Costa's Triumphs in Bentivoglio's Chapel

Ross G Caldwell

Hi Michael,

(it's late for me, as you know, but hell it's Friday night... I'll do my best)

mjhurst said:
I don't see any "Judgment" in the Triumph of Death. If read literally, every soul goes to heaven, pretty directly.

Click to expand...

So we should read it literally and presume that they were promoting heresy in their chapel?

No, but approach my initial statement both literally and charitably. I said "if read", not "must be read". We're reading the images from roughly the same vantage point, so I assume we're sharing impressions rather than imparting dogma.

[/QUOTE]
Or should we accept, as we do with most works, that it is not a 20,000 word treatise by a Scholastic theologian but a work of art, and that some things are taken for granted?[/QUOTE]

A lot of things can be taken for granted. I think we're just learning what they might have been. Wegener was probably the first to write down that a Wheel of Fortune was implied in the arrangement of the vignettes above Fame. Can you assume, with full confidence, that it was the obvious interpretation to everyone in 1490?

It appears that a very simple graphic design was desired here; at least, that was the result so it makes sense that it was intended.

On "paper" it looks good, and your presentation is convincing. But I haven't stood there, where it would really make a difference. Maybe the average viewer doesn't get to see much of that, and instead has to make due with the bald Triumphs, and the suggestion of mysterious things in the heavens. Even more important than the content was the use of the image. The Triumphs were the primary meaning of the images - they are the closest to the viewer.

I don't know the layout of the chapel so I'm not even sure if the left-right dichotomy works - it could be that you walk into the chapel and see Death first, then Fame. You don't stand eye-level to both and read them as a text. If you *must* pass by Death first, then Fame, then this kind of reading breaks down. It could be that they are not meant to be read the way you are reading them - they might be "stand alone" triumphs, each self-sufficient.

[/QUOTE]
Yes, there are other things that could have been included, as always, including a hellmouth or whatever it is that would satisfy you. Yes, if you were creating a similar work then you would no doubt do it differently.[/QUOTE]

I sure didn't say that. I don't even know how to conceive, in this context, of "creating a similar work". I don't much about it, including the conditions of the commission.

If you want to pursue such a line of inquiry, insisting on heresy

"Insisting"? I think you're fighting shadows here, or at least misreading (deliberately?) me. I certainly never meant to imply that *I* believed in such an interpretation, and nowhere have I insisted on it. Talk about seizing on a stray (and hoping to be somewhat funny) remark. I'll be wiser in future and keep my erudite humor to myself.

rather than artistic sensibility, that's fine. Is this heresy related to the fact that, in the other painting, the family has their backs turned toward Mary and Jesus? Gosh, this could get fun in a hurry! However, even if we accept that the Chapel was intended to convey assorted heresies, the top part of the Triumph of Death is still a portrayal of Christian end times and, in this context, (i.e., sorting out the overall cycle), the heresy is largely irrelevant to seeing the big picture.

Well, that was fun. I never thought of all that heresy. Let's see what else there is to get to.

Certainly Boccaccio's Visione is rather like Petrarch's finished product, in that glory is ultimately triumphed over by Fortune and Death, themselves triumphed by higher personifications. But Petrarch himself wrote the Triumphs of Death and Fame as the end of his work, apparently considering the four triumphs to constitute a complete and unified work. It was only two decades later, as his own mortality became a reality to him, that he changed the design of his poems to a humbler overriding arc by adding Time and Eternity.

Okay, but I imagine our 15th century readers considered it a unified work. Do you know differently? At least, all those cassoni and illustrated versions do have all six triumphs, even when they choose to emphasize some and neglect others.

Given that most of the Triumph of Fame examples we've seen are portrayed in a Petrarchian context, naturally the cyclic implication is the Christian one of the full six triumphs, always implied even if not expressed. But you seem to be suggesting that humanism did not exist, that pride in the magnificence of man and his achievements was no different than medieval Christian contemptu mundi. Since I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean, I don't know what you do mean.

I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying here. The world didn't go from medieval to "Renaissance" in 1450 (or whenever). Humanism was a multifaceted movement. There weren't many who would elevate worldly Man to the status of God. Even the most infamous humanist Prince, Sigismondo Malatesta, is shown kneeling before his namesake St. Sigismondo in his chapel in Rimini. He doesn't give himself a halo.

But... yeah, I think that the medieval Christian contemptu mundi still persisted pretty strongly, and that it's not a case of either/or.

However, you asked for an example... what is there about Lorenzo's birth tray that conveys a disdain for Gloria Mundi? Or is it a celebration of Fame?

It's obviously a celebration of Fame. For heaven's sake, look at the occasion - the birth of the first son. You want a Triumph of Death or some kind of contemptu mundi imagery, even a Wheel of Fortune, there?

This image is fully within the traditions of the society that produced it, and was immersed in the tragedy of history. If you look at other birth trays, they always have stories of great deeds and heroes (I just looked, a nice one of David and Goliath, with no contemptu mundi - definitely a humanist triumph).

We are talking about two different subjects, using the same words. Yes, Fame triumphs over Death, and yes, Death triumphs over Fame. Death means much the same thing in both formulations, but Fame differs dramatically. Artists expressed both formulations in different works.

We have to agree on the definition of Fame then. I don't know of any works where Death really triumphs over Fame. That's the whole point. It triumphs over vanity and everything worldly including money and position, of course, but the things we are talking about are not "vanity". And it is not particularly humanist to think so. They are the reward of virtuous conduct (even in arms) - that is the meaning of Fame here, not vainglory, *real* glory, earned and eternal.

Both meanings are sensible. Fame triumphs Death, and Death triumphs Fame. The question is, which is being depicted in a particular work of art. Of course, if we confuse them, using the term "Fame" ambiguously, we can generate a paradox. (More precisely, it is a fallacy of ambiguity/equivocation.) This is good too, and an artist can use that as well. But overall, I think that Renaissance humanism is a real sensibility, and the idea of worldly renown within that sensibility was quite different than it was in the more common (even during the Renaissance) contemptu mundi sensibility.

Okay, and yes. If you think it is equivocation to deny a sharp distinction between "Renaissance" and "Middle Ages" sensibilities however, then I think you are being misled by some old books.

You have to judge it on a case-by-case basis.

Sorry, I'm not sure we got anywhere here, I didn't even get to the tarot part.

I'm fading. Read charitably.

Best regards,

Ross

mjhurst

Hi, Ross,

Ross G Caldwell said:
I don't know the layout of the chapel so I'm not even sure if the left-right dichotomy works - it could be that you walk into the chapel and see Death first, then Fame. You don't stand eye-level to both and read them as a text. If you *must* pass by Death first, then Fame, then this kind of reading breaks down. It could be that they are not meant to be read the way you are reading them - they might be "stand alone" triumphs, each self-sufficient.

Another "joke"?

The triumphs are obviously designed as a pair, and in fact, two parts of a single composition, as I indicated. This is shown by the subject matter, which could be readily interpreted even from a simple textual description. This is also demonstrated by the compositional layout of the two images, the details of foreground, the arrangement of the people, the background landscape... as I pointed out. The overriding design, from the Fall through the souls of the dead rising to Judgment, could not be more clear. Even if the pictures in the Chapel had somehow been reversed, perhaps through an inordinately inept restoration, we would still know what that intended arrangement originally was from the works themselves. However, from photos on the Web which include a bit of both paintings, we can see that the arrangement in the Chapel is correct.

La Cappella Bentivoglio
http://icozzano.scuole.bo.it/ic/med...mento-bo/bentivoglio/cappella_bentivoglio.htm

Also, the question has come up about the media of Costa's paintings. Online there are various references to these paintings being fresco, and the one tourist page I quoted referred to gouache. However, the best sources I've seen (David J. Drogin and Evelyn S. Welch) agree that they were tempera on canvas.

Best regards,
Michael

Ross G Caldwell

Hi Michael,

mjhurst said:
The triumphs are obviously designed as a pair, and in fact, two parts of a single composition, as I indicated.

Yes, I already knew they were a pair and that the left-right arrangement was there (I checked it too when I raised the question). I was just unsure of the possible effect on the viewer - the viewing angle, that sort of thing. But I imagine that they would be properly visible together (although with all my searching I haven't found the layout of the chapel). You've won me over to your interpretation, in any case.

Also, the question has come up about the media of Costa's paintings. Online there are various references to these paintings being fresco, and the one tourist page I quoted referred to gouache. However, the best sources I've seen (David J. Drogin and Evelyn S. Welch) agree that they were tempera on canvas.

I haven't been able to find out exactly, but I'll trust Drogin and Welch.

Antonio Pinelli doesn't talk about the matieral of the composition, but you might be interested in his remarks from 1985 -

"... the series of Petrarchan Trionfi, although reduced and summarized for the occasion, was elevated to the rank of a subject worthy to figure in an important family chapel, that painted by Lorenzo Costa for the Bentivoglio in San Giacomo Maggiore in Bologna (6). But in this case we are dealing with a kind of swan song, since the iconographic fortune of the Petrarchan Trionfi, at this now advanced date in the 15th century, is turning already to inexorable decline.

(note 6) The series is reduced, in that only two scenes are contemplated, that of the Trionfo della Fama and that of the Trionfo della Morte, but it is also summarized (compendiata), because in this second scene the "head" of the cortege of Chastity comes in, which raises the "ermellino" banner. Moreover, in the sky appears an atypical Trionfo della Trinità, which is a variant of the Trionfo dell'Eternità."

He might have also noted a figure like Time in Death's parade. If this "synopsis" or "compendium" idea is correct, we should look for Love in Fame's panel.

Best regards,

Ross

Ross G Caldwell

Hi Michael,

in the "Cappella Bentivoglio" page you linked
http://icozzano.scuole.bo.it/ic/med...mento-bo/bentivoglio/cappella_bentivoglio.htm

the writer describes the four girls in the far right of the Trionfo della Morte painting (and incidentally calls the painting a "tela" meaning a drape, canvas or screen, so corroborating Welch) -

"Tra le quattro figure femminili sulla estrema parte destra della tela, ci sono Isotta e Laura Bentivoglio.
Il gruppo illustra la prima stanza del Trionfo della Morte del Petrarca in cui il poeta descrive come la Castità e le sue compagne, che hanno appena vinto la battaglia contro Amore, incontrino il prossimo avversario, la Morte.
Questo accostamento di Laura Bentivoglio con Laura del Petrarca è un esempio di elegante adulazione, ispirato dall’analogia dei nomi."

"Among the four female figures at the far right of the canvas are Isotta and Laura Bentivoglio. The group illustrates the first stanza of Petrarch's Trionfo della Morte, where the poet describes Chastity and her company, who have only just won the battle against Love, encountering the next adversary, Death. This equation of Laura Bentivoglio with Petrarch's Laura is an example of elegant adulation, inspired by the analogy of the names."

In the article on the paintings by (whom I presume are) Campbell and Welch, they say about the figures at the far *left* of picture "In the painting, there are portraits of Bentivoglio daughters standing before the procession as onlookers, representing these virtuous women." (there's a note to that I don't have).

That's quite a different take on it than the first commentator! Which set are the daughters Laura and Isotta, and are they the figures of Chastity's company, with the ermine banner, or is that company the "virtuous women" referred to immediately above - or are they the figures at the far right of the painting? (or perhaps, when the Italian author says "destra", he means the right of the panel as if being *in* it - i.e. the same figures - but this seems unusual and hence unlikely).

The first stanza of Petrarch's poem does describe Chastity just coming out of her battle with Love and meeting death, with a banner -

"THAT LADY, glorious and beautiful,
Who, once a pillar of high excellence,
Is now but spirit and a little earth,
In honor was returning from her war,
Glad for her victory over the great foe
Who with his fraudulence afflicts the world*
Her weapons none save purity of heart,
Beauty of countenance and modest thought,
And converse ever virtuous and wise.
And it was wondrous in her train to see,
Shattered, the arrows and the bow of Love,
And those whom he had captured or had slain.
Returning from their noble victory
The lovely lady with a chosen few
Together made a troop that was but small*
The glory that is true is ever rare*
But for herself each one of them deserved
A noble poem, or historic fame.
The banner of their victory displayed
An ermine white upon a field of green,
Wearing a chain of topaz and of gold."

Campbell and Welch's passage seems equally appropriate, although mentioning no banner -

"So I declare that for her earthly life,
Brief and renown'd, the final hour had come,
And the doubtful passing that the world doth dread.
There to behold her was another throng
Of worthy women still in life, who came
To see if it may be that Death be kind.
This noble company was gathered there
To see and contemplate the fatal end
That comes to all of us, and comes but once:
They were her friends and neighbors, everyone.
And then from her blond head the hand of Death
Plucked forth a single sacred golden strand;"

In all it seems that no one has yet seen the single unified composition you have, and instead goes digging around in Petrarch for some explanation of each painting individually.

What do you think?

Best regards,

Ross

Huck

In the article on the paintings by (whom I presume are) Campbell and Welch, they say about the figures at the far *left* of picture "In the painting, there are portraits of Bentivoglio daughters standing before the procession as onlookers, representing these virtuous women." (there's a note to that I don't have).

That's quite a different take on it than the first commentator! Which set are the daughters Laura and Isotta, and are they the figures of Chastity's company, with the ermine banner, or is that company the "virtuous women" referred to immediately above - or are they the figures at the far right of the painting? (or perhaps, when the Italian author says "destra", he means the right of the panel as if being *in* it - i.e. the same figures - but this seems unusual and hence unlikely).

I think, there is an error, the Bentivoglio daughters (and the whole family) are located at the family show, which itself is located opposite the pictures of Fame and Death in the Bentivoglio chapel, by their local position they "watch" the both Trionfi".

Ross G Caldwell

Huck said:
I think, there is an error, the Bentivoglio daughters (and the whole family) are located at the family show, which itself is located opposite the pictures of Fame and Death in the Bentivoglio chapel, by their local position they "watch" the both Trionfi".

They're in that one too (on the opposite wall to the Triumphs), but here all these authors I've quoted are talking about some figures *inside* the Triumph of Death.

Ross

mjhurst

Hi, Ross,

Ross G Caldwell said:
"The banner of their victory displayed
An ermine white upon a field of green,
Wearing a chain of topaz and of gold."

Campbell and Welch's passage seems equally appropriate, although mentioning no banner -

"There to behold her was another throng
Of worthy women still in life, who came
To see if it may be that Death be kind."

A banner explicitly declaring itself "ermine", not by color but by having the weasel depicted, was sometimes used in Petrarchian cycles. I have no doubt that Drogin is correct about these women, their identity and their function in the allegory.

Ross G Caldwell said:
In all it seems that no one has yet seen the single unified composition you have, and instead goes digging around in Petrarch for some explanation of each painting individually.

The thing to keep in mind is that very little iconography is ever done, and a vague reference to Petrarch is an erudite-sounding excuse for not doing any. Iconography was a fad during the early 20th century, but otherwise the subject matter of didactic are is largely shrugged off as unimportant. Any art historian who discusses a triumph invokes Petrarch, and with some reason. Most often, unfortunately, they use it as an excuse to go no further. If the hand-waving mention of Petrarch is obviously insufficient, then some corruption or parody is likely to be imagined. For example, Moakley's ribald parody, "in the merry mood of Carnival", was an intelligent explanation of the supposed corruption, tying together the odd character of the Fool and Mountebank in the V-S trumps along with a playful rendering for a card game. On the other hand, Pinelli's half-assed reference to "inexorable decline" to dismiss the allegorical program of a spectacular masterpiece is just embarrassing. This appears to be someone looking for a quick exit, to avoid a subject in which he has no interest.

That's really what most art historians want to do, to explain didactic content away rather than to explain it. It is deeply unfashionable, downright medieval. This distaste for medieval content is also why the great Latin works of Petrarch and Boccaccio, on which their 15th-century fame primarily rested, are largely unread except by medievalists and, to a great extent, untranslated, while the Canzoniere and Decameron are translated again and again and considered literary treasures. Our sensibilities are not the ones of the times in which these works were created, else works like this would not be ignored by art historians.

Best regards,
Michael

mjhurst

Hi, Ross,

Damn... the first half of that last post disappeared! I must have inadvertently deleted it... effing dolt. I'll try again.

Ross G Caldwell said:
the writer describes the four girls in the far right of the Trionfo della Morte painting... "Among the four female figures at the far right of the canvas are Isotta and Laura Bentivoglio. The group illustrates the first stanza of Petrarch's Trionfo della Morte, where the poet describes Chastity and her company, who have only just won the battle against Love, encountering the next adversary, Death.

He meant, "far left".

We have the pictures, and we have the quote from Petrarch, so we know that the group on the left of the Triumph of Death procession is in front of the Triumph of Fame. They are facing Death, greeting this pageant rather than being a part of it. The design fits perfectly with the Petrarchian borrowing, as explained by Drogin.

Elsewhere, Petrarch wrote of living, virtuous women and a noble company who come to witness if Death is kind. In the painting, there are portraits of Bentivoglio daughters standing before the procession as onlookers, representing these virtuous women.

Best regards,
Michael

Ross G Caldwell

Hi Michael,

I was looking at the internet images of the banner, and I couldn't tell if they had the ermine (weasel) or not.

Pinelli's b/w reproduction shows that it is in fact the animal -

So it is without doubt the cortege of Chastity.

Ross

Ross G Caldwell

Hi Michael,

mjhurst said:
A banner explicitly declaring itself "ermine", not by color but by having the weasel depicted, was sometimes used in Petrarchian cycles. I have no doubt that Drogin is correct about these women, their identity and their function in the allegory.

I think something got lost in translation here. I think the translator of the poem (I don't have it on hand) really meant the animal, not the color, "ermine". Pinelli has "vessillo con l'ermellino" - "banner with the ermine".

In Petrarch it is solid white, not the black-flecked one we think of with royalty.

Best regards,

Ross