Caravaggio - paintings of armor and edged weapons 1590s-1610

Philip · 25th August 2020, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

While we might believe that Carvaggio suffered the dreaded lead poisoning which plagued so many artists (though it was known of course in many other aspects in these times) it seems he was well aware of the lighter and more beautiful subjects as well.
.

Jim, did you know that Ludwig van Beethoven is also believed to have died of lead poisoning? A sample of his hair, tested some years back, revealed a high lead content. His bio indicated that he loved his wine, often drank 1 or more bottles daily. At that time in Germany, lead was often used as a bottle stopper in lieu of corks. Also, a lot of beverages were consumed from pewter cups especially in northern Europe, and in many places on the Continent, ceramics were lead-glazed as well. So drinking your OJ out of one of those cups every morning for years and years could do you in as well!

When I was in grad school, my prof of Roman history held a discussion of the social causes for the Empire's decline. One theory, advanced in the 1970s, was that lead poisoning had addled too many brains! Some students dismissed this as the ruminations of an over-imaginative plumber, but just think: the Romans, being prolific hydraulic engineers, build large networks of aqueducts and urban piping to connect them to public baths, drinking fountains, and high class houses. Guess what the pipes were made of, and what lining was used in the aqueducts to minimize leakage? And where our term "plumbing" comes from?

In ancient Rome and premodern Italy, lead was a common adulterant to cheap wine. The Latin adjective plumbeus can denote "cheap" and was specifically applied to cut-rate vino.

Jim McDougall · 26th August 2020, 02:17 AM

Thank you Philip, great explanation and that makes perfect sense. We are all familiar with the name game with different terms used for the same type weapon, but typically think of it more commonly with ethnographic weapons, than in European context. I forget about the dialectic differences.
I recall once, many years ago (MANY) trying to find a Swiss dictionary

bonk!

Thats really weird about Beethoven, obviously the issue of deafness is well known, but had not heard of the lead poisoning matter. The presence of lead in pipes of course is well known as noted with Latin term 'plumbum' for lead (Pb), but had not heard of it used in cheap wine (do ya have that in a 55 gallon drum?).

shayde78 · 27th August 2020, 12:49 AM

Thank you Philip and Jim for these additional insights. The rich allegorical nature of art is a fascinating study, and is often reflected in the arms we collect. For preliterate communities, and those with a small literate class (as much of the world was until very recently) symbolism was the best way to communicate thru visual forms. Understanding the symbolic language can go a long way to interpreting the culture from which an item originates. There is added utility to our hobby when one considers the wealth of symbols that were engraved, embossed, forged, and chiseled in the steel in which we are so often in pursuit.

Also, I think your conversation hints at the fact that the line between genius and (what we call) madness is often very thin and nebulous. Is this because only madness can create something new? Is it because seeing the world in a new way causes a distance between the visionary and others (Allegory of the Cave)? Is it simply because once someone sees what others cannot, or refuse to see, they simply never feel at home in society any longer? OR, is it simply madness caused by lead. I think the fact that many of our modern artists in all media (music, paint, metal, words) are not exposed to lead, but exhibit many of the same mercurial temperaments speaks to environmental toxins as being merely a concurrent factor, perhaps exacerbating, but not truly causal.

Regardless, without some 'madmen', I'm not sure we'd have the swept hilt, patterned Damascus, Maximillian armor, and the like. Frankly, the meticulous alchemy involved in creating a sound blade would drive most of us mad if operating under the conditions of a smith prior to the 1800s!

I am well pleased that these images have sparked some discussion. Thank you for receiving them with interest

Philip · 27th August 2020, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shayde78

Thank you Philip and Jim for these additional insights.

... is it simply madness caused by lead. I think the fact that many of our modern artists in all media (music, paint, metal, words) are not exposed to lead, but exhibit many of the same mercurial temperaments speaks to environmental toxins as being merely a concurrent factor, perhaps exacerbating, but not truly causal.

You're most welcome.

Isn't it wonderful that some modern artists (am thinking of rock stars and the like) have more exciting things than lead to tweak their brains with? Get high, set the world on fire, and go out in a blaze of glory at a young age. Il Caravaggio's model has appeal to some folks centuries later.

Jim McDougall · 28th August 2020, 01:00 AM

"...discovery consists of seeing what everybody
has seen;
and thinking what nobody else has thought"
-Albert von Szent-Gyorgy

It does seem that like love vs hate, the line between genius and madness can be extremely thin and hard to determine. As we have recognized, with notable figures in the arts and other areas, there have been environmental exposures such as lead and mercury poisoning which might account for their actions and often demise.

However, we wonder why they would be so much more effected than the average person of the time, if indeed they were. Surely not every artist was adversely effected as they all used lead based paint. However, possibly certain artists had peculiar quirks or habits, such as wetting their brush in their mouth etc. Possibly they were exposed to other sources of the same noxious elements, adding to a 'perfect storm' in the exposure.

I think rather than a universal or collective assertion that situations like lead poisoning be the cause of behavioral dysfunction as suggested with Caravaggio ( aggressive behavior is a symptom).....we must consider it is likely to be a complicating factor. It seems that in studies of bio-history of notable historical figures, the presence of issues such as temporal lobe epilepsy and other psychological factors seemed in ways to elevate the potential for 'greatness', if not notoriety.

It seems to me the term 'mad' is much overused and often inappropriately to note persons who are quirky or obsessed in certain areas, or sometimes many, in eclectic interests. People of intellect are often, possibly even almost typically, somewhat socially inept.

It has been my impression that duelists and brawlers were often regarded in their hubris as romantic and exciting figures, much as the famed gunfighters (then shootists) of the wild west, and much celebrated.

Caravaggio probably was not entirely averse to this reputation, and as art is as noted, often deeply allegorical, these nuances such as discussed are probably more in that regard than result of derangement caused by lead poisoning in specific.

The forensic discovery of lead in his remains led to the suggestion of lead poisoning, however there were numerous other mitigating factors present or suggested, certain multiple wounds which may have developed complications over time not withstanding.

Philip · 28th August 2020, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

"...discovery consists of seeing what everybody
has seen;
and thinking what nobody else has thought"
-Albert von Szent-Gyorgy

However, we wonder why they would be so much more effected than the average person of the time, if indeed they were. Surely not every artist was adversely effected as they all used lead based paint. However, possibly certain artists had peculiar quirks or habits, such as wetting their brush in their mouth etc. Possibly they were exposed to other sources of the same noxious elements, adding to a 'perfect storm' in the exposure.

It seems to me the term 'mad' is much overused and often inappropriately to note persons who are quirky or obsessed in certain areas, or sometimes many, in eclectic interests. People of intellect are often, possibly even almost typically, somewhat socially inept.

It has been my impression that duelists and brawlers were often regarded in their hubris as romantic and exciting figures, much as the famed gunfighters (then shootists) of the wild west, and much celebrated.

Caravaggio probably was not entirely averse to this reputation, and as art is as noted, often deeply allegorical, these nuances such as discussed are probably more in that regard than result of derangement caused by lead poisoning in specific.

Jim, you raise some very valid and quite interesting points!

1. Regarding paint chemistry, I'm not at all certain how many artists' pigments of the Middle Ages and Renaissance contained lead. Also considering the differences in techniques required different compositions. For instance, there were watercolors, tempera (based on egg white), oils, etc. Applied to various bases (wood, various fabrics, leather, and fresh plaster). For architectural pigments, I read somewhere that milk-based paints were popular because they were cheap considering the large areas to be covered; these were used into the 19th cent. and there is at least one company still making bovine pigment for historical restoration purposes -- and it's no longer an economy priced product.

2. Licking of brushes -- makes some sense with watercolor or tempera, but sounds mighty unpleasant with oil paints! Eesh!

3. Madness, like insanity, are common vernacular and literary terms but have not been part of the legal or medical vocabulary for donkey years. Human behavior is affected by a lot of factors -- glandular and cerebral function and chemistry are complex issues.

4. Celebrated heroes of the past -- they become more heroic and less dastardly as they recede into the historic past, and after novelists and Hollywood have their say!

Jim McDougall · 29th August 2020, 01:27 AM

Thanks very much Philip!
I had not thought of that, artists palettes' pigments used various minerals for colors, with various binders such as gum arabic, and egg based tempera etc.
It would seem that the white pigment was the real culprit for lead, and later zinc oxide was one of the substitutes as the white lead was of course noxious.

It seems oil became popular in Europe around late 15th into 16th c. despite having been known in other cultures much earlier even into ancient times.

On the subject matter of the 'head' theme with David holding the head of Goliath, it seems that that subject was in a painting by Giorgiones c.1500 (he died 1510) so much before Caravaggio in latter 16th c. While the subject matter seems grim, the Giorgiones held the same effect, so it appears to have been part of the Biblical 'theme'.

Back to the paints, it would seem, as you well note, the tightening of the bristles of the brush by mouth would not be 'tasteful'

and in the case of oils or especially any white pigment simply not likely. Therefore the plausibility for lead poisoning presumed from artists paint seems notably diminished for Caravaggio and probably other artists in same degree.

Other sources such as the wine circumstance, or exposure in other environmental circumstances are more likely for consideration.

28th August 2020, 01:00 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,343	"...discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen; and thinking what nobody else has thought" -Albert von Szent-Gyorgy It does seem that like love vs hate, the line between genius and madness can be extremely thin and hard to determine. As we have recognized, with notable figures in the arts and other areas, there have been environmental exposures such as lead and mercury poisoning which might account for their actions and often demise. However, we wonder why they would be so much more effected than the average person of the time, if indeed they were. Surely not every artist was adversely effected as they all used lead based paint. However, possibly certain artists had peculiar quirks or habits, such as wetting their brush in their mouth etc. Possibly they were exposed to other sources of the same noxious elements, adding to a 'perfect storm' in the exposure. I think rather than a universal or collective assertion that situations like lead poisoning be the cause of behavioral dysfunction as suggested with Caravaggio ( aggressive behavior is a symptom).....we must consider it is likely to be a complicating factor. It seems that in studies of bio-history of notable historical figures, the presence of issues such as temporal lobe epilepsy and other psychological factors seemed in ways to elevate the potential for 'greatness', if not notoriety. It seems to me the term 'mad' is much overused and often inappropriately to note persons who are quirky or obsessed in certain areas, or sometimes many, in eclectic interests. People of intellect are often, possibly even almost typically, somewhat socially inept. It has been my impression that duelists and brawlers were often regarded in their hubris as romantic and exciting figures, much as the famed gunfighters (then shootists) of the wild west, and much celebrated. Caravaggio probably was not entirely averse to this reputation, and as art is as noted, often deeply allegorical, these nuances such as discussed are probably more in that regard than result of derangement caused by lead poisoning in specific. The forensic discovery of lead in his remains led to the suggestion of lead poisoning, however there were numerous other mitigating factors present or suggested, certain multiple wounds which may have developed complications over time not withstanding. Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

26th August 2020, 02:17 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,343	Thank you Philip, great explanation and that makes perfect sense. We are all familiar with the name game with different terms used for the same type weapon, but typically think of it more commonly with ethnographic weapons, than in European context. I forget about the dialectic differences. I recall once, many years ago (MANY) trying to find a Swiss dictionary bonk! Thats really weird about Beethoven, obviously the issue of deafness is well known, but had not heard of the lead poisoning matter. The presence of lead in pipes of course is well known as noted with Latin term 'plumbum' for lead (Pb), but had not heard of it used in cheap wine (do ya have that in a 55 gallon drum?).

27th August 2020, 12:49 AM	#3
shayde78 Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 445	Thank you Philip and Jim for these additional insights. The rich allegorical nature of art is a fascinating study, and is often reflected in the arms we collect. For preliterate communities, and those with a small literate class (as much of the world was until very recently) symbolism was the best way to communicate thru visual forms. Understanding the symbolic language can go a long way to interpreting the culture from which an item originates. There is added utility to our hobby when one considers the wealth of symbols that were engraved, embossed, forged, and chiseled in the steel in which we are so often in pursuit. Also, I think your conversation hints at the fact that the line between genius and (what we call) madness is often very thin and nebulous. Is this because only madness can create something new? Is it because seeing the world in a new way causes a distance between the visionary and others (Allegory of the Cave)? Is it simply because once someone sees what others cannot, or refuse to see, they simply never feel at home in society any longer? OR, is it simply madness caused by lead. I think the fact that many of our modern artists in all media (music, paint, metal, words) are not exposed to lead, but exhibit many of the same mercurial temperaments speaks to environmental toxins as being merely a concurrent factor, perhaps exacerbating, but not truly causal. Regardless, without some 'madmen', I'm not sure we'd have the swept hilt, patterned Damascus, Maximillian armor, and the like. Frankly, the meticulous alchemy involved in creating a sound blade would drive most of us mad if operating under the conditions of a smith prior to the 1800s! I am well pleased that these images have sparked some discussion. Thank you for receiving them with interest

29th August 2020, 01:27 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,343	Thanks very much Philip! I had not thought of that, artists palettes' pigments used various minerals for colors, with various binders such as gum arabic, and egg based tempera etc. It would seem that the white pigment was the real culprit for lead, and later zinc oxide was one of the substitutes as the white lead was of course noxious. It seems oil became popular in Europe around late 15th into 16th c. despite having been known in other cultures much earlier even into ancient times. On the subject matter of the 'head' theme with David holding the head of Goliath, it seems that that subject was in a painting by Giorgiones c.1500 (he died 1510) so much before Caravaggio in latter 16th c. While the subject matter seems grim, the Giorgiones held the same effect, so it appears to have been part of the Biblical 'theme'. Back to the paints, it would seem, as you well note, the tightening of the bristles of the brush by mouth would not be 'tasteful' and in the case of oils or especially any white pigment simply not likely. Therefore the plausibility for lead poisoning presumed from artists paint seems notably diminished for Caravaggio and probably other artists in same degree. Other sources such as the wine circumstance, or exposure in other environmental circumstances are more likely for consideration.