Version classiqueVersion mobile

Gallucci’s Commentary on Dürer’s ’Four Books on Human Proportion’

 | 
Giovanni Paolo Gallucci

On the Symmetry of Human Bodies

Life of Albrecht Dürer

Texte intégral

  • 1 Hippocrates, On Regimen in Acute Diseases (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2010), 1: 25.1 (...)
  • 2 Euclid, Elements, transl. Thomas L. Heath (Sante Fe, NM: Green Lion Press, 2002), Book 4; The physi (...)
  • 3 Holy Roman Emperors Maximilian I (1459–1519) and Charles V (1500–1558).
  • 4 Written by Johannes Michael Nagonius, the Italian poet had been called to glorify other European ru (...)
  • 5 Antiquity held four categories of the visual arts, which included sculpture (e.g. relief and three- (...)
  • 6 Though most famously cited from Horace’s Ars Poetica, the oft-repeated Renaissance axiom “Poema pic (...)
  • 7 Pausanias, Description of Greece, transl. W. H. S. Jones (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; (...)
  • 8 “Give me leisure, and leisure such as once Maecenas provided for Flaccus and his own Virgil; then w (...)
  • 9 “I’ll fuck the pair of you as you prefer it,
    Oral Aurelius, anal Furius,
    Who read my verses but mis (...)
  • 10 Cicero, De Officiis libri tre, ed. Paolo Fideli (Florence: A. Mondadori, 1973), 1.2–3; Cicero, De r (...)
  • 11 Willibald Pirkheimer (1470–1530) was a German humanist and friend of Albrecht Dürer who is generall (...)
  • 12 The artist had died before publication of his Four Books could be completed in 1528: Albrecht Dürer (...)

1We know that our Albrecht has ancient origins and that his ancestors came to live in Germany from Hungary. We will not spend a long time speaking of his origins, nor about his ancestors, because even though they were esteemed and honorable, they, nevertheless, received more glory from him than they had bequeathed to him. Nature gave him such an admirable body for its proportions and stature, which perfectly accommodated the beautiful soul harbored in him, so that his righteousness could not be forgotten. All this was famously discussed by Hippocrates, who noted that the soul of the ridiculous monkey is given an equally ridiculous body; likewise, singular minds are given equally appropriate bodies.1 He had a sharp head, resplendent eyes, and a honest nose, which the Greeks called Τετράγονον ( “four-angled”), as well as a very long neck, broad chest, moderate stomach, vascular thighs, stable legs, and fingers such that you could not see a more beautiful thing.2 He had so much suavity and grace in speaking that listeners never wanted to see the end. He did not learn from letters, but rather studied the natural sciences and mathematics, which he learned together with the former, and because he understood these fundamental principles, he was able to explain their effects and clarify them with words. His writings in The Four Books of Human Proportion, wanting for nothing that he left out of his writing, provide full testimony to this. He had such an adoration for the honest life and lived with such excellent habits that he was deservedly reputed to have an irreproachable life. Moreover, he was not overly severe or hateful, and, although he was old, he never really despised those things belonging to suavity and cheerfulness, such as exercising the body or enjoying music, nor was he ever distant from what was right or honest. But above all other things, Nature made him for painting. Thus, he put all his effort in that study, and he principally labored to see and learn about the famous painters who lived in every place, to understand the reasons behind their works, and to imitate the works he considered worthy. He acquired the favor and generosity of kings and princes: in particular that of Maximilian and his grandson Charles Augustus, obtaining from them a respectable salary.3 As his skills developed with maturity, his sublime genius would be known from his own works, together with his great love for the virtues of life. Therefore, he made only great things of praiseworthy subjects. There are the Encomia of Maximilian and the immortal works of the History of Astronomy, from which one can conclude that, without mentioning other things, there is no praise or work by the ancient painters or from our age that would not desire to be called his.4 It is certain that no sign whatsoever in nature is more certain or truer than the works made by his art. Now these [works] are of two types which exceed all others in this way, and that almost seem to come from the workshop of nature herself. These are the ones who imitate the appearance of things either with their hands or through speech. This first one, [which uses speech, ] has the name of Poetry; the other has no proper universal name; it is divided into four parts, statues, painting, sculpture, and architecture.5 Now as the focus of our research we shall speak of painting, which some call Greek poetry that does not speak,6 and the place it holds within these most highly regarded four. We will judge that whatever is true for painters and their works is also true for poets and their writings, which is to say that Polygnotus painted that which was best and Pausias the worst.7 Who does not know from this that one was a high-minded genius, while the other a humble fool? Martial says that if he had had Maecenas, then he would have been as famous as Marsus but never Virgil, but let him be the judge of that.8 This has thus never been wished by anyone who has read his singular verses not only in that genre of the Epigrams but also in that other where not only abilities are weak before greater things, but also where everything is alien from them, and some things appear also ugly and dishonest. For that I cannot help but remember, with a smile on my face, the sentence of Catullus which states that the pious poet must be chaste, but not his verses.9 In fact, he did not intend that what was shamed in words would be foreign from verse. Now, we leave the poets. How many poets have there been, or better still, among all painters how many have there been who do not show their own nature in their works? I will not speak of the ancients and instead provide examples from our own times. Who does not know that many have sought to achieve the praise and admiration of the masses by painting strange things, people who printed on plates or paper those things that cannot be created honestly, but cannot be concealed either, indeed, that cannot be made secretly without wickedness and defamation? We have also seen some very well painted works where the painter’s ingenuity and diligence is perceived, yet where all art is lacking. In this place we will, therefore, reasonably admire Albrecht Dürer, most diligent guardian of piety and shame, who attended to the greatness of paintings knowing very well how much his own efforts would be valued, for not even in his lesser works is there anything to be denigrated. One cannot find a single line drawn without a reason, either of his own volition or external suggestion. What should I say about the firmness and certainty of his hand: everyone would swear that the lines he made with paintbrush or pen would have been traced using the ruler, or triangle, or compass. But because they were made without any help, they gave great astonishment to those who saw them. What can I say about those figures that he often drew with pen on paper to give shape to those things that frequently came in his mind? In this case, his viewers must have seen as a marvel his creative force, by which he made parts of stories and bodies so distant so developed and connected together that nothing more accommodating or appropriate could be found. This is because the mind of a singular creator, adorned with every cognition and an understanding of truth, and enjoying consensus between the parts moderated, rewards what is wanted by the hand, which is trusted without any other support. He had the same agility in holding the paintbrush, with which he painted the most minuscule things on canvas and panel without having first made sketches beforehand. Those works were, nevertheless, made in such a way that they could not be condemned for that, but they were deserving of praise. Many times this seemed deserving of great praise and astonished painters worthy of great honors who would, nevertheless, have found themselves lacking however much they toiled at it. Here, I cannot help but relate what happened between him and Giovanni Bellini. Giovanni Bellini was a famous painter in Venice and the whole of Italy when Albrecht arrived, and, having become familiar with him, as usually happens, the two showed multiple works to each other. Albrecht admired and sincerely praised all of the works by Giovanni Bellini; in the same fashion, Bellini ingenuously praised all of the other things, but especially the sharpness of the hair seen in the works of Albrecht. Once, as the two were finishing speaking about art, Bellini said: “Would you be such a good friend to do a favor for a friend of yours?” [Dürer replied] “If you ask me something that I can, dear Bellini, I will honor it.” “I would like to have as a gift from you,” said Bellini, “one of these paintbrushes, with which you usually paint hair.” Then Albrecht, without hesitation, got out many paintbrushes, the same as those Bellini had been using, and told him to choose the one that he wished to have, if he did not want to take them all. Bellini then, thinking he was being cheated, said: “I was not talking about these, but those that you usually use to make many strands of hair with a single stripe, or many strands that need to be scattered and rather far apart, because, otherwise, it would not be possible to conserve such equivalence in the bend or distance.” Then Albrecht responded: “I use no others but these, and I will show you this with an example.” At once he picked up one of those paintbrushes and made very long and wavy [locks of] hair, as in particular can be seen in depictions of women, in such a steadfast manner that Bellini became so astonished, that he later told many people he would have never believed the story told by any man had he not seen it with his own eyes. The same praises were given by Andrea Mantegna himself, a man of singular genius, who had been raised in Mantua, and developed painting with a certain degree of severity and rule. He was certainly the first who deserved this praise, providing the art of statuary as an example that he had obtained even though these were scattered in many places or destroyed. Surely, his works are hard and rigid, since he does not have a hand accustomed to obeying the intelligence and alacrity of the soul. Regardless, it is held that art cannot find anything better than what he made. [Andrea], therefore, finding himself based in Mantua and hearing that Albrecht found himself in Italy, used every talent to get him there so that he could impart his security and the certainty of his art with his cognition and with the same art technique. He had, in fact, often complained in his own private conversations that he did not have Albrecht’s talent nor his knowledge of science. Without wasting any time, after this was told to him, Albrecht immediately started traveling, but Andrea died before he was able to reach Mantua. The event was so maddening that he used to say that nothing that had ever happened to him in his entire life bothered him as much. Therefore, although Albrecht was held in highest esteem, and despite his great and noble soul, he always wished to be something better. We were amazed to see an image of man made by him on canvas made directly with the paintbrush, as we said, without any line made beforehand on the ground; the strands of the beard are almost as long as an arm and are drawn so exquisitely, and with such liveliness and such proportional distance between them that the more some people knew of art, the more astounded they were and the more incredible it seemed to them knowing that he did not trace them with the help of anything but his hands. In addition, nothing in his works is dirty or ugly, the thoughts of his innocent soul ridding all of such things. Oh, creator, worthy of such success! How mimetic, infallible, and truthful, were the portraits of living people he made? This was due to the fact that he would draw from the experience of art and intellect, which was not yet understood by painters, especially not by those of our time. Accordingly, who is among these who believes the reason his work receives great praise is due to random chance rather than science? But our Albrecht had all of these things set and ready, because he had brought precepts to painting and the reason for the doctrine, without which, as Cicero warns, something good made with however much help from doctrine, nevertheless cannot always be ready if made by chance.10 These are the things in which he trained, and in order to have the most liberal and sincere nature, he explained in writing to the most illustrious and cultured man, Willibald Pirckheimer, to whom he dedicated a most sincere letter that we did not wish to translate into Latin, knowing our weakness in translating it from its natural purity.11 But before he could accomplish everything, and leave them in the correct light, he died a peaceful and desirable death; but, in my opinion, this was somehow bittersweet. In this man was infinite diligence; if we want to see in him something wicked, he did not inquire the same of others. Death took him from us when he had begun to print this work, which, nevertheless, his friends completed in the way he had imposed.12

Notes

1 Hippocrates, On Regimen in Acute Diseases (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2010), 1: 25.1–2; A similar quote found its way into innumerable Renaissance commentaries from Juvenal: “Mens sana in corpore sano” ( “a healthy mind in a healthy body”). Juvenal, Satires, ed. Richard George (St. Albans: Baikal, 2012), 10.356; For a discussion on the Renaissance discourse on apes and “aping,” see John Jefferies Martin, The Renaissance World (New York; London: Routledge, 2007), 416.

2 Euclid, Elements, transl. Thomas L. Heath (Sante Fe, NM: Green Lion Press, 2002), Book 4; The physiognomic reading here can be understood to communicate the strength of Dürer’s character for those “that have well-jointed, sinewy and strong legs, are strong in character…” (Pseudo-Aristotle, Physiognomics, 6.1–30; Aristotle, Minor Works, transl. Hett, 110–112).

3 Holy Roman Emperors Maximilian I (1459–1519) and Charles V (1500–1558).

4 Written by Johannes Michael Nagonius, the Italian poet had been called to glorify other European rulers. Here he argues for Maximilian’s elevation to emperor in three books of panegyric poems. Francis Wormald, “An Italian Poet at the Court of Henry VII,” Journal of Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 14 (1951), 118–119, https://doi.org/10.2307/750355; Matthias Ringmann, Cosmographiae Introductio (1507) and Sebastian Münster, Cosmographia (1544).

5 Antiquity held four categories of the visual arts, which included sculpture (e.g. relief and three-dimensional), painting (e.g. murals, tempera), statues (e.g. portrait busts), and architecture.

6 Though most famously cited from Horace’s Ars Poetica, the oft-repeated Renaissance axiom “Poema pictura loquens, pictura poema silens” ( “poetry is a speaking picture, painting a silent [mute] poetry”) is first recorded by Plutarch. Plutarch, De gloria Atheniensium, ed. C. J. Thiolier (Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1985), 3.347a. See Rensselaer Lee, Ut Pictura Poesis: The Humanistic Theory of Painting (New York: W. W. Norton, 1967).

7 Pausanias, Description of Greece, transl. W. H. S. Jones (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1918), 10.25–31.

8 “Give me leisure, and leisure such as once Maecenas provided for Flaccus and his own Virgil; then would I essay to build up works that should live throughout ages, and to rescue my name from the fire. Into unfruitful fields steers care not to bear the yoke; a fat soil wearies, but the very labour delights.” Martial, Epigrams, ed. and transl. Gideon Nisbet (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 1.107.

9 “I’ll fuck the pair of you as you prefer it,
Oral Aurelius, anal Furius,
Who read my verses but misread their author:
You think that I’m effeminate, since they are!
Purity’s proper in the godly poet,
But it’s unnecessary in his verses,
Which really should be saucy & seductive,
Even salacious in a girlish manner
And capable of generating passion
Not just in boys, but in old men who’ve noticed
Getting a hard-on has been getting harder!
But you, because my poems beg for kisses,
Thousands of kisses, you think I’m a fairy!
I’ll fuck the pair of you as you prefer it.”
Gaius Valerius Catullus, The Poems of Catullus, transl. Charles Martin (Baltimore, MD: John’s Hopkins University Press, 1990), 16.

10 Cicero, De Officiis libri tre, ed. Paolo Fideli (Florence: A. Mondadori, 1973), 1.2–3; Cicero, De re publica, ed. Günter Laser (Stuttgart: Reclam, 2014), 1.1.1–2.2.

11 Willibald Pirkheimer (1470–1530) was a German humanist and friend of Albrecht Dürer who is generally credited with bolstering the artist’s Classical shortcomings. Corine Schleif, “Albrecht Dürer between Agnes Frey and Willibald Pirckheimer,” The Essential Dürer, ed. Larry Silver and Jeffrey Chipps Smith (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), 85–205; Giulia Bartrum, ed., Albrecht Dürer and His Legacy: The Graphic Work of a Renaissance Artist (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).

12 The artist had died before publication of his Four Books could be completed in 1528: Albrecht Dürer, Vier Bücher von menschlicher Proportion (Nuremberg: Hieronymous Andreae, 1528).

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search