Sacred and Profane Love

Sacred and Profane Love

Tuesday 8 November 2011

Sacred and Profane Love. The Restoration: Harold & Alice Wethey, Giorgione, Nicolo Aurelio & Titian.

Of the many interpretations of the Sacred and Profane Love it is Erwin Panofsky's hypothesis of the Twin Venuses that has persisted as the most enduring and referenced theory of the twentieth century, but over time that theory's popularity appears to have lost some influence in favour of the paintings apparent association with an historical wedding. Several evidence based discoveries by the American historians Harold E. Wethey and his wife Alice would for a time overshadow Panofsky's intuitive guesswork.

Professor Harold E Wethey

Alice Wethey announced the existence of the Bagarotto coat~of~arms in the silver phiale sited on the ledge of the sarcophagus/fountain which seemed to confirm that the painting was most probably commissioned by Niccolo Aurelio, the Secretary to the Venetian Council of Ten to celebrate his wedding to Laura Bagarotto. But was it really so?

After the 1993-94 restoration of the Sacred and Profane Love, the Bagarotto coat~of~arms in the silver phiale apparently disappeared, a point which was later confirmed in Professor Jaynie Anderson's 1996 publication Giorgione: The painter of Poetic Brevity. Anderson states there that the restoration of the painting by Anna Marcone in 1993-94 proved Alice Wethey's claim to be fanciful:

"...the coat~of~arms had never been present..." Anderson p.231

But the more obvious coat~of~arms upon the escutcheon at the centre-front of the sarcophagus had already been confirmed (see Minerbi, Wethey) as belonging to Niccolo Aurelio, the Secretary to the Venetian Council of Ten, and this has remained the case to this day.

There had also been other discoveries announced by the Wethey's. Around the same time Harold Wethey claimed to have discerned two formerly indistinct iconographs that appeared to have been overpainted. According to Wethey these iconographs were altered or deleted:
"either during the painting's construction - or at a later date". 

Wethey describes these iconographs:

 "... a head of a dog or a cow..." [at the paintings left next to the silver/white dress of the clothed figure] and a "...fallen ivy covered pillar..." (Wethey, 1972, p.177).

After the Marcone restoration the sighted 'head of a dog or a cow' and the 'ivy covered pillar' claimed by Harold Wethey also seemed to disappear raising doubts as to whether they too had ever actually existed.

But there is a problem here. According to the sequence of the zodiacal constellations present in the constellation map of the Southern Hemisphere, it is highly likely that the head of a dog or a cow was present next to the clothed figure. In a star map of the Southern Celestial Hemisphere (with the South Celestial Pole at the centre) zodiacal sequence indicates that it was a dog intended to represent Leo as Sirius - the Dog Star. Not only this but it is also possible that the fallen ivy covered pillar might also be reinstated.

Harold Wethey claimed to have first noted the head of a dog (or cow) and the fallen ivy covered pillar after examining photographic slides that he had personally made of the painting which was then in a state of pre-restoration. As Professor Wethey originally noticed these iconographs on film they may very well exist as a part of the late Mr Wethey's body of work. Their reappearance would prove invaluable, because it was after carefully studying those slides that the Wethey's were able to claim that those iconographs could actually be confirmed with the naked eye. Locating and gaining access to those photographs would be a very significant step in judging the veracity of the Wethey claims. However these claims by the Wetheys are secondary to the strength of context and sequence announced by the geometric and zodiacal sequence outlined in this essay.

According to this analysis it appears logical that the first of Mr Wethey's observations is contextually correct. That second discovery - the fallen ivy covered pillar - is arguably a motif of Giorgione's and can be paralleled with an associated text from which the programme for the Sacred and Profane Love is sourced. Even if one of Harold Wethey's observations can be reinstated it is possible to conclude that Alice Wethey's observation may too have had merit.

It is extremely plausible to consider those escutcheon's belonging to Aurelio and Bagarotto may have been added by Titian at a later date to authenticate the painting for Aurelio, after all, it was Titian who reworked and completed several of Giorgione's works after his early death in 1510. Has Titian deleted two iconographs and added two more? 

By challenging that predetermined authority which the coat~of~arms historically implies, what can actually be said of the Sacred and Profane Love without reaching for this apparently evidential 'fact' for support? This is a very important question because the Aurelio coat~of~arms has determined the direction of all historical discourse. As an argument must participate and agree with certain aspects of previous arguments, the apparent integrity of this one glaring piece of evidence is constantly repeated and therefore seemingly endorsed when perhaps the existence of the Aurelio coat~of~arms needs to be read quite differently. The Aurelio coat~of~arms has developed all the painful thrill of an upturned garden rake that is consistently stepped on by those following a well trodden art historical path and seeking to make a sense of the Sacred and Profane Love's true history and authorship

Without access to Harold Wethey's early slides the major problem for the reinstatement of the Wethey's observations is that after 1994, the Sacred and Profane Love that had been scrutinised by the Wethey's no longer exists - at least in a condition that can now only be termed pre-restoration. The painting is now in a state of post-restoration, and the former observable condition irrevocably altered.

Were those iconographs visible prior to the paintings restoration, or were they simply figments of Harold Wethey's scholarly and up to this point - untarnished reputation? Untarnished, because Professor Wethey was now considered 'unreliable' and any work that attempted to pursue the notion of the missing or false iconographs would ostensibly be tarred by the same brush. Conceptual analysis is the only critique available to the inquirer.

The late Mr James Beck was one of a literally dying breed of scholars who had seen the Sacred and Profane Love both pre and post restoration. In an e-mail response Beck condemned the restoration of the Sacred and Profane Love ('terrible' was the descriptive) but to be fair others such as Jaynie Anderson appear to champion the Marcone restoration. Either way the restoration has removed the option of returning to the painting in the identical, unrestored physical state to which the Wethey's and Beck and Anderson were all once privy. Mr Beck's personal opinion on the quality of restoration is recorded here as a matter of interest and balance.

Still, how can something so important be found by two eminently qualified people just disappear? This analysis will suggest that Harold Wethey's observations should not be dismissed. Materially and methodologically, an oil painting is bound by certain parameters.

In defence of the Wethey's it is fair to say that oil paint can lose its opacity over long periods of time (in accordance to the materials used and the technique employed) and it is physically possible that a form of 'ghosting' may have been occurring in the Sacred and Profane Love. An excellent example of oil transparency is found in Antoine Watteau's Venetian Pleasure. (Fig 1.)

Fig 1. Antoine Watteau, Venetian Pleasure, c. 1718

In Watteau's Venetian Pleasure (Fig 1.) observe the gentleman wearing eastern theatrical garb (opposite the standing female in white dress) and in particular note the original stance of the legs where the paint has become transparent. Both legs have been altered.

Fig 2. Venetian Pleasure (Detail)

In fig 2., the transparent paint exposes the original stance of the left leg which now being clearly visible, is ghosted and bent (backward) at the knee. This is a markedly different pose. Watteau has decided to point the left leg to rest it on the ball of the foot.

While the Sacred and Profane Love and Watteau's Venetian Pleasure emerge from different times in different countries and further, that every artist has an individual approach to the laying down of oil paint, the purpose here is to show that age & oil paint  & a loosely similar technique can produce transparency. Watteau was a notoriously quick painter who worked in excessive amounts of oil, mixtures of oil & varnish, and semi-transparent glazes.

If the Sacred and Profane Love were the Night (which is the developing argument here) it was according to  Isabella's informant - 'very singular and beautiful' and so at a stage of near resolution, implying that the painting was finished and drying or dried because such an observation could not be made of a work still at a formative stage. Titian had four years after the death of Giorgione (1510) in which to rework and authenticate the Sacred and Profane Love for Nicolo Aurelio - and this is where things may have gone awry; has Titian used an oil and varnish technique similar to Watteau and thereby made the same technical mistake?

Because the paint was dry Titian may have used an oil/varnish glaze mixture to detail that which was already resolved (and so, '...beautiful...') and by increasing pigment of the glazes increase the opacity of specific areas without the need to totally repaint. This is reworking rather than repainting, and quite possibly - because of high oil and varnish glazes those deleted areas have returned to haunt Titian in the findings of the Wethey's.

The Marcone restoration - as with any restoration - has altered the surface of the paint: This is to say the surface of the painting is no longer unrestored; the paintings appearance has altered; is now restored and can never again be considered otherwise (i.e. unrestored). Let us be clear that restoration and cleaning are not necessarily compatible or even friendly terms. In Australia in 2002, the criticism of an exhibition entitled 'The Italians' by Mr Mr Benjamin Genocchio claimed that a number of paintings included in that exhibition had been questionably restored:

 “cleaned and repainted, destroying much of their original colour and brushwork” 

If memory serves correctly, the comment 'cleaned to within an inch of their lives' was in there too, and one can understand and respect the concerns of Artwatch, the organisation founded by the aforementioned - now the late - Mr James Beck (1930-2007).

There can be no doubt that Titian's masterly input has added to the complexity that is the Sacred and Profane Love, but whether he is deserving of the paintings outright poetic arrangement is the point here. Even if Giorgione were working from a programme (he was), that painters poetic sensibility wrought the 'singular' beauty which was evident and readily apparent. Again we know this was so because Isabella's letter to her merchant described the painting as 'very singular and beautiful' which could not be said of a work that was less than half baked so to speak.

Titian's deletions made the work more obscure - which was probably his intent and also, by altering it, he could (to himself at least) claim a certain authorship. If the worst scenario here is possible and Titian has conspired with Aurelio to advance his career and assure himself of attaining the much coveted sensaria (held by Giovanni Bellini which came with an annual stipend, sizeable tax breaks and enormous prestige) the behaviour could be seen as an enormous mistake by Titian - the opportunistic ambition of a precocious youth and would seem to herald a sordid beginning to Titian's relationship between art and state.

Of the relationship between Titian and Aurelio, just how much can be said of the character of both? How could Aurelio have afforded this painting and just how politically powerful was he? And if Titian can be found to have reworked the Sacred and Profane Love to further his own ends, why stop at one? Might any other of the works considered 'Giorgionesque' that are given to the oeuvre of Titian be in fact the reworked hand of Giorgione himself?

To be continued... (next post in January - Happy New Year!)


Thursday 3 November 2011

Sacred and Profane Love: Presepio, Nativity, Night, Una Nocte, and the Alchemic Night.

Night the voluptuous, Night the chaste,
Spreads Her dark limbs, a vaulted splendour
Above the intolerable waste.
Night the August one: Night the tender,
Queens it and Brides it unto me.
[In Crowley's poem, the Queen and the Bride are two aspects of the one great Mother: Night. The Queen would be read as the mother Ceres while the Bride is read as Proserpine - again presented as the two aspects of the One. This is Alchemical esoteria reinvigorated in the form of occultism.]

"Darkness preceded light and She is Mother"    
(Inscription on the altar of the cathedral, Salerno Italy.)
One way to read the Sacred and Profane Love is as a rigidly constructed Alchemic Night, which is an Alchemic narrative based upon the Nigredo and the ancient notion of Night as the one fertile primordial presence; the engenderer.

Historically this will involve that great female art patron of the Renaissance, Isabella d’Este and her quest to acquire a painting from the studio of Giorgione; a 'Night' (una nocte) immediately after hearing of Giorgione's untimely death from the plague in 1510. Being mindful of the complexity of the Alchemic tradition and the Alchemic implications that contribute to the Sacred and Profane Love, an imaginative historical environment is required to populate all possible relationships surrounding Isabella and the Sacred and Profane Love, and in particular those references that might refer to the Sacred and Profane Love as a presepio [a nativity] or as the una nocte [a night]. 
To set the wheels of inquiry in motion, a series of events were taking shape late in the Quattrocentro which would produce revelatory documented communication between Isabella d'Este and Giovanni Bellini some seven or so years preceding those agitated tribunals involving Titian & Bellini and the Council of Ten in 1512.

The search for a 'night' and/or a 'presepio' by Isabella d'Este.                                                   
Around 1497 a merchant, armed with a programme (invenzione) was employed by Isabella d’Este to procure the services of the aging Giovanni Bellini and acquire a painting for Isabella's studiolo. In 1501 and again in 1502 the clavichord maker Lorenzo da Pavia became involved in further attempts to secure the painting from the seemingly reluctant Bellini. It appears that Bellini did not wish to follow the design which had been given to him. That Bellini was struggling with the design of the painting was outlined by Pietro Bembo in a letter from January of 1506. That letter from Bembo to Isabella is well known to historians and is as follows:
[‘The subject which your Excellency writes to me that I should devise for the design must be suited to the fancy of the person who has to execute it;] whose pleasure is that sharply defined limits should not be set to his style, being wont, as he says to wander at will in paintings..." Bourke. pp119-120
All alchemical works had been outlawed by the Council of Ten in 1488, which would have created a conflict of interest for Bellini when considering his highly coveted position as the Official Painter to the Venetian State,  a prestige which had been awarded to him only five years earlier in 1483. Could the reason behind Bellini's reluctance to provide Isabella with her painting be because that request (actually the programme outlining her request) could be interpreted as being alchemical in nature? We know that a programme had been left with Bellini:
'the artist then expressed a reluctance to follow the program which had been drawn up for his use.'
Was this why the work was so distasteful for Bellini to execute? Through a letter from Bembo to Isabella, Bembo writes that he has almost secured Bellini’s interest in producing Isabella’s commission if only she could write directly to Bellini. On the 19th of October Isabella did so, and curiously, for the second time, refers to the as yet unseen painting as a ‘presepio’.

The Sacred and Profane Love is a presepio.

A Presepio is an enclosure** such as a group formed around the manger though not necessarily requiring the architecture of a stall.

Fig 1. Domenico Ghirlandaio, The Adoration of the Shepherds,1485. 

In the Adoration of the Shepherds (see fig 1.) Ghirlandaio's arrangement of the group of figures forms a presepio (locus) which reveals the manger as the focusPresepio and manger are the core motifs of a nativity figurative arrangement. Etymologically the word presepio also reveals the form:
'…In the ancient word, a combination of prae, "in front," and saepire, "to enclose,"...  Ibid.
So, an enclosure - in itself the location which reveals in its midst a focus - the manger - which in the Adoration is actually the feedbox: 
Manger in strict usage — though today also used for the Nativity scene —actually refers to the trough or open box used for livestock feed in which the Infant Jesus rests."
Though differing in source, the words manger and presepio are comparably thematic in that the former occupies the focus while the latter forms the locus or the stage of a [nativity] setting; which is to say that a presepio forms the locus (think location) which surrounds and so intends to indicate a specific focal point. In the nativity setting this focus would be the manger, and in the Sacred and Profane Love the focus is the sarcophagus/fountain while the figures (in concert with the underlying circular geometry) form the presepioPeter Bourke, referring to the Night (una nocte) in Giorgione's studio, had this to say:
“It is intriguing to know that at Giorgione’s death there was a picture in his studio which Isabella’s agent called ‘a night’ (una nocte); was this a landscape? It may equally well have been a ‘holy night’, that is, a Nativity. Corregio’s Nativity of 1530 has often been called a ‘Night’ " P.B. p.190. 
Isabella's presepio has been indicated through the correspondence of Isabelle to be a type of 'night' or 'nativity', and the design of the Sacred and Profane Love mimics the structure of a presepio because the centrally placed sarcophagus (the symbolic manger) alludes to the motif of the manger (as the focal point) by the 'enclosure' form of the presepio - the horseshoe arrangement of the figures about the trough. Structurally, the Sacred and Profane Love is a presepio.

Fig. 2. The Sacred and Profane Love is a nocturne

Subsequently, as the streaked sky is sunless the Sacred and Profane Love should be regarded as a nocturne and can also therefore be considered as both nativity and/or a 'night'. As the term 'a night' was used by Isabella's agent on her behalf that term could equally be describing  the Sacred and Profane Love, though as yet unseen by the public eye. If this 'night' were actually a near resolved yet still formative version of 'Titian's' so-called Sacred and Profane Love, this would insinuate Giorgione as the paintings primary artist; the auteur of the Sacred and Profane Love through what could only be termed as a surreptitious collaboration. It is the underlying geometric scaffold upon which meaning is draped where the paintings underlying subject matter will be eventually revealed.

To summarise here; visually the Sacred and Profane Love participates in the category of a nativity because there is no sun or direct shadow in the painting and the streaked cloud indicates that the time is either pre-dawn or twilight. Therefore the painting is clearly a nocturne and as a nocturne then can again be referred to as a 'night'. As a type of figurative grouping the Sacred and Profane Love can structurally be termed as a presepio. This is to say that the terms night, presepio, and nativity are all applicable when describing the Sacred and Profane Love. It has been said of the Sacred and Profane Love that it is the most Giorgionesque of Titian's paintings. Is this the reason?

Isabella's programme not pursued by Bellini.

Isabella never received the original painting that was asked of Bellini from the programme that she supplied to him and instead settled for a nativity of a rather standard Christian theme. This is known from a letter of reply sent to her agents by Isabella. The agents had suggested that Isabella give Bellini 'liberty' to create his own unfettered painting:
"If Giovanni Bellini is as reluctant to paint his history as you say, we are content to leave the subject to him, provided that he paints some history or ancient fable." P.B. p.120
The author peter Bourke concludes the above entry with this comment:
"In fact, Bellini was able to beat her down even further; she ended by accepting a Nativity." P.B. p.120
It appears that this final, work accepted by Isabella was not a pagan nativity but rather, a standard Christian Nativity. But what became of the painting (a night) by Giorgione that had been described to Isabella as 'very beautiful and singular'? 

The disappearance of the una nocte, Isabella's haste, Bellini and Alfonso.

Alternatively, the Night in Giorgione's studio may have been derived from the original programme, the importance of which Isabella was not aware, though this seems unlikely. Still, Bellini was approached by Alfonso while Isabella was still in negotiation with Bellini. Obviously Bellini had prioritised Alfonso.

Giorgione most likely pursued the Sacred and Profane Love as an uncommissioned piece for two reasons: Firstly, had Giorgione chosen to pursue the commission it would not compromise Bellini's position as Painter to the Republic of Venice because alchemical works had become illegal in Venice in 1488 and Bellini would understandably have been reluctant to lose his sensariaSecondly, Giorgione had an interest in mythological esoteria (this is discussed in the Fondaco post.) On hearing of Giorgione's death Isabella wrote to her agent:
"...we are informed that among the stuff and effects of the painter Zorzo of Castelfranco there exists a picture of a night (una nocte) very beautiful and singular; if so it might be, we desire to possess it and we therefore ask you, in company with Lorenzo da Pavia and any other who has judgement and understanding, to see whether it is a really fine thing and if you find it such, go to work ... to obtain this picture for me, settling the price and giving me notice of it. P. B. p.134
Isabella seemed to have been unaware of this painting's existence prior to being informed of Giorgione's death and the 'stuff and effects' that remained in his studio. It seems that the information of the Night's existence came from another primary source. If Isabella were unaware of this almost resolved painting that was 'very beautiful and singular' and it was not designed from her original programme, then where did it come from? Also, whose word was it that so inflamed Isabella's imagination that she would act with such expedience to secure a work that she had no prior awareness of? It seems she was acting in good faith for someone whom she must have absolutely trusted. Only Alfonso could fit this description. And how did Alfonso become aware?  Bellini...

Upon arriving at Giorgione's studio, Isabella's agent was informed that there were two paintings that fitted the description, one owned by Taddeo Contarini, and the other by a Victor Beccaro, but added that they were 'not for sale at any price'. Was this a simple deception organised to 'throw the dogs of the scent' as it were?

Alfonso d'Este, The Council of Ten & Nicolo Aurelio.

Turning back the clock again, it seems that during the time of Isabella's initial negotiations with Bellini, Alfonso d'Este, duke of Ferrara had also requested a painting from Bellini. As the programme for the Sacred and Profane Love seems to have its roots in Ferrara - and due to the duke's involvement in the Venetian wars, it is not clear whether this request was ever delivered (with every chance it would not have been). Perhaps even Nicolo Aurelio himself had been made aware of Alfonso's request for as Professor Anderson had noted:
'Aurelio's taste was initially formed by Giorgione's large nudes on the Fondaco...'
Niccolo Aurelio was the secretary to the Council of Ten, but to add to Niccolo Aurelio's impressive political advantage in supposedly receiving the Sacred and Profane Love as a 'wedding commission', Alfonso was also the most despised man in Venice:
"Among the confederate powers, no one had exited the resentment of the Venetians in so great a degree as Alfonso, duke of Ferrara..." W. Roscoe. p.241

Of the several reasons behind the resentment toward Alfonso was that he had joined the League of Cambrai in the war against Venice and in 1510, assisted by the French, crushed the army of Venice in an ambush along the Po river, causing a loss to the Venetians of upward of 'three thousand men'. Life of Leo X. W. Roscoe p.241.

If the Council of Ten had been informed of the existence of a painting for Alfonso, they would certainly not have allowed him that prize. Here would be the perfect leverage for Aurelio to negotiate and claim the painting for himself. This would be effected with Titian's complicity of course, for it would be he who would be required to authenticate the painting for Aurelio in the form of the coat~of~arms. 

As everything about this painting is pervaded by and has its source in Ferrara, the painting which became known to Isabella after Giorgione's death as the Night, may well have been the same painting requested by Alfonso and which is now come to be known as the Sacred and Profane Love. 

The Sacred and Profane Love as a Collaborative work.

When (in hindsight) Lorenzo da Pavia criticised the figures in Giovanni’s ‘presepio’ [The Letters] as being too small, he may well have unwittingly provided a service to Bellini, iconology, and art history:
'...he thought that the artist should have been required to have submitted several sketches before having begun the painting. This would have allowed Isabella to have chosen from among them thereby correcting a certain imbalance by having the figures relatively small with regard to the overall pictorial field.' P.B. p.
If this were the Sacred and Profane Love at an earlier stage of resolution, Bellini would have been quietly pleased that his artifice had hidden the programme that had become so distasteful for himself to execute. Secondly, the balance of figures to landscape that was considered by da Pavia 'disproportionate' suggests an earlier working stage of the Sacred and Profane Love - because the Sacred and Profane Love does not participate in the popular use of ‘perspective’ or ‘optics’ as the method was then called. From this criticism da Pavia has possibly indicated a stage of the paintings resolution at the time of his recording that observation.

There is every reason to consider the Sacred and Profane Love as a collaborative work.
  • Bellini may have been responsible for the painting at an earlier stage of completion and this would account for the diminutive figures noticed by da Pavia. He would not have wished to continue because the painting embraced alchemic philosophy - which had been outlawed by the Venetian state.
  • Giorgione was most likely to have been responsible for the larger figures of the women and child - the child being the key to that consideration because of the unusual relationship to the winged babe of the Fondaco murals and the child portrayed in the Sacred and Profane Love.
  • Titian had the third and final hand in the paintings construction, harmonising the paintings overall design, as though it were a poesie, and being far less critical and less challenged by an intellectual adherence to any programme.

This collaborative proposition may best suggest the reason behind the enigma that is the Sacred and Profane Love, because Titian, by treating the work as being intellectually irrelevant - a mere poesie - the original intent was made all the more obscure. Further, the plan for the Sacred and Profane Love's geometric proposition reappears several years later in Gulio Romano's ceiling in the Fondaco dei Tedeschi - and Romano was a known friend of Titian.

Finally, the una nocte/presepio/Sacred and Profane Love was removed from the workshop of Giorgione of which Titian had complete access. Although the Night was not directly removed by Titian who was in Mantua at the time of Giorgione's death, taking this tack implies a political involvement because anything to do with Aurelio and this aquisition should be seen as political.

If, as is being proposed here, the Sacred and Profane Love and the presepio/una nocte are one and the same painting, it may not be too difficult to find Giorgione’s hand, after all, the Sacred and Profane Love has been considered to be Titian at his most Giorgionesque.

There is a curious footnote to this: In 1516 Titian stayed at the Duke's castle in Ferrara with two assistants, and in a letter to the Duke, Titian wrote:
"[that he had gone] ...without delay to the well of which your excellency had written and made a sketch of it... including another with it, of a well after the fashion of this country" J. Williams. p.83
Why, of all things, would Alfonso ask Titian to sketch a well, unless of course, Alfonso was hoping to detect a certain level of discomfort...? While Alfonso's well no longer exists, the idea of the Sacred and Profane Love also being the presepio adds to the allegory because of the unusual stone sarcophagus/well/manger motif. Did that well exist on Alfonso's estate at Ferrara? It would be below a man of Alfonso's standing to engage a paid worker - Titian - in an accusative manner, and yet by deliberately sending Titian to this well and to have him sketch it sends direct a message to the seat of any possible guilt. It would be the aristocratic manner befitting Alfonso to rise above the engagement of direct accusation yet still having expressed his attitude and through authoritative menace trial Titian's honesty. 

The Sacred and Profane Love as an allegory with several levels now encompasses three more metaphors: Presepio, Nativity and Night. To reiterate a point from an earlier post; the Sacred and Profane Love is dedicated to Venus and the time of day represented by the sun-streaked sky is dawn. Therefore the Sacred and Profane Love qualifies in its own right as a nocturne which is also and quite literally a Night; but it is most definitely a Pagan Night.

Night belongs to the Goddess lineage of the Egyptian Nut, whereas Nox is the etymological source of equinox, meaning (day) of equal night. As Nox was one of the oldest of the Roman gods, there is a sense of Egypto/Hermetic recovery here, which is the essence of the Renaissance zeitgeist.
On several levels, the Sacred and Profane Love appears to this writer to have been intended for Alfonso d'Este, but without documented evidence, we can never be certain simply because we weren't there. This area of conjecture, this reconstruction of a history, while interesting - must make absolutely no difference to the revealed content of the Sacred and Profane Love, but to be sure, all considerations presented here are presented with an understanding of the meta-narrative and all associated implications.
From where did the Sacred and Profane Love originate? There is an argument forthcoming that will suggest Ferrara, and so, Alfonso d'Este. 

*['Night the voluptuous, Night the chaste' are nineteenth century poetic references to the Twin Venuses (here, Proserpine and Ceres) though in the guise of a pseudo Egyptian mythology. Those stanzas formed a part of a nineteenth century poem intended for an initiate entering the Order of the Golden Dawn, and were written by Aleister Crowley. Of the elite social groups bonded by this interest in esoteria, perhaps the most interesting was the groups arms-length association to the philosopher Henri Bergson. (Intuition as Method).]
** An acknowledgement is due here to Dr Frank over at Giorgione et al for his thoughts on the presepio as a manger. Thank you Dr Frank, I hope you feel this revision better articulates the difference.


Bourke, P. 1974. Tradition and Innovation in Renaissance Italy. Fontana/Collins, London.

Williams, J. 1968. The World of Titian. Time-Life, Amsterdam.

Roscoe, William.1853. The Life and Pontificate of Leo the Tenth. Henry G. Bohn, London.