The Power and the Glorification: Papal Pretensions and the Art of Propaganda in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries 9780271062358

Citation preview

The Power and the Glorification

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 1

12/7/12 1:44 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 2

12/7/12 1:44 PM

The Power and the Glorification papal pretensions and the art of propaganda in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries

Jan L. de Jong the pennsylvania state university press university park, pennsylvania

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 3

12/7/12 1:44 PM

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jong, Jan L. de. The power and the glorification : papal pretensions and the art of propaganda in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries / Jan L. de Jong.   p.  cm. Summary: “Studies the propagandistic and political features of five prominent series of frescoes originating in papal Rome in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Discusses the manipulation of historical events for propagandistic purposes, the importance of inscriptions in controlling interpretation, and the reactions of contemporary viewers”—Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical references (p.   ) and index. isbn 978-0-271-05079-9 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Mural painting and decoration, Italian—Italy—Rome. 2. Mural painting and decoration, Renaissance—Italy—Rome. 3. Mural painting and decoration—Political aspects—Italy—Rome. 4. Propaganda in art. 5. Popes—Art patronage. 6. Art and society—Italy—Rome. I. Title. nd2757.r6j66 2012 751.7’3094563—dc23 2012023598 Copyright © 2013 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in China by Everbest Printing Ltd., through Four Colour Print Group, Louisville, KY Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802-1003 The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of American University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992. Additonal credit: page ii, detail of figure 104

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 4

12/7/12 1:44 PM

Uxori Elizabethae filiisque Emmae Petro dedicatum

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 5

12/7/12 1:44 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 6

12/7/12 1:44 PM

contents

List of Illustrations  /  ix Acknowledgments / xiii Introduction / 1 1 The Pope, the Papacy, and the Church  /  6 2 The Pope and the King: Alexander VI and Charles VIII of France / 28 3 The Pope and the City: Leo X and the Conservators of Rome / 44 4 The Pope and the Emperor: Leo X, Clement VII, and Constantine the Great / 70 5 The Pope and His Family: Paul III and the Farnese / 92 6 The Pope and Secular Power, Muslims, and Heretics: Pius IV, Pius V, and Gregory XIII / 118 Epilogue: The Pope and the Past  /  162 Notes / 169 Bibliography / 181 Index / 189

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 7

12/7/12 1:44 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 8

12/7/12 1:44 PM

illustrations

1 Antonio Filarete, bronze doors, Saint Peter’s, Rome  /  6 2 Antonio Filarete, Saint Peter Handing the Keys to Pope Eugenius IV / 11 3 Antonio Filarete, central panels of the bronze doors of Saint Peter’s, Rome  /  12 4 Sistine Chapel, Vatican Palace, Rome  /  13 5 Reconstruction of the Sistine Chapel in its original state  / 14 6 Sandro Botticelli, The Trials of Moses  /  14 7 Sandro Botticelli, The Temptations of Christ  /  14 8 Cosimo Rosselli, Moses Receiving the Tablets with the Ten Commandments; the Adoration of the Golden Calf  /  14 9 Cosimo Rosselli, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount / 14 10 Sandro Botticelli, The Revolt of Core, Dathan, and Abiron Against the Leadership of Moses and the Supreme Priesthood of Aaron / 16 11 Pietro Perugino, The Surrender of the Keys; the Threat to Jesus / 17 12 Sandro Botticelli(?), Pope Sixtus II / 18 13 Circle of Pietro Perugino, The Assumption of the Virgin / 19 14 Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican Palace, Rome  /  20 15 Stanza d’Eliodoro, Vatican Palace, Rome  /  20 16 Raphael, The Expulsion of Heliodorus Trying to Rob the Temple Treasury / 21 17 Raphael, Saint Peter Liberated from Prison by an Angel / 22 18 Raphael, Pope Leo I Deterring Attila and His Huns from Advancing to Rome / 23 19 Raphael, The Mass at Bolsena  /  24 20 Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome  /  28 21 Nicolas Beatrizet, Castel Sant’Angelo Seen from Across the Tiber / 30 22 Antonio Salamanca(?), Castel Sant’Angelo Seen from the South / 30 23 Bartolomeo Faletti, Aerial View of Castel Sant’Angelo in 1557 / 31 24 Pintoricchio, The Resurrection / 32 25 Pintoricchio, Pope Callixtus III Creating Enea Silvio Piccolomini a Cardinal in 1456 / 33

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 9

26 Pintoricchio, Saint Catherine of Alexandria Discussing with Emperor Maxentius’s Philosophers / 34 27 Pintoricchio, Enea Silvio Piccolomini Paying Homage to Pope Eugenius IV in 1445 / 35 28 Baccio Pontelli(?), Castel Sant’Angelo Around 1490 / 39 29 Conservators’ Palace in Rome in its present state  /  44 30 Maarten van Heemskerck, Conservators’ Palace in Rome / 46 31 Capitoline Hill in Rome in its present state  /  46 32 Maarten van Heemskerck(?), Capitoline Hill in Rome / 47 33 Maarten van Heemskerck, Church of Saint John Lateran with the Equestrian Statue of Emperor Marcus Aurelius / 47 34 Maarten van Heemskerck, Capitoline Hill in Rome with View of Santa Maria in Aracoeli / 48 35 Sala Grande, Conservators’ Palace, Rome  /  49 36 Sala dei Capitani, Conservators’ Palace, Rome  /  50 37 Reconstruction of the plan of the first floor of the Conservators’ Palace in Rome around 1500  /  51 38 Sala di Annibale, Conservators’ Palace, Rome  /  52 39 Sala della Lupa, Conservators’ Palace, Rome  /  53 40 Domenico Amio da Varignana, Honorary Statue of Pope Leo X / 54 41 Trajan’s Column, Rome  /  55 42 Jacopo Ripanda, Sea Battle / 59 43 Jacopo Ripanda, The Roman Triumph over Sicily / 59 44 Jacopo Ripanda, Lutatius Catulus Conducting Peace Negotiations with the Carthaginian Leader Hamilcar / 60 45 Jacopo Ripanda, Hannibal and His Troops on Their Way to Rome / 61 46 Jacopo Ripanda, Manlius Vulso Defeating the Gallo-Greeks / 62 47 Jacopo Ripanda, Chiomara with the Severed Head of a Roman Centurion / 63 48 Jacopo Ripanda, The Triumph of P. Aemilius Paullus / 64 49 Jacopo Ripanda, The Triumphal Procession of P. Aemilius Paullus / 64 50 Hagesander, Polydorus, and Athanodorus, Laocoön / 65 51 Colossal head of Emperor Constantine the Great  /  68

12/7/12 1:44 PM

x  S  Illustrations Domenico Amio da Varignana, Pope Leo X (detail)  /  68 Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace, Rome  /  70 Vault of the Hall of Constantine  /  72 Diagram of the paintings in the Hall of Constantine  /  73 Raphael and assistants, The Cross Appearing to Emperor Constantine the Great / 74 57 Raphael and assistants, Emperor Constantine the Great Defeating Emperor Maxentius in the Battle at the Milvian Bridge / 75 58 Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni, Pope Sylvester I Baptizing Emperor Constantine the Great / 76 59 Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni, Emperor Constantine the Great Donating the Western Half of His Empire to the Church / 77 60 Raphael and assistants, Saint Peter as the First Pope / 78 61 Raphael and assistants, Pope Clement I / 78 62 Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni, Pope Leo I / 79 63 Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni, Emperor Constantine the Great Founding the Church of Saint Peter’s in Rome / 80 64 Raphael and assistants, The Aftermath of the Battle at the Milvian Bridge / 80 65 Raphael and assistants, The Siege of a City / 80 66 Emperor Constantine the Great Addressing His Troops / 82 67 Baptistery of Saint John Lateran, Rome  /  83 68 Farnese Palace, Caprarola  /  92 69 Plan of the first floor of the Farnese Palace, Caprarola / 94 70 Loggia of Hercules, Farnese Palace, Caprarola  /  95 71 Room of the Farnese Deeds, Farnese Palace, Caprarola / 96 72 Taddeo Zuccaro, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese Entering Paris in 1540 / 97 73 Salotto or Anticamera del Concilio, Farnese Palace, Caprarola / 98 74 Vault of the salotto or Anticamera del Concilio, Farnese Palace, Caprarola  /  99 75 Taddeo Zuccaro, The Coronation of Pope Paul III in 1534 / 100 76 Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Blessing the Fleet Leaving to Capture Tunis in 1535 / 100 77 Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Joining the Fleets of the Participants in the Holy League in 1538 / 101 78 Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Excommunicating King Henry VIII of England / 102 52 53 54 55 56

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 10

79 Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Forcing Perugia into Obedience in 1540 / 103 80 Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Receiving Emperor Charles V After His Victory at Tunis in 1535 / 104 81 Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Reconciling Emperor Charles V and King Francis I and Concluding the Treaty of Nice in 1538 / 105 82 Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Initiating the Council of Trent in 1545 / 106 83 Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Creating New Cardinals / 107 84 Room of One Hundred Days, Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome / 108 85 Room of the Farnese Deeds, Farnese Palace, Rome  /  109 86 Giorgio Vasari, The Universal Peace / 109 87 Francesco Salviati, The Treaty of Nice / 110 88 Titian, Portrait of Philip, Future King of Spain / 110 89 Francesco Salviati, The Council of Trent / 111 90 Raphael, Dispute About the Holy Sacrament / 112 91 Raphael, The School of Athens / 112 92 Giorgio Vasari, The Pope Rewarding the Virtuous / 113 93 Taddeo Zuccaro, preparatory sketch for Pope Paul III Excommunicating King Henry VIII of England / 114 94 Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome  /  118 95 Giorgio Vasari, signature in Greek (detail of fig. 112)  /  120 96 North wall of the Sala Regia, with papal throne  /  121 97 South wall of the Sala Regia  /  122 98 Pietro da Cortona (ascribed), Pope Paul V Receiving the Imperial Ambassador Paolo Savelli / 122 99 Etienne Dupérac, Pope Pius V Conferring the Title of Grand Duke on Cosimo I de’ Medici, February 18, 1570 / 123 100 Diagram of the paintings in the Sala Regia  /  125 101 Giovanni Maria Zoppelli, Charles of Anjou’s Oath of Loyalty After the Enfeoffment of Sicily(?) / 126 102 Girolamo Sicciolante da Sermoneta, King Pippin III Handing Back the Territories of the Church to Pope Stephen II / 127 103 Livio Agresti da Forlì, King Peter II of Aragon Offering His Kingdom to Pope Innocent III / 128 104 Giuseppe Porta, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa Asking Pope Alexander III for Forgiveness / 131 105 Giovanni Battista Fiorini, Pope Gregory II Receiving King Luitprand’s Confirmation of the Donation by King Ariperth / 134

12/7/12 1:44 PM

Illustrations   S  xi 106 Orazio Samacchini, Otto I Restoring to the Church the Provinces Occupied by the Tyrants Berengar and His Son Adalbert / 136 107 Taddeo Zuccaro, Charlemagne Returning the Possessions of the Church / 137 108 Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro, Pope Gregory VII Absolving Emperor Henry IV / 138 109 Giorgio Vasari, Pope Gregory IX Excommunicating Emperor Frederick II / 140 110 Michelangelo, Last Judgment / 141 111 Perino del Vaga, Jupiter Slaying the Rebellious Giants / 141 112 Giorgio Vasari, Pope Gregory XI Returning the Papal Seat from Avignon to Rome / 142 113 Anonymous, Pope Pius V Blessing the Crowds in Front of Saint Peter’s / 143 114 Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro, Charles V Capturing Tunis in 1535 / 145

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 11

115 Giorgio Vasari, The Assault on Admiral Caspar de Coligny / 146 116 Donato Bramante, Tempietto / 147 117 Giorgio Vasari, The Massacre of the Huguenots / 147 118 Giorgio Vasari, King Charles IX Approving the Massacre of the Huguenots in the Parisian Parliament / 148 119 Giorgio Vasari, The Christian and the Turkish Fleets on the Eve of the Battle of Lepanto / 150 120 Giorgio Vasari, The Battle of Lepanto / 151 121 Giorgio Vasari(?), preliminary study for Pope Pius V Appointing Don John of Austria Commander of the Holy League’s Army / 152 122 Anonymous, King Lothar III Crowned Emperor (1133) by Pope Innocent II / 162 123 Pietro da Cortona, The Triumph of Divine Providence and the Fulfillment of Her Ends During the Pontificate of Urban VIII / 166

12/7/12 1:44 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 12

12/7/12 1:44 PM

acknowledgments

This book was written over a long period of years. During that time, I have taught several courses on art of the papal court and discussed many issues with colleagues from my own university in Groningen and other institutions. To them and to the students who sat though my courses I am very grateful. Their critical and stimulating comments, made consciously or unconsciously, have been very important in shaping my way of thinking about the topic of this book. It was Els Hommes who stimulated me to set up this project, but I had hardly started when sadly she passed away. Nor did Joe Dubee, who enthusiastically and critically read the manuscript, live to see the book finished. It is with pleasure and regret that I remember the many conversations we had about it. I did much of the research for this book in Rome, where I have always been welcome to stay at the Royal Dutch Institute. I am very grateful to the director and all the staff for the hospitality and help they have generously offered. Janet Mente, librarian of the Institute, should be mentioned in particular; she has always been willing and very effective in tracing information that I would not have found without her help. I am also very obliged to the Groningen Research Institute for the Study of Culture (ICOG) of the University of Groningen, which has sponsored all my stays in Rome and has contributed financially to the production of this book. Drs. Willy Piron and his colleagues of the Centre for Art Historical Documentation (CKD) of Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands,

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 13

and Dr. Rosanna di Pinto of the Archivio Fotografico of the Vatican Museums have been more than helpful in providing me with the illustrations I needed. I owe special thanks to Dr. Lois Greg for critically reading the first version of the manuscript and correcting my English. My former colleagues from the Art History Department in Groningen, Dr. Lyckle de Vries and Dr. Victor M. Schmidt, both read and commented on the manuscript and offered many useful insights and ideas. So did Professor Dr. Peter Rietbergen from Radboud University in Nijmegen; the many useful remarks he wrote in the margins of the manuscript would almost be enough for a separate book. I also owe many thanks to my colleague from the Latin Department in Groningen, Drs. Sjef Kemper, who has always been willing to discuss Latin texts with me and deepen my understanding of them. Moreover, he has saved me from many mistakes in the translations I made. In the final stage of the project, Mr. John P. Morris meticulously copyedited my manuscript and greatly smoothed out my English, for which not only I but especially the readers will be very grateful. I am extremely fortunate in having a wife and children who share my passion for Rome, its history, and its art. Many times they traveled to Italy to visit the places I had so often talked about at home. For me, therefore, this book is not only the result of years of research; it is also a collection of memories of the wonderful times we have had together in Rome. I affectionately dedicate this book to them.

12/7/12 1:44 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 14

12/7/12 1:44 PM

Introduction

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed to thee [that I am Christ, the son of the living God], but my Father who is in heaven. And  I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. With these words, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew,1 Christ confers upon Peter supreme power to the fullest measure to govern the church. Peter will be Christ’s vicegerent on earth, and whatever he may bind or loosen will be divinely authorized. His position as the supreme head of the church is not transitory but perpetual, and as Christ personally establishes this constitution of the church, it must endure in this specific, divinely instituted way. “Thus,” according to The Catholic Encyclopedia, “an analysis of Christ’s words shows us that the perpetuity of the office of supreme head is to be reckoned among the truths revealed in Scripture. His promise to Peter conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but established a permanent office in the Church.”2 Other passages from the Bible can also be construed in support of Peter’s primacy among the apostles and within the church. One instance is the episode in the Gospel of John

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 1

where Christ, after his resurrection, charges Peter to “feed my lambs.”3 Another case in point is related in the Acts of the Apostles, where Peter, after the ascension of Christ, acts as the leader of the apostolic band.4 Yet the words from Matthew are a key passage, for they convey that Peter’s authority, both legislative and juridical, is plenary (“whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”) and that, moreover, it is not subordinated to any earthly superior. Are these words of Christ unequivocal, and were their implications immediately clear? Did the apostles directly realize that Peter and his successors would be at the head of a universal organization, endowed with plenitude of power (plenitudo potestatis), superior to emperors, kings, and anyone else on earth, and not to be judged by any earthly person since their authority was divinely instituted? It is, of course, hard to speculate on Christ’s prescience, but one may wonder if the apostles, Peter included, fully understood the (possible) implications of these words. Yet The Catholic Encyclopedia states that “from the very earliest times” Peter’s supreme headship “has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church.”5 Nevertheless, it took more than a thousand years before this supreme headship was indeed generally recognized and respected. Not until the year 1200 was the pope, as Peter’s successor, indeed the undisputed head of the Latin Church, and his plenitude of power not checked by any bodies or institutions, not even

12/7/12 1:44 PM

2   S   The Power and the Glorification

synods or councils. The popes exercised their authority in all spheres, legal, juridical, and financial, and in controlling ecclesiastical appointments. As head of the spiritual “empire,” they were superior to all secular rulers. The latter were, as members of the church, executive organs who had to follow the supreme guiding authority of the former. Again, one can point to biblical texts to support this notion, for according to the theory of the two swords (based on Luke 22:38), Peter and his successors wielded the spiritual sword and handed the material sword over to secular princes to use in line with Peter’s will. In fact, Charlemagne and the following emperors of the West owed their position and title to the successors of Peter, and accordingly received their crowns from the pope. This position of supreme authority was reached after centuries of increasing theological study and debate, and circumstances that forced the church, in order to survive, to develop into an international organization on a scale far beyond the original level of scattered communities led by local bishops.6 But even though the pope’s supreme authority was well founded in theological arguments and historical precedents, it was hard to maintain in practice. France, England, Spain, and to some extent the German Empire were developing into sovereign states and were ever less inclined to tolerate the interference of the church in their own affairs. This led to a crisis in the fourteenth century, when, due to political conflicts with France, the Apostolic See was forced to move from Rome to Avignon, in France. Attempts to move the see back to Rome resulted in a schism and two popes: one in Rome, the other in Avignon. The Council of Pisa in 1409, called upon to solve this embarrassing problem, ended in even more confusion. A new pope was elected, but the two others refused to step down, and so the church was now saddled with a supreme headship of three simultaneous successors of Peter, who all refused to acknowledge each other. In 1417, the Council of Constance finally succeeded in putting an end to this disgraceful situation and restored the church to its original state, with one supreme head residing in Rome. Although the church survived this crisis, the papacy lost much of its respect and authority.7 Within the organization of the church, a serious discussion broke out over the question of whether the supreme authority was vested in one person—the

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 2

pope as the successor of Peter—or in the body of the church, represented by a general council. Meanwhile the secular rulers of Europe increasingly reduced the influence of Rome on the affairs of their own states and local church matters. The authority of the papacy received a further, more serious blow in 1517, when the German monk Martin Luther released a series of writings in which he criticized the church and disputed on theological grounds the status of Peter’s successor as its supreme head. At about the same time, a treatise was printed that had been written some sixty years earlier. In it, the Italian scholar Lorenzo Valla argued, with superior knowledge of Latin and history, that the “historical” document with which the Roman emperor Constantine the Great had transferred his authority over western Europe to the pope was in fact a forgery. Under these circumstances, the authority of the papacy was far from self-evident. It had seriously dwindled in numerous respects: morally, through the crisis the popes had brought upon the church and through their inability to solve it; politically, through the increasing strength and self-consciousness of the sovereign states in Europe; theologically and historically, through the writings of men like Luther and Valla. The lifestyle of the higher clergy and the church’s never-ending need for money further contributed to a general sense of frustration. In  order to regain respect and authority, the successive popes had to come to terms with the changing religious and political situation in Europe, reform the church, and reconsider the position of the papacy itself. Yet their efforts to adapt the church and the papacy to the new circumstances were halfhearted and ineffective. They stubbornly stuck to the traditional claim of divinely instituted plenitudo potestatis, and expected the world to acknowledge and respect it. This rearguard action of the papacy against the new developments in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is the subject of this book. The successive popes deployed all possible means of propaganda to convey their eroded claim of supreme authority and stress its biblical and historical foundations. One very important way to communicate this message was through pictures. In the Vatican palace and other places, large propagandistic cycles were painted with the intention of demonstrating the papal pretensions through historical examples. I will study

12/7/12 1:44 PM

Introduction   S  3

five of these cycles in detail, focusing on the kinds of propaganda and strategies used to uphold an image of the papacy that no longer corresponded to reality. These cycles do not form a complete selection; rather, I have singled them out as telling demonstrations of the ways in which the popes handled contemporary and older history, how they selected examples from it and presented them in a way that explained and substantiated the papal claims and pretensions. For each of the five cycles, I first look at the paintings through the eyes of contemporary visitors, approaching them in the state they were in when they were originally presented to the public. I discuss specifically art-historical issues only when they are relevant to the subject of this book. Questions about authorship and attribution, conception and elaboration, dating, and so on may be fundamental topics for modern art historians, but they were not nearly as important to the original observers, who were primarily expected to be convinced by the propagandistic message of the paintings. These observers consisted in the first place of ambassadors, delegates, deputies, diplomats, and other persons of comparable rank who came to visit the pope or his advisers and were therefore allowed access to the Vatican and other papal buildings. They must have had enough education to be familiar with the major events of European history and to read Latin, so that they were able to understand the paintings in combination with their explanatory inscriptions (if there were any). I presume that they did not bring their history books in order to verify on the spot the historical content and accuracy of the paintings. Nor do I suppose that they consulted these books afterwards. They were essentially reliant on the information offered by the paintings and

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 3

the explanatory inscriptions, which they must have accepted at face value, even if they sensed a propagandistic undertone. I then analyze the paintings more comprehensively and explain the strategies by which the papal view on history was conveyed. Some historical and contextual knowledge is essential for understanding the paintings’ underlying assumptions about the status and significance of the papacy and the biblical, theological, and historical arguments that these assumptions are based on. In the first chapter I will briefly provide this information, together with a historical outline of the papacy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and a short discussion of some of the most important instances of papal propaganda, as these were the forerunners of the paintings that will be discussed extensively in the following chapters. Throughout the book, however, I have tried to observe some restraint in discussing contemporary sources, comparable paintings, and other relevant material. The paintings, in my view, should speak for themselves, as they were originally meant to, and not dissolve into their historical context. I have conceived these following chapters as largely separate episodes, each dealing with one specific series of paintings. In the epilogue, I will go over the main points of the propagandistic strategies that were employed and suggest that the reason examples from the past no longer had the desired impact was not only the dwindling respect for the papacy, but a changing concept of history. New concepts and different strategies were necessary. The papacy’s propaganda, like the papacy itself, needed fresh impulses and a novel approach. What this new approach was, however, and how well it succeeded are questions that fall outside the scope of this book.

12/7/12 1:44 PM

4   S   The Power and the Glorification List of Popes: From the End of the Great Schism in 1417 Through Gregory XIII

001-005_de_Jong_Introduction.indd 4

Pope: papal and real name

Date of election

Date of death

Martin V (Oddo Colonna) Eugenius IV (Gabriele Condulmer) Nicholas V (Tommaso Parentucelli) Calixtus III (Alfonso de Borgia) Pius II (Enea Silvio Piccolomini) Paul II (Pietro Barbo) Sixtus IV (Francesco della Rovere) Innocent VIII (Giovanni Battista Cybo) Alexander VI (Rodrigo de Borgia) Pius III (Francesco Todeschini-Piccolomini) Julius II (Giuliano della Rovere) Leo X (Giovanni de’ Medici) Adrian VI (Adriaen Florensz. Boeyens) Clement VII (Giulio de’ Medici) Paul III (Alessandro Farnese) Julius III (Giovanni Maria Ciocchi del Monte) Marcellus II (Marcello Cervini) Paul IV (Gian Pietro Carafa) Pius IV (Giovanni Angelo de’ Medici) Pius V (Michele Ghislieri) Gregory XIII (Ugo Boncompagni)

November 11, 1417 March 3, 1431 March 6, 1447 April 8, 1455 August 19, 1458 August 30, 1464 August 9, 1471 August 29, 1484 August 11, 1492 September 22, 1503 November 1, 1503 March 11, 1513 January 9, 1522 November 19, 1523 October 13, 1534 February 8, 1550 April 9, 1555 May 23, 1555 December 25, 1559 January 7, 1566 May 14, 1572

February 20, 1431 February 23, 1447 March 24, 1455 August 6, 1458 August 15, 1464 July 26, 1471 August 12, 1484 July 25, 1492 August 18, 1503 October 18, 1503 February 21, 1513 December 1, 1521 September 14, 1523 September 25, 1534 November 10, 1549 March 23, 1555 May 1, 1555 August 18, 1559 December 9, 1565 May 1, 1572 April 10, 1585

1/2/13 4:33 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 5

12/7/12 1:44 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 6

12/7/12 1:44 PM

1

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Church

The fifteenth century opened with the Roman Catholic Church in serious crisis. For more than a thousand years, it had been teaching that Christ had delegated the full authority to govern his church to Saint Peter and his successors, the popes. As Christ had assigned this power to one man alone, not to all of his apostles, it was fundamental that there could only be one pope at a time. While the church could be represented by a general council (though not in the same way that a modern nation is represented by a parliament), its decisions always needed papal approval to become valid. The pope is not elected or appointed by the general council, and is in no way subordinate to it. In fact, church councils are not even involved in the procedures to elect a pope. Over the ages, these procedures varied considerably, but around 1400 they crystallized into the practice that is still in use today, in which the electoral college of cardinals meets in conclave to vote for the new pope. This tension between the pope, endowed with plenitude of power (plenitudo potestatis), which was held to have been divinely instituted, and the general council representing the church but having no real grip or influence on the pope, was an important factor in the fifteenth-century crisis.1

fig. 1  Antonio Filarete, bronze doors of the central portal of Saint Peter’s, Rome, 1433–45. By kind permission of the Fabbrica di San Pietro in Vaticano.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 7

The direct roots of the crisis lay in the events of 1303, when Pope Boniface  VIII died in the wake of a violent clash with the King of France, Philip  IV.  In an attempt to appease the conflict, the new pope, Clement V, gave in to the request of Philip IV and settled in Avignon in France.2 This marked the beginning of an era of heavy French dominance. Soon the majority of the College of Cardinals consisted of Frenchmen, and, as a consequence, Clement’s immediate successors were all French. The papal court remained firmly settled in Avignon until 1376, when Pope Gregory XI, under mounting international pressure and criticism, moved the Papal See back to Rome, where it historically belonged. His untimely death in 1378 moved the assembled cardinals to act swiftly and elect a new pope before the French king could interfere. They elected not a Frenchman, but the Italian archbishop of Bari, who adopted the name Urban VI. Stirred up by the French king, however, a group of dissenting cardinals refused to recognize this new pope and proceeded to elect Clement VII, of Swiss origin, who took up residence again in Avignon. This embarrassing situation became even worse in 1409, when a large group of cardinals, bishops, and other church dignitaries, unhappy with the present circumstances and sensitive to the generally increasing feelings of displeasure with the state of the church, came together in Pisa. Rather than siding with either Gregory  XII in Rome or Benedict  XIII in Avignon, they elected a new pope, Alexander V. Both incumbent popes, however, disputed the legitimacy of this election and refused

12/7/12 1:44 PM

8   S   The Power and the Glorification

to withdraw in favor of a single new successor to Saint Peter. The Catholic world thus now had three popes. The solution to this painful crisis did not come from within the church, but was forced by the German King Sigismund. In  1414, acting on the model of ancient Christian rulers like Constantine the Great, he summoned a council to Constance.3 His personal attendance and active involvement gave the council, after a hesitant start, increasing momentum and convinced many cautious and skeptical clerics to join. One of the decrees adopted during the deliberations directly affected the position of the pope and the extent of his authority. It stated that a general council was a lawful assembly that represented the universal church and held its power directly from Christ; everyone in the church, therefore, had to obey the general council, including the pope. Moreover, general councils should meet at regular intervals of several years. This decree considerably curbed the authority of the pope, making him a representative of the general council and restricting his powers to the limits set by it. The church, in other words, was no longer a papal monarchy; its head was the general council, of which the pope was the chief officer. It was along these lines that the Council of Constance dealt with the three incumbent popes. The Pisan Pope John XXIII, who had actually convened the council at the instigation of King Sigismund and presided over its first sessions, fled when he perceived that his manipulations did not help his chances to become the “new” legitimate pope. He was soon caught, however, tried, and officially declared deposed on May  29, 1415. A few months later, his Roman rival, Gregory XII, also ceded. However, Gregory would not recognize a council summoned by John XXIII, and was therefore allowed the right to convene the council afresh, which he duly did on July 4. Now that the council was also legitimate in his eyes, he immediately offered his resignation. The council accepted it by declaring him ineligible for reelection. Pope Benedict XIII, representing the Avignon line, was less cooperative. He refused to resign and even had a successor after his death in 1423. This next pope, however, had so little support that he stepped down in 1429 and joined the supporters of the pope who had come out of the council as the one legitimate successor of Saint Peter: Martin V. The election of Martin V took place in a very particular way and at a moment that ran counter to King Sigismund’s will.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 8

Next to ending the schism, reform of the church was the major topic on the council’s agenda. However, Sigismund’s advice to carry through reforms before electing a new pope was disregarded. The representatives of the various states feared that reformers from all over might join and use the chance to make the church more independent and harder to control, against their national interests. They preferred to elect a pope first and then try to deal individually with him, as this would increase their chances of securing their national good. After long discussions about the procedures to follow, a special conclave consisting of twenty-two cardinals and thirty representatives of France, England, Italy, Spain, and the German Empire elected Pope Martin V on November 11, 1417. What King Sigismund had wanted to prevent immediately happened. The various nations tried to deal individually with the pope and were largely successful in doing so. The pope wrongly assumed that concluding separate pacts would reestablish his authority over the individual countries, and the outcome accordingly showed that he had not been able to reaffirm his grip on affairs such as church taxation and investiture. Moreover, he lost many prerogatives and privileges. Yet he did resist pressure to settle in Germany or France, and in 1420 he definitely established the pontifical seat in the city where it historically belonged: Rome. The pope not only had to restore his authority in European politics. He also had to reaffirm his control over Rome and the church.4 Through concessions, political manipulations, and the force of arms he managed to reestablish his dominion over the Papal States, which provided him with regular revenues. Within the church, however, he was confronted with problems that were more complicated. The period in Avignon had exposed the fact that, in spite of the biblical texts and the ensuing torrent of theological arguments, the papal plenitude of power could be curbed seriously by political force. Moreover, the aftermath had painfully shown that the papacy was not capable of solving its own problems; it needed the intervention of a general council and the support of secular rulers such as King Sigismund. Thus the one legitimate new pope, Martin V, had been elected by a special conclave set up by the general council. The participants of this conclave consisted not

12/7/12 1:44 PM

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Church  

only of the customary cardinals, but also of representatives of the five national states that were involved. The implication was that, in order to solve the papal crisis, the general council had disrupted the traditional election procedure. Consequently, the new pope did not owe his position exclusively to the College of Cardinals, which had been the autonomous electing body since 1059. He now owed his position to the general council. Thus, he was no longer the supreme monarch of the church, but the main representative of the general council. It was now argued that Christ had delegated his power to bind and loose not just to Saint Peter, following Matthew 16, but to the community of believers who were represented by the general council. This advanced view on the highest authority in the church was based on Matthew 18:15–18, where Christ entrusts the leadership over his believers to all of his apostles. The general relief and happiness about the solution of the papal crisis were so strong that it was hardly noticed that none of the subsequent popes ever formally confirmed the decrees of the Council of Constance. Conciliar enthusiasm had forced a solution, but in the following years it lost most of its momentum. The various European monarchs were suspicious about its basically democratic, bottom-up character, which they considered a potential threat to their own positions. From now on, they deemed it better to deal again with the pope and not the general council. Successive popes duly summoned new councils on the dates that had been appointed at Constance, but the scant interest from both the papacy itself and the various monarchs turned these councils into irrelevant meetings that adopted increasingly extreme, unrealistic positions. In 1439, the general council was divided over negotiations between the pope and the Byzantine emperor about a reunion of the Western and Eastern Church. One part of the council followed Pope Eugenius IV in concluding this pact, the results of which were to be short-lived (Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire would fall to the Turks in 1453). The other part continued its attempts to reform the church and proceeded to replace the legitimate Pope Eugenius IV with the antipope Felix V (1439–49; d. 1451). Even though many long-standing problems and issues remained unsettled, the papacy had apparently regained some of its respect and reemerged as an important player on the European stage. It was again dealing with monarchs and other

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 9

S  9

political leaders, but its recognition and support came at a heavy price: the concession of much of its control over national and local church affairs. In reality, the papacy was increasingly becoming an Italian affair, immersed in the obscure plotting and scheming of local politics, and its importance hardly extended beyond the Alps. The College of Cardinals was almost exclusively Italian, all but guaranteeing that the popes it elected would be Italian as well. Most of its members were deeply involved in domestic politics and had the interests of their own families as high on their agenda as the good of the church, if not higher. Yet with its international respect apparently regained and the general council split, the papacy dared to adopt a tougher stance and challenge the council’s legitimacy. The union with the Eastern Church in 1439 gave the pope an opportunity to boost his claims of primacy and plenary power. (The Eastern Church, in need of help against the Turkish threat, let these assertions pass.) When the act of union was promulgated at the council of Florence, Pope Eugenius IV declared that “we define the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff to hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and that he is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians; and to him in blessed Peter has been delivered by our Lord, Jesus Christ, the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.”5 The pope’s position seemed even stronger in 1449, when the antipope Felix  V abdicated and his supporters joined the “legitimate” pope in Rome, Nicholas V. The latter wisely adopted the ex-schismatics into his camp and bestowed a cardinal’s hat on the ex-antipope and some of his followers. He also came to good terms with the German King Frederick III, whom he crowned emperor in 1452, in the last ceremony of this kind to take place in Rome. The circumstances now seemed right to bolster again the primacy of the papacy and curb the influence of the council. The strategy followed two routes: explaining and justifying the pope’s primacy, and questioning the legitimacy of the Council of Constance and the series of councils that followed. A stream of writings began to flow, often springing from sources in or near the Roman curia, that passionately confirmed the papal primacy and its plenitude of power.6 Their

12/7/12 1:44 PM

10  S   The Power and the Glorification

reasoning usually started with Christ’s words to Saint  Peter and repeated all the arguments that had been developed over the centuries. There was one issue that resisted smooth integration into this blueprint: the content and validity of two decrees adopted by the Council of Constance. Called Haec Sancta and Frequens, they respectively assert that the pope is obliged to obey the general council and lay down a method to ensure its gathering at regular intervals, even if this goes against the pope’s wishes. These decrees, however, had been adopted under circumstances that left room for some serious questions. To begin with, they had been embraced by a council that was first convened by the Pisan Pope John XXIII and then by the Roman Pope Gregory XII. Were these popes to be considered legitimate? Secondly, at which stage of the council, and under which pope, were these decrees actually adopted, and what did that mean for their validity? (The answers, of course, depend on which pope one wishes to consider as legitimate.) Thirdly, how much authority does a council have if its decrees are not confirmed by the pope? (It should be remembered that the papacy never formally confirmed the decrees of the Council of Constance.) The popes cleverly used this murky area of confusion, uncertainty, and personal opinions to reaffirm their authority and move the council into a subordinate position, claiming that they alone had the authority to convoke, transfer, and conclude a council, preside and direct its deliberations, and confirm its acts. In the 1460 bull Execrabilis, Pope Pius II forbade appeals to the general council against papal decisions and declared that any appellant would be excommunicated. Accordingly, in 1476 Pope Sixtus  IV told the French King Louis XII, who threatened to appeal to a general council, that “the authority to will or not to will a general council is fixed solely in the Roman pontiff.”7 In 1478 he took the next step and annulled the decrees of the Council of Constance. An important weapon in the papacy’s struggle to regain its full authority was propaganda, including not only the stream of writings that zealously advocated the pope’s primacy and plenitude of power, but also sculpture and paintings. The pair of bronze doors of the central porch of Saint Peter’s in Rome are an early but telling example (fig. 1).8 They were commissioned by Martin V’s successor, Pope Eugenius IV, who added to the

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 10

papacy’s already enormous problems with his impulsive character and lack of political competence. Within a year after his election in 1431, he dissolved the Council of Basel, which had been summoned by Martin V. In 1433, however, he had to back down and acknowledge its legitimacy. The reunion with the Eastern Church in 1439 and its recognition of papal primacy gave a new boost to his authority, but could not prevent a group of unhappy council members from electing an antipope, Felix V. Eugenius was also confronted with huge problems in the city of Rome. In 1434, he was even forced to escape secretly, disguised as a monk, and was not able to return until 1443. When Antonio Averlino (called Filarete) finally finished the bronze doors in 1445, twelve years after he had been commissioned to make them, they included several direct references to those turbulent years. The doors were removed during the demolition of Saint Peter’s in the sixteenth century, but Pope Paul V had them adapted to the larger size of the central portal of the new church and reinstalled in 1619. There, in more or less the original site, they can still be seen. The two doors each consist of three large, rectangular panels situated one above the other, separated by horizontal strips with little historical scenes and surrounded by borders of acanthus scrolls. The upper panels show Christ enthroned making a blessing gesture, and the Holy Virgin Mary in glory; the middle panels show the standing figures of Saint Paul and Saint Peter, and the bottom, square panels show the martyrdom of both saints. Together they illustrate Christ as the head of the church, Saint Mary as its symbol, and Paul and Peter as its founders. The panel with the standing Saint  Peter makes this rather general symbolism more specific (fig. 2). It shows the saint entrusting the keys he received from Christ to a kneeling pope, thus illustrating that papal authority derives directly from Peter. Two inscriptions make this meaning more explicit. One says, “Saint Peter the apostle” and the other “Pope Eugenius IV from Venice,” denoting that the kneeling pope is not any pope, but Eugenius himself. The horizontal strips between the panels elaborate on this theme of Pope Eugenius and papal authority with concrete historical examples. The left strip between the upper and middle panels (fig. 3) shows the Greek delegation leaving Constantinople to attend the Council of Ferrara in 1438 and Emperor John VIII Palaeologus kneeling

12/7/12 1:44 PM

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Church  

S  11

fig. 2  Antonio Filarete, Saint Peter Handing the Keys to Pope Eugenius IV. Panel of the right bronze door of the central portal of Saint Peter’s, Rome, 1433–45. By kind permission of the Fabbrica di San Pietro in Vaticano.

before Pope Eugenius. The strip on the right depicts the pope and the emperor attending the Council of Florence in 1439. The left strip between the middle and the lower panels depicts Pope Eugenius crowning Emperor Sigismund in Rome in 1433, followed by their ride through the city. The right strip shows the Jacobites (Syrians) accepting the agreement of unification

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 11

with the Western Church and departing from Rome in 1443. Inscriptions in Latin explain the quintessence of these scenes, pompously concluding, “These are the illustrious proceedings of Eugenius IV, they are the testimonials of his lofty spirit.”9 The arrangement of the various scenes over the left and right doors reveals a carefully thought-out scheme. The scenes

12/7/12 1:44 PM

12  S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 3  Antonio Filarete, central panels of the bronze doors of Saint Peter’s, Rome, 1433–45. By kind permission of the Fabbrica di San Pietro in Vaticano. The small scenes above and below the large panels with Saints Paul and Peter show events from the pontificate of Eugenius IV, explained by Latin inscriptions. (Top left) The arrival of the Greek delegation at the Council of Ferrara, 1438, with Emperor John VIII Palaeologus kneeling for Pope Eugenius IV. (Top right) Pope Eugenius IV and Emperor John VIII Palaeologus attending the Council of Florence, 1439. (Bottom left) Pope Eugenius IV crowning Emperor Sigismund in Rome, 1433, followed by their ride through the city. (Bottom right) The Jacobites (Syrians) accepting the agreement of unification with the Western Church and departing from Rome in 1443.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 12

on the left door, under the figure of Christ, visualize the temporal aspect of the pope’s authority. They show the emperors John VIII Palaeologus and Sigismund both kneeling for Pope Eugenius, and between them Saint  Paul, whose traditional attribute of a sword is prominently put on view, evoking associations with “the sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17). On the right door, scenes showing the unification of the church under Pope Eugenius  IV as its supreme leader illustrate the spiritual power of the papacy. The central panel, with Saint Peter handing the keys to Eugenius, underscores the pope’s unlimited authority. Together, the doors bear out the papal claims of plenitude of power in both temporal and spiritual matters. These are the claims made by any pope, but within the difficult circumstances of the 1430s and 1440s they were especially relevant for Eugenius IV. The universal claims and entitlements of the papacy, which are the concerns of any pope in any time, are demonstrated via one specific pope, Eugenius IV, giving the events of his life a timeless dimension. This careful balancing of generality and specificity set the example for papal propaganda in the two centuries to come. The fresco paintings on the walls of the Sistine Chapel offer another example of papal propaganda (fig.  4).10 They were commissioned by Sixtus IV, who was, more than thirty years after Eugenius, still battling with the general council. The conflict had flared up because of Sixtus’s ruthless aggrandizement of the papacy and of his own family. At the same time, the

12/7/12 1:44 PM

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Church  

French King Louis XI, with whom he had strained relations, tried to outmaneuver him by appealing to a general council. The general council thus not only constituted a threat to the papal authority from within the church, but was prone to be (mis)used by secular rulers as a political instrument to put pressure on the pope. Sixtus’s response, as we have seen, was to annul the decrees of the Council of Constance and renew the Execrabilis bull, which forbade appeals to the general council. From 1481 to 1483 he had his claims to full papal authority visualized and legitimized on the walls of the Sistine Chapel. This was part of a project that Sixtus had started in 1477, which

S  13

involved the construction and decoration of the chapel for official celebrations by the pope and his court. The decoration consisted of paintings by a team of prominent artists, headed by Pietro Perugino and including Sandro Botticelli, Domenico Ghirlandaio, Cosimo Rosselli, and Luca Signorelli. The paintings depicted a parallel series of scenes from the lives of Moses and Christ. The two series started on the altar wall with The Finding of Moses and The Birth of Christ (both destroyed in the 1530s to make room for Michelangelo’s Last Judgment), continued over the two long walls, and concluded on the entrance wall with The Fight over the Dead Body of Moses and

fig. 4  Sistine Chapel, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The walls (scenes from the lives of Moses and Christ) and the spaces between the windows (imaginary portraits of the popes from Saint Peter until the year 313, when Constantine the Great officially recognized Christianity) were painted between 1481 and 1483 by a team of painters headed by Pietro Perugino and consisting of Sandro Botticelli, Domenico Ghirlandaio, Cosimo Rosselli, and Luca Signorelli. The paintings on the ceiling were added by Michelangelo between 1508 and 1512. Twenty years later the same artist painted The Last Judgment on the altar wall (1534–41), destroying the original paintings by Perugino showing The Finding of Moses and The Birth of Christ.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 13

12/7/12 1:45 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 14

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Church  

fig. 5 (left, top)  Reconstruction of the Sistine Chapel, Rome, in its original state. From Röttgen, Italian Frescoes, 99. fig. 6 (left, bottom)  Sandro Botticelli, The Trials of Moses, ca. 1482. Sistine Chapel, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The scenes illustrate events from Exodus 2 to 4. fig. 7 (right, top)  Sandro Botticelli, The Temptations of Christ, ca. 1481. Sistine Chapel, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The scenes in the background illustrate the actual temptations of Christ, which are related in Matthew 4. The scene in the foreground is harder to identify. It may illustrate a passage from the second, deuterocanonical book of Maccabees (1:18–23), which deals with the reinstatement of the Law of Moses. fig. 8 (right, middle)  Cosimo Rosselli, Moses Receiving the Tablets with the Ten Commandments; the Adoration of the Golden Calf, ca. 1482. Sistine Chapel, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The scenes illustrate events from Exodus 24 and 32. fig. 9 (right, bottom)  Cosimo Rosselli, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, ca. 1481. Sistine Chapel, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The scenes are related in Matthew 5–7 and Luke 6:20–49. On the right, Christ is seen healing a leper, a story told in Matthew 8 and Luke 5.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 15

S  15

The Resurrection and Ascension of Christ (also lost in the sixteenth century, but soon replaced by new ones on the same subject; fig. 5). The frescoes that still remain on the south and north walls show closely corresponding episodes from the lives of Moses and Christ. The Trials of Moses (fig. 6), for instance, is matched by The Temptations of Christ (fig. 7), which is situated directly opposite it. The Latin captions help make the correspondence more explicit, as both use the word temptatio.11 Thus, the scenes on the south wall show Moses as a representative of the Old Testament, whose deeds find their fulfillment in Christ and the New Testament. Another example is Moses Receiving the Tablets with the Ten Commandments (fig.  8), which is matched by Christ’s Sermon on the Mount (fig.  9). The captions explain that both episodes deal with promulgatio legis: promulgation of the law, respectively, of the Old and the New Testament.12 Moses is thus represented as a sort of precursor, who instituted the rules of God that would be fulfilled by those of Christ. One pair of corresponding paintings illustrates this point in particular. A  fresco on the south wall, painted by Botticelli, shows several episodes of a revolt against the leadership of Moses and the supreme priesthood of his brother Aaron during Israel’s forty-year passage through the desert (fig. 10). God’s intervention, however, made the earth swallow the leaders of the revolt and restored Moses’s and Aaron’s authority.13 The caption explains the theme as “the threat [Conturbatio] to Moses, the bearer of the tablets of the Law.”14 An inscription within the painting further explains this. On a building in the background that closely resembles the Roman Arch of Constantine (at first sight a curious addition to a desert scene) is written a quote from the New Testament: “Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.”15 This makes it clear that the leadership of God’s people and the supreme priesthood are divinely instituted and not to be challenged by anybody. The reference to the general council disputing the pope’s full authority is obvious. The corresponding fresco on the opposite wall, by Pietro Perugino, makes this message even more apparent (fig.  11). According to the caption, it illustrates “the threat [Conturbatio] to Jesus Christ, the lawgiver,”16 but this is actually only to be seen in the right background. According to the Gospel of John,17

12/7/12 1:45 PM

16  S   The Power and the Glorification

Christ was twice on the point of being stoned when he professed to be God’s son, but both times he managed to walk away unharmed. The foreground of the painting prominently displays an episode that is literally the key passage of the papal institution: Christ handing the keys of heaven and earth to Saint Peter, according to the text in Matthew.18 Again it is hard to miss the reference to the pope’s plenitude of power and, by implication, to the unsubstantiated claims of the general council. Just as in the bronze doors of Saint  Peter’s, a balance is struck in the chapel frescoes between generality and specificity. They all represent episodes from the Bible, whose importance for any believer in any time is beyond doubt, and imply that

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 16

if God helped (the leaders of ) the faithful in the past, he will also sustain them in the future. The urgency of this message is underlined by the inclusion of contemporary details, such as portraits of members of the papal court and present-day buildings in Rome. Thus, they link the disastrous attempts to challenge the authority of Moses and Christ to the endeavor to curb the power of the pope in the 1470s and ’80s, making it clear that any attempt to dispute papal authority is bound to fail. Just like Christ’s biblical parables, the paintings appeal to those who have ears to hear.19 The direct and continuing link between Moses and Christ and the present-day pope (whoever may hold that position) is further illustrated by the series of

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Church  

S  17

fig. 10  Sandro Botticelli, The Revolt of Core, Dathan, and

fig. 11  Pietro Perugino, The Surrender of the Keys; the

Abiron Against the Leadership of Moses and the Supreme

Threat to Jesus, ca. 1482. Sistine Chapel, Rome. Photo:

Priesthood of Aaron, ca. 1482. Sistine Chapel, Rome.

Musei Vaticani. The painting illustrates three events:

Photo: Musei Vaticani. The painting illustrates events

(foreground) Christ handing the keys to Peter (Matthew

from Numbers 10, 14, 16, and 26.

16:18–20); (left background) the payment of the tribute money (Matthew 22:15–22); (right background) Christ threatened with stoning (John 8:59 and 10:31).

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 17

12/7/12 1:45 PM

18  S   The Power and the Glorification

popes painted between the windows, above the biblical scenes (fig.  12). They show (fantasized) portraits of the supreme pontiffs from Saint  Peter until the year 313, when Constantine the Great officially recognized Christianity. The implication is that this series is continued by the living pope. Thus, a direct connection is visualized from the current pope, via his predecessors, to Christ and Moses, the lawgivers of the New and Old Testaments, whose authority was divinely instituted. Within this scheme, Sixtus IV himself is notably present, just as Eugenius was personally included in the representations on the bronze doors of Saint  Peter’s. The original altarpiece in the chapel (now lost) showed Pope Sixtus together with Saint Peter and the other apostles as a witness of the assumption of Saint Mary (fig. 13). Furthermore, the inscription on the triumphal arches in the painting of The Threat [Conturbatio] to Jesus (fig. 11) praises his piety.20 Thus, Sixtus IV represents the papacy in general, embodying the claims and entitlements of himself and every other pope. In spite of all this propaganda, the prospect that history might repeat itself and a general council would convene to curb the pope’s authority, or even depose him and create a new pontiff, was not a chimera. Even in the sixteenth century, the various monarchs of Europe did not hesitate to intimidate the pope with such a possibility. Thus, in 1511, the French king, supported by the German emperor, ignored the Execrabilis bull and instigated a council in Pisa. One of the main issues was the deposition of Pope Julius II, on the charge that his conduct was ruining the church (and getting too much in the way of French interests and ambitions). Pope Julius countered by convoking the Fifth Lateran Council, which to no one’s surprise immediately annulled the acts of the Pisan assembly. The Stanza d’Eliodoro frescoes, painted shortly afterwards by Raphael in the Vatican Palace, are certainly related to these events, but again the allusions to current issues are put in general terms. In 1508, the still relatively unknown Raphael had taken on the commission to decorate one of the rooms of the papal apartment, what is known as the Stanza della Segnatura. This room probably served as the pope’s library, and the paintings accordingly show famous authors and scholars from all ages (fig. 14). They astounded the pope so much that he immediately ordered Raphael to continue and decorate the adjoining

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 18

fig. 12  Sandro Botticelli(?), Pope Sixtus II, ca. 1482. Sistine Chapel, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. This is an imaginary portrait of one of the popes who lived between Saint Peter and Saint Sylvester, during whose pontificate Christianity was officially recognized.

Stanza d’Eliodoro. In all likelihood, this room was an audience chamber, and thus subjects with a more political content were chosen. Begun in 1511, the frescoes on the four walls show instances of divine intervention (fig.  15);21 in all four scenes a pope is shown as present, even if the story itself does not require him or his presence is downright anachronistic. In the first fresco, three heavenly creatures, in answer to the Jewish high priest Onias’s prayer for help, drive out Heliodorus trying to rob the temple treasury (fig. 16).22 A pope is miraculously

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Church  

S  19 fig. 13  Circle of Pietro Perugino, The Assumption of the Virgin, drawing, ca. 1480. Vienna, Graphische Sammlung Albertina, inv. 4861. From Röttgen, Italian Frescoes, 95. The drawing records what the original altarpiece of the Sistine Chapel looked like. It shows eleven apostles plus Saint Paul (on the right, recognizable by his sword). On the left, his head touched by Saint Peter, Pope Sixtus IV is kneeling in full pontifical attire, with the tiara on the ground in front of him.

included as an eyewitness to this episode from the Old Testament. In the second fresco, an angel liberates Saint  Peter from prison (fig.  17).23 In the third fresco, Saints Peter and Paul appear in the sky to assist Pope Leo I in deterring Attila and his Huns from advancing to Rome in 452 (fig. 18). In the final fresco, representing a miracle that took place at Bolsena in 1263, the communion wafer exudes real blood, releasing the celebrating priest from his doubts about the question whether the eucharistic transformation really changes the host into the body of Christ (fig. 19). A pope appears here too, though none

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 19

was present when the miracle occurred. The relevance of these four events for the current pope has been highlighted by giving the painted pontiffs (except Saint Peter himself ) the facial traits of Julius II and his successor Leo X, who continued the decoration project after Julius’s death. Although it is tempting to relate the depicted events to the current political situation, particularly the threat of the French, it is actually hard to connect them directly to specific circumstances. Julius II was already likened to the high priest Onias before the problems with the French began,24 and Leo I

12/7/12 1:45 PM

20   S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 14  Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The decorations in this room were painted by Raphael Sanzio from Urbino between 1508 and 1511. The monochrome paintings on the lower part of the walls were added later in the sixteenth century by Perino del Vaga. fig. 15  Stanza d’Eliodoro, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The paintings in this room were executed by Raphael between 1511 and 1514. They were commissioned by Pope Julius II and continued under his successor, Leo X. The lower part of the walls was restored around 1700, but may reflect the original decoration.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 20

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Church  

S  21

fig. 16  Raphael, The Expulsion of Heliodorus Trying to Rob the Temple Treasury, ca. 1512. Stanza d’Eliodoro, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The painting illustrates an episode told in the second deuterocanonical book of Maccabees 3. On the left can be seen the portraits of Pope Julius II and Raphael himself (carrying the papal chair and looking out of the picture).

dispelling the Huns—at first sight an apt reference to Pope Julius’s military campaign against the French in 1511—a general example to demonstrate the papacy’s divinely supported independence.25 Moreover, specific details of the preparatory sketches indicate that the paintings had already been planned in 1510, well before the Council of Pisa and the Fifth Lateran Council convened. In a more general sense, the paintings demonstrate that in every age, from biblical times to the present, God will support the leader of his faithful, whether the pope or his precursor, the Jewish high priest. The popes included in the paintings visibly convey that they feel secure in God’s helping presence. They seem quiet and undisturbed in spite of the dangers threatening them. Thus, the paintings create an image of the papacy as a divinely supported authority that through

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 21

the ages has overcome doubts about its teachings and attacks against its power and institutions. Details from the present relate the events from the past to contemporary problems, without becoming too specific, making it clear that the papacy will prevail over the current troubles, as it will over those of the future. Just as in the doors for Eugenius IV and the paintings for Sixtus IV, a balance is struck between generality and specificity, which makes the paintings serve as fitting propaganda for the pope who commissioned them as well as for his successors. The three cases discussed are just a few instances of the wave of propaganda issued by the papacy, in painting and sculpture as well as many other forms of art: writing, music, and temporary manifestations such as parades and theater festivals. In  this

12/7/12 1:45 PM

22   S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 17  Raphael, Saint Peter Liberated from Prison by an Angel, ca. 1513. Stanza d’Eliodoro, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The episode depicted is told in Acts 12:6–10.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 22

respect, the papal court did not really differ from that of secular rulers, who also employed art as an important tool to promote their status and authority. But neither the amount nor the quality of the papal propaganda could change the fact that, a century after the Council of Constance, the position of the papacy was still unstable. The conciliar battle in 1511 showed that the days when the pope’s authority was taken for granted were definitely over. Meanwhile there were other factors starting to contribute to the dwindling respect for the papacy. In spite of an urgent need to deal with all kinds of abuses and thoroughly reform the church in accordance with the call of the Council of Constance, the successive popes had never wholeheartedly embarked upon this major challenge. With myopic persistence, they had refused to tackle the core issues and continued to perform cosmetic surgery. Yet the need for reforms was real and could neither be ignored nor suppressed. All over Europe initiatives had emerged that found support on a local level, and reformers increasingly turned to secular rulers for endorsement. The papacy in Rome came to be viewed with suspicion, as an obstacle to rather than a promoter of reform. The result was disunity and regionalism, and a general climate of distrust and unhappiness with Rome. The atmosphere grew even more alarming for the papacy with the appearance of Martin Luther. This monk from a reformed Augustinian congregation not only joined the European choir chanting songs of lamentation about the abuses of the church, but started to sing a lead part in directly challenging the position of the papacy. However, like so many other attempts to put an end to the abuses in the church, Luther’s calls fell on deaf papal ears. Besides complaints, Luther also confronted the church with a view on faith that basically made the priesthood and consequently the entire church hierarchy unnecessary. In his view, the relationship between God and man is a direct one, which is not and cannot be administered by the church. Man’s knowledge about God results from his own individual understanding of the Bible, not from the interpretation that the church imposes upon him through the priesthood. Every individual believer is therefore, according to Luther, his or her own priest. Even more importantly, man is not freed from his burden of sin by the church’s absolution, but by inner grace and faith.

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Church  

S  23

fig. 18  Raphael, Pope Leo I Deterring Attila and His Huns from Advancing to Rome, ca. 1513. Stanza d’Eliodoro, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. In representing an event that took place in 452, Raphael took great liberties. Attila was forced to leave Italy before he reached Rome and probably never faced Pope Leo I. In 1550 Giorgio Vasari wrote in his Vite: “In this scene Raphael made Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the air, with swords in their hands, coming to defend the Church; and while the story of Leo III [sic] says nothing of this, nevertheless it was thus that he chose to represent it, perhaps out of fancy, for it often happens that painters, like poets, go straying from their subject in order to make their work more ornate.” Pope Leo I is in fact a portrait of Pope Leo X, who commissioned the painting.

Luther’s view presented a double threat for the papacy. Considering human salvation an individual affair between man and God implied that the church and its complete hierarchy, including the papacy, were marginal institutions. Not only was the door then open for the faithful to disagree with or ignore the teachings of the church—as many indeed did do—but secular rulers had an excuse to curtail the role of the church in their dominions and push back against papal interference in their national or local affairs—and this is what actually happened. By 1520, the gap between Luther and the church had become too wide to be bridged, and in 1521 he was duly excommunicated. Support from German princes, however, enabled him to continue his reformation, which was soon mingled with political interests and immersed in waves of social unrest and other movements of a not strictly religious nature. It marked

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 23

the beginning of a long and disturbing period that was to break Europe up into an assembly of religiously and politically separate territories. Luther’s view of a more individual faith and the nonessential role of the priesthood offered the biggest challenge to the church. In the heat of the debate around 1520, however, some positions that derived from these basic tenets seemed more threatening. One of them was Luther’s position on the papacy. The logical deduction from his view that the priesthood is not essential was, of course, that the papacy is not essential either, and that its supposed plenitude of power is therefore simply not relevant. Yet the papacy was fully responsible, according to Luther, for misleading the congregation of the faithful and allowing the many abuses in the church to endure. In 1520, at the height of his dispute with the church and shortly before his

12/7/12 1:45 PM

fig. 19  Raphael, The Mass at Bolsena, ca. 1513. Stanza d’Eliodoro, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The painting illustrates a miraculous event that took place in 1263. Raphael included a portrait of Julius II, making it seem as if the pope were personally present when the miracle took place.

excommunication, he published a pamphlet on The Papacy at Rome, in which he carefully discussed the question “whether the papacy at Rome, possessing the actual power over all Christendom (as they say), is of divine or of human origin, and this being decided, whether it is possible for Christians to say that all other Christians in the world are heretics and apostates, even if they all agree with us in holding to the same baptism, Sacrament, Gospel, and all the articles of faith, but merely do not have their priests and bishops confirmed by Rome, or, as it is now, buy such confirmation with money.” One part of this pamphlet contains a critical discussion of the key passage in the Gospel of Matthew (16:17–19), which the Catholic Church had traditionally interpreted as stating that Saint Peter’s authority is divinely instituted, that it is plenary and not subordinated to any earthly superior. To this interpretation, Luther responded, the same Matthew has barred such erroneous interpretation in the xviii. chapter, where Christ says to all in common, “Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 24

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope, the Papacy, and the Church  

loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” It is clear that Christ here interprets His own words, and in this xviii. chapter explains the former xvi.; namely, that the keys are given to Saint Peter in the stead of the whole Church, and not for his own person. Thus also John, in the last chapter [i.e., 20:22–23], “He breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” To maintain the sole authority of St. Peter, where there are two texts against one, many men have labored in vain. But the Gospel is too clear, and they have had to admit until now that in the first passage nothing special was given to St. Peter for his own person. After this refutation, Luther continued with pointing out the disastrous consequences of the Catholic interpretation of the key passage in Matthew: Now the greater part of the Roman communion, and even some of the popes themselves, have forsaken the faith wantonly and without struggle, and live under the power of Satan, as is plainly to be seen, and thus the papacy often has been under the dominion of the gates of hell. And should I speak quite openly, this same Roman authority, ever since the time it has presumed to soar over all Christendom, not only has never attained its purpose, but has become the cause of nearly all the apostasy, heresy, discord, sects, unbelief and misery in Christendom, and has never freed itself from the gates of hell.26 With these and similar arguments, Luther attacked the theological foundations of the papacy. At the same time, others were challenging its historical basis as well. In 1519, the German Ulrich von Hutten published a collection of writings by various authors who all attacked the position of the pope.27 One, the Italian scholar Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457), presented strong philological and historical arguments that the so-called Donation of Constantine was a forgery.28 For centuries this document had been considered the authentic declaration that Emperor Constantine the Great had issued around the year 325, when he transferred the capital of his empire to Constantinople and

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 25

S  25

ceded “the city of Rome and all the places, cities and provinces of Italy and the west” to the papacy in the person of Sylvester I. Thus, it had been a major historical support to justify the pope’s claim of supremacy over the emperor in western Europe. Valla’s treatise had caused some stir in the fifteenth century, but this had quieted down when the author found employment in the papal court in 1448. Yet this time bomb kept ticking, and the destructive explosion came with its rerelease in the charged atmosphere around 1520. Lorenzo Valla’s words sliced through the dense mass of papal claims and pretensions: I know that for a long time people have been waiting to hear the accusation I would bring against the Roman pontiffs: a massive accusation assuredly, of either supine ignorance or monstrous avarice, which is enslavement to idols, or pride of rule, which is always accompanied by cruelty. Already for several centuries they either did not realize that Constantine’s Donation was a lie and a fabrication, or else they invented it themselves. Their descendants, following the deceitful path of earlier generations, defended as true what they knew to be false— dishonoring the majesty of the pontificate, dishonoring the memory of the pontiffs of old, dishonoring the Christian religion, and confounding everything with slaughter, collapse, and crime. They say that the city of Rome is his, that the kingdom of Sicily and Naples is his, that the whole of Italy is his, the peoples of Gaul, Spain, Germany, and Britain,—in short that the West is his: they say that all these are encompassed in that document of donation. Is all this yours because of that, supreme pontiff ? Do you intend to recover all of it? Is it your idea to despoil of their cities all the kings and princes of the West and to force them to pay you annual tribute? I, on the contrary, think that the princes have a better right to despoil you of the entire empire you hold. For, as I shall show, that Donation, from which the supreme pontiffs want to derive their legal right, was unknown to [Pope] Sylvester and Constantine alike.29 The impact of critical writings such as those of Luther and Valla—and many others in their wake—is apparent in The History of Italy, which Francesco Guicciardini wrote in Florence

12/7/12 1:45 PM

26  S   The Power and the Glorification

in the 1530s but which was only posthumously published in 1561. A digression on the history of the papacy, based on facts and critical observations and not on religious tenets, was omitted from all Italian editions up to 1621. A  section of it may explain why and, at the same time, give an impression of the critical mood concerning the papacy in the sixteenth century: Raised to secular power, little by little forgetting about the salvation of souls and divine precepts, and turning all their thoughts to worldly greatness, and no longer using their spiritual authority except as an instrument and minister of temporal power, [the popes] began to appear rather more like secular princes than popes. Their concern and endeavors began to be no longer the sanctity of life or the propagation of religion, no longer zeal and charity toward their neighbors, but armies and wars against Christians, managing their sacrifices with bloody hands and thoughts; they began to accumulate treasures, to make new laws, to invent new tricks, new cunning devices in order to gather money from every side; for this purpose, to use their spiritual arms without respect; for this end, to shamelessly sell sacred and profane things. The great wealth spreading amongst them and throughout their court was followed by pomp, luxury, dishonest customs, lust and abominable pleasures: no concern about their successors, no thought of the perpetual majesty of the pontificate, but instead, an ambitious and pestiferous desire to exalt their children, nephews and kindred, not only to immoderate riches but to principalities, to kingdoms; no longer distributing dignities and emoluments among deserving and virtuous men, but almost always either selling them for the highest price or wasting them on persons opportunistically moved by ambition, avarice, or shameful love of pleasure. And for all these misdeeds, reverence for the papacy has been utterly lost in the hearts of men.30

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 26

Guicciardini’s critical judgment reveals the difficult position of the papacy. A century’s stay in Avignon had seriously eroded the solid papal bulwark. The councils of Pisa and Constance had seemed to signal the beginning of a badly needed renovation, but it was ultimately only a patchwork. Then Luther began to undermine the papacy’s theological foundations, while the belated impact of Valla’s writings began to destabilize its historical basis. If the popes wanted their bulwark to endure, they had to react. But it took them years to recognize the seriousness of Luther’s impact and how much it reflected the general feelings of unhappiness with continuing abuses in the church. At the same time, they failed to notice the underlying desire for independence and individuality. They expected these stirrings to fade, as so many earlier attempts at reform had died away, and assumed that the commotion caused by Valla’s writings could be curbed by simply denying his conclusions and restating the church’s authoritative and exclusively correct version of history. Without recognizing that the landscape around their bulwark had been developed, that new strongholds had been erected and the winds were blowing from different directions, the popes kept pointing to the original floor plans and construction drawings, as if these would be a safeguard against any form of deterioration and justify their stubborn refusal to adapt. All the arguments that had been developed through the centuries to assert the primacy of the papacy and its plenitude of power, its superiority over the emperor and every secular ruler, were simply reiterated over and over again. No new arguments were developed, and reality was considered an irritating detail that was disturbing the established and undeniable truth. In the following chapters, we will look at how these centuries-old claims underlie the historical cycles that were painted in the Vatican and other buildings within the orbit of papal influence. History, as we will see, was used to demonstrate the undeniable self-evidence of the plenitude of papal power. At the same time, it was the undisputable presupposition of the pope’s plenary authority that determined how history was perceived and interpreted.

12/7/12 1:45 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 27

12/7/12 1:45 PM

fig. 20  Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome. Photo: author.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 28

12/7/12 1:45 PM

2

The Pope and the King Alexander VI and Charles VIII of France

I In 1536, Johann Fichard of Frankfurt, traveling through Italy, obtained permission to visit Castel Sant’Angelo (fig. 20).1 This enormous building on the right bank of the Tiber was originally built as the mausoleum of the Roman emperor Hadrian (117–38), but had long been used as a papal stronghold. For this reason, it was heavily guarded and normally closed to visitors. In his diary, Fichard carefully recorded all the things in the castle he deemed noteworthy. One of them was a loggia with paintings, in a little garden next to the entrance tower: “Next to the lowest part of the castle, near the entrance of the first doors, is a garden which is most lovely, but not too large. There one sees two sculpted sphinxes, a male and a female one, with the usual appearance. In this garden, there is also a loggia, which has been decorated with old paintings showing Alexander VI, when he was paid homage with the kiss on the foot by—I guess—Charles  IV.”2 Both the garden and the loggia were lost in 1628, when Pope Urban VIII decided to demolish the large entrance tower next to them.3 By then, the circumstances in Rome had become so safe that the entrance tower had lost the defensive function for which it was originally constructed in 1495. Pope Alexander VI had planned this tower to block the road on the right bank of the Tiber, making the castle accessible only via the bridge over the Tiber (figs. 21, 22). Thus, the whole area around Castel Sant’Angelo, including all the traffic over the river, could be controlled by papal troops. This

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 29

was of great strategic importance in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when the threat of a Turkish invasion was constantly felt. Above the gateway of the entrance tower, Pope Alexander had his sculpted coat of arms prominently displayed (fig. 21). The garden and loggia that Fichard saw were situated on the north side of the entrance tower. An engraving by Bartolomeo Faletti from some sixty years later (1557) gives a clear impression (fig. 23). Fichard must have crossed the bridge, entered the tower, gone down a staircase, and turned right. There he found himself in the loggia with three arches, overlooking the little garden surrounded by a wall. This loggia faced north, which made it a very convenient place to spend warm summer days. Its floor was paved with majolica tiles adorned with bulls, flames, and crowns with rays—the heraldic motifs of the Borgia family, from which Pope Alexander descended.4 Its walls were decorated with fresco paintings, which were lost during the demolition of 1628. Fortunately, in 1568 Giorgio Vasari had made a detailed description in his well-known Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, which provides some additional information to Fichard’s short mention: “In the Castello di S. Angelo he [Bernardino Pintoricchio] painted a vast number of rooms with grotesques; and in the Great Tower, in the garden below, he painted stories of Pope Alexander, with portraits of the Catholic Queen, Isabella; Niccolò Orsini, Count of Pittigliano; Gianjacomo Trivulzi, and many other relatives and friends of the said pope,

12/7/12 1:45 PM

30  S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 21  Nicolas Beatrizet, Castel Sant’Angelo Seen from Across the Tiber. Etching and engraving, originally ca. 1560. CKD, RU Nijmegen. This engraving shows Castel Sant’Angelo as it was around 1560, during the pontificate of Pius IV. In the first state of the print, Pope Pius’s coat of arms was depicted on the flag on top of the Castel; in later editions it is replaced by the coat of arms of the then reigning pope. The large gate and the entrance tower were constructed by Pope Alexander VI, who had his coat of arms prominently displayed on them. fig. 22  Antonio Salamanca(?), Castel Sant’Angelo Seen from the South. Engraving, ca. 1545. CKD, RU Nijmegen. This engraving shows Castel Sant’Angelo as it was in ca. 1545, during the pontificate of Paul III, whose coat of arms can be seen on the flag on top of the round tower in front of the Castel. The large gate and entrance tower constructed by Pope Alexander VI can be seen from the side. fig. 23  Bartolomeo Faletti, Aerial View of Castel Sant’Angelo in 1557. Engraving, 1557. CKD, RU Nijmegen. This engraving shows Castel Sant’Angelo as it looked during the pontificate of Paul IV and offers a clear view of the garden with the loggia, in which Pintoricchio painted his frescoes of King Charles VIII and Pope Alexander VI in 1495. The loggia and its frescoes were lost in 1628, when Pope Urban VIII had the entrance tower, including the loggia, demolished.

028-043_de_Jong_02.indd 30

1/2/13 4:32 PM

The Pope and the King  

in particular Cesare Borgia and his brother and sisters, with many talented men of those times.” This text occurs in the life of Bernardino Pintoricchio (ca. 1452–1513), a painter from Umbria who dominated the artistic scene in Rome between ca.  1480 and 1500.5 From several entries and records in the papal account books it appears that Pintoricchio executed the paintings in 1495 and 1496, and that Pope Alexander  VI was extremely pleased with them. On October 29, 1497, however, lightning hit the powder magazine of the castle, causing so much damage that Pintoricchio was asked to restore his paintings. On February 5, 1498, he was rewarded with an exemption from grain taxes for a period of twenty-nine years.6

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 31

S  31

We will never know exactly what Pintoricchio’s paintings looked like, but we can form some idea from the almost contemporary frescoes that Pintoricchio painted in the pope’s apartment in the Vatican—including a stupendous portrait of Alexander VI himself (figs. 24, 26)—and those he executed ten years later in the Piccolomini library in Siena, showing scenes from the life of Enea Silvio Piccolomini, who became Pope  Pius  II in 1458 (figs.  25, 27). All these paintings are bustling with people, many of them portraits of well-known contemporaries, shown against backgrounds that are often topographically recognizable. Areas that might have seemed too empty are filled with entertaining details, such as people

12/7/12 1:45 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 32

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the King  

S  33

fig. 24  Pintoricchio, The Resurrection, ca. 1492–95. Sala dei Misteri, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. This painting gives an impression of the richness of Pintoricchio’s work, which Pope Alexander VI highly appreciated. The pope on the left is a portrait of Alexander VI, kneeling with the tiara in front of him. It is generally considered one of Pintoricchio’s masterpieces. fig. 25  Pintoricchio, Pope Callixtus III Creating Enea Silvio Piccolomini a Cardinal in 1456, ca. 1503–8. Biblioteca Piccolomini, Siena. CKD, RU Nijmegen. From Röttgen, Italian Frescoes, 326. Even though Pintoricchio made this painting ten years after the paintings in Castel Sant’Angelo, it may still give a good impression of what they looked like, particularly the lost painting of Pope Alexander VI creating two cardinals.

walking and chatting and birds chasing each other. Pintoricchio used bright colors and added details in gilt relief. Especially during special occasions, when candles were burning and the gilt details reflected their light, these paintings must have made a rich and joyful impression. The abundant compositions ensure that, even after staring for hours, one still discovers

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 33

details not noticed before. It is easy to see why Pintoricchio’s work was so much in vogue. This general reconstruction of Pintoricchio’s paintings in Castel Sant’Angelo can be filled in with some remarks from the notebook of Lorenz Behaim, one the pope’s officials. He began his service around 1480, when Alexander VI was still a cardinal,

12/7/12 1:45 PM

34  S   The Power and the Glorification

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 34

fig. 26  Pintoricchio, Saint Catherine of Alexandria Dis-

It contains various portraits of contemporaries, among

cussing with Emperor Maxentius’s Philosophers, ca. 1492–

them the captive Prince Djem, who may be either the

95. Sala dei Santi, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei

Oriental figure sitting on the white horse on the right or

Vaticani. This painting in Pope Alexander’s apartment is

the one standing right next to the throne, between the

another example of the richness of Pintoricchio’s work.

emperor and Saint Catherine.

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the King  

fig. 27  Pintoricchio, Enea Silvio Piccolomini Paying Homage to Pope Eugenius IV in 1445, ca. 1503–8. Biblioteca Piccolomini, Siena. CKD, RU Nijmegen. From Röttgen, Italian Frescoes, 323. Even though this painting was made ten years after the pictures in Castel Sant’Angelo, it may still give an idea of Pintoricchio’s painting of King Charles VIII Declaring His Obedience to Pope Alexander VI in the Castel’s loggia.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 35

S  35

and stayed with him as his steward for more than twenty years. Behaim was a learned man and a friend of many well-known scholars. He filled his notebook with all kinds of observations and inscriptions from monuments that seemed interesting to him. Among them are the captions of Pintoricchio’s paintings.7 Thanks to these, it is possible to reconstruct what the loggia looked like and what exactly its paintings represented. The loggia was decorated with six narrative paintings and eight maxims that Behaim ascribed to various emperors, whom he did not specify. How exactly these paintings were situated in the three arches of the loggia is hard to determine (fig. 23). Nor is it clear if the maxims were paired with painted busts of the emperors. The paintings were probably surrounded with grotesques, ornamental motifs deriving from ancient Roman wall paintings, which were a specialty of Pintoricchio. The six narrative frescoes depicted the visit of the French King Charles VIII to Pope Alexander VI during the winter of 1494– 95. (The name Charles seems to have caused some confusion, as Fichard erroneously identified him as Charles  IV, while Lorenz Behaim mentioned him as Charles VI!) The first picture showed, according to its caption, how Charles VIII, with a large army on his way to conquer Naples, met with Pope Alexander VI, who was on his way back from Castel Sant’Angelo, and “piously kissed his blessed feet.” The next picture showed how Charles then, in the presence of the College of Cardinals, proclaimed obedience to the pope “in matters human and divine” (fig. 27). The third painting depicted Pope Alexander promoting two “eminent men” to the status of cardinal before the king and all the other cardinals (fig. 25). The fourth painting showed the pope, surrounded by all the cardinals, celebrating Mass in Saint Peter’s, and the king “respectfully” presenting him with water to wash his hands. The next picture showed the pope, preparing to leave for “the most venerable church of Saint Paul’s [Outside the Walls],” being assisted by Charles to mount his horse. The last painting depicted the departure of Cardinal Cesare Borgia, “who was very dear to the pope,” and the Turkish Prince Djem (fig.  26), a brother of the reigning sultan of the Ottoman Empire who was being held in Rome as a hostage, to join Charles’s expedition to conquer Naples. These paintings may not have totally surprised Fichard when he entered the loggia. A long inscription alluding to their

12/7/12 1:45 PM

36   S   The Power and the Glorification

theme on the castle’s entrance tower may have prepared him. The inscription stated that Pope Alexander VI had reinforced and fortified the stronghold for the safety of the Holy Church and the Roman people “in the year of our redemption 1495, the third year of his pontificate, in which time Charles VIII, king of the French, publicly promised faithfulness and obedience.”8 There is, however, something strange about the combination of this inscription and the paintings. Both present the king as a respectful monarch who is showing piety and reverence by coming to demonstrate his obedience to the pope. Why, then, did the pope need to stress so explicitly that he had Castel Sant’Angelo fortified and expanded immediately after Charles’s visit?

II The goal of Charles’s expedition through Italy with an army of forty thousand men was not Rome but Naples, as is explained in the caption to the first painting.9 Already in 1435, when the Neapolitan Queen Johanna  II died without issue, a related branch of the house of Anjou from France had laid claim to this kingdom south of Rome. After a struggle that lasted several years, however, Naples fell into the hands of Alfonso V of the Spanish house of Aragon, who then became King Alfonso I of Naples (1442–58). The death of Alfonso’s son and successor King Ferrante  I on January  25, 1494, was the immediate cause for Charles VIII to challenge the new Neapolitan King Alfonso II and revive the French claim to Naples by bringing up his Angevin inheritance. Officially, however, Naples was a papal fiefdom, and consequently the pope’s position in this dispute was of great importance. Initially Alexander tried to stay out of this conflict, but after a period of hesitation he chose the side of the house of Aragon. An important reason for this choice was his fear of French dominance over Italian and consequently papal affairs. In a papal bull of March  22, 1494, he tactfully stated that his predecessor, Pope Innocent  VIII, had already committed himself to granting Naples as a fief to Alfonso  II and that he, Alexander, was not authorized to undo this.10 In response, Charles threatened to convoke a church council that would put Alexander’s deposition on its agenda, under

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 36

the pretext that Alexander had not been elected legally but through simony. When Charles learned that on May  8 Cardinal Juan Borgia, in the name of the pope, had crowned Alfonso  II king of Naples and Sicily, he decided to invade Italy, and in September 1494 French troops, led by their king, crossed the Alps. The invading army advanced rapidly. A  treaty with the Duke of Milan and the neutrality of the Venetians secured the French a fast passage through northern Italy. They passed by Florence, which was struggling with internal political problems, without much delay, and in December were already on their way to the eternal city. Diplomatic missions and proposals to negotiate had no effect. Charles stuck to his decision to spend Christmas in Rome, where he could personally urge the pope to support his claims to the Neapolitan throne. In Rome, meanwhile, tension rose to desperation.11 The pope did not have enough troops to defend the city and started to inquire about taking refuge in Naples. Those cardinals who from the start had endorsed the French claims now began to receive increasing support from their colleagues. The population grew frantic, and representatives of the people threatened to open the city gates if the pope did not come to an agreement with the French king within two days. On December 18, everything in the Vatican except beds and tableware was packed and prepared for a flight. Valuables had been moved to Castel Sant’Angelo, and the cardinals’ horses were harnessed. Finally, on Christmas Eve, the pope decided to resist the king no longer, and three days later the first French troops marched into the city. On December 31, the king himself entered Rome, followed in his retinue by a number of cardinals. He received the keys of the city from the authorities and took up residence in the Palazzo di San Marco, the present Palazzo Venezia, in the very center of Rome. There all but two of the cardinals came to pay him homage. Yet the fear and nervousness in the city kept growing. The French troops were hard to control and committed vandalism, creating much commotion. On January 7, 1495, Pope Alexander, together with a small number of loyal cardinals, decided to seek refuge in Castel Sant’Angelo. To add to his sense of safety, he had “the Most Sacred Body of Christ” (that is, a consecrated host), the holy sweat cloth, the heads of Saints Peter and Paul, and other relics placed on the walls of the castle, hoping that

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the King  

King Charles would live up to his title of “most Christian king” and, out of respect for these holy objects, abstain from attacking the fortress.12 Yet the French intensified their pressure on the pope and threatened to start bombardments. Then, on the night of January  10, a portent occurred—at least, that is how Pope Alexander may have seen it. A part of the castle’s walls suddenly collapsed, killing three people. Whether because he considered it a premonition from God or simply out of fear, he decided to start negotiations with the king.13 Alexander could boast long political experience, having been one of the highest-ranking cardinals for more than thirty years before his election.14 Charles, on the other hand, was an unrealistic young man barely twenty-five years old who had been king for only three years. During the negotiations, which were pursued by diplomats, the pope made concessions on a number of issues, but managed, with long and vague formulations, to evade the main point: support of Charles’s claim to Naples. It was agreed that the French troops would have free passage through papal territory, that the cardinals who had sided with the French would not be punished, and that Cardinal Cesare Borgia—a son of Pope Alexander—would accompany the French king for four months as cardinal-legate (which meant in practice that he would be the king’s hostage). Moreover, it was arranged that the Turkish Prince Djem would be handed over to the French (fig. 26).15 The French, from their side, had to concede that Castel Sant’Angelo would not be handed over to them, that the king would no longer urge for a church council, and that he would properly show his obedience to the pope. Thus, the main issue remained unsettled. The way was now free for a personal meeting of the pope and the king. This took place in one of the gardens of the Vatican on January  16, when Alexander was leaving Castel Sant’Angelo to return to the papal palace. Charles took advantage of the occasion by requesting that Guillaume Briçonnet be created a cardinal.16 This was done on the spot. Two days later the agreements were officially sanctioned, and on January  19, during an official ceremony, the king promised obedience to the pope (fig. 27). From then on the pope and the king would see each other almost daily. On January 20, a Mass in honor of King  Charles was celebrated in Saint  Peter’s, on the twenty-first yet another cardinal was created at the king’s

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 37

S  37

request (fig. 25),17 and on the twenty-fifth the king attended a papal Mass at Saint Paul’s Outside the Walls. Three days later, on January 28, the king and his troops left for Naples, accompanied by his hostages Cardinal Cesare Borgia and Prince Djem. On February  22, Charles and his troops entered Naples without meeting any resistance. The cardinal-legate Cesare Borgia, however, did not accompany them. Two days after leaving Rome, he had escaped. The pope pretended to regret this incident, but did not send a cardinal to replace him. Nor did Prince Djem turn out to be very useful as a hostage. He suddenly died on February 25. According to some sources he was poisoned at the instigation of the pope, but more probably, as others suspected, he died as a result of some dish he was served. French cuisine, it seems, had not yet reached the level it now boasts.18 With Charles relatively far away, the pope regained courage, and on March 31 he concluded the so-called Holy League with Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, Milan, and Venice. Fear of excessive French influence on Italian affairs was what suddenly united these states. Pope Alexander now also had enough nerve to denounce openly the French claims to Naples. However, when in May Charles decided to return to France via Rome, the pope deemed it better to move temporarily to Orvieto. As the French troops neared that city on their way north, Alexander sidestepped to Perugia. On August 5, he was back in Rome and officially demanding that the king justify his behavior. Meanwhile Charles was having great difficulty getting back to France. After a number of humiliating defeats in northern Italy, he finally arrived by October, only to learn that Naples was already back in the hands of the house of Aragon. Two and a half years later, on April 7, 1498, while leaving the Château d’Amboise with plans for a new expedition on his mind, he hit his head against the gate. Nine hours later he was dead. He was twenty-eight years old.

III It is hard to assess the results of Charles’s expedition and, in particular, his stay in Rome. The outcome was rather equivocal, and, given the circumstances, it may have been more of a success for the pope than for the king. Nevertheless, at the time

12/7/12 1:45 PM

38   S   The Power and the Glorification

the situation was quite embarrassing, if not humiliating, for the supreme pontiff. In spite of the agreements they reached, the pope did not trust King Charles, and with the Holy League in mind he had every reason to fear a French return. This makes it understandable why Alexander decided to restore and reinforce Castel Sant’Angelo as soon as the king had left Rome (fig.  28). The sudden collapse of a wall on January  10 might indeed have been a divine omen, but human negligence had certainly contributed to it.19 The embarrassing situation the pope was in may raise suspicions about Pintoricchio’s paintings, which depict the French king as a respectful, courteous, and obedient ruler. Do they give a “correct” and trustworthy impression of what had happened? How exactly did the events that he depicts take place? The details of the suspenseful weeks around Christmas 1494 were minutely recorded by the papal master of ceremonies, Johannes Burckard of Strasbourg. Burckard had carried out this important position with zeal and accuracy since 1481.20 In his diary he meticulously noted down anything ceremonial that happened, so that he or his successors, should the occasion arise, could use his notes as a kind of guide. His obsession with his job went so far that when Charles was nearing Rome and everyone was fearing for his life and possessions, Burckard was mainly worried that the French would not observe the proper protocol. He does not come off as a particularly nice man himself, and does not seem to have liked or respected Pope Alexander very much. Still, his account of what happened is considered to be fairly accurate, and it is revealing to compare it with Pintoricchio’s depictions.21 Pintoricchio’s cycle passes over all that preceded the first personal encounter between the pope and the king. It starts with their meeting on January  16, when their delegates had concluded the negotiations and the pope returned from Castel Sant’Angelo to the Vatican. “In a garden,” according to the painting’s caption, “the king piously kissed his [Alexander’s] blessed feet” (fig. 27). Burckard’s report relates more precisely that the meeting took place in “the second private garden” of the Vatican, when the pope was being carried in his litter over the walkway from Castel Sant’Angelo to the Vatican. The king’s foot kiss was the conventional way of greeting

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 38

the supreme pontiff. It stemmed from a long tradition according to which it was given only to the highest-ranking officials, such as the emperors of classical antiquity. In the course of time, however, this mark of honor had been transferred to the pope, who claimed it as successor of Saint Peter.22 Still, even though it was traditional and proper, the act of kneeling for the supreme pontiff and kissing his foot may have felt humiliating for the king of France, especially at a time when he in fact held both Rome and the pope in his grip. Alexander must have sensed this and acted accordingly. Burckard’s eyewitness account relates that Alexander pretended not to notice when the king, as soon as he caught sight of the pope, still at a distance of some six meters, twice genuflected. However, when Charles came closer, the pope took off his biretta (cap) and embraced and kissed the king, thus preventing him from genuflecting for the third time and kissing his foot. “They now both had their heads uncovered, and hence the king did kiss neither the foot nor the hand of the pope. The pope did not want to put his biretta back on again before the king would have covered his head, and finally they covered their heads at the same moment, the pope putting his hand on the headgear of the king, so that he would not be exposed.” On January 19, the king publicly proclaimed his obedience to the pope. This, too, was a ritual that kings and emperors traditionally performed. It was a sign of their subservience and loyalty to Christ and his vicar on Earth, rather than to the particular person of the reigning pope. In Pintoricchio’s painting Charles proclaims his obedience “after kissing the holy feet” in the presence of the College of Cardinals (fig. 27). According to Burckard’s report, however, the course of events was different. On the preceding day, Burckard had gone over all the details of the protocol with the pope. It was decided that the king would kiss the foot, hands, and mouth (in this order) of the pope, and that the president of the Parisian Parliament would give a little speech in the name of the king. In it, he would acknowledge Alexander as “the true pope and the representative and successor of Saint Peter,” and proclaim obedience to him. The next day, however, the king did not appear at the appointed hour. Burckard was dispatched to inquire and came back with the message that the king first wanted to hear Mass in Saint Peter’s

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the King  

and have lunch. Accompanied by a number of cardinals and officials, Burckard was sent to the king for the second time, but was left waiting for yet another hour. Only then he could instruct the king on the details of the ceremony, and at long last they proceeded to the papal audience hall. On entering the hall, the king made the required three genuflections, kissed the pope on his foot, hands, and mouth, and took a stand on the left side of his throne. This was contrary to the rules of the protocol, according to which the king had to sit between the cardinals, in a position subservient to the pope. Nor were the circumstances under which the ceremony took place as solemn as required. The many French courtiers

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 39

S  39

fig. 28  Baccio Pontelli(?), Castel Sant’Angelo Around 1490, Before the Restoration Under Pope Alexander VI. Madrid, Escorial, Codex Escurialensis, fol. 26v. CKD, RU Nijmegen. This drawing illustrates what the Castel Sant’Angelo looked like when Pope Alexander VI took refuge in it, shortly before he had it restored and reinforced.

12/7/12 1:45 PM

40   S   The Power and the Glorification

in the room pushed the cardinals around, causing confusion and irritation with their “insolence and presumption.” At the appointed moment, Burckard whispered to the king that he should now proclaim his obedience to the pope, but instead the president of the Parisian Parliament stepped forward, knelt, and brought up three demands, one of which was support for the king’s claims to Naples. Pope Alexander answered in diplomatic, elusive words. Then the king declared, with extreme economy of words and in a mixture of French and Italian: “Tre sant per [Très Saint Père] gie son venuto per far obedientia et reverentia a vostra Santità como son soliti a fare li mei precesorri re de Franza.” The president stood up and repeated this statement at more length. Meanwhile the pope, sitting on his throne, held the hand of the king standing next to him, and after the ceremony led him by the hand to the adjoining room. Pintoricchio’s next painting shows the creation of two cardinals, “with the common approval of the Senate” (that is, the College of Cardinals) (fig. 25). This scene seems to have been a combination of two events that took place on separate days. The first occurred on January  16, during the first meeting of the pope and the king in the secret garden. After the fumbling with the hats, the king took advantage of the pope’s efforts not to make him feel humiliated and requested that Guillaume Briçonnet be created a cardinal. Briçonnet was bishop of Saint Malo and an advisor to the king; he would later become one of the leaders of the reform movement within the Catholic Church.23 The king’s request was granted without delay. Cardinal Cesare Borgia lent his red hat, and Burckard grabbed a cloak from the room of Cardinal Antoniotto Pallavicini. On Burckard’s advice, the actual creation did not take place in the garden but in one of the papal rooms, where the pope solemnly declared that he had consulted all the cardinals about raising Briçonnet to the status of cardinal and had received their common consent. To this, all the cardinals applauded, “so as to honor and oblige the king.” Then, with some improvisation, the appropriate ceremony was enacted. Five days later, during a secret consistory, the pope slid the cardinal’s ring onto Briçonnet’s finger and made him titular of the Church of Santa Pudenziana. During the same ceremony, again at the king’s instigation, the pope created another French cardinal,

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 40

Philippe de Luxembourg, a relative of Charles who was bishop of Le  Mans.24 Most probably, Pintoricchio’s painting illustrated this secret consistory of January 21. On January 20, at Charles’s request, Pope Alexander celebrated Mass in Saint Peter’s. Pintoricchio depicts how, during that ceremony, the king “respectfully” ministered water to the pope to wash his hands, illustrating quite accurately what really happened. Before the ceremony started, Burckard asked the king in which order his three assisting courtiers should walk up to the pope and present the various objects that were needed for the handwashing. As it was his job to direct the ceremony, he did not want to upset the French by disturbing their sense of hierarchy. He also inquired if the king was willing to offer the water himself, to which Charles replied that, if it befitted a king, he would gladly do so. Hence, preceded by his three courtiers, the king walked up to the altar, where Burckard handed him the silver basin and poured the water into it. Then the king climbed the altar steps and ministered the water to the pope. “The pope himself—according to Burckard—had not wanted the king to perform this act.” Before and during the service the king kept asking Burckard questions on all kinds of details of the service: what they exactly meant and why they were performed in that particular way. Burckard did his best to answer them all, but after each explanation the king would sigh, “Pur que?” This questioning distracted Burckard so much that at several points he could not prevent the pope from neglecting the proper rules of the protocol. Pintoricchio’s fifth scene depicts how the king assisted the pope to mount his horse when they set out to attend Mass at Saint Paul’s Outside the Walls. This happened on Sunday, January 25, when the conversion of Saint Paul is traditionally commemorated. Although it may seem gallant and polite of the young Charles to help the elderly pope get on his horse, this act, just like the kissing of the foot, fitted into a long tradition. Called the strator ritual, it was supposedly instituted in the fourth century by Emperor Constantine the Great when he led Pope Sylvester on his papal horse through Rome. Subsequently, emperors and kings who came to Rome were expected to help the pope mount his horse and lead him around, to demonstrate their respect to the successor of Saint  Peter.25

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the King  

Pintoricchio’s painting shows Charles acting accordingly, but Burckard’s diary relates a different story. The pope and his cardinals rode to Saint  Peter’s Square, where the king let them wait for his arrival. When he finally showed up, he stayed on his horse and just took off his headdress, after which the hat-fumbling act of their first meeting was performed again. When first Charles and then Alexander had finally both covered their heads, they left for Saint Paul’s, followed by a retinue of French noblemen and cardinals. The last scene of Pintoricchio’s cycle shows King Charles leaving for Naples, taking Cardinal Cesare Borgia and Prince Djem with him. This happened on January 28. The day before, according to Burckard, Djem had been taken from Castel Sant’Angelo to the Palazzo di San  Marco, where the king was residing. Even though the prince had been a hostage at the papal court for six years, he lived in grand style. His portrait is included in one of the paintings that Pintoricchio made for Alexander VI (fig. 26). Accompanied by guards, the prince left Rome before the king and was conducted to the town of Marino, where Charles and his retinue would later also arrive. On the morning of the twenty-eighth, the king first rode to the pope to take leave. The two men conversed together for a while and were subsequently joined by Cardinal Cesare Borgia. Then the moment of parting came. The king knelt and the pope kissed him, but again kept him from kissing his foot. Next the king mounted his horse and waited for Borgia to come. When he finally appeared, dressed in his cardinal’s robes and mounted on a mule, he first donated six bridled horses to the king. Only then did the caravan ride off to Marino, with Borgia on the left side of King Charles. Comparing Burckard’s account to Pintoricchio’s painting, it becomes clear that Pintoricchio made a sort of compressed illustration of the departure. King Charles, Prince Djem, and Cardinal Cesare Borgia did not in fact travel together, but just as in his depiction of the creation of two cardinals, Pintoricchio, as was common around 1500, squeezed several events into one picture. More interesting, however, is what the caption of the painting tells. It explains that on his departure for Naples, Charles took with him (or abducted; the Latin word abducere in the caption can mean both) Cesare Borgia,

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 41

S  41

“cardinal-deacon, denominated as cardinal of Valencia, and very dear to Pope Alexander  VI.” This last statement is certainly true, as Cesare was not just a cardinal but also the pope’s son. (Although contrary to the rules of celibacy, it was far from uncommon for clergymen—bishops, cardinals, and popes included—to have children.) Djem, according to the caption, was abducted “as a captive.” The Latin word captum is used in the singular form, so that it can refer only to the prince and not to the cardinal. In other words, the impression created by the painting’s caption is that the pope bestowed a special favor on the king by making Cesare Borgia accompany him, as this cardinal was very dear to him, while Prince Djem, although an important Ottoman, was abducted as a hostage.

IV When Johann Fichard saw Pintoricchio’s paintings in 1536, he may have taken them at face value as a factual rendering of what had happened in January 1495. Details such as the portraits of well-known contemporaries and the topographically correct backgrounds may have strengthened this impression. Books on recent history, which could have helped to correct his view, were not as easily and abundantly available as now. Even if he had taken the trouble to go deeper into the subject, he might not have found a detailed day-to-day account of what had occurred. Burckard’s chronicle was not accessible, as it was intended only for a very limited number of papal officials.26 Fichard’s impression of the royal visit, therefore, must have been of a solemn event that took place in a friendly atmosphere, along the lines of tradition. He saw King Charles genuflect twice and kiss the foot of the pope, proclaim his obedience, administer the water to the pope to wash his hands during Mass, and assist him in mounting his horse. The king, in other words, was clearly represented in a position subservient to the pope. That was not quite according to what had really happened in 1495, but it was in line with the official claim of the church that its head was superior to temporal rulers. At the time, it must have seemed shocking and humiliating that the proper papal protocol was not strictly observed.

12/7/12 1:45 PM

42   S   The Power and the Glorification

Pope Alexander, however, sensed that in the delicate situation it would not have been a good tactic to insist on his superiority over King Charles as a temporal ruler. Hence he hardly gave the king a chance to kiss his foot or feel inferior in any other respect. Even though Charles did proclaim his obedience, he was allowed to do this standing, not kneeling, and it was only at the initiative of Burckard, against the wishes of Alexander, that the king washed the pope’s hands. Accepting these breaches of protocol was a clever maneuver to keep Charles from causing more trouble for the city and the pope, against whom he had earlier threatened to summon a church council. It was, of course, not Pintoricchio who decided which image of the pope and the king was to be created and, consequently, which particular episodes were to be depicted. For important paintings like these, an artist would get detailed instructions. Pintoricchio’s adviser—whether it was Pope Alexander personally or somebody else—selected a series of events that offered the possibility of making Charles’s stay in Rome seem a traditional royal visit, and of underscoring the pope’s superior position in both temporal and spiritual matters. Pintoricchio’s paintings, in other words, were meant to “adjust” retroactively the real situation and create an image of the king’s visit as it should have happened. The first two scenes, which show the king kneeling for the pope, are obvious enough. From them, any observer must have understood, even without knowing what exactly was going on, that the pope was higher than the king, in all senses of the word (fig. 27). The third scene, in which Alexander creates two cardinals, affirms the position of the pope as head of the church (fig. 25). It was he alone who appointed new dignitaries, independently of and not influenced by temporal rulers. It was hardly to be expected that observers of the paintings would ever know the details of how the promotion of Guillaume Briçonnet and Philippe de Luxembourg had come about. The meaning of the fourth painting, with the handwashing, is also obvious: it illustrates that the king is subservient to the pope. The fifth picture, where Charles helps Alexander mount his horse, expresses a similar message. Moreover, this painting looks like a reenactment of the traditional strator ritual, often depicted in scenes of the life of Constantine the Great or the visit of other monarchs to the pope.27 Thus, the

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 42

painting conveniently masks the more embarrassing aspects of what had really happened. The same is true for the final scene, which makes it seem as if it was a special honor for the French to leave Rome in the company of Cardinal Cesare Borgia, and hence a fitting and worthy culmination of a royal visit that had passed in exactly the way that royal visits were supposed to.

V When Johann Fichard saw Pintoricchio’s paintings in 1536, he did not know exactly which king they showed: “I guess Charles  IV,” he wrote. Yet he did very well understand the gist of the scenes. Visitors with some knowledge of papal history and papal protocol might have recognized, moreover, that the paintings showed a “modern” reenactment of a traditional ceremony deriving from Constantine the Great and Pope Sylvester. Only a very small number of visitors would have known or remembered what had really happened in 1495. As time progressed, what would finally remain were a glorious representation of Pope Alexander VI’s superiority over King Charles VIII, and a demonstration of exemplary behavior of the king toward the pope that could serve as a model for future rulers. Around 1530 the chronicler Francesco Guicciardini described Charles’s stay in Rome in his History of Italy and very aptly concluded, “In order that these ceremonies might be preserved in the memory of posterity, the Pope had them painted in a loggia of the Castel Sant’Angelo.”28 The image that Pope Alexander  VI hoped to pass on to future generations through Pintoricchio’s paintings existed for little more than a century. It was lost when the garden and the loggia of Castel Sant’Angelo were torn down.29 Burckard’s notes, on the other hand, were preserved. Even though they were meant only for himself and successive masters of papal ceremonies, excerpts appeared in print in the seventeenth century, and editions of the full text followed around the turn of the twentieth century.30 Thanks to these publications, it became possible to reconstruct, almost from hour to hour, the turbulent first weeks of 1495. Thus, ironically, in the long run the jubilant trumpet of papal propaganda was shouted down by the private silence of a diary.

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the King  

S  43

Appendix: Alexander VI and Charles VIII of France The inscriptions of Pintoricchio’s paintings in the Castel Sant’Angelo, recorded by Lorenz Behaim, are now in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich as part of the codex of Hartman Schedel.31 They were first published by August Schmarsow in 1882, and more recently, with many mistakes, by Eunice Howe and, again with several inaccuracies, by Anna Cavallaro.32 They read as follows: Carolus Sextus [sic] Gallie Rex. Regnum Parthenopes armis occupaturus Romam ingressus Sex[to] Alex[an­dr]o Pon[tifici] Max[imo] redeunti ex arce Hadrianali in orto Pontificio beatos pedes religiose subosculatus est: Post felicem orbis rep[ar]atio[ne]m: Anno  M.cccclc [sic; instead of: M.ccccvc]. Sui Pontificatus vero An[n]o III Rex Carolus. Rex Chr[isti]anissimus in amplissima edium pontificar[um] aula. sacris exosculatis pedibus. Sex[to] Alex[andr]o Pont[ifici] Max[imo] publicum habenti Senatum in humanis divinisq[ue] rebus obedientiam prestitit Pro Tribunali Sex[tus] Alex[ander] regisque in rem p[re]sentem p[re]tibus ductus Philippum presulem Cenomanen[sem] Regis agnatum. Et Guilhelmu[m] antistitem macloviensem Viros graves universo Senatu assentiente Purpureo Galero condecoravit Ad Petri [templum] in Vaticano ad aram maximam Universo sacro sanctorum Patrum circumstante Senatu Alex[andr]o sum[mo] sacerdoti rem divinam facienti: manusq[ue] lavanti. Rex Carolus honorifice Aquam dedit

Sex[to] Alex[andr]o pont[ifici] Max[imo] carissimum: et Sultanem Zizimum Orientis competitorem magni Sultani fr[atr]em Bazayti Cadmi Thurcar[um] Regis profugum Rome captum secum abduxit The inscription on the façade of Castel Sant’Angelo reads, according to Behaim’s notebook, Alex[ander] VI Pont[ifex] Max[imus] Gente Borgia. patria Valentinus. Calixti. III. nepos: Arcem in hac Adriani ex hyspania et[iam] oriundi mole fossis, propugnaculisq[ue] cinctum [sic]. Ad sacro S[ancte] Ecclesie populiq[ue] Ro[ma]ni securitatem instauravit munivitq[ue] Anno salutis MccccLxxxxV Pont[ificatus] sui III. Quo tempore Karolus VIII Francor[um] Rex fidem publicam obedientiam prestitit Most of the maxims on the vault of the loggia come from the collection of proverbs of the Roman actor and poet Publilius Syrus and have been associated with various Roman emperors. Behaim, who refers to this correlation (“In testudine vocantur proverbia Diversor[um] Imperator[um]”), records the maxims as follows (I have indicated in brackets their number in the works of Publilius Syrus): Furor sit lesa saepius Pacientia [F 13] Agentem ratio ducat, non fortuna Feras, non culpas: quod vitari non potest [F 11] Cui plus licet, minus libeat [cf. C 46] Benefitium dando accepit, qui digno dedit [B 12]

Sexto Alex[andr]o Chr[isti]ane Rei pu[bli]ce sup[re]mo patri ad Augustissimum templum sancti Pauli adeq[ui]­ taturo: Equum inscendenti. Carolus Galliae Rex pedes ut vides plenissime fuit adiume[n]to

Difficilem oportet habere aurem, ad crimina [D 11] Cui semper dederis: ubi neges rapere imp[er]as [C 4] Habet suum venenum blanda oratio [H 12]

Roma Neapolim Carolus abiturus Caesarem Borgiam Diac[onum] Car[dinalem] cognomento. Valenti[nu]m

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 43

12/7/12 1:45 PM

fig. 29  Conservators’ Palace in Rome in its present state. Photo: author.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 44

12/7/12 1:45 PM

3

The Pope and the City Leo X and the Conservators of Rome

I During his stay in Rome in 1536, Johann Fichard of Frankfurt visited not only Castel Sant’Angelo but also the Conservators’ Palace, on the Capitoline Hill in the center of the city (figs. 29 and 30). In those days, the Capitoline Piazza looked quite different than it does now (figs. 31 and 32). There was no pavement, and there were only two palaces. To reach either of them, one had to walk through sand and dust, and on rainy days through mud. The famous equestrian statue of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the crowning glory of the piazza, which has recently been replaced by a copy, was still standing near the Church of Saint John Lateran (fig. 33). On the left side of the piazza there was only a sort of wall, behind which arose the medieval Church of Santa Maria in Aracoeli (fig. 34). The palace at the back of the piazza, overlooking the Forum Romanum, was the seat of the city’s senator. On the right was the Conservators’ Palace. Fichard entered it and, crossing the loggia, climbed the staircase to the first floor (fig. 37). In his diary, he recorded: At the left of the staircase opens up a most elegant hall. At the back of it, placed in the middle of the wall, one sees a very big marble statue of Pope Leo X, seated, which is beautiful and made out of one solid piece of marble. It is placed on some sort of an altar with an inscription. . . . In this same hall, and in the adjoining rooms and halls, are the most extraordinary paintings with episodes

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 45

from old Roman history, in which one can observe the togas of the old Romans (similar to those of the Venetian senators), and also the naked arms and knees of soldiers, leggings, girdles, shinguards tied with many straps crosswise around the foot. These kinds of things appear even more clearly in the marble statues all around. One also sees there which was the way of slaying with the axe, of beating with rods, of binding to the stake, etc.1 Some eighty-five years later, around 1621, the physician and art collector Giulio Mancini (1558–1630) also wrote about the rooms of the Conservators’ Palace, in his Considerazioni sulla pittura (Considerations on Painting). Discussing the life and works of Jacopo from Bologna, “surnamed Ripanda, who in his days enjoyed a great reputation,” he observed with regret, one now sees just some pieces and fragments [of his paintings in the Capitoline rooms], and it is a pity that they have been torn from the walls—not only because of the excellence of the paintings and the glory of that master, but especially because in them many antique objects were reproduced, which in his days were extant. They were copied by him and included in these works, which in fact corresponded well with the place and the stories he was painting. And it is a great loss to the knowledge of antiquity that these paintings were demolished.

12/7/12 1:45 PM

fig. 30  Maarten van Heemskerck, Conservators’ Palace in Rome, ca. 1535. Drawing from his Roman sketchbook, vol. 2, fol. 72r. Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin. CKD, RU Nijmegen. This drawing shows what the Capitoline Hill looked like before the equestrian statue of Emperor Marcus Aurelius was moved to it from the Lateran Palace. This dates the drawing before 1538. Its author, Maarten van Heemskerck, stayed in Rome from 1532 to 1536 or 1537. fig. 31  Capitoline Hill in Rome in its present state. Photo: author.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 46

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the City  

S  47

fig. 32  Anonymous, Capitoline Hill in Rome, ca. 1554– 60. Drawing. Louvre, Paris, École d’Italie, no. 11028 recto. CKD, RU Nijmegen. fig. 33  Maarten van Heemskerck, Church of Saint John Lateran with the Equestrian Statue of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, ca. 1535. Drawing from his Roman sketchbook, vol. 1, fol. 74v. Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 47

12/7/12 1:45 PM

48   S   The Power and the Glorification

How great that loss really was, according to Mancini, “becomes clear from those few [works] that have remained in disgraced condition in the Capitol.”2 Not much has been changed since Mancini wrote these words. It is true that “those few [works] that have remained” are now consciously preserved, but the damage done to them was irreversible. The “most elegant large hall” and “the adjoining rooms” that Fichard wrote about still exist, but look quite different from how he saw them. Overlooking the Capitoline Piazza are now two large halls that were repainted completely around 1600 (figs. 35 and 36). Originally they functioned as audience halls and were decorated with extensive cycles of solemn events, of which no traces are left. There were more paintings in the two smaller

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 48

rooms in the west wing, which one enters after traversing the two main halls. The room overlooking the courtyard has preserved its decoration without major losses (fig. 38). The adjoining room, however, which looks out over the city, lost large parts of the paintings on its short walls around 1590, when commemorative plaquettes were installed (fig. 39). What its long walls originally looked like, and if they were decorated at all, is not quite clear.3 The statue of Pope Leo X that Fichard mentioned also still exists, but is no longer standing in the great hall where he saw it. In 1876 it was moved to the nearby church of Santa Maria in Aracoeli, where it can still be seen today, in the dusty dark of the left transept, placed on its original pedestal, which indeed looks like “some sort of an altar” (fig. 40).4

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the City  

S  49

fig. 34  Maarten van Heemskerck, Capitoline Hill in Rome with View of Santa Maria in Aracoeli, ca. 1535. Drawing from his Roman sketchbook, vol. 2, fol. 16r. Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin. CKD, RU Nijmegen. fig. 35  Sala Grande, Conservators’ Palace, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen. This room was originally decorated by Jacopo Ripanda around 1500. When the palace was remodeled after designs by Michelangelo between 1563 and 1573, the paintings were largely destroyed. Between 1597 and 1638, Giuseppe Cesari, called the Cavaliere d’Arpino, decorated the room with new paintings. Domenico Amio’s statue of Pope Leo X stood in front of the short northwestern wall.

II Jacopo Ripanda, whom Mancini (and others before him) mention as the painter of the scenes in the Conservators’ Palace, came to Rome sometime in the 1490s.5 Probably born in or near Bologna, he was active in Orvieto in the second half of the 1480s, with varying success. He seems to have gone to Rome as an assistant of Pintoricchio, to help him decorate

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 49

the apartments of Pope Alexander VI in the Vatican. Like so many other artists in the city, Ripanda assiduously studied the antique buildings and sculptures he saw, but he created a distinct profile for himself through his study of the reliefs on Trajan’s Column (fig. 41). Erected in the second century to contain the ashes of the Roman emperor Trajan (98–117), the column was originally surrounded by tall buildings. From there it was possible to obtain a good view of the reliefs that circle around

12/7/12 1:45 PM

50   S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 36  Sala dei Capitani, Conservators’ Palace, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen. Like the Sala Grande, this room was originally decorated by Jacopo Ripanda around 1500, but its paintings were lost when the palace was remodeled after designs by Michelangelo between 1563 and 1573. The new decorations were painted by Tommaso Laureti between 1587 and 1594.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 50

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the City  

S  51

fig. 37  Reconstruction of the plan of the first floor

III Sala di Annibale

of the Conservators’ Palace in Rome around 1500,

a  The Roman Triumph over Sicily (fig. 43)

when Jacopo Ripanda made his paintings. From

b  Sea Battle (fig. 42)

Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzy-

c  Hannibal and His Troops on Their Way to Rome (fig. 45)

klus,” 128.

d  Lutatius Catulus Conducting Peace Negotiations

I  First large hall a  “The First Beginnings of Young Rome”: Romulus and Remus b–g  Episodes from the period when Rome was a kingdom, ending with Lucretia’s suicide II  Second large hall a  Deeds of Brutus, First Consul of the Roman Republic On the other walls:  Other heroic deeds from the (early)

(fig. 44) IV Sala della Lupa a lost b lost c  Manlius Vulso Defeating the Gallo-Greeks (left; fig. 46) and Chiomara with the Severed Head of a Roman Centurion (right; fig. 47) d  The Triumph of P. Aemilius Paullus (fig. 48)

period when Rome was a republic

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 51

12/7/12 1:45 PM

52   S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 38  Sala di Annibale, Conservators’ Palace, Rome.

fig. 39  Sala della Lupa, Conservators’ Palace, Rome.

From Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer

From Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Fres-

Freskenzyklus,” 123. This is the only room that has

kenzyklus,” 124. This room was decorated by Jacopo

preserved in their entirety the original fresco paintings

Ripanda around 1507–8. The paintings on the short

by Jacopo Ripanda (ca. 1507–8).

walls were partly lost around 1590, when commemorative plaquettes were installed. What its long walls originally looked like, and if they were decorated at all, is not clear.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 52

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the City  

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 53

S  53

12/7/12 1:45 PM

54  S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 40  Domenico Amio da Varignana, Honorary Statue of Pope Leo X, 1514– 21. Santa Maria in Aracoeli, Rome. Photo: author. Originally this statue stood in the first large room of the Conservators’ Palace, in front of the short wall on the northwest side (see fig. 35). In 1876 it was moved to its present location.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 54

the column from the bottom to the top, like a long comic strip. They represent the various wars that the emperor had concluded victoriously. These tall buildings had disappeared by Ripanda’s day, and only the reliefs at the bottom of the column could be seen from a close distance. However, Ripanda designed a contraption that enabled him to climb the column and study its “unknown” reliefs from nearby, thus gaining an extensive knowledge of warfare in antiquity. Both the sight of the artist in his contraption making drawings of the reliefs, and his growing reputation as an expert on classical art, may have contributed to the conservators’ decision to select Ripanda for a major commission, the decoration of their palace on the Capitol. This may have come as a surprise, since the most obvious painter to receive this commission would have been Pintoricchio, who had dominated Roman painting for almost two decades. But from around 1496 on, Pintoricchio had been carrying out large projects in other places, and so Ripanda may have been chosen not only for his great knowledge of antiquity, but also for want of someone better. When exactly Ripanda received the commission is not known. An  anonymous visitor to the Conservators’ Palace around 1585 noticed, shortly before the paintings were destroyed, that the coat of arms of Alexander VI was still visible in the first room.6 This indicates that here at least the paintings were finished by 1503, when the pope died. Possibly Ripanda started work in the late 1490s, the immediate cause being the conservators’ desire to contribute to the general facelift of the city for the Holy Year of 1500. In the two smaller rooms, however, where the paintings are still in situ, the coat of arms of the next pope is visible, indicating that they were executed during the papacy of Julius II. Also preserved are the coats of arms of the conservators in office at the moment, narrowing down the period of execution to the years 1507 and 1508. It is not clear from all this if the second large room was painted together with the first room, before 1503, or if its decoration belongs to the later phase during which the two small rooms were frescoed. But since the subjects of the first large room were seamlessly continued in the second, as we shall see later, it seems logical to assume that the first and second large rooms belonged together and were painted during the first phase of the project.

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the City  

The interruption of the project must have taken place when Jacopo Ripanda was called upon by Cardinal Fazio Santoro to execute a series of paintings in his palace on the Via del Corso, which is now incorporated into the Palazzo Doria Pamphilij. The poor cardinal, however, can hardly have had time to enjoy these paintings, for in September 1507 he was forced to give up his palace and make room for one of the nephews of Pope Julius II.7 By that time, Ripanda may already have finished the paintings and resumed his work at the Capitol. Whether he simply continued the project of 1500 or started a totally new task is not clear, but the latter seems likely, as the themes of the smaller rooms do not smoothly continue the subject matter of the first two rooms. The subjects of the Capitoline paintings, on the contrary, are quite well documented. Most of this information comes from a long poem written by a fairly obscure poet, Caius Silvanus Germanicus, whose real name was most probably Georgius Sylvanus. The adjective “Germanicus” indicates his Silesian origin.8 He lived in Rome and was in close contact with a group of poets who all celebrated the cult of antiquity in their works. Around 1520, he wrote a long poem on Ripanda’s paintings, when they were still in situ.9 Comparing Silvanus’s verses to the pictures that still exist, one must conclude that his descriptions are fairly accurate and that he correctly identified even the most obscure subjects. He must therefore have been well informed about the paintings, even though he never mentions Ripanda’s name. One instance demonstrating his knowledge is the description of a particular scene in the small room overlooking the city (the Sala della Lupa), which has long raised questions about its subject matter. It shows a woman with the severed head of a man (see fig. 47 below). Who could she be? Two names may come to mind: the biblical heroine Judith, and Salome, also a biblical personality but hardly a heroine. (Salome was the dancer who asked King Herod for the head of Saint John the Baptist as a reward for her performance.) Both women, however, seem totally out of place among the Roman persons and in the antique context of all the other paintings. The fragment on the other side of the wall, for instance (see  fig.  46 below), shows a Roman army commander on horseback, with strong reminiscences of the equestrian statue

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 55

S  55

fig. 41  Trajan’s Column, dedicated in 113 CE. Trajan Forum, Rome. Photo: author.

of Emperor Marcus Aurelius (figs. 29, 31, and 33), while the opposite wall contains the triumphal entry of another Roman general (see figs. 48 and 49 below). In 1678 the Bolognese connoisseur Carlo Cesare Malvasia, who did not know Silvanus’s poem, was confounded. In his book on painters from Bologna, he notes that in the Conservators’ Palace Jacopo Ripanda had painted “the triumph of a Persian king, perhaps Cyrus, and the intrepidity of Brutus when he sees that his sons are being decapitated.”10 (The Roman consul Brutus had his own sons executed for suspected treason.) Apart from the fact that the Persian King Cyrus and the Roman consul Brutus have nothing in common, this identification is especially unconvincing

12/7/12 1:45 PM

56  S   The Power and the Glorification

because Brutus was anything but female. Silvanus, however, describes the scenes as episodes from the war of the Romans, led by Gnaeus Manlius Vulso, against the Gallo-Greeks in the second century BC. During the hostilities, a “barbarian” woman called Chiomara managed to cut off the head of a Roman centurion who tried to rape her. This story is told by the Roman chronicler Livy in his Ab urbe condita (38.33–34) and perfectly fits the depiction. The history of Chiomara and Manlius Vulso is a scarcely known and practically never illustrated episode from Roman history. The fact that Silvanus recognized it shows that he either had excellent historical knowledge or had received detailed information from somebody who ten or twenty years earlier had been involved in selecting the scenes that Ripanda painted. This is also borne out by Silvanus’s description of the scene showing the Carthaginian general Hannibal on his elephant (see fig. 45 below): You see how the Libyan leader, his eye affected by the cold, With heavy losses of his troops, Hurries down the flooded road, where the [even] greater Arno River Rages with wintry deluges and does not allow itself to be restrained By the checks of the borders. Increased in vigor, Unmindful of its summer bed, it pours into the open fields, Sweeping rocks along with a horrifying roar. Hannibal sitting on the back of a huge elephant Occupies the shores of Lake Trasimene with his hostile battle signs. He sets the fields on fire, so as to provoke the anger of the Roman consul, Who is eager for a clash, without the portent of the gods. Lo! The Thunderer [i.e., Jupiter] whom [Hannibal] had hoped to cast off the Tarpeian Rock, Sends as a rescue rain mixed with unexpected hail, And [thus] forces the Punic troops to withdraw their battle signs, And abandon their desire of capturing Rome.11

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 56

This description explains perfectly the incongruity that seems to make Ripanda’s painting so hard to identify exactly. Because of his elephant, Hannibal is easy enough to recognize. Livy writes that when the Carthaginian leader had crossed the Alps and invaded Italy, he had a hard time passing through the swamps in central Italy. The conditions were so bad that he lost sight in one eye. Accordingly, Ripanda has represented Hannibal with his right eye closed. All this happened in 217 BC. On the right side of the picture, one sees Hannibal’s soldiers attacking the walls of Rome. This siege of the city, however, took place six years later, in 211 BC. In other words, Ripanda has not represented one single event, as we would expect, but very cleverly squeezed into one picture two events that are divided by a period of six years. It demands some knowledge to recognize that. Silvanus seems to have had that knowledge. Yet, in spite of his reliable descriptions, Silvanus was not an art historian or a chronicler, but a poet who wanted to show his artistic skills. In several cases, it is clear that he described more than what he actually saw, as, for instance, in the lines about the election of Numa Pompilius as King of Rome: A wonderful picture shows the second king. According to the gods’ instructions, a soothsayer, with covered head, Places Numa, called from [the village of ] Cures to the reign of Rome, On a piece of hard stone, and lifts his eyes to the clear sky. Noting the designated regions of the sky, he scrutinizes the judgments of the gods In the space of heaven, and murmurs with a secret voice. He brings his wand to his left hand, and suddenly putting his right hand On the head of Pompilius and turning to the south, He greets Numa with the proper ceremonies as king, under the watchful eyes of the people.12 Unfortunately, the picture no longer exists, and so the accuracy of Silvanus’s description cannot be checked. Yet it is obvious that Ripanda could never have painted the actions and movements of the soothsayer in this way, in one single picture. What

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the City  

Silvanus did was to turn the account of Livy (1.18) into poetic language. In the literary circles to which he belonged, this was a common and highly appreciated practice. But Silvanus had more strings to his poetic bow. In describing paintings the way he did, he harked back to a literary genre called ekphrasis. Literally this means “description,” but it denotes rather a “re-creation” of a painting in words. This genre boasted a long tradition, dating back to Roman and Greek literature. Silvanus incorporated the various stylistic devices of the tradition into his own ekphra­sis. One of these devices consists of praising a painting for showing things that can hardly be represented, such as certain optical effects or weather conditions, or applauding it for being so “real” and “lifelike” that all it misses is sound or speech. In such terms Silvanus describes the prodigies that occurred during the reign of King Tullus (cf. Livy 1.31): [The painter] showed the face of the wrathful sky and the frightful portents, And he depicted the wintry hailstorms with admirable skill: Indeed, [he even rendered] the dreadfully sounding voice complaining about the neglected sacred rites!13 In other words, Silvanus’s long poem seems, on the one hand, a reliable, well-informed account of Jacopo Ripanda’s paintings in the rooms of the Conservators’ Palace. As such, it is a useful tool for reconstructing the subjects of the paintings. On the other hand, it is written according to the conventions of the literary genre it belonged to. In the following paragraphs we shall see how ingeniously Silvanus exploited them.

III What exactly did these “most extraordinary paintings with episodes from old Roman history” that Johann Fichard saw in 1536 look like? The “most elegant large hall” that Fichard first entered is the big room in which one still arrives after climbing the stairs to the first floor (fig.  37). It was somewhat smaller than it is nowadays, as there was a loggia on its southeast side (fig. 30).

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 57

S  57

The four walls were probably painted comparably to the two smaller rooms that have preserved their decoration. On the short wall on the northwest side the cycle started with pictures showing, in the words of Silvanus, “the first beginnings of young Rome”: the vestal virgin Rhea Silvia being raped in her sleep by the Roman war god Mars, resulting in the birth of Romulus and Remus and, eventually, in the founding of Rome.14 It is not clear how much of this all was actually shown and how much Silvanus added in order to tell the complete version of the well-known myth. Nor is it clear if the various events of the Romulus-and-Remus story were spread out over several pictures or condensed into one. The latter seems the more likely, as it is hard to imagine how the wall could have been divided up into independent small pictures. If there was indeed only one large painting, it would mean that Ripanda had to present the various events as a continuous narrative, which means that a single picture shows several actions and that one and the same person occurs two, three, or more times. By 1500 this way of representing a story was getting somewhat out of fashion, but was not unusual. The cycle probably continued counter-clockwise on the long southwest wall. If we are to believe Silvanus, practically all the major events from the early history of Rome were represented, closely following the account of Livy. The cycle ended on the long northeast wall with a depiction of the virtuous Lucretia being raped by the king’s son and Brutus’s pledge to revenge her, leading to the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus, the seventh and last King of Rome. The history of “the first beginnings of young Rome” was continued in the decoration of the second large hall. Here the painted cycle began with the exemplary deeds of Brutus, the first consul of the Roman Republic. Again the paintings followed Livy’s account, and again it is not clear how Ripanda managed to paint so many episodes on the limited space of the walls. Silvanus’s description of this room, however, is less extensive and no longer a continuing story. He now sketches a parade of the highlights of Roman history, which includes both male and female celebrities (cf. Livy 2.13): The painted wall not only holds examples of male virtue, There are also notable testimonials of female glory.

12/7/12 1:45 PM

58   S   The Power and the Glorification

Cloelia, tricking the guards of the encampment, Swims on a horse across the deep river—a girl rising above her sex. Venturing the distinguished deed of a man, she slips away right through the hostile ranks And takes the girls, who are held captive as the pledges of a sacred agreement, Safe and sound over the river, and delivers them on the sand of the native bank.15 Turning left from the second large room, Fichard entered the Sala di Annibale (fig. 38), the inner one of the two small rooms. Silvanus, in his poem, does not hint at a possible break between the execution of the paintings of the former and the present room, but does have a few introductory words to make the leap from the earliest, almost still mythic history of Rome to the “real” history of the Punic Wars in the third century BC: Who would pass you over in silence? You—the excellent spirits, the high glory of the Roman citizens, Whose famous deeds, that will live on through never-ending years, Can be seen in the inner room.16 This room contains four pictures, each covering one wall. Three show episodes from the First Punic War (264–241 BC), ending with the sea battle near the Aegates Islands, which brought Sicily definitively under Roman rule (figs. 42–44). Especially this latter event offered Ripanda a chance to demonstrate his knowledge of warfare in antiquity (fig.  42). Livy’s Roman history cannot have been used as a source, since the chapters relating these events have long been lost. For the last painting, however, Livy’s work could be consulted again. It shows Hannibal, during the second Punic War (218–201 BC), marching his troops through Italy on his way to a retreat in front of Rome (fig. 45). Meanwhile, Silvanus’s description has become progressively less detailed, possibly because he could not rely on Livy. One scene, showing Lutatius Catulus (fig. 44), is even ignored completely. Fichard finally entered the room that is now called the Sala della Lupa (fig. 39). The short walls of this room were

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 58

painted, on the southwest side, with episodes from the war of the Romans under Gnaeus Manlius Vulso against the Gallo-Greeks, and, on the northeast side, with the triumphal entry of Aemilius Paullus into Rome in 167 BC. Both scenes were partly destroyed at the end of the sixteenth century, when large memorial plaquettes were installed. One of the long walls contains windows and does not have space for decorations. Whether the other long wall ever contained paintings is not clear. Silvanus does not mention any, but, as we have seen, near the end of his poem the descriptions tend to become less complete and less accurate. Curiously, he does not even mention that there are two small painted rooms. Simply continuing to describe individual scenes, he makes it seem as if in total there were only three rooms with paintings. Other paintings that Silvanus passed over in silence are the fantasy portraits in the first small room, under the episodes from the Punic Wars (fig. 38). Latin inscriptions identify the figures portrayed as the various Roman leaders and heroes of these wars (the present inscriptions are modern “restorations” and are not entirely reliable). Between them coats of arms have been painted, including those of the conservators in office when the paintings were executed. There are no such portraits in the other small room, even though originally there may have been.17 Nothing is known about similar details in the two large rooms, but we have seen already that the decoration of the first large room included the coat of arms of Pope Alexander VI. Having admired the paintings and their beautiful classical details, Fichard may have wondered why the painter or his patrons had such a strong preference for episodes from the early history of Rome, before Julius Caesar and Augustus turned the republic into an empire. To answer this question, he might have found a clue in the paintings of the Sala di Annibale (fig. 38). There, as we have just seen, the portraits of the Roman consuls who led these wars to their glorious conclusion alternate with the coats of arms of the sixteenth-century conservators of Rome. This suggests a historical link and consequently a continuity of power running from the old republican consuls to the “modern” conservators. But what would be the implication of such a suggestion for the pope’s authority? Was he not considered to be the sole head of Rome and the Papal States?

12/7/12 1:45 PM

fig. 42  Jacopo Ripanda, Sea Battle, ca. 1507–8. Sala di Annibale, Conservators’ Palace, Rome. From Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus,” 141. The painting has suffered from the enlargement of the door and the window. It shows one of the sea battles of the First Punic War, and is often more specifically identified as the sea battle near the Aegates Islands, on the west coast of Sicily, which took place in 242 BC. Against all odds, the Romans managed to beat the Punic sea forces. The battle was described by the Greek historian Polybius (1.60–61). fig. 43  Jacopo Ripanda, The Roman Triumph over Sicily, ca. 1507–8. Sala di Annibale, Conservators’ Palace, Rome. From Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus,” 132. After the sea battle near the Aegates Islands, Sicily became the first Roman province. In the painting, Sicily is shown as a woman with sheaves of corn on her head, to symbolize the island’s rich food supplies. She is carried around on a triumphal chariot dominated by the personification of Rome. The importance of this event was described by the Roman orator Cicero (Actio in Verrem 2.2.1)

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 59

12/7/12 1:45 PM

60   S   The Power and the Glorification fig. 44  Jacopo Ripanda, Lutatius Catulus Conducting Peace Negotiations with the Carthaginian Leader Hamilcar, ca. 1507–8. Sala di Annibale, Conservators’ Palace, Rome. From Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus,” 145. In 241 BC, after the sea battle at the Aegates Islands, the Carthaginian leader Hamilcar (the man with a turban on the right) traveled to Rome and negotiated a peace treaty with the Roman consul Lutatius Catulus, who is sitting in the center of the picture. The negotiations were recounted by the Greek historian Polybius (1.62). fig. 45  Jacopo Ripanda, Hannibal and His Troops on Their Way to Rome, ca. 1507–8. Sala di Annibale, Conservators’ Palace, Rome. From Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus,” 152. The painting combines two incidents from Hannibal’s expedition against the Romans in Italy. In the middle, Hannibal is suffering heavy losses while crossing the swamps of central Italy in 217 BC. He has personally lost an eye. On the right his troops are attacking Rome (which occurred in 211 BC). They have to abandon their siege because of heavy rain and hail. Both incidents are related by the Roman historian Livy (Ab urbe condita 22.2 and 26.11).

We may never know if Fichard possessed sufficient historical knowledge to answer these questions. If he had, he would have known that, due to complicated political and ecclesiastical bickering, the popes had resided in Avignon instead of Rome for most of the fourteenth century. It was not until 1417 that the Council of Constance consigned the papal seat definitely to Rome. This meant that for almost a century the city of Rome had been popeless, and authority had shifted from a papal representative to representatives of the population. In 1363, against the wishes of the absent pope, statutes were drawn up that put the authority in the hands of one senator and three conservators, who would reside on the Capitol. After the Council of Constance, however, the popes tried to regain their power over the city. Pointing to the Donation of Constantine, they claimed that they had inherited authority over Rome and were therefore its legal rulers. Thus, the republican city council saw its authority gradually slip away from

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 60

the Capitol to the Vatican. New statutes in 1469 confirmed this development. The senators and conservators had to swear that at all times they would obey the orders given by the papal court. Moreover, many of the senators’ duties were moved to the conservators, who had to be selected from the Roman nobility. The conservators were made responsible for various aspects of managing the city, such as keeping it clean, securing the water supply, administering diverse sorts of communal justice, running financial affairs, and protecting the ancient monuments. These statutes, however, did not interrupt the gradual shift of power from the Capitol to the Vatican; if necessary, the popes would simply ignore them.18 Had Fichard been aware of these developments, he might have understood why the conservators had commissioned episodes from the history of republican Rome. In this way, they wanted to illustrate that under republican rule Rome had flourished, had gained important victories, and had expanded

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the City  

as never before. The combination of the portraits of the consuls—the rulers of the Roman Republic in antiquity— with the coats of arms of the city’s conservators was meant to suggest that the city would greatly benefit from republican rule in the present time as well. Scenes showing the Roman emperors were conspicuously absent, and this too was intentional. Did not the popes claim to be the inheritors of the emperors’ authority over the city? The foreigner Fichard admired Ripanda’s paintings particularly for their beautiful “archeological” details, but to visitors with more knowledge of the political situation in Rome around 1500, the underlying message must have been obvious. Yet the conservators had to present this message with some

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 61

S  61

caution. Therefore, they duly included, in the first large room and in the second small room, the coats of arms of the reigning popes, Alexander VI and Julius II. After all, in spite of their heroic predecessors and their present ambitions, they were still subordinate to the pope.

IV The first thing Fichard noticed when he entered the Conservators’ Palace was not the paintings but a large marble statue of Pope Leo X.19 Again it is Silvanus’s poem that supplies us with important information, for it tells that it was made by Domenico

12/7/12 1:45 PM

62  S   The Power and the Glorification

Amio, a sculptor who was trained as a pupil of the famous Andrea Sansovino.20 Domenico Amio (sometimes spelled Aimo21) must have been born around 1460 or 1470 in Varignana, near Bologna, and may have met Jacopo Ripanda, also a native of Bologna, in Rome some time after 1506. In that year a spectacular discovery was made: on the Esquiline Hill, near the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore, a large sculpture was unearthed. It represented the Trojan priest Laocoön and his sons wrestling with serpents, and had been known from descriptions in classical literature22 (fig.  50). The great sculptor Michelangelo hurried to the spot to see the famous group, and the pope’s architect, Donato Bramante, organized a contest for the best copy in wax, which could subsequently be used to make copies in bronze. Domenico Amio took part in the contest, but the arbiter—Raphael Sanzio from Urbino, the leading painter of the day—awarded the first place to Jacopo Sansovino.23 From circa 1510 on, Domenico worked with varying success on the façade of San  Petronio, the main church in Bologna, first as a sculptor and then as the architect.24 In those years, he may have studied Michelangelo’s large bronze statue of Pope Julius II, which had been installed above the main entrance of the church in 1508, at the personal instigation of the pope. In 1514, the Roman conservators commissioned Amio to make a larger-than-life marble statue of Pope Leo X. It is not clear why the conservators gave the commission to Amio, who was, after all, a fairly obscure sculptor from a faraway place. But just as in the case of Jacopo Ripanda, we may suspect that more prestigious artists were not available. Michelangelo, for instance, was involved in various projects, including the tomb of the deceased Pope Julius  II, while Andrea Sansovino and his former pupil Jacopo Sansovino were both working elsewhere. A more important consideration may have been that they were all outside the financial reach of the conservators. As we shall see, even Amio interrupted his work several times to pressure the conservators to pay him. Why the conservators commissioned the statue of Leo X and how they managed to raise the money for it can be read in the minutes of their meetings. One year after Leo’s election, on March 9, 1514, they decided to have an effigy of the pope erected in their palace on the Capitol, “in memory of the benefits and immunities bestowed” on them. With these words, they referred to one of Leo X’s first deeds after his election:

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 62

fig. 46  Jacopo Ripanda, Manlius Vulso Defeating the Gallo-Greeks, ca. 1507–8. Sala della Lupa, Conservators’ Palace, Rome. From Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus,” 160. In 189 BC, the Roman consul Gnaeus Manlius Vulso defeated the Gallo-Greeks, who had invaded Asia Minor. fig. 47  Jacopo Ripanda, Chiomara with the Severed Head of a Roman Centurion, ca. 1507–8. Sala della Lupa, Conservators’ Palace, Rome. From Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus,” 161. The Gallo-Greek woman Chiomara, wife of the prince Orgiagon, was raped by a Roman centurion to whom she had been handed over as a captive. When Gallo-Greek envoys arrived with a ransom to obtain her release, she ordered them in their native language to kill the Roman centurion. Carrying his severed head to her husband and throwing it before his feet, she demonstrated, according to the Roman historian Valerius Maximus (6.1.2), that her body had been in the enemy’s power but that her mind had not been subdued nor her chastity seized.

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the City  

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 63

S  63

12/7/12 1:45 PM

64  S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 48  Jacopo Ripanda, The Triumph of P. Aemilius Paul-

fig. 49  Jacopo Ripanda, The Triumphal Procession of

lus, ca. 1507–8. Sala della Lupa, Conservators’ Palace,

P. Aemilius Paullus, ca. 1507–8. Sala della Lupa, Conser-

Rome. From Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer

vators’ Palace, Rome. From Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas

Freskenzyklus,” 164. During the Third Macedonian War,

Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus,” 165. Among the train

the Roman general Aemilius Paullus finally defeated the

of captives in Aemilius Paullus’s triumphal procession

Greeks. In 167 BC he entered Rome in a triumphal pro-

were the defeated King Perseus and his children. The

cession. The event is extensively described in Aemilius

crying child in this painting may be one of the children.

Paullus’s biography by the Greek author Plutarch.

King Perseus and his other children were probably represented in the center of the wall, between this fragment and the one shown in figure 48. This central section was removed around 1590 to make place for a memorial plaquette.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 64

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the City  

fig. 50  Hagesander, Polydorus, and Athanodorus, Laocoön, ca. 150 (?) BC Vatican Museum, Rome. Photo: author.

the official return and affirmation of all the rights and exemptions that the conservators had lost in the course of time or that had simply been ignored and overruled. No wonder the conservators honored the pope in a way that had been used only for Roman emperors! Already, on April 18, 1514, one of the conservators wrote a letter to the lord of Carrara asking him to grant permission to “maestro Dominicho Bolognese, an excellent sculptor,” to select a piece of marble from the local quarries for a statue of “His Holiness Pope Leo X, Our Lord.”25 Four years later, serious problems arose. There was not enough money to pay Amio, and he threatened to stop his work if he was not paid. Around June 1518 he accepted, in spite of his contract, a new commission and left for Ancona, where he worked on the decorations of the Santa Casa di Loreto and ran into similar arguments about payment. The abandoned

044-069_de_Jong_03.indd 65

S  65

“colossus,” as it is called in the minutes, remained unfinished in a house near Trajan’s Forum, not far from the Capitol. Two years later, on February 20, 1520, the conservators were still trying to raise money to give “to a master carpenter or sculptor to finish the marble statue.” These words do not make clear if they were trying to hire another artist to complete the work. However, on August 24 “master Dominico the sculptor” made his return, as the conservators had raised enough money to convince him to finish the statue. But on January 1 of the next year they were again in search of ways to pay “master Dominico the carpenter” his due. Half a year later, on June 25, the problems were solved, insofar as the statue had been completed and was standing “in the first hall of the palace.” Now the conservators had to turn their minds to the problem of an appropriate inauguration, which was “to keep alive the benevolence of his Holiness towards the SPQR” (i.e., the Senate and people of Rome, abbreviated in the traditional Roman manner). If the conservators’ decision to erect a statue does not seem overly spontaneous, it certainly was calculated. Their initial enthusiasm may have been tempered by the fact that Leo’s generous decision had not significantly changed everyday reality. Just as under Leo’s predecessors, more and more of the conservators’ power was taken over by the Vatican. It was important, therefore, “to keep alive the benevolence of his Holiness” so as to prevent further loss of authority. During the meeting of June  25, the conservators decided to combine the inauguration of the statue with the celebration of the Palilia, the city’s “birthday” on April 21.26 A special committee was created to organize the festivities. Of course, it immediately ran into financial problems. On September 12, the committee reported that the festivities might have to be canceled because of insufficient funding. Therefore, more offices were sold—just as in those cases when money had to be raised for paying Domenico Amio—and the preparations continued for two more weeks. On September 24, however, they were abruptly stopped: this time not for lack of money, but because a letter from the pope arrived, ordering the conservators to “delay the work on the Palilia.” The conservators duly obeyed and stored up the wood and other materials necessary for a temporary theater on the Capitol until a new date could be fixed.

1/3/13 2:51 PM

66  S   The Power and the Glorification

The combined inauguration of the statue and celebration of the Palilia would have included the performance of a play and the declamation of a lengthy speech on the history of Rome by Blosio Palladio, a future papal secretary who belonged to the same literary group as the next speaker, Caius Silvanus Germanicus.27 In what location the latter was to recite his long poem celebrating and inaugurating the statue of Pope Leo is not clear. It is tempting to imagine the first large hall of the Conservators’ Palace as the scene of action, for that is the room to which Silvanus dedicated most of his lines.

V To fully understand and appreciate Silvanus’s poem, it is necessary to know that it was meant to be recited during the inauguration of the statue. That immediately explains why he called his poem a silva, Latin for a laudatory poem. A famous Roman author of such poems was Publius Papinius Statius (ca. 40–95/96), who dedicated the first poem in his collection of silvae to the Roman emperor Domitian (81–96). Superficially, Statius’s first silva seems a description of a statue of the emperor on horseback, but it is actually more: ingeniously, Statius proceeds from praising the statue to extolling the emperor himself. That is exactly what Silvanus also did: singing the pope’s praises through exalting his statue. Yet Silvanus was too clever to do just that. Before he actually dealt with the statue, he described the paintings in the Conservators’ Palace, in an intentionally anachronistic way. Thus, he made it seem as if the artist around 1500 already sensed that one day the statue of Pope Leo would sit amidst his paintings, staring at the noble deeds of the Roman ancestors. Sometimes, however, these deeds were hardly glorious. Hence the painter in Silvanus’s poem hesitated when he had to paint the abominable crimes of King Tarquinius Superbus: While he was turning over in his mind those things that he was going to paint at the bottom of the series, And he proceeded to bring his hands to the paint, The Genius of the Capitol, aware of the times that were to come, In order that the future statue of Leo X

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 66

Would not have to observe something deplorable, suggested little by little different topics to the master, And taking off his mind the feigned crime of Tullius’s death, Proposed instead the predictions of the Cumaean Sibyl, Thus relegating sad events to oblivion.28 Silvanus exploited other literary tricks as well. He drew upon the works of classical historians like Livy and Florus to make his poem sound classical too, just like the paintings that seem to date from antiquity because they closely follow the example of the reliefs on Trajan’s Column. One literary source that Silvanus particularly relied on was Vergil’s story of the wanderings of Aeneas, the ancestor of all Romans, from ruined Troy to Italy. During these wanderings, Aeneas and his men were stranded on the beach of Carthage. Exploring the surroundings and investigating the newly built city, Aeneas entered a temple and was struck by the sight of its paintings. They showed the Trojan War, in which he himself had played a prominent part. In his present wretched circumstances, Aeneas stared at the depictions of his men, his friends, his relatives, and even himself in their heroic and glorious days. He “feast[ed] his soul on the insubstantial picture,” which filled him with renewed hope and courage for the future: “Here first did Aeneas dare to hope for safety and put surer trust in his shattered fortunes.”29 In Silvanus’s poem, the citizens of Rome have a similar experience when they enter the Conservators’ Palace in large throngs to admire Amio’s statue of Pope Leo X, and just like Aeneas, they face the paintings of the glorious past: He [Aeneas] who saved the Phrygian gods after the final destiny of Troy And brought them to the Laurentian fields; Who after a raging storm at sea and the destruction of his fleet, Hidden from view by a cloud while he went through Elissa’s city [Carthage], Feasted his great soul on insubstantial pictures— He [then] dared to hope for safety amidst his dismal fortunes. So why don’t you, Rome, also begin to feel fresh hope?30

12/7/12 1:45 PM

The Pope and the City  

This fresh hope, which the Roman citizens regain from watching their glorious history, finds its magnificent fulfillment in the papacy of Leo X, as Silvanus’s description of the paintings culminates in the eulogy of Leo’s statue: Even though the noble series of ancient history Holds the eyes captive with extraordinary charm, While the monuments themselves, and the highest love of virtue, And longing for praise stimulate the proud spirit of the noblemen, And hinders them from getting a sound night’s sleep, Yet seeing the virtue of the great Leo Incites them, and his presence in the spectators’ minds keeps recurring: An upright virtue, which rivals the famous heroes and in no respect is inferior to the sublime deeds of the ancients. Consequently, the marble statue of Leo X was installed by general civic desire, Hence the depicted examples of ancient deeds Of the Roman people receive less admiration than usual: There is delight to watch just this statue with a constant gaze.31 What is true for the poem is also true for the statue and the pictures: Amio’s marble colossus literally overshadows Ripanda’s paintings, and thus papal propaganda plays down the paintings’ republican overtones. The glory of the republican past is neither denied nor lessened, but is turned into a prelude to the magnificence of Leo’s papacy. Was this really what the conservators wanted? The conservators may have been opportunistic in deciding to erect a statue of the pope in their palace, but the clever way in which their republican ideals were overridden by papal propaganda makes one suspect that they were outdone by the pope. Were the conservators too naïve to notice this, or were they simply not in a position to avert it? There are several indications that indeed seem to point to strong papal interest in the project. First of all, the conservators

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 67

S  67

decided to have the statue erected even though their enthusiasm was not overwhelming. From an early stage, they could have foreseen that the project would develop into a financial disaster, yet they continued. When the statue was finally finished and standing in its proper place, Pope Leo X personally postponed the inaugural festivities, even though the conservators were organizing and paying for them. The pope may have done this for some specific urgent reason, but certainly not out of indifference. How much importance he attached to the event, and in particular to the statue, appears from a special measure he took. He appointed a certain Francesco de Branca as custodian of the statue, with a yearly salary of 160 gold ducats—an outrageously high fee when one considers that the conservators had almost had to cancel the inaugural festivities because they were unable to raise 300 ducats! After Branca’s death, Leo’s cousin and successor, Pope Clement VII, offered the job to a relative, Angelo de’ Medici.32 The Medici family thus ensured that the statue would remain clean and in good condition. There are more indications that point to papal involvement. Sometime around June 1518, Domenico Amio, angry because he had not received his money, left for Ancona to work on the decoration of the Holy House of Loreto. There he ran into similar problems. Again he complained that he had been not paid on time, and again he threatened to abandon the project. Yet the documents show that he was paid regularly, in spite of the fact that he was often absent!33 On May  5, 1525, after several requests not to leave, he completed his work in Loreto and received the final payments. From the written acknowledgment it appears that during those “eighteen months in which master Domenico worked in Rome” (we may safely assume that this was to finish the statue of Leo X), the rent of his house in Ancona was paid by “the late reverend cardinal of Bibbiena” (who had died on November 9, 1520).34 This cardinal was not just a member of the Curia or a benefactor of Amio. He had been a personal friend of the pope and may have acted at Leo’s instigation so as to secure the completion of the honorary statue. In the fall of 1521, even though the official inauguration had not yet taken place, the statue of Pope Leo  X was standing

12/7/12 1:45 PM

68   S   The Power and the Glorification

in its proper place, literally casting a pontifical shadow over the paintings of the conservators. Did this signify a papal triumph? In a general sense, yes. The pope’s image definitely overshadowed the representation of the conservators’ republican past and the expression of their republican ideals. But on a personal level the triumph was short-lived. On November 16, 1521, two months after his directive to postpone the inauguration, Leo X withdrew to La Magliana, his favorite hunting lodge just outside the city, which currently is a desolate metro stop. While staying there, he caught a cold and a few days later, on December 1, he died at the age of forty-six. He never got to see his alter ego in marble presiding over the Capitol.

Epilogue After the death of Leo X, the inaugural festivities were definitively canceled. Amio’s statue remained in its designated place in the room with Ripanda’s paintings and was joined by the statues of succeeding popes. Yet both the paintings and the statue were to meet a tragic fate. Around 1600 Ripanda’s paintings—probably the most prestigious ones he ever made— were already partly destroyed. Those in the two smaller rooms have survived only in damaged condition (figs. 38, 39), but the frescoes in the two large audience halls were completely torn down when the façade of the Conservators’ Palace was remodeled after designs by Michelangelo. One of the last persons to record seeing them personally was Giulio Mancini, whose account was quoted at the beginning of this chapter. The two halls were redecorated by Tommaso Laureti and Giuseppe Cesari d’Arpino, with themes that repeat those of Ripanda.35 Yet Ripanda’s name remained known only to local Bolognese historians and specialists in Italian Renaissance painting. It was not until the 1970s that Ripanda started to receive renewed attention and art historians seriously began to reconstruct his life and oeuvre. Apart from the fresco paintings on the Capitol, however, documented works by his hand do not seem to have survived. Domenico Amio’s statue does still exist, but its fate was not much better. It stayed in its original place until well into the nineteenth century, and was even restored in 1818. In 1876, however, reflecting its decreased appreciation, it was moved to its present location in the gloomy left transept of the Church of

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 68

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and the City  

Santa Maria in Aracoeli on the Capitoline Hill.36 Present-day observers of the statue may amuse themselves imagining how the pope would have gasped at the sight of his alter ego as an inflated Quasimodo. Yet at the time the statue seems to have evoked genuine admiration. Of course, we should not take Silvanus’s abundant words of praise too seriously, for rather than expressing his own feelings he was trying to outdo the Roman poet Statius in his ebullient extolment of Domitian’s equestrian statue. But in 1536 Johann Fichard described it as “beautiful and made out of one solid piece of marble,” while around 1585 an anonymous visitor called it a “magnificent papal statue.”37 From the seventeenth century on, only its large dimensions were frequently mentioned, although François Jacques Deseine in 1713 still considered it “sculpted in a good way.”38 He assumed the artist was Lorenzo Lotti, usually called Lorenzetto (1490–1541), but from 1763 on, following the publication of Filippo Titi’s description of works of art in Rome, the artist was usually thought to be Jacopo del Duca (ca. 1520– 1604), a follower of Michelangelo. In the early twentieth century, its appreciation changed drastically. In 1897 Domenico Gnoli referred to it as “this monstrous buffoon . . . , which seems to have been made deliberately to scare children,” while in 1906 the great scholar of papal history Ludwig von Pastor called it “so ungainly and ponderous that it should not claim to qualify as a work of art.”39 In 1937, Adolfo Venturi stated, “Without wanting to do so, Il Varignano [Domenico Amio], putting the mark of his own meager and feeble style on the

S  69

facial appearance of Leo  X, presents us with a brutal caricature of the humanist pope. . . . The weak image of Leo  X seems a parody of the art that dominated Rome in the time of Raphael.”40 In the later twentieth century, the statue did not arouse more admiration, but at least was judged in a more balanced way. In a seminal article from 1976 on Ripanda’s paintings and Amio’s sculpture, Hans Henrik Brummer and Tore Janson were not blind to its “somewhat flaccid appearance,” but pointed out the similarities to late Roman portrait sculpture, of which the colossal head of Emperor Constantine in the courtyard of the Conservators’ Palace is a good example (figs. 51 and 52). Moreover, according to Brummer and Janson, Amio’s task was far from easy, as Pope Leo’s appearance was notoriously unattractive: “Instead of suspecting the sculptor of having carved an intentionally unflattering image, we may well assume that he simply wanted to render the pope as faithfully as he could, or we can assume that the portrait of Leo was conceived as a reflection of a leonine physiognomy.”41 In 1978, Monika Butzek too did not deny the ponderous appearance of the statue, but explained that it was designed to stand within an architectural frame of columns supporting a pediment, which would have offered a slender vertical counterweight to the massive bulk of the sculpture.42 The entry on Domenico Amio in the 1996 Dictionary of Art states that although the pope’s face has been rendered realistically, “The figure as a whole does not have an imposing effect, and even if this were intentional, Aimo’s lack of artistic skill can still be felt.”43

fig. 51  Colossal head of Emperor Constantine the Great. Courtyard, Conservators’ Palace, Rome. Photo: author. This head was part of a twelve-meter-high statue that stood in the apse of the Basilica of Constantine (now usually known as Basilica of Maxentius) in the Forum Romanum. Together with other fragments of the statue, the head was transferred to the Capitol under Pope Innocent VIII. fig. 52  Domenico Amio da Varignana, Pope Leo X. Detail of fig. 40.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 69

12/7/12 1:46 PM

fig. 53  Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 70

12/7/12 1:46 PM

4

The Pope and the Emperor Leo X, Clement VII, and Constantine the Great

I Around 1580, an anonymous visitor to Rome obtained permission to enter the Vatican Palace. He carefully recorded what he saw, apparently knowing very well what he was writing about. This is how he described one of the rooms (fig. 53): There are many paintings in the Hall of Constantine, which is totally covered with them, except for the lower zone, where hanging permanently are tapestries of silk and gold, which were made in Florence by order of the Medici popes. There are three major pictures in this hall, which outdo the others. They show the battle and the day on the bridge, and the other shows the baptism. A  painted inscription records how Clement  VII has finished what had been started by Leo X, whose motto, Suave, one can see on the completely gilded ceiling.1 This ceremonial hall still exists, in almost the same state as in our anonymous visitor’s description. One thing, however, has totally changed: the ceiling. Originally it consisted of “completely gilded” wooden beams, but as it was threatening to collapse, it was replaced by a stone vault in 1581–82. The new vault was subsequently frescoed by Tommaso Laureti and Antonio Scalvati, who finished their work in 1585 (fig. 54).2 Our visitor’s mention of the wooden ceiling means that he described the hall in its pre-1581 state. Elsewhere in his report, however,

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 71

he records the inscription on the tomb of Pope Pius V in Santa Maria Maggiore, which was installed at the end of 1587 and the beginning of 1588.3 This implies that the entire text of the description evolved over a number of years and that our visitor described the Hall of Constantine at an early stage. Another feature has changed since our visitor described the hall: the tapestries are no longer there. We know from a letter sent on July 20, 1521, to Pope Leo X by an assistant of the late painter Raphael that weavers in Brussels were working on a series of twenty tapestries. They showed putti playing and were “the most beautiful that were ever seen, the most cheerful and rich with gold.”4 By the time these tapestries arrived in Rome, Pope Leo had died, and they are now lost. Most probably the borders and perhaps even the main scenes of the tapestries contained the pope’s family device: the balls of the Florentine Medici, to which Pope Leo belonged. This may have led our visitor around 1580 to believe that the tapestries had been woven in Florence instead of Brussels. It seems strange, though, that they were hanging “permanently.” Tapestries were usually only put up for special occasions, as they were too vulnerable and expensive to let them hang all the time, especially when so much gold had been used. From our visitor’s description, it appears that yet another member of the Medici family was involved in the hall’s decoration. On the west wall, one can indeed read that “Clement VII,

12/7/12 1:46 PM

72  S   The Power and the Glorification fig. 54  Vault of the Hall of Constantine. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The stone vault was built in 1581–82 to replace the wooden ceiling, which was in a dangerously bad condition. It was subsequently decorated by Tommaso Laureti and Antonio Scalvati with a painting showing the Triumph of Christianity, surrounded by allegories of the various regions of Italy, Europe, Asia and Africa. They finished their work in 1585, the first year of the pontificate of Sixtus V, who had his name and mottos abundantly applied on the lowest zone of the vault.

Supreme Pontiff, completed what Leo X had begun, in 1524” (fig. 58). Putting all this information together, one can easily conclude that the decoration of the hall—both the tapestries and the paintings—was a project of the two Medici popes, Leo X and Clement VII. The “tapestries of silk and gold” must have blocked our visitor’s view of the lower zone of the walls, which are painted with monochrome pictures in dark yellow to look like bronze reliefs (see figs. 63–65 below). As the lower areas of the walls usually get dirty or even damaged by visitors touching or leaning against them, it seems likely that these monochrome paintings were considered to be of minor importance. Moreover, part of the time the tapestries would hide them from sight. Above the lower zone are large paintings that reach up to the ceiling, showing episodes from the life of Constantine the Great, the emperor to whom the hall owes its name (figs. 56–59). Our visitor mentioned only three episodes and ignored the fourth, on the wall between the windows (fig. 59). Nor did he mention the historical popes who are painted on both ends of each wall (figs. 60–62), or the large number of allegorical figures. Beautiful as this hall was, our visitor saw its splendor surpassed by that of the adjoining Sala Regia, or Royal Hall

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 72

(see fig.  94 below). When he entered that room, he admitted that it “almost takes away the memory of that close by of Constantine.”5

II The report of our visitor is interesting, but, as we have seen, not exhaustive. What exactly did the Hall of Constantine look like (figs. 53, 55)? The hall is situated in the papal palace, on the north side of Saint  Peter’s. It belongs to a suite of the rooms that have become famous for Raphael’s paintings. Together they constitute the papal apartment, where the pope lived, worked, and received guests. The Hall of Constantine is the largest room.6 Its present floor consists of a Roman mosaic that was laid in 1854 or 1855, but originally it was made up of tiles showing the motto of Pope Leo X.7 All the walls have been covered with fresco paintings from top to bottom. The lower zone, where our visitor saw the tapestries, contains paintings that imitate bronze reliefs and stone caryatids (figs. 63–65). They were heavily restored at the beginning of the eighteenth century, when they had deteriorated so badly that parts of them could

12/7/12 1:46 PM

fig. 55  Diagram of the paintings in the Hall of Constantine. From Kliemann and Rohlmann, Italian Frescoes, 145. Arrow indicates north. A1  The Cross Appearing to Emperor Constantine the Great (fig. 56) A2  Emperor Constantine the Great Defeating Emperor Maxentius (fig. 57) A3  Pope Sylvester I Baptizing Emperor Constantine the Great (fig. 58) A4  Emperor Constantine the Great Donating the Western Half of His Empire to the Church (fig. 59)

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 73

B1  Saint Peter as the First Pope (fig. 60)

C1  Church

C9  Prudence

B2  Pope Clement I (fig. 61)

C2  Eternity

C10  Peace

B3  Pope Alexander I

C3  Moderation

C11  Innocence

B4  Pope Urban I

C4  Civility

C12  Truth

B5  Pope Damasus I

C5  Faith

C13  Fortitude

B6  Pope Leo I (fig. 62)

C6  Religion

C14  Fulmina-

B7  Pope Sylvester I

C7  Justice

B8  Pope Gregory I (the Great)

C8  Charity

tion

12/7/12 1:46 PM

74  S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 56  Raphael and assistants, The Cross Appearing to Emperor Constantine the Great, ca. 1519–20. Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 74

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and the Emperor  

S  75

fig. 57  Raphael and assistants, Emperor Constantine the Great Defeating Emperor Maxentius in the Battle at the Milvian Bridge, ca. 1519–20. Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 75

12/7/12 1:46 PM

76  S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 58  Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni, Pope Sylvester I Baptizing Emperor Constantine the Great, ca. 1523–24. Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 76

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and the Emperor  

S  77

fig. 59  Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni, Emperor Constantine the Great Donating the Western Half of His Empire to the Church, ca. 1523–24. Hall of Constantine. Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 77

12/7/12 1:46 PM

78   S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 60  Raphael and assistants, Saint Peter as the First

fig. 61  Raphael and assistants, Pope Clement I,

Pope, ca. 1519–20. Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace,

ca. 1519–20. Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace, Rome.

Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

Photo: Musei Vaticani. Although the pope in the painting represents Clement I, it is actually a portrait of Leo X, who commissioned the paintings in the Hall of Constantine. Right above the head of the pope, in the zodiacal belt on the rim of the baldachin, appears the sign of a lion (Leo in Latin). The young women on the right and the left both carry a yoke and a scroll with the word suave. They thus illustrate Pope Leo’s motto, “My yoke is sweet” (Matthew 11:30).

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 78

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and the Emperor  

fig. 62  Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni, Pope Leo I, ca. 1523–24. Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. Pope Clement VII, who continued the decoration of the Hall of Constantine, had himself portrayed as Pope Leo I. The woman on top of the pilaster on the pope’s left is identifiable through the little moon on her head as the moon goddess Diana, while the man in the corresponding position on the pope’s right is recognizable as the sun god Apollo. Both carry a scroll with the pope’s motto, Candor illesus (Unstained purity), referring to Clement’s integrity in spite of slander.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 79

S  79

no longer be discerned.8 It is not certain if and to what degree their present appearance corresponds to their original state, and parts of them may even have been repainted totally. Just like the large paintings above them, they show episodes from the life of Constantine the Great, but while some of them represent fairly well-known events like the founding of the Basilica of Saint  Peter’s (fig.  63), others do not seem to illustrate specific incidents (figs. 64, 65). Instead, they show such themes as a battle or the siege of a city (fig.  65), more or less corresponding to the historical subjects of the large paintings above them. Above this lower zone is the area with the really important paintings. Each wall shows one large picture in the center (figs. 56–59), flanked on both sides by a representation of a pope sitting in a niche (figs. 60–62). Our visitor cannot have missed these popes, but for some reason did not mention them. Each of the eight popes is shown under a baldachin, in his official pontifical garments and with the tiara on his head. It is not always clear who exactly they are, as the inscriptions with their names have been overpainted with a questionable degree of accuracy. What is clear, however, is that they represent eight of the most important popes, beginning, of course, with Saint  Peter, identifiable from his personal attribute of the two keys (fig. 60). It is also evident that these popes have not been represented in a historically correct way. As portraits they are mere fantasies, and their outfits have been painted according to early sixteenth-century standards. Saint  Peter, for instance (fig. 60), may at best have thought of a tiara as a turban from Persia, but would certainly not have imagined a pointed headdress with three crowns. Nor should we assume that he walked around in red shoes with a little white cross on the toes, to indicate the spot of the reverential foot kiss. Two of the eight popes stand out because they do not have the rather general features that the others do (figs. 61, 62). According to their inscriptions, they are Clement I (ca. 91–ca. 101) and Leo I (440–61).9 However, a comparison with the statue by Domenico Amio that was discussed in chapter 3 (fig.  40)  shows that Clement I (fig. 61) is actually a portrait of Pope Leo X. This is underscored by the figure of a lion (in Latin, Leo) right above the head of the pope, in the zodiac on the rim of the baldachin. The representation of Leo I (fig. 62), on the other

12/7/12 1:46 PM

80   S   The Power and the Glorification

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 80

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and the Emperor  

fig. 63  Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni, Emperor Constantine the Great Founding the Church of Saint Peter’s in Rome, ca. 1523–24. Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The person kneeling is the emperor, who presents the plan of the new church to Pope Sylvester I. On the right side of the picture the actual construction of the church has already started. The altar in the middle holds the body of Saint Peter. On special occasions this painting, just like the other monochrome paintings on the lower zone of the walls, would be covered with expensive tapestries showing the Medici devices of Pope Leo X and playing putti. fig. 64  Raphael and assistants, The Aftermath of the Battle at the Milvian Bridge, ca. 1519–20. Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. This painting shows a moment that is not described in historical accounts. The bodies of dead soldiers, including Emperor Maxentius, are recovered from the Tiber after the battle at the Milvian Bridge, and captured warriors are brought before the victorious Emperor Constantine. The painting may give an impression of the painting that was originally planned for the west wall, showing Constantine as a magnanimous victor saving the lives of war prisoners. Just like the other monochrome paintings on the lower zone of the walls, on special occasions it would be covered with expensive tapestries. fig. 65  Raphael and assistants, The Siege of a City, ca. 1519–20. Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The exact subject of this painting is not clear. It is probably meant just to represent a battle so as to continue the main theme of the wall with the battle at the Milvian Bridge. The exact theme may not have been very important, as on special occasions it would be covered with tapestries, just like the other monochrome paintings in the room.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 81

S  81

hand, has been used to portray Pope Clement VII. Thus, the two Medici popes who were responsible for the decoration of the hall have both been included in the paintings. After their example, the six other pontiffs have also been made to look like sixteenth-century popes, which creates an impression of continuity from the very beginning of the papacy to the present. Each pope is flanked by two women, who personify certain virtues or concepts.10 Due to lack of space, the two popes on the window wall are each accompanied by only one woman. In  some cases the choice of these personifications does not need an explanation, as for instance Saint Peter (fig. 60), who is flanked by the Church and Eternity. It is less obvious, however, why the personification of Fulmination or Excommunication should accompany Pope Gregory I.11 Maybe there were no special reasons to connect particular personifications to specific popes, and the series therefore represents the characteristics of the popes and the papacy in general. Yet it is interesting to note that Leo X, in the appearance of Clement I, is flanked by Moderation and Affability (fig. 61), while Clement VII, in the guise of Leo I (fig. 62), is on one side accompanied by a woman who literally reveals herself as the naked Truth, and on the other side by a sort of pinup girl holding a pigeon, who quite surprisingly personifies Innocence. The popes are not sitting alone in their niches. Teenaged boys or girls with wings, who therefore must be angels, are helping the popes keep open the curtains of the baldachins, or are holding up a book or scroll. On top of the pilasters flanking the niches stand boys and girls who are also holding scrolls, with the mottos of Popes Leo X and Clement VII. Our visitor mentioned Leo’s motto, Suave, referring to the pope’s saying that his yoke is easy. The motto of Pope Clement reads “Unstained Purity” (Candor illesus) and refers to his integrity in spite of slander.12 The center of each wall contains the most important part of the decorations: a large depiction of an event from the life of Constantine the Great (306–37) (fig. 55). These pictures have been painted as if they were tapestries that curled up at the sides (figs. 56–59). Their upper borders contain the mottos of Popes Leo X and Clement VII. The first one “hangs” on the short east wall and shows Constantine’s vision on the eve of his decisive battle against his rival, Maxentius (306–12), who was

12/7/12 1:46 PM

82  S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 66  Emperor Constantine the Great Addressing His Troops. Marble relief on the Arch of Constantine, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen. This relief was made around 176 and originally represented Emperor Marcus Aurelius. In the fourth century, however, it was transferred from its original place to the Arch of Constantine, together with seven other reliefs, and the portrait of Marcus Aurelius was replaced by that of Constantine the Great.

usurping the power in Rome (fig. 56). According to Eusebius, an historian and contemporary of Constantine, it  dawned on Constantine that support of the only true God was more important than a large army, and so he decided to pray for help. His prayer was answered by the miraculous appearance in the sky, above the sun, of a cross made of pure light and the words “In this sign.”13

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 82

The painter did not exclusively follow Eusebius’s account. In order to create a general sense of “archeological accuracy,” he adapted a relief of the famous Triumphal Arch of Constantine (fig. 66) and further enhanced the impression of historical precision with such details as the armaments and recognizable Roman buildings in the background.14 The painting shows Constantine addressing his troops when the divine omen appears in the sky. Consequently, he is not alone in seeing it; his soldiers are also aware of the heavenly appearance and react emotionally. Curiously, the famous words accompanying the sign of the cross appear in Greek instead of Latin. An inscription on the dais where Constantine is standing explains the scene: “The address through which Constantine’s men, prompted by divine influence, have ascertained a victory.” The ensuing battle against Maxentius is painted on the long wall opposite the windows (fig. 57). The fight is in full swing, and Constantine, exactly in the middle of the large painting, is obviously winning. Sitting high on his rearing white horse, surrounded by a multitude of fiercely fighting soldiers, he faces his adversary, Maxentius, who is slowly drowning in the river as his frightened horse desperately throws its front legs in the air. Again there is a miraculous appearance: three angels hover in the sky above Constantine. (Observers who look closely may even discover the shape of a lion in the clouds!) In his final moments, Maxentius must realize that his fight is hopeless because his opponent is receiving divine help. The battle is painted with a vast number of details that demonstrate the painter’s knowledge of ancient Roman art and warfare. The bridge on the right side represents the Milvian Bridge, a little to the north of Rome, where the battle supposedly took place on October 28, 312. That makes it needless to say that the river is the Tiber. The story of the battle is told by the same Eusebius who reported the vision of the cross, but again the painter took the historian’s account only as a starting point for a composition of his own invention. He included references to antique works of art and details such as the angels in the sky, which are not mentioned in any text.15 An inscription at the bottom of the scene explains, “The victory of Emperor Gaius Valerius Aurelius [instead of Gaius Flavius Valerius] Constantine, in which Maxentius went under and the power of the Christians was established.”

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and the Emperor  

The short wall on the west side shows a beautiful depiction of the baptistery near the Church of Saint  John Lateran in Rome, more or less in the condition as it still is (figs. 58, 67). It consists of an octagonal building divided by a series of columns into an outer and inner space. In the middle of the inner space, an event takes place that is not recounted by Eusebius or any other historian from antiquity.16 An inscription on the steps on the left side explains, “The washing of the reborn life of Gaius Valerius Constantine,” or in other words, the emperor’s baptism.17 This event is told in the various legends of the life of Saint  Sylvester, who was pope during Constantine’s reign (314–35). The first versions of these legends were written around 500, almost two centuries after Saint Sylvester and Constantine actually lived.18 According to these legends, the emperor was suffering from leprosy when in a vision he saw Saints Peter and Paul, who predicted that he would be healed if he converted to Christianity. Constantine summoned Pope Sylvester, who baptized and thus healed the emperor. On the right of the painting a group of people, young and old, are getting ready to be baptized as well. Dignitaries and prelates watch as Pope Sylvester, in his pontifical clothes and even with the tiara on his head (which he normally would not wear during a baptismal ceremony), sprinkles water over a practically nude Constantine. The emperor humbly kneels down, his arms folded on his breast in a gesture of devotion. The last scene is situated between the windows on the northern wall and shows the interior of old Saint  Peter’s (fig. 59). When the painting was executed, the present Basilica of Saint Peter’s was under construction, but the work was progressing slowly. Pope Sylvester, sitting under a canopy on his throne in the central aisle, is accepting a donation from the emperor, who is again kneeling humbly, just as in The Baptism. The donation consists of a statuette of a female warrior. Her shield has the inscription SPQR, indicating that she represents Rome.19 People flock around hoping to catch a glimpse of what is happening, while Swiss Guards, in the background on the right, try to keep them at a distance. In the central apse, other people are chanting hymns and blowing trumpets. An inscription on the column on the right side explains that here is shown “the donation to the church made by Constantine.” Again, there is no contemporary text that relates this event; there only

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 83

S  83

fig. 67  Baptistery of Saint John Lateran, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

is the so-called Donation of Constantine, an old document in which Emperor Constantine, out of respect for the papal dignity, concedes “to the most blessed Pontiff, Sylvester, the universal Pope, as well our palace . . . , as also the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places, and cities of Italy and the western regions.” In the same document, Constantine declares that he will move his empire and its capital to the east.20 The ceiling above the paintings was originally made of wooden beams, which would have made the hall look lower, smaller, and darker. However, the ceiling was gilded, which must have produced a rich, gleaming impression during official audiences, when it would reflect the light of the burning candles. In the 1580s, as we have seen, the ceiling was replaced by a stone vault. This project was completed by Pope Sixtus V,

12/7/12 1:46 PM

84  S   The Power and the Glorification

who took full advantage of the opportunity to outdo Leo X and Clement VII in adding personal mottos and inscriptions with his name. The Hall of Constantine was meant primarily as an audience room for high-ranking visitors, which explains a few important things about its paintings.21 For instance, when Francesco de’ Medici, the future Grand Duke of Tuscany, was received by Pope Pius IV on November 2, 1561, he was first met by two prominent cardinals at the Porta del Popolo, the northern city gate. They escorted him to the Vatican Palace, “where the pope, with his stole, in the presence of all the cardinals with their purple copes, was waiting in the Hall of Constantine, and he received the aforementioned prince for the kiss of the foot, in which only the master of ceremonies preceded him.”22 When Francesco entered the room, he must have seen not only the reigning Pope Pius IV, but also eight of his prominent predecessors, painted on the walls. This made it immediately clear that the pope was the latest representative of an uninterrupted tradition that went back to Saint Peter himself. All these popes were sitting under a baldachin, dressed in their official papal clothes and sticking out their red shoes with the white cross. Francesco must have understood at once—if the master of ceremonies had not given him instructions already—what he was supposed to do: kneel down and kiss the foot of the pope. On the western and northern wall he could see the illustrious example of Constantine the Great, kneeling for the pope as well. The description of our anonymous visitor from around 1580 is rather short, but quite accurate. It is no wonder that the first things to attract his attention were the tapestries. They must have been conspicuous indeed, and in any case the most expensive form of decoration of the hall. Our visitor managed to “reconstruct” the history of the decoration by reading the inscriptions, mottos, and—we may assume—coats of arms, which proclaim that the two Medici popes had sponsored the decoration project. That he paid more attention to the history paintings than to the “portraits” of the popes is easily understandable, given their size. Yet it is curious that he mentioned only “three major pictures”: The Cross Appearing to Emperor Constantine (fig. 56), The Battle at the Milvian Bridge (fig. 57), and Pope Sylvester  I Baptizing Emperor Constantine (fig.  58).

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 84

Did he simply miss Emperor Constantine the Great Donating the Western Half of His Empire to the Church (The Donation), or did he skip it on purpose (fig. 59)? And if he had included it, would he have noticed the shift of focus from the emperor as the central character in the first two paintings to the pope as the main person in the later two? Did that change perhaps have to do with the succession of Leo X by Clement VII?

III The first two walls in the Hall of Constantine were painted for Pope Leo X, as is obvious from his mottos in the borders of the painted tapestries. From various sources we know that the painter was Raphael, who was considered the most important artist in Rome, if not in Italy, and who was certainly the busiest.23 (Michelangelo, by others considered to be the greatest artist ever, was not working in the Vatican at that time, as Pope Leo did not get along with him very well.) Raphael, however, was involved in several large painting projects, as well as in various kinds of construction work and archaeological activities, and was not able to carry out these projects all by himself. His “workshop” therefore developed and executed a large part of the work after designs that he had made or at least approved. During the preceding years, when Raphael had painted the other rooms of the papal apartment to which the Hall of Constantine belonged, the input of his assistants had gradually increased. Thus it must have been clear to Pope Leo X, when in 1519 he commissioned Raphael to decorate the Hall of Constantine, that an extensive part of the paintings would be executed by Raphael’s assistants. We do not know exactly how the work proceeded, but we do know that on April 6 of the next year Raphael died quite unexpectedly, at the age of thirty-seven. The designs of the walls and the scenes of The Cross Appearing to Emperor Constantine (fig. 56) and The Battle at the Milvian Bridge (fig. 57) were already done, and to a large extent the two paintings had also been executed.24 The pope, suddenly bereft of his favorite artist, saw many projects come to a stop, but competing artists immediately tried to grab the opportunity and take them over. Within a week after Raphael’s death, Sebastiano del Piombo, one of the

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and the Emperor  

best-qualified competitors, wrote to Michelangelo in Florence, asking him for help to obtain the commission to finish the Hall’s decoration. Michelangelo did indeed try to use his influence with the prominent Cardinal Bibbiena, but on July 3 Sebastiano reported back that Raphael’s assistants (garzoni, he called them) had already made a trial piece for the pope.25 It had made everyone very enthusiastic—everyone, Sebastiano had heard, but not the pope, who “does not like what these garzoni of Raphael have made.” This may have given some hope to Sebastiano, but nonetheless the commission was given to Raphael’s garzoni. The reason must have been that they had the late master’s designs at their disposal and were experienced in executing them.26 Sebastiano was instead entrusted with the decoration of the Hall of the Popes, a large room under the Hall of Constantine, but he refused indignantly. It did not seem fair to him that he would have to paint the cellar and they “the golden rooms.” “I have answered them that they should have the garzoni paint it.”27 Accordingly, the garzoni continued Raphael’s work, under the direction of two artists who had already played a leading role while their master was still alive, Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni. Yet the pope did not seem happy. On  October  15, 1520, Sebastiano del Piombo reported to Michelangelo that Leo had threatened that if the garzoni did not do a better job, he would destroy all the work and have the hall decorated with “damask wall hangings.”28 However, the pope was not granted much time to be annoyed. One year later, on December 1, 1521, he followed Raphael to the grave, and again the project came to a halt.29 After a long conclave, a Dutchman emerged as the new pope: Hadrian VI. He did not have Leo’s extravagant taste, and was soon to discover that his predecessor had been quite effective in draining the papal treasure. This meant, among many other things, that practically all the artistic activities sponsored by the pope were suspended, including the work in the Hall of Constantine. The ensuing period of artistic inactivity did not last long. Pope Hadrian died within two years of his election, and his successor raised high expectations, especially amongst unemployed artists. Clement VII was a cousin of Leo X and stemmed from the same Medici family that was illustrious for its sponsoring of the arts. Indeed, soon after his election he

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 85

S  85

ordered that the decoration of the hall be finished.30 Clement does not seem to have reconsidered Leo’s decision to give the commission to Raphael’s garzoni, and consequently Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni resumed their work, finishing it within a few months. In August 1524 the room was ready, and on September 5 the Mantuan ambassador, Baldassare Castiglione, reported that “the hall has turned out to be very beautiful.”31 The letters of the frustrated Sebastiano del Piombo are remarkable not only for the light they shed on how the artists were competing with each other and plotting to obtain the prestigious commission, but also for revealing the original plans of the hall’s decoration. In his letter to Michelangelo from September  6, 1520, Sebastiano explained that the first wall contained a depiction of the emperor Constantine, showing “how there appeared to him in the sky a cross in a flash of lightning, [indicating] that in this sign he would gain the victory” (fig. 56). On “the major wall” was to be painted a battle (fig. 57), on the next wall a scene with prisoners who are being presented to the emperor, and on the fourth wall (with the windows) a picture with “the arrangements for boiling the blood of the children, in which occur many women and little children, and executioners to kill them, so as to prepare the bath of Emperor Constantine.”32 From these descriptions—which Sebastiano claimed to have heard from the pope personally—it becomes clear that had Raphael and the pope lived longer, the hall would have looked different than it does now. The third wall would have shown an event not mentioned in any historical account, in which the emperor victoriously and magnanimously saves the lives of prisoners of war (cf. fig.  64). The fourth wall would have shown a curious event that is told only in the legends of Pope Sylvester.33 According to them, the emperor Constantine was suffering from leprosy and was advised to take a bath in the boiled blood of young children. Constantine, however, prevented his soldiers from creating this bloodbath and thus proved himself again a magnanimous and humane ruler who would not allow innocent children to die for his own health. It was then that Saints Peter and Paul, as recounted above, appeared to him in a dream and predicted that he would be healed if he converted to Christianity.

12/7/12 1:46 PM

86   S   The Power and the Glorification

According to the original plans, none of these pictures was to show Saint Sylvester, the reigning pope in the days of Constantine. The obvious protagonist of all the paintings was to be the emperor. When the decoration project was resumed in 1523, Pope Clement opted for continuity on the one hand and gave the commission again to Raphael’s garzoni. But on the other hand, he opted for change and revised the subjects. This, of course, needs an explanation. Was there a specific reason to choose new episodes, in which the main character is no longer Constantine but Pope Sylvester, who dominates over the emperor when he baptizes him and receives his empire? Did Pope Clement perhaps think that they would be more appropriate in a papal audience room, or were there other considerations at play?

IV On October 31, 1517, the German professor of theology Martin Luther published ninety-five theses to denounce various abuses and tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. Others before him had expressed similar disapproval, but he was the first whose criticism led to the foundation of a new church, though this was not his initial purpose. Had Luther limited himself to condemning abuses, the Catholic Church might have been willing to listen and respond. But the church did not tolerate someone who disputed her basic doctrines. Therefore, in 1518 and 1519, Luther was summoned to appear before various papal legates. He refused to retract, and in 1520 he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X. One of the tenets that Luther disputed was the pope’s claim to both spiritual and temporal power. Luther had reached this defiant point of view through his specific reading of the relevant passages in the Bible. He found his position suddenly reinforced with historical arguments when he read Lorenzo Valla’s treatise arguing that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery.34 Luther was shocked. In a letter from February 24, 1520, he wrote, I have at hand Lorenzo Valla’s proof [included in Ulrich von Hutten’s edition] that the Donation of Constantine

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 86

is a forgery. Good heavens, what darkness and wickedness is at Rome. You wonder at the judgment of God that such unauthentic, crass, imprudent lies not only lived, but prevailed for so many centuries, that they were incorporated in the canon law . . . and became as articles of faith. I am in such a passion that I scarcely doubt that the Pope is the Antichrist expected by the world, so closely do their acts, lives, sayings, and laws agree.35 Pope Leo  X reacted by ordering Von Hutten’s books to be burned and proclaiming the authenticity of the Donation.36 A few years later, in 1523, immediately after his election, Clement VII had The Donation of Constantine painted on the wall of his audience hall, making it clear that he, too, considered the papal claim to temporal power historically justified. However, neither he nor Leo X adduced substantial arguments to rebut Valla’s contentions. Apparently they believed they could suppress his allegations by proclaiming authoritatively the Donation’s authenticity. Yet, it proved to be difficult to refute the core of Valla’s message, and in the course of time it has turned out to be impossible. In 1547, however, Augustinus Steuchus of Gubbio made a serious attempt. While he was successful in pointing out methodological shortcomings in Valla’s treatise, he was not able to produce positive arguments to establish the Donation’s authenticity, and had to resort to contending that the donations of so many later kings and emperors were sufficient evidence to accept the document’s validity.37 In 1572, Francesco Borsati tried to conclude the controversy once and for all by resolutely stating that every true Catholic had to accept the authenticity of the Donation and that whoever doubted it was a heretic.38 When Pope Clement ordered Giulio Romano and Gian­ francesco Penni to paint The Donation of Constantine, they were confronted with a difficult task. The text of the Donation— authentic or not—has the character of a legal document, which will not immediately set off the artistic imagination, while historical descriptions of the event were lacking. More or less the same was true of the story of Constantine’s baptism. The only contemporary account is the description by Eusebius.39 However, he relates that the ceremony took place just before the emperor passed away, under circumstances that made his death

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and the Emperor  

seem like a Christian apotheosis. Sixteenth-century historians were familiar enough with the various genres of classical literature to recognize that Eusebius was writing a eulogy of the emperor, and not a neutral relation of facts. All other accounts of Constantine’s baptism—as well as his Donation—date from many centuries later. They occur in descriptions of the life of Pope Sylvester, and all link it to his miraculous healing from leprosy. In a critical climate where even the authenticity of the Donation was suspect, it would have been a poor choice indeed to depict an event that belonged to the realm of legend rather than of history.40 Thus, Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni not only lacked undisputed historical sources for Constantine’s baptism and donation, but they were uninformed about when in the emperor’s life these events had happened. Their solution was not even to try to hold on to the scanty information they had. Instead, they aimed at a persuasive and cogent representation of the life and deeds of the first Christian emperor and of the divine forces that motivated him.

V When Raphael started the decoration, he faced essentially the same problem that confronted Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni. Eusebius’s account of Constantine’s vision of the cross on the eve of the battle against Maxentius may have seemed a trustworthy source, but his report of the fight itself was clearly manipulated.41 Eusebius made his account sound like the biblical story of Moses and the Hebrew people crossing the Red Sea, with Maxentius and his defeated army drowning like Pharaoh and his soldiers. Raphael eagerly took up the idea of bestowing a biblical dimension on this historic event (fig. 57). In the sky he added three angels who represent the divine assistance that guides and accompanies the emperor. The drowning Maxentius seems to be aware of these heavenly creatures and thus to realize, just before he goes under, that he has fought against a higher power. Thus, the painting, as in Eusebius, reenacts the biblical story of the passage through the Red Sea, where a divine “pillar of fire and of the cloud” guided the Hebrew people and caused the Egyptians to drown.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 87

S  87

As God was “glorified in Pharaoh, and in all his host, and in his chariots, and in his horsemen,” and the Egyptians got to know that God is the Lord,42 God is now glorified in Maxentius and his legions and makes them recognize that he is the Lord. Raphael also gave a biblical dimension to the earlier episode of Constantine’s vision (fig. 56). The appearance of the cross in the sky echoes the biblical story of Saint Paul’s conversion on his way to Damascus, when “suddenly from heaven there shone round about [him] a great light.”43 Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni cleverly took up Raphael’s procedure of representing the deeds of Constantine in biblical terms. First of all, they made the episode of The Baptism follow The Battle, which gives the impression that Constantine’s decision to be christened was a direct result of his victory “in the sign of the Cross.” The next step seems an equally logical sequel. His victory and baptism fostered in him respect toward the church, which consequently led him to donate the western half of his empire to “the universal Pope.”44 Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni based the composition of The Baptism (fig. 58) on pictures of Saint John baptizing Christ. Inscriptions underscore these biblical associations. The one on the left, on the steps of the staircase, states that through his baptism Constantine is reborn, in words that echo a line from Saint Paul’s letter to Titus: “the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost.”45 The other inscription, in the book the pope is reading, explains that “this day is salvation come to Rome and the empire,” repeating the words that Christ spoke to Zacheus when the latter donated half of all he possessed to the poor: “This day is salvation come to this house.”46 An  inscription on the right column in the Donation fresco (fig. 60) identifies the scene as “the donation to the church made by Constantine,” while a caption on the left column explains the significance of this event: “Now finally people can freely confess their faith in Christ.” It does not explicitly say that this donation invested the pope with temporal power in addition to his spiritual authority. It rather presents the Emperor Constantine as the one who has made it possible, after the apostles had spread the Word of Christ through the world, for everyone to embrace the Christian faith openly. The life and actions of Constantine are presented not only in biblical terms, but in those of classical epic poetry and

12/7/12 1:46 PM

88   S   The Power and the Glorification

rhetoric.47 In the Battle, for instance, Constantine receives divine help from angels in the sky (fig. 57). The drowning Maxentius seems to be aware of them, but they are invisible to all the other people on the battlefield. This motif would have been well-known to anyone with a classical education—which most ambassadors and diplomats visiting the hall indeed had. It regularly occurs in the works of epic poets such as Homer and Vergil. During the battle for Troy, for instance, Vergil’s hero Aeneas sees that the gods—invisible to other mortals—are fighting on the side of the Greeks and helping them to destroy the city.48 The touching detail of the old father mourning his fallen son, in the left foreground of The Battle at the Milvian Bridge, can also be traced to epic poetry. It parallels episodes in Vergil’s Aeneid, where Mezentius weeps over his dead son Lausus, or when King Evander weeps over the death of Pallas.49 Moreover, against the background of collective fighting, where hardly any individual stands out, this detail gives a humane dimension to the picture. It thus follows the advice of the Latin orator Quintilian, who recommended highlighting stirring details in a speech in order to increase the impact on the audience, since accounts of massive fighting and slaughter will fail to arouse emotions.50 There are more elements derived from classical poetry and rhetoric. The Donation (fig. 59), for instance, shows the main event in the middle ground, while the foreground is occupied by “common” men and women. The poor cripple on the left is given an account of what is going on, a mother on the right pulls her child to a spot with a good view, and the little boy in the center continues to play with his dog, unconscious of the event’s importance. The bustle of these simple people stands in marked contrast to the solemnity of the ceremony that is taking place in the center of the picture, and thus sets off the historic importance of the Donation. Moreover, the people in the foreground serve to invite the observers of the painting to join them in their responses to this epochal event. The courtier in sixteenth-century clothes on the right, looking straight at the observers, may have been particularly appealing to the diplomats and politicians who visited the hall. Comparable contrasts can be observed in the other pictures in the hall. In The Battle at the Milvian Bridge (fig. 57), the victorious Constantine on his rearing white horse is opposed to the

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 88

drowning Maxentius, and in The Cross Appearing to Constantine (fig. 56) the composed attitude of the emperor contrasts with the uncontrolled reactions of his soldiers. Similar means of including contrasting matters were recommended by the most famous of all Latin orators, Cicero, as a way to embellish a speech or a story,51 and Raphael and his garzoni tried to make full use of them. Yet they seem to have followed directions from Greek classical sources as well, particularly Aristotle’s Poetics. Aristotle, referring to the theater, recommended that when constructing plots, “one should so far as possible visualize what is happening. By envisaging things very vividly in this way, as if one were actually present at the events themselves, one can find out what is appropriate, and inconsistencies are least likely to be overlooked. . . . One should also, as far as possible, work plots out using gestures.”52 The ways in which Raphael and his garzoni lent vividness to the events, particularly through details like the gesticulating figures on the foreground of The Donation, illustrate how they indeed strove to render history “as if one were actually present at the events themselves.” They tried to increase this effect even more through carefully studied backgrounds. The baptistery in The Baptism (figs. 58, 67) and the old Church of Saint Peter’s in The Donation are recorded very faithfully.53 The landscape in The Cross Appearing to Emperor Constantine (fig. 56) is a careful attempt to re-create Rome as it looked in the days of Constantine.54 In the center is the mausoleum of Emperor Hadrian as it must have appeared before it was turned into the Castel Sant’Angelo. Next to it is the Meta Romuli or Pyramid of Romulus, which was demolished in 1499, and to the far right, across the Tiber, is the mausoleum of Augustus in its original state. Yet there is something strange about these backgrounds. Even though there is no certain information about the date when Constantine was baptized (if he ever was!), it is known that most of the baptistery was built in the fifth century, long after his death. Saint Peter’s was consecrated in 326, the year of the emperor’s departure from Rome, but was still not finished when he died in 337. So even assuming that the Donation really took place, it would have happened in a building that certainly did not look as well furnished and nicely decorated as the one in the painting. The background of The Cross Appearing to Emperor Constantine also raises some questions. The

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and the Emperor  

clearly recognizable buildings leave no doubt about the actual spot where Constantine and his troops observe the miraculous appearance. But would it make sense to assume that, arriving from the north, they were already in the city on the eve of the battle and moved back to the Milvian Bridge, north of Rome, to gain the decisive victory?55 Yet the spot where the apparition takes place in the painting was carefully chosen, for it is exactly the location where Saint Peter’s and the Vatican Palace would be built. Thus, the painting confers an extra prophetic dimension on the apparition: not only does it foretell Constantine’s victory “in the sign of the Cross,” but it also foreshadows the location where the church will arise, on the Vatican Hill above the tomb of Saint Peter.

VI When Raphael and his garzoni received the commission to decorate the Hall of Constantine, they lacked the vital information for a “historically correct” rendition of the life and deeds of the emperor. Yet they managed to elaborate the scanty and incomplete facts in a way that makes the history of Constantine appear a persuasive account, with biblical and epic overtones. With divine help and intervention, the emperor defeats his adversary and makes it possible for everyone to embrace the Word of God freely. Humbly he has himself baptized, and, recognizing the superiority of the pope’s spiritual power, he donates the western half of his empire to him. Taken by itself, this story seems trustworthy—much more so than the fantastic story of Constantine’s leprosy and the healing bath in the boiled blood of innocent children. One may still doubt the historical reliability of the baptism and the Donation, but the importance of Constantine’s example in these paintings cannot be questioned: princes should not dispute the superiority of spiritual over temporal power, and, representing the latter, they should act on behalf of the former. The historical example, in other words, has become more important than historical accuracy in every detail. This corresponds to the general notion of history that prevailed in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The past was considered a mine filled with raw material from which one could draw lessons for

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 89

S  89

the future. In order to convey these lessons more effectively, embellishing and adapting details was allowed, as long as it did not affect the credibility of the story. Trustworthiness was more important than truthfulness.56 Similar standards were applied to history paintings, as appears for instance from a description that Giorgio Vasari made in 1550 of one of Raphael’s other pictures in the papal apartment to which the Hall of Constantine belongs. It shows Pope Leo  III driving back Attila the Hun, with the miraculous help of Saints Peter and Paul, who suddenly appear in the sky, much like the angels in The Battle at the Milvian Bridge (figs. 18 and 57). Although none of the historic sources relates this wondrous intervention of the two saints, according to Vasari “it was thus that Raphael chose to represent it, perchance out of fancy, for it often happens that painters, like poets, go straying from their subject in order to make their work the more ornate, although their digressions are not such as to be out of harmony with their first intentions.”57 Adding details as Raphael did not only helped to make paintings more ornate, but also offered an opportunity to “explain” things that in reality might be hard to see, such as the angels appearing in the sky in The Battle. They show that Constantine was not acting on his own, but that God was on his side and therefore the emperor was acting as his instrument. This turns Constantine into more than just a king or emperor from the past: it makes him the universal Christian prince, whose actions should be a permanent example and a source of inspiration for all present and future rulers. History, in this way, aspires to a higher goal than just relating facts from long ago: it serves as a lofty example for all generations to come. In order to bring out this higher goal, painters were allowed some poetic license in handling historical facts. From this point of view, it does not matter all that much whether Constantine was actually baptized or really made his famous donation. In the paintings, Constantine is the perfect example, who demonstrates what princes are supposed to do and how they are expected to behave. It is the “higher truth” that matters; the details from the past are of minor importance. To realize this vision of history, Raphael and his garzoni may again have been inspired by theoretical writings from classical antiquity. In Aristotle’s treatise on poetry is a passage that explains the difference between poetry and history.

12/7/12 1:46 PM

90   S   The Power and the Glorification

It perfectly parallels the poetic way in which Raphael and his followers rendered the history of Constantine: “The function of the poet is not to say what has happened, but to say the kind of thing that would happen, i.e. what is possible in accordance with probability and necessity. The historian and the poet are not distinguished by their use of verse or prose. . . . The distinction is this: the one says that which has happened, the other the kind of thing that would happen. For this reason poetry is more philosophical and more serious than history. Poetry tends to express universals, and history particulars.”58

VII Would our anonymous visitor have noticed the change of emphasis between The Cross Appearing to Emperor Constantine and The Battle at the Milvian Bridge, on the one hand, and Pope Sylvester  I Baptizing Emperor Constantine and The Donation on the other? Was he aware how rising doubts about the legitimacy of the papal claims pressured Clement VII and Raphael’s garzoni into adjusting Constantine’s example from that of a glorious, magnanimous Christian prince into that of the archetypal representative of Christian secular power, who openly and obediently admits his submission to the pope’s spiritual authority? It is hard to infer from his succinct account. Yet it is remarkable that he mentions three “major” scenes by their subject and skips the fourth one: The Donation. It may be reading too much into his words, but it makes one wonder if he did not ignore it on purpose. In spite of Augustinus Steuchus’s publication in 1547 and Francesco Borsati’s booming statement in 1572, and despite a growing number of paintings in the various papal palaces and churches that show Constantine’s donation, doubts about its authenticity kept gaining ground, even in the

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 90

Catholic camp.59 Did our anonymous visitor share this skepticism and therefore avoid the subject? Would that mean that the painting failed in its intended propagandistic effect? Seen from an artistic angle, the paintings in the Hall of Constantine were highly successful. Raphael and his garzoni created new standards for history painting. Almost all later history paintings from the sixteenth century in Italy show a foreground and sides filled with people discussing, gesticulating, and pointing to the main event in the middle ground. Through these and similar means they acquire, just like the paintings in the Hall of Constantine, a timeless quality that raises them to the level of general examples instead of mere renditions of past events. From a nonartistic point of view, however, the paintings were less successful. They did not help to halt the rising tide of skepticism about the acts of Constantine and their implications for the legitimacy of the papacy. Neither Raphael’s artistic genius not that of his garzoni could prevent the bare historic facts from gaining ascendancy at the expense of the pope’s temporal and spiritual authority. In 1527, three years after the paintings were completed, mutinous German soldiers penetrated the Vatican Palace. They belonged to the army of no less a figure than Charles V, the Holy Roman emperor and thus a distant successor to Constantine the Great. They pillaged the papal apartment and without any respect scratched graffiti into Raphael’s paintings. One of them reads, “Martinus Lutherus” (Martin Luther was here).60 Luther was not personally in Rome, but his spirit certainly was. Four years before the mutinous soldiers arrived, it had already made its way into the Vatican Palace. It came hand in hand with Pope Clement’s commission to Raphael’s garzoni to represent Constantine the Great as the archetype of a prince who duly submits himself to papal superiority. It has haunted the Vatican Palace ever since.

12/7/12 1:46 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 91

12/7/12 1:46 PM

fig. 68  Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 92

12/7/12 1:46 PM

5

The Pope and His Family Paul III and the Farnese

I In September 1578, Pope Gregory XIII traveled to Viterbo to worship the Madonna della Quercia in a church near the city. He used the opportunity to tour northern Lazio and visit some of the beautiful villas. One of them was the Farnese Palace in Caprarola (fig.  68), where the pope and his suite arrived on September 11 and stayed for three days. This gave them plenty of time to explore the building and admire its extensive decorations. To the pope’s retinue belonged one Fabio Ardizio, a clergyman and secretary to the owner of the palace, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese.1 In July of the next year, he sent to Lavinia Feltria della Rovere, the twenty-year-old niece of Cardinal Farnese, an extensive report of the papal visit, including a detailed description of the painted decorations of the palace. This is how he described one of the rooms (see fig. 73 below): In the anticamera of this apartment—or salotto [drawing room], as we might say—some of the main deeds of Pope Paul III have been painted. Among them is his coronation, in a picture in the middle, at the top of the vault. Continuing step by step on the sides of the vault, various other pictures, divided by gold and stucco, show: when he [Paul  III] at Civitavecchia blessed the fleet of Charles V, which subsequently conquered Tunis with his good omen, and when he joined his fleet with those of the emperor and the Venetians in a holy league

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 93

against the Turks. Next on top, one sees the Vatican loggia, and Paul III on his seat and in his pontifical clothes. Surrounded by all the cardinals of the Sacred College, he throws down a burning candle and excommunicates Henry VIII, King of England, for having behaved impiously against the Holy Church and for persevering in his obstinacy—something that the Perugians did not do. They are seen in another picture, when, after their rebellion against His Holiness and the Church, they humiliate themselves at his feet and are accepted in grace and blessed again. Next [one sees], in the lower zone on the walls of the anticamera, [painted] with larger figures that are almost life size, how in pontifical style he receives Charles V for the foot kiss, after his expedition against Tunis; the peace settled between the same Charles and Francis, King of France, in Nice, where these three illustrious persons stayed together at the same time; the installation of the holy Council of Trent; and the creation of cardinals, four of whom were one after the other elected pope, namely Julius III and Pius III.2 Paul III, whose pontificate lasted from 1534 to 1549, belonged to the Farnese family. It is therefore not surprising to find “some of his main deeds” depicted in a palace owned by his descendants. For centuries, the Farnese family had owned large pieces

12/7/12 1:46 PM

94  S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 69  Plan of the first floor of the Farnese Palace, Caprarola. From Kliemann and Rohlmann, Italian Frescoes, 438. 9  Loggia of Hercules 10 Chapel 11  Room of the Farnese Deeds 12  Salotto or Anticamera 13  Room of Aurora 14  Room of Wool Works 15  Room of Solitude 16  Room of Hermathena 17  Room of Penitence 18  Room of Judgments 19  Room of Dreams 20  Room of Angels 21  Room of the World Map

of land in Lazio, including the commune of Caprarola. This little place rose to some fame when the pope’s grandson, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, had a huge, five-sided palace erected at the end of the main street, on the top of the hill (fig. 68). Its construction started in 1557, from designs by Jacopo Vignola, and lasted until 1583.3 Long before the building was finished, however, the cardinal commissioned Taddeo Zuccaro to start decorating the state rooms on the first floor. As Taddeo was a busily employed painter in Rome, arrangements were made that on the one hand ensured his involvement but on the other hand allowed him to make extensive use of assistants. One of his helpers was his brother Federico, who took over the direction of the works when Taddeo died in 1566. Three years later, however, Federico was dismissed, for reasons that are not quite clear. Jacopo Bertoia, Antonio Tempesta, and other artists continued and completed the decoration project, which in the meantime had come to include other floors of the building as

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 94

well. Around 1583, the palace and its decorations were finished, and the cardinal turned his attention to laying out the gardens. The anticamera or salotto described by Fabio Ardizio is situated on the first floor, on the corner of the wing to the right side of the palace’s main façade (fig.  69). One reaches the room via the circular staircase that leads to the loggia, in the middle of the façade (fig. 70). This loggia offered a spectacular view over the village and its countryside, which rightly filled Ardizio with enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the panorama has lost much of its impact since the open spaces of the loggia were filled with glass. The view of the real landscape is matched by painted views on the walls of the territories owned by the Farnese family. The ceiling is decorated with exploits of the mythological hero Hercules, as well as a large variety of Farnese emblems and coats of arms. Passing from the loggia through a circular chapel, one enters a large hall in the wing on the right side of the building (fig. 71). This room served as

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and His Family  

Pope Gregory’s lodgings during his stay. Thus, he may have had a chance to stare quietly at the extensive cycle of paintings on the walls and the ceiling, which illustrate the most important events from the glorious history of his host’s family.4 He may even have recognized the portrait of his host personally, as Cardinal Alessandro Farnese figures prominently in most of the paintings (fig.  72). From this hall, Pope Gregory could wander into the adjoining room to gaze at “some of the main deeds” of his predecessor, Paul III Farnese (fig. 73). At some point during his stay, Cardinal Alessandro may have shown him the rooms in the other three wings of the building as well. Though just as richly decorated, they look less solemn, as they had a more private function. Pope Gregory would certainly have recognized that the suite of rooms in which he was lodged was meant to impress visitors. The paintings made it abundantly clear that the cardinal stemmed from an illustrious family that had recently risen to the highest power.5 One part of the family, headed by the cardinal, held prominent positions in the church, while the other part, residing in Parma, occupied important political and military posts. The family’s spectacular rise had been largely the work of one man, Alessandro Farnese the elder (1468–1549). Created a cardinal at a young age, he sired several children before fully dedicating himself to his church career. In 1534, at the age of sixty-seven, he was elected pope, taking the name Paul III. He used his pontificate, among other things, to instigate a reform of the church, keep the main political powers in Europe in balance, and promote the interests of his family.6 Three grandsons were created cardinals, and other members were made dukes of Castro, Camerino, Parma, and Piacenza. Thus, Pope Paul III planned to secure a prominent position for his offspring in both spiritual and temporal matters. Acting along similar lines as his grandfather, whom he was named after, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese the younger also strove to obtain the papacy and thus secure the Farnese family a second pope. He entered several conclaves as an important candidate and came indeed close to election, but in the end Paul III remained the only Farnese pope. The cardinal’s high ambitions are apparent from the paintings in the large room where Pope Gregory stayed.7 His portrait is included in all the pictures on the walls, which show the family’s recent history

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 95

S  95

fig. 70  Loggia of Hercules, Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen. This loggia is situated on the first floor of the main façade, overlooking the village of Caprarola and the countryside. The view of the real landscape is matched by painted views on the walls, showing the territories owned by the Farnese family. The ceiling is decorated with scenes of the mythological hero Hercules and a selection of Farnese emblems and coats of arms. The decorations were started by Federico Zuccaro in 1568 and completed by Jacopo Bertoia in 1569.

12/7/12 1:46 PM

96  S   The Power and the Glorification

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 96

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and His Family  

S  97

fig. 71  Room of the Farnese Deeds, Farnese Palace,

fig. 72  Taddeo Zuccaro, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese

Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen. From Kliemann and

Entering Paris in 1540, 1561–63. Room of the Farnese

Rohlmann, Italian Frescoes, 439. This large room pre-

Deeds, Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

cedes the salotto or so-called Anticamera del Concilio.

From Acidini Luchinat, Taddeo e Federico Zuccari, 1:189.

The paintings on the walls and ceiling were executed by

This scene shows Cardinal Alessandro Farnese on an

Taddeo Zuccaro and his assistants between 1561 and

important mission to Paris. He is portrayed next to the

1563. They depict important episodes from the history

Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and King Francis I of

of the Farnese family, with special emphasis on recent

France. Because of their status, the emperor and king

events. Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, the patron of the

are covered by a baldachin. Although the cardinal is

palace and its paintings, plays a prominent role in them.

not covered, the painter has made it seem as if he is, thus stressing his importance. The combination of Charles V and Francis I together with a member of the Farnese family also recurs in the adjoining Sala del Concilio. There, however, Pope Paul III Farnese is their companion (fig. 81). This parallel between the scenes betrays the ambition of Cardinal Farnese to follow in Paul’s footsteps.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 97

12/7/12 1:46 PM

98   S   The Power and the Glorification

was involved in the fulfillment of this highest duty and how it was performed in an exemplary way by the earlier Farnese, Pope Paul III, can be seen in the following room.

II

fig. 73  Salotto or Anticamera del Concilio, Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

(fig.  72). Although not the most prominent person in every scene, he still emerges as the key figure in his family’s fortune and a leading actor on the stage of the church and world politics. Thus, the paintings illustrate an image of the cardinal as a man with the capacities and experience to tread in the footsteps of his forefather and assume the papacy. What exactly

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 98

Fabio Ardizio’s description of the anticamera or salotto is quite detailed and extensive. It may have helped him that the various paintings are explained by Latin inscriptions.8 Moreover, Ardizio may have consulted the long and admiring report on the paintings in Giorgio Vasari’s chapter on Taddeo Zuccaro in his well-known Lives of the Most Illustrious Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (1568).9 Some modern art historians doubt that Vasari was correct in attributing all the paintings to Taddeo, suspecting that a large part of the execution was done by his brother Federico.10 We have seen, however, that Taddeo arranged to make the designs and oversee the execution of the paintings, without necessarily contributing personally. Moreover, Federico made some approving annotations in his copy of Vasari’s Lives, stating that in the salotto his brother’s hand had no equal for the variety of details and the excellence of the figures.11 Thus, it seems fair to consider Taddeo the author of the paintings, even if he was not personally involved in every aspect of the execution.12 With the help of many documents, the paintings can be assigned to the years 1562 and 1563.13 The documents also attribute the rich stuccowork and other decorative motifs to a little-known artist from Sant’Angelo in Vado, Antenore Ridolfi.14 The salotto is a square room with a vault (figs. 73, 74). Both Vasari and Fabio Ardizio start their description with the painting in the center, which shows the first official appearance of Alessandro Farnese as pope: his coronation on November  3, 1534 (fig.  75). According to the inscription, this happened “with approval of God and men.” While it is hard to be sure about the reaction in heaven, on earth Pope Paul’s election was indeed generally approved and gave rise to high expectations. There does not seem to be a particular order in which the four paintings around this central one should be seen. Yet Fabio Ardizio discusses them in such a way that their themes seem to be to some extent interrelated. The first painting he mentions

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and His Family  

shows Paul III, on April 18, 1535, blessing the fleet setting out to capture Tunis under the personal command of Emperor Charles  V. King Francis  I of France had refused to join, but promised not to take advantage of the absence of his political rival (fig. 76). Ardizio correctly adds that the blessing of the fleet took place in Civitavecchia, even though the inscription does not say so. The next picture Ardizio mentions also shows the imperial navy, which is now joined to the fleets of Venice and the Papal States. Together they form the Holy League (fig.  77). This happened on February  8, 1538, at the pope’s urging in response to the growing aggression of the Turks in Europe. Again the French had rejected insistent requests to join. The painting opposite the picture of the Holy League shows Paul  III excommunicating King Henry  VIII of England for persisting in his heresy and founding a new church (fig. 78)— although, according to Ardizio, the pope will accept back and bless those who repent of their sins, as can be seen in the next painting (fig. 79), in which inhabitants of Perugia, with ropes around their necks, humbly beg for pardon after their unsuccessful revolt against papal authority. The revolt, triggered by the high tax on salt that Pope Paul III had imposed on the Papal States, to which Perugia belonged, was drastically repressed by papal troops. In order to prevent retaliations, a delegation of prominent Perugians traveled to Rome to meet the pope. On June 30, 1540, the day of Saints Paul and Peter, they awaited him in the portal of Saint Peter’s while he was on his way to a special Mass. The paintings on the walls under the vault are larger and are flanked by allegorical figures. The first one mentioned by Ardizio is situated opposite the entrance door, under the painting of the pope blessing the imperial fleet. It shows Emperor Charles V, victorious after the capture of Tunis, paying obedience to Pope Paul III by kissing his foot (fig. 80). According to the inscription, this occurred in 1535, but the actual date was April  5 of the next year. (The capture of Tunis did take place in 1535, however.) The scene is flanked by the personifications of Cheerfulness and Abundance. On the opposite wall, under the painting of the Perugians begging for forgiveness, is a painting showing the Treaty of Nice of June 18, 1538 (not 1539, as the inscription says), when Pope Paul  III, after

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 99

S  99

fig. 74  Vault of the salotto or Anticamera del Concilio, Farnese Palace, Caprarola, with paintings by Taddeo Zuccaro and stucco decorations by Antenore Ridolfi, 1562–63. From Kliemann and Rohlmann, Italian Frescoes, 444.

difficult negotiations, convinced both Charles V and Francis I to abstain from mutual hostilities for a period of ten years (fig. 81). The scene is appropriately flanked by the personifications of Peace and Security. The painting on the wall to the left of the entrance, under that of the Holy League, shows the Council of Trent, which opened on December  13, 1545 (fig.  82). Bishops and other church dignitaries are meeting, discussing, and arguing, and only in the upper left corner can one see Pope Paul  III appointing the papal delegates. The painting is flanked by

12/7/12 1:46 PM

fig. 75  Taddeo Zuccaro, The Coronation of Pope Paul III in 1534, 1562–63. Salotto or Anticamera del Concilio, Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen. fig. 76  Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Blessing the Fleet Leaving to Capture Tunis in 1535, 1562–63. Salotto or Anticamera del Concilio, Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen. fig. 77  Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Joining the Fleets of the Participants in the Holy League in 1538, 1562–63. Salotto or Anticamera del Concilio, Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 100

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and His Family  

the personifications of Justice and Religion. On the opposite wall, under the painting of Henry VIII’s excommunication, Pope Paul III is shown creating new cardinals, four of whom, according to the inscription, would later be elected pope (fig. 83). Ardizio, as we have seen, duly repeated this information, but could not come up with the pertinent names. His guess of Julius III is correct, but that of Pius III (pope in 1503) obviously not; he must have meant Pius  IV.  The other two were Marcellus II and Paul IV. The inscription understandably does not give a date, as the painting combines events that took place over a period of years into one scene. The future Julius III and Paul IV were made cardinals in 1536, Marcellus II in 1539, and Pius IV only in 1549, a few months before Paul III died. Windows prevented the inclusion of allegorical figures with this painting.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 101

S  101

Both Ardizio and Vasari focused their descriptions on the subjects of the paintings, giving only some general words of praise to their style. Yet it would have been fascinating if Vasari in particular had been more explicit, since nearly twenty years earlier he himself had also painted an extensive cycle glorifying the pontificate of Paul III. He was working for the same patron as Taddeo Zuccaro, Alessandro Farnese the younger, in the cardinal’s working palace in Rome, the Palazzo della Cancelleria (figs. 84, 86, 92).15 Taddeo must certainly have been familiar with these paintings by Vasari, as the pictures in Caprarola clearly betray their influence. Yet he drew on other, quite specific examples as well, for just around the time when he was working in Caprarola he became involved in yet another cycle glorifying Paul III and his family (figs. 85, 87, 89). Begun by Francesco Salviati in the 1550s in the Farnese Palace in Rome,

12/7/12 1:46 PM

102  S   The Power and the Glorification

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 102

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and His Family  

S  103

fig. 78  Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Excommunicating King Henry VIII of England, 1562–63. Salotto or Anticamera del Concilio, Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen. fig. 79  Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Forcing Perugia into Obedience in 1540, 1562–63. Salotto or Anticamera del Concilio, Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 103

12/7/12 1:46 PM

104  S   The Power and the Glorification

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 104

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and His Family  

S  105

fig. 80  Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Receiving Emperor

fig. 81  Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Reconciling

Charles V After His Victory at Tunis in 1535, 1562–63.

Emperor Charles V and King Francis I and Concluding the

Salotto or Anticamera del Concilio, Farnese Palace,

Treaty of Nice in 1538, 1562–63. Salotto or Anticamera del

Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

Concilio, Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen. From Kliemann and Rohlmann, Italian Frescoes, 442.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 105

12/7/12 1:46 PM

106   S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 82  Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul III Initiating the

fig. 83  Taddeo Zuccaro, Pope Paul IIII Creating New

Council of Trent in 1545, 1562–63. Salotto or Anticamera

Cardinals, 1562–63. Salotto or Anticamera del Concilio,

del Concilio, Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijme-

Farnese Palace, Caprarola. CKD, RU Nijmegen. From

gen. From Kliemann and Rohlmann, Italian Frescoes,

Acidini Luchinat, Taddeo e Federico Zuccari, 1:204.

443.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 106

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and His Family  

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 107

S  107

12/7/12 1:46 PM

108  S   The Power and the Glorification fig. 84  Room of One Hundred Days, Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen. This room was decorated by Giorgio Vasari in 1546, within a period of one hundred days. The patron was Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, the same who commissioned Zuccaro’s paintings in the Caprarola Palace. Vasari’s painting depicts the deeds of an ideal pope who has the portrait traits of Paul III. fig. 85  Room of the Farnese Deeds, Farnese Palace, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen. From Strinati and Walter, La dignità del Casato. The long walls of this room were painted by Francesco Salviati in about 1552–53. After Salviati’s death in 1563, the short walls were decorated by Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro. The theme of the paintings is the history of the Farnese family. One of the walls painted by Salviati is dedicated entirely to the pontificate of Paul III. fig. 86  Giorgio Vasari, The Universal Peace, 1546. Room of One Hundred Days, Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen. This painting forms part of the ensemble illustrated in fig. 84.

this cycle was left incomplete at Salviati’s death in 1563, and Taddeo was commissioned to finish it.16 Just like Vasari’s series, it must have supplied Taddeo with ideas and examples. So how do these earlier Paul III cycles compare to Taddeo Zuccaro’s paintings in Caprarola?

III Several topics in Taddeo’s cycle in Caprarola also occur in the two earlier series. Evidently they were considered highlights of

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 108

Paul’s pontificate. One that is included in all three cycles is the Treaty of Nice in 1538, when Pope Paul III, Emperor Charles V, and King Francis I reached a peace agreement (figs. 81, 86, 87). While the portraits of the three leaders are easily recognizable in each cycle, there is a striking difference between the paintings by Vasari and Salviati and that by Zuccaro. In both Vasari’s and Salviati’s paintings, allegorical persons, personifications, and symbolic elements immediately show that these were never meant as historically accurate renditions. An example is the presence in both paintings of the antique temple of Janus. This building in fact stood in Rome, not Nice. Its doors would

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and His Family  

be kept open whenever Rome was at war. In the paintings, the doors are closed, denoting that the Treaty has inaugurated an era of peace, consensus, and harmony. Taddeo’s painting, on the other hand, does not include such elements. The personifications of Peace and Security have not been incorporated, but occupy separate niches on the sides. The conclusion of the treaty takes place against a background that may not be topographically correct, but still seems a more convincing evocation of the landscape around Nice than the setting in Vasari’s and Salviati’s paintings. The identification of the portraits in Taddeo’s painting according to Vasari’s description may be open to discussion, but it is beyond doubt that the dignitaries on the left are Frenchmen. The elegantly dressed young man standing on the right side of the picture strongly resembles the son of Charles V, the future Philip II. Although Philip was only eleven years old at the time of the Treaty of Nice (and did

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 109

S  109

not in fact accompany his father), the painting shows him as a young man in his early twenties; the likeness is based on one of the many versions made after the portrait by Titian (fig. 88), which was painted early in 1551, when Philip was twenty-three years old.17 Moreover, the pope, the emperor, and the king never actually met! Charles V and Francis I were not on speaking terms and refused to see each other. Hence Paul III would negotiate first with the one and then with the other, but never with both of them at the same time.18 Taddeo’s painting does not give a single hint of this exhausting shuttle diplomacy, just as it does not indicate that the results of the Treaty were actually quite modest and short-lived. Within a context that looks historically trustworthy, the pope seems to be presiding over a political wedding ceremony that unites the emperor and the king in lasting peace and harmony.19 The presence of their respective

12/7/12 1:46 PM

110  S   The Power and the Glorification

relatives hints that this concord will continue through the succeeding generations. The inscription further adds to this suggestion, stating that the pope, by leading both monarchs “into mutual grace,” has put an end to the great misfortunes that are dividing Europe. Convening the Council of Trent in order to reorganize the Church of Rome was considered another major accomplishment of Pope Paul III. The topic is not included in the Palazzo della Cancelleria, as the Council had barely begun when Vasari did his paintings there. But Salviati’s depiction in the Farnese Palace is, again, an allegorical rendition of the event (fig. 89), while Taddeo’s is stripped of all allegorical elements and personifications.20 Yet Taddeo did not quite succeed in creating an illusion of historical authenticity, as the general composition and the architecture are too clearly a combination of two famous paintings by Raphael in the Vatican Palace, the Dispute

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 110

About the Holy Sacrament and The School of Athens (figs. 90, 91). Apparently, Taddeo wanted to present the Council of Trent as part of the lofty tradition of meetings of prominent church fathers, theologians, and philosophers. Yet by adding specific details such as the pope appointing the papal delegates to the Council (on the left side), he tried at the same time to individualize the event and make it look historically convincing.

12/7/12 1:46 PM

The Pope and His Family  

S  111

fig. 87  Francesco Salviati, The Treaty of Nice, ca. 1552– 53. Room of the Farnese Deeds, Farnese Palace, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen. From Kliemann and Rohlmann, Italian Frescoes, 31. This scene is part of the large painting covering one of the walls of the Room of the Farnese Deeds (fig. 85). Just like Giorgio Vasari’s painting from 1546 (fig. 86), it is rather a representation of worldwide peace than a truthful depiction of the settling of the Nice peace treaty in 1538. fig. 88  Titian, Portrait of Philip, Future King of Spain, 1550–51. Prado Museum, Madrid. CKD, RU Nijmegen. fig. 89  Francesco Salviati, The Council of Trent, ca. 1552–53. Room of the Farnese Deeds, Farnese Palace, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen. From Kliemann and Rohlmann, Italian Frescoes, 31. This scene is part of the large painting covering one of the walls of the Room of the Farnese Deeds (fig. 85). It is generally identified as a representation of the Council of Trent. The detail of the cardinal arguing with a Protestant envoy (recognizable from his clothes as a German) make this identification questionable, as there were no Protestant delegates in Trent. It has been suggested, therefore, that the picture shows the Colloquy of Ratisbonne (1541), where Cardinal Gasparo Contarini was the delegate of the Catholic Church and Martin Bucer the deputy of the Schmalkalden League.

Pope Paul’s good judgment in selecting cardinals is highlighted in both the Palazzo della Cancelleria and Caprarola.21 Even though Vasari made serious efforts to include recognizable portraits, he clearly did not aim at historical accuracy, and his painting is overloaded with personifications and allegorical elements (fig.  92). The twisted columns refer to the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, which was believed to have had similar supports. Thus, the pope in Rome is linked to the great biblical king. The foreground of the painting is occupied by a nude woman swallowing a viper, representing Envy

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 111

filling her mouth with venom. She is bound, as from now on only men who are truly virtuous are being rewarded. These are the men behind her, to whom the pope hands a cardinal’s hat. Their nudity denotes that they were selected for their intrinsic good qualities and not because of wealth or political connections. Contrary to Vasari, Taddeo consistently tried to create an illusion of historical trustworthiness, even when he combined, as we have seen, the creation of several cardinals into one ceremony (fig.  83). The general impression is of an accurate rendition, with properly dressed church dignitaries

12/7/12 1:46 PM

112  S   The Power and the Glorification

within a less extravagant setting than in Vasari’s painting. The inscription further adds to this impression. While praising Paul III, it still sounds factual and accurate compared to the poetically formulated inscription of Vasari’s painting, which rings with reminiscences of Latin authors like Seneca and Cicero: “In summa fortuna nihil praestantius quam beneficii recte collati memoriam ad posteros extendisse” (When [one is settled] on the summit of good fortune, there is nothing more admirable than to have spread to posterity the remembrance of well-conveyed service).22 Because Taddeo was very consistent in stripping his paintings of allegorical elements, we must assume that he deliberately strove to depict the pope’s life in a historically convincing way. Unfortunately, Vasari’s description does not disclose whether he recognized that Taddeo’s approach differed fundamentally from his own, and what he thought of it. Yet we have seen that Taddeo’s paintings show some elasticity in his handling of historic facts. This can be seen in his painting of Charles V’s visit to Pope Paul  III after the capture of Tunis (fig. 80). The emperor’s arrival in Rome on April 4, 1536, had caused mixed feelings among the inhabitants, many of whom still vividly remembered how the imperial troops had sacked the city nine years earlier. Yet the emperor was welcomed with extensive pomp and circumstance. On April 5, he made a tour through the city, which for this occasion had been tidied up and lavishly decorated. Amidst a long parade of some five thousand colorfully dressed ambassadors, dignitaries, and soldiers, the emperor stood out by his plain violet clothes and his beret of the same color.23 The tour finally arrived at the portico of Saint Peter’s, where the pope was waiting to greet the emperor.

fig. 90  Raphael, Dispute About the Holy Sacrament, ca. 1509–11. Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. fig. 91  Raphael, The School of Athens, ca. 1509–11. Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 112

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and His Family  

According to the diary of the papal master of ceremonies, Biagio Martinelli, the pope received the emperor sitting in his seat on a raised platform, dressed in his liturgical cope and miter.24 On approaching him, Charles made the three ceremonial genuflections and proceeded to kiss the pope’s foot. Paul, however, slowly withdrew his foot and made Charles get up to kiss his hand and his face. Paul then embraced the emperor and spoke words of congratulation. Then he stood up and entered the church, keeping the emperor on his left side and making the cardinals precede them. After celebrating Mass, he received Charles in the Vatican Palace. From this report, it is clear that Paul  III trod on eggs. He carefully tried to avoid a situation in which the emperor would feel slighted or humiliated. By wearing his liturgical costume and celebrating Mass immediately after he had greeted the emperor, the pope played up the religious dimension of the event. This was not totally incorrect, since the emperor came to Rome as the captor of Tunis, who had saved the True Faith from the infidels. The traditional ceremony of the foot kiss, which would illustrate the emperor’s subordination to the pope, could not be omitted, but Paul saved Charles, as much as possible, the embarrassment of actually performing it. That is why he withdrew his foot and had the emperor immediately rise to kiss his hand and face. Taddeo’s picture conveys a vivid impression of the colorful parade that accompanied the emperor. In the background, the obelisk and the circular building look like the actual constructions that stood on the south side of the old Church of Saint Peter’s. Yet in its totality the setting does not give a detailed illustration of the square and the portico where the meeting took place. Nor does the way in which Charles meets Paul illustrate what really happened. The emperor almost crawls to the pope, on hands and feet, while Paul’s gesture does not seem to urge Charles to stand up. Instead, it looks like a sign of blessing, indicating that the pope kindly accepts the emperor’s demonstration of obedience. To further stress Charles’s subservient position, Taddeo has not represented him in the unostentatious clothes he was actually wearing, but in his armor, with the helmet respectfully taken off. Paul, on the other hand, is not dressed in his liturgical clothes and miter, but is wearing the tiara, which symbolizes his spiritual

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 113

S  113

fig. 92  Giorgio Vasari, The Pope Rewarding the Virtuous, 1546. Room of One Hundred Days, Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen. From Kliemann and Rohlmann, Italian Frescoes, 28. This painting forms part of the same ensemble as figure 86.

12/7/12 1:47 PM

114  S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 93  Taddeo Zuccaro, preparatory sketch for Pope Paul III Excommunicating King Henry VIII of England, ca. 1562 (see fig. 78). Louvre, Paris. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 114

as well as secular authority. In other words, the painting shows how Charles demonstrates his recognition of the superior authority of the pope, in keeping with the traditional papal theory that the Roman emperor represents the secular arm of the church and is therefore subservient to the papal plenitude of power. Charles may have been the victor over the infidels and the conqueror of Tunis, but he still has to kneel before Christ’s vicar on earth. If in 1536 Pope Paul had been so considerate as not to make the emperor feel humiliated, in 1562 the painter put them both in their traditional place, in their proper outfits, and in the right relationship toward each other. King Henry  VIII of England is also, in a way, present in Taddeo’s paintings (fig. 78). According to one of the inscriptions on the ceiling, Pope Paul III deprived him of his royal rights after “he had been condemned for his crime of having

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and His Family  

depraved religion, in the year of Our Lord 1536.”25 However, this does not quite explain the accompanying painting, which shows a landscape with a loggia on which are standing some bishops and the pope, holding a white stick in his right hand. On a platform in front of them three persons are kneeling, observed by a crowd on the right. On the left, across a river, soldiers seem to be executing some persons through decapitation. Fortunately, a preparatory drawing for this painting still exists and expresses more clearly what exactly is going on (fig.  93). It shows the pope standing in a larger loggia, not only holding a sort of stick, but also throwing one down. This indicates that he is performing the rite of excommunication, which consists of flinging burning candles on the ground and stamping them out. In the background on the left (it is not clear if there is a river), a king sits under a baldachin and orders his soldiers to decapitate a group of persons, one of whom is dressed as a bishop. The painting thus depicts Pope Paul  III excommunicating King Henry  VIII, and not, as the inscription states, depriving him of his royal rights. Among the executed men in the background may be Cardinal John Fisher and Sir Thomas More. Both had refused to reject the pope’s supremacy and acknowledge Henry as the supreme governor of the newly founded Church of England. The king put them to death on, respectively, June 22 and July 6, 1535. In response, the pope twice tried to publish a bull against Henry, but both times failed to receive support from the Sacred College of Cardinals. On the third attempt, on January 11, 1536, he was finally successful, but publication of the bull was postponed when the pope learned that four days earlier Henry’s ex-wife, the Catholic Catherine of Aragon, had died.26 Due to King Henry’s capricious married life and its political implications, the bull was delayed much longer than foreseen. Four months after the death of Catherine of Aragon, the king had his second wife, Anne Boleyn, executed. After leading the life of a bachelor for eleven days, he remarried again on May  30.27 The bull was finally issued after almost two years, on December 17, 1538, when Pope Paul had obtained the support of both Charles V and Francis I during the negotiations in Nice. By then, however, it had lost most of its pertinence. Meanwhile Henry had lost his third wife, Jane Seymour, and was already considering another spouse.28

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 115

S  115

Paul III reacted very cautiously to Henry’s actions during the 1530s. On the one hand, he wanted to show that the church would not tolerate the king’s behavior. On the other hand, he did not want to offend the king too much, since he was trying—in vain, as it would turn out—to undo the foundation of a separate church headed by the English monarch. The question is, when during this careful political maneuvering did he excommunicate Henry as shown in the Zuccaros’ painting? On July  11, 1533, when Pope Paul  III was still a cardinal, Pope Clement VII, generally known for his inability to make decisions, acted energetically for once and excommunicated Henry less than two months after the illegal annulment of Henry’s marriage with Catherine of Aragon and his subsequent marriage to Anne Boleyn.29 Clement died a year later and left it to his successor, Paul III, to deal with the consequences, one of which was the foundation of the Church of England.30 All the new pope could do was to attempt to bring the king back into the arms of the Mother Church—an attempt that was doomed to fail. In the bull in response to the execution of John Fisher and Thomas More, Paul threatened to declare the excommunicated king dethroned and release his subjects from their allegiance to him. Strictly speaking, this was a hollow threat, since the pope did not have the right to depose the ruler of a sovereign nation and Henry’s subjects were too terrified to dare give up their allegiance. When the bull was finally published, the political situation had escalated so much that the continuation of Henry’s excommunication and the deprivation of his royal rights were no longer relevant, and neither Charles V nor Francis I was still willing to support sanctions against the British monarch. In short, Paul III never really performed the act of excommunication that Taddeo Zuccaro depicted. Moreover, the decision of 1536 mentioned in the inscription, to deprive Henry VIII of his royal rights, was legally highly questionable and not published until two years later. So the resoluteness that pope Paul  III displays in the picture was in reality the opposite of his ineffective caution. As a whole, Taddeo’s cycle offers an account of Paul III’s life that appears historically accurate at face value, especially for those contemporary observers who were used to the allegorizing and eulogizing paintings by Vasari and Salviati. But

12/7/12 1:47 PM

116  S   The Power and the Glorification

precisely because of their seeming accuracy, Taddeo’s pictures are more ingeniously manipulative. “Facts” were changed, added, invented, or transferred from the life of one pope to that of another, but all were presented within a believable context, as if they had really happened. Giorgio Vasari, as we have seen, did not comment on this aspect of Taddeo’s paintings. Was Fabio Ardizio aware of it?

IV Ardizio’s description is informative and factual; only his remark that the pope pardoned the Perugians because of their humility while he excommunicated the stubborn King Henry indicates that he interpreted at least some of the paintings as general examples of papal behavior, not just as truthful depictions of what had really happened. Later in his description he refers back to the Paul III cycle. At the end of the palace’s left (west) wing is a square room, executed by Jacopo Bertoia and Giovanni de Vecchi in the 1570s, whose location and size mirror the anticamera or salotto (fig.  69). Ardizio describes the room, called the Sala degli Angeli since angels are the theme of its decoration, in detail, concluding as follows: “The relationship that the paintings in this anticamera have with those in the other anticamera [of Paul  III] is easy to understand. For creating cardinals who are to succeed him as pope, as Paul III is doing in this room; establishing peace between such great princes as Charles  V and King Francis; installing the Holy Council; separating heretics from the womb of the Holy Church; granting forgiveness to those who repent their faults—what else are these than angelic actions?”31 Ardizio’s linking of the two decorative cycles is very ingenious, although it almost certainly does not reflect the original intentions. There are no indications that in 1562, when Taddeo Zuccaro was executing the Paul III series, angels had been chosen as the subject of the decoration in the matching room. Yet Ardizio’s remark shows that he recognized the care with which the episodes from the life of Paul III had been selected. The pope’s actions are “angelic” in the sense that they illustrate exactly what a pope is supposed to do. They offer a complete catalogue of his duties, his status, and his prerogatives. He guides

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 116

the church, selecting its highest officials and its future leaders; he moderates temporal rulers and urges them to defend the Christian faith; he pardons those who repent and bans those who revolt. Thus, the paintings illustrate the mission and the responsibilities of the papacy in general, and color this ideal image with the deeds and personality of Paul III. In reality, of course, Paul III had been neither a complete nor a perfect pope. The pictures and their inscriptions, however, subtly correct these deficiencies. They show him reconciling the most important rulers of Europe, without telling that the results were limited and short-lived. They display how he forced the Perugians back into obedience, without hinting at the drastic retaliations, and how he was paid homage by the emperor with a show of ceremony that was actually carefully shunned. They present him as a defender of the church’s unity who bans schismatics, cutting a good figure with the action of his predecessor and concealing his own ineffective caution. The exact location of the individual pictures in the anticamera underscores the general image of the status and the authority of the pope. The Coronation scene in the middle of the vault is positioned in such a way that visitors who enter the anticamera from the preceding hall, as Fabio Ardizio did, will see it in correct perspective (that is, not upside down). Thus, they are immediately confronted with the pope as head of the church. On the vault opposite the entrance door, they see Paul III Blessing the Fleet Leaving to Capture Tunis, illustrating that the pope, through temporal rulers, defends the true faith and the church. On the wall under this picture, they will witness Pope Paul III Receiving Emperor Charles V, demonstrating that temporal rulers are subject to the pope, who is invested with spiritual power. Fabio Ardizio’s linking of the paintings of Paul III to the angels in the corresponding anticamera is probably an ingenious literary device of his own invention rather than a reflection of the paintings’ original intentions. Yet his interpretation seems in some way appropriate. According to the inscription under the central picture, Pope Paul  III was elected “with approval of God and men.” Twelve years after his death, the paintings commissioned by Cardinal Farnese the younger raised him to the status of a complete and perfect pope. In the company of Gregory  XIII, in 1579, Fabio Ardizio endowed him with the aura of an angel.

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and His Family  

S  117

Appendix The captions of the paintings in the anticamera or salotto read as follows: Paulus III Farnesius Pontif[ex] Maxim[us] Deo et hominibus approbantibus sacra tiara solenni ritu coronatur anno salutis MDXXXIV III non[is] Novemb[ribus] Paulus III Pontifex Maximus Carolum V Imperatorem ad oppugnandum Tunetem in Africam navigantem faus­ tis precibus prosequitur an[no] sal[utis] MDXXXV Carolum imp[eratorem] et Venetos ut Turcas communi secum classe persequantur consiliis et auctoritate permovet. An[no] sal[utis] MDXXXVIII Paulus III Pontifx Maximus Perusiam post defectionem ad officium atque obedientiam compellit anno a partu Virginis MDLX

Carolum  V Imp[eratorem] Tunete expugnato et rege restituto ex Africa redeuntem paterna charitate pro Divi Petri more maiorum excipit anno Christi MDXXXV Carolum Imp[eratorem] et Franciscum Valesium Galliarum Regem magnis Europae calamitatibus dissidentes Nicaeae foedere coniungens in gratiam reducit anno salutis MDXXXIIX Paulus III Pontifex Maximus constituendae Christianae disciplinae causa Tridenti concilium celebrat anno salutis MDXLVI Paulus  III Pontifex Maximus collegium cardinalium cooptatis viris clarissimis in his quatuor in pontificatum perpetua serie successuris illustrat

Henrico  VIII Ancliae r[egi] depravatae religionis crimine damnato de collegii sententia ius regium adimit an[no] sal[utis] MDXXXVI

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 117

12/7/12 1:47 PM

fig. 94  Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 118

12/7/12 1:47 PM

6

The Pope and Secular Power, Muslims, and Heretics Pius IV, Pius V, and Gregory XIII

I In April 1587, twenty-two-year-old Aernout van Buchel left his native city of Utrecht in the Netherlands for a long trip that led him, via the German states and Austria, to Italy.1 He reached Rome on November  9, and stayed through the winter until March  7, 1588. During his sojourn, Van Buchel visited most of Rome’s churches, antique buildings, and other attractions, which he carefully described in his diary. Back in Utrecht, in July 1588, he began to edit his notes, and over a period of at least five years he kept expanding them with information that he gathered from both classical sources and recent literature.2 Soon after his arrival in Rome, Van Buchel visited the Vatican Palace. He passed through the Hall of Constantine and the Pauline Chapel and duly recorded their decorations by Raphael and Michelangelo, but burst into enthusiasm when he entered the Sala Regia (fig. 94): From there [the Pauline Chapel] I entered a hall encrusted with marble, built at the expense of many popes, in particular Pius IV, whose very subtle likeness, which is not meant to be noticed by everyone, is there on the marble wall. The walls shine with the most splendid marble, the coffered vault sparkles with gold, the floor glimmers with a mixture of colored marble. Then at specific places, very accomplished pictures of the papal coats of arms come into view. The hall was begun

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 119

by Paul III, but completed by Gregory XIII. In the floor, at the four corners, is a dragon, the emblem of Gregory, with epigrams set with small cubes. . . . Above the door is written with gilded lettering on black marble: The decoration of this hall, started by order of Pope Paul III, and thereafter enriched through the zeal of Pius IV and Pius V, was brought to completion in the first year of Gregory XIII, in the year 1573. There are various paintings, and they are all identified by their own inscription, as follows. Giving in to his literary and historical interests, and intrigued by the obscure subjects of the paintings, Van Buchel meticulously copied their explanatory inscriptions so that he could work them out later.3 Yet he had already reconstructed the essential facts of the hall’s history by carefully examining the various names and data included in the decorations. More detailed information, such as the identification of the artists involved, eluded him. He could discover only one painter’s name, which he recorded for the sake of completeness and for the peculiarity that it was written in Greek: ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ>ΟΥΑCΑΡΙΟΣ  / ΑΡΕΤΙΝΟΣ>ΕΠΟΙΕΙ (fig. 95). He transcribed it as “Georgius Onacharius Aretinus,” failing to recognize it as the name

12/7/12 1:47 PM

fig. 95  Giorgio Vasari, signature in Greek (detail of fig. 112).

of a painter whom he certainly knew, Giorgio Vasari.4 Besides this little slip, there is another feature that Van Buchel may not have been aware of: the hall’s specific function. In spite of his enthusiasm, then, Van Buchel’s information about the hall and its decoration was scanty and fragmentary. What are the details that he would certainly have liked to know?

II Van Buchel correctly inferred from the long inscription on the northern wall above the papal throne (fig. 96) that construction of the hall had started during the pontificate of Paul III. The pope may have felt the need for a modern and impressive room to receive prominent visitors on April 5, 1536, when he gave an audience to Emperor Charles V. For this important and politically strained visit, Paul had many buildings and monuments

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 120

lining the emperor’s route through Rome hastily restored and afterwards totally renewed. Among them were the palaces and the square on the Capitoline Hill (see chapter 3). Paul received the emperor in front of Saint Peter’s and after the greeting ceremony led him to the old audience hall (see chapter 5). About a year later, the pope’s architect, Antonio da Sangallo, started the construction of a grand new audience room, which involved the demolition of large parts of the earlier hall.5 Around 1541 this project had proceeded far enough for Perino del Vaga and his crew to start applying stucco decorations on the huge vault and the walls.6 As the room’s name, Sala Regia (Royal Hall), indicates, Pope Paul  III intended it as an audience room to receive important visitors such as kings, princes, and ambassadors (fig. 98).7 Before it could serve that purpose, however, it was where the College of Cardinals met in conclave following Paul’s death on November 10, 1549.

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

Shortly before the pope, both Antonio da Sangallo and Perino del Vaga had also passed away. Fortunately, the construction of the hall, as well as the magnificent stucco decoration of the vault, had already been completed, and another artist, Daniele da Volterra, had been commissioned to decorate the walls with stucco frames and fresco paintings. The conclave of 1549, however, drastically interrupted Daniele’s work, as all the scaffoldings had to be taken down to make way for the cells where the cardinals would stay. As it turned out, none of the next three popes shared Paul’s urgent wish for a beautifully decorated audience hall, and through the 1550s the Sala remained as unfinished as it was in 1549. The project was not revived until Pius IV commissioned Daniele and the prominent painter Francesco Salviati to continue the work. Unfortunately, these two great artists used most of their time and energy in the Sala Regia to make each other’s lives miserable. Around 1563 it was therefore decided to dismiss them and hire a team of young, promising artists to paint the fields above the doors of the Sala (see figs. 102, 103, 105, 106, 107 below). Giuseppe Porta, a pupil of Francesco Salviati, was assigned on his own to one of the large fields between two doors (see fig. 104 below).8 By 1564 the work was in full swing and payments were being made regularly. However, it all came to a stop on December 9 of the next year, when Pope Pius IV passed away (fig. 99). Just as fifteen years earlier, the scaffoldings in the Sala were taken down to make room for the cardinals’ cells, and again the conclave produced a pontiff, Pius V, who was not interested in continuing the project. But when the combined fleets of Spain, Venice, and the Papal States defeated the Ottoman fleet near Lepanto on October  7, 1571, the pope, seeing the battle as a turning point in history, quickly commissioned Giorgio Vasari to commemorate the victory in three large paintings between the doors of the Sala Regia. Pius died when Vasari had hardly started, on May 1 of the next year. Again the Sala had to be prepared for a conclave, but this time it resulted in a pope who seriously wanted the decoration to be completed. Within a month of his election, Gregory XIII ordered Vasari to continue his work. However, still in that same year, a second turning point in history (from the papal point of view) occurred. On Saint  Bartholomew’s

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 121

S  121

fig. 96  North wall of the Sala Regia, with papal throne, Vatican Palace, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

12/7/12 1:47 PM

fig. 97  South wall of the Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. fig. 98  Pietro da Cortona (ascribed), Pope Paul V Receiving the Imperial Ambassador Paolo Savelli During an Audience in the Sala Regia, May 1, 1620, ca. 1624–26. Harrach Gallery, Schloss Rohrau, Vienna. CKD, RU Nijmegen. In the background can be seen Giorgio Vasari’s paintings The Christian and the Turkish Fleets on the Eve of the Battle at Lepanto (left; fig. 119) and The Assault on Admiral Caspar de Coligny (right; fig. 115); and, in the middle above the door, Girolamo Siciolante’s King Pippin III Handing Back the Territories of the Church to Pope Stephen II (fig. 102). fig. 99  Etienne Dupérac, Pope Pius V Conferring the Title of Grand Duke on Cosimo I de’ Medici, February 18, 1570. CKD, RU Nijmegen. © Trustees of the British Museum. Although the depiction is not accurate, it does give an impression of what the Sala Regia looked like after the death of Pope Pius IV. The proportions of the fields on the walls are a little off, and most of the smaller fields above the doors were no longer empty, as they had already been painted in 1564. The same is true for the large field with the inscription on the right, where Giuseppe Porta had represented Emperor Frederick Barbarossa Asking Pope Alexander III for Forgiveness. The large field with the crown and the Medici coat of arms on the left would be painted by Giorgio Vasari in 1573 with The Christian and the Turkish Fleets on the Eve of the Battle at Lepanto.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 122

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

Day, August 24, 1572, the Protestant Huguenots in Paris were massacred. Gregory celebrated the event with a special Jubilee and told Vasari to adjust the subjects of the paintings in the Sala Regia.9 The three scenes planned to show the Battle of Lepanto were reduced to two (see figs. 119 and 120 below) in order to create space for three paintings showing the Catholic victory over the Protestants in France (see figs. 115, 117, 118 below). Living up to his reputation as a very fast painter, Vasari finished both the Lepanto and Huguenot paintings within a few months. By then only two fields were still left open, and Vasari, swift as always, also took care of these (see figs. 109, 112 below). Other artists meanwhile added missing details, such as various stucco figures and the papal coat of arms. On Sacrament’s Day, May 21, 1573, after many years of work and interruption, the Sala Regia was finally inaugurated.

III The first series of paintings in the Sala Regia, the fields above the doors, was carried out by young and still relatively unknown artists.10 As these fields are smaller and situated higher than those between the doors, one may assume that the pope and his advisers used them as trial pieces to see how well these painters

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 123

S  123

could do. The subjects were incidents from papal history, some relatively well-known, but others highly obscure. They all entailed kings and emperors offering or restoring territories to the church. With hardly any earlier representations to use as an example, depicting these events must have been a difficult task. The painters’ general point of reference was The Donation in the adjoining Hall of Constantine (fig. 59), the best-known illustration at the time of a secular ruler offering his territory to the church. The painters all adopted conspicuous components from this work, such as bystanders gesticulating and discussing the events with each other, curious people climbing on columns, and innocent children unaware of what is happening. They also included allegorical elements as well as portraits of contemporaries and the coat of arms of their patron, Pope Pius IV. They further raised the sense of unity by using the same scale for the figures depicted in the foreground of all the paintings. The obscure subject matter and the internal coherence of the paintings point to a tight coordination. We know from the account Giorgio Vasari wrote in 1568, before he became personally involved in the project, that Cardinals Alessandro Farnese the younger and Marcantonio da Mula were responsible for the work’s progress, and probably also for the selection of the artists.11 The topics of the paintings, however, must have been chosen by a specialist in papal history. Most likely this was the learned Onofrio Panvinio, who had assisted Cardinal Farnese in selecting the themes for the paintings in his palace in Caprarola and updated Bartolomeo Platina’s standard work from 1479 on the history of the popes.12 The scenes were chosen from various times and countries, ranging from King Luitprand and Pope Gregory  II in the early eighth century (see fig.  105 below) to King Peter  II of Aragon and Pope Innocent  III in 1204 (see fig.  103 below), and from princes of Germany and kings of Spain and France to the Emperor of the Romans, Charlemagne (see fig.  107 below). Together they illustrate that the church’s territorial claims were historically justified and that secular princes did indeed respect them. Meanwhile, however, the authenticity of Constantine’s donation itself was increasingly doubted, in spite of the church’s claim to the contrary. In 1547, some fifteen years before the Sala Regia paintings were executed, Augustinus Steuchus of Gubbio had seriously tried to prove the

12/7/12 1:47 PM

124  S   The Power and the Glorification

authenticity of the Donation, but, unable to adduce positive arguments, took refuge in the contention that the donations of so many later kings and emperors were sufficient evidence to establish the validity of the one by Constantine.13 Moreover, according to Steuchus, these lands had always belonged to the church, even though they had afterwards been occupied by “barbarians.” In other words, these princes did not make donations, they simply restored to the church its rightful territories. Thus the princes were more than rulers who respected the law; they ranked as protectors of the church. As all the donation scenes of the Sala Regia (plus many more) are included in Steuchus’s book, we may assume that it served as an important source for the scholar who selected the paintings’ topics. During the first phase of the decoration work, the painter Giuseppe Porta had already started on some of the large fields between the doors. He probably owed his commission to Cardinal da Mula, a fellow citizen from Venice. Due to the death of Pope Pius  IV, however, he finished only one of them. Two fields on the short south wall (fig. 97) were allotted to a protégé of Cardinal Farnese, Taddeo Zuccaro, who was already painting the scene with Charlemagne over one of the doors (see fig.  107 below).14 Giovanni Maria Zoppelli painted a very narrow field in the northeast corner (fig. 101). His painting lacks an inscription, and its subject is still a matter of speculation. Most recently it has been suggested that it represents Charles of Anjou’s oath of loyalty after the enfeoffment of Sicily in 1265.15 The captions of the two paintings by Giuseppe Porta and by Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro, on the other hand, leave no doubt about their subjects. The former shows Emperor Frederick Barbarossa asking forgiveness from Pope Alexander III in 1177 (see fig. 104 below), while the latter shows Emperor Henry IV asking the same from Pope Gregory  VII in Canossa in 1077 (see fig.  108 below). From these two subjects it can be inferred that all the large fields between the doors should have shown examples of secular princes paying obedience to the pope. Next to the painting of Henry IV and Gregory VII, Taddeo and his brother Federico Zuccaro painted a scene that does not quite continue the theme of princely obedience to the pope. It shows the capture of Tunis by Charles V in 1535 (see fig. 114 below), which is rather an example of the protection of the

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 124

church against the threat of the infidels. When Pope Pius V, almost six years after the death of Pius IV, commissioned Giorgio Vasari to add three new paintings to the Sala Regia, he disregarded the theme of the paintings that were already there. Yet, by coincidence, the theme of the Battle of Lepanto perfectly continues the argument of the Zuccaros’ Tunis painting. The paintings were to depict Don John of Austria receiving the banner of the church, symbolizing his appointment as commander of the united fleet of Spain, Venice, and the church; the preparation for the battle; and the battle itself (see figs. 119–21 below). Vasari took his job very seriously. He wrote to people who had personally taken part in the fights and asked them for detailed information. When Pius died in May, Vasari had finished the designs and started the actual painting.16 When Pope Gregory XIII requested Vasari to continue his work with three new scenes of the victory of the Huguenots in France, the scene of Don John’s nomination was abandoned. The three new scenes gave yet another twist to the theme of the Sala’s decoration (see figs. 115, 117, 118 below). To the church’s victory over the infidels was now added the triumph over heresy.17 Yet Vasari did try to obtain a certain coherence with the paintings from the first decoration phase, and therefore included similar components, such as allegorical elements and portraits of contemporaries. Still, this could not prevent the overall theme of the Sala’s decoration from becoming rather diffuse. With two fields still unadorned, Vasari made an ultimate attempt to create some unity. He personally came up with the suggestion to add two paintings showing some of the historical popes called Gregory, as an allusion to the reigning Pope Gregory XIII.18 For the field above the door to the staircase he suggested Pope Gregory IX Excommunicating Emperor Frederick II (see fig. 109 below), an event that would continue the theme of papal superiority over temporal rulers. For the one large field that was still unadorned, he proposed Pope Gregory XI Returning the Papal Seat from Avignon to Rome, in 1376 (fig.  112), alluding to the pope’s independence from secular rulers. An inscription on the north wall aptly summarizes and explains the common theme of the entire room. Quoting a biblical verse from Saint  Paul’s letter to the Romans (2:6) it states, “Reddet unicuique Deus secundum opera eius” (God will render to every man according to his works).19

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

S  125

fig. 100  Diagram of the paintings in the Sala Regia. From De Jong, “Papal History and Historical Invenzione,” 222. 1. Fiorini, Pope Gregory II Receiving King Luitprand’s Confirmation (fig. 105) 2. Sicciolante, King Pippin III Handing Back the Territories of the Church (fig. 102) 3. Samacchini, Otto I Restoring to the Church the Occupied Provinces (fig. 106) 4. Agresti, King Peter II of Aragon Offering His Kingdom (fig. 103) 5.  Taddeo Zuccaro, Charlemagne Returning the Possessions of the Church (fig. 107) 6. Vasari, Pope Gregory IX Excommunicating Emperor Frederick II (fig. 109) 7. Zoppelli, Charles of Anjou’s Oath of Loyalty(?) (fig. 101) 8. Porta, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa Asking Pope Alexander III for Forgiveness (fig. 104) 9. Vasari, Pope Gregory XI Returning the Papal Seat from Avignon to Rome (fig. 112) 10.  Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro, Charles V Capturing Tunis in 1535 (fig. 114) 11.  Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro, Pope Gregory VII Absolving Emperor Henry IV (fig. 108) 12. Vasari, The Battle of Lepanto (fig. 120) 13. Vasari, The Christian and the Turkish Fleets on the Eve of the Battle of Lepanto (fig. 119) 14. Vasari, The Assault on Admiral Caspar de Coligny (fig. 115) 15. Vasari, The Massacre of the Huguenots (fig. 117) 16. Vasari, King Charles IX Approving the Massacre of the Huguenots (fig. 118)

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 125

12/7/12 1:47 PM

126  S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 101  Giovanni Maria Zoppelli, Charles of Anjou’s Oath of Loyalty After the Enfeoffment of Sicily(?), 1564–65. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. This painting lacks an inscription, and its subject is still not clear. The identification as Charles of Anjou’s Oath of Loyalty, suggested by Angela Böck, seems the most convincing.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 126

Vasari’s involvement ended in mid-April 1573, when all the paintings were ready and only the floor still had to be finished. A month later, this job had also been done. When the Sala was officially inaugurated,20 the final result made a deep impression on visitors and overshadowed the fame of the Hall of Constantine. Van Buchel dedicated only a few lines to the latter room, but his description quoted at the beginning of this chapter clearly shows that he could hardly control his enthusiasm when he entered the Sala Regia.21 Michel de Montaigne had a similar experience when he visited the Vatican palace on March 14, 1581. In his travel account, he wasted few words on the other rooms he saw, but he did pay attention to the paintings in the Sala Regia.22 An  anonymous visitor from around 1585 (see chapter 4)  noted that “this hall . . . almost takes away the memory of that [room] close by of Constantine.”23 Admittedly, much of this admiration was caused by the shiny and expensive materials such as gold and marble, which had been used in more abundance than in the Hall of Constantine. Yet many visitors also were intrigued by the paintings and their unusual subjects. Like Van Buchel, the anonymous visitor copied their explanatory inscriptions, including them in his lengthy description of the Sala.24 But did these visitors also perceive the “message” of the decorations? Did they recognize that the paintings were meant to put representatives of temporary power in their proper place in relation to the pope’s superior, spiritual power? The anonymous visitor was certainly well-informed. He recognized the coats of arms of the various popes and was even able to identify some of the portraits included in the paintings. In Giuseppe Porta’s Emperor Frederick Barbarossa Asking Pope Alexander III for Forgiveness from 1563 (see fig. 104 below), he recognized that Pope Alexander III was actually a portrait of Pius IV, even though this pope had been dead for more than fifteen years. In the same picture he also recognized the portraits of Cardinals Alessandro Farnese (who was still alive at the time) and Ippolito d’Este, who had died in 1572.25 In Vasari’s Battle of Lepanto (see fig. 120 below), he perceptively distinguished the historical encounter from the allegorical additions. The lower half of the picture shows the melee of “the ships of the infidels and of us Christians, clouds of smoke, darkness, the sea colored red because of the astounding number of dead bodies.” In the

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

S  127

painting’s upper half are “angels and divine creatures with a sword in their hand” and “demons and similar beings who are fleeing.” Aptly, he explained that even though these hosts of angels and demons were invisible, they were there when the battle took place, “because without divine assistance we Christians could never have prevailed, and so they have been painted to uphold and increase our devotion.” In spite of these keen observations, the anonymous visitor does not seem to have been familiar with most of the historical events the paintings show. His occasional descriptions hardly help to clarify the subjects. Thus, he elucidates Livio Agresti’s King Peter of Aragon Offering His Kingdom to Pope Innocent III (fig.  103) as “a king and many cardinals,” while he explains Vasari’s Pope Gregory  IX Excommunicating Emperor Frederick II (see fig. 109 below) as “the pope on his seat, who in the company of the clergy and celebrating cardinals seems to be throwing a torch.” Nor does the writer hint at any awareness of the paintings’ message—either of the individual scenes or of the ensemble. He seems to have observed the paintings very closely, but not to have questioned their subject matter. When Van Buchel visited the hall a few years later, he would focus right in on that aspect.

IV Only a few of the historical topics illustrated in the Sala Regia were familiar to Van Buchel. As noted above, he inferred basic information about the Sala’s history from the various papal coats of arms and inscriptions, but some of the fine points eluded him. Thus, he was not aware of the various stages in which the hall’s decoration had been executed. Accordingly, he did not distinguish between the smaller paintings above the doors, executed during the pontificate of Pius IV, and the larger ones, executed in the days of Pius V and Gregory XIII. Nor does he seem to have recognized that the paintings made for Pius IV had a somewhat different message than those made for the two other popes. Hence, he described and assessed each painting individually. The order in which Van Buchel listed the pictures runs roughly clockwise, starting in the northeast corner and ending

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 127

fig. 102  Girolamo Sicciolante da Sermoneta, King Pippin III Handing Back the Territories of the Church to Pope Stephen II, 1565. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. This painting lacks an inscription. Its subject is known through a remark of Giorgio Vasari in the 1568 edition of his Lives. The papal coat of arms on the banner in the left background is that of Pius IV, during whose pontificate the painting was made.

12/7/12 1:47 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 128

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

with Vasari’s paintings on the north and the west wall. He skipped the two pictures without an inscription, probably because he had no idea what they represented and did not see why or how he should record them.26 Van Buchel began with the painting of King Peter of Aragon offering his kingdom to Pope Innocent  III (fig.  103). According to the caption, the king also promised an annual financial tribute, as well as obedience to and protection of the Holy See.27 The painter, Livio Agresti da Forlì, must not have been very familiar with this event, nor does he seem to have had an adviser to supply him with specific information. The picture shows in very general terms, clearly derived from the famous donation scene in the Hall of Constantine (see fig. 59), a king (on the right side of the painting) being led to a church or palace by two cardinals. Curiously, no pope is included in the picture, although well-informed “pope watchers” may have recognized the portrait of Paul III in the features of the old cardinal. Paul III was the grandfather of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, who was in charge of the Sala’s decoration project and had his own portrait included as that of the cardinal immediately next to the king.28 Ahead of the king, a young man carries a statuette symbolizing the Aragonese kingdom, while on the left a man leads a white horse, referring to the king’s duty as strator.29 Staring at this picture and studying its explanatory inscription, Van Buchel was at a loss. Not having heard of the event mentioned in the caption, and with no specific clue in the painting, he did something that would be natural for a modern art historian but that we have no record of anyone in his time doing: he got out his history books and checked!

fig. 103  Livio Agresti da Forlì, King Peter II of Aragon Offering His Kingdom to Pope Innocent III, 1564. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The features of the cardinal on the right, with the long white beard, are those of Pope Paul III, who had died in 1549. The cardinal to his left is his grandson, Alessandro Farnese, who was in charge of the decoration of the Sala Regia in the first half of the 1560s.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 129

S  129

We should not, of course, imagine Van Buchel entering the Sala Regia with a sixteenth-century version of The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Instead, we must assume that after his visit, as he worked out his notes, he tried to find the necessary background information that would make the inscriptions and paintings more comprehensible. He did not necessarily do this in Rome; he continued working on his report for many years after his return to Utrecht, using information garnered, in some cases, from books published after his stay in Italy.30 The books he used for information about these paintings, however, were already available while he was in Rome, and may even have been consulted by the painters themselves. They were Bartolomeo Platina’s History of the Lives of the Popes, first printed in 1479 and updated by Onofrio Panvinio in 1563; the older Decades of Flavio Biondo, written in 1437–42, before the invention of book printing, but already available in print in the 1480s; and the considerably older Chronicles of the Popes and Emperors by Martinus Polonus from Oppava (d. 1278), which was printed in 1474, 1559, and 1574. Unfortunately, these books offer no specific information on what exactly happened when King Peter of Aragon offered his kingdom to Pope Innocent III. Van Buchel noted that he searched for a long time, but all he found was a mention in Platina’s History of a King Peter of Aragon who was excommunicated by Pope Martin IV. This, however, happened more than sixty-five years after the papacy of Innocent III! Van Buchel was not the only one to be frustrated by the painting’s subject. The painter himself, as we have seen, must also have been exasperated by the lack of specific information. The painting, in fact, does not show King Peter III of Aragon, who was indeed excommunicated in 1282 (and deposed in 1283) by Pope Martin IV, but Peter II, who traveled to Rome and met with Innocent  III in 1204. This incident is related in the Gesta Innocentii PP. III, a chronicle of Pope Innocent’s deeds that was written during his papacy (1198–1216) but not printed until 1635.31 It is no wonder that Van Buchel was not familiar with either this chronicle or with this incident, which was only very sporadically mentioned in other history books.32 Why, one wonders, was such an obscure event selected for the decoration of the Sala Regia?

12/7/12 1:47 PM

130  S   The Power and the Glorification

The most likely reason is that, as we saw above, the donation scenes above the doors had to illustrate contributions made by emperors and kings from all ages and all countries. Hence an example, even an obscure one, from the history of a major Christian country like Spain was needed. There were scholars familiar with King Peter’s visit to Innocent  III through the Gesta, including the great papal historian Onofrio Panvinio, who worked for Cardinal Alessandro Farnese; among Pan­ vinio’s papers is a scrap note containing a description of the visit, copied from the Gesta.33 And in 1547 the visit was mentioned very briefly by Augustinus Steuchus of Gubbio in his book disproving Lorenzo Valla’s claims against the authenticity of the Constantinian Donation. But while the author of the Gesta described Peter’s donation as a sort of agreement in which the king pledged to protect the Holy See and the church in exchange for lasting support of his royal line in Aragon, Steuchus shifted the emphasis to the king’s donation, relating that the king offered his kingdom to “Saint  Peter” and then received it back as a fief.34 The inscription under the painting mentions both King Peter’s donation (but not the enfeoffment!) and his pledge to protect the Holy See, and additionally states that the king promised obedience to the pope and contracted to pay an annual tribute. Visitors to the Sala Regia who were just as unfamiliar with the subject of the painting as Van Buchel was were forced to accept the inscription at face value and may never have realized how they were manipulated by its puffed-up content. That, however, was precisely what struck Van Buchel when he studied the next painting, by Giuseppe Porta (fig.  104). The only large one executed during the papacy of Pius IV, in 1564,35 it depicts a much more familiar event. The long inscription explains that Pope Alexander III, fleeing the force and anger of Emperor Frederick I (Barbarossa), hides in Venice, where he is recognized and honored by the Senate. After the capture of Frederick’s son Otto by the Venetians, the emperor supplicates the pope for peace and pledges fidelity and obedience. “Thus the pope’s dignity is restored to him by the kind service of the Venetian republic, in the year 1177.” The painting actually shows only the moment when the emperor humbly kneels before the pope. In spite of the correctly recorded date of 1177, the painter has made the event

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 130

take place against the background of contemporary Venice. From the anonymous description mentioned above, we know that the painting contains portraits of prominent contemporaries, including Pope Pius  IV as Alexander  III.  Van Buchel may not have recognized these portraits, but he was certainly familiar with the event, which he had no difficulty finding in his history books. The depiction conforms more or less to the accounts of Martinus Polonus, Flavio Biondo, and Bartolomeo Platina, who all relate that, after negotiations, the emperor made peace with the pope. He then traveled to Venice, where, near the vestibule of the Church of San  Marco, he humbly knelt and kissed the foot of the Holy Father. However, their accounts are silent about the pope fleeing to Venice and the Venetians capturing the emperor’s son. For that, Van Buchel consulted Venetian history books written by Marcantonio Sabellico, Pietro Marcello, and “others,”36 which relate how the pope tried to escape the fury of the emperor by hiding anonymously in the monastery of Santa Maria della Carità in Venice. Miraculously, he managed to stay there unnoticed for several months. (One wonders if the Holy Father was ever missed in Rome during all that time.) Recognized by a priest, he was received with all honors by the doge and the Venetian people, and it was not long before his whereabouts were known to the emperor. The Venetians held off the subsequent attack of the imperial fleet and even captured the emperor’s son Otto, which led to peace negotiations and the emperor’s humble request for papal forgiveness. The Venetian history books that Van Buchel consulted certainly helped him to understand the picture better. They supplied details that Polonus, Biondo, and Platina omitted, and even provided some extra information. According to these (and other) Venetian historians, the pope did not just reconcile with the emperor after the latter had humbly kissed

fig. 104  Giuseppe Porta, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa Asking Pope Alexander III for Forgiveness, 1564. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The features of Pope Alexander III are actually those of Pius IV, during whose pontificate the painting was made.

12/7/12 1:47 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 131

12/7/12 1:47 PM

132   S   The Power and the Glorification

his foot, but proceeded to put his foot on the emperor’s head, and declared—in words taken from Psalm 91—that he would “tread upon the lion and the dragon.”37 The emperor aptly responded that he submitted himself to Saint Peter and not to the individual Pope Alexander III, to which the pope haughtily rejoined that Frederick would submit himself to both. This papal arrogance may have irritated Van Buchel, but what infuriated him was that the incident was suppressed in the painting’s inscription. Now it struck him that he was being manipulated. After recording the inscription, he angrily noted, “Biondo in his second Decade, and before him Martinus [Polonus] and after him Platina have all described this event, just as the historians of Venetian affairs such as [Pietro] Marcello and [Marcantonio] Sabellico and others have done; but the arrogance, nay, the insolence of Alexander, who trampled on the head of this great man, and spoke the haughty words: ‘Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder,’ to which the emperor replied: ‘Not to you but to Saint Peter I submit myself,’ and the pope reacted with: ‘Both to me and to Saint Peter’—that these papal parasites have omitted.” The painting prompted a similar reaction from Michel de Montaigne, who visited the Sala Regia six years earlier, on March  14, 1581. Montaigne knew the story through chapter 40 of Henri Estienne’s Apologie pour Hérodote (1566),38 which lists examples of the “folly of abuses” committed by popes and other clerics so as to show that, in comparison, the stories of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus may not seem all that odd. The peculiar story of Pope Alexander  III and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa fits naturally into that context. Preconditioned by this view, Montaigne noted in his travel journal that “there is a picture representing that pope placing his foot on the head of the emperor who came to ask his pardon and kiss his feet; but not the words spoken by both men according to history.”39 Both Van Buchel and Montaigne seem to have focused so much on the omission of the verbal dispute that they missed or forgot to note the prominent role played by the city of Venice. The painting shows the emperor as a representative of the secular power paying obedience to the pope, who stands for spiritual authority. But according to the inscription, the pope was able to retain this authority only through “the kind service of

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 132

the Venetian republic, in the year 1177.” It might seem strange that Venice should play such a prominent role in this hall full of papal propaganda. To explain this, one should consider the involvement of two men from that city: the painter, Giuseppe Porta, and Cardinal Marcantonio da Mula, who together with Cardinal Farnese was in charge of the decoration of the Sala Regia. Da Mula had himself portrayed in the painting as the bearded cardinal on the right, standing immediately behind the supreme pontiff.40 He owed his position to Pope Pius IV, who had elevated him to the rank of cardinal without the approval of the Venetian republic. One of the cardinal’s strategies to obtain the Republic’s agreement seems to have been the promotion of Venice’s importance, even within the context of this deliberate piece of papal propaganda. Thus he may have been responsible for including the Republic’s crucial role in restoring the pope’s dignity in the inscription of the Sala Regia. To the Venetians, this was their finest hour, and representations of it had been a permanent feature of the decoration of their Doge’s Palace since at least 1329. In addition, it was Cardinal da Mula who chose the Venetian painter Giuseppe Porta to execute the painting; Porta added a splendid contemporary view of Venice as the background to this historical event. However, this Venetian presence provoked a serious political incident soon after the visits of Van Buchel and Montaigne. Around 1600, Cardinal Cesare Baronio, preparing the publication of his Ecclesiastical Annals, discovered that twelfth-century documents do not relate the nasty exchange of words between the pope and the emperor. Moreover, they are silent about the pope hiding in Venice, the capture of the emperor’s son Otto, and Frederick’s plea for absolution. What became clear from these contemporary sources was that the emperor and the pope had been involved in a prolonged conflict during which Alexander III was faced with an antipope and Frederick was excommunicated. After his defeat by the Lombard League in 1176, however, Frederick sent envoys to Alexander, who was staying in Anagni. The ensuing negotiations led to an agreement that was to be confirmed in Venice, since this city had held a relatively independent position during the conflict. On the day before their meeting, the emperor formally acknowledged Alexander as the rightful pope, and

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

Alexander’s delegates consequently lifted Frederick’s excommunication. On July 24, Frederick went to Venice and greeted Alexander with the traditional foot kiss. Then followed a Mass in the Church of San Marco and several days of festivities. The Venetians desperately tried to prove the historical accuracy of their version of the event. In 1635, however, Pope Urban VIII had the inscription in the Sala Regia replaced by one that considerably dimmed the Venetian luster: “After pursuing Alexander III for a long time with hostile intentions, Emperor Frederick  I, having agreed to the conditions for a peace agreement and the end of the schism, humbly renders homage to the pope in Venice.”41 In response, the Venetians angrily withdrew their ambassador. Diplomatic relations between Venice and Rome would not return to normal until 1644, when the next pope, Innocent  X, agreed to have the original inscription reinstated.42 So, after all, the accounts of Martinus Polonus, Flavio Biondo, and Bartolomeo Platina turned out to be more accurate than those of Venetian historians like Marcantonio Sabellico and Pietro Marcello. Yet it is clear that in 1562, Cardinal da Mula and his advisers selected the episode of Frederick’s plea for forgiveness for the glorious light it would shed on Venice, and that they underscored this in the inscription. At the same time, they must also have been familiar with the exchange of unpleasant words between the pope and the emperor that the Venetian historians report. That they did not mention it in the caption of the painting was evidently because of the unfavorable light it would cast on the papacy. Consequently, even though Van Buchel was wrong in putting more faith in the Venetian historians, he was basically still correct in recognizing that “those papal parasites” were manipulating the Sala’s visitors in their perception of the pope’s historical claims of spiritual authority. When Van Buchel turned to the other paintings in the Sala Regia, he found again that his history books offered only limited help. In the southwestern corner, Giovanni Battista Fiorini’s painting from 1565 shows an event that is not satisfactorily explained in the inscription (fig. 105).43 A middle-aged man with a crown on his head and accompanied by a squire is shown putting a document on an altar covered by a canopy. A  bearded clergyman (either a cardinal or a pope) seems to

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 133

S  133

talk to him, while a crowd of bystanders watches. The event takes place in a huge building that looks like the new Church of Saint Peter’s in Rome. Quite beside the point, the inscription explains that Pope Gregory  II died in the seventeenth year of his pontificate, when a large part of Germany had been converted to the worship of the true God and the donation of the Longobardian King Ariperth had been confirmed by his successor, Luitprand. Van Buchel found that Martinus Polonus and Platina confirm that Gregory’s pontificate lasted sixteen years and either eight or nine months (715–31). The rest of their information was less helpful. Both report that Germany was indeed Christianized (by Saint  Boniface) during that time, but Martinus is silent about a donation of King Ariperth confirmed by Luitprand. Flavio Biondo, however, relates that this donation and its confirmation took place during the pontificate of John  VII (705–7). Platina writes very skeptically about Ariperth’s donation, which he also situates in the pontificate of John VII. Rather surprisingly, he later adds that Gregory II urged the reluctant Luitprand to confirm the donation, “about which we wrote earlier.” Not sure what to make of it, Van Buchel concluded, “Platina, without proof, writes that this [donation] is a rumor.” In this case, the information in the inscription is essentially correct, even though not all of it relates to the painting. During the short pontificate of John  VII, King Ariperth  II did indeed recognize the church’s possession of the Cottian Alps (the area around the French-Italian border), and some ten years later, in the beginning of Gregory II’s pontificate, King Luitprand reconfirmed this “donation.” The scholarly historian who selected the themes of the paintings must have garnered this information from a source that was not available to Van Buchel, the Liber pontificalis, a sort of catalogue of papal biographies, which was compiled by various persons over a period of many centuries and appeared in print only in 1602. It  describes the King Luitprand episode briefly but quite clearly in the life of Gregory  II.  Altogether, however, the information was so sparse and obscure that it must have caused serious problems for both the adviser and the painter to turn it into a comprehensible picture. Most probably they decided to illustrate the moment when King Luitprand hands

12/7/12 1:47 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 134

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

the document with the confirmation to the pope or a cardinal on the altar of Saint  Peter’s (which is anachronistically represented as the sixteenth-century building). The result does indeed look like yet another example of a royal donation, even if critical observers like Van Buchel found it impossible to figure out what exactly was being shown. Van Buchel was similarly unsatisfied with Orazio Sa­macchini’s painting in the southeast corner of the Sala, which according to its present caption shows Otto I Restoring to the Church the Provinces Occupied by the Tyrants Berengar and His Son Adalbert (fig. 106).44 This caption differs somewhat from the inscription as Van Buchel copied it,45 which erroneously gives the name of the tyrant’s son as Rudolph and adds that Otto (936–73) was the “first emperor.” Again, the painting does not quite correspond to its inscription. It is more explicit, in that it shows not only Otto donating a statuette symbolizing the lost provinces to the pope, but also both “tyrants” in chains kneeling before the supreme pontiff. Once more Van Buchel lost the historical thread. Martinus, he noted, does not mention a son who was captured, but does relate that Berengar and his son Adalbert reigned for four years, while Biondo and Platina write that Emperor Otto did remove Berengar and his son from power, but restored them to their positions after they were reconciled with the pope. Like the painting of Frederick Barbarossa and Alexander  III, that of Otto and Berengar shows one very specific moment, without any indication of the final outcome: the reconciliation of the pope and the “tyrants.” It is thus a sort of pictogram rather than an accurate illustration of the event. Observers who are not familiar with the story may even gather from the painting that both Berengar and Adalbert were led in chains to the pope. There is also something curious about the inscription that Van Buchel failed to note: the name of the pope is not mentioned!

fig. 105  Giovanni Battista Fiorini, Pope Gregory II Receiving King Luitprand’s Confirmation of the Donation by King Ariperth, 1565. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 135

S  135

Van Buchel duly followed Biondo and Platina, who situate the event during the rule of Pope Agapetus II (946–55).46 In reality, however, it took place in the years 961 and 962, during the pontificate of John XII.47 John called in the German troops under Otto to save Rome and Italy from the threat of Berengar and his son Adalbert. Otto defeated Berengar and, as a reward, was crowned emperor in the Church of Saint Peter’s on February 2, 962. During the crowning ceremony, he dutifully swore to the pope, “Whatsoever of Saint  Peter’s property comes into my hands I will restore to thee. To whomsoever I shall bequeath the kingdom of Italy, he will swear to be thy helper in defense of the ecclesiastical state.”48 However, Otto had hardly left the city when John learned that the inhabitants of the freed regions had been forced to take an oath of allegiance to the emperor and not to the pope. Furious, he now offered the imperial crown to Berengar. When Berengar failed him, he offered it to Adalbert. Of course, this called for a reaction from Otto. He successfully attacked Rome and summoned a synod, which deposed Pope John on December 4, 963, and installed Leo VIII as his successor. In February of the next year, John managed to return as pope, but not for long: he died unexpectedly on May 14. John  XII was eighteen years old when he became pope. He was a dissolute young nobleman whose policies and personal morals far from contributed to the church’s authority.49 In order to waste as few words as possible on this disgraceful person, Flavio Biondo and Bartolomeo Platina seem to have shifted the date of Otto’s invasion of Italy and his coronation as emperor to the papacy of John’s predecessor, Agapetus II. The author of the inscription in the Sala Regia mentions no pope at all. And it worked: Van Buchel felt unsatisfied, but he was not reminded of Pope John XII.50 Van Buchel was more satisfied when he studied Taddeo Zuccaro’s Charlemagne Returning the Possessions of the Church in the middle of the east wall (fig. 107) and Pope Gregory VII Absolving Emperor Henry  IV on the short southern wall (fig. 108).51 The former painting is rather general, in both its design and the phrasing of its inscription. It shows Charle­ magne as a respectable, graybearded monarch signing a document, surrounded by advisers and courtiers, while the inscription explains that “Charlemagne restores the Roman Church

12/7/12 1:47 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 136

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

S  137

fig. 106  Orazio Samacchini, Otto I Restoring to the Church the Provinces Occupied by the Tyrants Berengar and His Son Adalbert, 1563–64. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The features and the coat of arms of the pope are those of Pius IV, during whose pontificate the painting was made. fig. 107  Taddeo Zuccaro, Charlemagne Returning the Possessions of the Church, 1564–65. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 137

12/7/12 1:47 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 138

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

to the possession of its property.” Van Buchel gave the date of this event as “around the Christian year 800” and referred to Martinus, Biondo, and Platina “for more information.” The event depicted actually took place in 774; 800 was the date of Charlemagne’s coronation. Van Buchel did not confuse the two, however. He correctly explained that the painting represents Charlemagne, at the request of Pope Hadrian, recognizing the church as the owner of the lands that the Longobardian King Desiderius had wrested from it. As Martinus, Biondo, and Platina are not always very specific in giving dates, Van Buchel must have assumed that “around the Christian year 800” was close enough. The inscription to Zuccaro’s other painting explains that “Gregory VII absolves Emperor Henry, who has caused harm to the church but later humbly kneels and repents.” Both the inscription and the painting give a fairly neutral summary of Henry IV’s visit to the pope in Canossa in 1077, in accordance with the accounts of Biondo and Platina. The excommunicated emperor, having waited for almost three days in the severe cold, dressed in few clothes and accompanied by his wife and little son, is finally granted an audience with the pope, thanks to the mediation of Countess Mathilda (in the middle of the picture) and Abbot Hugo of Cluny (on the right). Van Buchel was silent about the left background of the painting, which shows in an almost separate scene an event on Christmas Eve, 1075, when Gregory was taken hostage while celebrating Mass in Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome.52 The people of Rome freed him, and, according to Biondo and Platina, the assailant found refuge with Emperor Henry in Germany. Combined with the main episode of the painting, this incident seems to imply that the emperor fully deserved his excommunication in 1076, of which the pope absolved him the next year. Just as in the Sala’s other paintings, however, a very selective moment has been represented: Henry’s self-humiliation was in fact a politically successful stratagem, and the pope’s goodwill

fig. 108  Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro, Pope Gregory VII Absolving Emperor Henry IV, 1565(?). Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 139

S  139

did not last long. In 1080 Henry was excommunicated again, but four years later he managed to have Pope Gregory banned from Rome. Gregory was replaced by Clement III and died in exile in Salerno in 1085.53 When Van Buchel thumbed through his history books, he came to suspect the selectiveness of this painting and its inscription. He found the Canossa incident in the volumes of Martinus and Platina, but also noted Flavio Biondo’s account of Pope Gregory’s death in exile. The pope’s tragic end, Van Buchel guessed, was his own doing, “for not long after their reconciliation [in Canossa], Emperor Henry fell again into the excommunication of the same Gregory.” Van Buchel understandably discussed Vasari’s two paintings depicting Popes Gregory IX and Gregory XI in relation to the paintings of popes long dead. He was not aware that these two paintings were the last to be executed and alluded to the reigning pope, Gregory XIII (see page 124). In the field above the central door of the west wall, Vasari had painted Pope Gregory IX Excommunicating Emperor Frederick II (fig. 109).54 The name of this historical pope was an obvious reference to Gregory XIII, but the choice of this particular event also had a specific meaning. As far as can be inferred from his copious correspondence, Vasari personally selected the theme after he realized that his first choice, Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV, had already been depicted.55 On the one hand, this subject continued the Sala’s theme of the superiority of spiritual over temporal power, while on the other hand it demonstrated that in the past Gregory IX had not allowed princes to challenge the authority of the pope and the church. Likewise, the present Pope Gregory XIII would not tolerate (Protestant) rulers to dispute the true, Catholic religion and its teachings. Unaware of these allusions to Gregory XIII, who had died two years before, in 1585, Van Buchel duly copied the painting’s inscription, which explains that “Gregory IX forbids the sacraments to Emperor Frederick, who is assaulting the church.” In Martinus’s account, Van Buchel found that Pope Honorius III had excommunicated Frederick  II Hohenstaufen and that Gregory IX had endorsed this ban “around the year 1225,” as the emperor refused to carry on his crusade against the Turks. Biondo and Platina, Van Buchel added, confirm this account. The date “around the year 1225” is not accurate, as Gregory IX did not become pope until 1227. He excommunicated

12/7/12 1:47 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 140

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

S  141

Frederick II not once but twice: first on September 29 of the first year of his papacy (the ban that Van Buchel referred to), and, after that was annulled in 1230, again on March 20, 1239.56 Neither Platina nor Biondo supplies any details about these excommunications, making it hard for Vasari to depict either one accurately.57 Hence, he must have decided to represent just an excommunication, without any specific details. His painting shows the traditional excommunication procedure, in which the pope, surrounded by priests, hurls burning candles on the floor. In reality, they would proceed to trample on them and extinguish their flames. Vasari, however, shows him stamping on the emperor personally. Grumbling in vain, Frederick points to an open book. The text, unfortunately, is difficult to read, both because it is upside down and because the painting is situated high on the wall.58 However, the word his finger is pointing at is legible. It reads “Concilium” and may refer to the general council that the emperor tried to summon after his second excommunication, with the intention of having Pope Gregory deposed. The composition of Vasari’s painting is based on representations of the Last Judgment, where Christ with a hurling gesture relegates the damned to hell— usually a place under his feet (fig. 110). It is also reminiscent of pictures illustrating how Jupiter slew the rebellious giants by flinging his thunderbolts at them (fig. 111). Thus, Frederick is placed in the position of the damned, both in Christian and mythological terms, making it more than clear that the pope’s spiritual authority is superior to the emperor’s temporal power. Van Buchel unmistakably understood the message, but did not appreciate this case of blunt papal propaganda. After copying the painting’s inscription, he noted, quite irritated, “Here all

fig. 109  Giorgio Vasari, Pope Gregory IX Excommunicating Emperor Frederick II, 1573. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. fig. 110  Michelangelo, Last Judgment, 1536–41. Sistine Chapel, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. fig. 111  Perino del Vaga, Jupiter Slaying the Rebellious Giants, ca. 1530. Salone dei Giganti, Palazzo Doria, Genoa. CKD, RU Nijmegen. From Kliemann and Rohlmann, Italian Frescoes, 373.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 141

12/7/12 1:47 PM

fig. 112  Giorgio Vasari, Pope Gregory XI Returning the Papal Seat from Avignon to Rome, 1573. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. The features of Pope Gregory XI are those of Gregory XIII, during whose pontificate the painting was made.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 142

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

the procedures of excommunication have been painted in a terrifying way and with the aim of inspiring horror.” Van Buchel also missed the allusions to Gregory  XIII in the painting of Pope Gregory XI returning the papal seat from Avignon to Rome (fig.  112).59 Curiously, he did not copy its inscription and check his history books. He merely summarized the caption and referred to the pope’s epitaph in the church of Santa Francesca Romana in Rome, which he had copied in a separate book of inscriptions. He may not have realized that the papal monument in that church was made in 1584 and that its epitaph was consequently copied from the Sala Regia inscription, rather than the other way around.60 The only feature in the painting that drew his attention was the painter’s signature in Greek (fig. 95).61 Van Buchel failed to mention that Vasari’s painting is an amalgam of contemporary and allegorical elements, with hardly any correct historical details.62 The portraits are contemporary, representing Pope Gregory XIII (instead of Gregory XI) and some of his cardinals, as is the background showing Saint  Peter’s as it was in 1573. This is evident in such details as the obelisk, which is still standing at the left of the church and has not yet been moved yet to the front, and the cupola, which is still unfinished (fig. 113). The women carrying the papal litter are allegorical; they represent the three theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love. Most of the people on the left side of the picture also have an allegorical meaning. They stand for Rome (the naked god of the Tiber River, surrounded by seven little children representing the seven hills) and dominion over temporal and spiritual matters (the group of three standing women). In the sky, Peter and Paul, patron saints of Rome, protect the pope on his return from Avignon to the eternal city. On his return from Avignon, Pope Gregory XI reached the church of Saint Paul’s Outside the Walls on January 15, 1377.63 Two days later he entered Rome on horseback and came to Saint Peter’s in the evening. The square was lit by torches, and a large crowd was waiting for him. In the painting, however, the arrival of the pope takes place during daylight, while buildings and persons have been updated to the year 1573. Vasari was familiar with the story of the pope’s return mainly through the account of Platina, of which an excerpt is included in his notebook.64 This makes one detail in the painting very special:

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 143

S  143

fig. 113  Anonymous, Pope Pius V Blessing the Crowds in Front of Saint Peter’s. Engraving published by Anthony Lafréri, 1567. CKD, RU Nijmegen. This engraving shows what the square and the Church of Saint Peter’s looked like around 1567, a few years before Giorgio Vasari painted Pope Gregory XI Returning the Papal Seat from Avignon to Rome (fig. 112).

the woman dressed as a Dominican nun preceding the papal litter. She represents Saint  Catherine of Siena. Curiously, Catherine was not in Rome when the pope entered the city and is not mentioned by either Platina or Biondo. Both historians are also silent about the many letters she wrote to the successive popes in Avignon, urging them to leave France and return to Rome. According to their accounts, it was the remark of a bishop that finally persuaded Gregory to move the papal seat back to Rome and thus put an end to almost seventy years of papal captivity in Avignon. Gregory had already been seriously considering returning to Rome for some time when one day he admonished the bishop in question to go back to his diocese. According to Biondo, the bishop replied, “And you, Holy Father, why don’t you go to your church?” Catherine’s presence in Vasari’s painting may not be historically correct, but given her role in urging the pope to return to Rome, it is certainly understandable that he included her.

12/7/12 1:47 PM

144  S   The Power and the Glorification

Curiously, however, she seems a little lost, and almost appears to belong to the group of allegorical women carrying the papal litter. Moreover, she is not mentioned in the painting’s long inscription, which states only that Pope Gregory was “stirred by divine instigation.” This leaves observers to decide whether the instigation came through Saint  Catherine, or through Saints Peter and Paul, who are more prominently present in the painting, or directly from God. Even more curiously, Vasari’s correspondence reveals that his main adviser, the learned Vincenzo Borghini, was rather hesitant about including Saint Catherine in the painting.65 Borghini recommended that the commonplace should be avoided and Saint  Catherine be represented with appropriate seriousness, so as not to give rise to derisive jokes by malicious observers. Unfortunately, he did not explain why the inclusion of Saint Catherine would lead to such reactions, but it seems as if in a papal context the presence of women—no matter how prominent or even holy—was a thorny issue. Van Buchel not only missed Vasari’s allusions to Gregory XIII, he also failed to understand the specific reasons to incorporate this event among examples of papal and Catholic superiority. These reasons are indeed hard to grasp without the help of the inscription, which explains that Gregory  XI transferred the papal seat back to Rome “so as to cure Italy, which was suffering from sedition, and to recall to obedience those people who repeatedly turned away from the church.” These were the same aims that Gregory XIII pursued in 1573. He  aimed to cure Italy of religious sedition through implementing the decisions of the recently concluded Council of Trent, and recall to obedience the Protestant people in Europe, who had turned away from the church. Thus, the painting aptly carries on the theme of the other paintings in the Sala Regia. After describing the paintings that show events of the past, Van Buchel turned to those showing recent incidents. “Because they are still in men’s memory,”66 his comments are not as long and show less interest. As the history books of Martinus Polonus, Biondo, and Platina do not cover these incidents, Van Buchel turned to such works as Paolo Giovio’s Histories (1550–52), Laurentius Surius’s Short Commentary on Things That Happened in the World Between 1500 and 1568 (2nd ed., 1579, updated through 1574), and Giovanni Pietro Contarini’s

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 144

History of the Things That Happened Since the Beginning of the War Instigated by Selim the Muslim . . . (1572). The first “contemporary” event of which he copied the inscription was Charles  V Capturing Tunis in 1535, painted by Taddeo Zuccaro with the assistance of his brother Federico (fig.  114).67 This event, according to Van Buchel’s brief commentary, was amply described in Paolo Giovio’s Histories, and its memory was still vividly alive. It is indeed hard to say something more specific about the painting. Zuccaro painted fighting soldiers in the foreground and a sea battle in the background, with the Christian troops clearly having the upper hand. There are no identifiable persons or details, and the only individual note is the tower of La Goulette—the entrance to the Bay of Tunis— in the background. The inscription Van Buchel copied relates that “Emperor Charles  V recaptured Tunis, occupied by the Turks, with just as much bravery as good fortune, during the pontificate of Paul  III, 1535.” This gives more attention and honor to the emperor than to the pope, which must be why it was changed at some point before 1750 into the present wording: “The troops of the Christians capture Tunis due to the commitment and zeal of Pope Paul III, 1535.”68 The next paintings Van Buchel mentioned show incidents that were even more recent, from 1571 and 1572. He gave only scant attention to Vasari’s three paintings of the night of Saint  Bartholomew (figs. 115, 117–18). He listed Laurentius Surius and “more recent writers of French history” as his sources of information, then explained that the slaughter of the Huguenots took place on the day of Saint Bartholomew (August  24, 1572), under the command of Henry of Valois, Duke of Alençon (actually Duke of Anjou) and brother of King Charles IX.69 Curiously, Van Buchel made no comment on the most gruesome of the three paintings, the Massacre scene. This is remarkable, since we have seen that he did not hesitate to criticize less brutal paintings, such as those of Pope Gregory IX trampling on Frederick II and Pope Alexander III humiliating Frederick Barbarossa. Moreover, Van Buchel was certainly not such a fervent Catholic that he would unconditionally approve of the slaughter of the Protestant Huguenots. The massacre of the Huguenots took place in Paris as a consequence of the political scheming of the French king’s mother, Catherine de’ Medici, who wanted to get the Protestant

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

fig. 114  Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro, Charles V Capturing Tunis in 1535, 1564–65. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 145

S  145

Admiral Gaspard de Coligny out of her way.70 The gathering of many Huguenots in Paris for the wedding of the Protestant leader Henry of Navarre to Margaret of Valois provided the opportunity she needed. Both the admiral and thousands of his Protestant followers, in Paris and other places in France, were brutally slaughtered. When this was reported to Pope Gregory XIII, however, he played down the political component and considered the incident primarily in religious terms. To him, the Massacre meant a victory of the true faith over heresy and therefore had to be celebrated with a special Jubilee and other festivities.71 In November 1572, he ordered Vasari to depict this major event of his young papacy in the Sala Regia. The cycle was to start on the right end of the west wall, in the large field where Pius V had planned the scene showing Don John’s nomination as fleet commander (see fig.  121 below), and would continue in the two narrow fields flanking the big window on the north wall (fig. 96). From Vasari’s correspondence, it can be gathered that the theme was decided by the pope, but that it was left to the artist to work out the paintings and collect all the relevant information.72 Though Vasari did this very scrupulously, he did not aim at an exact reconstruction of what happened. The first painting of the cycle, for instance, shows Admiral de Coligny being rescued after a first attack, during which he was shot down but not mortally wounded (fig. 115). Vasari made all the figures wear French costumes and observed even such small details as the two fingers that the admiral lost during the assault. Yet the background is clearly not a reconstruction of Paris. Instead, it is based on a standard scheme used by many painters, to which Vasari added one important feature: the circular temple in the middle. This building is actually an accurate representation of a famous edifice in Rome, the shrine built by the architect Bramante above the place where Saint Peter was supposedly crucified, in the courtyard of the Church of San Pietro in Montorio (fig.  116). Above this temple Vasari painted an angel with a sword. This combination of Saint Peter’s shrine and the avenging angel denotes that the assault on the Protestant admiral was his richly deserved punishment for rebelling against God and (the successors of ) Saint Peter. Vasari’s two other paintings should be seen in a similar way.73 The next one shows in the foreground the actual massacre of the Huguenots (fig. 117),

12/7/12 1:47 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 146

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

S  147

fig. 115  Giorgio Vasari, The Assault on Admiral Caspar de Coligny, 1573. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani. fig. 116  Donato Bramante, Tempietto, ca. 1502–10. Courtyard of San Pietro in Montorio, Rome. Photo: author. fig. 117  Giorgio Vasari, The Massacre of the Huguenots, 1573. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 147

12/7/12 1:47 PM

148  S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 118  Giorgio Vasari, King Charles IX Approving the Massacre of the Huguenots in the Parisian Parliament, 1573. Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 148

whose explicit repulsiveness is meant to justify the Catholic soldiers’ dire conduct. In the background, the dead body of the admiral is thrown out of a window. In its upside-down position, it looks like the arrogant magician Simon Magus, who came ignominiously crashing down after challenging Saint Peter to fly. The third painting shows King Charles IX defending the massacre in the Parisian parliament (fig.  118). Behind him stands a bronze sculpture of a woman, representing Peace, with an olive branch and a flaming torch, setting fire to a pile of arms. Through the window in the background, the royal family can be seen on its way to church for a special Mass to celebrate the victory over the Huguenots. Vasari’s correspondence does not make it clear how specific Pope Gregory’s commission was, but Vasari unquestionably prepared himself very well and gathered information widely on what exactly had happened in Paris. When his plans were ready, he sent them to Don Vincenzo Borghini in Florence, asking him—as he would usually do—for his opinion and advice. Borghini was sparing in his enthusiasm.74 He felt it was too much to stretch out one event over three scenes. Moreover, dedicating one painting entirely to the assault on Admiral de  Coligny would mean including too many irrelevant details and doing too much honor to “such a traitor to his lord and to God.” Just the painting of the king in parliament would be enough, as “it has something royal and is appropriate to the place; it corresponds to the other paintings [in the Sala] and encompasses the whole event.” As alternatives, Borghini suggested subjects that would express a similar theme, such as Pope Julius  II excommunicating the King of Navarre for heresy. Unfortunately, Borghini’s advice reached Vasari too late to be heeded. But even if it had come on time, one may still wonder if Vasari would have had the freedom to reduce the three scenes to one. Moreover, one may speculate whether Borghini’s opinion might have been different if he had seen the paintings and noticed how carefully Vasari had tried to balance the host of historical details with nonhistorical elements. Vasari thus aimed to give a more general dimension to the paintings, illustrating the fate not just of the French Huguenots in 1572 but of heretics all over the world and in all times.

12/7/12 1:47 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

Intriguingly, Van Buchel responded neither to the (non)­ historicity of the three paintings nor to their cruel and propagandistic content. In this latter respect, neither did the anonymous 1585 visitor or Michel de  Montaigne. The former only noted that in the Coligny scene one could see “the result of the admiral’s treason when trying to grasp power,” with his portrait painted “by a learned hand.” The latter mainly noted that the murder had been rendered “very authentically.” It was only in the nineteenth century that the Huguenot paintings drew sharp criticism. On March 7, 1828, the French author Stendhal noted in his Roman Walks that “there exists a place in Europe where assassination is honored in public.”75 Van Buchel was more enthusiastic about the two paintings he recorded last, probably because he found more information on them. They show the victory of the Christian fleet over the Turks during the Battle of Lepanto in the Gulf of Patras on October  7, 1571 (figs. 119–20).76 Van Buchel transcribed their long inscriptions and commented that the memory of this battle was “still alive.” His knowledge of classical history immediately reminded him that the Christians and Turks fought at “practically the same place where Octavian beat Antony and Cleopatra in a sea battle,” referring to the famous Battle of Actium in 31  BC, when the future Augustus—still called Octavian—defeated Antony, his chief rival, and became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Van Buchel further noted that he had gathered most of his information from Giovanni Pietro Contarini, “who has extensively described this sea battle, together with the Cypriot war.”77 Unfortunately, he does not say anything specifically about the paintings, which their maker, Vasari, counted among his best. Vasari’s claim was based not only on his personal taste—obviously he was very happy with the way the paintings looked—but also on the fact that they were the largest and, from the historical point of view, the best-prepared works he had ever created.78 Just as he had done when planning the Huguenot paintings, Vasari wrote to participants and eyewitnesses to ask for information and details. At some point he even met with Marcantonio Colonna, one of the commanders of the Christian fleet, to go over the details of his preparatory sketches. Yet like the Huguenot paintings, these are not truthful historical recordings. In both scenes, personifications and allegorical elements

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 149

S  149

play a prominent role. They serve to give a more general significance to the paintings and present the sea battle at Lepanto as the ultimate triumph of Christianity over all infidels. In a letter to the future Duke of Florence, Francesco de’ Medici, Vasari explained that the first painting shows the Christian and the Turkish fleets on the eve of the decisive clash, against a topographically correct background (fig.  119).79 The foreground shows in the middle a frame with a map of the Gulf of Patras. To the left, in front of the Christians’ ships, stand three women, representing the members of the Holy League: Spain, the Papal States, and Venice. Little angels hovering above them hold the crowns of Victory above their heads, foretelling the outcome of the battle. On the right, in front of the Turkish fleet, a contrasting group represents the infidels, who are characterized by the attributes of Fear, Weakness, and Death. Little demons pour out disasters over them from a Pandora’s box. The second painting shows the actual fight, with dozens of ships in full battle (fig.  121). The Christian fleet enters from the left, headed by the commander’s ship with a flag showing Christ crucified between Saints Peter and Paul. The Turks enter from the right. Using bows and arrows and protected only by some sort of turbans, they seem hopeless against the Christians fighting with guns and wearing full armor. But there is more that is boding failure for them. In the middle of the Christian fleet, above the commander’s ship, appears an angel in a glaring column of light, just as in biblical times a divine column of fire showed the Hebrew people the way to escape from Egypt and protected them against their persecutors.80 Thus God was “glorified in Pharaoh, and in all his host, and in his chariots, and in his horsemen.”81 In the painting, the divine help is made even more explicit, as in a cloud above the Christian fleet, sending their decisive support, appear the patron saints of Spain, Venice, and Rome, Saints James, Mark, and Peter and Paul, surrounded by a host of angels and headed by Christ himself. Like the Roman god Jupiter when he crushed the rebellious giants (fig. 111), Christ hurls down thunderbolts. Above the Turkish fleet, a host of demons hurriedly abandons the scene, dragging the prophet Mohammed with them. In the lower left corner a woman representing Faith is receiving the laurel of Victory. With her left hand she lifts a chalice with the sacred host, and with her right hand she burns Turkish weaponry. She sits on

12/7/12 1:47 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 150

12/7/12 1:48 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

S  151

fig. 119  Giorgio Vasari, The Christian and the Turkish

fig. 120  Giorgio Vasari, The Battle of Lepanto, 1572.

Fleets on the Eve of the Battle of Lepanto, 1572–73. Sala

Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Photo: Musei Vaticani.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 151

12/7/12 1:48 PM

152   S   The Power and the Glorification

fig. 121  Giorgio Vasari(?), preliminary study for Pope Pius V Appointing Don

ordered Vasari to replace the Don John scene with the painting of the attack on Admiral de Coligny. Moreover, he also forced Vasari to delegate the execution of the still-unfinished Lepanto picture to his assistants. Hence it was Lorenzo Sabatini who executed most of this painting, in particular the foreground figures, and finished it in the spring of 1573. On April  6, however, the Venetian envoy Paolo Tiepolo arrived to inform Pope Gregory that his city had signed an unexpected peace treaty with the Turks.82 The furious Gregory realized that this meant that the Sala Regia, at its forthcoming inauguration, would display a large painting with the traitorous Venetians prominently in the foreground. He immediately sent for Vasari and told him to remove it. Three days later, however, the pope revised his decision. While the pope was posing for the portrait that would be included in Pope Gregory  XI Returning the Papal Seat from Avignon to Rome (fig. 112), Vasari grabbed the opportunity to point out the beauty of the picture and the enormous effort involved in making it. As the pope had been very pleased with the quality of Vasari’s work and particularly with his incredible speed, he let himself be dissuaded and yielded to the Venetian presence in the depiction of the Holy League. Vasari, swift as usual, proceeded to finish the final details of the last paintings. A week later, on April 16, he was done. The Sala was closed, and Matteo da Castello moved in to lay the floor. On May 21, Sacrament’s Day, Pope Gregory XIII inaugurated the Sala Regia. During this solemn event, he may have tried to ignore the center of the east wall, where the sight of Venice would certainly have spoilt his feelings of contentment.

John of Austria Commander of the Holy League’s Army, 1572. Biblioteca Reale, Turin. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

V infidel fighters who are tied to the Cross, while her right foot rests on a useless turban. Vasari had planned one more scene relating to the Battle of Lepanto, showing Pope Pius V appointing Don John of Austria commander of the Holy League’s army (fig. 121). In the same letter in which he explained the two other paintings, he extensively described his design to Francesco de’ Medici. But just when he had finished the painting of the battle and started the one showing the eve of the fight, Pope Pius V died. His successor, Gregory XIII, gave priority to the Huguenot paintings and

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 152

When Van Buchel worked out the notes of his visit to the Sala Regia, trying to find specific information on the historical events that were represented, he may have made some interesting observations. First of all, he may have noticed that without the inscriptions it was well-nigh impossible to identify the events, and secondly, that many of the paintings do not entirely follow the historical facts. In some cases this is understandable, as there was hardly any information available and the painters therefore had to improvise, as did Livio Agresti in King Peter of Aragon Offering His Kingdom to Pope Innocent III (fig. 103).

12/7/12 1:48 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

But in other instances this excuse was less valid, as in Orazio Samacchini’s Otto I Restoring to the Church the Provinces Occupied by the Tyrants Berengar and His Son Adalbert (fig. 106). In some cases the inscriptions do not even match the painting, as in Giovanni Battista Fiorini’s Pope Gregory II Receiving King Luitprand’s Confirmation of the Donation by King Ariperth (fig.  105). Initially, it seems, this lack of congruence did not make Van Buchel suspicious, and so he must have assumed that the inscriptions offered correct information. We may suppose that other visitors reacted similarly. These observations demonstrate the importance of the inscriptions. They preconditioned the observers to see the paintings as they were intended to. It was not until Van Buchel checked his history books that it dawned on him that he was being manipulated. The same awaraeness hit Michel de Montaigne when he observed the one event he was familiar with. The anonymous visitor from 1585, on the other hand, seems to have accepted the information in the inscriptions at face value, even though he was fairly well informed and recognized many portraits and details. We must assume that most visitors to the Sala Regia reacted in the same way, and that Van Buchel and Montaigne were exceptions. Emperors, kings, and diplomats— the Sala’s target public—would not bring their history books and probably lacked the time or the curiosity to investigate the details afterwards. Observing the deeds of popes and princes from the past while they were waiting for the reigning pontiff to appear, they simply had to accept at face value the historical “facts” of the paintings and the explanation of their inscriptions. The examples from the past would teach them how to behave toward Saint Peter’s successor, and by pointing out the continuity from times of yore to the present, they would legitimize his importance. The obvious question that arises is why the successive popes, beginning with Pius IV, took so much trouble to stress their dominance over secular rulers, infidels, and heretics when the examples demonstrate that through the ages their authority had always prevailed. The answer is just as obvious: because the authority of the pope and the Catholic faith was increasingly being opposed and challenged. In actual fact, secular rulers had never fully respected the supremacy of the pope’s spiritual authority. Ironically, the paintings in the Sala Regia demonstrate that as well. The rise of

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 153

S  153

large sovereign states such as France, Spain, and Britain in the sixteenth century eroded the pope’s position. Both France and Spain tried to dominate Italian politics, in spite of the protests and regardless of the political and spiritual instruments that the successive popes brought into play. In 1533, King Henry VIII of England simply ignored the pope, even when the latter used his most dreadful weapon, excommunication.83 Contrary to the examples of Emperors Frederick Barbarossa and Henry  IV, both included in the Sala Regia, the English king never begged for forgiveness. Nor did he seem to have been disturbed by the procedures of excommunication, which were aimed—as seen in Vasari’s painting of Frederick II (fig. 109)— at “inspiring horror.” Whether it is historically true or not, a story about Emperor Charles V from Henri Estienne’s Apologie pour l’Hérodote (1566) demonstrates a similar scorn for papal authority: “the Emperor Charles V was not only a leader but also a protector of the Catholic faith. But when Pope Paul III still threatened him with excommunication if he did not go to Piacenza (after the death of [Duke] Pier Luigi [Farnese]), he very clearly gave him to understand through his ambassador that if the pope wanted to strike and thunder with his excommunications, he would strike and thunder with his artillery.”84 At the same time, the pope’s authority was also challenged in purely religious matters. Not only did Henry VIII found the Church of England, but all over Europe the number of Protestant followers of Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin kept growing. They did not recognize the pope’s authority and considered him the devil incarnate. It did not help that at the same time the Turkish infidels were posing an increasing threat, against which the Christian nations failed to come up with a unified military response. Driven by self-interest, both Catholics and Protestants tried to hitch the Turks to the cart of their own particular benefit. Under these circumstances, the safety and the interests of the church and the pope were not always uppermost in the minds of Europe’s rulers, not even for those who were devout Catholics. Amidst these political and religious developments, the popes saw their authority decline. Their reaction was to emphasize the respect that they felt they deserved but increasingly failed to receive. In the Sala Regia, the audience hall where emperors, kings, and ambassadors would wait for the supreme pontiff to appear, the paintings offer a historical mirror. Examples from

12/7/12 1:48 PM

154  S   The Power and the Glorification

the past and the present reflect the due deference that princes and monarchs had (supposedly) always shown to Saint Peter and his successors. The continuity of this tradition and its connection with the present are underscored by the inclusion of contemporary details and portraits, such as those of Popes Pius IV and Gregory XIII. They are further stressed by a consistent presentation of the selected historical events as universal examples for all times, and not just as particular incidents from long ago. If necessary, these events were adapted to make them illustrate their message more clearly. History was seen not as a scientifically researched tale of facts and incidents that had truly happened, but as a large collection of examples from the past that contained a lesson for the future. These examples were not always custom-made and therefore could be adjusted and made to fit the specific occasion. As a contemporary, Van Buchel must have been familiar with this use of history. But the very specific message conveyed by the Sala Regia paintings clearly shocked him. Studying the

details and the context of the events that were represented, Van Buchel realized that they did not justify the claims and pretensions of the papacy and that they had been adapted to propagandistic purposes. Although the visiting emperors, kings, or ambassadors may not have checked their history books after visiting the Sala Regia, they may, like Van Buchel, have sensed that what they saw was not a neutral rendition of historical events. For the occasion of a papal audience, they may have behaved in accordance with the message of the paintings and duly rendered their respect and submission to the pope. In the reality of political life, however, they acted differently. As the century progressed, the pope’s opinion was still heard, but respect for it was fading and his position consequently eroded ever more. Van Buchel could still be annoyed by the paintings’ propaganda, but princes and diplomats increasingly ignored or laughed at it. Thus, the paintings are a testimony to papal attempts to reshape history while failing to mold the future.

Appendix 1: The Inscriptions to the Paintings in the Sala Regia The inscriptions to the paintings are an important aspect of the decoration of the Sala Regia. In the course of time, they have undergone various changes, as appears from the reports by the anonymous visitor from 1585 and Aernout van Buchel (see appendix 2). It is not always clear when and why these changes were made. In some cases they concerned only details, but in other cases they were quite drastic. Giorgio Vasari’s notebook contains a sheet with some remarks on the state of the inscriptions from the time he started working in the Sala Regia (1572).85 From these it appears that the paintings by Taddeo Zuccaro on the south wall (Pope Paul III Blessing the Fleet Leaving to Capture Tunis and Pope Gregory VII Absolving Emperor Henry IV) were not yet finished and consequently did not have inscriptions. Zuccaro’s painting of Charlemagne on the east wall also still lacked an inscription. This would mean that these inscriptions were added later—probably around 1573, when Vasari completed the Sala—and supplied by someone who was not involved in the original project of 1563. This might explain why these inscriptions, compared to those from the 1563 project, are rather factual and insipid. The author may

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 154

have been Vincenzo Borghini, who supplied the inscriptions for Vasari’s paintings. Vasari probably sent him the sheet with notes just mentioned to give him an idea of the state the Sala was in and the kind of inscriptions he had to provide. Maybe Borghini subsequently supplied the inscriptions not only for Vasari’s paintings, but also for those that were still without inscriptions. In 1635 Pope Urban  VIII replaced the inscription to Giuseppe Porta’s painting with a more neutral one, as described above. However, in 1632 he had already had the original inscription, as well as others in the Sala Regia, covered with plaster. This was undone in 1635, when the new inscription was added to Porta’s painting.86 Perhaps it was on this occasion that the inscriptions received their present wording. If not, the date must still have been before 1750, when Agostino Taja’s extensive description of the Sala Regia was published.87 In 1644 the original text of Porta’s painting was restored.88 Taja’s description does not cite the captions of Vasari’s three Huguenot paintings, which would indicate that they were rendered invisible after 1647, when they were recorded

12/7/12 1:48 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

by John Raymond.89 In 1974 Fehl reported that traces of the inscriptions were found during the restoration of the Sala in the 1970s.90 All the inscriptions are listed and translated into English by Partridge and Starn.91 • Giovanni Maria Zoppelli: no inscription • Giovanni Battista Fiorini: “Gregorius II Germaniaf [sic; Germaniae] magna parte ad vlri [sic; veri] Dei cultum traducta Arithperti Longobardorum regis donatione per Luithprandum succesorem confirmata, anno sui pon­ t[ificatus] XVII decessit” • Girolamo Siciolante da Sermoneta: no inscription (according to Giorgio Vasari in the chapter on various Italian artists [Vite de diversi artefici italiani] of his Vite: “Pipino re de’ Franchi dona Ravenna alla Chiesa romana e mena prigione Astulfo re de’ Longobardi”) • Taddeo Zuccaro: “Carolus Magnus in patrimonii possessionem Romanam Ecclesiam restituit” • Orazio Sanmacchini: “Otho victo Berengario et Adelberto eius filio tyrannis provincias ab illis occupatas Ecclesiae restituit” • Livio Agresti da Forlì: “Petrus Aragoniae rex ad urbem profectus Innocentio III Pont[ifici] Max[imo] Regnum Aragoniae defert constituta annui tributi perpetua pensione obedientiam simul et defensionem Sedis Apostolicae pollicitus” • Giuseppe Porta detto Salviati: “Alexander Papa III Friderici primi imperatoris iram et impetum fugiens abdidit sese Venetiis. Cognitum et a senato perhonorifice susceptum Othone imperatoris filio navali praelio a Venetis victo captoque Fridericus pace facta supplex adorat fidem et obedientiam pollicitus ita pontifici sua dignitas Venetae reipublicae benefitio restituta MCLXXVII” • Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro: “Gregorius  VII Henricum  IV imp[eratorem] male de  Ecclesia merentem postea supplicem et poenitentem absolvit” • Taddeo Zuccaro: “Christianorum copiae Tunetum expugnant ope et studio Pauli III Pont[ificis] Max[imi] MDXXXV” • Giorgio Vasari: “Hostes perpetui Christianae religionis Turcae diuturno victoriarum successu exultantes

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 155

S  155

sibiq[ue] temere praefidentes militibus ducibus tormentis omni denique bellico apparatu ad terrorem instructi ad Echinadas insulas a communi classe proelio post hominum memoriam maximo perspicua divini spiritus ope profligantur MDLXXI” • Giorgio Vasari: “Classes oppositae Turcarum una Christianae societatis altera inter Pium  V Pont[ificem] Max[imum] Philippum Hispaniae regem Venetam remp[ublicam] inito iam foedere ingentibus utrimq[ue] animis concurrunt” • Giorgio Vasari: the inscriptions to the three Huguenot paintings are no longer visible, but Fehl reports that traces of them were found during the restoration of the Sala Regia in the 1970s.92 With the help of the anonymous description from around 1585 and Van Buchel, they can be reconstructed as follows: § “Caspar Colignius [olim?] ammiralius accepto vulnere domum defertur Gregorio XIII [Pontifice Maximo?] MDLXXII” § “Colignii et sociorum [suorum?] caedes” § “Rex Colignii necem probat” • Giorgio Vasari: “Gregorius IX Eriderico [sic; Friderico] imp[eratori] Ecclesiam oppugnanti sacris interdicit” • Giorgio Vasari: “Gregorius  XI patria Lemovicensis admirabili doctrina humanitate et innocentia ut Italiae seditionibus laboranti mederetur et populos ab Ecclesia crebro desilientes ad obedientiam revocaret sedem pontificiam divino numine permotus Avenione Romam post annos LXXI transtulit sui pontificatus anno septimo humanae salutis MCCCLXXVI” The main inscription of the Sala, on the northern wall, reads, • “Aula haec Pauli  III Pont[ificis] Max[imi] iussu ornari coepta, et Piorum postea quarti et quinti studio aucta, anno Gregorii  XIII primo ad finem perducta est .MDLXXIII” An inscription on the south wall reads, • “Reddet unicuique Deus secundum opera eius”

12/7/12 1:48 PM

156  S   The Power and the Glorification

Appendix 2: Sixteenth-Century Descriptions of the Sala Regia Elsewhere  I have surveyed descriptions and references to the paintings in the Sala Regia from the sixteenth century and later.93 Below only the most extensive sixteenth-century descriptions are quoted, in chronological order.

1581: Michel de Montaigne Montaigne made his description after his visit to the Sala on March 14, 1581. It is part of his Journal de Voyage.94 En la salle, au-devant la chapelle Saint-Sixte, ou en la paroi, il y a plusieurs peintures des accidents mémorables qui touchent le  Saint-Siège, comme la bataille de  Jean d’Autriche, navale. Il y a la représentation de ce Pape qui foule aus pieds la teste de cet Empereur qui venoit pour luy demander pardon et les luy baiser: non pas les paroles dites selon l’histoire par l’un et par l’autre. Il y a aussi deux endroits où la blessure de M. l’amiral de Châtillon est peinte, et sa mort, bien authentiquement.

Ca. 1585: Anonymous Description The anonymous decription of the Sala Regia from ca. 1580–87 was published by Rodolfo Lanciani in 1883.95 The relevant passage reads as follows:96 Sala Regia. Ch è a s. Pietro nel palazzo di s.santità. Dove s’arriva per .2. entrate principali una dalla banda che si monta su per le schale che partono da s. Pietro: la 2a è in fronte di questa, che cala verso borgo. Sopra essa sala sta dipinto un Re vecchio per la barba bianca et all’adornamento che lo copre, o gli fa come . . . in foggia di piramide, che ne corrisponde, a i lavori della porta sono .vi. gigli turchini Carolus magnus in patrimonii possessione Romanam ecclesiam restituit.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 156

Sopra l’altra porta detta, ch è entrandosi nel venire per la scala di s. Pietro, apparisce il papa in seggia, ch’in compagnia del clero e de Cardinali pontificanti . . . S.B mostra di gettare una fagoletta. Nell’adornamento similmente sono .6. gigli. Gregorius ix Friderico imperatori ecclesiam oppug­ nanti sacris interdicit. La sala prefata è lunga alquanto, et entrandosi da quel canto di s. pietro a man dritta faremo il capo, dov’è la cappella chiamata la Paolina, sopra la cui porta è: Paulus iii pont. max. Prima in facciata sta ivi: Reddet unicuique secundum opera eius. e più in alto è l’arme di Paolo .3. di .6. gigli. In cima sono .3. invitriate a tal facciata, un’accanto l’altra. A  man dritta della porta è dipinto al solito, numero di navi e legni marini, con fortezze e genti: Carolus .v. imperator Tunetum a Turcis occupatum pari virtute ac foelicitate recipit. Paulo iii p m 1535. Alla sinistra, si vede il papa et il Re con multitudine supplichevolmente. Gregorius vii Henricum imperatorem male de ecclesia merentem, postaea supplicem et poenitentem absolvit. In facciata dell’altro alla sala, ci sono tre finestroni in cima, e tre a mezza facciata—Arme di Gregorio xiii— Ancora più basso v’era, et è, quella di Pio iiii che dice:

12/7/12 1:48 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

Pius iiii Medices mediolanensis p.m. e quest’arme è de colori in pietro: sotto ch è ritratto suo naturale in pietra colorita, altresì grande quanto un picciol’ovo, col busto suo, pero da . . . conoscere facilmente. In mezzo dessa facciata è in pietra nera di lettere d’oro: Aula haec Pauli iii iussu ornari coepta et Piorum postea quarti et quinti studio aucta, anno Gregorii xiii primo, ad finem reducta est 1573. A man destra sono di molte occisioni, com questra iscrittioncella: Coligni et suorum caedes. Alla sinistra. il Re di Francia con i suoi fratelli, et il cardinale di lorena, è in tribunale.

S  157

quel Giudicio di pittura tanto eccellentemente fatta dal famoso e raro Bonarota, e sono dalle bande opere dell’altro valentissimo homo Raffaele di Urbino. A fronte questa porta è un’altra che quida nella sala oscura, la quale oscura mena in quella de duchi. Ivi è depinto a corrispondenza di quanto si vede sopra la porta detta della cappella di Sisti iiii un Re e molti cardinali. Petrus Aragoniae rex ad urbem profectus Innocentii iii pont. max. regnum Aragoniae defert, constituta annui tributi perpetua pensione obedientiam simul et defensionem sedis apostolicae pollicitus. Presso il capo della sala è a man dritta verso il cortile, ch’è dove sopra suol affacciarsi un diacono cardinale all’hora quando è creato il papa per publicarlo, un’altra porta, dove sopra è dipintura di duo Rè nudi ligati dietro col papa in seggia, e compagnia grande.

Rex. Coligni necem probat. Quivi d’accanto dalla banda della porta, che, noi scrivemmo si trova quando si monta su, venendosi da s. Pietro è un’altra porta ch’entra nella cappella di Sisti iiii. Tra lei et il cantone sta depinto il successo del tradimento dell’ammiraglio per occupare il regno. La onde v’è il ritratto suo di dotta mano, ricavato con un robone indosso e berettone in testa, che ferito si riporta a braccio. G.  Colignius Amiralius, accepto vulnere domi defertur. Gregorius xiii p.m. 1572. Sopra la prefata porta di Sisto, sono all’adornamento a modo di piramide conform’all’altre le palle arme di Pio iiii. Nella pittura ch è pur sopra ci si vede un re, dinanzi a cui ne va un altro ligato con le mani dietro, et a questo spettacolo stanno cavalieri et altri. Non v’è già descrittione alcuna, come sarà per e(rorre?). In facciata dentro la cappella et incontro l’entrata è dietro l’altare

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 157

Otho primus imperator, devictis Beringario et Rodulpho filio tyrannis, provincias ab illis occupatas ecclesiae restituit. Alla porta in fronte a questa, che ne cala in certo appartamento d’habitatione verso s. Pietro, e riesce nella spetiaria di palazzo . . . è sopra il suo adornamento che tiene le palle, arme narrata. Insieme v’è ritratta quest’altra istoria: Gregorius .ii. Germaniae magna parte ad veri cultum traducta, Arithperti longobardorum Regis donatione per Liuthprandium successorem confirmata, anno sui pont. xvii decessit. Dacanto, che è tra questa porta e l’altra che si trova salendosi da s. Pietro, si vede il quatro bellissimo della rotta navale, dove sono mesticati i legni degli infideli e de nostri cristiani, fumi, oscurità, rossore di mare,

12/7/12 1:48 PM

158  S   The Power and the Glorification

per li corpi morti in mirabil numero. In cima del quatro stanno depinti angeli e creature divine con spade in mano e fuoco, et è alla man destra. Alla sinistra sono demonii e simiglianti che fugono, cose che, se bene raccontano quanti che ci si trovaro che non si vedessero in aria, nondimeno perchè senza l’aiuto divino mai noi cristiani havremo potuto vincere, ci si saranno depinte per mantenere la divotione et accrescerla. Hostes perpetui christianae religionis Turcae, diuturno victoriarum successu exultantes, sibique temere fidentes, militibus ducibus tormentis omni denique bellico apparatu ad terrorem instructo, ad Echinadas insulas a comuni classe, praelio post homninum [sic; hominum] memoria maximo perspicua divini spiritus ope profligantur MDLXXI. Incontro, pittura ch’accenna Roma, e v’è la chiesa grande di s. Pietro che ne cava nella piazza la processione del clero, ch’incontra sua santità, la quale a spalla portato in seggia, va seguito da cardinali a cavallo, e dalla corte, che trova moltitudine che si ingenocchia: Gregorius xi patria lemonicensis [sic; = lemovicensis], admirabili doctrina humanitate innocentia, ut Italiae seditionibus laboranti mederet, et populos ab ecclesia crebro desciscentes ad obedientiam revocaret sedem pontificiam, divino munere permotus, Avenione Romam post annos .lxx. [sic: = lxxi] [transtulit] sui pontificatus .vii. humanae salutis mccclxxvi. Da questa medesima banda, tra la porta che scende verso il cortile di palazzo, che dissi verso Borgo perchè n’arriva, e l’altra ch’entra nella sala oscura, è l’altra quatro vaghissimo, con ritratti di Venetia, del duce vestito di broccato d’oro, donne in fenestre, e per tutto moltitudine assai di gente, imperatore che ne tiene la testa scoperta, et inginocchiato ha il viso ne’piedi di sua Beatitudine, che rappresenta Pio .4. che fece a tempo suo la pittura: è questa

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 158

santità naturalissima, et altresì quel sig. card. di Ferrara, splendidissimo Farnese grande, e molti altri personaggi. Alexander PP.  tertius Friderici primi imperatoris iram et impetum fugiens, abdidit se Venetias, cognitus et a senatu per honorifice susceptus, othone Imperatoris filio navali praelio a Venetis victo captoque, Fridericus pace facta supplex adorat, fidem et obedientiam pollicitus. Ita pontifici sua dignitas Venetae reipublicae beneficio restituta. 1177. Derimpetto a questo quatro, è l’altro canto la porta della cappella di papa Sisto, è quella che mena da s. Pietro. Dove si scorge garbatamente in ordinanza l’armata per mare, che fa due ali di galere e vascelli atti al combattere, con alcune altre alli suoi luoghi—La santa lega—Sotto a mano destra sono .3. donzelle in pie: a mano deritta ne sta una di corona in testa, alla sinistra la seconda di scarpino, ch’usa portar il Duce di Venetia, et in mezzo la .3a. di regno papale pur in testa, ch’abbraccia l’una e l’altra donzella. A man sinistra si vede la morte con la falce et altri genti celesti o infernali. Ma è di mezzo a tali genti un quatretto di carta di navigare con chi misura e contempla. Classes oppositae, Turcarum una christianae societatis altera, inter Pium .v. pont. max. Philippum Hispaniarum regem, Venetam rempublicam initio iam foedere, ingentibus utriusque . . . concurrunt. Alla porta nova di legno della cappella paolina, et a quella che ne riesce alla spetiaria, dentro la prefata sala regia, sta: Gregorius .xiii. Bononien. P.M. conform’alla usanza d’ognuno che fa racconcia o rifà una cosa. La volta di questa sala è di fogliami e rosoni di stucco indorati secondo l’occasione, et in mezzo è l’arme di Paolo .iii. di casa Farnese, che sono .vi. gigli turchini.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

Sono ancora nella volta le chiavi circondate dall’ombrelle, con: Paulus .iii. pont, max. Alle bande stanno certe imprese e quella particolarmente del delfino con l’anima “festina lente.” Attorno attorno sono al basso di questa sala continue pietra colorita, rilucenti, che rendono vaghi ogetti a’riguardanti. Questa sala regia, sebbene pare non so che di maestà, che se le tolga per non esser chiusa, ne vietato di passarcisi, nondimeno leva quasi la memoria all’altra prossima di Costantino, sì nominata, ch’è sopra nelle stanze che ne riguardano Belvedere, in compagnia delle altre di Torre Borgia, che suol habitare sua Beatitudine.

1587: Aernout van Buchel The manucript of Aernout van Buchel’s journal is in the University Library of Utrecht, the Netherlands.97 It is part of the Commentarius rerum quotidianarum, a diary that covers the years 1560–99. In the beginning of the twentieth century, the part on Italy and Rome (Iter Italicum) was edited by Rodolfo Lanciani. Van Buchel’s description of the Sala Regia runs as follows:98 Intravi hinc [i.e., from the Pauline Chapel] aulam marmoream, multorum pontificum sumptubus aedificatam, ac praecipue Pii IV, cuius ibi effigies in pariete marmorea subtilissima, nec a quovis videnda, spectatur. Splendent ex nobilissimo marmore parietes, fulget aureum lacunar, pavimentum non uno colore marmoris nitet. Hinc occurrunt suis locis artificiosissimae pontificiorum trophaeorum picturae, a Paulo III incepta est, a Gregorio vero XIII absoluta. In pavimento, ad quatuor angulos est draco, insigne Gregorii tessellatis epigrammatibus. . . . Supra portam est nigro in marmore aureis literis: Aula haec Pauli [sic] III Pont.  Max.  iussu ornari coepta, et Piorum postea quarti et quinti studio

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 159

S  159

aucta, anno Gregorii  XIII primo ad finem perducta. Anno .MDLXXIII. Picturae sunt variae, et singulae suis inscriptionibus notatae ut seguitur. TABULA I Petrus Arragonius rex, ad urbem profectus, Innocentio III pontifici maximo Regnum defert, constituta annui tributi perpetua pensione, obedientiam simul et defensionem Sedis Apostolicae pollicitus. Hanc historiam diu quaesitam, hoc modo non potui invenire, et, quod miror, Platina nihil meminit, Petrum vero Arragonium, a Martino IV excommunicatum eiusque regnum occupantibus expositum scribit, et Gerundiae cum illam civitatem contra Franco Gallorum regem defenderet ex vulnere obiisse sub Honorio  IV refert, quae omnia ex Blondo habere videtur. Nec Martinus longe ab iis discedet. TABULA II Alexander papa III, Frederici primi imperatoris iram et impetum fugiens, abdidit sese Venetiis. Cognitum et a senato perhonorifice susceptum, Ottone imperatoris filio navali praelio a Venetis victo captoque, Fredericus pace facta supplex adorat, fidem et obedientiam pollicitus, ita pontifici sua dignitas Venetae reipublicae benefitio restituta, anno .MCLXXVII. Hanc historiam Blondus lib. VI decadis secundae et ante eum Martinus ac ex eo Platina, nec non Venetarum rerum scriptores ut Marcellus, Sabellicus et alii descripsere; sed superbiam, imo petulantiam Alexandri, in conculcando tanti viri capite, ac superbis eius dictis: “Super aspidem et basiliscum ambulabis,” cui respondit imperator: “Non tibi sed Petro me submitto”; ad quae papa: “Et mihi et Petro,” pontificii illi parasiti omiserunt. TABULA III Sedis pontificiae Romam [sic] Gregorium XI Lemovicensem Avenione ex Galliis reductio; quemadmodum

12/7/12 1:48 PM

160   S   The Power and the Glorification

in eius epitaphio, quod est in Sancta Maria Nova, et a me in Epitaphiorum libris descriptum habetur, videre est. Hanc fecit Georgius Onacharius, ut graeca habet inscriptio. TABULA IV Carolus magnus in Patrimonii possessionem Romanam Ecclesiam restituit. Hic nempe precibus Hadriani  I pontificis, Desiderium Langobardorum regem compescuit, qui Patrimonium, ut vocant, Petri magna ex parte occupaverat, circiter annum christianum. DCCC. Vide latius Martinum, Blondum et Platinam. TABULA V Gregorius II, Germaniarum magna parte ad veri Dei cultum traducta, Arithperti Longobardorum regis donatione per Luithprandum successorem confirmata, anno sui pontificatus .XVII. discessit. De Germanis, per Bonifacium ad relligionem christianam traductis, meminit Martinus, caeterum de Langobardorum donatione nil dicit. Sedit, ut ipse vult, annos .XVI., menses .VIII., dies .XX.  Sub Ioanne  VII hanc primum Arithperti donationem factam scribit Blondus; ille nam Coctias Alpes, in quibus Genua est, ad Galliarum partes zelo religionis adductus, divo Petro obtulit, circa annum christianum .DCCX.; paulo post Luithprandum eandem confirmasse sub hoc Gregorio innuere videtur. Platina, sine authore, hanc vulgi famam esse scribit, Gregoriumque sedisse annos .XVI., menses .IX., dies .XI. TABULA VI Gregorius  VII Henricum imperatorem male de  Ecclesia merentem, postea supplicem et poenitentem absolvit. Hanc historiam Martinus et Platina describunt, sed Blondus, lib. 3 secundae decadis, paulo aliter narrat, nempe Gregorium ab Henrico Romae obsessum, et a Guiscardo Normanno liberatum, non diu post obiisse, incidit nam hic Henricus post reconciliationem denuo

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 160

in excommunicationem eiusdem Gregorii, quem Martinus Alemannum, Platina Etruscum dicit, fuitque circa annum .MLXXV. TABULA VII Otho primus imperator, devictis Berengario et Rodulpho eius filio tyrannis, provincias ab illis occupatas Ecclesiae restituit. Huius rei meminit Martinus, nihil tamen de filio capto addit, regnasse autem hunc Berengarium cum filio Alberto scribit .IIII. annos, anno Christi .DCCCCXLI. Blondus vero et Platina scribunt, Othonem, Agapithi II papae precibus, Berengarium cum filio Alberto regno deturbasse, et deinde paucis ademptis ac eos pontifici reconciliatos restituisse. TABULA VIII Gregorius IX, Frederico imperatori Ecclesiam oppugnante, sacris interdicit. Hic omnes excommunicationis ceremoniae terribiliter et ad horrorem incutiendum erant depictam. Historiam describit Martinus, qui Fredericum hunc secundum ab Honorio prius excommunicatum dicit, circa annum .MCCXV. Deinde Gregorium circa annum .MCCXXV. fulmen excommunicationis in eum confirmasse, quod contra Turcas non processisset. Blondus et Platina eadem affirmant. TABULA IX Carolus V imperator, Tunetum a Turcis occupatum, pari virtute ac felicitate recepit, Paulo  III pontifice maximo, .MDXXXV. Hoc bellum praeter quam quod sit in memoria hominum, et a plurimis descriptum, Paulus Iovius Historiar. Lib. XXXI ample enarrat. TABULA X Caspar Colignius olim ammiralius, accepto vulnere, domum defertur Gregorii XIII, .MDLXXII. Haec historia recens et apud Zurium et recentiores historiarum Gallicarum scriptores repetitur.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

The Pope and Secular Power  

TABULA XI Colignii et sociorum caedes. TABULA XII Rex Colignii necem probat. Haec caedes, vulgo Lutetiaca, facta est die Barptolomei, sub rege Carolo IX, executore Henrico Valesio, tum Alazonii duce, regis fratre. TABULA XIII Hostes perpetui christianae relligionis Turcae, diuturno victoriarum successu exultantes, sibique temere praefidentes, militibus, ducibus, tormentis, omni denique bellico apparatu, ad terrorem instructi, ad Echinadas insulas, communi classe, praelio post hominum memoriam maximo, perspicuo divini spiritus ope, profligantur, anno .MDLXXI.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 161

S  161

Huius historiae viva adhuc est memoria, ducibus Ioanne Austriaco, pontefice et Veneto sociis, eo pene loci, quo Octavianus Antonium et Cleopatram proelio navali superavit, die Iustinae sacro gestum proelium. TABULA XIV Classes oppositae Turcarum una, christianae societatis altera, inter Pium  V pontificem maximum, Philippum Hispaniarum regem et Venetam rempublicam, inito iam foedere, ingentibus utrimque animis concurrunt. Pius  V eo miserat Marcum Antonium Columnam Romanum, qui, post victoriam reversus. publica laetitia civium Romanorum exceptus est. Veneti vero Sebastianum Venerium imperatorem adiunxerant. Vide Ioannem Petrum Contarenum, hanc navalem pugnam cum bello Cyprio ample describentem.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

fig. 122  Anonymous, King Lothar III Crowned Emperor (1133) by Pope Innocent II, after 1567. Vatican Library, Rome, Barb. Lat. 2738, fols. 104v–105r. © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. This drawing was made after a painting in the Lateran Palace, which was situated in one of the rooms adjacent to the chapel of Saint Nicholas. The painting dated from ca. 1133–43 and was lost in the course of the seventeenth century. The drawing was probably made for the papal historian Alfonso Chacòn (Latin name Ciaconius, 1540–1599), who came to Rome in 1567.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 162

12/7/12 1:48 PM

Epilogue The Pope and the Past

During his wanderings through Rome, Aernout van Buchel visited not only the Sala Regia, but also the old papal palace near the Basilica of Saint John Lateran. In one of the audience rooms he observed a twelfth-century painting with an inscription, which he duly described in his report: [Pope] Innocent II had a picture painted in the Lateran palace, showing how Emperor Lothar [III] throws himself down at his feet like a vassal and receives from him the imperial crown, with the addition of this verse: The king comes before the gates, first swearing to uphold the rights of the city. Then he becomes the liegeman of the pope; he accepts the crown, which the pope gives.1 The painting is now lost, but a rough copy commissioned by a late sixteenth-century scholar who was interested in medieval art and history gives an impression of what it looked like (fig.  122).2 The original painting was made around 1140 and illustrated the coronation of Emperor Lothar  III by Pope Innocent II in 1133.3 Thus, it was a forerunner of the fifteenthand sixteenth-century paintings discussed in the preceding chapters and belonged to the same tradition. In both the Lateran and the later paintings, the basic arrangement has been used of the supreme pontiff towering above the monarch, who is kneeling or bending down to kiss his foot, illustrating that

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 163

the spiritual authority of the pope is superior to that of secular rulers. In the preceding chapter, we saw that pictures like these did not illustrate how events had happened in reality (after all, who would remember that after a couple of years?); instead, they were meant to show how the meeting of a pope and a monarch should happen and thus bring out its importance. Future visitors to the papal palace would know the events mainly through paintings like these, and would hence see and remember them in the proper papal light. This strategy was the same for the twelfth-century painting as it was for the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century ones. Its implications were immediately clear to Emperor Frederick Barbarossa when he came to Rome for his coronation in 1155. On seeing the Lateran painting, he indignantly demanded that Pope Adrian IV have it removed without delay. In a letter to the German bishops, he explained, “It began with a picture, the picture became an inscription, the inscription seeks to become an authoritative utterance. We shall not endure it, we shall not submit to it; we shall lay down the crown before we consent to have the imperial crown and ourselves thus degraded. Let the pictures be destroyed, let the inscription be revised, they may not remain as eternal memories of enmity between the empire and the papacy.”4 The affair must have been solved in a diplomatic way, for Frederick Barbarossa did accept his crown, while the painting and the inscription obviously survived. The more important issue in the context of this epilogue, however, is that the

12/7/12 1:48 PM

164  S   The Power and the Glorification

Lateran painting caused offence and consternation in a way that the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century pictures did not. Why? The explanation should not be sought in speculations about the more effective propagandistic qualities of the Lateran painting or the assumption that Frederick Barbarossa had a more acute intelligence than his successors four hundred years later. More likely, the issues at stake accounted for the emperor’s indignant reaction. Both he and the pope were striving for the highest authority in Europe and for general recognition of it. In this struggle, a deliberate misrepresentation of facts could have serious consequences. Thus, it is no wonder that Frederick Barbarossa tried to prevent the dubious presentation of data in the Lateran painting and its inscription from indeed becoming “an authoritative utterance.” There are no records of similar vehement reactions to papal paintings from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. When Emperor Charles  V visited Rome in 1536 (see chapter 5), he met several times with the pope, and it is more than likely that during one of these visits he saw the paintings in the Hall of Constantine (see chapter 4). Yet there is no testimony that he felt upset or protested. Nor do we know of any ambassador who objected to the pictures in the Sala Regia (see chapter 6). Their propagandistic content was just as explicit as in the Lateran picture, if not even more. In fact, papal propaganda in the visual arts was pursued on a larger scale in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries than ever before. The paintings were bigger in size, made with a higher frequency, and displayed in more places: not only in the official papal palace, but also in more private locations, such as the papal apartment in Castel Sant’Angelo and the family palace in Caprarola. Yet it almost looks as if this increased propaganda was inversely proportional to the pope’s declining authority. In the twelfth century, the pope and the emperor both had something to win. As the sixteenth century proceeded, however, the papacy could only hope to hold on to what it had left. The pope’s plenitude of power was in theory still largely recognized, but in reality hardly respected. In order to expound it, however, the popes freely used episodes from the past and the present as examples. In their selection of fitting cases in point, history had no boundaries. In 1481–83, Pope Sixtus  IV singled out

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 164

scenes from the life of Moses for the decoration of the Sistine Chapel, implying that the great leader from the Old Testament was a precursor of the pope (see chapter 1) and transplanting the roots of the pope’s authority as the head of God’s chosen people to pre-Christian times. The domain of classical history was claimed as well. The positioning of a statue of Pope Leo X in the Conservators’ Palace turned ancient Roman history into a prelude to papal history (see chapter 3), and the Donation of Constantine (see chapter 4) made the pope the direct heir of the Roman tradition. This extensive use of examples from the past served not only as a demonstration of the divine and historical pedigree of the pope’s authority, but also as a way to avoid specific problems that depictions of contemporary events might cause. Observers might be offended if they saw a particular rendition of affairs in which they had been personally involved, or portraits of people they knew in person. That was why Pope Alexander VI had his meeting with Charles VIII painted when the king was already far away and would likely never set eyes on Pintoricchio’s dubious rendition of what had happened (see chapter 2). Similarly, it was only after the death of Charles V that Cardinal Farnese had the emperor’s visit to Pope Paul III depicted in just as questionable a way (see chapter 5). One of Giorgio Vasari’s Lepanto paintings in the Sala Regia, glorifying the Venetian triumph, was already an embarrassment for the pope before it was publicly shown (see chapter 6). An event from longer ago, whose outcome was known, would have been a safer and less vulnerable choice. Historical examples served yet another purpose of papal propaganda. They showed the continuity of the past into the present and thus underlined that the pope’s authority was historically justified. There was a clear preference for papal acts and events that would fit within a traditional pattern, such as the reception of emperors, kings, and other rulers. These showed the pope as the main representative of spiritual power, which is superior to temporal power. Presenting the same acts time and again would stress that the popes were not formulating new and unexpected claims, but were acting in line with a long tradition. Portraits of contemporary, sixteenth-century persons in historical situations, including the portrait and the coat of arms of the reigning pope (see chapters 4 and 6), would

12/7/12 1:48 PM

Epilogue: The Pope and the Past  

bring this tradition up to date and further illustrate the link of the past to the present. The historical examples, however, did not always seamlessly match the intended message and were therefore adjusted, as Aernout van Buchel became aware of in the Sala Regia (see  chapter 6). Yet we should be careful in using terms like “falsification” or “forgery.” Through the sixteenth century, the main aim of studying history was not to reconstruct the past as accurately as possible. History was approached from a more functional point of view, as a storehouse full of useful lessons for the future. And if history’s examples did not exactly illustrate the intended message, it was allowable to make additions or adaptations. The implication was more important than the reconstruction. What mattered most was not that the event depicted had really happened in the way it was shown, but that it could have happened in that way. Trustworthiness and exemplary value ranked higher than exactitude and objectivity. Moreover, historic examples were supposed to have an appeal that would go beyond the specific instance. The lesson they teach should please all generations, now as well as in the future. This aspect confers on the paintings a dimension of universality, which makes questions about the accuracy of details and particulars irrelevant.5 Although qualifications like falsification or forgery may be too strong, it cannot be denied that the paintings in the Vatican Palace and other papal rooms were meant to manipulate the visitors. In a time when historical knowledge was not necessarily less than it is now, but certainly less easily available and widespread, visitors were largely dependent on the data offered by the paintings and their inscriptions, without easy means to check them. This void was deliberately used to impose a view according to which papal authority was self-evident and had been universally recognized throughout the ages, even by defiant kings and emperors. The paintings and their inscriptions do not hint at the long time it took to develop ideas about the papal plenitude of power, or at the many conflicts and struggles that occurred before it was acknowledged both within and outside the church.6 Nor do they give the slightest hint that in practice the pope’s authority had constantly been challenged and disputed. Those rulers who tried to defy the pope, such as the German emperors Henry IV, Frederick Barbarossa, and

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 165

S  165

Frederick II (see chapter 6) and King Henry VIII of England (see chapter 5), were all shown as either seeing the light and repenting or being rightfully punished. Thus, the paintings offer a completely biased version of papal history, which visitors may of course have sensed (and perhaps even expected), but which they must have found hard to refute or qualify, since they had to rely on the information offered by the paintings and their inscriptions. The many historical examples that were brought forward to demonstrate the universal acknowledgment of the papal plenitude of power, and the long line of rulers recognizing it, must have convinced them of the authenticity of the pope’s authority even if, or maybe just because, they were not familiar with the details. Thus, the paintings were still set up according to the propagandistic strategy that Emperor Frederick Barbarossa had already discerned in 1155 and aptly described: “It began with a picture, the picture became an inscription, the inscription seeks to become an authoritative utterance.” One explanation has already been suggested for why these paintings do not seem to have had the same political impact as the twelfth-century painting in the Lateran Palace: the authority of the papacy had in practice declined too much to cause real consternation about its propaganda. But there were also other factors. Since the invention of book printing around 1450, information had become increasingly easy to gather. The way in which Aernout van Buchel in 1587 was able to obtain and consult a relatively large range of history books (see chapter 6) would have been impossible in the twelfth century. So even though visitors to the papal rooms initially still had to accept the information of the paintings at face value, they were in a far better position than ever before to check the truthfulness of what they had seen. At the same time, a different, more critical historical attitude was developing. The criteria of accuracy and completeness became increasingly important, and the truthfulness and correctness of histories that for ages had been accepted without qualifications were now seriously questioned. An important product of this new frame of mind was the Ecclesiastical Annals of Cardinal Cesare Baronio (1538–1607), which appeared in twelve volumes from 1588 through 1607 and constituted a critical history of the church from its founding through the year 1198. One of the results of the cardinal’s judicious (re)reading of familiar and

12/7/12 1:48 PM

166  S   The Power and the Glorification

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 166

12/7/12 1:48 PM

Epilogue: The Pope and the Past  

newly discovered source material was a totally different understanding of the meeting of Pope Alexander III and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa in Venice in 1177 (see chapter 6). Baronio discovered that the role of Venice in this conflict had been very modest indeed, and that the city had mainly served as “neutral territory” where the pope and the emperor signed their peace treaty. By implication, the Venetian claim of having saved the papacy was not true. Pope Urban  VIII (1623–44) therefore had the inscription to the painting in the Sala Regia replaced by one that hardly mentions Venice.7 This led to a serious diplomatic conflict with the Venetian State, which was only resolved when the succeeding pope had the original inscription restored for purely opportunistic reasons. In this conflict, the Venetians put forward “old” depictions of the event as historical evidence. Since 1329 or even earlier, these depictions had served to decorate the rooms of the Doge’s Palace in Venice and had acquired the status of contemporary documents, in spite of numerous retouchings and overpaintings. In  the sixteenth century, however, they were no longer accepted as

S  167

sufficient evidence. In 1155, Frederick Barbarossa had good reason to fear the impact of the Lateran picture. Five centuries later, a changing frame of mind made this fear unnecessary. A picture—even a very old one—and its inscription were no longer accepted at face value and consequently could not seek to become an authoritative utterance. Urban  VIII, the pope who replaced the disputed inscription, must have sensed that the concept of history was changing and that historical accuracy was becoming increasingly important. Therefore, when he had the vault of the audience hall in his family palace in Rome decorated (fig. 123), he very appropriately did not select historical scenes. In order to extol the papacy in general and his own pontificate in particular, he wisely resorted to themes from a realm that could never be subject to historical criticism. Thus, the ceiling is covered with events from classical mythology, allegorical figures, and divine angels that lift the symbols and attributes of papal authority beyond the secular spheres of critical inquiry and fact finding to the realm of inviolable, eternal truth.

fig. 123  Pietro da Cortona, The Triumph of Divine Providence and the Fulfillment of Her Ends During the Pontificate of Urban VIII, 1632–39. Ceiling painting in the audience hall, Palazzo Barberini, Rome. CKD, RU Nijmegen.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 167

12/7/12 1:48 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 168

12/7/12 1:48 PM

notes

Introduction 1. Matthew 16:17–19. 2. Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “The Pope,” I. The latest printed edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia dates from 2002, but I have used the Internet version, which is based on the 1913 edition and has been available on the Internet since 1995 (http://​www​.newadvent​.org/​ cathen). According to one of the introductory pages (http://​www​ .newadvent​.org/​cathen/​00002a​.htm), this edition is “thought by many to be the superior version. It covers topics both religious and secular, from a uniquely Catholic perspective. Although 84 years old, readers will find the information solid, surprisingly relevant, and eternally valuable.” 3. John 21:16. 4. Acts 1 and 2. 5. Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “The Pope,” II. 6. Good overviews of the development of the papacy from the beginning to ca. 1400, with often divergent views, are Barraclough, Medieval Papacy, and Ullmann, Short History of the Papacy. 7. On the popes and the church after the crisis of the fourteenth century, see Thomson, Popes and Princes.

Chapter 1 1. The exact details, the biblical grounds, and the theological foundations of topics such as the papacy, the extent of its authority, the status of the general council, and its relation vis-à-vis the pope can all be found in The Catholic Encyclopedia (see introduction, note 2). Particularly relevant are the comprehensive entries on “The Pope” and “The Council.” From this latter entry, one learns that the question of the pope’s authority over or versus a general council, which dominated the discussion on the position of the papacy in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, has still not been completely resolved. “The Councils of Constance (1414–18) and Basle (1431–49) affirmed with great emphasis that an Ecumenical council is superior in authority to the pope, and French theologians have adopted that proposition as one of the famous four Gallican Liberties. Other theologians affirmed, and still affirm, that the pope is above any general council” (“The Council,” XII).

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 169

The solution to the problem, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia, is that the relation between the pope and the general council is “one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of intrinsic cohesion.” The general council represents the church, which is the mystical body of Christ. Realizing that the pope is its head, “we see at once that a council apart from the pope is but a lifeless trunk, a ‘rump parliament,’ no matter how well attended it be.” The question “Can a council depose the pope?” (ibid., XIII) receives an answer with many nuances, gradations, and subtle distinctions, in which the echo of the discussions in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries can still be heard. 2. The amount of literature on the conflict leading to the papacy’s exile in Avignon is enormous. Good, but sometimes contrasting, summaries of the series of events leading up to it, and of its consequences, are included in Barraclough, Medieval Papacy, and Ullmann, Short History of the Papacy. 3. On the Council of Constance, see Barraclough, Medieval Papacy, 178ff., and especially Ullmann, Short History of the Papacy, 298ff. 4. Barraclough, Medieval Papacy, 187ff., and Ullmann, Short History of the Papacy, 306ff., both discuss this period as the outcome of what happened in the preceding fourteen hundred years. A study concentrating on the fifteenth century, in which this period is seen more in relation to the future, is Thomson, Popes and Princes, esp. 3–28. 5. Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 164. 6. Ibid., 157–234. 7. Thomson, Popes and Princes, 15. 8. Nilgen, “Filaretes Bronzetür von St. Peter in Rom”; Clavuot, “Verus Christi vicarius”; Roser, St. Peter in Rom im 15. Jahrhundert, 62–69. There are very good pictures at http://​saintpetersbasilica​.org/​ Interior/​DoorFilarete/​DoorFilarete​.htm. 9. “Sunt haec Eugeni monimenta illustria quarti / Excelsi haec animi sunt monimenta sui.” 10. Ettlinger, Sistine Chapel Before Michelangelo; Shearman, “Fresco Decoration of Sixtus IV”; Lewine, Sistine Walls and the Roman Liturgy; Roettgen, Italian Frescoes, 82–125. 11. “Temptatio Moisi legis scriptae latoris” and “Temptatio Iesu Christi latoris evangelicae legis.” 12. “Promulgatio legis scripte per Moisem” and “Promulgatio evangelicae legis per Christum.” 13. Numbers 16.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

170  S   Notes to Pages 15–36 14. “Conturbatio Moisi legis scriptae latoris.” 15. Hebrews 5:4. 16. “Conturbatio Iesu Christi legislatoris.” 17. 8:59 and 10:31. 18. 16:18. 19. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear”: Luke 8:8. 20. “Im[m]ensu[m] Salamo templum tu hoc Quarte sacrasti Sixte opibus dispar religione prior” (You have consecrated this great temple, Sixtus IV, [you who] cannot compare with Solomon in his works but surpass him in piety). 21. On the Stanza d’Eliodoro, see Traeger, “Raffaels Stanza d’Elio­ doro und ihr Bildprogramm”; Rohlman, “ ‘Dominus mihi adiutor’ ”; Kliemann and Rohlmann, Italian Frescoes, 134–37. 22. 2 Maccabees 3. 23. Acts 12:6–10. 24. Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 220–21. 25. Rohlman, “ ‘Dominus mihi adiutor,’ ” 16. 26. All three quotations are from Luther’s Von dem Papsttum zu Rom wider den hochberühmten Romanisten zu Leipzig (1520), as translated in Baumer, Main Currents of Western Thought, 186–88. The original texts are included in Luthers Werke in Auswahl, 325, 347–48, and 353, respectively. 27. See chapter 4. The exact date of Hutten’s De Donatione Constantini quid vera habeat is disputed: 1517, 1519, or 1520. See Epp, Konstantinszyklen in Rom, 34. 28. De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio (1440). The most recent edition, with a short but useful introduction, is Valla, On the Donation of Constantine. For a recent and nuanced description of the document and of its history and significance, see Fried, “Donation of Constantine” and “Constitutum Constantini.” 29. Valla, On the Donation of Constantine, 7–9. This edition also contains the original Latin text and has a short but instructive introduction. 30. Guicciardini, History of Italy, 149. The information on the suppression of this passage from all Italian editions up to 1621 comes from 140n**. The original text can be found in Guicciardini, Storia d’Italia, 380–81.

Chapter 2 1. For biographical information on Fichard, see the relevant entry in the Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie. For his trip to Italy and Rome, see Schudt, Italienreisen im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, 263–68; and Sünderhauf, “Von der Wahrnehmung zur Beschreibung,” 425–53.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 170

2. Fichard, “Itinerarium,” 50–52; also in Schmarsow, “Excerpte,” 137–38. 3. D’Onofrio, Castel S. Angelo, 206–13, esp. 210–11, and 235. 4. Papini, “Gli antichi pavimenti di Castel Sant’Angelo”; Mazzucato, I pavimenti pontifici di Castel Sant’Angelo, 7 and 19–24. 5. Vasari, Lives, 1.574–75. Vasari mentions the frescoes again in the life of Morto da Feltro (1.924). An interesting but improbable detail is provided by Paolo Giovio (1483–1552), who writes that King Charles VIII, at the request of Pope Alexander VI, had his portrait taken by a painter (possibly Pintoricchio) in Castel Sant’Angelo: “Hoc oris gestu et armorum cultu Carolum Galliae Regem eius nominis octavum Alexander Pontifex in mole Hadriani pingi iussit, quum Rex ipse se pictori exprimendum accurate praebuisset.” Giovio, Gli elogi degli uomini illustri, 363. For an illustration, see Scarpellini and Silvestrelli, Pintoricchio, 189. 6. The documents with the payments to Pintoricchio have been published by Bombe, Geschichte der Peruginer Malerei, 227–28, and Ehrle and Stevenson, Gli affreschi del Pinturicchio, 49–51n3. See, most recently, Scarpellini and Silvestrelli, Pintoricchio, 187–89. Howe, “Alexander VI, Pinturicchio,” 68–69, suggests that in February 1495 Pintoricchio had already painted a part of the fresco decoration, “composing the historical scenes even as the pertinent drama unfolded.” However, given Alexander’s cautious behavior and his retreat to Orvieto and Perugia when Charles returned from Naples to France in May and June 1495, I would rather assume that the paintings were executed later, when the king was at a safe distance north of Rome. Moreover, it appears from the documents published by Fagliari Zeni Buchicchio, “Le fonti documentarie,” that in March 1495 the pope had four thousand gold florins set aside for himself to spend them on the (re)construction works of the Castel. Around July of the same year, the ramparts around the Castel were indeed built. It seems logical to assume that Pintoricchio’s paintings were a part of this project and therefore were not executed before the ramparts were more or less finished. 7. On Lorenz Behaim (ca. 1457–1521), see the relevant entry in Meyers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon and in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (available at http://​mdz10​.bib​-bvb​.de/​~db/​0001/​bsb00016233/​ images/​index​.html​?seite​=​769). Behaim’s notebook is now in the State Library in Munich as part of the codex of Hartman Schedel. The full text of the captions of Pintoricchio’s painting is included in the appendix. 8. See the appendix. 9. The most extensive account of the expedition of Charles VIII in Italy is still Delaborde, L’expédition de Charles VIII en Italie (1888). Very informative is chap. 3, “The Entries of French Sovereigns in Italy,” in Mitchell, Majesty of the State.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

Notes to Pages 36–49  

10. Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 3:305. 11. Detailed accounts of the arrival and stay of the French in Rome are in Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 3:324ff., and Paschini, Roma nel Rinascimento, 327ff. 12. D’Onofrio, Castel S. Angelo, 208. 13. According to the Venetian chronicler Marin Sanudo, writing around 1495, this collapse was the result of extremely heavy rain, too heavy artillery, and recent repairs, which all together overburdened the walls (La spedizione di Carlo VIII, 171). 14. Picotti, “Alessandro VI,” esp. 196–98; Mallet, The Borgias, chap. 5. 15. His name is also spelled Jem or Cem. On his life, see Freely, Jem Sultan. 16. Guillaume Briçonnet, bishop of Saint Malo, was Charles’s main adviser and instigator of the conquest of Naples. See Chevalier, Guillaume Briçonnet. See also the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church website, http://​www2​.fiu​.edu/​~mirandas/​bios1495​.htm​#Briconnet. 17. Philippe de Luxembourg, bishop of Le Mans. See the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church website, http://​www2​.fiu​.edu/​~mirandas/​ bios1495​-ii​.htm​#Luxembourg. 18. Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, 3:334; Paschini, Roma nel Rinascimento, 337. The Venetian chronicler Marin Sanudo, writing around 1495, related the rumor that Djem had been poisoned by the pope, but added that this tale was hard to believe, as it would have been against the pope’s own interests (La spedizione di Carlo VIII, 243–44). It was the papal master of ceremonies, Johannes Burckard (see below), who suspected that Djem died “through eating or drinking something unsuitable for him.” 19. According to Sanudo, the pope started the reconstruction of the collapsed wall immediately after the king’s departure, “working incessantly, day and night” (La spedizione di Carlo VIII, 197). 20. See Walter, “Burckard, Johannes.” 21. Burckard’s report on Charles’s stay in Rome begins, in the edition of L. Thuasne, in vol. 2, 221, and in the (better) edition of E. Celani in pt. 1, 565. The full texts of the captions of Pintoricchio’s paintings are included in the appendix. 22. Wirth, “Imperator pedes papae deosculatur.” 23. See note 16 above. 24. See note 17 above. 25. Eichmann, “Das Officium Stratoris et Strepae.” 26. Apart from Burckard’s report, the most detailed account is Sanudo’s Spedizione di Carlo VIII, which was not published until 1873. Other more or less contemporary records are Guicciardini’s Storia d’Italia (1537; published posthumously in 1561) and the Mémoires of Philippe de Commynes (who wrote from the French point of view). His report

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 171

S  171

on Charles’s invasion of Italy is included in books 7 and 8, which were published for the first time in 1528. 27. An example is the series of paintings from 1246 in the Oratorio di San Silvestro, in the Church of Santi Quattro Coronati, Rome. See Mitchell, “St. Silvester and Constantine at the SS. Quattro Coronati”; Sohn, “Bilder als Zeichen der Herrschaft.” 28. Guicciardini, History of Italy, 70. The original text can be found in Guicciardini, Storia d’Italia, 103. 29. In spite of the explicit statement by d’Onofrio (Castel S. Angelo, 235) that the paintings were totally lost when the loggia was torn down in 1628, François-Jacques Deseine in 1713 claimed to have seen them in the central room on top of the Castel (the supposed treasury room), in the apartment of Pope Paul III: “On y voit plusieurs peintures considérables de Bernadin Pinturicchio, qui y a peint l’Histoire d’Alexandre VI, & les portraits d’Isabelle reine de Castille, de Nicolas Ursin Comte de Pitigliano, de Jean Jacques Trivulce, de Cesar Borgia, & autres, qui sont à demi éfacés de vieillesse” (Rome Moderne, 4:968). This could mean that the paintings were not immediately lost and were somehow (with the wall and all?) transported to the upper rooms of the Castel. However, it seems more likely to me that Deseine simply copied the text of Vasari without seriously checking the remains of the wall paintings he had seen. 30. First by Thuasne (1883–85) and next by Celani (1907–10), based on older and more authentic manuscripts. See the bibliography. Excerpts from Burckard’s diary have been translated into several languages, including an English translation by Parker (Burckard, At the Court of the Borgia). 31. Cod. lat. 716, fol. 163-a ff. 32. Schmarsow, Pinturicchio in Rom, 63–65; Howe, “Alexander VI, Pinturicchio”; Cavallaro, “Pinturicchio ‘familiare’ della corte borgiana.”

Chapter 3 1. Fichard, “Itinerarium, ” 29–30; also in Schmarsow, “Excerpte,” 136. On Fichard, see chapter 2, note 1. 2. Mancini, Considerazioni, 1:184. On Mancini, see Sohm, “Man­ cini, Giulio.” 3. On the Conservators’ Palace and its history, see Pecchiai, Il Campidoglio nel Cinquecento; Petrassi and Guerra, Il Colle Capitolino; and Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus.” 4. Brummer and Janson, “Art, Literature, and Politics,” 79, 87–88, 90–91; Butzek, Die kommunalen Repräsentationsstatuen, 204–35 and 445–57; Lanciani, Storia degli Scavi, 1:206–8. 5. The present state of knowledge about Ripanda is discussed by Guarino, “L’antiquario sfegatato,” and Farinella, Archeologia e pittura a

12/7/12 1:48 PM

172  S   Notes to Pages 54–67 Roma. For a good general assessment of Ripanda’s importance, see Hall, After Raphael, 15–20. Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus,” offers specific information on Ripanda’s work in the Conservators’ Palace. 6. Lanciani, “Il codice barberiniano,” 235. 7. Unfortunately, the paintings for Cardinal Santoro no longer exist and are known only through descriptions. See Farinella, Archeologia e pittura a Roma, chap. 3, and “Jacopo Ripanda a Palazzo Santoro”; Cavallaro, “Gli affreschi delle ‘historie di Traiano.’ ” 8. Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici,” 245. 9. Silvanus’s poem was first published in Rome in 1524 (together with a panegyric on Pope Clement VII), probably in a limited number of copies, of which only a few seem to have come down to us. Mr. John Lancaster, Rare Book Cataloguer, Smith College Library, kindly informed me that there are copies recorded at Harvard, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Dillingen, and the University of Amsterdam. Rodolfino Venuti published it again in 1735, together with a long oration by Blosio Palladio in honor of the statue’s inauguration (Oratio totam fere Romanam historiam complectens). The poem was recently published in a scholarly edition by Ilse Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici.” Unfortunately, she seems to have missed all the relevant art-historical literature published since Brummer and Janson’s 1976 article “Art, Literature, and Politics.” Ebert-Schifferer has included parts of Silvanus’s poem (with some errors) in the appendix to her article, together with a German translation (“Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus,” 198–208). 10. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 1:39. 11. Lines 534–48 (Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici,” 315). EbertSchifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus,” mistakenly transcribes “fluctibus” in line 537 as “flectibus.” 12. Lines 265–73 (Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici,” 308). 13. Lines 344–46 (Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici,” 310). 14. Lines 232–59; quote in line 233 (Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici,” 307–8). 15. Lines 491–97 (Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici,” 314). 16. Lines 526–28 (Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici,” 315). 17. For useful information on the portraits, their Latin inscriptions, and the coats of arms, see Pietrangeli, “Gli appartamenti di rappresentenza del Commune,” and “Nell’ appartamento dei Conservatori.” 18. Tittoni et al., Il Campidoglio all’epoca di Raffaello, 11–16. See also Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus,” 77–90. 19. See his description of the statue, quoted at the beginning of this chapter.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 172

20. Lines 125–92 (Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici,” 304–6). Brummer and Janson, “Art, Literature, and Politics,” 89–90, have published the verses in an appendix, together with an English translation. 21. Other spellings are de Amis, de Jami, and Lamia. I have adopted the spelling Silvanus uses: Amio (Latin Amius). Martin, “Aimo, Domenico,” gives a clear, recent summary of the known facts about Amio’s life and career. 22. Pliny, Natural History 36.37. For a detailed account of the discovery and all the texts describing the statue, see Maffei, “La fama di Laocoonte.” 23. The story of this contest is told by Giorgio Vasari in his life of the sculptor Jacopo Sansovino. Vasari calls Amio “il vecchio di Bologna” (the old man from Bologna). The story, however, should be read with skepticism, as it very hard to figure out at which moment all the persons involved could have been in Rome. See Shearman, “Raphael, Rome, and the Codex Escurialensis,” 136–37. 24. This appears from payments for finishing a statue of Saint Ambrose above the portal of the church of San Petronio made to “Maestro Domenico de’ Jami da Varignana.” See Gatti, La fabbrica di S. Petronio, 98. 25. Butzek, Die kommunalen Repräsentationsstatuen, 445–57, has published all the documents concerning the statue, including the minutes, with an explanation at 204–5 and 212–35. Much of this documentation had already been collected earlier and commented upon by Lanciani, Storia degli Scavi, 1:206–8. 26. Brummer and Janson, “Art, Literature, and Politics,” 80, convincingly argue that the statue’s inauguration was to take place in the fall of 1521; in other words, not on the actual date of the foundation of Rome, which would have been April 21 of the next year. In September 1521 the preparations were already too far advanced, and so “the only reasonable explanation is that the plan was to celebrate the Palilia on another date than the canonical one.” 27. Oratio totam fere Romanam historiam complectens. 28. Lines 428–35 (Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici,” 312). Both Venuti and Reineke erroneously have Turni instead of Tulli. 29. Vergil, Aeneid 1.464 and 451–52. As translated by H. Rushton Fairclough in Virgil, 1.273. 30. Lines 225–31 (Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici,” 307). 31. Lines 577–89 (Reineke, “C. Silvani Germanici,” 316). 32. The documents on the appointment of a custodian have been published by Lanciani, Storia degli Scavi, 1:208. 33. These documents have been published in L’ornamento marmoreo, 71–74 and 174–215. 34. Ibid., 215.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

Notes to Pages 68–84  

35. The text of the commission for Giuseppe Cesari’s new paintings in the first hall clearly states why events from the earliest history of Rome were selected. See Tittino Monti, Gli affreschi, 9–10. 36. The events of 1818 and 1876 are recorded on the statue’s pedestal. 37. Fichard, “Itinerarium, ” 29, and Schmarsow, “Excerpte,” 136; Lanciani, “Il codice barberiniano XXX, 89,” 447. 38. A listing of references to the statue from the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries can be found in Tittino Monti, Gli affreschi, 104–7, quoting Deseine, Rome moderne, at 105. See also Butzek, Die kommunalen Repräsentationsstatuen, 233. 39. Gnoli’s characterization of the statue was originally made in 1897, in an article that he later included in his book La Roma di Leon X, 350. Pastor gave his opinion in Geschichte der Päpste, vol. 4, pt. 1, Von der wahl Leos X bis zum Tode Clemens VII (1513–1534), 537–38. 40. Venturi, Storia dell’arte italiana, 10 (1): 218. 41. Brummer and Janson, “Art, Literature, and Politics,” 87–88. 42. Butzek, Die kommunalen Repräsentationsstatuen, 233–34. 43. Martin, “Aimo, Domenico” (Martin uses the spelling Aimo instead of Amio; see note 21 above).

Chapter 4 1. Lanciani, “Il codice barberiniano XXX, 89,” 459. 2. Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 31–32; Rossi, “Sala di Costantino,” 91–92; Cornini, De Strobel, and Serlupi Crescenzi, “La Sala di Costantino,” 197–201. 3. Lanciani, “Il codice barberiniano XXX, 89,” 495. 4. Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 854, doc. 53. More information at 27. 5. Lanciani, “Il codice barberiniano XXX, 89,” 459. 6. Cornini, De Strobel, and Serlupi Crescenzi, in “La Sala di Costantino,” offer a good, useful summary of the information on the hall. By far the most comprehensive study, however, is Rolf Quednau’s massive volume Die Sala di Costantino. It contains transcriptions of all the documents pertaining to the decoration project as well as of all the inscriptions on the paintings (with commentary). It also offers good discussions of the stylistic and iconographic aspects of the paintings and their history, with countless references. Leaning on the material in this book but approaching the pictures from a different angle is Philipp Fehl’s perceptive article “Raphael as an Historian.” 7. Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 42–43; Cornini, De Strobel, and Serlupi Crescenzi, “La Sala di Costantino,” 201.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 173

S  173

8. Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 40. 9. Ibid., 204–32 and 270–84, contains extensive information. 10. See the detailed discussion in ibid., 181–314. 11. Ibid., 313–14. This figure represents Eloquence, according to Schröter in her review of Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 251n13. 12. Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 229–31 and 280–82. See also Perry, “ ‘Candor Illaesus.’ ” 13. Eusebius, Vita Constantini 1.28. In his earlier Historia Ecclesiastica 9.9, Eusebius does not relate the miraculous appearance of the sign in the sky. 14. Scenes similar to the one on the Arch of Constantine also occur on Trajan’s Column, which may have been an additional source of inspiration. The Trajan reliefs may also have provided important information about such details as clothes, armor, and weapons, which were necessary to create a general sense of “archeological accuracy.” 15. Roman sarcophagi with battle scenes must have been an important source of inspiration. Also obvious are references to Leo­nardo da Vinci’s famous cartoon of The Battle of Anghiari for the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence (now lost, but still known through various copies). 16. According to Eusebius (Vita Constantini 4.61–64), Constantine was baptized only shortly before his death in Helenopolis. 17. “Lavacrum renascentis vitae C. Val. Constantini,” based on St Paul’s letter to Titus (3:5): “salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis” (“he saved us, by the laver of regeneration”). 18. The various versions of and legends about the baptism of Constantine have been studied by Fowden, “Last Days of Constantine.” For a recent and comprehensive study on the life and legends of Constantine, see Lieu and Montserrat, Constantine. See also Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 400–403, 448–49; and Epp, Konstantinszyklen in Rom, 9ff. 19. Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 425; Fehl, “Raphael as an Historian,” 49–53. 20. Fried, “Donation of Constantine” and “Constitutum Constantini,” 149 (Latin) and 152 (translation). 21. Like many rooms in the Vatican, the hall served other functions as well. If necessary, it could also be used for banquets, consistories, and other meetings. See Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 44ff. 22. The original text in Latin is in the diary of Lodovico Bondoni, papal master of ceremonies (Ms. Vat. lat. 12280, fol. 144r), published in Merkle, Concilii Tridentini diariorum, 2:542. See also Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 897–89, doc. 127b. 23. The documents showing Raphael’s involvement are published in Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 830ff.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

174  S   Notes to Pages 84–93 24. The state of the decoration at the moment of Raphael’s death and the ensuing competition to obtain the commission to finish it are described minutely by Quednau, ibid., 80ff. A more concise description is given by Cornini, De Strobel, and Serlupi Crescenzi, “La Sala di Costantino,” 167–69. 25. Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 842–44, doc. 45. 26. This motif appears from Sebastiano’s letter to Michelangelo of September 6, 1520, published in Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 844–46, doc. 46. 27. Ibid., 845. 28. Ibid., 848–50, doc. 48. 29. On the state of the decoration at that moment, see ibid., 86–87. 30. Ibid., 87. 31. Ibid., 860, doc. 63. 32. Ibid., 846, doc. 46. 33. Ibid., 374–75, 394–97. 34. See chapter 1. 35. The full text of this letter, directed to Georg Spalatin, is in Walch, Martin Luthers sämtliche Schriften, letter no. 265. Translation from Partridge, Art of the Renaissance in Rome, 159. 36. Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 454–56. 37. Delph, “Valla Grammaticus, Agostino Steuco,” offers a good discussion of Augustinus Steuchus’s response. Steuchus develops the argument about the validity of Constantine’s Donation by referring to the donations of later kings and emperors in De falsa donatione Constantini, 199–202. 38. Francesco Borsati (Latin name Franciscus Bursatus) states in consilium CXXIII in bk. 1 of his Consiliorum sive responsorum, 353–63 (in particular in the summary, nos. 37, 38 and 42 at 354–55): “Historia et donatio Constantini calumniose ab aliquibus ficta appellata fuit. Suspectus aliqualiter de haeresi diceretur, qui hodie teneret donationem Constantini fictitiam et falsam esse, et nunc et umquam veram semper ecclesia docuit. Haeretitus [sic] fere diceretur asserens donationem Constantini falsam.” Epp, Konstantinszyklen in Rom, 32–38, offers a good summary of the various opinions on the Donation’s disputed authenticity in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. 39. Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4.61–64. 40. Grafton, “Historia and Istoria,” offers a thoughtful study of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century notion of history. He argues that trustworthiness was more important than strict historical accuracy and that fantastic legendary stories “in the best spirit of Monty Python” (51) met with increasing skepticism. 41. Eusebius, Vita Constantini 1.38.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 174

42. Exodus 14:17–24. 43. Acts 22:6. 44. Fried, “Donation of Constantine” and “Constitutum Constantini,” 149 (Latin) and 152 (translation). Quoted in the text above at note 20. 45. See note 17 above. 46. Luke 19:9. 47. De Jong, “Universals and Particulars,” 42–51. 48. Aeneid 2.604–23. 49. Aeneid 10.833–908 and 11.139–181. On the detail of the aged father mourning his fallen son, see in particular Fehl, “Raphael as an Historian,” 46–49. 50. Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 7.3.61–70. 51. Cicero, De partitione oratoria 4.12. 52. Aristotle, Poetics 17.55a. 53. See the detailed discussion in Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino, 405–7 and 426–32. 54. Ibid., 332–34. 55. The suggestion of Fehl, “Raphael as an Historian,” 38, that Constantine did indeed lead his troops to the Vatican Hill, as part of his strategy to attack Maxentius from two sides, seems a little far-fetched. 56. See Grafton, “Historia and Istoria.” 57. Vasari, Lives 1.728. 58. Aristotle, Poetics 9.51a–51b. 59. On the growing number of Donation paintings, see Epp, Konstantinszyklen in Rom; Freiberg, “In the Sign of the Cross”; and Quednau, “Costantino il Grande a Rome.” At the end of the sixteenth century, Cardinal Caesar Baronius admitted in his authoritative Annales Ecclesiastici that the Donation was not an authentic document from the time of Constantine. His opinion was increasingly accepted. 60. The slogan was scratched on the painting of the Disputà in the Stanza della Segnatura (fig. 90). See Chastel, Sack of Rome, 91–93, who rightly observes that, curiously, there was no graffiti made on the walls of the Hall of Constantine.

Chapter 5 1. There is some information on Fabio Ardizio in the entry in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani on his better-known brother Curzio, a courtier and poet. Fabio and Curzio were the sons of Gerolamo Ardizio, a member of a noble family from Milan. Fabio had been in Rome since at least 1573, when he was joined by his brother. 2. Faldi, Il Palazzo Farnese, 57–68. Published earlier, with some inaccuracies, as Ardizio, Un viaggio di Gregorio XIII. At the end of

12/7/12 1:48 PM

Notes to Pages 94–119  

this description, Ardizio confuses Pope Pius III (1503) with Pius IV (1559–1565). 3. The most extensive discussion of both the construction and decoration of the palace can be found in Faldi, Il Palazzo Farnese. For a more concise but very clear discussion, see Robertson, “Il Gran Cardinale,” 74–137; and Coffin, Villa in the Life of Renaissance Rome, 281–311. 4. Extensively discussed by Partridge, “Divinity and Dynasty at Caprarola.” 5. On the Farnese family and its rise to power, see Gamrath, “History of a Success”; Partridge, “Divinity and Dynasty at Caprarola”; and Walter, “Time Present and Time Past.” 6. The most useful account of Paul III’s pontificate is still Pastor’s Geschichte Papst Pauls III, vol. 5 of his Geschichte der Päpste. More recent but less exhaustive are Zapperi’s La leggenda del papa Paolo III and Tiziano, Paolo III e i suoi nipoti. 7. On the ambitions and patronage of the younger Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, see, most extensively, Robertson, “Il Gran Cardinale.” 8. See the appendix. 9. Vasari, Lives, 2:625–26. 10. Acidini Luchinat, Taddeo e Federico Zuccari, 1:196–204; and Partridge, “Federico Zuccari at Caprarola.” 11. Quoted in Vasari, Le vite (ed. Milanesi), 114n3. 12. Taddeo was responsible for the design of the paintings, but other persons selected the themes, probably in consultation with Cardinal Farnese. There are, in fact, various letters written by scholars in the cardinal’s service that include detailed instructions to the painters, as for example those by Annibale Caro (Lettere familiari, 3:131–40 and 237–40). Partridge demonstrates that another well-known scholar in the cardinal’s service, Onofrio Panvinio, with some help from Paolo Manuzio, selected the events from the Farnese history painted in the adjoining room (“Divinity and Dynasty at Caprarola,” 494–96). Panvinio also seems the most likely candidate to have singled out “some of the main deeds of Pope Paul III” in the anticamera, especially since he contributed the biography of Paul III to the updated 1562 edition of Bartolomeo Platina’s History of the Lives of the Popes. 13. Acidini Luchinat, Taddeo e Federico Zuccari, 1:199 and 202–4; Partridge, “Federico Zuccari at Caprarola,” 165. 14. Acidini Luchinat, Taddeo e Federico Zuccari, 1.196. 15. Robertson, “Il Gran Cardinale,” 53–68; Kliemann, Gesta dipinte, 37–51. 16. Kliemann, Gesta dipinte, 51–55; Walter, “Time Present and Time Past”; De Jong, “History Painting at the Farnese Court.” 17. Philip was born on May 21, 1527. 18. There is a detailed description of the proceedings at Nice in Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, vol. 5, Paul III, 194ff.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 175

S  175

19. In the adjoining Sala dei Fasti Farnesiani, Zuccaro also freely juggled with dates and portraits against a seemingly accurate historical background. See Partridge, “Divinity and Dynasty at Caprarola.” 20. See Dempsey, “Mythic Inventions,” 63–64. 21. In the Palazzo Farnese, Pope Paul’s good judgment in selecting cardinals is illustrated only in a minor scene. 22. Seneca, De beneficiis, and Cicero, De officiis, in particular 2.69 (“in beneficiis collocandis mores hominum, non fortunam sequi”) and 2.71 (“melius apud bonos quam apud fortunatos beneficium collocari puto”). Other allusions to classical texts in the inscriptions of Vasari’s Cancellaria paintings are discussed by Kliemann, Gesta dipinte, 43–51. 23. Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, vol. 5, Paul III, 172. 24. Martinelli’s account of Charles V’s visit to Rome has been published by Podestà, “Carlo V a Roma nell’anno 1536”; see 330–31 for the description of the parade’s arrival on Saint Peter’s Square and the meeting of the pope and emperor. 25. See the appendix. 26. Catherine was Henry’s first wife. He divorced her on May 23, 1533, in favor of Anne Boleyn. Catherine died on January 7, 1536. 27. This time his bride was Jane Seymour. 28. Jane Seymour died of puerperal fever on October 24, 1537, shortly after giving birth to the future Edward VI. On January 6, 1540, Henry married Anne of Cleves. 29. Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, vol. 4, pt. 2, Leo X. bis zum Tode Klemens’ VII, 513. 30. Pope Clement died on September 25, 1534; Paul III was elected on October 13. On November 3 of the same year, the English Parliament accepted the Act of Supremacy, which holds that the sovereign of England is also the supreme head of the Church of England. 31. Faldi, Il Palazzo Farnese, 66.

Chapter 6 1. The most recent and extensive studies on Van Buchel are Pollmann, Religious Choice, and Langereis, Geschiedenis als ambacht. Neither of them, however, discusses his stay in Rome. Older, but still very useful, is Van Langeraad, “Leven van Arend van Buchell,” which serves as an introduction to Brom and Van Langeraad, Diarium van Arend van Buchell, i–xciii (see ix–xi and 158–69 for specific information on the trip to Italy). 2. Van Buchel’s Iter Italicum is part of his larger Commentarius Rerum Quotidianarum, which covers the years from 1560 (before his birth!) to 1599. This two-volume manuscript is kept in the University Library of Utrecht (HS.798, call number 6 E 15); the Iter Italicum is

12/7/12 1:48 PM

176  S   Notes to Pages 119–129 included in vol. 2, fols. 1–91r. Rodolfo Lanciani published the text of the Iter in the beginning of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, his edition is not without mistakes and omits—without indication—parts of Van Buchel’s text. Yet since it is the only printed edition, I will refer to it and not to the manuscript. Since Van Buchel refers to books that were published after 1588, it is obvious that the final version was written in Utrecht, probably as late as 1595 or even later. Among these books are Laurentius Scradaeus’s Monumentorum Italiae, quae hoc nostro saeculo & a Christianis posita sunt libri quattuor (1592), Giulio Cesare de Solis’s Origine di molte citta de mondo, et particularmente di tutta Italia (1593), and Nathan Chytraeus’s Variorum in Europa itinerum deliciae (1594). See also Gisbert Brom’s foreword to Brom and Van Langeraad, Diarium van Arend van Buchell, xcv–xcvi. 3. The complete text of Van Buchel’s description of the Sala Regia is included in appendix 2. 4. Elsewhere in his notes Van Buchel does mention Vasari; see Hoogewerff and Van Regteren Altena, Arnoldus Buchelius “Res Pictoriae,” 54. Moreover, a 1550 edition of Vasari’s Vite is included in the auction catalogue of Van Buchel’s books sold after his death: Catalogus librorum Clarissimi viri, 49, no. 250. 5. The most recent and by far most exhaustive study of both the construction and decoration history of the Sala is that by Böck, Die Sala Regia, 7–18. 6. The stucco decorations of the Sala have been studied separately by Davidson, “Decoration of the Sala Regia.” 7. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 19–21. 8. The most complete studies of the Sala’s decoration, apart from Böck, Die Sala Regia, are Partridge and Starn, “Triumphalism and the Sala Regia”; Redig de Campos, I palazzi vaticani, 127–30, 162–64, and 179–80; and Cornini, De Strobel, and Serlupi Crescenzi, “Sixteenth Century: Frescoes,” 274–75. The oldest more or less complete discussion of the paintings and their makers can be found in Baglione’s Vite de’pittori, scultori et architetti (1642). However, its data are not always correct. Scattered remarks with useful information on the earliest phase of the painted decorations can also be found in the second edition (1568) of Vasari’s Vite, in particular in the biographies of Francesco Salviati, Taddeo Zuccaro, and “various artists still living.” 9. Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, vol. 9, Gregor XIII., 369–72, gives a general account of the festivities. 10. For detailed information see Böck, Die Sala Regia, 14–17. 11. Vasari mentions the role of the cardinals in his life of Francesco Salviati. See also Böck, Die Sala Regia, 73–74. 12. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 74. For extensive information on Panvinio, see Robertson, “Il Gran Cardinale,” 220–23.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 176

13. De falsa donatione Constantini, 196–202. See also chapter 4, note 37. 14. From Giorgio Vasari’s report on the state of the Sala in 1572– 73, included in his Zibaldone, 246, it appears that by then these paintings were still unfinished. It is not clear when the paintings were finally completed and by whom. Perhaps the decoration of the south wall was finished by the crew of painters who were brought in during the spring of 1573 to bring the project to a close (Böck, Die Sala Regia, 18). 15. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 56–57. 16. Ibid., 75–83, with further references; Contant, Kruisbeeld tegen Kromzwaard, 25–66. 17. Of all the paintings in the Sala Regia, these three are the best studied. See Fehl, “Vasari’s ‘Extirpation of the Huguenots’ ”; Röttgen, “Zeitgeschichtliche Bildprogramme”; Herz, “Vasari’s Massacre Series”; and, most recently, Böck, Die Sala Regia, 83–91, with further references. 18. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 92–97. 19. Similar texts in the Bible include Psalm 61 (62): 13; Proverbs 24:29; Matthew 16:27; and Revelation 22:12. 20. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 18. 21. Van Buchel, Iter Italicum, 59: “Est et hic aula Constantiniana, ubi pugna Constantini cum Maxentio ad pontem MiIvium per Raphaelem Urbinatem depicta, quam aeneis quoque typis excusam vidi.” 22. See appendix 2. 23. See appendix 2 and chapter 4, note 5. For the date of this description, see chapter 4, p. 71. 24. See appendix 2. An even earlier instance of copies of the inscriptions is supplied by Nathan Chytraeus’s Variorum in Europa itinerum deliciae, 47–48. According to Michel Bastiaensen, Chytraeus traveled to Rome in 1566, which means that he cannot personally have seen all the inscriptions, as the Vasari paintings still had to be executed and the inscriptions to some of the paintings of the first decoration phase were added only later. According to Bastiaensen, the later inscriptions may have been supplied to him by Jacob Monau (Monavius), who traveled through Italy between 1569 and 1575. Bastiaensen, “Poésie néo-latin, voyages et arts figuratifs,” esp. 414. 25. The two cardinals are described as respectively “splendidissimo Farnese grande” and “quel sig. card. di Ferrara.” See appendix 2. In 1612, Balthasar Menz also recognized the portraits of Cardinal Farnese and “the cardinal of Ferarra.” Moreover, he identified the person holding the emperor’s crown as a portrait of the Duke of Urbino, who, in 1565, would have been Guidobaldo II della Rovere. Menz, Itinera sex, 306–8. 26. Even now, both paintings are lacking an inscription. The subject of the one by Giovanni Maria Zoppelli (fig. 101) is still a matter of discussion (see page 124). Thanks to a remark by Vasari in

12/7/12 1:48 PM

Notes to Pages 129–143  

the chapter on various Italian artists in his Lives, the other painting, by Girolamo Sicciolante da Sermoneta, is known to represent King Pippin III Handing Back the Territories of the Church to Pope Stephen II (fig. 102). 27. For this and all the other inscriptions, see appendix 1. 28. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 38. According to Böck, the man with the features of Paul III represents Pope Innocent III. However, he is clearly dressed as a cardinal, as is the man with the features of Alexander Farnese the younger standing next to him. 29. See chapter 2, p. 40. 30. See note 2 above. 31. Bosquet, In epistolas Innocentii pontificis maximi notae. 32. Zurita, Anales de la Corona de Aragon; Esteve, De osculatione pedum; see also Steuchus, De falsa donatione Constantini, quote in note 34 below. 33. These papers are now in the Vatican Library, Barb. Lat. 2738; the relevant text is on fol. 157v–158v. On this codex, see Herklotz, “ ‘Historia Sacra’ und Mittelalterliche Kunst,” 35n26. As suggested earlier in this chapter, Panvinio was probably involved in selecting the incidents to be painted in the Sala Regia during the first decoration project. Moreover, he may also have been responsible for selecting the scenes from the pontificate of Paul III in the salotto of Palazzo Farnese in Caprarola (see chapter 5, note 12). On the complicated history of the various manuscripts of the Gesta Innocentii PP. III, see Imkamp, Das Kirchenbild Innocenz’ III., 11–17. From Imkamp’s reconstruction, it appears that there had been a copy in the library in Avignon since 1396. It did not come to Rome, however, until 1603. 34. Steuchus, De falsa donatione Constantini, 193: “Petrus rex Aragoniae anno tertio domini Innocentii III Papae venit Romam ad eundem Innocentium, ab eoque militiam solemniter, ac honorifice accepit: obtulitque sponte totum regnum beato Petro, et sacrosanctae Romanae ecclesiae: ibique accepit in feudum praedictum regnum. Itemque pro regno Sardiniae certam pecuniae summam constituit se daturum.” 35. Extensive information is given in McTavish, “Giuseppe Porta Called Giuseppe Salviati,” 244–48; Martin, “Un conflit diplomatique”; Böck, Die Sala Regia, 50–51; Karsten, “Bilderkrieg im Vatikan”; and, most recently and fully, De Jong, “Propagating Venice’s Finest Hour.” 36. Sabellicus, Rerum Venetiarum ab urbe condita libri XXXIII; Marcellus, Venetus, and Girellus, De vita, moribus et rebus. 37. Psalm 90 (91): 13. For the precise meaning of these words, see De Jong, “Propagating Venice’s Finest Hour,” 113n13. 38. Due to problems of censorship, the history of the earliest editions of the Apologie of Henri Estienne (Latin name Henricus

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 177

S  177

Stephanus) is not quite clear. See the introduction to the 1879 edition, 1:v–xvliii. 39. See appendix 2. 40. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 50n255. 41. “Fredericus primus Imperator Alexandrum tertium Pontificem, quem diu insectatus fuerat, post constitutas cum eo pacis conditiones et damnatum schisma Venetiis supplex veneratur.” Quoted from Beltrani, “Felice Contelori ed i suoi studi,” 10n4. Also in De Jong, “Propagating Venice’s Finest Hour,” 121n37. 42. The incident between Rome and Venice over the painting’s inscription is further discussed in the epilogue. For full information, see Beltrani, “Felice Contelori ed i suoi studi”; and De Jong, “Propagating Venice’s Finest Hour.” 43. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 33–34. 44. Ibid., 36–37. 45. This appears from a comparison of the present inscription (appendix 1) with the reports of the anonymous visitor and van Buchel (appendix 2). 46. For a good summary of his pontificate, see Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 125–26. 47. Ibid., 126–27. 48. The original text is in Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae historica, vol. 4, Legum tomus II, 29. 49. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 126–27. 50. Röttgen, “Zeitgeschichtliche Bildprogramme,” 120; Böck, Die Sala Regia, 155n204. 51. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 35–36 and 51–52. 52. Ibid., 165n261. 53. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 155. 54. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 92–93. 55. De Jong, “Papal History and Historical Invenzione,” 221–24. 56. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 189–91. 57. Vasari, Lo zibaldone, 152–76, esp. 164. See also De Jong, “Papal History and Historical Invenzione,” 223. 58. See the attempt to reconstruct the text in De Jong, “Anathemata Tria,” 145–46, 152. 59. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 94–97. 60. Van Buchel’s remarks on the tomb monument of Gregory XI read, “Est et hic ex candidissimo marmore restauratum sepulcrum cum epitaphio Gregorii XI Lemonicensis papae qui ex Avenione sedem Romam reduxit. Quod vide in meis Epitaphiorum libellis” (Iter Italicum, 85.) The inscription on Gregory’s tomb is cited in Montini, Le tombe dei papi. It is also included, with an English translation, in Lansford, Latin Inscriptions of Rome, 76.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

178  S   Notes to Pages 143–163 61. See the first section of this chapter, pp. 119–20. 62. Egger, “Giorgio Vasaris Darstellung des Einzuges Gregors XI. in Rom”; Kliemann, “Ritorno di Gregorio XI”; Böck, Die Sala Regia, 94–97; and De Jong, “Papal History and Historical Invenzione,” 225–28. 63. For the historical details of Gregory’s entry into Rome, see Egger, “Giorgio Vasaris Darstellung des Einzuges Gregors XI. in Rom,” 44–45; and Böck, Die Sala Regia, 94–95. 64. See note 57 above. 65. Discussed in De Jong, “Papal History and Historical Invenzione,” 227–28. 66. See his description of “tabula IX” in appendix 2 (cf. “tabula XIII”: “Huius historiae viva adhuc est memoria”). 67. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 62–65. See note 14 above. 68. Agostino Taja’s extensive description of the Sala Regia (published posthumously in 1750) cites the present wording of the inscriptions. Taja, Descrizione del Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano, 5–33. See appendix 1. 69. Henry (the future King Henry III) was duc d’Anjou; his brother François Hercule was duc d’Alençon. See Röttgen, “Zeitgeschichtliche Bildprogramme,” 99. 70. Useful historical information on the event and on Vasari’s paintings can be found in Fehl, “Vasari’s ‘Extirpation of the Huguenots’ ”; Röttgen, “Zeitgeschichtliche Bildprogramme”; and Böck, Die Sala Regia, 85–92. 71. Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, vol. 9, Gregor XIII., 365, 369–72; and Röttgen, “Zeitgeschichtliche Bildprogramme,” 90–92. See also here, p. 123. 72. De Jong, “Papal History and Historical Invenzione,” 228. 73. Howe, “Architecture in Vasari’s Massacre of the Huguenots”; Fehl, “Vasari’s ‘Extirpation of the Huguenots,’ ” 264–65; and Röttgen, “Zeitgeschichtliche Bildprogramme,” 101–3. 74. De Jong, “Papal History and Historical Invenzione,” 231. 75. “Ainsi, il est un lieu en Europe où l’assassinat est publiquement honoré.” Stendhal, Voyages en Italie, 767. 76. Böck, Die Sala Regia, 75–83; and, most extensively, Contant, Kruisbeeld tegen Kromzwaard, 25–66. 77. Contarini, Historia delle cose successe. 78. De Jong, “Papal History and Historical Invenzione,” 236, esp. n46. 79. Frey and Frey, Der literarische Nachlass Giorgio Vasaris, 2:647–49 (no. DCCCLXIII, February 23, 1572). 80. Exodus 13:21–22. 81. Exodus 14:17; see also 14:18 and 14:24. Raphael used a similar reference in The Battle at the Milvian Bridge. See chapter 4, p. 87.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 178

82. De Jong, “Papal History and Historical Invenzione,” 236–37. 83. See chapter 5, p. 115. 84. Chapter 40. See note 38 above. 85. Vasari, Lo zibaldone, 245–46. 86. Beltrani, “Felice Contelori ed i suoi studi , ” 9–10n4; De Jong, “Propagating Venice’s Finest Hour,” 121. 87. Taja, Descrizione del Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano, 5–33. 88. Beltrani, “Felice Contelori ed i suoi studi ,” 17; De Jong, “Propagating Venice’s Finest Hour,” 122. 89. Raymond, Itinerary Contayning a Voyage, Made Through Italy, 92. 90. Fehl, “Vasari’s ‘Extirpation of the Huguenots,’ ” 264–67 and figs. 8, 10. See also Böck, Sala Regia, 187n396, 191n407, 192n416. 91. “Triumphalism and the Sala Regia in the Vatican,” legend to figs. 1–8. 92. See note 90 above. 93. See De Jong, “De schilderingen van de Sala Regia.” 94. Montaigne, Journal de Voyage, 114–15. 95. “Il codice barberiniano XXX, 89.” On its date, see the beginning of chapter 4. 96. At 454–59, which is fols. 514v–521v of the manuscript. 97. HS.798, call number 6 E 15. 98. At 59–62 of the 1901 book edition, fols. 30v–32v of the manuscript.

epilogue

1. Van Buchel, Iter Italicum, 106: Innocentius II, in Laterano curavit depingi Lotharium imperatorem quasi vasallum ad ipsius pedes prostratum, et imperii coronam ab eo accipientem, hoc versu addito: Rex venit ante fores, iurans prius urbis honores Post homo fit papae; sumit quo dante coronam.

2. Ladner (“I mosaici e gli affreschi ecclesiastico-politici,” 348) assumes that this scholar was Onofrio Panvinio (1530–1568), while Herklotz (“ ‘Historia Sacra’ und Mittelalterliche Kunst,” 34–35n26), Stroll (Symbols as Power, 188), and Nilgen (“Bilder im Wettstreit,” 28) identify him as the papal historian Alfonso Chacon (Latin name Ciaconius, 1540–1599). None of them seems to be familiar with Van Buchel’s description, which proves that in January 1588 both the painting and its inscription were still visible. Their condition, however,

12/7/12 1:48 PM

Notes to Pages 163–167  

may have been bad and the details hard to decipher. That would explain why Van Buchel wrote that “Emperor Lothar [III] throws himself down at his [the pope’s] feet,” while the drawing shows Lothar, on the right, standing or kneeling while he receives the imperial crown. 3. Ladner, “I mosaici e gli affreschi ecclesiastico-politici,” 356–63; Stroll, Symbols as Power, 188; Nilgen, “Bilder im Wettstreit,” 28–29. 4. “A pictura cepit, ad scripturam pictura processit, scriptura in auctoritatem prodire conatur. Non patiemur, non sustinebimus; coronam ante ponemus, quam imperii coronam una nobiscum sic deponi consentiamus. Picturae deleantur, scripturae retractentur, ut inter regnum et sacerdotium aeterna inimiciciarum monimenta non remaneant.” The episode is told by Frederick Barbarossa’s biographer Rahewin in Otto and Rahewin, Gesta Friderici I. Imperatoris 3.10 and 3.17, at 177 and 188–89). Translation by Mierow, from Otto and Rahewin, Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, 184 and 192. The incident is extensively discussed by Ladner, “I mosaici e gli affreschi ecclesiastico-politici,” 356–65; Stroll, Symbols as Power, chaps. 13 and 14; and Nilgen, “Bilder im Wettstreit,” 29–30. 5. Grafton, “Historia and Istoria,” offers a good discussion of the importance of “trustworthiness” versus strict historical accuracy. De Jong, “Universals and Particulars,” discusses the importance of historical examples in connection with Aristotle’s influential view that universal “poetic” truths are more important historical particulars. 6. See Barraclough, Medieval Papacy, and Ullmann, Short History of the Papacy, which represent two different, virtually opposing views on how to interpret the history of the papacy. Barraclough discusses it in

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 179

S  179

terms of a process of responses to particular events and developments, in which “it would be unhistorical and misleading to suggest that successive popes pursued one consistent policy, directed to a single clearly conceived end” (10). According to his view, “Many of the developments which contributed to the rise of the papacy were accidental and unforeseen, and quite outside the pope’s control; and papal decisions which in retrospect seem to form part of a coherent plan, were in reality piecemeal reactions to particular circumstances. It was only in the eleventh century that a generation inspired by hierocratic ideals saw them as a link in a chain reaching back in unbroken continuity to St Peter” (9–10). For Ullmann, on the other hand, “The history of the medieval papacy is the history of an idea, and this idea complex as it is in its genesis and structure, was a time and space conditioned conception of Christianity. The papacy was the embodiment and concrete manifestation of this idea. . . . The papacy rested on a fairly closely defined programme, on a blueprint which was held to have been not of the papacy’s own making but to have been given to it by a specific act of divinity.” Ullmann characterizes his book as “a modest attempt to integrate facts with ideas because the concentration on the one to the exclusion of the other would appear to be no longer adequate; in any case the two are too closely linked to be artificially divorced” (vii–viii). 7. The vicissitudes of the painting and its inscription are discussed by Beltrani, “Felice Contelori ed i suoi studi”; Karsten, “Bilderkrieg im Vatikan”; and De Jong, “Propagating Venice’s Finest Hour.” See also chapter 6 and the preliminary remarks to appendix 1.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 180

12/7/12 1:48 PM

bibliography

Acidini Luchinat, Cristina. Taddeo e Federico Zuccari: Fratelli pittori del Cinquecento. 2 vols. Milan: Jandi Sapi Editori, 1998–99. Ardizio, Fabio. Un viaggio di Gregorio XIII alla Madonna della Quercia. 1578. In Documenti sul Barocco in Roma, edited by Johannes A. F. Orbaan, 365–418. Rome: Società Romana di Storia Patria, 1920. Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by Malcolm Heath. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1996 Baglione, Giovanni. Le vite de’ pittori, scultori et architetti dal pontificato di Gregorio XIII del 1572 in fino a’tempi di Papa Urbano Ottavo nel 1642. Rome: Andrea Fei, 1642. Barraclough, Geoffrey. The Medieval Papacy. London: Thames and Hudson, 1979. Bastiaensen, Michel. “Poésie néo-latin, voyages et arts figuratifs: Nathan Chytraeus.” Latomus 52, no. 1 (1993): 407–17. Baumer, Franklin Le Van, ed. Main Currents of Western Thought: Readings in Western European Intellectual History from the Middle Ages to the Present. 4th ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978. Beltrani, Giovanni B. “Felice Contelori ed i suoi studi negli archivi del Vaticano.” Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 3 (1880): 1–47. Böck, Angela. Die Sala Regia im Vatikan als Beispiel der Selbstdarstellung des Papsttums in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Studien zur Kunstgeschichte 112. Hildesheim: Olms, 1997. Bombe, Walter. Geschichte der Peruginer Malerei bis zu Perugino und Pinturicchio auf Grund des Nachlasses Adamo Rossis und eigener archivalischer Forschungen. Berlin: Cassirer, 1912. Borsati, Francesco. Consiliorum sive responsorum . . . libri quattor. 2 vols. Venice: Franciscus de Franciscis Sinensis, 1572–86. Bosquet, François. In epistolas Innocentii pontificis maximi notae, quibus præfixa sunt eiusdem Innocentii PP. Gesta, autore anonymo. Toulouse: Societas Tolosana, 1635. Brom, Gisbert, and Lambregt A. van Langeraad. Diarium van Arend van Buchell. Werken uitgegeven door het Historisch Genootschap, 3rd ser., 21. Amsterdam: Müller, 1907. Brummer, Hans H., and Tore Janson. “Art, Literature and Politics: An Episode in the Roman Renaissance.” Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 45 (1976): 79–93.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 181

Burckard, Johannes. At the Court of the Borgia, Being an Account of the Reign of Pope Alexander VI Written by the Master of Ceremonies Johann Burchard. Translated by Geoffrey Parker. London: Folio Society, 1963. ———. Johannis Burchardi Argentinensis capelle pontificii sacrarum rituum magistri diarium, sive Rerum Urbanarum Commentarii, 1483–1506. Edited by L. Thuasne. 3 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1883–85. ———. Liber notarum ab anno MDCCCCLXXXIII usque ad annum MDVI. Edited by E. Celani. Rerum Italicarum scriptores pt. 32, vols. 1–2. Città di Castello: Lapi, 1906–11. Butzek, Monika. Die kommunalen Repräsentationsstatuen der Päpste des 16. Jahrhunderts in Bologna, Perugia und Rom. Bad Honnef: Bock & Herchen, 1978. Caro, Annibale. Lettere familiari. Edited by Aulo Greco. 3 vols. Florence: Le Monnier, 1957–61. Catalogus librorum Clarissimi viri, D. Arnoldi Buchelii, Jurisconsulti. Auction catalogue. Utrecht: Aegidius Roman, 1642. Catholicisme: Hier, aujourd’hui, demain. Edited by G. Jacquemet. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1948–2000. Cavallaro, Anna. “Gli affreschi delle ‘historie di Traiano’ nel Palazzo Santoro presso S. Maria in via Lata: Precisazioni sulle fonti.” Storia dell’Arte 49 (1983): 163–67. ———. “Pinturicchio ‘familiare’ della corte borgiana: L’appartamento di Alessandro VI a Castel Sant’Angelo.” In Roma di fronte all’Europa al tempo di Alessandro VI: Atti del convegno, Città di Vaticano-Roma, 1–4 Dicembre 1999, edited by M. Chiabò, S. Maddalo, M. Miglio, and A. M. Oliva, 3 vols., 3:781–801. Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2001. Chastel, André. The Sack of Rome, 1527. Translated by Beth Archer. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. Chevalier, B. Guillaume Briçonnet (v. 1445–1514): Un cardinal-ministre au début de la Renaissance. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2006. Chytraeus, Nathan. Variorum in Europa itinerum deliciae; seu, ex variis manuscriptis selectiora tantum inscriptionum maxime recentium monumenta. Herborn, 1594. Clavuot, Ottavio. “Verus Christi vicarius: Programmatik der Darstellung Papst Eugens IV. in Biondos Schriften und an Filaretes Portal von St. Peter.” In Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie: Festschrift

12/7/12 1:48 PM

182  S  Bibliography für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by A. Meyer and C. Rendtel, 83–107. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004. Chattard, Giovanni Pietro. Nuova descrizione del Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano o sia della sacrosanta basilica di S. Pietro. 3 vols. Rome: Barbiellini-Mainardi, 1762–67. Coffin, David R. The Villa in the Life of Renaissance Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979. Contant, Iris M. “Kruisbeeld tegen Kromzwaard: De neerslag van de zeeslag van Lepanto in de Italiaanse kunst ten tijde van de Contrareformatie.” Ph.D. diss., Radboud University Nijmegen, 2005. Contarini, Giovanni Pietro. Historia delle cose successe dal principio della guerra mossa da Selim Ottomano a’ Venetiani fina al di della gran Giornata Vittoriosa contra i Turchi. Venice: Francesco Rampazetto, 1572. Cornini, Guido, Anna Maria De Strobel, and Maria Serlupi Crescenzi. “La Sala di Costantino.” In Raffaello nell’appartamento di Giulio II e Leone X, edited by Guido Cornini, 167–201. Milan: Electa, 1993. ———. “Sixteenth Century: Frescoes.” In Paintings in the Vatican, edited by Carlo Pietrangeli, 265–472. Boston: Bulfinch, 1996. Davidson, Bernice F. “The Decoration of the Sala Regia Under Pope Paul III.” Art Bulletin 58, no. 3 (1976): 395–423. De Jong, Jan L. “Anathemata Tria: Michel de Montaigne, Giorgio Vasari, Taddeo Zuccaro.” In Polyptiek: Een veelluik van Groninger bijdragen aan de kunstgeschiedenis, edited by Joost M. Keizer, Victor M. Schmidt, and Henk Th. van Veen, 141–52. Zwolle: Waanders, 2002. ———. “History Painting at the Farnese Court: Giorgio Vasari, Francesco Salviati and Taddeo Zuccaro.” In The Translation of Raphael’s Roman Style, edited by Henk Th. van Veen, 69–80. Groningen Studies in Cultural Change 22. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. ———. “The Painted Decoration of the Sala Regia in the Vatican: Intention and Reception.” In Functions and Decorations: Art and Ritual at the Vatican Palace in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, edited by Sible de Blaauw, Bram Kempers, Tristan Weddigen, 153–68. Capellae Apostolicae Sixtinaeque Collectanea Acta Monumenta 9. Rome: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; Turnhout: Brepols, 2003. ———. “Papal History and Historical Invenzione: Vasari’s Frescoes in the Sala Regia.” In Vasari’s Florence: Artists and Literati at the Medicean Court, edited by Philip Jacks, 220–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ———. “Plenitudo potestatis: Papal Representation in the 16th Century.” Kunstchronik 53, nos. 9–10 (2000): 468–82.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 182

———. “Propagating Venice’s Finest Hour: Vicissitudes of Giuseppe Porta Salviati’s Painting of Pope Alexander III and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa in the Sala Regia of the Vatican Palace.” In Cultural Mediators: Artists and Writers at the Crossroads of Tradition, Innovation and Reception in the Low Countries and Italy, 1450–1650, edited by Annette de Vries, 109–25. Groningen Studies in Cultural Change 31. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. ———. “De schilderingen van de Sala Regia in het Vaticaan: Bewonderd, bekritiseerd en aan het zicht onttrokken.”Amore Romae 8 (2005): 23–40. ———. “Staatsvorming en beeldvorming: Pauselijke propaganda in de Engelenburcht en het Conservatorenpaleis in Rome omstreeks 1500.” In In opdracht van de Staat: Opstellen over mecenaat en kunst van de Griekse polis tot de Nederlandse natie, edited by Arend H. Huussen Jr. and Bram Kempers, 65–79. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1994. ———. “Universals and Particulars: History Painting in the ‘Sala di Costantino’ in the Vatican Palace.” In Recreating Ancient History: Episodes from the Greek and Roman Past in the Arts and Literature of the Early Modern Period, edited by Karl A. E. Enenkel, Jan L. de Jong, and Jeanine de Landtsheer, 27–56. Intersections: Yearbook for Early Modern Studies 1. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ———. “Word Processing in the Italian Renaissance: Action and Reaction with Pen and Paintbrush.” Visual Resources 19, no. 4 (2003): 259–81. Delaborde, Henri François. L’expédition de Charles VIII en Italie: Histoire diplomatique et militaire. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1888. Delph, Ronald K. “Valla Grammaticus, Agostino Steuco, and the Donation of Constantine.” Journal of the History of Ideas 57 (1996): 55–78. Dempsey, Charles. “Mythic Inventions in Counter-Reformation Painting.” In Rome in the Renaissance: The City and the Myth; Papers of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Center of Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, edited by P. A. Ramsey, 55–75. Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1982. Deseine, François-Jacques. Rome moderne, première ville de l’Europe. 6 vols. Leiden: Pieter van der Aa, 1713. Dizionario Storico del Papato. Edited by Philippe Levillain, translated by Francesco Saba Sardi. Milan: Bompiani, 1996. d’Onofrio, Cesare. Castel S. Angelo. Rome: Cassa di risparmio di Roma, 1971. Ebert-Schifferer, Sybille. “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus und die Selbstdarstellung der Konservatoren um 1500.” Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 23–24 (1988): 75–218.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

Bibliography   S  183 Egger, Hermann. “Giorgio Vasaris Darstellung des Einzuges Gregors XI. in Rom.” Zeitschrift für Kunstwissenschaft 2 (1948): 43–48. Ehrle, Francesco, and Enrico Stevenson. Gli affreschi del Pinturicchio nell’appartamento Borgia del Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano. Rome: Danesi, 1897. Eichmann, Eduard. “Das Officium Stratoris et Strepae.” Historische Zeitschrift 142 (1930): 16–40. Enciclopedia dei Papi. Edited by Massimo Bray. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2000. Epp, Sigrid. Konstantinszyklen in Rom: Die Päpstlichen Interpretation der Geschichte Konstantins des Großen bis zur Gegenreformation. Schriften aus dem Institut für Kunstgeschichte der Universität München 36. Munich: Tuduv Verlag, 1988. Esteve, José (Iosephus Stephanus Valentinus). De osculatione pedum Romani pontificis. Cologne: Mat. Cholinus, 1580. Estienne, Henri. Apologie pour Hérodote. 1566. Edited by Paul Ristelhuber. 2 vols. Paris: Isidore Lisieux, 1879. Ettlinger, Leopold D. The Sistine Chapel Before Michelangelo: Religious Imagery and Papal Primacy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Fagliari Zeni Buchicchio, Fabiano T. “Le fonti documentarie sui baluardi di Alessandro VI a Castel Sant’Angelo.” In Studi su Castel Sant’Angelo / Museo nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo, edited by Liliana Pittarello, 87–98. Archivum Arcis 3. Rome: Argos, 1991. Faldi, Italo. Il Palazzo Farnese di Caprarola. Turin: Seat, 1981. Farinella, Vincenzo. Archeologia e pittura a Roma tra Quattrocento e Cinquecento: Il caso di Jacopo Ripanda. Turin: Einaudi, 1992. ———. “Jacopo Ripanda a Palazzo Santoro: Un ciclo di storia romana e le sue fonti classiche.” Studi classici e orientali 36 (1986): 209–37. Fehl, Philipp P. “Raphael as an Historian: Poetry and Historical Accuracy in the Sala di Costantino.” Artibus et Historiae 14, no. 28 (1993): 9–76. ———. “Vasari’s ‘Extirpation of the Huguenots’: The Challenge of Pity and Fear.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 84 (1974): 257–84. Fichard, Johann. “Itinerarium earum urbium et Oppidiorum, per quae in Italia iter feci. Anno M.D.XXXVI.” Frankfurtisches archiv für ältere deutsche Literatur 3 (1815): 3–130. Fowden, Garth. “The Last Days of Constantine: Oppositional Versions and Their Influence.” Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994): 146–70. Freely, John. Jem Sultan: The Adventures of a Captive Turkish Prince in Renaissance Europe. London: HarperCollins, 2004. Freiberg, Jack. “In the Sign of the Cross: The Image of Constantine in the Art of Counter-Reformation Rome.” In Piero della Francesca

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 183

and His Legacy, edited by Marilyn Aronberg Lavin, 67–87. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1995. Frey, Karl, and Hermann-Walter Frey, eds. Der literarische Nachlass Giorgio Vasaris. 3 vols. Munich: Müller, 1923–30 (vols. 1 and 2); Burg am Main: Hopfer, 1940 (vol. 3). Fried, Johannes. “Donation of Constantine” and “Constitutum Constantini”: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction and Its Original Meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Fuhrmann, Horst. Das Constitutum Constantini (Konstantinische Schenkung). Fontes iuris Germanici antiqui in usum scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae historicis separatim editi 10. Hanover: Hahn, 1968. ———. “Die Konstantinische Schenkung und abendländisches Kaisertum: Ein Beitrag zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Constitutum Constantini.” Deutsches Archiv für die Erforschung des Mittelalters 22 (1966): 63–178. Gamrath, Helge. “The History of a Success in the Italian Renaissance: The Farnese Family c. 1400–1600.” Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 24 (1997): 93–111. Gatti, Angelo. La fabbrica di S. Petronio: Indagini storiche. Bologna: Regia Tipografia, 1889. Giovio, Paolo. Gli elogi degli uomini illustri: Letterati, artisti, uomini d’arme. Edited by Renzo Meregazzi. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato, 1972. Gnoli, Aldo. La Roma di Leon X: Quadri e studi originali annotati e pubblicati a cura di Aldo Gnoli. Milan: Hoepli, 1938. Grafton, Anthony. “Historia and Istoria: Alberti’s Terminology in Context.” I Tatti Studies 8 (1999): 37–68. Guarino, Sergio. “L’antiquario sfegatato: Nuovi studi su Jacopo Ripanda.” Roma moderna e contemporanea 1, no. 1 (1993): 191–98. Guicciardini, Francesco. The History of Italy. Translated and edited by Sidney Alexander. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. ———. Storia d’Italia. Vol. 1. Edited by Costantino Panigada. Bari: Laterza, 1929. Hall, Marcia B. After Raphael: Painting in Central Italy in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Herklotz, Ingo. “ ‘Historia Sacra’ und Mittelalterliche Kunst während der zweite Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts in Rom.” In Baronio e l’arte: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, edited by Romeo de Maio, 23–74. Sora: Centro di Studi Sorani “Vincenzo Patriarca,” 1985. Herz, Alexandra. “Vasari’s Massacre Series in the Sala Regia: The Political, Juristic and Religious Background.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 49 (1986): 41–54.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

184  S  Bibliography Hoogewerff, Godefridus J., and Johan Q. van Regteren Altena. Arnoldus Buchelius “Res Pictoriae”: Aanteekeningen over kunstenaars en kunstwerken voorkomende in zijn Diarium, Res Pictoriae, Notae Quotidianae en Descriptio Urbis Ultrajectinae (1583–1639). Quellenstudien zur Holländischen Kunstgeschichte 15. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1928. Howe, Eunice D. “Alexander VI, Pinturicchio, and the Fabrication of the Via Alessandrina in the Vatican Borgo.” In An Architectural Progress in the Renaissance and Baroque: Sojourns In and Out of Italy: Essays in Architectural History Presented to Hellmut Hager on His Sixty-Sixth Birthday, edited by Henry A. Millon and Susan Scott Munshower, 2 vols., 1:65–93. Papers in Art History from the Pennsylvania State University 8, vols. 1 and 2. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. ———. “Architecture in Vasari’s Massacre of the Huguenots.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 39 (1976): 258–61. Hunter, John B. “The Life and Work of Girolamo Siciolante da Sermoneta.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1983. Imkamp, Wilhelm. Das Kirchenbild Innocenz’ III. (1198–1216). Päpste und Papsttum 22. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1983. Karsten, Arne. “Bilderkrieg im Vatikan, oder: Von den Gefahren der Gelehrsamkeit. ” In Kardinäle, Künstler, Kurtisanen: Wahre Geschichten aus dem päpstlichen Rom, edited by Arne Karsten and Volker Reinhardt, 154–60. Darmstadt: Primus-Verlag, 2004. Kelly, John N. D. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Kliemann, Julian. Gesta dipinte: La grande decorazione nelle dimore italiane dal Quattrocento al Seicento. Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale, 1993. ———. “Ritorno di Gregorio XI.” In Giorgio Vasari: Principi, letterati e artisti nelle carte di Giorgio Vasari: Pittura vasariana dal 1532 al 1554, edited by Laura Corti and Margaret Daly Davis, 98–100. Exh. cat., Arezzo. Florence: Edam, 1981. Kliemann, Julian, and Michael Rohlmann. Italian Frescoes: High Renaissance and Mannerism, 1510–1600. New York: Abbeville, 2004 Labrot, Gérard. Le Palais Farnèse de Caprarola: Essai de lecture. Paris: Klincksieck, 1970. Ladner, Gerhardt B. “I mosaici e gli affreschi ecclesiastico-politici nell’antico palazzo Lateranense.” In Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies in History and Art, 2 vols., 1:347– 66. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1983. Originally published in Rivista di archeologia cristiana 12 (1935): 265–92. Lanciani, Rodolfo A. “Il codice barberiniano XXX, 89, contenente frammenti di una descrizione di Roma del secolo XVI.” Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 6 (1883): 223–40 and 445–96.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 184

———. Storia degli Scavi a Roma. 4 vols. Rome: Loescher, 1902–12. Langereis, Sandra. Geschiedenis als ambacht: Oudheidkunde in de Gouden Eeuw: Arnoldus Buchelius en Petrus Scriverius. Hilversum: Verloren, 2001. Lansford, Tyler. The Latin Inscriptions of Rome: A Walking Guide. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Lewine, Carol F. The Sistine Walls and the Roman Liturgy. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. 3rd ed. Edited by W. Kasper. 11 vols. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1993–2001. Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Dominic Montserrat. Constantine: History, Historiography and Legend. London: Routledge, 1998. Luther, Martin. Luthers Werke in Auswahl. Vol. 1. Edited by Otto Clemen with the assistance of Albert Leißmann. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1933. Maffei, Sonia. “La fama di Laocoonte nei testi del Cinquecento.” In Laocoonte: Fama e stile, edited by Salvatore Settis, 85–205. Rome: Donzelli, 1999. Mallet, Michael E. The Borgias: The Rise and Fall of a Renaissance Dynasty. London: Bodley Head, 1969. Malvasia, Carlo Cesare. Felsina Pittrice: Vite de’ pittori bolognesi. Edited by Giampietro Zanotti. 2 vols. Bologna: Guidi all’ Ancora, 1841. Original edition, Bologna: Per l’erede di Domenico Barbieri, 1678. Mancini, Giulio. Considerazioni sulla pittura. Edited by A. Marucchi, commentary by L. Salerno. 2 vols. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1956. Marcellus, Petrus, Patricius Venetus, and Sylvester Girellus. De vita, moribus et rebus gestis omnium ducum Venetorum, qui iam inde a constituta ipsorum republica, usque ad nostram aetatem, imperio praefuerunt, dilucida simulatque succinta historia. Frankfurt: Sigmund Feyerabend, 1574. Martin, Andrew J. “Aimo, Domenico.” In The Dictionary of Art, edited by Jane Turner, vol. 1, 490. New York: Grove, 1996. Martin, Jacques. “Un conflit diplomatique entre la République de Venise et le Saint-Siège à propos d’une inscription.” In Le Vatican inconnu, 105–13. Paris: Fayard, 1988. Mazzucato, Otto. I pavimenti pontifici di Castel Sant’Angelo, XV–XVI secoli. 2nd ed. Rome: Paleani, 1985. McTavish, David. “Giuseppe Porta Called Giuseppe Salviati.” Ph.D. diss., University of London, Courtauld Institute, 1981. Menz, Balthasar. Itinera sex a diversis Saxoniae Ducibus et Electoribus, diversis temporibus in Italiam omnia, tria etiam in Palaestinam & terram sanctam facta. . . . Wittenberg: Meisner, 1612. Merens, A., ed. “De reis van Jan Martensz. Merens door Frankrijk, Italië en Duitsland anno 1600.” Mededelingen van het Nederlands Historisch Instituut te Rome, 2nd ser., 7 (1937): 49–157.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

Bibliography   S  185 Merkle, Sebastian, ed. Concilii Tridentini diariorum. 2 vols. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1901–11. Mitchell, Bonner. The Majesty of the State: Triumphal Progresses of Foreign Sovereigns in Renaissance Italy (1494–1600). Biblioteca dell “Archivum Romanicum,” 1st ser., 203. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1986. Mitchell, John. “St. Silvester and Constantine at the SS. Quattro Coronati.” In Federico II e l’arte del Duecento italiano: Atti della III settimana di studi di storia dell’arte medievale dell’Università di Roma, edited by Angiola Maria Romanini, 15–32. Galatina: Congedo, 1980. Montaigne, Michel de. Journal de Voyage. Edited by François Rigolot. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992. Montini, Renzo U. Le tombe dei papi. Rome: A. Belardetti, 1957. Nilgen, Ursula. “Bilder im Wettstreit zwischen Regnum und Sacerdotium.” In Streit um Bilder: Von Byzanz bis Duchamp, edited by Karl Möseneder, 27–49. Berlin: Reimer, 1997. ———. “Filaretes Bronzetür von St. Peter in Rom: Ein päpstliches Bildprogramm des 15. Jahrhunderts.” In Kirchen am Lebensweg: Festgabe zum 60. Geburtstag und 20. Bischofsjubiläum für seine Eminenz Friedrich Kardinal Wetter Erzbischof von München und Freising, edited by Lothar Altmann and Hans Ramisch, 351–76. Munich: Schnell & Steiner, 1988. Oratio totam fere Romanam historiam complectens habita Romae in aedibus Capitolinis 1521 ab anonymo auctore. Edited by Ridolfino Venuti. Rome: Mainardus, 1735. L’ornamento marmoreo della Santa Cappella di Loreto. Edited by Floriano Grimaldi. Loreto: Tecnostampa, 1999. Otto, Bishop of Friesing, and Rahewin. The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa. Translated and annotated by Charles Christopher Mierow with the collaboration of Richard Emery. Toronto: University of Toronto Press in association with the Medieval Academy of America, 1994. ———. Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris. 3rd ed. Edited by Georg Waitz and Bernhard von Simson. Scriptores rerum germanicarum in usum scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae historicis recusi 46. Hanover: Hahn, 1912. Papini, Roberto. “Gli antichi pavimenti di Castel Sant’Angelo.” Faenza 2, no. 3 (1914): 65–71. Partridge, Loren W. The Art of the Renaissance in Rome, 1400–1600. Upper Saddle River: Pearson / Prentice Hall, 1996. ———. “Divinity and Dynasty at Caprarola: Perfect History in the Room of Farnese Deeds.” Art Bulletin 60, no. 3 (1978): 494–530. ———. “Federico Zuccari at Caprarola, 1561–1569: The Documentary and Graphic Evidence.” In Der Maler Federico Zuccari:

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 185

Ein römischer Virtuoso von europäischem Ruhm, edited by Matthias Winner and Detlef Heikamp, 159–84. Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana 32. Munich: Hirmer, 1999. Partridge, Loren W., and Randolph Starn. “Triumphalism and the Sala Regia in the Vatican.” In “All the World’s a Stage . . .”: Art and Pageantry in the Renaissance and Baroque, edited by Barbara Wisch and Susan Scott Munshower, vol. 1, Triumphal Celebrations and the Rituals of Statecraft, 23–81. Papers in Art History from the Pennsylvania State University 6, vol. 1. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Department of Art History, 1990. Paschini, Pio. Roma nel Rinascimento. Storia di Roma 12. Bologna: Cappelli, 1940. Pastor, Ludwig von. Geschichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters. 16 vols. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1886–1933. Pecchiai, Pio. Il Campidoglio nel Cinquecento sulla scorta dei documenti. Rome: Ruffolo, 1950. Peralli, Pericle (“Lo Storico”). “L’assoluzione di Enrico IV a Canossa.” Illustrazione Vaticana 2, no. 16 (1931): 20–25. ———. “La donazione di Ariperto II e di Luitprando.” Illustrazione Vaticana 2, no. 1 (1931): 28–32 ———. “La donazione di Pipino.” Illustrazione Vaticana 2, no. 4 (1931): 33–38. ———. “I fasti del Pontificato nella Sala Regia.” Illustrazione Vaticana 1, no. 1 (1930): 31–38. ———. “La fine della lotta per le infestiture.” Illustrazione Vaticana 3, no. 10 (1932): 490–92. ———. “La restituizione di Carlo Magno.” Illustrazione Vaticana 2, no. 7 (1931): 23–29. ———. “Le restituizioni di Ottone I di Germania.” Illustrazione Vaticana 2, no. 9 (1931): 33–36. Perry, Marilyn. “ ‘Candor Illaesus’: The ‘Impresa’ of Clement VII and Other Medici Devices in the ‘Vatican Stanze.’ ” Burlington Magazine 119, no. 895 (1977): 676–86. Pertz, Georg Heinrich, ed. Monumenta Germaniae historica. Vol. 4, Legum tomus II. Hanover: Bibliopolius Hahnianus, 1873. Petrassi, Mario, and Orazio Guerra. Il Colle Capitolino. Rome: Edizioni Capitolium, [1974]. Picotti, G. B. “Alessandro VI.” In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 2. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1960. Pietrangeli, Carlo. “Gli appartamenti di rappresentenza del Commune: La Sala di Annibale.” Capitolium 38 (1963): 440–49. ———. “Nell’ appartamento dei Conservatori: La Sala della Lupa.” Capitolium 39 (1964): 474–79. Podestà, Bartolomeo. “Carlo V a Roma nell’anno 1536.” Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 1 (1877): 303–44.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

186   S  Bibliography Poeschel, Sabine. “Alexander Borgia, der heilige Vater: Bemerkungen zur Authentizität der Borgia-Bildnisse im Vatikan.” In Die Renaissancefamilie Borgia: Geschichte und Legende, edited by Elisabeth Schraut, 51–67. Exh. cat., Hällisch-Francken Museum, Schwäbisch Hall. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1992. Pollmann, Judith S. Religious Choice in the Dutch Republic: The Reformation of Arnoldus Buchelius (1565–1641). Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Prodi, Paolo. The Papal Prince: One Body and Two Souls; The Papal Monarchy in Early Modern Europe. Translated by Susan Haskins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Quednau, Rolf. “Costantino il Grande a Rome: Forme e funzioni della memoria nelle testimonianze visive da ponte Milvio a Mussolini.” In Costantino il Grande tra Medioevo ed età moderna, edited by Giorgio Bonamente, Giorgio Cracco, and Klaus Rosen, 319–86. Bologna: Società Editrice Il Mulino, 2008. ———. Die Sala di Costantino im Vatikanischen Palast: Zur Dekoration der beiden Medici-Päpste Leo X und Clemens VII. Studien zur Kunstgeschichte 13. Hildesheim: Olms, 1979. Raymond, John. An Itinerary Contayning a Voyage, Made Through Italy, in the Yeare 1646, and 1647. London: Humphrey Moseley, 1648. Redig de Campos, Deoclecio. I palazzi vaticani. Roma cristiana 18. Bologna: Cappelli, 1967. Reineke, Ilse. “C. Silvani Germanici in Pontificatum Clementis Septimi Pont. Opt. Max. Panegyris Prima: In Leonis Decimi Pont. Max. Statuam Sylva: Text mit Einleitung.” Humanistica Lovaniensia / Journal of Neo Latin Studies 45 (1996): 245–318. Robertson, Clare. “Il Gran Cardinale”: Alessandro Farnese, Patron of the Arts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Roettgen, Steffi. Italian Frescoes: The Flowering of the Renaissance, 1470–1510. New York: Abbeville Press, 1997. Rohlmann, Michael. “ ‘Dominus mihi adiutor’: Zu Raffaels Ausmalung der Stanza d’Eliodoro unter den Päpsten Julius II. und Leo X.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 59 (1996): 1–27. ———. “Leoninische Siegverheißung und clementinische Heilserfüllung in der Sala di Costantino.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 57, no. 2 (1994): 153–69. Roser, Hannes. St. Peter in Rom im 15. Jahrhundert: Studien zu Architektur und skulpturaler Ausstattung. Römische Studien der Bibliotheca Hertziana 19. Munich: Hirmer, 2005. Rossi, Flamini G. “Sala di Costantino.” In Roma di Sisto V: Le arti e la cultura, edited by Maria Luisa Madonna. Rome: De Luca, 1993.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 186

Röttgen, Herwarth. “Zeitgeschichtliche Bildprogramme der katholischen Restauration unter Gregor XIII, 1572–1585.” Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 26 (1975): 89–122. Sabellicus, Marcantonius. Rerum Venetiarum ab urbe condita libri XXXIII. Venice: Andreas Torresanus de Asula, 1487. Sanudo, Marin. La spedizione di Carlo VIII in Italia. Edited by Rinaldo Fulin. Venice: M. Visentini, 1873. Scarpellini, Pietro, and Maria Rita Silvestrelli. Pintoricchio. Milan: F. Motta, 2004. Schmarsow, August. “Excerpte aus Joh. Fichard’s “ ‘Italia’ ” von 1536.” Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 14, no. 2 (1891): 130–39, and no. 5 (1891): 373–83. ———. Pinturicchio in Rom: Eine kritische Studie. Stuttgart: Spemann, 1882. Schröter, Elisabeth. Review of Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino. Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 76 (1981): 246–60. Schudt, Ludwig. Italienreisen im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Römische For­ schungen der Bibliotheca Hertziana 15. Vienna: Schroll-Verlag, 1959. Shearman, John K. G. “The Fresco Decoration of Sixtus IV.” In The Sistine Chapel: Michelangelo Rediscovered, edited by Massimo Giacometti, 38–69. London: Muller, Blond and White, 1986. ———. “Raphael, Rome, and the Codex Escurialensis.” Master Drawings 15, no. 2 (1977): 107–46. Smith, Graham. “A Drawing for the Sala Regia.” Burlington Magazine 118, no. 875 (1976): 102–6. Sohm, Philip. “Mancini, Giulio.” In The Dictionary of Art, edited by Jane Turner, vol. 20, 242–43. New York: Grove, 1996. Sohn, Andreas. “Bilder als Zeichen der Herrschaft: Die Silvesterkapelle in SS. Quattro Coronati (Rom).” Archivum historiae pontificiae 35 (1997): 7–47. Stendhal. Voyages en Italie. Edited by Victor del Litto. Paris: Gallimard, 1973. Steuchus, Augustinus. De falsa donatione Constantini libri duo contra Laurentiam Vallam. Lyon: Sebastian Gryphius, 1547. Stinger, Charles L. “The Campidoglio as the Locus of “ ‘Renovatio Imperii’ ” in Renaissance Rome.” In Art and Politics in Late Medieval and Early Renaissance Italy, 1250–1500, edited by Charles M. Rosenberg, 135–56. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990. ———. The Renaissance in Rome. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Stroll, Mary. Symbols as Power: The Papacy Following the Investiture Contest. Leiden: Brill, 1991.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

Bibliography   S  187 Sünderhauf, Esther Sophia. “Von der Wahrnehmung zur Beschreibung: Johann Fichards Italia (1536/1537).” In Übersetzung und Transformation, edited by Hartmut Böhme and Christof Rapp, 425–53. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Taja, Agostino. Descrizione del Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano. Rome: Pagliarini, 1750. Thomson, John A. F. Popes and Princes, 1417–1517: Politics and Policy in the Late Medieval Church. London: Allen and Unwin, 1980. Tittoni, Maria Elisa, Rossella Magri, Patrizia Masini, and Maria dell’Era, eds. Il Campidoglio all’epoca di Raffaello. Exh. cat. Milan: Electa, 1984. Tittoni Monti, Maria Elisa, ed. Gli affreschi del cavalier d’Arpino in Campidoglio: Analisi di un’opera attraverso il restauro. Exh. cat. Rome: Multigrafica Editrice, 1980. Traeger, Jörg. “Raffaels Stanza d’Eliodoro und ihr Bildprogramm.” Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 13 (1971): 29–99. Ullmann, Walter. A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2003. Valla, Lorenzo. On the Donation of Constantine. Translated by G. W. Bowersock. I Tatti Renaissance Library 24. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007. Van Buchel, Aernout (Arnoldus Buchelius). Iter Italicum. Edited by Rodolfo Lanciani. Rome: R. Società Romana di storia patria, 1901. Also published in Archivio della R. Società Romana di Storia Patria 23 (1900): 5–66; 24 (1901): 49–63; 25 (1902): 103–35. Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects. Translated by Gaston du C. de Vere, introduction and notes by David Ekserdjian. 2 vols. London: Everyman’s Library, 1996. ———. Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori: Nelle redazioni del 1550 e 1568. Edited by Paola Barocchi and Rosanna Bettarini. Florence: Sansoni, 1966–.

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 187

———. Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori scultori ed architettori scritte da Giorgio Vasari. Vol. 7 of Le opere di Giorgio Vasari. Edited by Gaetano Milanesi. Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1881. ———. Lo zibaldone di Giorgio Vasari. Edited by Alessandro del Vita. Rome: Instituto d’archeologia e storia dell’arte, 1938. Venturi, Adolfo. Storia dell’arte italiana, vol. 10, pt. 1, La scultura del Cinquecento. Milan: Hoepli, 1935. Vergil. Virgil. Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1916–18. Walch, Johann G., ed. Martin Luthers sämtliche Schriften, vol. 21, Briefe von 1507–1532. Gross Oesingen: Heinrich Harms, 1986. Walter, Ingeborg. “Burckard, Johannes.” In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 15, 405–8. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1972. ———. “Time Present and Time Past: The Role of Myth, History and Legend in the Making of the Farnese Dynasty.” In La dignità del Casato: Il salotto dipinto di Palazzo Farnese, edited by Claudio M. Strinati and Ingeborg Walter, 93–118. Rome: Edizioni dell’Elefante, 1995. Wirth, K. A. “Imperator pedes papae deosculatur: Ein Beitrag zur Bildkunde des 16. Jahrhunderts.” In Festschrift für Harald Keller: Zum sechzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht von seinen Schülern, edited by Hans Marti von Erffa, 175–221. Darmstadt: Roether, 1963. Zapperi, Roberto. La leggenda del papa Paolo III: Arte e censura nella Roma pontificia. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1998. ———. Tiziano, Paolo III e i suoi nipoti. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1990. Zurita, Gerónimo (Hieronymus Curita). Anales de la Corona de Aragon. 6 vols. Zaragoza: S. de Portonarijs y Ursino, 1578–85.

12/7/12 1:48 PM

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 188

12/7/12 1:48 PM

index

Page numbers followed by “f ” refer to figures. Actium, battle of, 149 Adrian IV (pope), 163 Agapetus II (pope), 135 Agresti da Forlì, Livio, 128–29f, 129, 152 Alexander III (pope), 131f, 132–33, 167 Alexander V (antipope), 7 Alexander VI (pope), 29, 31, 35–36, 38–42, 164, 170n4 Alfonso I (king of Naples), 36 Alfonso II (king of Naples), 36 Amio, Domenico, 62–67, 68, 69, 79 Ardizio, Fabio, 93, 94, 98–101, 116 Ariperth II (king of the Lombards), 133, 134f d’Arpino, Giuseppe Cesari, 68 Averlino, Antonio (Filarete), 6f, 10, 11f, 12f Avignon captivity, 2, 7. See also Great Schism Baronio, Cesare (cardinal), 132, 165–67 Basilica of Saint John Lateran, Rome, 163. See also Church of Saint John Lateran Beatrizet, Nicolas, 30f Behaim, Lorenz, 33–35 Benedict XIII (antipope), 7, 8 Berengar (king), 135 Bertoia, Jacopa, 94, 116 Biondo, Flavio, 130, 133, 135, 144 Boleyn, Anne (queen of England), 115 Boniface VIII (pope), 7 Borgia, Cesare (cardinal), 37, 41 Borgia, Juan (cardinal), 36 Botticelli, Sandro, 16–17f, 18f Bramante, Donato, 147f Branca, Francesco de, 67 Briçonnet, Guillaume (cardinal), 37, 40, 42, 171n16 Brummer, Hans Henrik, 69 Buchel, Aernout van, 119–20, 175–76n2 descriptions of paintings of Sala Regia by, 127–52 impressions of Sala Regia, 126

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 189

observations on historical events in paintings of Sala Regia, 152–54 visit to old papal palace, 163, 165 Burckard, Johannes, 38–41, 171n18 Butzek, Monika, 69 Callixtus III (pope), 33f Calvin, John, 153 Cancelleria Palace, Rome, 101, 108f, 110–11f Capitoline Hill, Rome, 45, 46f, 47f, 48–49f, 55 Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome, 28f, 30f, 39f invasion of Rome by Charles VIII and, 36–37 narrative paintings in loggia of, 35–36 paintings by Pintoricchio in, 38–41 restoration of, by Pope Alexander VI, 37–38 visit by Fichard to, 48 Catherine de’ Medici (queen of France), 144–45 Catherine of Alexandria (saint), 34f Catherine of Aragon (queen of England), 115 Catherine of Siena, Saint, 143–44 Charlemagne, 2, 135–39 Charles V (Holy Roman emperor), 90, 99, 104f, 108, 112, 115, 153, 163, 164 Charles VIII (king of France), 35–42, 164, 170n5 claims to throne of Naples, 36 invasion of Rome and, 36–37 proclamation of obedience to Alexander VI, 38–42 Charles IX (king of France), 148f Church of Saint John Lateran, Rome, 45, 47f, 48 baptistery of, 83, 83f Church of Saint Peter, Rome, 80f, 88, 113, 133, 135. See also Saint Peter’s basilica Church of Santa Maria in Aracoeli, Rome, 45, 49f, 69 churches and basilicas. See individual names of churches and basilicas

Clement I (pope), 78f Clement III (pope), 139 Clement V (pope), 7 Clement VII (antipope), 7, Clement VII (pope), 67, 71–72, 79f, 81, 84, 85, 86, 90, 115 Coligny, Gaspard de, 145, 149 College of Cardinals, 9 Conservators’ Palace, Rome, 44f, 46f Mancini, Giulio, on, 45–48 plan of first floor, 51f Ripanda commissioned as painter, 49–55 Sala dei Capitani, 50f Sala della Lupa, 52–53f, 58, 62–64f Sala di Annibale, 52f, 59–61f Sala Grande, 49f Constantine the Great (Roman emperor), 2, 8, 25, 40, 68–69f, 74f, 75f, 76f, 77f, 80f, 81–83, 82f, 87–88 Constantinian Donation. See Donation of Constantine Contarini, Giovanni Pietro, 144, 149 Cortona, Pietro da, 166–67f Council of Basel (1431), 10, 169n1 Council of Constance (1414-18), 2, 8–10, 26, 60, 169n1 Council of Pisa (1409), 2, 7, 18, 26 Council of Trent (1545–47, 1551–52, 1559–63), 99, 106f, 110, 111f Council of Lateran (1512–17). See Fifth Lateran Council Council, general. See general councils Deseine, François Jacques, 69, 171n29 Djem (prince of Turkey), 35, 37, 41, 171n18 Donation of Constantine, 83, 86, 123–24, 130 Don John of Austria, 124, 152, 152f Duca, Jacopo del, 69 Estienne, Henri, 132, 153 Eugenius IV (pope), 9, 10, 11, 11f, 12, 35f Eusebius of Caesarea, 82, 87

12/7/12 1:48 PM

190   S  index Faletti, Bartolomeo, 29, 30–31f Farnese, Alessandro (cardinal), 93–94, 95, 101, 123, 130, 132 Farnese Palace, Caprarola, 92f Anticamera del Concilio, 98–108, 98f loggia of Hercules, 94, 95f plan of first floor, 94f Room of the Farnese Deeds, 94–95, 96–97f, 108–9f Farnese Palace, Rome, 101, 108f, 109f, 110f, 111f Felix V (antipope), 9, 10 Ferrante I (king of Naples), 36 Fichard, Johan, 29, 41, 48, 69 visit to Castel Sant’Angelo, 48 visit to Conservators’ Palace, 45, 57–61 Fifth Lateran Council (1512–17), 18, 21 Filarete, Antonio. See Averlino, Antonio (Filarete) Fiorini, Giovanni Batista, 133, 134–35f, 153 Fisher, John (cardinal), 115 Florus, Publius Annius, 66 Francis I (king of France), 99, 105f, 108, 115 Frederick Barbarosa (Holy Roman emperor), 131f, 132–33, 153, 163–64, 165, 167 Frederick II Hohenstaufen (Holy Roman emperor), 139–41, 165 Frederick III (Holy Roman emperor), 9 Frequens (papal bull), 10



general councils, 8–9, 10, 16 Giovio, Paolo, 144, 170n5 Great Schism (1378–1417), 2, 4, 7, 8, 133 Gregory II (pope), 134f Gregory VII (pope), 138f, 139 Gregory IX (pope), 139–41, 140f Gregory XI (pope), 7, 139–41, 142f, 143 Gregory XII (pope), 7, 8, 10 Gregory XIII (pope), 93, 95–96, 116, 124, 139–41, 143, 145, 152 Guicciardini, Francesco, 25–26, 42

Jacobites (Syrians), 11, 12f Janson, Tore, 69 John VIII Palaeologus (Byzantine emperor), 10–11, 12 John VII (pope), 133 John XII (pope), 135 John XXIII (antipope), 8, 10 Julius II (pope), 18, 19–21 Julius III (pope), 101

Hadrian VI (pope), 85, 139 Haec Sancta (papal bull), 10 Hall of Constantine, Vatican Palace, 70f, 71–72 appearance of, 72–86

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 190

ceiling of, 71, 72f decoration of, 71–72 diagram of paintings of, 73f historical accuracy of paintings of, 89–90 painting of The Baptism, 87 painting of The Battle at Milvian Bridge, 87–88, 89 painting of The Cross Appearing to Constantine, 88–89 painting of The Donation, 88 paintings by Raphael, 74–75f, 78f paintings by Romano and Penni, 76–77f, 79f tapestries of, 71–72 wall paintings of, 84–86 Heemskerck, Maarten van, 46f, 47f Henry IV (Holy Roman emperor), 138f, 139, 153, 165 Henry VIII (king of England), 99, 101, 102f, 114–15, 114f, 153, 165 Henry of Navarre (king Henry IV of France), 145 Henry of Valois (king Henry III of France), 144 Hutten, Ulrich von, 25, 86 Innocent II (pope), 162 Innocent III (pope), 127f, 128f, 162f, 163 Innocent VIII (pope), 36

Lateran Council (1512–17). See Fifth Lateran Council Lateran Palace, Rome, 46f, 162f, 163–65, 167 Leo I (pope), 19, 23f, 79f Leo VIII (pope), 135 Leo X (pope), 54f, 67–68, 68f, 71, 72, 79–81, 84–85, 86

Lepanto, battle of, 124, 149, 150–51f Livy (Titis Livius), 66 Lorenzetto (Lorenzo Lotti), 69 Lothar III (Holy Roman emperor), 162f, 163 Louis XI (king of France), 13 Louis XII (king of France), 10 Luitprand (king of the Lombards), 123, 133–35, 134–35f Luther, Martin, 2, 22–26, 86, 90, 153 Malvasia, Carlo Cesare, 55 Mancini, Giulio, 68 on Conservators’ Palace, Rome, 45–48, 49 Marcello, Pietro, 130, 133 Marcellus II (pope), 101 Marcus Aurelius (Roman emperor), 45, 46f, 47f, 55 Martin V (pope), 8, 10 Martinelli, Biago, 113 Mary (saint). See Virgin Mary Maxentius (Roman emperor), 34f, 75f, 81–82, 87 Medici, Angelo de’, 67 Medici, Catherine de’. See Catherine de’ Medici (queen of France) Medici, Francesco de’, 84 Michelangelo, 68, 69, 84–85, 141f Milvian Bridge, battle at, 82 Montaigne, Michel de, 126, 132, 149 More, Sir Thomas, 115 Mula, Marcantonio da (cardinal), 123, 132, 133 Nice, Treaty of, 108–9, 110–11f, 115 Nicholas V (pope), 9 Otto I (Holy Roman emperor), 135, 136f, 153 Otto, son of Frederick Barbarossa, 130 Palazzo della Cancelleria. See Cancelleria Palace, Rome Panvinio, Onofrio, 123, 130 papacy. See also individual names of popes crisis of, 9 declining respect for, 22 position of supreme authority and, 1–2, 169n1 use of propaganda, 2–3

12/7/12 1:48 PM

index   S  191 See also Great Schism See also plenitude of power Pastor, Ludwig von, 69 Paul (saint), 10, 12, 19, 23f, 143-44, 149 Paul III (pope), 93–94, 95–98, 99–101, 100ff, 101f, 102f, 103f, 104f, 105f, 106f, 107f, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114–15, 114f, 115–16, 164 Paul IV (pope), 101 Paul V (pope), 10, 122f Pauline Chapel, Vatican Palace, 119 Penni, Gianfrancesco, 76–77f, 79f, 85, 86–87 Perugino, Pietro, 17f, 19f Peter (saint), 18, 22f, 79 as first pope, 1–2, 7, 9, 10, 11f, 24, 73f, 78f, 132 Peter II (king of Aragon), 123, 127, 128f, 12930, 152 Peter III (king of Aragon), 129 Philip II (king of Spain), 109, 110–11f Philip IV (king of France), 7 Pietro, Giovanni, 144 Pintoricchio, Bernardino, 29, 31, 32–33f, 34f, 35f, 38–41, 49, 170n5 paintings in Castel Sant’Angelo by, 38–41 Piombo, Sebastiano del, 84–85 Pippin III (king of the Franks), 127f Pius II (pope), 10, 31 Pius IV (pope), 101, 132 Pius V (pope), 121, 123f, 124, 143f, 152f Platina, Bartolomeo, 123, 129, 130, 133, 135, 144 plenitude of power (plenitudo potestatis), 1, 2, 16, 24–25, 165 Polonus, Martinus, 129, 130, 133, 144 Pontelli, Baccio, 39f Porta, Giuseppe, 121, 124, 126, 130–31f Raphael, 18, 21f, 22f, 23f, 24f, 74f, 75f, 78f, 80–81f, 84–85, 87, 89–90, 110, 112ff

00i-192_de_Jong_4p.indb 191

Ripanda, Jacopo, 45, 49–55, 52, 56, 57, 59–61f, 62–64f, 68 Romano, Giulio, 76–77f, 79f, 80–81f, 85, 86–87 Royal Hall, Vatican Palace. See Sala Regia, Vatican Palace Sabellico, Marcantonio, 130, 133 Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacre, 121–23, 144–45 Saint Peter. See Peter (saint) Saint Peter’s basilica, Rome, 12f, 35, 79, 83, 88, 143, 143f. See also Church of Saint Peter, Rome bronze doors of, 6f, 10–12, 18 Salamanca, Antonio, 30 Sala Regia (Royal Hall), Vatican Palace, 72, 122–23f, 177n33 diagram of paintings in, 125f historical topics illustrated in, 127–52 impressions of visitors, 126–27 inscriptions of paintings in, 154–61 paintings in, 123–27, 145–52, 146–47f, 150–52f Salviati, Francesco, 101, 108, 110–11f, 115, 121 Samacchini, Orazio, 136–37f, 153 Sangallo, Antonio da, 120, 121 Santoro, Fazio (cardinal), 55 Scalvati, Antonio, 71 Sigismund (king of Germany), 8, 11, 12 Silvanus Germanicus, Caius, 55–57, 66–67, 172n9 Sistine Chapel, Vatican Palace, 12–18, 13f, 14–15f Sixtus IV (pope), 10, 12–13, 18, 18f, 164 Sixtus V (pope), 83 Stanza d’Eliodoro, Vatican Palace, 18–19, 20f Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican Palace, 18, 20f Statius, Publius Papinius, 66 Steuchus of Gubbio, Augustinus, 123, 130

Strator ritual, 40–41 Stephen II (pope), 127f Surius, Laurentius, 144 Sylvester I (pope), 25, 40, 76f, 83, 85–86 Tempesta, Antonio, 94 Titi, Filippo, 69 Trajan’s Column, Rome, 49, 55f, 66, 173n14 Urban VI (pope), 7 Urban VIII (pope), 29, 132, 166f, 167 Vaga, Perino del, 121, 141f Valla, Lorenzo, 2, 25–26, 86, 130 Vasari, Giorgio, 29, 89, 98, 101, 108, 108–9f, 115–16, 120, 120f, 121, 123, 124, 139, 140–41f, 142f, 170n5 paintings in Sala Regia by, 145–52, 146–47f, 150–52f Vatican Palace. See Hall of Constantine; Pauline Chapel; Sala Regia (Royal Hall); Sistine Chapel; Stanza d’Eliodoro; Stanza della Segnatura Vecchi, Giovanni de, 116 Venturi, Adolfo, 69 Vergil (Publius Vergilius Maro), 66 Vignola, Jacopo, 94 Virgin Mary, 10, 18, 19f Volterra, Daniele da, 121 Zopppelli, Giovanni Maria, 124, 126f Zuccaro, Frederico, 94, 95f, 98, 108f, 124, 125f, 138–39f, 144, 145f Zuccaro, Taddeo, 94, 97f, 98, 100–108f, 101, 108–14, 114f, 115–16, 124, 125f, 135–39, 137–39f, 144, 145f, 154, 155, 175n12, 175n19 Zwingli, Ulrich, 153

12/7/12 1:48 PM