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
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. 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 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. 5.3, Michelangelo, Entombment, 1500-01, NationalGallery, London, Source:
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/michelangelo-the-entombment
51
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. 6.2, 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. 6.7, 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
Top Related