LIBRARY» 3
Michigan Siam :

i University i

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

“AR 0 91?

fl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opponunity Institution
c:\d mural-9.1

 

 

 

CARAVAGGIO AND LATE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE THOUGHT

BY

James B. Callaghan

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Art

1991

Q
‘3
i
‘%

 

ABSTRACT
CARAVAGGIO AND LATE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE THOUGHT
31!

James E. Callaghan

Caravaggio (1571-1610) is often described as a rebel; the first
modern artist. Yet, on an intellectual level, the concepts of lighting
and naturalism seen in his works place him between such theoreticians as
Leonardo, Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo, or Marsilio Ficino and Galileo Galilei
or even Isaac Newton.

Caravaggio likely knew Lomazzo’s light and color theory from his
apprenticeship to Simone Peterzano in Milan. His Roman paintings for
his first patron, Cardinal Francesco Maria Del Monte, however, show an
increasingly sophisticated use of light and space paralleling the
contemporary thought of the "philosophers of nature," Bernardino Telesio
and, especially, Francesco Patrizi, professor of platonic philosophy at
the University of Rome from 1592-1597. Comparing Caravaggio's Del
Montean works with the theories of these philosophers (noting cross-
currents in Galileo, whom Del Monte supported) the author speculates
that the artist's maturation may owe more to the intellectual climate of

Rome than is generally recognized.

 

Copyright by
JAiES EDWARD
1991

 

FOR ANCHISES BY THE IVORY GATE

a wan—oun- - ,- s..- and“: ' " 0‘

 

 

I owe an incalculable debt to the many persons who have had an

influence, directly or otherwise, upon the formulation of this study and
who assisted in seeing it to its completion. Foremost among these are
the members of my thesis committee at Michigan State University:
Dr. Susan J. Bandes (Thesis Advisor), Department of Art
Dr. Webster Smith, Department of Art
Dr. Harold T. Walsh, Department of Philosophy.

I would also like to express my thanks and appreciation to the
following faculty of the Department of Art: Dr. Paul W. Deussen, Dr.
Susan Pinto Madigan, Dr. Sadayoshi Omoto, Dr. Janice D. Simpson, the
late Dr. Molly Smith, Dr. Linda 0. Stanford and Dr. Eldon N. VanLiere.

Thanks also to Mr. Jack Painter, Director of Louisiana Tech
University’s Rome program, to Mr. Jonathon Donehoo of Tech’s Department
of Art and to Dr. C. Wade Meade of the History Department; to Mr. Joseph
Connors, Director of the American Academy in Rome and to the Academy’s
librarian Ms. Lucilla Merino and her superb staff.

I owe a word of gratitude, as well, to Dr. Anna Maria Matteucci of
the University of Bologna's Dipartimento delle Arti Visive; to Dr.
France T. Camiz, whose advice during my visit to Temple University in
Rome was a turning point in the development of this thesis, and to Dr.

Giorgio Sandri of the Dipartimento di Pilosofia at the University of

 

vi

Bologna, whose comments regarding Caravaggio shaped this study's
direction.

Finally, this study could never have come about without the
influence of my parents, whose love of Italy I have enthusiastically
embraced; nor without the full support of my wife Debra and my daughter
Tiffany who have endured separation, near-poverty, and long periods of
distraction and monk-like seclusion on my part so that I might pursue my

studies.

 

 

TABLEOFW'S

List of Figures ................................................... viii
Introduction .................................................. ...... . 1
Genesis .............................................................. 6
Del Monte I: Experiments and Lessons Recalled ....................... 16
Del Monte II: Towards a Mature Style ............................ .... 31
Metaphysics and Machinations .. ..... . ........... . .................... 54
Winds andCross-Currents ofChange ....... . ..... 76
Conclusion .. .......... . .................................. ........... 78
Figures ............ ..... .... ....... . ............................ .... 86
Bibliography.......................... ............ ....... 92

GeneralReferences............................ ...... ..... 96

vii

Figure

Figure

Figure
Figure

Figure

Figure

1

2

3

4

5

6

 

IISTOFHGURE

Simone Peterzano, Entombment. S. Fedele, Milan. . . . . . . . . . . 86

Caravaggio: Concert of Youths.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 87

Caravaggio: Luteplayer. Hermitage, Leningrad . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Caravaggio: Bacchino Malaro. Galleria Borghese, Rome . . . . . 89

Caravaggio: Calling of St. Matthew.
San Luigi dei Francesi, Rome ..... 90

Caravaggio: Martyrdom of St. Matthew.
San Luigi dei Francesi, Rome ....... . ....... . ..... . . . . . . . . . 91

viii

 

In 1905 Roger Fry wrote of Caravaggio that "there is hardly any

one artist whose work is of such moment as his in the development of
modern art," and that he was "the first to proceed not by evolution, but
by revolution; the first to rely entirely upon his own temperamental
attitude, and to dbfy tradition and authority.'1 While there may be
some disagreement regarding the specifics of the latter assertions, it
cannot be denied that the statement, as a whole, is essentially true
with regard to Caravaggio's being a precursor of what we consider the
modern artist. Technically and temperamentally, with Caravaggio it
seems that we encounter for the first time that fiercely independent
spirit which has today almost become synonymous with the term "artist."

The general view of Caravaggio as the tortured artist has become
quite comfortable, and is readily acceptable to most students in the
history of art. It has a certain resonance to it, and seems to solve
many of the problems of comprehending his art. Yet, it has become
clearer each year since Roberto Longhi's pioneering efforts of the
1950’s, that Caravaggio was not quite the isolated radical that he is
often made out to be. Rather, he has come to be better understood as an
innovative artist working within many of the conventions of his time,
but exploring their outer limits. In many ways, Caravaggio's early

pressuring of painting's conventions parallels the pressure being

 

1 Fry, R., Notes to the Discourses of.Reynolds. London, 1965, p. 170.

1

 

brought to bear upon the societal, cultural, scientific, and theological

conventions of Europe around 1600, particularly in Rome.

It is a commonplace of Baroque studies to examine much of the
period's art in light of the Counter-Reformation; the Counter-
Reformation being understood as a reaction to the challenges of Martin
Luther. The emphasis has been placed upon the theology of the time,
but, as H.O. Evennett has noted, "the Church of the counterekeformation
... was challenged not merely'by the revolutionary, yet still Christian,
dogmas of.Luther and Galvin, but also by the seeping into the Ehropean
mind of something more subtle, more deeply burrowing under foundations -
a general philosophical scepticism and the nascent ideas of free-thought
and rationalism."2 The intellectual activity of the time was,
literally, reshaping the conception of the world, the universe, and
mankind's (and God's) place within the scheme of things.

As noted above, it is generally agreed that Caravaggio represents
something of a transition between the Renaissance and the modern age;
that he and his paintings fit between, for example, Michelangelo and any
number of modern painters.3 On an intellectual level, however, the
problematic lighting and naturalism of his art seems to place him more
between such theoreticians as Leonardo, Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo, Marsilio
Ficino or Bernardino Telesio and Galileo Galilei or even Isaac Newton -
- a shorter span chronologically, but equivalent, perhaps, in scope.

Giovan Pietro Bellori tells us that Caravaggio Tnon guardando
punto anzi spregiandb 911 eccellentissimi marmi de 911 antichi e le

pitture tanto celebri d1 Raffaelle, si propose 1a sola nature per

 

”"2 Evennett, H.O., The Spirit of the CountereReformation. Cambridge,
1968, p. 24.
3 Fry referred to Monet.

 

 

 

 

 

0

   
 

I!“

oggetto del suo pennello.”4 This attitude has been read by many as
being fully in character with Caravaggio’s acknowledged rebellious

nature. Hibbard notes that Caravaggio's contemporaries were, indeed,

 

shocked by his turning away from Renaissance idealism,5 but then adds
this caution: that "the reputation that caravaggio buings down to our
time and even his supposed utterances ... may have more to do with later
theorists and their desire to categorize painters than with caravagyio’s
own actual words and{practices.“5 Therefore, we must be careful of
what we read into Bellori’s report. One must take into account, for
instance, that as the Renaissance progressed, "the humanist belief in
the authority and superiority of the ancients gave way to a rising'pride
in modern achievements."7

Such an attitude as reported by Bellori, rather than being a
singular act of disrespect on the part of Caravaggio, appears to be, in
fact, consonant with the progression of late Italian Renaissance
thought. It is entirely in keeping, moreover, with the affinities of a
group referred to as the philosophers of nature, who "encouraged by this

[rising pride] ... attempted to replace the natural philosophy of

 

4 Bellori, G.P., Le Vite de’ pittori, scultori e architetti moderni
(1672), in Ludovici, Vita del caravaggio dalle testimonianze del suo
tempo. Milano, 1956, p. 56. Besides Ludovici’s collection of
biographical sources, others perhaps more accessible to the student are
those collected in Friedlaender, W., caravaggio Studies, Princeton,
1974, and Hibbard, H., caravaggio, New York, 1983. Each of these
presents the text in both Italian and English. While now somewhat dated
due to recent archival discoveries, Friedlaender still offers much to
ponder and to inspire. Although a more recent publication, Hibbard’s
book presents, curiously, some tired arguments regarding sexuality and
P8Y¢h01OgY-

5 Hibbard, Caravaggio, p. 46.

6 Ibid, p. 48.

7 Kristeller, P.O., "Renaissance Philosophies", A History of
Philosophical Systems (Ferm, V., ed.). New York, 1950, p. 234.

 

 

Aristotelianism by new, original constructions. "3 More particularly,

there are striking affinities between aspects of Caravaggio’s art during
the critical, formative period of patronage in Rome by Cardinal
Francesco Maria Del Monte, and the thought of Francesco Patrizi,
professor of Platonic philosophy at Rome's La Sapienza from 1592 until
his death in 1597.

Some of Caravaggio’s most compelling compositions were produced
early in his Roman career. As Luigi Spezzaferro has pointed out, it is
particularly noteworthy how Caravaggio seems to first find his way in
the early works commissioned by Cardinal Del Monte.9 Alfred Moir
relates that these final Monte pictures form a coherent group. Theirs is
a natural, unpretentious world of mute poetry; youthful not only in the
age of the models but also in its sense of recent and intoxicating
discovery."1°

Moir was mostly referring to the secular paintings which
Caravaggio executed privately for Del Monte. This sense of "mute
poetry" and "recent and intoxicating discovery" also shines forth,
however, in the lateral wall paintings of the Contarelli Chapel at San
Luigi dei Francesi, the church of the French community in Rome.

Here Caravaggio's modern vision seems to find its full, large-scale (and
public) expression in the calling of St. Matthew'and the Martyrdom of
St. Matthew. While not a commission from Del Monte proper, it is clear

from a contemporary source that Caravaggio was given the opportunity to

 

8 Ibid.

9 Spezzaferro, L., "La cultura del cardinal Del Monte e il primo tempo
del Caravaggio", Storia dell’arte, 9-10 (1974), 57.

10 Moir, A., caravaggio. New York, 1989, p. 15.

 

execute his first large-scale public work "per opera del suo

cardinale. "11

The first aim of this study is to outline Caravaggio’s early life
and apprentice years in northern Italy with an eye towards
understanding the artistic theories to which he may have been exposed. ‘
Next, inquiries will be made regarding his development in Rome, followed
by an examination of two early Del Montean works, the Concert and the
Luteplayer, along with Me Calling of St. Matthew and The Martyrdom of
St. Matthew, in light of the new contemporary philosophies of Bemardinou
Telesio and, especially, Francesco Patrizi. Finally, an attempt will be
made at understanding Caravaggio’s startling new vision in the context
of the household of Cardinal Del Monte, and the intellectual climate of

the time .

 

11 Baglione, 6., text in Ludovici, Vita, p. 44. Documents relevant to
the work in San Luigi are collected and discussed in Mahon's "Addendum
to Caravaggio", Burlington Magazine, 586 (1952), 3-23.

 

The artist we know as Caravaggio was born Michelangelo Merisi on
the 29th of September (the Feast of St. Michael), 1571, in the rural
comunity of Caravaggio, just east of Milan.1 Giulio Mancini, in
Alcune considerazioni appartenenti alla pittura of c. 1617-1621, relates
that the artist was the son "d’assai onorati cittadini, poiche’ il padre
fu maestro di casa et arohitetto del duca di Caravaggio" [Francesco
Sforza].2 Caravaggio, then, seems to have come from a rather well-
positioned family; his father, Fermo, owned land near town.

Caravaggio's father died in 1577, and it’s probable that his
brother Battista became the head of the household. His name appears on
the contract of April 6, 1584 apprenticing Caravaggio to the workshop of
Simone Peterzano of Bergamo 'a painter of some limited importance in
Milan", who added 'discipulus Titianus" to the signature of some of his
late works.3 In what sense 'discipulus" is to be understood is unclear.

As Friedlaender notes, ”on the whole very little of his uneven

production manifests a vital understanding of any phase of Titian 's

 

1 Cinotti, M., ‘Vita del Caravaggio: novita‘ 1983-1988', ”Caravaggio -
nuove riflessioni"; Quaderni di Palazzo Venezia, v. VI, p. 79. Roma,
1989. The precision of this date has only recently been established.

2 Ludovici, Vita del Caravaggio dalle testimonianze del suo tempo.
Milano, 1956, p. 29. Mancini (1558-1630) was a physician by profession
and served as the personal physician to Urban VIII. Hibbard
(Caravaggio. New York, 1983, p. 7) characterizes him as an
'unscrupulous dilettante—collector,‘ while Friedlaender (in Caravaggio
Studies, Princeton, 1974, p. 229) describes him as "a dilettante in
matters of art" whose “references to Caravaggio are quite helpful even
though, as he says himself, much of his information is based on hearsay
and is rather anecdotal." Mahon agreed that Mancini should be
classified as a dilettante, but notes that "Mancini was certainly not
without genuine artistic feeling. He seems to have been a judge of
pictures in the sense of a connoisseur". "Studies in Seicento Art and
Theory", Studies of the War-burg Institute, v. 16. London, 1947, pp.
229-230.

3 Friedlaender, Caravaggio Studies, p. 35.

6

 

work, " (Figure 1) .4 Hibbard posits that Peterzano may have been in

Titian's studio along with El Greco in the 1560's, before Peterzano
moved on to Milan where he worked from 1573-1596.5 If so, then, unlike
El Greco, he learned comparatively little.

As a 1580 contract with the Barnabites states, Peterzano was
probably a "pictor non inerudi tus", and was praised by his friend
Lomazzo in the Idea del tempio della pittura.6 In essence, then,
Peterzano was probably the kind of competent, if unspectacular, teacher
that one would look to engage for a beginning student:

"Through a contract with another apprentice before Caravaggio 's
time we know that Peterzano gave instruction in painting ornament
and portraits (dipengere la rabesca e far ritratti), although his
main work was in the grand manner. Paintings for organ wings and
altarpieces, with many figures in violent movement are preserved
to us, and we know of enormous decorations in fresco which he made
for the Certosa di Cerigmano, a famous sanctuary not far from
Milan. In the workshop of this versatile and efficient master the
young Merisi certainly had a solid technical education, laying the
basis for the painstaking execution which distinguishes most of

his later works. A youth leaving the studio of Peterzano . . . was
surely saturated with practical knowledge in various fields . . .
q

Peterzano’s own manner seems to have had little effect upon the
painting of Caravaggio. Indeed, many writers feel that Caravaggio may
have consciously revolted against his master's approach to the art of

painting.9 Instead, Caravaggio seems to have drawn more from other

 

4 Ibid. , p. 36.

5 Hibbard, Caravaggio, p. 3. Maria Teresa Fiorio (Gregori, M., ed., Age
of Caravaggio. New York, 1985, p. 73) states that while Peterzano's
apprenticeship to Titian has been questioned by many, "there is much
evidence in its favor: the presence of his works in Venetian
collections; contemporary references; and, above all, the style of his
first Milanese paintings.“ She also notes, as does Friedlaender, that
contemporary sources referred to him as Simone Veneziano.

6 Friedlaender, Caravaggio Studies, p. 35.

7 Ibid. , p. 36.

8 For example: Friedlaender, Caravaggio Studies, p. 37; Hibbard,
Caravaggio, p. 4; and Gregori, “Caravaggio Today" in fine Age of
Caravaggio (Gregori, M., ed.), p. 31.

 

 

Lombard masters, such as Antonio Campi, Lorenzo Lotto, Girolamo Savoldo,

Moretto da Brescia, and Il Romanino. Friedlaender, for instance,
reminds us that Campi's Visit of the Empress Faustina to St. Catherine
in Prison
"was painted in the church of Sant’Angelo virtually before
Caravaggio’s eyes. . . . We can certainly assume that the young
painter, apprenticed in a maniera workshop, sided passionately
with the modern trend taken up by the Campi. He consequently
became interested in the revival of the artistic personalities
belonging to the generation of his grandfathers, whose ideals of
reality and lyrical chiaroscuro contrasted sharply with the
inflated emptiness of the Milanese school as represented by
Gaudenzio's pupils, Lomazzo, Peterzano, and others. 17215 late
sixteenth century revival of the so-called Giorgionesque art of
Lotto and Romanino, certainly awakened the strongly anti-
manneristic tendencies which we find evidenced in Caravaggio’s
later works. "9
The question as to whether Caravaggio visited Venice and acquired
'11 pensiero di Giorgione" that Federico Zuccari and others have seen in
Caravaggio's work has long been debated. 1° Mina Gregori feels "it is
inconceivable that he did not visit Venice, the artistic capital of
Northern Italy in the sixteenth century, and the one city able to oppose
the supremacy of the artistic traditions of Central Italy with new
methods and ideas - - even on a theoretical plane. '11 Bellori, in
fact, claims that Caravaggio did go to Venice, 'ove si compiacgue tanto
del colorito di Giorgione che se lo propose per iscorta
nell ’imitazione. "12 As there is no documentation whatsoever for this

visit, it has been often suggested that Bellori fabricated it to explain

 

9 Friedlaender, Caravaggio Studies, p. 42.

10 Regarding The Calling of St. Matthew, Baglione tells us that 'Pur
venendovi a vederla Federico Zucchero, mentre io era presente disse: -
Che rumore e‘ questo? - e guardando il tutto diligentemente soggiunse: -
Io non ci vedo altro che il pensiero di Giorgione nella tavola del
santo, quando Cristo il chiamo‘ all'apostolato ." Ludovici, Vita,
p. 45.

11 "Caravaggio Today," in Age of Caravaggio, p. 32.

12 Le vite, in Ludovici, Vita, p. 55.

 

the Giorgionesque qualities of some of Caravaggio's early paintings.13

Moreover, aspects of Giorgione could have been assimilated through the
Lombard artists discussed above, or from prints of Giorgione then in
circulation.

One should not discount, either, the effect that Leonardo's art
may have had upon the apprentice Caravaggio. Richard Spear has written
that "during the last quarter of the [16th] century; when caravaggio was
growing up and studying in Milan, Leonardo ’s legacy unquestionably
remained alive, but was frequently reinterpreted by ... artists, such as
Peterzano."14 One need only recall the general similarities of such
works by Leonardo as the Madonna of the Rocks or the St. John with
various works by Caravaggio to see that something of Leonardo is at
work.15 It also should be pointed out that Peterzano’s friend Lomazzo
seems to have taken much from Leonardo's theories of art.16 As Luigi
Salerno wrote, Caravaggio’s realism arose from the Lombard tradition,
"idealmente' from Leonardo, and directly from painters like Savoldo,

Romanino and Moretto.17

 

13 Ludovici is representative: 'L’andata a venezia supposta dal Bellori
e‘ un tentativo di spiegarne deterministicamente la fase giorgionesca.‘
Ibid, p. 119, n. 66.

14 Spear, R., ‘Leonardo, Raphael, and Caravaggio’, "Light on the Eternal
City: Observations and Discoveries in the Art and Architecture of Rome“;
Papers in Art History from the Pennsyivania State university (Hager, H.
and Munshower, 8.8., eds.), v. II, Dexter, 1987, p. 61.

15 Ibid., p. 60. Spear noted the similarity between the Louvre St. John
and Caravaggio's St. John the Baptist.

16 "As an apprentice of Peterzano, the friend of Lomazzo, in whose
writings the glory of Leonardo had been evoked, he was surely encouraged
to develop the deepest respect for the art of the great master.’I
Friedlaender, caravaggio Studies, p. 55. Friedlaender, p.55, quite
rightly notes too that Caravaggio could have seen Leonardo’s Last
supper; or absorbed aspects of Leonardo through Savoldo and Campi.

17 Salerno, L., "Caravaggio e la cultura del suo tempo“, Nbvita‘ sul
caravaggio: saggi e contributi (Cinotti, M., ed.). Milano, 1974, p. 18.

 

10

The duration of Caravaggio's apprenticeship to Peterzano, and the
date of his subsequent departure for Rome, is another troublesome
biographical detail. The contract with Peterzano stipulated that
Caravaggio was to remain in the master's ’shop "annos quatuor.'19 This
would have freed Caravaggio from his commitment in 1588. As Gregori
observed, however, Caravaggio seems not to have left northern Italy
Tbefore Joly; 1592, when he is documented in the town of caravaggio,'
leaving four years unaccounted for.19 Mancini seems to confirm this
lacuna when he reports that Caravaggio "studio' da fanciulezza per 4 o 6
anni in Milano . . . Doppo se ne passo' a Roma. "10 Cinotti has presented
Maurizio Calvesi's new reading of the passage in question as "7 o 8
anni."21 If this is correct, then Caravaggio would have departed from
the north in 1591 or (more likely) 1592 after he received his

inheritance.22

 

18 Document in Friedlaender, caravaggio Studies, p. 267.

19 ”Caravaggio Today,” in Age of caravaggio, p. 28. Caravaggio's mother
(Fermo's second wife) died in Caravaggio in 1590. Some of the family
property had already been sold in 1589, and more was dispensed with in
1590—1591. In 1592, a final division of the remaining property was made
between Caravaggio, his brother Battista, and his sister Caterina, from
which Caravaggio received 393 Imperial pounds (Hibbard, caravaggio, p.
5).

20 considerazioni, in Hibbard, caravaggio, p. 347. The manuscript in
the Biblioteca Marciana in venice is generally considered to be the most
reliable. Even with this manuscript one encounters various readings.
Friedlaender presents the passage as '4 (o 5) anni“ as does Ludovici.

21 Cinotti, "... novita‘ 1983-1988," p. 80. "Ora il Calvesi ha
controllato un passo del biografo Mancini, nella versione Marciana d1
venezia, e ha potuto accertare che l’esatta lettura non e‘ ‘studio‘ da
fanciullezza per 4 o 6 anni in Milano (...) Doppo se ne passo‘ a Roma',
bensi‘ ‘studio‘ da fanciullezza per 7 o 8 anni’."

22 Gregori has observed that the new biographical information regarding
his birth and apprenticeship “implies a good deal more than has yet been
realized ... He was then more than twenty years old [when he left for
Rome] - of an age when an artist's apprenticeship should already have
been complete." “Caravaggio Today," in Age of caravaggio, p. 28.

 

 

 

11

The settlement mentioned above makes note of an uncle, a priest by
the name of Ludovico, "formerly of Milan now living in Rome. "23 As
Caravaggio's brother Battista is known to have been studying moral
theology with, interestingly enough, the Jesuits in 1596, it’s
attractive to imagine the uncle and the two brothers setting off to Rome
together.24 One wonders what the conversations would have been like
along the way!

Mancini tells us that Caravaggio arrived in Rome "d’eta‘ circa
vent’anni,‘ which would accord with the new biographical evidence.25 He
further informs us that the artist was in somewhat dire straits and
stayed with Pandolfo Pucci da Recanati.26 Pucci was Tbenificiato di S.
Pietro" and for whom Caravaggio "conveniva andar per la parte ed altri
servizii non convenienti all’esser suo, e guel e‘ peggio se la passava
la sera con un’insalata quale li serviva per antipasto, pesto e
postpasto ... dopo alcuni mesi partitosi con poca soddisfazione chiamo'
poi questo benefiziato suo padrone, monsignor Insalata.'=7 Pucci, in

fact, appears to have had some prominence in Rome,25 and, as Cinotti

 

23 Hibbard, Caravaggio, p. 5.

24 Ibid.

25 Mancini, in Ludovici, Vita, p. 29. Unfortunately, we have no dates
associated with the information presented by Caravaggio's biographers
regarding his beginnings in Rome. The material does give a good
indication of Caravaggio's situation, however.

26 Caravaggio's lack of resources is noted by most all of his
biographers. Baglione adds that at one point, ”si ridusse senza danari
e pessimamente vestito, si‘ che alcuni galant’uomini della professione
per carita‘ 1’andavano sollevando.'. Ludovici, Vita, pp. 43-44.

27 Ibid., pp. 29-30.

28 Ludovici adds in a note that Pucci was 'Avvocato della Curie Romana,
membro (1564), poi rettore dell'Accademia Eustachiana, nella quale dove‘
tenere eleganti discorsi in Latino; benefiziato dell’ospedale di S.
Spirito, poi di S. Pietro (1570-1600). Si ritiro‘ nelle Marche, a
Loreto, dove fu nominato arciprete di quel santuario (1605), morendo
probabilmente tra il luglio del 1613 e il gennaio del 1614. ... Fu
maestro di casa di donna Camilla Peretti, sorella d1 Sisto V." Ibid, n.
8.

 

 

12

points out, it's interesting that Caravaggio entered early into a circle
of private patrons 'd’alto livello, ecclesiastici o gravitanti attorno
il clero," and infers that Caravaggio's uncle may have been helpful
initially.29 Mancini says that Caravaggio copied some devotional images
for Pucci and that these made their way to Recanati.3°

Baglione reports Caravaggio's beginnings in Rome differently, that
"is principio si accomodo' con un pittore Siciliano, che di opere
grossolane tenea bottega."31 Somewhere in this very early phase, it
appears that Caravaggio became ill and was taken in by the Ospedale
della Consolazione for whose prior he painted fimolti guadri."32

Bellori, Mancini and Baglione all agree that Caravaggio became
associated, at one point, with Cavaliere d’Arpino. Mancini says that he
was told this occurred after Caravaggio’s hospitalization.33 Baglione
informs us that he stayed for some months with d'Arpino,34 and Bellori
adds that d'Arpino employed Caravaggio "a dipinger fiori, e frutti si
bene contrafatti, che da lui vennero a frequentarsi a' guella maggior
vagezza, che tanto oggi diletta.'35

Just as with Peterzano, one wishes that more could be gleaned from

the sources about Caravaggio’s time with d'Arpino. Friedlaender

 

29 Cinotti, “... novita‘ 1983-1988," p. 80. Pucci may not fall
precisely into the category that Cinotti has defined, yet the general
sense of her observation still seems to apply.

30 In Ludovici, Vita, p. 29.

31 Baglione, Le Vite de’ pittori, scultori e architetti dal pontificato
di Gregorio XIII del 1572 in fino a’ tempi di Papa urbane VIII nel 1642
(1642), in Ludovici, Vita, p. 43. “Bellori wrote in the margin of his
copy of Baglione that the painter's name was Lorenzo." Hibbard,
caravaggio, p. 8.

32 Mancini, in Ludovici, Vita, p. 30. Friedlaender notes that a plaque
and famine swept Rome in 1591, and that the Ospedale took care of “inn
servants in case of illness." (caravaggio Studies, p. 57)

33 Ludovici, Vita, p. 30.

34 Ibid., p. 43.

35 Ibid., p. 56.

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

describes d’Arpino as a "skillful and by no means tasteless artisan,"
who was considered a leader of the "ultima maniera."36 Mancini notes
that he was 'gia' famoso e glorioso a1 mondo da Clemente VIII che
l ’amava molto. "37

The two artists were certainly different in terms of their styles
and station as well as, one supposes, decorum. Almost all of
Caravaggio's biographers portray the relationship between the two as
strained, at best. Joachim von Sandrart goes so far as to render the
1606 death of Ranuccio Tomassoni in Rome at the hands of Caravaggio as
the result of an armed scuffle between Caravaggio and d'Arpino.3° More
telling is the fact that Caravaggio himself included d'Arpino amongst
those whom he considered "valenthuomini': "quella parole ‘velenthuomo’

appresso di me vuol dire che sappi far bene dell’arte sua."39

 

36 Friedlaender, caravaggio Studies, pp. 72-73. Friedlaender, p. 74,
also notes, however, that 'on the whole, the Cavaliere d'Arpino presents
an aspect of efficient mediocrity."

37 Ludovici, Vita, p. 79.

38 Sandrart, Teutsche Academie der Bau-Bild-, und.MahlereyHKUnste,
Nurnberg, 1675, in Friedlaender, Caravaggio Studies, p. 264.
Caravaggio’s killing of Tomassoni over a tennis match bet is well-known
and is well-documented in Friedlaender, Hibbard and elsewhere. Cinotti
has collected some of the important new information discovered by
Calvesi and S. Macioce which reveals that 'Ranuccio apparteneva a una
famiglia influente e anche brigosa". One of Ranuccio's brothers, Gian
Francesco, for example, "nel 1606 .. aver ferito ‘in periculo vitae' un
certo Vincenzo Ardillano di Palermo, ma non 911 e‘ inflitta alcuna
pena.” On the other hand, Caravaggio, as Calvesi has uncovered, seems
to have been condemned to death for Ranuccio’s murder. "Tale ... era
dunque 1a minaccia che lo aveva fatto fuggire senza tregua ... .'
Cinotti, "... novita‘ 1983—1988," pp. 84-85.

39 Friedlaender, caravaggio Studies, p. 276. Caravaggio does admit,
however, that d’Arpino ranks amongst those that "non sono miei amici ...
perche‘ non mi parlano.“ The text is taken from testimony given by
Caravaggio in court in 1603. Baglione had brought a libel suit against
Caravaggio, Orazio Gentileschi, Onorio Longhi and Filippo Trisegni for
distributing some racy poetry which called his painting abilities into
question.

 

14

An evaluation of the professional relationship between the two
artists is difficult because, again, we are dependent upon the opinions
of writers who may have been more intent upon making categorizations.
Friedlaender reasons that "it is not surprising that Caravaggio and
Arpino . . . should have been on bad terms from the beginning . . . .
However, the antagoni- between them was probably exaggerated by the
biographers who were delighted to ornament the real situation with
colorful anecdotes. . . . The only thing we know for certain about the
relationship between the two men is that Caravaggio had worked in
Arpino’s shop when he was young. Arpino is known to have been a shrewd
man in matters of business who, as Bellori says, well knew how to
advertise his merchandise . . . and it is possible that he exploited the
young Caravaggio ’s talent for painting “fruits and flowers'. "40

When Caravaggio later received the commission to paint the St.
Matthew cycle in the Contarelli Chapel at San Luigi, he must have felt
great satisfaction at being handed an opportunity to upstage one of his
masters. It was d'Arpino who had received the original commission for
the paintings, but he only completed the frescoes of the vaulting;
indeed, it is entirely possible that Caravaggio had assisted in the
work. The idea of a kind of competition between the two artists, in
fact, seems to come out in Baglione who notes that Caravaggio's work,
"per essere in compagnia d ’altre fatte dal Cavalier Gioseppe, che con la
sua virtu' si aveva presso i suoi professori qualche invidia acquistata,

fece gioco alla fama del Caravaggio. '41

 

40 Ibid. , p. 73. The relationship seems to bear some resemblance to
that of Bernini and Borromini later on.
41 Ludovici, Vita, p. 44.

 

 

 

15

With reference to the 'fiori e frutti' mentioned above, Bellori
states that Caravaggio had painted "altri guadri eccellentemente . . . di
simile imitazione. Ma esercitandosi egli di mala vogiia in queste case,
e sentendo gran rammarico di vedersi tolto alle figure, incontro‘
l’occasione di Prospero pittore di grottesche, ed usci‘ di casa di
Giuseppe, per contrastargii 1a giaria del pennello.‘2 Mancini relates,
instead, that after he left d'Arpino's shop, Caravaggio stayed with
Monsignor Fantin Petrignani,n while Baglione says that he fiprovo‘ a
stare da se stesso, e fece alcuni quadretti da lui nella specchio
ritratti."4‘ Where he was living is of less importance than what he was
doing, for it was at this point, as Bellori tells us,that Caravaggio
Vbegan to paint "according to his own genius."45 Caravaggio's fortunes

were about to change.

 

42 Ibid., p. 56. 'Prosperino Orsi, a painter of ornament (grottesche)
. later became one of Caravaggio’s greatest advocates, and also an

enemy of Arpino.“ Friedlaender, caravaggio Studies, p. 58.

43 Ludovici, Vita, p. 30. In a note Ludovici adds that Petrignani was

an Umbrian, 'chierico della camera apostolica, vice-legato in Viterbo,

poi governatore delle Marche e prefetto dell’Emilia, fu creato

arcivescovo da Papa Gregorio XIII nel 1577 ed inviato a Cosenza. Mori‘

nel 1600, lasciando alcuni opuscoli sacri ed inediti.‘ Ibid., n. 13.

44 Ludovici, Vita, p. 43.

45 Ibid. "Datosi percio‘ egli a colorire, secondo il suo proprio genio

 

 

 

DEL MONTE I: EXPERIMENTS AID LESSONS RECALLED

Baglione, continuing the account of Caravaggio's state of affairs
just noted, tells us of the fortuitous moment: "infin che maestro
Valentino a S. Luigi de’ Francesi revenditore di guadri glie ne fece dar
via alcuni,- e con guesta occasione fu conosciuto dal cardinal Del Monte,
il quale per dilettarsi assai della pittura se 10 press in casa ed
avendo parte e provisione piglio‘ animo e credito . . . . "1

Suddenly, it appears that Del Monte walks into the shop of the
dealer Valentino and Caravaggio is on his way - - rescued from oblivion.
We have seen how his early situation in Rome was characterized by
changing abodes and arrangements. What happened? What did the Cardinal
see in Caravaggio’s works that moved him to take him in as he did?

Caravaggio's earliest times with Cardinal Del Monte are crucial
in understanding his art as a whole. It’s apparent that the
transformation that takes place in Caravaggio's painting is linked to
his association with Del Monte, and blossoms forth stunningly at San
Luigi dei Francesi. In Gregori’s words, Caravaggio's "intellectual
growth, through a laborious process that has little in cm with the
normal development of contemporary painters, is doubtlessly linked to
his stay with Cardinal Del Monte. "2 This stay seems to have begun about
1594 or 1595, with both Baglione and Bellori reporting that the first
work executed by Caravaggio for Del Monte was the Concert of Youths

(Figure 2), now in New York.3

 

1 Ludovici, Vita del Caravaggio dalle testimonianze del suo tempo.
Milano, 1956, p. 44. Bellori tells us that it was Me Cardsharps (now
lost) that Del Monte bought. Ludovici, p. 58.

2 "Caravaggio Today", The Age of Caravaggio (Gregori, M. , ed. ). New
York, 1985, p. 32.

3 Most scholars agree that this work can be dated 1594-1596.

16

 

 

17

Baglione describes this work as "me musica di alcuni giovani
ritratti dal naturals, '4 while Bellori characterizes it as "una musica
d1 giovini ritratti dal naturale in mezze figure. "5 That both writers
make a point of, and are in agreement in, describing the painting as
"dal naturale" is significant. The problem comes in trying to understand
the precise contemporary implication of that aspect. This problem is
made acute by the fact that "naturalism" or "realism" became academic
pejoratives that we haven’t fully shaken off, and which came to be
exemplified by the art of Caravaggio.6 The artist himself didn't help
to clarify matters at the Baglione hearing, when he testified that "an
pittore valenthuomo .. . sappi depingere bene et imitar bene 1e case
naturali. "7 In the words of Ferdinando Bologna: "Emerge cosi ‘ il
problema centrale dell 'arte caravaggesca: che casa esattamente il
maestro intendesse per 'natura’. "0

Naturalism in Caravaggio’s paintings was first written about by
Karel Van Mander in 1604, who said that Caravaggio “holds . . . that
nothing could be good and nothing done better than to follow Nature.
"hence it is that he will not do a single brushstroke without close

study from life which he copies and paints. This is surely no bad way of

 

4 Ludovici, Vita, p. 44.

5 Ibid. , p. 58.

6 This academic prejudice dates back at least as far as Plato, for
example: "Suppose, then, that an individual clever enough to assume any
character and give imitations of anything and everything should visit
our country and offer to perform his compositions, we shall bow down
before a being with such miraculous powers of giving pleasure; but we
shall tell him that we are not allowed to have any such person in our
co-onwealth; we shall crown him with fillets of wool, anoint his head
with myrrh, and conduct him to the borders of some other country.“
Republic, III, 397 (Cornford, trans., p. 85).

7 Friedlaender, W. , Caravaggio Studies. Princeton, 1974, p. 276.

8 Bologna, F. , 'Il Caravaggio nella cultura e nella societa del suo
tempo“, Colloquio sul tema Caravaggio e i Caravaggeschi, Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei. Roma, 1974, p. 170.

 

 

 

 

18

achieVJIDg a good end: for to paint after drawing, however close it may
be to life, is not as good as following Nature with all her various
colors. "9

It was Baglione who made the implication that Caravaggio imitated
nature to the exclusion of art’s fundamentals and traditions, and that
he had 'rovinata la pittura, poiche molti giovani ad esempio di lui si
danno ad imitare una testa del naturale, e non studiando ne’ fondamenti
del disegno e della profundita ' dell ’arte, solamente del colorito
appagansi, onde non sanno mettere due figure insieme, ne' tessere
istoria veruna, per non comprendere la bonta‘ di si nobil ’arte. '19
This appraisal was picked up by Bellori and expanded upon, even by
twentieth centuries scholars, until quite recently. As Roberto Longhi
wrote in 1951, 'di riprendere pari pari il vocabolo di 'naturalista’,
gia' usato dal Baglione e dal Bellori, e soltanto privandolo della sua
inclinazione spregiativa, non veniva in mente a nessuno. "11

From Baglione and Bellori it seems fair to conclude that the
Concert was the first work comissioned from Caravaggio by Del Monte.
Furthermore, Del Monte appears to have been satisfied with the work, as
he continued to comission paintings from the artist. Caravaggio’s
"naturalism" seems to have been a feature noted early in his Roman
career, and is clearly documented with regard to the Concert. With a
great leap of faith, one might infer that it was precisely this aspect
of Caravaggio's painting that caught Del Monte's eye, and accorded with

his sensibilities.

 

9 Van Mander, R., Het Schilderboeck. Haarlem, 1604. In Hibbard,
Caravaggio. New York, 1983, p. 344.

10 Ludovici, Vita, p. 46.

11 Longhi, R., Mostra del Caravaggio e dei caravaggeschi, catalogo,
Milano. Firenze, 1951, XXII.

 

 

 

19

38 already noted, Caravaggio's art developed substantially during
the Del Monte period, becoming more assured, more plastic and more
technically proficient.12 Spezzaferro made the following astute
observations regarding the importance of three early Del Monte
commissions to this development:

'Tra 1e opere eseguite per il Cardinal Del Monte tre, in
particolare, vengono ricordate dalle fonti: 11 may, . . . il
Mater: dell ’Emitage [Figure 3] e la W Thyssen-

Il Baglione ci dice che i giovani sono ‘ritratti dal naturale,
assai bene' mentre il suonatore di liuto pareva 'vivo e vero’
aggiungendo infine che il Caravaggio pensava che questo fosse ‘il
piu’ bel pezzo che facesse mai'. E." da notare infatti che per il
Baglione 1e opere del Merisi ricordate prima sono ‘quadretti da
lui nella specchio ritratti’ mentre e‘ solo con quests dipinte per
11 Del Monte, che il Caravaggio ritrarrebbe ‘dal naturale’ si’ da
far sembrare il risultato ‘vivo e vezo’. l’l Bellori ci
dice che il imam e law 'riescono
d’un colorito piu’ tinto, cominciando gia‘ Michele ad
ingagliardire gli oscuri ’. Facendosi cosi ’ piu' esplicamente
capire quanta gia‘ c1 aveva suggerito il Baglione: che cioe‘ il
mutamento stilistico di Caravaggio va collegato con la opere a lui
commissionate dal Del Monte e che tale mutamento consiste in un
nuovo uso della luce nella costruzione della figure e della
spazialita‘ del guadro. "13

Caravaggio's signature lighting effect, and its possible meaning,

has received much attention over the years. What has been overlooked is

 

12 The Del Monte period dates from about 1594/95 to 1600/01. Caravaggio
was still living in the Del Monte household in November of 1600
(Gregori, Age of Caravaggio, p. 198).

13 Spezzaferro, L., "La cultura del cardinal Del Monte e il primo tempo
del Caravaggio," Storia dell ’arte, 9-10 ( 1974), 57. These, of course,
are not the only works executed by Caravaggio for Del Monte. They do,
however, illustrate well the “mutamento" taking place. "Le opere del
Merisi presenti nella collezione Del Monte si possono, a mio awiso,
identificare, anche in base alle misure, con i Bari ex Sciarra, la
Zingara Louvre, 11 5. Giovanni Battista capitolino, la Santa Caterina
Thyssen, 11 S. Francesco in estasi di Hartford, il Concerto di New York,
11 Suonatore dell'Brmitage. ‘Un quadretto nel quale vi e‘ una
caraffa di mano del Caravaggio . . . ', per il momenta inidentificabile,
nonche‘ due copie di originali caravaggeschi, e cioe‘x un S. Matteo e
un’Incredulita‘ di 5. Tomaso. Sappiamo infine dalle fonti che il
Caravaggio fece per 11 Del Monte 1a Medusa degli Uffizi . .. e forse il
soffito del casino Ludovisi gia‘ Del Monte." Ibid. , 84. The assessment
is based upon an inventory of 1627.

 

 

 

precisely what Spezzaferro noted above. In the early Del Monte works

Caravaggio seems to be experimenting with light, not so much in the
traditional way of modelling figures, but also as a way of defining
space. Light becomes more than illumination, it becomes a necessity: it
is through light that one is able to perceive space (a mentally-defined
construct) and the objects within it. In a sense space exists because
of light as do the objects within it.

As was noted earlier, much of Caravaggio’s elusive realism is
derived from Lombard sources. Moshe Barasch writes that "apart from the
general heritage of art and art theory . . . two particular source - -
the northern and north Italian tradition of symbolism , and the
significance given to expression in the Counter-Reformation - - were
probably the most important factors in shaping the Lombard concepts of
art. ney were also important in the emergence of new concepts of color
and light. " 14 Moreover, Barasch notes that "Lombard theory of art,
especially of painting, is to a large extent dominated by a single
figure, Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo", Peterzano's friend.15 Lomazzo's
Trattato dell ’arte della pittura, scultura ed architettura was published
in Milan in 1584, the same year that Caravaggio was apprenticed to
Peterzano.

Lomazzo presents an interesting case in that, unlike most other
theoreticians (particularly in Milan), he was a trained painter and
worked as one before he went blind at the age of thirty-three. "He not
only had an intimate knowledge of many works of art and of the artistic

traditions of both Italy and northern Europe, but he also knew the

 

14 Barasch, M. , Light and Color in the Italian Renaissance Theory of
Light. New York, 1978, p. 138.
15 Ibid.

 

 

 

21

different aspects, technical as well as psychological, of the painter ’5
work. It is, of course, true that he was deeply influenced by the broad
philosophical trends of the period, but he was never completely detached
from the artistic work. . . . Lomazzo’s work constitutes the single
extensive attempt to be undertaken in late sixteenth century Milan to
assimilate new cultural forces and trends for incorporation in his
theory of art. '16

Barasch notes that although only two of the seven aspects of
Lomazzo's theory of painting deal specifically with color and light, it
is apparent that he held these two in the greatest regard. Moreover, as
opposed to Venetian theorists, he considered them to be exclusive of
each other: "In a polemical remark directed against the 'filosofi
peripatetici ' who believe in the unity of light and color, [Lomazzo]
says that the rays of the sun or of any other light ‘do not produce or
generate the colors’ but merely illumine, and thereby reveal, the colors
already existent in the bodies. . . . In describing the stages of the
production of a painting he says that 'the picture is already
proportioned, it has movement, it has color, ’ and now it only has to be
illumined. '17

Book four of the Trattato, the "Book of Lights" is given over
almost exclusively to the matter of light. Much of it is not entirely
original and, as the anti-Aristotelian remark above would indicate, it
owes much to Neo-Platonism, particularly that of Marsilio ricino. The
initial portions of the "Book of Lights" discuss what Barasch calls the
traditional ”functional" aspects of light for a painter. Along the way,

 

16 Ibid., pm 139'
17 Ibid., p. 140.

 

 

22

W20 cites a number of painters adept at utilizing light: Leonardo,
Titian, Tintoretto, Barocci, Veronese and the Bassani. Barasch notes
that the "highest praise of all is bestowed upon Correggio, described as
a painter whom nobody equals in the representation of light and in the
use of color. Lomazzo refers to two paintings by Correggio which he saw
in the house of Leone Aretino, a WM. and a
W. "1" More interesting is the fact that
Lomazzo describes Correggio’s Nativity - - a work that might be
described as Proto-Caravaggesque - - as "tra 1e opere d1 pittura una
delle singolari che siano a1 mondo. '19

It is apparent that the way these painters discussed by Lomazzo
employ light, and most particularly Correggio, goes beyond that of a
mere means of production. In these works, light is used expressively
and often symbolically. Lomazzo, indeed, gives confirmation of his
belief that light can have a second quality to it. His definition of
light from the Trattato as translated by Barasch is worth quoting at
length: ‘

“This word ‘light’ has different modes and meanings. First, and

foremost, it signifies the image of the divine mind, which is the

Son of God, and his unique splendor whom the ancients called the

image of the divine mind. It signifies, further, the ardour of
~the Holy Spirit. It is perceived by means of a divine virtue,
diffused among creatures, which in the rational [here Barasch
inserts ‘creature'] is his divine grace, and among all the
creatures together it is the preserving and defending virtue, as,
according to Dionysius, is that of the Seraphims. With the angels
it becomes then specifically intelligence and a pleasure exceeding
all our thoughts, but it is differently perceived according to the
nature of the intelligence which perceives it and in which, as

Ficino says of Plato, it is reflected. Descending afterwards from
the celestial bodies, where it becomes a copy of life, it is an

 

18 Ibid., p. 142. In a note (24), Barasch points out that Correggio is
not mentioned in other Lombard treatises, and that Vasari did not
address these particular works.

19 Trattato, I, in Barasch, ibid.

 

 

23

efficient propagation and a visible splendor in the fire and a
Certain vigour and accidence proceeding from its nature. Men,
finally, perceive it by the active intelligence which illumines
the existing or the possible; and in sum [Barasch adds, ‘it is
perceived'] by a lucid discourse of reason, and a cognition of
divine things. It is perceived ultimately by a quality proceeding

from the sun or from fire which reveals color. "20

Although Lomazzo’s definition itself may not be a "lucid
discourse," the Neo-Platonic tenor of the work (through Ficino but
ultimately derived from Plato's "Allegory of the Cave“ in Republic XXV
and other works such as the Symposium), is explicit. Moreover, although
such Neo-Platonic elements had been a mainstay of medieval and
Renaissance thought, Lomazzo is the first to introduce the symbolic
significance of the properties of light into a treatise dealing
specifically with art. “He thereby not only articulated a revolutionary
turn in the development of the theory of art but also, more
specifically, showed that light had lost its clearly limited and precise
meaning in art. "21 Lomazzo, like Correggio, was opening a door for
Baroque painting.

A close reading of Lomzo's theory of light as sketched out above
reveals that he is working outside (and beyond) the structure of light
that was employed during the Renaissance.22 He developed two systems
which, curiously, overlap:

1) Primary and Secondary Light
2) Direct, Reflected and Refracted Light.

In the first system, primary light is defined by Lomazzo as "the

light that touches these parts of the illumined body which are directly

 

20 Trattato, I, in Barasch, ibid., p. 143.

21 Barasch, Light and Color, p. 144.

22 Lomazzo, it should be noted, quotes from Alberti at times and seems
to have been familiar with Leonardo’s treatises on light which were
available in manuscript form in Milan. Ibid., p. 145.

 

 

24

opposed to the illuminating body and which are reached by straight
lines.'23 Primary light, furthermore, has three subdivisions:

a) Full sunlightz‘

b) The light of a clouded day, also divine light

c) Artificial light.
Secondary light is simply reflected light.

In the second system, direct light is equivalent to primary light,
while reflected and refracted light is equivalent to secondary light in
the first system. The question is why would one want to create two such
seemingly similar systems?

Barasch posits that while the differences between the two systems
are of little consequence optically, they are of considerable importance
to the painter. "Tb optical science it does not matter whether the rays
emerge from the sun, from a divine appearance, or from a burning torch,
so long as they reach the illumined objects directly and in a straight
line. For the painter; however; the iconographic meaning of the light
and the specific mood it conveys becomes of decisive importance.'25
Lomazzo is fully cognizant of the subtle fact that a painter doesn't
illuminate his paintings with actual light but with a painted
representation of light which has properties and values different from
the real thing.

Much of Lomazzo’s discussion regarding painted illumination
centers around practical workshop advice. His "first primary light,“

lume naturale, is comprehensible enough and Lomazzo recommends that the

 

23 Ibid., p. 148.

24 As Barasch notes (Ibid., n. 48), this is equivalent to Leonardo's
specific light.

25 Ibid., p. 152.

 

25

painter should have the light come from above, so that "in this way the
figures are of a perfect relief and appear round," but warns not to
place it perpendicularly, thus avoiding confusing, possibly grotesque,
shadow effects.26 The first primary light’s specific function then,
according to Barasch, is ”to reveal the figures clearly and distinctly;
without itself appearing as a factor in the painting.'27 The first
primary light is to act just as natural lighting does and be perceived
as being unobtrusive, even though it must be deliberately added by the
artist.

The second primary light ("b", above) is a bit more puzzling being
both the natural light one perceives on a cloudy day, and June divino -
- "the splendor surrounding angels and holy figures."2a What's
interesting here is that Lomazzo gives no fixed definition; instead he
lists religious themes requiring the use of the second primary light29
and refers to specific paintings including Titian's Divinita‘,
Correggio’s Nativity, and Raphael's liansiiguration.3° Barasch’s
explanation of how ”lune divino" can be equated with the light of a
cloudy day is not entirely satisfying. "The light of religious

visions,” he writes, "being nonrational, cannot be measured. In

 

26 iiattato, I, ibid., p. 149. Lomazzo notes that ancient temple
lighting came from above (as at the Pantheon, perhaps) so as to render
the gods more beautiful, and that "good moderns' follow that example.

He also chides the mannerist trend of 'di sotto in su‘" lighting.
Bellori reported that Caravaggio used 'un lune alto che scendeva a
piombo sopra 1a parte principale del corpo e lasciando il rimanente in
ombra a fine d1 recar forza con veemenza di chiaro e di scuro."
Ludovici, Vita, p. 58. "A piombo" must surely be an exaggeration as the
evidence is otherwise.

27 Barasch, Light and Cblor, p. 149.

28 Ibid.

29 Old and New Testament.

30 Barasch notes (Ibid, n. 56) that in the late sixteenth century these
paintings were regarded as "a climax in the representation of mysterious
light symbolizing divine radiance.“

 

 

 

 

26

medieval and Renaissance metaphysics, ‘lume divino’ would not be
compared with the light of an ordinary cloudy day, nor would its
brilliance be measured; it would certainly not be found inferior to
regular sunlight; thus religious and symbolic literature could not have
provided.Lomazzo’s sources. Only in actual paintings could he have
observed the particular degree of brightness of 'divine light’ and
compared it with the intensity of other types; hence it seems probable
that he adduced this specific category'from looking at paintings":u
While Barasch is essentially correct, he seems to have forgotten
his own point that one has to constantly keep in mind that Lomazzo,
especially with regard to his first system, is primarily concerned with
the lighting effects of paint. Lomazzo, as Barasch rightly points out,
has defined this second primary light in terns of paint since it is only
in paintings that divine light is likely to appear. Lomazzo’s first
concern, however, was that the forms within a painting should be
revealed clearly. If one were to give divine light its proper du - -
and one need only refer to the experiences of St. Ignatius or the story
of the conversion of St. Paul - - it would so overwhelm form as to
render it in the painted medium invisible or nearly so. Therefore,
simply for comprehensibility in the painted fora, divine light must be
something less than the natural light. Lomazzo’s equating of divine
light with that of a cloudy day is interesting in one respect; namely
that on cloudy, sunlit days, breaks in the cloud cover 19 produce those

spectacular shafts of light, which then connect our world with the

 

31 Ibid., pp. 150-151.

27

heavens above.32 Even if one concedes all this to Lomazzo, this part of
his system doesn’t work very neatly and is a minor defect in his
otherwise cogent system.

It is inconceivable that Caravaggio did not lmow of Lomazzo’s
theories; indeed one might imagine Peterzano and Lomazzo discussing
various aspects in Caravaggio’s presence in Peterzano’s workshop. All
the aspects that would appeal to Caravaggio and show up in his work
appear to be present: discussions of color and light, references to
Venetian artists, to Correggio, Raphael and Leonardo, and to "good
modems" who avoid the mistakes of the Mannerists. Other aspects come
to our attention as well.

Carlo Bertelli relates how Lomazzo proposed that "following
perspective illumination, painting imitates the nature of bodies to the
point that it represents not only their magnitude and relief, but also
their ‘moti’ and so makes clearly visible the affections and passions of
the spirit."33

Bertelli also wrote that Lomazzo’s attention to natural light
effects and to psychology "may have influenced Caravaggio, and it is
fascinating to read in M a dialogue between Leonardo and Phidias
in which Leonardo, having confessed that in painting the W he
was subjected to the wishes of the patron, declares that in more
favorable conditions he would have painted the apostles as fierce men

with suntanned faces and dusty feet. '34 It’s clear that the ideas of

 

32 It’s worth recalling, too, Leonardo's fascinating sketches of clouded
valleys and the effects of light and storm. Lomazzo's second primary
light also seems to correspond to Leonardo’s "diffuse light."

33 Bertelli, C. , "Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo", Age of Caravaggio (Gregori,
M., ed.), p. 60.

34 Ibid. The manuscript of Lomazzo’s Gli sogni e raggionamente .. . con
1e figure .. . da egli dessignate is now in the British Museum. Bertelli

I
s W
1 q

--I 3.0

28

 

Lomazzo, however they may have been presented, may have contributed much
to the formation of Caravaggio's unique style. They also allow us to
return to the central problem of his use of light and his intentions
regarding nature.

Earlier, it was stated that Caravaggio's painting changes under

his patronage by Del Monte. These changes, typified in the concert, the

 

Lutepdayer and the Thyssen St. catherine, were noted by both Baglione
and Bellori in contemporary sources and characterized by Spezzaferro as
'un nuovo uso della luce nella construzione della figura e della
spazialita‘ del quadro."

Looking at the concert, one can't help but be struck by its
crowded, claustrophobic composition (Figure 2). Friedlaender commented
that there had been speculation that the concert was "a kind of
pasticcio or collaborative work."35 Spezzaferro remarked that
Caravaggio 'sembra tenders qui ad organizzare in un discorso unitario lo
spazio individuato dalle singole figure.”3‘ Indeed, if one considers a
combination of the two positions just stated, the work does become a

kind of pastische with each figure tied to and composed within its own

 

also relates how a medal of Lomazzo cast in Milan shows him “dressed in
a tunic that leaves his right shoulder bare while on the right is a very
conspicuous knot. In Classical archaeology, the dress would be described
as typical of the Cynic philosopher. ...The same dress appears in the
Bacchino Malato and the Boy'Bitten by a Lizard." Ibid., p. 62. A
similar garment appears in the Uffizi Bacchus, of which Hibbard
(caravaggio, p. 42) notes that "Lomazzo ... states that the ancients
showed Bacchus as bisexual, with a garland on his head, and that he
should be a beautiful youth but empty—headed.'.

35 Friedlaender, caravaggio Studies, p. 148.

36 Spezzaferro, 'La cultura del Cardinal Del Monte ...," 85.

Spezzaferro also connects this with earlier half-figure works in which
Caravaggio investigates “come una figura posse costruire uno spazio
attorno a se'." Gregori has observed that "the compositions of half-
length figures and their related themes were a novelty in Rome."
"Caravaggio Today," Age of Caravaggio, p. 32.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29

space but only tenuously related to the others. It's almost as if
Caravaggio painted only a single figure at a time, lavishing his entire
attention upon it as one would an isolated portrait. In addition, the
perspective of the lute is disturbing and one wonders how the youth is
managing to tune it.

Clearly, Caravaggio is uncomfortable with this composition which,
as opposed to the earlier half-figure compositions, is crowded and
complicated.37 Given the complexity and the problems evidenced in
Caravaggio’s execution, one might assume that this was a work defined
more by Del Monte than by Caravaggio. In trying to find his way in
unfamiliar territory, Caravaggio seems to react as any student would and
refers back to his old workshop text and practices.39

In contemporary sources, much is made of the fact that Caravaggio
seemed to have relied upon models, especially early in his Roman period.
In an unfamiliar endeavor such as the concert seems to have been, it
shouldn’t surprise one to find Caravaggio resorting to live models,
perhaps painting them one at a time in order to compose a group “on the
cheap.'39 This would explain the curious pastische quality, but not
the lighting which is rather harsh in comparison to other early works.‘.

In fact, the lighting recalls much of Lomazzo’s "first primary light"

 

37 Gregori, Age of caravagyio, p. 233, has written that "in the
Musicians we find ... an evident difficulty in composing the group of
figures, as well as a relationship to the early half-length
compositions.'.

38 An analagous situation holds in the San Luigi Martyrdom where x-rays
reveal that Caravaggio first had recourse to quotations from Raphael and
others in dealing with a complicated iscoria for the first time.

39 It may even be possible that only two models were actually used here.
40 Earlier half-figures such as the Bacchino Melato, and the Fruttaiuolo
are far darker and muted. Muted also is the Buona venture and even the
Uffizi Bacchus, which is often characterized as being very starkly
illuminated.

 

 

 

and his practical advice to reveal the figures clearly utilizing light,

yet keeping the light itself unobtrusive. It's interesting also that
1Lomazzo revived an old and rather artificial workshop precept by
advising painters to illuminate their figures in the middle," a tendency
which appears here and which may contribute further to the artificial
quality of the piece.‘1 Caravaggio’s concert, therefore, might be
characterized as one in which Caravaggio wanted to do new things but,
not knowing how to accomplish them (or perhaps thinking that he did),
turned towards old conventions or recalled an apprentice's way of
solving problems.

As we have seen, the composition as a whole is rather stilted,
unsatisfying, and not at all "dal naturale." However, both Baglione and
Bellori referred to the concert as having "xitratti dal naturale,"!2 an
assessment one cannot argue against. Moreover, the comment by Baglione
that Caravaggio had ruined painting and that his followers couldn't put
two figures together becomes understandable in light of the concert,
which despite the insistence upon working from nature, lacks the
conviction of more academic pieces. One wonders, therefore, if Baglione
specifically had this painting in mind since the accuracy of the remark
certainly does not hold up for Caravaggio’s work as a whole.

With the Lute-Player-another change takes place, which Baglione
seems to notice as well. The player of the lute is not seen as “dal
naturale” but 'vivo e vero."3 It is to a discussion of this change

that we must next turn.

 

41 Barasch, Light and color; p. 149.
42 See p. 17 and notes 4 and 5 above.
43 Page 19 and n. 13 above.

 

DEL MONTE II: TOIBRDS A HIEURE STYIE

The shift in meaning from "dal naturale“ to 'vivo e vero' is
subtle. Baglione seems to be leaving behind naturalism - — the way
things look or appear - - and approaching a description of something
more like realism - - the way things are.1 The shift is one from the
qualitative to the quantitative, and has a parallel in the philosophical
and scientific thought of the time. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642),
writing slightly later, eloquently stated the new direction of
philosophical inquiry: TRhilosophy is written in that great book which
ever lies before our eyes - - I mean the universe - — but we cannot
grasp it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols in
which it is written. This book is written in the mathematical language,
and the symbols are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures,
without whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word of it;
without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.“2 Although
this fragment from Galileo might lead one to believe that Galileo was a

Neo-Pythagorean, the thrust of the message is that nature, and to some

 

extent experience, can be measured quantitatively and, therefore,

reproduced secondarily.3

 

1 Things become problematic when dealing with images because, no matter
what, we are dealing not with reality but with a representation of
reality. The difficulty one has in defining, in artistic terms, the
difference between naturalism and realism may be rooted in this
distinction.

2 Opere Complete di Galileo Galilei, Pirenze, 1842, IV, 171, in Burtt,
E.A., The Metaphysical Foundations of’Mbdern Science, London, 1949, p.
64. Galileo’s under-acknowledged greatness as a writer is one of the
supreme oversights in the history of literature.

3 "... in Galileo la passione per la matematica non andra‘ mai disgiunta
dall'interesse per l'osservazione, la misura e il disegno: la matematica
gli apparira‘ cioe‘, fin dall'inizio, come un potentissimo strumento per
conoscere la natura, per coglierne i segreti piu‘ intimi, per tradurre i
processi naturali in discorsi precisi, coerenti, rigorosamente
verificabili." Geymonat, L., Galileo Galilei. Torino, 1957, p. 16.

31

 

 

 

 

32

Caravaggio stated that 'un pittore valenthuomo ... sappi depingere
bene et imitar bene 1e cose naturali.“4 Caravaggio’s use of the
conjunction is revealing. Caravaggio seems to say that being able to
imitate things, despite what his contemporary critics would lead one to
believe, is not enough. One must also know how to paint - - there is an
element of art involved in imitating things.5 But where does one
element stop and the other begin?

The very same problem may well have posed itself to Caravaggio as
he worked through the concert (Figure 2). He too must have been puzzled
by the result which, although apparently taken directly from life, came
out flat and artificial. Something was missing, something that when
added would produce an image 'vivo e vero."

Hibbard noted that

"the form and to some extent the content of the Concert are

matured and concentrated in a masterpiece of caravaggio’s early

period, the Lutgplaygr; which was probably'painted about 1596. It
is a fUlly’realized Del Mbntean production. The lutenist sits
behind a table, which affords a realistic space that caraveggio
had not achieved in the gangert. Moreover; we seem to see the
corner of a room, perhaps for the first time in his paintings.

The lutenist represents a considerable technical advance in figure

painting over the earliest works. The light from above, visible

on the wall at the upper right, strikes both the figure and the

flowers, which are thus set in believeable relief against the dark
background.“‘

 

4 See page 17 and n. 7 above.

5 Vincenzo Giustiniani, a well—known collector and an early patron of
Caravaggio, placed Caravaggio, Guido Reni and hnnibale Carracci in the
category of those practising 'il piu‘ perfetto [modo] di tutti ... cioe‘
dipingere di maniera, e con l'esempio avanti del naturale ... .'
Giustiniani, V., (Banti, A., ed.) Discorsi sulle arti e sui mestieri.
Pirenze, 1981 (Reprint), p. 44.

6 Hibbard, H., caravaggio. New York, 1983, p. 35.

 

33

Bellori, it should be noted, reported that the Luteplayer was one of two
works executed by Caravaggio when he was beginning "ad ingagliardire gli
oscuri. '7
Spezzaferro notes that the 'punto d’arrivo" presented by the
Luteplayer consists 'proprio nella raggiunta capacita ', da parte del
Caravaggio, di dare una propria realta' spaziale all ’imagine: realta‘
che sempre piu‘ esiste perche‘, sempre piu‘, e [e‘?] rilevata dalla
luce. "fl Spezzaferro also wrote that "... l’ar'ticolazione della
composizione . . . viene individuata proprio dal fattore luce che da'
realta' spaziale al vuoto . . . . '9 ' It would appear, therefore, that what
advances the Luteplayer to "vivo e vero" is "space“, or more precisely
the giving of 'realta‘ spaziale a1 vuoto," as defined by a new use of
light." The problem of "space“ and of "void“ was taken quite seriously
by philosophers of the time, particularly the “philosophers of nature.“
Paul Oscar Kristeller wrote that the
“Renaissance philosophers of nature . . . are considered a group by
themselves, different from the humanists, Platonists, and
Aristotelians . The label suggests that the central interest
of these men was in natural philosophy and cosmology, as that of
the early humanist thinkers had been in ethics. Yet what

distinguished the philosophers of nature from the Platonists and
Aristotelians of their time, or of preceeding generations, was not

 

7 Ludovici, S.S. Vita del Caravaggio dalle testimonianze del suo tempo.
Milano, 1956, p. 58. The other work was the Thyssen Saint Catherine.
See p. 19 above.

8 Spezzaferro, L. , "La cultura del cardinal Del Monte e il primo tempo
del Caravaggio,“ Storia dell ’arte, 9-18 (1974), 86. Spezzaferro
attempts also to attach this greater spatial reality to the Fortune
Teller and the lost Cardsharps, which is known only through a copy. The
visual evidence does not seem to support this view, nor does the
reporting of Baglione who clearly sees something new in the Luteplayer,
as does Bellori.

9 Ibid. Spezzaferro was referring to the Cardsharps but, as noted
above, the observation also applies to the Luteplayer, which is a
subject of his discussion.

10 In the quotation presented above, Hibbard seems to have come to the
same conclusion.

 

so much the broad subject matter of their thought as their
endeavor and claim to explore the principles of nature in an
original and independent way; rather than within the framework of
an established tradition and authority. They tried to free
themselves from the ancient philosophical authorities, especially
from Aristotle, who had dominated philosophical speculation, and
in particular natural philosophy, for the past several
centuries."1
Kristeller also noted that these Tnew philosophers of nature were
not so original or so independent of ancient authorities as they claimed
to be, just as the professed Platonists or'Aristotelians, for that
matter; were not such faithfu1 followers of their ancient authorities as
they believed themselves to be."u More important was their attitude --
an asserted independence -- which, combined with their own particular
theories, has led the philosophers of nature to be hailed as the
"forerunners of modern philosophy and science. "13
The attitude of these philosophers has a Caravaggesque ring
reminiscent of Bellori's report:
finatosi percio' egli [Caravaggio] a colorire secondo il suo
proprio genio, non riguardendb punto anzi spregiande gli
ecoellentissimi marmi de gli antichi e le pitture tanto celebri di
Raffaelle, si propose la sola nature per oggetto del suo pennello.
Laonde essendbgli mostrate le statue piu' femose di Fidia e
Glicone accioche’ vi accommodasse lo studio, non diede altra
risposta se non che distese la mano verso una moltitudine di
uomini, accennandb che la nature l’aveva a sufiicienza proveduto
di maestri."u
Bernardino Telesio (1509-1588) is considered to be the earliest of
the philosophers of nature who had an impact upon later thought. He was
born in Cosenza, educated in Milan and Rome and studied philosophy and

mathematics at the University of Padua, obtaining a doctorate in 1535.

 

11 Kristeller, P.O., Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance.
Stanford, 1964, p. 95. Kristeller's insightful works are indispensible
in dealing with the neglected subject of Italian Renaissance philosophy.
12 Kristeller, 1964, pp. 95-96. A similar relationship again holds with
Caravaggio and art.

13 Ibid.

14 Ludovici, Vita, p. 56.

 

35

In 1565 he published in Naples the first edition of his best known work,
De rerum nature iuxta propria natura.15 He spent the later years of his
life back in Cosenza where he founded the Accademia Cosentina, which was
given to the study of natural philosophy. Telesio’s writings and the
work of his Academy earned the attention and respect of many of his
contemporaries. Francesco Patrizi and Francis Bacon were among those
who were drawn towards his work,16 as was Tommaso Campanella who sought
out Telesio himself.17

In the preface of De rerum natura, Telesio leaves no doubt of his
intent by immediately rejecting accepted aspects of Aristotle's
Physics,1° which he claims are "in conflict with the senses, with
itself; and with Scripture.'19 He asserts that his theories, by
contrast, are free of such errors, and have been developed entirely

through sensory perception and the observation of nature, an attitude

 

15 A much-enlarged third and final edition was published in 1586, which
is the standard text.

16 Bacon called him the “first of the moderns.‘ Kristeller, 1964, p.
105.

17 Ibid., pp. 106-107. 'Nel 1588 trovandosi [Campanella] a Cosenza per
seguire il corso di teologia presso 10 Studio generale della Provincia
domenicana della Calabria, proprio nei giorni in cui si spegnava
Telesio, egli, che sperava di poter incontrare il filosofo, aveva potuto
solo fermarsi in raccoglimento davanti alla sua salma, deponendovi
accanto un’accorata elegia. Forse proprio un acceso entusiasmo per la
filosofia telesiana gli procuro‘ la deplorazione dei superiori e forse
per questa stessa ragione fu confinato nel piccolo convento di
Altomonte.‘ Rossi, R., "La diffusione delle dottrine telesiane
nell'Italia meridionale far concensi e polemiche', Bernardino Telesio e
l’idea di nature ‘iuxta propria principia’ (Romano, R., ed. ). Roma,
1989, p. 91.

18 Specifically, Book II. Aristotle “habitually identifies nature as
power of movement with nature as form. The form or mode of structure of
a thing — e.g. of an animal — is just that by virtue of which it moves,
grows, and alters, and comes to rest when it has reached the terminus of
its movement. And conversely the power to move, grow and alter in a
certain definite way is just the form or character of each thing."

Ross, W.D., Aristotle. London, 1953, p. 68. Aristotle’s nature,
therefore, is dynamic and teleological.

19 Kristeller, 1964, p. 98.

 

ESQ-=<_._ ___A

 

36

similar to that attributed to Caravaggio by his biographers.2°
Kristeller notes, however, that Telesio "is willing to subordinate even
the testimony of the senses to the authority of Scripture and the
Catholic Church."21

The end of De rerum’s Book One is given to a discussion of space
and time. Aristotle's then—accepted definition of space had come from
Physics IV, 4, where he states that 'topos ... is the boundary of the
containing body at which it is in contact with the contained body. '21
An empty space, therefore, is impossible. Telesio posits, instead, that
an empty space gen exist and he defines space, in Kristeller's words,
as "something that is capable of containing bodies, and distinct from

the bodies which it contains (I, 25). This space is without motion,

 

20 One part of Telesio's interesting theory of knowledge, which is
beyond the scope of this work, states that human knowledge is based on
perception and the similarity or differences seen in those objects of
perception. Kristeller, 1964, p. 80.

21 Ibid. , p.98. Telesio’s De rerum’was placed on the Index librorum
prohibitorum in 1596. To modern eyes Telesio’s intent may look like a
failed ploy to avert trouble. In fact, at the time it may have been
viewed entirely differently. St. Augustine, for example, is "willing to
use scientific discoveries and speculations when they contribute to his
main ... purpose. He believes it a mistake to adhere to any physical
theory tenaciously (so that, if it turns out to be a mistake, the faith
will not be held up to derision by its opponents).' Weinberg, J., A
Short History of Medieval Philosoriun Princeton, 1974, p. 32. Galileo,
similarly, in his 1615 Letter to the Grand Duke Christina, regarding a
proposed Copernican interpretation of the miracle of Joshua, sought to
protect the Church from committing what he felt was a fatal error.

22 Aristotle, Physics» 212a, 5 (McKeon, R., ed., The Basic Nbrks of
Aristotle. New York, 1966). Kristeller (1964, p. 103ff) notes that the
Greek term "topos" is usually translated as "space", but has the primary
meaning of "place", which renders Aristotle’s position more tenable.
Yet, "Telesio seems to be aware of this ambiguity for he uses not only
the term ‘locus’, which had been the standard Latin translation of
Aristotle’s ‘topos’, but also ‘spatium', which is much more appropriate
for his own notion of an empty space in which all bodies are contained.
Thus he moves away from Aristotle in the direction of Newton's absolute
space ... I am tempted to believe that it was Telesio himself who gave
terminological precision to the word ‘spatium’ (space) and substituted
it for ‘locus' ... .

 

 

 

37

identical throughout, can exist without bodies, and is that in which all
beings are located. In defending this view» Telesio appeals to the
testimony of the senses against the reasons of Aristotle. "23

The Luteplayer is, in one sense, a return to the familiar for
Caravaggio. While its isolated half-figure recalls earlier works such
as the Bacchino Malato (Figure 4), the composition is much more open.
The figure doesn't crowd the picture plane as in the Bacchino, and the
use of foreground objects upon the broader table-top leads the viewer in
to the picture a bit more gently and effectively. Most impressive is
the Luteplayer’s sense of space, of dark atmospheric air which envelopes
the figure. One gets the impression that this is a figure situated
within a space which, while ill-defined, is a space and not simply a
dark backdrop as in the Bacchino.

There seems to be more to the Luteplayer; therefore, than just
Bellori's strengthened shadows, since earlier works like the Bacchino
are just as dark, if not darker. It would appear that Caravaggio is
giving some thought as to what it means to place a body in space. What
is required of that action a priori is something that, like Telesio's
space, is capable of containing bodies, is distinct from the bodies
contained within, and that remains even when no bodies are being
contained. This consideration is something entirely new which, perhaps,

had not needed enunciation before.14 Lomazzo, for instance, seems not

 

23 Kristeller, 1964, p. 98.

24 The "Age of Exploration" was radically changing mankind’s notions
regarding limits. The related growing interest on the part of the
Church to spread to the farthest corners of the earth was a theme taken
up by later artists like Bernini and Pozzo.

 

 

to have discussed the matter of space and others, like Leonardo, seem to

have taken (perhaps unknowingly) an Aristotelian stance on the matter.25

Taken to an extreme, the concert is a painting composed utilizing
Aristotelian space. There are boundaries making contact throughout,
whether they are bodies making contact with one another or the bodies
making contact with the light colored background.16 Furthermore, there
is a distinct sense that if one were to remove all the figures from the
picture, an empty spas; would not be left behind, only an empty ggnyas -
- this is hardly the effect one striving to "paint well" and "imitate
things well" would want to achieve.27

The matter of space seems to have been resolved with the
Luteplayer. The key to that resolution, however, is tied to yet another
related problem. That problem for Caravaggio seems to have been
precisely how to give painted reality, painted substance, to an
essentially Telesian emptiness: how to define a void and make it
comprehensible. If this is accomplished, then the figure which occupies
that void - — assuming that it is painted properly, and both Baglione
and Bellori state that the concert figures (themselves) were - - should
appear 'vivo e vero'. The answer to this kind of problem, however, is
not to be found in the writings of Telesio. It 15 found in the writings

of Francesco Patrizi, a contemporary of Telesio who, interestingly,

 

25 “If the air makes contact with the body there is no space to put
another body there ... .' C.A. 68 v. a, The Notebooks of Leonardo de
Vinci, MacCurdy, 3., ed. Garden City, 1941, p. 372.

26 One could argue that Renaissance perspective is nothing more than a
series of bodies, or boundaries, overlapping and diminishing in scale,
and thus has nothing to do with space at all.

27 Caravaggio's rejection, generally, of light backgrounds in favor of
dark is similar to the shift in Greek vase painting from black figure to
red figure, where red figure's dark background tends to dematerialize
the pot in favor of the image upon it.

 

 

 

 

39

combines aspects of thought similar to Lomazzo's theory of light with
the natural philosophy of Telesio.

"’ Patrizi (1529-1597) was born in Dalmatia at Cherso, near Trieste,
where he received some basic schooling. Initially largely self-taught,
he later studied in Venice, at Ingolstadt in Bavaria and then at Padua
(1547-1554), where he pursued philosophy and the humanities. He became
interested in Platonism after hearing a Franciscan friar lecture on
Platonic philosophy. This friar then recommended that Patrizi read the
Theologica Platonica by Ficino. After Padua, he served Count Zaffo in
venice, reading him Aristotle's Ethics, and acting as the Count’s
secretary and administrator. He often went to Cyprus, where the Count
owned property, and Patrizi served as that region’s governor for a
while. Later, perhaps in the 1570's, he went to Spain and sold to
Philip II a number of Greek manuscripts he had apparently acquired on
Cyprus. By 1572 he had begun a lively correspondence with Telesio.2°
From Spain he went to Modena and Ferrara where, in 1578, Duke Alfonso
d'Este III appointed him Professor of Platonic Philosophy at the
University of Ferrara. There he lectured mainly on Plato’s Republic.
In 1592, he was called to a similar position at the University of Rome
by Pope Clement VIII, where his main subject was the Timaeus. He held

this position until his death five years later.29

 

28 De mari, the fourth section of Telesio's varii de naturalibus rebus
libelli, published posthumously in venice in 159G, was dedicated to
Patrizi. Romano, F., ed., 'Bernardino Telesio e l'idea di nature ‘iuxta
propria principia'," mostra bibliografica, documentaria e iconografica,
I guaderni della biblioteca nazionale di Napoli, serie VII, 1. Roma,
1989, p. 65.

29 Kristeller (1964, p. 117) points out that the Ferrara and Rome
appointments were "rare, if not ... unique instancels] in which
Renaissance Platonism succeeded in penetrating the [Aristotelian]
university teaching of philosophy.".

 

 

Patrizi was a prolific writer with a wide range of interests. His

writings deal with such subjects as poetry, philosophy of history,
rhetoric, literary criticism,30 Roman military history and science,
mathematics, classical scholarship, and moral philosophy, in addition to
metaphysics and natural philosophy.31 Patrizi's two major works are the
anti-Aristotelian Discussiones peripateticae (1581)32 and his
masterpiece, the Nova de universis philosophia, which was published
twice, in 1591 (Ferrara) and 1593 (Venice).

From all accounts, Patrizi developed his strong Platonist views
and his opposition to Aristotle during his tenure at Ferrara. There he
hoped that a revival of Platonism might produce something on the order
of the famous Florentine Academy, ”though without Ficino’s flights of
religious feeling, and that might serve as a counter-altar to the temple
of the Aristotelians."=|3 His promotion of Platonism, and of his own
philosophy, was unabashed and is revealing not only of Patrizi's views
and concerns, but of the tenor of the time. In a dedicatory letter to
Cardinal Paleotti, for instance, accoupanying a portion of the Nova
philosophia, he hopes to gain praise for his work since his philosophy

stands to benefit Christian piety and all who love philosophy.3‘ In a

 

30 He favored Ariosto to Tasso.

31 A complete listing is in Benjamin Brickman's An Introduction to
Francesco Patrizi's beva de universis philosophia', New York, 1941, pp.
13—14. Kristeller (1964) also presents a summary and description of
Patrizi's works, pp. 113-116. Brickman and Kristeller both provide
biographical summaries, as well.

32 Brickman (An Introduction, p. 18.) notes that "Patrizi’s opposition
to the Stagirite was vehement and almost indignant.”

33 Firpo, L., "The Flowering and Withering of Speculative Philosophy -
Italian Philosophy and the Counter-Reformation: The Condemnation of
Francesco Patrizi.", The Late Italian Renaissance, 1525—1630 (Cochrane,
8., ed.). London, 1970, p. 273.

34 Brickman (An Introduction, p. 15) observes that "it was the love of
praise that induced [Patrizi] to undertake the entire gigantic task of

 

41

letter to Cardinal Cajetano he requested that much of Aristotle be
banned or, at least, challenged by students armed with the {pious
rationalism" of Platonism.35 To Cardinal Lauro of Monreale he offers
hope for "the restoration of the freedom of thought and philosophy that
prevailed among the ancients and in the Platonic schools.”6 Benjamin
Brickman wrote that in these dedicatory letters and elsewhere "one can
see ... an interest in the advance of free speculation. ... In so far
as he was concerned, the greatest advances could be made by freeing
Christian as well as secular thought from the fetters of
Aristotelianism. ... He is concerned to establish an organic unity
between Platonic—Christian metaphysics and the world of nature.”37
Platonism, Patrizi felt, was a better philosophical system. It
was more rational, he thought, and he was convinced that rationalism was
necessary in order to convince the non-Christian. Moreover, he
recommended that his philosophy be taken up by the Jesuits and utilized

in their teachings.3'

 

building a new philosophy. But he would refuse all praise if he did not
believe that his work would bring about the desired result."

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid. This is not necessarily as radical a remark as one might
think. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) wrote that "those who live according
to reason are Christians . .. . Such were Socrates and Heraclitus . . .
and those like them. (Apologgn I. xlvi. 1-4, in Weinberg, A Short
.Historyn p. 8). Augustine held a similar view and included Plotinus.

37 Ibid.

38 "You will thus make all able men in Italy, Spain, and France friendly
to the Church; and perhaps even the German Protestants will follow the
example, and return to the Catholic faith. It is much easier to win
them back in this way than to compel them by ecclesiastical censures or
by secular arms. You should cause this doctrine to be taught in the
schools of the Jesuits, who are doing such good work. If you do this,
great glory will await you among men of future times. And I beg you to
accept me as your helper in this undertaking." Portion of dedication to
Gregory XIV, Neva philosophia, in Yates, F., Giordano Bruno and the
Hermetic Tnadition. Chicago, 1964, p. 182ff.

 

42

Patrizi’s Nova philosophia is mainly a treatment of metaphysics,
divided into four sections, which contains some significant
contributions to natural philosophy. The four sections seem to have
been developed as separate treatises originally and have Greek titles:

1) Panaugia: dealing with the physical and metaphysical
properties of light
2) Panarchia: which discusses Neo-platonic first principles
3) Pampsychia: a theory of souls, and
4) Pancosmiax the natural elements, astronomy
and natural science.

In the Pancosmia, Patrizi lays out his theory of a corporeal world
constructed of four principia or elements: space, brightness, heat and
fluid.39 Patrizi begins De spacio physico, Book One of the Pancosmia,
by coming straight to the point:

"Now what did the Supreme Maker create before all other things
apart from Himself? What was more necessary or fitting to create
first than that which all other things required for their
existence, and could not exist without, but which could itself
exist without any other things, and needed none of them for its
own existence? . . . Aristotle himself maintained that that in the
absence of which nothing else exists, and which can exist without
anything, is necessarily prior to all other things. But this is
Space itself. For all things, whether corporeal or incorporeal,
if they are not somewhere, they are nowhere; and if they are
nowhere they do not even exist. If they do not exist they are
nothing. If they are nothing, there will then be neither souls,
nor natures, qualities, forms or bodies. . . . If they exist, they
cannot exist nowhere. Hence they exist somewhere, and in some
place, and so in Space - in length, breadth or depth, or in two or
in all three of them. Therefore Space is prior to all these
degrees of things: they need it to exist, while Space itself needs
none of them to exist. "4°

 

39 Spacium, lumen, calor and fluor.
4O Pancosmia, I, 61-a (Brickman, B., trans., "On Physical Space",
Journal of the History of Ideas, 4 [April, 1943], 225ff).

 

43

For the act of creation to proceed, the first thing created by God
extra se was space, three dimensional space, since all bodies need it to
exist. Space, therefore, is not only independent of bodies, as it was
for Telesio, but has a "primacy in nature. "H "Space is by its nature
prior to the world, and the first of all things in the world, before
which there was nothing, and after which, everything. "42

After a series of interesting proofs for the existence of space,
Patrizi turns to the matter of the essence of space.

"Is Space something?", he asks, "for it might be that Space
exists, but is nothing. . . . Are being and non-being the same or
not the same? If the same, then anything both is and is not.
This, however, is impossible as all philosophers agree. . . . If
anything is, it is a being,- if it is not, it is nothing.
Space, therefore, cannot be something and be counted among beings,
andat thesametimenotbesomething. .. . HenceSpace-and
distance - which in man extends from head to feet, belongs to the
class of beings and is something.

"But of what sort is this being, this something? . . . All the
ancients agreed that there are three kinds of Space - length or
line, width or surface, and depth, which together with the other
two they called body. . . . The most authoritative physicists define
a natural body as that which consists of length, breadth, and
depth, and of 'antitypia’, which is resistance. Thus there are
three kinds, or species, of space, whether they are mathematical
or physical when considered only per se - length or line, breadth
or surface, and depth or body. '43

Space, therefore, is a kind of body which differs from a physical body
in that it lacks resistance.

Space, moreover, is an incorporeal entity which can coexist with -
- can contain - - bodies without violating the principle of the
impenetrability of bodies. "These three spaces - length, width, and
depth — have also been attributed to place (locus). . .. Yet it is

impossible for ‘locus’ to be a body. 'Locus’, therefore, has three

 

41 Brickman, 1941, p. 45.
42 Pancosmia, I, 65-a (Brickman, 1943, 244)).
43 Pancosmia, I, 61-c, d (Brickman, 1943, 227ff).

 

44

dimensions, as has every'body, but yet is not a body. ... Among the
conditions of ‘locus’ is included, that the ‘locus’ contain the located
object. ... ‘Locus’ must therefore contain the entire located object.'44
Patrizi, like Telesio, argues that Aristotle's space is that of a
container. A container, however, is likewise a body and a body moving
through another body (the container) admits of "the interpenetration of
bodies. But that is impossible."5 The interpenetration of bodies is
just the kind of problem that Caravaggio ran into in defining the space
within the concert.

How to define true, absolute space, as Caravaggio seems to have
discovered, is very tricky indeed. Patrizi weaves a masterful
discussion of the problem and formulates a conception which was to
profoundly shape seventeenth century science.“ Moreover, his
conception of absolute space and how it is to be defined seems to find a
parallel in Caravaggio's work from about the Luteplayer'onwards.

WSpace, which surrounds the world on all sides, is held to be

finite by some of the ancients, infinite by others. There are

those who held it to be the greatest of all things.‘7 ... I

maintain that the Space outside the world is both finite and

infinite. It is finite on the side where it touches the outerb

most surface of the world; finite not with respect to its own
natural limit but with respect to the boundary of the world. But

 

44 Ibid., 1, 62—a,b (Ibid., 229). Patrizi’s theory seems to create
three spaces: the infinite, the finite, and the minimum, which is the
actual locus which things occupy. A similar division could be argued
for the Luteplayer.

45 Ibid., 62—c (Ibid., 239).

46 Brickman (1943, 225) notes that “originating thus in the Platonic
tradition, absolute space reached Gassendi through Campanella, and
through Gassendi and Henry More came to Newton's famous scholium. The
two strains, empirical and Platonic, so prominent in Newton’s
conception, are already blended in Patrizi."

47 Patrizi cites Thales: "When asked what the greatest thing is, he
replied locus. For the world contains all things, but locus contains
the world itself." Pancosmia, I, 64-a (Brickman, 1943, 236).

 

45

Where it recedes from the world and moves far away, it passes into
the infinite. '48

The matter of finite and infinite space would appear to have
interested Caravaggio, or at least to have troubled him. For instance,
in the Buona Ventura or, especially, the Concert, the space is probably
more finite, more confining, than the artist wanted and leads to a
rather flat and undramatic portrayal. On the other hand, the complete
darkness of a work like the Bacchino has more space than is
comrehensible and the sensation becomes, paradoxically, that of not
having any space.‘9 The resulting effect is curiously similar to that
of the brightly illuminated Concert.

Patrizi continues the discussion of how one defines absolute space
in Book Two of the Pancosmia, which is entitled De spacio mathematico.

"Primary space is divided by no power of Nature or of the human
mind. Nevertheless Nature did place discrete bodies in its
continuous parts. But the mind conceives it as discrete whenever
it so desires. And throughout it lines, surfaces, bodies, and
incorporeal qualities, it seems, are actually infinite both in
number and in magnitude . . . . All these things however are
imagined by us as finite. And our mind selects those finite
spaces that can be accommodated to the spaces of earthly bodies.

. The mind by its own power cuts off from primary Space those
parts that will be of future use to it either in contemplation or
in operation . . . continuous quantity exists by nature, while
Number is the work of the human mind. .. . Hence there is solved
that difficult question which has disturbed ancients and modems,
namely, which is prior in nature, the science of the continuous,
which is called ‘geometry’ or the science of the discrete,
which is called arithmetic. . . . Since Space is the first of all
natural things, it is clear that the science of Space, both of the
continuous and the discrete, is prior to matter. .. . Rightly did
this saying appear over the entrance of the divine Plato ’s school:
‘Let no one enter who is ignorant of geometr'y’.so . . . Moreover,
from these two sciences others take their rise, and these are

 

48 Pancosmia, I, 64-a, b (Brickman, 1964, 236-237).

49 The total darkness of the background makes one aware more of a darkly
painted canvas than of a depiction of space.

50 Leonardo: "He who is not a mathematician according to my principles
must not read me." Ouademi, IV, 14v (Burtt, Metaphysical Foundations,
p. as) .

 

 

 

 

46

neither few'nor obscure, and are linked with other-natural
things.'51

<

Space is both finite and infinite. It is finite where it touches }_
! .

the surface of the world, infinite from the world on into the cosmos.
It is genuinely infinite, therefore, except where it touches the world
or is impinged upon by the necessity of the human mind to delineate
space. As Brickman put it, "the mind conceives in the infinite space
dimensions which are finite, so that they can be accommodated to the
spaces of mundane bodies.'52 In the Luteplayer; Caravaggio seems to
utilize a similar concept in solving the problem of how to represent
absolute space. He delineates it minimally, just enough to provide a
mental reference. This is an echo of the Patrizian doctrine that states
that space is both finite and infinite, that is to say, space is both
corporeal and incorporeal, and that the human mind marks it off for its
purposes.

How Caravaggio chose to delineate his absolute space is
interesting because it takes one precisely to the point where we left
Patrizi’s theory, that is, a discussion of the relationship of geometry
and arithmetic to space and matter, and that from those two sciences
"others take their rise ... . The first of these, and nearest to Space,
is ‘actinography’, on which Democritus wrote of old, which is the
science of the rays of Light. For Light is by nature nearest to Space,
and the first to fill Space ... .“53 Caravaggio’s delineation of

absolute space is entirely predicated upon the use of light, almost to

 

51 Pancosmia, II, 68-a through d (Brickman, 1943, 243-245).

52 Brickman, 1941, p. 48. Patrizi seems to also imply that space within
the world is infinite too, but conceived of as finite.

53 Pancosmia, II, 68-c (Brickman, 1943, 245). Democritus was also
interested in the problem of the void.

 

47

the esclusion of traditional perspectival devices, which tend to impose
arbitrary limits upon infinite space.

As was noted earlier, the first part of the Nova philosophia is
entitled Panaugia, a term borrowed from Philo of Alexandria "who called
the light stemming from the light of God’s Word by the most apposite
name - ‘Panaugia’, a sort of ‘omnilucentia’."54 Patrizi, in the
Pancosmia, states the premiss that has come to be attached to the
philosophers of nature: TLet us employ the testimony of the senses and
rational proofs. Let us not be frightened by any great names. Let as
study things themselves, the truth in things and the causes of the
truth. Let us seek the truth for truth's sake."55

Patrizi tells us that for philosophy to be true, it must be
founded upon beginnings which are known. Knowledge has its origin in
the mind. Metaphysically, the origin of knowledge is attributed to God,
but the first steps towards the acquisition of knowledge are through the
senses. Drawing upon an ancient concept, Patrizi states that the most
valued of the senses is that of sight,56 and that the primary object of

sight is light (lumen).57

 

54 Panaugia, Ix, 21-b (Brickman, 1941, p. 27).

55 Pancosmia, I, 61-a (Brickman, 1943, 226). There are a number of
interesting parallels to this statement in Galileo’s writings, for
example: ”Among the safe ways to pursue truth is the putting of
experience before any reasoning, ... it not being possible that a
sensible experience is contrary to truth. ... Not only should we not
yield to the authority of another, but we should deny authority to
ourselves whenever we find that sense shows us the contrary." Letter to
Fbrtunio Liceti in Drake, 8., Galileo at Hbrk. Chicago, 1978, p. 409.
56 The Christian tradition is represented by Sts. Augustine and Thomas
Aquinas. "When he sees he learns not from words uttered but from the
objects seen and his sense of sight." Augustine, De magistro, xii, 39
(Hyman, A., and Walsh, J. , Philosophy in the Middle Ages - The
Christian, Islamic and Jewish Traditions. Indianapolis, 1983, p. 32).
"The name ‘seeing' indicates that it is used foremost to denote the
activity of the sense of sight; but, because of the dignity and
certainty of the sense, the name is extended, in accordance with

 

 

48

In Patrizi's system, God is the first cause of the world and
although space was His first act of creation, it was not to his
advantage to have it remain empty. He filled it, therefore, with that
which most resembles space. 1A thing that is at once corporeal and
incorporeal, uniform, simple in character; subject to interpenetration
with bodies, that can be diffused throughout the universe, the most
beautifhl, most desired and most efficacious thing — brightness.“5°

Light makes possible the cognition of things by making them
visible to the sense of sight. Light, furthermore, is the conductor of
heat (calor) which, with light, is the efficient cause of the material
existence of things, and which also provides for their growth and
preservation.59 Heat acts upon Patrizi’s fourth principle, fluid
(finer), which gives resistance to material bodies.5° Fiuor'also serves
to provide material continuity among all things,61 "from the crassest
earth to the purest heaven.“2 fiRatrizi’s four ‘principia' ...
‘spacium’, 'lumen’, ‘calor’, and 'fluor' are all intrinsic to all
bodies, not merely elementary ones. ‘Fiuor’ gives them density'and

change of consistency.“3 But this change cannot occur without

 

linguistic custom, to all cognition by the other senses, and ultimately,
even to cognition by the mind." Thomas Aquinas, Sum-a theologies, I q.
67 a. 1 c.

57 “The object of sight is the visible, and what is visible is (a)
colour and (b) a certain kind of object which can be described in words
but which has no single name ... it is only in light that the colour of
a thing is seen. Hence our first task is to explain what light is."
Aristotle, De anima, 418a 26 (McKeon, Basic Works).

58 Brickman, 1941, p. 49.

59 Pancosmia, V, 76-h and c (Brickman, 1941, p. 50).

60 Ibid., Ix, 85-c (Ibid.).

61 Ibid., XXIII, 121-d (Ibid.).

62 Ibid.

63 'Pire and light are at once material and efficient causes in the
world. Heat is the element that gives structure to a body and acts on
the basic fluid, and is thus responsible for change in bodies. Thus, in
emphasizing the how'of natural processes he is moving in the direction

 

49

‘calor’... . ‘Lumen’, in turn, is the vehicle of ‘calor’, and all of
them need a medium in which to exist and operate - ‘spacium’. All four
exist by virtue of the supernal world."64 Light forms the basis for the
existence of all things in the world, which ultimately are derived from
God, as is light itself.

Patrizi's doctrine, therefore, is both physical and metaphysical.
As noted above, Patrizi attributes the metaphysical origin of knowledge
to God. A direct knowledge of God, however, is impossible as He is
beyond mortal reason and comprehension. He can, however, be indirectly
“known" through His creations, since nothing is more concealed with
respect to its true nature or more evident in created things.65
Brickman notes that "one might infer from this statement a duty imposed
upon man to study nature. Would you know God, then study nature“6 . . .
it, too, is touched with Divinity;"57 Knowledge, for Patrizi, comes
about from the actual union of the knower with its object, because
understanding is circular, returning to itself and aware that it is
understanding. True knowledge, therefore, is an emanation and a return

to God, and the vehicle is light.6a

 

of the road to modern science, or, more immediately, to Galileo and
Newton." Brickman, 1941, p. 61. The "how of natural processes" may be
of interest in assessing Caravaggio's rotting fruits apart from their
iconography.

64 Ibid., p. 51.

65 Panarchia, XV, 31-c (Ibid., p. 36). This is another concept with a
rich history and which appears, for example, in Augustine: "The
invisible things in God are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made." (confessions, x, 8, 6). Galileo notes that "God is
known first byllature inhis works ." (Letter to the Grand
Duehess Christina, in Drake, 8., Discoveries and apinions of Galileo.
Garden City, 1957, p. 183).

66 Brickman, 1941, p. 67.

67 Ibid., p. 58.

68 As Kristeller (1964, pp. 121ff) notes, ”this scheme reveals the
influence of several known sources [Plotinus, Proclus, and Ficino, for
example], but in some details, and as a whole, it is original. ... It is

 

It is clear from all of the above that light, in addition to

space, is held in the greatest regard by Patrizi and that it occupies,
again like space, an intermediary place between the divine and the
incorporeal - - all existence and knowledge is entirely dependent upon
it, just as mankind is dependent upon God. Given what we know of
Caravaggio, it’s difficult to assess what he might have made of such
advanced theories. The matters touched upon by Patrizi, and Telesio
before him, do however seem related to the spatial problems that
Caravaggio was working around.

When it comes to discussing more precisely what light is, Patrizi
enters into a realm which Caravaggio should have been familiar with
through Peterzano and Lomazzo. In Book One of the Panaugia, Patrizi
makes a distinction between two types light which, following a long-
established Latin tradition, he calls lux and lumen.69 Lux is the light
as it is found at its source, lumen "is the light as it is found
diffused around its source.'70 The two types of lights are connected by
rays which emanate from the source and on into the world, where light
performs its functions for life, cognition, change, etc..

Material bodies in the world are of three kinds:

1) Lucent (lucida): Having an inborn light which is diffused

outward, as in the case of the sun, the stars and fire

 

clear ... that Patrizi is trying to combine Neoplatonic and Christian
notions." There are also obvious similarities to Plato's Allegory of the
Gave.

69 Cicero, for instance, makes the distinction. Patrizi probably took
Ficino as his model. In convivium, 11, 5, a ray of the sun is described
as "lumen," and the light within the sun 'lux.‘ Barasch, H., Light and
color in the Italian Renaissance Theory of Light. New York, 1978, p.
83.

70 Kristeller, 1964, p. 119.

 

51

2) Diaphanous (diaphana, transparentia, transpicua): Through
which lightness and darkness pass, as in ether, air
and water

3) Opaque (opaca): Through which light cannot pass, but from
which darkness emanates, as in the moon, the earth,
and clouds.71

Patrizi’s system, then, is very similar to that laid out by
Lomazzo (see p. 24, above), which was also based upon flea-Platonic
premisses, with one major difference. Although both theoreticians
maintain that there are basically two kinds of light - — primary and
secondary - - Patrizi recognizes that it is not the light per se that
changes during the course of its emanation, but that the properties of
various bodies have an effect upon light in the course of its
emanation.72

Many of Patrizi’s Nee-Platonic theories, of course, have points of
contact with the thought of Augustine, particularly with regard to the
saint's theory of illumination. Augustine, however, did not deal with
matters of space nor did he treat light as a physical property. For
Augustine, "illumination is rather the enabling of men to perceive the
rules of numbers and wisdom. ""3

To anyone familiar with the theories of Lomazzo, such concepts as
those expounded by Patrizi would have been of great interest. Their

interest, moreover, coming from one who urged the employment of the

 

71 Panaugia, II and V (Brickman, 1941, pp. 28-29). "Patrizi holds that
it is the property of dark, opaque bodies to send forth darkness.
Darkness, furthermore, is not the privative, but the real, opposite of
light.“ Brickman, 1941, p. 29.

72 Patrizi recognizes, for example, that rays entering a diaphanous body
are bent, and broken (stopped) by an ”opaque" one.

73 Weinberg, J ., A Short History, p. 41.

 

52

games and to not fear "any great names”, would certainly be strong for
someone eager to "imitar bene 1e cose naturali" and who is claimed to
have ignored and despised "gli ecellentissimi marmi de gli antichi e 1e
pitture tanto celebri di Raffaelle."74

With the Luteplayer; as has been noted, Caravaggio seems to have
resolved his spatial problems in a manner consonant with the Patrizian
theory of absolute space. He has also, utilizing light, provided for a
delineation of that space according to the needs of the human mind, but
in opposition to traditional perspectival devices. Then, too, he has
provided a solid "locus" for the figure. Light, moreover, not only
gives depth to the painting in a way that was lacking in the concert and
the Bacchino, but gives the figure a kind of "existence“ - - a sense of
the resistance that Patrizi posits.

Baglione had commented that the youths in the Cbncert were
'ritratti dal naturale, assai bene," while the player of the lute was
'vivo e vero," seeming to imply a development in technique. This
development, furthermore, appears to be tied to Caravaggio's move to
"ingagliardire gli oscuri.'75 Spezzaferro observed that "tale mutamento
consiste in un nuovo uso della luce nella costruzione della figure e
della spazialita‘ del quadro,'7‘ and that at this time Caravaggio was
utilizing light to give ”realta‘ spaziale a1 vuoto."77 Taken as a

whole, it is fairly clear that Caravaggio was working light and space in

 

74 Caravaggio, like Patrizi who (nonetheless) owes a debt to Aristotle,
certainly did look to the ancients and Raphael.

75 Baglione also mentions 'un colorito piu‘ tinto", which lies outside

the parameters of this discussion.

76 See p. 19 and n. 13 above.

77 Again, for the record, this last comment by Spezzaferro was directed
to the cardsharps, but seems better applied to the Luteplayer'which he

also was discussing. See notes 8 and 9 above on p. 33.

 

 

53

‘ 'Yatrizian" manner or, at the very least, operating in a way which
parallels that of the emerging natural philosophies of the time. There
is yet one other aspect of Patrizi's thought related to Caravaggio that

needs discussion and this will be dealt with in the next chapter.

 

MIG AI) mammals

Baglione tells us that Caravaggio "per opera del suo cardinale
ebbe in S. Luigi de’ Francesi la cappella de’ Contarelli, ove sopra
l’altare fece S. Matteo con un angelo. A man diritta, quando 1 ’apostolo
e' chiamato dal Redentore, ed a manca, quando su l’altare e' ferito dal
carnifice, con altre figure. "1

In 1952, Denis Hahon published an invaluable collection of
documents on the chronology of the San Luigi commissions to the sculptor
Jacob Cobaert, to Cesare d’Arpino and then Caravaggio for the decoration
of the Contarelli Chapel.2 Hahon's documents make it clear that when
the French Cardinal Hatteu Cointrel (known as Contarelli to the
Italians) died in 1585 instructions were left in his will for the
completion of his chapel, implying that work had already begun. The
Crescenzi family, designated as the executors of the cardinal's estate,
procrastinated on the matter, and in 1594 the clergy of San Luigi
petitioned Clement VIII to take some action. The clergy appealed to
Clement again, in either late 1596 or early 1597, resulting in the
assigning of the matter to the Reverenda rabbrica di San Pietro. As
Hahon points out, “the Fabbrica was not merely . . . a Board of Works for
the rebuilding of San Pietro in Vaticano, but was a powerful body
possessing extremely wide juridical authority. '3 Within its

jurisdiction was that of "bequests made for pious purposes and the

 

1 Ludovici, 8.8., Vita del Caravaggio dalle testimonianze del suo
temo. Milano, 1956, p. 44.

2 Hahon, D. , "Addendum to Caravaggio," Burlington Magazine, 586
(January, 1952), 3-23. Friedlaender presents other relevant documents
(Caravaggio Studies. Princeton, 1974, pp. 294-301), while Hibbard
(Caravaggio. New York, 1983, p. 296) refers to the 1974 discoveries
published by Rottgen.

3 Hahon, 1952, 15.

54

 

55

saving of Masses, "‘ and it had the power to utilize such funds at its
sole discretion. One of the more powerful members of the Congregazione
della Fabbrica - - if, indeed, not the most powerful - - was Cardinal
Del Monte.5 Once the Fabbrica was involved, Mahon believes that Del
Monte ~successf'ullymade his considerable weight felt in favour of'his
protege'.'5

The Congregazione della rabbrica itself was instituted by Clement
VIII early in his pontificate.7 Mahon posits that it is likely that
"one of his nominations as ‘Deputato’ was Del Monte; [who] was still
young and energetic, and the fact that his intelligence in artistic
matters was generally recognised is proved by.his assumption of the
Protectorship of the Accademia di San Luca when Cardinal Federico
Borromeo relinquished it in 1595 on taking over'his see at Milan."

From all the documentation now available, it appears that the
lateral walls of the Contarelli Chapel containing the calling of St.
Matthew (figure 5) and the Martyrdom of St. Matthew (Figure 6), were
completed fiby'July 4, 1660, and aroused great interest as demonstrated

by the episode of.Federico Zhecari’s visit to the chapel and by'his

 

4 Ibid. One of the clergy's complaints was that the chapel was boarded
up and couldn't be used for Masses.

5 Mahon reports, for instance, that the June 1608 meeting of the
Pabbrica was held at Del Monte's residence. It was then that the
decision was made to entrust the completion of St. Peter’s to Carlo
Mademo. Ibid., 16, n. 74.

6 Ibid. , 16.

7 The original Bull has been lost.

8 Mahon, 1952, 16. At first Del Monte shared the post with Cardinal
Paleotti, to whom Patrizi wrote a dedication in the Nova philosophia.
See Hibbard, Caravaggio, p. 30, n. 15. The academy was founded by
Federico Zuccari in 1593, upon high-minded principles. Caravaggio' s
name appears on the rolls, and Baglione relates that the artist's
portrait was placed in the academy after his death, but Caravaggio’s
role there has not been established. On the academy see Friedlaender,
Caravaggio Studies, p. 67ff.

 

 

56

reseticuL‘V Baglione, referring to the lateral canvases, states that
"quest'opera, per avere alcune pitture del naturale ... fece gioco all
fame del caravaggio.'1° It would appear, once again, that Caravaggio’s
naturalism is important towards understanding the contemporary reports
and assessments.

With the Martyrdom of St. Matthew, Caravaggio seems to encounter
many of the same difficulties as were presented by the concert, only on
a larger scale. Hibbard notes, for instance, that "the painted areas on
the walls of'San Luigi are close to three and one-half meters wide and
almost as high ... . To our knowiedge caravaggio had never painted a
picture that was even two meters in either dimension; nor had he ever
painted a picture with more than a few figures ... . Moreover the
contract required the‘flarpyzdpp to take place in a church with
considerable depth, with a view up several steps toward the altar and
with manypeople."u

Indeed, the x-rays of the Martyrdom as reviewed by Mahon and
others combined with Bellori's notation that “egli la rifacesse due
volts,”12 indicate that Caravaggio had considerable problems in
adjusting to the scale and scope of the work.13 Arguably, the result
obtained in the Martyrdom is less than satisfying, particularly with

regard to the clump of figures at the left. It is, however, an

 

9 Salerno, L., "The Roman World of Caravaggio: His Admirers and
Patrons”, The Age of caravaggio (Gregori, M.,ed.), New York, 1985, p.
19. For Zuccari's remark see p. 8 and n. 10 above. Baglione relates
that the Contarelli work “era da‘ maligni sommamente lodata.‘ Ludovici,
Vita, p. 44.

16 Ludovici, ibid.

11 Hibbard, caravaggio, p. 95.

12 Ludovici, Vita, p. 60.

13 See Friedlaender (caravaggio Studies, pp. 110-114) for a cogent
discussion.

57

improvement upon the equally troublesome concert, and even with the
crowded figures on the left there is a finer sense of recession into
space. This recession is punctuated by the self-portrait of the artist,
which is set into relief by a column whose faint definition suggests an
enveloping gloom beyond.

Entirely convincing is the central scene of the executioner and
Matthew, where Caravaggio employed a complicated system of broad, open
gestures combined with light. These devices not only give substance,
weight and definition to the main protagonists (and also to the
terrified youth who flees into the protective darkness which is already
beginning to cloak him), but a great sense of air and space surrounding
and passing between them. Particularly effective is the subtle shadow
floating between the legs of the executioner. This minute touch gives
one the sense that air does, in fact, exist within the pyramidal shape
formed by the figures' legs, torsos and arms. On the whole, the work
would seem to lie somewhere between the concert and the Luteplayez;
perhaps tilting a bit more towards the latter. Caravaggio still hasn't
quite grasped how to handle a tight group of figures, but one pan
apprehend Patrizian elements of: a locus in which the figures can exist;
a suggested space delineated for the comprehension of the mind in the
steps, altar and columns; and the infinity of space beyond.

Also of interest for this discussion is the facing canvas of the
Calling of St. Matthew. Matthew 9.9 states that Jesus "saw a man named
Matthew sitting in the tax-collector's place, and said to him, 'Fbllow
me.’ And he arose and followed Hum." The original contract which
Caravaggio inherited describes the scene to be painted as "... St.

Matthew within a shop, or actually a room used for customs with various

 

58

things pertaining to that service . . . . St. Matthew, dressed as seems
fitting for that post, rises from the counter with the desire of
following Our Lord, who, passing along the street with His disciples,
calls him to the apostolate . . . "14 Caravaggio's depiction, then, does
not follow the scriptural text 99; does it entirely follow the wording
of the contract. Instead, as Hibbard points out, Caravaggio seems to
have followed a drawing by Arpino which does follow the instructions of
the contract. When Christ and the disciples "encounter the shop of the
tax collector; in the drawing it is seen at the rear as an opening in a
palace with men walking in. '15 Caravaggio has reduced the scene
considerably, set it outside a building, and utilized a table to gather
the figures around.

Hibbard's description of the scene is to the point and worth
quoting at length.

"In Caravaggio ’5 painting the tax collector . . . and his worldly
companions are seated around a table, shown in a raking light.
Although this light falls from the right, Caravaggio did not
coordinate it with the daylight coming down from the lunette in
the chapel. In the gloom at the right, spottily illuminated,
Christ and a disciple (presumably Peter) seem to advance toward
the group, althoum wrist’s feet point forward. His outstretched
hand catches the light as he gestures to Matthew to follow him;
Matthew responds with an identifiable ‘Who, me?’ gesture that we
can all but read on his lips. The two figures closest to the
picture plane have their backs to us. Before them is a frieze
of men seen against the wall and the dark. At the far left a
vertical strip of even darker background seems to indicate the
corner of the building behind the figures; that is, they seem to
be outside a Roman palace rather than within it. The

W is larger and more complex than Caravaggio ’s earlier
works, subtle and shrouded in deeper shadow. It is also

 

14 Contracted originally to Huziano (differently, 1565) and then Arpino
in 1591. The 1591 contract is in Hibbard, Caravaggio, p. 296, n. 52.
See Friedlaender (Caravaggio Studies, p. 294) for the contract with
Huziano.

15 Hibbard, Caravaggio, p. 96. Hibbard notes that the drawing may have
been executed while Caravaggio was still with Arpino.

 

 

59

Strikingly different from the narrative scenes of his
Contemporaries. "15

Again, all those elements that might be described as Patrizian
elements of spatial definition are present: a locus; a minimal
delineation of space as a mental reference; and a sense of a vast
infinity both to the left, the right” and ahead beyond the faintest of
corners.

Hibbard’s observations attest to these two kinds of spatial
definition. He points out, first, that despite the prominence and
intensity of the light cascading in from the right in Caravaggio’s
painting, it does 119; correspond with the light which actually enters
the chapel from a lunette over the altar. Caravaggio was handed a
perfect opportunity 'to imitate a natural thing" which had a simple,
direct application to his composition, yet he opted to forego it. It is
not, therefore, meant to replicate genuine sunlight.

A second feature of the composition especially noticed by Hibbard
is "the outstretched hand of Christ [which] catches the light as He
gestures to Matthew to follow. " Hibbard observes that St. Augustine had
referred to the Holy Spirit as the ringer of God, "an idea familiar from
the hymn ‘Veni Creator Spiritus’... . The whole mission of Jesus was
uniquely directed by the ‘finger of God, ' which is here equated with
wrist’s finger. .. . Christ .. . in turn invests Matthew with Divine

Grace. '1 '

 

16 Ibid.

11 One should note, for instance, how the chair to the left extends off
out of the viewer's sight and how St. Peter’s trailing foot has only
just emerged from off to the right.

18 Hibbard, Caravaggio, p. 100. Hibbard goes on to state that the hym
"was sung on special occasions such as papal conclaves in the Sistine
Chapel. This connection may have inspired Michelangelo. Caravaggio
transforms Adam's hand into that of Christ ."

 

Kristeller wrote that Patrizi's philosophy, unlike that of

mgustine, is a “mixture of physical science with metaphysical and
theological speculation. "19 This combination has already been discussed
here, but it becomes even more apparent in what Kristeller calls
Patrizi's 'supercelestial" light." Patrizi had asserted that the
visible universe - — our world - - is finite when it meets the heavens.
In our sphere of existence, celestial light is mixed with darkness.
Outside our world is a space of infinite dimension filled with the
purest of light. This light beyond our celestial world is still
corporeal, however, “it has its source in the incorporeal light, which
belongs to the incorporeal and divine things, that is, to the souls,
intellects, angels, and God ([Panaugia] Bk. 1?). "11 God is the source
of this incorporeal light (lux prime) and from Him emanates that
diffused light (lumen) "which is first found in His Son, and then in all
incorporeal creatures (Bk. 3). "22 The secondary light in the physical
world, of course, is also ultimately derived from God. "Thus light is
said to be infinite, and may be considered incorporeal in its source,
while it is both incorporeal and corporeal when considered in its state
of irradiation, and thus mediates between God and the corporeal

world. '23

In the Calling of St. Matthew, it is in fact not ordinary sunlight

which streams in from the right, but lux prime, emanating from God. This

explains, perhaps, why the painted rays do not correspond to the rays

 

19 Kristeller, P.O. , Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance.
Stanford, 1964, p. 12o.

2O Ibid., p. 119.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

 

 

61

actually filtering through the chapel lunette, despite how attractive
the idea must have been to Caravaggio. Furthermore, the scene in the
painting takes place out of doors, so it could not represent light from
an out of view doorway or window, either. As Hibbard states, the light
catches and illuminates the hand of Christ, who "invests Matthew with
Divine Grace,"24 before finally falling upon the face of the puzzled tax
collector. "The immanence of God in all of us, " Hibbard wrote, "is
demonstrated at the left of the chapel in the gelling, where Matthew is
arrested in his worldly life by the finger of God, made manifest by
Caravaggio ’s highlighting. "25 Both the light and Christ mediate, just
as Patrizi argued, "between God and the corporeal world."
Matthew’s reaction to his calling bears some scrutiny as well.
Bert Treffers recently wrote that Matthew's readily apparent reaction of
“who me?" is not theologically correct, since Matthew was converted
i-ediately.“ It was noted earlier that Caravaggio hadn't held
entirely to the contract which specified that Matthew, in accordance
with the texts, ".. . rises from the counter with the desire of following
Our Lord . . . ." Brickman relates that Patrizi had posited that "God
knows in a way quite different from our method, for He knows everything
immediately. ’27 Patrizi’s concept seems to have been picked up and
enunciated beautifully by Galileo.
".. . The manner whereby God lmows the infinite propositions of

which we understand some few is much more excellent than ours,
which proceeds by ratiocination and passes from conclusion to

 

24 It's interesting that right near the tip of the finger of Christ the
shaft of light does seem to diffuse.

25 Hibbard, Caravaggio, p. 116.

26 Treffers, B., ”Dogma, esegesi e pittura: Caravaggio nella capella
Contarelli in San Luigi dei Francesi," Storia dell ’arte, 67 (1989), 247.
27 Brickman, B. , An Introduction to Francesco Patrizi’s Nova de
universis Philosophia. New York, 1941, p. 67.

 

 

 

62

Chanclusion, whereas.Mis is done at a single thought or intuition.

... Now these inferences, which our intellect apprehends with time

and gradual motion, the Divine wisdom, like light, penetrates in

an instant, which is the same as to say has them always
present.“29

Matthew, it is true, reacts to his calling to the apostolate in an
entirely human and confused way. Caravaggio's decision to depict
Matthew in this manner, however - - in contradistinction to both text
and contract - - may indicate that more is to be read into that
depiction than just a clever observation of human nature. One wonders,
for instance, if this was a depiction meant to be understood by the
conoscenti.

With the lateral canvases at San Luigi, Caravaggio seems to have
finally come of age. The process, having its beginnings in the Italian
north, influenced by Peterzano, and (likely) Lomazzo, is one of
“laborious ... intellectual growth ... that has little in common with
the normal development of contemporary painters,“ just as Mina Gregori
said.19 Moreover, it would appear that his intellectual development, as
evidenced in his paintings of the time, has less to do with theology,
generally, than with how the new natural philosophies and sciences can
be applied to painting - - even the painting of religious themes.

Whether or not Caravaggio specifically knew of Patrizi's theories
is difficult to say. His work during the time of his association with
Del Monte certainly reflects many similarities to Patrizi's thought,
perhaps even an acquaintance with the philosophical theories then
circulating - - particularly in Del Monte’s circle, and even his

neighborhood which includes La Sapienza. Although it's difficult to tie

 

28 De Santillana, G., Galileo Galilei - Dialogue on the Great florid
Systems. Chicago, 1955, "The First Day", p. 48ff.
29 See p. 16 above.

 

 

63

Del Monte with Patrizi directly, it is equally difficult to disengage
him from Patrizi's circle in Rome.
Patrizi's Nova de Universis Philosophia of 1591 was dedicated to

Pope Gregory XIV, whose crest figures prominently on the cover. In his
dedication he asked for papal protection in the matter of Platonic
philosophy "which, he said, had been called upon to rid the schools of
impious Aristotelian doctrine and which was capable of reconverting the
dissidents in Germany. "30 The eleven separate parts of the work were
dedicated to an impressive array of distinguished cardinals, such as
Gabriele Paleotti of Bolognafiu and Federico Borrouueo.32 A significant
number of these cardinals, moreover, had been students alongside Patrizi
at Padua, including Scipione Gonzaga, Girolamo della Revere,“ Agostino
Valier,“ Pope Gregory himself, and the pope’s successor, Ippolito
Aldobrandini (Clement VIII).

 

3O Pirpo, L. , "The Flowering and Withering of Speculative Philosophy -
Italian Philosophy and the Counter-Reformation: The Condemnation of
Francesco Patrizi," The Late Italian Renaissance, 1525-1636 (Cochrane,
B., ed.). London, 1970, p. 275.

31 Paleotti's Discorso attorni alle imagini sacre et profane was
published in 1582.

32 Nephew of St. Charles. Caravaggio's Ambrosiana Still Life was
"apparently in the possession of Cardinal Federico Borromeo in 1667, and
presumably be had it before he left Rome in June 1601." Hibbard,
Caravaggio, p. 294, n. 47. According to Wright, Pederico's
“cosmological views were Copernican, not Aristotelian. This was
natural in a friendly correspondent of Galileo, who followed the
theories of the astronomer by means of his own observations through a
telescope, . . . accepted his writings for the Ambrosiana library, [and]
continued to support Galileo.” (Wright, A.D., The Counter-Reformation -
Catholic Europe and the Non-Christian World. London, 1982, p. 46.).
Borromeo also had close ties with the Oratory of Philip Nari, "the main
center of Platoni- in a Rome dominated by Aristotelianism.‘ Maynard,
T , Mystic in Motley - The Life of St. Philip Neri. Milwaukee, 1946, p.
213.

33 Spezzaferro ("La cultura del cardinal Del Monte e il primo tempo del
Caravaggio," Storia dell’ arte, 9-10, 1974, 67) notes that Del Monte
'vissuto fin verso i 25 anni presso la corte dei Della Rovere . .. .".

34 In 1591, Valier wrote a Platonic-styled dialogue centered around
Philip Neri, who is often referred to in the dialogue as ‘noster

 

 

64

Luigi Pirpo reports that there "was not a single dissenting voice
either among the Aristotelians or among the prelates. '35 In October of
1591, for instance, Aldobrandini wrote Patrizi that the new philosophy
"accords perfectly with Christian piety, " invited him to his home and
mentioned that a move was afoot to establish a chair for him at the
university.36 By the following January, Aldobrandini was pope, and by
May Patrizi was living in the home of the future Cardinal Cinzio
Aldobrandini in Rome, through whose academy he undoubtedly encountered
Tasso. 3" At the university he set out i-ediately to lecture on the
Timaeus, attracting a large following and commanding the high salary of
666 scudi per year. 3°

Around the middle of 1592, it became apparent that Patrizi's
doctrine was coming under scrutiny. As tirpo put it, it was "not the
generic Platonism of the W that stirred up the murmuring
. . . rather a group of specific assertions that might be suspected of

heterodoxy. "39 Later in the year the Congregation of the Index called

 

Socrates.“ Valier, A., (Cistellini, A., ed.) 11 dialogo della gioia

cristiana. Brescia, 1975, f. 16v. (Federico Borromeo, too, referred to

Philip as the "Christian Socrates”. See Lavin, I. , "Divine Inspiration

in Caravaggio’s Two St. Matthews," Art Bulletin, LVI, March, 1974, 73,

n. 44.) Valier was also a member of the Congregation of the Index. The

city of Cosenza and the nephew of Telesio appealed to him for help in

getting acceptable changes made to the De rerum, "essendo gia‘ molti
sono morto l'autore e . . . essendo stata sempre volunta‘ e desiderio

d1 detto autore di ubedire alla Santa Madre Chiesa . .. ." Firpo, L.,

"rilosofia italiana e controriforma: La proibizione di Telesio,"

Rivista d1 filosofia, 46 (1956), 45, doc. 2.

35 Pirpo, 1976, p. 275.

36 Ibid.

37 Cinzio appears to be the 'Aldobrandino" mentioned in the company of

Del Monte and other cardinals at the 'banchetto nel proprio palazzo

della Cancelleria .. . [dove] erano molti giovanetti in ballo, vestiti da

donna." Orbaan, J.A.r., Documenti sul barocco in Roma (Roma, 1926, p.

139. n. 1), in Ludovici, Vita, p. 96, n. 23.

38 Pirpo, 1976, p. 276.

39 Ibid., p. 278.

 

 

65

m Patrizi, who offered to retract whatever might be in error and
quickly presented a hand-written ”mendatio. " Nonetheless, Patrizi's
book was placed on the Index "until corrected by the author and printed
at Rome with the approval of the Master of the Sacred Palace. "‘0 A week
later, Patrizi presented another version of his text and three months
later (March, 1593), yet another. This latter draft Patrizi presented
to Antonio Acquaviva, general of the Jesuits, "so that a father in the
general ’5 confidence might conduct a conclusive examination. "41
Acquaviva selected Benedetto Giustiniani, the brother of Caravaggio's
later patron Vincenzo and the subject of a lost portrait by the
artist.‘2 According to Firpo, "the opinion of Giustiniani . . . after a
close examination, cannot have been too harsh, " as Patrizi's actions and
correspondence with the Index display a positive attitude.‘3 On 3 July
1593, the Index ordered Giustiniani’s criticisms sent to Patrizi and
requested the philosopher to meet with his censor to prepare a final,
polished draft. rirpo notes that the revision must have been fairly
intricate to carry out, as Patrizi needed eleven months to complete it,
along with a written defense, and to receive favorable certification
from a Jesuit teacher of moral theology at the Collegio Romano.“
Giustiniani was called back to give his opinion which "must have
been rather awiguous. For the cardinals . . . referred the matter to . . .

the rigid Jesuit Cardinal Toledo. . .. The session of 2 July 15.94 . . .

 

46 Ibid., p. 279.

41 Ibid., p. 286.

42 For the portrait see Hibbard, Caravaggio, p. 163, n. 22. Vincenzo
purchased the problematic first version of St. Matthew and the Angel.
Hibbard notes (p. 313, n. 167) that “Girolamo Giustiniani, nephew of
Cardinal Benedetto and of Marchese Vincenzo, had become an Oratorian in
1596 and rose to ‘Preposito' in 1623.".

43 rirpo, 1976, p. 281.

44 A Spaniard, Juan Azor.

 

 

66

resulted in the prohibition of the whole work. "45 Patrizi begged for
forgiveness. What errors he made, he said, he had made from ignorance,
adding that he would continue to submit himself and his work to the
correction of the Church. Patrizi’s conviction in trying to assemble a
system of "pious rationalism" may have saved him, for when the Index of
Clement VIII appeared in 1596, his work had avoided being "completely
prohibited."46 Hope still remained, but died, finally, with Patrizi in
early 1597.

An interesting factor in all this is the opinion of Patrizi
exhibited outside the Congregation of the Index. We know, for instance,
from a letter that in 1594, the year of the original prohibition,
Patrizi was still in the good graces of Cinzio Aldobrandini.‘7
Moreover, he continued to teach at the university until his death. At
that point, an interesting thing occurred when the pope asked Roberto
Bellarmino for his opinion regarding a successor to Patrizi.4° rirpo
writes that Bellarmino's response was that TPlatonism contained many
more insidious subtleties than Aristotelianism. It did so not because
it was more erroneous but rather because its deceptive affinity with
Christianity could more easily lead minds from the straight path.
Platonism, therefore, was more dangerous than Aristotelianism for the
same reason that heresy was more dangerous than paganism. And

Bellarmino recommended that the chair'be suppressed."‘9

 

45 rirpo, 1976, p. 282.

46 Also appearing on the list was Telesio’s De reuimm

47 See rirpo, 1956, 166.

48 Bellarmino, who would soon be busy with Galileo, had just been
elevated to the post of papal theologian and counselor to the Holy See.
49 rirpo, 1976, p. 278.

 

67

Bellarmino's answer to Clement is of interest on a number of
counts. Clearly, Bellarmino had given long consideration to the
theories of Patrizi and found much to fear in his pious rationalism - -
despite Patrizi’s obviously devout Catholicism. In reading the
contemporary reports regarding Caravaggio’s religious paintings
(particularly those that had been rejected by the clergy), one senses
much the same kind of discomfort and apprehension, in spite of the fact
that, as Luigi Salerno has observed 'ogni parte della sua opera ...
rivela una profonda religiosita'.”5° Bellori, at one point, gives an
accounting of such works and closes the discussion with the observation
that "51‘ come dbngue alcune erbe producono medicamenti salutiteri e
veleni perniciosissini, cosi' il caravaggio se bene giovo‘ in parte fu
nondimeno molto dannoso ... ."51 Caravaggio and Patrizi both seem to
have been categorized as lying somewhere between the sacred and the
profane.

The “in-between" characterization of Caravaggio is explicit in a
playful letter of 1603 from Cardinal Ottavio Paravicino52 in Rome to

Monsignor Paolo Gualdo53 at Padua:

 

50 Bologna, 3., 'Il Caravaggio nella cultura a nella societa‘ del suo
tempo," Cblloguio sul tema caravaggio e i caravaggeschi, arganizzato
d’intesa con la Accademie d1 spagna e di Olanda (Roma, 12-14 febbraio
1973). Roma, 1974, p. 162.

51 Ludovici, Vita, p. 68. In Le Vite de’ pittori messinesi of 1724,
Francesco Susinno claims that Caravaggio "l'aver voluto altresi‘ fuori
della sua professione andar questionando 1e cose della nostra sacrosanta
religione, gli da‘ taccia di miscredente ... " Hibbard, caravaggio, p.
386

52 Paravicino was a favorite Oratorian of Philip Neri and was tutored in
his youth by Baronius.

53 Gualdo was born in Vicenza and earned a doctorate in civil and canon
law at Padua in 1581. He spent some time in Rome before settling back
in Padua in 1591 where he became archpriest of the Duomo di San Antonio
in 1609. Gualdo met Galileo at the home of the scholar and bibliophile,
Gian Vincenzo Pinelli in Padua (Drake, 8., Galileo at Nbrk - His
Scientific Biogueuflun Chicago, 1978, pp. 47 and 451). Galileo was

 

68

fiMblto Rev. Sig.r come fratello,

Michelangelo da Caravaggio Pittore eccelente, dice, che
capito' per ombra, o spirito in Vicenza, e trovo‘ un galant’huomo,
che si diletta de pittura, et 11 fece nirabili interrogationi;
discrive, ma non dipinge col pennello un prete, ch’ha cera d1
refbrmato, et se non paria pare un Theatino; ma nelli discorsi
tocca galantemente d’ogni casa; ... lo discrive volonteroso di tar
dipingere, et hora discorreva della Chiese, hora di tar gualche
bell’opra per-Mons.r vescovo di Padova: ma chi gli avesse fatto
qualche quadro, che tusse in guel mezzo tra il devote, et profane,
che non l’averia voluto vedere da lontano. ... v;s. di grazia ci
dichiari come puo‘ essere tutto questa senza essersi partito di
qua, et chi e‘ questa religioso Vicentino cosi‘ curioso et
diligente . '54

That Caravaggio was operating within the highest circles of
Roman, and to some extent Italian, intellectuals is readily apparent
from the evidence. As has been stated here frequently, the problem of
defining his relationship to this circle is troublesome, even
exasperating. Much has been made of the presence of Cardinal Del
Monte's brother Guidobaldo in Rome, and a look at the scientific
interests of the Del Monte household is, indeed, revealing. This is

particularly true with regard to Galileo, whom Del Monte supported and

 

introduced to Pinelli by Cardinal Del Monte and his brother Guidobaldo
(Brodrick, J., Galileo - The Man, his Hark, his Mister-times. London,
1964, p. 23.) Gualdo was one of Galileo's most trusted advisors and one
of his staunchest defenders. Much of Pinelli's library ended up in the
possession of Federico Borromeo. Patrizi is known to have corresponded
with "Gian Francesco“ [7] Pinelli (apparently in 1592) regarding a
private copy of Tycho Brahe’s then-unpublished De mundi aetherei
recentioribus phaenomenis. Rossi, P., ”Francesco Patrizi: Heavenly
Spheres and Flocks of Cranes," Italian Studies in the Philosophy of
Science (Dalla Chiara, M.L., ed.), 1981, p. 372.

54 Bologna, r., '11 Caravaggio nella cultura ...," p. 159. "Paolo
Gualdo doveva aver conosciuto da qualche parte, ma personalmente, i1
Caravaggio. S’era interessato alla sua arte e aveva trattato con lui
per averne un quadro e per procuragli gualche coamissione. ... Un cosi‘
fatto prete, ad onta che si fosse interessato all’opera di Caravaggio
... avrebbe dichiarato (non si dimentichi che nella finzione del
Paravicino e‘ sempre Caravaggio a parlare in prima persona) che non
avrebbe voluto veder neppure da lontano guel tipo di quadri a ‘mezzo tra
il devoto et 11 profano', in cui non e‘ difficile riconoscere i quadri
sacri tipici del Caravaggio stesso."

 

69

whose tfiuought, as discussed in the next chapter, exhibits many

similarities to that of Patrizi.

 

mmH-ammsor

In 1587, Galileo became interested in the centers of gravity of
parabolic solids through an Archimedean treatise, 0n Plane Equilibrium,
and a 1565 book by Federico Commandino. According to Stillman Drake,
"an original and ingenious device hit upon by Galileo for his analysis
gained attention from eminent mathematicians both in Italy and abroad.
It also won for him the friendship of Marquis Guidobaldo del Monte, a
former pupil of Co—andino and author of the most important book on
mechanics published in the sixteenth century. '1 It appears, moreover
(according to Galileo himself), to have been Guidobaldo who pushed
Galileo towards this kind of research in the first place.2

In 1589 Galileo obtained the chair of mathematics at Pisa from
Ferdinand I, Grand Duke of Tuscany through the recommendation of
Cardinal Del Monte. Del Monte had himself ascended to the cardinalate
when Ferdinand surrendered it in 1587 to become Grand Duke instead. He
arranged for Del Monte, who had served the Tuscan court, to step in.3
Spezzaferro has noticed that early-on the Cardinal demonstrated a
partiality towards the young scientist‘ and that they seem to have been

genuinely friends. This apparent friendship is evidenced in a letter of

 

1 Drake, 5., Galileo at Work. Chicago, 1978, p. 13. Guidobaldo's book
is the Mechanicorum libri VI of 1577. See Klen, 2., Storia della
tecnica. Milano, 1959, pp. 168-170. In 1600 Guidobaldo wrote the
Perspectivae libri sax . Caravaggio, however, consistently rejects
formal perspective. Perhaps his one touch point with perspective would
be that it, conceptually, is a mental construct applied by the mind to
delineate space. See, however, p. 38, n. 26 above.

2 Geymonat, L., Galileo Galilei. Torino, 1957, p. 19.

3 Perdinand had spent most of his life in Rome, having gone there as a
fifteen-year—old cardinal in 1563. Within ten years he had become quite
influential at the Sacred College, and founded the society of the
Propaganda ride. Hibbert, C. , The House of Medici: Its Rise and Fall.
New York, 1975, p. 279.

4 Spezzaferro, L., "La cultura del cardinal Del Monte e il primo tempo
del Caravaggio,” Storia dell ’arte, 9-10 (1974), 73.

70

 

71

December 30N11 of 1588, in which Guidobaldo responds to Galileo, thanking
him "... dall’allegrezza che mostra della esaltazione del Sr. mio
fratello a1 cardinalato.'5 There is a great quantity of correspondence
surviving between the Del Montes and Galileo, indicating indeed,
something of a personal affinity. Cardinal Del Monte, in fact, was
closely - - perhaps dangerously - - involved with Galileo's dealings
with Bellarmino and offered Galileo advice right up to the bitter end.6
There is evidence, too, that Cardinal Del Monte had a genuine
interest in what Galileo was investigating. In a letter of 1610 to
Belisario Vinta7, Galileo identifies Cardinal Del Monte as being one of
the first to whom he wishes to send a telescope, along with a copy of
the Siderius nuncius.‘ Galileo later sent Del Monte a telescope and the
cardinal wrote back that '11 Sig.r Baldino Gherardi mi ha presentato da
parte di V.S. l’occhiale e '1 discorso l’uno e l'altro mi e‘ stato
oltra modb caro per amor di VLS. ... . Con l’occhiale ho gia fatto belle

esperienze e spero farne dell’altre ... .'9

 

5 Guidobaldo to Galileo, in Spezzaferro, "La cultura del cardinal Del
Monte ...,“ 74 and n. 89. Guidobaldo signs the letter, "come fratello."
6 In the end, Galileo chose to go against the advice of Del Monte as
this letter of the Florentine ambassador in March of 1616 indicates: "
Galileo has relied more on his own counsel than on that of his friends.
The Lord Cardinal del Monte and myself, and also several cardinals from
the Holy Office, had tried to persuade him to be quiet and not go on
irritating this issue. If he wanted to hold this Copernican opinion, he
was told, let him hold it quietly and not spend so much effort in trying
to have others share it." De Santillana, G., The crime of Galileo.
Chicago, 1955, p. 119. De Santillana continues (p. 124) that on the
fifth of March the decree of the Congregation of the Index was published
"and forwarded to all the Inquisitors in all parts of the world with
orders to enforce it rigorously. It was read from the pulpits and
announced in the universities; books were confiscated in shops and
libraries.".

7 Secretary of state and and senator under Perdinando I.

8 Spezzaferro, L., "La cultura del cardinal Del Monte ...," 78, n. 113.
9 Ibid.

 

72

Beside-B a shared interest in things scientific, Del Monte and
Galileo bOth enjoyed music. Del Monte had a large collection of musical
instruments, which perhaps Caravaggio had recourse to, and the cardinal
wrote to a friend, 'Sappiate che io suono di chitarriglia et canto alla
spagnuola. "10 Spezzaferro notes that Galileo, "figlio del camerata dei
Bardi, Vincenzo, " was an accomplished luteplayer,u and Drake that
Galileo's father was 'a leader in the move from contrapuntal
embellishment to harmonic modulation and in the birth of modern
opera. "12 In 1572, Vincenzo was assisted in this endeavor by Girolamo
Mei who, in Rome, was investigating the harmonies used in ancient Greek
music. Patrizi, as it turns out, was interested in many of the same
problems as Vincenzo and Mei and wrote at length on them in Della
poetics, La deca istorale, book 6 (1586).”

Another point of contact was Del Monte's and Galileo's love for
art. Galileo’s biographer, Vincenzio Viviani,“ reports that "nel
disegnare ebbe cosi‘ gran genio e talento, ch’egli medesimo poi dir
soleva agli amici, che se in quell ’eta [a Firenze e a Pisa] fosse stato
in pater suo 1 ’eleggersi professione, avrebbe assolutamente fatto
elezione della pittura. Ed in vero fu di poi in lui cosi‘ naturale e

propria 1 ’inclinazione al disegno, e acquistovvi col tempo tale

 

10 Ibid., 68.

11 Ibid., 74, n. 91. Giovanni Bardi led the Florentine Camerata which
was in the vanguard of the reform of music.

12 Drake, 8., 1978, p. 449.

13 See Palisca, C., 'Humanism and Music," Renaissance Humanism -
Foundations, Forms and Legacy, v. 3. Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 463-465,
and 477.

14 The mathematics student "attracted the attention of Ferdinando II,
who reco-ended him to Galileo. Viviani resided with Galileo at Arectri
from October 1639 as his pupil, amanuensis, and assistant. .. . He
published many mathematical books and edited the first collected edition
of Galileo’s works." Drake, S., 1978, p. 470.

 

73

esquitezza d1 gusto, che ’1 giudizio ch’ei dava delle pitture e disegni
veniva preferito a quello de’ primi professor! da’ professori medesimi,
come dal Cigoli, dal Bronzino, dal Passignano, e dall’Empoli, e da altri
famosi pittori de’ suoi tempi, amicissimi suoi ... ."15

On June 26, 1612, Galileo wrote a letter to Cigoli regarding the
question of which was more admirable, painting or sculpture. He, in a
typically beautiful bit of Galileian reasoning, argues that 'e‘ tanto
falso che la scultura sia piu‘ mirabile della pittura, per la ragione
che quella abbia il rilevo e questa no, che per questa medesima ragione
viene la pittura a superar d1 maravigiia la scultura: imperciocche' guel
rilevo che si scorge nella scultura, non lo mostra come scultura, ma
come pittura."16 Galileo goes on to explain, utilizing (in addition to
his own brilliant thoughts) some Caravaggesque notions and some physical
observations which almost paraphrase Patrizi’s notions regarding the
dimensions of bodies and the mind's perception of those dimensions. He
begins, for example, with a surprising definition of painting:

"Intendesi per-pittura quella facolta' che col chiaro e con scuro
imita la natura. Ora 1e sculture tanto avranno rilevo, quanta

 

15 Viviani, V., (Flora, F., ed.) Vita d1 Galileo. Milano, 1954, p.
28ff. The relationship between Caravaggio and Cigoli is not entirely
clear. Baldinucci (cited in Chappell, M., "Ludovico Cardi called 11
Cigoli," The Age of caravaggio [Gregori, M., ed.]. New York, 1985, p.
136) reports that Cigoli "would accompany Passignano and Caravaggio to
the taverns in order to not criticize the actions of the former or
suffer the persecutions and very strange mind of the latter.'.
Chappell, p. 136, notes that "despite their cool personal relationship,
artistic exchange between Caravaggio and Cigoli is evident, at least in
the latter’s work." Cigoli assisted Galileo by recording the appearance
of sunspots, and he painted the moon beneath the feet of the Madonna in
the Cappella Paolina Iimaculate Cbnception from a description provided
by Galileo.

16 Panofsky 3., Galileo as a critic of the Arts. The Hague, 1954, p.
32.

 

74

saranno in una parts colorate di chiaro et in un’altra di scura.”
E che cio‘ sia i1 vero, l’esperienza stessa ce lo dimostra;
pemhe‘ se esporremo ad un lune una figura di rilevo, et
anderemola in modo colorendo, col dar di scuro dove sia chiaro,
sinche‘ il colore sia tutto unito, questa rimarra' in tutto priva
di rilevo. "10
". . . Non ha la status per esser larga, lunga e profonda, ma
per esser dove chiara e dove scura. Et avvertasi, per prova d1
cio‘, che delle tre dimensioni, due sole sono sottoposte
all ’occhio, cioe‘ lunghezza e larghezza (che e‘ la superficie, la
quale da’ Greci fu detta ‘epifania’, cioe‘ periferia o
circoferenza), perche' dalle case che appariscono e si veggono,
altro non si vede che la superficie, e la profondita ' non puo‘
dall ’occhio esser compress, perche‘ la vista nostra non penetra
dentro a’ carpi opachi.19 Vedi dungue l’occhio solamente il lunga
e 'l largo, ma non gia‘ il profondo, cioe' la grossezza non mai.
Non essendo dunque 1a profondita ‘ esposta alla vista, non potremo
d ’una status comprender altro che 1a lunghezza e la larghezza;
donde e ‘ manifesto che noi non ne vegghiamo se non 1e superficie,
la gual altro non e‘ che larghezza e lunghezza, senza profondita'.
Conosciamo dunque la profondita ‘, non come oggetto della vista per
se' et assolutamente, ma per accidente e rispetto a1 chiaro et
alla scura. "20

It has been noted here before how similar a number of Galileo's
writings are to Patrizi's. In the current context, the excerpt above
bears comparison with a portion from Patrizi’s Pancosmia:

"In each body, therefore, of whatever sort, mathematical or
natural, three dimensions will be found, which are recomized both
by the mind and the senses. For who has not perceived in any
body before him, the dimension from up to down, and the one from
right to left, and likewise the one from front to rear? These are
sometimes changed with respect to us, so that what was above is
below, what was on the right is on the left, and likewise, what
was in front is in the back. But none of these dimensions
disappears in such a change. For length, breadth, and depth
endure until the destruction of that body. No one ought still to
doubt that these three dimensions, acknowledged by everyone, are
inherent in every natural body, and the property of every body.
"But I maintain, in addition, that they exist in all
'corporeal things, ’ that is, in all those that extend throughout
bodies, either their wholes or parts, one or several. Now I give
the name 'corporeal things’ to what are called qualities - heat,

 

17 Patrizi, interestingly, had defined color as 'lux opaca. " Brickman,
B. , An Introduction to Francesco Patrizi ’s Nova de Universis
Philosophia. New York, 1941, p. 30.

18 Panofsky, 8., Galileo ..., p. 32.

19 The third of Patrizi’s bodies was that of "the opaque," through which
light cannot pass. See p. 51 above.

20 Panofsky, 8., Galileo ..., p. 33.

 

 

 

 

75

Child, whiteness, blackness, etc.. For they occupy either the
inside and outside of bodies as a whole, or their'parts. That is,
they either cover the surface, or else penetrate the depths and
thus extend also through those three dimensions and 'spaces.’...
But the dimensions in corporeal things differ from those in bodies
themselves, in that the latter are properties of the bodies, while
the former are not properties of the qualities. For qualities
have no quantity, size, length, or depth per se and by their
nature, but only by accident, in that they extend through bodies,
which have quantity and size, and are three-dimensional."in
The cross-currents of thought in Patrizi and Galileo, and the
appearance in Caravaggio's Del Montean works of Patrizian treatments of
light and space, are fascinating and yet we know of no direct
correspondence between the parties involved. Del Monte's friends at the
Oratory must have, at the very least, known of Patrizi. The Giustiniani
certainly did know Patrizi, and Benedetto’s reaction to Patrizi’s
philosophy seems not to have been overly critical.22 Federico Borromeo
received a dedication in the Nova philosophia and, as Firpo reported,
I'not a single dissenting voice” was heard among the prelates.13
Borromeo, moreover, was a correspondent and defender of Galileo.
Another who received a dedication was Cardinal Paleotti with whom Del
Monte shared the position of cardinal-protector to the Accademia di San
Luca.24 Gualdo is an intriguing figure directly connected with
Caravaggio, Del Monte, the Oratorian Paravicino, Pinelli, and Galileo.
If he didn't know Patrizi, he should have!
It is clear that Caravaggio's Del Montean period was critical to
his development as a painter, and to the intellectual process that Mina

Gregori observed at work. Caravaggio seems to have been exposed to and

 

21 Pancoamia, Book I (De spacio), 62-a. Brickman, B., trans. "On
Physical Space; Francesco Patrizi," Journal of the History'of Ideas, 4
(April, 1943), 228

22 Benedetto may even have been sympathetic to Patrizi's position as the
Index opted to seek the advice of a hard-line Jesuit instead.

23 See p. 64 and n. 35 above.

24 Hibbard, H., caravaggio. New York, 1983, p. 30, n. 15.

 

76

to have assimilated some of the advanced thought which, as evidenced by
the affinity of both Del Monte brothers for Galileo, appears to have
been a fixture of the Del Monte household for quite some time.
Spezzaferro presents a couple of letters which, while not relating

specifically to Caravaggio, may help to clarify the relationship between
Caravaggio and Cardinal Del Monte as artist and patron. The first two
were sent in 1582 to Duke Francesco Maria II from his minister in Rome,
Baldo Falcucci. In the first letter Falcucci reports that a young
painter named Antonio Cimatori was to be sent to Rome by the Duke to
study with Zuccari, but he could not do so as Zuccari had left Rome.
Falcucci conferred with Del Monte and reports Del Monte's opinion that
Tnon vi sia persona di conto eccetto scipion da Gaeta (Pulzonel, che non
lo pdgliarebbe facendo l’ecclellentissi)mo, et (non) conosce [Del Monte]
miglior strada per lui che venir in Roma in casa mia o d’altri et
attender a copiare et pigliar domestichezza con alcuni valent’huomini in
questa professione.'=5 In the second letter, the Duke’s minister writes
that the artist is hard at work painting and that Del Monte is
recoamending works to be copied. Spezzaferro makes two main points
regarding these letters. First, that Del Monte ' - almeno nell'ambiente
roveresco - ' seems to have been considered an expert whose opinions
were reported to, and accepted by, Francesco Maria 11.26 The second
point expressed by Spezzaferro is '11 fatto che egli segue da vicino
l'edhcazione artistica del giovane pittore, cosi‘ da far-pensare che il
suo interesse per i fatti artistici non fosse solo astratto, ma che si

esplicasse anche in concreto.727

 

25 Spezzaferro, L., “La cultura del cardinal Del Monte ...," 69.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.

 

77

From 1599 comes another letter, this time from Del Monte to
Christine de’ Medici. "Manda a V.A.S. il presente ritratto della Sig. ra
di Parma (se pero‘ e‘ vero quello che si dice) non sapendo che cosa piu'
grande ne’ piu' bella mandarli d1 qua, et la mando ancora, accio' la
veda l'eccellenza del pittore che e‘ an giovane mio allievo . . . . '29 At
the very least then, by 1599 Del Monte was of the opinion that his
relationship to the painters he patronized had become something more on
the order of a teacher/student, or mentor/student relationship.29 This
corresponds with the period in which Del Monte "discovered" Caravaggio
and brought him into his household. It's entirely possible, therefore,
that the transition that one sees in Caravaggio’s works during the Del
Monte period - - the introduction of Patrizian elements of light and
space being part of it - - is directly attributable to the tutelage of

the cardinal himself.

 

28 Ibid., 80, n. 118. The letter was originally published by Heikamp,
D. , "La Medusa del Caravaggio e l’armatura dello Scia‘ ‘Abbas di
Persia,” Paragone, 199 (1966), 64.

29 By this time Del Monte was well-established in the Fabbrica of St.
Peter's and the protectorship of the Accademia.

 

W10)!

In the foreword to his Caravaggio Studies, Walter Friedlaender
observed that while the Renaissance, as a whole, has been well studied
with regard to aspects of cultural change, "very little has been done in
recent times to illuminate the general situation in Rome from about 1580
to 1620, even though this period is of great interest for later
developments. '1 Friedlaender's statement made nearly twenty years ago
is today still essentially true. Moreover, I would add to it
Kristeller's view that although Renaissance "achievements in political
and religious history, in the arts and in literature are rightly famous,
its contributions to the history of philosophy are less widely known. ’2
This is especially true for the late Renaissance where the pattern of
study tends to skip from Ficino and Pico della Mirandola,3 to touch
briefly upon Giordano Bruno and then land smartly at the doorstep of
Rene Descartes.4

One wonders why this should be so. Clearly, at the very least
from the view of the history of science, Telesio and Patrizi’s names
should be written large in Galileo’s great book of the universe.

Perhaps it is precisely because a thinker like Patrizi is transitional,
is not entirely original, that we tend to overlook him and his
contemporaries. To do so impoverishes our own knowledge of this

important period in a peculiarly modern way - - a way prepared for us,

 

1 Friedlaender, W. , Caravaggio Studies. Princeton, 1974, p. xii.

2 Kristeller, P.O., "Renaissance Philosophies,“ A History of
Philosophical Systems (Ferm, V., ed.). New York, 1950, p. 227.

3 More often now it is Machiavelli who is studied. This, perhaps, tells
us something about our ovm era.

4 In the United States, Galileo gets consigned, more often than not, to
the scrap-heap of introductory physics courses.

78

 

79

perhaps, by people like Patrizi himself - - which implies that anything
which is not 21111312 new must, of necessity, be antiquated and
obsolete. The study undertaken here is a first attempt to redress the
situation, and to focus attention upon late 16th century thought. By
turning more to the philosophy of the time, and coupling this with the
on—going studies of the period's theology, perhaps we might come to
better understand Caravaggio's startling new vision, while also nearing
a greater comprehension of the phenomenon of "naturalism"; an interest
and a concern which has far-reaching ramifications for later art - -
that of 19th century America, for example - - but which is still largely
ill-defined and poorly understood.

As Kristeller noted, "a thinker like Patrizi deserves a good deal
of attention .. . . He shows us once more that a tradition does not live
merely by repetition, but by a continuous transformation of its basic
ideas. The old heritage is constantly being rethought, adapted, and
supplemented in order to incorporate new insights and to solve new
problems. '5 Many of these same concepts could be applied to the art of
Caravaggio, who, after the examples of the High Renaissance and its
alter-ego Mannerism, must have thought "where are we to go from here?“
His answer, it seems, was formulated by a process similar to that
employed by Telesio and Patrizi; far-sighted, but in some ways unsure.

However it happened to come about, it seems fair to say that
Caravaggio arrived in Rome from northern Italy with the rudiments of his
novel style in place. This approach to painting surely had a basis in

the rather dramatic, observational manner of the Lombard masters

 

5 Kristeller, P.O. , Sight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance.
Stanford, 1964, p. 126.

 

 

discussed earlier, mixed with a Venetian sense of color assimilated

either first hand or secondarily. If Peterzano had any influence upon
the young painter, aside from technical matters, it seems to have been
mostly negative; that is to say, that Caravaggio probably made a
conscious decision no; to follow his lead.6

Through Peterzano, however, Caravaggio must have encountered the
ideas of Lomazzo. Lomazzo’s concepts of painted light, of 'moti," of
coarse apostles, and his references to "good moderns,“ while at the same
time praising the Venetians and artists like Correggio, Raphael and
Leonardo must have had a strong resonance for Caravaggio. We see
glimmers, too, of this approach to painting in some of Caravaggio's
early, tentative Roman works as was noted, for example, with regard to
the concert. One wishes, however, that more of his early Rome works had
come down to us in an authoritative manner, as his known pre-Del Montean
corpus is disturbingly problematic.

It is with the Del Montean works that we first obtain a real sense
of Caravaggio's development. We are fortunate, furthermore, in having
texts which shed a considerable amount of light on the matter. Baglione
is particularly valuable in relating a perceived development from "dal
naturale" in the case of the Concert, to 'vivo and vero' with regard to
the Luteplayer. He also notes that this development is tied to a
different use of light, more specifically a heightened effect of shadow,
in Caravaggio’s paintings. The result of this shift, implied although
not specifically mentioned by Baglione, is precisely (as Spezzaferro

wrote) that of giving "realta‘ spaziale a1 vuoto."

 

6 For a discussion of the all-too-overlooked problem of influence and
how one is to account for it, see Hermeren, G., Influence in Art and
Literature. Princeton, 1975.

 

81

This subtle shift on the part of Caravaggio is telling, for he is
no longer working within the confines of Lomazzo’s more painterly
theories but more along the lines of contemporary philosophies of
nature, particularly that of Francesco Patrizi.

It is attractive to speculate that the works by Caravaggio which
first captured Cardinal Del Monte’s attention had a quality about them
which was consonant with the philosophical/scientific interests of both
the cardinal and his brother. Indeed, if one considers the similarities
of Lomazzo’s Rec-Platonic theories to those more advanced, yet decidedly
lea-Platonic, theories of Patrizi and others? which Del Monte must have
been familiar with, it is not at all difficult to imagine Del Monte's
interest being piqued by Caravaggio's startling imagery.

This study opened with the quotation from Roger Fry that
Caravaggio, in essence, was the first modern artist and that he "was the
first to proceed not by evolution, but by revolution; the first to rely
entirely upon his own temperamental attitude, and to defy tradition and
authority.“ Aside from the allusion to Caravaggio’s well-documented
brushes with the law,° the statement could equally be applied to either
Telesio - - Bacon’s ”first of the moderns" - - or to Patrizi, who urged

that one should “not be frightened by great names" and that the

 

7 There is much Platonic theory to be found in the writings of Galileo,
but the issue is very much undecided. See Geymonat for an interesting
and balanced discussion.

8 Caravaggio’s lengthy Rome police record and his skirmishes on Malta
and elsewhere clearly indicate that something in his makeup was entirely
conducive to finding trouble on the streets. What’s interesting,
however, is that few (if any) similar reports can be tied to his
professional activities. When any of his canvases were rejected, for
example, he simply got on with a replacement. One wonders how coolly
Michelangelo would have reacted under similar circumstances.

9 See p. 35, n. 16 above.

 

 

82

teBtJJmony of the senses should be employed.10 In practice, as we have
seen, both Caravaggio and these philosophers were more indebted to the
past and respectful of authority than they let on - — a wise position
given the fates of Giordano Bruno and, later, Galileo - - nor were they
entirely dependent upon the observation of nature.

This precarious stance 'tra il devoto, et profano' in the words of
Cardinal Paravicinou is, in many ways, unsettling. As Kristeller noted
with regard to Patrizi, "the mixture of physical science with
metaphysical and theological speculation ... is certainly strange for a
modern reader ... [but] Patrizi lived and wrote at a time when the
emancipation of'physical science from philosophy had not yet been
achieved ... .'12 Yet, Caravaggio and the philosophers did assert an
independence from tradition whether real or not; a radical, perhaps
unprecedented (and entirely 'modern') stance which smacked of heresy to
the less-enlightened and/or those with entrenched positions to protect,
whether artistic or theological. Moreover they backed up their words by
producing original works which, while based upon tradition, had an
uneasy, new edge to them.

Telesio, Patrizi and Galileo all believed that what they were
pursuing was in the best interests of the Church, and they said so.
Caravaggio must surely have felt the same way, as well as his patrons
and admirers, many of whom had crossed paths with both Patrizi and
Galileo. Interestingly, the reaction of authorities to the artist and
the philosphers has a striking similarity. Bellarmino's response, for

example, to Clement VIII regarding the perceived dangers of Platonism -

 

10 Page 47 and n. 55 above.
11 Page 68 and n. 54 above.
12 Kristeller, 1964, p. 120.

 

83

— tluat it was deceptively similar to Christianity and, therefore, more
dangerous than paganism - - has a parallel in the responses of various
clerics to the "naturalism" of Caravaggio's rejected works such as the
Death of the Virgin, and the apparently more acceptable classicism
(paganism?) of paintings such as Annibale Carracci's Farnese ceiling.
The Platonist-oriented Oratorians, by contrast, looked favorably upon
Caravaggio. More interesting, perhaps, and almost entirely overlooked,
is that the Augustinians of S. Agostino - — no strangers to the theory
of illumination - - seem to have had no problem at all in accepting
Caravaggio’s stunning.Madonna di Loreto, despite the outcries of
Baglione and others.

The matter of Caravaggio's "naturalism" is one which still needs
serious attending to if we are ever to make fully plain the artist's
intentions or to understand in the proper context the assessments of him
by his contemporaries. Central to the problem is the definition of the
term "nature." Aristotle, who was after all, the first real natural
scientist, said quite simply that nature was “the essence of things.'13
Since then, the word has gone through so many changes and permutations
that one hardly knows what it means.u With Caravaggio, then, we need
to better ascertain what terms like "nature" and all its derivatives
were understood to mean in his time. What “nature" meant, for example,

to Cardinal Del Monte would be helpful in shedding some light upon what

 

13 Metaphysics, IV, 4, 1015 a 14. McKeon, R., ed., The Basic Works of
Aristotle. New York, 1966.

14 The implications involved, for instance, in applying Aristotle's
definition to as seemimgly as harmless a phrase as "he is, by nature, an
outstanding late-inning pinch-hitter with men in scoring position," are
mind-boggling.

 

it was that he saw in Caravaggio’s works put up for sale by the art

dealer Valentino.

“Nature," as with "space" and “void,“ seems to have been a real
problem in the latter stages of the sixteenth century and on into the
seventeenth. The entire accepted fabric of virtually everything known
(a fabric which, for the most part, dated to antiquity) must have,
seemingly, been coming apart thread by thread. The study of nature,
ultimately, threatened to tear it all asunder, taking the Church with it
and offering in replacement a cloth of unknown shape and quality.

Although we don’t know what nature meant for Caravaggio, we do
know what it meant for Patrizi. Utilizing a Mao-Platonic schema known
through Augustine and which finds expression also in Galileo, Patrizi
contends that God is concealed to us and that we only know of Him feebly
through His "lights.'15 A plurality of beings, as discussed earlier,
emanates from God, divided into the incorporeal and the corporeal.

These grades of being partake of one another (participatio),15 through
the process of "‘intereillumination,’ through which beings are
illuminated, come into existence [occupy space], and are known. ...
Nature, in this scheme, is the animating principle of the world and all
things in it."17 Mature, therefore, as an emanation from God, carries
with it a semblance of the Divine all the way down to the meagerest of
creations - - be they bare-footed peasants, androgynous youths, tax
collectors or visionary painters prone to violence. Patrizi's "world of

nature," Brickman tells us, ”is not despised; it, too, is touched with

 

15 Brickman, 1941, p. 32.

16 A concept widely used in Plato (methexis). See Phaedo 100d and
Parmenides 130c-131a. Also in Proclus.

17 Brickman, B., An Ihtrodhction to Francesco Patrizi’s Nova de
universis Philosophia. New York, 1941, p. 34.

 

 

85

diV1nity. '19 Perhaps this was of some solace to Caravaggio, who later,

Susinno reports, admitted that "i miei [peccati] son tutti mortali. '19

 

 

18 Ibid., pm 58.
19 Susinno, in Hibbard, H., Caravaggio. New York, 1983, p. 384.

 

 

Figure 1: Simone Peterzano, Entombment. S. Fedele, Milan.
(Gregori, M., ed., The Age of Caravaggio. New York, 1985, p. 74.)

 

 

 

Figure 2: Caravaggio, Concert of Youths.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
(Hibbard, H., Caravaggio. New York, 1983, Fig. 15)

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Caravaggio, Luteplayer. Hermitage, Leningrad.
(Hibbard, H., Caravaggio. New York, 1983, Fig. 18)

Figure 4: Caravaggio, Bacchino Malato.
Galleria Borghese, Rome.
(Gregori, M., ed., The Age of Caravaggio. New York, 1985, Fig. 1)

 

 

 

Figure 5: Caravaggio, Calling of St. Matthew.
S. Luigi dei Francesi, Rome.
(Gregori, M., ed., The Age of Caravaggio. New York, 1985, Fig. 4)

 

Figure 6: Caravaggio, Martyrdom of St. Matthew.
S. Luigi dei Francesi, Rome.
(Gregori, M., ed., The Age of Caravaggio. New York, 1985, Fig. 5)

 

 

 

 

smuoomum

Barasch, Moshe. Light and Color in the Italian Renaissance Theory
of Light. New York, 1978.

Bologna, Ferdinando. 'Il Caravaggio nella cultura e nella societa‘ del
suo tempo,“ Colloquio sul tema Caravaggio e i caravaggeschi,
organizzato d’intesa con le Accademie di Spagna e di Olanda (Roma,
12—14 febbraio 1973). Roma, 1974, pp. 149-188.

Brickman, Benjamin. An Introduction to Francesco Patrizi ’s Nova de
Universis Philosophia. New York, 1941.

------------ , Trans. "On Physical Space; Francesco Patrizi," Journal
of the History of Ideas, 4 (April, 1943), 224-243.

Brodrick, James. Galileo - The Man, his Work, his Misfortunes. London,
1964.

Burtt, Edwin Arthur. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern
Physical Science. London, 1949

Cinotti, Mia. ‘Vita del Caravaggio: novita‘ 1983-1988, ' "Caravaggio -
Nuove riflessioni,‘ Ouaderni di Palazzo Venezia, v. VI. Roma,
1989, 79-94.

Comford, Francis MacDonald, trans. The Republic of Plato.
London, 1945.

De Santillana, Giorgio. Galileo Galilei - Dialogue on the Great World
Systems. Chicago, 1955.

----------------- . The Crime of Galileo. Chicago, 1955.
Drake, Stillman. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. Garden City, 1957.

--------------- . Galileo at Work - His Scientific Biography.
Chicago, 1978.

Bvennett, H. Outram. The Spirit of the Counter-Reformation: The Birbeck
Lectures in Ecclesiastical History Given in the University of
Cambridge in May 1.951. Cambridge, 1968.

Firpo, Luigi. "Filosofia italiana e controriforma,‘ Rivista di
filosofia, 46 (1950), 150-173 and 47 (1951), 30-47.

92

 

 

93

------------ . “The Flowering and Withering of Speculative Philosophy -
Italian Philosophy and the Counter-Reformation: The Condemnation
of Francesco Patrizi," The Late Italian Renaissance, 1525-1630
(Cochrane, Eric, ed.). London, 1970, pp. 266-284.

Friedlaender, Walter. Caravaggio Studies. Princeton, 1974.

Geymonat, Ludovico. Galileo Galilei. Torino, 1957.

Giustinani, Vincenzo (Banti, Anna, ed.). Discorsi sulle arti e sui
mestieri. Firenze, 1981.

Gregori, Mina, ed. The Age of Caravaggio. New York, 1985.

------------- . "Caravaggio Today," The Age of Caravaggio
(Gregori, Mina, ed.). New York, 1985, pp. 28-47.

Hermeren, Goran. Influence in Art and Literature. Princeton, 1975.
Hibbard, Howard. Caravaggio. New York, 1983.

Hibbert, Christopher. The House of Medici: Its Rise and Fall.
New York, 1975.

Hyman, Arthur and Walsh, James J., eds. Philosophy in the Middle Ages -
The azristian, Islamic and Jewish Traditions. Indianapolis, 1983.

Klemm, Friedrich. Storia della tecnica. Milano, 1959.
Kristeller, Paul Oskar. "Renaissance Philosophies,“ A History of

Philosophical Systems (Ferm, Vergilius, ed.). New York, 1950,
pp. 227-239.

 

. L'ight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance.
Stanford, 1964.

Longhi, Roberto. Mostra del Caravaggio e dei caravaggeschi, catalogo,
Milano. Firenze, 1951.

Ludovici, Sergio Samek. Vita del Caravaggio dalle testimonianze del suo
tempo. Milano, 1956.

MacCurdy, Edward, ed. The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci.
Garden City, 1941.

Mahon, Denis. "Studies in Seicento Art and Theory," Studies of the
Narbtlrg Institute, v. 16. London, 1947.

------------ . ”Addendum to Caravaggio," Burlington Magazine, 586
(January, 1952), 3-23.

Maynard, Theodore. Mystic in Motley - The Life of St. Philip Neri.
Milwaukee, 1946.

 

 

 

94

MeKeon, Richard, ed. The Basic Wbrks of.Aristotle. New York, 1966.
Moir, Alfred. caravaggio. New York, 1982.

Palisca, Claude V. "Humanism and Music," Renaissance HUmanism -
Foundations, Forms and.Legacy; v. III (Rabil, Albert, Jr., ed.).
Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 450-485.

Panofsky, Erwin. Galileo as a critic of the Arts. The Hague, 1954.

Romano, Fiorella, ed. 'Bernardino Telesio e l’idea di natura ‘iuxta
propria principia'," mostra bibliografica, documentaria e
iconografica, I quaderni della biblioteca nazionale di Napoli,
serie I. Roma, 1989.

Ross, W.D. Aristotle. London. 1953.

Rossi, Paolo. "Francesco Patrizi: Heavenly Spheres and Flocks of
Cranes," Italian Studies in the Philosophy of Science '
(Dalla Chiara, Maria Louisa, ed.). Boston, 1981, pp. 363-388.

Rossi, Rosa. ‘La diffusione delle dottrine telesiane nell'Italia
meridionale fra concensi e polemiche. L'intervento della censura
ecclesiastica,’ 'Bernardino Telesio e l'idea di natura ‘iuxta
propria principia'," mostra bibliografica, documentaria e
iconografica, I quaderni della biblioteca nazionale di Napoli,
serie VII, 1. Roma, 1989, pp. 89-102.

Salerno, Luigi. “Caravaggio e la cultura nel suo tempo," Nbvita‘
sul caravaggio: saggi e contributi. Milano. 1974, pp. 17-26.

-------------- . "The Roman World of Caravaggio: His Patrons and
Admirers," The Age of caravaggio (Gregori, Mina, ed.).
New York, 1985, pp. 17-21.

Spear, Richard E. ‘Leonardo, Raphael, and Caravaggio,’ "Light on the
Eternal City: Observations and Discoveries in the Art and
Architecture of Rome,“ Papers in Art.History from the Pennsylvania
State University (Hager, Hellmut and Munshower, Susan Scott,
eds.), v. II. Dexter, 1987, pp. 59-90.

Spezzaferro, Luigi. "La cultura del cardinal Del Monte e il primo tempo
del Caravaggio,“ Storia dell’arte, 9-10 (1974), 57-92.

Treffers, Bert. “Dogma, esegesi e pittura: Caravaggio nella Cappella
Contarini in San Luigi dei Francesi," Storia dell’arte, 67 (1989),
241-255.

Valier, Agostino (Cistellini, Antonio, ed.). ll dialogo della gioia
cristiana. Brescia, 1975.

Viviani, Vincenzo (Flora, Ferdinando, ed.). Vita di Galileo.
Milano, 1954.

 

95

Warner, Rex, trans. me Confessions of St. Augustine. New York, 1963.
Weinberg, Julius R.

A Short History of Medieval Philosophy.
Princeton, 1974.
Wright, A.D. Ihe CounterbRetornetion - Catholic Europe and the
Non-Christian Nbrld. London, 1982.

Yates, Frances A. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition.
Chicago, 1964.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Argan, Giulio Carlo. "Il ‘realismo' nella poetica del Caravaggio,"
Scritti di storia dell 'arte in onore di Lionello Venturi, v. II.
Roma, 1956, pp. 25-41.

Banfi, Antonio. Vita di Galileo. Milano, 1962.

Berti, Luciano. Caravaggio - 1e storie di San Matteo. Firenze, 1965.

Blunt, Anthony. Artistic Theory in Italy, 1450-1600. Oxford, 1956.

Calvesi, Maurizio. Treasures of the Vatican. Lausanne, 1962.

----------------- . "La ‘norte di Bacio’, Saggio sull'ernetislo di
Giorgione," Storia dell ’arte, 7—8 (1970), 230-231.

----------------- . Le realta' del Caravaggio. Torino, 1990.

Cinotti, Mia. Imagine del Caravaggio, nostra didattica itinerante.
Milano, 1973.

Daniel-Raps, H. {the Church in the Seventeenth Century. New York, 1963.
Delogu, Giuseppe. Caravaggio. New York, 1964.

De Holen, Richard L. Hie Meaning of the Renaissance and Refomtion.
Boston, 1974.

De Rinaldis, Aldo. L’arte in Hana dal seicento al novecento.
Bologna, 1948.

Descartes, Rene (Cress, Donald A., trans.). Meditations on First
Philosophy. Indianapolis, 1979.

Pavaro, Antonio (Galluzzi, Paolo, ed.). Anici e corrispondenti di
Galileo, v. I—III. Firenze, 1983.

Preedberg, Sydney .1. Circa 1600 - A Revolution of Style in Italian
Painting. Cambridge (MA), 1983.

Garin, Eugenio. L’unanesino italiana. Bari, 1964.

Gentile, Giovanni. Il pensiero italiana del rinascinento.
Pirenze, 1955.

Gilson, Etienne. fine Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy. New York, 1936.

96

 

97

Hall, James. A History of Ideas and Ilages in Italian Art.
New York, 1983.

Haskell, Francis. Patrons and Painters - A Study in the Relations
Between Italian Art and Society in the Age of the Baroque.
London, 1963.

Heikanp, D. , "La Medusa del Caravaggio e l’anatura dello Scia‘ Abbas di
Persia,“ Paragone, 199 (1966), 65ff.

Janelle, Pierre. we Catholic Reformation. Milwaukee, 1963.
Kidd, B.J. The Counter-Refornation, 1550-1600. Westport, 1980.

Kristeller, Paul Oskar. Renaissance nought and the Arts.
Princeton, 1990.

Longhi, Roberto. Caravaggio. Rona, 1988.
Marcora, Carlo. ‘Trattati d'arte sacra all'epoca del Baronio,’
"Baronio e 1'arte," Atti del convegno inter-nazionale di studi Sara
10-13 ottobre 1984 (De Maio, Romeo; Borromeo, Agostino;
Gulia, Luigi; Lutz, Georg; and Mazzacane, Aldo, eds.).
Rona, 1985 (?), pp. 189—244.
Maurer, Armand A. Medieval Philosophy. New York, 1962.

Mayer, Frederick. A History of Ancient & Medieval Philosophy.
New York, 1950.

Mondolfo, Rodolfo. Figure e idee della filosofia del rinasciaento.
Firenze, 1963.

O'Connell, Marvin R. fine Counter-Refor-ation, 1559-1610.
New York, 1974.

Pasquinelli, Alberto. Letture galileiane. Bologna, 1968.

Patrizi, Francesco (Aguzzi-Barbagli, Danilo, ed.). Della poetica,
v. I-III. Firenze, 1969.

------------------ (Nelson, John Charles, ed.). L’alorosa filosofia.
Firenze, 1963.

Prodi, Paolo. Ricerca sulla teorica delle arti figurative nella riforIa
cattolica. Bologna, 1984.

Rabil (Jr. ), Albert. Renaissance Humanist - Foundations, Fans and
Legacy, v. II and III. Philadelphia, 1988.

Redondi, Pietro. Galileo eretico. Torino, 1983.

Robb, Nesca A. Neoplatonisl of the Italian Renaissance. London, 1935.

 

98

Runes, Dagobert D. , ed. Treasury of World Philosophy. Paterson, 1959.

Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy (And Its Connections
with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to
the Present Day). New York, 1945.

Singer, Dorothea Waley. Giordano Bruno - His Life and Thought.
New York, 1950.

Thilley, Frank. A History of Philosophy. New York, 1936.

Wittkower, Rudolf. Art and Architecture in Italy, 1600-1750.
New York, 1973.

Wolf, A., A History of Science, Technology, & Philosophy in the 16th and
17th Centuries, v. I. New York, 1959.

Zuccari, Alessandro. “La politica culturale dell’Oratorio ronano nella

seconda neta‘ del Cinquecento,“ Storia dell ’arte, 13 (1981),
77-112.

----------- , "La cappella della ‘Pieta" alla Chiesa Nuova e i

connittenti del Caravaggio," Storia dell ’arte, January/April,
1983, 53—56.

 

 

 

 

"ITWJFWEI'LITM'MWWW