-/

XXru/ + (aoo+)

CALANDRINO AS A VIEWER

Norman E. Land

There were at least two artists named Calan-drino in early fourteenth-century Florence.One is the historical, flesh-and-bloodpainter named Giovannozzo (or Nozzo) diPierino, who was called Calandrino. Helived near the church of San Lorenzo and ismentioned in a document dated 1301. Hedied in 1318. None of his works is identifi-

able today. The other Calandrino is a fic-tional character created by GiovanniBoccaccio, who, in his Decameron, tellsfour tales (8.3, 8.6, 9.3, and 9.5) about theartist and his friends, the painters Buffal-macco and Bruno. The precise relationshipbetween the actual Calandrino and his liter-ary counterpart is impossible to establishwith certainty. In telling his stories, Boccac-cio possibly drew upon an oral tradition thatrecorded humorous incidents in the artist'slife.' On the other hand, Boccaccio mighthave invented his figure and called himCalandrino because the name fit his charac-ter's personality, which is that of a simple-ton-the word calandrino may refer eitherto a simple tool used by artists or to a par-ticular kind of small bird.'Another possibil-ity, the one that seems most likely, is thatBoccaccio's figure of Calandrino is a crea-ture of both fact and fiction. Probably hisCalandrino is in part a reflection of storiesabout the actual painter and in part theauthor's invention.

Whatever his relation to the actual artistmight have been, when Boccaccio's Ca-landrino enters the world of words and

imagination-that is, the world of theDecameron (8.3)-he is inside the church

of San Giovanni in Florence, also referredto as the Baptistery, standing, as the narrator

says, before a "tabernacolo," recently

installed above the altar. This altarpiece

comprises both panel paintings and carv-ings, "dipinture" and "intagli."3 Although

the narrator does not further describe thework at which Calandrino gazes, there was

an altarpiece in the Baptistery containingpainted shutters by the Florentine artistLippo di Benivieni, who flourished between1296 and 1320, and carvings, including afigure of Saint John the Baptist, by a now

unidentifiable Sienese sculptor. A few frag-ments of the marble monsole or consolesupporting the shrine stil l exist.a Unfortu-nately, Lippo's panels seem no longer to beextant, and the statue of Saint John the Bap-tist, the centerpiece in the original, is alsountraceable.

Panfilo, the narrator of Boccaccio's tale,

describes Calandrino as a painter and as asimple man, a noodle-brain with eccentrichabits and strange behavior-he is an "uom

semplice," "di grossa pasta," and given to"nuovi costumi." She says, too, that hegazes attentively, "stare attento a riguardar,"

at the altalpiece. This is a seeminglystraightforward description of how an artistmight have looked at a work of art in four-teenth-century Florence. In other words, asPaul F. Watson has argued, Boccaccio prob-

ably knew that painters often scrutinized

works of art so that they might learn from

the example of their peers.5 That the figure

of Calandrino contemplates a work that

was, in fact, placed in the Baptistery severalyears before the actual Calandrino's death

makes this argument especially compelling.

Still, Boccaccio would have been aware

of other ways in which Florentine artists

and viewers in general looked at works of

art. One of those other ways of experiencing

artworks is described in a document of

1314, which records that Lippo di Beni-

vieni's shutters for the Baptistery altarpiece

were to contain scenes from the life of Saint

John the Baptist. The document also stipu-

lates that the finished work should "greatly

brighten and delight the hearts and eyes of

citizens and all other persons who look at

it."u Unfortunately, the document does notexplain just how the finished shutters were

to brighten and delight the hearts and eyes

of their viewers. In any case, Boccaccio

surely knew of this kind of response to art,

and we might assume that as the figure ofCalandrino contemplates the altarpiece, hisheart and eyes are in some sense brightened

and delighted.We might also try to understand Calandri-

no's intense viewing of Lippo's altarpiece inthe context of the Decameron itself, particu-larly as it is related to the story (6.5) of

Giotto and the famous jurist Forese daRabata. Panfilo, the narrator of the tale, says

thal the painter was

a genius of such excellence that there

was not one thing in Nature . . . that he

with his stylus, with his pen, or with his

brush could not depict so similarly toher that it appeared not fmerely] asimilitude; so that many times with thethings made by him one finds that thesense of sight in men is in error, believ-

ing that to be true which was painted.

Panfilo goes on to explain that Giotto was

the artist who returned the art of painting to

the light. That is to say, Giotto, whom Boc-

caccio elsewhere (Genealogie deorum

XIV.6) compares to Apelles, shunned the

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 todelight the eyes of the ignorant rather thanplease the intellect of the "savi," the wise or

knowledgeable. In the old manner of paint-

ing, by which Boccaccio surely meant what

is now generally called the Italo-Byzantine

style, ignorant viewers delighted in art that

was not a convincing representation of

nature. Because the old way of painting was

not based in the appearance of nature, it was

a false art, full of blunders. Giotto's repre-sentations, however, are so like nature that

they deceive the viewer. They cause people

to believe that 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 ofdeception, and, unlike Italo-Byzantine art,which merely delights the eyes of the igno-

rant, Giotto's works appeal to the intellect

of the wise. In other words, as Boccaccioimplies, the wise value and respond todeceptive representations of nature.

Significantly, Petrarch makes a similarpoint in his dialogue concerning remedies

against fortune (De remediis utriusque fortu-nae), written several years after the De-

cameron. There, the figure of Reason,

speaking to Joy about the latter's love of pic-

tures, says (in Thomas Twyne's translation),

You Joy, delight in the drawing and col-ors, wherein the costly materials, andthe cunning, and variety, and curiousdispersing, please your eye: likewise the

lively gestures of lifeless pictures, and

the [motions of unmovable images], andcountenances coming out of paints, andlively portraits of faces, do bring youinto wondering, inasmuch as you willalmost think they would speak to you:and there is only one danger in this, thatmany great wits [ingenia) have been

[those most] overtaken by these means.So that, whereas the clown and unskill-ful person will with small wonderingpass pictures over without looking atthem; the wiser person fingenioszs] willrepose himself in front of them withsighing and wondering.s

In Boccaccio's tale (8.3), Calandrino con-templates a work that had a physical coun-terpart in the Baptistery: the shrine of SaintJohn the Baptist, which contained Lippo'sshutters. Although Lippo's paintings aremore conservative in style than those ofGiotto, he embraced the new naturalism,which included the depiction of lively facialexpressions.n We may assume, then, thatBoccaccio did not intend to present Calan-drino as an ignorant viewer who merelyhas his eyes delighted by less than natural-looking images, but as a person who doesnot disdain lifelike pictures. Following thelogic of the story, we must also assume that,as he gazed at the tabernacle in the Baptis-tery, his sense of sight was deceived, and hemistook painted and carved figures for actu-al beings. Boccaccio, in other words, seemsto suggest that Calandrino enjoyed "thecountenances coming out of paints, andlively portraits of faces," and the lifelike fig-ures might well have brightened his heartand pleased his sense of sight. This assump-tion is supported by the events that immedi-ately follow in the story.

As Calandrino is contemplating the altar-piece, a marvelously astute and pleasantyoung man named Maso del Saggio enters

the Baptistery. He has heard of Calandrino'ssimplicity and decides to play a trick onhim. Maso, pretending not to see the artist,begins to speak with mock authority to afriend, who is in on the ruse, about the prop-erties of certain stones. Just as the speakerintended, Calandrino overhears this conver-sation and joins the two men, breathlesslyasking Maso about the location of the stoneshe has just described. Maso answers non-sensically that they are found in "Berlin-

zone, which is the land of the Basques, in adistrict called Bengodi." There, as Masofurther explains, one finds a goose and aduck that lay golden eggs, capons for gen-eral consumption, a mountain made ofcheese, an endless supply of sausages andpasta, and the best of all wines flowingfreely in a stream. Calandrino falls forMaso's word painting and asks how faraway Berlinzone lies, for he would like totravel there and eat to his heart's content.

In one moment, Boccaccio implies, Ca-landrino is deceived by the paintings andcarvings of the altarpiece, and in the next heis fooled by Maso's words.'O Both imagesand words, both sight and hearing, can foolthe viewer and listener, respectively. Nearthe end of his life, Boccaccio made this verypoint explicit in his comments on Dante'sInferno (XI.101-105). There, speaking ofthe genius, or "ingegno," of poet andpainter, he writes that the former

makes everything similar to nature,intending, in this, that those frepresent-ed] things have the same effect that thethings produced by nature have, or, ifnot those, at least, as far as possible,similar to those [effects], as we can seein certain mechanical exercises. Thepainter endeavors that the figure painted

by him, which is nothing other than alittle color placed on a panel with a cer-

tain artifice, is so similat in that pose in

which he makes it, to that which nature

has produced, and naturally in that pose

in which it is disposed, that it can

deceive, either partly or wholly, theeyes of the viewer, making him believe

to exist that which does not."

For Boccaccio, visual art has an effect on itsviewer similar to that which verbal art has

on its reader or hearer. Painting is like poet-

ry not only because both are arts of veri-

similitude, but because each makes theviewer or the reader, respectively, believe toexist that which does not.

In Boccaccio's story, as Calandrino lis-

tens to Maso's description of Berlinzone,there is a moment that is crucial to an under-

standing of not only this tale, but of all thoseconcerning the artist. Indeed, the moment is

crucial to an understanding of the Deca-

meron as a whole. Listening to Maso'sincredible speech about the never-neverland of Berlinzone, Calandrino looks himsquarely in the face: "Simple Calandrino,seeing Maso say these words with a straightface and without laughing, gave them thefaith that one gives to something true and

obvious, and so he took them for the truth."Calandrino, deceived by appearances, en-ters his own gullibility forever.

Boccaccio, who would have understoodthe importance of facial expression in theworks of contemporary artists, hints that asCalandrino gazed upon the altarpiece, he,like the viewers of Giotto's art, mistook thefaces of the painted and carved figures foractual faces. As a viewer, Calandrino wouldhave read the faces of the figures in thealtarpiece in order to understand their emo-tions and motives, and as he looks into

Maso's face, he tries to read it, too. But in

his simplicity, Calandrino gives too much

credence to outward appearances. He does

not fully understand that appearances can bedeceptive, that understanding life is not thesame as understanding art, for an actual facedoes not always reveal a person's true emo-

tions and thoughts. Like painted and carvedfaces, natural ones can be deceptive but in a

different way.If Boccaccio's tale reveals Calandrino's

simplicity and foolishness, it also impliesthat for visual and verbal deceptions to be

deceptive, they need a suitable viewer orhearer (or reader), respectively. Before thearrival of Calandrino, the altarpiece wasmerely a little paint placed artfully on pan-

els and bits of shaped stone; and without thegullible artist, Maso's description of Berlin-

zone would have remained only fancifulverbiage. To be complete, art, both visualand verbal, requires the viewer or reader to

be like Calandrino. Il as an artist, Calandri-no is also a viewer, as a viewer he is also anartist, for in viewing a fellow artist's workor in hearing the words of a poet, he bringsthose creations to life, in a sense completingthem.

In Boccaccio's story, Maso goes on to tellCalandrino that one of the magical stones hehas described, the heliotrope, when held.causes the holder to become invisible.Calandrino seeks out his friends, Buffal-macco and Bruno, and, after a brief delay,the three companions go in search of thestone at a nearby river, the Mugnone. Buf-falmacco and Bruno, who immediately rec-ognize that Calandrino has been duped, taketheir turn at fooling him. They manage toconvince him that he possesses the stoneand cannot be seen. Mayhem ensues.

We should notice in passing that Boccac-cio draws a telling parallel here. As Calan-

drino looks at the altarpiece, Maso pretends

not to see him, and as Calandrino holdswhat to him is the magical stone, Buffal-

macco and Bruno pretend that he is invisi-

ble. Furthermore, Calandrino, who wasdeceived by the altarpiece, which, as Panfi-

lo describes it, was in part made of carvedstone ("intagli"), is also deceived by a stonethat has been "shaped" or "framed" byMaso's description of it.

Boccaccio's engaging tale of Calandrinoand the heliotrope seems to say that whenviewing art or hearing verbal creations, webecome like Calandrino; we become sim-pletons, if only momentarily. In his story ofGiotto and Forese da Rabatta, on the otherhand, Boccaccio suggests that if we areamong the savi, the wise or knowledgeable,we will allow ourselves to be duped. ForBoccaccio, as for Petrarch, there is a certainwisdom in the kind of simplicity we discov-

1. Martin Wackernagel, The World of the Floren-

tine Renaissance Artist: Projects and Patrons, Work-

shop and Art Market, trans. Alison Luchs (Princeton:

Princeton University Press. 1981), p. 288 and n. 5.2. Giovanni Boccaccio, Decameron: A Selection,

ed. Kathleen Speight (Manchester: Manchester Uni-

versity Press, 1983), p. 217 , n. 4: a"calandrino beinga kind of set-square then used by painters, carpenters,and sculptors."

3. Throughout I 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 these fragments, which are in

the Museo Civico, Fiesole, see W. R. Valentiner,"Tino da Camaino in Florence," Art Quarterly 77(1954): f igs. 3 and 5.

5. Paul F. Watson, "The Cement of Fiction: Gio-vanni Boccaccio and the Painters of Florence," Mod-

ern Language Notes 99 (1984):46.

er in Calandrino, who is, in a sense, the

ideal viewer, for he never fails to bedeceived. Time and again he is fooled bywords and, we may imagine, by examplesof visual art. And that is as it should be; forif he had failed to be duped, art would not

have come to life for him. Still, Calandrino,because of his simplicity, is unable to makea distinction between truth and illusion. Inthat sense, he does not experience art. Innone of the stories about him does he everrealtze that he has been duped, at least notby words, and so can never see through thedeception. Nor is he able to reflect upon thetrue nature and meaning of his experience.

Surely the wisest viewers, as Boccaccio

and Petrarch explain, are those who willing-ly enter what they know to be a deception.But, unlike Calandrino, the wisest viewersknow. too. when to make their exit.

6. For this, see Andrew Ladis, 'An Early Four-

teenth-Century Triptych in Memphis and Florentine

Painting in the Glow of Duccio," Brooks MuseumBulletin 2 (1996):5. For the text of the document, seeRichard Offner, A Critical antl Historical Corpus ofFlorentine Painting, 6 vols. (New York: New York

Universi ty Press, 1953), sec. 3, vol . 6, p.29.7. Giovanni Boccaccio, Genealogie deorum gen-

tiliunt libri, ed. Vincenzo Romano, 2 vols, (Bari: Lat-erza, 1951), I I , p. 698: "noster Ioctus, quo suo evonon fuit Apelles superior."

8. Petrarch, Phisicke against Fortune, as WellProsperous as Adverse . , trans. Thomas Twyne(London: Richard Watkyns, 1579), p.57a, as correct-ed by Michael Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators:Humanist Observers of Painting in lta\t and the Dis-covery of Pictorial Composition, 1350-1450 (Qx-

ford: Clarendon Press, 1971), pp. 5a and 140.1 have

modernized Twyne's text.

NOTES

9. Offner, sec. 3, vol. 6, p. vii, eloquently describes

Lippo's style as one that reveals, through naturalistic

shapes and facial expressions, "the opposition of pri-

mary manifestations of nature: weight and resistance,

emptiness and bulk, stability and movement, dark andlight, and, perhaps most of all, the drama of inner con-flict."

10. Millicent Joy Marcus, An Allegory of Form:

Literary Self-Consciousness in the Decameron(Saratoga, Calif.: Anma Libri, 1979), p. 87: "Calan-

drino's credulity proves infinite, as his initial absorp-tion in the artifacts of San Giovanni had led Maso tosuspect."

1 1. Giovanni Boccaccio, II comento alla DivinaComedia, ed. Domenico Guerri, 3 vols. (Bari: Lat-

erza,1918), I I [ , p. 82.