Professional Documents
Culture Documents
© 2007
By Paul Henrickson, © 1961,2005
The research procedure used here included a survey of the literature generally
available pertinent to the art and the personality of Caravaggio on the one hand,
and on he other, a review of the literature in the field of psychoanalysis as it has
been applied to art and to artists. The one notable caution to be made about this
method is that psychoanalytic conclusions, which are based on the life and the work
of one artist, may not unlock the secrets of an other.
Mary Magdalene
classical Christianity. It is possible to assert that the subject matter area was largely
determined not by Caravaggio but by the convention within which he worked. The
subjects receiving emphasis in Caravaggio’s oeuvre and the manner of that
emphasis is an expression of the painter’s interest.
Fourteen other paintings depicting religious subjects but not concerned with death
are to be noted. Three of these tell of the early childhood of Christ, two are
concerned with the cult of the Virgin, two deal with the later life of Christ and six
are concerned with a few of the Christian saints, Matthew, Paul, Francis, and Mary
Magdalene. Another fourteen paintings deal with secular subject matter, four of
these are portraits while three of them, excluding the “Head of Medussa” already
accounted for, are classically derived subjects. Nine paintings are concerned with
youths, music and fruit.
Some of the more common subjects of Christian painting he did not choose. He did
no “Miracle of the Cross”, no “Marriage of St. Catherine”, no “Presentation of the
Virgin”, no “Coronation of the Virgin”. We cannot go so far as to conclude that he
had no interest in mystical subject matter for “The Martyrdom of St. Matthew”
approaches a kind of mystical integration of subject matter through contrived
formal means. He did no “Madonna and Child”, or “Adoration of the Magi” as
such, although the two commissioned works “The Madonna di Loretta”, and
“Madonna of the Rosary”, as well as “The Adoration of St. Francis and St’
Lawrence” might, conceivably fall into this category. He did no “Baptism of
Christ”, nor, and this is interesting considering the concern Caravaggio had for the
subject of death, did he a “Judgment of Solomon”, a “Saint Sebastian”, or, even, a
“Samson and Delilah” which is neither too removed compositionally nor theatrically
from a “Judith and Holophernes” which is a subject he did paint. It would not be
enough to say that Caravaggio preferred subjects which were related to death even
if one used as evidence the sometimes artistically inferior achievements he attained
when dealing with other religious subjects (2).
When Wolfflin states that “artistic form and imagination are the same thing” he is
speaking primarily of a national spirit, the statement also applies, however, to the
individual (3). The following are such iconographic peculiarities which I consider
significant to this problem. They are moments of obscured sensuality, monster
creations, the motive of the open mouth, and aggressive moments and gestures.
For moments of a different kind of sensuality we should take the finger of Thomas
in “The Incredulity of Thomas” (Plate 22) which he places in the wound. I know of
no other painting where Thomas is shown making so bold a move even though the
literary source seems to indicate that he is invited to do so. Something similar
happens in “The Deposition of Christ” (plate 35), where a mourner, John (?) has
placed or is about to place his finger in the wound of Christ. This act is not supposed
to be a purposeful act and is not recorded in the Bible. This may be a transposition
of events and in this painting prefiguring St. Thomas’ action of doubt. The
proximity of the finger to the wound, once it is noticed, heightens the sympathetic
tactile responses in the viewer. It is not a literal interpretation of the subject, which
would have suggested to Caravaggio this sensual device. Surely, this did not go
unnoticed by Caravaggio anymore than the finger of Christ which points nearly as a
living hand would point, to the corner of the slab which will shortly cover his tomb.
If “he artist uses aesthetic pleasure to relive and to master his conflicts” as is
suggested by Mark Kanzer in Contemporary Psychoanalytic Views of Aesthetics (4)
could it still be possible that we are reading too literally these subtle ichnographic
features in the work of Caravaggio which seem to speak of a certain kind of erotic
pleasure obtained through the proximity of forms and “the light touch”? I am
inclined to think not, for if these features had been less subtly handled, that is, made
more of by calling our attention to the directly and immediately, the effect, over the
long run, would have been less strong. The effect is stronger because it approaches
the subliminal. By degrees we become conscious of our awareness of them. These
particular features need not to have been in the pictures at all. They were not
necessary in order to illustrate he particular event.
The date of this painting is uncertain, although it is probably around 1595. Its style
makes it difficult for us to associate it as a product of the two or three-year period,
which separates it from the “St. Francis in Ecstasy”, discussed earlier. The “Rest on
the Flight Into Egypt” appears to be a performance piece, something on the order of
a “Master’s Degree Thesis” in modern terms. In fact, it seems to have a great deal in
common with Pontormo’s “Pieta” in Santa Felicita in Florence which, if we
interpret Berenson correctly, should be considered a Mannerist painting after
Michelangelo. If the date, 1595, is correct it would make this painting product of
Caravaggio’s early years and, at such an early stage of his development, it is not at
all impossible that he could have made a revolutionary change within a two-year
period, especially if, as I suspect, he was, himself, bored with his display of virtuosity
in the “Rest on the Flight Into Egypt”.
The ground beneath Joseph’s feet is strewn with stones, dead leaves, and gravel. To
the right of the angel are the Virgin and Child who appear not to recognize that the
angel is there, below them the ground is lush green and fruitful. The unawareness of
the angel’s presence is reminiscent of Ingmar Bergman’s “Seventh Seal” where only
the innocent and seemingly foolish Joseph appears to have the ability to see visions
and hear voices. Caravaggio’s Joseph appears both entranced and embarrassed by
the presence of this nude angel. Joseph’s feet embrace each other very much in the
manner of a little boy who is uretherally excited and needs to pass water. His knees
are held closely together and the torso is slightly huddled. The pose is generally
characteristic of embarrassed sexual excitement to which the person experiencing
the sensation is unaccustomed. Is this a reminiscence of Caravaggio’s own past, or,
perhaps, an observation of life around him? I this the simplemindedness and
absence of sophistication in the enjoyment of sexual things which lingers on in the
old man Joseph? Would it be legitimate to assume that Caravaggio at twenty-one or
twenty-two years of age had so reflected upon the qualities of innocence which made
u some early sexual experiences that he was able to project this awareness through
the medium of his painting? Friedlaender tells us that he was intelligent and literate
so it would not seem inconsistent to suppose that he was also preconscious about
awarenesses that concerned human beings. My estimate might well include the
possibility that Caravaggio could identify with the event if not specifically with
either the angel or with Joseph.
The question, which this raises about Caravaggio’s early sexual experiences, cannot
be answered here. Nevertheless we are tempted to continue questioning whether the
relief one sees on the face of St. Francis in “Saint Francis in Ecstasy” is similar to
the detent moment associated with orgasm. The angel in “The Rest on the Flight
Into Egypt” stands with his legs sensually caressing each other. Is this autoerotism?
Is it only the male of the species who, through sexual aberration, is capable of
artistic illusion and holy visions while becoming totally unproductive…as Joseph
was until later we are told…in any natural way? Meanwhile the Virgin is unaware
of unnatural creation. She is eminently practical and so essentially fruitful that life
springs up abundantly around her. The angel and Joseph fit compositionally as a
unit with garment flowing into garment, head faces head with only the head of an
ass between . If the 16th century Italian held the same rich variety of meaning for
that term, as does our language today it might prove an interesting elaboration upon
the theme. Formally, there is little compositional harmony between the Virgin and
Child on the one hand and the angel on the other. See how the angel turns his back
and intrudes the tip of his wing …again the light touch! The wing of artistic
inspiration is an illusion. Why is Joseph so entranced, so seduced by this vision?
Why is he not busy functioning as a father? albeit a foster father, by tethering the
ass, gathering wood, looking over his wife and child sleeping? Is the father image in
Caravaggio so distorted, so incomplete, that, to him, a father is an illusion? We
might remember that Caravaggio’s father died while the boy was still young and
Baptisto, the older brother, who would have been seen as father replacement was
scorned by Caravaggio after he joined a monastic order and thus effectively, and
symbolically, removed himself from that category.
MONSTER CREATIONS
Slightly less potent is the ambiguity in “The Resurrection of Lazarus” (Plate 57)
where the two figures to the right of the man who caries Lazarus by the feet are
joined, their limbs and their heads are confused. In “Seven Acts of Mercy” (Plate49),
the feet and legs of the dead man are on the viewer’s side of the wall which separates
him from the priest who lights the way. Where is the rest of the body which now
seems to disappear directly through the wall of the prison, or is it just scraping by
the corner of the building? One tries, unsuccessfully, of course, to fit the head of the
old man in prison and who suckles the breast of the young woman to this body. Not
to such a great extent do the two figure to the right in the “Maryrdom of St.
Matthew” (Plate30) appear ambiguously joined, although some confusion exists.
What these awkward placements of bodies and, or, their parts, do is to leave the
viewer with the impression that these are only visual notations of the characters
involved and not meant at all as meaningful participants in a drama. They are
reminders only of the roles they play. Caravaggio’s interest in creating a totally
meaningful composition in which the characters he portrayed might reasonably
function manifested itself only periodically.
“Personality studies”, says Freud, “do not claim to explain creative genius, but they
do reveal the factors which awaken it and the sort of subject matter it is destined to
choose” (6). I think it doubtful that these monster creations are subject matter
choices, which Caravaggio consciously made, although a case might be made that
this distortions are subliminal precursors to cubism. No reason exists which I am
able to recognize which would explain their presence in their presently coarse
painting technique had Caravaggio been consciously concerned about them. It
seems, rather, that the definition that art is a creation of a waking dream is more
adequate. Not all factors of a dream attain to the same degree of clarity (7). Could it
be that these represent the emergence of material from the pre-conscious to the
conscious as some psychoanalytic writers have suggest accounts for the monster
creations inhabiting the art of the Middle Ages?
The motif of the open mouth, orans figure, blood, teeth occur very frequently in
various combinations in the work of Caravaggio. Of the thirty-six works, which
exhibit variations of this motif only, six will be discussed in detail. The open mouth
of “Head of Medusa” (Plate14) reveals teeth and a quantity of blood issuing from
the severed head. The presence of snakes here is iconographically necessary and
because of this will not enter into our discussion. “Judith and Holofernes” (Plate
19), repeats the same motif as does Goliath in “David with the Head of Goliath”
(Plate 41). It seems significant that the three heads just mentioned also bare striking
likenesses to each other as well as to that one which is thought to be a self-portrait in
“Seven Acts of Mercy”.
The open mouth-orans motif can be found in two very striking and admirable
canvases. These are “The Conversion of St. Paul” (Plate33), and “Deposition of
Christ” (Plate 35). In the “Conversion” the orans figure may not be noticed
immediately for it appears up-side-down in the fallen figure of Paul. However, the
very striking orans figure in the “Deposition” (the figure that Caravaggio included
when he re-compositioned Ruben’s treatment of the subject reveals better almost
than any other example the meaning such a gesture might convey. Traditionally, the
orans figure symbolizes the disembodied soul, and as we can see this traditional
meaning would not be out of place here, yet, how absolutely effective it is as a
yielding and submitting figure.
The prostrate figure of Paul is just as yielding and defenseless. The horse in the
presence of a spiritual phenomenon gently lifts…and by this act makes impotent, yet
still threatening…its powerful right front leg. It is not difficult to sense in both of
these canvases an absolute submission to divine authority. It is, perhaps, in these
paintings hat we may be able to extract an important clue to the character of the
man who panted them. Caravaggio may have felt in his more bitter moments, that
self-inflicted castration (8) was a means of expiating some guilt the nature of which
can only be inferred. There are certain events in his life, which tend to support this
view.
As a review of the major incident in his life will show, Caravaggio frequently found
himself in minor skirmishes. Only once, however, did serious harm come to anyone
but himself . The murder of Ranuchio of Terni on May 31, 1606, apparently threw
Caravaggio into such turmoil that he was unable either to admit his guilt or to
prepare adequately for his escape. He most he legally suffered, in addition to the
physical injuries during the fray, was placement under house arrest. He did
eventually escape and fled through the Sabine Hills to the protection of the Duke
Marzio Colonna.
The very frequent brushes with the authorities would today have labeled him a
habitual offender. With the exception of this accidental homicide nothing but trifling
incidents characterized what were considered at the time as annoying an
objectionable behavior. I am frankly surprised that they have attracted so much
attention as to have earned Caravaggio the reputation as a troublemaker and a
criminal. The first recorded offense occurs after 1600 when, as Freiedlaender (9)
points out, Caravaggio was 27 years old and “well after his irresponsible years of his
unprotected youth…as one reads these accusations made against him from month to
month and year to year one gets the impression that he had a head-strong disregard
for his own safety.”
A young girl whom Caravaggio was using as a model (probably for “The Madonna
of the Rosary”) was the object of Pasqualone’s affection. Pasqualone had been
rejected by the mother of the girl in question and he retaliated by insinuating to the
girl’s mother that the chaste young girl’s honor would most seriously be in question
if she should serve Caravaggio as a model. There is some indication that Caravaggio
committed the attack while obeying the demands of his own sense of chivalry.
Reflectively, it is possible that Caravaggio resented the implied insult to his own
behavior since; it does appear that while he didn’t desire the female he respected
them. The final outcome of the situation provided Pasqualone with a document from
Caravaggio in which he states that Pasqualone, with a sword n hand, is the equal of
any other man. What an odd document to require! What is the reason behind this?
Although, at this point, it is Pasqualone’s manhood, which is being legally
proclaimed as adequate, with the proviso that he be provided a sword, is it sufficient
for us to interpret this odd event as the key note to the quarrelsome nature of a man
who may have wished to prove his own manhood by physically abusive behavior? I
do not think so. The incident indicates, I believe, Caravaggio’s chivalric nature
being brought to the defense of his own sensitive responsiveness, chivalry put to the
use of protecting the feminine in man.
How poignant and psychologically potent this scene really is. Will Matthew escape
martyrdom but not death? Will it be death by seduction or sanctification? One
senses here that the decision rests with Matthew, that the event will certainly take
place but the quality of the death turns on the saint’s state of mind at that ultimate
moment. To reach the palm he must meet the sword, in other words he must strive
for martyrdom, but need only to be passive to receive death, hence Matthew is
seduced by the concept of sanctification. What implications such a subtle behavior
in which the balance between sin and justice, divine and eternal guilt, or innocence
may have provided us with a clue as to other areas in which Caravaggio exhibited
some ambivalence (10).
Other moments of aggressive ambiguity can be seen in “David with the Head of
Goliath” (Plate 41), where David’s expression appears to indicate that he really
didn’t want to do it, that it was done only because it had to be done, and he didn’t
like the results. Such an idea is very different from the one we get from
Michelangelo’s David or what we get from the Davids of Verrochio or Bernini.
There is a mixture of pity, loathing, and even love in David’s face as he gazes on the
bloody head of Goliath, which he has just severed from its body. Even the expression
on Goliath’s face has qualities of both horror and reflective enjoyment.
SUMMARY
We may consider the last four years of his life as the most intense not merely
because it was the most active period creatively (Freidlaender), or because after
1600 his personal life is regularly punctuated by an ever increasing severity of civil
disturbances, but because these two areas, the creative and the civil, become
symptomatic of an ever growing inner struggle between self-love and self-
destruction, between freedom to express the self and feelings of guilt for doing so.
* * *
NOTES
1) Ernst Kriss, “Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art”, New York: International
Universities Press, Inc.,1952,P/18/ Kriss’s footnote to this statement follows:
“A significant attempt in this direction by Wolfenstein and Leltes (1947,1950)
is connected with the study of recent American and European films.” For
other fruitful suggestions see Friedman and Gassel (1950), and particularly
Kanzer (1948,1950), who stresses that any “cultural” interpretation
presupposes a correct and inclusive psychological interpretation. The
anthropological literature supplies more instances pf an approach similar to
the one postulated above.
2) Edith & Ernst Zierer, “Leonardo da Vinci’s Artistic creativity and Creative
Sterility”, “American Imago”, 14,1957.347ff. ,state that a painter cannot will
integrative or disintegrative results. The level of integration or disintegration
is completely independent of technical skill, originality, or talent.
3) Ibid,Edith & Ernst Zierer. Pp.345-369. “it no longer seems doubtful that
what man has experienced during infancy or childhood (particularly if
experience is restricted to external events but includes patterns of conflicts
and their solution) may influence as a recurrent theme (or as a defense
against it) his thought processes, his dreams, and his artistic creations.
4) Mark Kanzer, “Contemporary Psychoanalytical Views of Aesthetics”,
Journal of The American Psychoanalytic Association, 5, ’57,p.516.
5) I can also see the justification for Freidlaender’s comparison of this picture
with Lorenzo Lott’s “Marriage of St. Catherine” and Jacopo Bassano’s
figure in the front left of his “Flight” and the figure in the same position in
Caravaggio’s “The Crucifixion of Saint Peter”.
6) Mark Kanzer, op.cit.,p514 (quoting from Sigmund Freud)
7) Ibid.,p.516.
8) Symbolically referred to by means of decapitation. Kohut Heinz in “Death in
Venice”, by Thomas Mann. “A Story about the Disintegration of Artistic
Sublimation”, The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 26, 1957, New York,
hypothesizes that artistic activity may be related to the feminine principle,
and may derive energy from the sublimation of infantile wishes. He also tells
us that death is a recurrent theme in Mann (as we have seen it is in
Caravaggio) and that the artistic device of death was used as means of
symbolically aiding Mann to continue living so that he might continue to
work. I am viewing Caravaggio’s emphasis on the same theme as a device for
inflicting self-punishment, as an expiation for guilt without necessarily, as it
was with Mann, its being a device to continue living in order to be able to
continue to work.
9) Walter Freidlaender, “Caravaggio Studies”. Princeton University Press,
1955,p.119
10) Was Caravaggio bi-sexual, homosexual, or heterosexual? If he was
homosexual did he express this overtly? Look, for example, at “The Lute
Player” (Plate 13), is this a male or a female figure? Berenson thought it to be
male. If Caravaggio was really a brawler in the true sense of the term, why
was he so often a loser? What is the relationship between some repeated
“masculine” activity and consistent failure in it?
11) Loc.cit., “Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art”, p.243
12) Sanuel J. Sperling. “The Symbolic Meaning of the Corner”, “The Journal of
the American Psychoanalytic Association”,5,1957.pp250ff.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PERIODICALS
It is with regret and not a little irritation that I have read, somewhere, comments
to the effect that Caravaggio was responsible for the “naturalism central to the
Baroque style throughout Europe”.
Wile it might be offered that the southern European resident in the area of the
Mediterranean might be a bit more physically expressive in the style of social
communication than the general run of the English or Scandinavian
communicant, I find it difficult to accept the suggestion that the characters
which inhabit the world of Caravaggio are portrayed naturalistically. Granted
that auxiliary characters, such as the three unidentified and anonymous
characters assisting in the “Crucifixion of Saint Peter”, and, to some extent,
Saint Peter himself, are portrayed, in their positions, as one might see them were
one to have been an eyewitness to the event. But it is at that point that the
“naturalism” ceases for in no way, that I am able to accept, is the dark
presentation of this scene able to be explained as the one would see if there
present at the event. The most effective demonstration of this thesis would be to
compare this painting with “Christina’s World” by Wyeth and Monet’s “Poppy
Fields”
The Pinacoteca Capitolina in Rome possesses a “St. John , The Baptist” of more
than common charm, sophistication, and seduction, and while the observer
might feel that he is gazing upon a moderately unwashed ragazzo, the
compositional arrangements can, in no way, be called “naturalistic”. To
underscore the point once again, the portrait by Wyeth of “Anna Christina”
should adequately settle the matter. The Caravaggio composition is not at all
unlike that of “The Laocoon” of the Hellenistic period. The important aesthetic
differences in these three works may be stated s follows: the Wyeth “Anna
Christina” allows the observer to maintain an objective and detached , but not
unsympathetic, stance while, the other two challenge the observer to participate
and therein lies all the important differences…differences in the aesthetic
message…in the one case one is a dispassionate observer and in the other two a
passionate participant. All three are valid statements, which are not served well
by the term “naturalism” UNLESS one is courageous enough to elaborate and it
is ONLY through such elaboration that art and the criticism of art are well
served.
Both of these works are intentionally dealing with what appears to be factual
visual aspects of the natural environment. The Wyeth world, which seems to be
referencing the mid-west section of the United States describes a degree of
atmospheric clarity, which very nearly allows one to count the very number of
the blades of grass. On the other hand, the painting by Monet of “Poplars” was
evidently painted at a time when there was not only active precipitation, a mist
descending upon earth, but, as well, an evaporation of moisture which had
already descended which consequently produced a vaporousness between the
observer and the objects being observed. Both of these works can be considered
naturalistic, yet, they are very different from each other.