I'm curious why no one bothered writing any of this down at any point.
Surely bishops and Popes were as curious as we are.
The Wreathed Figure In Blue - Epicurus? Democritus? Someone Else?
-
-
Plus, miscommunication between "someone being honored" versus "someone being derided" would not have been acceptable. Raphael would have made obvious visual choices that would not have confused his audience.
Suspicious that we are so confused at something that would have been obvious.
Perhaps, so obvious that no one cared to write anything down about it.
-
I keep coming back to the question: At what time did that figure become associated with Epicurus? As we've seen, it's not universally accepted (at least in the 1800s) but that's the majority opinion it appears today.
-
At what time did that figure become associated with Epicurus?
I agree that is an important question. While I know that science has improved over the centuries, I don't think we should presume that "knowledge in general" has always improved, and I would suspect that the further back in time we go the more deference ought to be given to statements from people of the older period, absent some reason not to credit it. I especially think that's true in terms of translations and interpretations - I would think that the further back in time the person is, the "closer" they would be to a more accurate understanding of subtle changes in meaning of words.
We have no reason to give much deference to monks of the 5th century on their general knowledge of science, but I would expect those monks to be able to run rings around later academics in their ability to understand the subtleties of ancient Greek and Latin texts. Someone like Bailey or Munro can study a lifetime and be the foremost expert of their age, and yet still not have the accuracy of understanding of Greek or Latin that would have been held by many off-the-street ancient Romans of ordinary education.
-
I don't know if he's supposed to portray Epicurus or not, but I'm pretty well convinced that this is a portrait of Tommaso Inghirami, the Pope's librarian, a friend of Raphael's, and one of the people that helped Raphael with his research. Tommaso was also named a poet laureate by Maximilian I which may explain the wreath: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommaso_Inghirami
"art historians credit Inghirami with authorship of the program for Raphael’s frescoes that decorate the Stanza della Segnatura, which establishes a relationship between ancient Roman and Renaissance culture.."
So, it makes too much sense to me that Raphael would paint him above the entrance to the room. Then Raphael bookended the fresco with himself in the opposite corner.
If we're looking for Epicureans in Raphael's work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_C…hens_(1515).jpg
There's a whole crowd of Epicureans and Stoics to illustrate that Bible verse.
-
Thats a really good point - checking out Raphael's other works for clues.
That's an idea, but I didn't mean to imply that for this painting. Just that that crowd listening to Paul has to have Epicureans and Stoics since that's who Paul was preaching to according to Acts 17:18.
-
That being said, the guy with the crutch in the St Paul painting is obviously, to me, Epictetus. So, the Stoics are probably standing and the Epicureans are sitting.
Oh, this is fun!
-
Do you mean this one? One point against that would be that he doesn't appear to be blind (?)
-
Epictetus wasn't blind, he had an injured leg if I remember correctly. That's why he used a crutch.
