King’s College LondonFaculty of Arts & HumanitiesCoversheet for submission of coursework (Undergraduate & Taught Postgraduate)

Complete all sections of this form and ensure it is the first pageof the document you submit. [Note: either copy and paste this pageinto the front of your work, or write your work on subsequent pages of this form]

DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON YOUR WORK. Pages should be clearly numbered. Failure to attach the coversheet as required may result in your

work not being accepted for assessment.

Candidate no. V 2 4 1 1 5

Module Title: The Devotional Use of Art in Christianity

Module Code:(e.g. 5AABC123 ) 7AATC412

Essay no:(e.g. 1 or 2) 1

Essay Title:(may be abbreviated)

The Ostentatio Genitalium and Christ’s loincloth in crucifixion altarpieces: what does the development from gossamer to opaquefabric suggest about the relationship between theological and stylistic impetus and effect in Renaissance Italy?

Assignment tutor/group: Professor Ben Quash

Deadline: 12th Janurary 2015

Date Submitted: 9th January 2015

Word Count: 5010

The word count, which should preferably be calculatedelectronically, must be stated accurately above.For details of how to calculate the word count, please consult theFaculty handbook. No penalty is exacted for work up to 5% abovethe word limit. Thereafter two marks will normally be deducted forevery 5% above the word limit, until 50% is reached. After 50%,three marks will normally be deducted for each additional 5% abovethe word limit. These regulations are laid down by the Boards ofExaminers in the Faculty of Arts & Humanities.

1

DECLARATION BY STUDENTThis assignment is entirely my own work. Quotations from secondaryliterature are indicated by the use of inverted commas around ALLsuch quotations AND by reference in the text or notes to the authorconcerned. ALL primary and secondary literature used in this pieceof work is indicated in the bibliography placed at the end, anddependence upon ANY source used is indicated at the appropriatepoint in the text. I confirm that no sources have been used otherthan those stated.I understand what is meant by plagiarism and have signed atenrolment the declaration concerning the avoidance of plagiarism.I understand that plagiarism is a serious examinations offence thatmay result in disciplinary action being taken.

Your assignment may be used as an exemplar of good practice for other students to refer to in the future. If selected, your assignment will be uploaded to the King’s E-Learning andTeaching Service (KEATS). The assignment will be anonymous and not include feedback comments or the specific grade awarded. Your participation is entirely optional and will notaffect your grade.If you DO wish your assignment to be used in this way then please put an X in the box

X

2

The Ostentatio Genitalium and Christ’s loincloth in

crucifixion altarpieces: what does the development from

gossamer to opaque fabric suggest about the relationship

between theological and stylistic impetus and effect in

Renaissance Italy?

In his pioneering analysis on the sexuality of Christ,

Leo Steinberg claims that the canonic showing of the

wounds, the ostentatio vulnerum, is comparable to the

instigation of the ostentatio genitalium as a backlash against

the depictions of a sexless Christ in medieval imagery1.

This essay examines what the possible theological and

stylistic impetuses reveal about the development from

gossamer to opaque loincloth in Italian crucifixion

altarpieces from the fourteenth to early sixteenth

centuries.

Caroline Bynum’s 1986 critique of Steinberg states

there is more evidence for illustrating gender reversal

in Christian art than for Christ’s sexuality, with

1 Leo Steinberg, The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and Modern

Oblivion, 2nd ed., (Chicago and London: University of Chicago

Press, 1996), 3; 239

3

Steinberg’s retort claiming Bynum uses the experiences of

women mystics to generalise about how images of Jesus may

be understood as feminised2. Both authors overstate their

theories by discussing different sets of images without

considering the individual context. The images chosen for

this essay are Italian altarpiece panels representing the

crucifixion decidedly because their function is

distinctive from other forms of religious art. An altar

offers a locus for the celebration of the Eucharist

during mass whereby an altarpiece’s subject matter is

typically associated with its physical location3; the work

and location are directly linked through the sacramental

blood of the Eucharist being represented in the imagery.

Renaissance theology of the crucifixion cannot be

understated; Christian Humanism developed artistic modes

of thinking about Christ’s manhood with more emphasis on

education, specifically a revival of ancient Greek and

2 Caroline Bynum, ‘The body of Christ in the later Middle Ages:

a reply to Leo Steinberg’, Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 3,

(1986), 413; Steinberg, op.cit, 3653 Martin Kemp, ‘The Altarpiece in the Renaissance: a Taxonomic

Approach’, in The Altarpiece in the Renaissance, eds. Peter Humfrey and

Martin Kemp, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 1

4

Roman human ideals, aiding more liberal ideas within

devotional art both contextually and formally4. Even

though naturalism did influence changes in artistic

representations, it is not the sole impetus within this

period of innovation because, although the body of Christ

may appear “complete in every part of a man” in the words

of Steinberg, this does not mean the imagery is wholly

realistic or historically accurate5. The emergence of the

mendicant orders and their liturgical texts, coinciding

with new artistic motifs and possible socio-political

involvements were imperative to the pictorial

developments during this period and serve as the basis

for the preceding analysis.

Through firstly examining Trecento works,

specifically from Bernardo Daddi and Jacopo di Cione, the

new liturgical texts of the later Middle Ages are argued

to have effected Christological scenes through the

dominance of Marian devotion. Christ is painted sexless

but His human bond with Mary is symbolised in the 4 William Schweiker, Humanity Before God: Theological Humanism from a

Christian Perspective, Martin Marty Center, Web Forum, (October

2003), 1-35 Steinberg, op.cit, 251

5

gossamer veil as an emblem of virginal flesh. This

relationship is further accentuated in Massacio’s Pisa

Altarpiece (c.1426) whereby the central axis includes scenes

with Christ and the Virgin; the crucifixion panel’s

traditional gold background is juxtaposed by the use of

light and perspective, illustrating the move from the

stylised byzantine tradition to more naturalistic forms

characteristic of the High Renaissance, further

represented in The Pistoia Santa Trinità Altarpiece (1455-60) by

Francesco Pesellino, Fra Filippo Lippi and his workshop.

Both of these works employ an opaque loincloth but

symbolize Christ’s circumcision and crucifixion through

the use of blood instead of diaphanous fabric. Thirdly,

the discussion of total nudity in Michelangelo’s early

Crucifix for Santo Spirito in 1496 is a fascinating

comparison to Brunelleschi’s sexless figure from earlier

in the century, illustrating a change in visual

importance on the genitals. It is fairly surprising that

neither Steinberg nor Bynum address these works in their

research. Lastly, the crucifixions of Perugino and his

pupil Raphael are discussed with regards to colour

6

symbolism and Steinberg’s theory of the fanfare loincloth

used to glorify the genitals6. This becomes more dominant

in later Italian crucifixions but the work of Raphael and

his master serve as interesting starting points to the

discussion.

Throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Western

church underwent major changes due new ideologies of

Christian Humanism whereby texts and sermons were

emphasising the imago Dei and becoming like God through the

contemplation of Christ’s humanity7. The mendicant orders

became more prevalent throughout Europe and arguably

their theologies on the humanity of Christ influenced

their art patronage. One of the most significant works of

the period was the Franciscan Meditationes Vitae Christi by

Pseudo-Bonaventure composed in the early fourteenth

century8. Two details of the text not found in scripture

are the claim that the Virgin performed the circumcision

6 Steinberg, op.cit, 94; 2517 Jens Zimmermann, Incarnational Humanism: A Philosophy of Culture for the

Church in the World, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 1338 Henrik Roelvin, Franciscans in Sweden: Medieval Remnants of Franciscan

Activities, (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp, 1998), 52

7

herself and used her veil as swaddling clothes, and that,

dismayed at the sight of her Son naked on the cross, she

created Him a loincloth from her head veil9. Even though

the author supports the Biblical assertions of a scarlet

or purple loincloth by stating that the soldiers dressed

Christ in ‘dirty red silk ‘and ‘purple’10, it is

emphasised that Mary’s veil is the fabric that covers the

loins specifically at the crucifixion.

Paul Hills discusses the veil as being a ‘sign

of Christ’s Eucharistic flesh’ and a way of ‘seeing

salvation’11 and therefore the marriage of veil literature

with Eucharistic iconography in such altarpieces would

9 Holly Flora, ‘Women Wielding Knives: The Circumcision of

Christ by His Mother in an Illustrated Manuscript of the

Meditationes Vitae Christi’, in The Christ Child in Medieval Culture:

Alpha Es Et O!, eds. Theresa M. Kenny and Mary Dzon, (Toronto:

University of Toronto Press, 2011), 145; Pseudo-Bonaventure,

‘Meditationes Vitae Christi’, in Meditations on the Life of Christ: an

illustrated manuscript of the fourteenth century, trans. Isa Ragusa, ed.

Rosalie Green, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961),

33310 Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17, NKJV; Pseudo-Bonaventure, op.cit,

32911 Paul Hills, The Renaissance Image Unveiled: From Madonna to Venus,

(Edinburgh: National Galleries of Scotland, 2009), 13

8

have intensified the contemplation of the Passion during

Mass. It has been argued that altarpieces have a ‘purely

cultic function’12, however their significance should not

be undermined; they were important to aid devotees in

visualising the suffering of Christ and lead communicants

into deeper meditations on His humanity. One such

altarpiece is Bernardo Daddi’s Crucifixion with Eight Saints

(1348, Fig. 1.0) originally painted for San Giorgio a

Ruballa near Florence and now housed at the Courtauld

Gallery, London. Daddi assimilated the pictorial style of

his master Giotto who was supposedly inspired by the

Meditationes Vitae Christi for his paintings on the life of

Christ in the Arena Chapel and, along with Duccio, was

the first artist to introduce the gossamer loincloth to

Christian art13. It is clear that Daddi’s conception of

Christ crucified derived from the work of his teacher

from the likenesses in the slight turn of the body and

bend of the knees, blood pouring into chalices, and of

course the diaphanous loincloth. Italian theological

12 Sixten Ringbom, Icon to Narrative, (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1965), 3413 John White, Art and Architecture in Italy, 1250-1400, 3rd ed., (London:

Penguin Books Ltd. 1993), 311-312; Steinberg, op.cit, 136

9

iconography may also have been influenced by medieval

developments in material production and silk weaving

allowing artists to accentuate their painterly skills

through studying diaphanous fabrics14. Daddi employs these

skills in the altarpiece and one can see the hem of

Mary’s gossamer veil underneath her mantle (Fig. 1.1);

Daddi’s use of such material both on Christ and His

mother emphasises the bond of flesh between them. Mary

performing the circumcision and then girding her Son both

as child and man is symbolised here through the veil; the

symmetry links the Virgin’s blissful maternity to her

suffering at Calvary15. The omission of genitalia from

Daddi’s altarpiece (Fig. 1.2), whilst conventional,

illustrates the sinless perfection of the God man16.

Steinberg claims that the transparent veil was employed

to ‘demonstrate the loins are blank’17, however it is more

14 Paul Hills, op.cit, 10-1215 Gail McMurray Gibson, ‘St Margery: the book of Margery

Kempe’, in Equally in God’s Image: women in the Middle Ages, eds. Julia

Bolton Holloway et al., (New York: Peter Lang Publishing,

Inc., 1990), 14916 Steinberg, op.cit, 24417 Ibid, 240

10

plausible that the genitalia were omitted as an after

thought. Nakedness carried negative connotations in

medieval art and was commonly utilised to rebuke the

damned in Last Judgement imagery to demonstrate that the

church condemned nuditas criminalis18.

Jacopo di Cione’s Crucifixion altarpiece (1369-70, Fig.

2.0) housed at the National Gallery copies the style of

Daddi’s work undoubtedly due to the artist’s close

connection with the di Cione family19. This duplication

may be due to contractual modo e forma whereby Daddi’s

style was so highly respected that di Cione was asked to

replicate it and thus create an image of devotional

magnitude20. The work has been identified as Cistercian

due to the portrait of St Bernard in one of the bottom

roundels (Fig. 2.1) and the Cistercian order, although

18 Thomas Martin, ‘The Nude Figure in Renaissance Art’, in A

Companion to Renaissance and Baroque Art, 1st ed., eds. Babette Bohn

and James M. Saslow, (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013),

40319 Richard Offner, A Critical and Historical Corpus of Florentine Painting,

vol. 1, (New York: New York University, 1962), XII-XIII20 Christa Gardner von Teuffel, From the Duccio's Maestà to Raphael's

transfiguration: Italian Altarpieces and their settings, (London: The Pindar

Press, 2005), 183

11

not unique in this respect, preached the theology of

imitatio Christi21, which is symbolised through the visual

linkage between Christ and the penitent thief within the

painting (Fig. 2.2). Di Cione has presented the figures

with the same features to exemplify that the only way to

salvation is through following Christ. St Bernard is

thought of being the initiator of devotion to Christ’s

humanity in the west and this cannot be underestimated

for the impact his writings had on crucifixion imagery22.

The fact the image was an altarpiece suggests the

penitent thief also serves as a model of emulation for

devotees and as a way for the Cistercians to visually

represent their theology. The use of a gossamer loincloth

for the impenitent thief challenges the theory that it

symbolises sinless perfection and the omission of all

genitalia suggests again that visual nudity was simply

not acceptable. However, the microscopic golden details

21 Dillian Gordon, ‘National Gallery Catalogues’, The Fifteenth

Century Italian Paintings, Band 1, (2003), unpaginated; Patricia Ran,

How the Doctrine of the Incarnation Shaped Western Culture, (Lanham: Lexiton

Books, 2013), 22822 Gerard S. Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus, History, Myth, Faith,

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 134

12

on Christ’s loincloth in both altarpieces highlights His

divinity as separate from the other figures (Fig. 1.2,

and Fig. 2.3). The Cistercian order was also deeply

devoted to Mary, highlighted by the image of Mother and

Child in the roundel underneath the crucifixion to

visually exemplify that ‘her role in the Incarnation made

the Atonement possible’ (Fig. 2.4)23. These developments

in crucifixion iconography were arguably informed by the

growing Marian cult of the mendicant orders and Caroline

Bynum’s claims of ‘Jesus as mother’24 in medieval art is

supported in so far that this motherhood is connected

solely with the Virgin. Christ is not motherly in the

worldly sense, but in the divine; angels are depicted

collecting his sacramental blood in these altarpieces to

symbolise that He is able to feed the congregation his

body and blood only because he was born of virginal flesh

and remained virginal Himself. Even though devotees may

contemplate Christ as female individually, the lack of

23 Janet Burton, The Foundation History of the Abbeys of Byland and Jervaulx,

(York: University of York, 2006), XXXV; Marina Warner, Alone of

All Her Sex: The myth and the cult of the Virgin Mary, Picador edition,

(London: Pan Books Lrd., 1985), 28724 Bynum, op.cit, 414

13

genitalia does not androgynise Christ for their benefit,

but was a way of allowing artists to present the

diaphanous fabric as symbol of salvation whilst

maintaining religious decorum.

Another reform order that preached the humanity of Christ

was the Carmelites in the Carmelite Rule (1206), stating that

the way to God is through sustained communication and

compassion with the Holy family25. Even though the order

laid emphasis on moderation, the altarpiece for a side

chapel in Santa Maria del Carmine, painted by Masaccio

around 1426 (Fig. 3.0) is not only a work of intense

piety but also has an extensive iconographic scheme that

is by no means moderate. This was certainly due to the

patron, Ser Guiliano, being one of the wealthiest

merchants in Pisa who wanted an artwork that not only

illustrated his devotion but also his social standing,

especially at this time when Pisa was in a state of

economic decline26. Although the altarpiece is no longer 25 Constance Fitzgerald, ‘Passion in the Carmelite Tradition:

Edith Stein’, Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality, vol. 2, no. 2,

(2002), 21726 Gardner von Teuffel, op.cit, 26

14

intact, the central panel was of the Madonna and Child,

unsurprising for the order’s veneration of the Virgin,

with the Crucifixion having originally being placed above

this panel in the upper section27. Christa Gardner von

Teuffel argues that the patron probably chose the

pictorial scheme with the assistance of Fra Antonio, a

very experienced and learned church friar, but the level

of artistic restriction imposed on Masaccio is unclear28.

With regards to the Crucifixion panel, the use of light and

perspective was undoubtedly down to the skill and

innovation of the artist (Fig. 3.1). Even though the

image employs a traditional gilded background, similar to

Daddi and di Cione’s work, Masaccio created a sense of

realism through perspective by portraying the event from

below, bringing Christ into the devotee’s temporal space

when they were standing in front of the altar and

intensifying the contemplation of Christ’s suffering.

Furthermore, there is a vast change in how the lance

wound of Christ is represented; there are no angels with

chalices, and instead the blood is running down the

27 Ibid, 1828 Ibid, 6-7

15

contours of Christ’s torso and into his loincloth

emphasising His humanity by not only accentuating the

tension in his stomach muscles, but by also symbolising

His circumcision. The first and final bleeds are brought

together through Masaccio’s iconography, and this is a

recurring motif in crucifixion altarpieces from the

Quattrocento onwards. For example, Piero della Francesa’s

Crucifixion panel from Misericordia Altarpiece (c.1448, Fig.

3.2) is very similar in iconography and Masaccio’s

altarpiece plausibly acted as precedent. Another change

is that Christ’s loins are no longer visible due to the

shift from gossamer to opaque loincloth; Leo Steinberg

infers, through a “double negative”, that this change

illustrates the reappearance of Christ’s sexuality

whereas Bynum counteracts this theory by stating Christ

was never viewed as a sexual male, but that His penis and

wound were signs of suffering29. Even though Bynum goes on

to make the implausible claim that fifteenth century

theologians frequently saw Christ as being

physiologically female30, the cult of the Virgin arguably

29 Steinberg, op.cit, 250; Bynum, op.cit, 404; 40830 Ibid, 412

16

played an important role in these works. As their loving

bond was increasingly accentuated through the arts,

Christ’s suffering at the circumcision and crucifixion

are brought together with the sorrow of His mother,

accentuated through the marriage of Christological and

Marian scenes in the central axis of the Pisa Altarpiece,

emphasising Christ’s humanity through his maternal bond

with the Virgin.

Francesco Pesellino’s Pistoia Santa Trinità Altarpiece (1455-

60, Fig. 4.0), completed by Fra Filippo Lippi and his

workshop, employs a more naturalistic background but has

depicted Christ in a similar way to Masaccio. The head is

bowed, the knees are bent, and the loincloth is both

opaque and tightly bound, but the artist pushed this

further by painting the loincloth in a way that suggests

Christ has genitalia. It seems that these artists had to

find a way to synthesise the church’s reluctance to

accept nudity with the growing ideas of Christian

Humanism; in the Quattrocento, artists were becoming

increasingly concerned with paintings being true to

nature, as expressed in the writings of Alberti, and this

17

meant Christ’s maleness had to be depicted in its

entirety whilst maintaining ‘dignity and modesty’31. The

opaque loincloth, painted in a way to suggest the

contours of Christ’s hidden loins conformed to these

rules. Blood is dripping down from the lance wound to

Christ’s legs from underneath the loincloth, symbolising

the unity between circumcision and crucifixion (Fig.

4.1). Even though the commissioner usually prescribed the

iconography of an altarpiece at this time, and the Pistoia

altarpiece is no different32, artists evidently had

started to innovate new ways of representing Christ’s

humanity through his manhood, and it is undoubtedly the

artists that were responsible for pioneering Eucharistic

symbolism.

31 Kusi Ankrah Atta, Nudity In Painting: Art or Pornography? A Case Study of

the Department Of Painting And Sculpture, unpublished master’s thesis,

(Kumasi: Kwame Nkrumah University of Science Technology,

2011), 22-23; Leon Battista Alberti, ‘De Pictura: On

Painting’, in On Painting and On Sculpture, ed. and trans. Cecil

Grayson, (London: Phaidon Press, 1972), 73; 7932 Patricia Rubin, ‘Commission and design in Central Italian

altarpieces c. 1450-1550’, in Italian Altarpieces 1250-1550, eds. Eve

Borsook and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi, (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1994), 204

18

One artist who particularly revelled in the male form was

Michelangelo; Vasari noted that Michelangelo was a devout

Christian and believed that, through representing the

human form, he could achieve both artistic and spiritual

perfection33. In 1496, Michelangelo created a polychrome

crucifix sculpture for the Augustinian church of Santo

Spirito in Florence, which was reportedly positioned

above the high altar (Fig. 5.0)34; arguably this sculpture

acted as an altarpiece due to its location and

Eucharistic symbolism, and it is especially significant

for this research due to Christ being completely naked.

No flesh is left concealed in Michelangelo’s sculpture,

transgressing Steinberg’s assertion that the presence of

Christ’s genitalia ‘requires no actual exposure’35.

Indeed, neither Vasari nor any of the literature on the

work state whether or not the figure originally wore a

loincloth, however the rendering of the genitals is

33 Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists, trans. George Bull,

(Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1965), 42334 Ibid, 332-33335 Steinberg, op.cit, 250

19

interesting to contrast with Brunelleschi’s sexless Crucifix

(1412-13, Fig. 5.1) made for Santa Maria Novella earlier

in the Quattrocento. The sculpture is noteworthy because,

although not an altarpiece and originally depicting

Christ wearing a loincloth, Brunelleschi decidedly

omitted the genitals when creating the work, whereas

Michelangelo consciously chose to sculpt them. Over the

course of the century, a new relationship with the male

form emerges within Italy because it became an imperative

to present the world as it truly was and this meant

anatomy needed to be meticulously understood36; this is

perhaps what Vasari meant about Michelangelo’s striving

for perfection, by portraying Christ with genitals and,

to quote Steinberg, by acknowledging ‘sex as participant

in that human nature which the Incarnation espoused’37.

Through following in the ways of Christ devotees can also

overcome the sins of the flesh and reach salvation.

Although representations of the human form were

evolving, it must be recognised that these Italian

portrayals of Christ are highly idealised. For

36 Martin, op.cit, 40237 Steinberg, op.cit, 365

20

Michelangelo, this might simply reflect the artistic

style at the time, or may be a visual manifestation of

St. Augustine’s theology of the Son being equal to the

Father through the perfect unification of His body and

soul38. The only mark is the lance wound, where the

painted blood runs from his torso and onto his thigh,

parallel to the penis (Fig. 5.2). Although this was a

very common motif in crucifixion altarpieces, its

significance is emphasised here due to Christ’s total

nudity. Whereas an opaque loincloth hides the genitalia

and blood, here the connection between the circumcision

and crucifixion is unmistakable. Its situation above the

altar, as Michelangelo intended it to be seen from

below39, not only underlined Christ’s sacred status and

the viewer’s subservience to God, but also encouraged

piety in the communicant through the contemplation of the

crucifixion. Through the ostentatio genitalium, Christ’s

humanity is literally being presented to us for

38 Stephen J. Duffy ‘Anthropology’, in Augustine Through the Ages: An

Encyclopedia, ed. Allan Fitzgerald, (Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1999), 2739 Herbert von Einam, Michelangelo, trans. Ronald Taylor,

(London: Methuen, 1973), 14

21

speculation and meditation, in a similar formal style to

Michelangelo’s unfinished Entombment (1500-01, Fig. 5.3)

owned by the National Gallery. It is likely Michelangelo

intended to include Christ’s genitals in this painting

and, as profoundly described by Thomas Martin, the

faithful wanted assurance that God truly became man

therefore ‘the revelation of his naked body proves his

human nature’40. In response to Bynum’s critique,

Steinberg claims that the reintroduction of the genitals

was not in response to an earlier “feminisation” of

Christ, but to emend the presentation of emasculation41.

Firstly, these two allegedly opposing statements

virtually present the same idea, and secondly, it is far

more plausible to argue that the reintroduction of the

genitals was to declare that Christ’s maleness was

complete. The earlier sexless figures of Christ discussed

above were not thought of as being feminised or imperfect

at the time, Christ is and always was male, but the usage

of the opaque loincloth, or indeed no loincloth at all,

conforms to the reality of His virile virginal body.

40 Martin, op.cit, 40341 Steinberg, op.cit, 248

22

Even though Michelangelo innovated new ways of depicting

the crucified Christ, this did not mean that nudity was

universally accepted or conventional. Although it was

part of the commission for his Risen Christ (1514-20, Fig.

5.4) to be naked, it was considered reprehensible by many

and was eventually covered in an ostentatious loincloth42.

It is highly plausible that nudity was also requested for

the Crucifix but again the wishes of the patron, the prior

of the church43, do not necessarily reflect the opinion of

others. Raphael’s Christ in the Mond Crucifixion (1502-03,

Fig. 6.0) is neither naked nor does he wear the typical

white loincloth, but is dressed instead in a deep red

fabric. Colour symbolism can sometimes be superfluous

because the palette may simply be a formal characteristic

of the work, favoured by the patron or artist, but due to

the work’s function as an altarpiece, the red could

arguably have Eucharistic value or refer to scripture

that describes Christ as dressed in ‘scarlet’44. The fact

42 von Einem, op.cit, 127; Ibid, 2143 Vasari, op.cit, 332-33344 Kemp, op.cit, 4; Matthew 27:28, and Mark 15:17, NKJV

23

that the altarpiece was painted for a chapel dedicated to

St. Jerome in the church of S. Domenico in Città di

Castello further supports any Eucharistic connotations

because Jerome was well known for his meditations on the

crucifixion45. In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,

incorporated in a book by St. Thomas Aquinas, Jerome

clearly states that Christ bore a scarlet loincloth on

the cross to symbolise the blood he will shed for our

sins46. Furthermore, Jerome is often painted wearing a red

cardinal’s robe in devotional imagery so, even though

here he is dressed as a penitent, the use of colour in

this particular image establishes a strong connection

between Christ and the donor saint.

Although the loincloth is rather unique in colour,

the minute golden details on the fabric symbolise

Christ’s circumcision and resonate with the earlier

Trecento crucifixions (Fig. 6.1). These features can also

be seen in Perugino’s Galitzin-Triptych (c.1485, Fig. 6.2 and

45 Tom Henry, ‘Raphael's Altar-Piece Patrons in Città di

Castello’, The Burlington Magazine, vol. 144, no. 1190 (2002), 274,46 St. Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, John:

vol. 4 of The Works of the Fathers, trans. John Henry Newman, (Oxford:

John Henry Parker, 1841), 1303-1306

24

6.3) down the front of the loincloth, which is

significant as the artist was Raphael’s master and is

known to have taken a more traditional approach to

religious painting, making use of sentiment and colour,

and far less dramatic than the work of Michelangelo47. The

golden details could certainly be argued as traditional

and seems to have been shared from teacher to pupil; both

artists create a visual link between Christ and the

Virgin by decorating the blue mantle and head veil with

tiny gold strands. Perugino does this more overtly by

painting both the loincloth and veil with two golden

threads running vertically down both materials,

symbolising the union of flesh between Christ and the

Virgin (Fig. 6.3 and 6.4). Around the Magdalene’s

shoulders in both images is a gossamer veil perhaps

suggesting that if, as Hills claims, it is symbolic of

seeing salvation48, Mary has become united with Christ

through her devotion, and thus functions as a figure of

emulation to the laity (Fig. 6.5 and Fig. 6.6). It is

47 John C. Van Dyke, A Text Book of the History of Painting, (New York:

Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909), 3848 Hills, op.cit, 13

25

plausible that Raphael staged Paul’s theology from

Hebrews 10:20 of the veil being Christ’s flesh in his

crucifixion altarpiece, because it became a common theme

in his later Christological images such as the Madonna di

Loreto (1509-10, Fig. 6.7) 49. Raphael’s Virgin is also

wearing a red dress the same colour as the loincloth

symbolising the Incarnation; Christ’s virginal flesh born

from Mary’s virginal womb is emphasised not only from the

colour but the way the mantle fabric appears to bulge as

if she is pregnant (Fig. 6.8). This is perhaps a far-

fetched theory but the artist’s intent does not

necessarily govern iconographical interpretations of the

work, and the function of the altarpiece to lead devotees

to contemplation is only enhanced by in-depth analyses.

Indeed the most recognisable Eucharistic reference

is Christ’s blood, which is depicted as pouring from the

wounds and into the loincloth to unite the sufferings of

Christ’s circumcision and crucifixion, a common motif in

devotional imagery. Eucharistic symbolism is even more

prevalent in Raphael’s altarpiece with the inclusion of

angels collecting blood for mass, typical of Trecento 49 Ibid, 30

26

crucifixions. It was perhaps the wish of the patron that

the artist should create a highly sacramental artwork to

emphasise the dedication of their chapel to Jerome and

possibly s/he wanted to have more dated iconography, but

Raphael did not allow this to impinge on his artistic

innovation. The tassels of the angels’ belts that dance

across the sky refer to what Leo Steinberg describes as a

‘fanfare of cosmic triumph’50, turning even modest

garments into ones of majesty. Although Steinberg is

specifically discussing the loincloths in mainly German

crucifixions, both Raphael and Perugino make use of this

motif in their altarpieces. The latter much less so, but

the curves of the white loincloth give a sense of

dynamism in an otherwise static image. Raphael

accentuates this fanfare effect in the angels’ belts and

trim of Christ’s loincloth as a way to monumentalise the

act of collecting the sacramental blood. This use of

movement became increasingly more dominant after the

death of Raphael with the start of mannerism, which

established new crucifixion imagery but is beyond our

scope of analysis in this essay.50 Steinberg, op.cit, 94

27

To conclude, this essay has examined the potential

theological and stylistic impetuses that effected

crucifixion altarpieces in Renaissance Italy, by

analysing their individual contexts. It was shown how the

influences of mendicant orders and their veneration of

the Virgin stimulated new modes of thinking about

Christ’s humanity in relation to the virginal flesh of

his mother. The gossamer veil was the dominant motif in

Trecento altarpieces because portraying Christ with

genitalia was not important – the veil itself symbolised

the connection between his circumcision and crucifixion.

These images were the precondition of the later

crucifixion representations that reacted against the

sexless Christ with the instigation of Humanist thought51.

If Christ was ever seen as female or motherly, it was

borne in the minds of the individuals contemplating the

imagery and not the Christian institution. Within the

organised Church, Christ was always male and it became

very important for this to be illustrated in art. With

the development of the opaque loincloth, shown from the 51 Ibid, 239

28

analysis of Masaccio’s altarpiece onwards, it became rare

for angels to be depicted collecting the blood for mass;

instead, blood runs down the side of Christ’s torso and

into His loincloth, sometimes even appearing to drip down

His leg. Through the use of a double negative, Christ’s

circumcision and crucifixion are united through the

recurring motif of the blood and penis. Michelangelo goes

so far as to depict Christ completely nude in his Crucifix

and removes any extraneous elements from the crucifixion

imagery in order for the devotees, contemplating the

cross, to become the figures watching His death at

Calvary. His isolated vulnerability, accentuated through

his nakedness, serves to enhance devotion to His

humanity. Christ is presented to us so that we can focus

on the contemplation of his Passion, an idealised format

used by both Perugino and Raphael. Both artists depict

the colour and unfurling loincloth fabric to draw

attention to this part of the image, not as a way to

focus on Christ’s penis as a ‘sexual member’52, but as a

symbol of the Incarnation and His ability to overcome the

52 Ibid, 15

29

sins of the flesh. The Son of God is both complete in

divinity and humanity.

30

Bibliography

Ankrah Atta, K., 2011, Nudity In Painting: Art or Pornography? A Case

Study of the Department Of Painting And Sculpture, unpublished

master’s thesis, Kumasi: Kwame Nkrumah University of

Science Technology, URL:

<http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/3991> [Accessed 5

December 2014]

Burton, J., 2006, The Foundation History of the Abbeys of Byland and

Jervaulx, York: University of York

Bynum, C., 1986, ‘The body of Christ in the later Middle

Ages: a reply to Leo Steinberg’, Renaissance Quarterly, vol.

39, no. 3, 399-439, URL:

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2862038> [Accessed 22

November 2014]

Duffy, S. J., 1999, ‘Anthropology’, in Allan Fitzgerald,

ed., Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, Michigan: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 22-31

Dyke, J. C. Van, 1909, A Text Book of the History of Painting, New

York: Longmans, Green, and Co.

Einam, H. von., 1973, Michelangelo, Ronald Taylor, trans.,

London: Methuen,

31

Fitzgerald, C., 2002, ‘Passion in the Carmelite

Tradition: Edith Stein’, Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality,

vol. 2, no. 2, 217-235, URL:

<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/spiritus/v002/2.2fitzgerald

.pdf> [Accessed 30 November 2014]

Flora, H., 2011, ‘Women Wielding Knives: The Circumcision

of Christ by His Mother in an Illustrated Manuscript of

the Meditationes Vitae Christi’, in Theresa M. Kenny and Mary

Dzon, eds., 2011, The Christ Child in Medieval Culture: Alpha Es Et O!,

Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 145-161

Gardner von Teuffel, C., 2005, From the Duccio's Maestà to

Raphael's transfiguration: Italian Altarpieces and their settings, London:

The Pindar Press

Gordon, D., 2003, ‘National Gallery Catalogues’, The

Fifteenth Century Italian Paintings, Band 1, URL:

<nationalgallery.org.uk> [Accessed 22 November 2014]

Grayson, C., 1972, On Painting and On Sculpture, London:

Phaidon Press

Green, R., ed., Ragusa, I., trans., 1961, Meditations on the

Life of Christ: an illustrated manuscript of the fourteenth century, NJ:

Princeton University Press

32

Henry, T., 2002, ‘Raphael's Altar-Piece Patrons in Città

di Castello’, The Burlington Magazine, vol. 144, no. 1190,

268-278, URL:

<http://www.casanovaumbria.eu/Art_History/T._Henry__Rapha

el_s_altarpiece_patrons_at_Citta_di_Castello__The_Burling

ton_Magazine_2002.PDF> [Accessed 5 December 2014]

Hills, P., 2009, The Renaissance Image Unveiled: From Madonna to

Venus, Scotland: National Galleries of Scotland

Kemp, M., 1990, ‘The Altarpiece in the Renaissance: a

Taxonomic Approach’, in Peter Humfrey and Martin Kemp,

eds., The Altarpiece in the Renaissance, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1-21

Martin, T., 2013, ‘The Nude Figure in Renaissance Art’,

in Babette Bohn and James M. Saslow, eds., A Companion to

Renaissance and Baroque Art, 1st ed., NJ: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., 402-421

McMurray Gibson, G., 1990, ‘St Margery: the book of

Margery Kempe’, in Julia Bolton Holloway et al., eds.,

Equally in God’s Image: women in the Middle Ages, New York: Peter

Lang Publishing, Inc, 144-165

33

Newman, J. H., 1841, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels,

John: vol. 4 of The Works of the Fathers, translation of works

accumulated by St Thomas Aquinas, Oxford: John Henry

Parker

Offner, R., 1962, A Critical and Historical Corpus of Florentine

Painting, vol. 1, NY: New York University

Ran, P., 2013, How the Doctrine of the Incarnation Shaped Western

Culture, Maryland: Lexiton Books

Ringbom, S., 1965, Icon to Narrative, Finland: Åbo Akademi

Roelvin, H., 1998, Franciscans in Sweden: Medieval Remnants of

Franciscan Activities, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum & Comp

Rubin, P., 1994, ‘Commission and design in Central

Italian altarpieces c. 1450-1550,’ in ed. Eve Borsook and

Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi, Italian Altarpieces 1250-1550,

Clarendon Press, Oxford, 201-30.

Schweiker, W., 2003, Humanity Before God: Theological Humanism

from a Christian Perspective, Martin Marty Center, Web Forum,

URL:

<https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/imce/p

dfs/webforum/102003/Schweiker%20essay.pdf> [Accessed 25

November 2014]

34

Sloyan, G. S., 1995, The Crucifixion of Jesus, History, Myth, Faith,

MN: Fortress Press

Steinberg, L., 1996, The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and

Modern Oblivion, 2nd ed., Chicago and London: University of

Chicago Press

The Holy Bible: New King James Version, 1982, Nashville

et al.: Thomas Nelson, Inc., print

Vasari, G., 1965, Lives of the Artists, George Bull, trans.,

Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd

Warner, M., 1985, Alone of All Her Sex: The myth and the cult of the

Virgin Mary, Picador Ed., London: Pan Books Lrd.,

White, J., 1993, Art and Architecture in Italy, 1250-1400, 3rd ed.,

London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Zimmermann, J., 2012, Incarnational Humanism: A Philosophy of

Culture for the Church in the World, IL: InterVarsity Press

35

Images

Fig. 1.0, Bernardo Daddi, The Crucifixion and Saints, c.1348,The Courtauld Gallery, London, Source: author’s own photo

36

Fig. 1.1, Bernardo Daddi, The Crucifixion and Saints, c.1348,detail, The Courtauld Gallery, London, Source:

http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/images/gallery/6c8a9d83.html

Fig. 1.2, Bernardo Daddi, The Crucifixion and Saints, c.1348,detail, The Courtauld Gallery, London, Source:

http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/images/gallery/6c8a9d83.html

37

Fig. 2.0, Jacopo di Cione, The Crucifixion, 1369-70, NationalGallery, London, Source:

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/jacopo-di-cione-the-crucifixion

38

Fig. 2.1, detail of Fig. 2.0

Fig. 2.2, detail of Fig, 2.0

39

Fig. 2.3, detail of Fig. 2.0

40

Fig. 2.4, detail of Fig. 2.0

41

Fig. 3.0, Masaccio, Polyptych of Santa Maria del Carmine in Pisa(partial reconstruction of discovered panels), 1426,

various locations, Source:http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/giorgio.vasari/masaccio/masa

cc21.jpg

42

Fig. 3.1, Masaccio, Polyptych of Santa Maria del Carmine in Pisa:Crucifixion, 1426, Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Italy,

Source:http://www.poderesantapia.com/images/art/masaccio/crucifi

x700.jpg

43

Fig. 3.2, Piero della Francesca, Polyptych of Misericordia:Crucifixion, c. 1448, Sansepolcro, Museo Civico, Italy,

Source:

44

http://www.poderesantapia.com/images/art/pierodellafrancesca/misericordiacrucifix700.jpg

Fig. 4.0, Francesco Pesellino completed by Fra FilippoLippi and his workshop, Pistoia Santa Trinità Altarpiece, 1455-60,

National Gallery, London, Source:http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/francesco-

pesellino-and-fra-filippo-lippi-and-workshop-the-pistoia-santa-trinita-altarpiece

45

Fig. 4.1, detail of Fig. 4.0

46

47

Fig 5.0, Michelangelo, Crucifix, 1496, Santa Maria del SantoSpirito, Florence, Source:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Installazione_florens_2012_crocifisso_michelangelo_01.JPG

48

Fig. 5.1, Brunelleschi, Crucifix, 1412-13, Gondi Chapel ofSanta Maria Novella, Florence, Source:

http://www.wga.hu/art/b/brunelle/crucifix.jpg

49

Fig. 5.2, detail of Fig. 5.0

50

Fig. 5.3, Michelangelo, Entombment, 1500-01, NationalGallery, London, Source:

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/michelangelo-the-entombment

51

52

Fig. 5.4, Michelangelo, Risen Christ, 1514-20, Santa Mariasopra Minerva, Rome, Source:

http://bilder.poster.net/LRG/14/1452/BBSR000Z.jpg

53

Fig. 6.0, Raphael, Mond Crucifixion, 1502-03, NationalGallery, London, Source:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/CrocefissioneRaffaello.jpg

54

Fig. 6.1, detail of Fig. 6.0

55

Fig. 6.2, Perugino, Galitzin-Triptych, c.1485, NationalGallery of Art, Washington, Source:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Perugino_-

_The_Crucifixion_with_the_Virgin,_Saints_John,_Jerome,_and_Mary_Magdalene_-_Galitzin-Triptych.jpg

56

Fig. 6.3, detail of Fig. 6.2

57

Fig. 6.4, detail of Fig. 6.2

Fig. 6.5, detail of Fig. 6.2

58

Fig. 6.6, detail of Fig. 6.0

59

Fig. 6.7, Raphael, Madonna di Loreto, 1509-10, Musée Condéof Chantilly, France, Source:

http://allart.biz/up/photos/album/R/Raphael%20Sanzio/raphael_40_madonna_of_loreto.jpg

60

Fig. 6.8, detail of Fig. 6.0

61