The Renaissance Lets Its Hair Down

Human hair has been the topic of numerous cultural tangles over the centuries. The protein filament has been included in definitions of the civilized and the savage, of the modest and the useless, of the chaste and the sensual, of the orderly and the anarchic. Above all, hair has been intimately written into definitions of sexuality and gender. Biology makes hair develop (until it doesn’t), however tradition asks: how lengthy, how brief, how styled, how seen, how hidden?

What artwork historian Emanuele Lugli calls the “hegemonic Christian depreciation of hairstyles” could also be greatest represented by the thirteen-century theologian Thomas Aquinas. A monk, Aquinas is normally represented carrying a tonsure, the shaved high of the pinnacle that represented humility. Constructing off an earlier Father of the Church, Augustine of Hippo, Aquinas lumped hair among the many corporeal superfluities, together with urine and feces. These have been issues which might not resurrect together with the physique come Judgment Day. Hair was irrelevant, when it wasn’t irreverent as a logo of flaming need.

The notion that everyone was going to be hairless in Heaven could not have sat nicely with a number of the artists of the Renaissance. One of many classical concepts revived on the Italian peninsula throughout this era was the intricate coiffure as an decoration of feminine magnificence (no less than as consumed by males). Ovid’s Ars Amatoria particularly kindled a reverence for hair. And Sandro Botticelli (c. 1445–1510) emerged as the good painter of hair, making it what Lugli calls the “threshold to erotic need” for spectators.

An instance is Botticelli’s Idealized Portrait of a Lady (allegedly Simonetta Vespucci), thought to have been painted within the early 1480s. The lengthy, pony-tailed, braided, curlicued, honey-blond hair is adorned with greater than 2 hundred painted pearls—throughout a time the carrying of pearls in public violated Florentine sumptuary legal guidelines.

“Whereas curiosity within the inventive prospects of hair was widespread—what’s hair if not a mass of strains that may take any form?—nobody went so far as Botticelli in capitalizing on its intricacy,” writes Lugli. Botticelli made distinctive hairstyles his signature in his first twenty years as a painter. The technique “paid off since arresting locks turned a prerequisite of feminine attract.”

This made Botticelli no associates within the Church. Hair wasn’t merely a theological superfluity, belittled as worthless to the situation of the immortal soul. Within the fingers, or ought to we are saying on the heads, of ladies, hair is also a religious menace. Feminine hair was a snare, luring males and boys to lust. Within the phrases of Girolamo Savonarola in 1490—a number of years earlier than his puritanical bonfire of the vanities and eight years earlier than his personal burning on the stake—unveiled girls and ladies at mass have been a entice for each “the angels and the clergymen.”

Botticelli’s painted hair, writes Lugli, was “a community of ropes, levers, and cantilevers” that did the “muscular work of pulling the spectator’s consideration in.” However this work was battling the chances. Non secular repression gained out. By the 1490s, Botticelli “avoided portray fabulous manes, overlaying hair beneath thick layers of fabric, or turned them into wavy streaks, as repetitive as they’re lengthy.” No slouch in his youth when it got here to portray males’s hair as nicely, Botticelli appears to have been defeated on the hair entrance: his Christ the Redeemer of circa 1500 is the “solely late portray during which he nonetheless reveals an curiosity in hair.”

Lugli notes that “curiosity in hair has till just lately remained on the margins in artwork historical past.” The famed connoisseur Bernard Berenson, as an illustration, thought-about Leonardo de Vinci’s bald heads one of the best drawings of the Renaissance, a judgement Lugli describes as “sustained by the patriarchal moralism that has formed, and it nonetheless does, artwork historic scholarship.”

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.