIGNS

m a n y o th e r beasts o f v a r io u s k in d s p a rtic ip a te d , as w e ll as h o rse s a n d d o g s. S in c e th e lio n s w e re u n w illin g to fig h t , a p p a re n tly in tim id a t e d b y th e tu m u lt o f th e c r o w d , th e y w e re p r o v o k e d b y m e n th r u s t in g la n c e s fr o m th e sh e lte r o f m o b ile c o n tra p tio n s in th e fo r m o f .1 to rto ise a n d a p o r c u p in e .23 In th is sp e cta cle th e lio n s a ssu m e d an a d d itio n a l a sso c ia tio n w it h the n e w ly e le c te d M e d ic i p o p e , w h o , in c h o o s in g th e n a m e L e o , id e n t ifie d h im s e lf a n d the p a p a c y w it h F lo r e n c e . T h e lio n s , h o w e v e r , re m a in e d re lu c ta n t to act o u t e ith e r the p o lit ic a l m essages e n c o d e d in th e f ig h t o r th e c o n t e m p o ra r y c o n c e p t o f w ild a n im a ls, w h ic h is that th e y d e m o n stra te th e ir w ild n e s s b y f ig h t in g . D e s p ite th e p a ssive a n im a ls, th at d a y ’s e ve n ts b r o u g h t h o m e th e r e la tio n s h ip o f the a n im a ls in c a p t iv it y a n d o n p u b lic d isp la y to th e fo rc e s o f n a tu re th at th e y e p it o m iz e d . T h e c it y sq u are w a s tra n s fo rm e d in to a n a tu ra l se ttin g , w it h a la rg e fo u n ta in in th e c e n te r fo r th e a n im a ls to d r in k a n d a ro u n d a m o c k w o o d w it h d en s fo r th e m to h id e . T h e c r o w d in th e p ia z z a w a s c o m p o s e d o f F lo re n t in e s , in c lu d in g w o m e n a n d c h ild r e n , as w e ll as R o m a n s a n d o th e r fo re ig n e rs . A s th e y a ll w a tc h e d , sta llio n s a n d a m a re in h e at w e re in tr o d u c e d , w h o th is tim e d id th e e x p e c te d , to th e d is m a y o f c o n t e m p o ra r y o b s e rv e rs .24 I f th e t o p ia r y a n d s c u lp te d a n im a ls in g a rd e n s d o m e stic a te d a n d ta m e d w ild n a tu re , th is re c re a tio n o f a n a tu ra l s e ttin g in th e c ir c u m s c r ib e d area o f th e p ia z z a re p re se n te d the o p p o site : t h o r o u g h ly u n d o m e s tic a te d w ild n a tu re u r g e d to m a n ife st its w ild n e s s in the c iv iliz e d c it y . T h e fo rce s o f n a tu re w e re at th e sam e tim e u n le a sh e d a n d c o n t r o lle d b y the fo rc e o f th e lo c a l a u th o r it y , in a sp e c ta c le th at w a s p e rh a p s also in te n d e d to u n le a sh an d , t h ro u g h a re v e rsa l o f th e s o c ia l o rd e r, to h a rn ess, th e p o p u la c e .2:1 U n d e r th e M e d ic i d u k e s th e caccie b e c a m e m o r e fre q u e n t, staged fo r a w id e r ra n g e o f festivals in c lu d in g c a r n iv a l a n d w e d d in g s , a n d m o re v io le n t , fe a t u r in g n o t o n ly in c it e ­ m e n ts to fig h t b u t also w h o le s a le s la u g h te r o f a n im a ls. In F e b r u a ry 1541 in P ia z z a d e lla S ig n o r ia , tw o lio n s fo u g h t w it h a b u ll a n d m a n y la rg e d o g s .26 D u r i n g th e c a r n iv a l o f 1545 in P ia z z a S a n ta C r o c e o n th re e su cc e ssiv e d ays b u lls w e r e sla u g h te re d , a lo n g s id e a b attle o f lio n s , b ears, a w ild b o a r, stag, a n d o th e r a n im a ls .27 S im ila r ly , in th e s ix t e e n t h -c e n t u r y p a p al h u n ts in th e c o u n t r y s id e , v io le n c e , p a r t ic u la r ly th e s la u g h te r o f w ild a n im a ls, se rve d as b o th

e n te rta in m e n t a n d d e m o n s tr a tio n o f h u m a n

p o w e r. A

new

set o f h u n t in g

p ra c tic e s h a d c h a n g e d th e c h a ra c te r o f th e h u n t fro m a c tiv e sp o rt to p a ssive s p e c ta c le .2* F o r the la v is h fe s tiv itie s c e le b ra t in g th e w e d d in g o f G r a n d D u k e F ra n c e s c o I a n d Io a n n a o f A u s t r ia in

1565 a s la u g h te r o f b u lls t o o k p la c e in a ll th e p ia zza s. A n o t h e r

sp e cta cle w a s the s la y in g o f a stre am o f a n im a ls (ra b b its, h ares, r o e b u c k s , fo x e s , p o r c u ­ p in e s, a n d b a d g e rs, th e n stags, b o a rs, a n d b ears, a n d f in a lly so m e w ild h o rse s). T h e o b v io u s p a ra lle l w it h

th e im p e r ia l R o m a n s w a s n o t lo st o n c o n te m p o ra rie s . I n

the

a c c o u n t o f th e w e d d in g it w a s n o te d e x p lic it ly : th e ch ase w as seen as “ a g a in r e n e w in g th e a n c ie n t p o m p o f th e R o m a n h u n t s .” 29 O n c e a g a in , h o w e v e r , th e a n im a ls in c a p t iv ity w o u ld n o t re s p o n d as th e ir c o u n te rp a rts in th e w ild , o r ra th e r, in a c c o rd a n c e w it h c o n t e m p o ra r y n o tio n s o f th e b e h a v io r o f w ild a n im a ls, w h ic h

th e fig h ts a n d h u n ts

a tte m p te d to re cre a te a r t ific ia lly in b o th th e c it y a n d th e c o u n t r y s id e . A s w a s c o m m o n p ra c tic e , th e a n im a ls w e re n o t le ft to th e ir in stin cts: a g re a t to rto ise f ille d w it h m e n w as in tr o d u c e d in to th e a re n a to e x c it e a “ m o s t fie r c e ” lio n so th at it w o u ld f ig h t w it h a “ v a lia n t ” b u ll.30 A s a d e m o n s tr a tio n o f M e d ic i p o w e r a n d m a g n ific e n c e f o llo w in g a n c ie n t p re c e d e n t, h u m a n s a p p ro p ria te d th e w ild n e s s o f a n im a ls a n d d id v io le n c e to th e m , first b y p r o v o k in g , th e n b y k il l i n g th e m .

206

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

IV T h e r e w a s a r e c ip r o c a l r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n the re p re se n ta tio n s o f th e a n im a l k in g d o m in th e c it y sq u are a n d th o se in art, b o th o f w h ic h d id n o t re p re se n t n a tu ra l a n im a l b e h a v io r so m u c h

as th e c u lt u r a l c o n s tr u c tio n

o f w ild

n a tu re , w it h

w h ic h

hum an

c iv iliz a t io n c o u ld be co n tra ste d . T h e lio n fig h ts in th e p ia z z a a c tu a liz e d im a g e s k n o w n t h ro u g h art fr o m a n t iq u it y to c o n t e m p o ra r y tim e s, at th e sam e tim e th at th e fig h ts m u st h a v e in s p ir e d t h e ir v is u a l re p re se n ta tio n . In c o m b a ts are d e p ic te d , so m e o f th e m

th e art o f cla ssical a n t iq u it y m a n y lio n

o n s a r c o p h a g i w h ic h

h a v e at e ach e n d a lio n

s la u g h t e rin g a n o th e r a n im a l — b o a r, a n te lo p e , ra m , g o a t, h o rse , stag, a n d so o n .31 S u c h im a g e r y c o n t in u e d t h r o u g h th e M id d le A g e s , as in th e o r ig in a l F lo r e n t in e M a r z o c c o . w h ic h t o o k th e fo r m o f a lio n v ic t o r io u s o v e r a w o lf .32 T h e r e n e w a l o f a n im a l fig h ts in the p ia z za s w a s a c c o m p a n ie d b y a s im ila r in te re st in art. Im a g e s o f a n im a ls b e c a m e a d is tin c t g e n re fro m th e fifte e n th c e n t u r y a n d f ig h t in g a n im a ls c o m p r is e d a s ig n ific a n t n u m b e r o f th e m in b o th p a in t in g s a n d p rin ts . A

F lo r e n t in e e n g r a v in g o f a b o u t 146c

( F ig u r e 10.7) d e p ic ts w ild a n im a ls, lio n s a n d le o p a rd s, a tt a c k in g h o rses a n d o x e n , in this in sta n ce p e rh a p s d ir e c t ly in s p ir e d b y e ve n ts o f the p r e v io u s y e a r in the p ia z za . In a n o th e r fift e e n t h -c e n t u r y e n g r a v in g , d o g s a tta ck a b e ar. A n e n g r a v in g b y L u c a n t o n io d e g li U b e r t i rep re se n ts a c o n te st b e tw e e n a d r a g o n a n d a lio n a n d lio n e ss, p r e s u m a b ly afte r a d r a w in g b y L e o n a r d o a n d p e rh a p s th e in s p ir a tio n fo r th e s c u lp te d g r o u p at B o m a r z o .33 O n e o f se ve ral s k e t c h b o o k s w it h a n im a ls is that o f th e V e n e t ia n J a c o p o B e llin i, w h ic h in c lu d e ' a n u m b e r o f d r a w in g s o f lio n s , at rest as w e ll as a tt a c k in g o n e o r m o r e h o rse s.34 P ie r o di C o s i m o ’s H u n tin g Scene in th e M e t r o p o lit a n M u s e u m in N e w Y o r k b e lo n g s to a se rie ' illu s tr a tin g th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f h u m a n k in d fro m th e in itia l state o f th e w o r ld , f o llo w in g cla ssical th o u g h t: th at is, th e age o f sto n e b e fo re V u lc a n , the d is c o v e r y o f fire , a n d the c o n s e q u e n t c iv iliz a t io n o f h u m a n s .3"’ T h e H u n tin g Scene rep re se n ts a tim e w h e n h u m a n s w e re lik e w ild beasts, w h ic h is d e m o n s tra te d in the p a in t in g b y b o th a n im a ls a n d h u m a n s f ig h t in g . In V a s a r i’s tales o f a n im a l p ic tu re s , th e M e d ic i re fe re n c e s are c o n s p ic u o u s fr o m the fifte e n th c e n t u r y to h is o w n tim e in the la te r s ix te e n th . H e relates that fo r the M e d ic i p a la ce P a o lo U c c e llo p a in te d so m e sto rie s o f a n im a ls. O n e re p re se n te d lio n s fig h t in g , a n o th e r ju x t a p o s e d w ild a n d p a sto ra l n a tu re (a se rp e n t f ig h t in g a lio n in th e p re s e n c e o f a c o u n t r y g ir l a n d h e r o x ) .36 A ls o fo r th e M e d ic i p a la ce , P e s e llin o p a in te d a spalliem (a w o o d e n p a n e l) o f a n im a ls, so m e cassoni (chests) w it h sce n e s o f jo u s t s o n h o r s e b a c k , and can vases w it h lio n s a n d a n im a l fig h ts , w h ic h w e re still th ere in V a s a r i’s t im e .37 T h i ' in te re st c o n t in u e d in th e s ix te e n th c e n t u r y , w h e n C o s im o 1 o w n e d P ie r o d i C o s im o ’s a n im a l s k e t c h b o o k a n d h a d a s tu d y p a in te d lik e a g a rd e n b o w e r w it h e v e ry so rt o f b ird b y B a c c h ia c c a , also k n o w n fo r h is a n im a l s p e c ia liz a tio n .38 M o d e r n s c h o la rs h ip adds to V a s a r i’s list m a n y o th e r e x a m p le s o f C o s i m o ’s c o lle c t io n o f a n im a l su b je cts, in c lu d in g B a c c h ia c c a ’s s k e t c h b o o k s o f a n im a ls, a p a in t in g o f lio n s , b ro n ze s o f serp e n ts f ig h t in g , and so o n .39 A n im a ls a n d a n im a l fig h ts m a y h a v e b e e n p o p u la r su b je cts fo r in t e r io r d e c o r ­ a tio n , b u t in th e M e d ic i re sid e n c e s th e y also r e in fo r c e d th e a sso c ia tio n o f w ild n a tu re w it h th e p o w e r o f th e r u le r , w h ile the p re p o n d e ra n c e o f lio n s m a d e u n m is ta k e a b le the id e n t ific a t io n o f F lo r e n c e w it h its M e d ic i ru le rs. A s th e n u m b e r a n d v io le n c e o f th e a n im a l fig h ts in th e p ia z za s in c re a s e d in the s ix te e n th c e n t u r y , e v o k in g a n c ie n t R o m a n p re c e d e n ts m o re e x p lic it ly , c o n t e m p o ra r y

ANIMALS AS CULTURAL SIGNS

207

10.7 (left)

A n o n y m o u s,

Flo ren tin e. W ild Anim ais Attacking Horses and O xen. E n g ra v in g , c. 1460. (Pho to : L o u v re , C o lle c tio n R o th s c h ild © R é u n io n des M usées nationaux.)

10.8 (right) G iam b o lo gn a. Lio n Attacking a Horse. B ro n ze statuette. (Photo: W alters A rt G alle ry, Baltim ore.)

a rtistic re p re se n ta tio n s o f liv e ly a n im a l e n c o u n te rs also r e c e iv e d g re a te r in s p ir a tio n fro m a n c ie n t m o d e ls. A co lo ssa l G r e c o - R o m a n g r o u p o f a lio n a tt a c k in g a h o rse , w h ic h sto o d o n the C a p it o lin e H i l l in R o m e s in c e th e fo u rte e n th c e n t u r y , w a s r e p r o d u c e d m a n y tim e s, in d r a w in g s a n d tw o e n g r a v in g s .40 L a te in th e s ix te e n th c e n t u r y th e sam e g r o u p in s p ir e d a b r o n z e statuette b y G ia m b o lo g n a (F ig u r e 10.8); a c o m p a n io n p ie c e o f a lio n a tt a c k in g a b u ll also f o llo w e d a n c ie n t p re c e d e n ts fr o m c o in s a n d o th e r o b je c ts .41 A lt h o u g h n o t as in e x p e n s iv e a n d r e a d ily d iss e m in a te d as p rin ts , th e statuettes w e re s im ila r ly p o rta b le

208

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

an d r e p ro d u c e a b le . D if f e r e n t v e rs io n s a n d v a ria tio n s o n

a typ e attest to th e ir v.

c u r r e n c y .42 A s w e h a v e seen , th e lite ra l a n im a l c o m b a ts in th e p ia zza s o f F lo r e n c e act

x

a c o n c e p t a b o u t a n im a ls, w h ic h is th at th e y d e m o n stra te t h e ir w ild n e s s b y fig h t in g . also a n o th e r c o n c e p t, th at th e h a rn e s sin g o f th is w ild n e s s in a sta ge d fig h t is a d e m o n stra ­ t io n o f p o w e r . E n c a p s u la t in g a n d e n s h r in in g th e fig h ts in d ra m a tic v is u a l re p re se n tati : is a p a ra lle l e x p re s s io n o f p o w e r -

w itn e s s th e g iv in g o f G ia m b o lo g n a ’s statu e tte ' 2

d ip lo m a t ic g ifts .43 A n t iq u it y p r o f o u n d ly in flu e n c e d all th is, a n d m u c h else, as w e sh all se e o f th e w a y o f c o n s t r u in g the w o r ld a n d re p re s e n tin g it in ritu a ls in th e fifte e n th and s ix te e n th c e n tu rie s.

V A n im a ls d o fig h t, b u t n o t a lw a y s; “ f ig h t in g a n im a ls ” is in ste a d a c u ltu ra l c o n s tru c t, w h ic h ca n b e seen a g a in in a n o th e r o f its m a n ife sta tio n s , th e p a ra d ig m

o f p a ire d e n e m ie s

A n im a ls w e re u n d e rs to o d as h a v in g in n a te a n tip a th ie s, so m e o b s e rv e d in n a tu re , o th e rk n o w n fr o m th e lo re o f c la ssic a l a n tiq u ity a n d its la te r e v o lu t io n in m e d ie v a l b e stia rie s.4^ C o m m o n p a irs in c lu d e th e cat a n d m o u s e a n d w o l f a n d la m b , b u t e q u a lly le g e n d a r y w as th e in n a te h a tre d o f c a m e ls fo r h o rses, n o te d in a n tiq u ity b y P li n y th e E ld e r in h is N a tu ra l H isto ry a n d passed o n u n t il th e late s ix te e n th c e n t u r y w h e n G io v a n v e t t o r io S o d e r in i re la te d it a g a in in a treatise o n d o m e s tic a n im a ls .45 A ls o fro m a n tiq u ity , the r h in o c e r o s w a s k n o w n as th e a d v e rs a ry o f th e b e ar, s in c e an e p ig ra m b y M a r tia l c o n ta in e d th e tro p e o f a r h in o c e r o s to s sin g a b e ar. T h i s im a g e c a m e to c h a ra c te riz e t h e ir e n m it y a n d w as re p e a te d a n d g iv e n f ix e d p ic t o r ia l fo rm in th e h ie r o g y lp h ic a n d e m b le m a tic lite ra tu re o f th e s e c o n d h a lf o f th e s ix te e n th c e n tu r y , as in th e e m b le m fr o m J o a c h im C a m e r a r iu s , Sym bolorum et emblematum o f 1595 ( F ig u r e

1 0 .9 ).46 A n o t h e r fa m o u s e n m it y w a s that

b e tw e e n r h in o c e r o s a n d e le p h a n t, w h ic h w a s d e sc rib e d b y P lin y a n d w id e ly d iss e m in a te d in th e M id d le A g e s . T h e p a ra d ig m o f p a ire d e n e m ie s, a n d th is p a rt ic u la r e x a m p le , also d e te rm in e d h o w c o n te m p o ra rie s d e alt w it h A s ia n a n d A fr ic a n a n im a ls, k n o w n to a n tiq ­ u it y b u t la te r o n ly t h r o u g h lo re , w h e n the a ctu a l a n im a ls a p p e a re d in E u r o p e . O n e o f the g a te w a y s in to E u r o p e fo r a n im a ls, as fo r m u c h else, w as P o r tu g a l, as a re su lt o f its e x te n s iv e v o y a g e s d o w n th e co ast o f A fr ic a a n d to In d ia . In 1515 in L is b o n , w h e r e b o th a r h in o c e r o s a n d an e le p h a n t h a d ju s t a rr iv e d fro m In d ia as d ip lo m a t ic g ifts, a f ig h t w as stage d b e tw e e n t h e m .47 A g a in , h o w e v e r , th e a n im a ls d e fie d the e x p e c ta tio n s o f th e m : th e y o u n g e le p h a n t t o o k flig h t at th e first s ig h t o f h is o p p o n e n t. S e v e ra l o f these le g e n d a r y e n e m ie s in h a b it th e g ro tto at C a s te llo , b u t th e c o n s e q u e n t d isp la y s o f w ild n e s s are s t r ik in g ly ab sen t. T h e c a m e l a n d h o rse b o th o c c u p y th e r ig h t n ic h e , o b liv io u s to e a ch o th e r ( F ig u r e T 0 .4 ). T h e le ft n ic h e ( F ig u r e 1 0.5) c o n ta in s a b e a r a n d a r h in o c e r o s , e q u a lly u n c o n c e r n e d w it h

e ach

o t h e r ’s p re se n ce . T h e r e

is so m e

c o n flic t , b u t o n ly a m o n g a fe w m u c h s m a lle r a n im a ls. In th e le ft n ic h e th e d o g appears to g la re at th e j u m p in g cat o n th e o th e r sid e o f th e g r e y h o u n d a n d a la m b lie s b e n e a th th e w o lf . In th e r ig h t n ic h e a d o g is o v e r t u rn e d at th e feet o f a b o a r; b e n e a th th e p r a n c in g h o rse a n o th e r s im ila r ly size d , b u t u n id e n tifia b le , a n im a l lie s s u p in e . T h e s e illu stra te th e f ig h t in g b e h a v io r o f a n im a ls, b u t th e y are far o u t w e ig h e d b y th e ge n e ra l r e m a rk a b le la c k o f v io le n c e . T h e a n im a ls fo r th e m o s t p a rt stan d in static p oses, o r in

ANIMALS AS CULTURAL SIGNS

209

T^on t emert ccecnm v ir fo rt is fertu r ad ¡rams ju ftn jc d wdigne Ltjus in n rmu ruit.

10.9 (above) Jo a c h im Cam erarius. R h in o ­ ceros Tossing a Dear. E n g ra v in g , Symbolorum et emblematum, 1595. 10.10 (right)

(Photo: author.)

Francesco U b e rtin i, called il

Bacchiacca. Gathering o f Manna. O il on canvas, c.i 54 0 -1 5 5 5 . W a sh in g to n , D . C . , N a tio n al G a lle ry o f A rt, Sam uel H . Kress C o lle c tio n . (Photo: m useum .)

a c tiv e o n e s, b u t w it h o u t a n y in te r a c tio n . E v e n th e o v e r t u rn e d a n im a ls see m c a lc u la te d in t h e ir p la c e m e n t. T h e

a im

o f these g r o u p in g s o f a n im a ls is s o m e t h in g o th e r th an a

d e m o n s tr a tio n o f t h e ir w ild n e ss . A s f ig h t in g a n im a ls are a c u ltu ra l c o n s tr u c t, so to o are a n im a ls w h o are not fig h t in g , p a r t ic u la r ly th e c o e x is t e n c e o f w ild a n d d o m e s tic a n im a ls. A g a in th e topos d e riv e s fro m cla ssical a n tiq u ity , in texts s u c h as V i r g i l ’s Eclogues, in w h ic h th is p e a c e fu l c o e x is te n c e is a m e ta p h o r fo r th e h a r m o n y o f th e g o ld e n a g e .48 It has a lo n g h is t o r y a n d m a y b e m o re fa m ilia r fr o m la te r p a ra d ise a n d p e a ce a b le k in g d o m p a in tin g s . O n e c o n t e m p o ra r y re p ­ re se n ta tio n o f w ild a n d d o m e s tic a n im a ls c o e x is t in g in a h a r m o n y n o t fo u n d in n a tu re is B a c c h ia c c a ’s G athering o f M a n n a in th e N a t io n a l G a lle r y in W a s h in g t o n o f a b o u t 1545 ( F ig u r e 1 0 . t o ). In th is p a in t in g six te e n k in d s o f a n im a ls r a n g in g fr o m A s ia n g ira ffe to n o rth e rn E u r o p e a n b r o w n b e a r fo rm an im p la u s ib le c o lle c t io n fo r th e m o st p a rt in a p p r o ­ p ria te to th e s e ttin g o f th e b ib lic a l s to ry ( E x o d u s 1 6 ).49 T h e y su g g e st n o t th e p re c ise g e o g ra p h ic a l se ttin g , b u t th e g e n e ric o n e -

the w ild e rn e s s . T h e h a r m o n y a m o n g the

a n im a ls re fle cts th e n a rra tiv e : th e d is c o n te n t o f th e Isra e lite s w a s q u e lle d b y th e m ir a c u ­ lo u s n o u ris h m e n t . It also r e in fo rc e s th e s ig n ific a n c e o f the m a n n a as a ty p e o f the E u c h a r is t w it h its u ltim a te p ro m is e o f s a lv a tio n a n d , w it h it, p a ra d ise . T h e a n im a ls, th e re fo re , serve se ve ra l fu n c tio n s in the tra n s la tio n fr o m n a rra tiv e te x t to v is u a l im a g e : the n o n -E u r o p e a n , “ stra n g e ” a n im a ls id e n t ify th e s e ttin g n o t in p a rtic u la r te rm s, b u t as w ild

210

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

o r o th e r; th e h a r m o n y a m o n g s u c h a v a r ie t y o f a n im a ls p rese n ts m e t a p h o r ic a lly a n d v is u a lly th e h u m a n h a r m o n y o f th e n a rra tiv e te x t. It m a y also a llu d e to th e m o ra l lesso n o f th e s to ry b y s u g g e s tin g an e a rth ly p a ra d ise a n a lo g o u s to th e h e a v e n ly o n e . T h e a n im a ls in

th is p a in t in g , as in

th e g ro tto a n d e ls e w h e re , h a v e a s ig n ific a n c e o f t h e ir o w n ,

in d e p e n d e n t o f the n a rra tiv e , w h ic h re in fo rc e s b u t d oes n o t illu stra te it. In th e g ro tto at G a s te llo , lik e w is e , th e o v e r a ll a b se n ce o f f ig h t in g b e tw e e n w ild a n d d o m e s tic a n im a ls a n d a m o n g th e la rg e , w ild o n e s s ig n ifie s h a r m o n y . In th is case, as in the B a c c h ia c c a p a in t in g , h a r m o n y in n a tu re is a sso cia te d w it h th e id e a o f n o u ris h m e n t , k e y e d b y th e p re se n ce o f th e u n ic o r n i n th e c e n tra l n ic h e ( F ig u r e T 0 .3 ), th e o n ly m y t h ic a l a n im a l in th e g ro tto . U n ic o r n s w e re a c o m m o n im a g e in th e s ix te e n th c e n tu r y . T h e ir e x is te n c e w a s m u c h d e b a te d ; n e v e rth e le ss, in 1569 C o s im o de' M e d ic i sp en t a c o n s id e r ­ a b le s u m fo r th e h o rn o f o n e , w h o s e p o w e rs w e re w e ll k n o w n .50 U n ic o r n s w e re b e lie v e d to p u r ify w a te r w it h th e ir h o rn s , w h ile o th e r a n im a ls w a it p a tie n tly a n d h a r m o n io u s ly b y th e w a te r s o u r c e .51 B e c a u s e o f th is le g e n d a r y a b ility , in g a rd e n fo u n ta in s u n ic o r n s d e n o te s p r in g w a te r .52 In th e g ro tto it w a s a p p ro p ria te ly s p r in g w a te r that f o r m e r ly sp u rte d fro m m o u th s , h o rn s , a n d ears o f th e a n im a ls, a n d se e p e d fro m th e stalactites o n th e w a lls. S in c e b u ild in g a q u e d u c ts to b r in g s p r in g w a te r to F lo r e n c e w a s o n e o f th e a c c o m p lis h m e n ts o l C o s im o , th e a n im a ls in th e g ro tto su g g e st a fu r th e r p o lit ic a l r e a d in g : th e s p r in g w a te r b r o u g h t b y C o s im o tam es th e w ild beasts a n d creates h a r m o n y , as h is g o o d ru le d o e s to h is state. S in c e th e c e n tra l n ic h e ca rrie s th e m o s t o v e r t M e d ic i s y m b o lis m , as w e sh all see, it is n o t s u rp r is in g th at a ll th e e x a m p le s o f c o n f lic t are re le g a te d to th e sid e n ic h e s .

VI C la s s ic a l a n tiq u ity p r o v id e d p re c e d e n ts fo r a n im a l h u n ts, a rtistic m o d e ls fo r f ig h t in g a n im a ls, a c c o u n ts o f a n im a l a n tip a th ie s, a n d m u c h m o r e — th e c o n c e p tu a l fr a m e w o r k fo r th e u n d e r s t a n d in g a n d s tu d y o f a n im a ls. R e n a is s a n c e n a tu ra l h is to r y w a s b ased o n the w r it in g s o f A ris to tle , P lin y th e E ld e r , a n d o th e r a n c ie n t a u th o rs, m a d e p o ssib le th ro u g h th e tra n s la tio n a n d , w it h th e in v e n t io n o f th e p r in t in g press in th e fifte e n th c e n t u r y , the p u b lic a t io n o f a n c ie n t texts. P li n y ’s N a tu ra l H is to ry w as first p u b lis h e d in 1469, fo llo w e d b y at least 46 e d itio n s in v a r io u s E u r o p e a n la n g u a g e s b y 1 5 5 0 .53 In th e fifte e n th a n d s ix te e n th c e n tu rie s A s ia n a n d A fr ic a n a n im a ls w e re s im ila r ly k n o w n v ia th e a n cie n ts, s in c e m a n y h a d b e e n fa m ilia r to th e m . E le p h a n ts , ca m e ls, giraffe s, a n d m a n y o th e rs w e re d e sc rib e d in P li n y ’s N a tu ra l H isto ry , P t o le m y ’s G eography, a n d S tr a b o ’s G eography. T h e L a t in tra n sla tio n o f P t o le m y ’s Geography, m a d e e a rly in th e fifte e n th c e n t u r y , w a s a b e stse lle r b y m id - c e n t u r y , e v e n b e fo re it w a s p r in te d in 1475. P t o le m y ’s L a t in te x t w as th e s o u rc e fo r m o st o f th e parts o n A s ia in S e b a stia n M iin s t e r ’s Cosm ographia o f 1 5 4 4 .34 C la s s ic a l a n tiq u ity p r o f o u n d ly in flu e n c e d R e n a is s a n c e t h in k in g . A n t h o n y G r a ft o n has n o te d as w e ll that L a t in

h u m a n is t c u ltu r e w a s in c o r p o r a t e d in to v e r n a c u la r c u ltu re :

M u n s te r ’s te x t w as w r itte n first in G e r m a n a n d o n ly s ix ye a rs late r tra n sla te d in to L a t in .53 In th e e x te n s iv e lite ra tu re c o m m e m o r a t in g th e first e n c o u n te rs o f E u r o p e a n s w it h A m e r ic a , o n e

o f th e p e rsiste n t th e m e s is th e w a y in

w h ic h

th e N e w

W o r ld

w as

u n d e rs to o d t h r o u g h th e fr a m e w o r k o f th e o ld , p a r t ic u la r ly C h r is t ia n it y a n d cla ssical c u lt u r e .56 T h i s is e s p e c ia lly th e case fo r the e x p lo r a t io n o f th e n e w w o r ld s o f A s ia a n d

ANIMALS AS CULTURAL SIGNS

211

io . i i G io v a n n i da U d in e . Loggetta o f C a rd in a l ü ib b ie n a . Fresco, t.1516. V atican . (Photo: V atica n M useum s.)

A fr ic a . C o lu m b u s re a d P t o le m y ’s G eography,51 b u t in a m o r e lim it e d f r a m e w o r k the in flu e n c e o f a n tiq u e texts w as far m o re p re c ise , p a rt ic u la r ly o n the v o y a g e s o f e x p lo r a t io n to the L e v a n t. O n e o f th e first in th e e a rly fifte e n th c e n t u r y w as C y r ia c u s o f A n c o n a ’s jo u r n e y to E g y p t , f o llo w in g an itin e ra r y that c o rr e s p o n d e d p r e c is e ly w it h th e p lace s m e n t io n e d b y S tra b o , o n e o f C y r ia c u s ’s fa v o rite a u th o rs, w h o w r o te (in G r e e k ) s ix g e o h is to ric a l b o o k s 011 A s ia .’’8 In th e m id - s ix t e e n t h c e n t u r y M e lc h io r L o r c k , o n e o f the itin e ra n t artists w h o w e n t to th e L e v a n t, s o u g h t th e tru e so u rce s o f cla ssical a n t iq u it y .59 T h e p ro c e ss o f e x p lo r a t io n o f A s ia a n d A fr ic a w a s fra m e d as o n e o f r e d is c o v e ry o f cla ssical a n tiq u ity . A s a re su lt, t h r o u g h th e s ix te e n th c e n t u r y , th e a n im a ls d iscu sse d in a n c ie n t texts w e re p r iv ile g e d . T h a t th e a n im a ls in th e g r o tto at C a s t e llo are o n ly fr o m w o r ld s k n o w n to the a n c ie n ts a n d d o n o t in c lu d e a n y A m e r ic a n e x a m p le s, e x c e p t th e t u rk e y , re fle cts a b ro a d e r s i t u a t i o n , a l t h o u g h w e sh all see th at m o re p a rt ic u la r reason s in flu e n c e d the c h o ic e o f sp ecies. T h e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e d is c o v e r y o f n o n - E u r o p e a n w o r ld s a n d the r e d is c o v e r y o f c la ssic a l a n t iq u it y is a p p a re n t in th e d e c o ra t io n o f th e V a t ic a n L o g g e tt a o f C a r d in a l B ib b ie n a , w h ic h w a s p a in te d a b o u t 15 16 b y G io v a n n i da U d in e . T h e d e c o ra tiv e s ch e m e w a s d ir e c t ly in s p ir e d b y th e re c e n tly d is c o v e r e d fresco es in th e D o m u s A u re a , th e G o ld e n H o u s e o f E m p e r o r N e r o , as w e ll as o th e r sites th at h a v e n o t s u rv iv e d . V a s a ri relates that R a p h a e l a n d G io v a n n i da U d in e w e re a m o n g the first to see so m e o f these a n c ie n t p a in te d r o o m s a n d th at th e y w e re stu p e fie d b y th e m . G io v a n n i da U d in e ’s L o g g e tt a in the V a t ic a n

( F ig u r e

1 0.1 1) is u n c a n n ily s im ila r to its R o m a n

m o d e l.

In

th e v a u lt,

212

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

c lim b in g p lan ts d e lin e a te c o m p a rtm e n ts , as in its a n c ie n t p r o to ty p e s, a n d p a in te d in sid e each is o n e o f th e e x o t ic a n im a ls o f P o p e L e o ’s m e n a g e rie (v is ib le o n c lo se in sp e c tio r. at th e to p o f th e p h o to g r a p h ). A m o n g th e m are se ve ral o f th e a n im a ls in th e C a s te lk g ro tto -

a c a m e l, b o a r, g ira ffe , a n d e le p h a n t. V a s a ri also n o te d a m o n g G io v a n n i d^

U d in e ’s fre sco e s in th e V a t ic a n a c h a m e le o n , c iv e t cats, apes, p a rro ts, lio n s , b a b o o n s , a n d m a n d r ills .61 T h e re d is c o v e rie s o f a n c ie n t d e c o ra tiv e sch e m e s a n d o f th e a n im a ls o f A s ia a n d A fr ic a w e re n e a r ly c o n te m p o ra n e o u s a n d in th e m in d s o f c o n te m p o ra rie s t h e y w e re asso ciated , as th e L o g g e tt a d e c o ra tio n illu stra te s. A n t iq u it y p r o v id e d th e p a ra d ig m fo r u n d e rs ta n d in g th e a n im a ls ju s t as th e g r id w o r k a ll’ antica p r o v id e d th e ir p a in te d se ttin g in th e V a tic a n T h e s e e x o t ic , o r ra th e r “ s tra n g e ,” as th e y w e re te rm e d , a n im a ls w e re m a d e fa m ilia r b'. t h e ir a s s im ila tio n in to th e c la ssica l tra d itio n , as M ic h a e l R y a n has a rg u e d in a b ro a d e r c o n t e x t .62 It s h o u ld be r e m e m b e re d that in R e n a is s a n c e It a ly these a n im a ls w e re c o n c e p ­ tu a liz e d as “ s tra n g e ,” d iffe re n t fr o m th e k n o w n , ra th e r th a n “ e x o t ic ,” a te rm n o t in c u r r e n c y u n t il th e e ig h te e n th c e n t u r y a n d o n e th at su gge sts a fu lle r sense o f b o th w h a t c o n stitu te s th e id e n t ity o f th e f a m ilia r a n d w h a t m u st b e its o p p o site in th e o t h e r.63

VII In th e s ix te e n th c e n t u r y th e f lo u r is h in g a c t iv it y o f n a tu ra lists w a s c h a ra c te riz e d b y a re lia n c e o n a n c ie n t a u th o r it y as w e ll as b y e m p ir ic a l o b s e rv a tio n . T h e g e o g ra p h ic a l ran ge a n d n u m b e r o f sp e cie s stu d ie d e x p a n d e d g re a tly a n d th e 1550s saw se ve ra l im p o rta n t p u b lic a t io n s . T h e

F r e n c h m a n G u illa u m e R o n d e le t s tu d ie d m a r in e life o n th e F re n c h

coast; P ie rre B e lo n w r o te a treatise o n b ird s a n d p u b lis h e d h is o b s e rv a tio n s o n fau n a and flo ra o n h is tra ve ls to E g y p t a n d th e L e v a n t . T h e first o f tw o e n c y c lo p e d ic w o r k s w as p u b lis h e d fr o m 1550 to 1558, K o n r a d G e s n e r ’s f o u r - v o lu m e H isto riae an im alium , n a m e d after A r is t o t le ’s treatise, w h o s e g e n e ra l c la s s ific a tio n it fo llo w e d . A lm o s t fift y ye a rs later th e B o lo g n e s e n a tu ra lis t U lis s e A ld r o v a n d i b e g a n p u b lic a t io n o f a t w e lv e - v o lu m e N a tu ra l H isto ry , p u b lis h e d fr o m 1599 to 1 6 4 8 .64 T h e texts o f G e s n e r a n d A ld r o v a n d i fo llo w e d th e m o d e l o f P l i n y ’s N a tu ra l H isto ry in n o t o n ly d e s c r ib in g th e a n im a ls, b u t also c a t a lo g in g th e ir h is to r y , h a b ita t, le g e n d s , and s y m b o lis m . G e s n e r a d d e d to th is b a sic in fo r m a t io n a ll k n o w n a sso c ia tio n s, e ty m o lo g y , p ra c tic a l a n d m e d ic in a l uses to m a n k in d , a n d s y m b o lis m

d e riv e d fr o m

th e a n im a l’s

a c tio n s , c h a ra cte r, a n d a p p e a ra n ce . T h e s e last w e re fo rm u la te d in p ro v e rb s , h ie r o g ly p h s , a n d e m b le m s. T h e c o n c e r n o f G e s n e r ’s a n d A ld r o v a n d i’s texts w a s n o t o n ly th e a n im a ls th e m se lv e s, b u t t h e ir s ig n ific a n c e to h u m a n s. M u c h o f it w a s d e riv e d fro m so u rce s in c la ssica l a n tiq u ity , o fte n t h ro u g h th e in te r m e d ia r y o f c o n t e m p o ra r y lite ra tu re . G e sn e r p re se n te d th e a n im a ls as th e y w e re u n d e rs to o d b y c o n te m p o ra rie s - in a c o m p le x system o f s im ilit u d e s , w h ic h F o u c a u lt has c a lle d th e episteme o f the s ix te e n th c e n tu r y . In the p a rtic u la r c o n t e x t o f n a tu ra l h is to r y , W i l l ia m A s h w o r t h has te rm e d th is an e m b le m a tic w o r ld v ie w , fo r b o th the syste m o f a sso c ia tio n s a n d th e m y r ia d h id d e n m e a n in g s o f e v e r y t h in g in th e c o s m o s .65 T h e w a y s in w h ic h a n im a ls h a d m e a n in g to c o n te m p o ra rie s also in c re a s e d e n o r m o u s ly o v e r th e s e c o n d h a lf o f th e s ix te e n th c e n tu r y . T h e m a n ife s ­ ta tio n s o f th is are in w o r k s o n h ie r o g ly p h ic s a n d e m b le m a tic s . T h e s e in c lu d e d P ie ro

ANIMALS AS CULTURAL SIGNS V a le r ia n o ’s H ieroglyp hica (B a se l, 1 5 5 6 ), w h ic h

213

c o n c e r n s th e a lle g o r ic a l s ig n ific a n c e o f

a n im a ls, a n d J o a c h im C a m e r a r iu s ’s m o n u m e n ta l Sym bolorum et emblematum (1 5 9 3 —T 6 0 4 ), an e m b le m b o o k o f n a tu ra l h is t o r y in fo u r v o lu m e s w it h 4 0 0 e m b le m s, e ach o f w h ic h in v o lv e s an a n im a l o r p la n t. T h e e m b le m o f th e r h in o c e r o s to s s in g a b e a r ( F ig u r e t o .9) is fro m th is te x t; th e re are also a g ira ffe , c a m e l, e le p h a n t, a n d o th e r A s ia n a n d A fr ic a n a n im a ls. A g a in , e x o t ic a n im a ls w e re e a sily a ssim ila te d in to th is e m b le m a tic w o r ld v ie w s in c e m a n y o f th o se n e w ly k n o w n in th e s ix te e n th c e n t u r y h a d an e sta b lish e d c u ltu ra l h is to r y fro m a n tiq u ity . F o r a n im a ls fro m A m e r ic a a n d o th e rs u n k n o w n to th e a n c ie n ts , m e a n in g s a n d e m b le m s m ig h t b e in v e n te d a n e w ,66 b u t o th e rs r e c e iv e d o n ly b r ie f a c c o u n ts w it h o u t the tra d itio n a l list o f a sso c ia tio n s. T h e u n d e r s t a n d in g o f a n im a ls b e g a n to c h a n g e o n ly in the se v e n te e n th c e n tu r y , a n d th e n o n ly th r o u g h texts d e v o te d e x c lu s iv e ly to th e a n im a ls o f the N e w W o r ld , fo r w h ic h th e re w e re n o k n o w n s im ilit u d e s o r h id d e n m e a n in g s .67 T h e n u m e ro u s p u b lic a t io n s in n a tu ra l h is t o r y in the s ix te e n th c e n t u r y w e re g u id e d , in v a r y in g m e a su re s, b y a n c ie n t a u th o r it y , the g r o w in g syste m o f s im ilit u d e s , a n d also a n e w e m p ir ic a l o b s e rv a tio n , a id e d b y th e re p re se n ta tio n a l s k ills d e v e lo p e d b y artists fr o m the fifte e n th c e n t u r y .68 I f o b s e rv a tio n c o n flic t e d w it h th e first tw o , it d id n o t c a n c e l th e m o u t. T h e sam e is tru e in re p re se n ta tio n s o f a n im a ls. E m p ir ic a l o b s e rv a tio n w as a s ig n if i­ c a n t aspe ct o f fift e e n t h - a n d e s p e c ia lly s ix t e e n t h - c e n t u r y re p re se n ta tio n s, b u t it d id n o t d isp la ce o th e r w a y s o f k n o w in g th e w o r ld . T h e f u n c t io n o f im a g e s , e v e n in m a n y o f the n a tu ra l h is t o r y texts, w a s n o t e x c lu s iv e ly th e p r o d u c t io n o f s c ie n tific k n o w le d g e , u n d e r ­ s to o d in m o d e r n te rm s, b u t ra th e r th e illu s tr a tio n o f th e s u b je c t in its c u ltu r a l m a t r ix : n o t the a ctu a l a n im a l, b u t th e c o n t e m p o ra r y u n d e r s t a n d in g o f it, w h ic h r e q u ir e d in ste a d a n o r m a tiv e im a g e . S o m e o f th e n o r m a tiv e im a g e s re p re se n t th e a n im a l s ittin g , s ta n d in g , a n d a c t in g o u t c h a ra c te ris tic ge stu re s a n d a c tio n s . F o r e x a m p le , at C a s te llo th e m o u n t a in g o a t in th e left n ic h e ( F ig u r e to . 5) is re p re se n te d in a ty p ic a l p o se o f g r a z in g a m o n g th e r o c k s . A n u m b e r o f these im a g e s w e re d e riv e d fro m th e gre at re p e rto ire o f a n im a ls in a n c ie n t s c u lp tu re , s u c h as the co lo ssa l g r o u p o f th e lio n f ig h t in g a h o rse . A s in th e n a tu ra l h is t o r y texts, m a n y s ix t e e n t h - c e n t u r y im a g e s f o llo w m o d e ls fr o m a n tiq u ity , w h ic h w e re m o d if ie d b y o b s e rv a tio n . T h e b u ll at C a s te llo ( F ig u r e 10.3) repeats a c o m m o n a n c ie n t ty p e w it h its tu rn e d h e a d , fo ld s o f s k in o n th e n e c k , p r a n c in g p o se , a n d tail s w u n g b a c k o v e r its to rso . T h e static q u a lit y o f th e g r o u p in g in the g ro tto d e riv e s in p art fro m th e use o f su ch m o d e ls a n d typ e s, so m e in p r o file ; e v e n w h e n a c tiv e o r lo o k in g o u t, th e y are n o t in te r a c tiv e w it h the s u r r o u n d in g sp ace o r a p o s ite d v ie w e r . R e p e t it io n o f a m o d e l w as also a m e a n s o f m a k in g a sso c ia tio n s o r h id d e n m e a n in g s e v id e n t. T h e w ild b o a r, o r cinghiale, in th e r ig h t n ic h e ( F ig u r e

10.4) is a v e r y c lo se c o p y o f a s p e c ific a n c ie n t

sc u lp tu re , o n e h ig h ly e ste e m e d in th e s ix te e n th c e n t u r y , w h ic h w a s g iv e n b y P o p e P iu s I V to C o s im o d e ’ M e d ic i in 1 5 6 0 .69 T h e s c u lp tu re th u s sets u p a series o f a sso c ia tio n s b e tw e e n the w ild a n im a l, a n c ie n t s c u lp tu re , th e p a p a c y , a n d th e r u le r o f F lo re n c e . O t h e r m o d e ls c a m e fr o m p a tte rn b o o k s , s u c h as th e fo u r t e e n t h -c e n t u r y b o o k fr o m th e s tu d io o f the L o m b a r d p a in te r, G io v a n n in o d e ’ G ra s s i. T h e seated le o p a r d in th e r ig h t n ic h e o f the g ro tto in its c h a ra c te ris tic a n d a ris to c ra tic p o se ( F ig u r e

10.4) fo llo w s a fa m ilia r ,

n o r m a tiv e im a g e w h ic h u ltim a te ly d e riv e s fr o m E g y p t ia n s c u lp tu re , m e d ia te d b y a p r o file le o p a rd in a n o th e r L o m b a r d s k e t c h b o o k o f a b o u t 1400. A v e r s io n o f th is ty p e a p p ea red

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

214

late r in th e fifte e n th c e n t u r y in B e n o z z o G o z z o l i ’s fre sco o f th e P ro c e s s io n o f th e M a c . in th e M e d ic i p a la c e ,7" w h ic h m a y h a v e b e e n in s p ir e d b y th e a ctu a l p ro c e s s io n to th-. M e d ic i p a la ce that f o llo w e d th e caccia in 1459 d u r in g th e fe stiv itie s in h o n o r o f th e S f o r z . c o u n t a n d th e p o p e .71 R e p re s e n t a t io n s o f a n im a ls h a d a lo n g h is to r y , d e sp ite in a c c u r a c ie s a n d u n c h e c k e d b y fu rth e r o b s e rv a tio n fr o m n a tu re . Ju s t as th e so u rce s o f k n o w le d g e a b o u t a n im a ls w e re in te r lo c k e d , so to o w e re th o se fo r th e ir illu s tr a tio n , a g a in b e ca u se a n im a ls w e re n o t so m u c h im p o r ta n t in t h e ir o w n r ig h t as in a g r id o f a sso c ia tio n s. Illu s tr a tio n s to n a tu ra l h is t o r y texts w e re n o d iffe re n t in r e u s in g e a rlie r im a g e s, p a rt ic u la r ly , b u t b y n o m eans e x c lu s iv e ly , w h e n th e a ctu a l a n im a l w as n o t a v a ila b le fo r o b s e rv a t io n .72 I11 th is o n e large s ix t e e n t h - c e n t u r y c o lle c t io n , th e g ro tto at C a s te llo , th e im a g e s d e riv e fro m

a n cie n t

s c u lp tu r e , p a tte rn b o o k s , lo n g m e d ie v a l tra d itio n , a n d treatises o n n a tu ra l h is to r y (su ch as th e g r e y h o u n d fro m G e s n e r in th e left n ic h e ), as w e ll as tra v e l lite ra tu re , e m b le m b o o k s , a n d o th e r so u rce s, as w e sh all see. In so m e c o m p o n e n t , e m p ir ic a l o b s e rv a tio n w a s also in c o r p o r a t e d in to th e re p re se n ta tio n s, ju s t as th e h o rn s a n d tu sks are real, n o t scu lp te d .

VIII T h e stra n ge a n im a ls fr o m A s ia a n d A fr ic a w e re lik e w is e a ssim ila te d in to e x is t in g v isu a l tra d itio n s , w h ic h r e in fo r c e d a sso c ia tio n s in an in c r e a s in g ly c o m p le x w e b o f m e a n in g . T h e In d ia n s in g le - h o r n e d rh in o c e r o s , fo r e x a m p le , w a s v e r y rare in E u r o p e . T h e r e w e re o n lv e ig h t fr o m th e s ix te e n th th ro u g h th e e ig h te e n th c e n tu rie s , b u t th e im a g e o f th e a n im a l w a s in fact v e r y c o m m o n . T h e r h in o c e r o s that w a s su p p o se d to fig h t th e e le p h a n t in L is b o n in 1515 w a s th e first seen in E u r o p e s in c e th e th ir d c e n tu r y . A s k e tc h o f it w as sen t to N u r e m b e r g a n d fo u n d its w a y in to th e h a n d s o f A lb r e c h t D iir e r . T h e G e rm a n a rtist’s fa m o u s w o o d c u t o f a r h in o c e r o s ( F ig u r e 1 0 .1 2 ), m a d e in 1515 afte r th e s k e tc h , p r o v id e d th e a lm o st u n iv e r s a lly a c c e p te d im a g e o f th e a n im a l fo r a lm o st th re e c e n tu rie s, in sp ite o f its g la r in g in a c c u r a c ie s a n d th e e x is te n c e o f a m o r e c o r r e c t re p re se n ta tio n . T h e p late d a n im a l in th e g ro tto at C a s te llo ( F ig u r e 1 0.13) is also b ase d o n D i i r e r ’s w it h the f ic t itio u s , a n d h e re e x a g g e ra te d , d o rsa l sp ira l h o r n . T h e in s c r ip t io n o n m o s t e d itio n s o f th e w o o d c u t is fr o m P lin y , w h o to ld o f its fig h t to th e d e ath w it h th e e le p h a n t. T h e sam e im a g e w a s u se d to illu stra te th e d e v ic e th at P a o lo G io v i o m a d e fo r A le s s a n d ro d e ’ M e d ic i fe a tu r in g th e rh in o c e r o s , w h ic h w a s first p u b lis h e d in 1 5 5 6 .73 T h e a n im a l w a s c h o se n b e ca u se its c h a ra c te r e x e m p lifie d A le s s a n d r o ’s o w n : th e d u k e r u le d w it h an ir o n h a n d a g a in st m u c h o p p o s it io n a n d said o f h im s e lf th at h e e n te re d e v e r y d if fic u lt e n te rp rise d e te rm in e d to w in o r d ie .74 A ft e r th e m u r d e r o f A le s s a n d ro in

1537, th e d e v ic e w as

ir o n ic a lly a p p ro p ria te . It has b e e n su g g e ste d th at D i i r e r ’s w o o d c u t , w it h its d o u b le h o rn a n d p lates r e m in is c e n t o f c o n t e m p o ra r y a rm o r, illu stra te s th e idea o f th e a n im a l b e tte r th a n a m o r e a cc u ra te im a g e m ig h t .75 The

g ira ffe , lik e

fifte e n th

ce n tu ry

th e

and

rh in o c e r o s , w as p r a c t ic a lly u n k n o w n

w a s n o t c o m m o n ly

know n

th e re

in

E u ro p e

u n t il th e

b e fo re

n in e te e n th .

the The

n o r m a tiv e im a g e in th e R e n a is s a n c e w a s also b ase d u ltim a te ly 011 th e first e n c o u n te r w it h th e a ctu a l a n im a l in th e fifte e n th c e n t u r y a n d it p e rsiste d b e ca u se o f a p a rt ic u la r c u ltu ra l re so n a n c e . O n h is v o y a g e to E g y p t in a b o u t 1443, C y r ia c u s o f A n c o n a saw a g ira ffe and

215

ANIMALS AS CULTURAL SIGNS X'.jf) 0>а(Гн$ Jfpert.fÇl? .^ДГ.ЗЫ./.^ТТау. m.ut bent Wrtpdttueall Ф т д т к Н p:^d;t«i£4nbùvcirt foUid? !r£oibt'g£Wr. fi ^èiocmi9.&>tsi|l^(mftл:«и (fyttfflfeinf ¿»osnvom ¿nfflxr tufbt/SMe feoptb« « dl& gju twtjm r ’o te $cf flamm iflÎM e bofiS Zhuriß b » nvd cO'u лиГнтм/|Ь i.tufpc jm йла ¡tbirr mit fcmi toptftwiföai Ьус toit*™ pavtr vnb rrv (îCxn 4df|«iitbt vn^en д т раиф A»f n cnvârçt y vba nt.ig«r (Тф mttnwrn.ï>jmt Zfyitr t|falfo gciv.tpcnf.-ïuej(m &tnid)c»fan фйп.в;ф?дмцЛ)Ъао&а Klrçrtoam>8d>mll/j'ra’tMgttitt> 8c Catthojica Fede CJiriftiana , li_, quale

A F F / C, ¿ i. N A. donna mora , quafi nuda, haucrJ li capelli crcfpi, & íparfí,tenendoin capo come per cimiero vna tefta di elefante, al eolio vn-, fil >di coralli, ft di eífí á Porecchiedu.e pendentif con la defíra manor* ga vn feorpione, & con la firiiftra vn cornucopia pitín di fpíghc di granó ; da vn lato appreíTo di Ici vi fard vn ferocífsimo leonc, & daV nitro vi faramio alcunc vipere ,& ferpenti venenofi . Africa vna delle quattro parti del Mondo e detta Africa, quaíi npriea, cioc vaga del Sole, percheepriua del frcddo, ouero c detta da Añ o vno de difeendenti d’Abraham, come dice Gfofcfo. Si rapprefenta mora, elfcndo l'Africa fotto¡>ofta al mezo di, ft parte di tifa

V

10.23 Europe (above left); 10.24 A sia (above righ t); 10.25 Africa (bottom left); 10.26 America (bottom right). Cesare R ip a . E n g ra vin g s, Iconologia, 1603. (Photos: author.)

Jfamcjucferaralijsttllurmtturufia donum VrMuMicfoltH. Intcen viffatributum • I! cornucopia pieno di foighedi grano denota Pabondanza, & fercilitá frumentaria dcll’Africa , delJa quale ci fa fedeHoratio. Quicnuid de Libya's w rit nr urea.

EtGio: Boemo anch’ egli nella defcrittione, che fi de'coihimi, leggi, & vfanze di tutte Ic gcnti, dice che due volte Panno gP Africani mictono lc biade,haucndo medefimamente due volte ncll’anno Peltate. Et Ouidio nel quarto librodelleMetamorfbfianchegli. Cumque fupcr Libycat viftor pewJcret arenas Corgonti capitis gutt* cecidere (ninfa, Qtixs hnmui exccrplas varios «ammnt in anguet; Vndc frequent ilk eft, wft(taque terra colubiif,

D

O N N A ignuda,dicamagionefofca,digiallocolormifta»divolto terribile, & che vil velo rigato di piu colorí calandogli da vna-» ípalla á trauerfo al corno ,1 c copri le partí vergognofe. Le chiomc faranno iparfe, & ó. torno al capo fia vn vago, & artifitiofo ornamento di penne di V2rij colorí. Tenga con la (iniftra mano vn’arco, con la deíTra mano vna frezza, 8c al fiaiico lá hiretra parimente piena di frezze>fotto vn piede vna tefta hu­ mana paíTata da vna frezza, &. per térra da vna parte fará vna luccrtola, ouero vn liguro di fmifurata grandezza. Per eíler nouellamente feoperta quefta parte del mondogli Antichi Scrittori nonpoíTonohauerocicritto cofa alcuna, pero mi e ílatb mcHicri ve-

227

ANIMALS AS CULTURAL SIGNS

is c o n v e y e d t h r o u g h dress, a ttrib u te s, a n d a n im a ls. R ip a , im p o r ta n t fo r th e tre m e n d o u s in flu e n c e o n p a in te rs o f h is h a n d b o o k , repeats the essen tial e le m e n ts o f h is m o d e ls, b u t re d u ce s, h e ig h te n s co n tra sts, a n d e m p h a s iz e s th e a n im a ls. T h e

illu s tr a tio n o f E u r o p e

(F ig u r e 10.23) c lo s e ly f o llo w s th e te x t, w h ic h d e sc rib e s “ th e first a n d p r in c ip a l p art o f th e w o r ld ,” as c r o w n e d , d ressed in re g a l g a rm e n ts, a n d seated o n t w o cro sse d c o r n u c o p ia s , in d ic a t in g th e fe r t ilit y o f th e c o n t in e n t . B e h in d h e r in th e illu s tr a tio n is a h o rse , th e q u in te s se n tia l e m b o d im e n t o f E u r o p e a n

a ris to c ra tic

and

c la s sic a lly b ased c u ltu r e , as

w itn e s s e d b y e q u e stria n m o n u m e n ts a n d p o rtra its o f ru le rs a n d g e n e ra ls a n d b y the h o rs e ’s ro le in jo u s t s , h u n ts, a n d w a rfa re (h e re a llu d e d to b y th e la n c e s). A t th e feet o f E u r o p e are e m b le m s o f th e C h r is t ia n r e lig io n a n d an o w l, b o o k , m u s ic a l in s tru m e n ts , a n d o th e r a ttrib u te s o f the lib e ra l arts - d e n o t in g , R i p a e x p la in s , E u r o p e ’s s u p e r io r ity in a ll these e n d e a v o rs. N o n e o f th e o th e r c o n tin e n ts is a c c o m p a n ie d b y in d ic a tio n s o f c u ltu r a l a c c o m p lis h ­ m e n ts: th e y are d e fin e d o n ly b y flo ra , fau n a, a n d g e o g ra p h y in a d e s c e n d in g scale o f c iv iliz a t io n . A s ia ( F ig u r e 10 .2 4 ), in r ic h g a rm e n ts, is re p re se n te d w it h fru it, flo w e rs , an in c e n s e b u r n e r d e n o t in g its sp ice s a n d a ro m a tic su b sta n ce s, a n d a c a m e l. W e w ill re c a ll th at in P ie r o d i C o s i m o ’s V u lc a n a n d A e o lu s ( F ig u r e t o . 15) a c a m e l w a s a s ig n if ie r o f the e a rly stages o f c iv iliz a t io n . A fr ic a ( F ig u r e

1 0 .2 5 ), n e a rly n u d e in th e te x t, b u t in the

illu s tra tio n o n ly s u g g e s t iv e ly d is p la y in g a b are le g , w e a rs an e le p h a n t h e ad d re ss a n d h o ld s a s c o rp io n

a n d c o r n u c o p ia . S h e is a c c o m p a n ie d b y a “ m o s t fe r o c io u s ” lio n

(ra th e r

d o m e stic a te d in th e illu s tr a tio n ), p o is o n o u s sn ake s, a n d v ip e rs . A ll th is su gge sts a w ild a n d u n c iv iliz e d c o n t in e n t . F in a lly , A m e r ic a ( F ig u r e

1 0 .2 6 ), w it h

o n ly h e r sh a m e fu l parts

c o v e r e d , R i p a e x p la in s , w e a rs a fe a th e re d h e ad d re ss a n d h o ld s a b o w a n d a rro w . O n e fo o t rests o n a h e a d p ie r c e d w it h an a rr o w , d e m o n s tr a tin g th e b a rb a rity o f h e r p e o p le . B e s id e h e r is a re p tile , c a lle d a liz a r d in th e te x t a n d a lth o u g h s e e m in g ly in n o c u o u s in the w o o d c u t , e x p la in e d as a fe r o c io u s a n im a l w h ic h d e v o u rs n o t o n ly o th e r a n im a ls b u t also h u m a n s .117 T h e a n im a ls w e re se le cte d n o t o n ly b e ca u se th e y are n a tiv e to th e re s p e c tiv e re g io n s , b u t e q u a lly im p o r ta n t ly , as s ig n ifie rs o f th e c u lt u r a l p a ra d ig m s th at in fo r m e d th e p e rs o n ific a tio n s . A n im a ls w e re p art o f a c o n s tr u c t o f n a tu re ; w ild a n im a ls s p o k e to a s s u m p tio n s a b o u t the fo rc e o f n a tu re . T h e p u b lic a n im a l h u n ts a n d v is u a l re p re se n ta tio n s o f f ig h t in g a n im a ls w e re d e m o n s tra tio n s o f th is w ild n e s s , b u t also o f th e p o w e r o f th e in d iv id u a l o r state that harn esses th e w ild n e s s .

E x o t ic

a n im a ls in d ic a te d

th e m a g n ific e n c e

o f th e ir o w n e rs ,

b e ca u se o f t h e ir ra rity a n d e xp e n se , b u t also b e ca u se th e y s ig n ifie d less c iv iliz e d , m o re w ild , o r b a rb a ria n parts o f th e w o r ld . I11 th e a n im a l trib u te s th e a p p r o p r ia t io n o f th e fo rc e o f n a tu re that th e e x o t ic a n im a ls s ig n ifie d is also a d e m o n s tr a tio n o f th e d o m in a t io n o f a s u p e r io r c iv iliz a t io n , be it F lo r e n c e , th e C a t h o lic C h u r c h , o r E u r o p e . C la s s ic a l a n tiq u ity is a k e y e le m e n t in th e a ss u m p tio n s a n d p a ra d ig m s b e h in d th is set o f a sso c ia tio n s. It p r o v id e d the f o u n d a t io n fo r n a tu ra l s c ie n c e a n d th e fa m ilia r it y w it h A s ia a n d A fr ic a that m a d e t h e ir fa u n a a n d flo ra a cce ssib le to stu d y . T h e te n a c io u s im it a t io n o f th e a n cie n ts w a s also an o b sta cle to th e ir s t u d y .118 M o d e ls fro m cla ssical a n tiq u ity se rv e d as w e ll to le g itim a te

E u r o p e ’s c la im s o f s u p e r io r ity a n d a u th o r ity .

F o r m u c h o f th e n e x t tw o

c e n tu rie s cla ssical fo rm s a n d p a ra d ig m s c o n t in u e d to d o m in a te a n d d e fin e w e s te rn , a n d e sp e c ia lly Ita lia n , c u ltu re . T h e c u ltu r a l biases e m b e d d e d in R i p a ’s p e rs o n ific a tio n s o f th e c o n tin e n ts w e re also a lo n g - e n d u r in g le g a c y o f th e R e n a is s a n c e .

1 1 .1 Codex Vaticanus B screenfold. P icto rial m anuscript, sixteenth century. V atican , B ib lio te ca A p ostó lica V aticana, C o d e x Vaticanus 3773. (Pho to : author, courtesy o f the A ka d e m isch e D r u c k u. V e rla g sanstalt.)

CH A PTER

il

Collecting Cultures: A Mexican Manuscript in the Vatican Library ELOISE QUINONES KEBER

E v e n as R e n a is s a n c e It a ly w as r e c o v e r in g th e letters, s c h o la rs h ip , a n d arts o f cla ssical a n tiq u ity , E u r o p e a n e x p a n s io n is m w a s g iv in g im p e tu s to th e p a ssio n fo r a n o th e r k in d o f c o lle c t in g . V e sse ls r e t u r n in g f r o m n e w ly e n c o u n te r e d la n d s to th e w e st w e re lad e n n o t o n ly w it h g o o d s d e stin e d fo r E u r o p e a n m a rk e ts b u t w it h o th e r k in d s o f u n e x p e c t e d w o n d e r s - h ith e rto u n k n o w n p la n ts, a n im a ls, a n d e v e n p e o p le s , made o b je c ts as w e ll as ra w su b sta n ce s, trin k e ts as w e ll as tre asu re . R e s u lt in g f r o m th e e x p a n s io n o f g e o g r a p h ic ra th e r th an h is to r ic a l h o r iz o n s , these e x o t ic a m a d e a d iffe re n t k in d o f im p a c t o n R e n a is ­ sance in te lle c ts a n d a p p e tite s.1 T h e r e la tio n s h ip o f “ c o lle c t in g ” to the d a rk e r sid e o f E u r o p e a n e x p lo r a t io n , w it h its e x p r o p r ia t io n

o f n a tiv e la n d s a n d p o sse ssio n s, c a n n o t e a s ily be ig n o r e d .2 Ir o n ic a lly ,

h o w e v e r , th e c o lle c t in g , lik e th e e x p lo r a tio n s , b e g a n a p ro ce ss th at w o u ld e v e n tu a lly re su lt in the r e la tiv iz a tio n o f E u r o p e a n c u ltu r e - that is, th e s h if t in g o f E u r o p e a n c u ltu re fr o m its c e n tra l p o s itio n , o r at least th e v ie w in g o f it in r e la tio n s h ip to o th e r c u ltu r e s .3 One

o u tco m e

o f th is

p ro ce ss

is

th e

c re a tio n

o f te rm s

lik e

“ E u r o p o c e n t r ic ”

and

“ E u r o c e n t r ic ” to e xp re ss n e w p e rc e p tio n s a b o u t o ld re la tio n sh ip s . T o d a y the resu lts o f th is E u r o p e a n p a ssio n fo r p o sse ssio n h a v e h e lp e d to p r o v id e b o th th e m e a n s a n d the m a te ria ls fo r r e - e n c o u n t e r in g th e c u ltu re s o f th e n o n -E u r o p e a n p e o p le s w h o w e re o n c e d isp o ssessed . In th e case o f a n c ie n t M e x ic o , th e re is n o d o u b t that th o se ite m s th at w e re am assed in E u r o p e b y s ix t e e n t h - c e n t u r y c o lle c to rs are in d is ­ p e n sa b le fo r r e c o n s t r u c t in g th e art h is t o r y - a n d h is t o r y - o f th e late p r e h is p a n ic p e rio d th at p re c e d e d th e first E u r o p e a n c o n ta c t. E v e n b e fo re 1519, w h e n H e r n a n d o C o r t é s d isp a tc h e d h is fa m o u s first s h ip m e n t o f gifts a n d b o o t y to h is s o v e r e ig n C h a r le s I o f S p a in ( E m p e r o r C h a r le s V ) , M e x ic a n treasu re re s u ltin g fro m J u a n de G r ija lv a ’s e x p lo r a t o r y v o y a g e a lo n g th e eastern co ast o f M e x ic o in 1518 h a d a lre a d y b e e n re la y e d to S p a in . E x t a n t in v e n to r ie s o f these ite m s d e sc rib e h u n d re d s o f f in e ly w o r k e d a rticle s that to d a y w e w o u ld c a ll P r e c o lu m b ia n art. S e v e ra l o f these o b je c ts are p a r t ic u la r ly c r u c ia l s u rv iv a ls s in c e th e fe w e x a m p le s o f th e m th at e xist to d a y are fo u n d fo r th e m o s t p a rt in a rc h iv e s a n d m u se u m s in E u r o p e ra th e r th a n in th e ir n a tiv e

la n d .

T h e se

in c lu d e

s y m b o lic im a g e s, lik e

p ic t o r ia l s c re e n fo ld

books

th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s 3773

that c o n s is te d

o f fig u r a i

( C o d e x V a t ic a n u s B ) n o w

in

and the

230

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

B ib lio t e c a A p o s t ó lic a V a t ic a n a in th e V a t ic a n ( F ig u r e i i . i ) ; 4 f in e ly w r o u g h t c ry sta l o r g o ld a d o rn m e n ts , lik e th e g o ld e a g le -h e a d lip o r n a m e n t n o w in th e M u s e o C i v i c o in T u r i n ; 5 m e t ic u lo u s ly cra fte d p r e c io u s sto n e m o s a ic s, lik e th e m o s a ic m a s k n o w in the M u s e o N a z io n a le P r e is t o r ic o e E t h n o g r a f ic o L u i g i P ig o r in i in R o m e ; 6 a n d b r illia n t ly c o lo r e d , p a in s t a k in g ly a sse m b le d fe a t h e r w o r k ite m s, lik e

th e fa m o u s q u e tz a l-fe a th e r

he ad d re ss n o w in th e M u s e u m fü r V ö lk e r k u n d e in V ie n n a .7 The

M e x ic a n

o b je c ts fo u n d in s ix t e e n t h - c e n t u r y c o lle c tio n s are th u s u n d o u b te d ly

im p o r ta n t fo r w h a t th e y ca n tell us a b o u t p r e h is p a n ic art h is to r y . B u t ca n th e y also d isc lo se a n y t h in g a b o u t R e n a is s a n c e art h isto ry ? C a n these o b je c ts sh e d a n y lig h t o n p r e v a ilin g

a ttitu d e s t o w a r d

o th e r c u ltu re s

d u r in g

the

Ita lia n

R e n a is s a n c e ?

D id

the

c o lle c t in g o f these w o r k s h a v e a n y d ir e c t o r in d ir e c t in flu e n c e o n th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f the h is t o r y o f w e ste rn art, at th at tim e o r th ere after? W it h t h e ir h is t o r y o f 4 0 0 years in E u r o p e a n re p o sito rie s , these M e x ic a n o b je c ts can c e r t a in ly b e said to h a v e a E u r o p e a n as w e ll as a P r e c o lu m b ia n art h is to ry . T h is fact has, o f c o u rse , lo n g b e e n r e c o g n iz e d b y c u ra to rs o f c o lle c tio n s th at in c lu d e e a rly e x a m p le s o f M e x ic a n (an d o th e r n o n -w e s t e r n ) o b je c ts (a n d “ a rt” ), as w e ll as b y h isto ria n s o f c o lle c t in g a n d o f m u s e u m s .8 W it h so m e e x c e p t io n s , art h isto ria n s, e sp e c ia lly th o se s p e c ia liz in g in E u r o p e a n art, h a v e g e n e ra lly se e m e d less c o g n iz a n t o f, o r p e rh ap s less in te re ste d in e x p lo r in g , th e r a m ific a tio n s o f th e “ s tra n g e ” a n d “ w o n d e r f u l” im a g e s th at in c r e a s in g ly b e g a n to a p p e a r in E u r o p e a n c o lle c tio n s a n d a rc h iv e s fr o m th e tim e o f th e R e n a is s a n c e on. In d e e d , th e resp o n se s o f R e n a is s a n c e E u r o p e to in d ig e n o u s A m e r ic a n artifacts b e g a n to b e re c o rd e d as e a rly as C o lu m b u s ’s v o y a g e .9 In

te rm s o f d o c u m e n ta tio n re la te d to

M e x ic o , th e y are re v e a le d in a n u m b e r o f w a y s , in c lu d in g w r itt e n d e sc rip tio n s a n d r e a c tio n s o f E u r o p e a n s to o b je c ts p r o d u c e d th e r e ;10 in v e n t o r y lists o f M e x ic a n treasure d e stin e d fo r E u r o p e a n b e n e fic ia r ie s ;11 re la te d in v e n to rie s o f M e x ic a n ite m s in E u r o p e a n c o lle c t io n s ;12 a ctu a l s u r v iv in g e x a m p le s o f th e typ e s o f o b je c ts that w e re m o s t p r iz e d a n d c o lle c t e d ;13 w o r k s p r o d u c e d in M e x ic o fo r a E u r o p e a n m a rk e t; E u r o p e a n d ra w in g s , e n g r a v in g s , a n d a d a p ta tio n s o f p r e h is p a n ic ite m s, a ctu a l o r fa n c ifu l; a n d M e x ic a n p ie c e s in c o r p o r a t e d in to E u r o p e a n art w o r k s .14 A lt h o u g h e ach ty p e o f o b je c t o r d o c u m e n ta tio n re v e a ls a d iffe re n t asp e ct o f E u r o p e ’s re sp o n se to th e fo r e ig n artifacts, it can b e a rg u e d that c o lle c t iv e ly th e y d isc lo se m u c h n o t o n ly a b o u t E u r o p e a n c u r io s it y a b o u t th e “ N e w W o r ld ” b u t a b o u t th e a e sth e tic a n d in te lle c tu a l p re d ile c t io n s o f th e p e rio d . A s id e f r o m g o ld w o r k , w h ic h seem s to h a v e b e e n e ste e m e d m a in ly b e ca u se o f th e v a lu e o f its c o n s titu e n t m a te ria l, a n d fe a t h e r w o r k , w h ic h seem s to h a v e e lic it e d a d m ira tio n b e ca u se o f its e x o t ic a p p e a ra n ce , p e rh a p s n o o th e r M e x ic a n o b je c ts a ttracte d as m u c h a tte n tio n as p ic t o r ia l m a n u sc rip ts . M a d e o f lo n g strip s o f s tu c c o -c o a te d b a r k -p a p e r o r a n im a l s k in th at th e In d ia n artists c o v e r e d w it h b r ig h t ly p a in te d im a g e s th e n fo ld e d b a c k a n d fo rth to create s c re e n fo ld b o o k s , th e y a p p e a r to h a v e b e e n e s p e c ia lly v a lu e d w o r k s . It is n o a c c id e n t that o f th e fifte e n in d is p u t a b ly p re c o n q u e s t m a n u sc rip ts that s u rv iv e , th irte e n are in E u r o p e . T h e s e sc^ e en fo ld s u n d o u b t e d ly r a n k e d h ig h in th e h ie r a r c h y o f “ N e w W o r ld ” c u r io s s in c e E u r o p e a n s re g a rd e d b o o k s a n d w r itt e n re c o rd s as h a llm a rk s o f c iv iliz a t io n . T h e p ro v e n a n c e o f th e C o d e x V in d o b o n e n s is , o n e o f th e p re c o n q u e s t M e x ic a n scre e n fo ld s that a rr iv e d in E u r o p e in th e s ix te e n th c e n t u r y a n d is n o w in the N a t io n a lb ib lio t h e k

in

V ie n n a ,

illu stra te s

th e

v a lu e

these

m a n u sc rip ts

had

fo r

the

231

COLLECTING CULTURES

E u r o p e a n c o lle c to r. W it h in a p e rio d o f a b o u t t w e n ty ye a rs th is M ix t e c s c re e n fo ld passed fro m e m p e r o r to k in g to p o p e to c a r d in a l.15 S u r p r is in g ly , n o n e o f th e s u r v iv in g p r e h is p a n ic sc re e n fo ld s is A z t e c

(N a h u a ) , the

d o m in a n t c u ltu r e in a n c ie n t M e x ic o at the tim e o f E u r o p e a n c o n ta c t. T h e p r o d u c t io n o f p a in te d m a n u sc rip ts w a s an a n c ie n t a n d f lo u r is h in g craft w h e n the S p a n ia rd s first a rriv e d in M e x ic o , a n d m a n u s c rip ts w e re a m o n g th e first ite m s C o r t e s se le cte d to s h ip b a c k to S p a in .16 T h e v ir t u a l d isa p p e a ra n c e o f p re c o n q u e s t m a n u s c rip ts in M e x ic o th u s attests to the t h o ro u g h n e s s w it h w h ic h th e task o f e ra d ic a t in g “ p a g a n ” b o o k s w a s c a rrie d o u t b y c o n q u is ta d o rs , m iss io n a rie s, a n d b u re a u c ra ts. In lig h t o f th is, w e m ig h t ask w h e t h e r r e m o v in g the p a in te d scre e n fo ld s fro m th e ir o r ig in a l s e ttin g p e rm itte d th e m to b e v ie w e d in E u r o p e w it h less s u s p ic io n . W a s th e g e o g r a p h ic d e c o n te x t u a liz a tio n o f these m a n u ­ s crip ts p a rt o f a s a n it iz in g

p ro ce ss

th at re n d e re d

th e m

in to

h a rm le ss

c u rio s itie s

in

E u r o p e a n re p o sito rie s? B e c a u s e all p re c o n q u e s t A z t e c m a n u s c rip ts h a v e b e e n lo st o r d e stro y e d , th is c a te g o r y o f A z t e c art is k n o w n to d a y o n ly t h ro u g h late r, u s u a lly m o d ifie d , c o lo n ia l c o p ie s . A n d h e re a g a in , m a n y o f th e fin e s t e x a m p le s are to b e fo u n d in E u r o p e a n re p o sito rie s , w h e r e th e y se e m to h a v e b e e n c o lle c te d a lm o st as a v id ly as th e p re c o n q u e s t o r ig in a ls . In te re s t­ in g ly , these c o p ie s b e g a n to b e m a d e v e r y so o n after E u r o p e a n c o n ta c t, e v e n w h ile p re c o n q u e s t e x a m p le s w e r e still a v a ila b le . M a n y o f these c o p ie s are c o m p o s ite w o r k s that w e re p r o d u c e d b y g r o u p in g to g e th e r re p lic a s o f d isp a rate typ e s o f in d ig e n o u s m a n u ­ scrip ts. W e can th u s su rm is e that th e y w e re cre a te d p r e c is e ly to r e n d e r p ic t o r ia l c o m p e n ­ d ia o f th e b e lie fs, p ra c tic e s, a n d h is t o r y o f th e “ N e w W o r ld ” fo r a c u r io u s E u r o p e a n a u d ie n c e .17 W e m ig h t also ask w h e t h e r r e c o p y in g th e p r e h is p a n ic scre e n fo ld s, o fte n o n E u r o p e a n p a p e r a n d in th e fo rm o f a E u r o p e a n b o o k o r c o d e x , w a s a n o th e r a tte m p t at d is e n g a g in g th e in d ig e n o u s m a n u s c r ip t fro m

its su sp e ct o r ig in s a n d a u th o rs a n d

of

e x o r c is in g th e c o n te n ts o f th o se se c tio n s th at w e re d e v o te d to w h a t w e re re g a rd e d as p a g a n g o d s, id o la tr o u s r e lig io u s b e lie fs, a n d s u p e rs titio u s ritu a ls ( F ig u r e 11.2). Am ong

these

c o lo n ia l

c o m p ila t io n s

is

a M e x ic a n

m a n u s c r ip t

c a lle d

th e

Codex

V a t ic a n u s L a t in u s 3738 ( C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A ) , w h ic h is n o w in the B ib lio t e c a A p o s t o lic a V a tic a n a . M a d e u p o f b o th im a g e s a n d texts, th is la rg e , b o u n d v o lu m e o f 101 fo lio s offers a s p e c ific a n d r e v e a lin g e a rly e x a m p le o f th e e n c o u n te r o f R e n a is s a n c e It a ly w it h a n o n ­ w e s te rn c u ltu r a l a rtifa c t.18 In fact, c o o p t io n ra th e r th a n e n c o u n te r seem s m o re to the p o in t in th is case. E v e n th e fo rm a l L a t in n a m e o f th is M e x ic a n m a n u s c r ip t s h o w s h o w t h o r o u g h ly it w a s s u b s u m e d in to a E u r o p e a n se ttin g . Its o th e r u n o ffic ia l n a m e s d iv u lg e a b it m o re a b o u t its M e x ic a n id e n t it y a n d h is to r y . T h e m a n u s c r ip t is also c a lle d the C o d e x R i o s , after P e d r o de lo s R i o s , w h o is id e n t ifie d in the m a n u s c r ip t it s e lf as a D o m in ic a n fria r w h o liv e d in M e x ic o a n d c o m p ile d it. G iv e n these h is to ric a l c ir c u m ­ stances, it is lik e ly

th at R i o s , a c t u a lly a la y b ro th e r, p r o b a b ly se rv e d as a S p a n is h

m is s io n a ry . S ix t e e n t h - c e n t u r y c h a p te r re p o rts o f th e D o m in ic a n O r d e r re v e a l fe w facts a b o u t h im . H e is, fo r e x a m p le , first d o c u m e n te d in M e x ic o C i t y , th e ca p ita l o f N e w S p a in , as e a rly as 1541, a n d h e d ie d b e fo re

1565 in

P u e b la , a n o th e r c it y in w h ic h

D o m in ic a n m iss io n a rie s w e re e sp e c ia lly a c t iv e .19 T h e m a n u s c r ip t ’s o th e r u n o ffic ia l d e s ig ­ n a tio n as C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A d is tin g u is h e s it fr o m a n o th e r M e x ic a n m a n u s c r ip t late r a c q u ir e d b y th e V a t ic a n lib ra r y , th e p re c o n q u e s t C o d e x V a t ic a n u s B m e n t io n e d a b o v e . L i k e o th e r e x o t ic c u r io s itie s th at fo u n d t h e ir w a y in to a ris to c ra tic c o lle c tio n s t h r o u g h -

232

ii.2

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

The A zte c goddess

Chalchiuhtlicue. Codex Vaticanus B, pictorial m anuscript, sixteenth century. V atican , B ib lio te ca A p ostó lica V aticana, C o d e x V atican u s 3773, page 53. (Photo: author, courtesy o f the A kad em isch e D r u c k -u . V e rla g sanstalt.)

o u t E u r o p e , th e in c lu s io n o f th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A in an Ita lia n re p o s ito r y d e m o n stra te s th e ra n g e o f in te rests o f s ix t e e n t h -c e n t u r y It a lia n c o lle c to rs . N o t o n ly d o these c o lle c tio n s d e m o n stra te an a w a re n e ss o f th e n e w ly e n c o u n te r e d la n d s, b u t a m a s sin g o b je c ts p ro d u c e d b y th e ir in h a b ita n ts seem s to h a v e b e e n o n e w a y fo r E u r o p e a n s to in c o r p o r a t e these a lie n c u ltu re s in to a r a p id ly e x p a n d in g w o r ld v ie w . M e x ic a n m a n u sc rip ts , w h e t h e r p r e h is p a n ic o r ig in a ls o r c o lo n ia l c o p ie s , m u st h a v e b e e n s o m e t h in g o f a re v e la tio n fo r E u r o p e a n c o lle c to rs . Illu s tra tio n s o f In d ia n s p r o d u c e d a n d c ir c u la t e d t h r o u g h o u t E u r o p e in the s ix te e n th c e n t u r y a lm o st in v a r ia b ly d e p ic te d th e m h o ld in g s im p le w e a p o n s lik e b o w s a n d a rro w s a n d c lu b s , o c c a s io n a lly a r u d im e n t a r y to o l, a n d e v e n h u m a n lim b s , b u t n e v e r a b o o k . T h e in h a b ita n ts ot th e A m e r ic a s w e re v a r io u s ly s h o w n as h u n te rs , fig h te rs, fa rm e rs, a n d a cro b a ts, b u t n e v e r as t h in k in g b e in g s. O n e o f th e

fe w

w o rks

that re v e a le d

th e

s p e c tru m

o f A zte c

e x iste n c e

w a s B e r n a r d in o

de

S a h a g ú n ’s v o lu m in o u s a n d la v is h ly illu stra te d m a n u s c r ip t c a lle d th e G en eral H isto ry o f the T h in g s o f N e w S p a in .2" N e v e r p u b lis h e d , o n e v e r s io n o f it d isa p p e a re d after b e in g sent fr o m M e x ic o to K i n g P h ilip I I o f S p a in in th e late 1570s a n d r e -e m e r g e d o n ly in the 1790s in th e B ib lio t e c a M e d ic e a - L a u r e n z ia n a in F lo r e n c e .21 T h e p a in te d m a n u s c r ip t c o p ie s th a t su rfa c e d in E u r o p e a n c o lle c tio n s lik e w is e d isp la y e d e v id e n c e - in d e e d , th e y w e re g r a p h ic e v id e n c e - o f the c u lt u r a l a n d in te lle c tu a l a c tiv itie s o f th e in h a b ita n ts

o f th e

“ New

W o r ld . ”

F u rt h e rm o re ,

th e

c o m m e n ta rie s

in

these

m a n u s c rip ts s h o w th e first resp o n se s o f E u r o p e a n s to th e s o c io - c u lt u r a l system s d e v ise d b y these p e o p le s, th e ir r e lig io u s a n d ritu a l stru c tu re s, p o lit ic a l in s titu tio n s , a n d e c o n o m ic a rra n g e m e n ts. B e c a u s e it has b e e n a lte re d fo r E u r o p e a n c o n s u m p t io n , th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A is e ve n m o re r e v e a lin g o f E u r o p e a n c o lle c t in g p r o c liv it ie s th an th e s im p le r a c q u is it io n o f “ o r ig ­ in a l’ p re c o n q u e s t m a n u sc rip ts . S in c e th e c o lo n ia l c o p ie s w e re c o n s c io u s ly c o n s tru c te d , th e y re v e a l th o se aspects o f in d ig e n o u s c u lt u r e that w e re in c o r p o r a t e d to in tr ig u e a

COLLECTING CULTURES

233

11.3 The A ztec goddess Chalchiuhtlicue. Codex Vaticanus A , pictorial m anuscript, sixteenth century. V atican , B ib lio te ca A p ostó lica V aticana, C o d e x V atican u s 3738, fol. 17v. (Pho to : author, courtesy o f the A kad em isch e D r u c k -u . V e rla g sanstalt.)

E u ro p e a n

re a d e r a n d

e lic it

h is

a d m ir a tio n

o r stir h is

a cq u is itiv e n e s s.

In t e r e s tin g ly ,

a lt h o u g h th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A is a c o lo n ia l d o c u m e n t p r o d u c e d d u r in g the s e c o n d h a lf o f the s ix te e n th c e n t u r y , it fo c u se s c h ie f ly o n A z t e c life as it e x iste d at th e tim e o f E u r o p e a n c o n ta c t a b o u t h a lf a c e n t u r y e a rlie r (w ith th e e x c e p t io n ot th e p ic t o r ia l h is t o r y that e x te n d s in to th e e a rly v ic e r e g a l p e rio d a n d te rm in a te s in 15 62). P o s s ib ly it w a s the “ a n tiq u e ” c h a ra c te r o f th is d ista n t c u ltu r e th at w a s th o u g h t to b e o f m o s t in te re st to a E u r o p e a n re a d e r. B e c a u s e th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A is n o t u n iq u e b u t p a rt o f a g r o u p o f m a n u s c r ip t c o p ie s , w e c a n also su rm is e th at th e re m u st h a v e b e e n a v ia b le E u r o p e a n m a rk e t fo r these typ e s o f d o c u m e n ts to ju s t if y th e a m o u n t o f tim e , tale n t, m o n e y , a n d m a te ria ls e x p e n d e d to p r o d u c e th e m .

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

234

f it

«tW

U •/*jW« « ■•1»»'««*'Aí«**mh'ru*t

5M «1»m«»i»,**b»

№••¿*1

¿ Imimr't* ,Ut

+*U.«tM*»*», fmiúvk

i Um>J¡9 !'féí*j >UU +»¡aMftJi*

kHmtiiuUt lbn .tQgmmb lUmmt/m*•* til #mUm*

ft*»«*1*.»

.h

MÍ&ppJ. »

¿uyj jmú XyaU. -«*. iVh/»»iiTKfriâ,y .«

*.._^

«Xhu,

U -.J H Í

^ .

.,_# - _!»

.

«Vvw- a X

,/i , r i ^



-

f . A*», w'— ■**»»■'

t tv t jk

frito. fa* Mrs,

a V

A* »»■»«»»«•iiw-».. ,fr, 'frr

** tlt/tuftt

j' /✓Htri

t

** ä titxm rtt/fitj,

tritt, ¿¿'trrt'rft*or/.

«

t

f e r

i

,. v

A jr r t A i r r t

> ' , r yZftfrtj

\

Tv £ 'C * r* fr-> 'f t ip y r t

yff r.Htf*. n ü * ’ '

: • ; *'• * CTnrimte* *rrt y/ixiftef-rrnti/rt rSfeístttfrtjfu yTrtitlTírnm-

ne/ttene

¿

' v fc' • *J

/

«Ai

K/rtrtit

CJtioyjfX/byt. y z t t li* * ■J t it / ie t jít ■

V

>/

• •

1

t

11.9 The A zte c cosmos. Codex Vaticanus A , p ictorial m anuscript, sixteenth century. V atican , B ib lio te ca A p o stó lica V aticana, C o d e x V atican u s 3738, fols, i v —2r. (Photo: author, courtesy o f the A kad e m isch e D r u c k -u . V e rla g sanstalt.)

238

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

c le a n , w it h o u t sta in a n d filt h . . . th o se w h o . . . s c rip tu re says w e re w h it e r th a n m ilk , th e c o lo r o f a n c ie n t c o r a l, m o r e b e a u tifu l th a n sa p p h ire . . . . 23 T h e E u r o c e n t r is m e v id e n t in th ese c o m m e n t s m a y stir o u r a m u s e m e n t o r d is m a y , a n d it w o u ld b e s im p le to d ism iss these w o r d s as b e in g o f little v a lu e fr o m e ith e r a M e x ic a n o r E u r o p e a n p e rs p e c tiv e . Y e t , g iv e n th e e x te n siv e n e ss o f th e te x t, it seem s c le a r that the c o m m e n t a to r w a n te d to u n d e rsta n d , a n d to m a k e u n d e rs to o d , th is p e r p le x in g c u ltu r e a n d its e x p re s s io n s. T h u s h e tells us: th e ir h is t o r y is re a lly o u r h is to ry ; th e ir c e r e m o n ie s are lik e o u rs; t h e ir g o d s are lik e o u rs; th e ir p riests are lik e o u rs. B u t d isc re p a n c ie s b e tw e e n th e ir w o r ld a n d o u rs are th e w o r k o f th e d e v il, fo r as th e te x t g o e s o n to say: . . . [it ca n be seen that] fro m o u r o w n c le a n lin e ss w e ca n k n o w h o w g re a t is the c le a n lin e ss o f th e lo r d to w h o m w e o ffe r s a c rific e . S o , it is n o t o u t o f k e e p in g that these h ig h p riests o f th e d e v il w e re d ir ty a n d b la c k a n d a b o m in a b le lik e th e d e v il h im se lf. The

c o m m e n ta to r(s ) o f th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A

e x p lic a t io n

p r in c ip a lly in

d e s c r ib in g t h e ir f u n c t io n

tw o w a y s. T h e b y a n a lo g y w it h

th u s trie d to c a rry o u t th e task o f

first w a s b y id e n t if y in g ite m s o r acts a n d E u ro p e a n

e x a m p le s. T h e

seco n d w as b y

s u p p ly in g a p la u s ib le cau sal e x p la n a t io n fo r e x o t ic b e lie fs a n d p ra c tic e s. I n th e r e lig io u s a n d ritu a l se c tio n s o f th e m a n u s c r ip t, th is u s u a lly takes th e fo r m that these g o d s a n d th e ir c u lts o r ig in a te d t h ro u g h d ia b o lic a l in te r fe r e n c e .24 T h e first p a rt o f th is m e t h o d o lo g y is e v e n m o re c le a rly e x e m p lif ie d b y a n o th e r fo lio th at featu res th e w in d g o d Q u e t z a lc o a t l ( F ig u r e

1 1 .1 0 ). G lo s se s th at a c c o m p a n y the

in d iv id u a l im a g e s tell th e read e r: th is is a g o d , h is n a m e ( Q u e tz a lc o a tl), h is ite m s (th o rn , in c e n s e b u r n e r), h is te m p le s (h o u se o f fa stin g , h o u se o f c o m m u n a l fa stin g , h o u se o f fear, p r is o n o f sad n ess), a n d so o n . In th e te x t b e lo w th e fig u re s , it is th e re se m b la n c e s to C h r is t ia n p ra c tic e s th at c a p tu re th e c o m m e n t a to r ’s a tte n tio n : T h is Q u e t z a lc o a t l . . . s e e in g that th e sin s a n d su ffe rin g s o f th e w o r ld w e re n o t c e a sin g , th e y say w a s th e first to b e g in to in v o k e th e g o d s a n d to m a k e sa c rific e s to th e m . T h u s also h e w a s th e first to d o p e n a n c e in o rd e r to appease th e g o d s in o r d e r that h is p e o p le m ig h t b e p a rd o n e d . T h e y say th at h e s a c r ific e d h im se lf, d r a w in g h is o w n b lo o d w it h th o rn s a n d o th e r fo rm s o f p e n a n c e .25 W h a t m a y a p p e a r to us to d a y as th e n a iv e te a n d p r e ju d ic e o f th e c o m m e n t a to r ’s re m a rk s s h o u ld n o t d istra c t us fr o m the se rio u s in te n t o r le a d us to a to tal r e je c t io n o f h is efforts. G iv e n th e in te n s iv e a n d syste m a tic c h a ra c te r o f th e c o m m e n t a ry , it seem s a p p a re n t that th e c o m m e n t a to r w a n te d to d e sc rib e the p a in tin g s a c c u ra te ly , to ge t th e m rig h t. T h e e ffo rt to ge t th in g s r ig h t m u st b e n o te d , e v e n i f th e a n a lo g ie s u sed to id e n t ify o r c la r ify fo r e ig n p e rso n a g e s a n d o b je c ts e v e n tu a lly c a m e to b e seen as d e fic ie n t a n d d is to r tin g , o r as e x p re s s iv e o f the d e le te rio u s sid e o f C h r is t ia n a n d E u r o p e a n a ttitu d e s t o w a rd the in h a b ita n ts o f th e A m e r ic a s . N o t w it h s t a n d in g th e n e g a tiv e a sp ect o f th e e n d e a v o r, w e m ig h t in fact see in th e c o m m e n t a r y o f th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A , as w e ll as in th o se o f o th e r a n n o ta te d M e x ic a n m a n u sc rip ts , th e first seeds o f a c r it ic a l h is t o r y — a n d c r it ic a l art h is to r y . B u t c rit ic s o f to d a y m u st n o t sto p at c r it iq u in g th e p r e ju d ic e s (th at is, p r e ju d g ­ m e n ts) o f th e s ix te e n th

c e n t u r y , th e y m u st also c rit iq u e

t h e ir o w n .

C o n te m p o ra ry

COLLECTING CULTURES

239

Q t t t s t lt in u t t ■

yn rsnfzrx

11.10

The A ztec god

Quetzalcoatl. Codex Vaticanus A , pictorial m anuscript, sixteenth century. V atican, B ib lio te ca A p ostó lica Vaticana, C o d e x V atican u s 3738, fol. jw. (Pho to : author, courtesy o f the A kad em isch e D r u c k -u . V e rla g sanstalt.)

a w a re n e ss o f E u r o c e n t r ic a ttitu d e s p o sits th e n e e d to c r it iq u e th e m , b u t w it h o u t fo rg e t­ t in g the in te lle c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n t th at g e n e ra te d th e in it ia l aw are n e ss. F ro m

r e a d in g th e c o m m e n t a r y it seem s e v id e n t th at, u n lik e so m e o th e r c o lo n ia l

m a n u sc rip ts , th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A w as n o t cre a te d p r im a r ily to p re se rv e in d ig e n o u s tra d itio n s o r to in fo r m th e S p a n is h m o n a r c h y o r its a d m in is tra to rs a b o u t th e n e w re a lm s u n d e r its c o m m a n d . R a t h e r , the m a n u s c r ip t w a s m ad e fo r th e e n lig h t e n m e n t o f a n Ita lia n p a tro n . In d e e d , th e o p u le n t p h y s ic a l featu res o f th e m a n u s c r ip t - its p a in te d p age s, g ra n d fo lio size , e le g a n t h a n d w r it in g , a n d e n c y c lo p e d ic sco p e - su g g e st th at it w as cre a te d as a p re s e n ta tio n c o p y fo r an Ita lia n re c ip ie n t , w h o s e n a m e has u n fo r t u n a t e ly b e e n lo st to u s.26 S o s t r ik in g is th e Ita lia n c o n n e c t io n that so m e s ch o la rs h a v e sp e c u la te d that th e C o d e x

240

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

V a t ic a n u s A m a y h a v e b e e n c o p ie d fr o m M e x ic a n so u rce s in It a ly a n d b y a n o n - In d ia n artist; o th e rs, h o w e v e r , o p t fo r a M e x ic a n o r ig in .27 I f th e fo r m e r is th e case, th is w o u ld in d ic a te th at th e m a n u s c r ip t m ig h t e v e n h a v e b e e n an Ita lia n c o m m is s io n s p e c ific a lly p r o d u c e d fo r an Ita lia n c o lle c to r . I n a n y e v e n t, it is n o t k n o w n h o w th e m a n u s c r ip t first ca m e to rest in th e V a t ic a n lib ra r y . Its lis t in g as ite m 3738 in th e R a in a ld i in v e n t o r y o f th e V a t ic a n c o lle c t io n , c o m p ile d b e tw e e n 1596 a n d 1600, s e c u r e ly p lace s it th ere b y the late s ix te e n th c e n t u r y .28 B u t c e rta in c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e su gge sts th at it (o r p e rh a p ' th e m o d e l fr o m w h ic h it m a y h a v e b e e n c o p ie d ) m a y h a v e a rr iv e d in th e V a t ic a n lib ra ry e v e n e a rlie r, p o s s ib ly a b o u t 1 5 7 0 .29 T h e h y b r id fo rm o f th is u n u s u a l A z t e c - It a lia n d o c u m e n t rep re se n ts th e tra n s fo rm a tio n o f a M e x ic a n m a n u s c r ip t in to a w e s te r n -s ty le c o d e x . F o r its It a lia n c o lle c to r , it b e ca m e - e v e n i f it w a s n o t c a lle d su ch at th e tim e — an e th n o g r a p h ic d o c u m e n t recast in an a cce ssib le E u r o p e a n iz e d fo rm a t. B u t th e E u r o p e a n iz a t io n o f th e m a n u s c r ip t w e n t b e y o n d th e use o f m a te ria ls s u c h as p a p e r a n d in k a n d th e r e o r ie n t a t io n o f th e im a g e s to read fr o m le ft to rig h t. M o r e im p o r ta n t ly , the w h o le n o t io n o f th e n a tiv e b o o k w a s b e in g r e t h o u g h t as its c o m p o n e n ts w e re resh a p e d .

I t t !

!

m

1

'Jsx-’W * * iTtfffl-'

I■

C n tftftiritd e tt

fjílQ lá n t /

1 .£**

'óievo

t t / / a ¿frusta

pn ¿'tetyü

II.II Fifth divinatory period. Codex Vaticanus A , p ictorial m an uscript, sixteenth century. V atica n , B ib lio te ca A p ostó lica V atican a, C o d e x V atican u s 3738 fols. I7 v - i8 r . (Photo: author, courtesy o f the A kad e m isch e D r u c k u. V e rla g sanstalt.)

241

COLLECTING CULTURES

F o r e x a m p le , in th e d iv in a t o r y se c tio n ( tonalam atl) o f p re c o n q u e s t s c re e n fo ld s lik e the C o d e x V a t ic a n u s B , th e c o n t in u a lly re p e a tin g d iv in a t o r y a n d ritu a l c y c le w as v is u a lly e xp re sse d b y th e h o r iz o n t a lly e x te n d e d p a in te d p a n e l w it h th e 2 6 0 d ays o f th e c y c le d iv id e d in to 20 c o n t ig u o u s 1 3 -d a y se g m e n ts ( F ig u r e

t t .i

). T h i s is v is u a lly c o m m u n ic a t e d

e v e n m o re e m p h a t ic a lly in the tonalam atl se c tio n o f th e p re c o n q u e s t C o d e x B o r g ia , a n o th e r M e x ic a n s c re e n fo ld in th e V a t ic a n

lib ra r y . T h e r e

th e first ten se g m e n ts o f

the r it u a l- d iv in a t o r y c y c le read fr o m r ig h t to le ft o n th e b o t t o m h a lf o f each p a n e l, a n d the s e c o n d te n rea d fr o m left to r ig h t a b o v e th e m in th e to p h a lf o f th e p a n e ls. In th e c o r r e s p o n d in g s e c tio n o f th e p o s tc o n q u e s t C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A , h o w e v e r , the tonalam atl has b e e n fra c tu re d in to d isc re te , se q u e n tia l u n its o r p age s, a re a rra n g e m e n t that n o t o n ly fails to c o m m u n ic a t e th e c y c lic a l asp e ct o f th e r it u a l- d iv in a t o r y c y c le b u t also h a m p e rs a p r o p e r u n d e r s t a n d in g o f th is re p e a tin g r itu a l r o u n d in in d ig e n o u s id e o lo g y . P la c e d o n tw o fa c in g fo lio s , e ach

1 3 -d a y d iv in a t o r y p e rio d is v is u a lly d is c o n n e c te d fr o m

th o se

b e fo re o r afte r it ( F ig u r e 11.11). In a d d it io n , in th is n e w fo rm a t, th e im a g e s , th e m a in c o n s titu e n ts o f th e in d ig e n o u s m a n u s c r ip t, h a v e b e e n r e d u c e d a n d m o v e d to th e u p p e r s e c tio n o f th e fo lio to m a k e ro o m

b e lo w

fo r th e a d d itio n

o f a w r itte n

(th at is, a lp h a b e tic )

te x t. D iv e s t e d n o w

o f the in t e r lo c k in g fram e s that s u r r o u n d e d th e fig u r a l im a g e s, as w e ll as o f so m e o f the a c c o m p a n y in g ite m s th at re la te d to d iv in a t o r y ritu a ls o r th e d iv in a t o r y sp h e re o f th e d e ity , as s h o w n in th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s B ( F ig u r e 11.2), th e d e ity p a tro n s o f th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A n o w flo a t in an in d e te rm in a te sp ace ( F ig u r e i t . 11). V is u a l a tte n tio n n o w fo c u se s o n th e g r a n d ly c o s tu m e d in d iv id u a l fig u r e s ra th e r th a n o n th e in te rre la te d a u g u ra l syste m o f d ays, d e itie s, a n d d iv in a t o r y fo rce s. In a p a ra lle l w a y , th e c o m m e n t a r y b e lo w the fig u r e c o n c e n tra te s o n d e s c r ib in g g e n e ra l featu res a b o u t th e p a tro n ra th e r th e sy ste m o f w h ic h it w a s a p art. O n fo lio 17V o f th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A , fo r e x a m p le ( F ig u r e 11.3), th e c o m m e n t a to r d e sc rib e s th e w a te r g o d d e ss re p re se n te d ( C h a lc h iu h t lic u e o r Ja d e S k ir t ) , h e r c o s tu m e , a n d th e in s ig n ia she bears. B u t h e r ro le in the d iv in a t o r y ritu a ls o f the 13 da ys u n d e r h e r s w a y is ig n o r e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , th e Ita lia n te x t n o w bears th e w e ig h t o f c o m m u n ic a t in g in f o r m a t io n to the rea d e r, in c o n tra st to th e r e lia n c e o n th e im a g e s a n d a c c o m p a n y in g o ra l r e c ita tio n th at h a d b e e n p re v a le n t d u r in g th e p r e h is p a n ic p e rio d . T h e fin a l fo rm o f th e C o d e x V a t ic a n u s A

th u s re p re se n ts n o t ju s t a d iffe re n t m o d e

o f r e c o r d in g a n d

“ r e a d in g ”

in fo r m a t io n , b u t a n e w w a y o f t h in k in g a b o u t th e c o n te n t o f a c u ltu re . T h e c o d e x fo rm o f the E u r o p e a n iz e d m a n u s c r ip t v is u a lly e xp resses th e e stra n g e m e n t o f the m a n u s c r ip t fro m the c o n t r ib u t o r y ro le it o n c e p la y e d in th e p a r t ic ip a to r y a u g u ra l a c t iv it y c a r r ie d o u t b e tw e e n in d iv id u a l a n d p rie st. T h e n e w fo rm a t th u s c o rre la te s to th e s o lita ry act o f re a d in g that c h a ra c te rize s w h a t has b e e n d e sc rib e d as a n is o la t in g lite ra c y . T h e e ffo rt to u n d e rsta n d o r a lit y as c o n s tit u e n t o f c u ltu re s , d iffe r e n tia t in g th e m fr o m “ lite ra te ’' (a lp h a ­ b e tic ) o n e s in im p o r ta n t w a y s , e sp e c ia lly in t h e ir m o d e s o f k n o w in g a n d s o c ia l c o n s e ­ q u e n ce s, has e n g a g e d so m e re c e n t s c h o la rs.30 O r a lit y is said to u n ite sp e a k e r w it h h e are r in a d ia lo g ic a l im m e d ia c y a n d a llo w th e past to b e c o m e p re se n t in p e rfo rm a n c e (ritu a l), w h e re a s w r it in g is said to iso la te a u d ie n c e fr o m

sp e a k e r a n d to r e ify th e past. T h e

tra n s m u ta tio n fro m s c re e n fo ld to c o d e x illu stra te s th is tra n s c u ltu ra l sh ift. W h a t seem s to e m e rg e f r o m these c o n s id e r a tio n s is th at attem p ts to a rriv e at u n d e r ­ s ta n d in g b y e s ta b lis h in g c o n t e x t t h r o u g h s u c h m e a n s as e x h a u s tiv e d e s c r ip t io n , a p p r o p r i­

242

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

a tin g o r t ra n s m u tin g in d ig e n o u s ta x o n o m ie s a n d c a te g o rie s, o r im p o s in g e x t r in s ic on e s, tu rn o u t to b e e sse n tia lly u n r e a liz a b le p ro je c ts . N o c o m p le te s p e c ific a t io n o r d e s c rip tio n o f a c u ltu r e , e s p e c ia lly o f an o u ts id e o n e , seem s p o ssib le . T h e in te lle c tu a l a rtifa ct o f c rit ic a l (art) h is t o r y a rriv e s, i f n o t at s e lf-c o n s u m p t io n , th e n at e x h a u s tio n . It c o n s u m e s it s e lf b y d e p le t in g a ll th e a v a ila b le re so u rc e s (a n a lo g ie s / c a te g o rie s ) w e s te rn c u ltu r e has to e x p la in th e o th e r. It e xh a u sts its e lf b y an e v e r m o r e d e ta ile d d e s c r ip t io n o f th e “ n a tiv e c o n t e x t ” th at it fin d s s till ca p a b le o f fu rth e r d e s c r ip tio n . T h e s e s h o r tc o m in g s w o u ld seem to n e ce ssita te th e a b a n d o n m e n t o f all c e n tris m s, e v e n w h e n ir o n ic a lly th e o n ly w a y o f u n d e r s t a n d in g th e o th e r — a n d th e art o f the o th e r — is b y w a y o f a n a lo g ie s b o r n o f the c e n tris m o n e see ks to escap e. O v e r tim e th e E u r o p e a n d is c ip lin e o f h is to r y , w it h its in te re st in in d ig e n o u s la n g u a g e s a n d c a te g o rie s, has le d to an in e v it a b le r e c o g n it io n o f th e p r o b le m o f “ th e n a tiv e p o in t o f v i e w ” a n d o f the im p o s s ib ilit y o f e x p e r ie n c in g it in w e ste rn term s. In te re s t in a n e v e r m o re d e ta ile d d e s c r ip tio n o f c o n t e x t has s im ila r ly le d to an u n d e r s t a n d in g o f fo re ig n im a g e s as u n lik e E u r o p e a n o n e s, in d e e d as “ o t h e r ,” to be a p p re c ia te d p r e c is e ly as sig n s a n d s y m b o ls o f a d iffe re n t w o r ld v ie w a n d to be u n d e rs to o d b y w a y o f a n a lo g y w it h the fa m ilia r. A n

im m e d ia te o r in t u it iv e u n d e r s t a n d in g o f these im a g e s has p r o v e d to be

illu s o r y . H o w e v e r a p p ro a c h e d b y th e v a r io u s m e t h o d o lo g ie s o f art h is to r y , th e y re m a in t r u ly “ o t h e r .” A s s u c h , th e y a n n o u n c e th e lim it s o f th e w e s te rn p o in t o f v ie w a n d lib e ra te th e art o f n o n -w e s t e r n o th e rs to be re a lly “ o t h e r .”

PART 4

Mediating Images: Developing an Intercultural Perspective

TSJonfcernermjettwelf Mtiiß »5 beitv>otctemm b t u ?auffte/vn fmt> \>o\>ft£ ganzen/m it bcm gcbfng/ty f>$ii v>ttam ffba& $oc$fi fotcften wibez tefrvnmcn/ wann wirte fo lang watfete»i/x>tt&alfo faßen fr beit weg angttffen v n 10 wiv bie witeifart ß vnfem fcQiffen etetten*

12.1 G riin in g e r. Women Clubbing Member o f Vespucci’s crew. W o o d cu t, D is buchlin saget, 1509. (Photo: B ritish Lib rary.)

CHAPTER 12

Wild Woman in Colonial Mexico: A n Encounter of European and Aztec Concepts of the Other C E C E L IA

F.

K L E IN

In h is in t r o d u c t io n to M arvelous Possessions, o n e o f n u m e ro u s texts fo c u s e d o n R e n a is ­ sance E u r o p e ’s re a c tio n s to th e p e o p le s o f th e s o -c a lle d N e w W o r ld , S te p h e n G r e e n b la tt fo re w a rn s

h is re a d e r th at he

has trie d

“ less to d is t in g u is h

b e tw e e n

tru e

and

false

re p re se n ta tio n s th an to lo o k a tte n tiv e ly at th e n a tu re o f th e re p re se n ta tio n a l p ra c tic e s that the E u r o p e a n s c a rrie d w it h th e m to A m e r ic a a n d d e p lo y e d w h e n th e y trie d to d e sc rib e to th e ir f e llo w c o u n t r y m e n w h a t th e y sa w a n d d id [th e r e ].” I g a th e r that G re e n b la tt f o u n d th is task fa ir ly d if fic u lt , b e ca u se he w rite s at tim e s lik e a re p e n ta n t s in n e r still attracte d to th e d e v il: “ I catch m y se lf constantly straining to rea d in to th e E u r o p e a n traces an a c c o u n t o f w h a t th e A m e r ic a n n a tiv e s w e re ‘r e a lly ’ lik e - b u t I have resisted as much as I can th e temptation to sp ea k fo r o r a b o u t th e n a tiv e c u ltu re s as i f th e m e d ia tio n o f E u r o p e a n re p re se n ta tio n s w e re an in c id e n ta l c o n s id e r a t io n , e a sily c o r r e c te d f o r ” (e m p h a ­ ses m in e ). G r e e n b la t t ’s re a so n fo r re s is tin g a n y c la im to k n o w in g th e “ o t h e r ” is b y n o w fa m ilia r: “ W e can be c e rta in o n ly th at E u r o p e a n re p re se n ta tio n s o f th e N e w W o r ld tell us s o m e t h in g a b o u t th e European p ra c tic e o f re p re s e n ta tio n ” .1 T h e r e can b e , in o th e r w o r d s , n o real e p is t e m o lo g ic a l in te r a c tio n a cross c u lt u r a l b o u n d a rie s . O n e c a n n o t e v e r k n o w h is “ o th e rs .” T h e p o s tstru c tu ra list c r it iq u e o f re p re se n ta tio n , w h ic h g r e w o u t o f th e w r it in g s o f t w e n t ie t h - c e n t u r y F r e n c h in te lle c tu a ls s u c h as R o la n d B a rth e s, M ic h e l F o u c a u lt , a n d Ja c q u e s D e r r id a , has b e e n e m b ra c e d b y a n u m b e r o f stu d e n ts o f th e c o n q u e s t a n d c o lo n iz a t io n o f th e N e w W o r ld .2 Its p o p u la r it y d e riv e s in la rg e p a rt fro m g e n e ra l b e lie f that s u c h c ritiq u e s p r o v id e a s o lu t io n to th e t h o r n y p r o b le m lite ra tu re

on

in d ig e n o u s

A m e r ic a .

S tu n g b y

c r it ic is m

o f E u r o c e n t r is m

la u n c h e d b y

in the

s u b -a lt e m s 3 a n d

m u ltic u ltu r a lis ts , as w e ll as d issid e n t h isto ria n s a n d “ e t h n o -a n t h r o p o lo g is t s ,” a n d se n si­ tiz e d to th e in c r e a s in g ly w e ll- d o c u m e n t e d R e n a is s a n c e E u r o p e a n t e n d e n c y to p e rc e iv e the N e w W o r ld in fa m ilia r a n d u ltim a te ly r e d u c t iv e fo rm s, A m e r ic a n is t s h a v e r e c e n tly b e c o m e a w a re o f th e n a iv e te in h e r e n t in u s in g E u r o p e a n texts a n d p ic tu re s as lite ra l, e sse n tia lly tra n sp a re n t r e fle c tio n s o f th e A m e r in d ia n past. In r e je c t in g th e id e a th at the R e n a is s a n c e ’s d o c u m e n ta r y so u rce s -

w h e t h e r v is u a l o r te x tu a l — c o n s titu te a glass

w in d o w lo o k in g o u t o n E u r o p e ’s “ o th e rs ,” m o r e a n d m o re a u th o rs o n b o th sid es o f the

246

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

A t la n t ic in ste a d h a v e m o v e d to treat th o se so u rce s m o r e lik e a m o d e r n m ir r o r , as an o p a q u e su rfa ce ca p a b le o n ly o f r e fle c t in g b a c k to us an im a g e o f o u rse lv e s. I d o u b t that G r e e n b la t t m e a n t to b e read as c a s tin g b la n k e t d isa p p ro v a l o v e r all atte m p ts to r e c o n s tru c t th e re a lity o f th e N e w W o r ld “ o t h e r ,” a n d I a m r e lie v e d th at he h im s e lf, tra in e d as h e is in

S h a k e sp e a ria n

R e n a is s a n c e

c u ltu r e , re fra in e d h e re fro m

p e rs o n a lly u n d e r t a k in g to m a k e o n e . T h e r e ca n b e n o t h in g so g r im as th e a ssu m p tio n s a b o u t, a n d c o n s e q u e n t m isre p re s e n ta tio n s of, in d ig e n o u s A m e r ic a n th o u g h ts a n d p ra c tic e s th at h a v e b e e n o ffe re d u p b y E u r o p e a n is ts in th e c o u rse o f p r o v id in g p o ststru ctu ra list “ in s ig h t s ” in to th e c o n q u e s t a n d c o lo n iz a t io n p e rio d s .4 W h e t h e r o r n o t G r e e n b la t t ’s p e rs o n a l in te n t w as to d is c o u r a g e fu tu re a ttem p ts to u n d e rsta n d the A m e r ic a n in d ig e n e , h o w e v e r , th e fact is th at p o s tstru c tu ra lism in g e n e ra l has te n d e d to d o so. If, as P e te r M a s o n has a rg u e d , th e E u r o p e a n v is io n o f A m e r ic a is n e c e s sa rily a d isto rte d v ie w o f n a tiv e re a lity b e ca u se re p ré se n tio n s “ re fe r o n ly to o th e r re p re se n ta tio n s, a n d n o t to the tru th o f th e re p re se n te d ,” th e n it f o llo w s that th e re is n o g a in in p u r s u in g th at tru th , that re a lity .'1 T h is m essage has n o t b e e n lo st o n y o u n g e r A m e r ic a n is t s in p a rtic u la r , m a n y o f w hom

h a v e d e d u c e d fro m

these a x io m s that it is s im p ly im p o s s ib le

a n d u n d e rsta n d the e a rly c u ltu r e h is t o r y o f th e N e w case, these sch o la rs h a v e

c o n c lu d e d ,

th e y

can

to re c o n s tru c t

W o r ld n a tiv e . S in c e that is the

b e tte r s p e n d t h e ir e n e rg ie s s tu d y in g

th e ir o w n re fle c tio n s in th e m ir r o r s o f h is to r y . N e v e r m in d th e h is to r y , th e “ t r u t h ,” o f th e ir “ o th e rs .” W h a t fo llo w s is an e ffo rt to d e m o n stra te that, h o w e v e r c lo u d y th e im a g e m a y be d e stin e d to re m a in fo r us, it is p o s s ib le to see s o m e t h in g in the glass b e sid e o u rse lv e s. R e p re s e n t a t io n s , in o th e r w o r d s , d o n o t ju s t re fe r to o th e r re p re se n ta tio n s; th e y c a n re fe r in p a rt to o t h e r “ re a litie s ” as w e ll. T h is e x e rc ise also w ill a tte m p t to s h o w th at w e can o n ly id e n t ify a n d f u lly u n d e rsta n d th e n a tu re a n d ra n g e o f c o lo n ia l- p e r io d re p re se n ­ ta tio n a l p ro cesses i f w e ca n lo c a te th o se p o in ts at w h ic h R e n a is s a n c e re p re se n ta tio n s b o th re s e m b le d a n d d iffe re d fr o m in d ig e n o u s m o d e s o f c o n c e p t u a liz a t io n . W e n e e d , in o th e r w o r d s , to b e c e rta in th at it is in d e e d o n ly

o u rs e lv e s -

a n d n o t so m e “ o t h e r ”

asw e ll -

w h o s e im a g e w e are s e e in g in th e glass. I w ill d e v e lo p these p o in ts t h r o u g h in v e s t ig a tio n o f the im p a c t o f th e m e d ie v a l a n d R e n a is s a n c e m o t if o f “ W i l d W o m a n ” o n C e n t r a l M e x ic a n re p re se n ta tio n s o f th e A z t e c g o d d e ss C ih u a c o a t l. P r e v io u s s ch o la rs h a v e a lre a d y d e m o n s tra te d a t e n d e n c y f o r e a rly s ix t e e n t h - c e n t u r y E u r o p e a n e x p lo re rs a n d th e ir illu stra to rs to re p re se n t n a tiv e w o m e n o f B r a z il in term s o f th e fe m a le c o u n te r p a r t o f th e v io le n t , c a n n ib a lis tic “ W ild M a n ” o f E u r o p e a n lo r e .6 S u s i C o li n , fo r e x a m p le , p o in ts to a w o o d c u t illu s tr a tin g S tra ss b u rg e d it io n o f A m e r ig o V e s p u c c i’s

th e

1509

a c c o u n t o f h is v o y a g e s to A m e r ic a , w h ic h

d e p ic ts a c r e w m e m b e r c u n n in g ly d istra c te d b y se ve ra l G u a r a n i w o m e n w h ile a n o th e r w o m a n p re p a re s to c lu b h im fr o m b e h in d . In a c c o r d a n c e w it h V e s p u c c i’s te x t, a n d as seen in th e b a c k g r o u n d , th e senseless s a ilo r w a s s u b s e q u e n tly d ra g g e d in to a c a v e to be ro a ste d a n d eaten ( F ig u r e 12.1).

L i k e W i l d W o m a n , these G u a r a n i w o m e n are n a k e d

a n d h a v e lo n g , u n k e m p t h a ir. T h is is im p o r ta n t b e ca u se , to th e n o r th , S p a n is h m e n d i­ can ts in C e n t r a l M e x ic o w e re d e s c r ib in g an A z t e c g o d d e ss w h o s e d is h e v e le d a p p e a ra n ce a n d d e s tru c tiv e b e h a v io r lik e w is e re c a ll W ild W o m a n . M o s t c o m m o n ly c a lle d b y the N a h u a t l n a m e o f C ih u a c o a t l, “ W o m a n S n a k e ,” th is d e it y ’s statue h a d , a c c o r d in g to the D o m in ic a n fria r D ie g o D u r a n , “ a h u g e o p e n m o u t h a n d fe r o c io u s te e th ,” w h ile h e r h a ir

WILD WOMAN IN COLONIAL MEXICO

12.2

247

Lucas C ra n a c h the Eld e r. C a n ­

nibal Eating Baby. W o o d cu t. 1 5 1 0 15. N e w Y o r k , T h e M etropolitan M u seu m o f A rt, H arris Brisbane D ic k Fu n d , 1942 (42.45.2). (Photo: m useum .)

w a s lo n g a n d “ b u lk y . ” B e ca u se she w a s “ a lw a y s fa m is h e d ,” D u r a n c la im s, she w a s fed a ro aste d c a p tiv e e v e r y d a y ; w h e n sated, she f lu n g a t h ig h fr o m h e r d a rk te m p le , c r y in g o u t, “ T a k e th is fo r it has b e e n g n a w e d o n ! ” 8 T h e F ra n c is c a n B e r n a r d in o de S a h a g u n d e sc rib e d C ih u a c o a t l as a “ sava ge b e ast” a n d c la im e d th at she r e c e n tly h a d “ e a te n ” a in fa n t b o y in h is c ra d le , a re p o rt b e a r in g e e rie re s e m b la n c e to E u r o p e a n tales in w h ic h W i l d M a n a n d , e sp e c ia lly , W ild W o m a n , w h o w e re a lw a y s h u n g r y , k id n a p p e d a n d ate o th e r w o m e n ’s b a b ie s ( F ig u r e 1 2 .2 )/' F r a y G e r o n im o M e n d ie ta ’s 1596 re p o rt th at C ih u a c o a t l c o u ld c h a n g e h e r s e lf in to a se rp e n t o r a lo v e ly y o u n g w o m a n w h o e n tic e d m e n in t o in te r c o u r s e so th at she c o u ld k ill th e m r e in fo rc e s th e s u s p ic io n th at th e go d d e ss w a s p e rc e iv e d in te rm s o f W i l d W o m a n .1" In E u r o p e a n lo r e , W ild W o m a n w a s o fte n an a n ti-s o c ia l sla ve to n a tu re w h o liv e d a lo n e , u s u a lly in re m o te cav e s o r forests. N o r m a lly g ro te sq u e in a p p e a ra n ce , w it h lo n g m a tte d h a ir a n d n a k e d s a g g in g breasts, she n o n e th e le ss w a s ab le to tu rn in t o a lo v e ly y o u n g w o m a n w h o se d u c e d m e n in to h e r re m o te w o o d e d o r m o u n t a in o u s la ir in o r d e r to d riv e th e m m a d i f n o t d e v o u r th e m . S u c h cre a tu re s are still w id e ly fe a re d in M e x ic o a n d M a y a -s p e a k in g areas to d a y . A m o n g th e C h o r t i M a y a in G u a te m a la , fo r e x a m p le , th e re is still ta lk o f a w ild a n d u g ly , lo n g - h a ir e d a n d fa n g e d c re a tu re - h a lf-s n a k e , h a lf - w o m a n w h o s e n a m e is S ig u a n a b a , an h is p a n ic iz a t io n o f the A z t e c n a m e C ih u a c o a t l. L i k e W i l d W o m a n , S ig u a n a b a ap p ears o n trails at n ig h t , u s u a lly d isg u is e d as a m a n ’s lo v e r , in o rd e r to t r ic k h im in to illic it in te rc o u rs e . I f h e r v ic t im , u p o n s e e in g h e r tru e id e n t ity , refuses

248

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

h e r a d v a n ce s, th e sed u ctre ss scra tch e s h im w it h h e r lo n g c la w s a n d d riv e s h im m a d w :: t e r r o r .11 T o m y k n o w le d g e n o c o lo n ia l M e x ic a n te x t states s p e c ific a lly th at e ith e r W ild M a n

r

W ild W o m a n in flu e n c e d E u r o p e a n p e rc e p tio n s o f th e A z te c s . T a le s o f W ild M a n and! W ild

W om an

c e r t a in ly h a d b e e n p o p u la r b a c k h o m e in

m e d ie v a l S p a in , h o w e v e r

a p p e a rin g th e re in b o th lite ra tu re a n d fo lk lo r e . I n th e fo u rte e n th c e n t u r y m a n y S p a n ish sto rie s fo c u s e d o n a serrana, o r m o u n t a in

g ir l, w h o , a lt h o u g h lo v e ly in a p p ea ran ce ,

w a y la id a n d b r u t a liz e d tra ve le rs w h o stra ye d in to h e r w ild d o m a in . O n e serrana re p o r t­ e d ly liv e d in a c a v e s u r r o u n d e d b y th e b o n e s o f th e m e n she h a d e n tic e d t h e r e .12 In the Lib ro de buen amor, m o r e o v e r , a serrana ap p ears as a g ro te sq u e c re a tu re w it h lo n g breas:a n d a h a ir y n e c k . S ta n le y R o b e su gge sts that sto rie s o f s u c h th re a te n in g w o m e n w e re c a rrie d to N e w

S p a in b y c o lo n is ts o f th e lo w e r classes, g iv in g rise in

tim e to the

w id e sp re a d M id d le A m e r ic a n b e lie f in “ la llorana” (th e w e e p in g w o m a n ) , w h o w a n d e rat n ig h t a lo n g stream s a n d w a te rc o u rse s w it h lo n g , m a tte d h a ir a n d “ a face that in s p ire ' h o r r o r .” 13 It is e n tir e ly p o ssib le , i f n o t p ro b a b le , th e re fo re , that W i l d W o m a n ’s im a g e sh ap e d S a h a g u n ’s c o n t e n t io n that C ih u a c o a t l h a d “ d e v o u r e d ” an in fa n t. It w o u ld be a m ista k e , h o w e v e r , to c o n c lu d e fr o m th is th at h e r c a n n ib a lis tic p r o c liv it ie s w e re e n tir e ly fo r e ig n t^ A z t e c t ra d itio n . O n th e basis o f re p o rte d A z t e c b e lie fs th at d o n o t fin d re a d y c o u n te r p a n s in E u r o p e a n c o u n tr ie s , it can be a rg u e d in ste ad th at c o lo n ia l assertatio n s th at C ih u a c o a t l c o n s u m e d b a b ie s o w e s o m e t h in g to p r e h is p a n ic b e lie fs, as w e ll. A s th e a c k n o w le d g e d p a tro n e ss o f A z te c

m id w iv e s

and

p a rtu rie n t w o m e n , w e

are to ld ,

C ih u a c o a t l

w as

re s p o n s ib le fo r d e t e r m in in g h e r c lie n ts ’ su cce ss o r fa ilu re in p r o d u c in g h e a lth y b a b ie s, a n d m id w iv e s a n d p a rtu rie n ts a c c o r d in g ly p ra y e d to h e r fo r easy d e liv e r y .14 A lt h o u g h th e re is n o e v id e n c e th at d ead c h ild r e n w e re th o u g h t to h a ve b e e n lit e ra lly d e v o u r e d b y the go d d e ss in p re h is p a n ic tim e s, it is c le a r fr o m th e f o r e g o in g that she w a s a lre a d y h e ld re s p o n s ib le fo r in fa n t d eath s b y th e tim e o f c o n ta c t. C ih u a c o a t l’s re p u te d c a n n ib a lis m in th e c o lo n ia l p e rio d th e re fo re c a n n o t b e u n d e rs to o d s o le ly in te rm s o f E u r o p e a n ste re o ­ typ e s o f W ild W o m a n . The

d iffe re n c e s

h e re

b e tw e e n

W ild

W o m a n ’s re la tio n

to

c h ild r e n

and

that

of

C ih u a c o a t l p o in ts u p fu rth e r m is u n d e rs ta n d in g s th at ca n arise fr o m f o c u s in g e x c lu s iv e ly o n E u r o p e a n m o d e s o f r e p r e s e n tin g th e N e w W o r ld “ o t h e r .” F o r u n lik e W i l d W o m a n ’s, C ih u a c o a t l’s p r e h is p a n ic ro le w a s a c tu a lly a m b iv a le n t; she w a s as c a p a b le o f b e n e v o le n c e as o f h o s t ility , a n d as lik e ly to m a n ife st it. H e r d e c is io n to g ra n t o r take an in fa n t ’s life d e p e n d e d n o t so m u c h o n h e r o w n in n a te d is p o s itio n , w h ic h w a s n e ith e r k in d ly n o r u n k in d ly , as o n w h e t h e r o r n o t h e r c lie n ts a cte d a p p r o p r ia te ly b o th b e fo re a n d d u r in g la b o r .15 T h a t she w a s u n d e rs to o d to h a v e tre m e n d o u s c re a tiv e p o te n tia l as w e ll as d e s tru c tiv e p o w e rs is re fle c te d in th e fact that she w as ad d resse d as “ O u r M o t h e r ” a n d b y h e r fre q u e n t ro le in N a h u a m y t h as m o t h e r o r g u a rd ia n o f th e g o d s .16 In e m p h a s iz in g th e g o d d e s s ’s d e stru c tiv e p o w e rs to th e e x c lu s io n o f h e r c re a tiv e p o te n tia l, th e n , c o lo n ia l re p re se n ta tio n s o f h e r ro le a n d n a tu re r e d u c e d th e c o m p le x it y a n d a m b iv a le n c e o f b e lie fs a b o u t h e r to a s im p le r, u n iv a le n t fo r m that b e tte r fitte d th e E u r o p e a n te m p la te c u t fo r W ild W o m a n . T h e te n s io n s a n d s lip p a g e c re a te d b y th e c o llis o n o f t ra d itio n a l A z t e c a n d R e n a is s a n c e E u r o p e a n c o n c e p ts o f m y t h ic w o m e n are e q u a lly e v id e n t in th e g r a p h ic re a lm , w h e r e

WILD WOMAN IN COLONIAL MEXICO

12.3

249

Cihuacoatl presiding over

fire sacrifice. Fro m D ie g o D u ra n , Historia de las Indias, pictorial m an uscript, vo l. 1, pi. 21. M ad rid , B ib lio te ca N a cio n al. (Photo: library.)

n a tiv e artists w e re e m p lo y e d b y S p a n ia rd s to illu stra te m e n d ic a n t texts d e ta ilin g n a tiv e h isto rie s , b e lie fs, a n d c u sto m s. W h e re a s th e E u r o p e a n a u th o rs w e re free to recast n a tiv e te s tim o n y in to m o re fa m ilia r E u r o p e a n fo rm s a n d la n g u a g e s , th e illu s tra tio n s to th e ir w r it in g s w e re p r o d u c e d d ir e c t ly b y th e A z t e c “ o t h e r .” T h i s is n o t to say that these n a tiv e artists o f th e

c o lo n ia l

p e r io d

w e re

not

th e m se lv e s

in flu e n c e d

by

E u ro p e a n

va lu e s

a n d a rtistic m o d e s o f e x p re s s io n . It is in c r e a s in g ly c le a r th at, as d e sc e n d e n ts o f th e A z t e c a ris to c ra c y , m o s t h a d b e e n s y s te m a tic a lly e x p o s e d to E u r o p e a n a rtistic te c h n iq u e s a n d im a g e r y -

as w e ll as to R o m a n C a t h o lic v a lu e s, E u r o p e a n la n g u a g e s, a n d a lp h a b e tic

w r it in g - at o n e o f th e se ve ra l s c h o o ls e a rly e sta b lish e d b y th e c h u r c h e x p re s s ly fo r th is p u r p o s e .17 H o w e v e r , a lt h o u g h these artists w e re c e r t a in ly in a p o s itio n to assess th e ir o w n past b y E u r o p e a n sta n d a rd s, a n d a lt h o u g h th e y s u re ly m u st h a v e d o n e so, at least so m e o f th e m possessed so m e c u lt u r a lly tra n s m itte d k n o w le d g e o f th e n a tu re o f, a n d ra tio n a le s fo r, e a rlie r in d ig e n o u s p ra c tic e s a n d b e lie fs .18 T h is n a tiv e p e rs p e c tiv e , h o w e v e r a lte re d b y the e ve n ts o f s u b o r d in a t io n ,

e x p lo it a t io n , a n d

th e n e ed s o f S p a n is h

p a tro n s, o fte n

in c lu d e d n o t ju s t m e m o rie s , h o w e v e r b lu r re d , o f h o w th in g s o n c e w e re , b u t also so m e id e a o f h o w t h in g s o n c e m ig h t h a v e lo o k e d . It is s ig n ific a n t , th e n , th at D u r a n ’s n a tiv e illu s tr a to r t w ic e d e p ic te d th e ra v e n o u s C ih u a c o a t l, o n c e in a n tic ip a t io n o f h e r g r is ly d in n e r ( F ig u r e

1 2 .3 ), th e s e c o n d tim e

250

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

12.4 Cihuacoatl. Fro m D ie g o D u rá n , Historia de las Indias, pictorial m anuscript, vo l. 1, pi. 20. M ad rid , B ib lio te ca N a cio n a l. (Photo: lib rary.)

s im p ly s ta n d in g a lo n e , h e r lo n g h a ir h a n g in g lo o s e a n d h e r la rg e , s n a r lin g m o u th w id e o p e n , w it h h e r teeth e x p o s e d a n d h e r to n g u e p r o t r u d in g ( F ig u r e 12.4 ). T h e fig u r e c lo se ly re se m b le s an illu s tra tio n p r o d u c e d fo r S a h a g u n o f an A z t e c au ia ni, o r h a rlo t, w h o s e lo o se , w in d b lo w n h a ir co n tra sts so m a r k e d ly w it h th e b o u n d - u p h a ir c h a ra c te ris tic o f m a rrie d A z t e c w o m e n .19 M a rg a re t A r v e y has su g g e ste d th a t th is h a ir d o w a s d e riv e d , n o t fro m n a tiv e c u s to m o r a rtistic c o n v e n t io n , b u t fr o m E u r o p e a n p r in t a n d b o o k illu s tra tio n s o f w om en

o f easy v ir t u e ” ; these in c lu d e d

E v e , V e n u s , a n d p e rs o n ifie d v ic e s su ch as

L ic e n z a a n d H e r e s ia .2" B o o k s a n d s in g le -s h e e t p rin ts w e re c e r t a in ly e a rly im p o r te d in to th e A m e r ic a s fro m th e O l d W o r ld a n d th u s w o u ld h a v e b e e n a cc e ssib le to n a tiv e stu d e n ts tra in e d in th e E u r o p e a n w a y o f m a k in g p ic t u r e s .21 L o n g , d is h e v e le d h a ir, h o w e v e r , as w e h a v e seen , w a s also c h a ra c te ris tic o f th e E u r o p e a n W ild W o m a n , fo r w h o m a s n a r lin g v is a g e w a s also a p p ro p ria te ( F ig u r e

1 2.5). It m a y w e ll th u s h a v e b e e n W i l d W o m a n

h e r s e lf w h o se rv e d as a m o d e l fo r C ih u a c o a t l’s c o iffu re . B u t , a g a in , d o these p a in tin g s o f C ih u a c o a t l re fle c t o n ly E u r o p e a n a rtistic a n d m o ra l

WILD WOMAN IN COLONIAL MEXICO 12.5 (left)

251 A n o n y m o u s, Fren ch . W ild

W o m a n . D e tail o f scene o f A le xa n d e r in com bat, L e livre et la raye histoire du bon roy A lizandre. Illu m in ated m an uscript, early fifteenth century, fol. 51. Lo n d o n , the B ritish Lib rary . (Photo: library.) 12.6 (bottom left) Cihuacoatl. M e xica n , stone. M e x ic o C it y , M useo N a tio n a l de A n tro p o lo gía e H istó rica . (Photo: Instituto N a tio n a l de A n tro p o lo gía e H isto ria , M e x ic o , D .F .) 12.7 (bottom right)

Cihuacoatl’s face.

D r a w in g after im age reproduced in 12.6. (Fro m C a so , Calendarios prehispanicos, 204, fig. 3).

code s? P r e - H is p a n ic A z t e c sto n e re lie fs d e p ic t in g C ih u a c o a t l su g g e st o th e rw is e . T h e s e p re c o n q u e s t im a g e s s h o u ld n e v e r be ig n o r e d in o u r an alyse s o f th e c o lo n ia l e n c o u n te r , fo r th e y re p re se n t th e “ te x ts ” o f th e A z t e c s th e m se lv e s. T o

refu se to h e e d th e m is

ta n ta m o u n t to d e n y in g th e “ o t h e r ” a v o ic e in th e d is c u s s io n o f w a y s in w h ic h th e ir w o r ld w a s re p re se n te d . It c a n n o t b e d is c o u n te d , th e n , th at C ih u a c o a t l ap p ears in these p r e -c o n ta c t im a g e s w it h a h e a d o f lo n g , u n r u ly h a ir (F ig u r e s 12.6 a n d T 2 .7 ). Je a n e tte P e te rso n has a rg u e d th at s u c h tw iste d lo c k s re fe rre d to th e g o d d e s s ’s c lo se a ss o c ia tio n w it h

th e z o o m o r p h ic

e arth , w h o s e

v e g e ta tio n

w as u n d e rs to o d to b e its h a ir .22 A s

252

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

v e g e ta tio n , C ih u a c o a t l’s w ild tresses w o u ld h a v e b e e n seen as a s o u rc e o f n o u r is h m e n t fo r p e o p le a n d a n im a ls a n d th u s as b e n e fic ia l a n d p o s itiv e ; as su ch th e y w o u ld n o t h a ve b o r n e th e sam e c o n n o ta tio n s as W ild W o m a n ’s. P e te rs o n , h o w e v e r , s h o w s q u ite c le a rly th at in p re c o n q u e s t N a h u a im a g e r y th is sacred “ h a ir ” takes th e fo rm o f a p a rt ic u la r w ild grass k n o w n as m a lin alli, a n a m e th at m ea n s “ t w is t e d .” T h e n a m e m a y d e riv e fro m th e p la n t ’s fo r m , g r o w in g as it d oes in clu ste rs o f lo n g , u n r u ly le a ve s, b u t tw iste d n e ss it s e lf w as a p a n -M e s o a m e r ic a n m e ta p h o r fo r w r o n g ­ d o in g , d a n g e r, h o s t ilit y .23 In A z t e c id e o lo g y , m o r e o v e r , the p la n t w a s a sso ciate d w ith s u ffe rin g , sic k n e ss, a n d d e ath , fu r th e r s u g g e s t in g that it h a d n e g a tiv e as w e ll as p o s itiv e c o n n o ta tio n s .24 T h e im p lic a t io n seem s cle a r: n o t o n ly d id C ih u a c o a t l h a v e lo n g , u n b o u n d tresses w e ll b e fo re th e S p a n is h c o n q u e st, b u t h e r ta n g le d lo c k s a lre a d y c o n n o te d su p e r­ n a tu ra l p o w e r , w ild n e s s , a n d p h y s ic a l d a n g e r, as w e ll. T h e n a tiv e artist w h o illu stra te d S a h a g u n ’s te x t o n th e N a h u a h a rlo t th e re fo re m a y w e ll h a v e u se d n e w , E u r o p e a n s ty lis tic c o n v e n t io n s to d e p ic t h e r lo o se , u n k e m p t h a ir, b u t in d o in g so h e d r e w u p o n a c u r io u s c o n v e r g e n c e o f in d ig e n o u s a n d E u r o p e a n id eas s p e c ific a lly a s s o c ia tin g s u c h h a ir w it h fe m a le s e x u a lity a n d its d a n g e ro u s p o w e r s .25 In th e ye a rs im m e d ia t e ly f o llo w in g th e S p a n is h c o n q u e st, C ih u a c o a t l w a s a ssign e d e v e n m o r e n e g a tiv e a ttrib u te s as h e r p o w e r s c a m e to be re p re se n te d less a n d less as a m b iv a le n t, a n d m o r e a n d m o r e as u n ila t e r a lly t e r r if y in g a n d h a rm fu l. In E u r o p e a s im ila r fate h a d b e fa lle n W i l d W o m a n , w h o s e p h y s ic a l a ttrib u te s a n d n a sty h a b its in c r e a s in g ly o v e rla p p e d w it h th o se o f th e w it c h .26 T h i s a s s o c ia tio n w a s at o n e le v e l a lo g ic a l o n e , b e ca u se E u r o p e a n w it c h c r a ft h a d c o m e to b e p r im a r ily id e n t ifie d w it h w o m e n . O fte n d e p ic te d in E u r o p e a n p rin ts a n d b o o k illu s tra tio n s as n a k e d , o ld , a n d to o th le ss, w it h s a g g in g breasts a n d w ild , u n b o u n d a n d m a tte d h a ir, th e w itc h e s in these im a g e s u s u a lly e ith e r b r e w n o x io u s o in tm e n ts , re p o r te d ly m a d e b y m i x i n g t o g e th e r b o d y parts, h e rb s, a n d / o r p o is o n o u s toad s, o r fly t h ro u g h th e a ir at n ig h t o n a b r o o m o r a n im a l (F ig u r e 12 .8 ).27 L i k e W ild W o m a n , th e y w e re b e lie v e d to be s h a p e -sh ifte rs, ca p a b le o f t u r n in g in to a n im a ls o r b e a u tifu l y o u n g w o m e n w h o se d u c e d a n d d e stro y e d fo o lis h m e n , a n d to steal a n d d e v o u r o th e r w o m e n ’s c h ild r e n . W it c h e s th e re fo re sh a re d w it h

W ild

W o m a n a p r o c liv it y to m e d d le in s e x u a l, in

p a rtic u la r r e p r o d u c t iv e , m atters, a n d w e re h e ld re s p o n s ib le fo r e v e r y fo r m

o f se xu a l

d e v ia n c e a n d w r o n g d o in g . A lis t o f s u c h e v ils w o u ld in c lu d e m a n y o f th e sam e ite m s a sc rib e d to

W ild

W om an:

h o m o s e x u a lit y , c a rn a l lu st, a d u lte ry , im p o t e n c e , s te rility ,

a b o r tio n , a n d in fa n t d e a th .2S O f these th e m o s t se rio u s w a s a p p a re n tly se x u a l im m o d e r ­ a tio n , as th e M alleus M alejicarum , a re p o rt p re p a re d fo r th e c h u r c h in

1484 f o llo w in g

se ve ral o u tb re a k s o f a lle g e d w it c h c r a f t in G e r m a n y , states c a t e g o r ic a lly th at “ all w it c h c r a ft c o m e s fro m c a rn a l lu s t .” 29 B ecau se

C ih u a c o a t l

w as

a sso ciate d

w it h

hum an

r e p r o d u c t io n

and

s e x u a lity

in

p r e h is p a n ic tim e s, th e S p a n ia rd s r e a d ily id e n t ifie d h e r w it h th e E u r o p e a n w it c h . H e r p re h is p a n ic ro le as p a tro n e ss o f m id w iv e s m a y h a v e fa c ilita te d th is id e n t ific a t io n , as E u r o p e a n w it c h e s in th e fifte e n th c e n t u r y w e re p a r t ic u la r ly ap t to be e q u a te d w it h m id w iv e s , w h o m

th e c h u r c h

a n d th e w e a lt h y m e r c h a n t class v ie w e d as a th re a t to

p ro fe ss io n a l d o c to rs. In Ita ly , at least, m e m b e rs o f th e m e d ic a l p ro fe ss io n w h o se rv e d the m o re a fflu e n t m e m b e rs o f s o c ie ty w e re d r a w n fr o m that sam e so c ia l class, e d u c a te d in u rb a n u n iv e r s itie s , a n d , p e rh a p s m o s t im p o rta n t, in v a r ia b ly m a le . T h e y a n d th e ir p a tro n s

WILD WOMAN IN COLONIAL MEXICO

253

12.8 H an s B a id u n g G rie n . Witches’ Sabbath. E n g ra v in g , 1510. (Photo: A m sterdam , R ijk sm u se u m .)

p ro te c te d

th e ir

w it c h e s .30 S u c h

in te rests

by

d e n o u n c in g

u n s c h o o le d

o ffic ia l d istru st o f m id w iv e s

and

c u re rs,

e s p e c ia lly

h e ale rs w o u ld

have

w om en, been

as

e q u a lly

a p p ro p ria te in M e x ic o , w h e r e m id w iv e s a n d fe m a le c u re rs in g e n e ra l a lre a d y p la y e d im p o r ta n t ro le s, s o m e tim e s a s s u m in g p o s itio n s o f c o n s id e ra b le p re stig e a n d p o w e r .31 T h e ir p o w e r o v e r r e p r o d u c t io n , m o r e o v e r , w o u ld h a v e b e e n p a rt ic u la r ly t h re a te n in g to a S p a n is h c le r g y p r e o c c u p ie d w it h s e x u a l m o r a lit y a n d le g it im a c y . T h i s is im p lie d b y a s ix t e e n t h - c e n t u r y N a h u a t l p la y in w h ic h

S t. F ra n c is b a n is h e d to h e ll so m e w itc h e s ,

p la y e d b y In d ia n s , b e ca u se th e y w e re “ o f th e k in d w h o w it h th e ir n a tiv e d ru g s v e r y e a sily p r o d u c e a b o r tio n s .” 32 S u c h w it c h e s m u st h a v e se e m e d fa ir ly n u m e ro u s to th e S p a n ia rd s , to ju d g e b y Jo s é A c o s t a ’s c la im th at m o s t M e x ic a n so rce re rs w e re o ld w o m e n .33 F ra y T o r i b i o de B e n e v e n t e , k n o w n in M e x ic o as M o t o lin ia , c o m p la in e d that v ir t u a lly all In d ia n w o m e n w e re m id w iv e s .34 A lt h o u g h , as N o e m i Q u e z a d a p o in ts o u t, n a tiv e curanderas (fe m a le c u re rs) a n d m id ­ w iv e s at first w e re la r g e ly to le ra te d in c o lo n ia l M e x ic o d u e to a sh o rta g e o f E u r o p e a n d o c to rs, th e re is n o d o u b t th at th e y w e re p e rs e cu te d b y th e In q u is it io n . A lt h o u g h r e la tiv e ly fe w In d ia n s , a n d e v e n fe w e r c u re rs, w e re p u b lic ly p u n is h e d in C e n t r a l M e x ic o , a n u m b e r w e re c o n v ic t e d , a n d in C i t y . 35 In

1526 at least o n e w a s h a n g e d ju s t o u ts id e M e x ic o

S p a in a m a jo r sp h e re o f In q u is it o r ia l a c tiv itie s h a d b e e n d ire c te d to w a rd

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

254

12.9 T zitz im itl. Codex Magliabecliiaiio, p icto rial m anuscript, fol. 761-. (Photo: Flo ren ce, B ib lio te ca N a zio n a le Cen trale.)

p u n is h m e n t o f s e x u a l sin s, a c o n c e r n th at w a s e a rly c a rrie d across th e A t la n t ic to N e w S p a in .36 It is lo g ic a l that th e fo c u s o f s u c h c o n c e r n s w o u ld h a v e b e e n tra n sfe rre d th e re to th e p re h is p a n ic g o d d e ss o f fe r t ilit y a n d r e p r o d u c t io n , C ih u a c o a t l, a n d to th e w o m e n she p a tro n iz e d : In d ia n m id w iv e s a n d he ale rs. T h e r e is little d o u b t th at in N e w S p a in th e c h u r c h ’s a ttitu d e to w a r d h e ale rs, m a g ic ia n s , a n d In d ia n w o m e n

in

g e n e ra l w as sh ap e d b y

E u ro p e a n

id eas a b o u t w it c h c r a ft a n d

s o rc e ry . M e x ic o ’s first b is h o p , J u a n d e Z u m a r r a g a , w h o la te r t o o k o v e r th e In q u is it o r ia l p o w e rs o f th e m e n d ic a n ts , h a d ju s t re tu rn e d fro m in v e s t ig a tin g a re s u rg e n c e o f w it c h c r a ft in th e B a s q u e c o u n t r y p r io r to r e lo c a t in g in N e w S p a in in 1528. H is c h ie f assistant in the e x t ir p a tio n p ro ce ss h a d b e e n F ra y A n d r e s de O lm o s , w h o also m o v e d to N e w S p a in , a n d

WILD WOMAN IN COLONIAL MEXICO

255

w h o th e re a u th o re d , in a d d it io n to an e n tire treatise o n N a h u a w it c h c r a ft , so m e o f th e e arlie st p ro se s o u rce s w e h a v e o n n a tiv e r e lig io n a n d h is t o r y in g e n e ra l. A t th e tim e that h e w r o te , O lm o s w a s w e ll v e rse d in th e id eas o f F r a y M a r t in de C a s ta n e g a , w h o s e b o o k o n w it c h e s w a s p u b lis h e d in

S p a in

in

1529.

In

th at b o o k

C a s ta n e g a

id e n tifie s all

m a g ic ia n s as m in is te rs o f th e d e v il, th e m a jo r it y o f th e m w o m e n , w h o m h e c h a ra c te rize s as “ s in k s o f in iq u it y .” 37 S p a n is h fears o f c u re rs, a n d in p a rtic u la r fe m a le c u re rs, also d e riv e d in p a rt fr o m the k n o w le d g e th at so m e w o m e n b a c k h o m e in S p a in u sed in c a n ta tio n s a n d c h a rm s to lu re a r e c a lc itra n t m a n in to m a rria g e , b r in g a s tr a y in g h u s b a n d b a c k h o m e , o r, f a ilin g e ith e r, e m a scu la te h im . T h e h a te d p ra c tic e h a d e ith e r sp re a d to M e x ic o fr o m S p a in o r w as a lre a d y in p la c e th e re , fo r b o th In d ia n a n d n o n - In d ia n w o m e n e n g a g e d in lo v e m a g ic in c o lo n ia l N e w S p a in .38 T h e S p a n ia rd s e q u a te d su ch e ro tic s o r c e r y w it h th e w o r s t fo rm s o f w it c h c r a ft , p e rh a p s b e ca u se E u r o p e a n w it c h e s w e re b e lie v e d to w o r k h a rm t h r o u g h spells an d a m u le ts. M o r e th an o n e a u th o r has lin k e d th e c o lo n ia l M e x ic a n re p re se n ta tio n o f fe m a le im m o r a lit y w it h th e c h a ra c te r o f a p ro s titu te c a lle d C e le s tin a , w h o , in a p o p u la r late f ift e e n t h -c e n t u r y S p a n is h p la y b y F e r n a n d o d e R o ja s , in d u lg e s in e ro tic s o rc e ry . S in c e

A zte c

w om en

who

b e h a v e d lik e

C e le s tin a

a c c o r d in g ly

w e re

a sso ciate d w it h

w it c h c r a ft in c o lo n ia l M e x ic o , it a g a in f o llo w s th at C ih u a c o a t l w a s p e r c e iv e d b y the S p a n ia rd s as a w it c h .39 S t ill, i f C ih u a c o a t l’s a s s o c ia tio n w it h th e o c c u lt in th e c o lo n ia l p e rio d a llo w e d h e r to b e id e n t ifie d w it h th e E u r o p e a n w it c h , it n o n e th e le ss a g a in h a d ro o ts in p re c o n q u e s t tim e s. T h is ca n b e d e m o n s tra te d t h r o u g h e x a m in a tio n o f th e sam e p r e h is p a n ic sto n e re lie fs th at d e p ic t th e go d d e ss w it h tw iste d m a lin a lli h a ir. F o r at th e b e n t k n e e s a n d e lb o w s o f these e a rly A z t e c fig u re s a p p e a r g ro te sq u e p r o file faces w it h r o u n d eyes a n d la rg e tee th s u g g e s t in g that h e r jo in t s h a v e a n id e n t ity , i f n o t a life , o f th e ir o w n . T h e m o t if reap p ears in c o lo n ia l d e p ic t io n s o f th e T z it z im im e , a la r g e ly fe m a le g r o u p o f “ d e m o n s ” w h o m th e S p a n ia rd s id e n t ifie d w it h w it c h e s ( F ig u r e 1 2 .9 ), a n d fig u re s p r o m i­ n e n tly in D u r a n ’s re p o rt th at an A z t e c o ffic ia l w h o , p r io r to th e c o n q u e st, h a d im p e r s o n ­ ated th e “ L o r d o f H e l l ” at a ro y a l fu n e ra l, w o r e m a sk s w it h m irr o r s o n h is sh o u ld e rs, e lb o w s , k n e e s, a n d s to m a c h .40 It is tru e that D u r a n ’s d e s c r ip tio n c lo s e ly m a tc h e s m e d ie v a l m in ia t u r e d e p ic t io n s o f th e d e v il w it h faces re p re s e n tin g h is sin s o n h is k n e e s a n d sh o u ld e rs - a n d s o m e tim e s 011 h is ch e st, s to m a c h , o r b u t to c k s - a n d that it is th u s lik e ly th at th e d e s c r ip t io n re c a lle d s u c h im a g e s to S p a n ia rd s ( F ig u r e

1 2 .i o ) . 41 B e ca u se jo in t

m a sk s a p p e a r in p r e h is p a n ic im a g e s o f C ih u a c o a t l, h o w e v e r , w e are p re v e n te d fro m d r a w in g th e false c o n c lu s io n th at j o in t m a rk s in c o lo n ia l im a g e r y d e riv e d e x c lu s iv e ly fr o m these v is u a l E u r o p e a n c o n v e n t io n s fo r e v il p o w e rs . T h a t C ih u a c o a t l’s jo in t m a rk s s ig n ifie d h e r o w n e x t ra o r d in a ry p o w e rs is s u p p o rte d b y p r e h is p a n ic im a g e s a n d b e lie fs f o u n d e lse w h e re in In d ia n A m e r ic a . D u r a n h im s e lf w ro te th at th e s h in in g m a sk s w o r n b y the im p e r s o n a to r o f th e A z t e c “ L o r d o f th e U n d e r w o r ld ” “ re p re se n te d eyes o n a ll these p a rts” th at m a d e it lo o k “ as i f h e c o u ld see in e v e r y d ir e c t io n .” 42 T h e re fe re n c e su gge sts th e p o w e rs o f a seer, o n e w h o s e p ro fe ss io n in c lu d e d c la ir v o y a n c e a n d d iv in a t io n . E ls e w h e r e in th e A m e r ic a s it w a s in d e e d sh a m a n s, c la ir v o y ­ a n t r e lig io u s p ra c titio n e rs , a n d h e ale rs w h o e n g a g e d th e sp irits o f the d e ad a n d o th e r s u p e rn a tu ra ls b o th as h e lp e rs a n d as e n e m ie s, w h o are d e sc rib e d in c o m p a ra b le term s. A la s k a n In u it sh a m a n s, fo r e x a m p le , s in g o f th e d e ity fr o m w h o m

th e y d e riv e th e ir

256

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

12.10 (right)

A n o n y m o u s, Fren ch .

Satan with jo in t masks. Pen and in k , fifteenth century. (F ro m D id ro n , Christian Iconography, vo l. 1, fig. 135).

12.11 (opposite page) Coyolxauhqui, defeated sister of Huitzilopochtli. M e x ica n , stone. M e x ic o C it y , M useo N a tio n al de A n tro p o lo g ía e H isto ria. (Fro m Solis, Gloria y fama, pi. 87).

p o w e r: “ M y w h o le b o d y is c o v e r e d w it h eyes: B e h o ld it! B e w it h o u t fear! I see all a r o u n d .” 43 In G r e e n la n d , h o w e v e r , it is s p e c ific a lly “ b la c k m a g ic ,” o r “ s o r c e r y ,” as o p p o se d to “ w h it e m a g ic ,” th at is su g g e ste d b y sm a ll m a sk s c a rv e d at th e jo in t s o f w o o d fig u re s o f tupilaks, m o n s tro u s b e in g s sen t o u t b y sh a m a n s s e c re tly to p u rsu e a n d k ill p e o p le / ' S im ila r ly , w e ll to th e s o u th , in E c u a d o r , th e trib a l J ív a r o sh a m a n , u n d e r th e in flu e n c e o f a n a rc o tic c a lle d natema, h a llu c in a te s th at h is d e m o n h e lp e rs h a v e e m e rg e d o n h is arm s a n d s h o u ld e rs as “ a th o u s a n d e y e s” re a d y to se a rch th e n ig h t fo r h is e n e m ie s. T h e a p p e a ra n ce o f these s p iritu a l assistants alerts h im , as w e ll, that h e n o w possesses th e sp e cial p o w e rs o f T s u n g i, th e first s h a m a n .45 T h r o u g h o u t In d ia n A m e r ic a , f in a lly , th e s o rc e re rs ’ s p ir it h e lp e rs te n d to take th e fo rm o f re p tile s a n d a m p h ib ia n s . M e x ic a n sh a m a n s to d a y in f lic t h a rm b y s e n d in g fro g s, toads, sn ak e s, a n d liz a rd s in to th e v i c t i m ’s b o d y th r o u g h its o r ific e s a n d p o in ts o f a r t ic u la tio n .' T h e p ra c tic e so u n d s s u s p ic io u s ly E u r o p e a n , sin c e re p tile s a n d a m p h ib ia n s w e re w id e ly u se d b y

E u ro p e a n

w it c h e s fo r th e sam e p u r p o s e .47 H o w e v e r , an a n o n y m o u s e arlv

c o lo n ia l M e x ic a n te x t p re s e rv e d in F r e n c h states that th e A z te c s “ t o o k th e e arth fo r a g o d d e ss, a n d p a in te d h e r as a fie rc e to a d w it h m o u th s in a ll th e jo in t s , fu ll o f b lo o d .

WILD WOMAN IN COLONIAL MEXICO

s a y in g th at she s w a llo w s a n d eats all [ o f it ] .” 48 Im a g e s t h o u g h t to re p re se n t th is d e ity re ve a l p r o file faces w it h la rg e eyes a n d m o u th s at th e k n e e s a n d e lb o w s , a n d b e a r su ch a s ta r tlin g

re s e m b la n c e

to

p r e h is p a n ic

d e p ic tio n s

o f C ih u a c o a t l

that a r e la tio n s h ip

b e tw e e n th e tw o su p e rn a tu ra ls has lo n g b e e n p o s ite d .49 I k n o w o f n o E u r o p e a n b e lie f in a p o w e r fu l, s u p e rn a tu ra l a m p h ib ia n o f th is n a tu re , w h e re a s su p e rn a tu ra l fro g s a n d toad s p la y im p o r ta n t ro le s in A m e r in d ia n m y t h o lo g y . T h e M o h a v e o f th e s o u th w e ste rn U n it e d States, fo r e x a m p le , t o ld e th n o g ra p h e rs th at th e ir fe m a le “ w it c h e s ” d e riv e d t h e ir p o w e rs fro m th e first w it c h , n a m e d F r o g , w h o w a s th e d a u g h te r o f th e o ld e st d e itie s a n d e x t re m e ly d a n g e ro u s .30 C ih u a c o a d ’s m o n s tro u s jo in t s , th e n , m o st lik e ly c o n n o te d h e r e x t ra o r d in a ry m a g ic a l p o w e rs a n d c o n c e iv a b ly id e n t ifie d h e r w it h the v e r y first, a n d th u s th e m o st p o w e r fu l, o f a ll N a h u a sorce resses, fr o m w h o m all su b se q u e n t w o r k e r s o f m a g ic - b o th g o o d a n d b a d - d e riv e d th e ir p o w e rs . In th is th e y b o th re se m b le th e d e v il’s jo in t m a sk s in t h e ir ro le o f sig n s o f s u p e rn a tu ra l p o w e r a n d p o te n tia l d a n g e r, a n d d iv e rg e fro m th e m in t h e ir c a p a c ity to s ig n if y th e p o w e r to w o r k g o o d as w e ll. O n c e a g a in an a m b iv a le n t A z t e c s y m b o l w a s re d u c e d in th e c o lo n ia l p e rio d to a c lo s e ly re la te d y e t u n ila t e r a lly n e g a tiv e s y m b o l. P e rh a p s th e best e v id e n c e th at jo in t m a rk s s ig n ifie d o c c u lt p o w e rs w e ll b e fo re th e c o n q u e s t resid es in th e ic o n o g r a p h y o f th e la rg e , c ir c u la r , late f ift e e n t h -c e n t u r y sto n e r e lie f that w a s d is c o v e r e d in 1978 at the fo o t o f th e r ig h t s ta irw a y o f th e A z t e c m a in t w in t e m p le -p y r a m id in M e x ic o

C it y

( F ig u r e

1 2 .1 1 ). T h e r ig h t sid e o f that p y r a m id w as

d e d ic a te d to the n a tio n a l p a tro n g o d H u it z ilo p o c h t li ( H u m m in g b ir d L e f t ) , w h o s e statue w as h o u s e d in d e ca p ita te d

and

th e te m p le at th e to p . T h e d is m e m b e re d

w om an

r e lie f d e p ic ts a b le e d in g , n e a r ly n a k e d ,

id e n t ifia b le

as

H u it z ilo p o c h t li’s siste r w h o m ,

a c c o r d in g to c o lo n ia l a c c o u n ts o f th e A z t e c m ig r a t io n in to the V a lle y o f M e x ic o , h e h a d

258

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

sla in w h e n she c h a lle n g e d h is a u t h o r it y .51 T h e d a n g e ro u s w o m a n ap p ears in th is re lie f, s ig n if ic a n t ly , w it h m o n s tro u s m a sk s at h e r k n e e s, e lb o w s , a n d heels. In c o lo n ia l texts s u c h in s u b o r d in a t io n is e xp re sse d in te rm s o f w it c h c r a ft , s o rc e ry , and b la c k

m a g ic .

For

e x a m p le ,

in

a

re la te d

v e r s io n

of

th e

A zte c

m ig r a t io n

m y th ,

H u it z ilo p o c h t li a b a n d o n s a n o th e r a so cia l k in s w o m a n , th is o n e n a m e d M a lin a lx o c h it l ( M a lin a lli F lo w e r ) , s p e c ific a lly b e ca u se sh e w a s a “ g re a t so rce re ss.” It w o u ld be easy to d ism iss th is a sso c ia tio n o f in s u r g e n c y w it h s o r c e r y as a re su lt o f th e S p a n is h t e n d e n c y to v ie w a ll m a g ic a l p r a c itio n e r s — e s p e c ia lly fe m a le s -

as p o te n tia l fo m e n te rs o f p o litic a l

re sista n ce .32 In c o lo n ia l M e x ic o it w a s o fte n lo c a l sh am a n s — e sp e c ia lly th e w o m e n — w h o le d u p r is in g s a g a in st S p a n is h c o n t r o l, in c u r r in g th e re b y a lm o st b la n k e t s u s p ic io n and p e rs e c u tio n b y th e a u th o ritie s . T h e a u th o r o f o u r n a rra tiv e , h o w e v e r , d e sc rib e s the w o m a n ’s o c c u lt a c tio n s in term s that b e tra y th e in d ig e n o u s ro o ts o f th e lin k , n o t in g that M a lin a lx o c h it l’s o ffe n se la y s p e c ific a lly in e a tin g p e o p le ’s hearts a n d c a lve s (i.e ., le g s). I a m a w a re o f n o E u r o p e a n p a ra lle l to th is n o t io n , w h e re a s c e rta in m a g ic ia n s in A z te c M e x ic o w e re in d e e d re fe rre d to as tecotzcuani, “ m u s c le -e a te r ,” a n d teyollocuani, “ h e a rte a te r.” 53 It is w o r t h n o t in g , to o , th at M a lin a lx o c h it l w o r k e d h e r e v il m a g ic b y c a llin g fo r the a id o f “ a ll th e c e n tip e d e s a n d s p id e r s ,,,:>4 fo r, in at least o n e p r e h is p a n ic A z t e c sto n e re lie f, sp id e rs, c e n tip e d e s, a w o r m , a n d a s c o r p io n a ll a p p e a r in C ih u a c o a t l’s ta n g le d m a lin a lli h a ir ( F ig u r e 1 2 .1 2 ). C ih u a c o a t l, lik e M a lin a lx o c h it l, it f o llo w s , m u st h a v e b e e n a p o w e r ­ fu l m a g ic ia n .

N ahua

m a g ic a l p ra c titio n e rs , in c lu d in g

h e ale rs, re p o r te d ly

g ro u n d

up

sp id e rs, c e n tip e d e s, s c o rp io n s , w o r m s , a n d o th e r p o is o n o u s c re a tu re s, to g e th e r w it h to b a c c o le a ve s a n d th e h a llu c in o g e n ic seeds o f th e in d ig e n o u s o lio liu h q u i, o r M o r n in g G lo r y p la n t, to create a p o w e r fu l, h a llu c in o g e n ic o in t m e n t . T h i s o in t m e n t in tu rn w as u sed to c o m m u n ic a te w it h th e g o d s a n d to c u re th e s ic k ; w h e n sp re a d o n the s k in , it w as b e lie v e d to p ro te c t th e w e a re r a g a in st d a n g e r.55 S u c h b re w s c le a rly p re d a te d th e c o n q u e st b u t th e S p a n ia rd s q u ic k ly a sso cia te d th e m w it h th e d a n g e ro u s o in tm e n ts c o n c o c te d b y E u r o p e a n w it c h e s fo r th e p u rp o s e

o f in f lic t in g gre at d a m a g e .

F a th e r A u g u s t in e

de

V e t a n c o u r t c o m p la in e d in th e se v e n te e n th c e n t u r y th at A z t e c o in tm e n ts a llo w e d th e ir “ p rie sts” to c o n v e rs e w it h “ th e d e v il, ” a n d th at in h is d a y th e y w e re s till b e in g u se d fo r s o r c e r y .56 T h e in se cts in C ih u a c o a t l’s h a ir, th e n , fo r th e p r e h is p a n ic A z te c s w o u ld h a ve re p re se n te d th e so u rce s o f h e r p o w e r , w h ic h h a d the p o te n tia l to c u re a n d a id p e o p le as w e ll as h a rm th e m . T o th e c o lo n ia l v ie w e r ste ep e d in E u r o p e a n lo re a b o u t w it c h e s , in co n tra st, t h e y w o u ld h a v e c o n n o te d o n ly th e latter. A s a N e w W o r ld e x te n s io n o f th e O l d W o r ld W ild W o m a n - a / m - w it c h , C ih u a c o a t l s o o n c a m e to be p e rs o n a lly id e n t ifie d w it h th e d e v il. In m id - s ix t e e n t h c e n t u r y p a in te d m a n u sc rip ts , h e r featu res w e re g ra fte d o n to th o se o f th e m y t h ic a l d e s tru c tiv e , n o c tu r n a l c re a tu re s

c o lle c t iv e ly

d e m o n s and

d e v ils .

know n The

as T z it z im im e ,

best e x a m p le

w ho,

ap p ears in

th e

m e n d ic a n ts

Codex

p re a c h e d ,

w e re

M a g lia b e c h ia n o , w h e r e

a

f r ig h t e n in g fe m a le w it h to u sle d h a ir a n d m o n s tro u s jo in t s , as w e ll as c la w e d h a n d s a n d feet, w e a rs a s k irt d e co ra te d

w it h

th e sam e sh e ll b o r d e r seen e a rlie r in

th e sam e

m a n u s c r ip t o n C ih u a c o a t l (F ig u r e s 12.9 a n d 1 2 .1 2 ). L i k e C ih u a c o a t l’s, to o , th is w o m a n ’s face is ske le ta l. D e s p it e th e s im ila ritie s , h o w e v e r , th e c o d e x c o m m e n t a to r id e n t ifie d the fig u r e n o t as C ih u a c o a t l, b u t as “ T z i t z i m i t l , ” th e s in g u la r fo r m o f T z it z im im e . T h a t o n ly th e n e g a tiv e , h o r r if ic asp e ct o f C ih u a c o a t l w a s re le v a n t h e re is fu r th e r e v id e n t in the

259

WILD WOMAN IN COLONIAL MEXICO

12.12 Cihuacoatl. Codex Magliabechiano, pictorial m anuscript, fol. 4$r. (Pho to : Flo ren ce, B ib lio te ca N a zio n a le Cen trale.)

c re a tu re ’s o th e r a ttrib u te s. H e r h a ir a n d ch e st, fo r e x a m p le , are c o v e r e d w it h a n e c k la c e o f b lo o d y , d is e m b o d ie d h u m a n hearts a n d h a n d s, w h ile a h u m a n liv e r fo rm s h e r p e c to ra l. S a c r ific ia l b a n n e rs a d o rn th e h e a d w h ile th e p r o t r u d in g t o n g u e take s th e f o r m o f a s a c r ific ia l k n ife . T h e

fo r m e r fu r th e r l in k

th e b e in g to o c c u lt p ra c tic e s s in c e s im ila r

b a n n e rs are said to h a v e b e e n w o r n in th e h a ir o f so m e A z t e c so rce re sse s.? id e n t ifie d th e T z it z im im e

w it h

O lm o s

th e tlatlatectolo, N a h u a so rce re rs w h o , th e S p a n ia rd s

c o n te n d e d , in f lic t e d h a rm o n o th e r p e o p le .38 T h e n e e d to press A z t e c su p e rn a tu ra ls in to th e R o m a n C a t h o lic m o ld w a s so o v e r ­ r id in g that so m e friars p re a c h e d th at fe m a le so rce re rs, u n d e r th e in flu e n c e o f o lo liu h q u i o r so m e o th e r h a llu c in o g e n , a c tu a lly c o p u la te d w it h S a ta n .59 T h e id e a th at fe m a le w itc h e s h a d s e x u a l in te r c o u r s e w it h th e d e v il w a s a fu n d a m e n ta l ten e t o f O l d W o r ld C a t h o lic is m a n d a m a jo r rea so n th at th e C h u r c h h a d d e n o u n c e d w it c h c r a ft as h e re sy in th e fo u rte e n th c e n t u r y .60 It is n o t s u rp r is in g , in v ie w o f th is, th at C ih u a c o a t l e a rly in th e p o s t - C o n q u e s t p e rio d seem s to h a v e a ssu m e d th e ro le o f b r id e o f S a ta n . In C o d e x R i o s h e r s h e ll-tip p e d s k irt a p p ea rs, a lo n g w it h a r o w o f s a c r ific ia l b a n n e rs in h e r h a ir, o n th e go d d e ss n a m e d M ic t ic a c ih u a t l, o r M ic t la n W o m a n , w h o s e n a m e id e n tifie s h e r as c o - r u le r o f th e u n d e r ­ w o r ld la n d o f th e d e ad , c a lle d M ic t la n ( F ig u r e 12 .1 3 ). M ic t ic a c ih u a t l also w e a rs a s k u ll at h e r b a c k lik e th at w o r n b y p r e h is p a n ic s to n e -c a rv e d fig u re s o f C ih u a c o a t l. In th e C o d e x R i o s sce n e she faces h e r h u s b a n d M ic t la n t e c u h t li, “ M ic t la n L o r d , ” w h o is id e n t ifie d in the a c c o m p a n y in g glosses as b o th th e “ lo r d o f th e in fe rn a l r e g io n ,” m e a n in g h e ll, a n d “ T z it z im it l, th e sam e as L u c if e r .” M ic t la n t e c u h t li, m o r e o v e r , sits in th e g a p in g m o u t h o f a m o n s tro u s h e a d c le a rly b ased o n th e z o o m o r p h ic m e d ie v a l E u r o p e a n m a n s c rip t c o n ­ v e n t io n fo r h e ll ( F ig u r e 1 2 .1 4 ). In th e C o d e x R i o s im a g e , th e n , C ih u a c o a t l, p r e h is p a n ic p a tro n ess o f h u m a n r e p r o d u c t io n a n d fe m a le s e x u a lity , fuses w it h th e g o d d e ss o f the A z t e c u n d e r w o r ld w h o has h e r s e lf b e c o m e r e c o n fig u r e d as th e b r id e o f S atan . E ls e w h e r e

2Ó 0

R E F R A M IN G

T H E

R E N A IS S A N C E

in m e n d ic a n t w r it in g o f th e p e rio d , it is C ih u a c o a t l h e r s e lf w h o is id e n t ifie d as “ th e w ife o f th e g o d o f th e in fe rn a l r e g io n s .” 61 C ih u a c o a t l’s im p o r ta n c e in N e w S p a in w a s s h o r tliv e d , h o w e v e r , b e ca u se the E u r o p e a n d e v il h im s e lf w as, afte r a ll, m a le . C ih u a c o a t l, a c c o r d in g ly , w a s e v e n tu a lly d e p r iv e d o f h e r f e m in in it y , a n d h e r id e n t it y s u b su m e d b y th at o f th e d e ath g o d - t u r n e d - d e v il h im se lf. T h is tra n s fo rm a tiv e p ro ce ss ca n b e seen in C o d e x M a g lia b e c h ia n o , w h e r e th e ske letal M ic t la n t e c u h t li

( F ig u r e

1 2 .1 5 ), c le a rly id e n t ifie d

b y nam e

on

th e fa c in g p ages and

w e a r in g a m a le lo in c lo t h w h ile seated in th e p o se re se rv e d fo r m e n , t w ic e ap p ears w ith th e s a c r ific ia l b a n n e r h e ad d re ss a n d m o n s tro u s jo in t s t y p ic a lly c h a ra c te ris tic o f fe m a le s u p e rn a tu ra ls lik e

C ih u a c o a t l.

T h ro u g h o u t

th e

m a n u s c r ip t,

th e

c o m m e n t a to r refers

d ir e c t ly to M ic t la n t e c u h t li as a d e m o n o r d e v il a n d , o n fo lio 73, d e p lo re s as “ a b o m in a b le ” th e c a n n ib a lis tic rite s t a k in g p la c e b e fo re h im .62 T h e

u ltim a te e ffe ct w as to c o n fla te

C ih u a c o a t l’s fo r m a n d ro le w it h th e d e v il’s, in th e p ro ce ss e c lip s in g h e r o r ig in a l s ig n if i­ c a n c e a lto g e th e r. C ih u a c o a t l’s tra n s fo rm a tio n in to th e d e ath g o d p r o c e e d e d ap ace o n a title p a ge to

12.13 (right) Mictlantecuhtli and his wife Micticacihuatl as the rulers o f Hell. D e tail, Codex Rios, fol. 2v, from C o ro n a N ú ñ e z, vo l. 3, lam . II I. (Photo: courtesy Secretaria de H acie n d a y C ré d ito P ú b lico .)

12.14 (left)

The Jaw s o f

Hell. D e tail from the W in ch e ste r Psalter, illu m in ate d m anuscript. L o n d o n , B ritish L ib ra ry , M S C o tto n N e ro c IV , fol. 24. (Photo: lib rary.)

12.1$ (right) Mictlantecuhtli with joint masks and banners. Codex Magliabechiano, p ictorial m anuscript, fol. 79r. (Photo: Flo ren ce, B ib lio te ca N a zio n a le Centrale.)

D E S C RI P T IO

IN D I

JL -.

O C C ID E N T A L IS per A n to n iu m de H e rre ra R e gium Indiarum et Caslellæ H iitoriographum

12.16 (left)

T itle page

e n gravin g from A n to n io de Herrera, Descriptio Indiae Occidentalis, 1622. (Pho to : T h e Jo h n C a rte r B ro w n Lib ra ry at B ro w n U n ive rsity.)

2Ö2

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

12.17 Huitzilopochtli. E n g ra v in g from A lla in M anesson M allet, Description de VUnivers, Paris, 1683, 5, fig. 135. (Photo: T h e Jo h n C a rte r B ro w n Lib ra ry at B ro w n U n iv e rsity.)

A n t o n io de H e r r e r a ’s H isto ria general, w h ic h w a s first p u b lis h e d in S p a in in 1601 (F ig u r e 1 2 .1 6 ). T h e r e w e see a sk irte d fig u r e , k n e e lin g in th e p o se a p p ro p ria te to A z t e c w o m e n , th at w a s d ir e c t ly d r a w n

fr o m

th e C o d e x

M a g lia b e c h ia n o

d e p ic t io n

o f th e g o d d ess

C ih u a c o a t l. B e lo w , th e fig u r e is c le a rly la b e le d as “ th e g o d o f th e d e a d .” 63 T h e sam e fig u r e , n o w w it h o u t a la b e l, a p p e a re d o n e last tim e , in 1 683, in an e n g r a v in g in A lla in M a n e s so n M a lle t ’s D escription de V U n ivers, p u b lis h e d in P a ris ( F ig u r e

12 .1 7 ). R e d u c e d

n o w to a t in y , u n id e n t if ie d o c c u p a n t o f a n ic h e p la c e d to th e r ig h t o f th e to p o f th e p a ge , th e g o d d e ss y ie ld s th e stage to a g ig a n t ic fig u r e

o f th e A z t e c

n a tio n a l p a tro n g o d

H u it z ilo p o c h t li. It is H u it z ilo p o c h t li w h o h e re assum es th e ro le o f th e d e v il, th is tim e t a k in g h is p o p u la r S p a n is h fo r m o f a g ia n t h e - g o a t .64 In th is e n g r a v in g , th e n , C ih u a c o a t l loses n o t o n ly h e r n a m e , g e n d e r, a n d im p o r ta n c e , b u t a ll re fe re n c e to h e r p r e h is p a n ic ro le as an a m b iv a le n t g o d d e ss o f fe r t ilit y a n d c h ild b ir t h , as w e ll. T h e c o lo n ia l n e e d f o r W ild W o m a n ap p ears, b y th is tim e , to h a v e c o m p le t e ly d issip ate d . It seem s c le a r, th e n , that W i l d W o m a n w a s in d e e d p re se n t in c o lo n ia l C e n t r a l M e x ic o , a n d th at she in flu e n c e d e a rly c o lo n ia l re p re se n ta tio n s o f th e A z t e c g o d d e ss C ih u a c o a t l. C o lo n ia l- p e r io d re p re se n ta tio n s o f C ih u a c o a t l o fte n re c a lle d , i f th e y d id n o t d ir e c tly

WILD WOMAN IN COLONIAL MEXICO i"

263

d e riv e fr o m , E u r o p e a n re p re se n ta tio n s o f b o th W i l d W o m a n , p a r t ic u la r ly in h e r a sp ect o f w it c h , a n d th e C h r is t ia n d e v il. A s a m e ta p h o r fo r th e e v ils a n d v ic e s that th re a te n e d C a t h o lic a n d c r o w n in te rests, she h e lp e d to ab et th e c o lo n iz in g p ro ce ss b y s h a p in g re p re se n ta tio n s o f A z t e c b e lie f in te rm s that w e re m e a n in g fu l a n d f a m ilia r to E u r o p e a n s . T h r o u g h v e r b a l a n d v is u a l im a g e s o f C ih u a c o a t l, a c c o r d in g ly , t h re a te n in g s u b v e rs iv e a n d im m o r a l b e h a v io r w a s c o n d e m n e d v ia a ss o c ia tio n w it h w it c h c r a ft , sata n ism , a n d h e re sy . In th is sense, th e n , th e p o s tm o d e rn is t a x io m h o ld s tru e th at w e see a re fle c t io n o f the E u r o p e a n m in d -s e t in th e glass o f c o lo n ia l M e x ic a n h is to ry . W h e n w e lo o k in to th at glass fo r C ih u a c o a t l, in o th e r w o r d s , it is W ild W o m a n w h o stares b a c k at us. B u t is th is, a n d n e e d it b e , a ll w e can see there? T h e m a n u s c r ip t p a in tin g s w e h a v e b e e n l o o k in g at w e re , afte r a ll, a ll p a in te d b y n a tiv e artists w h o s e d e sc e n d e n ts in p lace s still sp e a k th e n a tiv e la n g u a g e a n d w h o still h o ld b e lie fs th at c le a rly h a d n o p la c e in E u ro p e .

Th ese

im a g e s a n d v o ic e s

o f th e M e x ic a n

“ o t h e r ,” as w e

h a v e see n , can

s o m e tim e s b e re la te d to th e th o u sa n d s o f s u r v iv in g M e x ic a n a rtw o rk s th at p re d ate the c o n q u e st. W h a t these p r e h is p a n ic im a g e s a n d e th n o g r a p h ic re p o rts h a v e s h o w n us is that th e E u r o p e a n W i l d W o m a n c o u ld m a k e h e r s e lf at h o m e in c o lo n ia l C e n t r a l M e x ic o p r e c is e ly b e ca u se th e A z te c s , h o w e v e r d iffe re n t fr o m th e S p a n ia rd s , h a d e xp re sse d th e ir v a lu e s a n d c o n c e p ts in m e t a p h o r ic a l term s th at w e re o fte n r e m a r k a b ly c o n g r u e n t w it h th o se o f E u r o p e . In p la ce s th e A z t e c s e v e n u se d so m e o f th e sam e v is u a l sig n s, s u c h as j o in t m a rk s , to c o n v e y w h a t w a s o fte n a re la te d , y e t a lw a y s s lig h t ly d iffe re n t, s o c ia l a n d

Í

m o r a l m essage. It w a s th is v e r y p a ra lle lis m in th e s e m io t ic c o d e s o f these t w o v e r y d iffe re n t c u ltu re s th at a llo w e d th e S p a n ia rd s to resh a p e a n d re d u c e p r e h is p a n ic b e lie fs a n d c o n c e p ts so as to c o n f o r m

to t h e ir o w n E u r o p e a n te m p late s. T h e

glass w e lo o k at,

th e re fo re , is tra n sp a re n t as w e ll as re fle c tiv e ; it can p r o v id e a g lim p s e o f n a tiv e re a lity that q u a lifie s o u r u n d e r s t a n d in g o f th e E u r o p e a n im p r in t . W it h o u t an a n a ly sis o f these in sig h ts in to th e “ o t h e r ,” a s c h o la r f o llo w in g G r e e n b la tt m ig h t w e ll h a v e a ttrib u te d e x c lu s iv e ly to E u r o p e a n s w h a t w e re o fte n s im ila r, a n d th e re fo re m o re e a sily a lte re d , in d ig e n o u s m o d e s o f r e p re s e n tin g a lte rity , th e re b y m is s in g e n tir e ly an im p o r ta n t in s ig h t in to th e w a y that re p re se n ta tio n op e rate s in a c o lo n iz in g c o n te x t.

ju re

T o re fra in fr o m t r y in g to u n d e rsta n d p r e -c o n ta c t L a t in A m e r ic a n c u lt u r a l h is t o r y so as

le n ,

to a v o id E u r o c e n t r ic m is re p re s e n ta tio n o f th e “ o t h e r ” is th e re fo re to fo re c lo s e a ll h o p e

dess

o f e v e r p e r c e iv in g th e fu ll ra n g e a n d n a tu re o f h u m a n re p re se n ta tio n a l p ra c tic e s. It

im e

p re c lu d e s a ll h o p e o f s im u lta n e o u s p e rc e p tio n o f s im ila r it y a n d d iffe re n c e , c o n d e m n in g us

Ia in

to see in ste a d o n ly o n e o r th e o th e r o f these at a n y g iv e n tim e . T h e c o m p le x it y a n d

ced

s u b v e rs iv e m a n ip u la tio n s o f re p re se n ta tio n a l p ra c tic e s are o b s c u re d b y s u ch m y o p ia .

tge,

U n le s s w e s te rn sch o la rs c o n t in u e to try to id e n t ify th e tro p e s a n d stru c tu re s th at th e ir

*od

o w n c u ltu r a l te m p late s h a v e te n d e d to d e fo rm

me

w h e t h e r — o r to w h a t d e g re e -

aatl

p ra c tic e s as o p p o se d to s o m e o n e e lse ’s. W it h o u t C ih u a c o a t l, in o th e r w o r d s , w e c a n n o t

o le

c la im to h a v e a c c u ra te ly id e n t ifie d th e p re se n ce o f W i l d W o m a n in c o lo n ia l M e x ic o .

rild

o r m a sk , th e y ca n n e v e r r e a lly know

th e w e s t’s re p re se n ta tio n s sp e a k to its o w n s e m io tic

O u r p a rtia lity , o u r u n w illin g n e s s e v e n to try to h e a r th e “ o t h e r ,” at the sam e tim e can o n ly im p ly to M e x ic a n s to d a y th at their n a tiv e a n ce sto rs’ m o d e s o f t e llin g h a d n o e ffe ct

co,

o n c o lo n ia l re p re se n ta tio n s - th at t h e y w e re a n d are, in fact, s im p ly u n im p o r ta n t . S u r e ly

ad.

th is is a fo r m

:tly

p r o je c te d fears a n d fan tasies p o s tm o d e rn c rit ic s h a v e e x p o s e d .

o f E u r o c e n t r is m

p o t e n tia lly m o r e

a rro g a n t a n d

m is le a d in g th a n

the

CHAPTER 13

Colony and Cartography: Shifting Signs on Indigenous Maps of New Spain D A N A

L E IB S O H N

I f it is true that the im perialists study their co lo n ia l charges, it is equally true that the charges study their masters — w ith great care and c u n n in g. W h o shall say w h ic h understands the other more? W o o d ro w B o ra h , Justice by Insurance

In N e w S p a in , b e tw e e n 1530 a n d 1630, in d ig e n o u s p a in te rs cre a te d h u n d re d s o f m ap s. T h e s e c a r t o g r a p h ic re p re se n ta tio n s — u s u a lly d e p ic tio n s o f to w n s a n d n e a rb y la n d s p la y e d an in te g ra l ro le in th e c o lo n ia l p ro ce ss. In th e first c e n t u r y after th e S p a n is h c o n q u e s t m ap s o fte n se rv e d as le g a lly b in d in g d o c u m e n ts a n d w e re a m o n g th e m o st fr e q u e n tly c o m m is s io n e d o f a ll in d ig e n o u s p a in tin g s . M o r e o v e r , b o th E u r o p e a n s a n d in d ig e n o u s p e o p le a c c e p te d m ap s as c re d ib le re p re se n ta tio n s o f t h e ir te r r ito r y . In d ig e n o u s m ap s, h o w e v e r , n e v e r s u p p lie d t h e ir v ie w e rs w it h an u n a m b ig u o u s im a g e o f th e a ctu a l w o r ld . N o m a p d o e s. R a t h e r , c a rto g ra p h s e n g e n d e r lan d scap e s: in a s s e m b lin g th e s ig n s o f d isp a rate sites a n d o b je c ts, th e y fuse im a g in a r y a n d p h y s ic a l traits. A s p e rsu a siv e im a g e s, m ap s c o n s titu te a n d m e d ia te re la tio n s h ip s in th e w o r ld . F o r the in d ig e n o u s m a p s o f N e w S p a in , th is im p lie s that v is u a l re p re se n ta tio n s c a rrie d fo rth a n d e x te n d e d th e c o lo n ia l e n te rp rise ; t h e y d id n o t s im p ly m ir r o r it. T h u s the im a g e s r e c o r d e d o n m ap s in a u g u ra te as w e ll as d o c u m e n t c o lo n ia l p ra c tic e . A c o m p a ris o n o f tw o m ap s - e ach cre a te d b y an in d ig e n o u s p a in te r a ro u n d 1550, each s h o w in g th e c o m m u n it y o f C u a u h t in c h a n — h ig h lig h t s th is p o in t (F ig u r e s 13.1 a n d T 3.2 ). S e t sid e b y sid e , these p a in tin g s in d ic a te h o w e p h e m e ra l th e b o n d w a s b e tw e e n w h a t a c tu a lly e x iste d in th e w o r ld a n d th e p re se n ce o r a b se n ce o f sig n s o n m ap s. F o r e x a m p le , n e ar the c e n te r o f o n e m a p stands a h ill g ly p h w it h o n e sid e c u t a w a y to e x p o s e an e agle w it h in

( F ig u r e

13.1).

W it h

th is,

th e

first

m a p -m a k e r

has

s ig n e d

th e

to w n

of

C u a u h t in c h a n , a N a h u a t l w o r d m e a n in g “ H o m e o f th e E a g le s .” S u r r o u n d in g th is g ly p h are o th e r h ill fo rm s, s u g g e s t in g th at th e p lace s re p re se n te d b y these sig n s e n c ir c le th e c o m m u n it y o f C u a u h t in c h a n ju s t as th e y fra m e th e c u t - a w a y h ill g ly p h . In co n tra st, the

seco n d

m ap

d e p ic ts

C u a u h t in c h a n

as a c h u r c h

and

p la za

c e n te re d

w it h in

an

o r t h o g o n a l g r id ( F ig u r e 13.2). N e ig h b o r in g c o m m u n it ie s are also s h o w n as g r id d e d areas ra th e r th a n as a series o f h ill g ly p h s . C u a u h t in c h a n a g a in ap p ears to w a rd s th e c e n te r o f

266

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

13.2 Mapa de Cuauhtinchan #4 (detail). C o lo r on in d igen ou s paper, c. 1560-1563. M e x ic o C it y , M useo N a c io n a l de A n tro p o lo g ía e Flistoria.

th e

p a in t in g

a lt h o u g h

th e

o th e r

to w n s

no

lo n g e r

c ir c le

the

c o m m u n it y ;

in ste a c.

th e y are lin k e d v ia a n e t w o r k o f ro a d s w h ic h b in d s th e sites to o n e a n o th e r as it a n c h o r th e m to a s p e c ific g e o g ra p h y . B e c a u s e o f t h e ir c o m m o n fo c u s a n d te m p o ra l o r ig in , the d iffe re n ce s

in

these

im a g e s

cannot

be

a ttrib u te d

to

any

a ctu a l

m e ta m o rp h o s is

or

th e la n d sc a p e itse lf. T h e d iffe re n ce s re v e a l that, in th e ir a ss im ila tio n o f c h u r c h e s a n d g rid s, in d ig e n o u s m a p s c o n v e y m a n y th in g s: o n ly so m e o f th e m in s c r ib e d o n th e g r o u n c In d e e d , the p a in t in g s su g g e st that th e “ g r o u n d ” o f in d ig e n o u s m ap s is n o less m e ta p h y s i­ c a l th a n p h y s ic a l. I n th e f o llo w in g p age s, I m a in t a in that in d ig e n o u s m ap s re v e a l as m u c h a b o u t the a ctu a l tra n s fo rm a tio n o f g e o g ra p h ic a l t e r r it o r y u n d e r S p a n is h ru le as t h e y d o o f th r in te r a c t io n b e tw e e n E u r o p e a n a n d p r e h is p a n ic syste m s o f re p re se n ta tio n , a n d u ltim a te .', th e in te r a c t io n b e tw e e n E u r o p e a n s a n d in d ig e n o u s p e o p le . B y e x a m in in g th e fate o f th re e s ig n s — th e h ill g ly p h , th e c h u r c h , a n d th e g r id - th is p a p e r a rg u e s t w o p o in ts. F irs t I d e m o n stra te th at n e ith e r c a p itu la tio n to fo r e ig n im p o s it io n s n o r e x p lic it resistan ce d o m in a te d n a tiv e resp o n se s to E u r o p e a n in tr o d u c t io n s . R a t h e r , o n m a p s, in d ig e n o u re p re se n ta tio n a l p ra c tic e s sh a p e d a n d o rg a n iz e d th e in c o r p o r a t io n o f sig n s o f Europe.-.: o r ig in . S e c o n d , a n d m o r e im p o r ta n t ly , I c o n t e n d th at th e n e g o tia tio n s tra n sacte d a e r o th e su rfaces o f m a p s are p a ra d ig m a tic o f th e c o lo n ia l e n te rp rise in N e w S p a in . B e ca u se th e c h u r c h a n d th e g r id are im p lic a t e d in c o lo n ia l p o lic ie s o f d o m in a t io n , th e ir d e b u t a : . z p e rsiste n ce o n m a p s w a s n e it h e r an in e v it a b le n o r in n o c e n t m a tte r o f c u ltu ra l e x c h a n g e T h i s m e a n s th at th e w a y w e in te rp re t m ap s im p in g e s d ir e c t ly u p o n o u r c o n s tru a l c : c o lo n iz a t io n .

C O LO N Y

A N D

C A R T O G R A P H Y

A ft e r 1550 v a r io u s c o m b in a t io n s o f c h u r c h e s a n d g rid s b e c a m e th e p r im e s ig n ifie rs fo r in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n itie s ; y e t as sig n s, c h u r c h e s a n d g rid s b e h a v e d q u ite d iffe re n tly . C h u r c h e s p ro life ra te d o n m ap s, in s in u a t in g th e m se lv e s in to th e la n d sc a p e in m u ltifa r io u s w ays.

The

g r id ,

on

th e o th e r h a n d , w a s less c o n s p ic u o u s a n d its use w a s a lw a y s

c ir c u m s c r ib e d . In sp ite o f th is d iv e rg e n c e th e tw o sig n s in te r tw in e d , a n d , ta k e n to g e th e r, th e y illu m in a t e a p ro c e ss w h e r e in

E u r o p e a n r e c o r d - k e e p in g p ra c tic e s w e re b r o u g h t

to g e th e r w it h p r e h is p a n ic -s ty le re p re se n ta tio n s. I n th e s e m io sis o f m a p s, sig n s o f E u r o ­ p e a n a n d in d ig e n o u s o r ig in w e re e a ch re fra m e d b y th e o th e r. M o r e o v e r , th e c u ltu r a l e x c h a n g e s that h a v e le ft th e ir tra ce o n in d ig e n o u s m ap s su gge st th at a lt h o u g h S p a n ia rd s o c c u p ie d k e y p o lit ic a l a n d e c o n o m ic p o s itio n s , th e ir h e g e m o n y d id n o t m o ld all c o lo n ia l in te r a c t io n . In d ig e n o u s p e o p le , e v e n t h o u g h m a r g in a liz e d a n d s u b o rd in a te d , p la y e d an a c tiv e ro le in th e ir e m e rg e n c e as c o lo n ia l su b je cts. H e r e I reso rt to an a n a ly sis o f w h a t M ic h e l de C e r te a u calls th e ta ctics o f e v e r y d a y life , “ th e in g e n io u s w a y s in w h ic h the w e a k m a k e use o f th e s tro n g , th u s le n d | in g ] a p o lit ic a l d im e n s io n to e v e r y d a y p r a c tic e s .” 1 It is m y c o n v ic t io n th at o n ly b y e n te r in g th e m a p at th is le v e l n o t in g th e w a y s p e o p le liv e o u t th e ir liv e s , d a y b y d a y , u n d e r a c o lo n ia l r e g im e - that w e ca n b e g in to m a k e sense o f th e tra n sa c tio n s that o c c u r r e d a cross c u lt u r a l b o rd e rs. It is in th is sense, ra th e r th a n that o f a c o h e re n t id e o lo g ic a l o r p r o p a g a n d is tic p r o g ra m , that th is p a p e r c o n s id e rs th e p o litic s o f c o lo n iz a t io n a n d c a rto g ra p h y .

A la Carte: Maps and their Makers It is w e ll k n o w n th at in d ig e n o u s p e o p le s u ffe re d im m e n s e ly in th e w a k e o f th e S p a n is h c o n q u e st. N o t o n ly d id th e y e x p e rie n c e m ilit a r y defeat, b u t e x t r a o r d in a r ily h a rsh p h y s ic a l a n d c u lt u r a l d e p re d a tio n s fo llo w e d u p o n th e h e e ls o f t h e ir d o m in a tio n . B e fo r e th e tu rn o f th e se v e n te e n th c e n t u r y , th o u sa n d s p e ris h e d fr o m diseases in tr o d u c e d b y E u r o p e a n s . T h o s e w h o s u r v iv e d w e re r e q u ir e d to a d o p t th e m o ra ls a n d p re c e p ts o f a fo r e ig n r e lig io n a n d sco re s o f p e o p le w e re s u b je c te d to th e p o lic y o f congregación w h ic h f o r c ib ly g r o u p e d sca tte re d se ttle m e n ts in to E u r o p e a n - s t y le t o w n s u n d e r th e aegis o f th e C h r is t ia n c h u r c h .2 E v e n so , th e p re se n ce o f E u r o p e a n s d id n o t affe ct a ll re g io n s o f N e w S p a in , n o r a ll h e r in h a b ita n ts , in th e sam e w a y . C o e r c io n a n d th re a t o f p u n is h m e n t n o t w it h s t a n d in g , m a n y featu res o f p r e h is p a n ic c u ltu r e p e rsiste d w e ll in to th e c o lo n ia l p e r io d .3 A in d ig e n o u s w r itte n

and

p a in te d

r e a d in g o f

d o c u m e n ts su gge sts th at a m o n g N a h u a s , T a ra s c a n s ,

M ix te e s a n d Z a p o te e s in te ra c tio n s w it h

fo re ig n e rs in

th e n a r r o w spaces a n d d ista n t

c o rn e rs o f N e w S p a in — ra th e r th an the o ffic io u s A u d ie n cia s staged in th e h alls o f M e x ic o C it y -

fo r m e d th e w a rp a n d w o o f o f c o lo n ia l e x p e rie n c e . O f c e n tra l im p o r ta n c e in

in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it ie s is n o t “ th e S p a n is h c o n q u e s t ,” b u t lo c a l s tru g g le s fo r c o n t r o l o f re so u rc e s a n d p o s itio n s o f p o w e r : access to p lo ts o f la n d , access to lo c a l trib u te re v e n u e s , a n d access to s y m b o lic a n d e c o n o m ic p r iv ile g e s that sep arated c o m m o n e r s fr o m n o b le s. B e c a u s e la n d a n d its c o n t r o l w e re s e m in a l to all re sid e n ts o f N e w S p a in , m ap s w e re n e v e r n e u tra l im a g e s . T h e se ttin g s in w h ic h in d ig e n o u s c a r to g r a p h ic re c o rd s c ir c u la t e d u n d e rs c o re th is p o in t . B y far th e greatest n u m b e r o f m ap s w e re le g a l d o c u m e n ts p ro ffe re d d u r in g

co n te sts

fo r

n a tu ra l

re so u rc e s

and

te rrito ry .

M o st

c o m m o n ly ,

m ap s

w e re

c o m m is s io n e d b y a d m in is tra to rs a n d s u b m itte d w it h b in d in g o ra l a n d w r itte n te s tim o n ie s

268

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

b e fo re a u th o ritie s in la n d g ra n t a p p lic a tio n s , o ffic ia l in q u ir ie s , a n d congregaciones.4 Y e t n a tiv e m a p -m a k e r s d id n o t w o r k o n ly fo r “ c o lo n is t s .” A lt h o u g h le g a l c h a n n e ls w e re d o m in a te d b y E u r o p e a n s , m a p p a tro n s in c lu d e d o th e r in d ig e n o u s p e o p le — c o m m u n it y le a d e rs o r g r o u p s s e e k in g a fa v o ra b le ju d g m e n t in c la im s b r o u g h t a g a in st S p a n ia rd s , th e ir slave s, o r o th e r n a tiv e c o m m u n it ie s .5 It is c r it ic a l to n o te th at S p a n ia rd s as w e ll as N a h u a s , M ix te e s a n d o th e rs w ie ld e d m ap s in these e n d e a v o rs , fo r th e m u lt ip le e t h n ic it y o f th e p a tro n a g e syste m in d ic a te s th at b y th e late s ix te e n th a n d e a rly se v e n te e n th c e n tu rie s m a n y a u d ie n c e s a c k n o w le d g e d a n d c u lt iv a te d th e p o w e r o f m ap s. S p a n ia rd s a n d in d ig e n o u s p e o p le a lik e e x p e c te d — in fact re lie d u p o n - m a p s as p e rsu a siv e a n d c o m p e llin g re p re se n ta tio n a l in stru m e n ts. Y e t le g a l c o n t e n t io n d id n o t s p a w n all n a tiv e m a p p in g . S o m e d o c u m e n ts , lik e the m ap s (o r pinturas) o f th e Relaciones Geográficas, w e re m a d e e x p lic it ly fo r p re se n ta tio n b e fo re th e r o y a l g o v e r n m e n t in

S p a in .6 O t h e r c a r t o g r a p h ic

im a g e s fe ll o u ts id e

the

p u r v ie w o f S p a n ia rd s ; p r o d u c e d fo r use w it h in n a tiv e c o m m u n itie s , these m ap s f u lfille d in d ig e n o u s r e q u ir e m e n t s .7 T h e h is to r ic a l s itu a tio n , th e n , is c o m p le x : n a tiv e m a p -m a k e r s w o r k e d fo r a v a r ie ty o f p a tro n s a n d th e y cra fte d im a g e s fo r use in h e te ro g e n e o u s so c ia l c o n te x ts . A s u rv e y o f these d o c u m e n ts c o n fir m s th at m a p -m a k e r s f o llo w e d n o s in g le m o d e l o r set o f g u id e lin e s . M u c h o f a m a p ’s “ l o o k ” d e p e n d e d u p o n th e o c c a s io n s a n d a u d ie n c e s fo r w h ic h it w a s cre a te d . T h e vast m a jo r it y o f n a tiv e m a p -m a k e r s , as w a s th e case w it h th e m ap s th e m se lv e s, c ir c u la t e d in se ttin g s d o m in a te d b y S p a n is h a n d in d ig e n o u s a u th o ritie s . O n l y a fe w n a m e s h a v e c o m e d o w n to us - fro m s ig n a tu re s v o u c h in g fo r th e a c c u r a c y o f p a rt ic u la r m ap s a n d fro m w r itt e n d o c u m e n ts a c c o m p a n y in g c e rta in im a g e s p a in te rs w o r k in g b e tw e e n

1530 a n d

1630 w e re

y e t it see m s th at m a n y

lite ra te p e o p le

o f s ig n ific a n t so c ia l

s ta n d in g . M o r e o v e r , these p a in te rs fa c ilita te d th e d isc o u rs e b e tw e e n tw o w o r ld s ; th e y a cte d as “ g o b e tw e e n s ” in se ve ral ca p a c itie s. S o m e m a p -p a in te r s e x h ib it in tim a te k n o w l­ e d ge o f p re h is p a n ic g r a p h ic c o n v e n t io n s , s u g g e s t in g th at t h e y w e re tra in e d as tlacuilo (scrib e s) b e fo re th e S p a n is h c o n q u e s t — a ro le re se rv e d fo r p e o p le o f p r iv ile g e a n d n o b le b ir t h .8 M a n y o f these m e n m u st h a v e se rv e d as m e n to rs to a p p re n tic e s at th e lo c a l le v e l, fo r th e c o m m it m e n t to p r e c o n q u e s t tra d itio n s d id n o t d ie o u t w it h th e firs t -g e n e r a tio n p a in te rs .9 A n u m b e r o f m a p -p ro d u c e r s also r e c e iv e d t r a in in g in E u r o p e a n g r a p h ic c o n v e n t io n s fr o m m e n d ic a n t friars. A n in te g ra l a sp e ct o f c o lo n iz a t io n in v o lv e d in c u lc a t in g th e so n s o f in d ig e n o u s n o b le s w it h s k ills v a lu e d b y E u r o p e a n s , a n d , u n d e r th e tu te la g e o f F ra n c is c a n s , D o m in ic a n s , a n d A u g u s t in ia n s , y o u n g m e n acro ss N e w S p a in w e re in d o c tr in a te d w it h C h r is t ia n m o r a lit y a n d E u r o p e a n lit e r a c y s k ills .10 T a u g h t to rea d a n d w r it e S p a n is h , th e ir o w n la n g u a g e s , a n d s o m e tim e s L a t in , these n o b le m e n e m e rg e d e q u a lly q u a lifie d to fu lfill th e ro le o f fria rs ’ assistants o r lo c a l a d m in is tra to rs . S t u d y o f th e c o n v e n t io n s a n d ic o n ­ o g ra p h y o f E u r o p e a n p ic t o r ia l im a g e r y also fo r m e d p art o f th e m e n d ic a n t c u r r ic u lu m a n d a m o n g th e y o u n g n o b le s ’ lesso n s a n d p ra c tic e sheets th e re a p p e a r e m u la tio n s o f E u r o p e a n R e n a is s a n c e m o t ifs .11 G iv e n that m a p -m a k e r s se rv e d d iv e rs e p a tro n s a n d that th e y w e re e d u ca te d b y tlacuilo a n d fria rs, it is n o t s u r p r is in g th at t h e ir im a g e s in t e r m in g le p re c o n q u e s t featu res w it h E u r o p e a n in tr o d u c t io n s . W h a t is o f p a rt ic u la r in te re st are th e w a y s in w h ic h th e tw o re p re se n ta tio n a l syste m s in te r tw in e . M y c o n c e r n s lie w it h p ra c tic e s th at c a n be tra ced a cross th e c o lo n y , y e t it is im p o s s ib le to d isre g a rd r e g io n a l d iffe re n ce s a n d in d iv id u a l

269

COLONY AND CARTOGRAPHY

d e v ia tio n s . B e c a u s e th e re w a s n o o v e r - a r c h in g p o lic y o n m a p - m a k in g n o r an o ffic ia l p r o g ra m fo r t r a in in g in d ig e n o u s m a p -m a k e r s , b o t h p a tte rn a n d id io s y n c r a c y are to be fo u n d . T h is face t o f e a rly c o lo n ia l life is fu n d a m e n ta l. In N e w S p a in , m o s t p e o p le — n o t o n ly m a p -m a k e r s -

im p r o v iz e d p r a g m a tic resp o n se s to c o lo n iz a t io n a c c o r d in g to th e ir

u n d e r s t a n d in g o f o ffic ia l p o lic y , lo c a l c u lt u r a l sta n d a rd s, a n d in d iv id u a l a b ilitie s.

Cartographic Palimpsests I f m ap s p a in te d b y in d ig e n o u s p e o p le in th e first c e n t u r y afte r th e S p a n is h c o n q u e s t w e a v e t o g e th e r e le m e n ts o f p re h is p a n ic a n d E u r o p e a n o r ig in , it is p re c o n q u e s t tra d itio n s o f re p re se n ta tio n th at p r o v id e a t h ic k la y e r o f g r o u n d u p o n w h ic h E u r o p e a n in t r o d u c ­ tio n s w e re in s c r ib e d . P r e - H is p a n ic c o n v e n t io n s fo r d e p ic t in g te r r ito r y , se ttle m e n t, a n d sp ace in f lu e n c e d th e w a y s in w h ic h n e w re p re se n ta tio n a l p ra c tic e s w e re a ssim ila te d in to the m a p -m a k e r s ’ re p e rto ire . B e c a u s e n o n a tiv e m a p s fr o m b e fo re th e c o n q u e s t s u rv iv e , d ire c t attestatio n s to p r e h is p a n ic m a p p in g p ra c tic e s are la c k in g .12 Y e t a sense o f these tra d itio n s c a n b e a sse m b le d b y e x a m in in g e a rly c o lo n ia l m a p s lik e

th e d e p ic t io n o f

C u a u h t in c h a n ( F ig u r e 1 3 .1 ). S p r in k le d w it h h ill g ly p h s b u t r e v e a lin g n o trace o f c h u r c h e s o r g rid s, th is m a p d e p e n d s h e a v ily u p o n c o n v e n t io n s w it h p r e h is p a n ic ro o ts. F u n d a m e n ­ tal to th e p a in t in g , fo r e x a m p le , are its e m p h ase s o n itin e ra r y , to p o n y m s , a n d h is t o r ic a l n a rra tiv e — e m p h ase s k n o w n fr o m p r e h is p a n ic p a in t in g s .1' A lt h o u g h th e m a p o f C u a u h t in c h a n o ffers th e v ie w e r a tab le au o f th e c o m m u n it y ’s b o u n d a r ie s , it also p rese n ts a n itin e ra r y . T h e m a p - m a k e r has d r a w n a v is u a l list o f p lace s. T h e fo o tp rin ts , w h ic h d e fin e an u n in t e r r u p te d p a th past e ach lo c a t io n , u n d e rs c o re the p e re g r in e f r a m e w o r k o f th e im a g e . B e c a u s e th e h ill g ly p h s are o f s im ila r shapes a n d sizes, a n d e q u a l d ista n ce s separate th e m , th e p a in t in g im p lie s th at e ach n a m e d site is e sse n tia lly the sam e as its n e ig h b o r s . M o r e o v e r , th e a lte rn a tio n o f p la c e g ly p h s w it h b la n k spaces in a r e g u la r p a tte rn c o lla p se s th e a ctu a l d ista n ce s b e tw e e n sites. O v e r 30 k ilo m e t e r s separate so m e a d ja c e n t lo c a t io n s w h ile less th a n t o k ilo m e t e r s d iv id e o th e rs. Y e t th e m a p re ve a ls n o n e o f th is. In d e e d , th e m a p - m a k e r has e lid e d re fe re n c e s to th e m o u n ta in s a n d v a lle y s that tra ve le rs w o u ld e n c o u n te r in t h e ir jo u r n e y fro m o n e p la c e to th e n e x t. In so a lig n in g the b o u n d a r y sites, a n d in re p re ss in g th e d iffe re n ce s that o c c u p y th e spaces b e tw e e n th e m , th e m a p - m a k e r p ro ffe rs an itin e ra r y o f n a m e d la n d m a rk s s tr u n g t o g e th e r lik e ro s a ry beads o n a lo o p e d c o rd . T o p o n y m y ra th e r th a n t o p o g r a p h y o r g a n iz e s th e m a p o f C u a u h t in c h a n : 52 sites are id e n t ifie d , a lt h o u g h fe w c lu e s a b o u t th e ir a p p e a ra n ce are p r o v id e d . W e c a n n o t d isc e rn fro m th e m a p a lo n e w h ic h h ill g ly p h s stan d fo r featu res o f th e la n d sc a p e a n d w h ic h d e n o te c o m m u n itie s . T h e m a p - m a k e r has u sed s ty liz e d h ills as sig n s fo r b o th n a tu ra l featu res a n d in d ig e n o u s to w n s . T h e s e p la c e g ly p h s a llo w th e p a in te r to d is t in g u is h o n e lo c a t io n fro m a n o th e r, n o t so m u c h b y sh ap e o r p r o f ile — as th is ten d s to b e s ta n d a rd ize d - b u t b y an a ffix w h ic h cu e s a n a m e . T h u s a re e d id e n tifie s o n e h ill- f o r m as P la c e o f the R e e d s , a p la c e d is t in c t f r o m all o th e rs, ju s t as a stra w m a t m a rk s a n o th e r, id e n tic a l h ill as L it t le P la c e o f th e S tr a w M a t ( F ig u r e 13.3). In d ig e n o u s p a in te rs c o u ld m ap a v a r ie t y o f p lace s b y u s in g s u c h c o n v e n t io n a liz e d sig n s. W e c a n n o t, h o w e v e r , take these im a g e s at face v a lu e a n d a ssu m e, fo r in sta n c e , th at L it t le

270

13.3

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

Cuauhtinchan and

its boundaries (detail). C o lo r on Eu rop e an paper, from the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca, c. 1545-1565. Paris, B ib lio th è q u e N atio nale, M s. 4 6 -5 0 , fols. 3 5 V 36r. (Photo: author.) P la c e o f th e S tr a w M a t w a s in a c tu a lity a d im in u t iv e site. B e fo re a n d afte r the c o n q u e st, the fu n d a m e n ta l u n its o f s o c ia l a n d t e rrito ria l o r g a n iz a t io n in C e n t r a l M e x ic o w e re ca lle d in N a h u a t l altepetl, a te rm re d u c ib le to atl (w a te r) a n d tepetl ( h ill) . 14 S ig n s s u c h as that fo r L it t le P la c e o f th e S tr a w M a t c o u ld th e re fo re c u e th e n a m e o f a n a tu ra l la n d m a r k as w e ll as a n a tiv e se ttle m e n t. I n th e in d ig e n o u s syste m , th e n , a m b ig u it y c o lo r e d th e re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e sh ap e o f th e g ly p h , th e n a m in g a ffix , a n d th e a ctu a l p la c e . W it h o u t p re v io u s k n o w le d g e o f a r e g io n a n d its h is to r y , it w a s im p o s s ib le to k n o w w h ic h o f th e p la c e g ly p h s re p re se n t altepetl a n d w h ic h

to p o g r a p h ic features. P u t s im p ly , th e in d ig e n o u s

p re c e d e n t d id n o t set la n d sc a p e (n a tu re ) ap art fr o m h u m a n c o m m u n it ie s (c u ltu re ) - at least n o t in v is u a l te r m s .15 F o llo w in g p r e h is p a n ic c o n v e n t io n , th e C u a u h t in c h a n im a g e c o lla te s sig n s fo r la n d ­ m a rk s w it h th o se o f settle d c o m m u n it ie s ( F ig u r e 13.1). Y e t in c o n tra st to c e rta in types o f E u r o p e a n m ap s, t e r r it o r y is n o t th e p r im a r y th e m e . T h i s m a p c o m m e m o r a te s the f o u n d in g o f C u a u h t in c h a n

in th e y e a r 8 R e e d

a n d th e m a r k in g o u t o f p r im o r d ia l

c o m m u n it y b o u n d a rie s . T h e fo o tp r in ts that c ir c u m s c r ib e th e p e rim e te r o f th e fie ld , the sm a ll fig u re s o f a n ce stra l fo u n d e rs, a n d the date at th e c e n te r o f th e p a in t in g a ll su stain th is r e a d in g o f th e im a g e . T h e m a p im p lie s th at th is s p e c ific g e o g ra p h ic a l a rra n g e m e n t d oes n o t a p rio ri e x ist in d e p e n d e n t ly o f th e c u ltu r a l w o r ld . R a t h e r , th e te rra in u n fo ld s b e ca u se a su ite o f s ig n if ic a n t e ve n ts calls these p a rtic u la r sites to g e th e r. In a c r u c ia l sense, h is t o r y is th e p r e -t e x t fo r g e o g ra p h y . L a n d s c a p e s are p r o d u c e d b y n a rra tiv e s that d isc lo se e ve n ts w h ic h tra n sp ire at th e feet o f c e rta in m o u n t a in s , a lo n g th e b a n k s o f s p e c ific riv e rs, a n d w it h in th e b o u n d a rie s o f in d iv id u a l c o m m u n itie s . T h e m a p e stab lish es a n e x u s w h e re h is t o r y a n d la n d sc a p e c o n jo in . W h e n artists p o rtra y e d the lan d s o f N e w S p a in as a s e q u e n c e o f t o p o n y m s , a n d w h e n t h e y in t e r t w in e d im a g e s r e fe r rin g to h is t o r ic a l n a rra tiv e s w it h th o se r e fe r rin g to the p h y s ic a l w o r ld , lo n g - h e ld u n d e rsta n d in g s o f sp atial re la tio n sh ip s a n d s y m b o lic g e o g ra p h y m o t iv a t e d th e m . L i k e p a lim p se sts in w h ic h n e w e n trie s are m a d e o n to p o f o ld , these la y e re d c o m p o s itio n s p r o v id e d th e fo u n d a t io n fo r p o s tc o n q u e s t m a p p in g .

271

COLONY AND CARTOGRAPHY

A n Edifice of Signs: the Christian Church O n e o f th e featu res th at m o s t s h a rp ly separates e a rly c o lo n ia l m ap s fr o m p re c o n q u e s t p a in tin g s is a n e w c o n c e p t io n o f te r r ito r y . In ste a d o f s e q u e n c e s o f h ill g ly p h s d r a w n to g e th e r t h r o u g h

n a rra tiv e , in d ig e n o u s

m ap s p ro d u c e d

fo r le g a l p u rp o se s g e n e ra lly

p o r tr a y th e la n d s o f N e w S p a in free fr o m e x p lic it re fe re n ce s to h is t o r ic a l e v e n t .16 T o a la rg e e x te n t, th is sh ift a w a y fr o m n a rra tiv e a n d itin e ra r y d e riv e s fr o m ju d ic ia l r e q u ir e ­ m e n ts fo r m ap s issu e d b y th e V ic e r e g a l g o v e r n m e n t o f N e w S p a in . In la n d g ra n ts, fo r e x a m p le , s p e c ific a tio n s fo r an a cc e p ta b le m a p w e re e x p lic it ly p r o v id e d . S u c h ch arts w e re to d e p ic t th e t o w n a n d ra n c h e s n earest th e site o f th e p r o s p e c tiv e g ra n t, th e d ista n ce s b e tw e e n lo c a tio n s , a n d

th e la n d s a n d u n t ille d fie ld s w h ic h

w o u ld

r e m a in .1

Th e se

s tip u la tio n s , b ased 011 S p a n is h p r o t o c o l, in d ic a te th at th e d is t r ib u tio n o f la n d in the s ix t e e n t h - c e n t u r y p re se n t, n o t the past, w a s th e o b je c t o f c o n c e r n . T h e p r e - e m in e n t ro le a ssig n e d to c a r to g r a p h y th u s b e c a m e th e v is u a l d e s c r ip t io n o f an e x ta n t la n d sc a p e . T h i s c h a n g e in fo c u s , in w h ic h v ie w s o f t e r r ito r ia l ta b le a u x ra th e r th a n n a rra tiv e a n d itin e ra r y p e rsp e ctiv e s d o m in a te c a r to g r a p h ic p a in t in g s , w a s n o t, s tr ic tly s p e a k in g , fo r c e d upon

in d ig e n o u s p a in te rs. N a t iv e

m a p -m a k e r s le a rn e d -

th ro u g h

a c o m b in a t io n

of

c o e r c io n , tria l a n d e rro r, a n d p ra g m a tic in s t r u c t io n — w h a t c o lo n ia l a u th o ritie s w o u ld d e e m a p p ro p ria te . I f th e b ro a d g u id e lin e s set o u t fo r la n d g ra n t a n d o th e r le g a lly b in d in g m ap s e sta b lish e d a fr a m e w o r k ,fo r n a tiv e p a in te rs, th e re w a s still c o n s id e ra b le f le x ib ilit y in h o w a m a p - m a k e r m ig h t r e c o n c ile h is s k ills a n d c o n c e p t io n s w it h the d e ta ils re q u ire d b y h is p a tro n s. C o n s e q u e n t ly , th e t ra n s fig u ra tio n o f n a rra tiv e re p re se n ta tio n s o f t e r r ito r y in to c o n v e n t io n s m o r e in k e e p in g w it h R e n a is s a n c e E u r o p e p ro c e e d e d a cross m a rs h y a n d i l l d e fin e d te rra in : b y 1630 b o th fo rm s o f m a p - m a k in g w e re still in e x iste n c e . A n d a lt h o u g h in o ffic ia l arenas E u r o p e a n c o n c e r n s fo r v is u a lly d e s c r ip tiv e sce n e s u ltim a te ly d isp la c e d p r e h is p a n ic in te rests in p e r e g r in a tio n a n d n a rra tiv e , th is w a s n o t th e case in lo c a l m a p p r o d u c t io n w h e r e h y b r id it y p e rsiste d w e ll in to th e n in e te e n th c e n t u r y .18 A s u rv e y o f c a r t o g r a p h ic d o c u m e n ts p a in te d in th e c e n t u r y f o llo w in g 1530 re ve a ls that in d ig e n o u s m a p -m a k e r s u sed c h u r c h e s m o r e o fte n th an s ty liz e d h ill g ly p h s as th e p r im a r y s ig n fo r to w n s . A fa m ilia r e le m e n t o n E u r o p e a n m ap s, th e c h u r c h b e c a m e the fa v o re d s ig n fo r a se ttle d c o m m u n it y o n ly b y in f r in g in g u p o n th e s e m io t ic d o m a in o f th e h ill g ly p h . O n e c o m m o n p ra c tic e a m o n g m a p -m a k e r s w o r k in g d u r in g th is p e r io d w a s to s ig n n a tiv e to w n s w it h b o t h h ill g ly p h s a n d c h u r c h e s . T h e tw o sig n s m ig h t b e set sid e b y sid e , e c h o in g o n e a n o th e r, o r c h u r c h e s c o u ld sta n d a to p t ra d itio n a l h ill g ly p h s .19 A n im a g e fro m V e r a c r u z d a tin g to 1572, h o w e v e r , p r o v id e s a v a r ia t io n o n these m o d e s o f d o u b lin g (F ig u r e 1 3 .4 ). T o id e n t ify th e to w n s o f M a x tla tla n a n d A lm o lo n c a , th e scrib e s u p p le ­ m e n te d h ill g ly p h s w it h

p o rta ls a n d c r o w n e d th e h illo c k

w it h

cro sse s.2" B y

fu s in g

p r e h is p a n ic a n d E u r o p e a n c o n v e n t io n s , the m a p - m a k e r fa s h io n e d sig n s that b e a r the sta m p o f C h r is t ia n s o c ie ty b u t that also m a in ta in ties to an o ld e r o rd e r o f re p re se n ta tio n . M a x tla tla n a n d A lm o lo n c a e m e rg e as to w n s th at are n o m o r e - o r less - C h r is t ia n th a n in d ig e n o u s . A lt h o u g h these C h r is t ia n iz e d h ill g ly p h s m a y s trik e us as o d d , it w o u ld b e a m ista k e to rea d th is m a p as s im p le c o n fu s io n a b o u t w h ic h s ig n -s y s te m w a s m o r e a p p ro p ria te . In ste a d , I b e lie v e w e are w it n e s s in g a fu n d a m e n ta l c h a n g e in in d ig e n o u s re p re se n ta tio n s o f p la c e . P r io r to th e c o n q u e s t it w a s n o t n e ce ssa ry to v is u a lly d iffe re n tia te n a tu ra l

272

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

featu res fr o m to w n s : h ill g ly p h s w e re s u ffic ie n t m a rk e rs fo r m o u n ta in s , h ills , c a n y o n s , a n d c o m m u n itie s . T h is w a s n o t so in th e re g io n s m a p p e d b y E u r o p e a n c a r to g r a p h y . L a n d ­ scap e — m o u n t a in s , riv e rs , a n d co ast lin e — w e r e re n d e re d in

c o n v e n t io n a liz e d b u t

n a tu ra lis tic d e ta il ( F ig u r e 1 3.5). M o r e o v e r , la rg e citie s c o u ld be d is t in g u is h e d fr o m n atu ral la n d m a rk s as w e ll as fr o m s m a lle r to w n s t h r o u g h th e use o f c h u r c h e s , to w e rs, a n d o th e r b u ild in g s .21 A ft e r th e S p a n is h c o n q u e s t in d ig e n o u s p a in te rs w e re in flu e n c e d b y these m a p p in g p ra c tic e s a n d , b y the tu rn o f the se v e n te e n th c e n t u r y , n a tiv e m a p -m a k e r s w e re r e p lic a t in g E u r o p e a n n o tio n s o f la n d sc a p e , a lb e it in th e ir o w n w a y . O n a m a p o f O t u m b a a n d the s u r r o u n d in g r e g io n , d a tin g fr o m 1590, h ill g ly p h s fo rm a m o u n t a in o u s s p in e r u n n in g v e r t ic a lly a lo n g th e c e n te r o f the p a in t in g ( F ig u r e 13.6). B e c a u s e o f th e ir size a n d c o lo r , th e y d w a r f th e c h u r c h e s . Y e t it is th e c h u r c h e s that o p e rate as sig n s fo r to w n s . In th e case o f o n e t o w n , A ju lu a p a (sh o w n at th e far r ig h t), the c h u r c h g ly p h has n o t o n ly b e e n la b e le d in S p a n is h , b u t - in a p ra c tic e r e m in is c e n t o f 13.4 (right) Map Showing Communities of Maxtlatlan and Almolonca, Veracruz. C o lo r on E u ro p e a n paper, 1572. M e x ic o C it y , A rc h iv o G eneral de la N a c ió n . Catálogo de Ilustraciones 4: # 1 5 6 1 , T ierra s, vo l. 2676, exp. 9, f. I I . (Photo: archive.)

13.5 (left) B o lo g n in o Z a ltie ri. II Disegno del Discoperto della Nova Franza. E n g ra v in g , 1566. C h ic a g o , T h e N e w b e rry Lib rary . (Photo: library'.)

COLONY AND CARTOGRAPHY

273

13.6 Map of Otumba and nearby commu­ nities, Mexico. C o lo r on Eu rop e an paper, 1590. M e x ic o C it y , A rc h iv o G eneral de la N a c ió n .

Catálogo de Ilustraciones 5:

# 2 1 6 0 , T ierra s, vo l. 2782, exp. 15, f. 17. (Pho to : archive.)

p r e h is p a n ic tra d itio n s — it is also s ig n e d w it h an a ffix . In co n tra st, th e h ill g ly p h s h a ve b e c o m e a n o n y m o u s . N e it h e r w r itt e n te x t n o r g ly p h ic a ffix d is tin g u is h e s o n e fr o m the o th e r. T h e p r o m o n t o r ie s are v is u a lly s t r ik in g , b u t o n ly as p a rt o f a b a c k d r o p o f la n d sca p e . A s h ill g ly p h s are c o n v e r te d fr o m to p o n y m s to to p o g r a p h ic cu e s, a seam in th e fa b ric o f th e m a p o p e n s. P la c e s w h e r e p e o p le liv e are sep arated fr o m re g io n s w h e r e th e y d o n o t. I a m a r g u in g , th e n , th at c h u r c h sig n s a d v a n c e d th e ir p r iv ile g e d p la c e 011 th e m ap s o f N e w S p a in at th e e x p e n se o f in d ig e n o u s h ill g ly p h s . A t first, th is p ro ce ss w a s o n e o f d e c e n t e r in g ra th e r th a n o u t r ig h t s u b s titu tio n . In g r a p h ic te rm s, th e im a g e fro m O t u m b a m a k e s th is p o in t : h ill g ly p h s lo o m la rg e in th e b a c k g r o u n d , b u t th e y n o lo n g e r d e sig n a te sites w h e r e re sid e n ts c o n d u c t d a ily life ( F ig u r e 1 3 .6). T h o s e a c tiv itie s , th e m a p su gge sts, are m a n a g e d e x c lu s iv e ly u n d e r th e a eg is o f C h r is t ia n it y . A s h ill g ly p h s are m a r g in a liz e d , th e ir a b ilit y to m a r k a p la c e w it h m o r a l o r sacral c o n v ic t io n is u s u rp e d b y sig n s o f the c h u r c h . T h u s th e c h u r c h , as a s ig n , p e rfo rm s a n id e o lo g ic a l f u n c t io n . V is u a lly , the p a in te d e d ific e in d e x e s th e C h r is t ia n iz a t io n o f c o n q u e r e d la n d s. A s o n th e m a p o f O t u m b a , the d is t r ib u tio n o f c h u r c h e s in d ic a te s that a ll c o m m u n it ie s are C h r is t ia n c o m ­ m u n itie s . T h e m a p id e n tifie s n o se ttle m e n t in th is r e g io n th at has e scap ed c o n v e r s io n . In im p ly in g th at o n ly th o se p la ce s sta m p e d b y th e m o ra l a u th o r it y o f th e C h u r c h are p r o p e r

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

274

W t SST

\l*jc

V« 13.7

Map o f San

Bartolomé M alila and nearby communities, Hidalgo. C o lo r on Eu rop e an paper, c.1599. M e x ic o C it y , A rc h iv o G eneral de la N a c ió n . Catálogo de Ilustraciones 2:

it c li/ft «tico

# 5 9 3 , T ierra s, vo l. 64, exp. 7, f. 201. (Photo: archive.)

sites o f o c c u p a t io n , th e O t u m b a m a p p ro je c ts th e d e stin y o f th is fo r e ig n in s t itu t io n o n to th e t e r r ito r y o f N e w S p a in . In c o n tra st to th e m a p o f C u a u h t in c h a n w h ic h a lte rn a te d h ill g ly p h s a n d e m p ty spaces ( F ig u r e 1 3 .1 ), m ap s w it h c h u r c h e s a n d h ills p r o v id e c o n s id e r a b ly m o r e in fo r m a t io n a b o u t th e w a y s that p e o p le o c c u p ie d s p e c ific g e o g ra p h ie s . E v e n so, m a p s w e re c o n s e rv a tiv e d o c u m e n ts . A n d e v e n afte r c h u r c h sig n s e sta b lish e d a fir m p la c e fo r th e m se lv e s o n the g ro u n d

of

in d ig e n o u s

m ap s,

c a r to g r a p h ic

re p re se n ta tio n s

w e re

o v e r w h e lm in g ly

t o p o n y m ie in c o n c e p t io n . In d e e d , th e c h u r c h b e c a m e th e p a ra d ig m a tic t o p o n y m . C o n v e n t io n a liz a t io n o f fo r m a n d a rc h ite c tu r a l featu res m a k e s it im p o s s ib le to re a d the c h u r c h e s o n a 1599 m a p fr o m H id a lg o as s p e c ific b u ild in g s ( F ig u r e 1 3 .7 ). A n h ie ra tic scale d is tin g u is h e s th e m a in t o w n o f S an B a r t o lo m é M a lila , in the u p p e r le ft -h a n d c o rn e r, fro m s m a lle r se ttle m e n ts u n d e r its s o v e r e ig n t y . B u t , b y a n d la rg e , th e m a p d o e s n o t r e c o r d th e a ctu a l a p p e a ra n ce o f a n y s in g le c h u r c h . T h is is e m p h a s iz e d b y th e d is ju n c t io n

C O LO N Y

A N D

C A R T O G R A P H Y

275

b e tw e e n th e im a g e r y o f th e m a p a n d its w ritte n g lo sse s.22 A c c o r d in g to th e N a h u a t l te x t, the large st t o w n in th e r e g io n h a d o v e r t o o t r ib u t e - p a y in g re sid e n ts, th e sm a lle st o n ly th re e . Y e t th e m a p im a g e r y g lid e s o v e r these d iffe re n c e s, d is t in g u is h in g th e a d m in is tr a tiv e c e n te r o f th e d is tr ic t b u t n o n e o f th e o th e r c o m m u n itie s . A l l o f the o u t ly in g to w n s , re g ard le ss o f th e ir size , are s ig n e d w it h c h u r c h e s u n if o r m ly d ra w n . In th is w a y , the c h u r c h sig n b e h a v e s m u c h lik e th e h ill g ly p h s o n th e C u a u h t in c h a n m a p ( F ig u r e 13.1): it fu n c tio n s t o p o n y m ic a lly to lo c a te w h e r e in th e g r a p h ic fie ld a c o m m u n it y stands. A s w a s th e case w it h th e h ill g ly p h s , th e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n b u ild in g s rests u p o n th e ir nam es -

now ,

sp e lle d

o u t a lp h a b e tic a lly .

The

C h r is t ia n iz e d

to w n s

o f S a n ta

M a r ia

M o n ta s c o a n d S a n A u g u s t in C h iq u it la n are e v o k e d b y s ta n d a rd ize d re p re se n ta tio n s o f a c h u r c h a n d a sh o rt la b e l. W h ile the re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n p ic tu r e a n d te x t is n o t id e n tic a l to that o f h ill g ly p h

a n d a ffix , a p a ra lle l re su lt is a c h ie v e d t h ro u g h

th e ir c o u p lin g .

C h u r c h e s w it h w r itte n w o r d s la b e l a n d d iffe re n tia te in d iv id u a l c o m m u n itie s ju s t as h ill g ly p h s w it h p ic t o r ia l a ffix e s id e n t ify p la ce s lik e P la c e o f the R e e d s a n d L it t le P la c e o f the S tr a w M a t o n th e m a p in fig u r e 13.1. T h i s is n o t to su g g e st th at th e s u b s titu tio n o f c h u r c h a n d w r it in g fo r g ly p h a n d a ffix w a s an u n c o m p lic a te d p ro ce ss. T h e p o in t I w a n t to stress h e re is th at c h u r c h e s a b so rb e d th e t o p o n y m ic fu n c tio n o f h ill g ly p h s . T o a d e g re e , th e t o p o n y m ic ro le a ssig n e d the p a in te d b u ild in g s p a ra lle ls

E u ro p e a n

p ra c tic e ; c h u r c h e s also se rv e d as t o p o n y m s o n

E u r o p e a n m ap s. B e c a u s e n a tiv e p a in te rs w e re e x p o s e d to s u c h d o c u m e n ts , w e c a n n o t be s u rp rise d to f in d c h u r c h sig n s p e r f o r m in g a n a lo g o u s ly . N e v e rth e le s s , it w o u ld b e m is g u id e d to see th e p ra c tic e o f in d ig e n o u s m a p -m a k e r s as s im p ly a p p r o p r ia t io n , fo r th ere is m u c h to su g g e st th at th e p r e h is p a n ic re p re se n ta tio n a l syste m w a s to o d e e p ly ro o te d a n d to o c o n s e r v a tiv e to y ie ld e a sily to fo r e ig n c o n v e n t io n s .

O f Grids and Maps C e n t u r ie s b e fo re th e S p a n is h c o n q u e st, th e vast c it y o f T e o t ih u a c a n sp re ad in a g r id - lik e p a tte rn across th e h e art o f C e n t r a l M e x ic o . A n d in th e fifte e n th c e n tu r y , c e rta in parts o f T e n o c h t it la n , th e c a p ita l o f th e A z t e c state, w e re also la id o u t a c c o r d in g to a r e c tilin e a r w e b o f p a th w a y s. E v e n so, fe w p r e h is p a n ic c o m m u n it ie s a d o p te d th is a rra n g e m e n t, a n d re p re se n ta tio n s o f g r id d e d spaces are q u ite rare. It w o u ld see m that p r io r to th e a rriv a l o f E u r o p e a n s , g rid s la c k e d th e c u ltu ra l im p e r a tiv e th e y g a in e d afte r th e c o n q u e st. A m o n g S p a n ia rd s , the c o lo n ia l e n te rp rise w as ste ep e d in a d isc o u rs e o f u t o p ic id ea ls. O n e face t o f th is in v o lv e d a r r a n g in g n e w ly settled la n d s in to id e n tic a l, g e o m e tr ic a lly d e fin e d a n d r e c t ilin e a r p a rc e ls. In th is syste m , life c o u ld be o r g a n iz e d in to re g u la r u n its th at re fle c te d th e m e a s u re d o r d e r b e f it t in g a C h r is t ia n k in g d o m

o n earth ; a n d , at the

sam e tim e , th e g r o u n d w a s p re p a re d fo r a u th o r ita tiv e c o n t ro l a n d s u p e r v is io n . T h e g r id d in g o f N e w S p a in w a s th e re fo re a p ro c e ss d o u b ly m o tiv a te d . Its m is s io n w a s in sp ire d b y b o th u t o p ic id e a ls a n d a w ill to d o m in a te .23 E x e m p la r y in th is re g a rd w a s th e p o lic y o f congregación w h ic h g a th e re d n a tiv e s to g e th e r a n d rese ttle d th e m in to w n s th at, o fte n as n o t, fo llo w e d o r t h o g o n a l g r o u n d p la n s .24 T h e s e n e w ly a rra n g e d se ttle m e n ts w e re b y d e f in it io n C h r is t ia n se ttle m e n ts. Im p o s e d a n d la id o u t b y fria rs, th e g r id d e d to w n s w e re se g re g a te d a c c o r d in g to a h ie r a r c h y o f spaces. T h e

27 6

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

c e n tra l p la za , w it h d o m in a te d

and

its c h u r c h

s u p p lie d

a

a n d a d m in is tr a tiv e b u ild in g s ,

m a t r ix

o f e v e n ly

siz e d

b lo c k s

t o o k p r id e that

o f p la c e ; it

e x te n d e d

to

the

c o m m u n it y ’s p e rip h e r y . A lt h o u g h th e d e sire to fo u n d g r id d e d to w n s w a s a fa m ilia r to p o s in S p a n is h state m en ts o f p o lic y , 2:1 it n o n e th e le ss m e t w it h v a rie d d e gre e s o f r e a liz a tio n . N o t all congregaciones led to th e in s c r ip t io n o f o r t h o g o n a l g r id -p la n s , n o r d id a c h u r c h g ra ce th e m a in p la za o f e v e r y n e w se ttle m e n t. In d e e d , th e a ctu a l tra n s fo rm a tio n o f th e n a tiv e la n d sc a p e in to re c t ilin e a r c o m m u n it ie s w it h c e n tra l sq u ares p ro c e e d e d u n e v e n ly a cross N e w S p a in .26 T h u s w e s h o u ld tease ap art t w o in d e p e n d e n t facto rs th at c o n t rib u t e to th e a p p e a ra n ce o f g rid s o n in d ig e n o u s m ap s. F irs t, th e im p le m e n t a tio n o f S p a n is h p ro je c ts fo r n a tiv e c o m m u n it ie s m e t w it h b o th su cce ss a n d fa ilu re . T h e w ill o f c o lo n ia l p o lic y - m a k e r s to e stab lish g r id - p la n t o w n s w a s p o w e r fu l, b u t so, to o , w a s n a tiv e re sista n ce . R e s e tt le m e n t in g r id d e d to w n s w a s r a re ly a cc e p te d p a ss iv e ly . R a t h e r , its a c h ie v e m e n t w a s p o ssib le o n ly w it h the assistance o f c o e r c io n , i f n o t fo rc e . S e c o n d , w h a t a c tu a lly o c c u r r e d o n the g r o u n d su b sta n tia te s o n ly so m e o f th e ro le s a ssig n e d to g rid s b y in d ig e n o u s m a p -m a k e r s . J u s t as th e tra n s fo rm a tio n o f n a tiv e altcpetl in to S p a n is h -s t y le pueblos w a s c o m p le x so, to o , w a s th e p lo t t in g o f o r t h o g o n a l p a tte rn s o n m ap s a n d th e ir s y m b o lic re la tio n s h ip to la n d s c a p e .2 A c r o s s N e w S p a in , m y r ia d in d ig e n o u s to w n s w e re re d e s ig n e d b e tw e e n 1530 a n d 1630, y e t th is e x p e rie n c e w a s n o t th e o n ly - o r e v e n th e p r im a r y m o d e l - fo r n a tiv e d e p ic t io n s o f g rid s.

O f e q u al c o n s e q u e n c e

w a s an in te r te x tu a l d ia lo g u e

o f im a g e s:

C O LO N Y

A N D

277

C A R T O G R A P H Y

E u r o p e a n m ap s a n d d ia g ra m s f u n c t io n e d as m o d e ls fo r in d ig e n o u s m a p -m a k e r s w h o h a rb o re d th e ir o w n c o n c e p ts o f h o w to a d u m b ra te te rrito ry . T h e le g a c y o f th e g r id in E u r o p e a n c a r to g r a p h y o w e d m u c h to a n c ie n t P to le m a ic g e o g ra p h y , a n d R e n a is s a n c e m a p -m a k e r s c e r t a in ly in h e r it e d th is tra d itio n . Y e t H u b e r t D a m is c h c o n n e c ts th e R e n a is s a n c e w it h fu n d a m e n ta l c h a n g e s in th e c a r to g r a p h ic use a n d c o n n o ta tiv e m o o r in g s o f the o r t h o g o n a l d ia g r a m .28 A n a ly z in g th e g r id as an id e o lo g ic a l p r o je c tio n as w e ll as a fo r m o f re p re se n ta tio n , he im p lic a te s it n o t o n ly i n a re n e w e d w ill to c o m m a n d te r r ito r y , b u t also in an e m e rg e n t m o r a l r e g im e . T h r o u g h o u t th e M id d le A g e s , th e u n if o r m in te rstice s d e sig n a te d b y a la ttic e o f lin e s m a r k e d terra cognita, b e y o n d w h ic h la id an ill- d e f in e d fr o n tie r . I11 th e w a k e o f th e E u r o p e a n R e n a is s a n c e , h o w e v e r , g rid s a ssu m e d a n o th e r fu n c t io n . R a t h e r th an d iffe r e n tia t in g settle d c o m m u n itie s fr o m lan d s u n ta m e d , e v e n ly la id lin e s s e g m e n te d th e e n tire m a p in to a n e t o f u n if o r m spaces ( F ig u r e

1 3 .8 ). In p r o v id in g an a rm a tu re fo r d is t r ib u t in g o b je c ts in sp ace , o r th o g o n a ls

d e fin e d th e b o u n d a rie s o f th e c a r to g r a p h ic d o c u m e n t itse lf. A s th e g r o u n d fo r m ap s, the g r id fu r n is h e d a m a t r ix fo r e x p e r ie n c in g th e w o r ld .29 W o r k in g far o u ts id e E u r o p e a n in te lle c tu a l c irc le s , b u t w it h a f a m ilia r ity o f R e n a is s a n c e c a r to g r a p h ic d e v e lo p m e n ts , in d ig e n o u s m a p -m a k e r s cast th e g r id in a v e r y d iffe re n t ro le . I n a m a p o f M in a s de Z u m p a n g o fr o m

1580, f o r e x a m p le , th e g r id f u n c tio n s n o t as a

p r o p e r c a r t o g r a p h ic “ g r o u n d ,” b u t as y e t a n o th e r fig u r e ( F ig u r e 1 3 .9 ).30 T e t h e r e d to th e e d g e s, th e g r id e m e rg e s as o n e m o r e e le m e n t set u p o n th e m ap .

13.8 (opposite page) Battista Agnese. World Map. P a in tin g on paper, î:. 1536—1564P ro vid en ce , T h e Jo h n C a rte r B ro w n Lib ra ry at B ro w n U n iv e rsity . (Photo: lib rary.)

13.9 (left) Map of Minas de Zumpango. C o lo r 011 Eu rop ean paper, from Relación Geográfica, c. 1580. M adrid, R e a l A cadem ia de la H isto ria. (Photo: library.)

278

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

In e ffe ct, th e M in a s de Z u m p a n g o m a p - m a k e r treats th e g r id a c c o r d in g to a w e lle sta b lish e d tra d itio n : fo r h im , it is a t o p o n y m ic s ig n . Y e t , u n lik e th e c h u r c h a n d hi!! g ly p h , th e m e s h o f lin e s n e v e r stands a lo n e o n in d ig e n o u s m ap s — at least o n e e ccle sia s­ tic a l b u ild in g a lw a y s a c c o m p a n ie s th e w e b . T h e s ig n ific a n c e o f th e g r id is th e re fo re b o u n d to th at o f th e c h u r c h . O f t e n a g r id d e d “ s h a d o w ” radiates acro ss th e lan d scap e fr o m th e e d ific e , a n d th e n e t o f b is e c tin g ro a d s a m p lifie s th e p r iv ile g e o f th e c h u r c h an d its c la im to c a r to g r a p h ic a u th o r it y . In th is c o n t e x t, th e g r id serves p r im a r ily to d e scrib e w h a t c o u ld n o t n e c e s sa rily b e seen ; it v is u a lly d e m o n stra te s that u n d e r th e a eg is o f the C h r is t ia n C h u r c h c o m m u n a l spaces w e re s u rv e y e d , o rd e re d , a n d c o n ta in e d . W e a n tic ip a te that g rid s w ill d e sc rib e th e sh ap e a n d a rra n g e m e n t o f c iv ic sp ace; a n d w e e x p e c t th e m to re v e a l m o r e a b o u t th e a p p e a ra n ce o f to w n s th an e ith e r h ill g ly p h s o r c h u r c h sig n s. A n d at tim e s th e y d o - b u t n o t in e v e r y in sta n ce . O n th e m a p o f M in a s d e Z u m p a n g o ( F ig u r e 1 3 .9 ), a m e sh o f in te r s e c tin g ro a d s a rra n g e d a ro u n d a c e n tra liz e d c h u r c h stands fo r th e to w n . Y e t th e u n if o r m ly sh ap e d , e m p ty b lo c k s d isc lo se v e r y little a b o u t M in a s de Z u m p a n g o . M o r e o v e r , fo o tp r in ts — a rra n g e d in a p a tte rn o f o n e p e r b lo c k o n e ith e r sid e o f th e street — s ig n a l m o v e m e n t, b u t n o a ctu a l p a th o f tra v e l is b e tra y e d . T h i s g r id d e d im a g e , th e n , is n o t s im p ly a d e s c r ip tiv e e x e rc ise . R a t h e r , it im p a rts a g e o m e tr ic id e a l th at e x iste d w it h g re a te r re a lity in th e im a g in a r y , u t o p ic space o f the c a r to g r a p h e r ’s m in d th an it e v e r d id o n th e g r o u n d .31 A s c o m p o n e n ts o f id e a liz e d sp atial p r o je c tio n s , g rid s sp la y to w n s b e fo re th e p a n o p tic , e x p lo r a t o r y g a ze o f m a p v ie w e rs . C o n v o lu t io n s o f t o p o g r a p h y a n d h u m a n o c c u p a t io n are ir o n e d o u t in to a la t t ic e - w o r k o f a n o n y m o u s d is tric ts .32 A s it c a n c e ls th e p o s s ib ility o f r a n d o m d e v ia t io n , th e u n if o r m g e o m e tr y o f th e g r id d e m a rca te s th e id e a l o r d e r o f a C h r is t ia n c o m m u n it y . C o n s e q u e n t ly a p r e o r d a in e d c iv ilit y m a te ria lize s w it h in its b lo c k s . M o r e o v e r , th e g r id p e rm its o n ly t w o c o u rse s o f c o m m u n a l tra n s fig u ra tio n : it a llo w s g re a te r d e n s ity a n d e ff ic ie n c y o f o c c u p a t io n ; o r it u n fu rls itse lf, p u s h in g th e lim it s o f terra cognita to w a rd s the frin g e s o f th e m a p . B o t h o f these p o s s ib ilitie s u n d e r m in e th e n a rra tiv e p o te n tia l o f m a p s a n d d ire c t a tte n tio n a w a y fr o m s e q u e n tia l tra v e l acro ss th e p a in te d page . A s u to p ia n p r e s c rip tio n s a n d as a ctu a l d e s c rip tio n s , g r id - w o r k e d spaces le a v e fe w o p e n in g s fo r p re c o n q u e s t n a rra tiv e a n d itin e ra r y tra d itio n s w h o s e re m n a n ts r e m a in in fo o tp r in ts th at p lo d a lo n g the ro a d s o f m a n y an e a rly c o lo n ia l m a p . In the M in a s de Z u m p a n g o p a in t in g , a tra il o f p rin ts sk irts th e e d ge s o f th e c h a rt, c ir c u m s c r ib in g n o t o n ly th e m a in t o w n b u t also th e s m a lle r c o m m u n it ie s u n d e r its ju r is d ic t io n a n d th e forests a d ja ce n t to th e m

( F ig u r e

1 3 .9 ). O t h e r e le m e n ts re ta in e d fr o m p re c o n q u e s t p a in tin g s

in c lu d e th e tw o h ill g ly p h s a n d th e la rg e e xp a n se s o f b la n k sp ace. A lt h o u g h these featu res are n o t c o m p le t e ly b a n is h e d , th e y are m a r g in a liz e d a n d th e m a p im p lie s th at th e c h u r c h a n d g r id are a sce n d a n t. T h e in te r s e c tin g w e b o f lin e s th at fo rm s M in a s de Z u m p a n g o d w a rfs th e h ill g ly p h w h ic h it ab u ts a n d , b y s k e w in g th e re la tiv e scale o f th e t w o sig n s, th e g r id e m p h a siz e s e cc le sia stic a l tr iu m p h . P re s u m a b ly , th e c o m m u n it y s to o d in the s h a d o w o f a m o u n t a in th at w a s far m o r e vast th a n the t o w n at its feet. Y e t th e p a in t in g in v e rts th e scale a n d , in so d o in g , reverses th e s y m b o lic status o f la n d m a r k a n d C h r is t ia n ­ iz e d t o w n . T h e M in a s de Z u m p a n g o m a p is p re s c ie n t o f th e tu rn th at w o u ld e v e n tu a lly sw e e p a cross in d ig e n o u s c a r to g r a p h y . Y e t th e re la tio n sh ip s a m o n g g rid s, c h u r c h e s , a n d h ill g ly p h s w e re n e v e r d e f in it iv e ly se ttle d in th e s ix te e n th c e n tu r y . D o m in a t in g th e 1579 m ap

COLONY AND CARTOGRAPHY

13.10

279

Map o f Texúpa,

Oaxaca. C o lo r on E u ro p e a n paper, from Relación Geográfica, 1579. M ad rid , R e a l A cad em ia de la H isto ria. (Photo: library.)

(F ig u r e 13.10) is the g r id d e d to w n o f T e x ú p a . T h e 39 b lo c k s , e ach m a rk e d w it h e ig h t h o u se s y m b o ls , su gge st th at th e g r id d in g o f T e x ú p a h a d b e e n c a rrie d o u t w it h gre at r ig o r .33 Y e t th is im a g e also su b v e rts th e in t e g r it y o f th e g r id in a n u m b e r o f w a y s. A s th re e la rg e ro a d s c u t a cross u n n a m e d streets a n d b lo c k s th e y pass t h r o u g h c it y lo ts a n d o v e r c o n v e n t io n a liz e d h o u se s as i f s lic in g t h r o u g h p h a n to m s o r m ira g e s. F u r t h e r c o m p r o ­ m is in g th e m a te ria l status o f the g r id are th e m o tifs o f p r e h is p a n ic o r ig in . S t y liz e d h ill g ly p h s , s o m e m a r k e d w it h a ffix e s, are p o ste d b e sid e th e a p p a r it io n - lik e g r ill; t h e ir d a rk m asses fo rm a m e n a c in g la n d sca p e . A n d to w a rd s th e c e n te r o f th e m a p , at the la t t ic e ’s u p p e r e d g e , a te m p le stands b e fo re a h ill g ly p h . T o g e t h e r , th e tw o fo r m a t o p o n y m fo r T e x ú p a . P re sse d to th e m a rg in s o f the to w n , h o w e v e r , th e p r e h is p a n ic sig n s n o lo n g e r s u ffic e as v is u a l in v o c a tio n s o f th e c o m m u n it y . N o w

th e y stan d g u a rd lik e sen trie s,

in s u r in g that th e g r id is c a n c e lle d b e fo re it e n c ro a c h e s u p o n th e r e g io n s w h e r e h ill g ly p h s , a n d p e rh a p s o th e r in d ig e n o u s tra d itio n s , still p re v a il.

Figures of Place: Between the Church and the Grid T h e r e ca n be n o d o u b t th at in d ig e n o u s m a p -m a k e r s in N e w S p a in a c c o m m o d a t e d sig n s o f th e c h u r c h a n d th e g r id q u ite d iffe re n tly . T e s t if y in g to th is are th e n e a r ly 4 0 0 m ap s p a in te d b e tw e e n 1570 a n d 1630: o v e r 30 0 h a v e c h u r c h e s , b u t fe w e r th a n 40 h a v e g rid s. M o r e o v e r , o f th o se p a in tin g s that fea tu re an o r t h o g o n a l m e sh , n e a rly a ll w e re cre a te d f o r the S p a n is h c r o w n . It is t e m p t in g to read th is d is p a rity as e v id e n c e th at n a tiv e m a p -

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

28o

m a k e rs a n tic ip a te d so m e o f t h e ir v ie w e r s ’ c o n c e its . P e rh a p s p a in te rs sen sed that r o v _ o ffic ia ls lo n g e d , i f n o t d e m a n d e d , to see sig n s o f th e o r d e r th e y u n fu r le d across th e l a n ¿ th e y n o w ru le d . W h ile th is m a y h a v e b e e n th e case in a fe w in sta n ce s, I b e lie v e that th c r : w e re m o re p r o fo u n d m o tiv e s b e h in d the u n e v e n a p p r o p r ia tio n o f c h u r c h e s a n d g n ^ fr o m E u r o p e a n so u rce s. Its a b ility to e v o k e m e a n in g o n m a n y le v e ls b u ttre sse d th e su cce ss o f th e c h u r c h s:_C h u r c h e s c o u ld re p la ce h ill g ly p h s w it h o u t u n d e r m in in g th e v ig o r o f th e t o p o n y m . T h e in t r u s io n o f p a in te d b u ild in g s in to n a tiv e m ap s gra fte d a d d itio n a l m e a n in g s o n to the h i g ly p h . Y e t , u ltim a te ly , th e c h u r c h s ig n d id n o t c o u n t e r t o p o n y m ic fo rm s o f re p re se n ­ ta tio n , fo rm s th at h a d t h e ir ro o ts in th e p r e h is p a n ic past. M o r e o v e r , b y th e e n d ot the s ix te e n th

c e n tu r y , n e a r ly e v e ry in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it y o f a n y size h a d at least o r.,

c h u r c h . U s u a lly b u ilt b y lo c a l re sid e n ts, these stru c tu re s b e c a m e the fo c u s o f c o m m u m r id e n t ity a n d p rid e . C o n s e q u e n t ly it is n o t s u r p r is in g th at in th e la n d sca p e s th e y c h a rte d m a p -m a k e r s fo u n d a m p le r o o m fo r c h u rc h e s . R e s p o n s e s to th e g r id t o o k a m o r e a m b iv a le n t -

i f n o t h a lt in g -

p a th . T h i s is n o :

c o in c id e n t a l. A t o n e le v e l, th e g r id o f R e n a is s a n c e E u r o p e ra n a g a in st th e g ra in ot p r e h is p a n ic m a p p in g c o n v e n t io n s . O r t h o g o n a l d ia g ra m s can d e fin e th e sh ap e a n d lim its o f in d iv id u a l to w n s , b u t th e y c a n n o t - b y th e m se lv e s lo c a te d .

U n lik e

th e

ch u rch

or

th e

h ill

g ly p h ,

s ig n a l w h e r e a c o m m u n it y

in d ig e n o u s

m a p -m a k e r s

fo u n d

nc

t o p o n y m ic a d v a n ta g e to th e g r id . T h r o u g h o u t th e c o lo n ia l p e r io d , h o w e v e r , n a tiv e c o n c e p t io n s o f m a p p in g p r iv ile g e d t o p o n o m y . It w o u ld see m , th e n , th at th e p a u c it y o : g rid s stem s fr o m

an in d ig e n o u s u n w illin g n e s s to a b a n d o n a c o v e te d re p re se n ta tio n a l

d e v ic e . T h e re sista n ce is n o t, h o w e v e r , s tr ic t ly c a r to g r a p h ic . A s b lu e p rin ts fo r c o lo n ia l to w n s, g rid s a rr iv e d la d e n w it h s p iritu a l a n d p o lit ic a l c o n n o ta tio n s . E n t a n g le d as th e y are in the m o s t v io le n t m e ta m o rp h o s e s in itia t e d b y th e S p a n is h -

c o n v e r s io n to C h r is t ia n it y a n c

congregación - g rid s w e re h a rd ly in n o c e n t sig n s. H e n c e w e m ig h t c o n s tru e th e la n g u is h in j o f th e o r t h o g o n a l m e sh o n m ap s as a s ile n t c ir c u m v e n t io n o f E u r o p e a n d e sig n s o n n a tiv e la n d s, a n d , a d d it io n a lly , as a r e je c t io n o f th e a c h ie v e m e n ts E u r o p e a n s c la im e d in N e v . S p a in . It is c e r t a in ly tru e th at in d ig e n o u s m a p - m a k in g p ro c e e d e d h a n d in g lo v e w it h c o lo n ­ iz a tio n . A n d th e sig n s o n n a tiv e m ap s c o n s p ir e d w it h th e m o r a l a n d m a te ria l tra n s fig u ­ ra tio n s o f th at w o r ld . B u t e v e n as th e C h u r c h trie d p e o p le fo r id o la tr y a n d fo rc e d th e n -, to liv e in n e w ly c o n g re g a te d to w n s , in d ig e n o u s d o c u m e n ts o n ly ra re ly d e sc rib e te rrito r. o r m ir r o r resp o n se s to c o lo n iz a t io n in an o b v io u s w a y . In d e e d n o m a p , n e it h e r S p a n ish n o r in d ig e n o u s , set o u t to v e r if y w h a t w a s “ r e a lly ” h a p p e n in g in th e s ix te e n th c e n tu ry I f w e o b s e ss iv e ly f o llo w m ap s a n d tru st th e m as g u id e s, th e n w e m u st also re c o g n iz e t h e ir s e m io t ic

and

e th ic a l

e q u iv o c a t io n .

The

c a rto g ra p h

c o n s tru c ts

its

ow n

v is u a l

d isc o u rs e - a d isc o u rs e th at fo ld s w it h in it s e lf th e s y m b o lic a n d the u n c o n s c io u s as w e l as th e p o lit ic a l, m o ra l a n d e c o n o m ic o r d e r o f affairs. T h u s in th e w e b o f in t e r lo c k in g s o c ia l c o n t in g e n c ie s th at w e c a ll h is to r y , th e m a p is s im u lta n e o u s ly im p lic a t e d and c o n s titu tiv e . S o m e o f these p ro cesses u n c o ile d o n the g r o u n d : p r e h is p a n ic te m p le s w e re r a z e d a n d c h u rc h e s rose in th e ir stead, c o m m u n it ie s w e re re se ttle d a n d g rid s w e re o r g a n iz e d u n d e r S p a n is h a u sp ice s. O t h e r in te ra c tio n s tra n s p ire d in th e d o m a in o f re p re ­ se n ta tio n a l c o n v e n t io n

a n d r e c o r d - k e e p in g .

In d ig e n o u s p a in te rs re fle c te d u p o n

th e ir

281

COLONY AND CARTOGRAPHY

cra ft v ia a m ix t u r e o f p r e h is p a n ic tra d itio n s a n d E u r o p e a n in tr o d u c t io n s ; th e s h im m e r o f m e m o ry

and

change

th e re fo re

s tru c tu re d

th e

a ss o c ia tio n

o f sig n s

on

th e

m ap.

F in a lly , th at w h ic h w a s m o ld e d b y d e sire a n d im a g in a t io n m u s t b e ta k e n in to a c c o u n t. T h is in c lu d e s th o se t h in g s in d ig e n o u s p a in te rs w illin g ly a c k n o w le d g e d -

b o th o n the

g r o u n d a n d o n th e ir m a p s - a n d th o se th in g s th at m a p -m a k e r s a n d t h e ir p a tro n s h e lp e d e a ch o th e r to e n v is io n . T h e s e are c o n c e r n s n o less real th a n th e f u r r o w in g o f o r t h o g o n a l lin e s in th e e a rth .34 I f th e re e xists a n y c o m m o n fa b ric w it h in in d ig e n o u s m ap s, th e n it is s p u n w h e n

th e h e te r o g e n e ity o f

d e sire , p a in t in g c o n v e n t io n s , a n d h is t o r ic a l

c irc u m s ta n c e s in te r m in g le . It is th is te n u o u s th re a d th at b in d s h illo c k s to c h u r c h e s a n d c h u r c h e s to g rid s o n th e m a p s o f N e w S p a in . A n d it is th e t e x t u r in g o f these fila m e n ts th at le n d s g r a in a n d to o th to m atters o f c o lo n iz a t io n .

14 .i

Lu ca S ig n o re lli. Fresco (general vie w ), 1499-1504, C a p p e lla N u o v a , O rv ie to Cathedral. (Photo: S c a la /A n

R e so u rce .)

CHAPTER 14

Luca Signorelli’s R u le o f Antichrist and the Christian Encounter with the Infidel JO N A T H A N

The

B.

c h a r a c te riz a tio n

R IE S S

o f th e

d e ca d e

o f th e

1490s

in

w e s te rn

E u ro p e

as

one

of

e s c h a to lo g ic a l a n x ie t y , a n d th e b e lie f that L u c a S ig n o r e lli’s m u ra ls in th e C a p p e lla N u o v a o f O r v ie t o C a t h e d r a l (1 4 9 9 -1 5 0 4 ; F ig u r e 14.1) b e r a n k e d a m o n g th e fo re m o st e x p re s ­ sio n s o f th is fe rm e n t, are ideas that h a v e a ssu m e d th e a u ra o f h is t o r ic a l t r u is m s .1 It ca n , in d e e d , be re a ffirm e d th at S ig n o r e lli’s sce ne s o f u n iv e rs a l c a ta c ly s m a n d L a st J u d g m e n t , so rare in th e h is t o r y o f Ita lia n art, d o d istil an e p o c h o f m ille n n ia l e x p e c ta tio n . ( W e m u st n o t o v e r lo o k th e fact, h o w e v e r , th at F ra A n g e lic o h a d b e g u n d e c o ra t io n o f th e c h a p e l a b o u t h a lf a c e n t u r y e a rlie r.2) L e ss w e ll a p p re c ia te d is th e p o s s ib ility that th e m a ssiv e re p re se n ta tio n o f th e R u le o f A n tich rist ( F ig u r e 14.2), o n e o f S ig n o r e lli’s c o n t r ib u t io n s to th e d e c o ra tiv e s c h e m e , a llu d e s to the c e n s u re o f J e w s a n d M u s lim s a n d to th e e n d u r in g c o n v ic t io n

th at t h e ir re sista n ce to C h r is t ia n it y b e u n d e rs to o d w it h in

f r a m e w o r k .3 S ig n o r e lli’s fre sco , in

an a p o c a ly p tic

th is sense, c o n d e m n s the fo rc e s p e rc e iv e d as the

greatest e n e m ie s o f th e C h u r c h a n d so illu stra te s th e c o n t in u in g w a y in w h ic h R e n a is ­ san ce C h r is t ia n E u r o p e cast th e e n c o u n te r w it h th e in f id e l in te rm s o f its o w n w o r ld v ie w . J o h n C a l v i n w r o te , so m e ye a rs afte r S ig n o r e lli’s m u ra ls w e re c o m p le te d , th at “ A m o n g C a t h o lic s n o t h in g is m o r e d isc u sse d o r w e ll k n o w n

th a n th e a n tic ip a te d c o m in g o f

A n t ic h r is t .” 4 T h e r e is tru th to th is fo r th e p e rio d o f c o n c e r n to us. A n t ic h r is t is, in a n y case, o n e o f th e m o s t im p o r ta n t fig u re s in m e d ie v a l a n d R e n a is s a n c e a p o c a ly p tic is m . T h e m e d ie v a l v ie w o f h is t o r y in c lu d e s p r o p h e t ic p r o n o u n c e m e n ts tre a tin g th e fu tu re , k n o w n a n d b ased c h ie f ly o n th e R e v e la t io n o f S t. J o h n the E v a n g e lis t , o r th e A p o c a ly p s e , a n d sees as its le a d in g p r o ta g o n is t th e p o w e r fu l a n d o m in o u s fig u r e o f A n t ic h r is t . T h e a d v e n t o f th is gre at d re a d a d v e rs a ry o f G o d -

th e F in a l E n e m y — w ill b e h e ra ld e d b y c e rta in

sig n s. A n a g e n t o f th e d e v il a n d S a ta n ’s c h ie f w e a p o n in th e s tru g g le ah ea d , A n t ic h r is t is in e v e r y sense the a n tith e sis o f C h r is t . H is fo llo w e r s w ill be s e d u c e d th r o u g h fear, b rib e s, false m ira c le s , a n d th e sh e e r p o t e n c y o f th e E v i l O n e ’s p r e a c h in g in to b e lie v in g th at he is th e tru e C h r is t re tu rn e d . T h e h e g e m o n y o f A n t ic h r is t w ill c o m e to an e n d , so the a c c o u n t o f th e fu tu re c o n c lu d e s , b y th e c o m in g o f C h r is t in M a je s ty . A n t ic h r is t w ill be d e stro y e d , th e u n iv e rs e w ill c o m e to an e n d , a n d C h r is t w ill c a ll th e l iv in g a n d d e ad to ju d g m e n t .5

284

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

14.2

L u c a S ig n o re lli, R u le o f Antichrist. Fresco, 1499-1504, C a p p e lla N u o v a , O rv ie to C a t

(Photo: A lin a r i/ A rt R eso u rce .)

T h e A n t ic h r is t le g e n d gra n ts a p r e e m in e n t ro le to Je w s . A n t ic h r is t is h im s e lf said : b o r n a J e w , h is age n ts are o f th e fa ith , a n d h is m a n y J e w is h su p p o rte rs id e n t ir

-

m essia h w it h h im . W e m u st r e c o g n iz e as w e ll that Is la m w a s also im p lic a t e d in p : v e rs io n s

o f the

m yth ,

o fte n

b e in g v e r y

d ir e c tly

a sso ciate d ,

i f n o t id e n tifie d .

A n t ic h r is t , c o m m o n ly c o n c e iv e d as th e e m b o d im e n t o f th e fo rc e s a rra y e d a ga ::.-: C h u r c h . 6 T h u s th e c r u s a d in g e n th u s ia s m a n d fe r v id a n t i-J u d a is m o f th e e p o c h . l e x featu res o f the w o r ld o f ideas a n d e ve n ts that sh a p e d th e R u le o f A n tich rist, w e re im r w it h an a p o c a ly p tic a u ra th ro u g h a ss o c ia tio n w it h th e F in a l E n e m y . T h e R u le o f A n tic h rist is th e p iv o t a l sce n e in an e n c y c lo p e d ic p r o g ra m illu stra r.- j last th in g s . T h e d e c o ra tio n s in th e C a p p e lla N u o v a o f O r v ie t o C a t h e d r a l, as n o te d 1 a h a lf-c e n tu ry ' o f a c t iv ity . In th e v a u lts, th at r e g io n started b y F ra A n g e lic o in 1 4 4 ' c o m p le te d b y S ig n o r e lli at th e o u tse t o f h is la b o r in 1499, is C h r is t in M a je s ty p r . o v e r a vast re p re se n ta tio n o f th e h e a v e n ly c o u n c il. B e lo w , o n th e c h a p e l w a lls

:

rr.r

c o n c e iv e d a n d p a in te d b y S ig n o r e lli a lo n e ), are p ic t u r e d th e A n tich rist, th e E n : W orld, th e Resurrection, the D a m n e d L e d into H e ll, T h e D a m n ed, th e Coronation of tiu E a n d th e E n t r y o f the Elect into H eaven. F in a lly , in th e b a se m e n t s e c tio n o f the w ¿J p o rtra y e d a g r o u p in g o f p o rtra its o f p a ga n a n d c o n t e m p o ra r y a u th o rs a c c o m p a n ie s sce n e s d ra w n fr o m

th e ir w r it in g s . T h e s e are in d iv id u a ls w h o a n tic ip a te a n d s u s

LUCA SIGNORELLI’S R U LE O F A N T IC H R IS T

14.3

285

L u c a S ig n o re lli, E n d of the World. Fresco, 1499-1504, C ap p e lla N u o v a , O rv ie to Cath edral.

(Photo: A lin a r i/ A rt R e so u rce .)

aidtobe rity their 1popular ?d. with amst the . leading : imbued

th ro u g h v a r io u s sig n s a n d d e v ic e s , the tru th o f th e a p o c a ly p tic v is io n la id o u t a b o v e t h e m .8 A lt h o u g h th e m u r a l p r o g ra m is o f u n p r e c e d e n te d sw e e p , its p r e v a ilin g th e m e is c le a r e n o u g h : th e triu m p h o f th e C h u r c h o v e r e v il, as p e rs o n ifie d b y A n t ic h r is t , a n d the tr iu m p h , t h r o u g h e v e rla s tin g life in h e a v e n , o f th o se w h o w ith s ta n d th e te m p ta tio n s o f th e E v i l O n e . T h e se q u e n c e o f e ve n ts in th e R u le o f A n tich rist, as w e m o v e fro m the m id d le f o r e g r o u n d in to th e le ft b a c k g r o u n d , leads us first t h ro u g h th e v a r io u s m e a n s the E v i l O n e e m p lo y s to a ttain p o w e r , to , fin a lly , h is d e s tru c tio n , th is last e p iso d e p r o p e llin g

anng the ced. span :_:j.- and presiding the area •ad of the ' r Elect, walls, is timed by I sustain.

us in to th e a d jo in in g m u ra l o f th e E n d o f the W orld ( F ig u r e 14.3). T h e o r d e r o f A n t ic h r is t ta b le a u x a n d the se q u e n c e o f m u ra ls th u s c o rr e s p o n d to th e rise a n d fall o f th e E v i l O n e a n d to th e la rg e r u n f o ld in g o f e ve n ts h e sets in m o t io n . ' T h e le g e n d o f A n t ic h r is t is, h is t o r ic a lly , a m a lle a b le p o lit ic a l a n d r e lig io u s in s tru m e n t, an d S ig n o r e lli, c o n s is te n t w it h tra d itio n , gra n ts aspects o f the s to ry an e x p lic it c o n t e m ­ p o r a n e it y .10 O n l y o n e o f th e m u r a l’s r e fle c tio n s o f th e e v e n ts o f th e tim e is, h o w e v e r , o f in te re st to us h e re : th e s p e c ia l m a n n e r in w h ic h J e w s a n d M u s lim s are c o n d e m n e d , o r, m o re a c c u ra te ly , d e m o n iz e d . T o th e left o f th e p r e a c h in g A n t ic h r is t at th e c e n te r o f the m u r a l is a w e a lt h y a lly r e a c h in g in to a p u rse w it h o n e h a n d a n d g iv in g m o n e y to an in d ig e n t w o m a n w it h th e o th e r, a u n iq u e re a liz a tio n o f A n t ic h r is t ’s use o f b rib e s in his

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

286

14.4

L u c a S ig n o re lli,

R ule o f Antichrist (detail). Fresco. 1499-1504, C a p p e lla N u o v a , O rv ie to Cathedral. (Pho to : A lin a ri/ A rt R e so u rce .)

a sce n t to p o w e r ( F ig u r e 1 4 .4 ).11 T h e p u rse o f th is a lly is d e co ra te d w it h a s ix - p o i n t r ; d e v ic e s u g g e stiv e o f th e star k n o w n as th e M o g e n D a v id o r S h ie ld o f D a v id . T h e d e v ice w h ile p e rh a p s n o t th e S h ie ld o f D a v id itse lf, seem s in a n y case to b e a v a r ia n t o n the s > c a lle d J e w - b a d g e r e q u ir e d b y m a n y m e d ie v a l a n d R e n a is s a n c e m u n ic ip a lit ie s to id e n tify m e m b e rs o f the fa ith . T h e y e llo w c o lo r o f th e e m b le m , a n d o f th e dress o f th e fig u r r as w e ll as th e g re e n h e a d c o v e r in g a n d th e c o n s p ic u o u s ly o p u le n t c lo t h in g , are a ttr ib u tr th at m a r k h im

m o r e s p e c ific a lly as a u s u rio u s J e w , 12 a lt h o u g h , in a la rg e sense, the

o ste n ta tio u s dress s im p ly b e sp e a ks th e s in fu l in c lin a t io n s th at le a d to d a m n a t io n .13 T h e d a rk c o m p le x io n o f th e fig u r e , a re a d ily e v id e n t p h y s ic a l p a ra lle l w it h b o th the p r e a c h in g A n t ic h r is t a n d the w h is p e r in g d e v il at h is sid e , su gge sts that th e g if t - g iv in g J e v is h im s e lf a sp e cie s o f d e v il in c a rn a te . D a r k - s k in n e d

d e n o ta tio n s o f e v il a b o u n d ir

E u r o p e a n art; th e c o m m o n p o rtra y a l o f Ju d a s c o m e s first to m in d . R i p a ’s im a g e ot S ir is d a rk , it is re le v a n t to n o te , b e ca u se h e is said to be “ im p u r e .” 14 T h e J e w ’s sh arp a n d p o in t e d b e a rd , lik e h is d a rk s k in , w as a n o th e r w e ll- e s t a b lis h e i a sp ect o f th e m e d ie v a l J e w is h c a ric a tu re a n d serves to d ra w fu rth e r a tte n tio n to h e k in s h ip w it h e v il: th e b e a rd su gge sts th e g o a t ’s b e a rd , o r go ate e , a n d so refers to the

LUCA SIGNORELLI’S

R U LE OF A N T IC H R IS T

287

p re s u m e d fa v o rite a n im a l o f th e J e w s a n d S a ta n , a n d is s y m b o lic , m o r e s p e c ific a lly , o f le c h e ry . T h u s the p re se n ce o f w o m e n n e ar th e J e w d e n o te s a d e m o n ic a ss o c ia tio n , the p re s u m e d le c h e ro u s in stin c ts o f S a ta n a n d , t h r o u g h h im , o f h is J e w is h s e rv a n ts.1-’ F in a lly , the u s u rio u s a u ra a b o u t S ig n o r e lli’s J e w is it s e lf a satan ic im p u ls e , fo r u s u ry w as o f co u rse said to b e a c rim e a g a in st C h r is t , a c r im e in w h ic h , p r e d ic ta b ly , th e d e v il w a s a ssu m e d to p la y a p art. T h is is re fle c te d in art, to c ite b u t o n e e x a m p le , in sce n e s o f fin a n c ia l tra n sa c tio n s w h e r e th e d e v il assists J e w s .16 The

a n a lo g u e s

b e tw e e n

S ig n o r e lli’s A n t ic h r is t

and J e w

re fle c t

d e e p ly

in g r a in e d

tra d itio n s o f m e d ie v a l a n d R e n a is s a n c e a n ti-Ju d a is m . T h e J e w , as T r a c h t e n b e r g has d e sc rib e d h im , w a s c o n c e iv e d as a c re a tu re o f S a ta n , “ n o t a h u m a n b e in g b u t a d e m o n ic , a d ia b o lic beast f ig h t in g th e fo rc e s o f tru th a n d sa lv a tio n w it h S a ta n ’s w e a p o n s .” T h e J e w jo in s w it h th e d e v il a n d h is m in io n , A n t ic h r is t , as th e gre at a n d in e x o r a b le e n e m y o f C h r is t , v ilif ie d m o s t sa v a g e ly , a n d a llie d m o s t c lo s e ly w it h th e d e v il, in th e J e w ’s p u ta tiv e ro u t in e d e se c ra tio n o f th e h o s t .1 C h r is t e n d o m w a s e n g a g e d in a h o ly w a r o f e x t e r m in a ­ tio n a g a in st th e Je w s , “ lest S a t a n ,” a g a in in T r a c h t e n b e r g ’s w o rd s , “ in h e r it th e earth a n d tru th a n d s a lv a tio n b e lo s t.” T h e tru e a n d u ltim a te e n e m y in th e s tru g g le a ga in st e v il w as n o t th e J e w h im s e lf, b u t ra th e r S a ta n w h o s u p p o s e d ly w o r k s t h ro u g h th e J e w , as h e does th r o u g h A n t ic h r is t .18 S ig n o r e lli is n o t a lo n e in

p o r t r a y in g th e J e w

in

d e a d ly a llia n c e w it h

S atan ; th is

d e m o n iz a t io n is w id e sp re a d in th e arts t h r o u g h o u t th e la te r M id d le A g e s a n d R e n a is s a n c e - o n e o f th e first d a te d im a g e s o f a J e w ca rrie s th e s u p e r s c r ip tio n “ A a ro n fil d ia b o ir a s s u m in g m a n y d iffe re n t m o d e s o f e x p re s s io n , so m e r e la tiv e ly m ild in n a tu re (th e p o p u la r p r in t series o f th e s ix te e n th c e n t u r y s h o w in g th e d e v il a ssistin g J e w s in th e b a th h o u se ), o th e rs u tte r ly r e p u g n a n t (th o se s h o w in g a s o w , as m o th e r , fe e d in g h e r J e w is h o ffs p rin g , th e s o -c a lle d Ju d e n s a u ).19 A

re le v a n t

m a tte r

o f b ro a d

im p o r t,

one

th at

h e lp s

in tr o d u c e

o th e r aspects

of

S ig n o r e lli’s u s u rio u s J e w , c o n c e r n s the re m a rk a b le fact th at th e J e w in E u r o p e a n c u ltu r e h a d c o m e to b e re g a rd e d , w e ll b e fo re 1 500, n o t so m u c h as in f id e l b u t as a r c h -h e r e t ic . T h is f o llo w e d fro m th e n o t io n th at J u d a is m w a s n o t an in d e p e n d e n t faith b u t a d e m o n ic p e rv e r s io n o f th e o n e tru e b o d y o f b e lie f.20 T h u s th e r e lig io n o f th e J e w s c o u ld be p e rse cu te d as re le n tle ss ly as w e re o th e r fo rm s o f “ h e re t ic a l” b e lie f. T h e Je w s w e re , in e v it a b ly , th o u g h t to h a v e b e e n th e d a rk fo rc e b e h in d v a r io u s s c h is m a tic sects. A n d so a m o n g th e first c h a rg e s b r o u g h t a g a in st these sects w a s that th e y w e re p ro d u c ts o f “ju d a i z i n g . ” T h e In q u is it io n

issu e o f J e w is h

p lo ts w as in

w as in f u ll s w in g a n d , a lth o u g h

th e a ir a ro u n d

t e c h n ic a lly b e y o n d

1500 as th e S p a n is h its ju r is d ic t io n

(lik e

M u s lim s a n d p a g a n s), th e In q u is it o r ia l b o d ie s w e re n e v e rth e le ss a b le to sate t h e ir h a tre d b y p u r s u in g J e w s a n d , still m o r e a ss id u o u s ly , J e w is h

c o n v e rts to C h r is t ia n it y .21 T h e

d ir e c t in g h a n d o f A n t ic h r is t w a s d isc e rn e d e v e r y w h e r e : re c o rd s in d ic a te that in at least o n e case th e m e s s ia n ic e x p e c ta tio n s o f J e w is h c o n v e r ts to C h r is t ia n it y w e re lin k e d to the E v i l O n e . T h e a ss o c ia tio n o f J e w w it h A n t ic h r is t , h o w e v e r , is o n e th at go e s b a c k , as w e h a v e see n , to th e v e r y o r ig in s o f th e le g e n d a n d th e a ss o c ia tio n w a s a d e f in in g th ru st o f C a t h o lic t h o u g h t b e g in n in g in th e e a rly M id d le A g e s .22 T h e C h r is t ia n n e t fo r th e c a p tu re o f J e w s a n d o th e r age n ts o f S a ta n w a s sp re a d w id e to d r a w w it h in it M u s lim s as w e ll, fo r w e re th e y n o t also o b v io u s ly in le a g u e w it h a n d a b etted b y th e Je w s ? M u s lim in c u rs io n s w e re , th e re fo re , c o n s tru e d at v a r io u s tim e s as

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

288

fo rm s o f J e w is h sab o ta ge . A ll o f th is is b u t p a rt o f a la rg e r p h e n o m e n o n , o r fan tasy, n w h ic h

th e M u s lim s w e re id e n t ifie d as d e m o n s o r as A n t ic h r is t h im s e lf (as w e ha' :

o b s e rv e d ), w e re b e lie v e d to be in le a g u e w it h th e J e w s , a n d w e re e v e n th o u g h t to h r t assisted in th e C r u c i f i x i o n . C o h n p o sits, in th e face o f th is m ira c u lo u s c o o p e r a tio n ot :r r tw o faith s in the p o p u la r d e m o n o lo g y o f th e M id d le A g e s a n d R e n a is s a n c e , th at the or., reason C h r is t ia n s w e re s o m e w h a t m o re ob se ssed w it h J e w s th an w it h M u s lim s w as tr • th e y “ liv e d sca tte re d t h ro u g h C h r is t ia n E u r o p e .” 23 H o w d o these ties b e tw e e n in fid e ls a n d h e re tic s a p p ly to S ig n o r e lli’s J e w a n d to r r e la tio n s h ip w it h A n t ic h r is t a n d Satan ? T h e fig u r e ( F ig u r e 14.4) is, I b e lie v e , a h y b n * in d iv id u a l, an a m a lg a m o f th e tw o c h ie f e n e m ie s o f th e C h u r c h . In th is w a y h e r e h : r d ir e c tly to A n t ic h r is t ’s a sso c ia tio n w it h o p p o s it io n to th e C h u r c h , to h is ro le as h e rrin c a rn a te .24 G iv e n th e p e rc e p tio n o f a secret p a rtn e rsh ip b e tw e e n J e w a n d M u s lim f it t in g th at in o th e r c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r k s o f art p h y s io g n o m ic featu res as w e ll as deta:. o f c o s tu m e o fte n m a k e it d if fic u lt to d is t in g u is h b e tw e e n re p re se n ta tiv e s o f the tv r e lig io n s , an e q u iv o c a l s itu a tio n d ir e c tly re la te d to th e O r v ie t o J e w . 23 A lt h o u g h th e p r o file o f th e fig u r e su gge sts re a d ily th e J e w is h ste re o ty p e in c o n te m p ra ry art, it is also s im ila r to d e p ic t io n s o f M u s lim s ; th o se b y P in t o r ic c h io , fo r e xa m p le c o m e to m in d . T h e s u n k e n c h e e k s , th e t ig h t - lip p e d h a rsh e x p re s s io n a n d e lo n g a te d eyes a n d th e s im p le fact th at th e fig u r e is in e x tre m e p r o file w h ic h a llo w s these featu res to : : seen c le a rly - all these w e re c h a ra c te ris tic s c o n n e c t e d to th e c o m m o n re p re se n ta tio n

*

b o th J e w a n d M u s lim .26 T h e o ste n ta tio u s dress o f S ig n o r e lli’s J e w su gge sts, as o b se rve.: th e r ic h g a rm e n ts c u s t o m a r ily w o r n b y u su re rs, b u t th e dress m ig h t also d e sig n a te an o rie n ta l p o te n ta te , an im p re s s io n u n d e rs c o re d b y th e fact that h is e a r r in g a n d sash w e re th e fa s h io n a m o n g M u s lim m e n , p a r t ic u la r ly M o o r s .2/ T w o o th e r d e ta ils situ ate th e fig i.r r m o re s e c u r e ly w it h in

a S p a n is h a m b ie n c e ; he b e c o m e s , in th e e n d , a c o m p o s ite

:

S e p h a r d ic J e w a n d M o o r . T h e p u rse c o n fo r m s c lo s e ly to the S p a n is h sty le o f th e tim e an d th e d is t in c t iv e h e a d g e a r is still m o re c e r t a in ly S p a n is h : th e t ig h t h e a d p ie c e (k n o w n as a c a u l) w it h a h at w o r n o v e r it ap p ears w id e ly in S p a n is h p a in t in g o f th e p e r io d .T h e “J e w ” poses n o t o n ly h is p e rso n a l th re a t b u t also fu n c tio n s , it w o u ld seem . _ re p re se n ta tiv e o f a ll th e e x o t ic e n e m ie s o f C h r is t e n d o m . H is c o m p o s ite dress a n d type w h ic h d o e s n o t a p p e a r to c o rr e s p o n d w it h a n y n a tio n a l o r e th n ic m o d e s a n d m a n n e rw a s p o s s ib ly a d o p te d b y S ig n o r e lli fr o m c o n t e m p o r a r y th e a tric a l c o s tu m e — an a p p r p ria te

c h o ic e ,

i f th is s u p p o s itio n

is c o r r e c t,

g iv e n

th e

p o s s ib ility

that an

O r v ie t a c

A n t ic h r is t d ra m a m ig h t b e re fle c te d in th e R u le o f A n tic h rist.2'* T h e fig u r e o f th e u su re r c o m b in e s w it h in h im s e lf so m e o f th e la r g e r fo u n d a tio n s ot t h fre sco . T h e b e g in n in g s o f th e m e d ie v a l e p o c h o f cru sa d es a n d o f th e v e h e m e n t m e d ie v a l p e rs e c u tio n o f th e J e w s are c lo s e ly a llie d h is to r ic a l p h e n o m e n a a n d are re la te d , a m o r .: o th e r facto rs, to th e d e sire to p re se rv e th e u n it y o f the C h u r c h

as it c a m e to be

c h a lle n g e d b o th in te r n a lly a n d e x t e r n a lly .30 It m a y s im p ly b e a m a tte r o f fo r tu ito ;> c o n t in g e n c ie s th at th e 1490s w a s a d e ca d e o f in q u is it io n a n d , e s p e c ia lly t h ro u g h the e ffo rts o f th e p a p a c y , o f the p r o m o t io n o f a c ru sa d e , b u t it is n o t u n re a s o n a b le to su gge s: that in m e d ie v a l a n d R e n a is s a n c e E u r o p e it is th e r e c u r r in g c o n d e m n a t io n o f J e w a n d M u s lim th at ap p ears to p r o v id e th e e n e rg ie s a n d d ir e c tio n fo r s u ch c o n t in g e n c ie s . T h e p r e s u m p tio n o f a M u s lim - J e w is h c o n s p ir a c y w a s m o s t d ir e c t ly c o n n e c t e d w it h the in te rp re ta tio n o f c o n t e m p o r a r y e ve n ts in S p a in . T h i s s h o u ld n o t b e u n e x p e c te d . T h e

LUCA SIGNORELLI’S

R U LE OF A N T IC H R IS T

289

p r o c liv it y to cast h is t o r y w it h in an e s c h a to lo g ic a l fr a m e w o r k , e v e n so far as to d e te rm in e p o lic y o n th e basis o f h o p e d - f o r m ille n n ia l o u tc o m e s , w a s a fea tu re o f th e r e ig n o f F e r d in a n d a n d Isa b e lla -

“ th e C a t h o lic k in g s , ” as th e ir c o m p a tr io t P o p e A le x a n d e r V I

h a d title d th e m in 1494 -

in p a rt b e ca u se o f th e e x p u ls io n o f th e J e w s ju s t tw o years

e a rlie r, an e v e n t m a n y b e lie v e d w o u ld hasten th e a d v e n t o f th e m ille n n ia l k in g d o m , a n d o n e , p o s s ib ly , th at h e lp e d in s p ir e A le x a n d e r ’s o w n a n t i- J e w is h p o lic ie s .31 T h e e x a c t ly c o n te m p o ra n e o u s C h r is t ia n

c o n q u e s t o f G ra n a d a (1 4 9 2 ) d r a m a tic a lly u n d e r s c o r e d the

sense o f e s c h a to lo g ic a l a ss o c ia tio n b e tw e e n th e a n ti-J e w is h a n d a n t i- M u s lim c a m p a ig n s o f th e d a y. Ir o n ic a lly , th e e x p u ls io n o f the J e w s w o u ld b r in g to pass th e S p a n is h C h r is t ia n ’s w o r s t fear: m a n y J e w s fle d to th e O r ie n t , an e v e n t w h ic h p r o m p te d o n e su lta n to th a n k th e S p a n is h fo r h a v in g sen t h im so m e o f h is best su b je cts, a n d so th e m u c h -d r e a d e d J e w is h - M u s lim a llia n c e w a s in d e e d fo r g e d .32 M a n y h a v e re m a r k e d u p o n th e e x t ra o r d in a ry n u m b e r o f S p a n is h m ille n n ia l p ro p h e c ie s 3MX

a ro u n d 1500. T h e s e v is io n s , g e n e ra lly J o a c h im is t in c h a ra cte r, are best e p it o m iz e d b y C o lu m b u s ’s p r o n o u n c e m e n ts c o n c e r n in g th e d iv in e ly in s p ire d a m b it io n s o f h is v o y a g e s. T h e p r o p h e c ie s e n v is io n e d S p a n is h le a d e rs h ip o f a cru sa d e to re ta ke th e H o l y L a n d f r o m th e A n t ic h r is t T u r k , to c o n v e r t G e n tile s , G r e e k C h r is t ia n s , a n d f in a lly J e w s , a n d th u s to p re p a re th e w a y fo r th e S e c o n d C o m in g . 33 V in c e n t F e r r e r ’s s e rm o n s o n A n t ic h r is t o f th e late 1300s a n d e a rly 1400s, a n d the in te rp re ta tio n o f th e A p o c a ly p s e b y A n n io da V it e r b o o f 1480, are im p o r ta n t t h e o lo g ic a l so u rce s fo r th e R u le o f A n tich rist, a n d these so u rce s fu r th e r the im p re s s io n o f a d is t in c t ly S p a n is h cast to S ig n o r e lli’s a p o c a ly p tic p r o g ra m , e s p e c ia lly to the p a ire d c o n d e m n a t io n o f Je w s a n d M u s lim s .34 P r o c la im e d th e “ A n g e l o f the A p o c a ly p s e ” d u r in g h is life tim e , the S p a n ia rd , V in c e n t F e rre r, w a s c ite d b y m a n y th e o lo g ia n s o f th e fifte e n th c e n t u r y as the a u th o r ita tiv e v o ic e o n A n t ic h r is t a n d th e a p p r o a c h in g k in g d o m o f G o d . I h a v e w r itte n e ls e w h e re th at V in c e n t ’s s ig n ific a n c e to S ig n o r e lli w as g iv e n e x p lic it e x p re s s io n th ro u g h the in c lu s io n o f a p o rtra it o f th e sain t: th e p r o m in e n t D o m in ic a n in th e m id d le g r o u n d , a fig u r e w h o stands in e v e r y w a y as th e a n tith e sis to th e p r e a c h in g A n t ic h r is t , is s im ila r to th e w id e s p re a d p o rtra it ty p e that a p p e a re d in art f o llo w in g V in c e n t ’s c a n o n iz a t io n in 145 5 .35 “ L i k e an in v in c ib le a th le te ,” th e e b u llia n t b u ll o f c a n o n iz a t io n reads in p a rt, “ he h a d as h is m is s io n th e re fu ta tio n o f th e J e w s a n d S a ra ce n s, a n d o f o th e r in f id e ls .” 36 V in c e n t ’s s e rm o n s d w e ll o n th e J e w is h o r ig in s o f A n t ic h r is t . H is ra b id a n ti-Ju d a is m , as w e ll as the p e rs e c u tio n s that h e h e lp e d fo m e n t, w e re in v o k e d b y th e S p a n is h

in th e

1490s as

p re c e d e n t a n d lic e n se fo r t h e ir o w n a c tio n s a n d p o lic ie s , w h ile J e w s at the tim e o f the e x p u ls io n th o u g h t b a c k to V in c e n t as e m b le m a t ic o f th e te rrib le tria ls to w h ic h th e y h a d b e e n s u b je c te d in th e past. T h u s in a S p a n is h re p r in t o f th e m o st v ic io u s c e n s u re o f the J e w s in th e sp h e re o f A n t ic h r is t illu s tr a tio n (1 4 9 7 ), th e re is a p p e n d e d a d e d ic a tio n to V in c e n t . I s h o u ld p o in t o u t th at th e im a g e o f th e J e w in th is life o f A n t ic h r is t is m a rk e d b y a p h y s io g n o m ic d is t o r t io n m o r e e x tre m e th an th at fo u n d at O r v ie t o , a n d that the id e n t if y in g e m b le m th e fig u re s w e a r a p p ro x im a te s th e o n e d is p la y e d b y S ig n o r e lli’s J e w ( F ig u r e T 4 .5 ).37 A ls o im p o r ta n t to S ig n o r e lli’s fo r m u la t io n is A n n io da V it e r b o ’s fe rv e n t d e n u n c ia tio n o f th e M u s lim as A n t ic h r is t , a p p a re n tly th e m o s t p o p u la r o f R e n a is s a n c e a c c o u n ts o f the life o f th e E v i l O n e . A n n io ’s p r o f o u n d h a tre d o f th e J e w , a n d esp o u sa l o f th e cru sa d e ,

14-5 (right) Antichrist Preaching, Entkrist. W o o d cu t, f.1472, Strasbourg [?]. Fran kfu rt am M ain , Stadt B ib lio th e k .

14.6 (below )

L u c a S ig n o re lli, R u le of

Antichrist (detail). Fresco, 1499-1504, C a p p e lla N u o v a , O rv ie to Cathedral. (Pho to : S ca la /A rt R e so u rce .)

LUCA SIGNORELLI’S

R U LE O F A N T IC H R IS T

291

,re th e th e m e s o f h is in te r p r e ta tio n o f th e A p o c a ly p s e , first p r in te d in 1480 a n d in w id e c ir c u la t io n b y th e late 1490s. A h ig h p o in t in th e r e n o w n o f a u th o r a n d te x t c o in c id e s w it h S ig n o r e lli’s p e rio d o f a c t iv it y in O r v ie t o : fr o m

1499 to

1502 A n n io s e rv e d as

A le x a n d e r ’ s M a ste r o f th e S a c r e d P a la c e , c h ie f in te rp re te r a n d g u a rd ia n o f th e fa ith .3S P o s s ib ly in r e c o g n it io n o f th e a ffin itie s o f h is a p o c a ly p tic t h in k in g w it h th at o f S p a in , A n n io exp resses t h r o u g h o u t h is w r it in g s a re s p e c tfu l, e v e n o b s e q u io u s , a ttitu d e to w a rd s th e S p a n is h r o y a l h o u se . H is h is t o r y o f S p a in , p r in te d in

1498 w it h th e assistan ce o f

A le x a n d e r, g lo r ifie s F e r d in a n d a n d Isa b e lla as th e c h ie f o rn a m e n ts o f m o d e r n c iv il i z ­ a tio n .39 T h e J e w is h

p o lic ie s o f S p a in w e re d o u b tle ss o n e s o u rc e o f a p p ea l o f “ the

C a t h o lic k in g s ” to A n n io . H is w a s a m o n g th e m o s t s trid e n t o f a n ti-J e w is h v o ic e s o f the :4 9 0 s in R o m e ; a d ia trib e o f T 497 c o n te n d s th at C h r is t ia n s w h o d e al in a n y fa s h io n w it h ew s s h o u ld be e x c o m m u n ic a t e d , c o n d e m n s u s u ry , a n d e x to ls th e v irtu e s o f th e monte cie paschi, th e a p p ro v e d m o n e y - le n d in g h o u se s o f th e C h u r c h . 4" T h e s e last c o m m e n ts b r in g us b a c k to th e m u r a l, a n d to th e u s u rio u s , c o m p o s ite fig u r e o f J e w a n d M o o r . T h e d o m in a n t im a g e in th e R u le o f A n tich rist is o f c o u rse n o t this in d iv id u a l, n o r is it e v e n th e fig u r e o f A n t ic h r is t . It is, ra th e r, th e e n o r m o u s stru c tu re that ~>es b e h in d th e m ( F ig u r e 1 4 .6). T h i s is, m o s t lik e ly , th e t h ir d T e m p le o f S o lo m o n , the on e b u ilt b y H e r o d a n d k n o w n to C h r is t , w h o p r o p h e s ie d its d e s t r u c t io n .41 A n t ic h r is t , ic c o r d in g to b ib lic a l in te rp re ta tio n , w a s to m a k e th e T e m p le th e c e n te r o f h is c u lt a n d re ig n . S ig n o r e lli’s s tru c tu re , s ig n if ic a n t ly , is tu rn e d a w a y fro m

th e a ltar a n d is o rie n te d

to w a rd s th e s u c c e e d in g sce n e o f th e E n d o f the W orld. H e r e , in th is latte r m u r a l, is p ic t u r e d w h a t is lik e ly th e sam e b u ild in g in ru in s . W e m a y take th is to b e s y m b o lic o f the v a n q u is h in g o f th e w o r ld o f p a g a n is m a n d J u d a is m a n d to a llu d e to th e s u p e rs e d in g o f th e O l d D is p e n s a tio n b y th e N e w . T h u s G ile s o f V it e r b o , in h is o p e n in g o ra tio n at the F ift h L a te ra n C o u n c i l , s p o k e o f h o w th e n e w C h u r c h o f R o m e w o u ld last fo r e v e r w h ile th e O l d L a w , s y m b o liz e d b y th e T e m p le o f S o lo m o n , w o u ld n o t e n d u r e .42 C h r is t ia n s o f th e R e n a is s a n c e p e rs e v e re d in the m e d ie v a l h a b it o f m in d o f s e e in g ill fo rc e s o u ts id e th e C h u r c h

w it h in

th e fr a m e w o r k o f th e ir a p o c a ly p tic p r o g ra m -

A n t ic h r is t as J e w is h M e ssia h , A n t ic h r is t as M u s lim . T h e f u r y w it h w h ic h th e S p a n is h .irm ies o f c o n q u e s t s w e p t t h r o u g h th e A m e r ic a s se ve ra l ye a rs after S ig n o r e lli h a d c o m ­ p le te d h is O r v ie t o m u ra ls in 1504 is, in th is sense, an e x p re s s io n o f th e sam e b lin d n e s s w it h w h ic h E u r o p e a n C h r is t ia n s e n c o u n te r e d o th e r p e o p le s a n d faith s m u c h c lo se r to h o m e . A n d w e re n o t th e “ In d ia n s ” o f th e N e w W o r ld o n e o f th e L o s t T r ib e s ? A n d w as n o t th e ir c o n v e r s io n , a n d th at o f th e Je w s , to b e the last gre at e v e n t o f E n d - T i m e ? 43 T h e le g e n d o f A n t ic h r is t a n d th e a tte n d a n t h a tre d o f Je w s , as p ic t u r e d in O r v ie t o , stands, in sh o rt, as a b ro a d e x p re s s io n o f th e e n d u r in g C h r is t ia n d e m o n iz a t io n o f o th e r faith s a n d c u ltu re s.

EPILOGUE

Iconology, Ideology, and Cultural Encounter: Panofsky, Althusser, and the Scene of Recognition W . J.

T .

M IT C H E L L

I f w e k n e w by som e concatenation o f circum stances that a certain N e g ro sculpture had been executed in 1510, it w o u ld be m eaningless to say that it was “ contem poraneous” w ith M ich e la n g e lo ’s Sistin e ceilin g. W e have all seen w ith o u r o w n eyes the transference o f spoons and fetishes o f A frican tribes from the m useum s o f e th n o lo gy in to art exh ib itio n s. E r w in Panofsky

“ In t e r c u lt u r a l c o n t a c t ” is a m o n g o th e r t h in g s an e n c o u n te r o f real p e rso n s, fle s h -a n d b lo o d in d iv id u a ls . O f c o u rse th e y b r in g w it h th e m an e n o r m o u s a m o u n t o f b a gga ge la n g u a g e s , co d e s o f b e h a v io r , h isto rie s , in s titu tio n s , t e c h n o lo g ie s — in sh o rt, e v e ry th in .: that go e s to m a k e

up

a c u ltu r e .

B u t th e c u ltu re s n e v e r m e e t e x c e p t in

c o n c re te

e n c o u n te rs , d o u b ly im b r ic a t e d e x p e rie n c e s o f “ s e lf - o t h e r ” re la tio n s. W h a t g iv e s th e h is t o r y o f art s o m e t h in g s p e c ific to say a b o u t these e n c o u n te rs is it' sp e c ia l re la tio n to th e fie ld o f v is u a l c u ltu r e . T h e h is t o r y o f v is u a l “ a rt,” i f w e w e re to f o llo w

P a n o f s k y ’s g u id a n c e , w o u ld n o t b e c o n c e r n e d w it h th e w h o le f ie ld o f v is u i.

c u ltu r e , b u t o n ly w it h that p a rt that has a e sth e tic status, a n d is intended to be ta k e n as a n . B u t P a n o f s k y w a s also q u ic k

to a d m it that h e c o u ld

o n ly m a in ta in these aesthetic

b o u n d a rie s b y c ir c u la r a n d s e lf-c o n t r a d ic t o r y a rg u m e n ts: the d is t in c t io n b e tw e e n a rtisti: “ m o n u m e n t s ” a n d s e c o n d a ry “ d o c u m e n ts ” is a lw a y s s h ift in g a n d re la tiv e , a n d th e id e a 01 th e a e sth e tic as s o m e t h in g “ w e ju s t lo o k a t . . . w it h o u t re la tin g i t . . . to a n y t h in g o u tsid e i t s e lf ’ (11) is im m e d ia t e ly b e tra y e d b y P a n o f s k y ’s a p p e a l to th e in t e n t io n b e h in d the o b je c t. S im ila r ly , P a n o f s k y ’s a tte m p t to se g re ga te th e s u b d is c ip lin e s o f art h is to r y b y s p a tio -te m p o r a l “ fra m e s o f re fe r e n c e ” (7) (m o st n o t a b ly th e fra m e c a lle d “ E u r o p e ” ) i' im m e d ia t e ly b e lie d b y the t w o q u o ta tio n s I h a v e p r e fix e d to th is essay. It w o u ld be “ m e a n in g le ss to s a y ” th at A fr ic a n s c u lp tu re w a s c o n te m p o ra n e o u s w it h E u r o p e a n art, bu t “ w e h a v e all seen w it h o u r o w n e y e s ” t h e ir ju x t a p o s it io n in o u r o w n im m e d ia t e fram e o f re fe re n c e .2 E v id e n t ly th e sayab le a n d th e seeab le are o p e r a t in g at c ro ss -p u rp o s e s in

EPILOGUE P a n o fs k y ’s c o n c e p t io n

o f th e b o u n d a rie s

293

o f h is d is c ip lin e . B u t

th e n

h is n o t io n

of

• c o n o lo g y a lw a y s im p lie d a b ro a d e r a m b it io n th a n E u r o p e a n art (o r e v e n v is u a l art in g e n e ra l), o n e that w o u ld address b o th n o n w e s te rn a n d n o n -a r t is tic v is u a l im a g e s , a n d e x p lo re th e w h o le fie ld o f h u m a n v is u a lit y a n d v is u a l e x p e rie n c e . In t e rc u ltu r a l c o n ta c t is m e d ia te d in c r u c ia l w a y s b y v is io n . T h e g r e e t in g w it h th e o th e r in so m e fu n d a m e n ta l sense, n e c e s sa rily fa c e -to -fa c e . B e fo r e w o r d s are said , th ere is a '•.ghting, a m e e t in g o f e ye s, a g e stu re o f m u tu a l r e c o g n it io n . O n e m a y h a v e a lre a d y " m e t ” th e stra n g e r in d ir e c t ly , t h ro u g h v e rb a l c o m m u n ic a t io n s , d e s c rip tio n s , p ic tu re s , to k e n s o f fr ie n d s h ip , b u t th e v is u a l e n c o u n te r in a s p e c ific p la c e a n d tim e is c ru c ia l. M a n y fo rm s o f v is u a l c o n ta c t b e tw e e n c u ltu re s are, o f c o u rse , q u ite u n f r ie n d ly , fille d -.vith m is r e c o g n it io n , d is t o r t io n , a n d a d is fig u r a tio n o f th e o th e r. S te re o ty p e s (as th e v e r y w o rd su gge sts) are p r e - e m in e n t ly v is u a l im a g e s , m e c h a n ic a lly r e p r o d u c e d c a rica tu re s that d o v io le n c e to th e p e o p le (s) th e y re p re se n t. R a c is m is n o t o n ly an a ttitu d e , o r a t h in g p e o p le say a n d d o to e a ch o th e r, b u t a w a y o f s e e in g th at im p o s e s an “ o p t ic a l r e g im e ” o n th e ra c ia l o th e r, c re a tin g an e n tire gestalt, a m o v in g im a g e in sp ace a n d tim e , that seem s lik e a tra n sp a re n t (re )p re se n ta tio n to th e ra cist. T h e m e e t in g o f gazes is th e n tar f r o m m u tu a l, b u t a n e n a c tm e n t o f p o w e r re la tio n s, a site o f m u t u a l a n x ie t y , re s e n tm e n t, an d g u ilt. T h e sla ve is n o t s u p p o s e d to raise h is o r h e r e yes to m e e t th o se o f th e m a ste r; :h e n a tiv e s re q u ir e w a t c h in g ; c h ild r e n s h o u ld b e seen a n d n o t h e ard . W o m e n

(w h o

a lw a y s fo rm a c u lt u r e w it h in a c u ltu r e ) t y p ic a lly f in d th e m se lv e s in in tric a te ritu a ls o f v is u a l p o w e r a n d p le a su re in th e ir c o n ta c ts w it h th e c u ltu r e o f m e n . C u lt u r e s b ased in g e n d e r, s e x u a l o r ie n ta tio n , o r in a n y sense o f sh a re d m in o r it y status ( t h in k h e re o f “ se n so ry m in o r it ie s ” lik e th e b lin d a n d d e a f) are also lik e ly to e x p e rie n c e th e v is u a l fie ld :n r a d ic a lly d iffe re n t w a y s fr o m th o se o f th e d o m in a n t c u ltu r e . T h e e x p e rie n c e o f s e e in g an d b e in g seen is n o t ju s t “ s o c ia lly c o n s tr u c te d ,” b u t a fo u n d a t io n a l m o m e n t in the c o n s tr u c tio n o f th e s o c ia l. T o say a ll th is is, o f c o u rse , o n ly to r e m in d o u rse lv e s o f w h a t s h o u ld be o b v io u s , that the g e n e ra l p r o b le m c u ltu re

o f “ in te r c u lt u r a l c o n t a c t ” a n d th e s p e c ific d im e n s io n

are in se p a ra b le .

The

b o u n d a r ie s

b e tw e e n

p e o p le (s)

are b o th

o f v is u a l

m e d ia te d

and

d o c k e d b y v is u a l in s titu tio n s , b y p ra c tic e s o f o b s e rv a tio n , re p re se n ta tio n , s u rv e illa n c e , .n d b y b lin d n e sse s a n d m o d e s o f in v is ib ilit y . T h e c u ltu r a l o th e r is t y p ic a lly (an d p a r a d o x i­ ca lly ) “ seen as” an “ in v is ib le m a n ” o r w o m a n , s im u lta n e o u s ly m a r k e d as v is u a lly re a d a b le a n d a v a ila b le , a n d as in s c ru ta b le , e lu s iv e , a n d ille g ib le . W h e t h e r o r n o t a re v is e d v e r s io n o f P a n o f s k y ’s ic o n o lo g y is th e best w a y to s tu d y the p a ra d o x ic a l s tru c tu re o f in te r c u lt u r a l v is u a l c o n ta c t is far fr o m cle a r. O n e fu n d a m e n ta l D ro b le m

w it h

ic o n o lo g y is su g g e ste d b y

th e ro o ts o f th e v e r y w o r d , p r o m is in g a

d is c u rs iv e sc ie n c e o f im a g e s , a m a s te rin g o f th e ic o n b y th e lo g o s , a n d th en d e liv e r in g an e n se m b le o f “ w o r ld - p ic t u r e s ” a n d “ w o r ld - v ie w s ” (m o st n o t o r io u s ly , the v e r y id e a o f p e rs p e c tiv e ” ) th at c o m e b a c k to h a u n t th e m a s te r-d isc o u rs e . T h e ic o n in ic o n o lo g y is !ike a rep re sse d m e m o r y that k e e p s r e t u r n in g as an u n c o n t r o lla b le s y m p to m . In t e rc u ltu r a l an d in te rp e rs o n a l c o n ta c t m a y b e m e d ia te d b y v is io n , b u t that is n o g u a ra n te e that a S c ie n c e ” o f th e v is u a l im a g e w ill p r o v id e an A r c h im e d e a n p e rs p e c tiv e fr o m w h ic h to m a k e these c o n ta c ts in t e llig ib le . O r p e rh a p s a n A r c h im e d e a n p e rs p e c tiv e is e x a c t ly w h a t ■.conology has g iv e n us, a n d u n in t e llig ib ilit y has b e e n th e resu lt.

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

294

In Iconology I a rg u e d th at th e re are t w o k e y m o v e s r e q u ir e d fo r a re c o n s tru c tio n ic o n o lo g y as a d ia le c tic a l a n d c r it ic a l d is c ip lin e . T h e first is th e re s ig n a tio n o f th e h r ; fo r a s c ie n tific t h e o ry o f v is u a l im a g e s, a n d a re d e s c r ip tio n o f th e b a sic “ o b je c t " ic o n o lo g y as th e encounter o f w o r d a n d im a g e , the re a d a b le a n d th e v is ib le . W h e n

:

e n c o u n te r is e x a m in e d in s p e c ific h is to ric a l c irc u m s ta n c e s , a n d in re la tio n to re c u r r . tra d itio n s su ch as th e paragone o r “ c o n te s t” o f th e v is u a l a n d v e rb a l arts, it in v a r ia r * re ve a ls it s e lf as a s o c ia l s tru g g le , a b attle b e tw e e n p ro fe ssio n s, g e n d e rs, classes, o r c u lti:-:stage d

as th e

d iss o n a n c e

b e tw e e n

typ e s

o f sig n s

(w o rd

and

im a g e )

or

m odes

c o m m u n ic a t io n (th e re a d a b le a n d th e v is ib le ). T h e “ b o t t o m lin e ” o f th e w o r d —i n w d iv is io n is p r o b a b ly sp e cie s d iffe re n c e , th e b o u n d a r y b e tw e e n the h u m a n a n d th e a n ii: _L c u ltu r e a n d n a tu re , a d iv is io n that is th e n r e in s c r ib e d w it h in a c c o u n ts o f in te r c u lt u r a d iffe re n c e . T h u s la n g u a g e a n d sp e e c h a n d w r it in g are the a ttrib u te s o f “ m a n .” T h e im age is th e m e d iu m o f th e s u b h u m a n , o f the “ d u m b ” b ru te , the savage , th e c h ild , th e w o n . n L th e m asses. T h e s e ste re o ty p e s o f th e s o c ia l m e a n in g o f th e w o r d —im a g e d iffe re n c e arc ¿3 to o fa m ilia r, as is th e d is t u r b in g c o u n t e r - t r a d it io n , that “ m a n ” is cre a te d “ in th e im a g e " o f h is m a k e r. O n e b a sic a rg u m e n t o f Iconology w a s that th e v e r y n a m e o f th is “ sc ie n c e

i

im a g e s ” bears the scars o f an a n c ie n t d iv is io n a n d a fu n d a m e n ta l p a ra d o x th at c a n n o t : : erased fr o m its w o r k in g s . T h e o th e r k e y m o v e fo r a r e v iv e d ic o n o lo g y f o llo w s d ir e c tly fr o m th e first: it

.

m u t u a lly c r it ic a l e n c o u n te r w it h th e d isc o u rs e o f id e o lo g y , u n d e rs to o d as an a n a lv s i'

i

th e p ro ce ss b y w h ic h so c ia l a n d c u ltu ra l h ie ra rc h ie s are n a tu r a liz e d b y ( a m o n g ot

*

th in g s ) v is u a l re g im e s. I a tte m p te d to stage su ch an e n c o u n te r in th e fin a l ch a p te r Iconology b y w o r k in g th ro u g h the c o n s tit u tiv e fig u re s o f th e camera obscura a n d th e fe n sr in M a r x ’s a c c o u n t o f id e o lo g y a n d c o m m o d it y . I w a n t to e x t e n d th at d isc u s sio n h e re : s h ift in g fr o m the “ a p p a ra tu s” o f id e o lo g y (e s p e c ia lly its fig u re s o f o p t ic a l t e c h n o lo g ie s



its theatrical fig u re s , w h a t m ig h t b e c a lle d its “ sce n e s o f r e c o g n it io n .” P a n o fs k y g iv e s us th e “ p r im a l s c e n e ” o f h is o w n ic o n o lo g ic a l s c ie n c e in th e in t r o d u c t o r y essay to h is Studies in Iconology: W h e n an a c q u a in ta n c e gre ets m e o n th e street b y r e m o v in g h is h a t, w h a t I see fr o a a form al p o in t o f v ie w is n o t h in g b u t th e c h a n g e o f c e rta in d e ta ils w it h in a c o n f ig u r a tio n f o r m in g p a rt o f the g e n e ra l p a tte rn o f c o lo r , lin e s a n d v o lu m e s w h ic h c o n s titu t: m y w o r ld o f v is io n .3 P a n o f s k y ’s s u b se q u e n t e la b o ra tio n o f th is sce n e as a h ie r a r c h y o f e v e r m o re c o m p le x r e fin e d p e rc e p tio n s is fa m ilia r to all art h isto ria n s: th e “ fo r m a l” p e rc e p tio n g iv e s w a \

i

“ o v e rs te p p e d ” ) to a “ sp h e re o f s u b je c t m a tte r o r m e a n in g ,” th e “ fa c tu a l” id e n t ific a tio n


. J . C . M eredith. O x fo rd : C la re n d o n Pre>> 1964. K a rlin g , Sten. “ Les Stucateurs Italiens er Su ed e .” Arte e Artisti dei Laghi Lombardi 2. K a rp o w ic z, M ariu sz. Artisti I'icinesi in Polen & nel ’300. Lu g an o : R e p u b b lic a e C a n to n e deT ic in o , 1987. K a rp o w ic z, M ariusz. A rtisti Ticinesi in Pole nel ’600. Lu gan o : R e p u b b lic a e C a n to n e de T ic in o , 1983. K a u fm a n n , T h o m a s D a C o sta . Court, Cloister and C ity : The A rt and Culture o f C e n t r J Europe 1430-1800. L o n d o n and C h ic a c : W e id en fe ld and N ic h o lso n , and C h ic U n iv e rsity Press, 1995. K a u fm a n n , T h o m a s D a C o sta . Drawings from r r H o ly Roman Empire. A Selection from N r. 1 American Collections. P rin ceton : A rt M useum P rinceton U n iv e rsity in association w ith P rin ce to n U n iv e rsity Press, 1982. Ka u fm a n n , T h o m a s D a C o sta . “ In tro d u ctio n . ’

BIBLIOGRAPHY A rt and Architecture in Central Europe 15501620. A n Annotated Bibliography. B oston : G . K . H a ll, 1988. K a u fm a n n , T h o m a s D a C o sta . R e v ie w o f B ia lo sto cki, The A rt o f the Renaissance in Eastern Europe. A rt Bulletin, 68 (1978), 1 6 4 169. K a u fm a n n , T h o m a s D a C o sta . “ T h e E lo q u e n t Artist: T o w a rd s an U n d ersta n d in g o f the Stylistics o f P a in tin g at the C o u r t o f R u d o lf I I . ” Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarbock 1 (1982), 119-148. K a u fm a n n , T h o m a s D a C o sta . The Mastery of Nature: Aspects of A rt, Science, and Humanism in the Renaissance. P rin ceto n : Prin ceton U n iv e rsity Press, 1993. K a u fm a n n , T h o m a s D a C o sta . “ T h e P ro b lem o f N o rth e rn ‘M an n erism ’: A C ritic a l R e v ie w .” In Mannerism: Essays in M usic and the Arts, ed. S. E . M u rra y and R u t h I. W e id n e r, 8 9 -1 1 5 . W est Ch ester, Pa.: W est C h e ste r State C o lle g e , 1980. Ka u fm a n n , T h o m a s D a C o sta . “ W h a t is ‘N e w ’ about the ‘N e w A rt H is to r y ’?” P h ilip A lp e rso n , ed., The Philosophy o f the Visual Arts, 515-520. N e w Y o r k and O x fo rd : O x fo r d U n iv e rsity Press, 1992. Ka u fm a n n , T h o m a s D a C o sta . “ R e c e p tio n T h e o r y ,” in The Dictionary of A rt, eds. H . B rigsto ck e and J. T u rn e r. Lo n d o n : M acm illan , fo rth co m in g 1996. K a zh d a n , A le xa n d e r and A n th o n y C u tle r. “ C o n tin u ity and D is c o n tin u ity in B yzan tin e H is to ry .” Byzantion 52 (1982), 4 2 9-478 . K e lly , Jo a n fG ad o l]. “ T h e D o u b le d V is io n o f Fem in ist T h e o ry . A Postscript to the ‘W o m e n and P o w e r’ C o n fe re n ce .” Women, History and Theory. The Essays o f Joan Kelly, 51—64. C h ic a g o and Lo n d o n : U n iv e rsity o f C h ic a g o Press, 1984. K e y lo r, W illia m . Academy and Com m unity: The Foundation o f the French Historical Profession. C a m b rid g e : H arva rd U n iv e rsity Press, 1975. K le in , R o b e rt. Form and Meaning: Essays on the Renaissance and Modern A rt, trans. M . Ja y and L . W ieseltier, forew ord H . Z e rn e r. P rin c e ­ ton: P rin ceton U n iv e rsity Press, 1970. K n ö s, B ö rje . “ L a Legen d e de Belisaire dans les pays grecs.” Erasmus 58 (i9 6 0 ), 2 3 7 -2 8 0 . Knowledges. Historical and Critical Studies. See Preziosi, D o n a ld . K o e rn e r, Joseph. The Moment o f Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance A rt. C h ic a g o : C h ic a g o

3 5 1

U n iv e rsity Press, 1993. K o z a k ie w ic z , H ele n a and Stefan. Renesans w Polsce. W arsaw : A rk a d y, 1976. K o za k ie w ic zo w a , H elen a. R z e z z b a X V I Wieku w Polsce. W arsaw : Panstw ow e W y d a w n ictw o N a u k o w e , 1984. Krauss, R o s a lin d . “ T h e S to ry o f the E y e .” New Literary History 21 (W in te r 1990), 283—297. K risteller, Paul O . “ H u m a n ism and Sch o lasti­ cism in the Italian R en aissa n ce .” 1945. R e p rin te d in Renaissance Thought and Its Sources, ed. M . M o o n e y , 8 5 -105. N e w Y o r k : C o lu m b ia U n iv e rsity Press, 1979. Kristeller, Paul O . “ T h e M o d e rn System o f the Arts: a S tu d y in the H is to ry o f A esth etics.” Journal o f the History of Ideas 12 (1951), 4 9 6 527, Part O n e ; 13 (1952), 1 7 -4 6 , Part T w o . K u b ie r, G eorge . Esthetic Recognition o f Ancient Amerindian Art. N e w H a v e n and Lo n d o n : Y a le U n iv e rs ity Press, 1991. K u g le r, Fran z. Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte. Stuttgart: E b n e r & Senbert, 1842. K u h n , T h o m a s. The Structure o f Scientific Revo­ lutions, 2nd rev. edn. C h ic a g o : C h ic a g o U n iv e rsity Press, 1970. Land au er, C a rl. “ E r w in P ano fsky and the R en asce n ce o f the R e n a issa n ce .” Renaissance Quarterly 47 (1994), 255-28 1 . Landauer, C a rl. “ T h e S u rv iv a l o f A n tiq u ity : T h e G e rm an Y e ars o f the W a rb u rg In sti­ tute.” P h .D . dissertation, Y a le U n iv e rsity, 1984. La u re n c ic h -M in e lli, Laura, ed. See Bologna e il Mondo Nuovo. La w re n ce , W illia m . Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man. D e liv ­ ered at the Royal College o f Surgeons. Lo n d o n : Jam es S m ith , 1822. Le e, R . W . “ Ut pictura poesis: T h e H u m a n ist T h e o r y o f P a in tin g .” A rt Bulletin 22 (1940), 1 9 7 -2 6 9 . Lee, Sherm an. A History o f Far Eastern Art. 4th edn. E n g le w o o d C liffs, N .J.: P re n tice H a ll, and N e w Y o r k : H a rry N . Abram s, 1982. Le m erle, Paul. C in q études sur le X I e siècle byzantin. Paris: C e n tre N a tio n a l de la R e c h e rch e S cie n tifiq u e, 1977. Le n o rm an t, Ch arles. François Gérard, peintre d ’histoire. Essai de biographie et de critique. Paris: A . R e n é , 1847. Lé vi-Strau ss, C la u d e . Tristes tropiques. Paris: U n io n générale d ’éditions, 1955.

352

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Liechtenstein. The Princely Collections. E x h ib itio n catalogue. New Y o rk: M etropolitan M u seu m o f A rt, 1985. Lig h tb o w n , R . W . “ O rie n ta l A rt and the O rie n t in Late R en aissan ce and B aro q u e Ita ly .” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 32 (1969), 2 2 8 -2 7 9 . Lin d b e rg , D a v id C . Theories o f Vision from A l- K in d i to Kepler. C h ic a g o and Lo n d o n : U n iv e rsity o f C h ic a g o Press, 1976. L o c k e , Jo h n . A n Essay Concerning H um an Understanding, ed. P. N id d itc h . O x fo rd : C la re n d o n Press, 1979. Lo m a zzo , G io v a n n i Paolo. Rim e: nelle quali ad imitazione de i Grotteschi usata da” pittori. . . . M ilan : Pao lo G ottardo P o n zio , 1587. Lo m a zzo , G io v a n n i Paolo. Trattato dell’arte de la pittura, scoltura et architettura. M ilan : P. G . P o n tio , 1584. L o z in s k i, Je rzy . Grobowe kaplice kopulowe w Polsce 1520-1620. W arsaw : Panstw ow e W y d a w n ictw o N a u k o w e , 1973. M a c C o rm a c k , Sabine. “ C a ld e ra ’s La Aurora en Copacobana: T h e C o n v e rs io n o f the Incas in L ig h t o f S e ve n te e n th -C e n tu ry Spanish T h e ­ o lo g y, C u ltu re , and P o litica l T h e o r y .” Journal o f Theological Studies 33 (1982), 4 4 8 480. M allgrave, H a rry Francis. “ T h e Idea o f Style. G ottfried Sem p er in L o n d o n .” P h .D . dissertation, U n iv e rsity o f Pennsylvania, 1983. M allgrave, H a rry Francis. See also Sem per. M an go, C y r il. The A rt o f the Byzantine Empire 312-1453. E n g le w o o d C liffs, N .J.: P re n tice H a ll, 1972. M arlier, G eorges. Pierre Coeck d ’Alost: La renais­ sance flamande. Brussels: R o b e r t F in c k , 1966. Matthias Corvinus und die Renaissance in Ungarn. E x h ib itio n catalogue. Schallaburg, A ustria: Schloss Schallab u rg, 1982. M ercati, G io v a n n i. Ultim i contributi alia storia degli umanisti. 1. Traversariana (Studi e testi, 90). V atican C it y , 1939. Mexico. Splendors o f Thirty Centuries. E x h ib itio n catalogue, intro. O . Paz. N e w Y o r k : M etro ­ politan M u seu m o f A rt, 1990. M itch e ll, W . J . T . Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology. C h ic a g o and L o n d o n : U n iv e rsity o f C h ic a g o Press, 1986. M itch e ll, W . J . T ., ed. The Politics o f Interpre­ tation. C h ic a g o and Lo n d o n : C h ic a g o U n iv e rsity Press, 1983.

M itch e ll, W . J . T . “ W h a t is V isu a l C u ltu re ? ” Proceedings o f the Panofsky Centennial S y r.: > sium, 1993, Institute for A d van ce d StudP rin ce to n , fo rth co m in g. M o rp u rgo , E n ric o . L ’opera del genio Italia? alVestero. G li artisti in Austria. R o m e , 1962 M osse, G eorge. German Jew s beyond Judaisr B lo o m in g to n : Indiana U n iv e rsity Press and C in c in n a ti: H e b re w U n io n C o lle g e Preo-rsar Institution Press, 1991. M oreno de los Arcos, Roberto. “ N e w Sr¿=T* Inquisition for Indians from the Sixteenth s the Nineteenth C entury.” Cultural Enammters: The Impact of the Inquisition in Spain m d the New World, ed. M ary Elizabeth Perry asai A n n e J. C ru z, 23-36. Berkeley: U n iversrv a California Press, 1991. M undy, Barbara. “ T h e Maps o f the R e h o o o s Geográficas 1759-1584: Native M apping zr the Conquered Land.” Ph.D . dissertaooe Yale U niversity, 1993. New ton, S. M . Renaissance Theatre Costume sat the Sense of the Historic Past. London: and W hitin g, 1975. Nuttall, Zelia. “ R o y a l Ordinances С о п ег-^пг the Layin g O u t o f N e w T o w n s." Т У Hispanic American Historical Review 5 249-254. Nuttall, Zelia. The Book and the Life Ы Ancient Mexicans Containing an Account ef da Rites and Superstitions. Part 1: Introducocc and Facsimile, 1903. R ep rint. Berke\srr University o f California Press, 1978. O ’Callaghan, James F. A History of M e¿xr¿ Spain. Ithaca and London: Corn ell U n ivs* sity Press, 1975. O ’Malley, Joh n W . Giles of Viterbo on С о л гг and Reform: a Study in Renaissance Tfuy^tc. Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Thought, 5. Leiden: E . J. B rill, 1968. O akley, Francis. The Western Church in the L a y Middle Ages. Ithaca and London: C o r a e i U niversity Press, 1979. Oettinger, M arion. Lienzos coloniales: amt exposición de pinturas de terrenos communda áe México (siglos X V I I - X I X ) . M exico Canr U N A M , 1983. Olm os, Andrés de. Tratado de hechicen** ; sortilegios. Ed. Georges Baudot. М е х ю т M isión Arqueológica y Etnológica F ra n c e s en M éxico, 1979. Patrides, C . A . “ ‘T h e Bloody and C r o d T u rk e ’: T h e Background o f a Renaiss¿riri

BIBLIOGRAPHY C o m m o n p la c e .” Studies in the Renaissance, 10 (1963), 126-135. Perali, Pericale. Orvieto: note storiche di topografia e d ’arte dalle origini al 1800. R o m e : M u ltigrafica E d itric e , 1979. Peterson, Jeanette F. “ S acrificia l Earth: the Ico n o gra p h y and F u n ctio n o f M a lin a lli Grass in A zte c C u ltu r e .” Flora and Fauna Imagery in Precolumbian Cultures: Iconography and Func­ tion, ed. Jeanette F. Peterson, 113-148. O x fo rd : B . A . R . Press, 1983. Peterson, Jeanette F. “ T h e Florentine Codex Im age ry and the C o lo n ia l T la c u ilo . The Work o f Bernardino de Sahagun, 273 -29 3 . Peterson, Jeanette F. The Paradise Garden Murals of Malinalco: Utopia and Em pire in SixteenthCentury Mexico. A u stin : U n iv e rsity o f T e xa s Press, 1993. Phelan, Jo h n . The M illennial Kingdom of the Franciscans in the New World. B e rke le y: U n iv e rsity o f C a lifo rn ia , 1970. P h illip s, H e n ry , Jr ., trans. “ H isto ria de los m exican o s p or sus pintu ras.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 21 (1883), 616— 651. Prosperi, A d ria n o . “ N e w H ea ve n and N e w Earth: P ro p h e cy and Propaganda at the T im e o f the D is c o v e ry and C o n q u e st o f the A m e rica s.” Prophetic Rom e in the H igh Renaissance Period, ed. M arjorie R e e ve s, 2 7 9 303. O x fo rd : C la re n d o n Press, 1992. Q uezada, N o e m i. “ T h e In q u isitio n ’s R e p re s­ sion o f C u ra n d e ro s.” Cultural Encounters: the Impact of the Inquisition in Spain and the New World, ed. M ary E lizab e th P erry and A n n e J. C r u z , 3 7 -5 7 . B e rke le y: U n iv e rsity o f C a li­ fornia Press, 1991. R e e ve s, M arjorie. The Influence o f Prophecy in the Later M iddle Ages: a Study o f Joachimism. O x fo rd : C la re n d o n Press, 1969. R e e v e s, M arjorie. Joachim of Fiore and the Prophetic Future. Lo n d o n : S P C K , 1976. R ie g e r , Paul and H . V ogelstein . Geschichte des Juden in Rom. 2 vols. B e rlin : M ayer and M u lle r, 1895-1896. R ie ss, Jonath an . “ R e p u b lic a n ism and T y ra n n y in S ig n o re lli’s R u le o f the Antichrist,'’ in A rt and Politics in Late Medieval and Early Renais­ sance Italy, 1250-1500, ed. C h a rles M . R o se n b e rg , N o tre D a m e Co n fere n ce s in M edieval Studies, N o . 2, 157-185 . N o tre D a m e and Lo n d o n : U n iv e rsity o f N o tre D a m e , 1991.

379

R ip a , Cesare. Baroque and Rococo Pictorial Imagery. E d . and trans. E . A . M asur. N e w Y o r k : D o v e r, 1971. R o b e , Stanley L . “ W ild M en and S p a in ’s B rave N e w W o r ld .” The W ild Man W ithin: an Image in Western Thought from the Renaissance to Romanticism, ed. E d w ard D u d le y and M a x im illia n E . N o v a k , 3 9 -5 3 . Pittsburgh: U n iv e rs ity o f P ittsburgh Press, 1972. R o b e rtso n , D o n a ld . Mexican Manuscript Painting of the E arly Colonial Period. N e w H a v e n : Y a le U n iv e rsity Press, 1959. R o b e rtso n , D o n a ld . “ T h e Pinturas (M aps) o f the R e la c io n e s G e o gráficas.” Handbook of M iddle American Indians, ed. R o b e rt W a u ch o p e and H o w a rd F. C lin e , vo lu m e 12, 243—278. A u stin : U n iv e rs ity o f T e xa s Press, 1975. R o t h , C e c il. A History of the Jews of Italy. R e v . edn. N e w Y o r k : S ch o ck e n B o o k s, 1961. R o t h , C e c il. The Jews in the Renaissance. P h ila ­ delphia: Je w ish P u b licatio n s o f A m e rica, 1959. R u b e n s, A lfred . A History of Jewish Costume. 2nd edn. N e w Y o r k : F u n k and W agnalls, 1973-

R u sse ll, Je ffre y B u rto n . Lucifer: the D e vil in the M iddle Ithaca: C o rn e ll U n iv e rsity Press, 1984. Sahagun, B e rn a rd in o de. Florentine Codex: General History o f the Things o f New Spain, trans. A rth u r J. O . A n d erson and C h arles E . D ib b le . 13 vols. M on o grap h s o f the S ch o o l o f A m e rica n R ese arch , N o . 14. Santa Fe: T h e S ch o o l o f A m e rica n R ese arch and the U n iv e rsity o f U ta h , 1953-1982. Sánchez O rte ga, M aria H elen a. “ S o rce ry and E ro tism in L o v e M a g ic .” Cultural Encounters: the Impact o f the Inquisition in Spain and the New World, ed. M ary E lizab e th P erry and A n n e J . C r u z , 5 8 -9 2 . B e rke le y: U n iv e rsity o f C a lifo rn ia Press, 1991. Sandstrom , A la n R . Corn is O u r Blood: Culture and Ethnic Identity in a Contemporary A ztec Indian Village. N o rm a n : U n iv e rsity o f O k la ­ hom a Press, 1991. S ch u lz, J. “Ja co p o de’ B a rb a ri’s V ie w o f V e n ice : M ap M a k in g , C it y V ie w s, and M o r­ alized G e o gra p h y Before the Y e a r 1500.” A rt Bulletin, 60 (1978), 425-474 . Setton, K e n n e th M . The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571), vo l. 2, The Fifteenth Century. M em o irs o f the A m e rica n P h ilo so p h ica l

38o

BIBLIOGRAPHY

S o cie ty, 114. Ph ilad elp h ia, 1976—1984. Sherm an, W illia m L . Forced Native Labor in Sixteenth-century Central America. Lin c o ln : U n iv e rsity o f N ebraska Press, 1979. Silverblatt, Irene. Moon, Sun, and Witches: Gender Ideologies and Class in Inca and Colonial Peru. P rin ceto n : P rin ceto n U n iv e rsity Press, 1987. Sim p son , L . Studies in the Administration o f the Indians o f N ew Spain, vo l. 1—2 (T h e La w s o f B u rgo s and C o n gre g atio n s). B e rk e le y and Lo s A ngeles: Iberoam ericana, 1934. S m ith , M ary Elizabeth. Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico: Mixtee Place Signs and Maps. N o rm a n : U n iv e rsity o f O k la h o m a Press, 1973. Solis, Felipe. Gloria y fama mexica. M e x ico : S m u rfit C a rtó n y Papel de M é x ic o , 1991. Southern, R . W . Western Views o f Islam in the M iddle Ages. C a m b rid g e , M a: H arvard U n iv e rsity Press, 1962. Stewart, K e n n e th M . “ W itch cra ft A m o n g the M oh ave In d ia n s.” Ethnology 12(3) (1973), 315- 324Sw eet, Le o n a rd I. “ C h risto p h e r C o lu m b u s and the M ille n n ia l V isio n o f the N e w W o r ld .” The Catholic Historical Review 72 (1986), 369— 383Syn an , E . A . The Popes and Jews in the M iddle Ages. N e w Y o r k and Lo n d o n : M acm illan , 1965. T h o rn d ik e , L y n n . A History o f Magic and Exp eri­ mental Science. V o l. I l l and IV . Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. N e w Y o r k and Lo n d o n : C o lu m b ia U n iv e rs ity Press, 1934. T o d o r o v , T zv e ta n . The Conquest o f America: the Question of the Other, trans. R ic h a r d H o w a rd . N e w Y o r k : H arp e r and R o w , 1984. To rq u e m ad a, Ju a n de. Monarquía Indiana. 3 vols. $th e dition. M e x ic o : E d ito ria l Porrúa, 1975T rach ten b e rg, Joshua. The D e vil and the Jews: the Medieval Conception o f the Jew and its Relation to Modern Anti-Sem itism . N e w H a v e n : Y a le U n iv e rs ity Press, 1943. U n d e rh ill, R u t h M u rray. Red M a n ’s Religion: Beliefs and Practices o f the Indians North of Mexico. C h ic a g o : U n iv e rsity o f C h ic a g o Press, 196$. V e c e llio , Cesare. Habiti antichi e moderni di tutto il mondo. V e n ic e and Paris: F irm in D id o t, i860.

V elá zq u e z, P rim o Fe licia n o , trans. Códice Chimalpopoca: Anales de Cuauhtitlan y Leyenda de los soles. M e x ic o : Instituto de Invest­ igaciones de H istóricas, U n iversid a d N a c io n a l A u tó n o m a de M é x ic o , 1975. W atts, P au lin e M ofFitt. “ P ro p h e cy and D is ­ covery: On the Sp iritu a l O rig in s of C h risto p h e r C o lu m b u s ’s ‘Enterprise o f the In d ie s.’ ” American Historical Review, 90 (1985), 73- 102. W eiss, R o b e rto . “ T ra c c ia per una biografía di A n n io da V ite rb o .” Italia medievale ed umanistica, 5 (1962), 4 2 5 -4 4 1 . W e ye r, E d w a rd M . The Eskim os: Their Environ­ ment and Folkways. N e w H ave n : Y a le U n iv e rsity Press, 1978. W h ite , H ayd e n . “ T h e Form s o f W ildness: A rch a e o lo g y o f an Id ea.” Tropics o f Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism, 150 -1 82 . B a lti­ m ore: T h e Jo h n s H o p k in s U n iv e rsity Press, 1978. W illia m s, Barbara. “ M e x ic a n P icto rial Cadastral R e g iste rs.” Explorations in Ethnohistory: In ­ dians o f Central Mexico in the Sixteenth C e n ­ tury, ed. H . R . H a rv e y and H a n n s Prem , 103-126. A lb u q u erq u e : U n iv e rsity o f N e w M e x ic o Press, 1983. W illia m s, B arb ara.“ T h e Lands and P o litica l O rg a n iza tio n o f a R u r a l T la x ila c a lli in T e p e tlao zto c, c. a d 1540.” Land and Politics in the Valley o f Mexico, ed. H . R . H a rve y, 187-208. A lb u q u erq u e : U n iv e rsity o f N e w M e x ic o Press, 1991. W isd o m , Ch arles. The C hord Indians o f Guate­ mala. C h ic a g o : U n iv e rs ity o f C h ic a g o Press, 1940. W istrich , R o b e rt S. Antisemitism, the Longest Hatred. N e w Y o r k : Pantheon, 1991. The Work o f Bernardino de Sahagún. See J. Jo rg e K lo r de A lv a , et al., eds. W rig h t, J . The Play of Antichrist. T o ro n to : T h e P o n tifical Institute o f M ediaeval Studies, 1967. Y o n e d a , K e ik o . Los mapas de Cuauhtinchan y la historia cartográfica prehispánica. M e x ic o C it y : A rc h iv o G eneral de la N a c ió n , 1981. Z a fro n , E r ic M . “T h e Ico n o gra p h y o f A n tisem itism : a Stu d y in the Rep resentation o f Je w s in the V isu a l A rts o f E u ro p e , 1 4 0 0 1600.” P h .D . dissertation. N e w Y o rk U n iv e rsity , 1973.

P H O T O G R A P H IC

C R E D IT S

A lin a ri 1.14, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 5.8, 6.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4 A rt R e so u rc e , N e w Y o r k 2.3, 2.9, 4.1, 4.2, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 6.1, 6.2, 10.1, 10.21, 10.22, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.6 B ib lio te ca N a zio n a le C e n tra le, Flo ren ce 12.9, 12.12, 12.1$ B ritish L ib ra ry , Lo n d o n 10.16 C o u rta u ld Institute o f A rt, Lo n d o n , courtesy Trustees o f the C h a tsw o rth Settlem ent 9.5 C u m m in s, T h o m a s 8.14 C u tle r, A n th o n y 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8, 1.15 Fo to M arb u rg 2.3, 2.9, 4.1 Fotografía C e d id a y A u to rizad a p o r el P atrim o n io N a c io n a l 10.19 H u tte r, I. 1.12 Instituto de In vestigaciones Estéticas 2.4 Instituto N a tio n a l de A n tro p o lo gía e H isto ria , M é x ic o , D . F. 12.6 Jo h n C a rte r B ro w n Lib ra ry at B ro w n U n iv e r ­ sity 12.16, 12.17 K e m p , M artin 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.11, 9 Л 4 > 9 Л 5 La zza ro , C la u d ia 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.9, 10.13, 10.17, 10.20, 10.23, 10.24, 10.25, 10.26 Le ib so h n , D a n a 13.1, 13.2, 13.3 Lie berm an, R a lp h 10.6 M usée du Lo u v re , C o lle c tio n R o th s-

ch ild 10.7 N e w Y o r k P u b lic Lib ra ry 14.5 P n eid e r 4.10 P o lish A ca d e m y of Sciences, Instytut S z u k i 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 P rin c e to n -M ic h ig a n -A le x a n d ria exp ed ition to M o u n t Sin a i, and K u r t W e itzm a n n 1.6 R o s s in i, Sergio frontispiece Q u iñ o n e s K e b e r, Elo ise, courtesy A kad em isch e D r u c k -u .V e rla g sanstalt 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 11.9, I I . 10, 11.11 R é u n io n des M usées n atio n au x 1.5, 4.5, 10.7 R ijk sm u s e u m , A m sterdam 12.8 R ise rv a del Sacro M on te di V ara llo 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.7 Scala 14.1, 14.6 Secretaria de H acien d a y C ré d ito P ú b ­ lic o 12.13 U stav D e jin U m e n ia , Slo ven ska akadem ia vied [Institute fo r A rt H isto ry, S lo v a k A ca d e m y o f Sciences], Bratislava, S lo va k R e p u b lic 2.12 V icto ria and A lb e rt M u seu m , Lo n d o n 4.2 W alters A rt G a lle ry, B a ltim o re 10.8 A ll other illustrations are reproduced b y the k in d perm ission o f the m useum s, libraries, and other institutions concerned

IN D E X

A b u Z a y d Addressing an Audience (Paris, B ib lio th è q u e N atio n ale) 42—3, fig. 1.13 A cad é m ie R o y a le de Pein tu re et de Scu lp tu re 1, 30, 95 A c c o lti, Pietro Inganno degli Occhi 104, 110 Acosta, José de 163—4, 166, 168—9, 2 53> 32& n-35, n .3 7 - 9 , 339 n.45 Adventus, cerem o n y o f 1 4 4 -5 , 324 n.23, n.26 A d o lp h u s, K in g G ustavus o f Sw eden 194—6 A frica , A frican s 1, 5, 9 - 1 0 , 74, 141, 144, 177, 1 8 8 -9 , 1 9 7 -9 , 211, 2 1 3 -1 4 , 2 1 9 -2 0 , 2 2 6 -7 , 292, fig. 10.25 Agapetos, D e a co n Ekthesis 30 Agnese, Battista World Map 2 7 6 -7 , fig. 13.8 A g u c c h i, M o n sig n o r 95, 317 n.23 A g u ilo n iu s, Franciscus Opticorum libri sex 104 A ju lu ap a 2 7 2 -3 , fig. 13.6 A l- H a r ir i 43—4 Alaska 255 A lb a n o , Francesco 96 A lb e rti, L e o n Battista 4, 94, 181, 330 11.9 O n the A rt of Building in Ten Books 61, 308 11.43 A lb e rti, Lean d ro Descrittione di tutta Italia 225 A lb re ch t V o f Bavaria 219 A ld ro va n d i, U lisse 11, 193, 303 n.43, 304 n.46 Alessi, G aleazzo Design for the Chapel o f Adam and Eve 1 2 1 -2 , fig. 5.6 A le xa n d e r V I , Pope 19, 289, 291 A lla cc i, Le o n e (Le o A llatios) 30 D e ecclesiae occidentalis atque orientalis perpétua consensione 305 n.30 A llo ri, Alessandro 223, 335 n.107 A lm o lo n ca 271—2, fig. 13.4 A lthusser, L o u is 19, 292, 2 9 7 -3 0 0 A lvarad o, Pedro D e 147 A m azo n s 337 n.12 A m b o ise , C h a p e l o f St. H u b e rt 180—1, fig. 9.4 A m bras 185 A m ericas, the 1, 139, 140—1, 144, 149, 174, 189, 211, 213, 220, 226—7, 238 A m e rin d ia n culture 3, 12, 74, 82, 141, 257 A m iro u tze s, G e orge 25

A n co n a, C y ria c u s o f 211, 2 1 4 -1 5 , 218 A ndes, A ndean region 47, 174, 327 n.27 A n tich rist 259, 2 8 3 -9 1 , 338 n.41, 339 n.60, 341 n . i, n .5 - 6 , n .8 -1 0 , 342 n . n , n.14, n.22, 11.29, 343 n.34, 11.37, n.41, figs 14.2, 14.4, 14.5 and 14.6 A n ti-se m itism 19, 283—91, 341 n.3 A p o k a u k o s, A le x io s 26 A p u le iu s 61 A q u in as, T h o m a s 128, 313 11.57 Summa Theologiae 128, 304 n.45 Summa contra gentiles 146 A rab , A ra b ic 3 6 -8 , 44, 171, 173 A rch im ed e s, A rch im ed e a n 39, 293 A rc im b o ld o , G iuseppe 186, 330 11.29 A re zzo 29 Aristo tle D e A nim a 128, 304 11.58, 321 n.7; Poetics 1 2 8 -9 A ristotelian, ne o -A risto te lia n 9, 1 4 -1 5 , 17, 26, 32, 6 9 -7 0 , 74, 76, 83, 103, 192, 210, 212, 3 0 2 -3 n.34, З 10 n.8, n .io , 312 11.37, n.38, 313 n.57 A rm e n ia, A rm e n ia n 34 A rts and crafts m ovem en t 80, 314 n.71 A sia, A sian 1, 7, 37, 141, 144, 1 9 7 -9 , 2 0 8 11, 2 1 3 -1 4 , 220, 2 2 6 -7 , fig- 10.24 A ssisi, B ish o p o f 144 Assyria, A ssyrian 83 Athens 25, 33 A u g sb u rg 185, 191, 194 A ugust(us), E le cto r o f S a xo n y 61, 183, 185, 330 n.24 A u gu stin ian O rd e r 131, 137, 268, 303 n.41, 339 n.2 Australia, A ustralian 2 9 4 -5 A ustria, A ustrian 51, 53, 60, 73, 308 n.25 A zte c (see also N ah u a) 1, 1 8 -1 9 , i4 4 —8, 166, 2 3 1 -2 , 235, 237, 239, 240, 2 4 5 -6 3 , 275 B a cch iacca, il (Francesco U b e rtin i) 206, 332 n.38 Gathering of Manna 2 0 9 -1 0 , 215, 223, fig. 10.10 B a co n , Francis 185 B aghdad 39

INDEX B a glio n e , G io v a n n i 29 Death o f Constantine V Kopronymos 29, fig- i -3 Death o f Leo V the Armenian 29, fig. 1.4 B agnaia 202 B aier, M e lc h io r 187 B a kh tin , M ik h a il Rabelais 332 n.25 B â k o cz , T h o m a s 61 B a ld w in o f Flanders 32 Bam b aia 124 B a m b o ccia n ti 95 B a m b o ccio 111 B a n d e llo , M atteo 124 B arb ari, Ja co p o de’ 60 B a rb erin i 105 Barb o, L u d o v ic o Forma orationis et meditationis 123 B a ro cch i, Paola, ed. Trattati d ’arte del cinquecento 321 n . i , n.6, 322 n.32 B aro n iu s 29 Baro q u e 30, 50, 9 1 - 2 , 95, 100, 1 0 8 -1 1 , 163, 178, 317 n.29 Barthes, R o la n d 35, 245 B a rto li, C o sim o 33$ n . n o Basel 77 Batteaux, A b b é Les beaux arts réduits à un même principe 301 n . i, n.7 B aum garten , A le xa n d e r 82 Bavaria, Bavarian 62 B axan d all, M ich a el 327 n.18 B a ye zid II 26—7, 30$ n.19 Belisarius 3 0 -1 , 305 n.37 B e ilarm in e 29 B e lla rm in o , R o b e rto 137, 322 11.46, n.47 B e llin i, G e n tile 25 B e llin i, Ja co p o 206, 332 n.40 B e llo ri, G io v a n P ie tro 94, 97, 1 0 6 -7 Ee Vite and Descrizione delle imagini dipinte 317 n.22 B e lo n , Pierre 212 B e n e d ictin e O rd e r 123 B e n zi, M assim iliano So ld an i 60 B e re n ga n i, N ic o la , and Z ia n i, Pietro A ndrea L ’Eradw 306 n.40 B e rn al, M artin Black Athena 302 11.16 B e rn in i, G ia n lo re n zo 49, 111, 163 Be ro ald o , F ilip p o 61 Bessarion, Joh an n es 25 Bhabha, H o m i 7 —8, 12, 302 n.28, n.29, 304 n.54 B ia lo sto cki, Ja n 5 0 -1 , 53, 55, 57, 5 9 -6 0 , 6 2 3, 307 n.15, n.19, 308 n .2 1 -3 , n .2 5 -6 , n -33 Bildung 68, 73, 85

383

B itti, B ernardo 47, 307 n.4 B lu n t, A n th o n y 96 Boad icea 24 Boas, Franz 12, 7 6 - 7 , 312 n.49, n.52, 314 11.69 B o b o li, G ro tticin a and G rotta G rande 202 B o h e m ia 51, 55, 60; B o h e m ian R en aissance 53, 308 n.25 B o lo g n a , B olo gn ese 61, 95, 1 0 7 -8 , 1 3 6 -8 , 193, 212 B o ltraffio 124 B o m a rzo , Sacred W o o d 202, 206 B on ave nture 320 n.18, 11.31, n.35 B on iface , Pope 182 B o o d t, A n se lm de 193 Book o f Mechanical Devices 39 B o rg h in i, R a ffa ello 223 B o rg h in i, V in c e n zo 334 11.104 B o rro m e o , C h a rles (C a rd in a l C a rlo ) 113, 125, 304 n.45, 323 11.48 B o rro m e o , Fed erico 137, 321 n.17, 322 n.46, n.47 B o sch lo o , A n to n 134, 322 n.42 B osp oro s 26 Bosse, A b rah am Maniere universelle 104 B o u k o le o n palace 32 B rah e, T y c h o 178 B ram a n tin o 124 B ra z il, B ra zilia n 23, 146, 328 n.36 B reydenbach, Be rn h ard vo n 334 n.8o B rita in 24 B ro n zin o , A g n o lo Martyrdom o f St. Lawrence 1 3 0 -1 , 133, 322 11.26, n.28, fig. 6.1 B ru e g h e l, Pieter 48 B ru n i, Le o n a rd i Historiarum Florentini 302 n. 11 B ryas (m odern B ostanci) 37 B u o n aco rsi, F ilip p o 61 B u rckh a rd t, Ja co b D ie K ultur der Renaissance in Italien 3 - 5 , 14, 6 7 -7 0 , 72, 75, 8 1 -2 , 301 n .4 - 5 , n.8, 309 n.4, 311 11.22, n.28, 312 11.45, 313 n.53, 314 n .8 1—2 B u rckh a rt, Lo u ise 149 Bustis, B e rn a rd in o de’ 114 B u ti, L o d o v ic o 336 11.21 Byzantine A rt an [sicj European A rt 33 B y za n tiu m , B yzan tin e 4, 1 3 -1 4 , 2 3 -4 5 , 219, 305 n.2, 306 n.51 Caesar, Ju liu s 219, 223 C a im i, B artolo m eo 114

384

INDEX

C a im i, B e rn a rd in o 113 —14, 1 1 6 -1 9 , 125, 320 n.20 Quadragesimale de articulis fid ei 116 Quadragesimale de penitentia 116 C a iro 39, 177 C a ld e ro n 30 C a lv in , Jo h n 283 Cam erariu s, Jo a c h im Symbolorum et emblematum 2 0 8 -9 , 213, 333 n.46, fig. 10.9 C a m e rin o 47 C ia m p in i 310 n.15 C a p ita lism 4 Cap raro la, Farnese Palace 225 Capricii 11 C a p u c h in O rd e r 146 C a rra c ci fam ily 99, 105, 107, 317 n.27 C a rra c ci, A n n ib a le 95, 99, i l l , 322 n.45 Flerrera chapel paintings 108 Landscape 136, fig. 6.3 C a ra v a g gio , M ich e lan gelo M erisi da 30, 95, i n , 317 n.33 Jud ith 99 C a rca n o , M ich e le 114, 319 n.7 C a ro lin g ia n C o u r t 39 C a rp a ccio , V itto re 25 C a rp i, U g o da 318 n.61 Cassirer, Ernst 315 n.89, 316 n.104 Castanega, M artin de 255 Castello , V illa M e d ic i grotto 1 7 -1 8 , 1 9 7 227, 331 n .4 - 5 , 11.7, 333 n.69, figs 1 0 .1 10.6, 10.13, 10.17 and 10.20 C a stiglio n e , Baldassare 92 Cas trad 39 C e llin i, B e n ve n u to Autobiography 183 C e n n in i, C e n n in o 24 —5, 303 n.39 C erteau , M ich e l de 267 Heterologies 326 11.3 C ervan tes Saavedra, M ig u e l de Idea of the D e vil 339 n.59 E l Ingenioso Hidalgo D o n Quijote de la Mancha 1 7 0 -1 , 173“ 4. 329 n.53, fig. 8.14 C e rve la , L u is 329 n.47 C h a lc h iu h tlic u e (Jade S kirt) 233, 241, fig. 11.3 C h a n te lo u 102 Ch arles I (E m p e ro r C h a rles V ) o f Sp ain 152, 229, 323 n.8 C h ia u h tla 167 C h in a , C h in e se 7, 36, 39, 186, 189, 219, 328 n.36 C h iq u illa n to 169 C h itta g o n g 23 C h o lu la 341 n.27 Ch o n iates, N iketa s 28

C h o r ti M aya 247 C h ris t 34, 3 9 -4 1 , 113, 1 1 5 -2 4 , 126, 138, 163, 2 8 3 -4 , 291 C h ristia n East 23, 33 C h ristia n ity , C h ristia n 16, 19, 23—4, 28, 32, 3 4 -6 , 38, 43, 45, 125, 1 2 7 -9 , 1 3 1 -2 , 134— 5, 137- 9 , 141, 143- 4 , 146, 1 4 8 -5 0 , 153, 157—63, 166, 210, 224, 227, 236, 238, 2 6 7 8, 271, 273, 275, 278, 280, 2 8 3 -9 1 , 299, 328 n.33, 336 n.24, 339 11.2 C ih u a co a tl 19, 2 4 6 -5 2 , 2 5 4 -5 , 2 5 7 -6 0 , 2 6 2 3, 337 11.14, fig s i2 .3 “ 4, 1 2 .6 -7 , 12.12 Circa 1492: A rt in the Age o f Exploration 7 C lassicism , Classical, n e o -C la ssica l 32—4, 50, 62, 77—8, 91, 95, 100, 103, 1 0 8 - n , 199, 317 n.29, 319 n.85 C le m e n t V I I , Pope (C a rd in a l G iu lio de M e d ici) 2 2 0 -1 Co ate p ec 168 Codex Borgia 241 Codex Ebnerianus 4 2 - 3 , fig. 1.12 Codex Magliabechiano 254, 258—62, figs 12.9, 12.12 and 12.15 Codex Mendoza 340 n.15 Codex N utt all 340 n.13 Codex Telleriano-Remensis 234, 236, 336 n.22 Codex Vaticanus A (C o d e x R io s ) 2 3 1 -4 2 , 259, 336 n.18, n.26, 337 n.29, figs 11.3—11.11 Codex Vaticanus B 2 2 8 -3 2 , 241, 335 n.4, figs 11.i and t t .2 Codex Vindobonensis 230—1, 336 11.15 C o e c k e van A elst, Pieter (after) Procession of Sultan Süleyman through the Atmeydan 27, fig. 1.2 C o h n , N o rm a n 288 C o le g io de la Santa C r u z 146, 337 11.17 C o lle 118 C o lo n ia lism 4, 19, 71, 75, 84, 152, 245, 255, 2 6 2 -3 , 265 Colore 93, n o —11, 317 n.29 C o lu m b u s, C h risto p h e r 2, 7, 20, 140, 211, 230, 289, 303 n.41, 312 n.36, 325 n.32, 3 3 5 - 6 11.9 C o n d illa c , A b b é de 69, 310 n .io C o n d iv i, A scan io 26 Co n stan tin e V K o p ro n y m o s 29, 305 n.29, % 1-3 C o n sta n tin o p le (see also Istanbul) 1, 2 5 - 8 , 30, 32, 3 6 -7 , 39, 41 F iru z A ga m osque 27 H ip p o d ro m e 27—8 Im p erial Palace (n o w lost) 37 Serpent C o lu m n from D e lp h i 27

INDEX Sultan A h m e t m osque 37 T h e o d o siu s’ obelisk 27, 39 C o rn a ro , G io v a n n i 219 C o rre g g io , A n to n io 95, 97 C o rté s, H ern á n 1 4 4 -5 , T47> x49, 153 —4, 1 5 7 -8 , 171, 229, 231, 324 n.21, 336 n . n , n .1 5 -1 6 C o rv in u s , M atthias 49, 59, 61, 308 n.35 C o sim o , P ie ro di 332 n.35, 334 n -77 H unting Scene 206, 2 1 5 -1 6 Vulcan and Aeolus 215, 2 1 7 -1 8 , 223, 227, fig. 10.15 C o u n c il o f T e n 28 C o u n te r-R e fo rm a tio n 28 C o u sin , Jean 334 n.82 C o y o lx a u h q u i 2 5 6 -8 , fig. 12.11 C ra n a ch the Eld e r, Lucas Cannibal Eating Baby 247, fig. 12.2 C r iv e lli, Alessandro 125 C ro a tia 59 C ro c e , Benedetto 50 C u a u h tin ch a n 264—6, 2 6 9 -7 0 , 2 7 4 -5 , figs 13.1 and 13.2 C u r z io , L a n c in o 124—5 C u v ie r , G eorges 77, 83 Dam ascus, Jo h n o f 306 n.52 D ’A n gh ie ra , Peter M artyr 140 D alm ata, G io v a n n i 50, 308 n.29 Madonna o f Diósgydr 58—9, fig. 2.9 Dalm atia 59 D ante A lig h ie ri 68, 309 n.4, 311 n.23 D a n ti, V in c e n zo 10 II Primo Libro del Trattato delle perfette proporzioni 303 n.38, n.39 D a rw in , C h a rles 79, 3 1 3 -1 4 n.65, 314 n.74, 315 n.92, n.97 Descent o f M an 80 D a tin i, Francesco 185 ‘D a v id C a sk e t’ (R o m e , Palazzo V en ezia) 34 D a v id , Ja cq u e s-Lo u is 31 D e D o n a ti brothers 125 D e h io , G e o rg 48 D e la c ro ix , Eu gèn e 31 En try o f the Crusaders into Constantinople (Aachen) 32 Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople (Paris) 31—2, fig. 1.5 Scenes from the Chios Massacres 32 D e lg a d illo , D ie g o 153—4 D e lp h i 27 D e rrid a, Jacques 20, 245, 304 n.6o D e rve n sis, A d so D e ortu et tempore Antichristi 341 11.9

385

Descartes, R e n é 69 Discourse on Method 310 n.9 D estutt de T r a c y 298 D e v il, the see A n tich rist D h e m , Lo re n z 191 D ia z del C a stillo , B ern al Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva Espaiia 1 4 4 -5 , 147, 324 11.21-2, 11.24—5, 3-26 n .i D id e ro t, D e n is 301 n.7, 312 n.44 D io d o ro s 26 D io n y sio s o f H alikarnassos 26 Disegno 93, 95, n o , 134, 317 n.29, 322 n.32 D o lc e , L u d o v ic o 97, 317 n.28 D o m e n ic h in o 95, 1 0 5 -8 , 322 11.29 Flagellation o f St. Andrew 1 0 7 -8 , 1 3 0 -1 , figs 4.13 and 6.2 Frescoes at S. A ndrea della V alle 96, 108 Frescoes at S. C a rlo ai C a tin a ri 96, 108, Justice n o , fig. 4.15 Frescoes in S. L u ig i dei Francesi 1 0 8 -9 Martyrdom o f St. Cecilia 1 0 8 -9 , fig. 4.14 St. Cecilia G iving A lm s 108 D o m in ic a n O rd e r 148, 166, 231, 246, 268, 339 n.2 D o n a te llo 63 D o n n e , Jo h n Lecture upon the Shadow 93 D o rig n y , N ich o la s (after R a p h ae l) Death of Ananias 318 n.61 D resden 60, 185 D u b o s, A b b é Reflexions critiques sur la poësie et sur la peinture 301 n . i, 312 n.45 D u C a m p , M axim e 32 D u b re u il, Jean Perspective practique . . . 104 D u C a n g e 30 D u c c io , A go stin o di Maestà 184 D u fre sn o y D e Arte Graphica 99, n i , 318 n.45, n.46 D u q u e sn o y , François 50 D u râ n , D ie g o 1 4 8 -9 , 2 4 6 -7 , 325 n.36, n.39, n .4 2 —3, 328 n .4 0 - 4 Historia de las Indias 2 4 9 -5 0 , 255, 337 n.8, fig. 12.3 and 12.4 Libro de los Ritos y Ceremonias 1 6 6 -9 , 171 figs 8.10 and 8 .n D u ra n d , J . Byzance 306 n.47 D u ra n d u s 143, 1 8 4 -5 D ü re r, A lb re ch t 1, 48, 60, 104, 163, 187, 301 11.3, 336 n .io Rhinoceros 2 1 4 -1 5 , 222, 333 11.73, n -75, fig. 10.12 (W illib a ld Stoss, after D iire r) Dragon Chandelier 183, fig. 9.8 Diirerzeit 48

386

INDEX

D u ve t, Jean 333 n.51 Eastern Eu ro p e 51, 53, 55 E c o , U m b e rto Lim its o f Interpretation 304 n.6o E cu a d o r 256 E ge ria 312 n.36 E g y p t, E g y p tio n 81, 159, 211 —14, 223 E m a n u e l o f Savo y, C h a rle s 125 En g la n d 55, 57, 70, 219, 310 n.14 En lig h te n m e n t 14, 25, 37, 68, 73, 76, 79, 81, 85 Estrem adura 144 E u g e n iu s IV , Pope 25 Eusebius o f Liech ten stein , Prince K a r l 307 n.5, 311 n.36 E u ro ce n trism , E u ro p o ce n trism 4 - 6 , 19, 37, 67, 72, 75, 181, 229, 2 3 8 -9 , 245, 263, 312

n-39 Fabriano, G ilio da 303 n.42, n.43 Fan celli, C o sim o 331 n.4 Fantasie 11 Fascism , Fascist 50 Felib ie n , A n d re 95, 97—9, 1 0 1 -2 , 110-11 Entretiens 317 n.38 Ferd in an d II, A rc h d u k e o f T y r o l 185, 191,

193 Ferdinand o f Spain 289, 291, 342 n.31 Ferrara 25 Ferrara, A lfo n so d ’Este I, D u k e o f 219 Ferrara-Flo re n ce , C o u n c il o f 25 Ferrari, G a u d e n zio 112—22, 320 n.36 Christ on his Way to the Praetorium 112, fig. 5-1 Crucifixion 121—2, fig. 5.7 Dead Christ 120, fig. 5.5 N ativity 117, fig. 5.3 Scenes from the Life and Passion of Christ 115, fig. 5.2 Ferrer, V in c e n t 289, 342 n.15, 343 n .3 4 -5 , n.37 Fied ler, C o n ra d 3, 7 2 - 3 , 77 Filarete (A n to n io A v e rlin o ) M arcus A u re liu s on horseback 60—1, fig. 2.10 F io re n tin o , A d ria n o 60 Flandes, Ju a n de Ecce Homo 342 11.26 Flo ren ce, Flo ren tin e 26, 51, 60, 87, 186, 193, 1 9 8 -2 2 7 , 332 n.20, n .2 3 -6 , 333 n.69, n.73, 334 11.94, n.96, n.105, 335 11.111 B ib lio te ca M e d icea -La u ren zia n a 232 Palazzo V e c c h io 203, 2 2 4 -5 Piazza della S ig n o ria 2 0 4 -5 Piazza Santa C ro c e 205 San M arco 203—4

Floris, C o rn e liu s (engr. after Enea V ic o ) Shell C u p 187, fig. 9 .11 Flö tner, Peter 187 Fontainebleau, Palace o f 57, fig. 2.8 Fo u cau lt, M ich e l 212, 245 Fra A n g e lic o , decorations in the C a p p e lla N u o v a o f O rv ie to Cath edral 2 8 3 -4 Francavilla, P ie tro 59 France, Fre n ch 30, 55, 63, 79, 86, 95, 98, 1 0 2 -3 , 1 2 3 -4 , 186, 193, 256, 297, 299, 309 n.4 Francesca, Piero della Montefeltro Altarpiece 184 F ra n cia b igio Triumph o f Cicero 334 n.104 Franciscan O rd e r, O bservants 15, 113 —14, 1 1 6 -1 8 , 120, 1 2 3 -4 , 1 4 1 -2 , 1 4 4 -5 1 , 159— 61, 163, 169, 172, 247, 268, 319 n.5, n.12, 323 n.6, 324 11.20, 328 n.33, 339 11.2 Freart de C h a m b ra y 95 Fre d e rick the W ise o f S a xo n y 60, 62 Freedberg, S yd n e y Painting o f the High Renaissance in Rome and Florence 9 2 - 4 Fre n ch A ca d e m y in R o m e 30 Fre n ch R e v o lu tio n 71, 298 Frysius, S im o n see V eld e , Ja n van den Fuggers, the 28, 186 G a d d i, A g n o lo 24; T a d d e o 24 G a glia rd i, F ilip p o 105, 110, 318 11.68—70 G a llo , A go stin o 124 Gante, P edro de 47 G en oa 183 G érard, B a ro n Fran çois Bélisaire 30—1, 306

n-39 G e rm a n y, G erm an x i, 4, 14, 28, 39, 48—9, 51, 53, 55, 6 0 - 1 , 63, 6 6 - 8 , 73, 7 6 - 9 , 8 5 6, 143, 186, 210, 215, 252, 299, 307 11.5, 308 11.25, 3 °9 n -4 G erritsz. van Rosestraten, Pieter(?) Still Life of the Paston (Yarmouth) Collection 176—8, 186, 329 n . i —2, fig. 9.1 Gesner, K o n ra d Historiae animalium 212, 214— 15 G iam b o lo gn a 50, 66 B ro n ze birds for grotto at G astello 200, 219 Lion Attacking a B u ll 2 0 7 -8 , fig. 10.8 G illie s, Jo h n 311 11.20 G io tto 24 G io v io , Pao lo 214, 334 11.104 G iu lio , C a m illo 94, 185 G o a 47, 307 n.4 G o d (G h ristian ) 9, 15, 17, 40, 1 2 8 -9 , 134»

INDEX 1 3 6 -9 , 148, 1 5 8 -9 , 162, 178, 182, 1 8 4 -6 , 191, 1 9 3 - 4 , 237, 283, 289, 299 G oethe, Jo h a n n W o lfg a n g v o n 79, 313 n.64, 315 n .9 7

G o ld o n i 30 G o m b rich , Ern st 78, 307 n . u , 311 n.29, 315 11.99, 319 n.82 G o n zaga, L o d o v ic o 219 G o th ic, n e o -G o th ic 181, 183 G o z z o li, B e n o zzo fresco o f the Procession of the Magi, M e d ici Palace 214 Granada 289 Grassi, G io v a n n in o de’ 213 G reat E x h ib itio n , L o n d o n 83, 314 n.71 G r e c o -R o m a n culture, style 13, 24, 2 7 -8 , 3 2 - 5 , 3 7 -8 , 4 0 - 1 , 77, 143, 207, 310 n.15 G reece, G re e k 2 4 - 6 , 29, 30, 32, 34, 3 6 -8 , 40, 8 0 -1 , 83, 86, 9 1 - 2 , 109, 216 G ree k O rth o d o x C h u r c h 23, 28, 30, 35, 39, 44, 289 G reen land 256 G re g o ry o f N yssa 321 n.12 G re g o ry, Pope 160 G rie n , H an s B a ld u n g Witches’ Sabbath 2 5 2 -3 , fig. 12.8 G rijalva , Ju a n de 229, 325 n.36 G ro tiu s 314 n.67 Grotteschi 1 0 -1 1 , 303 n.42 Criinderzeit 48 C r iin in g e r Women Clubbing Member of Vespucci’s crew 244, 246, fig. 12.1 G uarani w o m en 246 Guatem ala 247 G uato m e c 145 G u b b io , w o lf o f 144 G u e rc in o 316 n.17 G uerra, Salvador de 150 G u ic c ia rd in i 123 G ü stro w , M e ck le n b u rg 62 G u zm a n , N u n o de 153 Haberm as, Jü rg e n , theory o f co m m u n ica tive action 304—5 n.6o H absburgs 6 0 - 2 H ä c k e l 79 H ag ia Sop h ia 32 H ain h o fe r, P h ilip p 186, 191, 193—4, 3 3° n.30, 331 n.52 Kunstchrank 194—5, figs 9-18 and 9.19 H am a n n , Jo h a n n G e o rge 310 11.12 H askell, Francis 70, 72, 82, 312 11.45 Histor)' and its Images 8, 310 n.13, 11.15, 311 n.29, n.31, 313 n-53

387

H e g e l, G e o rg W ilh e lm Frie d rich 5, 50, 78, 311 11.29, 312 n.45 H e n ry I I I , K in g o f France 26 H e ra klio s 29, 31 H erbartian p sych o lo g y 78 H erd er, Jo h a n n G o ttfried 50, 6 9 -7 0 , 72, 7 4 6, 307 11.11, 310 n.12, 311 11.25, n.29, 3 12 11.45, 3 H n.67 H e n n a n in G li artisti in Germania 307 n.12 H erod otu s 74 H errera, A n to n io de Descriptio Indiae Occidentalis 2 6 1 -2 , fig. 12.16 H etoim asia, the 34 H id a lg o 274, fig. 13.7 H ild e b ran d , A d o lf 77—8 H ip p o kra tes 26 Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca 264, 270, figs 13.1 and 13.3 H itle r, A d o lf 68 H ob b es, T h o m a s 69 Leviathan 310 11.8 H oe fn agel, G e o rg Archetypa 1 7 8 -9 , 330 n.4, figs 9.2 and 9.3 H o fe , Paul van 60, 66 H o llan d a , Francisco d ’ Elephant Fountain at the Villa Madama in Rome 2 2 0 -1 , fig. 10.19 H o ltzm a n n , W ilh e lm and W o lf, H ie ro n y m u s Corpus byzantinae historiae 28 H o lzsch u h e r fam ily 187 H o m e r 26 H o n o riu s o f A u tu n 143 H o race A rs Poetica 303 n.39 H u e jo tzin g o 154, 157, 163, 168—9, *74, 326 n .8 -1 2 , 327 11.13-15, 328 n.31 H u gu e n o ts 193 H u itzilo p o c h tli (H u m m in g b ird Left) 147, 149, 2 5 6 -8 , 262, 339 11.56, figs 12.11 and 12.17 H u m a n ism , hum anis x i, 2, 4, 1 3 -1 4 , 19, 26, 41, 47, 61—2, 68, 7 0 - 1 , 85, 1 4 0 -1 , 210, 306 11.2, 315 n .io o H u m b o ld t, A le xa n d e r vo n 8 2 -3 , 315 n.84 H u n g a ry , H u n ga ria n 49, 51, 59—61, 63, 308 11.25, n.43 H y b r id ity 12, 304 n.53, 326 11.5 Iacupen people 146 Iberia, Iberian 141, 144 Ico n o p h ile s 35 Idealism , Idealist 81, 87 II genio italiano 4 9 -5 0 , 57 II Riposo 223 Im age theory 321 11.3 Im perato, Ferrante 193 Incas 164, T69—70

3 88

INDEX

In d ia , In d ia n 189, 199, 208, 220, 225 Indu strial R e v o lu tio n 71 Intarsie 63 Inuits 255—6 Ioannes 26 Iraq 41 Ireland, Irish 20 Isaac II C o m n e n u s 32 Isabella, Q u e e n o f Sp ain 289, 291 Isidore, cardinal o f K ie v 26 Islam , Islam ic (see also M uslim s) 3 8 -9 , 43, 45, 325 n.29, 341 n.3 Isleta 150 Istanbul (see also Co n stan tin o p le ) 2 6—7, 37 G o ld e n H o r n 26 Seraglio lib rary 26 Italy, Italian 1 -5 , 9, n - 1 5 , 18, 2 3 - 6 , 33, 41, 47 ~ 6 7 , 7 0 -2 , 85, 95, 103, 212, 219, 224, 227, 2 2 9 -3 0 , 236, 2 3 9 -4 1 , 307 n.5, 309 n.4, n.5, 311 n.22 Jagellon ian s 60 Jam es o f M ila n Goad o f Love 117 Ja m n itze r, W e n tze l 17, 181, 330 n .3 6 - 3 8 The Merckel Table-Centre 190, fig. 9.16 Ja n O lb rach t, K in g 61 Japan, Japanese 45, 146 Je ro m e 312 n.36 Jerusalem , H o ly La n d 15, 113, 116, 118, 1 2 0 -1 , 124, 177, 289, 320 11.16 Jesuits 28, 30, 137, 146, 149, 163—4, 306 11.2, 328 n.36 Jo a ch im ism , Jo a ch im ist 289, 341 n.2 Joan n a o f A ustria 205 Jo h n o f Cap istran o 114 Jo h n the O rp h an o tro p h o s 39 John V I Kantakouzenos Presiding at a Church Council 4 0 - 1 , fig. 1.9 Jo h n V I I I , Pope 25 Jo h n X Kam ateros 32 Ju d a ism , Je w s 19, 38, 85, 141, 146, 237, 283 — 91, 315 n.96, n.99, 325 11.29, 341 n .3 - 4 , 11.6, 342 11.12, n .1 4—17, n .I9 , 11.21—2, II.2 5 - 6 , n . 3 0 - I , 343 11.32, II.3 7 , n.40, n.43 Judas 286, 342, n.14, 342 n.26 Ju liu s 11 26 Ju stin ia n I 30—1 Kalte m arkt, G ab riel 60 K a n t, K a n tia n , n e o -K a n tia n 5, 78, 299, 305 n.6o, 310 n.8, n.9, 312 n.45, 344 n. 12 K a ra c h i 23 K a zim ie rz D o ln y 54—5, figs 2.5 and 2.6

Kitâb al-Aghârî (Booh o f Songs) 41, 306 n.61, fig. 1 .10 K o ra n 4 2 - 3 , fig. 1.11 K r a k o w 61; C lo t h H a ll 55 K rie g e r, M u rra y Ekphrasis 329 n.50, n.51 K u g le r, Fra n z 81—3, 314 n.81, n.82, 315 n.84 Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte 82, 314 n.77 Kunstwollen 78, 80, 84, 315 11.90 K u r z , O tto 86, 315 11.102 L ’opera del genio italiano a ll’estero 49 La m arck , C h e v a lie r de 79, 3 1 3 -1 4 n.65 Lan d sh u t Italienisches Bau 62 L a n d u c ci Diario fiorentino 332 11.23—4, n.26, 334 n.92, n .94, 11.96, n. 105 Las Casas, B artolo m e de 140—1, 303 n.41 Laskaris, Jan u s 28 La tin (people) 36, 38, 47 La tin A m e rica 2, 16, 53, 263 Lavater Essai sur la Physiognomie 313 11.64 Le livre et la raye histoire du bon roy A lizandre 2 5 0 -1 , fig. 12.5 Legros, Pierre 50 L e ip z ig 28 Le n cke r, C h risto p h 191 Leo Sakellarios Offers his Book 3 9 -4 0 , fig. 1.8 L e o the M athem atician 39 Le o V , Pope 2 9 -3 0 , fig. 1.4 L e o X , Pope 204—5, 2 I2 > 2 I 9 _ 2 3, 22 5 Le va n t 30, 2 1 1 -1 2 , 218 Lé vi-Strau ss, C la u d e 23 Lib e rtin ism x i Libro de buen amor 248 Lie ch te nstein , P rin ce o f 60 L ig o rio , P irro 303 n.42 L ip p i, F ilip p in o 333 n.51, 342 n .2 5 Lisb o n 208, 214, 222 Lith u an ia , Lith u a n ia n 60 Llerena, G arcia de 156 Llo ro n a, La 337 n. 13 L lu ll, R a m o n 141, 323 11.7, 329 11.47 Liber de gentili et tribus sapientibus 146 L o c k e , Jo h n A n Essay Concerning Hum an Understanding 69, 310 n.9 Lo m a zzo , G io v a n Pao lo 124, 303 11.42 Trattato dell’arte de la pittura 303 n.42 I Grotteschi 303 11.42 Lo m b a rd y 50, 55, 95, 97, 99, 1 1 3 -1 4 , 121. 124, 213 Arte e artisti dei laghi lombardi 307 n.i^.. n.19 L o n g o n i, C risto fo ro 124 L o rc k , M e lc h io r 211, 334 11.80

INDEX Lo re n zi, A n to n io d i G in o 199 Lo rra in , C la u d e $0 Lo s A n geles, Francisco de 147, 324 n.21 Lo u is X I I I K in g o f France 30 L o u is X I V K in g o f France 26, 49 L o u is X V I I I K in g o f France 31 L o u is -P h ilip p e o f France 32 Lo y o la , Ignatius de Spiritual Exercises 328 n.36 Lü b e c k , T o w n H a ll 60 L u b lin S ch o o l 5 5 -6 , fig. 2.7 L u b lin , Bernadine C h u r c h 56, fig. 2.7 Lu c c a 219 L u c ia n o f Samosata O f Pantomime 143, 151, • 324 n.15, n.16 Lu cretiu s D e rerum naturae 332 n.35 L u d w ig X , D u k e o f Bavaria 62 Lu th e r, M artin 28 L u zb e l 339 11.59 L w o w - L ’v iv , C h a p e l o f B o im 52—3, fig. 2.2 M a ’m u -n , C a lip h 39 M acao 47, 307 n.4 M aced on ian R en aissan ce 34 M ach ia ve lli 123 M afra 49 M alin a lco 339 n.56 M a lin a lxo ch itl (M a lin a lli F lo w e r) 258 M ailet, A l lain M anesson Description de l ’ Univers 262, fig. 12.17 Malleus Maleficarum 252, 338 11.29, n -3° M alvasia 95, 317 n.28 M am lu ks 25 M a n cin i, G iu lio 99 M an d eville, Jo h n 312 11.36 M an ich ean , n e o -M an ich e an 147 Maniera greca 4; greca moderna 24; tedesca 4; vecchia 4 M an ila 47, 306 11.2 M an n erism 5 0 -1 , 92, 95, 131, 133, 178, 181, 183, 186, 189, 307 n.15 M antua 62, 219 M an uel I K in g o f P ortu gal 220, 222 Maqâmât, the 44 M arign an o, Francesco da 115 M arlow e, C h risto p h e r Tamburlaine 30 M arm ontel, Je a n -F ra n ç o is Bélisaire 30 M arti, R a m o n 146 M artial 208 M arx, K a rl; M arxism , M arxist 19, 75, 294, 299 M arzo cco , the 2 0 3 -4 , 206, 225 M asi Ricordanze 332 n.24 M atien zo, Ju a n O r tiz de 153

389

M axtlatlan 2 7 1 -2 , fig. 13.4 M a x im ilia n I o f H ab sb u rg 62 M a x im ilia n II 191 M e d ic i fam ily 200—6, 210, 219, 221, 223, 225; court o f 193 M e d ici, Alessandro de’ 214, 222 M e d ic i, C a rd in a l G iu lio de’ see C le m e n t V II, Pope M e d ici, C h ristin a de’ 204 M e d ic i, C o sim o I de’ 1 7 -1 8 , 186, 199, 206, 210, 213, 219, 221, 2 2 4 -5 , ЗЗ1 n -7 , 335 11.112, n.6, 336 n.26 M e d ici, Ferd in an d o de’ 204, 219, 336 11.21, n.26 M e d ici, Francesco I de’ 205, 219, 335 11. 112, 336, n.21, n.26 M e d ic i, Lo re n zo de’ 28, 49, 219, 223—5, 332 п .37, 333 n.51 M e d ic i, Palazzo 1 8 4 -5 M e d ici, villa o f P o g g io a C a ia n o 2 2 3 -4 M enander 26 M endieta, G e ró n im o de 247, 326 n .i Historia eclesiástica indiana 1 4 5 -6 , 337 n .io M e ric i, A n ge la 125 M e x ic o , M e xica n 2, 6, 16—18, 20, 47, 140— 51, 159—62, 164, 166, 1 6 8 -9 , J7 2> T74> 177, 2 2 9 -4 2 , 2 4 5 -6 3 , 2 6 5 -8 1 M e x ic o C it y 1 5 3 -4 , 167, 231, 257, 267 M ich a el the A m o ria n 30 M ich e lan g elo B u o n arro ti 10, 26, 29, 95, 97, 303 n.38, n.39 Bruges Madonna 46, 49, fig. 2.1 Sistine C h a p e l c e ilin g 9, 92, 316 11.5 M ich elet, Ju les 3, 67, 72, 311 11.31, 312 11.45, 3 1 2 -1 3 n.53 M ictica cih u a tl (M ictlan W o m a n ) 2 5 9 -6 1 , figs 12.13 and 12.14 M ictlan tecu h tli (M ictlan Lo rd ) 59—61, figs 12.13 and 12.15 M ig n o lo , W alte r 328 11.38 M ila n , M ilanese 15, 1 1 3 -1 5 , 1 2 3 -5 , 137, 204 M inas de Z u m p a n g o 277—8, fig. 13.9 M in sk 47 M iran d o la, P ico della 310 n.8 M ixtees 231, 2 6 7 -8 M od ern ism 295—6 M ohács 28 M oh ave 257, 338 n.46 Monarch Enthroned among his Courtiers 41, fig. 1 .10 M o n g o ls l 4 1 M on taign e, M ich e l de 140, 204, 312 11.36

390

INDEX

M on te, G u id o b a ld o del Perspectivae libri sex 104 M on tezu m a 144 M oo rs 183, 288 M o ro n e , G iro la m o 15, 123—6, 320 n.40, n .4 4 -5 portrait by A ndrea So lario fig. 5.8 M o rp u rgo L ’opera del aenio Italiano a ll’estero 307 11.13 M o ryso n , Fynes 204 M oses 299 M o to lin ia (T o r ib io de Benavente) 164, 171, 253, 325 n .3 0 -1 , 11.35-6, n.38, n.43, 327 n .2 9 - 3 1 History of the Indians of New Spain 1 4 6 50 Memoriales 1 6 0 -2 fig. 8.5 M ozart, W o lfg a n g Am adeus Magic Flute 30 M u n ich 30 M ünster, Sebastian Cosmographia 210, 225 M u ratori 310 n.15 M u rú a, M artín de Historia del Origen у Genealogía Real de los Reyes Incas del Perú 1 6 9 -7 1 , 329 n.46, 11.47, figs 8- 12 and 8.13 M uslim s (see also Islam ) 19, 26, 38, 39, 141, 146, 2 8 3 -9 1 M u sso lin i 50 N ah u a, N a h u atl 17, 19, 1 4 8 -9 , 151. T54~ 5, 158, 163, 172, 246, 248, 2 5 2 -3 , 255, 258, 265, 2 6 7 -8 , 270, 275, 325 11.36, 336 n.24, 338 11.23, 340 n.9 N a jrá n 43 N aples 193, 219 N a p o le o n Bonaparte 31 N a tio n al S o cia lism (N azism ) 48, 67, 86 N a tio n alism 6, 50, 68 N atu ralism 15—16, 34, n o —u N avas, Francisco de las 160—i , fig. 8.5 N e ro , E m p e ro r 211 N eth erlands, N e th e rla n d e r 48, 60, 66, 177, 186 N e w Spain see M e x ic o N ic h o la s V , Pop e 26 N ik e p h o ro s, Patriarch o f C o n sta n tin o p le 306 n.52 N o n su c h Castle 55 N o rth e rn R en aissance 48 N u re m b e rg 183, 187, 1 9 0 -1 , 214 O b e rh u b e r 94 O d e r, the 47 O lm o s, A ndrés de 2 5 4 -5 , 259

O rie n t, oriental, orien talism 2 3 - 4 , 26, 32, 3 6 -7 , 45, 289, 305 n.2 O rte liu s, A braham Theatrum Orbis Terrarum 225 O rv ie to Cath ed ral, Cap p e lla N u o v a 19, 2 8 2 91, 342 n.17; C a p e lla del C o rp o ra le 342 11.17 O s im o , N ic o lo da (attrib.) Garden of Prayer 116, 3 1 9 -3 2 0 n.15 O sservanza M o ve m e n t 114 O tto m an s, O tto m a n E m p ire 1, 2 5 - 6 , 28, 30, 36 O tu m b a 2 7 2 -4 , fig. 13.6 O v id 191 O xn e a d H a ll, N o rfo lk 177 Pacam ao 146 Padua, Paduan 55 Pagan 26, 34, 144, 149, 162, 231 Paleotti, G abriele n , 16, 303 n.43, 304 n.45, 321 n .1 - 2 , n .4 - 6 , 11.9-12, n .1 5 -1 9 , 322 n .2 0 -2 , n .2 4 -5 , n.28, 11.30, n .3 2 -4 4 , 323 n.48, 11.50-5 Discorso intorno alle imagini sacre e profane 16, 1 2 7 -3 9 , 303 n.44 Instruzzione . . . 1 3 7 -9 , 323 n .5 0 -5 Modo di esprimere per la pittura tutte le cose dell’universo mondo . . . 3 0 3 -4 11.44 Palissy, B ernard 17, 181, 191—3, 331 n .4 5 -6 , n .4 8 -9 D ish with Anim als Cast from Life 192, fig. 9.17 P allas-A th e n e 187 P an o fsky, E rw in 14, 19, 60, 68, 73, 8 3 -7 , 2 9 2 -3 0 0 , 315 11.89-95, 11.97-8, 11.100, 343 n . 1, n.3, 344 11.12 Studies in Iconology 84, 294 Paris 26 M usee du L o u v re 30 Paston, M ary 178; S ir R o b e rt 1 7 7 -8 ; S ir W illia m 177 Patrism , Patristic 25, 29 P au l I I I, P ope 224 Paul V , Pope 29 Paul V I , Pope 337 n.26 Pechenegs 36 P e k in g , Fo rb id d en C it y 39 P en n i 94 P eiiyafort, R a m o n de 146 Persia, Persians 36—7, 189, 220 Pertusi 28 La Caduta 305 n.17, n -J8 Storiografia 305 11.21—3, n .2 5 -6 , 11.32,

INDEX n.34, n.37 Peru 153, 164, 169, 329 n.47 P e ru zzi, F ilip p o dei 25 Pesellino 206 Petrarch 68, 302 n . n , 309 n.4, 311 n.23 PfafF, N ik o la u s 189 (?) Rhinoceros H orn C u p with Wart hog Tusks 1 8 7 -8 , fig. 9.13 P h ilip II, K in g o f Spain 232, 326 n . i, 339

n.6 P ic c o lo m in i, Aeneas S ylviu s Descriptio Asiae et Europae 225 P ic c o lo m in i, Pope Pius II 26, 204, 305 n.17 Pierfrancesco, Lo re n zo di 332 11.37 P iero della Francesca, T r u e C ro ss cycle (A rezzo ) 29 Piles, R o g e r de 95, 99, i n , 317 n.25 P in d ar 26 P in to ric c h io 288, 342 11.26 Pisa 118 Pisanello 25 P ise llin o 332 11.37 Pisello 332 11.37 P ius IV , Pop e 213 P ius I X , Pope 311 n.22 Plato, P laton ic, Platonists n , 25—6, 190 P letho 25 P lin y the Eld e r, P lin ia n 74, 185 Natural History 208, 210, 212, 214 P lin y the Y o u n g e r 338 n.41 P lutarch 26 P o gg ib o n si 118 Poland , P o lish 49, 51, 55, 60, 63, 308 11.25 P o lyge n ism 313 n.54 Pom a, G u am an 174, 327 11.27 P o m p e ii, P om peian 35 P ontius Pilate 25 Portugal, Portuguese 9 - 1 0 , 49, 84, 208, 220, 225, 309 n.4 Postm odernism 296 Poussin, N ich o la s 50, 9 5 - 9 , 1 0 1 -2 , 106, i n , 317 11.33, n-38, 318 n.59 Death of Germanicus n o Extreme Unction n o Rebecca and Eliezer at the W ell 9 7—9, fig. 4-5 P o zzo , Cassian o dal 102 Prague 178 Star V illa 62 Prato 185 P ratolin o, G ro tto o f C u p id 202 Protestantism , Protestants 28, 66, 128, 181 Prudentius Psychomachia 143

391

P se u d o -B o n aven tu re Meditations on the Life of Christ 1 1 6 -1 8 , 120, 123 P to le m y, P to lem aic 39, 276 Geography 210—n , 225 Puebla 231 P u eb lo culture 8 6 -7 , 150; R e v o lt 150 P u ffe n d o rf 314 n.67 Q u e ch u a language 169, 171 Q u etzalco atl 2 3 8 -9 , fig. 11.10 Q u icch e b e rg , Sam uel 185 Q u in tilia n Institutio oratoria 143, 324 n.15 Q u ir in i, La u ro 26 Q u ito 307 n.4, Franciscan C h u r c h 47 R a c e , racism 85, 293, 302 n.22, n.23 R a le ig h , W a lte r 312 n.36 R a m u sio , G .B . Belle navigationi et viaggi 225 R a n k e , L e o p o ld vo n 78 R a n n u sio , G iovanbattista 28; P ao lo 28 Della guerra 305 11.24, n -2 5 R a p h a e l 1 4 -1 5 , 9 0 -1 1 1 , 211, 220, 314 n.82, 316 11.5-6, n.10, n . 1 4 -1 6 , 317 n. 1 8 -2 1 , n .2 4 -5 , 11.28, n .3 3 -4 , n.38, 318 11.53, n.61, n .7 3 -4 , 11.76, n.85, 334 n.101 Feed M y Sheep 92, fig. 4.2 Lo Spasimo di Sicilia 108 Marriage o f the Virgin 1 0 6 -7 , fig- 4-12 Sistine Madonna 9 0 - 1 , fig. 4.1 V atican , Stanza d e ll’In c e n d io 92 Coronation of Charlemagne 106 Transfiguration 94 Fire in the Borgo 1 0 5 -6 , fig. 4.11 V atican , Stanza della Segnatura 92, 94 Disputa 105 School o f Athens 9 6 - 7 , 1 0 5 -6 , fig. 4.3 V atican , Stanza di E lio d o ro 92, 96 Repulse o f Attila 97 Expulsion o f Heliodorus 97—8, 1 0 1 -3 , 105, figs 4.4, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 Liberation of St. Peter 100, fig. 4.6 Mass at Bolsena 97 Rassencharakter 77 R a ve n n a 301 n.15 R e a lism 34 R e fo rm a tio n 20 Relación Geográfica 268, 277, 279, 339 11.6, 341 n.27, 11.31, n.33, figs 13.9 and 13.10 R e n i, G u id o 108 Fresco cycle 29 Requerimiento, the 146 R e u w ic h , Erh a rd 334 11.80 R h in e , the 47

392

INDEX

R ic c i, M atteo 328 n.36 R ic c io , A g o stin o del 202—3 R ie g l, A lo is 3, 14, 32, 7 7 - 8 , 8 1 -4 , 86, 313 n.64, 315 n.90 Stilfragen 7 8 -8 0 Spatromische Kunstindustrie 80 R io s , Pedro de los 231 R ip a , Cesare Iconologia 2 2 5 -7 , 335 n.116, figs 10 .2 3 -1 0 .2 6 R iso rg im e n to 71, 311 n.22 R iv iu s 61 R o ja s , Fernando de 255 R o m a n C a th o lic ism 28, 30, 66, 127—8, 132, 150, 181, 227, 249, 259, 263, 283, 291 R o m a n E m p ire 31—2, 35, 71, 81 R o m a n esq u e 41, 86 R o m a n o , G iu lio 361 n .io , 334 n.101, Design fo r a Vine D ish 1 8 0 -1 , fig. 9.5 (circle o f ) Elephant Studies 220, fig. 10.18 ‘R o m a n o s G r o u p ’ 34 R o m a n tic ism 31, 49, 75, 77, 86, 296 R o m e , R o m a n 16, 28, 3 9 -4 0 , 49—51, 5 9 60, 95, 1 0 8 -9 , X I8, 124, 181, 2 0 5 -7 , 219, 223, 307 n.5, 328 n.36 D o m u s A urea 211 G re e k C o lle g e o f St. Athanasius 30 Palatine, T e m p le o f N e p tu n e 221 S. M aria M aggiore, C ap p e lla Pao lina 2 9 -3 0 , figs 1 .3 -4 V illa M adam a, Elep h an t Fo u n tain 2 2 0 I, fig. 10.19 V illa M attei 202 R o n d e le t, G u illa u m e 212 R o s c o e , W illia m 311 n.20 R o sse lli, C o sim o Last Supper 342 11.26 R u b e n s, Peter P au l 50, i n R u b r ic k , W illia m o f 312 n.36 R u c e lla i gardens 202 R u d o lf II 61, 193 R u s k in , Jo h n 3, 67 R u ssia , R u ssia n 36, 49, 66, 309 11.53 S ab in o v (Kisszeb en ), Slo va kia , ch u rch 63—5, figs 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14 S acch i, A ndrea 97 Sachenspiegel, the 143 Sahagun, B e rn a rd in o de 1 4 6 -8 , 232, 247—8, 252, 314 n.8o, 324 n.27, 329 n.52 Florentine Codex 1 7 2 -3 , 327 n. 16, 336 II.20, 337 11.9, 1 4 -1 6 , 1 8 -1 9 n .21, 338 n.52, fig. 8.15 Salam anca U n iv e rsity 53, fig. 2.3 San A u gu stin C h iq u itla n 274—5, fig- T3-7 San Bartolo m é M alila 274, fig. 13.7

Santa M aria M ontasco 2 7 4 -5 , fig- 13-7 Sapi 9 - 1 0 , 84 Sarto, A n d rea del Tribute to Caesar in Egypt 2 2 2 -3 , 334 n.104, fig. 10.21 Satan see A n tich rist Savonarola 341 n .i Saxl, F ritz 86, 315 n. 102 Scan d in avia 66 Scan elli 317 11.28 S ch ille r, F rie d ric h 315 n.97 Sch o lasticism x i, 71 Sem per, G o ttfried 3, 8 0 -3 , 86, 314 n .7 0 -2 , 315 11.83, n -85, n.86 Sepulveda, Ju a n G in es de 14 0 -1 Serenissim a, the 28 Sermo humilis 321 11.48 Sforza, C o u n t G aleazzo M aria 204, 214 Sforza, Francesco II 125 Sh ie ld o f D a v id (M o ge n D a v id ) 286 Sicardus 143 S ic ily , S icilia n 34, 183, 215 Siena 118, 199 Sierra Le o n e 10 S ig n o re lli, L u c a 2 8 2 -9 1 , 341 n . i, n.9, 342 n. 12, n.14, n.29, 343 n.41 Frescoes 282—91, fig. 14.1 Damned Le d into H e ll 284 E n d o f the World 2 8 4 -5 , 29 *. fig- H -3 Entry o f the Elect into Heaven 284 Resurrection 284 R ule o f Antichrist 19, 2 8 3 -6 , 2 8 8 -9 1 , figs 14.2, 14.4 and 14.6 Coronation o f the Elect 284 The Damned 284 Siguanaba 2 4 7 -8 Silesia 63 S in ai, M o u n t 33 Sism o n d i, S im o n d e de 311 11.20 Skarian , Fra n cisk 47, 307 n.3 Slavs 36 Slo va kia 51, 63, 65 So cial D a rw in ism 67, 7 8 -8 1 , 83 So d e rin i, G io va n ve tto rio 208 Solari, C risto fo ro 124 S o lario , A ndrea 124 Portrait o f Girolamo Morone 1 2 4 -5 , fig- 5-8 Sp ain , Spanish 1 9 -2 0 , 47, 49, 53, 87, 1 4 5 -7 , 1 5 3 -8 , 164, 166, 169, 1 7 1 -4 , 183, 186, 229, 231, 236, 239, 246, 2 4 8 -9 , 2 5 2 -3 , 255, 258, 2 6 2 -3 , 2 6 5 -9 , 2 7 1 -2 , 2 7 5 -6 , 2 7 9 -8 0 , 2 8 8 -9 , 29 r , 308 n.27, 309 n -4 Spanish In q u isitio n 2 5 3 -4 , 2 87, 338 n .3 5 —8 S p in a zzi, In n o ce n zo 333 11.69 Sp rin ger, A n to n v o n 314 n.76

INDEX St. A u gu stin e 131, 137, 321 n.19, 322 n.27 St. Basil 321 n. 12 St. B ern ard in o o f Siena 114 St. B on ave n tu re , The Tree o f Life 117, 120—1 St. Eustratios 4 4 - 5 , fig. 1.15 St. Francis 117, 141, 144, 150, 253 St. Jo h n the E van ge list 283 St. Symeon Stylites 38, fig. 1.7 Stary, S ig ism u n d , K in g o f Polan d 61 Stile a ll’antica 60 Stile a ll’Italiana 60 Stile alia Roniana 60 Stoss, W illib a ld Dragon Chandelier after A lb re ch t D ü re r 183, fig. 9.8 Strabo Geography 2 1 0 -1 1 , 216, 225 Strada, Ja co p o 191 S tro n g ylo n 30 Stuttgart Schloss 62 Su cre 47 Siileym an I, Sultan 27 Susa 25 Su sin i, G io v a n n i 60 Sw eden 219 Sw itze rlan d , Sw iss 68, 73, 113 Syn cretism 326 11.5 Syria 38 T a ch e r, A n to n II 183 T a in e , F lip p o ly te 3, 72, 3 1 2 -1 3 11.53 Tapuytapera people 146 Tarascans 267 Tatars 25 Ta ve rn a , M o n sig n o r 320 n.25 T e m p le o f So lo m o n 291, 343 n.41 T e n o ch titlä n 144, 147 T e o tih u a can 275 T e p o ztlä n , D o m in ic a n C h u r c h 5 3 -4 , fig. 2.4 T e re n ce 143, 324 n.17 Testa, P ie tro 1 10-11 Testera, Ja co p o da 141 T e x ü p a 2 7 8 -9 , 341 n.33, fig. 13.10 T h e o d o ra 30 T h e o p h ilo s, E m p e ro r 37, 39 T h e v e t, A n d re Cosniographie de Levant 216— 18, 225, 334 11.82, fig. 10.16 T h o d e 116 T h o m a s o f C e la n o 324 n.20 T h o m is m , T h o m is tic 141, 6 9 -7 0 , 310 n.8 T h u c y d id e s 26, 28 T ie c k and W a cke n ro d e r see W a cke n ro d e r T iffa n y , D a n ie l 296 T itia n 25, 95, 97, 99, 219, 317 n.28 T o le d o 152 T o m ic k i, P io tr (B ish o p o f K ra k o w ) 61

393

T o p iltz in 1 6 7 -8 , figs 8.10 and 8.11 T o r ib io de Benavente see M o to lin ia T o rq u e m ad a , Ju a n de Monarquía indiana 146, 148, 325 n.37 T o v a r, Ju a n de 1 6 4 -6 , 1 6 8 -9 , 171, 328 n .37- 9 , 329 n -45 Historia 1 6 4 -6 , fig. 8.7. Tovar Calendar 164—6, figs 8.8 and 8.9 T o x c a tl 147 T rach te n b e rg 287 Tran sn ation alism 309 11.3 Traversari, A m b ro g io 25 T re n t, C o u n c il o f 11, 15, 1 2 7 -8 , 131, 321 11.13, 322 n -2 5 T re tsch , A b e rlin 62 T re z z o , Ja co p o da 186 T r iv u lz io , Francesco 114 T r o g ir (T ra u ) 59 T u rk s , T u r k is h 2 5 - 6 , 28, 32, 289 T u sca n y , T u sca n 24, 51 T y lo r , E .B . Primitive Culture 80, 312 n.49, 314 n.69, 316 11.104 T z itz im im e , T z itz im it l 254—5, 2 58~ 9, fig- I 2 -9 U b e rti, Lu c a n to n io degli 206 U b e rtin i, Francesco see B acch iacca, il U c c e llo , Pao lo 206, 332 n.33 U d in e , G io v a n n i da, frescoes for the V atican Loggetta o f C a rd in a l B ib b ie n a 211 —12, 221, fig. 10.11; E lep h an t F ou n tain , V illa M adam a, R o m e 2 2 0 -1 , 223, fig. 10.19 (d ra w in g o f it by Fran cisco d 'H o lla n d a) U lisee A ld ro va n d i Natural History 212 U n ite d States o f A m e rica 39, 48, 68, 86, 257 U ppsala 17 Valadés, D ie g o Rhetorica Christiana 1 6 -1 7 , 47» 148, 1 5 8 -6 4 , 171, 307 n.3, 325 n.38, 327 n. 1 9 -2 6 , n.29, n.31, 328 n.33, 11-36, figs 8.3, 8.4 and 8.6 V ale n cia, M artin o f 1 4 4 -7 , 150 V alerian o, P ie ro Hieroglyphica 2 1 2 -1 3 , 333 11.46, 335 11.112 V alla, Lo re n zo 26 V alverd e, A lo n so 157 V a n E y c k , Ja n 48 V arallo , B ib lio te ca C iv ic a 122, fig. 5.6 Sacro M on te 15, 1 1 3 -2 6 , 319 n .1 - 3 , 1 4 -1 5 , 320 11.26-8, 11.36, figs 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 Santa M aria delle G razie 114, fig. 5.2 V arna, C ru sad e o f 25 Vasari, G io rg io 4, 24, 49, 94—5, 97, 199, 203, 206, 2 1 1- 1 2 , 2 2 1, 333 11.63

394

INDEX

Adoration o f the Magi 222 A rti del disegno 4 Le vite de’piu eccellenti pittori, scultori, e architetori 302 n.12, 307 11.10, 331 n . u Tribute to Lorenzo the Magnificent 224, fig. 10.22 Tribute to Pope Paul I I I 224 V atican 18, 97, 212, 225 B ib lio te ca A posto lica V aticana 229—30; R a in a ld i in ve n to ry o f 240 Lo ggetta o f C a rd in a l B ib b ien a 2 1 1 -1 2 , 223, f l g . I O . I 1 V au ch e z, A n d re 114 V e ld e , Ja n van den Instruction in the Writing of the Italic H and (engr. S im o n Frysius) x ii, (in tro d u cto ry plate), 1 8 9 -9 0 , fig. 9.14; Instruction in the Writing o f the Netherlandish Hand 1 8 9 -9 0 , fig. 9.15 V en e zia n o , A go stin o 318 n.61 V e n ice , Venetians 26, 39, $5, 95, 9 7 - 8 , 219, 307 n.5 Piazza San M arco 28 V era cru z 145, 2 7 1 -2 , fig. 13.4 V eronese, Paolo 105, n o V e rro c c h io , A n d rea del 4, 307 n .io Versailles, Palace o f 32 Vesalius, Andreas 178 V e sp u cci, A m e rig o 246 V etan co u rt, A u gu stin e de 258 V etancurt, A u gu stin de Teatro Mexicano 146 V ia le , Battista de N e g ro n e 183 V ic o , En e a 333 n.73, (engr. b y C o rn e liu s Floris) Shell C u p 187, fig. 9.11 V ic o , G .B . 82 V ien n a , V ien n ese 185—6, 315 n.99 V illa n i, F ilip p o 302 n . n V ille h a rd o u in 28 V in c i, Le o n a rd o da 76, 93, 103, 105, 124, 206, 303 n.39, 305 n.19, 310 n.9, 332 n.33 Sala delle Asse 181 The Last Supper 342 n.14 V ir g il 124 Eclogues 209, 333 n.48 V irg in , the 39, 113, 118, 120, 1 4 9 -5 0 , 157 V ite rb o , A n n io da 289, 291 D e fu tu ris christianorum triumphis in Saracenos 343 n .3 8— 40 V ite rb o , G ile s o f 291

V itru v iu s 61, 181 D e architectura 303 n.39, 314 n.72, 330 n.9 V o lp i Feste di Firenze 332 n .2 0 -2 V rie s, A d riaen de 59 W a cke n ro d e r and T ie c k Herzensgiessunge eines kunstliebeneden Klosterbruders 48 W agn e r, O tto 78 W a rb u rg Institute 86 W arb u rg, A b y 8 6 -7 , 315 n.92, n.97, 11.1024, 316 n.105 W e im a r R e p u b lic , culture 68, 8 5 -6 , 313 n.60 W h ite , H a y d e n Metahistory 309 n.7 W ild M an 248, 337 n.9 W ild W o m a n 2 4 6 -8 , 2 5 0 -2 , 258, 2 6 2 -3 , 337 n.9, fig. 12.5 Winchester Psalter 259—60, fig. 12.14 W in c k e lm a n n , Jo h a n n 34, 81—2, 91—2, 94—6, 311 n.20, 3 1 4 -1 5 n.82 History o f Ancient A rt 96 W o lf, H ie ro n y m u s and H o ltzm a n n , W ilh e lm Corpus byzantinae historiae 28 W ö lfflin , H e in ric h 14, 48, 73, 7 7 - 8 , 81, 83, 91, 9 3 - 5 , 3 i6 11.2, 317 11.29 Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe 313 n.56 W o rld W a r II 85 Wunderkanuner 178, 1 8 4 -5 , 189, 196, 330 n.3 W ü rttem berg, D u k e o f 186 Y a rm o u th (Paston) C o lle c tio n 177 Z a c c o lin i, M atteo 99, 318 n.50, n.53, 11.69 Descrittione dell’ombre prodotte da corpi opachi rettilinei 104—6, n o Prospettiva del Colore 9 9 -1 0 3 Shadow from a Suspended Cube 104, fig. 4.10 Z a ltie ri, B o lo g n in o II Disegno del Discoperto della Nova Fratiza 272, fig. 13.5 Zap otecs 267 Z e n B u d d h ism 45 Z ia n i, P ie tro A ndrea and B e re n gan i, N ic o la L ’Eraclio (opera) 306 n.40 Z u c c a ro , Fed e rico 124 Z u m ärraga, Ju a n de 254 Z ü n d t, M atthias 191