‘The Painted Decoration of the Sala Regia: Intention and Reception’

Jan L. de Jong

The painted decoration of the Sala Regia in the VaticanIntention and reception

The decoration of the Sala Regia (fig. 1) is one of thebest-documented artistic projects of the sixteenth cen-tury: in terms of actual execution as well as of receptionand appreciation. Yet it has received relatively little at-tention, especially in comparison to the piles of booksand papers dedicated to the decoration of the adjacentSistine Chapel, or Raphael’s Stanze. Around 1585, how-ever, an anonymous visitor of the Sala Regia noted thathe was so impressed by its maestà, that it «[…] leva quasila memoria all’altra prossima di Costantino […]».1

In this paper I will not discuss the history of the ex-ecution, which has already been studied extensively invarious publications. In 1997 this documentation hasbeen very well summarized and expanded with new in-terpretations by Angela Böck, in her study Die Sala Regiaim Vatikan als Beispiel der Selbstdarstellung des Papsttumsin der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Here I will raisethe question, how the paintings in the Sala Regia weremeant to be seen and interpreted, and if they were in-deed understood in that way.

For an accurate understanding of the situation, it isnecessary to provide some data about the Sala Regiaand its decoration. The Sala was built in its present formduring the papacy of Paul III (1534–1549). It was meant– and it has indeed always functioned – as an audiencehall, where the pope would receive kings and otherprominent guests.2 When Paul III died in 1549, the con-struction of the Sala had been finished and its ceilingand walls had been decorated in stucco by Perino delVaga.3 For the next 15 years almost nothing happened,until Pius IV in 1563 commissioned a number of youngpainters to decorate the soprapporte with historicalscenes showing kings and emperors donating parts oftheir territories to the Church. Work was interrupted in

1565, when Pius IV died and the Sala was needed for theconclave. It was resumed only in 1571, when Pius V or-dered Giorgio Vasari to paint three scenes showing thevictory of the Christian troops over the Turks at the Bat-tle of Lepanto. Vasari had hardly begun when Pius Vdied, in 1572, and work had to be interrupted again. Thenext pope, Gregory XIII, had the project continued, buthe changed the subject matter. He ordered Vasari topaint three scenes with the Catholic victory over the Hu-guenots during the so-called Night of Saint Bartholom-ew, in August 1572. When these paintings were fin-ished, only two wall spaces still remained unadorned.They were filled in by Vasari with scenes, which more orless fit in with the already divergent subjects of the Sala.As an allusion to the present Pope Gregory XIII, Vasaripainted events from the pontificates of preceding popeswith the name of Gregory.4

The paintings were mentioned for the first time in1564, when they were still being executed. The reportmust therefore refer to the soprapporte, whose decorationhad started around 1563 and was interrupted in 1565. Itsauthor was Giovanni Andrea Gilio, a theologian, who ismainly known for his criticism of Michelangelo’s LastJudgment in his Dialogo nel quale si ragiona degli errori edegli abusi de’ pittori circa l’istorie. In this dialogue Giliowrote in a more positive tone about the paintings in theSala Regia:

«[…] io lodo sommamente il nostro pontefice Pio Terzo[sic], che ne la sala publica de le due Capelle cominciate giàda Paolo Terzo vi faccia, in cambio de le guerre romane, di-pingere alcuni catolici imperatori c’hanno fatto qualchegran giovamento a la Romana Chiesa, al Pontefice overo ala cristiana religione. Queste sono l’istorie da dipingersiper le sale de’ cardinali e del papa, le cose de’ concilii ge-nerali, e spezialmente de’ quattro prencipali, acciò si co-nosca i benefattori e si dia animo et occasione agli altri didoverli imitare, lodare et esaltare.»5

Gilio not only praised the soprapporte paintings of theSala Regia, he also classified them. In his dialogue hedistinguished three kinds of history paintings: thosethat are free renditions of a text (pittura poetica: illustra-tions of fictitious stories such as mythological events),

1 Lanciani 1883, 459: «Questa sala regia, sebbene pare non so chedi maestà, che se le tolga per non esser chiusa, ne vietato di passar-cisi, nondimeno leva quasi la memoria all’altra prossima di Costan-tino, sì nominata, ch’è sopra nelle stanze che ne riguardano Belve-dere, in compagnia delle altre di Torre Borgia, che suol habitare suaBeatitudine.» Cf. Aernout Van Buchell, who in his diary from 1587to 1588 decribed the Sala di Costantino in barely one sentence (Lan-ciani 1900, 59: «Est et hic aula Constantiniana, ubi pugna Constan-tini cum Maxentio ad pontem Milvium per Raphaelem Urbinatemdepicta, quam aeneis quoque typis excusam vidi.»), while dedicat-ing several pages to the Sala Regia (Lanciani 1900, 59–62). Van Aer-nout’s diary will be discussed in more detail in the course of this pa-per; see also below, n. 12.

2 Böck 1997, 19–20.3 Davidson 1976; Böck 1997, 11–14.

4 For a detailed account of the decoration’s history of execution,see Böck 1997, 14–18.

5 Gilio 1564, 114–115.

Jan L. de Jong154

those that accurately illustrate biblical or historicalevents (pittura storica), and something in-between: pit-tura mista. Gilio described this last genre as:

«[…] una leggiadra mescolanza di cose vere e finte et a levolte [il pittore] per vaghezza de l’opera v’aggiunse le fa-volose.»6

Apart from the soprapporte in the Sala Regia, Giliomentioned as examples of this genre the paintings byGiorgio Vasari in the Sala dei Cento Giorni of the Pal-azzo della Cancelleria (1546) and those by FrancescoSalviati in the Palazzo Farnese (circa 1560), both inRome.7 A closer look at some of the Sala Regia paintingsthat were executed around 1563/64, may illustrate howthey fit into this genre of pittura mista.

The paintings executed in this period show how var-ious kings and emperors from the past donated parts oftheir territories to the Church. Some scenes illustratewell-known events, such as Taddeo Zuccaro’s Charle-magne donating his territory (fig. 2),8 while others depict

less known, or barely known episodes, for example Thedonation of Pepin by Girolamo Sicciolante da Sermoneta(fig. 3), or Otto I restoring the territories of the Church toPope Agapetus II by Orazio Sammachini (fig. 4).9 In thelast two cases the painters did not have an extensivehistorical report at their disposal, to supply them withrelevant information (assuming, of course, that such areport existed). Consequently, they had to make astrong appeal to their imagination. They represented aking and a pope or a high prelate, added a horse refer-ring to the king’s duty as the pope’s strator, a statuettesymbolizing the king’s donation, allegorical figures,

6 Gilio 1564, 89. On pittura mista, see Dempsey 1982, 64–65, andRobertson 1992, 68.

7 Gilio 1564, 15 (Palazzo della Cancelleria and Palazzo Farnese)and 114 (Sala Regia). It is interesting to note that the paintings inthe Palazzo Farnese, just like those in the Sala Regia, were in a stateof execution at the moment of Gilio’s writing, in 1563 or 1564. Infact, Gilio may even have written his remark about the Palazzo Far-nese before Salviati died, in 1563. This means that Gilio must havebeen fairly well-informed about contemporary painting. After Sal-viati’s death in 1563, the paintings in the Palazzo Farnese werecompleted by Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro. On Vasari’s paintingsin the Palazzo della Cancelleria and those of Salviati in the PalazzoFarnese, see Kliemann 1993, 37–55.

8 On this scene, see Böck 1997, 35–36.9 On these scenes, see Böck 1997, 34–35 and 36–37.

Fig. 1: Vatican Palace, Sala Regia (British Open University, Art in Italy, unit 10, pl. 4).

The painted decoration of the Sala Regia in the Vatican 155

amazed bystanders clutching to columns, and similardetails. Thus they created paintings that belong to thegenre of pittura mista, which combine fact with (quite alot of) fiction and are based on the well-known exampleof The donation of Constantine in the Sala di Costantino(fig. 5).10

All these details may have made the paintings rec-ognizable as donation scenes, but the specific eventsthat they depict are impossible to identify without thehelp of inscriptions. Accordingly, the one paintingwithout an inscription has never been identified withcertainty.11 This means that the inscriptions are veryimportant: while the paintings are general representa-tions of royal gifts to the Church, the inscriptions indi-cate exactly which donations have been depicted, andwho were involved in it. The royal guests and the gen-eral visitors had to accept the inscriptions at face value,for they were not expected to bring their history booksand check what they saw – assuming even that their

history books would relate the events with which theywere confronted! This all implies that the visitors couldeasily be manipulated.

Two interesting questions now arise. First of all,could the events represented indeed be found in generalhistory books? And secondly, were visitors manipulat-ed and did they realize it?

I will try to answer both questions by introducing aDutch visitor to Rome: Aernout van Buchell, who spentthe winter of 1587 to 1588 in the Eternal City.12 In his di-ary he noted all the places he visited, amongst them theSala Regia.13 He minutely transcribed the inscriptions ofthe paintings, and later checked his history books to as-certain the details of the events that were depicted.These history book were Bartolomeo Platina’s Lives ofthe Popes, Flavio Biondo’s Decades, and Martinus Polon-ius’ Chronicles of the Popes and Emperors.14 In most cases

10 On the impact of this painting, see Jong 2001, 51-55.11 This painting, by Giovanni Maria Zoppelli, is situated on the

east wall, in the corner with the north wall. According to Böck 1997,54–58, it represents Charles of Anjou’s Oath of Loyalty after the Enfeoff-ment of Sicily.

12 On Van Buchell (Buchelius, 1565–1641), see Brugmans 1924and Pollmann 1999. Van Buchell stayed in Rome from November9, 1587, to March 7, 1588; the diary of his visit to Rome has been pub-lished by Lanciani 1900.

13 Lanciani 1900, 59–62.14 This appears from his comments on the scene showing Pope Al-

exander III Reconciles with Emperor Frederick Barbarossa; see below, n. 26.

Fig. 2: Taddeo Zuccaro, Charlemagne donating his territory, circa 1563, Vatican Palace,

Sala Regia (Pietrangeli 1996, 400, fig. 376).

Jan L. de Jong156

he did indeed find more information on what he hadseen in the Sala Regia. But not always. From this pointof view, the most frustrating painting must have beenthat by Livio Agresti (fig. 6) It shows – according to itsinscription – how King Peter of Aragon offered his king-dom to Pope Innocent III, pledged him obedience andpromised him protection, but this event is not reportedin any of the three books on papal history used by VanBuchell.15 He did find that Biondo mentions King Peterof Aragon, but that refers to King Peter III, who was ex-communicated by Pope Martin IV in 1283. The eventshown in the painting, however, took place in 1204, andrelates to King Peter II of Aragon. Van Buchell mighthave found a few lines – and no more than that! – on thisevent in Agostino Steuco’s De falsa Donatione Constantinilibri duo contra Laurentium Vallam, from 1547.16 But there

were – as far as I know – no other printed sources avail-able.17 This means that even the so-called program-writ-er, who selected the scenes to be painted and tried tofind examples of donations by princes from the mainEuropean countries, either used the book by Steuco –which did not offer much specific information – or con-sulted barely accessible sources.18

The donation of Peter of Aragon is told for the firsttime in the so-called Gesta Innocentii PP. III, which werealready written during the pontificate of Pope InnocentIII (1198–1216). These Gesta appeared in print only in

15 Petrvs. Aragoniae. Rex. ad. Vrbem. profectvs / Innocentio. III. Pont.Max. regnvm. Aragoniae / defert. constitvta. annvi.tribvti. perpetva / pen-sione. obedientiam. simvl. et. defensionem / Sedis. Apostolicae. pollicitvs.See Böck 1997, 45–46, and Jong 2000, 472–474.

16 STEUCO 1547, 193: «Petrus rex Aragoniae anno tertio domini In-nocentii tertii Papae venit Romam ad eundem Innocentium, abeoque militiam solemniter, ac honorifice accepit: obtulitque spontetotum regnum beato Petro, & sacrosanctae Romanae ecclesiae:ibique accepit in feudum praedictum regnum. Itemque pro regnoSardiniae certam pecuniae summam constituit se daturum.»

17 On the sources of this scene, see Jong 2000, 472–474 ; cf. Böck1997, 47.

18 Many of the donations which have been represented in theSala Regia are mentioned in the book by Steuco; see Jong 2000,472.

Fig. 3: Girolamo Sicciolante da Sermoneta, The donation of Pepin, circa 1563,

Vatican Palace, Sala Regia (Smith 1977, 90).


1682 in Paris, on the basis of a manuscript that had beendiscovered in the papal palace in Avignon in 1603.19 Asfar as I know, there are no other accounts of this eventbefore 1560.20 However, amidst the notes of OnofrioPanvinio in the Vatican Library there is a scrap of papercontaining the description of King Peter’s visit, which iscopied from the Gesta Innocentii PP. III.21 So there musthave been more manuscripts of the Gesta circulatingthan the one copy in Avignon. In his search for an ex-ample of a Spanish monarch donating his kingdom tothe Holy Chair, the program-writer seems to have takenadvantage of one of them. The fact that this fragment

from the Gesta is in the busta with notes of Onofrio Pan-vinio, points to him as the program-writer, and there areseveral other indications to support this assumption.22

This digression on the written source of the King Pe-ter scene demonstrates that the observers were whollydependent on the information offered by the inscrip-tion. In fact, the Gesta mention Peter’s donation to thepope only in passing and stress Peter’s pledge to protectthe Holy Chair. Agostino Steuco, in 1547, relates thatKing Peter offered his kingdom to «Saint Peter» andthen received it back as an enfeoffment.23 The inscrip-tion of the painting explains that King Peter offered hiskingdom to the Pope, contracted to pay an annual trib-ute, pledged obedience and promised protection of theHoly Chair.24 No visitor of the Sala Regia would, ofcourse, ever be able to check whether this was a correctrendering of the historical facts.

19 The history of the Gesta Innocentii PP. III has been included inPL 214, XVII–CCXXVIII. They were published for the first time in1682 in Paris, by Stefano Baluzio, who used the manuscript found byErastus Andrentius in 1603 in Avignon. See the introduction to thetext in the edition in PL 214, XV–XVI.

20 See n. 17 above.21 Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. lat. 2738, fol. 157v–158v.

According to Herklotz 1985, 35, the folio’s 156r–167v of this codexwere written by Alfonso Chacón (Ciaconius), who arrived in Romeonly in 1567.

22 Jong 2000, 471–472. On Panvinio as an iconographic adviser ingeneral, see Robertson 1992, 220–223.

23 See above, n. 16.24 See above, n. 15.

Fig. 4: Orazio Sammachini, Otto I restoring the territories of the Church to Pope Agapetus II,

circa 1563, Vatican Palace, Sala Regia (Pietrangeli 1996, 401, fig. 377).

Jan L. de Jong158

This manipulation of the observers was not alwayssuccessful when it came to better-known events. An ex-ample is the picture by Giuseppe Salviati, paintedaround 1563. It shows how in Venice, in 1177, the Em-peror Frederick Barbarossa asked forgiveness fromPope Alexander III and promised him obedience (fig.7).25 Van Buchell found this event not only in his bookson papal history, but also in several volumes on Vene-tian history. These latter publications related a some-what different story than the papal history books. Thismanipulation of historical sources obviously irritatedVan Buchell. He noted that the Venetian historians re-port how Frederick kneeled and tolerated the Holy Fa-ther putting a pontifical foot on his imperial head, «but»– according to Van Buchell – «the arrogance, nay, the in-solence of Alexander, who trampled on the head of thisgreat man, and spoke the haughty words: ‹Thou shalttread upon the lion and adder›, to which the emperor re-plied: ‹Not to you but to Saint Peter I submit myself›,and the pope reacted with ‹Both to me and to Saint Pe-ter› – that these papal parasites have omitted.»26

Van Buchell was not the only one to see through thismanipulation. On March 14, 1581, Michel de Montaignevisited the Sala Regia and noted «la representation de cePape qui foule aus pieds la teste de cet Empereur quivenoit pour luy demander pardon et les luy baiser: nonpas les paroles dites selon l’histoire par l’un et par l’au-tre.»27 Unlike Van Buchell, Montaigne – as far as I know– did not bring any books on papal history with him. Heknew the history of Frederick Barbarossa and Alexan-der III through a French publication, Henri Estienne’sApologie pour l’Hérodote from 1566.28 It is interesting tosee the context in which Estienne described this event.In chapter 40 he recounts the various abuses committedby the popes and other clerics, to show that, compared

25 On this scene, see Böck 1997, 50–51.

26 Lanciani 1900, 60: «Hanc historiam Blondus lib. VI decadis se-cundae et ante eum Martinus ac ex eo Platina, nec non Venetarumrerum scriptores ut Marcellus, Sabellicus et alii descripsere; sed su-perbiam, imo petulantiam Alexandri, in conculcando tanti viri ca-pite, ac superbis eius dictis: ‹Super aspidem et basiliscum ambula-bis›, cui respondit imperator: ‹Non tibi sed petro me submitto›; adquae papa: ‹Et mihi et Petro›, pontificii illi parasiti omiserunt.» Thebiblical quote is after Psalm 91: 13.

27 Montaigne 1992, 115.28 The first edition was published in Geneva.

Fig. 5: Giulio Romano and Gianfrancesco Penni, The donation of Constantine, circa 1524, Vatican Palace, Sala di Costantino

(Pietrangeli 1996, 387, fig. 364).


to them, many stories told by Herodotus will seem lessstrange than they do at first sight. Estienne’s leading ex-ample of papal abuse is Pope Alexander III’s treatmentof Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. It is introduced as fol-lows:

«Du temps de nos prédécesseurs, la folie des abus estantencore en vogue, les gens d’église ne se sont contentez dese faire révérer et adorer, de se faire donner la bourse quandbon leur a semblé, de genner les personnes de la crainte deleurs excommunications: ils sont venus jusques à mettre lepied sur la gorge, non pas comme on le dit par proverbe,mais réalement en de faict. Voire un de leurs chefs a bienosé mettre le pied sur la gorge d’un empereur.»29

And then follows the story of – and a long complaintabout – the abuse of excommunications and other papalmisdeeds. So Montaigne knew not just the story of Fre-derick Barbarossa and Pope Alexander, but must havebeen acquainted with its negative associations.

This picture showing Frederick Barbarossa and PopeAlexander was obviously not a literal illustration of an

historical event. One may wonder if the painter ever re-ceived detailed instructions about the incident – that isto say: supposing that his adviser(s) knew exactly howit had taken place. So much is clear, however, thatGiuseppe Salviati did not even try to create an historicalreconstruction. He turned his rendition of the event intoa pittura mista, and he used several means which he mayhave derived from the paintings of Raphael or from

29 This episode continues as follows: «Car c’est un’histoire assezcommune, et qui n’a pointe esté oubliée par ceux qui ont escrit lesvies des papes, qu’Alexandre III ayant commandé à l’empereur Fré-déric de se prosterner en terre, et luy demander pardon (devant ungrand peuple assemblé au mesme lieu, à-sçavoir en l’église de S.Marc à Venise), l’empereur obéyssant à son commandement seprosterna. Mais incontinent ce gentil pape, luy mettant le pied surla gorge (ou sur le col, selon les autres) vint à dire. ‹Il est escrit, Tumarcheras sur l’aspic et le basilisque, et fouleras aux pieds le lion et le dra-gon.› L’empereur, fort indigné d’un tel outrage, respondit, – ‹Nonpas à toy, mais à S. Pierre.› Alors le foulant derechef du pied, dict,– ‹Et à moy et à Pierre.› Or faut-il noter que cest empereur venoitprincipalement pour estre absous de l’excommunication papale.»Estienne 1879, II, 416–417.

Fig. 6: Livio Agresti, King Peter of Aragon offering his kingdom to Pope Innocent III, circa 1563,

Vatican Palace, Sala Regia (Pietrangeli 1996, 399, fig. 375).

Jan L. de Jong160

Leon Battista Alberti’s Trattato della pittura – as for in-stance the present-day background, the excited by-standers who are trying to see what is going on, and theportraits of well-known contemporaries.30 An anony-mous visitor of the Sala Regia around 1585 noted thatthis is a

«[…] quatro vaghissimo, con ritratti di Venetia, del ducevestito di broccato d’oro, donne in fenestre, e per tutto mol-titudine assai di gente, imperatore che ne tiene la testa sco-perta, et inginocchiato ha il viso ne’piedi di sua Beatitudi-ne, che rappresenta Pio .4. che fece a tempo suo la pittura:

è questa santità naturalissima, et altresì quel sig. card. diFerrara, splendidissimo Farnese grande, e molti altri per-sonaggi.»31

This description does not make it clear if its anony-mous author penetrated the propagandistic nature ofthe scene, but it does show that he realized very wellthat the painting contained sixteenth century elementsand that, therefore, it is in fact an anachronistic rendi-tion of the twelfth century event. The same anonymousauthor noticed that the paintings which Vasari execut-ed were also not exact recordings of what had recentlyhappened, but that they too were pitture miste – eventhough the author may not have known this term.

30 See Jong 2001 32-51. 31 Lanciani 1883, 457–458.

Fig. 7: Giuseppe Salviati, Frederick Barbarossa asking forgiveness from Pope Alexander III,

crica 1563, Vatican palace, Sala Regia (Pietrangeli 1996, 398, fig. 374).


The pictures that Vasari painted are not based onspecific texts, as they illustrate very recent events,namely the Battle at Lepanto, which took place in Oc-tober 1571, and the Massacre of the Huguenots, whichhappened in Paris, in August 1572. The two Lepantoscenes (fig. 8 and 9) were already started in 1572, andthey obviously did not continue the theme of papal su-premacy and royal donations to the Church. Theywere commissioned by Pope Pius V personally, whoconsidered the Christian victory at Lepanto a turningpoint in the battle against the Turks. Vasari preparedhimself very well and inquired extensively about thecourse of the sea battle.32 Yet his representation of thebattle was a mixture of minutely reconstructed histor-ical facts and allegorical elements – in brief: pittura mis-ta (fig. 8). The anonymous visitor of 1585 aptly de-scribed the scene of the sea battle in admiring terms,praising all its details such as the smoke and the red-dish color of the sea. He noted in particular the figures

of Christ and his angels in the sky chasing the Turkishdemons, and explained that this celestial battle actual-ly took place, even though no one could see it. This vi-sion, he affirmed, has been represented to maintainand increase devotion, as the Christians would neverhave been able to gain the victory without divine as-sistance.33

32 See Böck 1997, 75–83; Jong 1998, 233–234.

33 Lanciani 1883, 457: «[…] il quatro bellissimo della rotta navale,dove sono mesticati i legni degli infideli e de nostri cristiani, fumi,oscurità, rossore di mare, per li corpi morti in mirabil numero. Incima del quatro stanno depinti angeli e creature divine con spade inmano, et è alla man destra. Alla sinistra sono demonii e simigliantiche fugono, cose che, se bene raccontano quanti che ci si trovaro chenon si vedessero in aria, nondimeno perchè senza l’aiuto divino mainoi cristiani havremo potuto vincere, ci si saranno depinte per man-tenere la divotione et accrescerla.» Vasari clearly based himself onwell-known paintings from Raphael in the Vatican Palace, such asThe Meeting of Pope Leo the Great with Attila and The Expulsion of Hel-iodorus from the Temple (Stanza d’Eliodoro) and The Battle at the Mil-vian Bridge (Sala di Costantino). These paintings also show angels orsaints appearing in the sky to offer divine assistance, without beingnoticed by (most of) the people in the scene.

Fig. 8: Giorgio Vasari, The Battle of Lepanto, 1573, Vatican Palace, Sala Regia (Pietrangeli 1996, 402, fig. 378).

Jan L. de Jong162

The other Lepanto scene (fig. 9) shows the prepara-tions for the sea battle and is set up along similar lines,as a mixture of fact and allegorical elements. The sameis true for the paintings with the massacre of the Hu-guenots, which were commissioned by Pope GregoryXIII. Vasari had to paint three scenes showing thismassacre, which had taken place shortly after PopeGregory had been elected (fig. 10–12).34 Vasari de-signed these paintings too as pitture miste. The Wound-ing of Admiral Caspar de Coligny, for instance (fig. 10),depicts in the foreground how the admiral is beingcarried away, exactly according to the information thatVasari had asked for and received. Even little detailssuch as the two missing fingers of the admiral’s righthand have been observed.35 The background, howev-er, clearly does not represent Paris. It shows, in the

center, a building that strongly resembles Bramante’sTempietto in Rome, marking the place where suppos-edly Saint Peter was crucified. This makes it clear thatAdmiral de Coligny has revolted against Saint Peterand his successors, and the revenging angel in the skyimplies that the attack on his life is a divine punish-ment.36

The theme of the three paintings may in itself not bevery edifying. They illustrate the story of a massacrewhich was carried out for political reasons and whichwas justified by religious arguments. Even thoughPope Gregory XIII – and Giorgio Vasari – may not havebeen aware of the predominantly political reasons forthis massacre, hardly anyone nowadays would stillagree with the pope’s delighted reaction when he heardabout the slaughter of the Huguenots, and with his de-cision to celebrate it with a special Jubilee.37 According-

34 For details, see Fehl 1974, 263–264, Röttgen 1975, 96–100,Böck 1997, 83–92, and Jong 1998, 228–233.

35 Fehl 1974, 265.

36 Fehl 1974, 265, Röttgen 1975, 101–103, Howe 1976, 259.37 Pastor 1925, 365 and 369–372.

Fig. 9: Giorgio Vasari, The preparations for the Battle of Lepanto, 1573, Vatican Palace,



ly, the Massacre scenes have met with growing criti-cism. In March 1828 Stendhal wrote: «Ainsi, il est unlieu en Europe où l’assassinat est publiquement hon-oré.»38 In the 1970’s, both Philipp Fehl and HerwarthRöttgen have been quite negative about these paint-ings, and most recently Angela Böck has discussedthese scenes along similar lines.39 She criticizes not onlyVasari for his rendition of the Huguenots as «Unmen-schen», but she even connects this to Gregory XIII’s«despotischer Machtwille».40 Yet there is no proof thatcontemporaries condemned the pictures for these rea-sons. The gruesome theme does not seem to have both-ered them in particular. The anonymous visitor of 1585simply mentions them and comments that in theWounding scene Admiral de Coligny has been por-trayed «di dotta mano».41 Van Buchell just explains afew details about the persons involved in the massacre,while Montaigne notes that the murder of «M. l’Amiralde Chatillon» has been rendered «bien authentique-ment».42 In 1575 the Dutch painter Karel van Manderwas even asked to copy these scenes – together with theLepanto scenes – in Terni, in the salone of Palazzo Spa-da.43 This contemporary appreciation of Vasari’s paint-ings should make us wary of projecting too much of ourpresent estimation onto them.44

Yet Vasari’s contribution was not immune from crit-icism. But it was not the five large scenes from recenthistory that were denounced: it was one of the picturesthat Vasari added at the end of the painting campaign,in order to complete the decoration of the Sala. And itwas not criticized for its gruesome subject, but it wasblamed for the same reason as the Frederick Barbarossaand Pope Alexander painting: that is, for the one-sided,propagandistic presentation of an historic event.

To fill the one soprapporta that had remained unpaint-ed during the former campaigns, Vasari chose an eventthat would on the one hand continue the theme of papalsupremacy, and on the other hand allude to the presentPope Gregory XIII. He came up with the subject of PopeGregory IX Excommunicating King Frederick II (fig. 13).45

Pope Gregory IX, however, excommunicated King Fre-derick twice: first on September 29, 1227 (annulled in

1230) and again on March 20, 1239. None of the historybooks at Vasari’s disposal, however, gives an account ofexactly where and how, or even why this happened.46

Vasari, therefore, painted just an unspecified excommu-nication, basing himself on the one hand on the actualceremony of excommunication, and on the other handon pictorial traditions. He showed the Pope and somebishops dressed in white, throwing burning candles onthe floor and trampling on them, in accordance with ac-tual practice. At the same time, he drew on pictorial tra-ditions of the damned cast into Hell during the LastJudgment, or the Giants defeated by Jupiter’s thunder-bolts, and pictures showing a heretic trampled under

38 Promenades dans Rome, March 7th, 1828.39 Fehl 1974, 271–272, Röttgen 1975, 114–118, Böck 1997, 88–89.40 Böck 1997, 88–89.41 Lanciani 1883, 455: «Tra lei [sc. la cappella di Sisto iiii] et il can-

tone sta depinto il successo del tradimento dell’ammiraglio per oc-cupare il regno. La onde v’è il ritratto suo di dotta mano, ricavatocon un robone indosso e berettone in testa, che ferito si riporta abraccio.»

42 Lanciani 1900, 62; Montaigne 1992, 115: «Il y a aussi deux en-droits où la blessure de M. l’Amiral de Chatillon est peinte et samort, bien authentiquement.»

43 Sapori 1990, 13–25; Leesberg 1993–94, 18–19; Jong 1998,231–233.

44 Jong 2000, 475.45 On this scene, see Böck 1997, 92–94.

46 From Vasari’s notes in his Zibaldone (Vasari 1938, 164), it ap-pears that he used Bartolomeo Platina’s Lives of the Popes. See Jong1998, 223.

Fig. 10: Giorgio Vasari, The wounding of Admiral Caspar de Coligny, circa

1573, Vatican Palace, Sala Regia (Pietrangeli 1996, 407, fig. 384).

Jan L. de Jong164

Fig. 11: Giorgio Vasari, The massacre of the Huguenots,

circa 1573, Vatican Palace,


Fig. 12: Giorgio Vasari, The French king defending the massacre

of the Huguenots in the parliament, circa 1573, Vatican palace,



the feet of a Christian hero.47 Vasari’s friend and adviserVincenzo Borghini recommended adding allegoricalfigures, which would have turned the picture moreclearly into a pittura mista, but his advice came too lateto be included.48 The result is that the painting is not a lit-eral rendition of an historic event, but rather a blunt ren-dering of papal supremacy. And this is exactly what up-set Van Buchell. Clearly irritated, he wrote: «Here all theprocedures of excommunication have been painted in aterrifying way and with the aim of inspiring horror.»49

Due to the varying circumstances under which thepaintings in the Sala Regia were conceived, the unity inthe theme of decoration has turned out to be ratherloose. The paintings executed during the papacy of PiusIV illustrate the theme of papal primacy, the paintings

47 JONG 1998, 224–225; De Jong, «Anathemata tria» (forthcoming).48 The letter with Borghini’s advice has been published by Frey

1923–1930, II, 745. See Jong 1998, 225.

49 Lanciani 1900, 61: «Hic omnes excommunicationis ceremoni-ae terribiliter et ad horrorem incutiendum erant depictam.» SeeJong 1998, 225, and Jong (forthcoming). Cf. the opinion on this ex-communication by Henri Estienne (Estienne 1879, II, 419): «Cartout ainsi qu’ils défendoyent plusieurs choses à fin qu’ils falust puisaprès acheter les dispenses, aussi excommunioyent-ils à-fin qu’onachetast l’absolution: comme nous lisons que le susdict empereurFrédéric acheta son absolution du pape Grégoire IX, pour le pris decent mil onces d’or.»

Fig. 13: Giorgio Vasari, Pope Gregory IX excommunicating King Frederick II, circa 1573, Vatican Palace, Sala Regia (Mus. Vat., XXXIV.29.26).

Jan L. de Jong166

made by Vasari for Pius V show the Christian victoryover the pagan Turks, and those for Pope Gregory XIIIdepict the Catholic victory over the Protestants. Yetwhat creates at least some sense of synthesis, eventhough this may not be obvious at first sight, is that prac-tically all the paintings belong to the genre of pittura mis-ta: they are not literal renditions of historical events, butrepresentations which, through the addition of allegor-ical and fictive elements, raise the scenes from the levelof renditions of particular incidents to the level of rep-resentations of events with universal importance. Theappreciation of this genre of history painting, however,decreased in the course of the sixteenth century, whenthe influence of the Council of Trent became manifest.During the Council, in 1563, it was decreed that reli-gious paintings should render the text of the Bible, andthe teaching of the Church, literally.50 This demand fora literal rendition of a text or an event was soon trans-planted to the realm of history painting in general. In1584 Raffaele Borghini stated in his treatise Il Riposo:

«[…] l’invenzione che da’ poeti o dagli istorici prendonoi pittori o gli scultori, non dovrebbe altramente esser rap-presentata che se l’abbiano i propii autori scritta et ordi-nata. Quelle invenzioni, poi, che da sé stesso ritrova l’ar-tifice, possono per più largo campo, secondoché a lui pia-ce, spaziarsi […]»51

An example from a later period illustrates how thischanging view of representing history was put into

practice. Francesco Romanelli and Guidobaldo Abbati-ni’s Donation of Countess Matilda to Pope Urban II in theGalleria della Contessa Matilde in the Vatican Palace,from circa 1640 (fig. 14), is just as little an ‹exact› ren-dering of what actually happened (if it ever happenedat all) as Giovanni Battista Fiorini’s Pope Gregory II Re-ceiving from Liutprand Confirmation of the Donation Madeby his Predecessor Arithpert in the Sala Regia (fig. 15).52

Yet Romanelli’s painting certainly looks more like anexact rendering, as various kinds of fictive and addi-tional elements have been omitted, such as the horsereferring to the king’s duty as strator, the Saint Peter-like old man on the left foreground, and the men cling-ing to the columns of the canopy. It is hard to say whichkind of painting makes for better propaganda: a paint-

50 Sessio XXV (December 3, 1563): De invocatione, veneratione et re-liquiis sanctorum, et sacris imaginibus: «[…] Illud vero diligenter do-ceant episcopi, per historias mysteriorum nostrae redemptionis,picturis vel aliis similitudinibus expressas, erudiri et confirmari po-pulum in articulis fidei commemorandis et assidue recolendis […]In has autem sanctas et salutares observationes si qui abusus irrep-serint, eos prorsus aboleri sancta synodus vehementer cupit, ita utnullae falsi dogmatis imagines et rudibus periculosi erroris occasio-nem praebentes statuantur. […] Postremo tanta circa haec diligentiaet cura ab episcopis adhibeatur, ut nihil inordinatum aut praeposte-re et tumultuarie accomodatum, nihil profanum nihilque inhone-stum appareat, quum domum Dei deceat sanctitudo. […].» Theseand similar decrees resulted from fear that if artists handled reli-gious texts with (some) freedom, they might represent things whichwould be theologically incorrect or offensive.

Fig. 14: Francesco Romanelli and Guidobaldo Abbatini, The donation of Countess Matilda

to Pope Urban II, circa 1640, Vatican Palace, Galleria della Contessa Matilde

(Pietrangeli 1996, 525, fig. 503).


ing which presents an event as a real historic fact, orone that incorporates allegorical and other additionalelements so as to raise the event from the past to the

level of a universal example. In both cases it is the ob-servers who matter. They were supposed to accept atface value what was presented. In the case of kings andambassadors, who came without their history books,we may assume that they did – as far as they really gota chance to study these paintings. And we may alsosuppose that they did not try too hard to conform to theexample of royal behavior that the paintings offered.Visitors like Van Buchell and Montaigne were not thekind of guests for whom these paintings were primari-ly made, and their reactions were certainly not the onesthat were hoped for or that would have met with muchappreciation in papal circles.

All together, the paintings in the Sala Regia met with atragic fate. In their own time they were considered to out-shine the paintings in the Sala di Costantino, but evenduring the execution their message of papal and catholicsupremacy was already out of step with reality. Kings andambassadors may have smiled at it, and critical visitorsseen through it. In more recent times they have been crit-icized for their offensive subject matter. Studied withinthe proper context, however, they offer a fascinating caseof how the past was considered and handled: not as some-

51 Quoted after Barocchi 1971, I, 347.The complete passage runsas follows: «‹Voi avete nel parlar vostro,› rispose il Vecchietto, ‹ac-cennate due cose di molta importanza, cioè l’invenzione da altruiderivante, e quella che viene dall’artefice istesso; e di vero a ma par-rebbe che l’invenzione dicevole al pittore et allo statuario in questedue dette da voi dividere si dovesse, percioché l’invenzione che da’poeti o dagli istorici prendono i pittori o gli scultori, non dovrebbealtramente esser rappresentata che se l’abbiano i propii autori scrittaet ordinata. Quelle invenzioni, poi, che da sé stesso ritrova l’artifice,possono per più largo campo, secondoché a lui piace, spaziarsi[…]›» Cf. Armenini 1988, 87: «Ma è bene ch’io prima vi discuopraalcuni diffetti che si veggono essere in molti, i quali sono da esserefuggiti assai, come troppo lontani da’ veri termini del buon compor-re; imperò che, o che questi non sanno il modo o pur che non fannocaso d’intendere né di sapere il soggetto delle materie bene, e’ com-pongono l’istorie loro molto diverse dalla verità delle buone scrit-ture, ond’essi poi vengono biasimati, e con gran ragione, da gli uo-mini intendenti.»

52 On the paintings by Romanelli, see Anna Maria de Strobel andMaria Serlupi Crescenzi in Pietrangeli 1996, 515. On the paintingby Fiorini, see Böck 1997, 33–34.

Fig. 15: Giovanni Battista Fiorini, Pope Gregory II receiving from Liutprand confirmation of the donation

made by his predecessor Arithpert, circa 1563, Vatican Palace, Sala Regia (Patridge 1996, 164).

Jan L. de Jong168

thing to be reconstructed as minutely as possible, but as astorehouse of examples for present behavior and evenpropaganda, that could be adapted and manipulated asdesired. Sometimes one had to dig deep in the reserves of

this storehouse to find the right examples, assuming thatthe intended observers would never dig as deep. Someobservers, however, did. They may have been exception-al, but they are all the more interesting for it.

‘The Painted Decoration of the Sala Regia: Intention and Reception’

Documents