In Nelson Minnich’s religious interpretation of Raphael’s famous portrait of Pope Leo X, Minnich first begins with the very basics of the portrait; what is contained within its canvas and why it is there. From small clues such as these, he is able to lay the foundation for which theories and conclusions can be based. He first points out the location of the figures in the painting. Minnich believes that they are in a large room, seated before a green cloth on the wall, or cloth of honor. There is some speculation, however, as to exactly where this room is located.
Several theorists, as well as he, believe that the location is a room in the Vatican, perhaps the library. He points out that there is reflection of a window in several objects in the portrait, allowing more narrowing down the location even further and debunking the library idea. With the location not quite known, Minnich moves on to the color scheme. He points out that the painting is known for its use of red on the robes of the pope and cardinals, the furniture, and the table coverings. Red was considered a papal color, so this is not unusual in a papal portrait.
What is unusual however, is the other two men accompanying the pope in the portrait who were painted in later. Minnich identifies these cardinals as Luigi de’Rossi, Leo’s first cousin, and Guilio de’Medici, another of Leo’s cousins. Leo was extremely close with Luigi and this is shown by Luigi’s hands on Leo’s chair. Guilio was considered Leo’s right hand man, and is depicted as so in the portrait by being almost a part of Leo’s right arm. Minnich also points out that it is ironic that Guilio is depicted as a cardinal because his clerical status wasn’t determined at the time.
The Term Paper on Magic Barrel Salzman Leo Story
I. Bernard Malamud Bernard Malamud (1914-1986) was born in Brooklyn, New York. From 1932 to 1936 he studied at the City College of New York, where he received his bachelor's degree. From 1937 to 1938 he was a student at the Columbia University. In 1942 he received his Master's degree. From 1940 to 1948 he taught evening classes at the Erasmus High School, the same High School he went to from 1928 ...
From here we move on to another important item in the portrait, the bell. This specific bell was made for Leo after his election and is a hand bell used for praying. Minnich explains that its presence is most likely to represent Christ in the portrait. Next to the bell is a magnifying glass which Minnich says is merely there to represent the pope’s nearsightedness. Leo would have needed the glass to read the next item on the table, his bible. The bible is obviously not an unlikely item, being that it is a portrait of a pope, but it is where the bible is opened to that is of importance; St. John’s Gospel.
Minnich tells us that Leo’s first baptismal name was Giovanni, a name that came from this gospel. After inspecting the painting for obvious clues and symbols, Minnich is ready to discuss the possible reasons for the paintings existence. The first being the obvious, that it is merely a papal state portrait. He points out several reasons that this could be a wrong assumption. The painting was kept in Florence and not in Rome, like most papal portraits. It was much smaller than an average state portrait. And the most obvious objection was that there were three people present in the painting, which is highly unusual for a portrait.
Minnich then suggests the possibility that Raphael was merely painting a family portrait. But then he quickly points out that no other of Leo’s relatives was involved. He also points out that the items involved, a bell, the bible, are not usually in state portraits. With the state portrait theory clearly discredited, Minnich tells readers of the theory that the painting is simply an occasional piece, saying that it was painted just to be displayed at the wedding of the Medici and Valois houses in lieu of the pope and his two relatives not being able to make the festivities.
The Essay on Formal Analysis on Rachel Ruvigny Portrait by Anthony Van Dyke
There are actually two versions of Anthony van Dyck’s painting of the countess of Southampton; Anthony van Dyck, Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton, ca. 1640, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne (see fig. 1) and Anthony van Dyck, Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton as ‘Fortune’, ca. 1638, Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge (see fig. 2). There have been discussions on ...
Minnich states that the clothing in the portrait clearly leads one to believe that the painting was done months before the wedding. The pope and his relatives would have to have known far in advance that they could not make the occasion and Luigi de’Rossi was actually recognized as being present the day of the wedding. He says that occasional pieces are not usually so planned out, but does however, mention that a lot would be explained had Raphael begun painting a portrait and then suddenly attempted to switch it into a wedding gift and add the two cardinals. Not fully committed to a purpose, Minnich takes a quick look at the eligious meaning behind the portrait.
He mentions that Josephine Jungie has the most persuasive theory on the painting. She believes that the bible represents the stage of the Holy spirit, the bell represents the new age, and that Leo looking to the left represents his looking to the arrival of the new age, and thinking about his own appointment as an Angelican Pastor who will lead the Church in the final age. Minnich points out that this is persuasive because Leo was attempting to take on the roles that an Angelican leader would, yet points out the Jungie failed to find reason for the two cardinals in the portrait.
He closes with admitting to readers that no one will ever really know Raphael’s true intentions behind this famous painting. All we have is historical facts, symbols, ideas, and of course opinions to make up the reason for Pope Leo X’s portrait with Cardinals Luigi de’Rossi and Guilio de’Medici.
