On Closer Inspection - The Interrogation of Paolo Veronese Author(s): Edward Grasman Source: Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 30, No. 59 (2009), pp. 125-134 Published by: IRSA s.c. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40343668 . Accessed: 02/09/2014 22:15 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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . IRSA s.c. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Artibus et Historiae. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:15:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EDWARD GRASMAN of Paolo Veronese On Closer Inspection- the Interrogation Dedicated to Moni Engel On April20th1573, Paolo Veronese, already long established and celebrated as a painter at the time, completed a portrayalofthe Last Supper inthe refectoryofthe Dominican monasteryof the SS. Giovanni e Paolo in Venice [Fig. 1]. On July 18thof that same year, he was summoned to appear beforethe tribunalofthe Holy Inquisitionin Venice because of that picture.The only outcome of the interrogationseems to have been that afterthe session, Veronese added an inscriptionto it.The inscriptionrefersto a passage fromthe Gospel of Saint Luke, which states that Christ had a meal at Levi's house. The paintinghas since then been knownas the Feast in the House of Levi. This article develops an argumentleading to an explanation as to why Veronese had to appear before thistribunalbecause of thatparticularpaintingat thatparticular moment.The materialhere presented serves to refinethe discussion of ecclesiastical politics concerning Veronese's thatPaul Kaplan had already opened up in 1997, interrogation on the two protagonists of the tribunal however, focusing, whichVeronese had to face: the inquisitorand the nuncio.1 As faras we know,Veronese is the only painterwho was ever called to account before a similartribunalfora painting. The unique document of the tribunalrecords was preserved, and because itis among the most famous in the historyof art, I can limitmyselfto the followingobservations.2 Afterthe session had been opened witha few ceremonious customs, Veronese seemed unwillingto comply withthe inquisitor's suggestion, as delivered by the prior of the monastery - whose name Veronese denied knowing - to replace the dog in the foregroundwiththe figureof MaryMagdalene. Although we may be able to sympathise with this refusal, it was the reason the interrogationwas continued, entirelyunilaterally,as is the case with interrogations:the inquisitordeterminedthe course of the meeting. The inquisitorasked a fewquestions about the activitiesof Peter and two of the table companions, but was satisfiedwith the briefanswers given by Veronese. He was much more concerned withthe addition of figuressuch as fools, dwarfsand German soldiers, who had nothingto do withthe biblical story of the Last Supper. He did not seem to be veryworriedabout the painting itselfbeing heretical, or whetherVeronese was a heretic,but ratherwhetherthe picturecould potentiallybe used as ammunitionby heretics in theirstrugglewiththe Holy Roman Church. The inquisitorproved to be verywell acquainted withthe picture,which he evidentlyknew fromclose personal inspection. He displayed his powers of observance particularly when he questioned the meaning of the man withthe nosebleed. One has to have examined the picturecarefullyindeed before 125 This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:15:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EDWARD GRASMAN 1) Paolo Veronese, «Last Supper» known as «Feast in the House of Levi», 1573, oil on canvas, 5.55 x 12.80 m; Venice, Gallerie dell'Accademia. Photo: Collection CKD/RU Nijmegen. one discovers the nosebleed, thoughthereis no evidence that Veronese changed anythingabout it afterthe session. The man was only a servant whose nosebleed was caused, came Veronese's unconvincing explanation, by some unimportant mishap, 'per qualche accidente'. The inquisitorglossed over various remarksby Veronese that were to intriguelater art historians. The way in which Veronese talked about the position of painters, at once both raisingthemto the level of poets and depictingthem as harmless as fools, did not interesthim,at least, he made no comment. Nor did he respond to Veronese's repeated defence, thatthe nosebleeds, fools, dwarfsand German soldiers were situated outside Christ's circle, "fuoridel luogo dove si fa la cena". However much insightthis remark may give us into Veronese's attitude towards painting and the way in which mainand subsidiaryfeaturesmay be contrasted in a composition, the inquisitordid not comment on it. He even ignored such evident blunders on the part of Veronese, such as the factthatthe Last Supper, according to Veronese, took place at not lecturing. Simon's house. The inquisitorwas interrogating, However, the inquisitor did respond to certain other remarks,and sharplytoo. When Veronese, asked about other meals he had portrayed,named the WeddingFeast at Cana in the San Giorgio Maggiore, the inquisitorwarned him irritably to limithimselfto meals of the Lord. The inquisitorobviously considered the meals at Simon's house to belong to thiscategory,such as the one Veronese had produced forthe refectoryin the San Sebastiano in Venice, but not the wedding feast at Cana. Clearlythe inquisitor'squestion referredto the meals eitherorganised for,or by,the Lord, and not to a feast where He was a guest among many,even though this event was the settingof Christ'sfirstpublic appearance. remarkablemanoeuThe inquisitor'sreactionto the utterly vre withwhichVeronese attemptedto justifyhis methods using 126 This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:15:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ON CLOSER INSPECTION - THE INTERROGATIONOF PAOLO VERONESE 2) Jacopo Tintoretto,«Last Supper», 1574 or later,oil on canvas, 2.30 x 5.40 m; Venice, San Polo. Photo: Collection CKD/RU Nijmegen. Michelangelo's Last Judgementinthe Sistine chapel was unexpected. Michelangelo supposedly depicted everyone, including the VirginMary,in the nude - an exaggeration on Veronese's part to express how many liberties Michelangelo had taken while painting it. It is strange that Veronese defended himselfwith a paintingthat had caused so much trouble in Rome that,ten years previously,the most blatantlynaked parts were re-paintedby order.Veronese's defence could only really be used against him,unless he wanted to traveldown the dangerous road of speculating on dissension withinthe tribunal. The inquisitorresponded withthe comment thatthe nudityin a pictureof the Last Judgementwas not unsuitable,choosing an independentattitudethat could possibly have caused him troublein Rome.3 Pointingout thattherewere no dogs or fools to be seen in Michelangelo's work,the inquisitorreturnedto the subject he meant to pursue without being diverted: Veronese had added figuresto his piece thatwere not suitable fora portrayalofthe Last Supper. The report concludes withthe injunctionthat Veronese must improve his picture withinthree months, at his own expense. In the records, the remark that the improvement must be suitable to the subject matterof the Last Supper has been struck off.Shouldn't we consider this deletion to be extremelysignificant?Veronese apparently understood the to mean thatthe additionof an conclusion of the interrogation inscriptionwould suffice.The inscriptionaltered the subject of to what the inquisitorwanted the work.Was this verydifferent fromhim in the firstplace? The substitutionof the figureof MaryMagdalene forthe dog would have changed the subject from a Last Supper to a Feast at the House of Simon. By adding the inscription, Veronese was complying with the inquisitor'searlier suggestion, by which we may assume that the finalchange was suggested by thisofficialhimselfand that the said sentence was deleted preciselyforthis reason. Since Armand Baschet's introduction,in 1867, of Veroit document to the literatureof arthistory,4 nese's interrogation has inspiredmanyto add theiropinions to the discussion concerningthe main question: what broughtVeronese beforethe Inquisition? When we consider the nature of the inquisitor's questions, it seemed natural for the authors to look forthe in the iconographyofthe painting.Therefore, answer primarily no convincinganswers have yet been providedto these ques127 This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:15:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EDWARD GRASMAN tions: whythe interrogation took place at thatprecise moment and whypreciselythisworkby Veronese should have prompted the interrogation. These are the questions I hope to answer in the following. Beforediscussing any of these questions, we must realize that both the officialrecords of Veronese's interrogationand the paintingthatoccasioned itare isolated phenomena. In contrastto the situationin Tuscany,Venice did not have a tradition of portrayalsof the Last Supper in monasteryrefectoriesand we know very littleabout the few precedents of Veronese's painting.Bonifaciode'Pitatiis supposed to have painted a Last ofthe S. Andrea al Lido, butthe identiSupper forthe refectory ficationis disputed.5The only precedent forVeronese's piece about which we know at least something, is Titian's Last Supper, which itwas to replace, butthe documentationon this workis also inadequate. Even the lengthofthe painting'sexistence is uncertain;notmuch can be ascertained otherthanthat Vasari saw it and suspected that a substantial part of it was done by the studio,and thatitwas destroyedby firein 1571 .6 Of course, there were other pictures in Venice depicting the Last Supper, in particularby Tintoretto,but these were uses. The majorityof these pictures intendedforverydifferent flanked the Tintoretto place where the Holy Sacrament of by the Eucharist was kept. The charitable duties of the Brotherhoodsofthe Sacrament who ordered such paintingsin numerous Venetian churches are expressed in several of these works. Such is the case in Tintoretto'slaterale withthe Last Supper in the San Polo [Fig. 2]. This workwas produced eitherin or after,but certainlynot before 1574.7 Some years ago, it was argued that the disciple who is distributingthe bread fromthe table to a needy person should be identifiedas Judas Iscariot. Perhaps this identificationis not correct, but the factis thatthereis a solid argumentto support it,the argument being the purse in his belt.8There is, at least, room for confusion, and the question arises as to why Tintorettowas nevercalled beforethe InquisitioninVenice to account forthis anomaly. Perhaps the momentumhad passed? The tribunalof the Inquisitionin Venice consisted of six people. Firstof all, there was the inquisitor,a member of the Franciscan order until1560. Afterthat date, this officialwas selected fromthe ranksofthe Dominicans, and inthe decades we are speaking of, usually came fromthe terrafirma,the mainland of the Republic of Venice. The inquisitorconducted The chairmanshipofthe tribunalwas divided the interrogation. between the nuncio and the Patriarch of Venice, who were occasionally representedby theirauditori.The nuncio was the Pope's envoy fromRome; the Patriarchrepresented the diocese ofVenice. Finally,therewere the threeSavi all'Eresia, the representatives of the Republic.9 The tribunal maintained a balance on various fronts: between the Church and the State, between Venice and Rome and between the Church of Venice and the Church of Rome. There appears to have been remarkablyharmonious cooperation withinthe tribunal,as no reportsof internalconflicthave survived.The primaryreason forthis harmonywas the mutual objective: both the Vatican and the Serenissima, a republicthatembraced Christianprinciples, were set against all forms of disturbances, and this most certainlyincluded heresy. The Inquisition had a more secular character in Venice than anywhereelse and this may have resulted in mildersentences by this court. Death penalties were rarelypronounced by the Inquisitionin Venice. The jurisdictionof the Venetian state itself,however,was not so mild. For example, just a few weeks after Veronese's interrogation, Abraam Righetto escaped fromthe prison of the Inquisitionnear S. Giovanni in Bragora, because his guard, Michiel,could not bear to miss the sight of two thieves being hanged at the Piazzetta, thus combininga profoundfondness forhis professionwitha glorious neglect of its duties.10 Still,nobody treated a confrontationwiththe Inquisitionlight-heartedly, not even in Venice. Itis symptomaticof the lack of interestin the composition of the tribunalin the literatureon Veronese that the way in which the members of the college were identifiedis sloppy. Since Gino Fogolari in 1935, most writershave assumed the followingcomposition: inquisitorFra Aurelio Schellino, a friar of the Dominican order,fromBrescia; Giovanni Trevisan,the Patriarchof Venice, nuncio GiambattistaDei, the archbishop of Rossano and the three Savi all'Eresia: Giacomo Foscarini, Niccolo Venier and Alvise Zorzi. Emerich Schaffranfollows Fogolari,butdisposes of Schellino withoutgivingany explanation. He seems to assume an Inquisitionwithoutan inquisitor, an eccentric pointof view thatis not followed. For thatmatter, Schaffranreports,withoutnaming his source, that Giambattista Dei came fromRome. Michelangelo Murarotoo follows Fogolari, but he is guilty of several minor inaccuracies: Foscarini is suddenly called Contarini and Alvise becomes Andrea Zorzi. Muraro also mentions that Venier acted as the tribunal'ssecretary,though he does not give a source. Andre Chastel and Kaplan also agree with Fogolari, but between themselves, they cannot agree on Dei's origins. Chastel claims thathe was a Roman by birth;Kaplan suggests thathe was originallyFlorentine,considering his name.11 None of these writerspaid any attentionto the fact that this tribunal had undergone a drastic change just before Veronese was confrontedwithit; a change that seems crucial to a thorough understanding of the circumstances leading up to this confrontation:a new nuncio had just been appointed. 128 This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:15:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ON CLOSER INSPECTION - THE INTERROGATIONOF PAOLO VERONESE about those who held the The best source of information officeof nuncio inVenice between 1533 and 1577 is offeredby theircorrespondence withtheircontacts in Rome, the Nunziature di Venezia, published between 1958 and 1977 in eleven volumes. The last fourvolumes in particularare relevantto this study.12Remarkably,in this issue, there are no referencesto two of the aforementionedmembers of the tribunal:Fra Aurelio Schellino and GiambattistaDei, the archbishop of Rossano. If we rely merely on the notes of Nunziature's editors, Schellino's predecessor as inquisitorin Venice, Fra Valerio Faenzi, would appear to have been immediatelysucceeded by Fra Marco Medici fromVerona. Apparentlya remark,made by Giovanni Antonio Facchinetti,the bishop of Nicastro and at that time the nuncio of Venice, on September 3rd 1569, has been overlooked. In a letterto his contact in Rome, Cardinal Michele Bonelli, Pope Pius V's nipote and, like him,a Dominican, Facchinetti wrote: "il padre inquisitore venuto nuovamente m'havea dato conto che in Gardone, castello della diocese di Brescia [...]".13 This new inquisitor,with his Brescia background,was Schellino. The absence of GiambattistaDei is, however,not an omission on the part of the editors of the Nunziature: Facchinetti was relievedby GiovanniBattistaCastagna, at the timethe one and only archbishop of Rossano. Castagna arrivedin Venice on July4th,1573,14exactlytwo weeks beforeVeronese's interrogation. Just how eminentthe position of nuncio in Venice was is obvious fromthe factthatboth Facchinettiand Castagna later became Pope, ifonly fora briefperiod. Facchinettiheld the position as Innocent IX for two months; Castagna was UrbanusVIIfortwelvedays, the briefestpontificateever. of GiambatFogolari undoubtedlybased his identification tista Dei on a document, such as the one dated October 12th 1573, in which the Inquisition issued a verdict in the case against a lawyeraccused of Lutheranism,AntonioVenier.The opening words of the verdict read: "loannes Baptista Dei et Apostolicae Sedis gratiaArchiepiscopus Rossanensis".15 Presumably,Fogolari did not notice thatthe opening lines of older documents repeatedly state: "loannes Antonius Dei et Apostolicae Sedis gratiaEpiscopus Neocastrensis". In these phrases, no more is said other than that Giambattista (Castagna) and Giovanni Antonio (Facchinetti)were respectively,by the grace ofGod and the papal throne,the archbishop of Rossano and the bishop of Nicastro. Exit GiambattistaDei and along withhimgoes his Roman or Florentineorigin. The reason forVeronese's appearance beforethe Inquisibeen looked forin the tionhad, as previouslystated, primarily recent endeavour in The most the of painting. iconography this direction was produced by Maria Elena Massimi, with a lengthy study aimed at showing that Jesus Christ at the house of the Pharisee was the original subject of the painting.16This study leaves the reader wonderingabout the crucial question: why didn'tVeronese informthe inquisitionright away thatthis indeed was the case? And if the interrogation of Veronese was placed in a broader historical context, it was usually in quite general terms.One exponent of this approach is Muraro.He regarded the interrogationas a clash between, on the one hand, the triumphantatmosphere in Venice afterthe naval battleat Lepanto on October 7th1571 , when a fleetof the allies Spain, Venice and Rome achieved a victoryover the fleet of the Ottoman Empire,and, on the other,the Council ofTrent,thathad issued regulationsfora more stringentportrayalof religious images during the last meetings in 1562 and 1563. The celebratory mood after Lepanto must have given Veronese reason to include elements in his workthatwere not in accordance with Trent.17Whythis clash should take place years laterand why Veronese should be a victimof it because of this paintingfor this location,was never explained by Muraro. The firstperson to ask such pertinentquestions and to attemptto answer them was Paul Kaplan, in 1997. He places the interrogationin the context of the developments and events that, as regards time, space and theme, were much closer, closer to 1573, closer to the SS. Giovanni e Paolo and closer to the biblical episode depicted by Veronese. Kaplan ofVeronese in particularto the sepconnects the interrogation arate peace that Venice negotiated withthe Ottoman Empire on March 7th1573, to the bull In Coena Domini thatthe Pope issued each year on Maundy Thursday,the celebration of the Last Supper, an annual bull that had led to frictionbetween Rome and Venice since the appointment of the strictPope Pius V and to the problems that the SS. Giovanni e Paolo raised when Rome attemptedto reformthe monastery.18 One mustbe gratefulto Kaplan forintroducingthe Nunziature di Venezia intothe literatureon Veronese's confrontation withthe Inquisition.His argument,however,seems founded on a selective use of this source of information. Withthis separate peace treaty,Venice broke the fragile alliance that had been formed with considerable effortby Pope Pius V in 1571 between Rome, Spain and Venice, to combat the heathen Ottoman Empire. Somewhere halfway throughthe formationof the alliance thatled to the unexpected triumphat Lepanto and the separate peace treatythat Venice had concluded, Pius V died, on May 1st1572, and GregoryXIIIsucceeded himto the officesome ten days later.This new Pope also had every intentionof fightingthe Ottoman Empire, and when, at the beginning of April,the Venetian ambassador Paolo Tiepolo notifiedhimof the separate peace 129 This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:15:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EDWARD GRASMAN treaty,he was furious.Tiepolo's reportdescribes how, standing withhis back to the ambassador, he fulminateda ban on him. The Pope then refused to receive him for weeks. But when those weeks had passed, around May and certainlyby June, his furyhad cooled, he became approachable once more,and was once again willingto receive Tiepolo.19 Gregorywas farfromthe rigidlystrictfigurethathis predecessor had been. Particularlythe understanding Spain showed for the Venetianattitudeallegedly persuaded Gregoryto let go of his anger. It is remarkablethat there is absolutely no mentionin the Nunziature that Rome considered excommunicating Venice in 1573 afterthe separate peace treaty,although it is reported- though onlyonce - thatVenice anticipateda ban at the time.20 The problems surrounding the bull In Coena Domini appear to have arisen before the alliance was established, mainlyin 1569. Pope Pius V metwithopposition, not onlyfrom Venice, but also fromNaples and Milan and more especially fromSpain.21 There was resistance against the greatercontrol the Pope wanted to acquire by means ofthis bull over the local clergy,and against local policy pertainingto hereticsand heathens. Allegedly,the clause thatany partywho leftthe alliance would be excommunicated was affixedto the version of this bull that GregoryXIII issued on March 19th1573.22 However, the truthof this storyis questionable. No trace of a bull with thisappendix can be foundinVenice, and the correspondence between the nuncio in Venice and his contacts in Rome do not give any reason to suspect a ban. On April 25th 1573, Facchinettimentionedthis bull,withno furthercomment,and copies of it were sent to him on May 9th,once again withno further comment. By thattime,both parties already knew that Venice had caused the breach inthe alliance.23 Facchinettidid not even feel that he needed to notifyRome that he had received the bull.There is absolutely no indicationthatthe bull contained any inflammatory materialsuch as the excommunication of the partyresponsible forbreakingthe alliance - that is to say, of Venice. Kaplan states that the monastery of the SS. Giovanni e Paolo was in an awkward situation,around 1573. His text implies that the monasterywas a bastion of heresy. We find this idea recurrentin other literatureon Veronese's interrogation.24Althoughthe monasteryseems to have been experiencing all sorts of problems, itmay seriously be doubted whether therewas much - ifany - heresy involved. Around1570 and 1571, while Facchinettiwas stilla nuncio in Venice, the monastery of the SS. Giovanni e Paolo was experiencingtwo major problems, both of which were related to the implementationof the decisions made at the Council of Trent.There were strong feelings of resistance against the conversion ofthe monasteryfroma Conventual intoan Observant house by the externalappointmentof a vicarfromthe latter,strictertendency,and against the introductionof a minimum age of sixteen fornovices. The conflictswithFacchinetti, who wanted to enforcethe observance ofthe Council's regulations just as fanaticallyas Pope Pius V, ran so high that,on November 15th1570, Facchinettieven spoke of excommunicating the church of the SS. Giovanni e Paolo. A monthlater, on December 16th1570, he reportedto Rome thatthe monasteryneeded a diligentvicar "per corregere i vitiiloro che si sentono grandissimi".25However, Facchinettidid not specify the vices in question. A definitivesolution to the problem of the vicariatewas reached inAugust 1571 withthe appointment of Eliseo Capys, a memberofthe Observants, in thatcapacity, a decision imposed by the general of the order.26Reactions fromthe SS. Giovannie Paolo to thisappointmentare notdocumented and so itseems the brethrenresigned themselves to theirfate. The second conflictinvolvedthe regulationby the Council ofTrentabout the minimumage of sixteenfornovices entering the monastery,to which the monasteryof SS. Giovanni e Paolo objected. There were several boys under sixteen there who had taken the habit,and the brethrenwere frightenedof losing them. Facchinettipaid a long visitto the monasteryon January12th1571, duringwhich this problem was addressed and solved, at least forappearances' sake, as Facchinettiheld no illusionsabout the brethrenbeing completelyconvinced by the necessity to reform.27 Again, pressure had to be exerted by the general of the order beforethis issue could be settled. The outcome was thatthe boys undersixteenwere sent home, though the parents objected on the grounds that they could not affordto keep them. It would, therefore,appear that the monastery'smotivesto keep the boys were notfinancial.28 In order to get a betterpicture of the problems between the nuncio and the Dominican monasteryof the SS. Giovanni e Paolo a more complete pictureis needed. Duringthe Council of Trent,the decision fellto regimentthe monasteries, but before this could be done, substantial opposition needed to be overcome. A large minority fromthe monasteries were set it. Even the Council, the Dominicans in particuduring against lar objected, submittingwrittenobjections as well.29The problems between the monasteryof the SS. Giovanni e Paolo and the Vatican should thereforecertainlybe regarded in the light of the Dominican resistance to the regimentation of the monasteries. In the lettersFacchinettiwrote duringhis office in Venice, he does indeed occasionally referto heresy among monks, but never in connection withDominicans, norwiththe brethren at the monastery of the SS. Giovanni e Paolo. Shouldn't we consider it likelythat these "vitii",these vices, 130 This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:15:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ON CLOSER INSPECTION - THE INTERROGATIONOF PAOLO VERONESE referin particularto theirrecalcitranceto comply withthe regulations laid down by the Council of Trent? Justafterthe monasteryof the SS. Giovanni e Paolo had capitulatedand the boys had been sent home, a firebroke out, causing substantial damage. Rumour had it, as Facchinetti remarked in a letterdated February 14th1571, that soldiers housed at the monasteryhad startedthe fire.30Fromotherletters by Facchinettiwe can deduce thattheywere soldiers from Switzerland. In December 1570, some captains and their men, from both the Swiss Catholic cantons and fromGraubunden, had arrivedinVenice to reinforcethe troops. The firstgroup offered theirservices forcombat on land, the latterfor both on land and forthe fleet.The Venetianauthoritiesdecided to send the soldiers fromthe Catholic regions of Switzerlandback untilfurthernotice,but did not knowwhatto do about the others.They forthe fleet,but suspected at could reallyuse reinforcements least partofthe "Grisoni"of heresy.The authoritiesput offtaking a decision, and consequentlythe soldiers were not paid for weeks, and resentmentamong the troops increased.31Itwould appear that they were lodged in the monastery of the SS. Giovannie Paolo to await the decision concerningtheirfuture, and thattheirdissatisfactionconvenientlyexplained the fire. the grain store and Facchinettireportedthatthe refectory, the canteen had been destroyed, including a small stock of grainand wine. However,he was remarkablysilentabout such details as the complete loss ofTitian'sLast Supper, remarkable because Titianand he had known each other forsome time. Some years before,Bonelli had ordered a paintingfromTitian, preferablya Saint Catherine, via Facchinetti.Afterreceiving a picturewiththatsubject, more than a year later,Bonelli had asked Facchinettito pass on his thanksto Titianforhim.32 Veronese finishedhis Last Supper, which was to replace Titian'sversion,on April20th1573, two weeks afterFacchinetti had informedthe Pope about the separate peace, and he was interrogatedon July18th1573, two weeks afterCastagna had assumed officeas the new papal nuncio. Whitesmoke did not just proclaima new Pope, buta whole new papal courtas well. Some changes were made immediately,but others needed a littlemore time. Throughoutthe Counter Reformation,the Vatican underwentdrastic transformationswhenever a new pope assumed office. The most strikingexample of changing fortunesas a consequence of this succession of popes was Cardinal Giovanni Gerolamo Morone. Duringthe last meetings of the Council of Trent,which took place during the pontificate of Pius IV, Morone had so much influencethat he is called the architect of the Council. Under Pius IV's predecessor, Morone would never have been given the opportunity,as Pope Paul IV had accused himof heresy and Pius IV's successor, Pius V,would also have made the same accusation, ifit had not discredited the Council ofTrent- and thisCouncil was sacred to thissaintlyPope. By contrast,GregoryXIIIallowed the aging Morone to perform delicate missions. The conclusion that the Holy Roman Church could not form a united frontduring the Counter Reformationseems quite accurate.33 For Facchinettitoo, the succession of Popes had consequences. AfterGregory XIII assumed office, he no longer reported to Bonelli, Pius V's secretario del stato, or, when Bonellifellill,to GirolamoRusticucci,butto the new secretario del stato, Tolomeo Galli. On May 24th1572, just a few weeks afterthe death of Pius V, itwas reportedthat Facchinettihimself was to be replaced.34 However,he remained in officeuntil, at the beginningofApril1573, the reportsofVenice's separate peace hitRome like a bombshell. And when he had to take to his bed forseveral weeks afterthat,his career as nuncio was that over. He was accused of providingRome withinformation was too optimisticallyworded.35 To justifyhimself, in his remaining weeks in Venice, he maintained his scepticism about the size of the peace partyin Venice and he attempted to depict his reaction to the Doge's announcement of the peace as more indignantthan itreallyhad been.36 Itwas to no avail. On June 6th 1573, he was told that Castagna was to replace him as nuncio, and immediatelyafterintroducinghis successor to the Senate, Facchinettileftthe city.37 Veronese painted the new picture of the Last Supper for we do not have the SS. Giovanni e Paolo, but, unfortunately, the contract. We do not know who commissioned the work. Carlo Ridolfihas suggested that Fra Andrea de'Buoni, about whom we know nextto nothing,commissioned it,but perhaps the prioris more plausible. Fogolari identifiedhim as Adriano Alvari,a risingstar inthe Dominican sky.38Veronese said, durthathe did not know his name. I willnot ing the interrogation, comment on the probabilityof this statement.Veronese said that the prior had been "here", meaning the spot where he now stood, in the San Teodoro, where the Inquisitionmet in the summer months. Had the priorbeen formallyquestioned? Whywere no records made of this interrogation? Who actually broughtVeronese's Last Supper in the SS. Giovannie Paolo beforethe Inquisition?Most cases were submittedby the Savi all'Eresia, but is that the case here? Who actually had access to the refectory of the Dominican monastery,besides the brethrenthemselves? We know that Vasari had been thereonce, when Titian'sversion ofthe painting was stillthere. Iftheyso wished, privateindividualscould visit the refectory,and Vasari evidentlywished to. Who else wanted to visitit? 131 This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:15:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EDWARD GRASMAN 3) Jacopo Tintoretto,«Saint Mark Saves a Saracen from Being Drowned», 1562 or later,oil on canvas, 3.98 x 3.37 m; Venice, Gallerie dell'Accademia. Photo: Collection CKD/RU Nijmegen. Duringthe proceedings, it became evident that inquisitor Fra Aurelio Schellino was very well acquainted withVeronese's picture,even betterthan Veronese himself,who apparently suffereda lapse of memorywhen he remarkedthat one of the soldiers was drinkingand anotherwas eating. As the interrogation was not held in the SS. Giovanni e Paolo, both the inquisitorand the painterwould have had to speak frommemory.The inquisitorhad a detailed knowledge of the work,as is obvious fromhis question about the nosebleed thatVeronese had painted. He knewthe paintingand so he must have visited the monastery,which mightwell be expected, of course, from a Dominican friar.Actually,itwould have been more surprising if he had not visited the most prestigious monastery of his order in thatcity.Isn't itlikelythat,on thatoccasion, the prior's "interrogation"was held, in frontof the picture itself?That mightexplain whythereare no records of it:these notes were never made. Isn't it likely,too, that Schellino himselfbrought the case beforethe Inquisition?The question remains:why? We don't need an in-depthunderstandingof psychology to realise thatSchellino wanted to prove himselfto the nuncio who had arrived in Venice only two weeks earlier,especially when everythingpointsto the factthatthissession mustreally have been the veryfirstthatCastagna attended in the city.39 In view of the precarious situationin which Venice found itself,so soon after the separate peace with the Ottoman Empire,which was deeply regrettedby Rome and which was the reason forCastagna's arrival,the independentattitudethat Schellino took towards Michelangelo's fresco, so disputed in Rome, was franklyadmirable.40Schellino did not only show personal valour,but he also immediatelymade itveryclear to Castagna that he was no longer in Rome, but in Venice. By workingtowards a solution of the described problem,Schellino also proved his efficiencyand his tolerance. But in the end, and perhaps most importantly, Schellino proved, by summoning the famous painter Veronese before the Inquisition to question an ambitious work for the prestigious Dominican monasteryofthe SS. Giovannie Paolo, thathe spared no one, not even the orderto which he himselfbelonged. To summarise, the immediatereason forVeronese's interrogationwas the iconographyof his painting,but the underlying reason was thatthe inquisitorfeltthe need to prove himself to the newlyappointed nuncio. We mighteven conclude that the crucial dynamics inthe entireproceedings had verylittleto do withVeronese but everythingwith internalecclesiastical politics. Until 1867, when Armand Baschet chanced upon the records in the archives, no one had even a suspicion of Veronese's interrogation. And yet,ifanyone could have known about it,itwould have been in the buildingadjacent to thatof the SS. Giovanni e Paolo, the Scuola Grande di San Marco. They were not merely neighbours; this rich Scuola also had the rightsto the main chapel in the SS. Giovannie Paolo itself. On August 10th1573, scarcely three weeks afterVeronese's interrogation,the Scuola sent three paintingsthat had been hanging in the Sala Capitolare back to the person who had commissioned them [Fig. 3]. These works by Tintoretto, depicting episodes fromthe legend of Saint Mark,the patron saint of the Scuola, had been manufacturedin the years after 1562 and were commissioned by the Guardian Grande at that time,Tommaso Rangone, who was grantedthisofficeagain in 132 This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:15:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ON CLOSER INSPECTION - THE INTERROGATIONOF PAOLO VERONESE 1568. Rangone, in turn,returnedthe paintingsto the Scuola fromwhere they were transportedto Tintorettoa littleunder a month later, on September 8th. Tintorettopromised the Scuola to complete themand to remove the figureof Rangone "et in loco di essa mettendoaltra accomodata".41 Rangone's prominentplace, centralto the action in the pictures,had presumably become a problemforthe Scuola. Dolce had already in termsthatcan hardlybe called implicit, criticisedTintoretto, a numberof senators in a paintingof had included he because the Excommunication by Pope Alexander III of Frederick Barbarossa in the Sala del Gran Consiglio: "ne hanno punto da farcon la storia".42Afterthe Council of Trent,the inclusion of contemporaries in religious pictures was feltto be even more of a problem, certainly if they were included in the action. In April1571, a conflicthad arisen between the Scuola and Rangone,43 but what induced the Scuola to delay the returnof these paintingsuntilabout two and a halfyears later, untilexactly that moment,in 1573? Were they taking advantage ofthe tense situationthathad arisen just around the corner at the SS. Giovanni e Paolo? In the end, it looks as if Tintorettohas altered nothingat all in the paintings,an oversightthatdoes not seem to have had any unfavourableconsequences for him. Again, had the momentum,by the end of The question is whetheror notthe display ofVenetianindependence that Schellino put on duringVeronese's interrogation was actually necessary. Just one week before Castagna leftRome on June 20th1573, Facchinettiwas informedthatthe Pope's wrathincurredby Venice had cooled a few days earlier.44Castagna must have leftRome realisingthat his position was less precarious than it had formerlyappeared. Schellino would not have knownthatyet,and the character of the new nuncio would have been unknownin Venice. However,itmust soon have become obvious that Castagna differedgreatlyto Facchinetti.In his lettersto Rome, Castagna worriesabout the delicate missions of Cardinal Morone. Would the old man manage to reach his destinationsin Genua and, later,Vienna safely? It is almost touching to read Castagna's concern and his reliefin response to positivereportsin his letters.45 Touchingis a word that we would never need to use in reference to Castagna's predecessor, Facchinetti. If the facts do not lie, Dei is a false lead, Facchinetti a zealot who, at times, needed to be curbed by the Curia itself46and Castagna particularlyhuman, however dedicated he too was to the cause of combating heretics and heathens. And Paolo Veronese was, even more so than Tintoretto,for a while, very much in the wrong place at the wrong, wrong time. The author would like to thank Michael Thimannforthe invitationto deliver the lecture on which this paper is based at the Kunsthistorisches Institutin Florenz. Gratitudeis also due to Anton Boschloo, Caroline van Eck, Elizabeth den Hartog, Benjamin Paul and Debra Pincus fortheirstimulatingremarkson earlierdraftsofthistext,which was translatedfromthe Dutch by Natasha Bradley. 1 P. H. D. Kaplan, "Veronese and the inquisition:tne geopolitical context",in E. Childs, ed., Suspended license: censorship and the visual arts,Seattle and London, 1997, pp. 85-124. 2 Integraltranscriptionsin P. Fehl, "Veronese and the Inquisition. A study of the subject matterof the so-called 'Feast in the House of Levi'", Gazette des Beaux-Arts,58, 1961, pp. 325-354 and M. Muraro, I'histoire",in Sym"La Cene de Veronese: les figures,I'interrogatoire, boles de la renaissance, III, Paris, 1990, pp. 185-221. Veronese was notthe onlypainterwho was interrogatedbythe Inquisition.Justa few years before,Riccardo Perucolo had even been sent to the stake, but not because of a painting. 3 M. Gemin, "Riflessioni iconografiche sulla Cena in Casa di Levi", in idem, ed., Nuovi studi su Paolo Veronese, Venice, 1990, pp. 367-370. 4 A. Baschet, "Paul Veronese appele au Tribunaldu Saint Office a Venise (1573)", Gazette des Beaux-Arts,18, 1867, pp. 378-382. 1573, already passed? 133 This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:15:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions EDWARD GRASMAN 5 C. Gilbert,"Bonifacioand Bassano, ca. 1533", ArteVeneta,32, 1978, pp. 127-133 and S. Simonetti,"Profilodi Bonifacio de'Pitati", Saggi e Memoriedi Storia dell'Arte,15, 1986, p. 106. 6 G. Vasari, Vite,G. G. Milanesi,ed., VII,p. 449. See in particular B. T. D'Argaville,"Titian'sCenacolo forthe Refectoryof SS. Giovanni e Paolo Reconsidered" in Tiziano e Venezia. Convegno internazionale distudi, Venezia 1976, Vicenza, 1980. dd. 161-167. 7 M. Matile, Quadri laterali im sakralen Kontext.Studien und Materialien zur Historienmalerei in venezianischen Kirchen und Kapellen des Cinquecento, Munich,1997, pp. 219-221. 8 B. Peria, "Tintorettoe I'Ultima Cena", Venezia Cinquecento, 7, 1997, p. 96. 9 Duringthese years, itwas usual foronlytwo ofthe Saw all'Eresia to be presentat the interrogations. 10 Archiviodi Stato di Venezia, Santo Uffizio,Busta 36 (Abraam Righetto). 11 G. Fogolari, "II processo dell'inquisizione a Paolo Veronese", Archivio Veneto, 5/7, 1935, pp. 352-386; E. Schaffran,"Der Inquisizionsprozess gegen Paolo Veronese", ArchivfurKulturgeschichte, 1960, pp. 178-193; Muraro 1990, pp. 185-221; A. Chastel, "Dibattiti con I'lnquisizione (1573)", in Chronique de la peinture italienne a la Renaissance 1280-1580, Freiburg,1983, pp. 208-226 and 280-285 and Kaplan 1997, pp. 85-124. 12 F. Gaeta & A. Stella, eds., Nunziaturedi Venezia, I-XI, Rome, 1958-1977. Volumes Vlll-X were edited by Aldo Stella (1963-1977), volume XI by Adriana Buffardi(1972). 13 GiovanniAntonioFacchinettito Michele Bonelli,d.d. 3-9-1569. Nunziaturedi Venezia IX,p. 119. 14 Giambattista Castagna to Tolomeo Galli, d.d. 4-7-1573. Nunziature di Venezia XI, pp. 48-49. 15 Archiviodi Stato di Venezia, Santo Uffizio,Busta 33 (Antonio Venier). 16 M. E. Massimi, "La cosidetta Cena in casa di Levi di Paolo Veronese: descrizione preliminare all'identificazione del soggetto come Cena in casa del fariseo", Venezia Cinquecento, 14/27, 2004, pp. 123-168 and "La regola e I'eccezione: le argomentazioni della Cena in casa del fariseo e le ragionidella committenzadomenicana", Venezia Cinquecento, 15/29,2005, pp. 129-154. 17 Muraro1990, pp. 189-190 and 214-217. 18 Kaplan 1997, pp. 100-105. I'll ignorethe Emortualeby Urbano Urbani, mentioned by Fogolari, Gemin and Kaplan, because it concerns events thattook place well before 1568. 19 Stella, "Prefazione"in Nunziaturedi Venezia X, pp. xxxi-xxxii. 20 Facchinettito Galli, d.d. 2-5-1573. Nunziaturedi Venezia X, p. 453. 21 Stella, "Prefazione" in Nunziature di Venezia IX, pp. xii-xiii; Kaplan 1997, p. 103. 22 Kaplan 1997, pp. 104 and 121 (note 69). *° Lettersbetween Facchinettiand Galli, d.d. 25-4-1573 and 9-51573. Nunziaturedi Venezia X, pp. 449-450 and 458-459. 24 Kaplan 1997, pp. 100-101. Before Kaplan: Fogolari 1935 and Gemin 1990, afterKaplan: A. Gottdang,"Paolo Veronese Gastmahl im Haus des Levi: die Revision eines Falls", Das Munster,53, 2000, pp. 202-217 and M. Seidel, "Sakularisierung: der Inquisitionsprozess gegen Paolo Veronese", Munster-Munchen,56/4,2003, pp. 249-253. 25 Facchinetti to Girolamo Rusticucci, d.d. 16-12-1570. Nunziaturedi Venezia IX,p. 409. 26 Massimi 2005, pp. 146-150. 27 Facchinettito Bonelli,d.d. 12-1-1571 . Nunziaturedi Venezia IX, 426-427. pp. 28 Facchinettito Bonelli,d.d. 7-2-1571. Nunziaturedi Venezia IX, pp. 442-444. 29 H. Jedin, Krisis und AbschluB des TrienterKonzils 1562/63, Basle and Vienna, 1964, pp. 87-88. 30 Facchinettito Bonelli,d.d. 14-2-1571 . Nunziaturedi Venezia IX, 445-446. pp. 31 Lettersbetween Facchinettiand Rusticuccior Bonelli,from1312-1570 onwards. Nunziaturedi Venezia IX, pp. 407, 410, 413, 417, 424, 427-428 and 449. 32 Facchinettito Bonelli,d.d. 22-3-1567,and Bonellito Facchinetd.d. 15-5-1568. Nunziaturedi Venezia VIII,pp. 193-194 and 386. ti, 33 M. Studi sul cardiFirpo,Inquisizione romana e Controriforma. nal GiovanniMorone (1509-1580) e il suo processo d'eresia, Brescia, 2005, passim. 34 Facchinettito Galli, d.d. 24-5-1572. Nunziaturedi Venezia X, 197-1 99. pp. 35 Galli to Facchinetti,d.d. 7-4-1573. Nunziaturedi Venezia X, pp. 441-442. 36 Facchinettito Galli,d.d. 2-5-1573. Nunziaturedi Venezia X, pp. 452-455. See also: Stella, "Prefazione"in: Nunziaturedi Venezia X, pp. xxii-xxiii. 37 Castagna to Galli,d.d. 11-7-1573. Nunziaturedi Venezia XI,pp. 51-54. 38 Foqolari 1935, p. 367. 39 In the Archiviodi Stato di Venezia, Santo Uffizio,Buste 33-36, no other sessions of the Inquisition between Castagna's arrivalon July4thand the interrogationof Veronese on July18th1573 are documented. 40 Gemin 1990, 367-370. p. 41 E. Weddigen, "Thomas Philologus Ravennas. Gelehrter, Wohltaterund Mazen", Saggi e Memorie di Storia dell'Arte,9, 1974, Le opere sacre pp. 15-18 and 61 ; R. Pallucchini& P. Rossi, Tintoretto. e profane, I, Milan, 1982, pp. 183-185 and T. Nichols, Tintoretto. Traditionand Identity,London, 1999, p. 143. 42 L. Dolce, LAretino. Dialogo della pittura,Venice, 1557. 43 Weddigen 1974, p. 57. 44 Galli to Facchinetti,d.d. 13-6-1573 and 20-6-1573. Nunziature di Venezia X, pp. 475 and 479. 45 Nunziaturedi Venezia XI,passim. 46 Stella, "Prefazione"in: Nunziaturedi Venezia VIM,p. xii. 134 This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:15:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz