The Flagellation, painted by Piero della Francesca between 1458 and 1466 [1], is on a wooden panel measuring 58.4 by 81.5 cm. It is possibly the most mysterious and enigmatic of all the surviving pictures by Piero, whose work is in any case conspicuous for this hallmark quality. Many of his works, ostensibly straightforward in their treatment of their subjects, in fact contain elements which are not easily explicable in relation to the supposed subject and are, in their general feeling, somewhat ambiguous (or better, enigmatic). His London Baptism may be taken as an example: the subject is the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, in the River Jordan.
The Baptism by Piero della Francesca, tempera on wood, height 167cm, early 1440s?
National Gallery, London (Photo: the author)
Given that it is a religious image, and one with a historical iconography, the basic and necessary ingredients are all there (based on Luke, Mark and Matthew), and, in addition three angels - divine figures - who witness the event, and among whom, one engages our gaze directly. However, in the background there is a young-looking man who is removing his shirt, preparing to be baptised as well; or is he? He could equally be putting his shirt back on. This would seem to be a small and even insignificant point, nevertheless, it leaves us with a doubt, something is not clear, something is ambiguous - and especially in relation to the seeming crystal clarity of the event taking place in the immediate foreground of the painting.
But, even more puzzling are the four orientally-dressed men standing in the distance on the other side of the river, behind the dressing/undressing neophyte. Do these men, dressed as they are, represent the old Hebrew Law, as it was before the coming of Christ?; or do they represent, as suggested by various historians, the Eastern Christian Church with whom Rome (the centre of the Western Church) was attempting to reconcile in the 1430s? In any case, what is Piero trying to imply by including these contemporary Eastern figures in an event which took place roughly 1,400 years earlier, viz. the Baptism of Christ?
The Flagellation by Piero della Francesca, oil and tempera on wood panel, 1450?-1466?
In its glass case in the Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino (Photo: the author)
In the Flagellation (above) I think the first point to be made is that it should not be read as a description of an event as retold in the New Testament; it is a symbolic picture and what it is symbolic of is the problem, at least for art historians. Like the Baptism, it too contains the Gospel and (by then) long-established iconographical essentials of the purported subject, but, unlike in the Baptism - and perhaps two decades later - this Biblical event is not shown in the centre of the foreground area of the painting, but is set, as sometimes happened, off to one side (the left) and, much more radically, virtually in the background - although not quite. For this reason and given the small size of the picture anyway, this event, the Flagellation of Jesus, is very small: clearly visible, but small. If Piero's painting consisted only of this rendering of the event, apart from the almost secondary placing, that is, almost in the background, we could have said that it was a more or less 'normal' representation; however, the right side of Piero's painting is completely and wholly abnormal!
The right side takes us outside, away from the 'action' of the putative subject, to three very differently-clothed men, arranged like the standing figures on the left side, in a vague semi-circle. Some obvious questions spring to mind: who are they?; why are they there?; what are they doing?; what is their relationship to the Flagellation? The very composition of Piero's Flagellation, that is, the architecture and the physical organisation of the environment, marks it as one of his most enigmatic works: the, so to speak 'incarnation' of Albertian theory, especially in the internal view on the left, and the comparatively modest urban street on the right; then, the relatively minor role played by the Flagellation scene - in itself, very conservative in its adherence to late-Gothic models - and the conversely major role played by the much larger and closer three figures in the right foreground.
It has been pointed out by various writers that Piero's 'staging' of the events, that is, one in the distance and another in the foreground area, is not necessarily peculiar to him. Benozzo Gozzoli's Life of St. Francis cycle at Montefalco, finished in 1452, is a famous example; according to Carlo Ginzburg's dating of Piero's Flagellation as 1458-59 [2], it seems that the Gozzoli frescos were completed before Piero began work on his picture. This is important because some critics have maintained that Benozzo was influenced by Piero, and others that the influence went the other way. In Benozzo's painting of the Dream of Innocent III and The Confirmation of the Franciscan Rule we find two events portrayed in a very similar spatial arrangement to what we see in Piero's Flagellation. Benozzo also used this 'near-far' spatial device in another one of the frescos at Montefalco, namely the Birth of St Francis, The Dream of the Pilgrim and The Homage of the Simple Man (as in Piero's painting, it was common to include several episodes or events within the structure of one image). For our purposes, who influenced whom is not important, but there are major differences between the end results, namely, there is nothing enigmatic about Benozzo's beautiful but straightforward narrative content, nor does his storybook-like retelling bear any comparison with the Byzantine hierographic quality of Piero della Francesca's work.
Let's have a look at some of the details of this beautiful and strange image called The Flagellation. First, Pilate, on the extreme left, is seen in (his) almost exact right profile, his face, beard and hat all possibly modelled on a medal portrait of Emperor John VIII Palaeologus, the leader of the Eastern Church delegation to Ferrara and Florence (1438-9) for the reconciliation talks; an event possibly witnessed by Piero himself given that he is known to have been in Florence at the time of those talks - suggesting that Pilate's face and hat may have been based on his own recollection (of the Emperor John), rather than on the image on a medal [3]. This profile in the extreme but distant left of the picture is mirrored, so to speak, in the extreme right foreground by the only other 'profile portrait' in the painting, this time the exact left profile of the richly-clothed balding man.
Portrait medal of John VIII Palaeologus by Pisanello, 1438-39?
Many questions have been raised concerning the identity and role of the turbaned figure, in shadow and with his back to us, in the left-hand section; in a certain way, he is quasi-invisible because he is almost entirely in shadow, especially when contrasted with the brightly-lit figure of Jesus and the column to which He is bound. This turbaned man, like the four distant figures in the Baptism and the left-hand figure standing in the right foreground of our painting, is dressed in oriental style (not Greek however); on its own, not a remarkable thing as Italian artists had long sought to 'set the scene' by including figures in oriental clothing to suggest Palestine in the 1st century. But, something about this shadowed figure and more especially his hand gesture, causes us to look more closely at him, and to note as well, that his left-hand gesture is also made by the other figure dressed in the oriental manner, that man on the left of our right-foreground group (incidentally, the tallest figure in the whole painting and virtually in the centre). Two Eastern or oriental 'types', both making the same gesture with the same hand; this particular gesture, as it does still today, signifies peace-making or at least, a placatory attitude. So, we would appear to be looking at two men attempting to make peace, to conciliate, one in the 'background' (in time, in history?), one in the foreground (the present?).
A close-up detail of the turbaned man and his hand gesture; note that his colouring is so muted as to render him almost invisible; note too the turban, oriental but not Greek. Photo by the author but distortion due to the marked curve now in the wooden panel on which the picture is painted.
One other point to remark concerning the oriental figure in the scene of the Flagellation is his position: initially, at least to me, he appears to be walking towards the scene in the middle of the room, or towards Pilate perhaps. Actually, he is still; his only movement is his hand gesture. Importantly, he stands outside the central area of that extraordinary architecture, marked by the large, circular black marble in the floor - in whose centre stands the column - and the light falling on the figure of Pilate and his chair. Therefore, this oriental personage would seem to be an observer of, but not a participant in, the event before him.
One aspect of the Flagellation scene which helps to 'remove' it from us in a certain way is that no one in that scene is interested in us: all the figures are engaged with each other and direct their focus inwards; as well, two of them indeed have their backs to us - the oriental man and the tormentor on the right. Although His body is seen from the front, Christ's gaze appears to be towards either the torturer on His left, or to the outside (the future?).
Before leaving this group, I would like to suggest the possibility that the golden statue of the nude on top of the column to which Christ is tied was painted by Piero's reputed student, Luca Signorelli. A close-up view of this figure holding an orb in his raised left hand and a staff (or dividers?) with his right, reveals a human body quite unlike anything made by Piero della Francesca - but very like those made by Luca Signorelli in his frescos in Orvieto cathedral. The roundness of the torso, limbs and head - and particularly the face and eyes - is not the manner of Piero, nor is the smile on the face. But, importantly, neither is the pose of this bronze or gold figure: this pose, in 'contrapposto' [4], is typical Signorelli, especially in the area of the figure's right hip. Also, this bronze or gold figure is completely nude, that is, including the genitals, something seen nowhere else, in adult figures, in the work of Piero [5]. If Lavin is correct, and the painting was indeed made in or around 1466 (again, incidentally, well after Benozzo's frescos), then it is possible that Luca Signorelli (c.1445-1523), as a perhaps 21-year-old apprentice or assistant to Piero, might have been allowed to contribute this one element; after all, such a small, minor figure in such a small painting; however, in an obviously richly symbolic image such as this, it would be unwise to dismiss any element, no matter how apparently minor.
Two nude men carrying a man and a woman by Luca Signorelli, drawing, 1490-95?
Note the particular roundness of the torso and the lower limbs of the right-hand figure; also the characteristic swing of the hips.
I have spent some time on these three figures also as a way of introducing some other enigmatic qualities in this painting. These three figures are typical 'modern' figures in Piero paintings, that is, Renaissance figures, as is the beautifully drawn and painted oriental witness to the Flagellation scene. However, apart from Pilate, the other figures in this section, the scourgers and Christ himself, are all standard late-Gothic types and poses (allowing that Christ's body does show some classical influence although not more so than a figure by Nicola or Giovanni Pisano for instance). Even the arrangement of those four figures (Christ, Pilate and the two scourgers) in the left side of the painting is 'standard' and, it must be said, a little old-fashioned by that stage of the 15th century - especially for a painter otherwise avant-garde, as it were. Very similar compositions may be seen in Pisan and Sienese works, for instance in the Flagellation by Pietro Lorenzetti, c. 1316-19 (?) at Assisi; these have the Flagellation set in an elaborate architectural environment, with Pilate seated at the left. In fact, these and many others have a number of similarities with the general composition and choices seen in the left side of Piero's version.
In other words, Piero has apparently combined a very traditional and almost anachronistic grouping with certain of his own very modern ideas, not least of which is his profound mastery of linear perspective (it might be noted that the lovely frescos by Benozzo Gozzoli referred to earlier, do not have quite the same level of mastery, as can be seen in the raised oblique structures). In the earlier examples just referred to of the same subject (in Pisa and Assisi), the architecture in which the torture takes place is, while elaborate and decorative, almost completely ignorant of the (Albertian) principles of linear perspective. Professor Aronberg Lavin's detailed exegesis of the complex architecture, both inside what she refers to as 'Pilate's palace', where the torture traditionally takes place, and outside (where the three foreground men are) which is the physical and, to a large extent, psychological locus of Piero's interpretation, has revealed exactly how profound was his understanding of that new science of perspective, and how subtly and cleverly he made use of it.
Just now it was stated that the architectural setting was also a psychological one: this because the composition is split, almost but not quite in the centre, between an event in the distance on the left (in the past?) and one set very close to the picture plane, that is, close to us (in the then-present?). This 'split' forces us to move not only 'across' the image but, thanks to the architecture, 'back' into it on the left, and 'forward' to the front on the right: in other words, also backwards and forwards in time. To appreciate how radical this is, we need only consider the usual pictorial and sculptural representations of the period, with either an event or a series of events represented 'across' the field, that is, frieze-like across the image, from left to right; or, the alternative, especially by the time of the Renaissance, and also in Piero's own paintings, where the subject is right in the middle of the visual field, more or less close to the bottom edge of the image, that is, close to us, the viewers (for example, The Baptism, The Resurrection and The Madonna of Senigallia).
In Piero's Flagellation, our eye cannot take in the narrative in the usual way, partly because we are forced to keep adjusting our attention from the left side to the right side and back again, that is to say, from a very deep fictive space 'within' the picture plane, back to a place at exactly the spot where we encounter the image in our real space - the surface of the actual piece of wood on which the picture is made. Not only that, but we are confronted with an apparently 'standard' representation of the putative subject on the left while being brought up short with a very non-standard one on the right.
I do not wish to offer a solution to the enigmas of this painting - I don't have one! And, at present, as far as I am aware, nor does anyone else. In a certain way, with its secrets still kept, and we having grown up with Dada and Surrealism as parts of our visual vocabulary, we are fortunately able to enjoy the Flagellation for what we can understand about it, including the fact that it contains elements which we can't interpret or comprehend. Similarly, the enigmatic details of Piero's picture, today, function as stimulus to the imagination, a welcome opportunity to roam around our own thoughts, free of the 'guiding prod' of much modern technology. We may however reasonably conclude that this picture was not made for public viewing, but rather for the private scrutiny of a cultured, visually literate patron, one accustomed to the many riddles concealed in such works of art.
Note the particular roundness of the torso and the lower limbs of the right-hand figure; also the characteristic swing of the hips.
Many writers have seen in Piero's Flagellation some kind of reference to a major problem of his time, namely the re-unification or reconciliation of the Eastern (Greek Orthodox) and Western (Latin) Christian churches; this problem was made more acute as Constantinople, the political and religious centre of the Eastern Church (and the remnant of the Eastern Roman Empire) was being threatened with attack from the Ottomans. The authorities in the East desperately wanted the Roman Church (the Pope) to send forces to the aid of Constantinople, something which did not happen and therefore contributed to its conquest by Ottoman troops in 1453. If there is in fact some reference to this politico-religious situation, for whom then was the painting made and further, what purpose was a small picture like this one supposed to serve in such a complex international crisis, already, according to the picture's dating, a fait accompli?
Reasonably, it would seem that the subtle references to that particular situation - if indeed that's what they are - are not addressed to the political reality, but rather to the doctrinal positions maintained by the Eastern and Western churches. Leaving aside the obvious political desires of the leaders of both factions, there had been in Christianity from quite early in its history, marked differences of opinion about what was acceptable or otherwise as Christian dogma. One of the most inflamed debates centred on the nature of Christ's divinity. Without going into the often deadly whys-and-wherefores of that debate, could it not be that hidden in the subtle signs within Piero's image, we have a dissertation on that theme? The inclusion of oriental or Greek characters (the left-hand figure in the foreground group), the very subtle (to our eyes) hand gestures, the differences in clothing, the clear separating of 'inside' and 'outside', the temporal and the eternal or divine, could not all of these contain occult references to the doctrinal questions? As we may now appreciate, there are many unanswered questions regarding this little picture.
We have already spoken in passing of the three right-foreground figures so let's look more closely at them, obviously important as they were for Piero, occupying as they do almost half of the foreground. In this part of the picture, there are three adult men arranged as previously mentioned, in a rough semi-circle. Two seem to be aged around 40 or 50 years, while the personage between them is clearly a youth or a very young man. This youth differs in many respects from his well-dressed and shod companions: first, he is clearly young, with youthful face and blond hair; he is barefoot; he wears what would qualify in Piero's art as angel's clothes; he is not a portrait, and, he is looking directly at us: no other figure in this picture addresses his gaze at us, the viewers. I used the word 'companions' just now to refer to the other two figures, on either side of our 'angelic' one; is it possible that, if he is indeed a 'divine' presence, that the others are unaware of him? The expensively-dressed Italian (Western) man on the right, who bears a very strong resemblance to other 'portraits' in Piero's work [6], seems to be looking at his opposite number, dressed as a contemporary Greek emissary. The Greek, whose lips could be parted, seems to be looking into the distance beyond the frame, but definitely not at the man on the right. Indeed, the facial expressions suggest stalemate while the Greek's left hand indicates conciliation, as noted earlier. The contemporary Italian on the right has his thumbs stuck in his belt, a stance possibly indicating either attention or resistance. We should note here as well, that both of these men are well-shod and well-dressed, indicative of high social standing [7]; furthermore, the Italian figure is wearing a specific kind of red headdress, at present though, slung across his right shoulder and falling to below his gown, near his right foot. According to Jane Bridgeman, this article of clothing shows high status, perhaps that of an academic, a physician or a lawyer. When not worn on the head, the 'capuccio' (hood) was hung on the back of the right shoulder as a mark of respect for the present company [8].
These two figures, perhaps symbolic of the Eastern and Western positions in a theological dispute, are both clearly portraits and this is pointed up by the obviously non-portrait of the angelic figure between them. This young figure is typical of Piero's angels: he is young, wears the long tunic with a high belt (with heavy material tucked-up from beneath), and importantly, his facial features are stylised. His eyes, nose, mouth and expression are absolutely 'stock' angel in the art of Piero della Francesca - and therefore, within Piero's environments, timeless. By contrast, the two contemporary, and therefore temporal, figures have particularised features, quite different from one another and completely different from those of the 'angel' - or any other standardised figure used commonly by Piero (including, to a large extent, the faces of his Madonnas). The left-hand figure, dressed in the Greek style, seems to me a possible free extrapolation from the medal likeness of the Emperor John VIII; that this figure looked like a 'real' Greek personage was possibly the point, not that it looked exactly like anyone in particular.
These two figures, perhaps symbolic of the Eastern and Western positions in a theological dispute, are both clearly portraits and this is pointed up by the obviously non-portrait of the angelic figure between them. This young figure is typical of Piero's angels: he is young, wears the long tunic with a high belt (with heavy material tucked-up from beneath), and importantly, his facial features are stylised. His eyes, nose, mouth and expression are absolutely 'stock' angel in the art of Piero della Francesca - and therefore, within Piero's environments, timeless. By contrast, the two contemporary, and therefore temporal, figures have particularised features, quite different from one another and completely different from those of the 'angel' - or any other standardised figure used commonly by Piero (including, to a large extent, the faces of his Madonnas). The left-hand figure, dressed in the Greek style, seems to me a possible free extrapolation from the medal likeness of the Emperor John VIII; that this figure looked like a 'real' Greek personage was possibly the point, not that it looked exactly like anyone in particular.
I have spent some time on these three figures also as a way of introducing some other enigmatic qualities in this painting. These three figures are typical 'modern' figures in Piero paintings, that is, Renaissance figures, as is the beautifully drawn and painted oriental witness to the Flagellation scene. However, apart from Pilate, the other figures in this section, the scourgers and Christ himself, are all standard late-Gothic types and poses (allowing that Christ's body does show some classical influence although not more so than a figure by Nicola or Giovanni Pisano for instance). Even the arrangement of those four figures (Christ, Pilate and the two scourgers) in the left side of the painting is 'standard' and, it must be said, a little old-fashioned by that stage of the 15th century - especially for a painter otherwise avant-garde, as it were. Very similar compositions may be seen in Pisan and Sienese works, for instance in the Flagellation by Pietro Lorenzetti, c. 1316-19 (?) at Assisi; these have the Flagellation set in an elaborate architectural environment, with Pilate seated at the left. In fact, these and many others have a number of similarities with the general composition and choices seen in the left side of Piero's version.
In other words, Piero has apparently combined a very traditional and almost anachronistic grouping with certain of his own very modern ideas, not least of which is his profound mastery of linear perspective (it might be noted that the lovely frescos by Benozzo Gozzoli referred to earlier, do not have quite the same level of mastery, as can be seen in the raised oblique structures). In the earlier examples just referred to of the same subject (in Pisa and Assisi), the architecture in which the torture takes place is, while elaborate and decorative, almost completely ignorant of the (Albertian) principles of linear perspective. Professor Aronberg Lavin's detailed exegesis of the complex architecture, both inside what she refers to as 'Pilate's palace', where the torture traditionally takes place, and outside (where the three foreground men are) which is the physical and, to a large extent, psychological locus of Piero's interpretation, has revealed exactly how profound was his understanding of that new science of perspective, and how subtly and cleverly he made use of it.
Just now it was stated that the architectural setting was also a psychological one: this because the composition is split, almost but not quite in the centre, between an event in the distance on the left (in the past?) and one set very close to the picture plane, that is, close to us (in the then-present?). This 'split' forces us to move not only 'across' the image but, thanks to the architecture, 'back' into it on the left, and 'forward' to the front on the right: in other words, also backwards and forwards in time. To appreciate how radical this is, we need only consider the usual pictorial and sculptural representations of the period, with either an event or a series of events represented 'across' the field, that is, frieze-like across the image, from left to right; or, the alternative, especially by the time of the Renaissance, and also in Piero's own paintings, where the subject is right in the middle of the visual field, more or less close to the bottom edge of the image, that is, close to us, the viewers (for example, The Baptism, The Resurrection and The Madonna of Senigallia).
In Piero's Flagellation, our eye cannot take in the narrative in the usual way, partly because we are forced to keep adjusting our attention from the left side to the right side and back again, that is to say, from a very deep fictive space 'within' the picture plane, back to a place at exactly the spot where we encounter the image in our real space - the surface of the actual piece of wood on which the picture is made. Not only that, but we are confronted with an apparently 'standard' representation of the putative subject on the left while being brought up short with a very non-standard one on the right.
I do not wish to offer a solution to the enigmas of this painting - I don't have one! And, at present, as far as I am aware, nor does anyone else. In a certain way, with its secrets still kept, and we having grown up with Dada and Surrealism as parts of our visual vocabulary, we are fortunately able to enjoy the Flagellation for what we can understand about it, including the fact that it contains elements which we can't interpret or comprehend. Similarly, the enigmatic details of Piero's picture, today, function as stimulus to the imagination, a welcome opportunity to roam around our own thoughts, free of the 'guiding prod' of much modern technology. We may however reasonably conclude that this picture was not made for public viewing, but rather for the private scrutiny of a cultured, visually literate patron, one accustomed to the many riddles concealed in such works of art.
[1] Marilyn Aronberg Lavin, Piero della Francesca / The Flagellation, originally published by The Viking Press, 1972; this edition, The University of Chicago Press, 1990. While I do not agree with some of her points of view, the book is of course, a masterful analysis, especially those sections that deal with the perspective of Piero's picture ('The Setting') and the iconography (The Sources of the Composition). Aronberg Lavin's dating of the Flagellation is at variance with that of other scholars but this is normal in studies of Piero della Francesca. There are very few dated or conclusively datable pictures by him and scholars frequently rely on 'external' data to try to fix, or at least narrow down, his dates.
[2] Carlo Ginzburg The Enigma of Piero (first published as Indagini su Piero); this edition, 2000 by Verso. Ginzburg's analysis (which came under heavy criticism from some scholars) of Piero's work, especially the Flagellation, is intriguing although it relies quite a bit on conjecture - and, in one particular instance, on error! In fact, in the Verso, 2000, edition, Ginzburg himself admits the error and therefore the weakening of his thesis. This aside, his book is extremely interesting in many ways: he posits among much else, that Piero could have made a detour to Montefalco on his way to Rome (1458-59) and that there he would have seen Gozzoli's frescos, whence the idea for the structure of his Flagellation. Ginzburg by the way, identified the left-hand figure in the foreground as Bessarion, originally a Greek Orthodox scholar, but later a cardinal in the Roman church.
[3] Pisanello's medal showing (in Greek) "John King and Autocrat of the Romans Palaeologus", in right profile. On the other side are two horses, one in profile, ridden by the Emperor John, and the other, a remarkable back view of a horse in extreme foreshortening. Pisanello has 'signed' this medal, of which there exist several copies, in both Greek and Latin. It is dated to 1438-39, the years of the reconciliation councils in Ferrara and Florence. In this relation, it is interesting to note that the Emperor John's right profile is also used, seemingly, in Piero's extraordinary fresco of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (or, The Battle between Constantine and Maxentius) at Arezzo, on this occasion representing the Emperor Constantine.
[4] On pp 74,75 Aronberg Lavin, ibid, discusses what she sees as the 'contrapposto' in certain figures in the Flagellation, notably the golden statue on top of the scourging column. In my opinion, a figure seen from the front and merely placing more weight on one leg than on the other, does not constitute remarkable 'contrapposto'. Contrapposto may be most easily seen in many works by Michelangelo and notably in his figure of Day on the Medici Tombs (see my essays on Michelangelo in this blog).
[5] Piero did paint a number of almost-naked men but the genitals are never shown, although at Arezzo, in the scene called The Burial of the Wood, the testicle of one of the labourers is visible: an 'anomaly' in Piero's work. Genitals are nevertheless visible in a number of his representations of the Infant Jesus. In the Arezzo lunette with the stories of Adam, there are several near-naked figures and two actually naked grown men, but these are shown either from the side (Adam), or from the back, so the genitals of male (or female) adults are not visible. In this regard, the same lunette also shows the naked breasts of two women, one apparently meant to be Eve as a very old woman, and the other a young woman with one breast uncovered. Incidentally, in Benozzo Gozzoli's Dream of Innocent III at Montelfalco, where the Pope is shown in a bed, partly surrounded by a large curtain, and attended by the two figures sitting by the side of the bed, do we have a forerunner of the famous Dream of Constantine fresco by Piero in Arezzo?
[6] Noted independently by me and by scholars, this expensively-dressed figure on the extreme right of the Flagellation bears a strong resemblance to, certainly, the clear portrait as one of the observers of the Execution of Chosroes, at Arezzo, identified as Giovanni Bacci, as well as to one of the supplicants, on the left, under the Madonna's cloak in the Madonna della Misericordia, at Sansepolcro. Other writers have (with difficulty I feel) seen the same person in the red-smocked and hatted gentleman on the left of the Meeting of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, also at Arezzo, as well as (even) the supplicant or donor in the Venice St Jerome and Donor.
[7] Exactly similar footwear and hat may be seen in the approximately contemporaneous frescos in San Francesco at Arezzo. Again, the scene of the Exaltation of the Cross and that of the Proof of the True Cross have orientally-garbed men with our Greek's boots, cloak and (apparently goat's fur) hat. In these scenes (and the Baptism) it is most probable that Piero was relying on his personal experience of contemporary Greeks (in Florence?) to populate Jerusalem, where the action historically takes place. However, contemporary Greeks (of the 15th century) in these early-Christian events, whether representing Bessarion, John VIII Palaeologus or someone else is, to say the least, puzzling.
[8] Jane Bridgeman in The Cambridge Companion to Piero della Francesca, edited by Jeryldene M. Wood, published by Cambridge University Press, 2002: a collection of essays by various scholars in various disciplines. Jane Bridgeman's essay "Troppo belli e troppo eccellenti" - Observations on Dress in the Work of Piero della Francesca, is a very interesting and, as she says herself, useful one for students of art history, particularly when they may be discussing the significance of clothing and costume - often not merely a casual element in a picture of the period.
[2] Carlo Ginzburg The Enigma of Piero (first published as Indagini su Piero); this edition, 2000 by Verso. Ginzburg's analysis (which came under heavy criticism from some scholars) of Piero's work, especially the Flagellation, is intriguing although it relies quite a bit on conjecture - and, in one particular instance, on error! In fact, in the Verso, 2000, edition, Ginzburg himself admits the error and therefore the weakening of his thesis. This aside, his book is extremely interesting in many ways: he posits among much else, that Piero could have made a detour to Montefalco on his way to Rome (1458-59) and that there he would have seen Gozzoli's frescos, whence the idea for the structure of his Flagellation. Ginzburg by the way, identified the left-hand figure in the foreground as Bessarion, originally a Greek Orthodox scholar, but later a cardinal in the Roman church.
[3] Pisanello's medal showing (in Greek) "John King and Autocrat of the Romans Palaeologus", in right profile. On the other side are two horses, one in profile, ridden by the Emperor John, and the other, a remarkable back view of a horse in extreme foreshortening. Pisanello has 'signed' this medal, of which there exist several copies, in both Greek and Latin. It is dated to 1438-39, the years of the reconciliation councils in Ferrara and Florence. In this relation, it is interesting to note that the Emperor John's right profile is also used, seemingly, in Piero's extraordinary fresco of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (or, The Battle between Constantine and Maxentius) at Arezzo, on this occasion representing the Emperor Constantine.
[4] On pp 74,75 Aronberg Lavin, ibid, discusses what she sees as the 'contrapposto' in certain figures in the Flagellation, notably the golden statue on top of the scourging column. In my opinion, a figure seen from the front and merely placing more weight on one leg than on the other, does not constitute remarkable 'contrapposto'. Contrapposto may be most easily seen in many works by Michelangelo and notably in his figure of Day on the Medici Tombs (see my essays on Michelangelo in this blog).
[5] Piero did paint a number of almost-naked men but the genitals are never shown, although at Arezzo, in the scene called The Burial of the Wood, the testicle of one of the labourers is visible: an 'anomaly' in Piero's work. Genitals are nevertheless visible in a number of his representations of the Infant Jesus. In the Arezzo lunette with the stories of Adam, there are several near-naked figures and two actually naked grown men, but these are shown either from the side (Adam), or from the back, so the genitals of male (or female) adults are not visible. In this regard, the same lunette also shows the naked breasts of two women, one apparently meant to be Eve as a very old woman, and the other a young woman with one breast uncovered. Incidentally, in Benozzo Gozzoli's Dream of Innocent III at Montelfalco, where the Pope is shown in a bed, partly surrounded by a large curtain, and attended by the two figures sitting by the side of the bed, do we have a forerunner of the famous Dream of Constantine fresco by Piero in Arezzo?
[6] Noted independently by me and by scholars, this expensively-dressed figure on the extreme right of the Flagellation bears a strong resemblance to, certainly, the clear portrait as one of the observers of the Execution of Chosroes, at Arezzo, identified as Giovanni Bacci, as well as to one of the supplicants, on the left, under the Madonna's cloak in the Madonna della Misericordia, at Sansepolcro. Other writers have (with difficulty I feel) seen the same person in the red-smocked and hatted gentleman on the left of the Meeting of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, also at Arezzo, as well as (even) the supplicant or donor in the Venice St Jerome and Donor.
[7] Exactly similar footwear and hat may be seen in the approximately contemporaneous frescos in San Francesco at Arezzo. Again, the scene of the Exaltation of the Cross and that of the Proof of the True Cross have orientally-garbed men with our Greek's boots, cloak and (apparently goat's fur) hat. In these scenes (and the Baptism) it is most probable that Piero was relying on his personal experience of contemporary Greeks (in Florence?) to populate Jerusalem, where the action historically takes place. However, contemporary Greeks (of the 15th century) in these early-Christian events, whether representing Bessarion, John VIII Palaeologus or someone else is, to say the least, puzzling.
[8] Jane Bridgeman in The Cambridge Companion to Piero della Francesca, edited by Jeryldene M. Wood, published by Cambridge University Press, 2002: a collection of essays by various scholars in various disciplines. Jane Bridgeman's essay "Troppo belli e troppo eccellenti" - Observations on Dress in the Work of Piero della Francesca, is a very interesting and, as she says herself, useful one for students of art history, particularly when they may be discussing the significance of clothing and costume - often not merely a casual element in a picture of the period.
No comments:
Post a Comment