Probably no artist in the entire range of the Italian Renaissance has evoked such contrary opinions of his merits as has Botticelli. As has been seen, his reputation among his contempo raries was high: but later, when the merely technical excellences of the art of painting, and especially the quality of surface fidelity, had as sumed an exaggerated importance, he went out of favor, and for three hundred years his work was not considered as a factor in the develop ment of art. To-day, however, with the freedom from the tyranny of conventional criticism, with the opportunities of forming individual opinions instead of echoing those of the acknowledged critic of the day, Botticelli has fully regained favor. One reason for his present popularity is that in the breadth and richness of his cul ture, in the varied character of the subjects he chose, and in the greatness of his aim. lie repre sents the most striking features of the memor able period in which he I INT(' . For the range of his subjects extended from the great scriptural compositions, "throngh the moist touching scenes in the life of the Virgin," to events in classic history, and thus in his works the brilliancy of the Medici's Court, the force of Christian tradi tions, and those classic myths that were the dc light of Renaissance scholars, are all present in varying degrees. Nor did lie escape the errors of his day. The superabundance of his orna ment, the graceful yet mannered form of his draperies, and the introduction of gold into these and other accessories were to sonic extent due to the demands of his patrons.
But though he is thus a reflex of his time, Bot ticelli's works are yet pronounced and individ ual. Living in a generation of naturalists, he might have been a mere naturalist among them. There are traces enough in his work that he was deeply impressed by nature, by man, and by things considered as plastic objects. The sea, rocky mountain scenery, soft woodland land scapes, and gardens of every variety of rose, appear again and again in his paintings. But Botticelli was essentially a visionary painter, and to represent merely the outward image was not enough for him. Instead, he clothed all lie saw with the color of his own moods and ideas, and thus made each of his works an outgrowth of his own personality. In color, too, lie showed independence, for while in his youth lie used the gay colors common in his age, in his later works his color scheme was more subservient to the central idea and sentiment of his work. lie was also one of the first to accept art as an instru ment of general culture, and as much at the service of the world as of the Church. Before him, few ventured outside the range of subjects provided by the Scriptures. Put while Botti celli painted religions works, he painted them with an originality of feeling which appeals to the spectator as the real matter of the work through the veil of its ostensible subject. On
the other hand, his Venuses have so much feeling and such tender grace that they seem "-Madon nas masquerading in mythology." In his Madonnas the chief characteristics of his art arc revealed. Nowhere does he give greater proof of his personal feeling and creative than in depicting Mary and her Child. In the Madonnas at Palazzo Corsini (Rome) and at the Spedale degle Innocenti (Florence), the in fluence of Filippo Lippi is apparent. Like those of the friar, these virgins, though lacking in religious feeling, are full of a naïve tenderness and affectionate maternity. Even the style of arrangement and mode of drapery are copies of the mode carried out by Filippo. In the later Aladonnas Filippo's influence is still seen in the Virgin's slenderness. The motive, too, is almost the sann.--Mary embracing the Child, who stands in her lap and raises His right hand in blessing toward the throng of worshipers. But the veil of sorrow has fallen over the youthfulness that delighted in his earlier .works; Alary's joy as a mother is under the shadow of a prophetic fore boding of woe to come. This mystic union of the highest blessedness with the sharpest an guish, the result of Sa vona rola's mighty influ ence on the pa inter, is the keynote of all his later Madonnas. Sometimes the Virgin's sad ness is cononuuicated to the angels, but usually it is the Child who feels the burden of an in exorable destiny :n ml turns to }Hs mother with tender caresses. Even to his profane subjects Botticelli communicates this element of sad ness, and nothing is stranger than to see the bright Greek myths tinged with mediaeval colors and shadowed with the "grim humor of Floren tine thought." Equally interesting and important are his mythological works, painted for the most part in the period after his return from Rome, before he came under the influence of Savonarola. The most famous of these is the "Realm of Venus," usually known as "Spring"—a eharming compo sition of classical figures, over life-size, in a beautiful spring landscape, redolent with flow ers. Its eompanion piece, the "Birth of Venus," represents the goddess perfectly- nude, except for the covering of her wind-blown hair, being wafted ashore by the breath of the wind-gods. It is the most chaste and refined treatment of the nude. except perhaps Gio•gione's "Sleeping Venus," in modern painting. I3oth these pictures were painted for the Medici; the former is in the Uffizi, the latter in the Florence Academy. Among his other important mythological works are "Calumny," after a description of a painting of ApeIles. by Lucian. in the Uffizi, "Pallas Taming a Centaur" (Pitt-i), and "Mars and Venus," in the National Gallery, London.