Anna Eörsi
Puer, abige muscas!
Remarks on Renaissance Flyology
I. The page illustrating the beginning of Genesis in the
Visconti Hours
marks the beginning of a new period in the history of the depiction of
flies.
Earlier medieval
miniatures also abound in fly images. We need think only of the fly as
Bealzebub’s attribute, flies as the symbol of evil thoughts or in
illustrations
for tales or works in natural history. There are also the flies of
Villard de Honnecourt’s
album and the frequently humorous illustrations of flies found in the
margins
of medieval manuscripts.[1]
The last stage of this
“tradition” is well represented by a Genovese moral tract from the end
of the
fourteenth century. Its pages are richly decorated with crickets and
insects,
among them flies.[2]
(ill. 1) Pächt considers these insects – and justly so – to be among
the first
naturalistic representations of animals. Nevertheless, in comparison to
these
too, the flies of the Visconti Hours represent
a break from this
tradition.
It appears that the
size of the naturally depicted animals in the Genovese tract was
determined by
the space available and by decorative concerns rather than by their
real size.
The bugs are seen partly from the side, and partly from above, and
there is little
to keep us from believing that these flies were not painted on, but
rather had
just landed on the parchment. Thus it is not any deficiencies in the
naturalistic depictions or a lack of shadows that prevent us from using
the
term trompe l’oeil when talking of
these flies, but rather the inconsistent differentiation in their scale
compared to the other insects. All the insects on the page are depicted
with
the same degree of realism.
Attention to scale is
what the illustrator of the prayer book of Giangaleazzo Visconti,
Giovannino
dei Grassi, introduces in the last years of the fourteenth century.[3]
The illustration of
Creation has an abundance of animals integrated into its composition.
The seven
flies (and one stag-beetle) seen from above are considerably larger
than the
other animals depicted, and they appear to have just settled on the
parchment
surface. They are large, however, only in comparison to the scenes
illustrated;
their scale is otherwise in keeping with reality.[4]
(ill. 2)
The fly seen on the
page from the Très Riches Heures
showing St John the Evangelist is depicted in a similar fashion.[5]
(ill. 3) The opening lines
of the text are written below the illustration of St John as he is
having a
vision on the island of Patmos. The fly is painted perpendicular to the
first
initial “I” as if a real fly had landed on the parchment page. There is
a clear
separation between the pictorial space and the real space: in the
pictorial
space we can see the scene on Patmos Island, in the other space – that
is, our
space – we see the fly.
These are the first trompe l’oeil flies of modern times (whether or not they
have
symbolic meaning). They are life-size, and therefore are large in
comparison to
the scene depicted. In part they emphasise the flatness of the
parchment, which
provides their spatial setting, and given that the viewer takes them to
be real
and tries to shoo them away, the flies also prove that depiction is
equivalent
to the real thing. The illustrator relies on the same illusions and
plays on
the same instincts as the painters of Hellenistic “rhyparography”
(painting of
the sordid): the illusion is that the insect is in the same space as we
are;
the instinct appealed to is our disgust at the fly (as dirt), which we
would
like to go away, and our joy that it is after all just a painting and
thus need
not be shooed away – instead we can marvel at the cleverness of the
artist.[6]
From this point on the fly
becomes the trademark of artistic excellence, the ability to produce
depictions
true to life[7]
– despite or independent of the fly’s various, for the most part
negative,
associations. (It is a paradox that the true-to-life depiction of small
insects, which are the easiest to represent in a realistic manner,
nevertheless
became the non plus ultra of artistic
competence.) A sense of humour is also necessary for a painter to use a
fly –
the symbol of sin and “the hated housemate we should like to keep far
away”[8]
– to demonstrate his
virtuosity.
In this study I will
deal primarily
with those flies – also – that demonstrate the painter’s skill and
humour,
without any attempt at being all-inclusive. But first I would like to
make a
preliminary comment: when the rough idea for this topic first occurred
to me, I
decided I would finish with the last sentence of Musca,
Leon Battista Alberti’s witty paraphrase of Lucian:
“Scipsimus hec ridendo et vos ridete.”[9]
I was subsequently
honoured to receive Ernõ Marosi’s request that I write a study for an
issue of Acta dedicated to the memory of Lajos
Vayer. Consequently the above will not be the last sentence; with this
article
I would like to remember Professor Vayer’s superior skill and his
outstanding
wit.
II. The earliest surviving fly that I know of found on a
panel painting
and clearly demonstrating the artist’s skill can be seen in the
Christian
Museum of Esztergom in the winged altar of an Austrian painter who was
influenced by the Master of the Albert altar.[10]
(ill. 4) The central
panel of this triptych depicts the Death
of the Virgin, painted around 1440. Pieces of parchment, one
bearing the
inscription “Caspar+walthisar+melchior” and the other depicting the
Holy Face
are affixed to the side of the deathbed with dabs of sealing wax, both
casting
a shadow on the wood. A tiny-sized fly approaches the inscription,
facing the
letter “m”. Together with the spider,[11]
which is climbing under
the apostle’s book lower down in the picture, and the shadow cast by
the
candleholder, these elements clearly demonstrate the painter’s
intention to create
an illusion (regardless of his success). Neither the scale of the fly
nor the
painter’s virtuoso true-to-life depiction is what draws the viewer’s
attention
to his skill as a painter. Instead it is the “extras,” in particular
the
inscribed band attached with sealing
wax. The fly is just an attribute of
authenticity, realness, of truly being there. (The same process that
already
took place in miniature painting half a century earlier is repeated in
the
genre of panel painting: attempts to be true-to-life begin with
depiction of
small things.)
The earliest surviving
fly appearing on a panel painting that can be precisely dated (1446)
and
demonstrates, among other things, the painter’s skill appears in the
portrait
of a Carthusian by Petrus Christus.[12]
(ill. 5) The fly, which
is life size but too large in relation to the figure depicted, has
settled on
the stone parapet – like-wise intended as an illusion – above the
artist’s
signature. The deceptive trompe l’oeil
fly transfers its own appearance of realness to the figure in the
painting,
bearing witness to the figure’s existence in the here and now. Both the
parapet
and the fly belong simultaneously to the space of the viewer and the
picture.
The fly’s ephemeral existence resting on the stone emphasises the
contrast
between the brevity of life and the lasting quality of the artist’s
fame.[13]
I consider the claims
of many – in reference to this painting – that the painted fly motif in
paintings originated in the Netherlands to be unfounded.[14]
In fact the depiction of
flies in earlier miniatures belie these assertions. Chastel points out
also
that the fly seen in the painting of Petrus Christus is of a Flemish
type,
which might further suggest a Netherlandish origin.
As much as it is bizarre, the fly motif is also easily explained. I do not believe that this motif necessarily spread by way of the usual artistic connections. Under the appropriate circumstances this motif could have been independently arrived at with each artist painting the kind of fly found at home in their own workshops.
III. Circumstances were decidedly favourable for the
illusionistic
painting of flies in the workshop of Francesco Squarcione during the
1460s,
even independent of any possible Netherlandish influences.
The Aristotelian
paradox according to which the depiction of repulsive things can be a
source of
joy was well known in this area, as the local Humanists had been
voicing it for
decades.[15]
In the letter written by the Greek scholar Manuele Chrysoloras to his
nephew,
Demetrius, in Rome in 1411, he meditates on how it is possible that
when we
come across everyday creatures, regardless of how strange, we are not
amazed,
but “when we see a representation of a horse or ox, plant, bird, human
being or
even, if you like, of a fly, worm, mosquito or other such disagreeable
things,
we are much impressed and, when we see their representations, make much
of
them.”[16]
Manuele’s student,
Guarino da Verona, shared his opinion that the depiction of vulgar
things was
the greatest artistic achievement, and their recognition in a painting
was a
source of joy and delight. In 1426 he wrote the following to Giovanni
Lamola
from Verona: “I would not esteem the man’s poem and talent any the less
for his
jokes being highly flavoured. Shall we praise Apelles or Fabius or any
painter
the less because they have painted naked and unconcealed those details
of the
body which nature prefers hidden? If they have depicted worms and
serpents,
mice, scorpions, flies and other distasteful creatures, will you not
admire and
praise the artist’s art and skill? For my part, I certainly esteem the
man as
writer: I admire his talent and enjoy his joke ...”[17]
Painters who at that time
desired to raise themselves from the status of craftsmen would find
this
discussion relevant, as it contributed to the appreciation for painting
they
much yearned for.
At the same time, in
part because of the desire to rise from the status of craftsman and in
part
because of the ideal of remaining true-to-life, Pliny not surprisingly
found
his way into the folklore of the Squarcione workshop. More will be said
about
Pliny’s anecdotes about painters who deceived animals, people, and
fellow
artists with their true-to-life representations.
It is quite possible
that Squarcione’s pupils were familiar with the satiric writings about
flies:
in 1440 Guarino translated Lucian’s, “The fly” (Muscae laudatio). His
translation reached Scipione Mainente and Leon Battista Alberti.[18]
Alberti was subsequently
inspired to write a humoresque about a fly, which he sent to Cristoforo
Landino. In the dignified tone of a classical orator, Alberti conveys
to
readers the exemplary lives led by flies.[19]
The noble-born fly is the
most innocent of all creatures; it does not harass, disturb, or
irritate
anyone; it remains quiet, it shows no envy, and it neither quarrels nor
rebels:
“To this day hatred, competition, and bickering is unknown amongst
flies.”[20]
Numerous documents
attest to the fact that Francesco Squarcione, the first known head of a
private
art school, was surrounded by lawsuits, hostility, broken promises, and
deception. Of course I do not wish to use this to support my argument
that one
of his students, Giorgio Schiavone, fooled and vexed the others with his
paintings of flies and bugs.
Francesco Squarcione
began as a tailor and embroiderer. He opened his school in Padua in
1431 after
his travels through Italy and – perhaps – Greece.[21]
According to sources an
extraordinarily modern education was provided in this institution,
which around
1455 was promoted from bottega to studium.
The students (supposedly there
was a total of one hundred and thirty-seven) mastered their craft
through
making copies in plaster, as well as copying coins, drawings, and
Florentine
engravings that were in Squarcione’s possession. The pictorum
pater adopted the best students, and thus in part relieved
them of their obligations to the guild while also taking advantage of
their
labour and talent. This led to serious conflicts, and many, amidst
scandals and
lawsuits, fled their unfair master and his otherwise free-spirited
workshop.
Amongst the adopted students was Andrea Mantegna (between 1442-48 in
the
workshop), Marco Zoppo (between 1453-55), Giorgio Schiavone (between
1456-61).
We also know for a fact that Dario da Treviso and Niccolò Pizzolo
studied
with Squarcione. It was at just this time and in this location that it
became
the fashion for the artist to include the name of his master next to
his own on
the new cartellino – a practice in no
way unique to Squarcione’s workshop, but one that was rather widespread
throughout Northern Italy.
The cartellino itself however was an
important element in the set of circumstances that favoured the
appearance of
the painted fly in the workshop of Squarcione. After all, the cartellino was likewise a trompe l’oeil
motif demonstrating the
skill and self-consciousness of the painter, an intermediary between
fiction
and reality, a trick of the eye worthy of ancient painters.[22]
It creates the illusion
that it belongs to the everyday sphere of the painter and his audience,
and
this illusion is heightened by the fact that the cartellino
is frequently torn and/or bears the
traces of
having been rolled up, reminding one of the Greek “unswept floor”
device. The
painted fly is thus an adequate addition to this ensemble of tricks.
Giorgio Schiavone
(Æulinoviæ) was a Dalmatian painter born in Scardona (Skadrin) between
1433-36.
From 1456 he studied in Padua. Of the five paintings he made in
Squarcione’s
workshop signed with a cartellino[23],
three include depictions of repulsive insects. In the polyptych now in
London,
an earwig casting a shadow heads upwards to the right of the cartellino at the front base of the
Madonna’s throne.[24]
(ill. 6) In the painting
in Torino a fly has settled on the back of a putto sitting in the left
foreground, while in the painting of the Madonna in Baltimore a fly
rests on
the front of the stone parapet. (ill. 7-8). These are the three bugs
with
which, I believe, recalling the world of classical anecdotes,
Schiavone, hoped
to first and foremost trick his fellow students and master; the fly’s
symbolic
meaning was not of primary importance.[25]
There are some other
circumstances in addition to those mentioned above which support this
supposition. Making jokes with one another’s works or on the world of
classical
antiquity was very much in the air in the Humanist and artistic circles
of
Veneto of the fifteenth century, as was competition –both fictive and
real –
with each other and with the antique predecessors as well.
In the artistic life of
the age competitions organised based on classical examples played an
important
role.[26]
From Vasari we know that
Squarcione inspired his students to greater achievements by encouraging
competition between them.[27]
As for games involving
the antique world, the most famous is the case of the boating excursion
on Lake
Garda in 1464 in which the humanist Felice Feliciano, the engineer
Giovanni
“Antenoreo,” and two painters, Samuele da Tradate and Andrea Mantegna,
took
part. In their search for classical monuments and inscriptions, they
pretended
to be living in ancient Rome. Samuele was named imperator,
Giovanni and Andrea played consules. With a crown of
myrtle and laurel, the emperor led the
others with song accompanied by the lute on a boat decorated in woven
cloth and
laurel branches.[28]
Squarcione’s teaching methods,
considered ultramodern, may be similarly interpreted. Clearly there was
no
theoretical basis for the copying of classical and other works. I
consider it
likely there was more playfulness and romantic enthusiasm involved than
most
think. Classical objects and decorations, and those thought to be that
in the studium and in the neighbouring “house
of reliefs,” may themselves have been an inspiration for those living
amongst
them to relive ancient times. Works created here support the idea that,
aside
from a few classical motifs such as puttos
and garlands of fruit (and mutatis
mutandis, flies), there
was more talk of imitating the antique world than actually took place.[29]
In Italian literature it
has been a commonplace
since Petrarch that humanists regarded the painters they admired as the
ancient
masters reborn; poets especially praised Giotto, Pisanello, Jacopo
Bellini, and
Mantegna as artists who transcended even the ancient artists (in fact
in some
cases even deceiving them!) in their true-to-life paintings.[30]
As I have already
suggested, naturalism, as the most important criterion of good art, is
what
made Pliny’s anecdotes about paintings that were so true-to-life as to
deceive
the viewer extraordinarily popular in artistic circles. Amongst the
anecdotes,
the most famous is the competition between Zeuxis and Parrhasios: the
former
painted such a convincing painting of clusters of grapes that birds
settled on
them. In response Parrhasios painted such a true-to-life curtain in
front of
the same picture that Zeuxis wanted to pull it back. He was thus
obliged to
acknowledge his defeat, since fooling a fellow artist was a greater
feat than
deceiving birds.[31]
This is probably enough
proof that Schiavone was in fact playing a joke on his fellow artists
with his
painted flies. A dragonfly or butterfly would have been perfectly
suitable for
showing off one’s artistic virtuosity (as we have seen in Schiavone’s
Madonna
in the National Gallery, London, No. 904). The real challenge, however,
is not
the artistic representation of animals that in nature are already
beautiful,
but rather of what are ugly; observation of representations of the
latter is a
source of joy for both philosophers and common people alike. Flies,
however,
replaced bees and birds, which were much more common in classical
anecdotes,
chiefly because they were there in the workshops and really did land on
the
paintings. Based on this, we can declare with assurance that early
Renaissance
painters did in fact triumph over their Greek models. After all bees
and birds
in reality only land on fruit, while flies land not only on fruit, but
on
paintings as well.[32]
IV. They also land on illuminated codices. Some flies painted
onto
parchment are thus likewise the result of the same humour, playfulness,
and
attempts at tricks of the eye.
It is well known that
those very participants in the excursion on Lake Garda as well as some
artists
trained in Squarcione’s workshop are responsible for the radical renewal of miniature painting in the 1450s and
60s in Padua.[33]
The title pages produce trompe l’oeil effects.
Buildings from antiquity are imitated replete with authentic and
imagined
classical motifs; the piece of parchment bearing the written words is
itself a
part of the illusion: it is as if the paper were torn, and it is not at
all
apparent where the surface of the parchment lies. This provides for an
endless
source of amusement and playfulness. It is in this vein that a fly
settled
onto, for example, an apparently torn piece of parchment in the
breviary housed
in the Houghton Library, which according to the latest research was
made
between 1478-80 in the area of Veneto – Padua.[34]
(ill. 9) On this
title-page to the Common of Saints, it appears that the punctured
parchment
bearing the text has been suspended from the architecture behind it. On
the
right side one of the holes serves as the eye of a face in profile,
with the
nose and mouth defined by the torn edge of the paper. The fly, which is
life-size, has settled onto this face, thereby magically turning the
grotesque
face back into a piece of parchment.
Another example has
stylistic similarities (as well) to the art of Schiavone.[35]
As an adornment to the
initial “E,” King David is shown praying in a landscape, while a huge
fly is
depicted from above just behind his
head. (ill. 10) I can not agree with Levi
d’Ancona, who believes this to be a symbol of the plague. I feel that
this fly
is also – in keeping with the tradition of Grassi – first and foremost
a play
on the varying degrees of reality, an artistic trick revealing just
where the
surface of the paper is after all.[36]
I agree with those who
link the Edinburgh Madonna, with its illusionistic painting of
parchment and a
fly, to the illuminators’ workshops of Padua – Ferrara.[37]
Carlo Crivelli, painter
of numerous trompe l’oeil
flies,
also belonged to the wider circle of Squarcione’s workshop, and in fact
we have
documentary evidence that he and Schiavone were in Zara (Zadar) at the
same
time in the early 1460s.[38]
It is highly possible that
Marco Zoppo, who was living in Bologna from the early 1460s, may have
inspired
the idea for that fly which until now has escaped the attention of
those
dealing with this subject-matter. In the work of an unknown master from
Bologna, dated to around 1460-70, the Madonna holds the child Salvator
mundi in
her lap; with her left index finger she points towards the fly that has settled
on the calf of the infant Jesus.[39]
(ill. 11) This fly is
chiefly a symbol and not a trademark of the artist’s skill. After all,
it
fairly unambiguously belongs to the sphere depicted; the painter has no
desire
to trick us into believing the fly has landed on the painting itself.
It has,
however, dual symbolic meaning: it refers with respect to the sphere in
Jesus’s
hand to the sins of the world, which he shall redeem, and also to the
child’s
future death.
It is not known exactly
who or what inspired Giovanni Santi to paint a trompe
l’oeil fly on the chest of the Imago pietatis, but
it does not appear unfounded in this case either
to consider the broad range of influence of the Squarcione workshop.[40]
(ill. 12) There are
countless possibilities: Santi was enthusiastic about Mantegna, he was
influenced by Zoppo, and he could have met with Crivelli in Marche
(although
naturally the Netherlandish influence cannot be discounted either). His
fly on
the
painting in Budapest has a dual nature: it belongs to the
painting as
an object, as well as to the subject of the painting. As it generally
happens
in similar cases, we fall victim to two illusions:[41]
first, we think the fly
is real and we would like to shoo it away in order to protect the
sacred image;
when we realise we have been fooled, the fly becomes part of the
pictorial
sphere: we no longer want to protect the sacred image from the fly, but
rather
the Imago pietatis from the symbol of
sin and death. After all, this fly refers to both the sins of the world
and
people and also to the fact that Christ, looking suggestively into the
eyes of
the believers, is in fact dead. Last
but not least the fly refers
to the real presence of the model,
this time not in terms of a portrait, but in
terms of the Eucharist.
V. Therefore, just as Mantegna and his friends dressed as
emperor and
consuls on Lake Garda, Giorgio Schiavone in the workshop of Squarcione
replayed
the antique anecdotes about tricks of the eye and tricking one’s colleagues
with his illusionistic depictions of flies. That this was truly the
case
appears to be supported by yet another circumstance. We have good
reason to
think that in this very same time and place, in the workshop of
Squarcione, the
famous anecdote about Giotto was concocted according to which Giotto
fooled his master Cimabue with a painting of a fly.[42]
The story first appears
in the Trattato di Architettura
written by Filarete between 1461 and 1464. This part of the text
simultaneously
serves as early documentation of the paragone
debate.[43]
Filarete tells the
following to his patron, Francesco Sforza, the prince of Milan, after
sounding
the praises of painting and referring to the Greek artists famous for
tricks of
the eye: “I too once, in the house of a Bolognese painter in Venice who
invited
me to take refreshment and put some painted fruits in front of me, was
really
tempted to take one, but held back in time, for it wasn’t, but
indubitably
seemed to be so real that if there had been some actual ones there is
no doubt
people would have been taken in. And we read of Giotto that as a
beginner he
painted flies, and his master, Cimabue was so taken in that he believed
they were
alive and started to chase them off with a rag. Whence, this is based
on the
knowledge of applying colour in the right places, and such miracles are
not
seen in sculpture.” Filarete certainly should have known well what was
going on
in Squarcione’s workshop. Not only is Mantegna mentioned in Filarete’s
tract,
but Professor Gilbert succeeded in
identifying the artist who had
tricked Filarete with the fake fruit:[44]
the Bolognese painter who
had been living in Venice shortly before 1461 and had painted realistic
fruit
in his pictures was none other than Marco Zoppo, one of Squarcione’s
adopted
sons. That Zoppo was already famous during his lifetime for painting
fruits
that could deceive the eye is demonstrated in the epigram written by a
student
of Guarino called Raffaello Zovenzonio: “The fruits which Hercules
handed to
Hesperides/ Your painted panel gave to me, O Zoppo./ They deceived your
own
daughter, Marco, and no wonder/ Such fruits would draw Phidias’ hand to
them.”[45]
The stories about the
fictive fruit and Giotto’s deceptive flies are joined together in
Filarete’s
account: we have every reason to believe that the source for his
information
was the same.
The episode in which
Giotto fools Cimbaue unquestionably refers to the competition between
Zeuxis and
Parrhasios. The anecdote actually is about considerable artistic
knowledge and
skill in depicting nature in a realistic manner. Giotto, who obviously
never
painted even one fly, had for some time been regarded as the father of
true-to-life painting, surpassing even the ancient Greeks: “ ... not
infrequently people’s sense of sight was misled by the things that he
created
into mistaking the painted for real,” wrote Boccaccio.[46]
How and when an anecdote
is invented reveals as much about the circumstances in which it was
contrived
as it does about the person it is about. In Squarcione’s circle the fly
was the
trademark of artistic excellence and a reminder of the tricks of the
eye
painted in ancient paintings. This is the reason why the story about
Giotto was
concocted at that time in that particular setting. After all, the
essence of
what Filarete wanted to say – and what this anecdote was intended to
merely
illustrate – was that by using colour the painter was more able to
create a
true-to-life spectacle than the sculptor.
I cannot agree with
Professor Gilbert’s opinion that Filarete’s anecdote and Zovenzonio’s
verse
prove that Zoppo did really paint still lifes, that is, that it was he
who
painted the first still lifes of modern times well before Jacopo de’
Barbari.
The actual existence of such a painting is unsubstantiated in the
written
sources alone. [47]
Interestingly enough,
however, the essence of Filarete’s story – complete with fly – is
expressed in
Derick Baegert’s painting of St Luke dated to around 1470-90.[48]
(ill. 13) The subject
itself is a quasi self-portrait of the craft of painting: Madonna sits
as a
model for the northern artists – in contrast to the St Lukes of
contemporary
Italy. In this context the fly painted in a deceptively real,
illusionistic
manner near to the fruit on the shelf behind St Luke serves as the
stamp of the
artist’s craft, related, as it were,
to the painter’s considerable talent and
ability to imitate real life.[49]
As for the paragone, in the background in front of
St Joseph, an angel grinds the red pigment for
St Luke. In my opinion the
angel is not the archangel Gabriel, or rather he does not refer to the
angel’s
role in the Annunciation, as this would not explain why he is preparing
the
pigment. Instead this detail is present to emphasise the
importance of colours in painting.[50]
In other words Baegert’s
picture – with fly – draws our attention, just as Filarete’s anecdote
does, to
the connection between the paragone
and trompe l’oeil.
Continuing with our
discussion of the fate of the legend of Giotto’s fly: Vasari does not
use this
same anecdote of Filarete – with some minor changes – to illustrate the
paragone.[51]
For him the story serves
as a metaphor for the entire Giottesque revolution, which is why he
tells this
story at the very end of the Vita. In
his version the fictional fly lands on the subject’s nose in a portrait painted
by Cimabue, as subsequent proof of the now legendary humour of Giotto.
Among the numerous versions
of this type of anecdote, for us that which Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo
mentions
twice, again in the context of the paragone,
is highly relevant. In the chapter on
colouring in his Trattato, following the story about
Zeuxis and Parrhasios’s contest, we can read: “Andrea Mantegna fooled
his
master with a painting of a fly settled on the eyelash of a lion.”[52]
In the fictitious
dialogue between Leonardo and Pheidias in the Idea del
Tempio, Lomazzo has Leonardo relate the same story: “It is
well-known that when Andrea Mantegna was a painter’s apprentice in Mantua, he painted
a fly on the
eyelash of the lion in his master’s painting of St Jerome when his
master went
to eat. The fly was so true-to-life that upon his return the master
tried to
shoo the fly away with his handkerchief. Then, realising it was a
painting, he
was so jealous of Mantegna that he dismissed him. Mantegna went to
Venice where
he charmed Giovanni Bellini with his works.”[53]
Aside from the fact
that, as I believe, one or two talented students in the same workshop
where
Mantegna served his apprenticeship vexed their masters with trick
flies, it
seems that there are some seeds of truth to the story about Mantegna.
It is
probably not a coincidence that Lomazzo mentions a painting of St
Jerome: in
the circle about which Lomazzo wrote a favourite subject of painters
and
humanists was St Jerome in a setting full of true-to-life details and
animals.[54]
One picture of St Jerome
survives with a trompe l’oeil fly on
the shoulder of the saint, this one painted by Francesco Benaglio, a
painter
influenced by the workshop of Squarcione.[55]
Furthermore, after
Mantegna had a falling out with Squarcione, he did in fact go to Venice
right
to Squarcione’s rival, Jacopo Bellini, who did indeed appreciate his
work
greatly.
Dürer also painted trompe l’oeil flies, and he
too soon
became the hero of similar anecdotes. In his painting the Feast
of the Rosegarlands a life-size fly has settled on the left
knee of Mary.[56]
(ill. 14) The work from the start was conceived in the spirit of
competition;
this German master then residing in Venice was competing not only with
his
Venetian colleagues, but was to a certain extent, if you will, “his own
rival.”
All this I believe is related to the trompe
l’oeil fly. It is in part an expression of self-consciousness and
is
certainly connected to his self-portrait, which bears his proud
signature (exegit quinque mestri spatio Albertus Durer
Germanus MDVI). This connection was already registered by Johann
König in
1609 in his portrait of Dürer in water-colour on parchment based on
Dürer’s
self-portrait in the Feast of the
Rosegarlands. Instead of the signature
there is a trompe l’oeil fly on the piece of paper
held in the hand of the model.[57]
(ill. 15) In the Feast of the Rosegarlands, the fly is
also a reference to the Opus quinque
dierum. It is like the trademark of detailed technique, careful
execution –
that which sets this altarpiece apart from his Christ
among the Doctors, painted at the same time with speed and
wide brushstrokes.[58]
In their own way, both
are proof of Dürer’s greatness. For experts, the fly in the
Feast of the Rosegarlands alludes to the essential difference
between his work carried out in “five months” versus “five days”.
Two years later Christoph
Scheurl, the first to
mention the picture, called Dürer alter
Apelles, and wrote that just as Zeuxis did the birds and Parrhasios
Zeuxis,
Dürer fooled his dog and the housekeeper: the former with his life-like
self-portrait and the latter with a deceptively realistic painted
spider-web.[59]
I found one of the last
versions of the anecdote under discussion in Colin Eisler’s 1991 book
on
Dürer’s animals.[60]
Here we read twice that, according to Pliny, Apelles painted such
true-to-life
flies that everyone who saw them tried to shoo them away. We know that Apelles is considered the greatest
Greek painter, famous primarily for his skill as a craftsman and for
his ideas.
In reality, however, just like Giotto, he never painted a trompe
l’oeil fly. I believe the “secret”[61]
of this forever-changing
anecdote can be found in the workshop of Squarcione.
Translated
by Lara Strong
Abstract
We first come across
flies painted to demonstrate the skilled craftsmanship of the artist in
the
works of Giovanni dei Grassi and the Limbourg brothers. The first such
example
I know of in a panel painting is in the painting of the Death
of the Virgin, from the circle of the Master of the Albert
altar (Esztergom, Christian Museum).
Inspired by Pliny’s
anecdotes, painting apprentices in Francesco Squarcione’s workshop in
Padua in
the 1460s, especially Giorgio Schiavone, painted trompe
l’oeil flies to trick their fellow artists. Among others,
humour, the romantic desire to revive antiquity, and the Aristotelian
paradox
that the ugly in art becomes beautiful also played a role. It was in
this
environment that Filarete’s anecdote in which Giotto fools Cimabue with
a
painted fly was first concocted. The anecdote is told in the context of
the paragone. Trompe l’oeil flies and
the glorification of painting are similarly
joined in Derick Baegert’s painting of St Luke.
The fly seen in Dürer’s
Feast of the Rosegarlands is related
both to Dürer’s self-portrait in the same painting and to the Opus quinque dierum.
Anecdotes about flies
so true-to-life as to deceive the viewer to this day survive in newer
and newer
versions, although the essence of these tales remains the same: the
flies
demonstrate the artist’s humour and his ability to imitate nature.
Published in: Acta Historiae Artium, 42/2001. 7-22.
Illustrations
1. Northern Italian illuminator: Border with insects. Last
third of the
14th century. London, British Museum, Add. MS. 28841, fol. 4
2. Giovannino dei Grassi: Creation of the world. End of the 14th
century.
Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Banco Rari
397/Landau-Finlay
22, fol. LF19
3. Workshop of Paul de Limbourg: St Paul the Evangelist on
the Island of
Patmos. Early 1410s.
Chantilly, Musée Condé, ms. 65, fol. 17
4. Follower of the Master of the Albert altar: Tryptich with
the Deat of
the Virgin. Around 1440.
Esztergom, Christian Museum
5. Petrus Christus: Portrait of a Carthusian. 1446.
New York, Metropolitan Museum, The Jules Bache Collection
6. Giorgio Schiavone: Madonna with child (center picture of
polyptych).
Around 1460.
London, National Gallery
7. Giorgio Schiavone: Madonna with child. Around 1460.
Torino, Galleria Sabauda
8. Giorgio Sciavone: Madonna with child and two angels.
Around 1460.
Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery
9. Veneto-Paduan illuminator: First page of the Common of
Saints. Around 1478-80.
Cambridge, MA, Houghton Library, Harvard University, MS. Typ.
219H. fol.
484r
10. Paduan illuminator: King David. Second half of 15th
century
Bayonne, Musée Bonnat: Legs 1187
11. Bolognese master: Madonna with child. Around 1460-70.
Malibu, The Paul Getty Museum
12. Giovanni Santi: Man of Sorrows with two angels. End of
the 15th
century
Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts
13. Derick Baegert: St Luke painting the Madonna. Between
1470-90
Münster, Westfälisches Landesmuseum
14. Unknown master: Feast of the Rosegarlands. Copy of
Dürer’s painting
of 1506 made around 1600.
Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum
15. Johann König: Albrecht Dürer. 1609.
Florence, Uffizi
[1] Kemp, C.: Fliege, in: Reallexikon
zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, beg. von O. Schmitt, hg. von
Zentralinstitut für
Kunstgeschichte München, Lief. 106, München, 1997, cols. 1215, 1206,
1214, 1216;
Villard: Hahnloser, H. R.: Villard de Honnecourt. Kritische
Gesamtausgabe des
Bauhüttenbuches ms. Fr 19093 der Pariser Nationalbibliothek. Graz,
1972, Taf.
14. On humorous images in the margins, see: Randall, L. M. C.: Images
in the
Margins of Gothic Manuscripts. Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1988, “fly”
(index); A
Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles, ed. by J. J. G.
Alexander, Gothic Manuscripts 1280- 1385 by L. F. Sander London, 1986,
No. 24,
etc.
[2] London, British Museum Add. MS.
28841, fol. 4, 5, 6; Millar, E. G.: Reproductions from Illuminated
Manuscripts
, Series IV, London, 1928, pl. XXXI (fol. 6); Pächt, O.:
Early Italian Nature Studies and the Early Calendar Landscape.
The Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13/1950, p. 21, pl.
5a
(fol. 4).
[3] Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale
Centrale, Banco Rari 397/Landau-Finaly 22, fol. LF 19, 25 x 17,9 cm.
Meiss, M.,
Kirsch, E. W.: The Visconti Hours, National Library, Florence. New
York, 1972.
[4] Play with varying degrees of
reality is obvious in another detail from this miniature. At the top of
the
tower in the right edge of the picture a caryatid-angel is nearly
collapsing
under the weight of a book open to
the beginning of Genesis. Underneath is a coiled strip with the
continuation of
the text on it.
There
are flies on the “Joachim in the Wilderness” page of the same Book of
Hours (BR
2v). They have settled on the
grazing cows in the foreground; one of the cows attempts to shoo them
away with
its tail. In their own way and for that time period these flies are of
a new
type – their size, however, is in
keeping with the scale of the
scene, “only” true-to-life. Thus they do not fit within the strictly
defined
limits of this paper.
[5] Chantilly, Musée Condé, ms. 65,
fol. 17, beginning of the 1410s. Meiss, M.: French Painting in the Time
of Jean
de Berry. The Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries. 2 vols. New York
1974, vol.
1, p. 146, vol. 2. fig. 551. (Meiss attributes the decorations in the
margins
to the Master of the Breviary and not to the Limbourgs, p. 147.) (What
could
the reason be for books of hours since the fourteenth-century to have
St John
on the Island of Patmos as the introduction to the Gospel according to
John?)
Flies depicted as an integral part of the scene appear in French
miniature
painting also, for example, on the donkey in Flight to Egypt (Brussels
Initials
Master, London, British Museum, Add 29433 fol. 76).
[6] For more on “rhyparography,” see:
Sterling, Ch.: Still Life Painting: From Antiquity to the Twentieth
Century.
(1952) New York, 1981, p. 27. In Visconti’s and Prince Berry’s
surroundings,
the relevant texts of Pliny were clearly familiar (Naturalis
historia, XXXV. 112, XXXVI, 184, see
note 31.), but it is unlikely they had a direct effect. However, we can
neither
prove nor should we discount the possibility that the illuminator who
painted
the flies in the Berry miniature was aware of the flies in the Visconti
Hours.
For more on the connections between the trompe
l’oeil margins of the miniatures of the Master of Mary of Burgundy
and the
Hellenistic “unswept floor,” see Pächt, O. The Master of Mary of
Burgundy.
London, 1947, p. 28. For more on the recognition of ugliness causing
delight,
see notes 16 and 17 below.
[7] For such an interpretation of the
depiction of flies, see: Weixlgärtner, A.: Die Fliege auf dem
Rosenkranzfest.
Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für vervielfältigende Kunst. Beilage der
Graphischen Künste, 1928, 20-22; Panofsky, E.: Early Netherlandish
Painting.
Its Origin and Character. 2 vols. (1953) London, 1971, p. 489; Gaskell,
I.:
Gerrit Dou and trompe l’oeil. The Burlington Magazine 123/1981, p. 164;
Chastel, A.: Musca depicta. Milano 1984,
pp. 14-20; Chastel, A.: Addendum
muscarium. La Revue de l’Art 72/1986, pp. 24-25; Chastel, A.:
De la „burla” au „lazzo della mosca”.
Scritti in onore di Giuliano Briganti, Milano, 1990,
p. 235; Arasse, D.: Le Détail. Pour une histoire rapprochée
de la peinture. (1992) Paris 1996, pp. 117-126; Thürlemann, F.: Das
Lukas-Triptychon in Stolzenhain. Ein verlorenes Hauptwerk von Robert
Campin in
einer Kopie aus der Werkstatt Derick Baegerts. Zeitschrift für
Kunstgeschichte
4/1992, p. 543; Varese, R.: Giovanni
Santi. Fiesole, 1994, pp.
233-4; Land, N.: Giotto’s Fly, Cimabue’ Gesture, and a Madonna
and Child by Carlo Crivelli. Source 15/1996, 11-15; Kemp,
op. cit. (note 1), col. 1210.
[8] Pigler, A.: La mouche peinte:
un talisman. Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des
Beaux-Arts 24/1964, p. 129. The fly was also not typically found on
coats of
arms. See also Mihály Babits’s poem: “Költõ vagy, csupa szeretet:/
szereted-e a
legyeket? [You are a poet, pure love, Do you love flies?]” (Verses
napló,
1932).
[9] Opuscoli inediti di Leon Battista
Alberti „Musca”, „Vita Ss. Potiti” a cura di C. Grayson, Firenze, 1954,
p. 62.
[10] Cat. no. 56.492. The entire altar
open: 127 x 82 cm. Végh J. in: Az esztergomi Keresztény Múzeum [The
Christian
Museum of Esztergom]. Ed. Cséfalvay P., Budapest 1993, No. 24.
[11] The spider and chiefly its web,
aside from being a flycatcher, was
also a trademark of artistic
skill: Kris, E.: -Kurz, O.: Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the
Artist.
A Historical Experiment. (1934) Yale University, 1979, p. 8.; Kraut,
G.: Lukas
malt die Madonna. Zeugnisse zum künstlerischen Selbstverständnis in der
Malerei. Worms, 1986, pp. 83-84. See the anecdote which relates to
Dürer, note
59.
[12] New York, Metropolitan Museum, The
Jules Bache Collection, 1949 (49.7.19), 29,2 x 20,3 cm. The halo was
removed
during cleaning; see: Ainsworth, M. W., with contributions by Martens,
M.P.J:
Petrus Christus: Renaissance Master of Bruges. New York, 1994, No. 5
(with a
bibliography pertaining to the fly also).
[13] Belting, H. – Kruse, Ch.: Die
Erfindung des Gemäldes.
Das erste Jahrhundert der niederländische
Malerei. München, 1994, p. 50.
There
is the slight possibility that the trompe
l’oeil fly as the trademark of naturalism and a painter’s
virtuosity was
not introduced into early Netherlandish painting by Petrus Christus
(and even
less likely by the Master of the Albert altar or his followers), but
rather by
one of the “founding fathers,” Robert Campin (†1444). Felix Thürlemann
(op.
cit. [note 7]) reconstructed a painting of St Luke by Campin based on
the two
paintings by Derick Baegert (or his workshop) in which the trompe
l’oeil fly is the signature of the craft of painting. See
notes 48-50 and the related text.
[14] Panofsky, E.: Albrecht Dürer. 2
vols. Princeton, 1943, vol. II. p. 12; Pigler, A., op. cit. (note 8),
p. 127, Chastel, op. cit. (note 7, 1984), pp.
14, 15.
[15] Aristotle: Poetics, 4.: “….though
the objects themselves may be painful to see, we delight to view the
most
realistic representations of them in art, the forms for example of the
lowest
animals and of dead bodies. The explanation is to be found in a further
fact:
to be learning something is the greatest of pleasures not only to the
philosopher but also to the rest of mankind, however small their
capacity for
it; the reason of the delight in seeing the picture is that one is at
the same
time learning-gathering the meaning of things, e. g. that the man there
is
so-and-so…” The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. By J. Barnes, 2 vols,
Princeton, 1984, vol. 2. p. 2318) See also: ibid.: Parts of Animals, I.
5;
Rhetoric I, 11.
[16] Baxandall, M.: Guarino, Pisanello
and Manuel Chrysoloras. The Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes
28/1965, p. 198; Baxandall, M.: Giotto and the Orators. Humanist
observers of
painting in Italy and the discovery of pictorial composition 1350-1450.
Oxford,
1971, p. 80; Gramaccini, N.: Das genaue Abbild der Natur. Riccios Tiere
und die
Theorie des Naturabgusses seit Cennini, in: Natur und Antike in der
Renaissance, Frankfurt am Main, 1985, 217; Pochat, G.: Geschichte der
Ästhetik
und Kunstheorie von der Antike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert. Köln, 1986, p.
214;
Blass-Simmen, B.: Sankt Georg: Drachenkamp in der Renaissance.
Carpaccio –
Raffael – Leonardo. Berlin, 1988, p. 27-29; Chastel, A., op. cit. (note
7,
1990), p. 235.
[17] Baxandall op. cit. note 16, 1965:
189; 1971: 40, 83, 95; Gramaccini op. cit (note 16) loc. cit.
[18] Epistolario di Guarino Veronese, da
R. Sabbadini 3 vols.Velence, 1915-19, vol. II. p. 406; vol. III. p. 377.
[19] For Alberti’s work op. cit. (note
9) pp. 45-62 and Chastel op. cit. (note 7, 1984) pp. 45-58.
[20] Alberti op. cit. (note 9) p. 52
“non hanc usque in diem fuere inter muscas odia, simultates, dissidia.”
See
ibid. pp. 50-52 and Chastel op. cit. (note 7, 1984) p. 47.
[21] For more on Squarcione and his
workshop, see: De Nicolò
Salmazo, A.: in: La pittura nel Veneto. Il Quattrocento 2 vols. A cura
di M.
Lucco, Milano, 1990, vol. 2. pp. 513-525, 767-8. For earlier
literature, also:
Armstrong, L.: The Paintings and Drawings of Marco Zoppo. New York
London 1976,
11-28, Lightbrown, R.: Mantegna. With a Complete Catalogue of the
Paintings,
Drawings and Prints. Oxford, 1986, pp. 15-29; Eisler, C.: The Genius of
Jacopo
Bellini. New York, 1989, p. 195; Andrea Mantegna, exhibition cat. Ed. J. Martineau, London, 1992, pp. 9.,
94-113.
[22] For more on the cartellino,
see: WaŸbiñski, Z.: Le
“cartellino”. Origine et avatars d’une etiquette. Pantheon 21/1963, pp.
278-283; Mauriès, P.: Le
trompe l’oeil. Paris, 1996, pp. 107-108; Matthew, L. C.: The Painter’s
Presence: Signatures in Venetian Renaissance Pictures. The Art Bulletin
80/1998, pp. 616-648.
[23] The five paintings: Polyptych,
London, National Gallery, Inv. No. 630, (91,5 x 35 cm.): “.OPVS.
SCLAVONI.
DISIPVLI./SQVARCIONI. S.”; Madonna, Torino, Galleria Sabauda, No. 162
(71 x 61
cm.): “OPUS. SCLAVONI. DALMATICI. SQUARCIONI. S.”; Madonna,
Berlin-Dahlem,
Gemäldegalerie: “OPUS. SCLAVONI. DALMAT/ICI. SQVARCIONI”; Baltimore,
Walters
Art Gallery, Inv. No. 37. 1026 (70 x 56.7 cm.): “.HOC. PINXIT.
GEORGIVS.
DALMATICVS. DIS/CIPVLVS. SQVARCIONI. S.”; Portrait of a man, Paris,
Musée
Jacquemart-André, No. 1030: “OPUS . GEORGI . SCLAVONIS . SQUARCIONI.”
[24] What Pigler, op.cit., p. 47 (note
8) considers a fly, Ames-Lewis rightfully identifies as an earwig
(Ames-Lewis,
F.: The Intellectual Life of the Early Renaissance Artist. New
Haven-London
2000, p. 192. [see note 42]). For more data on this and the other two
pictures,
see the previous notes and: Davies, M.: The Earlier Italian Schools.
London,
1961, p. 464; Gabrielli, N.: Galleria Sabauda, Maestri italiani,
Torino, 1971,
pp. 228-9.; Zeri, F.: Italian Paintings in the Walters Art Gallery 2
vols,
Baltimore, 1976, vol. 1., p. 206.
[25] I do not know if there is any
significance to the fact that in these three pictures, and just these
three,
after the signature there is a letter “S;” Explanations given thus far
are not
convincing. De Nicolò Salmazo (op. cit. [note 21], p. 539, note 168)
suggests it stands for “sculptor” and not “successor” (Moschetti) or
“scholaris” (Bonicatti, and also Prijatelj and Ruhmer). The “S” could
also refer
to the artist’s place of birth. But is also possible that the “S” had
some
connection to the joke, and thus there are countless possibilities
(sacculus,
salsus, sapiens, scelestus, scurror, simmia naturae, sollers, summus,
superator, similo, simulo, sublecto, etc.)
[26] Middeldorf Kosegarten, A.: The
Origins of Artistic Competitions in Italy. In: Lorenzo Ghiberti nel suo
tempo.
Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Firenze, 18-21 ottobre 1978)
2 vols.
Firenze, 1980, vol. 1. pp. 167-186.; Gramaccini, N.: Wie Jacopo Bellini
Pisanello besiegte. Der Ferrareser Wettbewerb von 1441. Idea 1/1981-2,
26-53
[27] Vasari, G.: Le Vite de’ più
eccellenti pittori scultori ed architettori, (1568) con nuove
annotazioni e
commenti di Gaetano Milanesi, tomo III. Firenze, 1906, Andrea Mantegna,
p.
386.: “La concorrenza ancora di Marco Zoppo bolognese, e di Dario da
Trevisi, e
di Niccolò Pizzolo padoano, discepoli del suo adottivo padre e maestro,
gli fu non piccolo aiuto e stimolo all’imparare.”
[28] We know all this from Feliciano’s
writings. Mitchell, Ch.: Archaeology and Romance in Renaissance Italy.
In:
Italian Renaissance Studies. A tribute to the late Cecilia M. Ady, ed.
by E. F.
Jacob, London, 1960, 455-483; Martineau, op. cit. (note 21) p. 17.
There
are numerous verbal examples of this peculiar Veneto-Paduan game of
fancy dress
in antique style. Feliciano for example compared Marco Zoppo not just
to the
ancient painter Euphranor, but also to the formidable military
commander
Massinissa; he refers to Zoppo’s vicious dogs as Cerberus, and they are
what
dissuaded him from ever daring to visit the painter. The painter’s
daughters
were called Lucretia and Minerva. (Armstrong, op. cit. [note 21], pp.
9-10 and
docs. XIII, XIV).
[29] Many have emphasised the relativity
of the significance of copying antiquity. For example: Kristeller, P.:
Andrea
Mantegna. London, New York, Bombay, 1901, pp. 28-29; Boskovits, M.: Una
ricerca
su Francesco Squarcione. Paragone, 28/1977, p. 46; Lightbrown, op. cit.
(note
21), p. 24 (“An antique motif was as often as not a stimulant to the
imagination rather than a model to be copied literally…”) etc.
Cf.
Mitchell for more on the excursion to Lake Garda: “ ... they acted (or
pretended to act) à l’antique,
already anticipated their objective, they were looking, not so much for
novel
finds, as for fresh reflections and confirmations of an antiquity that
shone in
their imaginations. Antiquity was becoming an ideal of life, rather
than an
object of inquiry.” (Mitchell, op. cit. (note 28) p. 478)
[30] For example Pisanello as greater
than Prometheus (L. Dati), Zeuxis and Apelles (T. V. Strozzi), Phidias
and
Praxiteles (Pocellio): Chiarelli, R.: L’opera completa del Pisanello,
Milano,
1972, pp. 9-10; Jacopo Bellini as the new Phidias: Gramaccini, op. cit.
(note
26) p. 28; Mantegna as greater than Parrhasios “of Rome” or Apelles
(Filippo
Nuvoloni): Martineau, op. cit. (note 21) p. 18, and Janus Pannonius:
The praise
of painter Andrea Mantegna, etc.; and Zoppo tricking Phidias, see note
45.
[31] Plinius: Naturalis historia XXXV.
65-6, see also: XXXV. 23 for the deception of ravens, XXXV. 95
deception of
horses, XXXV. 121: deception of birds, XXXV. 155: deception of people,
artists.
Kris – Kurz, op. cit., (note 11) p. 62.
Pietro
da Pavia is a good example of the extent to which the painters – in the past as well – embraced Pliny:
he illustrated the initial from the chapter on painters in Naturalis
historia with a self-portrait together with his name and
date: “frater Petrus de Papie me fecit 1389” (Milano, Biblioteca
Ambrosiana,
MS. E. 24. inf., fol. 332r.) See: Sutton, K.: Giangaleazzo Visconti as
patron.
A prayer book illuminated by Pietro da Pavia. Apollo, 137/1993, fig. 2.
Philostratus’s
discussion of flowers upon which such a life-like bee has landed that
it is
unknown “whether a real bee has been deceived by the painted flowers or
whether
we are to be deceived into thinking that a painted bee is real ” is
also well
known. Philostratos: Imagines I. 23. (Philostratus: Imagines, with an
English
translation by Arthur Fairbanks, Cambridge, MA. 1960, p. 89-91.) This
topos is
used by Ciriaco d’Ancona of Padua, who was enthusiastic about antique
literature and art, when he describes in 1449 the muse Melpomene
decorating the
studiolo of the Belfiore Castle of
Ferrara. See Baxandall, op. cit. (note 16, 1965) p. 188. Panofsky, op.
cit.
(note 7), p. 489 makes a connection between the deceptively real
depictions of
flies and this place of Philostratus. See also Strabo: Geography, 14,
2, 5:
pictures depicting birds fooling other birds (Gilbert mentions this in
connection with the Madonna in Edinburgh. Gilbert, C. E.: Grapes,
Curtains,
Human Beings: The Theory of Missed Mimesis. Künstlerischer Austausch –
Artistic
Exchange. XXVIII. Internationaler Kongress für Kunstgeschichte, Hgg.
Th. W.
Gaehtgens, 3 vols. Berlin, 1992, vol. 2., 1993, p. 419, note 13. For
the
Edinburgh Madonna: note 37.)
[32] There in no source surviving from
antiquity that deals with illusionistic flies. We only know of skilled
sculptors and gem cutters who sculpted flies (see, Kemp, op. cit. note
1,
1210), Leonello d’Este also praises them: Baxandall, M.: A Dialogue on
Art from
the Court of Leonello d’Este. The Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes, 26/1963, p. 322.
[33] Meiss, M.: Andrea Mantegna as Illuminator. Glückstadt - Hamburg, 1957; Mariani Canova, G.: La miniatura veneta del Rinascimento. Velence, 1969, pp. 12, 107-108.; Alexander, J. J. G.: Italian Renaissance Illuminations, London – New York, 1977; Armstong, L.: Renaissance Miniature Painters and Classical Imagery. The Master of the Putti and his Venetian Workshop. London, 1981; The Painted Page. Italian Renaissance Book Illumination 1450-1550, ed. by J. J. G. Alexander, London – New York, 1994, 23-26.
Many
believe that not just Mantegna and Zoppo, but other painters from
Squarcione’s
workshop were expressly illuminators. Bonicatti,
M.: Aspetti dell’umanesimo nella pittura veneta dal 1455 al 1515. Roma,
1964
(He derives all of Squarcione-ism from the miniature); Puppi, L.:
Osservazioni
sui riflessi dell’arte di Donatello tra Padova e Ferrara. In: Donatello
e il
suo tempo, Atti del VIII Convegno Internazionale di Studi sul
Rinascimento,
Firenze, 1966, p. 324; Mariani Canova, G.: La miniatura rinascimentale
a
Padova, in: Dopo Mantegna, Padova, Palazzo della Ragione, Milano, 1976,
p. 152.
(I know of the latter only from references.)
[34] Cambridge, MA. Houghton Library,
Harvard University, MS. Typ. 219 H. fol. 484r. 29 x 20 cm. The Painted Page (see note 33) No. 88, with
earlier literature.
I
should mention here that research on the origins of the illusionary
“torn
parchment” motif has little to go on, see Armstrong, op. cit. (note
33), p. 24.
I think that in part the cartellino
and in part some of the solutions used in the miniatures of Lombardy
can be
considered. See for example the example mentioned in note 4.
[35] Bayonne, Musée Bonnat: Legs 1187:
Levi d’Ancona, M.: Il “Maestro della Mosca”. Commentarii, Rivista di
critica e
storia dell’arte 1-2/1975, 145-157
[36] Levi d’Ancona (op. cit., [note 35],
p. 151) believes the closest relative of not only the miniature style
but also
the fly can be found on the putto in
Schiavone’s Madonna in Torino.
She mentions this insect too as symbolising the spread of the plague. I
can not
agree with this either, although she did give me the idea for the title
of this
article. He refers to “Puer abige muscas!” in Cicero De Oratore 2. 60.
247, the
context of which is humour itself (different types of jokes).
I
know only from description of a fly decorating an initial in a Pliny
manuscript
written in Italian in Padua in the 1470s. (Book XI, in the company of
other
insects, Painted Page, op. cit. [note 33], No. 84). Kris – Kurz (op.
cit. [note
11] p. 64, note 5) refer to a
late-15th-century Milanese miniature with painted fly as a
“pictorial joke.”
[37] Edinburgh, National Gallery of
Scotland, No. 1535, 58,5 x 44 cm. Brigstocke, H.: Italian and Spanish
Paintings
in the National Gallery of Scotland. Edinburgh, 1978, p. 44. Besides
the
literature referred to here, see: Salmi, M.: Riflessioni sulla civiltà
figurativa di Ferrara nei suoi rapporti con Padova durante il primo
Rinascimento. Rivista d’arte 34/1959, 34.o., Manca, J.: A Ferrarese
Painter of
the Quattrocento. Gazette des Beaux-Arts 132/1990, pp. 159, 164-5;
Mauriès, op. cit. (note 22) p. 101 (according to the latter the paper
which appears torn may have a connection to the Zeuxis - Parrhasios
contest –
the fly is not mentioned in this context).
[38] Zampetti, P.: Carlo Crivelli.
Milano, 1961, pp. 9-10.
[39] Malibu, The Paul Getty Museum.
Bacchi, A.: Vicende della pittura nell’ età di Giovanni II Bentivoglio.
In: Bentivolorum Magnificentia. Principe e Cultura a Bologna nel
Rinascimento,
a cura di B. Basile, Roma, 1984, pp. 301-2, fig. 7.; Le Muse e il
principe.
Arte di corte nel Rinascimento padano, a cura di A. Mottola Molfino -
M.
Natale, 2 vols. Milano, 1991, vol. I. p. 430, fig. 455
[40] Budapest, Szépmûvészeti Múzeum
[Museum of Fine Arts], No. 51. 799, 66,5 x 54,5 cm. Pigler, A.: Katalog
der
Galerie alter Meister, vols 2, Budapest, 1967, vol. 1. p. 617. and vol.
2. Taf.
37.
[41] See: Land, op. cit., (note 7) in
connection with Crivelli’s Madonna (New York, Metropolitan Museum,
Bache
Collection).
[42] In the literature, the comment of
Ames-Lewis, op. cit. (note 24) p. 192 comes closest to my idea, except
that I
think it is the other way around: “This story (the Giotto – Cimabue
anecdote)
also perhaps encouraged painters in Squarcione’ s circle to indulge in trompe l’oeil painting as a
self-conscious display of painterly skill using the same example, such
as the
earwig at the foot of the Virgin’s throne in Giorgio Schiavone’s
altarpiece of
around 1460 in the National Gallery in London.”
[43] Antonio Averlino Filarete: Trattato
di Architettura, XXIII, fol. 181 r. Ed. A. M. Finoli e L. Grassi, 2
vols.
Milano, 1972, vol. 2, p. 665, Gilbert, C. E.: Italian Art 1400-1500,
Sources
and Documents, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1980, p. 90. For more on
Filarete’s
comment in the literature on flies, see: Chastel, op. cit. (note 7,
1984) p.
14; Georgel, P – Lecoq, A. M.: La Pittura nella pittura (1982) Milano,
1987, p.
276.; Gilbert, op. cit. (note 31) 1993, p. 414.; Arasse, op. cit. (note
7), p.
118, Land, op. cit. (note 7) p. 13.
[44] For mention of Mantegna, see:
Filarete, Trattato, op. cit. 1. vol. 1. p. 258, Gilbert, C. E.: Why
Still Life
Painting? A Quattrocento Answer. In: Abstracts of Papers Delivered in
Art
History Sessions, 64th Annual Meeting, College Art
Association,
1976, p. 86; Gilbert, op. cit., loc. cit. (note 31).
[45] M. Claudo Bononiensi Pictori.
Legerat Alcides quae poma sororibus Afris/Haec tua Claude mihi picta
tabella
dedit./Decepere tuam (quid mirum) Marce puellam: Phidiacas caperent
talia poma
manus.
Quotes
in: Gilbert, op. cit., loc. cit. (note 44) and Gilbert, C. E.: L’Arte
del
Quattrocento nelle testimonianze coeve. Firenze, Vivenza 1988, p. 208.
In
English: Ames-Lewis, op. cit. (note 24), p. 191.
[46] Boccaccio, Decameron, day 6,
novella 5. Quoted in: Kris – Kurz, op. cit. (note 11) p. 65.
[47] See: Ames-Lewis, op. cit. (note
24), p. 190: “The combination of classical anecdote and early
Renaissance
mimesis theory perhaps led painters from the Squarcione circle such as
Marco
Zoppo to decorate their paintings
with abundant swags of flowers and fruit, as though to attract Zeuxis’s
birds.”
(emphasis mine)
[48] Münster, Westfälisches
Landesmuseum, 113 x 82 cm. See note 13. The prototype of Campin
supposed by
Thürlemann is probable, but not provable. We have no choice but to use
what we
see as our point of departure.
[49] See Thürlemann, op. cit. (note 7)
p. 543. As Thürlemann points out the fly and the bowl of fruit appear
in the
same context in the self-portrait by the Frankfurt Master (1496,
Antwerpen,
Koninklijk museum voor schone kunsten, 37,5 x 26 cm.)
[50] For another example of an angel
grinding pigments see: The Book of
Hours of Margaret of Escornaix, Master of
Guillebert de Mets, around 1445, Bruxelles, Royal Libr. of Belgium, ms.
IV
1113, fol. 173 v.(I would like to expand on this topic at another
time.) The paragone at any rate was of primary
importance to early Netherlandish painters: among others the lack of
colour in
the grisaille statues deals with
this. See, for example: Preimesberger, R.: Zu Jan van Eycks Diptychon
der
Sammlung Thyssen-Bornemisza. Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 54/1991,
465;
Belting – Kruse, op. cit. (note 13) passim.
[51] Vasari, op. cit. (note 27) vol.
I, p. 408; Kris – Kurz, op. cit.
(note 11), p. 64; Land, op. cit. (note
7) p. 13.
[52] “Andrea Mantegna igannò il
suo maestro, con una moscha dipinta sopra al ciglio d’un leone.”
Trattato
dell’arte della pittura, scoltura, et architettura, di Gio. Paolo
Lomazzo,
Libro III, cap. II., Milano, (1584) 1585, p. 188. Lightbrown, op. cit.
(note
21), p 24 refers to this text in connection with Squarcione and his
students’
knowledge of Pliny’s stories.
[53] “Et è noto che Andrea
Mantegna, essendo in la città di Mantova gargione di un pittore, gli
fece sopra di un ciglio di un leone, che dipinto aveva acanto a un
santo
Girolamo, mentre a mangiare andava, una mosca, tanto simile al vero,
che esso
maestro, essendo venuto, cominciò col fazzoletto a volerla levar via,
imbratando intorno di quella, che a oglio fatta era; onde acorgiendosi
quella
esser dipinta, per invidia, scacciò via esso Andrea Mantegna; il quale
andò poi a Venezia, ove fece col mezzo dille sue opere, stupire
grandemente Giovan Bellino pittore.” G. P. Lomazzo: I Sogni e
ragionamento di
Giovan Paolo Lomazzo milanese, con le figure de gli spiriti che li
racontano 5,
ed R. P. Ciardi, Firenze, 1974, I. pp. 93-94, quoted in: Chastel, op.
cit.
(note 7, 1990) p. 240: only as an
example of the survival of the Giotto anecdote.
[54] Baxandall, op. cit. (note 16, 1971),
p. 92; Martineau, op. cit. (note 21), p. 115.
[55] Washington, National Gallery of
Art, Samuel H. Kress Coll. No. 1130, 139.1 x 67, 3 cm. Shapley, F. R.:
Catalogue of the Italian Paintings, 2 vols. Washington, 1979, vol. 1.,
pp.
62-63, vol. 2. Pl. 36; Friedmann, H.: A Bestiary for Saint Jerome.
Animal
Symbolism in European Religious Art. Washington, 1980, p. 216; Chastel,
op.
cit. (note 7, 1984) p. 25.
[56] It can no longer be seen on the
original (Prague, Národni Galerie Inv.Nr O.P.2148), but is apparent in
the
copies, for example on the c. 1600 copy by an unknown master: Wien,
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, Inv. No. 1900, 160 x 193 cm.
Weixlgärtner, op. cit., loc. cit. (note 7); Chastel, op. cit. (note 7,
1986),
p. 25; Humfrey, P.: Dürer’s Feast of the Rosegarlands: A Venetian
Altarpiece.
Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague 1/1991, pp. 21-33.
[57] Firenze, Galleria degli Uffizi,
Inv. 1890 n. 4521, d.: 14 cm. Firenze e la Toscana dei Medici
nell’Europa del
Cinquecento. Palazzo Vecchio: committenza e collezionismo medicei
1537-1610,
Milano, 1980, a cura di P. Barocchi, Nº385 (S. Meloni Trkulja);
Chastel,
op. cit. (note 7, 1986), p. 25.
[58] Christ
among the Doctors,
Madrid, Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Inv. 1934.38
[59] “…consalitatus est alter Apelles.
Sicut autem Zeusis, teste Plinio in 35. capite decimo, uvis pictis aves
fefellit, et Zeusidem linteo Parrhasius, ita Albertus meus canes
decepit. Quum
enim aliquando sui ipsius imaginem per speculum penicillo expressisset,
constat
catulum domesticum...forte accurrentem, putantemque hero applaudere,
tabula
oscula fixisse….Quotiens praeterea servae conatae sunt aranearum telas,
quas
hic ex industria pinxerat, expurgare?” Christoph Scheurl: Libellus de
laudibus
Germaniae et ducum Saxoniae, Leipzig, 1508, in: Dürer. Schriftlicher
Nachlass,
Hg. von H. Rupprich, 3 vols, 1, Berlin, 1956, pp. 290-291.
[60] Eisler, C.: Dürer’s Animals.
Washington – London, 1991, pp. 22, 130. (Varese, op. cit., loc. cit.
[note 7],
however, writes in relation to Santi’s painting in Budapest, that one
element
of the Zeuxis – Parrhasios contest was the trompe
l’oeil fly).
[61] See the oldest meaning of the word άνέκδοτον, Kris – Kurz, op. cit. (note 11), p. 10