Primavera Analysis Beatriz Picaz Section D4 Charles Stapleton February 29th 2012

Botticelli’s Primavera is an interesting piece of art. Like many works of art from the Renaissance, it has many scholars still arguing about what the painter was thinking when he painted this, in order to give some meaning to the figures and objects of the painting. The excerpts that were given to us helped to explain the painting from the perspective of two different scholars, who used various sources to help decipher the painting. Both were very interesting interpretations, however I found Zollner’s argument, as opposed to Zirpolo’s, to be more convincing based on his attention to every character in the painting. In the first excerpt, taken from Frank Zollner’s Botticelli: Images of Love and Spring, he takes each character from the Primavera and gives them a background and a story, based on sources from different text fragments. According to Zollner, the figure on the very left is Mercury, the messenger of the gods who divides clouds and drives away wind with his wand, which is discussed in Virgi’s Aenid He characterizes the little flying boy as Amor (Eros in Greek mythology), the son of Mars and Venus. Venus, the goddess of love and beauty is the woman at the very center of the painting. She is accompanied by the Three Graces. He explains how these characters are often found together in other literary works, like in one of Horace’s popular verses. Moving to the right side of the painting, the woman decorated with flowers is characterized as Flora, with her pre-transformation form of Chloris clinging to her side. He assumes this, from the work of Ovid’s Fasti. Finally, the green figure at the far right is Zephyrus, the god of the west wind, which, according to Zollner, can be identified by the puffed out cheeks, wings, and the windblown trees in the background behind him. His argument shows how several text excerpts inspired the characters in Primavera. The second excerpt, taken from Lilian Zirpolo’s “Botticelli’s Primavera: A Lesson for the Bride,” is a different interpretation of the painting. Zirpolo mainly focuses on the right side of the painting. She, like Zollner, also uses Ovid’s Fasti as a source for concluding the characterization of Flora-the woman decorated in flowers, Chloris- the woman clinging on to Flora, and Zephyrus-the green wind-blown figure. Her take on the Primavera is taken from idea in the time of the Renaissance, in which noble marriages were often arranged for merely political, economical, and dynastic gain for the royal families. A woman’s feelings were not taken to consideration much, and were forced to conform to their husbands. Zirpolo argues that, this being said taken into consideration, we are looking at a rape scene. The scene takes place on the right side of the painting, interpreted to be Zephyrus violating Chloris, who is then rewarded by the metamorphosis into a goddess, Flora. She argues that this painting served as a sort of reminder for the expected behavior that women were supposed to conform to during this time. Both of these excerpts present some very good ideas when it comes to interpreting Botticelli’s Primavera. Zollner explains his interpretation all of the characters in the painting, by characterizing each one using information from various texts. Zirpolo mainly focuses on the right side of the painting, characterizing three characters and concluding that the painting served as a lesson for the bride of an arranged marriage. Both of the authors are in agreement as to who the three characters on the right side of the painting are. They both use a few of the same sources to come to their conclusions. However, Zirpolo never explains who the rest of the characters are, so we are left wondering what purpose the rest of the figures play in her argument. Zollner thoroughly explains each character in the painting, but simply concludes that the painting was based on literary works. It is a simple argument, but accurate, according to his sources and mythology. I found Zollner’s argument to be very descriptive and helpful in deciphering the painting as a whole. Zirpolo only briefly explained the characters of her focus. She presented an interesting argument, but raised unanswered questions about the rest of the characters in the painting, for this reason I found it to be incomplete. Maybe if the painting was cropped out to only that scene, her argument would be stronger and persuade the reader to have a similar point of view when it comes to interpreting the painting. After reading these excerpts, I have a better understanding of the Botticelli’s Primavera. Both authors presented strong ideas, however, Zollner’s argument appealed more to me because of his use of mythological characters used to decipher each and every character in the painting. Although his argument was simply deciphering the figures in the painting, I felt that it was strong enough based on the texts he used. Zirpolo’s argument seemed a bit too subjective, putting most of the emphasis on only the three characters on the right side of the painting. Nonetheless, they were both very helpful in helping me interpret the Primavera.