REFRAMINGTI{E RENAISSANCEVisual Culture in Europe and Latin America t45o-t650

Edited with an hiroduction by

CLAIRE FARAGO

Yale Urtiuersity Pygtt

New Hauut and London

CHAPTER 6

Art Theory as ldeology:

Cabriele Paleotti's Hierarchical l\otion ofPainting's Llniuersality and Reception

PAMELA M. JONES

Gabriele Paleotti (r5zz-g7), the Rornan Catholic zealot and bishop of Bologna, wrotehis Disroruo intorno alle inmgini sacre e pro;fane/Discourse on Sacred and Profane Intages of r58z

in response to the Council of Trent's decree that bishops oversee the production ofChristian art in their dioceses. In r5ti4 Paleotti's instructional guide was published in a

Latin edition to address a pan-European readership.rA discussion of Paleotti's Disrorso is

therefore a fitting place to introduce n-rajor issues of post-Tridentine art theory.r In this

paper, we will uncover the hierarchical r,vorld view that Paleotti's discussion of univer-saliry and reception presupposes. It will emerge that Paleotti's world view has philosophi-cai and sociological implications of fundarnental importance for the subject of this book:the encounter between the "Old and New 'Worlds."

Paleotti's Claim for the Uniuersality of Sacred Art

Because Paleotti's conception of reception was formulated in terms of painting's role as

a universal language, it is necessary to sunlmarize his position on universality. RornanCatholic apologists for art had insisted from early Christian times onward that paintrng

was a universal language, and Paleotti's defense in the Disrorso drew on this tradition. Thenotion of painting's universality was, of course, deeply embedded in theology, for Christ,the new Adarn, was the "image" of God.3 To Paleotti, the universality of man-madeirnages was also inextricably tied to the rvay man perceived art and expressed himselfthrough it. Indeed, according to Paleotti, God gave man the ability to create images toaid his natural desire to know and to represent the similitude of things both material and

spiritual. Paleotti further rerr-rarked that irnitation is the soul of painting, and amongGod's creatures only rnan is able to in-ritate.+ For these reasons sacred art was essential tornan's wellbeing, as Paleotti indicated in the Discorso'.

Heretics have denied the efficacy of images. To prohibit their use would be to commita serious injustice against infinite numbers of people, and perhaps against the rnajorityof the Christian populace, not only because it would constitute deprrving them of theirsensual abiliry to gain knowledge lcogrtizione] of necessary thrngs, but also because the

r28 RIFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

knowledge necessary for the health of the soul would be inaccessibie ro countlessun fortunate illitcrates.i

Discussions of man's cognitive abilities found in Aristotle's De Arinru and Poelirs andThomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae were the general basis for Paleotti's understanding ofhuman knorvledge, including his remark that knowledge begins rvith the senses.(' Ineffect, Paleotti turned Aristotle's statement that "the soul never thinks r,vithout an image"inside out and asked rvhether or not an image (here physical rather than mental) can becounted on to elicit the desired etTicacious thought or emotions.T Also standard fare wasPaleotti's conception of a hierarchy of senses through which knoi,vledge was acquired.Roman Catholics, in contradistinction to Protestants, believed that the eye - not theear - was the primary cognitive organ because God had given man eyes so that he couldlook at created things of the world, which were easily seen, as well as at celestial things,rvhich were more difficult to see, and thereby penetrate the significance of God'suniverse.s By contrast, as Paleotti noted in the Dl-sroruo, the ear was an inferior cognitiveorgan because the voice was personal, serwing merely in a fer.v places at a fer,v tirnes.e Itwas not ah,vays possible to obtain words of explanation, and even lvhen it was, auditorysensation had less longevity than visual; irnages, rather than r.vords, imprinted inforrnationon one's memory for a longer tirne.l('

Words, of course, r'vere often written and thus visible to the eye. Yet to understanda book, Paleotti maintained, one must understand the language and the author and havethe abiliry and opportunity to learn.rrFollowing the lead of numerous iconophiles beforehim, Paleotti stated that -uvhereas r.vords have limited e{licacy, paintings speak a universallanguage comprehensible to all kinds of persons everyr,vhere: men and women, yolrngand old, learned and ignorant.12

Paleotti's orthodox Roman Catholic position - that painting rvas a universallanguage - confirmed the power of art. In r563 the Council of Trent had entrustedbishops with superwising the creation and use of sacred art in their dioceses in hopes thatbishops couid channel art's power in a positive direction.lr In response, Paleotti treatedin the second book of the Disrorso every imaginabie abuse of both sacred and profane art.These abuses included, for exarnple, the use of heretical and apocryphal subject matter,the depiction of false gods and lascivious figures, and the lack of decorum in general.1+

In a nutshell, Paleotti's purpose in rvriting the Drsrorso was to ensure that sacred andprofane art would move viewers away fi'orn vice and torvards virtue and the knowledgeof God.15

Star-gazing, the Wetuing Process

Paleotti's explicit description of the vierving process - r,vhich has direct bearing onreception - is a remarkable feature of his Discorso. He dealt r,vith the vier,ving process inthe context of a discussion of the ends and means of sacred painting. The r-rltimate endof painting, he declared, is to imitate something in order to persuade persons to practicepiery and to direct thern to God. Like sacred oratory, sacred painting also has morespecific ends, such as moving Christians to penitence, voluntary sufltring, chariry, disdain

to: :-1-L] :l) --l\t--

.tr:: i:

.'-

:<

ART THEORY AS IDEOLOGY r29

for the world, and the obedience and awe they owe God.16 His detailed description ofthe viewing process occurs in Book r, Chapter zz, which is devoted to delight.

Remarkably, Paleotti's delight is not aesthetic in character, for he was not interested in

artistic sryle; instead, he regarded delight as part of a hierarchical cognitive process:

Mankind's knowledge lcognizione] is of three sorts: the first is sensual lanimalef , whichis had by means of the senses - tasting, smelling, touching, etc.; the other is rational

lrazionale], which, if it also originates in the senses, passes by means of reason and

discourse to a higher level and distinguishes universal abstract things from every

material thing; the third is supernatural fsopranaturalel, being born from a divine light

infused in us by means of faith, through which we believe and know things that

exceed not only the capaciry of the senses, but also every human discourse and rational

intelligence. We call this spiritual cognition lcognizione spirituale), which was given to

earthly and innocent souls by the singular grace of God.r7

Paleotti explained the ascent to knowledge that this visual learning process entailed by

describing how a man could look at a starry sky at night. Each level of cognition, Paleotti

stated, had its accompanying level of delight, so that if someone looked up at the sky and

appreciated in it the beaury of its colors and of its sparkling stars, he experienced sensual

knowledge with its concomitant sensual delight. If the same man then began to converse

and reason about the relative size of each star, the changeabiliry of the heavens, and the

course of the planets and their effects on earthly things, he reached the higher level ofrational knowledge with its accompanying delight. The star-gazer would reach the

highest level, that of supernatural knowledge with its corresponding spiritual delight, only

if - under divine inspiration - he considered how God, in his great providence and

wisdom, wanted by means of created things to provide human beings with a staircase by

which to ascend to the celestial realm of eternal bliss. Finally, Paleotti noted, because

Christian joy could be derived equally from each of the three kinds of delight, Christian

law approved of all three.ls In essence, the three levels of Paleotti's hierarchical cognitive

process can be associated with the three rhetorical means: delight, instruction, and

moving.iePaleotti went on to apply the relevance of this cognitive process to the act of viewing

art. Human beings received sensual deiight, that is, "marvelous pleasure and recreation,"

from "the variery of [paintings'] colors, shadows, figures, and ornaments, and the diverse

things represented in then-r - such as mountains, rivers, gardens, cities, landscapes, and

other things."20 He associated rational delight with imitation in painting:

Aristotle wrote in the Poetics that since man alone among all the other animals lvas

born to imitate, by instinct he derives very great delight and pleasure from imitation.

Imitation seems to have been born of the virtue of reason, which is peculiar toman. . . And this imitation, which is so obvious in painting, causes delight. It imme-

diately renders present to man things that are far away. And in the manner of the

omnipotent hand of God and of nature, his minister, paintings bring to life in a

moment men, animals, plants, rivers, palaces, churches, and all the same works that are

seen in this great machine of the world . . . Thus, the more closely paintings imitate

life and truth. . ., the more. . . rational delight they carry.21

6.r Agnolo Bronzino.iv\Idrl)'rdottt of St. Lmwtrttt:.

Fresco, r 569. Florence, Sirn

Lolenzo. (Photo: Alinari,/Artl\esource, Nerv York.)

wr'ir:,,.,,w

6.2 I)orrrenichiuo. Fla.qtllatiorr ttf St. Atrdreu'. Fresco, r(ro9 Rome, S. Gregorio Magno.

i

ART THEORY AS IDEOLOGY I3I

Paleotti was not explicit about how one rnight achieve the n-rost difficult level of

spiritual cognition "rJ d.[ght by looking at :r painting. He simply stated that pious

i*rg., help"ed beholders to achieve this level of cognition, concluding that "rve do not

doult that a person who will look at Christian paintings tuith purged eyes lcort occhio

prryato) will be able to participate in all of these deiights'"rr'

fiif. can illustrate these poirrts with works of art.} Paleotti's orvn discussion made no

use of specific artworks because - as surviving indices of the Discorso indicate - he

plannedio discuss individual artists and then-res in Books 3-5, which he apparently never

wrote.2+ In order to understand Paleotti's attitr-rde torvards the viewing process, we will

first dlscuss a painting of the martierd sryle, which was prevalent throughout Europe in the

late sixteenth century. A reaction against this sryle no doubt prompted the objections

found in both Paleotti's Dlsrorso and the Council of Trent's decree on images to

confusing, indecorous art.25 As an example of ntaniera art we use Agnolo Bronziuo's

famous Martyrdom o-f st. Lawrence of 1569 (Figure 6.r), a fiesco in San Lorenzo at

Florence.2t'

Bronzino's Martyrdom depicts St Larvrence's gruesorne death on a gridiron at the hands

of the pagan Romans. If Paleotti had seen Bronzino's painting he would have considered

it .orrirrirg, for the saint is difficult to find and, once found, to keep one's eyes on, due

to the over-abundance of distracting ornament: cornplicated poses of nude (read "lasciv-

ious,,) figures, an elaborate perspectivai scherna, and wild gesticulations that do not

lucidly convey erlotions inherent to the narrative. In short, Paieotti would have found

Bronzino's image indecorous because its pictorial embellishment is inessential or' inAugustinian terms, its ornament is merely superficial'27

Flurther iight can be shed on Paieotti's theory of art by considering Bronzino's painting

in connection with Paieotti's description of the star-gazer in the Disrorso' It is implicit

thatBronzino,sMart)lrdomofst.Lawrettcewouldnotleadtheviewertosensualcognition.This is because sensual cognition was dependent on appreciation of a painting's beaury,

variery of colors, effects o? Ugfr,, and the variery of its figures and ornaments. Accord-

ingly, the hard, dry sryle and lack of tonal range (typical of nmniera style) of Bronzino's

p.irrtir-,g clo not qualifiz as effective sensory stimulants' And, although Bronzino's painting

is frl1 of ,rried figures and ornaments, surely they contribute to its lack of verisimiiitude;

that is, the painting's contorted poses, exaggerated gestures, lack of convincing emotional

reactions, ,r-rd ,o forth, would also prevent the vierver frorl achieving rational cognitic>n'

rvhich Paleotti associated with the close imitation of "life and ttuth'"rt Thus, to Paleotti,

works similar to Bronzino's painting would not be considered efficacious because'

lacking the ingredients that p.o-ot.d sensual and rational cognition, the viewer could

not use them to reach spiritual cognition either'

Let us now turn to another r,veil-known depiction of marryrdorn, this one painted

nrore than a decade after Paleotti's death: Domenichino's Flagelldtion of St. Andrew of

r6o9 (Figure 6.2), afresco in rhe oratorio of S. Andrea, San Gregorio Magno at Rome'2e

According to Paleotti's description of the vielving process, Domenichino's painting

r,vould indeed lead the beholder to sensual cognition on account of its variery of figures,

colors, and shadows; moreover, its imitation of life and truth - seen, for exarnple' in its

uncontorted poses, decorous erlrotions, and convincing spatial relationships - Ivould lead

the viewer to rational cognition as well. At that point, the vierver might use it to go on

to achieve sPiritual cognition.

r32 REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

Although Paleotti was not explicit about hor,v spiritual cognition could be achieved, he

remarked that to rise to that level a vierver r.vould need to look at Christian paintings"with purged eyes." Paleotti's use of this phrase surely indicates that he was assuming his

viewers to be Rornan Catholics. It is likely that these hypothetical vier,vers were not onlythe same persons for r,vhorn Paleotti r,vrote the Disroruo itself - that is, artists and clericaland lay patrons who practiced Rornan Catholicism according to the norms established inhis diocese - but also the unlettered masses who cor-rld benefit from looking at decorous

Christian art.3{'More specifically, the spirituali, whom Paleotti identified in the Disroruo as

viewers more devoted to spiritual than to material things, certainly qr-ralify as viervers

endowed with purged eyes.31

The Reception of Sacred and Profane Paintin.q

As we have seen, Paleotti promoted the Church's position that painting is a uniquelypowerful universal language. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that tsook z of the Discorso,

dedicated to abuses in art, constitutes an attenlpt to control the rnessages that sacred and

profane art impress on the viewer's mel'nory. Because Paleotti treated the reception ofvarious pictorial subjects chiefly in Book z of the Di-sroruo, some introductory remarks

about this portion of the tract are needed. First, Book z does not address such matters as

detailed iconographical points, abuses seen in specific individual paintings, and the

appropriate ways to decorate various kinds of buildings rvith rvorks of art; as previouslynoted, Paleotti intended to discuss these and other topics in subsequent books. Thus,although Book z treats abuses in excruciating detail, it cannot be said to introduce all ofPaleotti's ideas about reception. This helps explain rvhy some of his points are not fullydeveloped therein. Second, Paleotti's Disroruo is an.rbiguous, repetitive, and prolix. IfBook z of the Discorso oflers much food for thought, it is by no means easily digestible.

Finally, Paleotti's lack of sensitiviry torvards artistic sryle - a distinctive feature of the

Discorso as a whole - deserves mention becar,tse it is incongrr.rous in a tract devoted to art.'We have seen that Paleotti's interest in painting lay principally in its power to r1love

viewers. Thus it is surprising that, although he conceived of different kinds of viewers,Paleotti did not conceive of different sryles geared to their needs; he did not, forexample, adapt the plain, middle, and high styles of ancient rhetoric to his art theory.Not only did Paleotti lack interest in the ways in r.vhich individual srylistic features mightbe exploited to achieve desired rhetorical effects in given pictorial subjects and genres,

but he also regarded painters as mere craftsrnen who tended to deviate from the

architect's definitive plan rather than as rnen rvhose creative intellects could be tapped forthe benefit of the faithful.r2

For our purposes, one of the rnost important aspects of Book z of the Discorso is thatin it Paleotti classified and discussed paintings not according to genre, as one mightexpect, but rather according to their ends.I For example, in individual chapters Paleotti

denounced sacred images that he deerned "reckless, scandalous, erroneous, suspect,

heretical, superstitious, and apocrypha1."'r+ These unacceptable sacred paintings couldresult, for instance, from unwitting errors or deliberate heresy on the part of the patronand/or painter or from the painter's lack of understanding of the subject at hand. To

l--;-

j,--:

(-1. -

l) - -

il

ART THEORY AS IDEOLOGY

avoid the latter problem Paleotti advised the painter to seek the knolvledge of rvise men(uomini sauii).J'In any case, sacred paintings containing abuses had uniformly negativeeffects on all beholders, whereas those that rvere appropriately rendered benefited allbeholders.

Paleotti designated as exanlples of profane art sllbjects including those that depict evil,thereby inciting beholders to evii; those that treat acts of virtue, thereby inciting thern togood; and "indifferent" images which, depending on rhe nature of the given beholder,could be either beneficial or useless. In other words, some profane subjects weree{ficacious and others were not. Many further individual abuses were defined anddescribed under the rubric of their ends - including those shared by both sacred andprofane paintings, such as the contradiction of truth and of probabiliry.36 In short,Paleotti's treatment of reception in Book z shows that he conceived of the usefulness ofa given painting - sacred or profane - as depending on a dynarnic, tripartite interchangeamong the paintine, painter, and beholder based on the inherent utility of the image'ssubject, the degree of accuracy and decorum with which the artist rendered it, and thepredisposition of its beholder..rT

'When it rvas the subject per se that undermined the success of this dynamic inter-change, Paieotti's urission of purifying art was quite straightforward. In the case of anirnage of an evil deed, rvhich necessarily incites evil, it is the bishop's duty to make itclear to patrons and artists that the evil subject must not be represented. This r,vas

Paleotti's reason for explaining the unacceptability of so many pictorial subjects.In other cases it was not the subject itself but rather the artist's inappropriate rreatnlent

of it that rendered an image inefficacious. Paleotti regarded such abuses - including br-rt

not limited to theological and historical mistakes and depiction of saints as lascivious -as breaches of truth and decorum.3s !(/e have already discussed an example of indecorumin connection -uvith maniera art as represented by Bronzino's Martyrdont of St Lau,yence(Figure 6.r). Here the subject of marryrdom is inherently useful but, as previously noted,Paleotti presumably would have regarded Bronzino's pictorial embellishment of thesubject as superficial rather than substantive. Furthermore, in discussing other subjectsPaleotti suggested that in order to learn, "ordinary" viewers needed visual stimulantslnore than did the educated ferv, yet "ordinary" viewers rvere paradoxically quite likelyto be beguiled by superficial pictorial ornament. This is why superficial ornamentand confusing compositions were so detrimental. It is worrh noting that although hisdiscussion involved artistic sryle, Paleotti avoided detailed analysis of it; his notion of theartist's role in the dynamic interchange was rather one-dimensional.

The Viewer

Having discussed subject matter and also the painter, let us now focus on the viewer. Inthe star-gazer passage Paleotti described three leve1s of delight and knowledge - sensual,rational, and spiritual - and pointed out that all rhree were acceptable. But he providedno clue as to the social or intellectual identity of the star-gazer. And when Paleotti wenron to describe the hierarchical cognitive process in connection r,vith viewing paintings,his most specific renrark about the beholder's identity was that a beholder wirh "purged

r33

-::. hg

-:-:i:tqs

-:-.: i.ris

: ..lh'---:-aal--=i in-- 1)LlS

. -'-r.' AS

::-.:.'irs

134 REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

eyes" could attain spiritr-rai cognition. To investigate further horv paleotti defined theaudience for sacred and profane art we must study other chapters in Book z of theDiscorso.

Paleotti's most detailed discussion of the ar-rdience for art in his diocese appears in thefinal or fifry-second chapter of Book z. In this chapter he srated that a Christian imageis universal if it satisfies four grades or professions (gradi o ltro-fessiori) of persons: painters,edr-rcated persons, uneducated persons, and baptized Christians rvho are more devoted tothe spirit than the flesh (pittori, letterati, idioti, and spirituali).3e paleotti added that ir wasmoraily useful to apply to the conceit of universal painting the psalnr that David used toteach the people (il popolo) how to observe the cult of GoJ. Accordinely , cottfessio,pulclfitudo, sanctimrtrria, and magnificcrlia (confession, beauty, holiness, and niagnifi.er..),the r'vords David used in Psalm 96:6, should be regarded as the four principal character-istics of sacred painting. Paleotti explained these characterisrics in order io distinguishmore thoroughly betrveen the for_rr kinds of vier,vers he listed.

To Paleotti, cortfessio (or confession) corresponded to tlisegno, which painters called thesoul of painting or its principal part.+" Because the artist l1lL1st rraster disegrrc (clesign, inthe sense of both intellectual and nr:inual creation) in order to produce acceptable rio.kr,conJessio was the domain of painters and appealed to them. Ptilcltrituclo concerned theloveliness of the painting's colors, its grace and beaury; Paleotti declared that suchfeatures, perceived through the senses, for the n-rost part satisfi, uneducated beholders.These unedr-rcated beholders, the idioli, comprise the largestpart of the people, and sacredpainting r'vas mainly introduced to serve thenr. In several chapters Paleotti suggested that,to be successful, a painting lrlLlst correspond to the reiatively lo,uv intellectuai capacity ofthe uneducated majority. It must either be so clear and well composed that an unedu-cated person can recognize its subject immediately or be expressed in such a r.vay thatpersons of greater intelligence can easily instruct the uneducated about it. In the contextof artistic style it is in-rportant that Paleotti rvanted paintings to be clearly conrposed andhighly finished, but let us not overlook the reason for this, r,vhich is based on reception:Paieotti deemed clear presentation necessary because the vast majority of viervers r,vereuneducated, sensually inclined, and iess intelligent than the educated ferv.r This notion,lvhich runs like a leitnrotif throughout the Dr-srorso, cannot be over-emphasizecl. Indeed,it begs revision of Anton Boschloo's implicit characterization of Paieotti as a benevolentpopulist eager to promote art for the masses.+l

To return to Paleotti's discussion of Psalm 96:6, he explained tltat nragnificentia itpainting appeals to educated beholders and persons of high intellect (tetterati and. persorrcd'alto iutelletlo), who are knor.vledgeable in the subjects represented in the i11ages, such asecclesiastical material, secular history, or natural and/or artificial things. It is not enoughto create beautiful rvorks on the basis of good drs'eglo; artists' r,vorks must correspor,l iothe experts' knorvledge of the subjects being represented.

According to Paleotti, al1 baptized Christians embraced sarrctirnorria, or holiness. Man isrrrade of spirit and flesh and, since flesh is heaviest, most Christians, the sensttali,are miredin earthly things. Far lewer in number are the spirituali, those prirnarily concerned rvithspiritual matters' Sacred painting, continued Paleotti, is devoted mainly to the spirit.When viewing sacred paintings, the spirittnli consequently recognize compositiolsproportioned to themselves and take pleasure, whereas the sertsndli recognize composi-tions dissimilar to themselves and atone.

,ilI

ART THEORY AS IDEOLOGY

This discussion of viewers in Book z, Chapter 5z ieads us to expect a sirnilarly detailed

treatlnent of reception throughout the Disrorso. But this is not, in fact, what Paleotti gives

us. Often, as in the passage on the star-gazer, Paleotti failed to distinguish what kindof viewer he was discussing. Nevertheless, Paleotti's discussion of the four kinds ofbeholders, if sumrnarized according to these salient points, sheds light on less explicitportions of his tract: all viewers with whorn Paleotti is concerned are Christians; most ofthese viewers are uneducated but a few are learned; the uneducated viewers are moresensually inclined and less intelligent than the learned; most viewers are weighted downby cares of the flesh but a few are spirinnli. Notwithstanding this fourfold classification

of beholders in the concluding chapter of Book z, throughout the rest of the Dr-srorso

Paleotti consistently ernphasized two, not four, classes of beholder: the educated and theuneducated.a3

With these points in mind, ure can consider parts of the Disror-so in which Paleottidiscussed the reception of paintings of nature themes. In Chapter z4 of Book z entitled"On Profane Paintings Representing Various Things, Such as Wars, Landscapes, Build-ings, Animals, Trees, Plants, and the Like," Paleotti distinguished nature themes as

subjects that had no inherent virtue but could nevertheless lead to the exercise of virtue.Then, in Chapter 30, entitled "On Vain and Luy Paintings" - that is to say, those thatare indifGrent - Paleotti pointed out that nature themes did not necessarily belong in thatcategory. He then explained the appropriateness of such works to different kinds ofvie'"vers:

We know rvell that although many things may appear to be indi{Ierent, some persons

will be able to derive use from them, while others will derive fiom them nothing butdamage. This is due to both the disposition of hirn who uses the things and thediversiry of the ends that the things put forward . . . Thus, one cannot say absolutelythat all of these paintings [of nature themes] are useless to all kinds of persons

. . . because he wln is endoued ruith spirit and.iudgment can derive great philosophy [evenlfrom birds and fish and flowers and rocks . . . In fact, to this end all created things ofthis r,vorld are visible to our eyes, so that, by means of them, we nlay enter intoknorvledge lcogttizione] and desire of eternal things, which are invisible.

Still, because few are they who can ascend to this [rnetaphysical] speculation, we,speakingfor the ordinaryt man ll'ordinariof, call paintings good and suitable those that bytheir nature and propriery represent to us praiseworthy and beneficial things to knowfor use in human life.r+

Paleotti rnade it quite clear that paintings of nature themes could elicit dramaticallydifferent responses from beholders. The difference in these beholders r'vas that those"endowed with spirit and judgment" rvere acquainted with metaphysics whereas "ordi-nary" persons were not. In short, Paleotti asserted in this passage that the ability toachieve the full benefits frorn a profane image depended partly on the viewer's predispo-sition and partly on the subject's efficacy and the artist's use of decorum, for it would bepossible for a viewer unfamiliar with metaphysics to look at a landscape painting andbenefit not at all.

Before expioring further the character of the viewer unable to ascend to metaphysicalspeculation when looking at paintings of nature themes, lve should briefly consider thetype of image Paleotti discussed in his chapter "On Vain and Lazy Paintings." In the

r35

:-- the.- rhe

jar

.: in

_- l\

......-*l I

::o

--:.:::J'.--..

:t::.

-:

REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

6.3 Annibale Carracci. Landscapc. Oi1 on canvas, .. I59o.'Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art. (Photo:

museum.)

passage quoted above, Paleotti seems to be treating landscape and other nature themes

devoid of religious narratives. Annibale Carracci's Landscdpe (Figure 6.3), presur-nab1y

painted in Bologna for a nor,v-unknorvn patron about r590, is the sort of subject Paleotti

apparently had in n-rind; there are a fer,v inconspicuous figures in a boat in the rniddle

ground, but it emphasizes untouched nature itself.as

The subtlety of Annibale's earthy palette and the delicircy of his effects of light, r.vhich

evoke the feeling of a gentle breeze moving through the trees, certainly fit Paleotti's

specifications for sensory stimulation leading to sensual cognition. And the croppedcomposition in rvhich trces appear at irregular intervals across and behind the pictr-rre

plane, rather than being placed as obtrusive coulisses, heightens the verisirnilitude of the

painting, rendering it conducive to the attainment of rational cognition.In addition to his treatment of the star-gazer, Paleotti's discussion of nature themes

themseives suggests horv he believed various diflerent sorts of beholders would react to

Annibale's painting. Presurnably, "ordinary" viervers - those occupying a low place inGod's hierarchical r-rniverse - r.vould understand a painting such as Annibale's rnerely as

the depiction of persons enjoying a lovely day outside, rvhereas the fer'v able to ascend

to rnetaphysical speculation rvould use such an image of created things just as they used

created things themselves: as a staircase leading to the contempiation of celestial things,

i.vhich could result in the attainlnent of spiritual cognition.Paleotti's cornment that the staircase of visible created things cor-rld lead human beings

r36

H

ART THEORY AS IDEOLOGY r37

to knou,ledge of the invisible spiritual realm is c1-rite revealing. It closely resembles iaterremarks on the sacred significance of n:rtllre articulated in devotional tracts by hisyounger ecclesiastical colleagues lloberto Bellan'nino (t542.-16z.r), the Jesuit theologian,and Federico Borronrc'o (r564-163r), the reforming Archbishop of Milan. All three menshared an optilltistic attitLlde tor,vards the mundane lvorld and human n:ltLlre. Unlike St.

Augustine, rvho s:rrv man as living in a state of fallen grace, all three post-Tridentineclerics were trlore optimistic.+(' Paleotti, horvever, indicated in the Di-srorso that theknowledge offered by nature paintinqs rvrs inaccessible to the "ordinary" rnqority.+7 It is

now necessary to investig:rte further Paleotti's conception of the audience for l,vorksof art.

Since P:rleotti wrote the Discoruo to purify art for the benefit of unedr-rcated andeducated members of his diocese - the two llroups of viervers most often specified in histract - it is inrport;rnt to note that he implemented in the diocese of Bologna one of thert.rost all-inclusive educational prosranrs ir-i post-Tridentine Er.rrope. This edr-rcationalprogram made knonledge - patticularly Christian doctrine - accessible to persons of allsocial classes.r* Obviously, horvever, l)aleotti's schools were not founded to provide thelorver-class person rvith an education eqr-rivalent in scope or depth to that of thearistocrat; it rvas not in schools of Christian doctrine that the leading theologians,historians, natural phrlosophers, and so forth rvere educated. Indeed, even lor,ver-classpersons tvho entered religious orders or the secular clerw failed to g.rin expertise in rtrostof these fields, rvhich Paleottr identified in the Di-sroruo as the rvellsprings for pictorialsubject lnatter. This is rvhy Paleotti referred to the majority of his parishioner-vier,versas idioti - that is, uneducated persons.

Yet it is some-nvhat surprising that in discussing nature themes in the passage of theDi-rroruo cited above, Paleotti designated nature ther-r-res :is beyond the ken of "ordinary"persons dr-re to their inability to enter into metaphysicai speculrrtion. After all, metaphysicswas not only typically tre:rted in various genres of ecclesiastical r,vriting - particularly rndevcltional literature - but also in relieioLrs nrr-rsic and ser111ol1s, rvhich reached the generalpublic.a" If "ordinary" vie'nvers had multiple points of access to nretaphysics, lvhat r,vas theobstacle they ftced in usinq it to understand paintines of natr-rre themes ar-rd thereby grorvcloser to God? Paleotti provided r-ro straightfor-rvard ans'uver to this questiorl, but byattemptinu to identify more ptecisely what he meant by "or:dinary" persons, we can see

more cleariy his attitr-rde torvards this reception problen-r.In the chapter "On Vain and Lazy Paintings," Paieotti made ttvo points about the

"ordinary" vier'ver rvho could not ascend to rretaphysical speculation: first, he is in thentajoriry, and second, he is not anlong those "endowed with spirit and judgntent," to rvitthe sltirituali, r'vho :rre ferv in nurnber. The "ordinary" rnajority, therefore, are -r'errsrrali,

persons rveighted dolvr-r by earthly things. 'We recall that Paleotti ter-rded to conceive of

viewers as either educated or uneducated. Althoueh the educated are few and theuneducated are lnany, this alone seerns insufficient reasotl to identifl, Paleotti's "ordinary"rnajority as uneducated persons. But there are other reasons for doing so.

Paleotti's :rttitude torvards the majority as opposed to the educated few emerqespeilucidly r'vhen rereading his r58z Drsroruo in light of irrs r578 lrrstnrzziorrc. . . Pcr Tuttirluelli, clrc ltaurartrto licenza di Prcditore rrelle Ville, & altri ltroghi della Dioccse Idi Bologna] /Irtstntctiorts -fttr All Tltose tdrc will ltaue Lice rrse to Praach irr tlrc Villages & Other Pldces o-f thc

r38 REFRAMING THE RENAISSANCE

Diocese [of Bolognal.s') Paleotti's Instruzzione belongs to a genre of ecclesiastical writingknown as the inslrartiones praedicatoribus uerbi dei ("instructions for preaching the rvord ofGod"). Unlike rhetorical treatises, the instnrctiones serwed as practical guides to helppreachers eliminate abuses. In fact, this kind of preaching manual provided bishops suchas Paleotti rvith a model for art tracts liker.vise aimed at curbing abuses. Paleotti'sIttstnrzzione, like his Discorso, was among the best-known tracts of its kind in post-Tridentine Christendorn.5 I

In addition to treating such topics as the preacher's prepararion, the themes of sermons,and the observance of feast days, I)aleottl's Instntzzione considered rvhat the preachernrust know in order to interact with his parishioners, whorn he called peasants (cottadini).To this end, Paleotti told clerics that most of their parishioners would be illiterate persons(persone inrperite di lettere) rvhose lives were spent in arduous labor and, as a result, hadlitde time for anything but the necessities of life.Just as in the Dr-''rorso Paleotti instructedpainters to avoid treating heretical, apocryphal, useless, or difficult subject matter, so inthe Instnrzzione he instructed preachers along the same lines. Paleotti also entreatedpreachers to feed to their audiences' "simple intelligences" oniy rvhat they were capableof digesting.52

Paleotti went on to discuss complaints of the poor (poueri) and the arguments thatpreachers should nrake to help them corne to terrns r,vith their role in the r,vorld order.For example, in the chapter of the Instruzzione entitled "Complaints of the Poor,"Paleotti stated that the ignorant poor were open to ternptation by the devil, for they r,vereapt to think that their miserable conditions precluded any access ro paradise. This,Paleotti declared, was not true. Indeed, in his chapter "Reasons thar can be Given roQuiet the Laments of the Poor," Paleotti counseled preachers to instruct the poor thatGod came to earth to save souls, not to distribute goods, and that because excess r,vealthcould rnake the road to heaven difficult, the road was very accessible to the poor. Mostrevealingly, in the same chapter Paleotti declared:

Jusl as a body has many parts to serve it, the rvorld lnust have various classes, ranks,and oftices of person. They all serwe the same body - that is to say, the Holy Church- whose head is Christ, our Savior.sl

In rhe chapter entitled "Each Person's Obligations According to His Rank," Paleortielaborated on the necessity of everyone's fulfilling his duty to God and the Church byliving in accordance rvith the hierarchical structLlre of the universe.5+ All rnernbers ofsociefy should be thankful for whatever rank God gave them, and live within thesenatural confines.

Paleotti's lrtstruzzione and Drscorso bespeak a similar attitude towards the uneducatednrajoriry. In the earlier tract, the lnstruzzione , we are told that by their very nature - as

occupants of a lower rung on the ladder of created things - the majority are inferior tothe minoriry, rvhose natural superioriry accounts for their social superioriry. In the latertract, the Discorso, we are told that uneducated viewers are more sensually inclined andless intelligent than the educated. These remarks accord r,vell with Paleotti's furtherstatenlent in the Dtsrorso that the uneducated rrajority cannot benefit fi'onr books becauseto do so requires the "ability and opporrunity to learn."

To put this together is easy enough: uneducated persons are by nature lorvly, relativelyunintelligent sensuaiists. On the basis of a joint reading of the Instntzz.ione and the

-

ART THEORY AS IDEOLOGY

Discorso, therefore, we cannot avoid identifiring Paleotti's "ordinary" n-rajoriry, who are

unable to rise to metaphysicai speculation when vier,ving paintings of nature themes, as

r-rneducated serrstrali. Since everyone lnust live according to the rank God gave him, the

unlettered rrajority - who lacked the time ar-rd opportuniry to learn - did not have the

knowledge necessary to understand the fu11 range of subjects of sacred and profane art.

And, in any case, a leisured majoriry r,vas unthinkable; leisure and learning might promote

social mobiliry, thereby upsetting God's preordained hierarchy. Yet it is implicit that time

and opportunity would not help the majority becar,rse they lacked the abiliry for book

learning. Thus Paleotti's notion of reception, lvhich centered on a tension between

uneducated versus educated beholders, was conceived in accordance with his lvorld vierv

and, although to twentieth-century readers it is a reprehensible ideology, given Paleotti's

time, place, and station in life, it could hardly have been othenvise.

Nevertheless, a ray of hope, a glimmer of Christian optimisrn, can be seen in Paleotti's

attitude torvards the ability of uneducated persons to use art to raise themselves to

spiritual cognition. The previously mentioned passages of the Discorso cotrcerning viervers

with a spirituai procliviry do not categorically exclude uneducated persons from the

spirintali.It is true that Paleotti considered the uneducated majoriry to be earthbound by

nature but he never insisted that exceptions could not occur, or that it was impossible for

any rrember of the majoriry to see wrth "purged eyes" and ascend to the spiritual realm.

Paleotti never explained horv one became a purged-eyed spirituale in the first place, and

there is no reason to believe that book learning had anything to do with it. Although he

faiied to address the matter in the Discorso, Paleotti himself undertook spiritual exercises

to raise his spiritual state, and he certainly believed others could do likewise.ss InPaleotti's day, it rvas assunted as a matter of course that very few persons undergoing

spir:itual exercises would attain the highest spirrtual level, but lack of education rvas

apparently not considered a stumbling block in the endeavor.56

By way of concluding our discussion of Paleotti's notion of vier'ver response, let me

emphasize that the Discorso itself and Paleotti's thought in general warrant rnuch further

analysis. Yet even this brief study of his Discorso and Lrstntzzrorte demonstrates that he

upheld a conservative, post-Tridentine world view in lvhich the prevailing social and

ecclesiastical hierarchies were regarded as microcosrlic approximations of the structure ofGod's perfecr lnacrocosm. Thus Paleotti's world view inevitably inforn-red his notion ofthe reception of sacred and profane art.

Paleotti's art theory r,vas l,vell known in Europe, but he never traveled to the NewWorld of the Americas and, as far as I know, no one has sought to establish whether ornot his Di-sroruo and Lrstruzziorie rvere used by priests in the Anrericas during the sixteenth

and seventeenth centuries. Yet when Europeans arrived in the New World, they

obviously brought with thern preconceptions about sacred art based on post-Tridentinetheory in gelreral. It is reasonable to speculate that, in accordance r'vith the hierarchical

rvorld order which post-Tridentine art theory espoused, Native Atnericans, of whatever

social class or level of education, were forced into the viewing role that Paleotti's"ordinary" Europeans had been made to play in the O1d World of the Di-scorso. The

corrrplexity of Old World art theory, analyzed briefly here in light of Paleotti's Discorso

- only one of many tracts that could be brought to bear on the topic - suggests that an

excitir-rg new avenue of inquiry would be the investigation of horv Old'World art theorywas interpreted and pllt to work in a Nerv World context.

r39

-t.t (t

iof:elp- - -l--.L11

'::i's

-lit-

lils.::: er

| *rnS

:::d-- - J- _:u

:in.:ed.:'r1e

::t.lti:r.--):.

'-:is.

:ao-ir.it,iihiosr

:--\i.

::;h

'-:d-.ii

::o

-::id:t ir.'-:.4

-_1.,

:1e

,rIillr

,oil:ie

48 For tl'rc notion of -ii'r'nio /rruirili-. (hun-rble rhctorr-cal style). see the cl:rssic essay by Aucrb:rch ir-t

Literotursprulr wtd Ptrblikut.u, z5-63.

6 Anr Tnronv AS IDF,or-oGY

TIre classic biography remains Protlt, Palcotti.The stand:rrd reprint eclition of P:rleotti's tract is

that olBaroccht in Truttoti, vol. :, r r7-5o9. A'llcitations herein of Paleotti's Drsrorro refer tolJarocchi's editiorr. The Latin edition of r5il,1rv;rs printecl in Ingolstadt. Li addition toBarocchi's excellent anr.rot:rterI edition of theDi-.roi:ro end Prodi's chapter on it (vo1. ), 527-56:,) in the book cited :rbove, see the follorvingstuclies of the tract: Ossola, " 'lJt pictora poesrs':Paleotti," 63-75; Boschloo, Attnibak Cdrrurti,vol. r, r:r-r4r. (Boschloo's m;rin concern r :rs

rvith the possible influence o[ Paleottr's arttheory on art in his diocese, particr-rhrly thatof tl-re Carracci lanrily of painters: causahty oftl'ris sort is bcyond the scope of ruy study.)Paleotti's tract is also cliscussed by Scavizziin "La teologia cattolica," t7r-2r3. Paleottiindicated orl the first page of the Preface tothe Dr-'rorio that he rvas responding to theCouncil of Trent's decree. See Paleotti,Di.rroi:ro, r r 9.I do not nrean to inrply that post-Tridentine irrttheory rvas monolithrc; lbr differences betrveer.recclesi:rstical points of vielv of the tirne, sce.

lor er:rmple, rr. 47. Nevertheless, all post-Tridcntinc art theorists wert: interestecl in l.rorvbest to persuade the vielver to Christian truth,ar-rd they all had a hierarchical rvorld vierv.'f hus Paleotti's Drrrorro is charactcristic ofgenerally held post-Tridentine idcas, eventhough or-r certain individual points he disagreesu,ith sonre of his ecclesrastical colleagues.The bibliography on ir.nage tlreory is \r:lst. Onits ;rrticulation rn a post-Tridcntine context, see

discussiou and full bibliography irr nry Ferlcriro

Bon'otnco, esp. r r7-r26. For its e:rrliest fonnul:r-tior.rs, see Ladner, "Tl-re Concept of the h'naqe,"r-341 I{itzinger, "Tl're Cr.rlt of Inraqes." ll3-r5o.Paleotti, Di-srorso, Bk. r, Chapter 4, 139-r4r. L-r

Paleotti's clay, certain concepts rverc discussedin gender-lin'rited language rvhich, for the sake

ofhistorical:lccllracy, I have also used through-out this study. Here, the ruet:rphysical distinc-tions were betrveen God ancl "r.n:rn" and beasuPaleotti therefore used tl're u,orcl "1'rroriro".

Paleotti nearly ah.vays used exclusion:rrylanquaqe. Accordingly, rvherc I'ris language is

not gender-specrfic neither is nrine ;rnd rvherehe uses the rvorcl "rttan" so do I.Paleotti, Di-srorso, Bk. r, Chapter z4 t-:.4-zz5.l

NOTES TO PP. rz5-r2g 321

have translated this passage in such a wiry ;rs tonrake Paleotti's points en-rerge rvith grcatest

possible clarity. Hcre, my translation is notconsistently literal but, instead, tends torvardsparapl-rr:rse. Pileotti rvrote of "lrfiriti ltoturclli rlrc

notl sdnno /rlqqci'e."

6 In her exenrplary cditrou of the Dl.rroirro,

Balocchi has tr;rcecl the sources of Paleotti'sicleas. In this brief study, rvhicl-r relie s onB:rrocchi's fbur.rcl:rtiorr, I have thereforc keptanalysis of the sources at :t rttirtittrum, and rvillrefrain {i'onr repeatillg her cit:rtions of thcnr.

7 See Alistotle. Dt Aninta, Bk. 3, Chapter 7, r4r.li For further cliscussion of the relative cognitive

r.nerits attributed to the eye venus the c':rr, see

rrry Ftderico Bt)t't'()t11&), 7r ancl I I8-t r9.

9 Paleotti, Di-srorro, Rk. r, Chaptc'r 4, r39-r40.ro Paleotti, Disroro. Bk. r, Ch;rpter t8, uo7-zo8

ar-rd Chapter )3, 2)).tr Paleotti, Dr.,ror'.s0, 13k. r, Chapter 23, .z:,r. His

rvords are "l'ingegro c la onrnod'it,i d'intltarare ."rl Paleotti, D1-srorco, Bk. r, Chapter 23, ::,r. St.

Basil and Greeory of Nyssa l-rad statc-d inpatristic trmes th:rt paintings servcd as books lorthe illirerate n.rasses; by Paleotti's clay it rvas a

rvell-rvorn topos. On earl,v apologetics see

Kitzinger "The Cult of Inr:rges": Pelikan, Irriago

Dci.13 The decree on irnages rvas pronrulq:rted at the

trventy-fifth scssion of the Council of Trent onI)ecenrber 3-.+, rj63.For the text ofthe brrefdecree see Water"vorth, Cantrns attd Detrees ol

tlrc Stttrr:d Occuutctticol Conttil o-f Trolt, 233-236.r.+ The entrre -.ccond book of the 1)i.irorto rvas

dedicated to a cliscussior.r of abuses.

r5 Paleotti, Di.iroruo, throughout; for example, Bk.r, Chapters lo :rnd 2r, zrz z16.

r(t Paleotti, Di.vrr'.i0, Ijk. I, Chapters rll-:r, :o7-21 j.

t7 It should be noted that rlot all ecclesi:rstical

theorists were uninterested in style. Forexample, Archbishop Federico lJorronreo ofMilan (r564-163r), Paleotti's younger col-leagr,re, shou.ecl great interest in :rnd sensitiviryto artistic style. See :rrty brdrrirc Borru[iro. Forthe quotation, see Paleotti, Di-v'oruo, Bk. r,Clrapter 22, 216-217.

r8 Paleotti, D/-sror:ro, Bk. r, Chapter zz, zt7-2t8.rg In order to inclicate the ascending iruportance

of the rhetorical rneans as applied to paintirrg,Paleotti predict:rbly invoked St. Augustine 's

farnous dictunr concerning sacred oratory: "ToJcliglrt i'.1 \\\ccl.r)e\\. ro itt.tt'rtct i\.r r)ccc\siq.to nrove is a victory." See Paleotti, Di-rrorio, Bk.r, Chapter zr, zt 5-2t6. For Augustir.re'srer.rrark, see Migne, ed., Pofiololia Lotiua, vol.34, tsk 4, Cl'rapter r:, hne z7 on co1. r oo.Augustine actually r.nentioned the nreans in a

clifferent order: instruction, clclieht, and rttov-

3'2 NOTES TO

irrs, and cited Cicero's Dc Oratorc as his source.:,o Palcotti, Dl-r6p1'.qp, Bk. r, Chapter :,:, zr8.2t Paleotti, Di.iroro, Bk. r, Chapter 12,2r8-219.22 Paleotti, Di-rror'.s0, Bk. r, Chapter 22, 22o.:,3 We clo not aim to assert a drrect rnfluence of

the Di,rroi:ro on any individual paintings rvhatso-ever. The establishnlent of such causaliry is

irrelevant to our study.2+ For the indices to Bks.3-5, see Paleotti,

Di.rroi.o, io4-5o9.2J The Cor-rncil of Trent's clecree on inr:rges strted

"Let so qrear care and diligence be used. . . bybishops, as that therc is nothing seen [irr sacredartl that is clisorderly, or that is unbecorunelyor confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane,nothing indecorous." Paleotti r.n:rde nfanycor.r-rparable comnrents in the Di.srorso, through-out. For tl'rc dccrcc, sce Watenvorth, Carorsattd Dccracs of tlrc Sarrcd Occuttrutiril Coturcil ttt

Trcttt,235-236.26 Bronzino livcd from r5o3-r572. For Bronzino's

fi'esco, see McCor-quoda1e, Brtut:itttt, r49 andr 54.

2,7 Augustine distinguished betrveen subst:rntiveancl superficial orllament in various tracts. See,

for ex:rnrple, his correl;rtion of inner beauryr.vith truth in Dc Boro Viduitatis as reproduceciir-r Migne. etl.. Pdtrologia Lotittr'r, vol. 4o, cols.

4+5-4+6.zli It nieht also be notcd, rn connectiorr rvitl'r

Bronzilo's llart),rdttm, that Paleotti objectcd ingeneral to the use of a great nurnber of fiquresancl actions in a painting prilnarily rvith theaim ofexhibiting arristic expertise: this, he fe1t,

sirnply drstracted viervers. Paleotri, Di-scor'-ro, 1lk.2, Chapter 33, +r2.

29 For Dor.r.renichino's fresco, see Spear,Dontt'niclino, vol. r, cat. no. 33, IJ5-r57.

3o Paleotti, Dr.srono, rr9-r2.2. Paleotti stated tl'rar

he had composed the tract in such a way as tornaxirnize cor.nprehensibrliry. Not only thel-n:rnner in rvhich information rvas presentecl,

but also the fact that tl're Dl-scorso rv:rs composedin the vernacnlar rather then in Latin, is note-worthy in this context.

3r See discussion belor.v of the spirintali.

32 P;rlcotti does discuss thc fundarnentals ofpainting, its basis in di-rcarro, colo::ing, use ofshaclorvs, ancl so forth. But, as Barocchi pointeclout. his discussions :rre insensitive and he tendsto see artistic qualities objectiYely :ls ornanlentsdivisible frorn the work itself-. Paleotti, Di,rronso,

tlrrouehout, esp. :,8:-:ll-5, 379 82, a:nd 496-jo3. Barocchi. Trattati. n. 2 to page :ro on 64r.

33 In her edition of Paleotti's Drrronso, Barocchimacie this point; see n. I to page 385.

34 Paleotti, Drsroi:io, z.7o-289. Paleotti's rvords are:"tenteraric, srandaltrst, crronec, sospette, ueti&e,,sr4rer,rli:irrsc, ap o a'i ft."

PP. rz9-t37

3-j Paleotti, Di.irorso, Bk. u, Chaptet 6, z7o-27g.36 Paleotti, Di,srono, 289-179.

37 Accordrng to Paleotti, intaqes serve to aid thethree porvers of thc soul: the intellect, u'ill, auclmemoty. Looking at imaqes piously, he st:rtes,"makes good desires grorv and helps abolish sin;it excites in us the pious rvish to imrtate thelives of the qlorious saints u.ho are reprc-sellted." Im:rges, of course, :rlso help usremer.nber the evcnts depicted. Paleotti,Di-scolro, Bk. r, Chapter rll, :o7-:ofl.

3li Paleotti, Dl-s6p15p, Bk. :,, Cl-rapters 5 ancl 6, :,75-:.79 tnd Clrapter rt, 294 zg(t.l):rleotti. Diiroi:.0. 4r6--io t.Palcotti, Di-rronso, 498.Orr paintines' necessary characteristics, see

Paleotti, Di.troruo, Ilk. z, Chapter 3 3 , 40lt" cltiaro" and 4r:' "crttttparteldo rot ordiltc"; Cl-rap-ter ,5r, -5or "opert ben -fitite." The characteristicsof the uneclucated rrrajority are edclressed

throughout the tract. Lr addition to Bk. :,,Chapter 52! see, for example, Bk. r, Chapter23, 2)1.Iloschloo, Antibalc Carrtuti, throushout.Boschloo never erplicitly terns Paleotti a

populist, but he gives the inrpression thatPaleotti's collcern r,vith thc nrasses was rlroreenlightened than is tenable.Paleotti. Dl.rroruo, throughor.rt. P;rleotti uses

these tenrrs for educatecl viervels: lt,tterati. dotti,studi 0.,i, itttelligcrtti, ancl pcruoiic di nlowioritrtelligctrsd. To inc'licate uneducated viervers,he uses these ternrs: irliotl (most Ii'equently),indottt, i.qtorLtnti, st:ntpliri, and ordinarii. He also

uses i/ ;-ropo/o and l/ r,,,{qo, often s,itl'r qualifyingnrodificrs.

4+ Paleottr, Disronto, 3U4-38-5; rny ernphasis.

4 j For Annibale's painting see Posner, AnttibaleCdnatci, vo1. :,, cat. ro. 50 on pagc u3r; alsoPosner's cat. no. 9r, 27,\*279 in The Agt ofCorrqqgicr attd tlte Cdrrdcci. As Posner states, thepainting's dirnensrons suggest that it rvasir-rtended to be :ln overdoor decoration.Annibale's painting postdates the Di.rror:ro, butrve do not clair.r.r that it rvas influenced by thetr::tct.

46 On tl're Christian optinlism of Bellarmino andespecially Borroruco, as r,vell :rs Augustine'spoir-rt of vie',v, see :n:ry Ferlerico Borronco, 33-6and 76-89.

47 It is iurpossible to dctcmrinc rvhat Bellarnrinofelt about this point bec:urse he did not discuss

art in his rvritings. h-r his art tracts Borronreofailecl to address the relative cognitive rnerits ofvarious vielvers, but I'us dcvotion:rl rvritings dosuggest - hou.ever obliquely - that hc rvas

rnore optimistic about the ability of unlearnedpersolls to ascend the spirrturl ladder. Forexar.rrple, in tlie tenth orutiotrc rdlit)natrcnlo (con-

39

4o1r

42.

+3

versational prayer) of his I Rd.littnanruii spirituali(Spirinral Corn,crsatiotts), Borrorneo discussedfive modes of contenrpl:rting Christ's Passion.The first nrode entailed nreditating oD the epi-sodes ofthe P:rssion as historical events. Signifi-c:rntly, Borronreo pointed olrt that marlypersolls denigrated this n-rode, calling it base and

uninlportant, but that he hinrself found it par-ticularly efficacious precisely because it rv;rs so

e:rsy to perlbrrn that a pelson of any 1eve1 ofintelligence or kr.rorvledge could acconrplish itsuccessfully. See Borromeo, I Rdpionatnt'tttispirinrali, tols. r3:,r--r-j6r. It is rvorth noting herethat hicrarchrcal methods of devotional prayerpracticed in post-Tridentine Italy likervisebcspeak the rvorld vierv ch:rracterized in ourstudy of Paleotti. For full discussion, see lr1y

Fcderico Borrontco, e.rp. 64-95.Ptodi, Gabrielc Palcotri, vol. u, r8z-r87. At tl-rcirhigh point. Paleotti's scl'roo1s of Christiandoctrine scrwetl :rpproxinrately 7,ooo-ro,oooboys and girls aged four to trvelve. Thesenumbers r.r.ere paralleled only by the schoolsof Christian doctrinc in Carlo Borromeo'sdiocese of Milan.I rvould like to thank Thonras Wolcestcr, s.1.,

for discussing rvith me tl-re ulleclllc:rtedparisirioner's :lccess to uretaphysics. Tl-re bibli-ograpliy on rlevotion:rl literature, serlnons, artcl

reliqious nrusic is v:rst. On devotional lrterature,see nr,v Fcdcriro Borrorneo,33-37 and 64-9_5. Onsenrolrs, see O'Malley, Praisc ,utd Blnnc;McGinness, "Rhetoric ancl Counter-Refonua-tion Rorle". On sacred music, see C:uter,i\ilusic irr Italy.Tlre full title of this tr:rct rs Lrtru::ione Di\,Iottsi,qnorr Illustrissiuto ct Rcuerettdissiuto CordittalaPaleotti, Arciucstttt,tt di Bolo.qra Per Tutti qutlli, dtc

Itauatuto licert.d di Prcdicarc ntlb Ville, & altriIttoghi dtlla Diorcsc di .rua S(riorc l1lu-sri-r-tirrro

(htstntttions qf the lllustriorrs and l/ery Reperutdl4ottsi,t4tor Cardittal Palcotti, Ardtbishop qf Bologrta,

-for All Tlrosc ulto ruill haue Liccnsr ttt Prcadt irt

tltc Villoges & Otlrcr Platts 9l'tlte Diotse of HisI/cr), lllrrstriorrs Lordsltip). My citations irrc tothe nranuscript in the Vatican Library hstecl inthe general Bibliography.Ori the instructittncs in eeneral, see McGinness,"I\hctoric and Counter-Reformatior.r ll.ornc,"rg7-232. In addition to that of Palcotti, thenrost linrous nranuals of this genre rvere thoseof Carlo Borronreo (r 5 3 il-ila) and l{obertoIlellarmino.Paleotti. htstn.!::ionc, fols. 4r-5v. Paleotti's ex:rctrvords are "-ladle intelligcrtsa."Paleotti, Instnr:zione, fo1. 9r. His phrase is "rrariistati, gradi, & 4ffici,i di persotrc."

Paleotti, Irrstruz:ioue, fols. rov-rrr. The chap-ter's title is "Obligo di riasruno stcondo lo statLt

NOTES TO PP. r37-r+2 1J)

5-5

-{UO.

Paleotti clevoted ten days per year: to perfortn-ing St Ignatius ol Loyola's Spiritrnl E.r:crr-tlr-r, onu,l'rich see Prodi. Palcorri, 36.On this point, see n. .17.

7 LANGUAC]ES oF GESTURE

I2

I3ing, "A. M. Warburg". -to9.Ellion, T/rc Oltl l4torld dnd Tlrc Nerp t19:-t650,especially "The lJncertain Inpact" at-rcl "TheProcess of Assimilation"; "l{enaissance ELuope

;rnd Anreric:r: A Blunted lmpact?" in Chiapelli,ed., Fir-sr Itttagcs o-l'Atnctittt, rt-23.E11iott, "Renaissance Europe :rnd Auterica: Atslurrted lnrpact?", r7.El1iott, " Renaiss;rnce Europe and At.r-rerica: ABluntecl Inrpact?", :r.Huizing;r. 'flrc llluritt.g ttf' 'l'Irc Middlc ,'1ge.t;

Ladner. "-Floirro Viantr: Medieval Ideas OrrAlienation ar-rd Order,"; Sumption. Pilgrinmgc

Att Ittt,yqt,,1' .\ltdio'dl 11,'/iqi,,rr.

On Fr:urciscan ruissionary rvork in tl.re rnedrevalperiod scc, itttt'r ,tlit, l)arricl, T/re Fratrdsrou

Cortrcpr rrf ,&Ii.i.siorr in 'I'ltt Higlt l,tiddlc A.qcs:

Sirriorrut, Lkttttltt d'erurrleli::tt:'ione dei

-fiatrcscani; Richard, La ltaltarttl cl /r-s nri-s-siott-t

d'oricttt Ltu nto)tcu ioc' Van den Wyngaert er-rd

Mensaert, Sinira Frarrciscana. publishes texts per-tinent to Franciscan rnissionary rvork in tl-re

thirtceutlr .rnd lorrrtcerttlt ccttturic..On Llu11's life ancl nrany rvritings, see Bonner,Sdetted ll/orks t;f Rontrttt L1it11; Hillgarth, RcritorLlrill arrtl Llullism in Fcutrteenrlt-Centuty Frdtu:t.

For sor-ne discussiotr of L1ull's "nrissiou:rry

Christianiry," sce Watts, "Talking to SpiritualOthers: Rarnon Llull, Nicholas of Cusa,

Diego Va1ad6s."Tester:r's letter, signed by seven other pronli-nent nrendicants, u,:rs addressed to the EmperorCharles V and dated May 6, r53:. It is printedirr C,rrra., rlt' lttliir, 6:- 66.

A thougl'rt-provoking recent study of the roles

that rituals and cerer.nonies. private and public,play in the tr:rnst.uissiot't of culture is

Connerton, Hotp Sodetics RLlttutbg'. See :rlso

Brerrurrer and lloodenbulg, ed., A Crrltural

History Cl' C.rIr,,", rvhicir has a usefulbibliography.Forvlel and Forvler, trans., T/ic ll/orks o.l- Luciatt

of Slutosatd, Vol. z, Qf Pantonine, 238-263.The passage quoted is on page z, -56.There is a large literature on this subject.Pr-rbhcations rvhich I have found particularlyuseful in shaping this piece include Barasch,

Ci()tto Ltnd tlrc Langragr of Gc.trrl'c.r; Gorlbrich,"Ritualized Gesture ancl Erpressior.r in Art,"

TO

s6

4ll

+()

-51

t3

54

II