Stoic Depictions in the Works of Salvator Rosa
Abstract:
This paper explores how the works of Salvator Rosa reflect the Neo-Stoic movement of the Italian Late-Renaissance and Baroque. The Neo-Stoic movement was characterized by the rise of the Neo-Classical movement. Influences from Antiquity guided these movements, and artists, philosophers, and writers alike utilized Ancient Roman thought in their work. Salvator Rosa, a self-proclaimed Neo-Stoic, created art to make powerful statements about the dangers of excessive wealth, unchecked power, and inequal opportunity in the art world. Specific works from the career of Rosa will be surveyed to analyze the intent, message, and influence of Stoicism of 17th and 18th Century Italy.
Stoicism and its principles have been influential in a variety of disciplines. The foundational values of morality, self-control, and reason, appeal to many who believe these qualities lead to a better life. The creation of art is no exception. Artists, particularly those of the Neo-Stoic intellectual movement, looked to Antiquity to guide them. Late Renaissance and Baroque artists integrated traditional Stoic thought and allusions to ancient Rome into their work as to convey their appreciation for their favorite Stoic writers. But beyond the recognition of the Stoic thought was a desire to criticize the social structures that preached the conflicting values of Stoicism: excessive wealth, attachment to material commodities, and unjust use of power. The Stoic and painter Salvator Rosa is the ultimate example of these artists. His references to Seneca and antiquity were meant to provoke the papal power and call attention to the importance of Stoic principles. In this paper, I will argue that the Italian Baroque painter Salvator Rosa expressed his appreciation for Stoic philosophy in his art, which he used to oppose the patronage of the arts and excessive wealth of the Catholic Church.
In the Late Renaissance period of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, the revival of Stoicism, in the form of the intellectual movement of Neo-Stoicism, had become an attempt to reintroduce the ideas of the Ancient Roman philosophy in a way that was more conducive to Christianity. Neo-Stoicism was a “reconciliation of the virtuous life of Stoic Philosophy with Christian Virtue” (Carr 104) and emphasized the importance of self-reliance, the pursuit of virtue, and the rejection of wealth and earthy comforts to instead adopt a lifestyle of simplicity and harmony with nature. The new Stoic of philosophy was a blending of the concepts of Christianity (the most prominent followers of the time being Peter Paul Reubens, Nicholas, Poussin, and of course, the most outspoken of them all, Salvator Rosa). These artists adhered to the model of Neo-Stoicism: the forbearance against the vastitude of fortune.
Rosa, a gifted artist since an early age, did not grow up wealthy or from a particularly impressive background. His Neapolitan family worked hard to barely maintain the respectability attached to their family name. He trained in his home of Naples and eventually worked in Rome and established himself in Florence. The author and art historian Richard W. Wallace explains much of Rosa’s attitude towards the subjects of his art. With all his talent, he was attracted to a simple lifestyle, possibly because he grew up with one, and did not tolerate many of the vices of human nature:
Salvator Rosa was fond of expressing gloomy and pessimistic thoughts about man and man’s vainglorious achievements, and in a precociously romantic fashion he seems to have yearned for the simple honest life of the peasant, monk, and hermit. Evidence of this can be seen in his professed Stoicism, in his bitter satires against the folies of his age, in many of his paintings, and in his letters… (Wallace 432).
Rosa’s values align with Stoic philosophy and this insight into his preferred lifestyle and attitudes are the context for his esteem of Roman philosophy. His respect of Stoicism soon makes its way into his art, “…many of Rosa’s works, such as the paintings and etchings of the stories of Cincinnatus, Diogenes, and Atilius Regulus emphasize the dignity and satisfactions of a life of simplicity, virtue, self-denial, and honesty, and testify to Rosa’s Stoic beliefs” (Wallace 432). Rosa starts integrating his art and his beliefs in ways that build upon each other. The existence of both aspects in one area bolsters their respective significance.
The earliest of the works I will analyze is Rosa’s Self Portrait as Allegory of Philosophy (Figure 1) from 1640, where he begins to play with the ideas of Stoicism in his art. Rosa portrays himself as resigned, he looks off to the side and we look up at him as the eye level is way below. His profile is sharply delineated against the sky, and he stands out. In his hand, he seems to hold a tombstone with the Latin: “Aut Tace Aut Loquere Meliora Silentio.” This translates roughly to “If to stay silent or to speak, it is better to stay silent.” The Latin inscription can be seen as a Stoic reference. Rather than engaging in objection, self-control over your words and actions is always more effective. The Stoics emphasized the importance of self-control to overcome destructive emotions as well as to detach yourself from external forces that could cause you pain and suffering. A similar concept can be traced back to Epictitus’ Enchiridion, a handbook for life by a famous Stoic. At the beginning of Chapter 33 he encourages the reader to use as few words as possible, “Let silence be your goal for the most part; say only what is necessary, and be brief about it” (Epictetus 33.2). Rosa’s and Epictetus’ message is essentially the same: listen rather than speak. There is an emphasis on intention and meaning. When you speak, there should be greater importance to your words, and the goal should not be hearing your own voice but saying something because it has a purpose. Stoicism’s recommendation to stay silent connects to a deeper idea of detaching yourself from an inflated sense of self-worth, a narcissism that can cause you suffering.
Another work of art with many references to Stoicism is his Self Portrait with Skull (Figure 2).. This work is made in 1647, a bit later in his career. Here, Rosa looks even more resigned and thoughtful that the painting 7 years earlier. This time he looks down and is engaged with the skull in his hands. He writes on the skull in Greek, “Behold, whither, when.” The scholar Wendy Wassyng Roworth argues this inscription “reflects Rosa’s interest in Stoic moral philosophy as the basis for contemplation and resignation in the face of death” (Roworth 103). The inscription mimics the lines created by the separate plates you would usually find on the skull. He is handling the skull, evoking a sense of touch. This handling can be interpreted as contemplation of his own death, a theme in art known as memento mori, translated to English as “remember, you must die.” His act of writing on the actual skull may mean that the written word supersedes the vanity of his own life. Rosa contemplates his death but also the nature of his own artistic inspiration. Another symbol of mortality, the Cypress leaves make up a wreath on Rosa’s head, along with his dark clothes and solemn expression create an atmosphere of deep thought and contemplation (Roworth). On the piece of paper to the left of the skull there is a signature and dedication: “Salvator Rosa dipinse nell’Eremo e dono a Gio Batt Ricciardi suo Amico,” translated to, “Salvator Rosa painted this in a solitary place and gave it to his friend Giovanni Battista Ricciard.” This solitary place could possibly be a monastery, but whatever the actual solitary retreat was, literal or figurative, it reflects the contemplative and solitary nature of the painting. The subject of death is commonly dealt with by Stoics and the advice presented by Stoic writers is not to fear death, as it is inevitable and natural. Death is the most certain part of our existence.
The most notable reference to Stoicism was found after a cleaning of the painting. Originally the name Seneca was painted onto the spine of the book. For whatever reason it was painted over, however the fact that it was there could be how the artist was thinking of his own notion of a submission to stoicism. Seneca was a real-world example of what the Neo-Stoics praised: a man who stands by his convictions no matter the hardship. This subject will reappear in later works. Seneca was cruelly ordered to kill himself by Nero and, instead of defending his innocence when accused of taking part in a conspiracy against Nero, he subjects himself to Nero’s torturous demands and bleeds to death from the ankles in his bathtub. The writings and story of Seneca seem to have deeply impacted Salvator Rosa as he continues to weave narratives of Ancient Roman people he looks up to.
Much like the admiration Salvator Rosa had for Seneca, Atilius Regulus was an inspirational figure to Rosa who had courage of his convictions and a strong moral compass. The Death Atilius Regulus (Figure 3) was a part of a collection of engravings done in 1662, some of which, including this one, he would make into paintings. This was essentially a depiction for his reverence of Atilius Regulus and shows a popular story among Neo-stoics. This painting perfectly exemplifies Rosa’s integration of Ancient Roman subjects in his art to convey the ideas of Stoicism:
…Rosa characteristically chose to exploit the sensational possibilities of his subject… The brutal executioners, whose Bamboccio – like coarseness is well suited to the grim task they perform, the strong raking light, striking high- lights and brooding shadows all evoke the savage cruelty of Regulus’s martyrdom with great dramatic force, and imbue the picture with the somber moodiness so characteristic of Rosa’s art. The Death of Atilius Regulus is thus firmly rooted in the Roman tradition of grand history painting which Rosa admired so much… (Wallace 397)
This topic was most likely chosen by Rosa because of how Stoic philosophers regarded the topic. “Cicero, who would have been one of the most appealing of all ancient authors to the Stoically inclined Rosa, refers to Regulus as an example of fearlessness, tranquility, dignity, and honour, and as a man who, because of these qualities, was able to rise above misfortune” (Wallace 396). Regulus, a General in the first Punic war, was defeated and captured by the Carthaginians. On the condition that he convinced the Romans to negotiate, Regulus would be set free, but instead of prioritizing his own safety, he urged the Romans to not accept their deal, and returned to the Carthaginians to be tortured and mercilessly murdered. Rosa depicts the moment where the Roman consul is trapped in a nail studded barrel for torture. The intense sight of the death of Regulus is a statement from Rosa on virtue, “The death of Regulus was thus both a grisly spectacle, whose savage horror had a strong appeal to romantic tastes, and also, more important, a striking example of courage, honesty, and calm acceptance of misfortune, qualities which were of great importance to Stoic thinking” (Wallace 395). What Wallace references is how Regulus was a model of Roman Virtus, or Civic Virtue, to the 17th century Italian humanists and artists. They believed the forbearance and acceptance of one’s faith signaled high morality. This virtue denoted valor and excellence and sums up why Rosa and other stoics admired Regulus for his conviction not to surrender, but to accept his fate. Thus, the life of Atilius Regulus became an important story for stoics.
The other subject matter of the engravings made in 1668 were the Stories of Diogenes of Sinope in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. The humorous stories of Diogenes are Ancient Roman references. Diogenes, from the school of Cynics, were influential to the original Stoic movement, as well as the Neo-Stoics of the Late Renaissance. The Stoics believed in concept of self-reliance. The idea was to have very few material possessions. In Diogenes and Alexander (Figure 4), Diogenes is visited by Alexander the Great in the forest. He asks Diogenes if there was anything Alexander could do for him, but Diogenes responds by asking him to move, as he was blocking his sun. In Diogenes Casting Away His Bowl (Figure 5), Diogenes announces to his fellow Stoics that his possessions are unnecessary. The only thing he needed was a bowl to drink water from. On the journey, his servant declares that he is thirsty, and he dips his hand into the river and drinks from his cupped hands. Diogenes, realizing he does not even need the vessel, casts away his bowl. These tales show Diogenes’ entertaining nature, but more importantly show Rosa’s emotional investment on the importance of detaching oneself from material possessions and unnecessary wealth.
Towards the end of his career, Rosa painted the Allegory of Fortune (Figure 6), a scandalous work of art that was perceived as a direct attack on Pope Alexander VII and the patronage of art (Roworth). It was exhibited at the Festa di San Giuseppe in front of the Pantheon in 1659, against the advice of many, and if not for the intervention of Flavio Chigi, brother to Alexander VII, who bought the painting and protected the artist from charges of libel, Rosa would have been arrested and brought to prison for the scandalous nature of the work. The seriousness of Rosa’s subject was known immediately to all the views of the exhibition. Lady Morgan described the scene:
The Roman people, with all the shrewdness of discontent, caught the spirit of “ La Fortuna,” and applied its satire with admirable quickness. Their praises amounted to vociferations, and they elevated the painter to the dignity of their champion. The powerful members of the community, thus awakened, saw only in this sarcastic picture a libel (Morgan 18).
The painting’s subject is Fortune. Typically depicted with a blindfold to convey the randomness of fortune, she does not wear it here to show her actions are deliberate. Rosa is rejecting a world where favors are given through corruption and simony on those least deserving. Fortune is emptying the cornucopia in her hands, which should be kept upwards to prevent the riches from falling out, but instead the cornucopia is turned upside-down to squander wealth, status, fame, and the objects rain down on the animals below. The sow, donkey, eagle, animals usually associated with the four evangelists, is a biblical reference. Rosa is saying that wealth and commodities are ruining religion. The Lamb is also a religious allusion. With the donkey, Rosa takes an opportunity to make a joke of Alexander VII and place religious robes on the donkey, a clear dig of an “ass” wearing cardinal robes. Almost escaping notice, an owl is obstructed by the Donkey. In its traditional symbolism the Owl is represents wisdom, and here, the Owl is hidden in darkness, occluded by the donkey in the cardinal’s robe, a clear criticism of what Rosa sees as the relationship between wisdom and the catholic church. In the foreground an Eagle shot through with an arrow, a symbol of the Borghese family and their injured imperial power. The crown that should be on fortunes head, falls. Coins fall everywhere and the beasts stomp on them along with attributes of art, music and learning: an Artists pallet, books, and tools. This imagery reflects how the church has rejected meritocracy of artists in patronage, as most of the patronage was led by nepotism and there was no equality. In this way, Rosa is also rejecting the idea of being praised and overvalued, he is turning up his nose to whole system of papal and cardinal patronage. This performance of riches falling out of the cornucopia represents extravagance, the unwise allocation of money, and the pope or cardinals who manipulated the success of artists they commissioned.
Rosa commonly uses satire to criticize. He believed the Church to be commissioning images that were not moral or just, and “…he blame[ed] the decline of the art on the low standards, dishonesty, and lack of morality among painters and their patrons” (Roworth 611). The subjects, focusing on sensual pleasure and un-religious subjects, were commissioned by the church and therefore shameful:
He criticizes the portrayal of lewd and lascivious subjects, such as the loves of the gods, especially when shown in impossible postures, twisted and crudely grimacing with sensual pleasure. These shameful representations, he remarks – Medusa and Harpies instead of chaste Mary and Angels – profane the homes of princely patrons. Rosa vigorously attacks these patrons, especially the clergy, for ignorance, arrogance, and hypocrisy in desiring such indecent pictures (Roworth 611-612).
Rosa’s scathing commentary on wealth and power was accompanied by personal criticisms and assertions of the importance of Stoic values. He was an outspoken critic of the subject matter, patronage, and hypocrisy of the way the church handled art.
One can make the argument that Salvator Rosa’s displeasure of the papacy and fervent attacks on the Catholic Church were less about his moral campaign and admiration of Stoicism, and more about the lack of recognition he had received as an artist. Rosa led his life constantly angry and frustrated by the underwhelming reaction from buyers for his art and the absence of patronage from the church. He was not an artist ever commissioned to make art with the support of the Pope, who were of course known as the most famous and successful artists of the time period. He struggled throughout his whole career to gain the appreciation he thought he deserved.
One only needs to look toward Rosa’s Death of Regulus to catch a glimpse of the struggle he had finding buyers for his art. Infinitely proud of this work, it wasn’t looked at the same way he did. Rosa wanted to be thought of as a great painter of biblical and historical allusion, but he always fell short to painters like Michelangelo, and Titian, “Although he was most admired even in his own day for his landscapes, he often showed a violent resentment of this reputation and went to great lengths to proclaim that he was above all a painter of histories, mythologies, allegories and religious pictures” (Wallace 395). This is evidence of how little recognition he had in that particular field, which could lead us to believe that his critique of the Church was more personal, than moral. Rosa’s depiction of Pope Alexander in Allegory of Fortune was meant to poke fun at the pope and cardinal and their choice of patronage. He makes a reference in the Allegory of Fortune of a pig stepping on a Rose, meaning to say that he is treated unjustly by the church. A reference like this is direct and personal, showing how much he cared about how his reputation wasn’t taking off.
However, while Rosa’s insistence on making a statement and targeting the papacy may have been fueled by the lack of recognition he received, the art he created was still heavily influenced by philosophy and his stoic beliefs aided him to add subliminal messages to his art about the importance of virtue, self-reliance, and courage. The fact that he was mildly obsessed with his own fame did not detract from the validity of the arguments made against the church.
Another argument to consider is that Salvator Rosa was not always know to be the best practitioner of stoicism. He sometimes enjoyed the finer things in life and was often known to have a taste for drama:
A stoic upon principle, but a voluptuary by temperament, Salvator endeavoured to assimilate opinions and tastes so little in accordance. Scarcely escaped from penury and absolute want, he already began to find “Le superflu, chose très nécessaire.” His dress became as remarkable for its studied elegance, as it was affectedly free from the showy splendour of that ostentatious age. “It was a fine sight (says his friend Baldinucci) to see him pass along the streets of Rome, with a certain dignified deportment, followed by a servant with a silver-hafted sword, while all who met him gave way to him” (Morgan 303).
“Le superflu, chose très nécessaire” Translates to “the superfluous, a very necessary thing,” meaning that his criticism of attachment on material things may have been hypocritical. He could have gotten caught up in money. However, even if Rosa likes the occasional elegant suit or superfluous sword, the argument loses traction after hearing that his alignment to stoic principals was sometimes so intense that it may have been annoying:
Salvator, who by temperament was an Epicurean, was on system a Stoic; and even many of his profession and country, who might have pardoned his genius and his successes, never forgave him that rigid morality, those severe unbending principles, which in his precepts and his example shamed the vices of his contemporaries, while they secured him the respect of the first and best men of his age (Morgan 109).
Rosa was respected by many for his for his adherence to stoic values and principals and the practice of Stoicism in your life is still valid if you continue working on it, it does not need to be perfect.
Salvator Rosa’s extensive works of art that deal with Stoic subjects correlate to his love and admiration of Stoicism and his distaste for the ugliness of the Catholic Church during the time. Rosa looked to ancient philosophy to justify his life and he truly attempted to live a just and moral one. He successfully created masterpieces that teach many through references to antiquity and his thought-provoking style creates lasting lessons in his art. philosophy’s overall impact on art can be acknowledged through the hard work of artists like Salvator Rosa.
Works Cited
Carr, Dawson W. “Ecstasy in the Wilderness: Pier Francesco Mola’s.” The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal, vol. 19, J. Paul Getty Trust, 1991, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4166615.
Epictetus, and Robert Dobbin (trans). Discourses and selected writings. Penguin UK, 2008.
Morgan, Lady. The Life and Times of Salvator Rosa. London, Printed for Henry Colburn, New Burlington Street, 1824
Rosa, Salvator. Allegory of Fortune. 1658-1659, Oil on canvas; J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, CA.
Rosa, Salvator. Diogenes and Alexander. 1662, Etching.
Rosa, Salvator. Diogenes casting away his bowl. 1662, Etching.
Rosa, Salvator. The Death of Regulus. 1662, Etching.
Rosa, Salvator. Self-Portrait as Allegory of Philosophy. 1640, Oil on canvas, National Gallery, London.
Rosa, Salvator. Self-Portrait with Skull. 1647, Oil on canvas; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
Roworth, Wendy Wassyng. “A Date for Salvator Rosa’s Satire on Painting and the Bamboccianti in Rome.” The Art Bulletin, vol. 63, no. 4, [Taylor & Francis, Ltd., College Art Association], 1981, pp. 611–17, https://doi.org/10.2307/3050166.
Roworth, Wendy Wassyng. “The Consolations of Friendship: Salvator Rosa’s Self-Portrait for Giovanni Battista Ricciardi.” Metropolitan Museum Journal, vol. 23, [University of Chicago Press, Metropolitan Museum of Art], 1988, pp. 103–24, https://doi.org/10.2307/1512850.
Roworth, Wendy. “Salvator Rosa’s Lost Painting of ‘Fortuna.’” The Burlington Magazine, vol. 117, no. 871, The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd., 1975, pp. 663–662, http://www.jstor.org/stable/878159.
Sellars, John. “Neo-stoicism.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, https://iep.utm.edu/, Accessed 14 Nov. 2021.
Wallace, Richard W. “Salvator Rosa’s ‘Death of Atilius Regulus.’” The Burlington Magazine, vol. 109, no. 772, The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd., 1967, pp. 395–394, http://www.jstor.org/stable/875353.
Wallace, Richard W. “Salvator Rosa’s Justice Appearing to the Peasants.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, vol. 30, Warburg Institute, 1967, pp. 431–34, https://doi.org/10.2F307/750764.
Figure 1: Rosa, Salvator. Self-Portrait as Allegory of Philosophy. 1640, Oil on canvas, National Gallery, London.
Figure 2: Rosa, Salvator. Self-Portrait with Skull. 1647, Oil on canvas; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
Figure 3: Rosa, Salvator. The Death of Regulus. 1662, Etching.
Figure 4: Rosa, Salvator. Diogenes and Alexander. 1662, Etching.
Figure 5: Rosa, Salvator. Diogenes casting away his bowl. 1662, Etching.
Figure 6: Rosa, Salvator. Allegory of Fortune. 1658-1659, Oil on canvas; J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, CA.
