Botticelli and Savonarola
When we look at the history of art, oftentimes the story of what happened becomes more fictitious than its origin. In many cases, this is because there is no written record left by the players within the story. In the case of Sandro Botticelli and a Dominican monk named Girolamo Savonarola, their story revolves around hearsay and opinions more than real evidence, which is what makes it so interesting to study.
What’s the story:
In the year 1492, there were many world changing events occurring. For the residents of Florence, their unexpected events consisted of the death of Lorenzo the Magnificient, the leader of the Medici bank and family, as well as the arrival and dissemination of Savonarola’s severe teachings. The Medici family was the unofficial ruling family of Florence and Lorenzo the Magnificent cared deeply about bringing art, literature, and philosophy to the people of Florence. Therefore, he was also the one to introduce Botticelli to Florence, as well as Savonarola. After Lorenzo the Magnificient passed away in 1492 all of the people that were brought to Florence to help it grow culturally were left to continue their work. Savonarola’s work consisted of bringing religious enlightenment to the people of Florence. However, the continuation of that work, especially in the case of Savonarola, was not peaceful nor entirely productive.
Botticelli was one of the many artists the Medici family employed and he produced many of his most well-known works of art under their patronage, such as Primavera [figure 1], which was created as a marriage present for another Lorenzo de Medici. Botticelli was known for creating works that contained mythological characters, instead of the more common religious scenes, in order to better address the lessons and ideas of Neoplatonism that the Medici wanted to portray. Neoplatonism supported the search for the ideal forms of earthly and divine beauty, which was not necessarily linked to religion. Botticelli worked towards the discovery of these ideals, especially in his earlier works.
[figure 1] Primavera, Sandro Botticelli, 1477-1482, Tempera on panel, 80” x 124”, Uffizi Gallery, Florence.
After Lorenzo the Magnificent’s death, Florence began to look for a new leader of the people. At this point, Savonarola’s presence became very convenient. His teachings became more passionate and extreme, which meant he gained more followers looking for someone to stand behind. So, Savonarola became the temporary leader of the Florentine people. Once he had the ears of the people he began to condemn the Medici and any other wealthy family in Florence for their exploitation of their wealth to gain favor with the church. The most common way to do this was by funding art to be put in the churches. Savonarola wanted to discourage the thought that anyone could buy their way in favor of the church or even heaven.
As Savonarola’s grip on Florence tightened, his sermons became even more extreme, to the point where he condemned anyone who had any excess possessions. This included the wealthy, but also anyone who had any form of wealth at all. To put his sermons to the test, he called for the Bonfire of the Vanities where everyone was encouraged to bring their riches (e.g. paintings, fancy clothing, mirrors, gold, and so on) and burn them. Many people participated in The Bonfire of the Vanities because whether they wanted to participate or not, no one wanted to be an outcast for not burning their vanities.
One of Savonarola’s most targeted areas to attach was art because it cost a large amount of money and was often commissioned by the wealthiest of families. On top of that, the scenes portrayed were often not very religious in appearance or nature. This is where Botticelli and Savonarola intersect. Botticelli primarily painted Neoplatonic subjects, as was previously mentioned, which was not at all cohesive with the teachings that Savonarola was spreading in Florence. So where did that leave Botticelli?
Botticelli in the time of Savonarola:
Art historians have continued to ponder over Savonarola’s influence on Botticelli’s late-career because until Savonarola came to Florence, Botticelli’s style was mostly uniform in his use of Neoplatonic themes. However, once Savonarola began to preach in Florence, we can see a change in Boticelli’s work from Neoplatonic to more religious and mystical themes.
We can track these changes through three specific works; Primavera [figure 1], Calumny of Apelles [figure 2], and Mystic Nativity [figure 3]. These works range from Neoplatonic ideals portrayed through bright colors, dynamic figures, and intricate details to religious and mythical themes with subdued colors, distant scenes, and less focus on features and details.
[figure 2] Calumny of Apelles, Sandro Botticelli, 1494-1495, Tempera on panel, 24” x 36”, Uffizi Gallery, Florence
[figure 3] Mystic Nativity, Sandro Botticelli, 1500-1501, Oil on canvas, 42.7” x 29.5”, National Gallery, London
In Primavera, we see a scene that is clearly Neoplatonic in the way that it uses characters from Greek mythology to represent the positive aspects of marriage that it was made to celebrate. From left to right, we have Hermes or Mercury, the three graces, Venus or Aphrodite, and Flora who is the transformation of the Nymph Chloris (standing behind her) after her marriage to Zephyrus. Above the scene is Cupid, who is preparing to shoot an arrow at one of the graces who was modeled after the bride-to-be. There is much more to be interpreted from this work, but for the time being, we will just focus on the fact that this painting was meant to signify love and beauty. This painting has also occasionally been interpreted from a more religious view, with Venus being the Virgin Mary instead of the goddess.
Calumny of Apelles functions as a midway point between Neoplatonism and Mysticism in Botticelli’s career because, although there is mythological symbolism present, the moralizing theme of this work radiates through the flatness of the picture plane and the attention to the expression of the characters over the color and other details. Calumny of Apelles presents a scene in which an artist is being accused of conspiracy against a king. The painter Apelles is being dragged through the scene, and although this is not a specific religious scene, the painter does appear to be a Christ-like figure in the way that he is praying and being brought to face a ruler on unfair accusations. Like Primavera, there are many more things to interpret but the most important takeaway is that there are no clearly identified mythological figures in this work and the meaning of the work is much more clear and aligned with Savonarola’s teachings.
Then, Mystic Nativity, unlike the other two paintings, is often seen as a step back from the advances of the Renaissance because it has no sense of dimension or space. The work is also clearly religious because it depicts the nativity scene. There are no mythological characters present. It takes on mystic themes because there seem to be no boundaries between the earth and heaven. Botticelli in this case seems to want to show how the earth and heaven can connect when people commit to religious life. This is the conclusion of the evolution towards more religious work, and it is clearly only that.
Now, you may think that we can clearly see that Savonarola influenced Botticelli’s work. However, that may not have been the case. There are a few other reasons why Botticelli could have adapted his style. The first being that Botticelli wanted to remain employed, so, he continued to create his work, but in the style that would appeal to his audience. Botticelli could have also decided to continue his work in spite of Savonarola’s teachings by creating works that appeared to be more religious in nature but still contained some Neoplatonic ideas. Or, Botticelli could have taken Savonarola’s teachings to hear completely and actively changed his style ot show his support for the religious changes in Florence.
One thing we do know for sure is that Botticelli knew who Savonarola was and paid attention to his sermons. Although the closest records we have to prove this only come from two sources, Vasari’s Lives of the Artists and a journal entry from Botticelli’s brother. Unfortunately, we can’t concretely conclude Botticelli’s change in style from either of these sources, but they do help us to know that Botticelli was actively making a decision to change his style.
Why is it important to art history:
The lack of clarity in Botticelli’s situation makes for interesting possibilities that will continue to be speculated by art historians, even if there is not much of an answer, which is why it’s so important to art history. Knowing that there will not be a concrete answer forces us to backtrack and establish what we can be sure about during the Renaissance, in this case. We know that creating art was a reliable income as long as you had a secure patron. Therefore we know that Botticelli would have been in a state of flux after Lorenzo the Magnificent died because he no longer had his patron. However, Botticelli was enough of an established artist that he definitely could have chosen to retire and stop making art, or find a patron that would support his art regardless of the subject. That is what makes this situation, specifically, so important.
Why would an artist choose to jeopardize their own style when they did not have to?
How can you form your own perspective:
First, always ask why an artist does anything. That is what this story teaches us. If we do not ask why in situations like this we never learn more and we certainly do not get such an interesting discussion of possibilities.
So, why do you think Botticelli changed his style? Was it because he wanted to, or was he trying to preserve his style. Maybe it was for some other reason that we have not even considered yet.
We can’t prove in any way what the answer to this question is, but it is important to consider the why in art history. “Why” often leads us to deeper discovery and understanding that we would not have had otherwise.
