Piero's Light

by Larry Witham

  Today, there are experts who recognize the Platonic solutions to many anomalies of knowledge. The British mathematician, physicist, and philosopher of science Alfred North Whitehead famously said that all of Western philosophy “consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.”13 In this, Whitehead was writing for a somewhat specialized audience. Even so, perhaps a majority of the general public in the Western world has adopted the Platonic solution without knowing of such a legacy. Even the common man, if required to choose a position, is caught in the great philosophical debate that has traditionally been called the choice between philosophical Realism and philosophical Idealism: is Nature all there is, or is there something tran­scen­dent beyond Nature?14

  At this level of reflection, the Platonist outlook has been called a kind of middle path, a form of intellectual modesty and moderation.15 It has also proved remarkably useful to the modern world. The founding principles of the United States are one example. It is true that Thomas Jefferson admired the Greek Realists with their materialism and their atoms.16 The Sage of Monticello was particularly drawn to the Epicurean strain of Renaissance thought, and some interpreters have found this reflected in the Declaration of Independence’s insistence on the “pursuit of happiness.”17 At another level, the American founders also believed in eternal ideals. These came from “Nature’s God,” as they put it.18 We might as well say that they were Platonists, and this more than Epicureans.

  Since the times of Piero, Platonism has offered a pathway through the great debates over art, religion, and science. It is a path filled with the pitfalls of dialectical thinking and the limits Platonism puts on ultimate human knowledge. Being of this nature, the Platonist outlook requires a kind of “faith” in the first principles of both religion and science. In the arts it requires a willing belief that we are responding to some kind of universal intuitions about beauty; in science it has been a faith in the rationality of the universe. The very definitions of art, religion, and science will therefore remain imprecise (as they indubitably have remained), not always sharing the same methodology of investigation, but frequently overlapping as forms of human perception. For example, the debate on defining “art” has become so problematic that the topic has shifted to the value of art: what is it good for in satisfying and nurturing the human mind? According to Platonism and neuro­science, art speaks to the brain’s search for constants and essences.19

  By putting Piero della Fran­cesca at the fountain­head of these great issues since the Renaissance, this book has engaged in an imaginative and constructive process. Yet this is what the life of a fascinating individual can do, especially in the context of a fascinating time, the Italian Renaissance. This also is one way to flesh out that great and much-contested claim by the Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt, that the Italian Renaissance was a turning point, a period that “must be called the leader of modern ages.”20 Piero reminds us of that possibility. This is Piero’s light. Like his paintings, the Renaissance and the wisdom of Platonism suggest a kind of imperfect, yet hopeful, earthly salvation. They remind us, as do the Renaissance paintings of a sacra conversazione, that we still are having a “sacred conversation” on what may lie beyond.

  Acknowledgments

  As I began this project, I came upon a comment by the scholar of Piero and late medieval Italian culture James R. Banker: “The extraordinary number of publications on Piero della Fran­cesca presents scholars with the difficult problem of mastering the literature on this painter.” How true this is, especially for a writer who does not know Italian (or Latin). I was equally horrified by the pithy comment of art scholar Caroline Elam: “The bibliography on Piero is now gigantic.” If this were not enough, one could argue that it is absurd to even try to write a book on Piero without being able to read in Italian the basic compilation of all documents related to him, Eugenio Battisti’s Piero della Fran­cesca (Florence, 1971, 1992), which I could indeed peruse, but certainly could not read in full comprehension.

  I am therefore indebted to tireless Piero researchers who have presented overviews and detailed studies of Piero in English. I have essentially built this book on Banker’s The Culture of San Sepolcro (2003)—with its early-dating thesis—and then shaped it under the guidance of Piero volumes by Roberto Longhi, Marilyn Aronberg Lavin, Bruce Cole, Kenneth Clark, John Pope-Hennessy, Carlo Ginzburg, Creighton Gilbert, Philip Hendy, Nathan Silver, and many others. In early 2013, the Frick Collection in New York City held an exhibition, “Piero della Fran­cesca in America,” published a catalog, and sponsored four scholarly lectures. My book has benefited greatly from these public programs, especially by way of updating the most recent scholarship among connoisseurs and experts.

  For art, science, and mathematics, I have relied a great deal on the work of Martin Kemp, Margaret Daly Davis, Judith V. Field, and Mark Peterson; and when it comes to the debate on optics and perspective in Renaissance art, the number of contributors, too, is “extraordinary,” in particular Samuel Y. Edgerton, John White, James Elkins, B. A. R. Carter, David C. Lindberg, and others. James Banker looked over some of my draft material, and Frank Dabell was particularly helpful in granting a long overseas telephone interview. I would also like to thank Marina Laguzzi of the State Archive in Florence; Silke Reuther, biographer of Ernst Harzen; Pergiacomo Petrioli, biographer of Gaetano Milanesi; and art historian Philip Jacks for replies to my inquiries.

  Following my journalist’s instinct, I really began this project by requesting an interview with a Renaissance expert, Bruce Cole, to gain some perspective on the field. As early versions of the manuscript were minimally coherent, I sent samples to generous academic reviewers. My mixing of philosophy with art history—and my search for a simple theme to expand on Piero’s meaning beyond art history—were met with a healthy dose of skepticism, but did elicit exceedingly helpful remarks. For these I would like to thank Kerr Houston, John T. Paoletti, John Hendrix, and Mark Peterson.

  The views taken in this book, or any errors in thinking, are meanwhile entirely my own. My appreciation goes also to Alban and Mary Mullaj for some Italian translation, and to the helpful staffs at the University of Maryland libraries, the Library of Congress, the Catholic University of America Mullen Library, the Getty Research Institute Library, and the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute. Thanks also to my agent Laurie Abkemeier and my editor at Pegasus Books, Jessica Case.

  Image Gallery

  The Baptism of Christ, done with tempera on wood, may be Piero’s first major work, begun in 1438. Measuring about 4 feet by 5½ feet, it has been a public favorite at the National Gallery, London, since the 1860s. © National Gallery, London/Art Resource, NY.

  The Misericordia Altarpiece, a classic polyptych, was commissioned in 1445. The stoic Mary at center, compared to the expressive Crucifixion at the top, reveals Piero’s future choice of a monumental style. The panels total about 9 feet by 10½ feet, and the work is on museum display in Sansepolcro, Piero’s home town.

  The Flagellation of Christ may be Piero’s most mathematical work. Done with tempera on wood, it could have decorated a household chest (cassone) or an altar, and measures just 23¼ inches by 32 inches. The human figures have intrigued interpreters for centuries.

  Piero’s Resurrection fresco, which has survived whitewash and wartime bombings, was done for the city hall of Sanespolcro, whose name means “holy sepulcher.” Aldous Huxley called it “the best picture in the world.” It measures about 6½ feet by 7½ feet.

  The left wall of the choir of San Francesco Church, Arezzo, towers three stories high with the fresco cycle Legend of the True Cross. Each scene measures 11 feet by 24 feet. Begun around 1452, Piero finished in the 1460s. Its total restoration was celebrated in 2000.

  In this detail of Adoration of the Sacred Wood and the Meeting of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, Piero presents the exotic royalty of a queen. This detail from the right wall of San Francesco Church, Arezzo, is itself about 11 feet by 12 feet.

  In this detail from Dis
covery and Proving of the True Cross at Arezzo, Piero incorporates a number of architectural features being used in the classical revival around Renaissance Italy. His emphasis is on linear perspective and perfect Platonic shapes.

  The English connoisseur Kenneth Clark praised Piero’s colors and shapes in this detail from Battle of Constantine, Arezzo, speaking of its Platonic idealization.

  The Saint Anthony Altarpiece, which Piero did for a convent in Perugia, is not only unusually tall, but employs highly sophisticated perspective in the top panel (which was cut to a point by later owners). It rises 11 feet high and is 7½ feet wide.

  Piero may have painted this portrait of Battista (Sforza) Montefeltro, who faces husband Federico in a diptych, soon after her death in 1472. Completed in oil and tempera on a panel of about 13 inches by 18½ inches, its home has long been the Uffizi Gallery, Florence.

  Piero’s diptych of Federico da Montefeltro is an icon of Renaissance imagery. A single landscape falls behind the duke and countess, and on the diptych’s back is Piero’s narrative of their “triumphs.” The portraits share a single gold frame in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence.

  The pregnant Madonna del Parto, attended by mirror-image angels, is a fresco painted behind a freestanding altar. It is about 6½ feet by 8½ feet, and still occupies a rural cemetery chapel outside Monterchi, the home town of Piero’s mother.

  The Brera Altarpiece (of Federico Montefeltro) is Piero’s masterwork in oil. It is named for the Milan museum to which Napoleon’s troops carried it in 1811. Done in remarkable architecture detail, the painting’s hanging ostrich egg has puzzled interpreters for ages.

  Puvis de Chavannes’s 1873 oil painting, Summer (above) and Georges Seurat’s 1885 La Grande Jatte (below) both reflect some of the monumental stillness seen in early Renaissance frescos, especially those by Piero della Francesca. Top image © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY.

  At the École des Beaux Arts in Paris, Paul Cézanne saw a copy of Piero’s Discovery and Proving of the True Cross, with its hillside town (detail, above), which may have inspired his own landscape (below), View of Gardanne, painted around 1886. Bottom image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image source: Art Resource, NY.

  As illustrated in this page from Piero’s second treatise, On Perspective for Painting, Piero gave painters meticulous instruction in how to draw various objects in geometrical perspective, including a Corinthian capital.

  Illustration Credits

  The dating of Piero’s life and work varies widely, as do some preferred titles. The dates and names given below come from copyright holders, and may vary from dates or names found in the text of this book. For summary lists of dating options see Marilyn Aronberg Lavin, ed., Piero della Francesca and His Legacy (Washington, D.C. and New Haven: National Gallery of Art/Yale University Press, 1995), 14-16; and James R. Banker, Piero Della Francesca: Artist and Man (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).

  Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). The Baptism of Christ, 1450s. Egg on poplar, 167 x 116 cm. Bought, 1861 (NG665). National Gallery, London, Great Britain © National Gallery, London/Art Resource, NY.

  Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). The Madonna della Misericordia Altarpiece. Pinacoteca Comunale, Sansepolcro, Italy. Photo Credit: Scala/Art Resource, NY.

  Piero della Francesca (1410/20-92). The Flagellation of Christ. Palazzo Ducale, Urbino. Photo Credit: Alfredo Dagli Orti/The Art Archive at Art Resource, NY.

  Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). Resurrection. Christ steps from the tomb while the guards sleep, around 1458. Pinacoteca Comunale, Sansepolcro, Italy. Photo Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY.

  Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). The Legend of the True Cross. ca. 1440-45. Fresco cycle, post-restoration. S. Francesco, Arezzo, Italy. Photo Credit: Nicolo Orsi Battaglini/Art Resource, NY.

  [Detail] Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). Legend of the True Cross: Adoration of the Sacred Piece of Wood and Meeting between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Ca. 1450-1465. Post-restoration. S. Francesco, Arezzo, Italy. Photo Credit: Scala/Ministero per i Beni e le Attività culturali/Art Resource, NY.

  [Detail] Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). Finding of the Three Crosses and the Verification of the True Cross. From the Legend of the True Cross. Fresco. Post-restoration. S. Francesco, Arezzo, Italy. Photo Credit: Scala/Ministero per i Beni e le Attività culturali/Art Resource, NY.

  [Detail] Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). Legend of the True Cross: Battle of Constantine and Maxentius. Ca. 1450-1465. Post-restoration. S. Francesco, Arezzo, Italy. Photo Credit: Scala/Ministero per i Beni e le Attività culturali/Art Resource, NY.

  Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). Saint Anthony Polyptych. Ca. 1470. Oil and tempera on panel, 338 cm x 230 cm (133 in x 91 in). Galleria Nazionale dell’Umbria, Perugia, Italy. Photo Credit: Scala/Ministero per i Beni e le Attività culturali/Art Resource, NY.

  [Detail of Battista] Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). Portrait of Federico da Montefeltro, Duke of Urbino, and Battista Sforza. Ca. 1465. Tempera on wood. Uffizi, Florence, Italy. Photo Credit: Nicolo Orsi Battaglini/Art Resource, NY.

  [Detail of Federico] Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). Portrait of Federico da Montefeltro, Duke of Urbino, and Battista Sforza. Ca. 1465. Tempera on wood. Uffizi, Florence, Italy. Photo Credit: Nicolo Orsi Battaglini/Art Resource, NY.

  Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). The Madonna del parto (Virgin with two angels). Ca. 1460. Fresco, 260 x 203 cm. Post-restoration. Cappella del Cimitero, Monterchi, Italy. Photo Credit: Scala/Art Resource, NY.

  Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). Sacra Conversazione: Madonna and Child with Federico da Montefeltro. Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan, Italy. Photo Credit: Nimatallah / Art Resource, NY.

  Puvis de Chavannes, Pierre (1824-1898). Summer (L’Eté), 1873. Oil on canvas, 305 x 507 cm. RF1986-20. Photo: Jean Schormans. Musee d’Orsay, Paris, France. © RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY.

  Seurat, Georges. A Sunday afternoon on the Island of the Grande Jatte. 1884, 1884-86. Oil on canvas, 81 3/4 x 1211/4 in. (207.5 x 308.1 cm). Helen Birch Bartlett Memorial Collection, 1926.224. Art Institute, Chicago, IL, U.S.A. Photo Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY.

  Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). Detail. Finding of the Three Crosses and the Verification of the True Cross. From the Legend of the True Cross. Fresco. Post-restoration. S. Francesco, Arezzo, Italy. Photo Credit: Scala/Ministero per i Beni e le Attività culturali/Art Resource, NY.

  Cézanne, Paul (1839-1906). Gardanne. 1885-86. Oil on canvas, 311/2 x 251/4 in. (80 x 64.1 cm). Gift of Dr. and Mrs. Franz H. Hirschland, 1957 (57.181). © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image source: Art Resource, NY.

  Piero della Francesca (c. 1420-1492). De prospectiva pingendi: page with perspective drawing of a corinthian capital. Folio 57. Biblioteca Palatina, Parma, Italy. Photo Credit: Scala / Art Resource, NY.

  Notes

  ABBREVIATIONS

  css James R. Banker, The Culture of San Sepolcro During the Youth of Piero della Fran­cesca (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003).

  pdf Roberto Longhi, Piero della Fran­cesca, ed. and trans. David Tabbat (Riverdale-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Stanley Moss-Sheep Meadow Book, 2002).

  pdfsa Marisa Dalai Emiliani e Valter Curzi, eds., Piero della Fran­cesca tra arte e scienza: atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Arezzo, 8-11 ottobre 1992, San­sepol­cro, 12 ottobre (Venezia: Marsilio, 1996).

  pfl Marilyn Aronberg Lavin, ed., Piero della Fran­cesca and His Legacy (Washington, D.C. and New Haven: National Gallery of Art/Yale University Press, 1995).

  PREFACE

  19.Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), 233.

  20.Umberto Eco, Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages, trans. Hugh Bredin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002 [1959]), 16.

  21.It should be noted, however, that none of Piero’s surviving written works mention the name Plato or Pl
atonism, but rather approach that tradition in the form of Greek mathematics and geometry. The eight manuscripts Piero worked on are his original three written texts (Abacus Treatise, On Perspective, and Five Regular Bodies), four copies of On Perspective that he also made, and finally a copy he produced by his own hand of the works of Archimedes. See the forthcoming James R. Banker, Piero Della Fran­cesca: Artist and Man (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).

  22.See Plato’s Republic, book vi, parts 507-510. Similarly, Plato makes this statement in Timaeus: “One kind of being is the form which is always the same, … invisible and imperceptible by any sense, and of which the contemplation is granted to intelligence only. And there is another nature … perceived by sense, created, always in motion, becoming in place and again vanishing out of place, which is apprehended by opinion jointly with sense.”

  23.In this book, I will present the case that both Platonism and neuro­science arrive at the conclusion that the human mind seeks constants and essences. For this argument, I have drawn upon the psychological idea of “essences” found in two representative authors and their key works: Semir Zeki, Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); and Paul Bloom, Descartes’s Baby: How Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human (New York: Basic Books, 2004), and his How Pleasure Works (New York: Norton, 2010). Zeki, a neuro­scientist, summarizes brain research and perceptions of essences and constancy in art. Bloom, an experimental psychologist, introduces the concepts of “natural born dualism” and “natural born essentialism” in the human mind. The persistence of dualism and essentialism in human mental life continues to be a mainstream topic of research, but these two authors provide concise summaries. Of course, both Zeki and Bloom deny the supernatural reality of Platonist essences, an idea that this book, for the sake of argument, leaves as an open question. Admittedly, my approach in this book limits the debate on human perception to what happens inside the brain-mind-soul, a so-called “Western approach,” and I acknowledge that there is an entirely opposite approach (perhaps a so-called Buddhist, “process,” or postmodern approach) that says an individual’s perception is the product primarily of dynamic activity and relations external to the brain. For a recent presentation of that emphasis see Alva Noë, Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010).