MAESTRO GHERARDO'S BRUSHAuthor(s): Norman E. LandSource: Source: Notes in the History of Art, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Winter 2009), pp. 1-4Published by: Ars Brevis Foundation, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23208599 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 20:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Ars Brevis Foundation, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Source:Notes in the History of Art.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:45:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAESTRO GHERARDO'S BRUSH

Norman E. Land

Since antiquity, there have been jokes and humorous anecdotes that link human procre ation and artistic creation. For example, in a line from The Greek Anthology (11.215), Lu cilius writes that the portrait painter Euty chus was never able to achieve a likeness, even among his twenty sons.1 In this case, a likeness is important to both creation and

procreation. Eutychus was not very good at

portraying his subjects because of his lack of skill as an artist, and none of his numerous sons resembled him because, as Lucilius im

plies, he was not their biological father. Sexual reproduction is also linked to artis

tic creation in the Convivia Saturnalia (2.2, 10) by the fifth-century c.E. Roman author and Neoplatonic philosopher Macrobius, whose speakers give brief accounts of fa

mous people. One speaker, Evangelus, re counts the following anecdote. While dining at the house of L. Mallius, "the best painter in Rome," Servilius Geminus notices how

ugly ("deformes") the artist's sons are. Mallius responds that conceiving children

("fingis") is not the same as painting figures ("pingis"): "I conceive ['fingo'] in the dark and paint ['pingo'] in the light."2 We are not told why Mallius's ugly children are re

markable, but his position as a superior painter seems relevant, for it implies that he is a skilled artist. We may assume, then, that Geminus notices the difference in appear ance between Mallius's ugly children and his beautiful figures. The implication is that Mallius is more skillful at creating figures

than he is at making children. In effect, Mallius answers that the difference lies not in skill but in the conditions under which he carries out each kind of creation.

Petrarch (1304-1374), the first modern author to record Macrobius's often-repeated joke, does so in his Rerum memorandarum libri (2.48), which was written between 1343 and 1345:

The famous painter Lucius Mallius had

ugly children. A friend who was dining with him said on seeing the children: "Your children are not as attractive as

your pictures, Mallius." But Mallius

replied: "that's true, because I make children in the dark, but pictures by day light.3

Petrarch, who clearly understood the impli cation of Macrobius's joke, refers to it again in one of his letters on familiar matters (Fa miliarum rerum 5.17), addressed to his friend Guido Sette (13047-1367).4 There, Petrarch, who notices that ugly artists often make beautiful works, rejects the joke as an

explanation of that phenomenon.5 A few years after the publication of Ma

crobius's Saturnalia in Venice in 1472, Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) not only re corded the joke in one of his notebooks, he also added a new dimension to it:

A painter was asked, given that he made such beautiful figures, which are lifeless

things, what caused him to have made such ugly children. The painter replied

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:45:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2

that he made his paintings during the

day, and his children at night.6

The voice that queries the painter implies that the painter has the skill to perform the difficult task of transforming dead matter into beautiful, seemingly living figures but that he is unable to carry out the less de

manding job of making beautiful children. In effect, the artist replies that skill is not the

determining factor. All depends on when he must do his work—at night or during the

day. Macrobius s anecdote was widely repeated

throughout Renaissance Europe.7 For exam

ple, an anonymous English author recorded a version around 1535, and in it skill is again an important factor. The author writes about a "paynter that had foule children":

There was a peinter in Rome that was an excellent connynge man: and bycause he had foule children, One sayde to

hym: By my seyth I marvayle that you paynte so goodelye, and gette so foule children: yea, quod the peynter, I make

my chyldren in the darke, and I peynte thoses fy[g]ures by daye light.8

Here, we have an accomplished Roman

painter—presumably a reference to Mallius —whose skill or cunning makes people wonder why he cannot also achieve excel lent results when he makes children. Like Leonardo's painter, he, in effect, claims that his skill is not to be questioned. The quality of his creations and procreations is deter mined by the circumstances in which each is made.

Even in Petrarch's time there circulated at least one humorous tale about an artist that is based on the example of Macrobius's an ecdote. Around 1376, in his commentary on the Divine Comedy, Benvenuto da Imola (c.

1330-c. 1390) tells of an alleged meeting between Dante (1265-1321) and Giotto

(1267-1337) in Padua while the painter was

working on his frescoes in the Arena Chapel. As the story goes, Giotto invited Dante to his house and when the poet saw the

painter's children, "all extremely ugly and . . . resembling their father closely," he

asked, " 'Good master, since you are said to

have no equal in the art of painting, I greatly wonder how it is that you make the appear ance of others so attractive while your fam

ily is so dreadful?'" Giotto quickly responded, "I paint during the day and cre ate at night" ("Quia pingo de die, sed fingo de nocte"). Benvenuto says that Dante was

impressed and delighted by Giotto's reply not because it was original (he cites Macro bius as the source), "but because it appeared as a product of Giotto's own genius ['inge nio']." In other words, Dante (and, by im

plication, Benvenuto) admired Giotto's verbal wit because the artist recognized im

mediately that he and Dante were acting out Macrobius's joke. Dante plays Geminus, and Giotto joins in as Mallius.9

Other tales are less directly and obviously related to Macrobius's joke. For example, in his Lives of the Artists (Florence: 1568), Giorgio Vasari tells a relatively elaborate

story about Michelangelo and the Bolognese painter Francesco Francia (1450-1517) that is in part a variation on the ancient example. According to Vasari, while Michelangelo was making the (now destroyed) bronze fig ure of Pope Julius II in Bologna, Francia paid him a visit and marveled at the work. At last,

Michelangelo asked Francia what he thought of the bronze figure, and the latter replied that the sculptor had used good material and had cast it well. Michelangelo, who was cer tain that Francia had praised the bronze rather than his artistry, grew angry and called

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:45:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

3

the painter "a doofus" ("un goffo"). Later, when Michelangelo met one of Francia's

sons, who was very handsome, he said: "Your father makes living figures that are more beautiful than his painted ones" ("Tuo padre fa piu belle figure vive che dipinte").10 Michelangelo uses Geminus's observation not to question the discrepancy between the

quality of an artist's painted figures and the

appearance of his children, as Macrobius had. Rather, Michelangelo insults Francia by pointing out that his skill at procreation far

outstrips his abilities as a painter. Michelan

gelo, who, Vasari tells us, considered his works to be his children, believes that, in ef

fect, Francia has accused him of making the bronze figure in the dark. Feeling insulted,

Michelangelo implies that Francia paints in the dark but procreates in the light.

An almost forgotten tale about a seemingly fictional Florentine painter named Gherardo also echoes Macrobius's joke. The story, which has been attributed to Niccolo Angeli dal Bucine (1448-1532?), is as follows:

There was in Florence a painter named

Gherardo, who was not the best master

of his times. A man who wanted a paint ing made went to him and not being very confident in the said Gherardo, repeat edly showed him a drawing [of the work he wanted], asking again and again if he

[Gherardo] knew how to serve him [the

patron]. When it appeared to Gherardo that the man had bothered him too much

[and] having with him a rather beautiful

young son, he turned angrily to the man and said, "Does this child appear beauti ful to you?" The man responded, "Heav en protect him, yes." Gherardo then

added, "I made him with my prick; just think what I can do with a brush."11

Gherardo seems to claim that his ability to

employ his relatively blunt and awkward

cazzo to create a beautiful figure is proof that he is capable of an excellent perfor mance with his finer and more elegant brush. In effect, he asserts that the making of beautiful creations is not simply a matter of skill, nor is it dependent upon whether the sun or the moon is shining; one must con sider the instruments of creation as well.

NOTES

1. The Greek Anthology, trans. W. R. Paton, 5 vols.

(Cambridge, Mass., and London: 1958-1963), III, p. 215: "Eutychus the painter was the father of twenty sons, but never got a likeness even among his chil

dren."

2. Ambrosius Aurelius Theodosius Macrobius, Sat

urnalia, ed. Jacob Willis, 2 vols. (Leipzig: B. G. Teub

neri, 1963), I, pp. 137-138: "Hie Evangelus: Apud L.

Mallium, qui optimus pictor Romae habebatur, Servil

ius Geminus forte coenabat: cumque filios eius de

formes vidisset: Non similiter, inquit, Malli, fingis et

pingis. Et Mallius: In tenebris enim fingo, inquit, luce

pingo." See also Ernst Kris and Otto Kurz, Legend,

Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist: An His

torical Experiment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), pp. 115-116, who discuss this anecdote

and its imitators in relation to the tradition "which re

gards the work of art as the 'child' of the artist and at

tempts to view the process of artistic creation

according to the model of sexual life."

3. For the Latin text and translation, see Barbara C.

Bowen, One Hundred Renaissance Jokes: An Anthol

ogy (Birmingham, Ala.: Summa, 1988), p. 3: Lucius

Mallius pictor egregious deformes filios habebat.

Quibus visis amicus apud eum cenans: 'Non similiter,'

ait, 'fingis et pingus, Malli.' Ille auten: 'Nimirum,

fingo enim in tenebris, in luce pingo.'" 4. For the Latin text of Petrarch's letter, see

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:45:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4

Francesco Petrarca, Le Familiari, ed. Vittorio Rossi, 4 vols. (Florence: Sansoni, 1933-1942), II, pp. 38^41.

An excellent translation of the letter is in Petrarch, Let

ters on Familiar Matters: Rerum familiarium libri, trans. Aldo S. Bernardo, 3 vols. (Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1982), II, pp. 272-275.

5. For further discussion of the letter, see Norman

E. Land, "Giotto as an Ugly Genius: A Study in Self

Portrayal," in Giotto as a Historical and Literary Fig ure: Miscellaneous Specialized Studies, ed. Andrew

Ladis (New York: Garland, 1998), pp. 183-196.

6. The Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci, ed.

Jean Paul Richter, 3rd ed., 2 vols. (London: Phaidon,

1970), II, p. 289: "Fu dimandato un pittore perche, facciendo lui de' figure si belle che erano cose morte,

per che causa esso avesse fatti I figlioli si brutti; allora

il pittore ripose che le pitture le fecie di di, e i figioli do notte."

7. For other repetitions and variations on Macro

bius's joke, see Johannes Pauli, Schimpf und Ernst, ed.

Johannes Bolte, 2 vols. (Berlin: Stubenrauch, 1924), II, pp. 352-353.

8. Anonymous, Tales, and quicke answers, very

mery, and pleasant to rede (London: n.d.), n.p., no.

10l"

9. For the original text, see Benvenuto da Imola, Comentum super Dantis Aldigherij Comcediam, ed.

Jacobo Philippo Lacaita, 5 vols. (Florence: Barbera,

1887), III, pp. 312-313.1 have used the translation by John Adams, in Giotto in Perspective, ed. Laurie

Schneider (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,

1974), pp. 31-32.

10. Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de'piu eccellenti pittori scultori e architettori, nelle redazioni del 1550 e 1568, ed. Rosanna Bettarini, 6 vols. (Florence: Sansoni,

1966-1987), VI, pp. 31-32.

1 ]. I have translated the text in Anonymous, Facezie

e Motti dei secoli XV e XVI: Codice inedito Maglia bechiano (Bologna: Romagnoli, 1874), pp. 71-72:

"Era in Firenze uno dipintore, chiamato Gherardo, non

pero il migliore maestro de' suo tempi: ando a lui uno

ad farsi fare una pictura, et, non confidando molto in

decto Gherardo, 1' havea piu volte repetito et rimostro

el suo disegno, domandandolo anchora se lo saper rebbe servire. Gherardo, parendogli che chostui'

havesse troppo importunate, havendo quivi uno figli uolo asssai bello, voltatosi a chostui, chon ira, dixe:

Questo fanciullo ti par egli bello? Costui ripose: Se Dio

lo guardi, si. Gherardo allora sobgiunse: Questo ho

facto col cfazzo]; pensa quello faro col pennello!" For

a different version of the joke, see Charles Speroni, Wit

and Wisdom of the Italian Renaissance (Berkeley: Uni

versity of California Press, 1964), pp. 160-161. For the

attribution to Niccolo Angeli dal Bucine, see Barbara

C. Bowen, "Renaissance Collections of facetiae, 1344-1490: A New Listing," Renaissance Quarterly 39, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 13-14. For Agnolo Bronzino's

"saucy equating of artistic creation with copulation," see Deborah Parker, Bronzino: Renaissance Painter as

Poet (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000),

pp. 24—25. Parker (p. 106) also discusses the paint brush as phallus.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:45:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions