POTM: Giulio Romano
Yogi Buchon
The statue scene in WT is a strange deviation from Greene's
*Pandosto*. During this scene the author includes a reference to
Giulio Romano, a rather obscure Italian artist who would not have been
known to very many people in an English audience. Why mention Romano?
Is this some sort of a puzzle for readers to solve? If it's a
puzzle, here's one possible solution:
WT was written about 1610, and the staute scene, a scene of
resurrection, is set in Sicily. Was there a famous Italian artist
painting in Sicily in a very realistic way, as opposed to Mannerist,
who painted a resurrection scene? Why, lo and behold, Michelangelo
Merisi da Caravaggio had painted *The Raising of Lazarus* in Sicily
near the time WT was written. What a coincidence!! Well, how about
another coincidence? Caravaggio copied Giulio Romano's pose of
Patroclus in his painting of Lazarus. This copied pose has been well
noted in art literature. And another coincidence? Both Romano and
Caravaggio did artistic work for the Knights of Malta. So what? It
means nothing because Shakespeare was in England. But, if Marlowe had
survived beyond 1593 and then went into exile on Malta--as The Tempest
and other plays hint at--then these coincidences start to make sense,
at least to me.
The only time Caravaggio signed his name to a painting was when he
signed "Michelangelo", his first name, in a stream of blood depicted
in the painting of the beheading of St. John the Baptist on Malta.
And so, going back to the statue scene, we have a statue, a mother and
child as protagonists, and the mention of an Italian painter/sculptor.
Is this reminiscent of any great work of art? How about
Michelangelo's *Pieta*? This other, more famous Michelangelo would
have been well known to many English audience members. The Pieta was
arguably his most famous artistic work. And, could the word "piece"
in the statue scene be another way of suggesting "Pieta"?
Finally, there seem to be subtle suggestions of the legend of St.
Ursula within WT--a Sicilian queen, a virgin girl making a sea voyage,
a storm during the sea voyage, a virgin girl being sacrificed,
Bohemian barbarians versus civilized Sicilians, a noble marriage, the
stage direction "Exit pURSUed by [an ursula]", et cetera. The legend
of St Ursula was well known in Britain. In the case of WT it would be
a Siclian Ursula rather than a British Ursula. Even if these
suggestions are accepted, so what? Well, it turns out that the last
painting Caravaggio did was *Ursula Transfixed* completed in Naples
about May of 1610. The model he used for Ursula was the same Sicilian
maiden he used within his painting of Lazarus in Messina, and within
his painting of a nativity scene in Palermo. So, Caravaggio had
painted a Sicilian Ursula!! How coincidental once more!!
But, why didn't Marlowe just mention Caravaggio directly rather than
go round about and mention Romano in puzzle form instead? The main
reason would be self-protection and protection of the the higher ups,
possibly Walsingham and Southampton, who had helped him escape England
in 1593. And to go one step further, rather than just mention
Caravaggio, Marlowe could have inserted a line that made it very clear
he was alive and well and giving the royal authority of England the
royal fig. But, this would not have been wise. It would have risked
his anonymous condition and safety. Just read about how Caravaggio
was hounded from spot to spot by various different "authorities"
seeking vengeance and justice. Did these authorities finally catch up
with Caravaggio? Of course not!! Today you can read about how he
died alone on some deserted beach while chasing a ship. Yup, yup,
sure, uh-huh. And Marlowe died at Deptford in 1593.
Truly,
Yogi Buchon
Art Neuendorffer
> The statue scene in WT is a strange deviation from Greene's
> *Pandosto*. During this scene the author includes a reference to
> Giulio Romano, a rather obscure Italian artist who would not have been
> known to very many people in an English audience. Why mention Romano?
> Is this some sort of a puzzle for readers to solve? If it's a
> puzzle, here's one possible solution:
>
> WT was written about 1610, and the staute scene, a scene of
> resurrection, is set in Sicily. Was there a famous Italian artist
> painting in Sicily in a very realistic way, as opposed to Mannerist,
> who painted a resurrection scene? Why, lo and behold, Michelangelo
> Merisi da Caravaggio had painted *The Raising of Lazarus* in Sicily
> near the time WT was written. What a coincidence!! Well, how about
> another coincidence? Caravaggio copied Giulio Romano's pose of
> Patroclus in his painting of Lazarus. This copied pose has been well
> noted in art literature. And another coincidence? Both Romano and
> Caravaggio did artistic work for the Knights of Malta. So what? It
> means nothing because Shakespeare was in England. But, if Marlowe had
> survived beyond 1593 and then went into exile on Malta--as The Tempest
> and other plays hint at--then these coincidences start to make sense,
> at least to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/caravaggio/
Early in 1608 Caravaggio went to Malta and was received as a celebrated
artist. Fearful of pursuit, he continued to flee for two more years,
but his paintings of this time were among the greatest of his career.
After receiving a pardon from the pope, he was wrongfully arrested &
imprisoned for two days. A boat that was to take him to Rome left
without him, taking his belongings. Misfortune, exhaustion, and
illness overtook him as he helplessly watched the boat depart.
He collapsed on the beach and died a few days later on July 18, 1610.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
September 8, 1560, Amy Robsart BREAKS neck at bottom of staircase
September 8, 1573, Caravaggio born
September 8, 1601, Shakespeare's father, John, buried
September 8, 1608, Shakespeare's mother, Mary, dies
September 8, 1611, FORMAN SIMon dies: "An IMPOST, an IMPOST"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
September 8 => Feastday of St. ADRIAN (patron saint of butchers)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/10/65lazar.html
The Raising of Lazarus 1608-09
Oil on canvas, 380 x 275 cm
Museo Nazionale, Messina
Most of Caravaggio's religious subjects emphasize sadness, suffering and
death. In 1609 he dealt with the triumph of life and in doing so created
the most visionary picture of his career.
Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mary, was the patron [saint] of
Giovanni Battista de' Lazzari, to whom Caravaggio was contracted to
paint an altarpiece in the church of the Padri Crociferi. The Gospel of
St John tells how Lazarus fell sick, died, was buried and then
miraculously raised from the dead by Christ.
Once again, the scene is set against blank walls that overwhelm the
actors, who once more are laid out like figures on a frieze. Some of
them, says Susinno, were modelled on members of the community, but at
this stage Caravaggio did not have time to base himself wholly on models
and relied on his memory - the whole design is based on an engraving
after Giulio Romano and his Jesus is a reversed image of the Christ who
called Matthew to join him.
There is a remarkable contrast between the flexible bodies of the
grieving sisters and the near-rigid corpse of their brother. In the
gospel Martha reminds Jesus that, as her brother had been dead four
days, he would stink, but here nobody detracts from the dignity of the
moment by holding his nose. Jesus is the resurrection and the life and
in the darkness through him the truth is revealed.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sicily 1608-1609
http://www.thais.it/speciali/Caravaggio/vita_1_Sicilia.htm
<<Caravaggio's brief stay in Sicily did not end in a flight as it had
begun. The painter probably wanted to return to Naples where years
before he had been well accepted and he intended moving one step closer
to Rome, having had news of the good probability of the revocation of
his conviction for the murder of Tomassoni. Another hypothesis is that
there had been threats from Malta after being given the honour of
Knighthood and his rapid expulsion from the order with the consequent
imprisonment and evasion. He found an old Roman friend, colleague and
model in Syracuse, Marco Minniti, who obtained commissions for him from
the Senate. His first was the altar-piece of the burial place of Saint
Lucia for the church dedicated to the Syracuse martyr, a canvas of 408 x
300 cm. painted in record time (he arrived half way through October and
in December Caravaggio had already left for Messina). The large wall
covering almost two thirds of the background of this scene is thought to
show a certain tiredness on the part of the artist and judged to be a
solution for the completion of the work, just like the wings of a
theatre which have the effect of diminishing the actors, who appear
oppressed by the sad function they are assisting. Two massive, almost
daring, grave-diggers appear in the foreground and seem to step out of
the canvas, re-enforcing the unity of the afflicted group whilst the
establishment figures, the bishop in his robes and the soldier are
protected, almost as if they are there for work. The distended body of
the saint shows one of the more audacious Caravaggian traits: the
distance between the shoulder and the hand is no longer than thirty
centimetres. He certainly worked quickly when painting the clothes,
however. Francesco Susinni wrote a century later: "his work was so well
accepted that it was celebrated and copied in Messina and many other
cities of the kingdom." A rich Genoese merchant in Messina, Giovanni
Battista de' Lazzari asked him to paint an altar- piece with the Madonna
and the saints. Caravaggio proposed the Resurrection of Lazarus in
honour of his name. According to Susinno, an earlier version of the work
had been destroyed due to some criticism:" Michelangelo, with his usual
impatience, attacked the painting with the dagger he always carried
leaving it in shreds." The dagger reappeared whilst he was working on
the second canvas, brandished by Caravaggio to convince the "porters" to
continue to carry Lazarus, who in the love of realism, was an unburied
body "already smelling after some days". Lazarus had not, however,
obeyed the peremptory sign of Christ and seems unwilling to return to
life with one hand raised towards a skull (death as a consequence of the
original sin) and the other towards the Saviour. Pages and pages of
exegesis have seen the reflection of the drama of existentialism in the
religiosity of Caravaggio in this painting, suspended between hope and
desperation, eager to atone but sceptical of personal redemption.
Mysticism apart, it is interesting to note that the self-portrait figure
glances neither at Lazarus nor at Christ. The action in this painting is
also faced inward, typical of his short period of "light style". Another
example may be "The rest during the flight in Egypt" 1596-7, which
presents one of the few, best landscape paintings by Caravaggio. "He
never let some of his characters see the light of the sun but found the
means of placing them within the darkness of a closed room," observes
Bellori. This allowed Caravaggio to use illumination coming from
different fonts, like spotlights enabling him to work better on the
shadows. If it is true that he always intended to respect reality
("he professed himself completely obedient to the model that he never
painted, which was not his but belonged to nature") it is better to dose
and control the drama of the contrasts, "reducing the number of light
fonts to but a few."
Other works displayed in Sicily are the "Adoration of the Shepherds or
the Madonna of Childbirth", a hymn to the humility with a Maria, modest
and half-lying on the straw, which counter-poses the geometric block
formed by the shepherds and the "Nativity" (stolen in 1962) with its
conventional form which, according to some critics, possibly dates back
to 1600 and is probably one of the many St. John the Baptists painted by
Caravaggio in the form of a young nude man in the company of a ram. The
features of the young man are strongly insular and we learn from the not
always reliable Susinni that the painter gave the Master Carlo Pepe head
wounds when he protested at Caravaggio's recruiting of models for his
students "to form his fantasies.">>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yogi Buchon wrote:
> The only time Caravaggio signed his name to a painting was when he
> signed "Michelangelo", his first name, in a stream of blood depicted
> in the painting of the beheading of St. John the Baptist on Malta.
> And so, going back to the statue scene, we have a statue, a mother and
> child as protagonists, and the mention of an Italian painter/sculptor.
> Is this reminiscent of any great work of art? How about
> Michelangelo's *Pieta*? This other, more famous Michelangelo would
> have been well known to many English audience members. The Pieta was
> arguably his most famous artistic work. And, could the word "piece"
> in the statue scene be another way of suggesting "Pieta"?
>
> Finally, there seem to be subtle suggestions of the legend of St.
> Ursula within WT--a Sicilian queen, a virgin girl making a sea voyage,
> a storm during the sea voyage, a virgin girl being sacrificed,
> Bohemian barbarians versus civilized Sicilians, a noble marriage, the
> stage direction "Exit pURSUed by [an ursula]", et cetera. The legend
> of St Ursula was well known in Britain. In the case of WT it would be
> a Siclian Ursula rather than a British Ursula. Even if these
> suggestions are accepted, so what? Well, it turns out that the last
> painting Caravaggio did was *Ursula Transfixed* completed in Naples
> about May of 1610. The model he used for Ursula was the same Sicilian
> maiden he used within his painting of Lazarus in Messina, and within
> his painting of a nativity scene in Palermo. So, Caravaggio had
> painted a Sicilian Ursula!! How coincidental once more!!
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/11/73ursula.html
The Martyrdom of St Ursula 1610
Oil on canvas, 154 x 178 cm
Banca Commerciale Italiana, Naples
<<This, another of the newly rediscovered paintings by Caravaggio, dates
to his final weeks in Naples, before the ill-fated sea-trip back towards
Rome and the pardon which was awaiting him. Saint Ursula was a popular
Christian saint, remembered for her legendary refusal to marry a pagan
Hun. Caravaggio has picked on the climactic moment of her martyrdom,
when her frustrated suitor has just fired an arrow at her - here at
point-blank range which is piercing her breast.
In the dimly lit scene the saint gazes at the arrow with an air of quiet
concern, while the Hun stares at her, his eyes shaded in darkness, one
attendant looking at his hand and another, who must be modelled on
Caravaggio himself, peering from the back, anxious to watch the
proceedings. It is the last time that Caravaggio sees himself as an
anguished spectator, but in pictorial terms the painting seems to
presage what might have been a fresh stage in his career, for the Hun is
painted with a new boldness in the brushwork. The varnish was still wet
in May. In early July, Caravaggio was dead.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Legend of St. Ursula (Feast October 21)
http://www.magna.com.au/~stursula/our_college/legend.htm
<<In the Church of St. Ursula at Cologne there is a stone (dating to the
4th Century) with the inscription indicating that Clematius rebuilt a
ruined basilica in honour of virgins martyred on the spot. Some stories
say there were seven thousand, others eleven; the confusion being caused
by the use of the letter XIM - which could stand for eleven martyrs or
eleven thousand. One version of the legend is that Ursula was British
and was slain by the Huns at Cologne in 451. Whatever the facts, the
legend caught people's imagination. Ursula was seen as the Patroness of
Youth and because of her leadership of young girls, as a patroness of
learning.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ntin.net/McDaniel/1021.htm
October 21 => Feast day of St. Ursula, the patroness of brides.
On October 21, 1692, William Penn was deposed as Governor of
Pennsylvania. His overtures of gratefulness to King James II for
permitting religious freedom for dissenters of the Church of England
led William & Mary to charge Penn with being a papist.
On October 21, 1772, Samuel Taylor Coleridge was born in the
parsonage at Ottery Saint Mary in Devon. He and Robert Southey planned
to form a socialist community in Pennsylvania on the banks of the
Susquehanna. The plan never materialized. He was the most brilliant but
the least productive of the English Romantic poets because of his innate
inaction.
On October 21, 1797, Old Ironsides, the U.S. Navy frigate
Constitution, was launched in Boston's harbor.
On October 21, 1805, the Battle of Trafalgar ended Napoleon's hope
for naval power. Lord Horatio Nelson lost his life.
On October 21, 1914, Martin Gardner, yeoman in the Navy,
was born in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Ursula Feastday: October 21
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saints/ursula.html
<<According to a legend that appeared in the tenth century, Ursula was
the daughter of a Christian king in Britain and was granted a three year
postponement of a marriage she did not wish, to a pagan prince. With ten
ladies in waiting, each attended by a thousand maidens, she embarked on
a voyage across the North sea, sailed up the Rhine to Basle,
Switzerland, and then went to Rome. On their way back, they were all
massacred by pagan Huns at Cologne in about 451 when Ursula refused to
marry their chieftain. According to another legend, Amorica was settled
by British colonizers and soldiers after Emporer Magnus Clemens Maximus
conquered Britain and Gaul in 383. The ruler of the settlers, Cynan
Meiriadog, called on King Dionotus of Cornwall for wives for the
settlers, whereupon Dionotus sent his daughter Ursula, who was to marry
Cynan, with eleven thousand maidens and sixty thousand common women.
There fleet was shipwrecked and all the women were enslaved or murdered.
The legends are pious fictions, but what is true is that one Clematius,
a senator, rebuilt a basilica in Cologne that had originally been built,
probably at the beginning of the fourth century, to honor a group of
virgins who had been martyred at Cologne. They were evidently venerated
enough to have had a church built in their honor, but who they were and
how many of them there were, are unknown. From these meager facts, the
legend of Ursula grew and developed.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ursula and the 11,000 Virgins of Cologne (RM)
http://users.erols.com/saintpat/ss/1021.htm
<<Baring-Gould suggests that Saint Ursula with her bow and arrow,
her ship and company of maidens, sails up the Rhine as Urschel, the
Teutonic moon goddess, sailed before her, with all the graceful
attributes of Isis and Diana. She is likely to be one of the saints
who's become confused with the old gods, that is, a real martyr's
story has been embellished with that particulars of an old myth.
Saint Ursula is represented as a princess holding an arrow. Sometimes
(1) with maidens under her mantle;
(2) an angel comes to her as she sleeps ;
(3) she takes leave of her royal parents;
(4) in a boat surrounded by maidens and ecclesiastics,
as she sails down the Rhein; or
(5) she and her companions massacred by bowmen.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BOTTLED BEERS, THE PREHISTORY
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/John_Mann/history.htm
<<A problem in looking at the origins of bottled beer is the confusion
between glass and stoneware (or even leather) bottles as we understand
the word and leather drinking vessels called bottels which were in use
in the 16th and 17th centuries. Thus in Ben Jonson's play Bartholomew
Fair (1631), URSULA calls for "A Bottle of Ale to quench me, rascal".
Earlier, when the Globe Theatre burnt down there was a story that the
only casualty was a man whose breeches caught fire, and that he was
saved when a bottle of ale was thrown over them extinguishing the
flames. But in either case, was the bottle a container as we
understand it or a leather drinking mug?>>
-------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
>Hi everyone!
>
>The statue scene in WT is a strange deviation from Greene's
>*Pandosto*. During this scene the author includes a reference to
>Giulio Romano, a rather obscure Italian artist who would not have been
>known to very many people in an English audience. Why mention Romano?
> Is this some sort of a puzzle for readers to solve? If it's a
>puzzle, here's one possible solution:
...
For what it's worth, the note in the commentary I am just taking back
to the library says:
"Shakespeare may have read Vasari's Lives (1568) which quoted Giulio's
epitaph: 'painted statues breathed .. by virtue of Giulio'".
Or he might have got Giulio's epitaph from some other source. I'll see
if I can find Vasari in the library.
Yogi Buchon
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/10/65lazar.html
Caravaggio's ties to the Knights of Malta are well known.
Giulio Romano's artistic ties to the Knights of Malta can be found in
the book "Malta of the Knights" by E. W. Schermerhorn.
Caravaggio's painting of St. Ursula was finished in May of 1610:
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/11/73ursula.html
"The Winter's Tale" was likely written after May of 1610:
http://www.xrefer.com/entry/555496
The Sicilian model for Caravaggio's Ursula is noted by Peter Robb:
http://www.bookpage.com/0002bp/nonfiction/m.html
The realistic painting style of "the other Michelangelo":
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/featuredarticle-2000-10.html
I hope these links work. I can't check them out in "preview message".
See ya,
Yogi
KQKnave
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Yogi Buchon
> For what it's worth, the note in the commentary I am just taking back
> to the library says:
> "Shakespeare may have read Vasari's Lives (1568) which quoted Giulio's
> epitaph: 'painted statues breathed .. by virtue of Giulio'".
>
> Or he might have got Giulio's epitaph from some other source. I'll see
> if I can find Vasari in the library.
So, Shakespeare may have read Vasari's Lives(1568)? Yes, I agree,
it's possible--just about anything is possible. However, in my humble
opinion, it is extremely improbable. Romano's epitaph was written in
Latin, and Vasari's book was written in Italian. The first
translation of Vasari's "Lives" into English wasn't until many years
after Shakespeare's death. Vasari wrote about many Italian artists in
his book, why would Shakespeare pick on Romano from all these as the
only artist mentioned in his entire canon? Was Romano the greatest of
all Italian artists? Did Shakespeare see Romano's works in England,
or did Shakespeare travel to Italy and see them there? If he never saw
any of Romano's works, then did he just decide to wade through all
three volumes of Vasari's "Lives", written in Italian, looking for a
reference to an Italian artist for mysterious and anachronistic
employment in his statue scene? Did Shakespeare expect his English
audience to understand a Romano reference?
But, I'm not the only one who thought of Michelangelo in WT's statue
scene. Here is a quote from the article "Living Sculptures: Ovid,
Michelangelo, and the Winter's Tale" by Leonard Barkan (ELH, 1981,
page 647):
"There is no hard evidence that Shakespeare knew Michelangelo existed.
Still it is very tempting to look for connections between them. These
two great titans of the Renaissance have a natural affinity: both
gifted in an exceptionally wide range of genres, both capable of
tragic grandeur and delicate wit, both masterful sonneteers, both
sexually ambivalent and gifted with the ability to pour that
complexity of feeling into their work. And even if we cannot prove it,
we can assert that Shakespeare is likely to have known about his great
predecessor. Michelangelo was prodigiously famous in his own time all
over Europe. He is mentioned by Jonson and by Castiglione in a book
that Shakespeare almost certainly knew from Hoby's translation; his
sonnets were also widely known, though not translated. It may be that
Shakespeare was familiar with the first edition of Vasari's *Lives*
(published in 1550), where Michelangelo is placed as the climax of the
whole work, the hero of the progressive history of Italian art."
Yes, indeed Michelangelo on Sicily... Michelangelo Merisi da
Caravaggio.
Truly,
Yogi
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
>Robert Stonehouse wrote:
...
>> For what it's worth, the note in the commentary I am just taking back
>> to the library says:
>> "Shakespeare may have read Vasari's Lives (1568) which quoted Giulio's
>> epitaph: 'painted statues breathed .. by virtue of Giulio'".
>>
>> Or he might have got Giulio's epitaph from some other source. I'll see
>> if I can find Vasari in the library.
>
>So, Shakespeare may have read Vasari's Lives(1568)? Yes, I agree,
>it's possible--just about anything is possible. However, in my humble
>opinion, it is extremely improbable. Romano's epitaph was written in
>Latin, and Vasari's book was written in Italian. The first
>translation of Vasari's "Lives" into English wasn't until many years
>after Shakespeare's death.
on the other hand, he could probably have given any of us a run for
our money - standards were high, even if he was not up to Jonson's.
His knowledge of Horace's Odes suggests that.
> Vasari wrote about many Italian artists in
>his book, why would Shakespeare pick on Romano from all these as the
>only artist mentioned in his entire canon? Was Romano the greatest of
>all Italian artists? Did Shakespeare see Romano's works in England,
>or did Shakespeare travel to Italy and see them there? If he never saw
>any of Romano's works, then did he just decide to wade through all
>three volumes of Vasari's "Lives", written in Italian, looking for a
>reference to an Italian artist for mysterious and anachronistic
>employment in his statue scene? Did Shakespeare expect his English
>audience to understand a Romano reference?
From the atmosphere of the scene, he did not need them all to
understand it. But unless some did, there would be no point in
including it. So yes, I am suggesting Giulio's epitaph was reasonably
well known. It is the wording that makes him appropriate. The scene is
about painted statues moving.
Yogi Buchon
> >Did Shakespeare expect his English
> >audience to understand a Romano reference?
> From the atmosphere of the scene, he did not need them all to
> understand it. But unless some did, there would be no point in
> including it. So yes, I am suggesting Giulio's epitaph was reasonably
> well known. It is the wording that makes him appropriate. The scene is
> about painted statues moving.
You may indeed be right. Giulio's epitaph may have been reasonably
well known at the time. But, personally, I'm unconvinced. It's so hard
to prove. I do believe his epitaph was reasonably well known to
educated, art-loving Italians of that time period, but I have a hard
time believing there was even one Englishman in an audience for WT who
would have caught on to the appropriateness of a Romano reference in
the statue scene based on Romano's Latin epitaph in Italy. I dare say
that it is likely many in the audience were puzzled by the mention of
Romano. They might have quickly thought of the much more famous
Michelangelo, and wondered why Shakespeare had mentioned Giulio Romano
instead. What evidence do I have to support this? Not much, but here
it is:
1. Geoffrey Bullough edited "Narrative and Dramatic Sources of
Shakespeare" in eight volumes (published in 1975). In volume 8, page
150, note 2, he writes:
"No satisfactory reason for Shakespeare's choice of Julio Romano (d.
1546) as the sculptor has been found, for he was essentially a
painter, though he sometimes made gesso reliefs."
Then Bullough goes on to mention Romano's epitaph and Vasari's "lives
of the Pianters". He was aware of Vasari and still thought
Shakespeare's choice of Romano had no good reason.
2. Ernesto Grillo, a well-educated Italian, wrote "Shakespeare and
Italy" (first published in 1949). As an Italian he would be much more
familiar with Romano than most Englishmen. Here is what he wrote (page
131):
"In *The Winter's Tale* he [Shakespeare] speaks enthusiastically of
his contemporary, Giulio Romano, and describes the supposed statue of
Hermione as the one conceived by that remarkable Italian artist, who
was the renowned and perfect imitator of natural beauty. Giulio Romano
is better known as a painter than as a sculptor; but in the earlier
part of his life he devoted himself to sculpture; and although here
the name of Michelangelo might have been more appropriately cited,
Shakespeare is not guilty of ignorance or carelessness in associating
with the name of Giulio Romano the supreme qualities of Italian
Renaissance scuplture."
And, I agree strongly with Grillo, Michelangelo would have been the
natural choice to use in the scene. It's puzzling to me, and to others
as well, as to why Shakespeare chose to use Romano instead. But, there
could be double duty in the use of Romano. Romano is a subtle
reference to Caravaggio's use of a Romano pose in the "Raising of
Lazarus" painted in Sicily, and he is suggestive of "Michelangelo"
Merisi da Caravaggio in a scene of sculpture which is reminiscent of
Michelangelo's "Pieta". But, I may be wrong.
Truly,
Yogi
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
>Robert Stonehouse responding to a question I posed:
>> >Did Shakespeare expect his English
>> >audience to understand a Romano reference?
>
>> From the atmosphere of the scene, he did not need them all to
>> understand it. But unless some did, there would be no point in
>> including it. So yes, I am suggesting Giulio's epitaph was reasonably
>> well known. It is the wording that makes him appropriate. The scene is
>> about painted statues moving.
>
>You may indeed be right. Giulio's epitaph may have been reasonably
>well known at the time. But, personally, I'm unconvinced. It's so hard
>to prove.
now impossible to prove! We just have to do our best in these
imperfect circumstances. After all, the opposite can't be proved
either.
> I do believe his epitaph was reasonably well known to
>educated, art-loving Italians of that time period, but I have a hard
>time believing there was even one Englishman in an audience for WT who
>would have caught on to the appropriateness of a Romano reference in
>the statue scene based on Romano's Latin epitaph in Italy. I dare say
>that it is likely many in the audience were puzzled by the mention of
>Romano. They might have quickly thought of the much more famous
>Michelangelo, and wondered why Shakespeare had mentioned Giulio Romano
>instead. What evidence do I have to support this? Not much, but here
>it is:
>
>1. Geoffrey Bullough edited "Narrative and Dramatic Sources of
>Shakespeare" in eight volumes (published in 1975). In volume 8, page
>150, note 2, he writes:
>"No satisfactory reason for Shakespeare's choice of Julio Romano (d.
>1546) as the sculptor has been found, for he was essentially a
>painter, though he sometimes made gesso reliefs."
>Then Bullough goes on to mention Romano's epitaph and Vasari's "lives
>of the Pianters". He was aware of Vasari and still thought
>Shakespeare's choice of Romano had no good reason.
The trouble here, I suggest, is that we now know too much about
Italian Renaissance art. We treat the artists as people and think
about their whole lives and achievements. In Shakespeare's day, in
England, people were almost entirely dependent on reports and
quotations from reports. Neither Giulio nor Michelangelo was known
except as the subject of reports. So it is the reports of artists,
known or reasonably posited, that we have to look at, not the artists
as people. ('Reasonably posited' because there must have been more
reports on all subjects than we have extant today.)
>
>2. Ernesto Grillo, a well-educated Italian, wrote "Shakespeare and
>Italy" (first published in 1949). As an Italian he would be much more
>familiar with Romano than most Englishmen. Here is what he wrote (page
>131):
>"In *The Winter's Tale* he [Shakespeare] speaks enthusiastically of
>his contemporary, Giulio Romano, and describes the supposed statue of
>Hermione as the one conceived by that remarkable Italian artist, who
>was the renowned and perfect imitator of natural beauty. Giulio Romano
>is better known as a painter than as a sculptor; but in the earlier
>part of his life he devoted himself to sculpture; and although here
>the name of Michelangelo might have been more appropriately cited,
>Shakespeare is not guilty of ignorance or carelessness in associating
>with the name of Giulio Romano the supreme qualities of Italian
>Renaissance scuplture."
Grillo is even more in the position of knowing too much. In effect, he
is saying "This is the man I would have chosen, knowing what I know
today". Now, first, Shakespeare and his audience did not know all
that. But secondly, it misses Shakespeare's point, his dramatic irony.
"Come and see the statue; it is by .." and then he names the man who
brought statues to life.
>
>And, I agree strongly with Grillo, Michelangelo would have been the
>natural choice to use in the scene. It's puzzling to me, and to others
>as well, as to why Shakespeare chose to use Romano instead. But, there
>could be double duty in the use of Romano. Romano is a subtle
>reference to Caravaggio's use of a Romano pose in the "Raising of
>Lazarus" painted in Sicily, and he is suggestive of "Michelangelo"
>Merisi da Caravaggio in a scene of sculpture which is reminiscent of
>Michelangelo's "Pieta". But, I may be wrong.
I do think your explanation assumes much more knowledge in Shakespeare
than the alternative does, although you began by questioning whether
Shakespeare would know anything significant about Giulio at all.