In
“Giorgione’s Tempest”, famed Italian art historian Salvatore Settis discussed
practically every important commentary on Giorgione’s most beautiful, famous,
and mysterious painting. The book was first published in 1978 but I use the
1990 English version published by the University of Chicago Press. To assist
the reader Settis provided a convenient chart that listed 28 different
commentators who had produced a total of 25 different interpretations of the
subject.
Settis
compared the painting to a jigsaw puzzle and argued that any interpretion must
identify all the pieces of the puzzle and fit them easily together. In his chart
he identified the pieces as the Man, the Woman, the child, the lightning, the
pillars, the serpent, the city, and the bather seen only by x-ray. Actually, it
would take a great deal of imagination to see a serpent, and it would probably
have been better if he had used the prominent plant in front of the woman.
Also, he did not include the bird on the roof in the backround as one of the
pieces. Obviously, a pentimento like the bather can not be part of the completed puzzle.
Interestingly,
hardly any of the commentators tried to identify all of the pieces of the
puzzle, much less fit them together. Settis, himself, tried to fit them all
together in his interpretation of the painting as Adam and Eve after their
expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Perhaps this is why he saw a serpent rather
than a plant root in the painting.
The
Adam and Eve interpretation met the same fate as all the other interpretations
mentioned in the book. It was rejected by leading scholars and has never gained
wide acceptance. Since the book’s publication many other interpretations have
been proposed especially after Giorgione’s fame grew immensely as the five
hundredth anniversary of his death approached in 2010. In 2004 a groundbreaking
exhibition jointly sponsored by the Accademia in Venice and the
Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna produced a catalog that offered at least three
competing interpretations of the Tempest. The editors of the catalog had to
admit that the painting was still as mysterious as ever.
One
of the interpreters listed by Settis was Robert Eisler, an outsider to the art
history world. In 1935 Eisler tried to identify the subject of the painting as
the discovery of the infant Paris by a shepherd and his wife. Settis described
the attempts of Eisler to penetrate the world of Art History.
It is impossible not to feel a certain sympathy for this scholar (1882-1949), who never taught and never managed to publish his book New Titles for Old Pictures, part of which was devoted to Giorgione. (After Richter dated it with a reference ‘London, 1935’ it was quoted by a long line of scholars as though it were a published work!) After various adversities, one of which was a long imprisonment in Nazi camps, Eisler discovered that some of his ideas on Giorgione were beginning to circulate through Richter’s book and attempted to draw attention to this fact in a letter to the Times Literary Supplement (1946). He corrected the proofs but only a third of his letter was finally published… regarding the Tempest, while the rest, on the Three Philosophers, is still unedited… The proposition quoted here is not included in the typescript of the book, and is only formulated in the letter to the Times Literary Supplement. (The Eisler Papers are preserved in the Warburg Insitute, where I was permitted , with a customary perfect courtesy, to examine them at my leisure.*
I
also feel a certain sympathy with Eisler and his efforts. Like Eisler I had a
long and successful career in another field but lacked the credentials and a
certain amount of scholarly expertise. I earned a PhD in History long ago in
the area of eighteenth century British politics. I taught European history at a
local college but left to pursue a career as a financial advisor. Only as I
neared retirement in 2005 did I return to History and come upon Giorgione’s "Tempest" in an old travel book. It was primarily intuition that led me to see
the painting as an idiosyncratic version of “The Rest of the Holy Family on the
Flight into Egypt.”
Subsequent
investigation showed that this interpretation provided an explanation for all
the pieces of the puzzle and fit them together nicely. I sent my interpretation
to most of the leading scholars and institutions in the field but received
little response. Professor Settis was one of a handful who had the kindness and
courtesy to at least respond and offer words of encouragement.
In
2006 I did send an abbreviated version of the "Tempest" essay to the Wall St. Journal for possible
publication in their new weekend Masterpiece column. It was published there on
May 13, 2006. Attempts to publish an expanded version in scholarly journals
came to nothing. In 2010 I did read the paper in a small panel at the annual
meeting of the Renaissance Society of America held that year in Venice.
It
was a nice experience but I realized that I would have to find another way to
get my work out there. It was then that I decided to create my blog, Giorgione
et al… The blog has been relatively successful in that I have met with and
corresponded with interested parties all over the world. However, there is
still a great reluctance on the part of many scholars to use the Internet. Some
have told me that they won’t read anything that appears there. I can understand
a certain level of concern but I imagine the same fears were present 500 years
ago after the advent of the printing press.
Today
marks the eighth anniversary of the publication of my initial brief explanation
of the "Tempest" in the Wall St. Journal. The editor cautiously added the sub-title, "A Renaissance Mystery Solved?" I reproduced it last year on this site. For the full
essay and other papers that have flowed from the realization that the painting had a "sacred" subject, please visit my
website, MyGiorgione.
###
* Salvatore Settis, Giorgione's Tempest, 1990, c. 5, n. 45.
###
* Salvatore Settis, Giorgione's Tempest, 1990, c. 5, n. 45.
No comments:
Post a Comment