,
~
"'ic'
THE "PLEASURABLE DECEITS" OF BRONZINO'S SO-CALLED LONDON ALLEGORY
Paul Barolskyand Andrew Ladis
-
Year in and year out, scholars of Italian Renaissanceart write learned papers in which
they attempt to unravel the meaning of
Bronzino's so-called London Allegory, also
known as Venus,Cupid, Folly, and Time (Fig.
1). Poring over iconographical handbooks
and emerging with bits of arcana that
promise to make a notorious art-historical
sphinx speak, these authors mainly dispute
the identities of Bronzino's figures. Is the
pretty little girl with a scaly body, leonine
paws,and serpent'stail Fraud or Pleasure?Is
the nude little imp who scatters roses Jest,
Mirth, Folly, or is he Pleasure?Is the raging
hag with her hands in her hair Jealousy,
Envy, Despair, or evenSyphilis?And what of
the most mysteriouspresenceof all-the figure opposite Father Time, who is called
Virtue, Night, Oblivion, and Fraud? At the
same time, scholars attempt to elucidate the
more general theme or themes of the painting. It has been called an allegory of the exposure of luxury, an allegory of vanity, an allegory of virtue and time againstlust, and an
allegory of the strife between love and time.
No picture of the period is more entrancing
or more defeating: an insoluble iconographical conundrum.
Although recent scholarshiphas shed light
on the painting, in its obsessive pursuit of
Bronzino's dramatis personae it neglects to
consider the spirit of the work, The scholarship on Bronzino's tour de force has devolved
into a joyless academic parlor game, whose
purpose is to crack the code of the painter's
allegorical language. But such exegesesattempt to understand Bronzino's words with-
out hearing his voice. It is a voice whosetone
is ironic and disingenuous,rendering muchof
the scholarly literature on the painting not,
merely inappropriately foreign to its ludic
spirit, but perversely lugubrious.! Even
though the figures surrounding Venus and
Cupid allude to conventional themes of love
in literary allegory, their meaning is shaped
by the "manner" in which Bronzino fashions
his allegory-that is, how Bronzino regards
his allegorical figures. In what spirit doeshe
refer to all those cliches about love and its
tribulations? We would do well to consider
the shrewd and telling observationof Sydney
Freedberg,who remarked in Painting in Italy:
1500-1600that although based on a complex
verbal allegory of love, Bronzino's painting
"pretendsa moral demonstrationof which its
actual content is the reverse."In other words,
the painting is what writers in the sixteenth
centurycalled ironico.
Yes, the painting alludes to lust, to love
and time, to strife and love, to love and jealousy, to love and fraud. But to say that the
painting refers predominantly to just one of
these possible allegories or that it doessOin
a spirit of earnest seriousnessis to oversitn'
plify Bronzino's accomplishment and trans'
form the painter into a pedant. Given both
the apparent playfulnessof Bronzino's painting and the pervasive ironic attitude toward
allegory in sixteenth-centuryliterature, why
do we go running off to iconographical
sourcesfor simple explanationsof Bronzino's
presumed allegorical meaning-especial1Y
when we find an appropriately jocose ~d
mocking attitude toward allegory III
Fig. 1 Bronzino, VenZ4
-
:ALLED LONDONALLEGO~}'
,dis
--
~ his voice. It is a voice whosetone
td disingenuous,rendering muchof
rly literature on the painting not
lppropriately foreign to its ludic
t perversely lugubrious} Even
e figures surrounding Venus and
ide to conventional themes of love
allegory, their meaning is shaped
anner" in which Bronzino fashions
-:y-that is, how Bronzino regards)
ical figures. In what spirit doeshe
II those cliches about love and its
IS?We would do well to consider
i and telling observationof Sydney
;,who remarked in Painting in Italy:
I that although based on a complex
=gory of love, Bronzino's painting
a moral demonstrationof whichits
tent is the reverse."In other words,
ng is what writers in the sixteenth
lied ironico.
e painting alludes to lust, to love
to strife and love, to love and jealDveand fraud. But to say that the
efers predominantly to just one of
;ible allegories or that it does soin
: earnest seriousnessis to oversim1Zino's accomplishment and transpainter into a pedant. Given both
ent playfulness of Bronzino's painthe pervasive ironic attitude toward
n sixteenth-centuryliterature, why
;0 running off to iconographical
)r simple explanationsof Bronzino's
.allegorical
meaning-especially
find an appropriately jocose and
attitude toward allegory in
Fig. 1 Bronzino, Venus,Cupid, Folly, and Time.National Gallery, London
34
Bronzino's own circle? Vasari tells us, for ex~ple, that B~giardini painted an allegory of
Night after ~Ichelangelo's figur~ on a tabe~nacle for a Pleta,.an allego? swtable ~o this
dark event that mcluded mghtcaps, pillows,
bats, ~ .cand!eholder,and ~ ~~te~. ~ven if
Vasan IStelling a tall tale, It ISmdlcatwe of a
mocking attitude toward allegory. When
Michelangelo saw Bugiardini's painting,
Vasari claims, he nearly dislocated his jaw
from laughter. Michelangelo not only appreciated the amusing fantasy of Bugiardini's
unwitting grotesque, but he also laughed at
the artist's ludicrous transformation of allegory into farce. In Vasari's story, allegory is
burlesqued, turned into a jest or burla. The
jest is at the expenseof Bugiardini, who did
not know how to use allegory any more than
modem scholars of Bronzino know how to
read its counterfeit.
Bronrino's painting is highly contrived-aTtificioso, as they said in the sixteenth century: flesh like polished marble,
ringlets of hair like shavings of gold, the
whole brilliant tableau transformed into
pierre dure. The painter's artifice is exquisitely
self-conscious and playful. Upon Venus's
crown sits a golden figurine, whose bent legs
and upraised arm parody the goddess'sown
posture, thereby making light of the fact that
Venus is as artificial in appearance as the
very jewelry shewears. Such artifice of form
is matched by artifice of meaning. Scholars
have sometimesnoted in Bronzino's figure of
Venus an allusion to Michelangelo's Doni
Tondo. But is the painter merely paying
homage to the divine Michelangelo? Is the
reference to Michelangelo's Madonna not a
form of parody-a sly disrobing of the holy
Virgin, who is metamorphosedinto a wanton
Venus? And does not the figure's resemblance to Eve in the Sistine Temptation present her in yet a third aspect and make of
Venus not only a virgin, but also a fallen
woman? Michelangelo, as Vasari says, Was
~self "ambiguous" (ambiguo)and ironic in
his utterances, speakingin due sensi. Would
he not have appreciated the other sensesof
Bronrino's droll and subtle allusions to his
work?
Throughout the painting, Bronrino is sly
and teasing but perhaps nowhere more than
in his treatment of the beautiful, enigmatic,
and serpentine creature most often called
Fraud. Wearing a figuratively revealing robe
of couleur changeante,she standspartially but
pointedly concealedbehind the candid figure
of Jest. We must imagine what is concealed
in order to unpuzzle her, but Bronzino is )
himself playing a game of deception-or inKanno,as he might have said-in which truth
is far from absolute. Remarking on the
"duplicity" of the figure, Panofskysaw her left
hand as being attached to her right arm and
vice versa. But other, more literal-minded
eyes, saw somethingelse. The ambidextrous
creature both faces and turns her back to us
and in so doing seeminglyhas eachhand correctly attached to its appropriate arm. But
are not thosewho seethe painting in this way
equally ingannato? To substitute one ambiguity for another is to miss the point, for ,
Bronzino's inscrutable figure admits-indeed,
demands-due sensi. Not only are both interpretations of this evasive monster equallY
plausible and equallyuncertain, but such anibiguity and plausibility go to the heart of
what the figure means and make her all the
more treacherous. In the implausible world
of the picture, the only certainty about the
figure is its uncertainty, its ability to deceive.
Fraud's ambiguity might well remind US
that ambiguita, as Castiglione explained, is
central to arguzia or wit. Ambiguity resultsin
deception, but such deception can be pleasurable when discovered,recognizedthrough
thebeholder's own wit. Recal
speaksof the illusions of art
gann;we might well consider
ambiguous,
deceptivefigure (]
self piacevole. Such pleasure
onlyto the painting's form, b
toits very meaning.
To understandthe painting'
beguided by Bronrino's cont
vannidella Casa, whose Gal
tiglione's Libro del COltegiOi
courtlywit. Just as della Casa
cismsor motti as "subtle" (sot
(artificosi)
, so Bronzino pai
subtle witticisms. It has 1:
Bronzinohas painted Venus
the arrow from the quiver 0
disarminghim-so subtly, we
notonly was Cupid "ingannat(
but so were Bronzino's behc
assiduousinterpreter caught
(andBronrino's) little game. ]
sodelicate and ambiguous,hi
cannot state categorically t
Venusis simply in the very a
~upid. Might she not also .
displayingto us the trophy c
Venus'sgesture is allusive, iJ
el~ive. Indeed, both "allusiol
(like "illusion") are rooted in I
andeluderemeans"to fool" or
Bronrino's ingegnois so suI
asto outwit the viewer. Wh
her wide-eyed gaze upor
rOW-trophy and weapon, I
and metaphor-she radiates
and Cupid seems tender an
couldthe son have the heart (
OstensiblyapproachingVenu
Cupidmakes love to her both
~ h~ fondles her breast, and
e kissesher from the rear. :
dependsin part upon the S11
.,.
-
J
j
I
35
: a virgin, but ~o a fallen
_lan~elo, as. Vasan s~ys, \lias
:ous ~am~'guo) and ~onjc in
pe~g m due senSl.Would
~reclated the othe~ sensesof
and subtle allUSIOnsto his
thebeholder's.°wn.wit. Recalling that Vasari
speaksof th~ illusIons of.art as piacevoli inganni,we might w~ll consider the deliciously
aIIlbi~ous, deceptivefigure of .Fraud as herselfp,acevole..S~ch, pleasure IS.centr.at not
onlyto the p~tmgs form, but, mextncably,
the boy's incipiently serpentine body and
makes him a mirror image of Fraud. The
analogy is telling. Not only does Cupid deli~tely cradle Venus's head, but, a match for
his mother, he also fmgers her bejeweled
crown, which, by undetectable deception, he
the pamting,
...to BroDZlDois sly
t perhaps now~ere m~re than
it of the beautiful, eDlgmatic,
creature. most ofte? called
~a figuratively revealing robe
~eante,s~e stands par~iallybut
:ale~ be~d the c.andidfigure
1StImagme what IS con~aled
.puzzle her, but BroDZlDois
.a game of deception-or in- '
its very
meanmg.
To
understand
the painting'sspirit, we may
beguided by Bronzino's contemporary, Giovannidella Casa, whose Galateo (like Castiglione's.Libro del Cortegiano) deals with
courtlyWIt. Just as della Casa speaksof witticismsor motti as "subtle" (softili) and "artful"
(artificosi)
, so Bronzino paints artful and
subtle.witticism~. It has been said t~at
BroDZlDO
has pamted Venus coyly remoVIng
the arrow from the quiver of Cupid, hence
may
intend
to expressive
remove from
head.
By
contrast
to the
facesher
of the
other
figures, all of whom comment on the
"passioni"of love, the faces of Venus and Cupid are deceptivelyand appropriately impassive, for in this respect they are like the
masklike persona of Fraud herself. Gazing
upon this highly ironic scene of lovemaking-this ludic liaison dangereuse-wegradually sense the "pleasurable deceits" of the
lovers, each unaware of the other's cunning
..f
j~
.!
I ..
i;
i'
'
I! 1
.I .
!
Ight have said-in which truth
bsolute. Remarking on the
eo
figure, Panofskysaw her left
ittached to her right arm and
: other, more literal-minded
thing else. The ambidextrous
lceSand turns her back to us
seeminglyhas each hand cor.
to its appropriate arm. But
:'0 seethe painting in this way
:to? To substitute one ambier is to miss the point, for
utable figure admits-indeed,
lensi. Not only are both interhis evasive monster equally
(ually uncertain, but sucham.
lusibility go to the heart of
means and make her all the
us. In the implausible world
the only certainty about the
:rtainty,its ability to deceive.
guity might well remind us
as C~tiglion~ explained, is
a or WIt. Ambiguity results in
such deception can be pleascovered,recognized through
disarminghim-so subtly, we might add, that
notonlywas Cupid "ingannato"by this deceit,
but so were Bronzino's beholders until one
assiduousinterpreter caught on to Venus's
(andBronzino's)little game.Bronzino's wit is
sodelicate and ambiguous,however, that we
cannot state categorically that Bronzino's
Venusis simply in the very act of disarming
Cupid. Might she not also ambiguously be
displayingto us the trophy of her triumph?
Venus'sgesture is allusive, if not ultimately
elusive.Indeed, both "allusion" and "elusive"
(like "illusion") are rooted in ludere,"to play";
andeluderemeans"to fool" or "to deceive."
Bronzino'singegnois so subtle and urbane
asto outwit the viewer. While Venus fIXes
her wide-eyed gaze upon Cupid's arrow-trophy and weapon, material object
and met~phor-she radiates ge~d .passion,
and Cupid seems tender and YIelding. But
couldthe son havethe heart of a dissemb~er?
OstensiblyapproachingVenus from the side,
Cupidmakeslove to her both from the.front,
ashe fondles her breast, and from behind, as
he kisses her from the rear. Suchsottigliezza
dependsin part upon the subtle rotation of
duplicity.
Father Time is usually said to be exposing
the very wantonnessthat the beholder is encouraged to enjoy, but is he unveiling the
lovers and Jest or the figures behind them?
Even exposed,the scenebefore us is so ambiguous that perhaps in this one instance
time and the light of day can only tell of halftruth. The scowling Father Time, the
ambiguous masklike figure across from him
who also ambiguously clutches the blue
drapery, and the despairing hag called
Jealousyall appear vexed in varying degrees.
Are we, however, to share their vexation?
Could it just be that Bronzino intended for
the courtly beholders of his ironic work to
smile at the tribulations or passionsof love?
Might we not recall, as the context of
~ro~o's
paintin~ the court games .or
glUOChl of the sixteenth century, which
playfully and am~iguouslymake lir;ht of .the
pleasuresand pams of love? The immediate
context of.Bro~o's
p~ting.is the co~rt of
Duke COSImOde MediCI, which Vasarl saw
as the mirror image of the court of U rb~o,
where suchgameswere played. The courtier,
.I
t
:
:
f
!
l
j
;
,
;:
':
.
,
l
,l
t..:
1:
r
i
~,
l
t:
!,
J
:
,
v
r
36
as Castiglione avers, dissembles (from
dissimulare)or deceives (from ingannare)by
using art that conceals art-the essenceof
the sprezzaturathat is central to Bronzino's
witty, courtly image.
We have in scholarship highly developed
studies of the rhetoric or "language of
art"-explications of grazia, difficulta, ri/ievo,
Juria, fantasia, and many other technical
terms. But what of such words as ironico,
ambiguo, giuoco, inganno, dissimulare, arguzia, motto, not to mention facezia, burla,
belfare, and uccellare? Such terms, like all
words associated with art, are a reminder
that the theory of art cannot be separated
from iconographyany more than iconography
can be divorced from style or style from the
social circumstancesof art. Were we more
sensitiveto this languageof play pervasivein
the courts and courtly literature of the
cinquecento and to the implications of this
language,we might be more attentive to its
visual analogues in courtly art, not only in
gr()tesques,but in such works as Bronzino's
witty London painting, less an allegory as
such than an ironic play on allegorical conventions.
In the meantime, if we continue to reach
for our iconographical handbooks without
taking into account the painting's highly ambiguous and highly pleasurable complexityof
form and ironic allusion, we will be open to
the charge that Michelangelo leveled against
certain contemporaries whom he called
"solennissimi goffi"-"most solemn clods" or
"boobies." Were Bronzino, Michelangelo,
della Casa, and Vasari-not to speak of
Berni, MoIza, Folengo, and Aretin()-to rise,
from the grave and read the solemn, moralizing, and allegorizing iconographical interpretations of Bronzino's coy, ludic London
picture now current, they would no doubt
smile, if not laugh, at such golfezza-fmding
it, in the root senseof golfo, slightly goofy.
For
recent
and a review
.,
diScussions
of the
.'
of
scholarly
Bronzmo's
literature,
.
pamtmg
see Ins
Cheney, "Bronzino's London AUegory: Venus,
Cupid, Virtue, and Time," SOURCE6, no. 2
M
(Wmter
The only literary text that ha
Annibale Carracci's Sleeping
Chantilly(Fig. 1), is Philostra
of the erotes at play (Imaginc
cause Philostratus tells u
Venus-only that we sel
ence2-there is reason to be
bale turned his wit and inver
ancientsource.
A sleepingVenos-Millard
standing3-occurs in Claud
mium of Palladius and Ce:
preface, Claudian's patron a
provisea song in honor of a
1-8).The songbegins:
It chanced that Venus h
t~ed ~to the bosom of a
WIth vme to woo sleep
NOTE
1.
ANNIBALE CARR
1987):12-18;
"Bronzmo's
London
and
F
Lynette.
Allegory:
B
.osc,
h
T ..er
Love versus
une,
SOURCE
9, no. 2 (Wmter1990):30-35.
cool.
...Slumber
.
befits
h b
th
row
e ml dd ay h ea
f
'.
0 covermgs, and the
through them the gleam
(lines 1-7)
And while Venus sleeps:
Here and there, where'e
vites them, repose wing
somewake and play or ..
plucking dewy apples as ;
...and, poised on their
branches to the very tc
trees. Others keep guard
and drive off the wanton
...and ...amorous PaUl]
Given Annibale's penchar
froln a variety of sources,s,