You are on page 1of 6

XXru/ + (aoo+)

-/ CALANDRINO AS A VIEWER Norman E. Land

There were at leasttwo artistsnamedCalandrino in early fourteenth-century Florence. One is the historical, flesh-and-blood painter named Giovannozzo(or Nozzo) di Pierino, who was called Calandrino. He lived nearthe church of SanLorenzo and is mentionedin a documentdated 1301. He died in 1318.None of his works is identifiable today. The other Calandrino is a fictional character created by Giovanni Boccaccio, who, in his Decameron,tells four tales(8.3, 8.6, 9.3, and 9.5) aboutthe artist and his friends, the painters Buffalmacco and Bruno. The preciserelationship betweenthe actualCalandrinoand his literary counterpartis impossible to establish with certainty. In telling his stories, Boccaccio possiblydrew upon an oral traditionthat recordedhumorousincidentsin the artist's life.' On the other hand, Boccacciomight have invented his figure and called him Calandrinobecause the namefit his character's personality,which is that of a simpleton-the word calandrino may refer either to a simple tool used by artistsor to a particular kind of small bird.'Another possibility, the one that seemsmost likely, is that Boccaccio'sfigure of Calandrinois a creature of both fact and fiction. Probably his Calandrino is in part a reflection of stories about the actual painter and in part the author'sinvention. Whatever his relation to the actual artist might have been, when Boccaccio's Calandrino enters the world of words and

imagination-that is, the world of the Decameron(8.3)-he is inside the church of San Giovanni in Florence,also referred to as the Baptistery, standing, asthe narrator says, before a "tabernacolo," recently installed above the altar. This altarpiece comprisesboth panel paintings and carvings, "dipinture" and "intagli."3 Although the narrator does not further describethe work at which Calandrino gazes, there was an altarpiecein the Baptistery containing painted shutters by the Florentine artist Lippo di Benivieni,who flourishedbetween 1296 and 1320, and carvings,including a figure of Saint John the Baptist,by a now Sienese sculptor. unidentifiable A few fragments of the marble monsole or console supportingthe shrine still exist.a Unfortunately, Lippo's panelsseemno longerto be extant,andthe statueof SaintJohnthe Bapin the original, is also tist, the centerpiece untraceable. Panfilo,the narratorof Boccaccio's tale, describes Calandrinoas a painter and as a simple man, a noodle-brainwith eccentric habitsand strange behavior-he is an "uom semplice,""di grossapasta,"and given to "nuovi costumi." She says, too, that he gazes attentively,"stare attentoa riguardar," at the altalpiece. This is a seemingly straightforwarddescriptionof how an artist might have looked at a work of art in fourteenth-century Florence.In other words, as PaulF. Watsonhasargued, Boccaccioprobably knew that painters often scrutinized

works of art so that they might learn from That the figure the exampleof their peers.5 of Calandrino contemplatesa work that was,in fact, placedin the Baptisteryseveral yearsbefore the actual Calandrino'sdeath especially compelling. makesthis argument Still, Boccaccio would have been aware of other ways in which Florentine artists and viewers in general looked at works of art. One of thoseother ways of experiencing artworks is described in a document of 1314, which records that Lippo di Benivieni's shuttersfor the Baptistery altarpiece from the life of Saint were to contain scenes John the Baptist. The documentalso stipulates that the finished work should "greatly brighten and delight the hearts and eyes of citizens and all other personswho look at it."u Unfortunately, the document does not explainjust how the finished shutterswere to brighten and delight the heartsand eyes of their viewers. In any case, Boccaccio to art, surely knew of this kind of response and we might assumethat as the figure of Calandrino contemplatesthe altarpiece,his heart and eyesare in somesense brightened and delighted. We might also try to understand Calandriviewing of Lippo's altarpiece no's intense in the context of the Decameronitself, particularly as it is related to the story (6.5) of Giotto and the famous jurist Forese da Rabata.Panfilo, the narratorof the tale, says thal the painter was a genius of such excellencethat there was not one thing in Nature . . . that he with his stylus,with his pen, or with his brush could not depict so similarly to her that it appeared not fmerely] a similitude; so that many times with the things made by him one finds that the senseof sight in men is in error, believing that to be true which was painted.

Panfilo goes on to explain that Giotto was the artist who returnedthe art of painting to the light. That is to say,Giotto, whom Boccaccio elsewhere (Genealogie deorum XIV.6) comparesto Apelles, shunnedthe old style of painting to follow the path of nature and the ancients.'Painting,Panfilo continues, had labored for many centuries under the errors of those who wished to delight the eyes of the ignorant rather than please the intellectof the "savi," the wise or In the old mannerof paintknowledgeable. ing, by which Boccacciosurelymeantwhat is now generallycalled the Italo-Byzantine style, ignorantviewers delightedin art that was not a convincing representationof the old way of paintingwas nature.Because in the of nature,it was not based appearance full blunders. Giotto's reprea false art, of however,are so like naturethat sentations, they deceivethe viewer.They causepeople to believethat the representation of a thing is the thing itself. According to Panfilo, in the hands of Giotto, painting is at least in part an art of deception,and, unlike Italo-Byzantineart, which merely delights the eyes of the ignorant, Giotto's works appealto the intellect of the wise. In other words, as Boccaccio implies, the wise value and respond to deceptiverepresentations of nature. Significantly, Petrarch makes a similar point in his dialogue concerningremedies againstfortune (De remediisutriusquefortunae), written several years after the Decameron. There, the figure of Reason, speaking to Joy aboutthe latter'slove of pictures,says(in ThomasTwyne'stranslation), You Joy, delight in the drawing and colors, wherein the costly materials, and the cunning, and variety, and curious pleaseyour eye: likewise the dispersing, lively gesturesof lifeless pictures, and

the [motionsof unmovable images], and countenances coming out of paints,and lively portraits of faces, do bring you into wondering, inasmuchas you will almost think they would speakto you: and thereis only one dangerin this, that many great wits [ingenia) have been [thosemost] overtakenby thesemeans. So that, whereasthe clown and unskillful person will with small wondering pass pictures over without looking at them; the wiser personfingenioszs]will repose himself in front of them with sighingand wondering.s In Boccaccio's tale (8.3),Calandrino contemplatesa work that had a physicalcounterpart in the Baptistery: the shrine of Saint John the Baptist,which contained Lippo's shutters.Although Lippo's paintings are more conservativein style than those of Giotto, he embraced the new naturalism, which included the depiction of lively facial expressions.n We may assume,then, that Boccacciodid not intend to presentCalandrino as an ignorant viewer who merely has his eyesdelightedby lessthan naturallooking images,but as a person who does not disdain lifelike pictures.Following the logic of the story,we must also assume that, as he gazedat the tabernaclein the Baptistery, his sense of sight was deceived, and he mistook paintedand carvedfigures for actual beings.Boccaccio,in otherwords,seems to suggest that Calandrino enjoyed "the countenancescoming out of paints, and lively portraitsof faces,"and the lifelike figures might well have brightenedhis heart andpleased his sense of sight.This assumption is supported by the eventsthat immediately follow in the story. As Calandrinois contemplating the altarpiece, a marvelously astute and pleasant young man namedMaso del Saggioenters

the Baptistery. He hasheardof Calandrino's simplicity and decides to play a trick on him. Maso, pretendingnot to seethe artist, begins to speak with mock authority to a friend,who is in on the ruse,aboutthe properties of certain stones.Just as the speaker intended,Calandrinooverhears this conversation and joins the two men, breathlessly askingMaso aboutthe location of the stones he hasjust described. Maso answersnonsensicallythat they are found in "Berlinzone,which is the land of the Basques, in a district called Bengodi." There, as Maso further explains, one finds a goose and a duck that lay golden eggs,caponsfor general consumption, a mountain made of cheese, an endlesssupply of sausages and pasta, and the best of all wines flowing freely in a stream. Calandrino falls for Maso's word painting and asks how far away Berlinzone lies, for he would like to travel there and eat to his heart'scontent. In one moment, Boccaccio implies, Calandrino is deceivedby the paintings and carvingsof the altarpiece,and in the next he is fooled by Maso's words.'O Both images and words,both sight and hearing,can fool the viewer and listener,respectively. Near the end of his life, Boccacciomadethis very point explicit in his commentson Dante's Inferno (XI.101-105). There, speakingof the genius, or "ingegno," of poet and painter,he writes that the former makes everything similar to nature, intending,in this, that those frepresented] things have the sameeffect that the things producedby nature have, or, if not those, at least, as far as possible, similar to those[effects],as we can see in certain mechanical exercises.The painterendeavors that the figure painted by him, which is nothing other than a little color placedon a panelwith a cer-

tain artifice, is so similat in that posein which he makesit, to that which nature hasproduced, and naturallyin that pose in which it is disposed,that it can deceive, either partly or wholly, the eyesof the viewer,making him believe to exist that which doesnot." visual art hasan effecton its For Boccaccio, viewer similar to that which verbal art has Paintingis like poeton its readeror hearer. ry not only becauseboth are arts of verisimilitude, but because each makes the vieweror the reader, respectively, believeto existthat which doesnot. In Boccaccio'sstory, as Calandrinolistens to Maso's descriptionof Berlinzone, thereis a moment that is crucial to an understanding of not only this tale,but of all those concerning the artist.Indeed,the momentis crucial to an understandingof the Decameron as a whole. Listening to Maso's incredible speech about the never-never land of Berlinzone, Calandrino looks him squarelyin the face: "Simple Calandrino, seeingMaso saythesewords with a straight face and without laughing, gave them the faith that one gives to somethingtrue and obvious,and so he took them for the truth." Calandrino,deceivedby appearances, entershis own gullibility forever. Boccaccio,who would have understood the importanceof facial expression in the works of contemporary artists,hints that as Calandrinogazedupon the altarpiece, he, like the viewersof Giotto's art, mistook the facesof the painted and carved figures for actualfaces. As a viewer,Calandrinowould have read the faces of the figures in the altarpiece in order to understand their emotions and motives, and as he looks into Maso's face,he tries to read it, too. But in

his simplicity, Calandrino gives too much to outward appearances. He does credence not fully understand that appearances can be deceptive, that understanding life is not the art, for an actualface sameasunderstanding doesnot alwaysreveala person'strue emotions and thoughts. Like paintedand carved faces,natural onescan be deceptivebut in a different way. If Boccaccio'stale revealsCalandrino's simplicity and foolishness, it also implies that for visual and verbal deceptionsto be deceptive,they need a suitable viewer or hearer(or reader),respectively. Before the arrival of Calandrino, the altarpiece was merely a little paint placedartfully on panels andbits of shaped stone;and without the gullible artist,Maso's description of Berlinzone would have remained only fanciful verbiage. To be complete,art, both visual and verbal,requiresthe viewer or readerto Il as an artist,Calandribe like Calandrino. no is alsoa viewer,as a viewerhe is alsoan artist, for in viewing a fellow artist's work or in hearingthe words of a poet, he brings thosecreations to life, in a sense completing them. In Boccaccio's story,Masogoeson to tell Calandrino that oneof the magicalstones he has described, the heliotrope,when held. causes the holder to become invisible. Calandrino seeks out his friends, Buffalmacco and Bruno, and, after a brief delay, the three companionsgo in searchof the stoneat a nearbyriver, the Mugnone. Buffalmaccoand Bruno, who immediatelyrecognizethat Calandrinohasbeenduped,take their turn at fooling him. They manageto convincehim that he possesses the stone andcannotbe seen. Mayhemensues. We shouldnoticein passing that Boccaccio drawsa telling parallelhere.As Calan-

drino looks at the altarpiece, Maso pretends not to see him, and as Calandrino holds what to him is the magical stone, Buffalmacco and Bruno pretendthat he is invisible. Furthermore, Calandrino, who was deceivedby the altarpiece,which, as Panfilo describesit, was in part made of carved stone("intagli"), is alsodeceived by a stone that has been "shaped" or "framed" by Maso'sdescription of it. Boccaccio'sengagingtale of Calandrino and the heliotrope seemsto say that when viewing art or hearingverbal creations,we become like Calandrino; we become simpletons,if only momentarily.In his story of Giotto and Foreseda Rabatta,on the other hand, Boccaccio suggeststhat if we are amongthe savi, the wise or knowledgeable, we will allow ourselves to be duped.For Boccaccio,as for Petrarch, thereis a certain wisdom in the kind of simplicity we discov-

er in Calandrino, who is, in a sense,the ideal viewer, for he never fails to be deceived.Time and again he is fooled by words and, we may imagine, by examples of visual art. And that is as it shouldbe; for if he had failed to be duped,art would not havecometo life for him. Still, Calandrino, because of his simplicity,is unableto make a distinctionbetweentruth and illusion. In that sense,he does not experienceart. In none of the storiesabout him does he ever realtzethat he has been duped, at least not by words, and so can neverseethroughthe deception. Nor is he able to reflect upon the true natureand meaningof his experience. Surely the wisestviewers,as Boccaccio andPetrarch explain,arethosewho willingly enterwhat they know to be a deception. But, unlike Calandrino, the wisestviewers know. too. when to make their exit.

NOTES
1. Martin Wackernagel, The World of the Florentine Renaissance Artist: Projects and Patrons, Workshopand Art Market, trans.Alison Luchs (Princeton: Princeton p. 288 andn. 5. University Press. 1981), 2. Giovanni Boccaccio,Decameron:A Selection, ed. KathleenSpeight(Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress, p. 217, n. 4: a"calandrinobeing 1983), a kind of set-square then usedby painters, carpenters, and sculptors." 3. ThroughoutI refer to the text in Boccaccio(see n. 2, above), pp. I 13-121.Translations of this text are my own. 4. For illustrations of thesefragments, which arein the Museo Civico, Fiesole,see W. R. Valentiner, "Tino da Camaino in Florence,"Art Quarterly 77 (19 54 ): f igs . an d 5. 3 5. Paul F. Watson,"The Cement of Fiction: Giovanni Boccaccioand the Painters of Florence," Modern LanguageNotes99 (1984):46. 6. For this, see Andrew Ladis, 'An Early Fourteenth-Century Triptych in Memphis and Florentine Painting in the Glow of Duccio," Brooks Museum Bulletin 2 (1996):5.For the text of the document,see Richard Offner, A Critical antl Historical Corpus of Florentine Painting, 6 vols. (New York: New York Un i v ers i ty Pr e s s, 19 5 3) , s e c .3 , v ol. 6 , p. 2 9. 7. Giovanni Boccaccio,Genealogiedeorum gentiliunt libri, ed.VincenzoRomano,2 vols, (Bari: Laterza, 1951),II, p. 698: "nosterIoctus,quo suo evo non fuit Apellessuperior." 8. Petrarch, Phisicke against Fortune, as Well Prosperousas Adverse . , trans.Thomas Twyne (London:Richard Watkyns,1579), p.57a, as corrected by Michael Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators: Humanist Observersof Painting in lta\t and the Discovery of Pictorial Composition, 1350-1450 (Qxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), pp. 5a and 140.1have modernized Twyne's text.

9. Offner,sec.3, vol. 6, p. vii, eloquentlydescribes Lippo's style as one that reveals, throughnaturalistic "the oppositionof prishapes and facial expressions, mary manifestationsof nature:weight and resistance, emptinessand bulk, stability and movement,dark and light, and,perhapsmost of all, the dramaof inner conflict." 10. Millicent Joy Marcus, An Allegory of Form:

Literary Self-Consciousness in the Decameron (Saratoga, Calif.: Anma Libri, 1979),p. 87: "Calandrino's credulity provesinfinite, as his initial absorption in the artifactsof San Giovanni had led Maso to suspect." 11. Giovanni Boccaccio, II comento alla Divina Comedia,ed. Domenico Guerri, 3 vols. (Bari: LatI I[, p . 8 2 . e r za , 19 1 8 ),

You might also like