Filthy logo

Homosexuality in Italian Renaissance Art & Culture

How can the artworks of the Italian Renaissance help us to better understand the societal and cultural outlooks on homosexuality of the time?

By OliPublished 6 years ago 21 min read
Like
The Last Judgement, Michelangelo, 1541.

The Renaissance, spanning from approximately the fourteenth to seventeenth century, is defined as the historical period bridging Medieval and Modern Europe. Its name coming from the French word for “rebirth,” the period is defined by its revival of interest in visual culture and its renewal of artistic standards of beauty, a juxtaposition to the aesthetics of its “dark and dreary immediate predecessors.” (Johnson, Geraldine A., Renaissance Art: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford University Press, 2005). Naturally, with this newfound emphasis on beauty and aestheticism came a wave of fine art unlike those seen in any era before or after. Not only were artistic styles and techniques refined to perfection, but with them came a “powerfully self-conscious creation of identity” (Brotton, Jerry, The Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford University Press, 2006) that any artistic works prior to those composed in the Renaissance lack. Even if it is difficult to grasp the motivation or emotion behind a painting, it is still possible to identify with them as “recognizably modern.” (Ibid). This is due to the fact that prior to the fifteenth century, people “lacked a powerful sense of individual identity,” (Ibid) and the period is representative of this shift in intellectual ignorance.

An era so deeply rooted in the emergence of individual thinking as the Renaissance is bound to show records of homosexual identity. Many have accused critical thinkers and artists of the Renaissance of holding homosexual identities due to the homoerotic undertones some perceive from their works. Whereas few Italian Renaissance citizens were literate enough to write, a more valuable and result yielding approach is to take a look at the artwork that the Renaissance is so widely renowned for (Reed, Christopher, Art and Homosexuality: A History of Ideas (Oxford University Press, 2011). Therefore, by examining the lives of Italian Renaissance artists and their works, a deeper understanding of the period’s perceptions of homosexuality and their influences on Renaissance culture may be achieved.

Approach to the Examination of Art and Sexuality Throughout History

Regardless of time period and corresponding concepts of identity, due to the self expressive nature of art, glimpses into the sexual and romantic desires of artists are bound to have leaked through into a number of works, including those of same-sex appeal. To many, the Italian Renaissance is a perfect example of an era in which homoerotic connotations can be examined through some of the period’s most prominent artists and their works.

However, the opinion that the Renaissance is rich in homoerotic themes is not necessarily widespread in its appeal, therefore a wide range of opinions exist on the topic. While this fact may strike some as implying difficulties in study of the field, as consensus in expert opinion is often thought to represent academic success, this is not necessarily true. In fact, within the studies of human sexuality and art throughout history, a unity in historian ideas or opinions is usually not an accomplishment of consensus within the field, rather a reflection of the paucity of evidence of homosexual culture at historian disposal (Ibid). For example, the wide range of opinions, both academic or otherwise, that can be found on homosexual importance and influence on Italian Renaissance culture and art, reflect the relatively large amount of evidence that allows such in-depth analytical discussions. This diversity is not surprising, however, due to the subjectivity that accompanies the topics of art, sexuality, and even history. The very nature of sexuality and art allow much room for personal interpretation. For example, if one were to ask a group of people from any community the meanings of sexuality, art, or history, a wide spectrum of answers would surface. This is a large part of the appeal of this type of study, as a diversity in opinions, while occasionally causing difficulties in study, more often paves the way for the most engaging and interesting academia. Therefore, the goal when examining the role homosexual identity may have played in certain preceding eras should not be to uncover some universal truth on which historians can all agree, but to thrive in the interest these discrepancies stir up, and use the similarities and differences that we may find to better understand human sexuality in this day and age.

Also worth noting, as with any historical examination, it is dangerous to project modern concepts or ideals onto the past. The understanding of preceding eras is often clouded by modern ideals and perspectives, creating conclusions that have no factual substance, allowing confusion to encompass learning. This is especially important to note when studying the history of human sexuality. Of course, love between members of the same sex, both sexual and romantic, has existed since humans themselves. However, this does not change the fact that up until approximately the nineteenth century, the concept of the term “homosexual” as an individual identity did not exist (Mondimore, Francis Mark, A Natural History of Homosexuality (John Hopkins University Press, 1996). Therefore, what may to modern and Western eyes look like homosexual action may not have had any sexual intentions, let alone homosexual ones, in the context of the time.

This holds true for the examination of Renaissance art and culture as well. Due to its influence, Renaissance art has become an integral piece of Euro-American culture, and mass reproductions of influential Renaissance pieces have surrounded society for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This familiarity allows an ease with which North-American and European citizens may overlook how different modern culture is from that of the Renaissance, which can cause one to attempt to apply modern notions and ideals when examining the time period (Reed, Christopher, Art and Homosexuality: A History of Ideas (Oxford University Press, 2011). Take, for example, Renaissance artist Michelangelo Buonarroti’s painting Doni Tondo (See Appendix, Figure 1). Doni Tondo, a brightly coloured piece on a round canvas, gold-framed, depicts the Holy Family in front of a slew of young, robust, naked men. This imagery has been interpreted as a representation of Michelangelo’s longing for a “normal” family and lifestyle (represented by the Holy Family occupying the foreground of the piece), with his homosexual desires being repressed and pushed away (represented by the crowd of naked male youths that occupies that background) (Ibid). While this interpretation is an interesting one, there is no way to know it has truth to it or not. It is most likely that the piece is simply a religious work, not symbolizing much more than what it explicitly shows (along with the marital uniting of the Doni and Strozzi families for whom it was commissioned), as being homosexual or practicing homosexual behaviours in the Renaissance did not typically cause one to be excluded from the familial norms of the time. In fact, much like today, many of the Renaissance’s most notorious homosexual figures were both husbands and fathers (Ibid). It is also true that marriage was viewed as something that hindered the expressive freedom of a great artist such as Michelangelo, and so it is likely untrue that he particularly mourned his lack of a wife or child inside or outside of his artistic works and processes (Ibid).

Similarly, modern interpretation of the homoerotic aesthetics in works such as Michelangelo's beloved Statue of David (See Appendix, Figure 2) are often misconstrued as a reflection of his homoerotic desires. Like the Statue of David, many, if not most of Michelangelo’s works focused on the aesthetics accompanying the ideal form of the male figure, which has allowed them to be perceived as glimpses into Michelangelo’s sexual preferences. The same fascination with male physique applies to Renaissance man Leonardo Da Vinci. His journals can be found to exhibit his lifelong artistic study of the male body, and similarly to claims made about Michelangelo, this fascination is commonly speculated to represent Da Vinci’s true homosexual desires. Perhaps even more daring of a claim, Da Vinci’s famous Mona Lisa (See Appendix, Figure 3) has been speculated to depict a self-portrait of Da Vinci in drag, causing some to foolishly claim that the piece is an expression of his homosexual identity (Ibid).

All of these claims, while valuable in creating discussion around sexuality and art, are based in barely any concrete evidence. Today’s art historians, critics and connoisseurs may theorize that the portfolios of certain influential Renaissance artists reflect their sexual desires, as if a modern man were to spend his life sketching scantily clad and promiscuously posed male figures, he may certainly be accused of being homosexual by a current, Western audience. However, in the context of Italian Renaissance culture and society, artistic male fascination more likely represented the pursuit of being able to accurately portray the athletic male figure that was so highly and spiritually praised, whereas the ultimate goal of Renaissance art was to depict the ideal human form. Thus, rather than projecting modern ideals onto societies of the past and stretching to analyze artistic works in a modern context, it is more useful to examine why such pieces look homoerotic to modern eyes, as well as how these pieces were interpreted and accepted in a society that generally denounced homosexuality (Ibid).

Along with the issue of applying modern Western ideals to classic studies, there is also great danger in the all too common false understanding that Western modern culture should pose as a normal standard off of which examinations of other time periods or regions should be based. If a mind is not open to the practices present within an unfamiliar culture or time period, its examination will be clouded in crude judgement and unnecessary expectation, causing discussion to be too narrow and therefore limiting what may be discovered. It is with these disclaimers in mind that conscious examination may be continued.

An Introduction to Homoeroticism in Renaissance Society

Renaissance art was frequently brimming with erotic and homoerotic themes in the most public of places, including sacred spaces (Baldwin, Robert, The Renaissance Revival of Homoerotic Beauty, Love and Desire. (Connecticut College, 2005). Of course, to describe these works as homoerotic is not to suggest that they were not also heterosexual in their appeal. As human sexuality is not compartmental, nor is it so easily categorized as we are often lead to believe in today’s society, it is generally impossible to distinguish the difference between heterosexual and homosexual beauty. It may even be argued that such a difference does not exist, despite the societally rooted desires to pinpoint and enforce such a universal, distinct difference (Ibid). This is one of the many examples of discrepancies that must be kept in mind when working with the art of the time and its erotic appeal.

Though Renaissance men such as Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci most often appeared to have little sexual desire whatsoever, male or female, there is no doubt that they were quite literally surrounded by sex, and the chances that this did not influence their artistic and existential outlooks are very slim (Ibid). The rampant influence of heterosexual sex during the time, however, should not undermine the widespread influence of homosexual relations. This prevalent homosexual behaviour can be seen in statements such as poet Dante Alighieri’s deeming of sodomy as “the vice of Florence,” (Reed, Christopher, Art and Homosexuality: A History of Ideas (Oxford University Press, 2011) as well as grumblings from clerics and priests that “all Florentine citizens indulged in sodomy.” (Ibid). Yet while religious and legal powers officially disapproved of homosexual practices, sermons and laws seemed to do little to change behaviour, even during their most intense periods. For reasons difficult to determine, the contradictory social reality was that a relative tolerance for homosexual activity allowed homoerotic imagery to pervade Renaissance art, public and private (Baldwin, Robert, The Renaissance Revival of Homoerotic Beauty, Love and Desire. (Connecticut College, 2005).

Same-Sex Practices in the Eyes of the Law

Beginning in the late Middle Ages, efforts to police homosexuality increased, and continued to grow during the Renaissance. Legal repression became more severe, instigated less by religious officials, and more by city governments, which were competing with the church for authoritative influence during the time (Reed, Christopher, Art and Homosexuality: A History of Ideas (Oxford University Press, 2011). Florence’s city magistrates had very low opinions on homosexuality, having established a special administration in 1432 to penalize homosexually active men called the Office of the Night (Lee, Alexander, The Ugly Renaissance: Sex, Greed, Violence and Depravity in an Age of Beauty (Doubleday, 2013), and by the late fifteenth century, a quarter of Florentine men were arrested often repeatedly, causing Florence to be described as having “carried out the most extensive and systematic persecution of homosexual activity in any pre-modern city.” (Reed, Christopher, Art and Homosexuality: A History of Ideas (Oxford University Press, 2011). This description, however, may be even better suited for the sea-port city of Venice. Fifteenth century Venetian legal documents also record not only the arrests of large groups of men, but several attempts of shutting down meeting places associated with sex between men (Ibid). Unlike the sodomy cases in Florence which were often met with less severity than the laws may lead us to believe, cases of both heterosexual and homosexual sodomy in Venice were generally met with mutilation and execution. This severity in Venice has been analyzed as a response to the city’s just as wide reputation for heterosexual prostitution, or as a device within the government’s competition with the church (Ibid). Regardless, it is apparent that the legal status of homosexuality was constantly shifting during the Renaissance, and while this ebb and flow most certainly must have proved to be distressing for those caught within it, historians benefit from the fact that previously unrecorded homosexual activities were now being recorded with legal documents (Ibid).

Contrary to what facts may imply, charges of sodomy in Florence did not always lead to persecution and were generally only met with fines. While it is true that seventeen thousand men (hundreds per year) (Ibid), including Leonardo Da Vinci, were accused of sodomy during the seventy years the Office of the Night was active, under three thousand men were actually convicted. Most of those who were actually convicted received penalties or punishments far more lenient than the nature of the law may lead one to believe (Lee, Alexander, The Ugly Renaissance: Sex, Greed, Violence and Depravity in an Age of Beauty (Doubleday, 2013). The distinct differences between views of same-sex behaviour in Renaissance legal, moral and social perspectives eventually caused the Office of the Night to focus its efforts on policing rape and male prostitution, rather than concentrating on policing homosexual acts as it had intended to in its earlier years (Ibid). While difficult to fully understand why these divides in opinion may have been present during the Renaissance, the speculated reasons that may be examined can help one to better understand the ways in which same-sex practices were viewed in Renaissance society.

The Nature of Same-Sex Behaviours in the Renaissance

In part, this divide may have been due to the fact that a predominant fraction of homosexual activity was practiced by married family men - men that likely would have self-identified as straight in today’s language (Ibid). While this could possibly indicate a widespread popularity of subconscious bisexual identity during the time, it was more likely simply because the men of the Renaissance were too promiscuous to limit themselves to one gender (Ibid). Run-ins with the law because of homosexual encounters were less to do with preference and more to do with urges. This notion is described in Domenico Sabino’s novel On the Conveniences and Inconveniences of Wives, when the character Emilia observes that “men are not satisfied with servant girls, mistresses, or prostitutes, but resort to boys in order relieve their wild and mad lust,” (Ibid) suggesting that “sexual behaviour in Renaissance Italy was not seen as a basis for individual identity.” (Reed, Christopher, Art and Homosexuality: A History of Ideas (Oxford University Press, 2011). When preachers and law officials denounced homosexuality, their disapproval was framed more as a distaste for what they thought to be a “form of youthful delinquency, rather than a characteristic of an identifiable minority.” (Ibid). The Renaissance’s lack of modern notions of homosexuality is an unsurprising yet interesting one, for while the Renaissance was certainly renowned for its emergence of a questioning self-awareness, modern notions of individual identity seem to generally postdate the Renaissance (Ibid).

Age Stratification in Renaissance Same-Sex Relationships and Mythology

Another reason for Florentine authority leniency may have been the variation that seemed to exist within homosexuality. It was generally thought that homosexual couples must consist of an older and a younger partner, the older partner assuming the more dominant position, the younger taking on a more passive role, and for the most part, this was true. This perceived variation of age and status within homosexual relationships may even translate to today, as a common stereotype, outside and even within modern homosexual culture, is that homosexual couples typically consist of one dominant partner and one submissive counterpart. The common age stratification in homosexual Renaissance relationships parallels norms of heterosexual relationships as well, as men typically married women half their age (Ibid).

In a homoerotic context, this distinct age dynamic was especially present within the artwork of the time. Renaissance artists seemed to be utterly fascinated with images of beautiful male youths. This fascination is shown in works such as Donatello’s David (See Appendix, Figure 4), in which he depicts the traditionally bearded prophet as a naked young boy whose nudity is sexualized by the long feather that caresses his leg (Ibid). While the piece is certainly doused in homoeroticism, the making of it does not necessarily provide conclusive evidence on Donatello’s sexual life (Ibid). Perhaps better documented is the speculation of sculptor Benvenuto Cellini’s sexuality. Cellini was placed under house arrest for accusations of sodomy twice in his life, and while he denied that these allegations were true, his reasoning was that he was too humble for “such a noble practice” that was suited for “the greatest emperors and kings.” (Ibid). Many pieces he created after his sodomy trials have been speculated as “defiant celebrations of erotic bonds between men and youths,” (Ibid) such as his statue Ganymede and the Eagle (See Appendix, Figure 5), depicting the homoerotic Greek myth of the Rape of Ganymede, in which the god Zeus takes the form of an eagle to capture and assault the shepherd boy. However, Cellini sculpts so that Zeus’s eagle form is not large and terrifying as in the original myth, but small and positioned beside Ganymede, who is lovingly stroking his feathers (Ibid). This allows the sculpture’s story to come across as more loving, signifying a romantic and homoerotic bond between the two men, rather than the original sinister and perverted tone. Michelangelo too created a more accurate artistic depiction of the homoerotic myth (See Appendix, Figure 6), only furthering modern interpretations of his homosexual identity.

Not only in the works, but the personal lives of artists did this age stratification surface. Even when questions about the sexual orientations of Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci are raised, it is due to relations with much younger gentlemen. Da Vinci in particular was accused twice of sodomy with a seventeen-year-old model, and kept a ten-year-old apprentice who he repeatedly studied and painted (Ibid).

The Blurred Lines Between Platonic Friendship and Homoeroticism

To an even more considerable extent, Florentine authorities’ willingness to engage in a bit of hypocrisy was likely due to Renaissance enthusiasm for platonic friendship, a concept which was notably important to Renaissance artists in particular. As the critical thinkers of the Renaissance had a common goal of pursuing enlightenment, platonic partnership and connection was encouraged in order for men to “further each others interests in the world of work and business.” (Lee, Alexander, The Ugly Renaissance: Sex, Greed, Violence and Depravity in an Age of Beauty (Doubleday, 2013). Though these friendships were “primarily defined by the proximity of two souls in the pursuit of the ideal,” (Ibid) it was not uncommon for the closeness of these partnerships to lead to an important and distinct physically based connection. The often homoerotic tones that male platonic friendship embodied are outlined in Marsilio Ficino’s 1484 commentary on Plato’s Symposium, De Amore, in which he suggests that homoerotic attraction is an integral part of platonic friendship, and even suggests that love between men is more natural than love between a man and a woman (Ibid). Thus, homoerotic male platonic friendships were “given a form of intellectual justification that could facilitate and excuse homosexual practice in a social environment that officially opposed such activity,” (Ibid), allowing homosexual themes to publicly seep into artistic culture.

The Patriarchal Standards of Renaissance Society

This enthusiasm for platonic love is partly due to the misogynistic mindset that was so heavily valued in the patriarchal society of the Renaissance. Humanism of the time was based upon the rebirth of classical ideals and the study of Greek and Roman philosophy, and whereas this Greek philosophy that inspired Renaissance ideals believed women to be spiritually and physically inferior to the male body in its “heroic, all-powerful, victorious, divinely beautiful” (Baldwin, Robert, The Renaissance Revival of Homoerotic Beauty, Love and Desire. (Connecticut College, 2005) state, it was much more honourable for a man to platonically love another man. This translates to an examination of the period’s alleged homoeroticism, as the classification of males as the more perfect sex “allowed homoerotic love to take on a certain legitimacy as the noblest, most intellectual, and sanctified love of all.” (Ibid). In his commentary on love, Symposium, classic Greek philosopher Plato “extols the divine nature of homoerotic love even in its most passionate physical expression as features of the greatest heroes and the most virile nations” (Ibid) with passages such as “But the heavenly Love springs from a goddess whose attributes have nothing of the female, but are altogether male [...] And so those who are inspired by this other Love turn rather to the male, preferring the more vigorous and intellectual bent.” (Plato, Curated by Cairns, Huntington and Hamilton, Edith, The Collected Dialogues of Plato, (Princeton University Press, 1961). This simultaneously misogynistic and homoerotic value is not only displayed by Plato, but in works such as in one of Michelangelo‘s many sonnets, dedicated to fifteen-year old nobleman Tomasso Cavalieri whom he allegedly fell in love with in his mid-fifties (Baldwin, Robert, The Renaissance Revival of Homoerotic Beauty, Love and Desire. (Connecticut College, 2005), on the distinction between celestial and earthly love, from which this telling passage comes:

“The love of that whereof I speak, ascends:

Woman is different far; the love of her

But ill befits a heart all manly wise.

The one love soars, the other downward tends;

The soul lights this, while that the sense stir,

And still his arrow at base quarry flies”

(Buonarroti, Michelangelo, Curated by Symonds, John Addington, The Sonnets of Michael Angelo Buonarroti (Smith, Elder & Co., 1904)

Following the Greek philosophical ideal that the male body was perfectly mathematically proportional and therefore more beautiful and aesthetically pleasing than that of women were Renaissance artists, including Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo, as can be seen from sonnets like the one previously examined. This serves as an alternative to the common theory that Da Vinci and Michelangelo’s depictions of female figures displayed such masculine characteristics because they had seen a proportionally larger amount of naked men than women, and were perhaps more invested in portraying the aesthetics of the male body that they so admired. What appears as homosexual desire from a modern perspective may simply reflect the Renaissance ideals of women being lesser that not even the era’s most enlightened individuals were exempt from. Of course, this still allows for speculation as to why influential artists of the time may have been drawn to these ideals. Perhaps there was also a piece of homoerotic reasoning behind the ideology of favouring of the male physique.

Also due to the Renaissance’s patriarchal system of values is the lack of lesbian centered homoerotic content, in art and otherwise. Sexual behaviour between women was illegal during the time, however, definitions of sex during the Renaissance were centered only around phallic penetration. Therefore, relations involving women and the use of an artificial phallus were severely condemned, while anything that women would partake in without a phallic object was not considered sex at all and was not formally punishable (Reed, Christopher, Art and Homosexuality: A History of Ideas (Oxford University Press, 2011). This accounts for the complete absence of women prosecuted for sexual misconduct in Venice and Florence, compared to the great amounts of men tried (Ibid). This nearly non-existent amount of evidence of sex between women in the Renaissance, of course, does not mean that it did not happen, rather that it was most likely thought to be unworthy of recording (Ibid). Similarly, there is barely any record of female artists during the Renaissance, allowing there to be no examination of female artists who may have been publicly accused of sapphic practices as there is with male artists and their trials for sodomy (Ibid).

From examining these aspects of Renaissance society and the artworks that exemplify them, it can be seen that the ways in which the people of the Renaissance era viewed same-sex behaviours and homoerotic aesthetics have proved to be complex and contradictory. Distinctions between opinions of the law, church, artistic community and general public created a diverse outlook on homosexuality that the artworks the Renaissance is so renowned for allow a valuable perspective and in-depth understanding of. Prominent Italian Renaissance artists such as Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo Buonarroti reflect this diversity, not only with their artistic works, but exhibited by their personal lives and relationships. This is not to necessarily say that all artworks and artists that have been interpreted as homosexual from a modern standpoint truly were, as this can never be told for certain. However, it is to say that the modernly perceived homoerotic aesthetics that seem rampant in Renaissance art help us to better understand outlooks on same-sex love during the time, and subsequently the ways in which understanding of homosexual identity has broadened over time.

art
Like

About the Creator

Oli

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.