Firstly, allow me to say that my aim here is not to present an elegant critical essay on L'Aretino but to analyse its usefulness as a source for the study of cinquecento painting.

I would like to begin my talk with a brief introduction to the three main historic individuals we are dealing with here, namely the author Dolce and his two interlocutors Aretino and Fabrini. Thereafter I have divided my talk into a discussion of the structure of the dialogue and its content. Lastly, I will consider Dolce's contribution to 16th century art theory.

The L'Aretino is a fictional dialogue taking place in Venice between two learned gentleman based on the two real-life characters of Aretino and Fabrini. The main aim of the author is to solve the question of which painter reigns supreme; which one has inherited the crown of Apelles. However, the dialogue is not only shaped by the personal taste of two connoisseurs but by constant cross-referencing to the world of antiquity that displays the author's humanistic interests.

(DOLCE) The L'Aretino was published in 1557 by Ludovico Dolce (1508 Venice? - Died 1568). He was not an artist, nor was he a great collector of art as far as we know, but he was an intimate friend and correspondent of several leading persons in the artistic sphere of his day, most importantly, Pietro Aretino. Perhaps best described as a 'literary researcher' rather than a writer, Dolce was better at paraphrasing the work of others, eg. every one of his comments on the major works he mentions by Raphael are borrowed ones, coming without exception from Vasari. A prolific man of letters, Dolce also compiled anthologies of verse and letters and translated or edited over fifty known works. So was Dolce in a sense 'qualified' to write a tome of art theory? He certainly thought so, as he believed that writers were painters and wrote - "any kind of composition by a man of culture is painting". He believed that we are born with a sense of good and evil, with a perception of what is beautiful and what is ugly and that it was possible therefore, to discern what is beautiful in art, to make judgement upon it and to write it down. As an intellectual personality, Dolce was not dazzling, showing nowhere the originality of thought of his friend Aretino. However to give him his due, he more or less admits to this when he writes in a typically ingratiating dedication to Hieronimo Loredano, that his book is "somewhat like the muddy waters which the lowly peasant presented to the great Xerxes in the palms of his rough hands."

The truth was, that Dolce was not a celebrity and he did well to choose the more illustrious Aretino as his champion. It was also particularly convenient that the book was published after the latter's death and Aretino could not protest from the grave. (ARETINO) Pietro Aretino (Arezzo 1492-Venice 1556) was considered the leading figure of a Venetian literary and artistic circle of great eminence. Pick up any art history book on 16th century Venetian art and you will usually see Aretino, Titian and Sansovino referred to as the "triumvirate" of Venetian culture for this period. His fame rests largely on the body of over three thousand published letters addressed to prominent personalities of his day, copies of which he published in book form for the wider public. However, he also embarked on serious literary activity, whilst at the same time not hesitating to proliferate his sexual fantasies in sonnet-form illustrated by engravings by Giulio Romano and Marcantonio Raimondi (I modi). Finally, Aretino used a high-speed production of broadsheets to advertise his well-informed and often satirical opinions on all aspects of contemporary life, art and politics. The unorthodoxy of his writings, his scrutiny and his flattering, gained Aretino enemies as well as highly influential protectors earning him the title "the scourge of Princes". In his early life this had led to his dual temporary explusion from Rome (1521 and 1524), followed by his permanent damnation from the city in 1525. In 1527 he settled in Venice, and only three years after his death, Aretino's entire oeuvre was prohibited by the Inquisition.

Dolce seems to have met Aretino shortly before 1535 as we hear first of their relationship in the dedication to Aretino that appears on the title page of Dolce's translation of Ars Poetica. Secondly, in 1537 Aretino sings Dolce's praises in a letter dated April 1537. Dolce was actually well-equipped to communicate Aretino's views on art for Aretino had chosen him as editor of the second volume of his letters published in 1542. Whilst the Lettere provides a theoretical source for general concepts emboided in the dialogue, at no point must the reader of L'Aretino imagine they are hearing the words of Aretino. He did not write it, he did not edit it and general opinion believes it is unlikely he was even shown it for approval before it was published. For Aretino's personal views on art, one must turn to Aretino's own Lettere.

(FABRINI) But rather than just have one voice propounding his views, Dolce chose the antique literary device of the dialogue to pit Aretino against an opposing view. This has the effect of enhancing arguments by allowing for lively, entertaining, rhetoric. The chosen opponent was Giovanni Francesco Fabrini (1516-1580) a Tuscan who came to Venice in 1547 to teach Grammar. He published several books on the Italian language and linguistic theory and corresponded with Aretino. As a Tuscan, he symbolises the Florentine tradition of a bias toward disegno the mastery of which Fabrini argues belongs to Michelangelo alone, making him tower above all other artists. Fabrini says that "once one has viewed Michelangelo - one should not really bother to look at the work of any other artist."

Aretino challenges this remark and Fabrini begs the question, "and where will you find a second Michelangelo - not to speak of a superior?".

The balance of the dialogue is devoted to finding Michelangelo's superior. Dolce proposes that Raphael may not be able to draw as well as Michelangelo, but that he is the greater painter. Michelangelo he maintains, knows how only to do one thing well, i.e. to draw the nude figure whereas Raphael is a genius in all three prerequisites for great art: 1. Inventione 2. Disegno 3. Colorito.

Dolce argues that not only does Michelangelo exploit his talent for drawing the nude but that his figures are of a uniform type that border on the monotonous. "the man who sees a single figure of Michelangelo's sees them all" says Aretino. Further, he objects to the overstated musculature and elaboration of the figures which express a Mannerist idiosyncrasy foreign to Dolce's aesthetics. Great art, he says, is the "hiding of art's presence" and he elects Raphael with his easy elegance as being more able to achieve this subtlety than Michelangelo. He praises the Farnesina Galatea (Fig.1) as an example of Raphael's graceful nude whilst attacking the orgy of naked flesh in Michelangelo's Last Judgement. (Fig.2)

"One should notice, however, that Michelangelo has adopted the most fearsome and complicated type of nude and Raphael the most appealing and graceful one."

Dolce maintains that painting is "nothing other than the imitation of nature" and the closer to nature the more perfect it is. "Raphael's nudes have this additional quality; they give greater pleasure." and giving pleasure is a major function of art, according to Dolce. Because Michelangelo disturbs rather than pleases all the time, Dolce consequently regards Michelangelo's art as 'perverse'; the reverse of Raphael's 'truth to nature'. Dolce's arguments against Michelangelo are founded upon Aretino's own criticisms of the Last Judgement (letter to Michelangelo, 1545) where art criticism crosses the boundaries into a controversy of hollow morality. Objecting largely on the grounds that blatantly naked figures have no place in St. Peters Chapel, Dolce echoes Aretino's hypocritical prudishness when he writes of the Last Judgement: "it is none too commendable to me that the eyes of infants, mothers and girls should be afforded an open view of the immodesty which these figures display." This stems from Dolce's Humanistic respect for the ancients and a sense of decorum which he believes Michelangelo betrays with his figures that are "so violent that they look deranged". I received the impression Dolce believed that the artist could imbue his creations with a soul, or at least a semblance of carrying fine human qualities. Hence, a figure like the Galatea was purposely given by Raphael a "soft and gentle air which charms one and sets one on fire." In short, Raphael set out to seduce the beholder whereas Michelangelo assaulted the senses.

The L'Aretino is a theoretical treatise on painting as distinct from Vasari's biographical approach to the Vite. It should also to some degree, be seen as vindication for Vasari having failed to provide anything like an adequate account of Titian's life and his art in the Vite. Dolce sees the spirit of Raphael carried on in the works of Titian and rather than place Raphael on the throne of painting, he remains faithful to his city and to Aretino by concluding "our own Titian, therefore, is divine and without equal in the realm of painting."

A letter addressed to Alessandro Contarini written before he published the L'Aretino firmly establishes Dolce's allegiance to Titian. It concerns the Venus and Adonis, (fig. 3) which Dolce appears to have viewed in Titian's studio before it was dispatched to King Phillip II of Spain in 1554. He places the Venus and Adonis at the zenith of Venetian painting, saying that "no more perfect creation was ever conceived or painted". In the dialogue the painting is given 'divine' status. This letter to Contarini is important not only as evidence that Dolce was collecting material about painting and testing ideas that led to publication of the L'Aretino but that he could also formulate his own critical response to art. He is not half as inspiring when talking about Titian's Assumption, a passage in the Dialogue which owes much to Aretino. Although his description of the Venus and Adonis is still a fairly conventional response to a masterpiece, it is organized in a manner significantly different from that of his predecessors. According to his understanding of the three-part process of painting; invenzione, disegno and colorito, Dolce has systematically set about describing the picture and he was to utilise this formula throughout the L'Aretino. He first identifies the invention and gives a general description of the disposition of the main figures. Next he calls attention to the "easy, vigorous and gentle movement" and at the same time describes the variety of expressions and the naturalism of the colouring of the flesh. According to Dolce, : "It is the office of the painter to represent with his art any object so that it is so similar to the diverse works of nature that it appears real."

Therefore, a truly good painting, because of its naturalism can lead viewers to suspend their reason and to see the painted illusion as reality. Titian's Adonis is so believable that :

"one has the impression that with wanton and amorous endearments he is comforting Venus into not being afraid".

This relates to the ancient writers of ekphrasis who wrote that a statue by Lysippus was so life- like "it looked about to speak" (Callistratus). The Venus too, is so real and desirable that Dolce swears no man : "does not believe when he sees her that she is alive..nor fails to feel the whole of his blood stirring in his veins".

He then refers to the ancient tale of a statue being so lovely that an admirer physically made love to it and he suggests here, that Titian's picture could provoke the same action. His description conveys Titian's naturalism, the expressive power of his figures and his inventiveness in a fully developed ekphrasis that corresponds to important aspects of Dolce's description of The Martyrdom of St. Peter in the dialogue. Distinct from the letter Contarini, the L'Aretino is problematic for rather than consolidating one man's reaction to the art he viewed, it is a pastiche of many and varied sources. His arguments simply intensify and reinforce what the critics, theorists and artists themselves already felt on the subject. In the case of Michelangelo, again it is Vasari who supplies the basis of Dolce's discussion backed up by gleanings from Aretino's letters. Even worse, rather than simply regurgitating Aretino's words, he exaggerates Aretino's criticism of Michelangelo. In other correspondence, Aretino recommended Titian when in Rome to study Michelangelo's Last Judgement. Neither should it be taken that Dolce's opinion on Michelangelo was that which was widely held by Venetians at that period, there is evidence to the contrary. Apart from Aretino, hardly any of the sources he draws upon are Venetian authors. The L'Aretino is only distinctly Venetian in that Titian triumphs above all and Dolce's arrival at this conclusion, helps establish the idea of a specifically Venetian tradition of painting, involving command of colour and its use for sensually provocative purposes as exemplified in the painting of Titian. Although this treatise was written at the moment when Venetian painting was hovering on the threshold of the Mannerist period, Dolce does not look to the future, he is not concerned with any up and coming artists such as Tintoretto and Veronese. As a matter of fact, his judgement seems quite remote for he names Battista Franco as the only one of the new generation of Venetian painters who does painting any honour and who will "win eternal fame for himself". He is scornful of most others and says that "I am afraid that painting may be losing its way once more". In this respect, Dolce is taking his cue once again from Aretino, who initially disapproved of Tintoretto and other young Venetian artists.

Regarding what I call the "factual" usefulness of L'Aretino, for dating, attribution, identification of subjects and information given concerning commissions, use and appearance of specific works of art, I consider it not a very reliable tool. I personally found it more interesting for the theoretical issues that it tackles such as the concept of giudizio naturale - (that the artist is born not made, having been granted a divine gift from God.) and the questions it raises around the concept of 'ideal beauty' ; what is the nature of beauty?, can it be defined?; and most intriguingly, can the artist improve upon nature? These of course were standard dilemmas that had been debated since the time of Pliny, but the dialogue does put them into interesting perspective. Finally, I would award Dolce some credit for his contribution to High Renaissance art theory in the discussion of how viewers respond to illusionistic naturalism. He distinguishes several ways in which beholders look at works of art. We are told that Titian visits Rome and "looked fixedly with his thoughts and with his eyes in examining Raphael's paintings" in the Vatican Stanze. Dolce is concerned with this kind of viewing in which beholders open their eyes and minds to a work of art and intensely contemplate it. He also advocates repeated viewing of a work of art in order to increase one's understanding and enjoyment of it, the same way he says, that we read good poems. In this respect, Dolce's response to the painting is also a lesson in how it should be seen.

FOOTNOTES
 Pietro Aretino, Lettere sull'arte, published in book form in 1537, 1542, 1544, 1550 and posthumously in 1557.

 It is worth noting that Sansovino published his Tutte le cose notabili e belle che sono in Venetia - a guide to works of art to be seen in the city, which features a dialogue between a Venetian and a visitor. Although published one year earlier in 1556, Sansovino's work was written at the same time as Dolce, so it is an unresolved question as to whom was copying whom?