1During the first half of the 14th century, in some mural paintings and frescoes located in the Northern part of Italy, and, more specifically, on the church walls and in the refectory of the Abbey of Pomposa (Ferrara), there emerged new and interesting details contributing to the revival and transformation of ancient and traditional iconographies. In particular, different types of food were, for the first time, clearly and meticulously painted on the tables, with different kinds of dishes and delicacies that had so far remained indistinct and blurred in medieval paintings and frescoes. This new attitude, which is especially evident in the frescoes by Pietro da Rimini, involves a whole repertoire of symbolic meanings and a frank appreciation for the variety and richness of the contemporary visual experience an artist can have.
2Before focusing on Pietro da Rimini’s achievements though, it is advisable to look at coeval examples by the most famous of his predecessors and contemporaries, painters belonging to the same generation or to previous ones, in order to achieve a general insight of the representational conventions of the epoch. Pietro da Rimini’s time was indeed the first when well-visible foodstuff appeared painted on tables, food whose value and meaning is undoubtedly symbolic, but not only.
- 1 Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (ÖNB), med. gr. 01.
3During the entire medieval millennium, food was not a subject in itself, apart from in medical treatises such as the 6th-century Vienna Dioscurides,1 the herbaria and similar codices that, of course, imply the inclusion of illustrations of herbs for their therapeutic, gastronomic, or erotic virtues. Food, from the early 12th century onwards, is part of the Cycle of the Months, represented in the form of reliefs, mural paintings, and miniatures: in the winter months, pork slaughtering is a very frequent; in June and July, the cutting of wheat takes place; September, for its part, is devoted to the harvest. Moreover, food has always been present in biblical and evangelical scenes such as the Last Supper, the Dinner at the Pharisee’s House and the Marriage of Cana, scenes related to Christ’s life and miracles where a well-set table is an essential part of the staging. One has to mention also the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fishes and the Supper at Emmaus, as well as the presence of food in some stories of saints and in some Old Testament illustrations, such as Abraham’s Hospitality. However, in the great majority of such images painted before the 14th century, it is very difficult, if not almost impossible, to distinguish individual kinds of food whose exact meaning is entrusted to the evangelical and biblical texts. In other words: one does not need to see a loaf of bread since one knows that a loaf of bread has to be there, as an essential part of the narrative.
4On the contrary, during the first and second decades of the 14th century, many images that include detailed and varied foodstuffs were painted in numerous cycles. Among them, there are the lost Rimini frescoes, the Padua cycle (1303-5), and the Magdalene Chapel in the Inferior Basilica in Assisi (1307-8) by Giotto. It is also worth mentioning the Maestà by Duccio di Buoninsegna (1308-11), one of the most celebrated artworks of the time, and some of the so-called “Riminese school” frescoes, where significant and interesting variations on the theme of food are at the forefront, especially noticeable in the artworks by Pietro da Rimini in the refectory of Pomposa Abbey and in Tolentino.
5The richness of details that appears in the given examples is especially abundant when compared with other fresco cycles where the table itself is barely visible. On the other hand, new variations and realistic objects appear in many, if not in the majority of the artistic images of the time.
- 2 To quote but a few, Camporesi (1978, new ed. 2000; 1983, new ed. 1994), whose analysis includes lit (...)
6Although the literature on Giotto, Duccio and the Riminese School is massive and impressive, and although a lot of studies have been devoted to the topic of food, in medieval history and art (see, for instance, Rossi & Li Vigni 2013), only few contributions on the specific subject of food in medieval images and artworks have been produced. Among them, Davide Dotti (2015) approached the general topic, but being a specialist of Baroque art and having adopted a more divulgative than academic approach, his contribution regarding medieval arts does not add much to the research. Pioneering on this topic are the numerous books and researches by Piero Camporesi and Massimo Montanari, whose contributions are impressive for their breadth of ideas and elements treated.2 On the other hand, Francesca Pucci Donati produced remarkable studies on diets and seasonal regimens, among others contributions; Maria Giuseppina Muzzarelli has dealt with the topic of food in many of her essays (see in particular Muzzarelli 2014; Muzzarelli & Tarozzi 2003). Last but not least, very interesting remains the wide, historical perspective on bread as a distinctive feature of European Cristian civilization produced by Gabriele Archetti (2015) with several contributors, as well as the specific analysis, which includes food, the social use of food, and manners, produced by Jacqueline E. Jung (2003) on Naumburg’s Last Supper (13th century).
7On the topic of Pietro da Rimini and Pomposa, the literature is abundant (see in particular Volpe 1965; Salmi 1966; Benati 1995; Medica 1995; Samaritani & Di Francesco 1999; Giovanardi 2011), but there is not a single contribution, as far as I know, that includes a specific and systematic examination of food painted in these images.
8It seems appropriate to start this examination with the Scrovegni Chapel, one of the most celebrated artworks ever, and that had been very influential in its own time. Here, Giotto painted (1303-5) both the Wedding at Cana and the Last Supper, while partially renewing the iconographic tradition for both subjects and establishing an influential precedent.3
9Wedding at Cana. The Gospel (John 2)4 is very detailed about the six stone water pots, big ones, used for the ritual purification that Jesus is going to involve in the miracle he performs during the wedding. Which ones are they? They could be “mikve” in Hebrew; in other words, water pots filled with water, in which a person is expected to enter in order to perform a purification ritual. These could also be bowls used to wash one’s hands before the meal, as suggested by the custom. However, the waterpots painted by Giotto are definitely too little for the first use and too big and heavy for the second. Giotto, as many painters afterwards, ignores the matter and describes terracotta pots as they probably were in use in 13th and 14th-century Italian kitchens. Such pots would have been used in order to be filled with wine, as it is said: “τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον”,5 and in such a way as to impress the superintendent, the headwaiter. He is the one who tastes, indeed. The wine is very dark and dyes the cup. Giotto overlaps two different stages of the story, which remain distinct in the text.
10As far as food is concerned, Jesus’s plate has something in it, but it is difficult to properly identify what. Simply put, the nature of the food is not important; John’s Gospel does not indeed mention food at all. Otherwise, on the L-shaped table, there are only loaves, samples of the fundamental element in Christian religion in spite of the Gospel’s silence about it. Bread is the specimen of any possible food and, in the Jewish and Christian world, the blessing of the bread is the basis and fundament of all other blessings. Therefore, Giotto comes up with loaves here, foreseeing through them the Last Supper.
11Last Supper. This second example of images related to food in the Scrovegni Chapel shows neither wine nor bread on the table, although both are mentioned in the textual passages of the Gospels related to this crucial event. Indeed, all the Gospels evoke this episode, the Jewish ceremony of Pesach, which is the last supper of Lord Jesus. Three of them are similar to one another: Luke 22, Matthew 26, and Marcus 14. John 13, instead, proposes a different version regarding Judas and Jesus’s behavior towards him.
12In the texts of the three Gospels quoted above, the crucial passages are at least two in number: Before dinner, Jesus speaks about the betrayal and about the traitor among his followers. The key to identifying him is this sentence (Matthew 26, 23): “Ὁ ἐμβάψας μετ’ἐμοῦ ⸂τὴν χεῖρα ἐν τῷ τρυβλίῳ οὖτός με παραδώσει”.6
- 7 “Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, (...)
13Bread and wine are mentioned later, after the dinner; in Matthew 26, 26-29: “Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον καὶ ⸀εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ⸂δοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς⸃ εἶπεν· Λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου…. Καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον …. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου”.7
14No mention of wine, here; instead, there is the cup and then the fruit of the wild grape: “τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου”.8 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine”.9
15Therefore, the Gospels point out three distinctive moments, the last two being related to the fundamental Christian ritual, the Eucharist, which would have been very likely to be the very moment that Giotto would represent. But no, this is not the case. Giotto does not stress the ritual, the Eucharist, but instead chooses to identify the betrayer through his gesture and also stresses his identity as a Jew through the color of his robes: yellow. Looking at this image, not only can one recognize Judas, but also at the same time identify Judas as a Jew, somehow distinctively from the others, despite the fact that everybody, at the table painted, is also a Jew. On this table, around which the apostles are sitting, food is barely visible and is not important. What is important is Judas’s gesture of helping himself instead of suffering and listening to the Master.
- 10 “And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s h (...)
16Among the first two decades of the 14th century, there is another image by Giotto worth considering, painted in Magdalene’s Chapel in Assisi. Only the Gospel of Luke mentions the episode known as the Supper in the House of the Pharisee (7, 36): “’Ἠρώτα δέ τις αὐτὸν τῶν Φαρισαίων ἵνα φάγῃ μετ’ αὐτοῦ· καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς ⸂τὸν οἶκον⸃ τοῦ Φαρισαίου κατεκλίθη”.10
17The text does not mention food at all, but only Jesus, who sits, or better, following the classical habit expressed by the Greek verb “κατεκλίθη”, lays down beside the table. Nevertheless Giotto and his assistants set the table with bread and stress the detail of the servants, who are carrying a dish filled with roasted poultry, creating a fascinating play of gazes between the young host, who addresses the dish, well-filled and succulent, and all the other guests who address Jesus and his words.11
18Giotto is, here too, didactic and goes beyond the text, counterpoising the spiritual food that Jesus is offering to the material food favoured by the Pharisee but not by Mary Magdalene, prostrated on the ground to wash and to caress the feet of the Master.
- 12 Now in Munich, Alte Pinakothek.
- 13 “Jesus then answered: ‘That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him’. So when (...)
19There is also a last, later example by Giotto to take into consideration, a small panel representing the Last Supper and dated presumably 1320-25.12 Here, Giotto does not follow Matthew’s Gospel but instead John’s (13, 26): “ἀποκρίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ᾧ ἐγὼ βάψω τὸ ψωμίον ⸂καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ⸃· βάψας οὖν⸃ τὸ ψωμίον δίδωσιν Ἰούδᾳ Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου”.13
20In this painting, Jesus is, indeed, about to feed Judas with the morsel mentioned in the Gospel. The Eucharist is not represented. The table itself is worth mentioning, because it is covered by a beautiful tablecloth, beautifully woven with diamond-shaped patterns and with glasses of wine and loaves on it, clearly looking like “michettas” and not “azzime”, unleavened loaves. One of the Apostles is peacefully drinking his wine, a non-canonical gesture, since Jesus still has to wash their feet and dinner has not yet begun: in the Jewish tradition, indeed, the night of Pesach, the very moment of pouring and ritually drinking each of the four glasses of wine is meticulously planned. However, here also, Giotto ignores the Jewish customs and follows only the Gospel’s passages, nevertheless showing an increasing interest towards variety and details in food representations. This new attention to details, to worldly reality, is one of the most significant features in the 14th-century Italian paintings.
21As far as our topic is concerned, it is remarkable how much and how detailed food appears here. The same happens in Duccio’s Maestà, his influential masterpiece, painted almost in the same time as the Magdalena Chapel, or shortly afterwards.14 On the backside of the huge polyptych, one finds the Wedding at Cana and the Last Supper. Both subjects are worth examining in detail.
22In the Wedding at Cana, the table is huge, with many diners around, covered by a wonderful, diamond-shaped patterned tablecloth with a dark embroidered border decoration and laden with bread, wine glasses, ceramic potteries and three plates of poultry. Complex and detailed is the ritual of the transformation of the water into wine: the liquid is poured through three types of vessels, barrel-shaped ones, clay amphorae—non-compliant to the Gospel that specifies “stone pots”—and luster, polished ceramics.
- 15 Regarding the Siena Statute, cf. Capelli & Giorgi (2014).
23Duccio’s version of the Last Supper is also very significant and original. The details are almost innumerable: Duccio follows John’s Gospel (13, 26), exactly like Giotto in the panel described above, placing the episode immediately below the Washing of the Feet and choosing the very moment in which Jesus feeds Judas with the morsel. The diamond-shaped patterned tablecloth adorns a well-laden table, with two different kinds of bread—michetta-type and breadsticks—wine glasses, a ceramic jug, knives, and a strange looking lamb that very much resembles a roast suckling pig. Each Apostle is on his own, and does exactly what he feels like doing: one cuts the bread, another drinks from a cup, a third one talks. The result is a lively representation of a meal for twelve in early 14th-century Tuscany. Food is becoming fashionable and the liveliness of the scene is clearly a main goal for Duccio, a priority that claims more attention and care than simple accuracy. Especially interesting is the suckling pig. Duccio, a great painter and a man of culture, was too aware to not know what he was painting, and to not know that a pig on the Pesach Seder is simply an insult. Not only is eating pig not even conceivable from a Jewish point of view, but also the pig does not fit the ritual requirements imposed by the Gospel, where a lamb is clearly mentioned, the lamb of the sacrifice. Indeed, a lamb should appear on the table. However, pork meat was widely consumed during late medieval times. As for Siena, in particular, the article n. 1283 of the Statute15 established a dedicated committee to check the prices of different types of meat, among which pork meat proved to be the most widely consumed. It is also worth remembering that in Lorenzetti’s frescoes, Effects of Good Government in the Country, one notices a boar-pig, locally appreciated as a delicacy as “cinta senese”, on a leash being walked up the hill towards the town’s gate, led by a swineherd. There is little doubt about the reason why the pig is walking towards the city: it has to be sold in order to become food, delicious and cheap food. Therefore, it is possible that the little pig painted by Duccio reflects a habit, a local habit that spread in late medieval times in Central Italy.
24Eventually, around 1318 or shortly after (Medica 1995, p. 96), Pietro da Rimini, one of the most prominent masters among the so-called Riminese masters, decorated the refectory of the Pomposa Abbey with some frescoes, among which two scenes are especially meaningful in relation to our topic: a Last Supper and The Miracle of St Guido: The Blessed Abbot Turning Water Into Wine. As far as the representation of food and of well-set tables is concerned, these two images should be considered as the culmination of the path undertaken in the course of this investigation.
Figure 1.
Pietro da Rimini, Last Supper (detail), Pomposa refectory.
(photo by the author).
25The Last Supper is especially significant and innovative: a first detail that is worth mentioning is the round shape of the table, a relatively rare representation up to that time. Thanks to this shape, despite the apostles all around, it is easier to see what lays on the table and to follow the protagonists’ gestures, all meant to be part of the narrative. Moreover, the apostles are intensely expressive and busy doing something around Jesus, front-facing and authoritative. Jesus is touching, more than grasping, the Paschal lamb with his right hand.
Figure 2.
Pietro da Rimini, Last Supper (detail), Pomposa refectory.
(photo by the author)
26The lamb itself looks as if it is covered by its own fleece, mouth open, as if something had been put in its mouth in the process of stuffing. The latter is a detail never seen before. Beside Jesus, an Apostle, probably Peter, wields a knife, which is likely to be a symbol of what will happen shortly thereafter, and is a means by which to identify Peter himself, who will cut the centurion’s ear in a useless attempt to defend Jesus from the soldiers. Other characters are more difficult to identify, for instance the one cutting bread and another who grasps a loaf. Conversely, Judas is clearly identifiable by his black halo and by his gesture of bringing the morsel to his mouth. This image, though, does not capture the moment when Jesus reveals Judas’ identity by giving him the morsel or by dipping his hand into the soup together with him. Jesus instead touches the lamb, Pesah, the sacrifice, thus establishing a direct relationship between himself and the sacrificed body, and announcing himself as a sacrificial and, as such, saving body. His gesture seems to be not a denunciation but rather a liturgical act that establishes, precisely, the Eucharist; the connection is reinforced by the gesture of another apostle lifting the loaf of bread and by the position of visual prominence assigned to the crystal bottle containing the wine, placed on the other side of the table.
- 16 Benedictine, saint and reformer of monastic life. Born in Casamari, near Ravenna, Italy, c. 1010; a (...)
27The Last Supper painted in the refectory pairs with the unique representation of a miraculous dinner that took place in that very abbey at the time of Abbot Guido,16 around 1034. Gebhard von Eichstätt, Ravenna’s archbishop, visited Pomposa, but since the monks were not used to drink wine there, there was no wine available in order to properly welcome the illustrious guest. Therefore, Guido replicated Jesus’s miracle performed at the Wedding in Cana, and changed water into wine. Here, the rectangular table is interposed between our gaze, the pictorial surface, and the two diners, accompanied by three followers each, the latter being located at the opposite side of the table and of the painting. The position of the table is the most convenient in order to make the spectators see what is presented here: differently shaped loaves, slices of freshly cut bread, two knives, a delicate ceramic pitcher, a bowl and two seafood platters. Fishes are cut into pieces: a realistic remark in Pomposa, whose food probably came mostly from the Adriatic Sea, in accordance with monastic food practices that discouraged meat consumption.
Figure 3.
Pietro da Rimini, The Miracle of St Guido: The Blessed Abbot Turning Water Into Wine (detail), Pomposa refectory.
(photo by the author)
28But fishes also convey a symbolic value: fish and bread, the foodstuff represented here, are exactly the subject of one of the most celebrated among Jesus’s miracles, the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fishes, another miraculous “action” on food, according to the Gospel. Through this comparison, Guido is tacitly compared with Christ, because he humbly and faithfully follows Christ’s path. Fish is painted here with meticulous care and richness of details in order to stress the differences among the species. A little sturgeon is clearly recognizable as well as two red mullets, one already nibbled away and made a simple fishbone.
- 17 Regarding the discussed chronology of the “cappellone di San Nicola” in Tolentino, Marche, cf. Medi (...)
29It is interesting that wine and water, although being the subject of the miracle, are not the only visual centers of the composition. The artist seems to be more interested in the realistic details and in the composition’s balance obtained by simple but elegant objects. This is a tendency that one could recognize at an even more developed stage in the Wedding at Cana, painted presumably some years later by Pietro da Rimini together with an assistant in the St. Nikolas sanctuary in Tolentino.17 Here, the tables are actually in the number of three, surrounded by different groups of people. Jesus and Mary are sitting at the viewer’s right, the spouses are in the center of the composition and the Apostles on the left, busy cutting bread and a grilled chicken split in half, “alla diavola”. Details and realistic remarks grow in number and in accuracy: the jars are painted in such a way that their decoration is clearly visible and recognizable. Bottles and pitchers are clearly and visibly made of glass, especially the ones reserved for the wine so that the latter may be made visible. The bread also looks fresh, and it seems made of dough, or a puff pastry.
30From this time onwards, during the 14th-century, it will not be enough to paint episodes of the holy texts, in which people are supposed to be at a table eating; what and how they are eating will become, for any ambitious painter, an essential element to represent.
Flux RSS
