Kemp From Minesis To Phantasia

FROM "MIMESIS" TO "FANTASIA": THE QUATTROCENTO
VOCABULARY OF CREATION, INSPIRATION AND

GENIUS IN THE VISUAL ARTS
by Martin Kemp
Students of the Renaissancewill be familiar with interpretations of fifteenth-century

art which stress the development of a "creative elite" comprising those painters,
sculptors and architects who had begun to lay claim to the status of geniusesand
who newly exploited the intellectual formulations of art theory to edge their
professions into the sanctified realm of the artes liberales.1 This picture contains
elements which can be illustrated from the primary sources, but there is a consider-
able degree of historical discrepancy between the notions of ingenium, inspiration
and creativity to be found in Renaissanceliterature on the accepted artes liberales,
poetry for example, and the actual ideas expressedin quattrocento art theory. And if
caution is required in applying the principle ut pictura poesisto fifteenth-century art
and theory, even greater care should be exercised in imposing essentially modern
notions of artistic creativity on the period. Such care has all too rarely been apparent
in modern accounts of Renaissanceideals in the visual arts.
Renaissancewritings on art are not notably characterized by notions of individual
creativity but are dominated by the ideal of mimesis -imitation of nature or
Antiquity or preferably of both, because Antiquity and nature are in no sense
opposing factors in a Renaissancecontext. Thus Landino described Masaccio and
Donatello in complimentary fashion as "optimo imitatore di natura" and "grande
imitatore degli antichi." But as early in 1564, Landino's editors deemed it necessary
to promote Masaccio to the status of "optimo inventore."2 This tendency to move
1 A recent if somewhat different usage of the term "creative elite" and analysis of its
membership is provided by P. Burke, Tradition and Innovation in RenaissanceItaly, rev. ed.
(London 1974) 49ff. and 349ff.
2C. Landino, Comento di Cristoforo Landino Fiorentino sopra la Comedia di Dan the ...
(Nicola di Lorenzo della Mappa, Florence 1481) "Proemo ...Fiorentini excellenti di pittura et
scultura"; and Dante con l'espositione di Cristoforo Landino et di Alessandro Vellutello. ..per
Francesco Sansovino (Venice 1564) fol. 8v. Landino's art criticism is discussedby M. Baxandall,
Painting and Experience in 15th Century Italy (Oxford 1972) 114-153; O. Morasini, "Art
Historians and Art Critics III -Cristoforo Landino,"Burlington Magazine 95 (1953) 267-270,
andP. Murray, letter on 391-392.
.
348 MARTIN KEMP
away from the image of the artist as imitatore towards an image as inventore became
increasingly pronounced during succeedingcenturies.
Any historical judgrnent of attitudes towards what we would now call individual
creativity and artistic inspiration must be founded upon the meaning of the terms
used during the period to denote the production of a painting, sculpture, building or
any other artefact. The concepts exploited in connection with this process, such as
"invention" and "imagination," in their l.3.tin and Italian forms, and the less obvious
but highly significant fantasia (or phantasia), require careful analysis within the
framework of mimetic theory, in conjunction with each other, in relation to
associated ideas like ingenium and above all in their proper contexts. For the
purposes of this study it will be most convenient to begin with the term which could
be most readily harmonized with mimesis,namely invention.
The following analyses are based upon sources earlier than 1500, with the
exception of early sixteenth-century examples which have been introduced to clarify
earlier usages.I have deliberately excluded any extended discussionof the impact of
Ficino's individual variety of Neoplatonism on the theory of the visual arts, though
Platonizing notions of the ideal will appear in one guise or another. Ficino's own
impact is a predominantly cinquencento phenomenon which warrants a full-scale
study in its own right. The present study makes no claims to completeness;in view of
the volume and variety of potential sources it would not be surprising if some
significant references have escaped my attention, particularly in relation to other
fields of study, such asmusic and dance,of which I can claim no detailed knowledge.
And the imponderable of general, colloquial usages remains a factor which is
tantalizingly unsusceptible to the historian's methods of analysis. Any discussion
focussed upon just one facet of the many-sided diamond of Renaissanceculture will
inevitably suffer from some degree of one-sidedness,but I hope that any general
impression which emerges from this study will be sufficiently free of gross distortion
to provide a valid basis for future adjustment and amplification.
THE ARTIST AS INVENTOR
Invenzione was a key concept in Renaissanceart theory, as it is in modern ideals of

creativity, but it was generally exploited in a manner very different from its present
sense.Renaissanceconceptions of invenzione were broadly of two main types, both
of which grew from the same classical roots, but became increasingly differentiated
during the course of the quattrocento. The first of the categories is associated with
the tradition of natural philosophy and is closely related to the discovery of truth;
while the second is dependent largely upon a literary-poetic tradition in which
invention is less wholly identified with rational processesof discovery.
***
At its strictest, the first senseis used as in the almost obsolete phrase "the invention
of truth" and can embody both inductive and deductive components with no clear
FROM "MIMESIS" TO "FANTASIA 349
separation between them. Something of this sense survives, quaintly, in the title
generally accorded to one of Piero della Francesca'sfrescoes at Arezzo, The Inven-
tion and Proof of the Cross. This usage linked invention intimately with the verb
excogitare (to discover and devise), an association which could find support in
rhetorical theory. Renaissancephilologists like Lorenzo Valla drew upon Cicero's
statement that "Inventio est excogitatio rerum verarum aut verisirnilium" (invention
is the discovery of things true or probable) to justify their using invention and
"excogitation" almost interchangeably.3 For example, when Guarino discussesthe
Muses he refers to Clio as the inventrix of history, while Uranae and Melpomene
respectively excogitavernnt astrology and song." The manner in which Filarete uses
the verbs inventare and trovare as synonymous is entirely in the same spirit of
invention as discovery or finding."
Invention in this sensecan be used in close conjunction with the term dottrina (or
doctrina), which lies at the very heart of Renaissanceartists' claims to intellectual
respectability. Giotto in Ghiberti's eyes was responsible for having invented or
discovered (fit inventore e trovatore) "the dottrina of art which had lain buried for
six hundred years.'" Similarly Brunelleschi as the originator of perspective, that
most important artistic dottrina of all during the quattrocento, is credited as its
ritrovatore 0 inventore (Landino) and its inventrice (Manetti).7 In much the same
manner of scientific discovery, Filarete refers to "Athalas" as the inventore della
sphera,just as Vitruvius had praised Pythagorasand Archimedes as "inventors."s
The clearest account of the manner in which this "excogitative" form of invention
could operate in the practice of the visual arts is contained in Alberti's version of the
original discovery of column proportions. The architect begins by an inductive
discovery that the fractions of one sixth and one tenth are innate in the human body.
Our equally innate senseof concinnitas (harmony) judges that the first is too thick
and the second too thin for comfortably proportioned columns. The intermediate
fractions are subsequently deduced and judged to be aesthetically satisfying. The
middle proportion of one eighth becomesthe norm for the handsomely elegant Ionic~
3 Cicero, De inventione 1.7; and L. Valla, De linguae latinae elegantiae5.2,for the defmition
of in venire.
4Guarino quoted by M. Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators (Oxford 1971) 89 and 158-159;
also his "Guarino, Pisanello and Manuel Chrysoloras," Journal of the Warburgand Courtauld
Institutes 28 (1965) 183-204.
sFilarete's Treatise on Architecture (Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS Magi. 11, 1, 140)
facsimile and trans. J. Spencer 2 vols. (New Haven 1965) fols 3, 4v, 151v, 152 and 184v. An
edited version of the sameMS is provided by A. M. Finoli and L. Grassi,2 vols. (Milan 1972). For
convenienceall subsequentreferencesare to the folios in this MS in Spencer'sfacsimile.
6L. Ghiberti, I commentarii, ed. J.vonScblosser (Berlin 1912) 8v (p.36). Giotto had
previously been credited with "scientia et doctrina" in 1334, when appointed "governor" of the
Opera del Duomo (C. Guasti, S. Maria del Fiore [Florence 1887] 43). A Renaissancedefinition
of doctrina is provided by G. Manardi in his exposition of Galen's Ars parva quoted by
N. Gilbert, RenaissanceConcepts ofMethod (New York 1960) 104.
7Landino (n. 2 above) proemo; and A. Manetti, The Life of Brunelleschi, ed. H. Saalman
(University Park, Pennsylvania1970) 43.
8Filarete (n. 5 above)fol. 151v; and Vitruvius, De architectura 9 pref., 6 and 9.
350 MAR TIN KEMP
order, one seventh for the virile Doric and one ninth for the slender femininity of the
Corinthian." In actual practice such procedures of "excogitation" are more difficult
than this outline might suggest-Alberti stressesthat man is subject to error and that
his inventions must be diligently refined according to mathematical truth and the
lessons of the ancients'. -but he leaves no doubt that the basis of the inventive
process is the interaction of man's innate judgment with the underlying design of
nature. Nor does he leave any doubt that the processis of the utmost importance; it
is the vital first stage in a five-part system (invention, deliberation, judgment,
composition and skill), just as it is the first stageof five in Ciceronian rhetoric."
***
In addition to this predominantly "scientific" form of invention, Alberti, Manetti

and Francesco di Giorgio all acknowledge a more free-ranging compositive power of
inventing case nuave e belle in architecture -new ground-plans, elevations and
ornaments. This is not to say, however, that this power is any less part of a rational
process than the more inductive forms of discovery. The tone for the Renaissance
was set by Vitruvius who indicated (in a passageclosely studied by Francesco di
Giorgio) that the inventive architect cleverly arrives at an original and correct
solution to a new or old probl~m: "lnventio autem est quaestionum obscuram
explicatio ratioque novae rei vigore mobili reperta.,,12
A typical Renaissanceinstance of the harmony between new inventions and one
form of ratio is contained in Manetti's account of S. Maria degii Angeli. Though
"tutto al modo antico," Brunelleschi's centralized church neverthelessshows great
originality in its "invenzioni di qualita.,,'3 Filippo's inventions are said to surpassthe
precetti of antique methods; but there is no suggestion that Manetti sensed the
slightest tension between the imitation of antiquity, the laws of nature and the
artist's originality in invention. These three components act with a unity which lies
totally outside the frames of reference of Romantic and post-Romantic ideas of
creativity.
There is evidence to suggest that Brunelleschi's own values and priorities were
directly responsible for the insistent manner in which the early sources(including the
"Alberti De re aedificatoria 9.7; ed. and Italian trans. G.Orlandi and P.Portoghesi, Leon
Battista Alberti: L 'architettura, 2 vols. (Milan 1966) 2.835-837. For concinnitas, see 9.5
(2.815-817).
10Ibid., 9.10 (2.861-863).
II Ibid. 9.10 (2.855): "ingenio igitur inveniat, usu cognoscat,iuditio seligat, consilio compo-
nat, arte perficiat opertet." Cf. Cicero, De inventione 1.7.
12Vitruvius, De architectura 1.2.2. Cf. Francesco di Giorgio, Trattati de architettura civile e
militare (Cod. Torinese Salluziano 148; Laur. Ashburn. 361; SeneseSIV. 4; and Bib. Naz., MagI.
II, 141), ed. C. Maltese and L. Maltese Degrassi,2 vols. (Milan 1967) 1.39 (hereafter Tratt.). The
editors provide a good discussionof the dating of the various MSS.
13Manetti (no7 above) 103.
epitaph by Marsuppini to be discussed later) emphasize his powers of invention.

Mariano Taccola's entirely credible report of a meeting between Brunelleschi and
himself at some time between 1427 and 1430 lays continual stress upon the jealous
care which Brunelleschi took to guard his inventions against piracy. "Do not share
your inventions [invenzioni] with many," the great architect is reported as saying;
"share them only with the few who understand and love the sciences.To describe
too much of one's inventions and achievements is one and the same thing as to
debase your ingegnia ,,14 A reflection of such intellectual possessiveness
can also be
discerned in Manetti's assertion that his hero's invenzioni are "cose pro pie del
maestro.'" 5 All this suggests that architecture in Brunelleschi's mind was justly
subject to the same kind of elevated elitism as characterized the literary ideas of
Petrarch and Boccaccio.
Alberti shares his fellow pioneer's reported esteem for the architect;s power of
inventing new things. The architect, according to Alberti, must strive to produce
something specifically of his own invention, and any achievementsin this respect, on
whatever scale, are to be prized over and above sheersize in building for its own sake;
a clever building is greater than a colossal one. Inventio, which he also considersis a
power of the artist's ingenium, is a vital requirement but, like all other characteristics
in his thought, it must be subject to constraint, decorum and discipline. Inventions
which outstrip feasibility are unacceptable.'o Such restraint is entirely consistent
with the advice given by Cicero, Alberti's decorous mentor in such matters, who
outlines three components of invention -acumen, ratio and diligentia (or ars), of
which diligence is given special emphasis as the factor through which ingenium may
bearfrwt.
.'7
Similar associations between invention, ingegno, diligence and skill abound in

Francesco di Giorgio's treatises, and Vitruvian ratio is always close at hand. In other
respects, however, Francesco's account of invention goes far beyond that of Alberti
or anything to be found in their mutual sources such as Vitruvius. Francescoachieves
the most deeply considered and philosophically astute analysis of invention in
quattrocento theory (Leonardo's included).
Francesco begins by setting the arts firmly in the context of the macro-microcosm
of cosmological design. "The human mind," he argues,taking as his precedent the
opening paragraphs of Aristotle's Metaphysics, "moves with the greatest fervor
14Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Cim 197, fols. 107-108v. SeeF. Prager,"A Manuscript
of Taccola, quoting Brunelleschi on Problems of Inventors and Builders," Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society 112 (1968) 131-149. Here,as elsewhere,I havetaken the advice
of Michael Baxandall and avoided translating ingegno, ingenium etc. as "genius" which carriestoo
many later associations.Perhaps"innate brilliance" would be the best rendering. "Talent," itself,
does not convey adequately the intellectual importance of the faculty in the classicaltradition.
IS Manetti (n. 7 above) 55: "Le invenzioni, che sono cose propie del maestro, bisognia, che
nella magiore parte sieno date dalla natura 0 dalla industria sua propria" -that is, invention
embracing both induction and composition.
16Alberti (n. 9 above) 9.10 (2.857-859).
17Cicero, De oratore 2.35.
352 MARTIN KEMP
towards natural philosophy and metaphysics."ls Francesco then proceedsto discuss

the nature of the "incorporeal" soul and the "prime mover," quoting such author-
ities as Averroes, Cicero, Plato, Augustine, Paul and his favorite source, Aristotle. I"
Even his method of exposition -"dalle cose universale in Ie singulari nelle scienzie
bisogna procedere" -is founded upon Aristotelian principles.2O The intellectual
edifice of knowledge which Francesco erects then provides the basis for the archi-
tect's activities. Acting under the traditional influence of Mercury, "signore di queIii
che nelle arti. ..sono atti a venire eccellenti," the artist baseshis architectural
inventions on the underlying design of the universe.21 Accordingly, scienziatakes a
prominent place in his requirements for good design.
The manner in which Francesco places the architect in the context of cosmologi-
cal knowledge is more explicit than anything in Alberti or Vitruvius, in spite of his
predecessors'mutual emphasis upon the necessity of the architect being learned in a
wide variety of disciplines. An excellent example of Francesco's subtlety in defining
the role of the artist in relation to the laws of nature is provided by his cunning
adaptation of the famous story of Alexander's architect, Dinocrates. The story, as
gleaned from Vitruvius and Plutarch (who givesthe architect's namesas Stasicrates),
can be summarized asfollows.22
By masquerading as Hercules in a lion's skin, the Macedonian architect, Dino-
crates, succeeded in capturing the attention of Alexander the Great in order to
present the Greek leader with his novel idea for a new city: "I have shaped Mount
Athos into the form of a statue of a man, in whose left hand is shown a very
extensive city and in his right a bowl to receive all the rivers in that mountain which
pour into the sea.,,23Alexander enjoyed the concept but doubted its feasibility since
the city could not be self-supporting in terms of food and other essentials. It is to
illustrate this latter point that the story is first exploited by Alberti in De re
aedificatoria, though he misnames the architect "Polycrates.,,24 Later in the same
treatise, with a care more characteristic of his high standards of scholarship,he uses
the story as an illustration of inventive ingenium, basing his account more on
Plutarch than on Vitruvius: "Who would be so daring as to undertake, like Stasi-
crates, as he is called by Plutarch, or Dinocrates, according to Vitruvius, to make
Mount Athos into a statue of Alexander and in one of the hands build a city big
enough to contain ten thousand men?,,25
The Alexander-Dinocrates anecdote occurs again and again in Rennaissancelitera-
18Di Giorgio, Tratt. (n. 12 above)2.369. cr. Aristotle, Metaphys. 1.1.

19Di Giorgio, Tratt. 2.293ff.
20Ibid. 2.299. cr. Aristotle, Physico I.I.I84a. The same precedent is cited by Thomas
Aquinas, In II metaphysicornm, lect. 1, n. 278.
21 Di Giorgio, Tratt. 2.294.
22Vitruvius 2, pref.; and Plutarch, Life ofAlexander 72.4f.
23Vitruvius 2, pref.
24Alberti (n. 9 above) 1.4 (1.35).
2SIbid. 6.4 (2.459). The number of inhabitants is quoted from Plutarch, Life ofAlex. 72.5.
FROM "MIMESIS" TO "FANTASIA" 353
ture on the arts -Villani cites it even before the quattrocento "discovery" of
Vitruvius, Francesco Colonna found it highly appealing to his senseof wonder, and
Filarete produces characteristically eccentric versions2' -but only Francesco
develops it in terms of the macro-microcosm. To do so, he adopts a less literal
attitude than his fellow theorists, interpreting Vitruvius to mean that Dinocrates
showed Alexander "uno disegno nel quale avevacomparato uno Aton Monte ad uno
corpo umano." Francesco goes on to say that Alexander subsequently praised the
architect's conception of "la similitudine della citta al corpo umano.,,27 Francesco,
with characteristic sanity, seesDinocrates's city design in terms of an anthropomor-
phic parallel rather than as an improbable project to sculpt the whole mountain into
the shapeof a man.
Dinocrates himself is ingeniously illustrated as a composite image in the margin of
Francesco's treatise (fig. I), wearing his Herculean fancy dress, but also shown "in
the guise of' Mount Athos holding the city and water-bowl (or fountain as he
elsewhere calls it), like the actual design of the city presented to Alexander: 8 This
image cleverly exploits a three-part analogy between the body of the earth, the body
of man and the form of the city, all embodied in the appearanceof the architect
himself. In the case of the rivers which flow into the bowl the bodily analogy is
explicit: "Nella mano sinistra [sic] teneva una tazza che tutte Ie vene del corpo in
essacorrivano.,,29 Suchmicrocosms abound in Francesco'sown city projects.
This is the context in which excogitative invention takes place, the architect
basing his principles upon his study of natural systems in the universe and making
inventions in harmony with these. However, the actual power of invenzione, "with-
out which it is impossible to be a good architect," cannot be learned, precisely
codified or described, according to Francesco, but is an innate gift relying upon the
artist's "discrezione e giudizio.,,3O It is, as acknowledged by Taccola and Alberti, to
be attributed to the faculty of ingegno. Thus it is with some pride that Francesco
describeshis wide range of plans for temples and houses ashis own invenzioni, albeit
he modestly adds, of "il mio debile ingegno.,,31
The power of invention is a key concept in his thought, and his philosophical
examination of it leads him to adapt Aristotle's doctrine of intellect in a fascinating
manner. He twice quotes the authority of Aristotle's De anima that the soul is not a
26F. Villani, De origine civitatis Florentie et de eiusdemfamosis(Vatican, MS Barb. lat. 26

fol. 71} in Baxandall, Giotto {no 4 above} 69 n. 71 and 147; F. Colonna, Hypnerotomachia
poliphili, Aldus Manutius (Venice 1499) fol. llr-v (written in 1467 according to a note in the
first ed.); Filarete {no 5 above} fols. 9r-vand 156.
27Di Giorgio, Tratt. (n. 12 above)2.362. Seealso 1.4: "At on monte a guisa d'omo."
28Ibid. 1.4 for "una tazza," and 2.362 for "una fonte." The imageis analyzed by W. Lotz,
"Eine Deinokratesdarstellung des Francesco di Giorgio," Mitteilungen der Kunsthistorisches
Institut in Florenz 5 (1940) 428433.
29Di Giorgio, Tratt. 1.4.
30Ibid. 2.484.
31Ibid. 2.297.
354 MARTIN KEMP
virtU of the body but is incorporeal.32 This fact, he continues, is apparent in the
operations of the human soul, compared to those of animals. Various animals can act
in a natural manner to produce "architectural" works -"like all swallows build nests
and like every bee and spider (aranea] makes dwellings (domifica]" -but these
animal products are invariable and stereotyped, unlike the inventions of man's
intellect which are "quasi infmite, infmito varia.,,33 In the specific case of castle
design he states that the invention of "tutte Ie fortezze che nella mente occorrano
continuamente, sarebbe un processo in infinito."34 The notion of the continuous
flow from the human mind of limitless inventions corresponds splendidly to the
boundless fertility of Francesco's own ideas; his crowded pagesof designs, such as
those for "piante di case private," are only rivalled in their "almost infinite"
inventiveness by the drawings of his sometime colleague,Leonardo.
The three particular animals (swallow, bee and spider) cited by Francesco had
been busily active throughout classicalAntiquity and the Middle Ages,building their
nests,cells and webs at the behest of the many philosophers who had been concerned
with the vexed problem of animal intelligence. These three, together with the
industrious ant, were discussedin various permutations by Aristotle, Galen, Maximus
of Tyre, Philo, Plutarch, Seneca,Tertullian, Roger Bacon and Reisch,to mention but
a few.35 Plutarch's treatise On the Cleverness of Animals plausibly credits Demo-
critus with the original notion that human beings imitated "the spider in weaving and
mending, the swallow in architecture and the clear-voiced swan and nightingale in
mimesis of their song.,,3. Vitruvius echoes this when he assertsthat the first houses
were begun "in imitation of the nest and habitations of swallows.,,37 Of the
architecturally minded animals, Filarete adopts the bee as his personal symbol of
industriousness and ingegno, while Alberti characteristically takes the circular nests
of birds and hexagonal cells of bees as evidence of the innate geometry of natural
r 38
lOrrns.
Francesco's particular contrast between stereotyped products of animals and the
limitless variety of man's inventions seemsto be uniquely his own, though there can
be little doubt that the general pedigree of his argument is Aristotelian. His conten-
tion that "animals always operate naturally" (that is, according to natural causality)
is evidence of this pedigree; and his odd vocabulary -aranea and domificare from
the utin aranea and domus -confirms that a classical source was not far from his
mind.
32Ibid. 2.482-483 and 505-506.

33Ibid. 2.505. On p. 483 the spider is omitted.
34Ibid. 2.483.
35R. Bacon, Opus majus v (ii) 3, viii; G. Reisch,Margarita philosophica (Freiburg 1503)
10.2.23; Vitruvius 2.1. The others are discussedby S. Dickermann, "Some Stock Illustrations of
Animal Intelligence in Greek Psychology," Transactions of the American Philological Association
42 (1911) 123-130.
36Plutarch,De sollerlia animalium 20.974a.
37Vitruvius, De arch. 2.1.
38Filarete (n. 5 above) fols. 45 and 136; and Alberti (n. 9 above) 7.4 (2.549-551).
Aristotle's Physics contains a statement that "the arts, either on the basis of
nature carry things further than can nature, or they imitate nature. If ...artificial
processesare purposeful, so also are natural processes; for the relationship of the
antecedant to the consequent is identical in art and nature.,,39 He then states that
"the works of spiders and ants and so on" showd not be attributed to the active
intelligence manifested in man's works, but to the teleological principle of natural
causality. If this differentiation is allied to his arguments in the opening section of
the Metaphysics that the inventions and discoveries of man are evidence of his
superior mind (compared to the bee which is granted some small measure of
intelligence but cannot learn becauseof its deafness),something close to Francesco's
interpretation begins to emerge. And Thomas Aquinas takes us a step nearer when he
amplifies Aristotle by stating that "every swallow makes a nest in the sameway and
every spider a web in the same way, which wowd not be the caseif they acted by
intellect and art [intellectu et arte] .For not every builder makes a house the same
way, becausethe artisan judges the form of the thing built and can vary it.,,4O But
nowhere does Aquinas (nor, to my knowledge, any subsequentAristotelian) specific-
ally formulate Francesco's differentiation between the intellectual capacities of man
and animals on the grounds of infinite inventiveness. At first sight, Francesco'suse of
philosophical concepts might appear to be naive and eclectic, but as this instance
shows he is not without genuine powers of originality in his philosophy of the arts.
* **
So far our discussion has centered almost entirely upon examples drawn from
architectural theory; even perspective is intimately associated with architectural
practice. The type of infmite invention of form mooted by Francescocould readily
have been applied to painting and sculpture. But this did not occur. The painter's
production of form was generally assigned to the realm of "composition" and
"disposition," in the sense of the manipulation and arrangement of the parts in
relation to each other and to the whole. When Fazio compared the inventive power
of the painter with that of the poet -"~t equal attention is given both to the
inventione and dispositione of their work" -he was not referring to formal inven-
tion of Francesco's type but thinking of invention in terms of content while granting
the formal aspects of a work of art to dispositione.4' This division of labor is a
general rule in the literature on painting; when Boccaccianideas of poetic invention
are applied to quattrocento painting, only content is generally considered. This
essentially literary application, imposed on the visual arts from outside, provid~s the
39Aristotle, Physico 2.8.199a.

40Physicorum Aristoteles Commentaria 2.13 (259). I am grateful to David Summers for this
reference.Cf. F. di Giorgio, Tratt. (n. 12 above)2.414.
41See Baxandall, Giotto (n.4 above) lOll. For a later use of inventio, dispositio and colorito
by Dolce, seeR. W. Lee, "Ut Pictura Poesis:The Humanist Theory of Painting," Art Bulletin 22
0940) 264.
356 MARTIN KEMP
second main category of invention and is remarkably separate from the Brunelles-
chian form of "excogitative" invention as developed by Alberti and Francesco di
Giorgio.
The literary-poetic form of invenzione is concerned with "topics" for paintings -
original iconographical schemes,new allegories, fresh variations upon mythologies
and histories and fresh ornaments for the main theme. This senseis closely linked to
rhetorical theory astransmitted to the Renaissanceby Aristotle's Topics and Cicero's
rediscovered treatises. We have already noted Cicero's equation of invention and
"excogitation," but have not studied it in the context which Cicero intended, that is,
in terms of content for rhetorical discourse.
He formulated a five-part scheme for rhetoric: inventio, collocatio, elocutio, actio
and memoria, sometimes with slight variations in terminology and order." The
division of labor is quite clear; invention is concerned with subject-matter, collocatio
deals with formal organization and elocutio with such matters as the application of
detailed ornament in execution. During the Middle Ages, partly as a result of
sophistic practice, invention lost its prominence in rhetorical theory, tending to
become more closely associatedwith logic and generalcognitive processes(as
reflected in the scientific senseof "excogitation" discussedabove).'3 It is thus used
by Avicenna." Renaissance rhetorical theory strove to reverse this trend and
Cicero's scheme was fully reinstated -to such an extent that inventio is liteTally
engraved across the bosom of "Rhetoric" in Margarita philosophica, Georg Reisch's
tidy compendium of Renaissanceknowledge (fig. 2). Cicero's reinstated scheme was
transferred wholesale to humanist art criticism, as Michael Baxandall has shown;
Bartolomeo Fazio, for example, develops a system of inventio, dispositio and
expressio which runs precisely parallel to the first three stagesin Cicero's process."
Alongside the rhetorical tradition, there existed the poet's form of invenzione, a
matter of passion and imaginative inspiration according to Boccaccio. In his
Genealogia deorum gentilium, he formulates his famous defmition of poetry:
"Poesis ...est fervor quidam exquisite inveniendi atque dicendi, seu scribendi quod
inveneris." This, with its quality of fervor, which "ex sinu Dei procedens," is
markedly different from a methodical processof "excogitation.""
42Cicero, De inventione 1.7 and the CiceronianAd Herennium 1.2.

43See C. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic (to 1400), ed. 2 (Gloucester,Mass. 1959) 91
and 191-192, and RenaissanceLiterary Theory and Practice (New York 1939); also D. Clark,
Rhetoric and Poetry in the Renaissance(New York 1922).
44Avicenna, De anima 1.4-5, where "adinvenire artes" and "discernere inter pulchrum et
foedum" are powers which distinguish the soul of man from that of animals. "Imaginare" is a
lowly power, shared with beasts.
45Baxandall, Giotto (n.4 above)101f. Further comparisons between painting and rhetoric are
made by J. Spencer, 'OUtrhetorica pictura," Journal of the Warburgand Courtauld Institutes 20
(1957) 26f.
46Boccaccio, Genealogiadeorum gentilium, bks. 14 and 15, particularly 14.7. Cf. C. Osgood,
Boccaccio on Poetry (princeton 1930) 39, and F. Tateo, "Rhetorica" e "poetica" fro medioevoe
rinascimento (Bari 1960) 68f.
These two traditions, the rhetorical and poetic -the one stipulating a division of
labor between invention of content and composition of form, the other interpreting
invention in terms of divine inspiration -become increasingly inseparable in Renais-
sancediscussionsof the poetic faculty. This processis well under way in Salutati's De
laboribus Herculis and is fully realized in Landino's introduction to his Dante
commentary.'7 And both traditions lie behind the quattrocento conception of a
literary invenzione for a painting or cycle of paintings.
Alberti, who used "excogitative" invention in De re aedificatoria, had earlier
exploited the term invenzione in the more specialized manner of content for
painting. In De pictura he advisesthe painter to consort with "literary men, who are
full of information about many subjects and will be of great assistancein preparing
the composition of a historia, and the great virtue of this consists primarily in its
inventio. Indeed, inventio is such that even by itself and without pictorial representa-
tion it can give pleasure."'. The example subsequently cited is the iconography of
Apelles's Calumny, as conveyed by Lucian's ekphrastic description which itself
"excites our admiration when we read it."" The intellectual conception of the
inventio thus possessesan aesthetic quality in its own right, independent of the
pictorial compositio of form.
Examples of literary invenzioni become increasingly common in the second half
of the quattrocento. When Filarete presents an elaborate and novel scheme for the
representation of Virtue (fig. 3) and Vice in single figures, he relates that he is praised
by his patron for "la inventiva."so One of his most important requirements for the
artist is that he should be capable of making "belle inventioni" like "Appelle che
trovo la calumnia."S' For this it is necessarythat the artist should be learned "in
lettere" in order to investigate new "fantasie" and "varie moralita e virtU."S1 This
Albertian requirement is precisely echoed in 1501 by Jacopo de' Barbari, who
believes that in addition to philosophy and music the painter should understand "la
poesia per la invention de la hopere."s3
The fullest documentation of the literary form of invenzione occurs immediately
after the end of the quattrocento in the correspondence of Isabella d'Este. Though
technically outside the scope of this study, her terminology can with some justice be
regarded as the culmination of earlier trends. From 1502 onwards in her letters to
47C. Salutati, De laboribus Herculis 1.2-3; and Landino (n. 2 above) proemo.
48Alberti, De pictunz 3.53; ed. C. Grayson, Leon Battista Alberti, On Painting and On
Sculpture (London 1972) 94. Cf. E. Verheyen, The Paintingsin the Studiolo of Isabella d'Este at
Mantua (New York 1971) 22-29.
49Alberti, De pictura 3.53 (pp. 94-96). Cf. Lucian, De calumnia 5.
soFilarete (n. 5 above)fol. 69.
51Ibid. fol.184v.
52Ibid. fol. 114.
53Jacopo de' Barbari, De ecelentia de pittunz, sent to "Federigo Ducha di Sansonia" in 1501;
in L. Servolini, Jacopo de' Barbari (Padua 1944) 105-106. Later usages of invention in the
sixteenth century are discussedby C. Ossola,Autumno del R inascimento (Florence 1971).
358 MARTIN KEMP
the dilatory Perugino, she continually emphasizesthe importance of her own "poetic
inventione" (also called a fantasia or historia), namely the Battle of Ozastity and
Lasciviousness.54 She further sends the painter a small drawing to show clearly her
ideas and probably also a written account of the iconographical details composed by
her court humanist, Paride da Ceresara.55After taking such care she not unreason-
ably exhibits considerable anxiety when she later learns that Perugino is "perverting
the whole sentiment of the fabula. "s'
There clearly was a strong feeling among Renaissancepatrons that subject matter
and meaning were too important to be left to the painter or sculptor. Thus it was
that Leonardo Bruni, a master of rhetoric who was professionally skilled in inven-
zione, sought to provide a program for Ghiberti's second set of Bapistry Doors. 57
Such situations would inevitably persist when erudite patrons like Leonello d'Este
continued to make (according to Angelo Decembrio's credible account) a sharp
division between the cerebral qualities of the writer's ingenium and the limited
mimetic powers of the painter's hand.58 In keeping with this attitude, Leonello
himself furnished the original idea for the decoration of his studio at Belfiore with
paintings of the Muses,while the famous humanist, Guarino, assistedin 1447 with a
detailed description of how each Muse should be represented. Guarino deferentially
refers to Leonello's concept as an "inventione worthy of a Prince.,,59 Few such
programs drawn up by the patron or his humanist advisers have survived, but the
practice of presenting the artist with a cut-and-dried invenzione was probably the
general rule in the case of new or difficult subjects, particularly those of a classical
nature.
The habit of mind which could so readily assign invention of content and
composition of form to different individuals was probably a powerful factor in the
persistence of the chronological principle of "disjunction" between classical form
and classical content in painting. The inventorjexecutant dichotomy would probably
have been particularly strong in the commissioning of a cassonefrom the c~aftsmen
in a specialist bottega, and it is in the realm of cassonepainting that the principle of
"disjunction" is indeed most pronounced.'.
later in the century certain artists challenged strongly to be credited with their~
54Letter of 15 September 1502 and "contract" of 19 January 1503. SeeP. Kristeller, Andrea
Mantegna (London 1901) doc. 67, and F. Canuti, n Pero!;ino (Siena 1931); trans. D. Chambers,
Patronsand Artists in the Italian Renaissance(London 1970) 134-138.
55"Contract" of 19 January 1503 and letter of 19 February 1505, the latter mentioning
Paride in this connection. SeeCanuti-Chambers 135-141.
56Letter of 19 February 1505. Fabula or fabella is a Boccaccianterm.
57For Bruni's 1424 program, see R. Krautheimer, Lorenzo Ghiberti (princeton 1956) 372,
doc. 52.
58See M. Baxandall, "A Dialogue on Art from the Court of Leonello d'Este: Angelo
Decembrio's De politia littaria, pars LXVIII," Journal of the Warburgand Courtauld Institutes 26
(1963) 304-326.
59See Baxandall, Giotto (n. 4 above) 89 and 158.
60SeeE. Gombrich, "Apollonio di Giovanni," Norm and Form (London 1966) 11-28.
FROM "MIMESIS" TO "FANTASIA' 359
own powers of literary invenzione -perhaps having taken heed of the advice
proffered by Alberti and Filarete. Already Filarete himself had claimed the power of
iconographical invenzione, having the temerity to point out the shortcomings of both
Antiquity and the Christian tradition in failing to formulate single images of Virtue
and Vice.'J Even Isabella d'Este was forced to recognize this trend and learn to live
with it. Although she endeavoredto shackle Perugino with a precise program, she had
previously permitted Giovanni Bellini a freer reign. In 1501 she hopefully requested
something from Giovanni of his own invention: "Qualche istoria 0 fabula antiqua aut
de suo inventione ne finga una che rapresenti cosa antiqua e de bello significato." 63
Yet some four and a half years later, Pietro Bembo has need to remind her that the
inventione which she has sent him in the form of a drawing must be adapted to
Bellini's own fantasia; rebelling againststandard practice, Bellini "does not like to be
given many written details which cramp his style; his way of working, as he says,is
always to wander at will in his pictures, so that they can give satisfaction to himself
as well asthe beholder.""
Isabella's agent, Lorenzo di Pavia, formed a less favorable impression of Bellini's
power of invention than the painter claimed for himself. He praised Bellini's abilities
as a colorist, but stated that "in invencione no one can rival Mantegna,who is truly
the most excellent.,,'4 A similar opinion of Mantegnahad beenexpressedearlier by
Giovanni Santi, who used such terms as inventione, fantasia and concepto to convey
the erudite nature of Mantegna's works." But artists like Mantegna who appeared
legitimately able to be accorded humanist powers of literary invention were still a
tiny exception to the general rule in the late quattrocento. And Villani's trecento
praise of Giotto's art, "which stood out as a rival to poetry" because"he had a full
knowledge of the stories," is unique in earlier literature on the visual arts."
Generally, "full knowledge of the stories" was regarded as the prerogative of the
patron and his advisors.
Attitudes towards the inventive role of the patron in architecture are harder to
defme, becausethe division of labor between the "architect" and the patron was less
clearly established than in the caseof painting. Wasthe architect an "ideas man" or
merely a technical executant? Any answerto this question is complicated by the fact
that the patron might in a very real senseassumeimportant aspectsof the architect's
61Filarete (n. 5 above)fols. 142v-143.

62Letter of 28 June 1501. SeeJ. Fletcher, "Isabella d'Este and Giovanni Bellini's Presepio"
Burlington Magazine 113 (1971) 704 (trans. Chambers [no54 above) 127).
63Letter of 1 January 1506. SeeG. Gaye, Carteggioinedito d' artisti 2 (Florence 1840) 71-73
(trans. Chambers [no 54 above) 131-133).
64Letters of 6 and 16 July 1504 and 16 October 1506. SeeKristeller (n. 54 above)docs. 70,
71 and 83.
65Cronaca rimata; ed. H. Holtzinger, Federigo di Montefeltro, Duca di Urbino (Stuttgart
1893) 22.96.74f. (pp. 187-188).
66Villani, De origine, in Baxandall, Giotto (n. 4 above)71 and 147, and J. Lamer, Culture and
Society in Italy 1290-1420 (London 1971) 278-282.
360 MARTIN KEMP
role and might even be considered the architect of his own buildings. Cosimo de'
Medici is one such patron. Not only is there a common quality in all his buildings
regardlessof their architects -something which can be called the "Cosimo style" -
he is also reported to have asked rhetorically in connection with the Badia at Fiesole,
"Should I not make an image drawn from my brain or mind, which would secure
long memory for my name?,"7
The patron's conceptual role in architecture is explicitly acknowledged in
Filarete's elaborate biological metaphor for the birth of a building, in which the
patron is said to conceive (generare) the original notion, while the architect is
regarded as a mother whose role is to bring the conception to the stage at which it is
born (partorire ).'8 In practice, however, Filarete portrays the pattern of the relation-
ship rather differently. His role is shown in many sections of the treatise as that of
the inventor, developing and expounding his own conceptions of Sforzinda, while his
master hover~ approvingly at his shoulder asking questions and occasionally making
constructive suggestions." Just as he credited himself with the ability to make an
iconographical inventiva, so he regardshis architectural function as more than that of
a skilled executant.7o
Whereas no practicing painters before Leonardo and Bellini are on record as
having made similar claims to high-flown inventive powers, a number of architects
consciously assumedthe roles of "ideas men" -if, that is, one can speak in any real
sense of the profession of "architect" in the fifteenth century. 71 The practice of
architecture lacked both an established system of apprenticeship and a clearly-

defined guild of professional executants who could be recognized as "architects."
Probably none of those whom we now regard as typical quattrocento architects, such
as Brunelleschi, Alberti, Filarete and Francesco di Giorgio, assumed identical inven-
tive roles vis-a.-vistheir patrons on one side and their technical workers on the other.
But they did share a common demand for the recognition of their intellectual
capacities. It was in this specifically architectural context that the artist laid claim to
a command of "excogitative" invention -discovering and devising. Invention for the
architects meant something within their realm of action; invenzione for most painters
meant a story provided by someoneelse.
The only major exceptions in the quattrocento to this habit of compartment-
alizing the two main usagesof invention are provided by Filarete and Leonardo, but
they achieve their ends in very different ways. WhereasFilarete develops an interpre-
67E. Gombrich, "Alberto Avogadro's Description of the Badia of Fiesole and of the Villa of
Carew," Ifalia medioevale e umanistica 5 (1962) 217-229, esp. 223: "Non faciam a cerebro
extractam aut a mente figuram. Qua~ mihi, et si moriar, nomina longa dabit." Gombrich's
translation (Nom and Fom [n.60 above} 46) -"should I not create. .." -is misleading in
tone.
68Filarete(n. 5 above)fol. 7v.
69Ibid. fol. 11.
70Ibid.; compare fols. 69 and 171v.
71Cf.. N. Pevsner,"The Term 'Architect' in the Middle Ages," Speculum 17 (1942) 549-562.
tation of formal invention in terms akin to poetic invention of content -both falling
under the embrace of fantasia -Leonardo unites invention of content and form by
according the faculty of imagination a rational potential similar to Francesco di
Giorgio's "excogitative" process in architecture. Both these developments will be
examined in subsequentsections of this study.
THE ROLES OF IMAGINATION AND FANTASIA
The definition of imagination asthe image-forming capacity has remained reasonably

constant since classical times, though attitudes towards it fluctuated widely. The
Greek term !/>wraaia was generally translated as "imagination" (imaginativa or
immaginazione), though it sometimes also gave rise to the more phonetic transcrip-
tion, fantasia (or phantasia). A suitable starting-point is Aristotle's defmition -
"Imagination is that in virtue of which an image arisesfor us" -which underwent a
process of continual redefmition in the hands of early Christian and medieval
philosophers, such as Nemesius, Augustine, Avicenna, Albertus Magnus and Roger
Bacon.72 Aristotle's discussion of the mind in Book 3 of De anima was later
developed into a functional psychology of perception in which each mental faculty
or internal sensewas accorded a particular location in the ventricles of the brain and
credited with responsibility for a particular stage in the progression from sensory
impression through cogitation and cognition to eventual memorization.
One of the most commonly consulted sources for Renaissancepsychology was
Avicenna's De anima which made explicit much that was barely implicit in Aristotle's
difficult account. The section on the brain in Mundinus's influential Anathomia is
closely related to Avicenna's treatise, and a broadly comparable systemis succinctly
illustrated at the beginning of the sixteenth century in Reisch's Margarita phil-
osophica (fig. 4).73 The first of the three ventricles was generally believed to contain
the sensuscommunis (where sensoryimpressions are gathered together), fantasia and
imaginatio. The division of labor between these faculties was variable and not always
7' Aristotle, De anima 3.3.428af and Rhetoric 1.11.6. Discussionsof the internal sensesare
provided by: L. Ambrosi, La psicologia della immaginazione (Rome 1898); J. Soury, Le systeme
nerveux central: Structure et fonctions (paris 1899); M. Bundy, The Theory of Imagination in
Qassical and Medieval Thought, University of Illinois Studies 12 (1927) and "Invention and
Imagination in the Renaissance,"Journal of English and Germanic Philology 29 (1930) 535-554
(erroneously placing "fantasy" in the second ventricle, 537); W. Pagel, "Medieval and Renais-
sanceContributions to the Study of the Brain and Its Functions," in The History of the Theory
of the Brain and its Functions, ed. F. Poynter, Wellcome Symposium 1957 (Oxford 1958);
E. Clarke and C. D. O'Malley, The Human Brain and Spinal Cord (Berkeley 1968); E. Clarke and
K. Dewhurst, An Rlustrated History ofBrain Functions (Oxford 1972); L. Norpoth, Der pseudo-
augustinische Traktat, De spiritu et anima, dissertation, Munich 1924 (Cologne 1971); F. Rah-
man, Avicenna's Psychology (Oxford 1952); P. Michaud-Quantin, La psychologie de l'activit/!
chez Albert Ie Grand (paris 1966). I am grateful to Katharine Park for the referencesto Soury
and Pagel.
73Avicenna latinus: Liber de anima, ed. S. van Reit and G. Verbeke, 2 vols. (Louvain 1972)
1.5.87-90; Mundinus,Anathomia, Papie per Antonium de Carcano(1478) fol. 19f.
MARTIN KEMP
very clear. Avicenna identified fantasia with the sensuscommunis in the anterior of
the ventricle, while Bacon used fantasia as a collective term to embrace both the
sensuscommunis and imaginatio.74 The more intellectual internal senses,cogitation,
cognition, apprehension, estimation, reason and (most relevantly for this study)
invention were generally seen as operating in the second ventricle, while the major
function of the third cavity was the storage capacity of memory.
Avicenna distinguished between two different types of imagination, which may
not unfairly be characterized as sensory (or representative) and deliberative (or
active). The former was merely an early stage in the perceptive process whereby an
impermanent image was preserved on the basesof impressions transmitted from the
sensuscommunis. This was imaginatio. The active component, imaginativa in relation
to the anima vitalis and cogitativa in association with the anima humana, operated
more positively with cognition to produce compound images and dreams, and even
to simulate sensory experience.75 In the Canon he indicates that "cogitation usesthe
precepts which have been stored in the imagination and then proceeds to combine
and analyze them, constructing quite different images, for instance a flying man or
an emerald mountain.,,7. Imaginativa/cogitativa is located by Avicena in the second
ventricle, thus emphasizing its differentiation from the more lowly imaginatio in the
first. An interesting development of the dual imagination theory is to be found in Del
poema heroico by Torquato Tasso,who speculatesthat there is a variety of imagina-
tion "beyond that which is a power of the sensory soul" and that this second
imagination is responsible for higher symbols such as those which denote the four
evangeli sts.77
In humanist literary theory during the two centuries preceding Tasso's
cinquecento formulation, imagination plays a less prominent role than its image-
forming capacity might lead one to expect. Sensory imaginatio was only of relevance
insofar as an artist might be interested in the actual processof perception, while the
properties of active imaginativa were either ignored or regarded with suspicion by
humanists such as Petrarch who exhibited a marked distrust of fantasy images and
hallucinations. Imagination, named as such, finds no prominent role in the inspira-
tional theory of poetry advocated by Boccaccio. It was Dante, alone of the tre
coronati, who credited imagination with a major creative function.
A large part of Dante's Vita nuova is concerned with the inner world of emotional
experience, a context in which dreams, visions and related phenomena are asreal to
the author as perceptions of an empirical ki!-l-dand often contain more profound
truth. Dante's creative process, as subsequently developed in the Divina commedia,
relies heavily upon the visionary and dream-like qualities for which imagination is the
agent. In the Vita nuova he describes, in a manner broadly consistent with medieval
74R. Bacon,Opus majus, V (i), 1,4. cr. Reisch(n. 35 above) 10.

75Avicenna,De anima 1.5 and 4.2.
76Avicenna,Canon 1.176-182.
77SeeE. Gombrich. Svmbolic ImaJ[es(London 1972) 157-158.
362
.2lf.
faculty psychology, how such hallucinatory experiences might occur: "I close my
eyes and begin to wander like a person who is delirious and to imagine [immagin-
are] ." The product of his delirium is a fantasia. 7B He makes it clear that imagination
was capable of giving the emotions complete dominance over the mind: "Love ruled
my soul. ..and beganto assumesuch mastery over me, owing to the power given by
my immaginazione, that 1 was obliged to fulfil all his works perfectly.,,79 As an artist
he attempts to exploit this power to the full, but in the Divina commedia even the
visionary capacities of imagination ultimately fail to capture the final vision of
heavenly truth, becausecompared to heaven"Ie fantasie nostre sono basse."Bo
Dante's conception of fantasia provides an important source for later usages,but
his characterization of imagination as an agent of visionary truth and as an important
weapon in the creative artist's armory had a limited impact upon his later admirers,
before Lorenzo de' Medici's reinstatement of Dante's attitude and Michelangelo's
subsequent assimilation of it. During the first half of the quattrocento, the leading
humanists tended to stress the learned, philosophical and civic aspectsof his life and
works, largely at the expense of immaginazione and fantasia. When the recanting
Niccolo Niccoli praises Dante in the second of Leonardo Bruni's Dialogues,he does
so on the grounds that the poet commanded the three requirements for greatpoetry:
"Fingendi artem, oris elegantiam multarumque rerum scientiam." The first of these is
the prerogative of poets, the second is shared with oratory and the third with
philosophers and historians.BI The special figurative (or fictional) element of poetry
is associated with metaphors, similes, analogies, allegories, myths and such-like, but
this senseof fingere is hardly equivalent to Dante's visionary imagination.
In view of this reluctance to accommodate imagination even in poetic theory, it is
not surprising that the humanists fail to analyze this faculty in relation to the visual
arts. An apparent exception is the discussion of translations of Greek and Latin
classicsin Matteo Palmieri's Della vita civile, in which he compares modem vulgariza-
tions of ancient texts with attempts to copy Giotto. Translations resemble the
originals no more than "a figure copied from the most perfect of Giotto's by one
whose hand has never worked with pen or brush. ...Although it has nose, eyes,
mouth and all its parts, it would neverthelessbe different to the extent that it would
be separately imagined by each person."B2 Wewould be unwise, however, to believe
that Palmieri's intention was to credit painters with advancedpowers of imaginative
'0 Dante, Vita nuova 23. cr. Bundy (n. 72 above)225-256.

'9 Dante, Vita nuova 2.
80Dante,Paradiso 10.43-44.
81Leonardo Aretini ad Petmm Paulum lstmm dialogus II, in T. Klette, Beitrage zur Ge-
schichte und Literatur der ltalienischen Gelehrtenrenaissance (Greifswald 1888) 74.
82M. Palmieri, Della vita civile, ed. F. Battaglia (Bologna 1944) 4: "Una flgura ritratta dall pin
perretta di Giotto, per mano di chi mai non avesseoperato stile ne penello ...avessi naso, occhi,
bocca e tutti i membri, nientedimeno saratanto diversa, quanto ciascuno in se stessiimaginare
potere." cr. Bruni's parallel between literary translations and defiled paintings (Baxandall, Giotto
[no 4 above) 41-43).
364 MAR TIN KEMP
individuality: rather, he is resorting to a typical humanist ploy by illustrating his

point with a pictorial analogy, without intending to make a considered statement
about the nature of the visual arts themselves.
In specialistliterature on the visual arts before 1450, referencesto imagination are
no less rare than in humanists' accounts of poetry. "Imagination" as such plays no
role in Alberti's theory. When he usesthe term at all, he does so merely to introduce
an argument, as in "Let us imagine that lac immaginari] ,,83 The nearest he
comes to using another term which can be translated as "to imagine" is when he
applies fingere to Zeuxis's representation of living things -"fmgendis aut pingendis
animantibus." However, fingere as used by Bruni, Valla and Alberti might more
properly be rendered as "to form an image of' or even "to fabricate," with no
specialreference to faculty psychology or Dantesqueimmaginazione.8'
Manetti later refers on one occasion to imagination in Brunelleschi's inventive
procedures, but he largely divorces it from its usual senseby allying it to experience
and knowledge. Brunelleschi's experience with clocks and mechanical gadgetsis said
to have "gli detto grandissimo aiuto al potere immaginare diverse macchine."85 This
reference to imagination in the Life of Brnnelleschi, isolated though it is, may well
reflect the tendency for invention and imagination to move into closer association
during the later half of the quattrocentro; this process is first fully apparent in
Francesco di Giorgio's Trattan, to a large extent paving the way for Leonardo's
marriage of the concepts.
The reader may already have sensedthat Francesco di Giorgio's notion of infinite
inventiveness contains a factor which cannot be entirely encompassed by a
methodical process of cognition. Francesco appears to acknowledge this in his
statement of the intellectual qualifications for architecture; the architect requires
"prespicace e singulare ingegno e invenzione" becausearchitecture "e solo una sottile
immaginazione concetto nella mente la quale in nell'opra si manifesta."86 The three
components in architectural design,icnogroFla,ortogrofia and scenogroFla,are "born
of immaginazione and invenzione," the former of which is defined as"cura piena di
diligenzia e effetto d'industria della cosa proposta con volonta." This statement is a
translation of Vitruvius -"Hae nascuntur ex cogitatione et inventione. Cogitatio est
cura studii plena et industriae vigilantiaeque effectus propositi cum voluptate" -with
the substitution of immaginazione for cogitatio. 87
In adopting Vitruvius's defmition of cogitano for his exposition of immagina-
zione, Francesco is giving imagination an unusually rational slant. But he does not
83Alberti (n. 48 above)1.5 (p. 40); cf. 2.32 (p. 68).

84Ibid. 2.25 (p. 60). Lorenzo Valla applies fingere to "things formed with ingenio and human
artifice, especially if they are unusual or new," but he nowhere hints that it could be associated
with "imagination" (De linguae latinae elegantiae5.43).
85Manetti (n. 7 above)50-53.
86Di Giorgio, Tratt. (n. 12 above) 1.36.
87Ibid. 1.39; and Vitruvius 1.2.2.
drain it entirely of its variable qualities, asis proved by his later discussionof how to
convey architectural images to the mind of the reader of a treatise. Drawings convey
the form as intended through the eye, but verbal descriptions pass "drieto alIa
imaginativa."88 Imagination subsequently reforms the image of the original inven-
zione, making "varie composizioni" rather than a single defmitive image correspond-
ing precisely to the appearance of the object described. In addition to acting as the
agent responsible for a variety of images, imagination is also responsible for an
inventive man's accessto the concept of infInity: "La mente. ..immagina numero
infinito in modo che a ogni numero far addizione."89 The ability to imagine thus
aids human comprehension of macrocosmic design and results in microcosmic
infinity of invention. Imagination, for Francesco, appears to be an extension of
rational thought towards infinite potentiality rather than a negation of the rational
processof "excogitation."
Only once during the quattrocento is imaginative invention in the visual arts
conceived in such a way that it stands in direct opposition to "excogitation." The
odd man out is Francesco Colonna, whose extraordinary architectural romance,
Hypnerotomachia poliphili (14671), is not only a monument to its author's own
fertility of imagination but is also an important milestone in the promotion of
invention as a transcendent power of the mind. One of his favorite phrasesto convey
the fantastic wonder of the marvels fabricated in his dream world is inventione
inexcogitabile; the strange hollow elephant is an invention "inexcogitabile sencia
existimatione," and the porch of the immense pyramid is designed "cum inexcog-
itabile subtilitate dello intellecto, & arte.,,90 Such a positive separation between the
rational limits of "excogitation" and the unaccountable power of invention is
altogether new in Renaissancewriting on the arts. This novel form of "inexcogitable"
invention is on one occasion associated by Colonna with imagination, though he
nowhere explicitly develops this into a full-scale theory of the role of imagination in
the artistic process.91
Colonna shares with Filarete, that other architectural eccentric of the quattro-
cento, an infectious joy for curious inventions, marvels, oddities, conundrums and
hieroglyphs; and both indulge in the kind of fantastic inventiveness disparaged by
Alberti as beyond the limits of feasibility. Filarete's implausibly revolving tower,
capped by a rearing equestrian monument, is a casein point, though he is at pains to
legitimize his bizarre invention by providing it with an antique pedigree; the
"Golden Book," discovered by Filarete and translated by the Greek scholar
"Iscofrance Notilento" (that is, Francesco da Tolentino, called Filelfo) names the
original inventore as "Onitoan Nolievra," Antonio Averlino's (that is, Filarete's)
..Di Giorgio, Tratt. 2.489.

.9 Ibid. 2.482.
90Colonna (n. 26 above)fols. 16v and 10.
9' Ibid. fol. 14: "Stupefacto dunque non poco, ruminando e cum summa dilecto curiosa
riguardando tale ingente machina conflata in animale da humano ingenio, dignissimoimaginato."
366 MAR TIN KEMP
anagramatic precursor from ancient times.92 This procedure of creating a pedigreeis

essentially similar to the manner in which Colonna gives a sense of reality to his
architectural fantasies by supposing them to be products of an older, golden age.
Neither author, in theory at least, has lost sight of the principle of imitating
Antiquity.
Iike Colonna, Filarete implies that the inventive process is to be associatedwith
imagination. When discussingthe invenzione of the figures of Vice and Virtue he says
that he had already often been "imrnaginando" how they might be represented. 9'
However, immaginare is not a verb which occurs regularly in Filarete's treatise. He is

far more concerned with fantasia, a notion which he quite exceptionally applies to
both form and content in a work of art.
Fantasia has already been briefly encountered in the context of medieval faculty
psychology. Since the single term t/>avraaiaas used by Aristotle could be translated
both as "imagination" and fantasia, any separation between them is difficult in a
medieval context. But in Renaissance art theory some degree of separation was
achieved,largely becausetheorists could draw upon a classicaltradition of specialized
artistic usage of fantasia, whereas "imagination" remained largely within its psycho-
logical context. Only once, to my knowledge, is cf>aVTaaia used in terms of Aristo-
telian perception in quattrocento art theory; this occurs in the exceptional writings
of the Greek scholar, Manuel Chrysoloras, who speaksof the "image which it [the
mind] grasped through the soul's imagination (t/>avraaTLKov).,,94This role for
fantasia in a processof artistic perception is amplified neither by Chrysoloras himself
nor by any other author before Leonardo. Indeed,fantasia in its strictly Aristotelian
sense of "faded sensation" seemsto offer little promise for a theory of art. Nor did
the Stoic senseof t/>avraaiaas an "impression," "presentation" or "visual percept"
prove to be a more fertile idea in the context of the visual arts, in spite of the passage
in Diodorus Siculus's Library of History (known to Alberti) in which the Egyptian
artists' use of absolutely fIXed measuresfor figure sculpture were contrasted with the
Greeks' reliance upon the "impression [fantasia] presented to the artist's eye.,,95
The Platonic tradition, however, provided ample ground for the application of
fantasia to artistic matters. Plato's own attitude betrays some of the same incon-
sistencies as his attitude towards poetry, which was banned from the Republic but
92Filarete (n. 5 above) fol. 171v. On all other occasionsthe surnameis "Nolivera."
93Ibid. fol. 142v.
94SeeBaxandall, Giotto (n. 4 above) 82 and 151.
95Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 1.98 (cf. E. Panofsky, "History of the Theory of
Human Proportions," Meaning in the Visual Arts [Harmondsworth 1970] 98), reflected by
Alberti, De statua 5 (ed. Grayson In. 48 above] 124-125). Zeno's usageof fantasia is recorded by
Cicero. Academica 1.11.
praised as a "light and winged and holy thing" in the Ion. "6 Fantasia in Plato's
philosophy was a faculty of the lowly "appetitive soul" w,hichresided in the liver. Its
insidious action was such that the mind could "easily fall under the spell of imagesor
phantasms day or night," but it also more desirably gave man the power of
prophecy: "When the power of understanding is inhibited in sleep or when we are in
abnormal condition owing to disease or divine inspiration we form fantasmata
(C/>avraajJ.ara),"which can be utilized by the intellect to provide remarkable
insights."? This is the species of "insane" inspiration which Shakespeare later
acknowledged: "The lunatic, the lover and the poet are of imagination all com-
pact.""'
Fantasia, identified as a form of inspired insight, not only entered literary theory
but was also adapted for use in the context of the visual arts, most notably by the
Philostrati and Quintilian. Philostratus begins by baldly asserting that "painting is
jJ.ljJ.17ai~,"
though he adopts a broad defmition of mimesis which embracesimagesof
"centaurs and heraldic animals" such as can be discerned in the irregular massingof
clouds."" Later he is challenged to explain the images of gods sculpted by Phidias
and Praxiteles; did they go "to heaven and take a copy?" Philostratus's answer is
fantasia: "MlJ1.17ai~ can only create handiwork which it has seen, but C/>aVTaaia
equally that which it has not." 100The process of conceptual insight in the visual arts
is specifically stated in the proemium to the Imagines to be equivalent to that of
poetry: "The art of painting has a certain kinship with the art of poetry. ..an
element of fantasia is common to both." 101 This formulation givesfantasia a vital
role in the equation ut pictura poesis.

Quintilian writing later and in Latin acknowledges that fantasia is a Greek notion:
"There are certain experiences which the Greeks call ct>aVTaaia~ and we call visiones,
whereby things absent are represented to our mind with such extreme vividness that
they seem to be before our eyes."102 Though the process of EVlPaVTaaiwrovis
basically a vice, he neverthelesssuggeststhat it can be turned to good account. It can
be utilized to conceive any past or future event -a gift which is extremely useful for
the orator, author or painter. When he subsequently discussesthe greatartists of the~
9. Plato, Ion, 533-534. Cf. R. Harriot, Poetry and Criticism before Plato (London 1969)
78-91.
9., Timaeus38.
98 Twelfth Night 5.1.2-8.
99Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 2.22. Is this the source of inspiration for the
cloud imagesin Mantegna'sVienna St. SebastianandMinerva Expelling the Vices (Paris, Louvre)?
It is known that Isabella d'Este, the patron of the Minerva, was greatly interested in the Imagines.
A Latin edition of the Life of Apollonius was published in Bologna in 1501. See also n. 152
below.
100Philostratus, Life of Apoll. 6.19. Fantasia in Greek theory is discussedby B. Scheitzer,
"Mimesis und Phantasia," Philologus 89 (1934) 286-300; and J. Pollitt, The Ancient View of
GreekArt: Criticism, History and Terminology (New Haven 1974) 53-55, 293-297.
101Philostratus the Younger, Imagines, proemium, 6.
102Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 6.2.29f. (rediscoveredin 1416).
368 MARTIN KEMP
past, he credits various painters with different qualities -cura (protogenes), ratio
(Pamphilos and Melanthios), ingenium and gratia (both in Apelles) -while one,
Theon of Samos,.was famed for his power in forming visions, "quas I/>avraaia<:
vocant.,,103 A similar judgment of Theon's art had been provided by Aelian, who
stated that the artist ordered a bugle to be sounded in front of his painting, Soldiers
Hurrying to War, in order to enhance the vividness of the Ij>avraaia.104 These
references suggestthat the use of fantasia in the context of the visual arts may well
be dated to the period of Theon, that is, the first half of the fourth century B.C.
In spite of the classical tradition, fantasia appears only erratically in Renaissance
art theory. Even its increasing use towards the end of the century stops short of
giving it a major role asa consistent component in the vocabulary of art. The story of
the introduction of fantasia in the fifteenth century is far from tidy, and the major
source of untidiness is to be found precociously in the introduction to Cennino
Cennini'sLibro dell'arte.
Painting, Cennini considers, requires "fantasia e hoperazione di mano." These
qualities are required "to discover unseen things, hiding under the shadow of nature,
and to fix them with the hand, demonstrating what does not actually exist." 105The
source for his conception lies ultimately within classical poetics, most notably
Horace's Ars poetica, as transmitted through medieval intermediaries. Cennini con-
siders that painting "deserves to be placed in the next rank to science and to be
crowned with poetry. The justice lies in this: that the poet is free to compose and
bind together or not as he pleases,according to his will. In the sameway.the painter
is given freedom to compose a figure standing, sitting, half-man, half-horse as it
pleases him, following his fantasia."106 This statement of artistic license closely
resemblesHorace's assertion that "pictoribus atque poetis quidlibet audendi semper
fuit aequa potestas." though Horace himself was reluctant to extend the liberty so
far as to include improbable combinations of human and animal forms. 101 Horace's
formulation was undoubtedly influential during the Middle Ages; Durandus, for
example, acknowledged that in composing "diverse histories" from the Old and New
Testaments, "pictoribus atque poetis quidlibet addendi semper fuit equa
potestas.,,108 This substitution of addendi (adding) for audendi (daring) also charac-
terizes Cennini's freer paraphrase and suggeststhat he was using just such a medieval
version.
103Ibid. 10.3-9.
104Aelian, Variae historiae 2.44.
105Cennino Cennini, lllibro dell'arte, ed. P. Thompson (New Haven 1932) 2: "Trovare cose
non vedute, chacciandosisotto ombra di natura, e fermale con la mano dando a dimostrare quello
che nonne sia."
106Ibid. 2: "E con ragionemerita metterla in second grado all scienzia,e choronarla di poesia.
La ragione e questa: che'l poeta ellibero di potere comporre elleghare insieme, si e non, come gli
piace secondo suo volonta. Per 10 simile al dipintore dato e liberta potere conporre una figura
ritta, a sedere,mezzo huomo, mezzo cavallo, si chome gli piace, secondosuo fantasia."
10?Horace,Ars poetica 9-10.
108Durandus,Rationale divinorum officiorum 1.23.
FROM"MIMESIS" TO "FANTASIA" 369
Cennini also uses fantasia and a strange derivative, fantastichetto, when later
discussingthe advantageof studying from the works of one master rather than many.
If you copy one master today and another tomorrow "verrai per forza fantastichetto
per amor, che ciaschuna maniera ti traciera la mente." 109 On account of its
eccentricity, fantastichetto per amor is not an easyphrase to understand; perhapsits
sensemay best be rendered as"bewildered through enthusiasm" (for different styles).
If the artist copies one master, however, his style will eventually gain its own
individuality through the faculty of his own fantasia -providing that "nature has
conceded him any." 110 Fantasia thus appears to be a variable factor; capable of
confusion and delusion, but also responsible for individuality under favorable circum-
stances.
Cennini's remarkable exploitation of fantasia almost certainly takes its immediate
inspiration from medieval rather than first-hand classical sources. Horatian poetic
license, as disparagedby medieval authorities such asIsidore of Seville, Saint Bernard
and the anonymous author of Pictor in camzine,had become associatedin the visual
arts with that facet of medieval style which may be called "gargoyle grotesque" -
the style which received supreme late expressions in Schongauer's Temptation of
Saint Anthony, the Erasmianphantasmata of DUrer's Knight Death and the Devil and
Leonardo's monsters. 111 The Pictor in caroline (ca. 1200), for example, takes up
Saint Bernard's diatribe against the adornment of churches with monsters such as
"centaurs with quivers," concluding that "it is the criminal presumption of painters
that has gradually introduced suchphantasmatum." 112 Against these disapproving
voices, Cennini could have drawn comfort from the qualified approval of Durandus
and the poetic enshrinement of fantasia by Dante. However, such possible medieval
sources for Cennini's ideas in no way diminish the precocity and novelty of his
far-reaching claims. At least half a century was to elapse before fantasia began to
appear with any regularity in the literature on the visual arts, and by that time
original Greek precedents were becoming more familiar.
The only sustained attempt to exploit fantasia as a major element in creative
theory after Cennini and before Leonardo is to be found in Filarete's Trattato. Just
as Francesco di Giorgio's concepts of imagination and infmite inventiveness are so
appropriate to his artistic personality, so Filarete's personal predilection for fantasia
is extremely apt for his own architectural speculations. Fantasia for Filarete is an
109Cennini (n. 105 above) 15.

110"... poi atte interverra chessepunto di fantasiala natura I'ara concieduto, verrai a pighare
huna maniera propia per te e non potra esserealtro che buona." Ibid. 15.
III I am grateful to David Summers for generously providing me with advance information
regarding medieval sources from his forthcoming book, Michelangelo and the Theory of Art:
Fantasy and Order. See Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae 19.16: "Pictura autem dicta quasi
fictura." The Pictor in carmine has beenedited by M. R. James,"Pictor in carmine," Archeologia
94 (1951) 142-166. Erasmusand Durer's phantasmataare discussedby E. Panofsky, 71IeLife and
Art ofAlbrecht Durer, 2 vols. (princeton 1943) 1.152.
111James143.
370 MARTIN KEMP
all-pervasive factor, embracing every facet in the conception of a work of art or

architecture.
The initial idea for the work is a fantasia. He characteristically uses the now-
familiar Macedonian architect, as an illustration; when he first beginsto think about
Sforzinda, he expressesconfidence that his "fantasia" of the new city will pleasehis
patron "like the one made by Dinocrates for Alexander the Great." 113 Even his
biological parallel for the production of a building -the patron conceiving the germ
of the building while the architect is responsible for "parturition" -permits the
faculty of fantasia a vital role. During the "nine or seven" months of pregnancy, the
mother architect's task is "fantasticare e pensaree rivoltarselo per la memoria." As a
result of these cerebral processes,various designsare formed "nella sua mente sopra
al generamento," after which the architect gives birth to a baby building, an
architectural model! 114 A practical if mundane instance of the "father and mother"
in action is when the signore conceives the idea for the kitchens, an idea which is
then subjected to Filarete's own processof "fantastication" before the birth.11 5
The fantasticare-pensarecoupling is common in his treatise. Clearly they are not

one and the same thing. Filarete's usages suggest that fantasticare is a form of
imaginative conception which complements and extends the rational procedures of
thought. As a conceptual process it is active during the exercise of geometrical
design; Archimedes was killed while "disegnando e fantasticando circuli e tri-
angholi.,,116 Elsewhere he couples it with the rational procedure of measuring. 117
And the "Golden Book" records one of the artist's roles as "investigare e cercare
nuove fantasie e nuove cose."IIB All this conveys the impression that fantasia is not
wildly irrational; it acts in conjunction with thought, deliberation, investigation,
researchand discovery, extending the boundaries of rational intellect.
Filarete's couplings are interestingly consistent both with earlier usagesin the
theory of dance and with later musical terminology. Domenico da Piacenza'sdance
treatise (ca. 1440) uses fantasmata as a technical term defined as "una prestezza
corporale laquale e mossa cum 10 intelecto." 119 The chancesare that Domenico's
usagewas not isolated and that further researchin this and other little-known fields
of Renaissanceliterature on the arts will yield further examples. Later, when musical
compositions called fantasie begin to appear during the sixteenth century, they are
often interchangeably termed recercari (or ricercari and other spellings). These
musical pieces are not to be identified as free flights of improvised fancy but are
compositions which embody a process of musical discovery in the development of
113Filarete (n. 5 above) fol. 11: "Credo che la fantasia gii piacera come fece quella di
Democrate ad Alexandro magnio."
114Ibid. fol.7v.
115Ibid. fol. 70.
116Ibid. fol. 151v.
111Ibid. fols. 7v and 46v.
118Ibid. fol.114.
119I am grateful to Michael Baxandall for this reference.
themes and variations, closely equivalent to Filarete's development of his own or his
patron's original ideas.
Fantasia, for Filarete, is concerned with formal invention in architecture. It is also
vital in the invenzione of content in the figurative arts. It may be exercised either by
the patron -the image of a bull lead by a putto is one of the patron's fantasie -or
by the artist or both in cooperation. The idea for the images of Reason and Will
(fig. 5) originated from the patron's suggestion, while the complex iconographical
details were developed by Filarete: "pensato e fantasticato sopra acqueste fan-
tasie.,,120 On the other hand, the Houses of Vice and Virtue -"la mia fantasia" -
and most particularly his novel representation of virtus generalis are claimed as
entirely the responsibility of Filarete from start to finish. 121
He is not unjustified in his claims for originality in this respect. The tradition of
individual representations of each cardinal and theological virtue and vice was well
established-Giotto's versions on the basimento of the Arena Chapel are probably
the most famous examples -but there was no established format for the depiction
of virtue and vice as general concepts, each embodied in a single figure. A partial
precedent was provided by the competing maidens in the story of Hercules at the
crossroads, as related by Xenophon and Cicero, and retold by Petrarch and Salutati.
Also, an isolated trecento forerunner could have been found in Francescoda
Barbarino's Documenti d'amore (1314), but this seems to have exercised no
influence during the quattrocento and was only recently discovered as a result of the
researchesof Mommsen and Panofsky.'22
Filarete was aware of the classical precedent, but justifiably did not regard the
classical images as sufficiently convincing outside the context of the Hercules
narrative; the images "did not satisfy my mind [mente], to such an extent that I
began with my talent [ingenio] to conceive imaginatively and deliberate lfantastic-
are e pensare], so that finally it cameinto my mind to present vice and virtue [each]
in a single figure."
To our eyes, the resulting images (fig. 3) contain a certain element of the
"fantastic," and they must have appeared somewhat improbable in their quattro-
cento context, when it is remembered that Virtue, perched precariously on his
righteous diamond, was to be realized on a huge scale as a sculptural form at the
summit of the House of Virtue. But their designer's intention was certainly not that
they should be amusing and improbable fantasies, but that they should lucidly
present true symbolism of worthy ideas. This attempt to capture truth explains why
120Filarete (n. 5 above)fols. 44v (bull and putto) and 69r-v (will and reason).cr. fols. 67 and
110.
121Ibid. fols. 142v-143.
122E. Panofsky, Hercules am Scheiderwege und andere antike Bildstoffe in del neuren
Kunst (Leipzig 1930) esp. 187-196; and T. Mommsen, "Petrarch and the Story of the Choice of
Hercules," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 16 (1953) esp. 179-182. Also
Spencer'sfootnote to Filarete (n. 5 above)p. 246.
372 MARTIN KEMP
the complicated images of Reason and Will, suggested by the patron and
"fantasticated" by Filarete, are later astonishingly discovered (or rediscovered) in
identical form on the covers of the ancient "Golden Book.,,123 The principle in
operation is that great minds of the Renaissanceand Antiquity think alike. The
process of "fantastication" thus involves a kind of miraculous insight, which is in no
way in conflict with mimesis of Antiquity -both were striving to conceive the true
and the beautiful.
The concept of fantasia is no less prominent in the "Golden Book" than in his
"own" section of the treatise. The ancient author indicates that the artist must be
learned "in lettere" in order to invent "nuove fantasie," and he recommends that the
artist should be awarded a sum of one hundred ducats, what might be called a
research grant, in order that he should be free "to investigate and search for new
jantasie and new things."124 "Fantastication" not only takes time, it also makes
strenuous demands upon the mental capacities; he requires "arompere il capo a
" .,,125
lantastlcare.
The fictitious source in the "Golden Book" servesto highlight the problem for the
actual source of Filarete's knowledge of fantasia and for his remarkable use of the
verb fantasticare with its derivatives. The all-embracing role of fantasia, which
includes conception and development of both artistic form and poetic content, is
paralleled most closely in Greek theory, though we would be wrong to make too
sharp a separation between classical ideas and their medieval translations. In
Filarete's case, I suspect that original Greek rather than medieval sources are
paramount. He does indeed appear to have acquired knowledge of some Greek
literature little known in his time. For example, he draws his information concerning
the costumes of the maidens in the story of Hercules at the crossroads from
Xenophon's Memorabilia rather than from Cicero's more accessible Latin version in
De officiis, though he mistakenly refers the reader to Seneca.'26 Filarete's errors in
recording classical stories, the misspelled names and incorrect attributions, suggest
that he may often have relied upon a second hand, oral account, which he
imperfectly recorded from memory.
Who better for him to have consulted in Milan for detailed knowledge of Greek
texts than the translator of the "Golden Book," Francesco Filelfo? The view that
Filarete was attempting a Greek revival in theory and practice has recently been
advanced by John Onians, who has drawn attention to Platonic derivations in the
113Filarete fols. 69v and lO8v. The marginal illustration of the "Golden Book" does not
conform to the description in the text.
114Ibid. fol. 114.
11SIbid. fol. 128v.
116Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.1.21-34. See Panofsky (n.122 above) 194, and Mommsen
(n. 122) 182 n. 1. Seneca may, as Panofsky suggests,be a mistake for "Senofonte." Or it may
well reflect confusion with Seneca'stragedies,Herculesfurens and Hercules oetaeus,in neither of
which does the crossroadsstory occur.
Trattato, almost certainly inspired by Filelfo, and to the maniera Greca (that is,
Byzantine as much as original Greek) of his architectural style.i27 Such conscious
"Greekness" may well explain his enthusiasm for San Marco in Venice.i28 We may
also add that Filarete's notion of creativity is on occasions remarkably Neoplatonic
in tone, particularly when he expounds the role of love; architectural design is "un
piacere volunptario chome quando l'huomo e innamorato," in which the soul moves
towards the thing loved.i29 If this precocious Neoplatonism reflects Filelfo's tastes,
might not Filarete's conception of fantasia and fantasticare be attributed to the same
influence? Filelfo certainly seemsto have been predisposedtowards regarding artistic
invention as a vivid process of inner cogitation in which artists refer not to actual
models "sed ingenii acrimonia et cogitatione sua pro exemplari sunt usi" -an
opinion which Filarete would have found sympathetic. i30 Oral transmissionof ideas
is a perilous field for the historian, but there seemsto be no better explanation for
Filarete's "Greekness," imperfect though it is.
No other quattrocento theorist before Leonardo deals with fantasia in such an
extended and coherent manner. Francesco di Giorgio appearsto use the term only
once, in connection with the peripheral delights of gardendesign;gardensshould be
planned according to geometrical principles, but the designer should also investigate
(recerca) fountains, pergolas, "secret places in accordance with the taste of poets and
philosophers" and other fantasie for the "delectation" of the patron.13i
Similarly isolated references occur in contracts. In 1469 Antonfrancesco de' Dotti
maintained the quattrocento patron's customarily strict control over subject matter
in commissioning paintings from Pietro Calzetta for the Gattamelata Chapel in the
Santo at Padua. But having stipulated the subjects, he stated that the artist was free
to exercise his fantasia in the production of a drawing: "Petrus facere unum
disegnum cum fantasia seuinstoria ei danda et dare ipsi domino Antonio Francesco."
The drawing would thus be submitted to the donor for approval, ensuring that the
painter's fantasia had not obscured Antonfrancesco's intentions.i32 The impression
is that fantasia is to be exercised on minor matters only, probably on ornaments or
details of a secondary or decorative nature. This certainly is the sense in which
fantasia is used in the 1502 contract for Pinturrichio's work in the Piccolomini
Library; the painter was "obliged to render the ceiling of the library with fantasie
and colours and small panels as lovely, sumptuous and beautiful as he judges best," in
127J. Onians, "Alberti and ~IAAPETH," Journal of the Warburgand Courtauld Institutes 34
(1971)104-114.
128Filarete (n. 5 above) fols. 17, 64r-v, 182v. His praise of the mosaics in the vaults and on
the floors is consistent with the Byzantinizing elements in his bronze doors for St. Peter's.
129/bid. fol. 8.
130Filelfo, De morali disciplina (Venice 1552) 12 (kindly provided by Michael Baxandall).
131 Di Giorgio, Tratt. (n. 12 above)2.348 (the text is illustrated, pl. 2).
132V. Lazzarini, "Documenti relativi alIa pittura padovana del secolo XV," Nuovo archivo
Veneto 15.2 (1908) 82. Seealso Baxandall (n. 2 above)8.
374 MARTIN KEMP
the style "known today as grotesque."133 Such jantasie were probably more in the
nature of decorative whimsies rather than the vehicles of truth and beauty intended
by Filarete.
Fantasia exploited in connection with content, as synonymous for poetic
invenzione, is rather more consistent than its application to formal composition. As
early as 1441, Matteo de'Pasti was referring to his Petrarch illustrations asfantasie:
"I warmly beg you [Piero de'Medici] to send me the fantasie for the others. ..
please send me your instructions to complete that of Fame, because I h~ve this
fantasia already." 134 Sometimes it is difficult to tell whether the literary or formal
senseis intended, as when Bramante is ordered to produce "qualche digna fantasia da

mettere in spettaculo" to celebrate the birth of the Milanese duke's heir in 1492. 135
But there is little doubt that it is the poetic usage that appears prominently in the
letters of Isabella d'Este and her circle, as in 1493 when Beatrice d'Este wrote to
Isabella seeking permission to use her "fanatasia del passo cum Ii vinci" -an
interlock motif invented for Isabella a year earlier by her close literary friend,
Niccoli> da Correggio and on which she obviously held a kind of patent. 136 The
fantasia dei vinci is unlikely to have been a merely formal pattern or costume
decoration but rather a heraldic divisa, that is, a symbol or emblem with an allusive
meaning. Its importance for her is confirmed by the intertwined strips which
conspicuously form the intricate fabric of her dress in the portrait by Guilo Romano
(Hampton Court). The meaning may lie in the associations of vinca (osier or
willow-strip as in basket-weaving)with vincolo asused in the phrasesvincolo d'amore
(bond of love) and vincolo di sangue (blood-tie). The love knots of Angelica and
Medoro in Orlando Furioso by Ariosto (the greatestof all the d'Este court poets and
a friend of Niccoli> da Correggio) are symbols of this kind, and humanist portraits
abound in such allusions; an example is provided by the ivy clinging lovingly to the
tree in Correggio's portrait of GinevraRangone (Leningrad, Hermitage).'37
Later, in connection with the studiolo, Mantegna, Costa and Perugino were each
provided with a detailed fantasia (or inventione, historia, fabella) while Bellini
promised to make "una bela fantasia" on his own account -"una fantasia a suo
modo." 138 And Mantegna himself, writing in 1506, informs Isabella that he will
133G. Milanesi, Documenti per la staria dell'arte senese3.9 (trans. Chambers [no 54 above]
26).
134G. Milanesi, "Lettere d'artisti italiani dei secoli XIV e XV," n Buonarotti ser. 2, 4 (Rome
1968)78-79.
135M. Levey,High Renaissance(Harmondsworth 1975) 145.
136A. Luzio and R. Renier, "Illusso di Isabella d'Este," Nuova antolagia ser. 4, 67 (June
1896) 462. As late as 1512, SusannaGonzaga still deemed it prudent to ask permission to use
Isabella's "inventione." Luzio and Renier provide a number of referencesindicative of Isabella's
fame as an inventrix of costume. See also J. Shearman, "Raphael at the Court of Urbino,"
Burlington Magazine 112 (1970) 76.
137Ariosto, Orlando jilrioso 19.36. Correggio's sitter wasidentified by G. Finzi, "II ritratto di
Gentildonna del Correggio all'Ermitage di Leningrado," Nuave lettere emiliane 1 (1962).
138Letters of 27 August 1501 and 10 September1502. See Fletcher (n. 62 above)707-8.
proceed further with the design for his Comas "when fantasia comes to my aid." 13.
The notion that the artist needs to await an almost involuntary burst of fantasia
before he could work had previously been recorded by Michele Savonarola, who
noted that excellent artists were melancholic in temperament (thus anticipating
Neoplatonic theories) and that they were dependent for motivation upon fantasia.
This temperamental peculiarity resulted in artists commonly being called bizari. 14.
In accordance with this attitude, Federigo Gonazga advised the duchessof Milan to
bear in mind when dealing with Mantegna that "communemente questi magistri
eccelenti hanno del fantasticho" (1480).141 The t~rm fantasia had in fact first been
associated with Mantegna's art in Giovanni Santi's endearingly personal account of
contemporary artists in his Cronaca rimata, written during the early 1490s; that is
when Giovanni was coming into increasingly close contact with the de'Este-Gonzaga
. 1 142
ClrCe.
The popularity of the term in Isabella's circle may well have been directly due to
her keen interest in Philostratus, as manifested by the translation of Imagines made
for her by Demetrius Moschos, her resident Greek scholar, and by her efforts to
regain this translation after lending it to Alfonso in connection with the decoration
of his Ferrara camerino. 143 An alternative or complementary source may lie within
her knowledge of dance theory which she would have gained as a pupil of Ebreo and
Lavagnolo.
Of all the instances cited, only Filarete usesfantasia asan indispensablepart of his
vocabulary of art, and only he seemsto be moving towards a notion of artistic genius
working platonically with inspired insight like the poet. The related concepts of
genius and creative inspiration will be the subject of the last section of this study.
Before moving on to these, it is appropriate that we should examine the other major
instance in quattrocento art theory in which an imaginative processis applied equally
to the form and content of a work of art. The theory is that of Leonardo.
139Letter of 13 January 1506: "seguitando quanto la fantasia me adiutera." See Kristeller

(n. 54 above)doc. 76, and Verheyen (n. 48 above) 19.
140M. Savonarola,Physionomia (probably written 1442), Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale MS
lat. 7357, fol. 14va: "Nam in arte aliqua excellentescerte aliquid melancholie habere videntur eo
quod tales aliqua ex parte prudentia carere a vulgo dicuntur. Sunt enim ut melancholici in
opinionibus fixi neque precibus ad exercendum artis operationes molliuntur ut in cantoribus et
fidibus doctis sepe contingere videmus, neque eas operationes non nisi propria a fantasia moti
perfectas conficiunt. Et hos bizaros vulgares nominant aitque vulgus neminem artificem excellen-
tern esseposse nisi aliqua ex parte bizaria vexetur a qua culpa Bizarie excellensmedicus omnino
vacuus est debet." See L. Thorndike, A History ofMagic and Experimental Science4 (New York
1934) 196. For the pedigreeand sixteenth-century developments of these concepts, seePanofsky
(n.111 above)165-170.
141Kristeller (n. 54 above)doc. 36.
.142Cronaca22.96.74f. (n. 65 above)pp. 187-188.
143See A. Luzio and R. Renier, La coltura e Ie relazioni letterie di Isabella d'Este Gonzaga
(Turin 1903) 22. Ariosto, Orlando FuriO.\'o7.19: "Non vi mancavachi cantando, dire/d'amore
saDesseeJiudiie passioni,/ 0 con invenzione e poesie/rappresentasse
grate fantasie."
376 MARTIN KEMP
IEONARDO: INVENTION, IMAGINATION AND CREATION
Leonardo's greatest aspiration for painting was that it should become the primary
vehicle for the demonstration of natural truth. As the "sole imitator of all the
apparent works of nature," painting is "a subtle inventione which with philosophy
and subtle speculation considers the natures of all forms." 144 He further defines the
role of the inventor as the interpreter between nature and man, an intermediary
whose mind must "transmute itself into the very mind of nature."145 Such an
all-embracing vision of invention and art mitigates against any sharp division between
invention of content and composition of form. This is not to say that he is
unaffected by humanist interpretations of invenzione, but his discussionsare rarely
framed exclusively in humanist terms or limited by humanist compartmentalization
of critical vocabulary. This gives a welcome flexibility to his vocabulary of art, but it
often less desirably results in imprecision and ambiguity of expression.
Leonardo comes closest to the humanist tradition in his earliest attempts to
formulate a paragone of painting and poetry. On a number of occasionshe joins with
gusto into the Horatian debate on artistic license. He states that "in questa tal
finctione libera esso poeta se equiparato al pittore." 146 And in the Ashbumham
Codex he grants that the poet is "libero come'l pittore nelle inventioni." 147 On the
verso of the same sheet from this early codex he answersthe poet's claim to make a
"fintione che significava cose grande" with the immaculately humanist reply that the
painters of Antiquity possessed similar powers -"come fecie Apelle la calum.
nia.,,148 The verb significaTeis itself thoroughly humanist; it had been used by Bruni
in connection with his program for Ghiberti's doors and by Isabella d'Este in her
efforts to extract a painting of consequencefrom Bellini.I4.
Although Leonardo once exceptionally claimed that the invention of fintioni was
"the least part of painting," his attitude towards subject-matter generally seemsto
have corresponded to Alberti's high regard for istoria. ISO Perhaps after 1500, when
he appears to have restudied Alberti's De pictura with particular care,he arguesthat
"inventione 0 conponirnento di storia" is the "fine di tale scientia" (that is,
painting), and that the inventione and misura which comprise the poet's scientia are
precisely paralleled by the painter's inventione and misura: "inventione della materia
144Leonardo da Vinci, Treatise on Painting (Vatican Library, cod. Urbinas lat. 1270), ed.
P. McMahon, 2 vols. (princeton 1956; hereafter McM.), Col. 4v, McM. 6; and G. Richter, The
Literary Remains of Leo~ardo da Vinci, ed. 2, 2 vols. (Oxford 1939) para. 652 (B. N. 2038 Col.
20r, ca. 1492; all MS referencesabbreviated as in Richter's concordance,pp. 402-421).
145Richter 11 (C. A. Col. 117), and Urb. Col. 24v (McM. 55).
146Urb. Col. 19 (McM. 41).
147Urb. Col. 8 (McM. 30, B. N. 2038, Col. 19, ca. 1492).
148Urb. Col. 9 (McM. 30, B. N. 2038, Col. 19v, ca. 1492).
149For Bruni, see Krautheirner (n. 57 above) doc. 52; and Isabella's letter of 28 June 1501
(Fletcher [n.62 above] 704: "Qualche istoria 0 fabula antiqua aut de suo inventione ne fmga
una rapresenti cosaantiqua e de bello significato").
ISOUrb. Col. 19 (McM. 41).
[subject-matter?] che lui debbe fingere e misura nelle cose depinge."lsl It might
even appear possible to read into these statements an Albertian usageof invention in
connection with content alone; that is, if inventione della materia applies to
subject-matter and misura to formal composition. But his other accounts of
invention leave no doubt that his conception of the materia for painting is not as
exclusively literary as Alberti's inventione which can give intellectual pleasure
independently of its painted representation. Above all, his famous accounts of
inventioni in stains upon walls should dispel any doubts on this matter. His process
of projecting "varie inventioni" into the irregular patterns of wall stains inevitably
embraces form and content alike, since the forms in the stains will simultaneously
suggestnew subjects. 152 The limitless results are "infinite cose" -battles, figures in
action, demons, dragons as well asmore obvious landscapes.

Leonardo takes great pains in his early writings to emphasize the infinite
inventiveness of the artist. Whether he is following Francesco di Giorgio in this, or
vice versa cannot be decided certainly, given the inadequate state of our present
knowledge of their relationship. But the similarity in their attitudes is asstriking as it
is unlikely to be coincidental. Leonardo boldly claims that the painter's works are
"more infinite than those made by nature" and similarly that the painter invents an
infinite number of works that "nature never created."IS' How he is able to reconcile
these assertions with his repeated opinion that the works of nature are also infinite is
not at all clear. 154 He obviously is not using the term "infinite" in an accurate or
precise manner, as his phrase infinite piu neatly illustrates. But whatever the
imprecisions of his early statements, the similarity to Francesco'sviews is undeniable.
I suspect that Leonardo's colleague takes priority in this matter. This is suggested
by the fact that Leonardo only succeedssome twenty years later in defining the
relation between the inventions of man and nature aslucidly asFrancesco(though in
a slightly different manner): "Nature is concerned only with the production
[produtione] of elementary things [semplici] but man from these elementary things
151Urb. Col. 13r-v (McM. 33). For a use oCmateria as "subject-matter" (aswell as "medium"),
see Rudolf Agricola's De inventione dialectica (1479), as quoted by M. Baxandall, "Rudolf
Agricola and the Visual Arts," in Intuition und Kunstwissenschaft: Festschrift fiir Hans Swar-
zenski,ed. P. Bloch et al. (Berlin 1973)410.
152Richter (n. 144 above) 508 (B. N. 2038, Col. 22v, ca. 1492), Urb. (n. 144 above)Col. 35v
(McM. 76, B. N. 2038, Col. 22v) -"Modo d'aurnentare e destareI'ongegnio a' varie inventione" -
and Urb. 33v (McM. 93). See E. Gombrich, "Leonardo's Methods oC Working Out Composi-
tions," Norm and Form (n.60 above)58-63. David Summers has kindly drawn my attention to
Leonardo's probable source in Lorenzo de' Medici's account oCimaginative projection written in
the early 1480s ("Comento ad alcuni sonetti d'amore," in Scritti scelti, ed. E. Bigi [Turin 1955]
371), and to the ultimate source in Aristotle (Parva naturalia: De somnis 2.460b). For other
examples seeH. W. Janson, "The 'Image Made by Chance' in RenaissanceThought," reproin his
16 Studies (New York 1975) 55-69.
153Urb. Col. 50 (McM. 102) and Urb. Col. 15v (McM. 28): "Natura mai Ie creo." cr. Urb. Col.
16 (McM. 34) and Urb. Col. 6v (McM. 24).
154Richter (n. 144 above) 653, Urb. Col. 8 (McM. 30, B. N. 2038, Col. 19, ca. 1492) and Urb.
Col. 38v (McM. 236, B. N. 2038, Col. 26, ca. 1492).
378 MARTIN KEMP
[semplici] produces an infinite number of compounds, though he has no power to

create [creare] any elementary thing except another like himself, that is his
h.ld ,,155
c 1 ren.
Generally in his later writings, discussionsof speculative or compositive invention
become less common, in accordance with the tendency for his artistic and scientific
theories to become more wholly inductive. The kind of inventions with which he is
later concerned are often predominantly scientific in nature, like perspective which is
an "inventione sottilissima delli studij matematici." I 56 This contrasts with his early
vision of painting as "ornata d'infinite spectulationi" and embracing all manner of

fantasy images: "If the painter wishes to form images of [tingere] animals or devils
in the inferno, with what abundance of inventione his mind teems." I 57 Not
surprisingly it is during this earlier phase that he is most concerned with

immaginazione and fantasia in the production of a work of art.
That he regarded invention as a component of imagination at this time is
confirmed most clearly by his early statement that the artist should "demonstrate in
the form of a design the notion [intentione] which the inventione first made from
your imaginativa."158 Similar statements that imaginatione or fantasia (using the
terms interchangeably during this early period) has a vital conceptual role abound in
his early manuscripts. Just as the poet records "manually with the pen those things
which are found in his ingiegnio," so in painting "the hands represent [tigurano] that
which is found in the fantasia."159 And, in a similar vein: "Whatever exists in the
universe through essentia,presentia or imaginatione, he [the artist] has it first in his
mind [mente] and then in his hands." 160 The productive processis thus divided into
two components, imaginative conception and manual execution, the first of which is
given a clear priority: "To devise is the work of the master; to execute the work of
the servant."161
Some aspects of his early science are characterized by a strongly speculative
flavor, as I have attempted to show elsewhere, and his early art theory similarly
allows speculation to playa significant role in invention; painting brings "subtle
155Windsor 19045, ca. 1510. The text, to be analyzed more fully later, is as follows: "E
questo non e in alchuno altro senso perche s'astendanonelle choseche al chontinuo producie la
natura la qual non varia Ie ordinarie spetie delle chose da lei createchome sivariano di tempo in
tempo Ie chose create dall'omo, massimo strumento di natura perche la natura sol s'astendealla
produtione de'semplici. Ma romo chon tali semplici producie infiniti composti, ma non ha
potessta di creare nessuno semplici se non un altro se medesimo cioe Ii sua figiio." Trans.
E. MacCurdy, The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, 2 vols. (London 1954) 1.137.
156Urb. fol. 27v (McM. 54, Libro A17, ca. 1510; see C. Pedretti, Leonardo da Vinci on
Painting: A Lost Book, Libro A [London 1965] 38-39).
157Urb. fol. 28v (McM. 53; the MS source,B. N. 2038, fol. 24v, ca. 1492, Richter [no 144
above] 656, is overlooked in McM.'s concordance),and Urb. fol. 6v (McM. 24).
158Richter 502 (B. N. 2038, fol. 26, ca. 1492).
159Richter 654, Urb. fol. 8v (McM. 30, B. N. 2038, fol. 19v, ca. 1492).
160Urb. fol. 5 (McM. 35).
161 MacCurdy (n. 155 above)1.85.
speculation to bear on the nature of all forms"; it is "ornata d'infinite speculazzioni"

and the painter should avail himself of "notable things composed by subtle
speculations."162 Along with this emphasis upon speculation, he regularly invokes
the aid of fantasia, particularly in painting as compared to sculpture, because
"painting is more beautiful, has more fantasia and greater variety." 163 And an
applied art, like that of the copper-smiths, is little esteemedbecauseit permits even
I t fi .16'
essscope 0 antasla.
This use of fantasia might at first sight seem equivalent to Filarete's ideas, and
some knowledge of Filarete's treatise on Leonardo's part is not out of the question,
but on closer examination fundamental differences of approach appear. Whereas
Filarete usesfantasia in a manner which may predominantly depend upon a distant
knowledge of Greek art theory, Leonardo views fantasia and immaginazione within
the context of medieval faculty psychology. A comparison of his cross-sectionof the
human head (fig. 6) with Reisch's version indicates the extent to which Leonardo
was operating within traditional concepts, though he radically adapts the Aristotelian
division of cerebral labor to his own ends.
He accepts the idea that the sensuscommunis and fantasia are closely linked, but
after some early experimentation with various arrangementshe removes them from
the first ventricle and places them with the faculties of intellect in the second
cavity. 165 The first ventricle is then given the role ofimprensiva (or inprensiva), a
receptor of impressions. Unnamed authorities are cited for this arrangement -he
writes that antichi speculatori located the sensuscommunis and judgment "in the
middle of the head between the imprensiva and the memory" -but his system
actually seems to be an important departure from the mainstream of Aristotelian
theory as transmitted by Avicenna and Mundinus. 166 By means of this arrangement,
Leonardo is able more realistically to bring all the cerebral activities into closer
conjunction and it provides him with an anatomical justification for the close
relationship which he forges between imagination and intellect in his art theory.
Imagination operates in conjunction with the artist's intellectual understanding of
the laws of nature to produce an imagined historia which obeys natural truth in every~
162Urb. Col. 4V (McM. 6, B. N. 2038, Col. 20v, ca. 1492), Urb. Col. 28v (McM. 53), and Urb.
Col. 36 (McM. 65, B. N. 2038, Col.26).
163Richter (n. 144 above) 656, Urb. Col. 28 (McM. 53, B. N. 2038, Col. 24v, ca. 1492).
164Richter 654, Urb. fo1. 9 (McM. 30, B. N. 2038, fo1. 19v, ca. 1492).
165See M. Kemp, "/1 concetto dell'anima in Leonardo's Early Skull Studies," Journal of the
Warburgand Courtauld Institutes 34 (1971) esp. 132-134. On 119 1 underrated the amount of
common ground in the accounts of Avicenna, A1bertus Magnus,Baconand Mundinus, and failed
to stressthe radical nature of Leonardo's relocation of the sensuscommunis and fantasia. Prof.
Pedretti has kindly indicated to me that "comocio" (119) should read "como[n) se[n) so." See
also K. Keele, "Leonardo da Vinci's Researchon the Central NervousSystem," Atti del simposio
internationale di stono della neurologia (Varenna 1961) 12-30.
166Richter (n. 144 above) 836 (C. A. Col. 270v). cr. the similar statement on C. A. 270v
(MacCurdy [no 155 above) 1.192). The imprensiva is also discussedin the late MSD.
380 MARTIN KEMP
part. The artist must learn "to make the effects of nature through his fantasia." 167
This translation of fantasia into a conceptual faculty which can operate in harness
with reasoned judgment separates it from its generally lowly status as a source of
impermanent impressions in medieval theory and goes much further than Filarete's
fantasticare-pensarecoupling. This does not mean, however, that he entirely discards
all the traditional functions of imagination; he still interprets one of its roles as a
kind of intermediate memory in the perceptual process and he follows Avicenna in
believing that it is responsible for the formation of images in dreams and delusions
during illness. 168 But his emphasis upon the rational role of imagination in the
production of a work of art is a substantial extension of Avicennian cogitativa and

lies outside the Arab interpretation of fantasia and imaginatio.
He also tries to press imagination in his conjectural brain system into the service
of his paragone. For a time he considered adopting arrangements in which sight
possessedsome physiological privilege, such asalone passingdirectly to the intellect;
but as he increasingly adopts the notion of the imprensiva in the first ventricle, he
discards the idea that any of the sensescan bypass the sensuscommunis. 169 Instead
he proceeds to formulate an argument, again notably close to Francesco'sideas, that
an image described in words must be reconstituted by the imagination whereas a
visual image requires no such processing. The reconstituted image is far less certain
than one received by the eye, because immaginatione is to effetto as a shadowis to
the body casting the shadow. 170 This interpretation of imagination asthe former of
shadowy images during the process of perception is closer to traditional theory than
his early emphasis upon its rational role in the production of a work of art. I believe
that this may reflect a shift in his opinion concerning imagination after 1500 -a
shift which seemsto have occurred at the sametime as the imprensiva becomesmore
firmly established in his system. In this context it is worth noting that his definitive
illustration of the imprensiva dates from the period of the centenarian dissection;
that is to say 1508-1509 (fig. 7).
As his art theory becomes more inductively inclined and less involved with
speculation, so the imprensiva, sensus communis and faculty of judgment become
more important to the artist, while the positive role of imagination or fantasia
appears progressively to decline in prominence. Discussions of imagination are
notably rare in his later manuscripts. A late reference to imagination discussesit only
in the context of the vividness of images produced in dreams, while fantasia fades
from the picture altogether. 171 When he discussesinvention in the late Libro A (as
167Urb. fol. 24v (McM. 48).

168Urb. fol. Iv (McM. 2l), Urb. fol. 6 (McM. 23), Urb. fol. 36 (McM. 65), Richter 839 (W.
19019v) and Br. M. fol. 278v: "Perche vede piu certa la cosa l'ochio ne' sogni che colla
imaginatione, stando desto?"
169Kemp (n. 165 above) 119.
170Urb. fol. Iv (McM. 21).
171Br. M. fol. 278v (seen. 156).
reconstructed by Carlo Pedretti), "judgment" is now seenasthe dominant faculty in

directing the fonuation of images.172 The artist must strive to make his judgment as
accurate as possible through a scientific study of natural law. "Subtle speculation"
and fantasia have no role in achieving this in his late theory.
The concept of invention itself remained with Leonardo throughout his career,
and at no point did he feel that there was any possible conflict between the artist's
inventiveness and the guiding principle of his art, namely the imitation of nature.
That this was so was due in no small part to his particular interpretation of imitation,
which for him was no servile procedure of superficial copying but an active ability to
remake natural effects in the work of art through a deep understanding of natural
causes. In his later theory invention is largely synonymous with the controlled
process of remaking, and even in his earlier writings, where he gavefantasia freer
reign, the faculty of invention still operated in close association with scientific
truth -or at least within the context of natural plausibility. Even images of demons
and dragons should be based upon a careful study of natural fonus.173
He always showed a far greater concern with the scientific foundation and rational
control of invention than with the origins and nature of the process itself. This is
reflected in the fact that he never settled upon a consistent vocabulary to denote the
production of a work of art, whereas his conception of the controlling factors, most
notably judgment and understanding, remained relatively constant. He used at least
seven verbs to indicate the "creation" of a painting. Unexceptionally, the one which
occurs with sufficient regularity to be called his standard usageis fare, the standard
verb of production and, as such, almost invariably used in contracts. What may be
called specialized tenus of artistic production occur occasionally in his writings.
Fingere (already encountered in Bruni and Alberti) and jigurare may be said to fall
into this category, and are not surprisingly associated with fantasia and the
production of fintioni in the early period. 174 His other verbs of artistic
production -creare, partorire, nascere and generare -all carry biological or natural
associations which convey his attitude more clearly than any other factor. 175 The
artist, in a sense,gives birth to works of art, and in common with such processesof
172Libro A 15, Urb. fol. 157 (McM. 437, Pedretti [no 156 above] 35) and Libro A 28, Urb.
fols. 44-54 (McM. 274, 86-87, Pedretti 53). Leonardo's conception of judgment is analyzed by
M. Kemp, "Ogni dipintore dipinge se: A Neoplatonic Echo in Leonardo's Art Theory?" Cultural
Aspects of the Italian Renaissance: Essays in Honour of P. O. Kristeller. ed. C. H. Clough
(Manchester 1976) 311-323. My brief statement (316) of medievalinterpretations of imagination
is oversimplified, particularly with regardto Avicenna.
173Richter (n. 144 above) 585 (B. N. 2038, fol. 29). SeeKemp (n. 165 above)133.
174E. g., Urb. fol. 6v (McM. 24), Urb. fols. 13-4 (McM. 33), Urb. fols. 8-9 (McM. 30) and Urb.
fol. 12v (McM. 42). For Valla's defmition of fingere, seen. 84 above. Fictione (finctione and
other variants) is mentioned on Urb. fol. 9 (McM. 30), Urb. fol. 18v (McM. 41), Urb. fol. 12v
(McM. 42) and Urb. fol. 15 (McM. 28).
175Creare: Urb. fol. 15 (McM. 28, reo proportion in art), Urb. fol. 16v (McM. 39), Urb. fol.
124 (McM. 396), Libro A 15, Urb. fol. 157 (McM. 437), W. 19045 (McCurdy [no 155 above]
137) and cf. Urb. fol. 16 (McM. 34) where the art of painting is praisedas "eccellentissimo sopra
382 MARTIN KEMP
reproduction the offspring will tend to resemble their parents. This principle is
reflected in auto-mimesis in painting; that is the tendency of all artists to produce
figures resembling themselves in appearance, as expressed in the aphorism ogni
dipintore dipinge se.17"
Artistic creation thus takes its place in the natural order of microcosmic things;
the universal creative force of nature generatesall natural speciesof things, and man
produces his works in a broadly analogous manner. During the last decadesof the
quattrocento Lenoardo tends to assume that the macro-microcosmic parallels are
exact. Although he later analyzes the correspondencesmore critically -as we noted
when quoting from Windsor 19045r, he stressesthat man makes infinite compounds
from elementary (or "natural") things but cannot produce any natural elements on
his own account except his own children -but the general parallel is still taken to
hold good. J77 Indeed, the definition of microcosmic principles is often sharpenedby
the more precise comparison between similarities and differences in the constituent
parts and processesof the universe.
His later analysesof the relationship between the productive powers of man and
nature allow him to provide a clear statement of what he seesasthe "divine" power
of man's production of "infinite things." A note on W. 19030v, closely related to
19045r and similarly datable 1508-1509, explains that "man does not vary from the
animals except in accidental things [accidentale] and it is in this that he shows
himself to be a divine thing [cosa divina] ; for where nature finishes its production
with its species [spezie], there man begins with natural things to make with the aid
of this nature infinite speciesof things, which [ability] is not necessaryfor him who
governs himself adequately (?) as do the animals and for which it is not the custom
of these animals to seek." J78 These natural things (or semplici as they are called on
19045r) include all species of plants and animals and all the elements which are
regarded in Aristotelian fashion asthe basic units of nature. He cites asan example of
man's inability to produce semplici the inevitable failure of alchemists to "create"
gold; while as an instance of man's ability to compose infinite things from the basic
semplici he discussesthe enormously diverse sounds and languageswhich arise from
the combined actions of the lips, tongue and windpipe. 179 Man's creative powers are
tutte I'oltre cosecreate da dio." Partorire: Urb. Col.4v (McM. 6), Urb. Col. 2v (McM. 5), Urb. Col.
7v (McM. IS) and Urb. Col. 19 (McM. 19). Nascere: Urb. Col. 15 (McM. 28) and Urb. Col. 19
(McM. 19). Generare: Urb. Col. 5 (McM. 35), and seeUrb. Col. 27v (McM. 987) for generare and
creare as synonymous in a natural process,the production of clouds. The above is merely a list of
examples,not a comprehensiveconcordance.
'7. Libro A 15 and 28 (Pedretti [n.156] 35 and 53). SeeKemp (n.172 above).
'77 Seen. 155 above.
'78 A translation is provided by McCurdy (n. 155 above) 116. The last section presentssome
difficulty: "Le quali non essendo necessariea chi ben si corregge, come far Ii animali, e essi
animali non e disspositione cercane."
'7' W. 19045-6 and 19070v. cr. Urb. Col. 16 (McM. 34): "Li semplici naturali sono finiti e
l'opere che l'ochio commanda sono infmite."
thus not precisely God-like, but operate in their own manner on a different level of
the microcosm. It is in this unique kind of creativity that the "divinity" of the artist
rests. Not surprisingly, this considered and original statement of man's "divine"
productivity occurs during the period when he achievedhis most coherent definition
of the relationship between divinity and man in the context of nature .180
The verb creare is used on three occasionsin the passageon 19045r.'8' A related
use of creatione also occurs in the late libro A, and he similarly talks about the
creatione of painting (and by implication of music) in a section of the Trattato
probably dating from after 1500.182 No such specifically artistic uses of creare or
creatione appear to occur in his earlier writings. The later instances are not
sufficiently numerous to justify a claim that creare is a standard term of artistic
production in his late theory, but its transference from the processesof God and
nature to man's activities is undoubtedly significant in that it reflects his growing
senseof man's unique place in the natural order of things.
The picture of divine creativity in man which emerges from his earlier writings is
far more speculative and less precisely formulated. At one point he expressesa
particularly high-flown notion of the painter's role: "The divinity which is the
science of painting transmutes itself into a semblance of the divine mind in such a
manner that it discourses with free power concerning the generation of the diverse
essencesof various plants, animals, and so on.,,183 This probably reflects the same
Neoplatonic influences as are apparent in his assertion that whatever exists "in the
universe through essence,presenceor imagination, he has it first in his mind and then
in his hands." '8. He even goes so far as to claim that painting is more than a
science -"not only a science but also a divinity, the name of which should be duly
revered and which repeats all the works of God the most high" -and that the artist
is "signore e diD of all the things he wishes to generate." '8' Theseinterpretations of
creativity, with their emphasis upon inner invention which is "made first in your
imaginativa," are wholly consistent with the weight which he places upon
"speculation" in his early definitions of art, noted above.'8.
In the early phase, therefore, invention, fantasia, speculation and divine creativity
go hand in hand. Although Leonardo himself moved away from this approach
'80 SeeM. Kemp, "Dissection and Divinity in Leonardo's Late Anatomies," Journal of the
Warburgand Courtauld Institutes 35 (1972) esp. 211f.
'8' Seenote 155 above.
'82 Libro A 15, Urb. Col. 157 (McM. 437) and Urb. Col. 18v (McM. 39). Seealso note 164
above. Panofsky's statement that Leonardo uses creare in an artistic context on only one
occasion (Renaissanceand Renascencesin Western Thought, rev. ed. [Uppsala 1965J 188n.) is
therefore incorrect.
'83 Urb. Col. 36 (McM. 280). cr. the related statements regarding the divinity of painting on
Urb. fols. 19v-20 (McM. 25), Urb. fols. 15v-16 (McM. 34), Urb. Col. 12v (McM. 42) and Urb. Col.
15 (McM. 28).
'84 Urb. Col. 5 (McM. 35).
\8S Urb. Col. 50r-v (McM. 102), and Urb. Col. 5 (McM. 35).
'8. Richter (n. 144 above)502 (B. N. 2038, Col. 26, ca. 1492).
384 MARTIN KEMP
towards a more disciplined interpretation of invention and judgment, more in line

with his later scientific method, the manner in which he insists during the 1490s
upon the divine power of painting is nevertheless of considerable historical
importance in the context of quattrocento notions of divine creativity in the various
arts. This context will occupy much of our attention in the subsequentsection.
A DIVINELY-INSPIRED GENIUS?
In the important branch of classical poetics derived from Platonism and recorded by
Cicero, Horace and Seneca,no easy separation can be made between concepts of
ingenium, inspiration and divine insight. Renaissancepoetic theory was at various
times so deeply influenced by this tradition that it is equally unrealistic to discuss
fifteenth-century interpretations of ingenium and divine inspiration in isolation from
eachother.
We have already touched upon the ideas of fantasia and prophetic madness in
Plato's philosophy. These are most fully exploited in poetic theory in his Ion:
"Poets compose their beautiful poems not by skill but becausethey are inspired and
possessed." In other words, "not in their right minds"; and similarly, "The poet is a
light and winged and holy thing and there is no invention in him until he has been
inspired and is out of his senses."187 In the Phaedrns, Plato again contrasts mere
"technical skill" with the inspiration of "those who are mad," referring to the
required quality of insanity as "the Muses' madness." 188 This servesto remind us
that classical Antiquity invariably attributed inspiration not to a wholly inner agency
but to the Muses' divine power.
The clearest reflection of Plato's ideas, and by far the most influential source for
the Renaissance,is to be found in Cicero's De oratore: "I have often heard it said, as
they say Democritus and Plato have written, that no man can be a good poet who is
not on fire (inflammation e) and inspired by something like frenzy (afflatu quasifuroris)".189
This formulation, again attributed to Democritus and Plato, is repeated
in Cicero's De divinatione where he claims that afflatus is a "divine power within the
soul." 190 The association between this form of inspiration and ingenium is made
explicit by Seneca:"There never has been any great ingenium without some touch of
187Plato, Ion 533-534.

188Plato, Phaedrus 245a. Cf. G. Grube, The Greek and Roman Critics (London 1965) 46f.,
and Harriott (n.96 above) 78-91. See also J. Atkins, Literary Criticism in Antiquity, 2 vols.
(Cambridge 1934), and R. Lodge, Plato's Theory ofArt (London 1953).
189Cicero, De ora tore 2.46.194.
190Cicero, De divinatione 1.37.80. Democritus's importance in formulating the notion of
poetic madnessis confirmed by Horace,Ars poetica 295-301.
madness.",91 Renaissance interest in this last passageis illustrated by its direct

quotation in the De secreta conflictu of Petrarch.192
lngenium was the inborn characteristic without which highest achievementswere
impossible, but Cicero is at pains to stress that it cannot on its own result in perfect
works. The Romans, for example, innately possessedingenium and cogitatione but
these factors could only bear full fruit as his ancestors gradually acquired learning,
rationality and understanding of rules. 193 In classical theory ingenium is associated
unquestioningly with the literary and rhetorical arts, but it is rarely evenmentioned
in discussion of painting, sculpture and architecture. Pliny provides one of these rare
instances when he assesses the abilities of Timanthes, "in whose works more is always
implied than depicted and whose skill [ars], though consumate, is always surpassed
by his ingenium." 194 But neither Pliny nor any other classical author extend a fully
poetic concept of divinely-inspired genius to any practitioner of the visual art$. This
form of exclusion sets the pattern for Renaissanceattitudes and only late in the day
do humanists begin to relax their outlook to a significant degree.
Renaissance assimilation of Cicero's accounts of inspiration and genius was
extremely thorough. Petrarch was characteristically cautious in his attitude towards
"creative insanity," but even he quoted with approval Cicero's statement that
"poetry depends solely on an inborn faculty, is aroused by a purely mental activity
and is inspired as if with a divine spirit."195 This same quotation was adopted as a
statement of principle by both Boccaccio and Salutati.196 Boccaccio aligned himself
more explicitly than Petrarch with classical concepts of divine inspiration when he
defined poetry as "fervor quidam exquisite inveniendi atque dicendi, seu scribendi,
quod inveneris. Qui ex sinu Dei procedens,paucis mentibus, ut arbitror, in creatione
conceditur, ex quo, quoniam mirabilis sic, rarissimi semperfuere poete.,,197 Salutati
equally follows the Ciceronian lead by opening his De laboribus Hercu/is with an
extended account of afflatus and poetic genius. 198 This tradition is also reflected by
'9' Seneca,De tranquillitate animi 17.10-12: "Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura demen-
tiae fuit." A history of genius is provided by E. Zilsel, Die Entstehung des Geniebegriffes
(fiibingen 1926).
.92 Petrarch, De secreta conjlictu curarum mearum, in FrancescoPetrarchaProse: La lettera-
tura italiana 7 (1955) 174.
.93 Cicero,De oratore 1.5.
'9' Pliny,Historianaturalis 25.36.74.
'9' Cicero, Pro Archia 8.18; and Petrarch, Invective contra medicum 1.286-289, ed. P. G.
Ricci (Rome 1950) 33: "A summis ...hominibus eruditissimisque sic accepimus: ceterarum
rerum studia et doctrina et preceptis et arte constare;poetam natura ipsa valere,et mentis viribus
excitari, et quasi divino quodam spiritu inflari."
'9. Boccaccio,Genealogiadeorum gentilium 14.7 (Osgood [no 46 above] 41); and Salutati, De
faro et fortuna. SeeTateo (n. 46 above)70.
.97 Boccaccio,Gen.deorumgent.14.7.
'9. Salutati, De laboribus Herculis 1.3-4.
386 MARTIN KEMP
Gianozzo Manetti, who speaks of "poetae divino quodam spiritu afflati," and by
Antonio de Ferraris who quoted Virgil's Georgics to illustrate that the poet is
"inspired [afflatus] by a divine spirit" which makes man "similar to God."!" An
early and weighty precedent for belief in the divinity of poetry was provided by
"Statius" in Dante's Purgatory, who credited his inspiration to that "great fire divine
whence many another, thousand by thousand, fetched their light and flame; I mean the
Aeneid [of Virgil] .,,200
However, it should not be forgotten that an important intellectual challenge to all
this rapture for Ciceronian afflatus came from Leonardo Bruni, who was particularly
severe upon Boccaccio's interpretation of Dante. There are two kinds of poet,
according to Bruni. The first, of whom Saint Francis is an example, rely upon their
"own genius, excited and aroused by some inward and hidden force termed frenzy
and possessionof the soul... whence some say that poetry is divine.,,20) The
second group, amongst whom Dante is supreme, base their poetry upon knowledge,
study, discipline, art, forethought, philosophy, theology, astrology, arithmetic,
geometry, history, and so on. The second type is greatly to be preferred in that their
poetry is neither "poor nor fantastic." 202 Bruni's attitude would not have been hard
to reconcile with Alberti's or Ghiberti's Vitruvian requirements for the knowledge-

able artist, but there is no clear evidence to suggestthat this happened -perhaps
largely because the groundswell of poetic theory moved against Bruni, most of all
when Ficino introduced his brand of Neoplatonism.
While ingenium was automatically associated with all the pursuits close to the
humanists' hearts, law included, few humanist critics were prepared to grant
ingenium to a professional painter, sculptor or architect. 203 To be sure, there were
few statements specifically to the effect that ingenium and the visual arts were
inimical, but this is because most humanists tacitly assumedthat it was so. Probably
the most explicit exclusion of the painter was voiced by Leonello d'Este in Angelo
Decembrio's De politia littaria. In answerto the Horatian claim that the painter may
"venture as freely in his pictures as a poet does in his songs,and paint a guilded ram
flying with wings," Leonello challengesthe manus of the painter to evoke the passing
seasons or capture the depth of human emotions in the manner which can be
accomplished by the mind of the poet. In short, he concludes that the "ingenium of
writers. ..is a divine thing and beyond the reach of painters." 204 However, the fact
199I. (Gianozzo) Manetti, Vita Dantis (Florence 1747) 42 (written ca. 1440-1445); and A. de
Ferraris, Il Galateo,ed. E. Garin, La disputa delle arti nel quattrocento (Florence 1947) 156-157
(composed during the 1490s?).cr. Virgil, Georgics2.475.
200Dante, Divina commedia,Purgatorio 21.95-97.
201Le vite di Dante e di Petrarca, ed. H. Baron, Leonardo Bruni Aretino (Leipzig 1928) 59.
202"Lo studio principale fu poesia, ma non sterile, ne povera, ne fantastica, ma fecundata ed
inricchita, stabilita da vera scienzae da moltissime discipline." Ibid 59.
203For an assertion of ingenium with regard to law, seeP. Bracciolini in Garin (n. 199 above)
11 and14.
204Baxandall(n. 58 above) 310-319.
that Decembrio's Leonello feels compelled to make such an assertion probably

reflects the growing claims for ingenium from partisans of the visual arts. Slowly but
surely these claims were becoming more common, though the accolade of ingenium
was more likely to be accorded to an artist in a relatively limited manner to mean
"innate cleverness," rather than with connotations of divine inspiration.
I am aware of only one possible instance of a medieval artist being acclaimed for
his ingenium; an inscription on Modena Cathedral in praise of the architect
Lanfranco open with the words, "Ingenio clarus Lanfrancus doctus et aptusjest
operis princeps hujus rectorque magister.,,205 But the inscription as it now exists is
at best an accurate copy of an earlier version and its origins cannot be assigned
unquestionably to the eleventh century. A second medieval example is provided by
Ristoro d' Arezzo (La composizione del mondo, ca. 1282), who openly associated
"disegnatori e sco1pitori et dipintori" with "ingiegnio" in the section devoted to the
influence of Mercury. 206 But for the first generally accredited ingenium in the visual
arts we have to wait until the century of Giotto, around whom humanist art criticism
began to take root. Petrarch discerned qualities of "manus et ingenium" in one of
Giotto's works, and Boccaccio granted him an "ingegno" of excellence; but neither
author suggested that the painter's qualities should be regarded as fully equivalent to
those of literary men.2O7 Later in the century, Villani more wholly equated Giotto's
abilities with those required for the humanist's own pursuits; not only did he praise
the painter's works asrivalling poetry in profound content, but he also accorded him
"alto ingenio tenacique memoria," and more generally spoke of "nobilissimi ingenii
singularisque memorie" in connection with the visual arts.2O8The faculty of ingegno
also provides a similar basis for the equation of artists, most notably Giotto, with the
Greek masters in a strange passagein Giovanni da Prato's // Paradiso degli Alberti
which records conversations supposedly held in the late l380s but which was
probably not written until about 1426.209
205G. Crichton, RomanesqueSculpture in Italy (London 1954) 4.

206R. d'Arezzo, La composizione del mondo 4.6, ed. E. Narducci (Rome 1859) 225-227: "Et
significa secondo et savL Tucti coloro kanno lanima soctile ad intendere in suctilita perkel regno
sia bene fomito dogni ingiegnio et suctilita come sono disegnatori e scolpitori et dipintori" (ref.
kindly provided by Michael Baxandall).
207Petrarch, Itinerarium Syriacum, cited by Baxandall, Giotto (n. 4 above) 51; and Bocca-
ccio, Decamerone6.5. .
208Villani, De origine, quoted from Baxandall, Giotto 70-71 and 146-147. Villani's emphasis
upon memoria is probably the fust instance of a Ciceronian requirement for rhetoric being
exploited in art criticism. Cf. Bruni's criteria for Ghiberti's doors; they should be illustri and
significanti, the latter of which is based upon "irnportanza degna di memoria" (Krautheimer
[no 57 above] doc. 52). Cf. Cicero, De invent. 1.7.
209G. da Prato, Il Paradiso degii Alberti, ed. Wesselofsky,16 (Bologna 1867) 185-186: "No'
ci acostano su a queste stelle/ E mia donna mi disse 'Mira bene / L'alme che raggianche paion
facelle: / Fidia, Apollo et Pulicreto viene / Con Giotto e Tamaris la dolce figlia, / E Micheon sue
padre per man tene. / L'altro che vedi ch 'uzza si Ie ciglia, / Taddeo e quello, e Andrea e co' lui /
Della citta della 'nsegna vermiglia, / che nel taglio mostro gl' ingegni sui' ..(ref. kindly provided
388 MARTIN KEMP
Trecento references to artist-ingegni remain, however, the exception rather than

the rule. More regular claims for ingenium in the visual arts did not occur until the
era of Brunelleschi and Alberti. If Taccola's account may be regarded as substantially
reliable, it would seem that Brunelleschi was self-consciously valuing and guarding
the fruits of his own ingegno as early as 1427-1430.210 And certainly during the
following decade Alberti exhibits no reluctance to credit Brunelleschi with "ingegno
maraviglioso." In his Italian dedication to Della pittura he boldly claims that the
ingegno possessed by Brunelleschi, Donatello, Ghiberti, Luca dell a Robbia and
Masaccio is in no way inferior to that of the acients, though he had once believed
that tired nature no longer produced ingegni -a belief expressed in terms derived
from Pliny's Letters. 211 Alberti was not only promoting the intellectual merits of
the visual arts, but aiming also to promote them socially. To this latter end he
ingeniously exploits the similarity between ingenium and ingenuus (free-born or
liberal) when he dedicates the Latin version to Francesco Gonzaga.212
However, in true Ciceronian fashion, he reminds the reader that a man's ingenium
is not on its own sufficient to produce perfect works of art. And he exploits the
famous Zeuxis anecdote to prove his point. The story of Zeuxis's selection of the
best parts of various beautiful figures to produce an ideal form had been pressedinto
the service of a variety of disparate causes:Cicero had used it as an analogy for his
eclectic method of "culling the flower from various geniuses;" for Boccaccio it had
been an illustration of the power of ingegno in forming images; while Alberti now
uses it to exhort artists to refer constantly to nature herself and not to "rely upon
one's own ingegnio in setting about painting asdo most of the painters of the present
day." 213 Th~ kind of external, natural factors with which ingenium must interact
are the rules of nature, such as perspective and proportion. Thus it is that ingenium
must be closely associated with doctrina; that is, "doctrine" in the sense of true
knowledge rather than as a mindless set of rules.
Later, in De re aedificatoria, Alberti claims that three factors contribute to beauty
and ornament: ingenium givesthe work its fundamental dignitas (profound worth)
by the exercise of electio (selection), distributio (division), collocatio (arrangement),
and so on, all intellectual acts of composition; the physical act of execution is carried
out by manus which provides the quality of gratias (grace) through skills such as
acervatio (building up), a/fictio (attaching), amputatio (reducing), circumcisio
by Michael Baxandall). For its dating, seeH. Baron, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance
(Princeton 1966) 333-334.
210See Prager(n. 13 above)131-149.
211 Alberti (n. 48 above) p. 32. The derivation wasnoted by E. Gombrich, "A ClassicalTopos
in the Introduction to Alberti's delta Pittura," Journal of the Warburgand Courtauld Institutes
20 (1957) 173 (Pliny the Younger, Letters 6.21). Ingenium is subsequentlyused throughout De
pictura on numerous occasions.
212Alberti (n. 13 above)p. 34.
213Cicero, De inventione 2.1.3-4; Boccaccio,fl comento alIa divina comedia, ed. D. Guerri, 2
(Bari 1918) 128-129; and Alberti (n. 13 above)3.56 (p. 98).
(trimming) and expolitio (polishing); Natura herself contributes the inherently

admirable qualities of the materials, as expressed in gravitas (weight), levitas
(lightness), densitas (thickness), puritas (purity) and so on.21" Ingenium, as in
Cicero's system for rhetoric, stands at the head of the attributes for the architect, but
it cannot function properly without the other factors and the necessaryconstraints.
Above all, it must not go berserk with its own powers and invent monstrosities. 215
He had already shrewdly observed in De pictura that many orators and poets begin
works with great enthusiasm, but when the ardor of genius cooled, leave them in a
rough and unfinished state; diligence (Ciceronian diligentia) and persistence are
therefore required no less than ingenium. 216 Alberti exhibits a consistent suspicion
of inspirational fervor -as of all extremes. Those artists who surrender to the
dictates of fervens ingenium will paint figures which are excessively histrionic in
217
gesture.
Ghiberti makes many of the same points in his Commentaries. The association
between ingegno and dottrina appears prominently in his exposition of Giotto's
virtues, and he praises Ambrogio Lorenzetti as "a great ingegno, most noble
draughtsman and fully conversant with the theory (teorica] of his art.,,218 In
Ciceronian and Albertian fashion he also stresses the need for ingegno to be
accompanied by disciplina. He expressesthis view by means of an axiom drawn from
Vitruvius and later adapted by Francesco di Giorgio. Their three versions are as
follows: Vitruvius: "Neque ingenium sine disciplina aut disciplina sine ingenio
perfectum arteficem potest efficere"; Ghiberti: "Lo ingegnio san~a disciplina 0 la
disciplina san~aingegnio non puo perfetto artefice"; Francesco: "Lo ingegno senza
dottrina 0 la dottrina senzaingegno l'artefice perfetto far non pUO.,,219Francesco's
substitute of dottrina for disciplina is no doubt deliberate; he clearly wishes to
exploit the former term's intellectual connotations of learning and knowledge rather
than disciplina's associations with codes of routine to be followed with unquestion-
ing diligence.
Francesco also extends the axiom by introducing a third factor, disegno,which he
humanistically weavesinto the scheme with neat skill. Many speculative ingegni of
the past have invented many things, Francesco acknowledges, but these have been
difficult to understand becauseof the lack of visual demonstration in drawings: "Just
as we see many who have dottrina and do not have ingegno and many are endowed
with ingegno and not with dottrina, so many have dottrina and ingegno but do not
have disegno." 220 Nowhere in Renaissanceart theory are the three levels of ability
214Alberti (n. 9 above)6.4 (2.459).

215Ibid. 9.10 (2.857-859).
216Alberti (n. 48 above)3.61 (p. 104).
217/bid. 44 (p. 85).
218Ghiberti (n.6 above) Cols. 9 (p. 37) and 10 (p. 41). Taddeo Gaddi is comparably credited
with dottrina, arte and ingegno (Col. 9, p. 38).
219Vitruvius, 1.1.3; Ghiberti Col. Iv (p. 5); and F. di Giorgio, Trott. (n. 12 above) 1.37.
220Di Giorgio 2.489.
390 MARTIN KEMP
which are necessaryfor the artist -innate brilliance of mind, acquired learning and
executant skill -so clearly encapsulatedin a single sentence.
As an innate factor, ingenium may be possessedby an individual or not, as the
case may be; if not, there is nothing he can do about it. The implication is that
ingenium is an individual factor, but the nature of its individuality is barely even
mentioned within the framework of Renaissanceart theory, let alone analyzed in
detail. Cennini, as we have seen, precociously attributed artistic individuality to fan-
tasia and regardedindividual style assomething to which the painter should aspire. But
he does not amplify either of these points. Alberti acknowledgesthat nature provides
each ingenium with its own particular gifts, but regards this as a limitation to be
overcome by the universal artist rather than as a welcome expression of individual-
ity.221 A more positive attitude is taken by Lorenzo Valla, who in a chapter of De
vera falsoque bono devoted to the proposition that "contemplative life is a form of
pleasure," writes that he knowledgeably delights in seeingimages by either Phidias or
Praxiteles because "I understand the diversity of ingenium of the two artists." 222
Later Filarete noted what any perceptive observer of painting could hardly fail to
see, namely that each artist has his own style ("la sua maniera,,).223 But he is at a
loss to provide a coherent explanation, falling back upon the lame expedient that
God must have done it for the best. 224 Individual variations of form are, he informs
us, the gift of a wise God, who has granted man's ingegna the power to make forms
in man's image and thus to "participate" in godly matters. Why this is so and how it
results in individuality we are not told. Filarete clearly has been provided with no
established answer from traditional theory.
Only Leonardo, in his well-organized theory of automimesis, provides a logical
solution to Filarete's dilemma. Each man's soul is individual, Leonardo claims with
impeccable Thomist orthodoxy. Judgment, the power which directs man's invention
of forms, is a faculty of the soul and will therefore exhibit corresponding variations
from individual to individual. The soul is also responsible for the individual forms of
each man's body. Thus it is that the figures invented by the artist and directed by his
judgment resemble himself in appearance.225 Individual style is explained, but is
wholly undesirable for Leonardo since it distorts natural truth and beauty; the
idiosyncrasies of individual judgment must be overridden by absolute standards
221 Alberti (n. 48 above) 60 (pp. 102-103).

222Valla, De vera falsoque bono, ed. M. de Panizza Lorch (Bari 1970) (asDe voluptate 2.36,
Opera [Basel 1540] 953): "Et ego quoque plus delector gemino simulachro studiae Phidiae et
Praxitilis, quam unus quilibet puerorum, quia utriusque artificis ingenium diversitatem intelligo,
quod puer ignorat" (ref. kindly provided by Michael Baxandall). Valla may have taken his cue
from Cicero, De oratore 3.7.
223Filarete (n. 5 above)2.489.
224Cf. Dante, Paradiso 8.90-148 for a more profound statement of God's intention in
granting individuality to man.
225Libro A 15, Urb. fol. 175 (n. 144 above) (McM. 437, Pedretti [no 156 above] 35), and
Libro A 28, Urb. fols. 44-45 (McM. 86-87 and 274, Pedretti 53). SeeKemp (n. 172 above).
derived from a rigorous investigation of natural law. Not until the advent of Courbet
and Zola were theories of naturalism to be formulated which could happily embrace
both individual genius and universal imitation.
***
By the end of the fifteenth century the more self-consciousand knowing Renaissance
artists, such as Mantegna, did not doubt that ingenium was a necessaryattribute for
the artist. Professional humanists, on the other hand, were not so sure. We have
already encountered Leonello d'Este's allegedly negative reaction. 226 I know of no
such overt statements in the later quattrocento, but many of the humanists who had
cause to mention the visual arts fail to acknowledge the claims of Alberti and
company. The epitaphs for famous artists are a convenient case in point; they are
often as significant for what they omit as for what they actually say. Certain
platitudes abound -"a second Apel1es," "surpassing even the ancients," "rivalling
nature herself' and "figures lacking only speech" -but notions of ingenium and
divine inspiration are more than uncommon. Poliziano's epitaphs for Giotto and
Filippo Lippi, for example, composed at the request of Lorenzo de'Medici, speakof
manus, artifex and the revival of "extinct" painting, but his language nowhere
suggests that he credits painters with the same power as poets.227 To be sure,
Poliziano's dedication of De re aedificatoria to Lorenzo credits Alberti with "[me
genius" and "exquisite learning," but he does so primarily in drawing attention to
Alberti's literary and rhetorical gifts.22s
Against this general pattern of inertia in humanist attitudes must be set a growing
trickle of exceptions. The contrast between the reactions of Dondi (1375) and
Poggio (ca. 1429) to antique sculpture is symptomatic of this trend. Dondi merely
notes the reaction of a contemporary artist who acclaimed classical remains with
great fervor, ''as if he wanted to say that by the ingenium of such great artists, nature
had not just been imitated but indeed surpassed."229 Poggio by contrast is himself
"moved by the ingenium of the artist" when he sees"how the very forces of nature
are represented in m:g.rble," and he admits with a hint of guilt that he is himself
"forced to admire their ingenium and art, since they render a mute and lifeless thing
as if it breathed and spoke; often indeed they represent the emotions of the
soul.,,23O
Architects were the artists most likely to be acclaimed as ingegni. Brunelleschi was
226Baxandall (n. 58 above)310-319.

227As recorded by G. Vasari, Le vile de' piu eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architetti, ed.
G. Milanesi (Florence 1906) 1.409 and 2.630.
228Alberti (n. 9 above) p. 3: "Baptista Leo Florentinus et clarissima Albertorum familia vir
ingenii elegantis,accerrimi iudicci, exquisitissirnaedoctrinae "
229See Baxandall, Giotto (n.4 above) 52, and Panofsky (n. 182 above)208-209. For Dondi,
seeR. Weiss,The RenaissanceDiscovery of ClassicalAntiquity (Oxford 1969)49-53.
230P. Bracciolini, Epistolae,ed. F. de Tonellis (Florence 1831) 4.15 and 21.
392 MARTIN KEMP
twice notably credited with ingegno (and, incidentally, with fantasia) by Alberti's
percipient patron, Giovanni Rucellai, while Alberti himself, Laurana, Giuliano da
Sangallo, Aristotele da Bologna, Francesco di Giorgio and Guiniforte Solari were all
accorded comparable status in humanist writings or official documents. 231 A
combination of a number of factors placed architects in this relatively favorable

position. The "rediscovery" of Vitruvius undoubtedly helped, asdid the lack of any
deeply entrenched notion of the training and role of the architect during the
preceding centuries. The necessity of his being skilled as an ingegnario and in some
aspectsof geometry also gave him claims to special qualities. The painter could point
to his comparable command of perspective, but by and large the humanists do not
appear to have set much store by the painters' new science. When Fazio refers to
Pisanello and Gentile da Fabriano as ingenii he is typically attracted more by their
detailed naturalism than by any command of doctrina. His other ingenii, Ghiberti
and Donatello, could be said to qualify on both counts but Fazio concentrates
instead upon their workmanship.232
The general impression is that the majority of humanists were insensitive to the
new ideals of Renaissancepainting, excepting a delight in naturalism. Only when a
painter exhibited a quite exceptional grasp of Antiquity in its broader intellectual
aspectscould he expect to be ranked as an ingenium, as was Mantegna in 1484. 233
Beyond such occasional referencesto individual artists, straightforward statements of

principle that painting or sculpture required an ingenium equal to that of poetry or
rhetoric are rare amongst humanist works. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini's tidy
formulation is the most explicit: "Ingenium pictura expetit, ingenium eloquentia
cupit non volgare sed altum et summum.,,23. However, even this statement is not
intended primarily asan attempt to promote the status of painting but to support his
thesis that the arts flourish together at times of general excellence in society, as in
classical Antiquity. Generally it is characteristic of the humanists that they find it
231Brunelleschi: in G. Rucellai's Zibaldone Quaresimale,ed. A. Perosa,Studies of the War-

burg Institute (London 1960) 55, where Brunelleschiis given the accQladeof "singhulare huomo
d'architettura ...sommo in gieometria e perfetto maestro di scoltura; e in simile chose aveva
grandissimo ingiegno e fantasia." Cf; 61 wherehe is credited with "ingiegnio naturale e fantasia."
The Zibaldone was begun in 1457. Laurana: the patent granted by Federigo da Montefeltro,
10 June 1468, in P. Rotondi, II palazzo ducale di Urbina, 2 vols. (Urbino 1950) 1.109-110,
where architecture is described asan "arte di gran scienzae di grandi ingegno." Sangallo: contract
for S. M. delle Carceri, 4 October 1485, in G. Milanesi, Nuovi documenti per la storia dell' arte
toscana (Florence 1901) 136-139. Aristotele: letter from the lieutenant of Bologna, in C. Gua-
landi, Memorie originale risguardanti Ie belle arte, ser. 5 (Bologna 1844) 102-104. Francesco di
Giorgio: letter of the Anziani, 29 August 1491, in A. Weller, Francesco di Giorgio, 1439.1501
(Chicago 1943) doc. 99. Solari in L. Beltrami, "Leonardo negli studi per il tiburio della
cathedraledi Milano," Luca Beltrami e il duomo di Milano (Milan 1964) 362.
232Baxandall, Giotto (n. 4 above)164-168.
233Kristeller (n. 54 above) doc. 40. For later developments, see E. Panofsky, "Artist,
Scientist, Genius," in his The Renaissance:Six Essays(New York 1962) 123-182, alsoR. and M.
Wittkower, Born under Saturn (London 1963)60f.
234Quoted from Spencer(n. 45 above)27.
easierto attribute ingenium to the safely-deceasedartists of Antiquity than to those

contemporary painters and sculptors who represented a socially-ambitious group
within their own society.
***
In this largely restricted climate, it is not surprising that poetic ideals of divine
inspiration were little exploited in the literature on the visual arts. Leonardo's
loosely-formulated notions of the pilinter's god-like powers in his notes during the
l490s have been examined in the third section of this study. Before 1490 only
Alberti made a serious attempt to establish the "divinity" of painting. In the Italian
introduction to Della pittura he places painting, sculpture and architecture at the
head of the "divine arte e scienze" of Antiquity. 235 Subsequently, in the opening
paragraphs of Book 2 he provides four reasons why painting may be considered to
possess"divine power." Firstly, painting transcends time by transmitting images of
individuals to posterity. In the second place, painted images act as an aid to worship
and religious understanding. The third is that painters like Zeuxis, in "forming images
of Ui"ngendis] or painting living things, appeared asif a god amongstmortals." And
finally, "masters who see their works admired. ..feel themselvesto be almost like a
god" -an argument which may reflect the section in Lucian's Somnium in which
"Statuary" claims (much to the disgust of "Education") that Phidias, Polykleitos and
Praxiteles "are now worshipped along with the gods."23.
All this stops some way short of an outright portrayal of the artist as a divine
creator, whatever modern interpretations of Alberti have suggestedto the contrary.
Alberti's ''as if' (quasi) and qualifying "almost" (paene)are significant in this respect
and are typical of his caution in making extreme claims for the divinity of the artist.
This reticence also authentically characterizes the statement attributed to Alberti in
the early Vita to the effect that the finest achievementsof human ingenium may be
considered "nearly [prope] divine." 231
In his later treatise on architecture he formulates notions of divinity with regard
to proportion rather than creativity. Mathematical beauty of proportion is "a quality
so great and divine [divinum] that in procuring it the full force of art and genius
[artium et ingenii] must be consumed.,,238 Architectural proportion is divine in so
far as it reflects God's design of the universe. This conception owes more to classical
musical theory than to the notions of divine inspiration which so exercised the poets.
The divinity of proportions was later taken up most conspicuously by Piero della
Francesca'salumnus and Leonardo's colleague, Luca Pacioli, as the title of Pacioli's
book De divina proportione (dedicated 1498) graphically illustrates. Similarly,
235Alberti (n. 48 above)p. 32.

236Ibid. 2.25-26 (p. 60). cr. Lucian, Somnium 6-9.
237 Vita in Alberti, Opere volgari, ed. A. Bonucci, 1 (Florence 1843) cxiv-vi.
238Alberti (n. 9 above) 6.2 (2.447-449).
394 MARTIN KEMP
Filarete's argument that anthropomorphic design methods permit man to "partici-

pate" in godly matters is based upon ideas of proportion, though his reasoningis not
expounded altogether lucidly. 239 And when Leonardo moves away from his early
image of the god-like artist, he is left with mathematics as one of the ultimate
foundations for the divinity of painting.
By the second half of the century an individual painter or his works might very
occasionally be called divine, in a manner roughly equivalent to that which was not
uncommon in the literary arts -witness Petrarch's reverence for Cicero as a divino
ingegno.240 Filarete accords an imagined work by Zeuxis the accolade divina; 241
Colonna describes the colossus of his dream world as a "divino invento";242 while
Giovanni Santi calls Perugino "un divin pic tore," though possibly for his delicate
expression of religious gentility rather than for divine genius in Petrarch's sense. 243
The most exceptional, early instance of a "divine" artist occurs in Carlo Marsuppini's
1446 epitaph for Brunelleschi on a memorial tablet in Florence cathedral, which
begins, "How valiant Filippo the architect was in the Daedalian art is documented
both by the wonderful vault of this celebrated temple and the many machines
invented by the divine genius [divino ingenio] ."244 There appears to be no
comparable acclaim of any quattrocento artist by a contemporary humanist.
Landino's estimate of Alberti's books on architecture as "most divinely written
[divinissamente scripti], replete with all kinds of learning [tulle dottrine] and
expounded with the highest eloquence" is (like Poliziano's praise of Alberti's
ingenium) directed more towards his literary gifts rather than to the visual arts
themselves.245 And the introduction to the first (ca. 1486) edition of Vitruvius
refers to the "divinum opus Victruvii" -again to a book rather than a work of art or
archit ecture.24.
Generally notions of ingenium in the visual arts stand at some remove from poetic
conceptions of divine inspiration. But, in the same way that AeneasSilvius stood out
for his open assertion of similar ingenium in painting and poetry, so there is a clear
statement from a quattrocento humanist that painting and poetry are akin in divine
inspiration. This is to be found in a letter from Giustiniani to Chrysoloras, datable
before 1446. Giustiniani parades the Horatian tapas concerning artistic license, but
he uniquely works divine spirit into the equation: "Etenim pictoribus, atque poetis,
239Filarete (n. 5 above)fol. 5r-v.

240Petrarch, Familiarum rerum libri 24.2. cr. Landino's praise of Dante's "divine genius" in
the introduction to Comento (n. 2 above).
241Filarete (n. 5 above)fol. 155v.
242Colonna (no26 above) fol. 14v.
'43 Cronaca 22.96.125 (n. 65 above) 189. In the next passage(126), Signorelli is credited
with ingegno.
244"Quantum Philippus architectus arte dae/ dalea vaiuerit cum huius celeberrimi/ tempIi
mira testudo turn plures machinae/divino ingenio adinventae documen/ to essepossunt."
245Landino, Comento (n. 2 above)proemo.
246Vitruvius. De architectura, ed. Sulptius (Rome ca. 1486).
quaelibet audendi semper fuit aequa potestas, utrumque certe mentis acumine, et
divino quodam spiritu excitari, ac duci constat."24'7
Of earlier humanists only Boccaccio provides a hint that the visual arts were
closely linked with divine matters. Introducing his Life of Dante he states that
sculpture originally arose from the need of man to represent the "essenzadivina."
This function was subsequently assumed by poetry, which had the advantageof not
being mute. 248The visual arts thus take second place, but he is prepared to grant the
painter considerable insight in forming ideal images.The Zeuxis anecdote is exploited
to illustrate this conceptual role for the artist; Zeuxis, "assisted by the versesof
Homer, formed in his mind a virgin of perfect beauty, which -as far as skill (arte] is
able to follow ingegno -he painted, leaving it to posterity as a celestial resemblance
of the true image of Helen." 249 Such a remarkable line of reasoning was not to
reappear in mature form until the establishment of Neoplatonic art theory during the
sixteenth century.
To an even greater extent than the other factors which we have examined, the
notions of divinity and inspiration in the visual arts are, therefore, exploited only
exceptionally during the fifteenth century. A few cracks have begun to appear in the
venerable dam of intellectual resistance to the visual arts, and a few unorthodox
opinions have begun to seepthrough.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The period we have been studying saw the birth of modem art theory and criticism.
The pioneer authors such as Alberti, Ghiberti, Filarete, Francesco di Giorgio and
Leonardo were exploring intellectual territory which was virtually uncharted during
the Middle Ages and for which surviving classical texts provided only limited
signposts. Inevitably there was some superimposition of thought patterns from other
areasof learning, most notably rhetoric, poetics and faculty psychology, with varying
degrees of relevance and success. The positive side of the situation was that the
vocabulary of art had not become fossilized into set formulas which provided an easy
excuse not to think. When Alberti and his colleagues wrote, they could not hide a
lack of meaning behind a comprehensive shield of established cliches. Even their
adoption of cliches from the literature on other disciplines was often a positive act of
choice rather than a mindless acceptance of existing ideas. They were faced with the
daunting task of saying something new with only the barest hints as to how to say
something old.
247See Baxandall, Giotto (n. 4 above) 98 and 161-162.

248Boccaccio, Origine, vita, studii e costumi del chiarissimo Dante Allighieri. Bartolomeo
Sermartelli (Florence 1576) 46.
249Boccaccio,n comento (n. 213 above)2.128-129.
396 MARTIN KEMP
The authors' responseto their task is not surprisingly manifested in a number of

individual solutions rather than in uniformity or consistency, but there are clear signs
of basic agreement on certain fundamentals as the century progresses.The most
powerful unifying factors were the beliefs that mimesis of nature was of paramount
importance, that art required rational knowledge (scientia) and that Antiquity
provided the best possible guide. When invention and imagination are granted a
significant role they never override these beliefs but operate in harmony with them.
Architects provided the lead in this, the ideas of Brunelleschi, Alberti and Manetti
helping to insure that no serious writers on the visual arts could afford to ignore the
faculty of invention as a necessaryattribute of the great architect. In a comple-
mentary manner, Cennini, Francesco di Giorgio, Filarete and Leonardo began to
establish that imaginative procedures, whether credited to fantasia, imaginativa or
cogitativa, assumed a vital role in artistic invention, taking up a theme which had
been fully expressed in Dante's poetry and which had ftltered into medieval texts
from classicalwritin~s.
Invention and imagination were incorporated into each major theorist's thought in
guises appropriate to each author's individual proclivities. The pronounced emphasis
of Brunelleschi and Alberti upon "excogitative" invention, incorporating discovering
and devising, is completely in harmony with their rationally disciplined approach to
beauty. Powerful echoes of invention in this sense recur throughout the writings of
Francesco di Giorgio, Filarete and Leonardo, but they extended and developed
invention in new directions. Francesco developed his own notion of infinite inven-
tiveness, attributing this special quality of imaginative fertility to ingegno and
ingeniously contrasting man's various inventions with the stereotyped products of
animals. To this end he adapted ideas from Aristotle and Aquinas. Filarete has often
been interpreted as an eccentric of questionable intelligence, but his advocation of
fantasia -interpreted in terms of marvellous insight which extends the processesof
thought -is very remarkable and original, as is Cennini's earlier usage. Ifit is likely
on one hand that Cennini cleverly adapted medieval ideas of artistic license, it is
equally probable on the other that classical sources were important in stimulating
Filarete's conceptions. I think that it is no coincidence that fantasia received major
expression in two centers where Greek studies were enthusiastically pursued -in
Filarete's Milan, where Filelfo was active, and Isabella d'Este's Mantua, where she
employed a resident Greek scholar.
Just as Dante had transformed the fantasia of medieval faculty psychology into
the highest inventive force in his poetry, so Leonardo developed immaginazione -
fantasia into the vital image-forming capacity for the painter. To do this, he relocated
fantasia in the second ventricle of the brain where it could operate in close
conjunction with invenzione and rational intellect. He also exploited biological
analogiesfor the production of a work of art, eventually using creare in this sense.
The poetic senseof invenzione in painting remained very much another matter as
far as patrons and the vast majority of painters were concerned. The poetic usageis
to be found largely in the writings of non-artists, who imposed humanist literary

criteria upon painting. Invenzione for most painters meant subject-matter provided
by a patron or qualified humanist rather than a legitimate aspectof their own role.
Major exceptions to this rule were provided by Mantegna,Leonardo, Bellini and Jacopo
de' Barbari, but only at the end of the century and the beginning of the next.
But even such enlightened patrons as Isabella d'Este remained obstinate in granting
this license to painters.
Similar reluctance can be discerned in the very gradual nature of the increase in
the likelihood that practitioners of the visual arts would be accorded the status of
ingegni or ingenii -and even then it is likely that some of them were acclaimed as
clever men who were also artists rather than as great artists who were therefore clever
men. Alberti may well have exercised no small influence in the promotion of the
gradual increase in the artists' status. The chronological picture is fairly clear. Within
this study only four separate usagesof ingegno (or ingenium) in the visual arts have
been cited above from the trecento, while those from 1400-1450 are eight in number
and the second half of the century has provided no less than thirteen separate
authorities who stipulated ingegno for the visual arts in general or attributed it to one
artist in particular. This list is obviously far from complete, but the relative propor-
tions should not be too misleading. If, however, the thirteen examples drawn from
architecture and architectural theory are withdrawn from the list the numbers begin
to look extremely thin.
The most advanced and ambitious concepts of all, poetie inspiration and divine
power, are found even more exceptionally. Divino is applied to art or artists in a few
spectacular instances -Marsuppini's epitaph for Brunelleschi and the assertions of
the divine power of painting by Alberti and Leonardo -but only Giustiniani fully
equatespainting with poetic ideals of divine inspiration.
We should not be surprised that there is no unanimity in the usagesof divino,
ingegno, fantasia, immaginazione and invenzione in an artistic context during the
quattrocento, but the trend towards a more widespread and ambitious use of these
terms does become pronounced at the end of the century. The appearance and
establishment of such terms is of inestimable importance in forming the later
vocabulary of art theory and in influencing subsequent thought patterns, but such
influences, however strong, should never provide an excuse for assuming that Renais-
sance authors were then saying what we now mean when we use the sameor similar
words. It is salutary to realize that the verb "to create" was barely exploited at all in
an artistic context before Leonardo, whatever modem translations might suggestto
the contrary. The verb invariably used to denote the production of a work of art was
fare, which could be applied as readily to pasta aspainting.
The dominant tone of fifteenth-century writing was that the visual arts were
governed by rational procedures of discovery and making, which could be given
almost infinite extension by imaginative invention, rather than by capricious
creativity of an anarchically modem kind. Surely we would be well advised to bear
398 MARTIN KEMP
this continually in mind when looking at the actual works of art produced in this
intellectual climate.
Department of Fine Art

University of Glasgow
GlasgowGI2 8QQ, Scotland
FIG. 1. Francesco di Giorgio, Dino-
crates the Architect, Florence, Biblio-
teca Nazionale (cod. Magliabechiano,
II, I, 141, fol. 27v).
FIG. 2. G. Reisch, Rhetoric, from Margarita philosophica,
1503 (d6).
FIG. 3. Filarete, Image of Virtue, Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale (cod. Mag-
liabechiano. II. I. 140, Col. 143).
FIG. 4. G. Reisch, Ventricles of the Human Brain (h2).
FIG. 5. Filarete, Image of Will and Reason (fol. 69v).
FIG. 6. Leonardo da Vinci, Sections of the Head to show Ventricles and Membranes
of the Brain, Windsor, Royal Library (12603r). Reproduced by gracious permission of
Her Majesty the Queen.
FIG. 7. Leonardo da Vinci, Studies of the Brain, showing (upper left) the 'Imprensiva,
Senso Commune, and Memoria'{19127r). Reproduced by gracious permission of Her
Majesty the Queen.

Kemp From Minesis To Phantasia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kemp From Minesis To Phantasia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kemp From Minesis To Phantasia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FROM "MIMESIS" TO "FANTASIA": THE QUATTROCENTO

VOCABULARY OF CREATION, INSPIRATION AND

Students of the Renaissancewill be familiar with interpretations of fifteenth-century

THE ARTIST AS INVENTOR

Invenzione was a key concept in Renaissanceart theory, as it is in modern ideals of

In addition to this predominantly "scientific" form of invention, Alberti, Manetti

epitaph by Marsuppini to be discussed later) emphasize his powers of invention.

Similar associations between invention, ingegno, diligence and skill abound in

towards natural philosophy and metaphysics."ls Francesco then proceedsto discuss

18Di Giorgio, Tratt. (n. 12 above)2.369. cr. Aristotle, Metaphys. 1.1.

26F. Villani, De origine civitatis Florentie et de eiusdemfamosis(Vatican, MS Barb. lat. 26

32Ibid. 2.482-483 and 505-506.

39Aristotle, Physico 2.8.199a.

42Cicero, De inventione 1.7 and the CiceronianAd Herennium 1.2.

61Filarete (n. 5 above)fols. 142v-143.

architecture lacked both an established system of apprenticeship and a clearly-

THE ROLES OF IMAGINATION AND FANTASIA

The definition of imagination asthe image-forming capacity has remained reasonably

74R. Bacon,Opus majus, V (i), 1,4. cr. Reisch(n. 35 above) 10.

'0 Dante, Vita nuova 23. cr. Bundy (n. 72 above)225-256.

individuality: rather, he is resorting to a typical humanist ploy by illustrating his

83Alberti (n. 48 above)1.5 (p. 40); cf. 2.32 (p. 68).

..Di Giorgio, Tratt. 2.489.

anagramatic precursor from ancient times.92 This procedure of creating a pedigreeis

However, immaginare is not a verb which occurs regularly in Filarete's treatise. He is

role in the equation ut pictura poesis.

109Cennini (n. 105 above) 15.

all-pervasive factor, embracing every facet in the conception of a work of art or

The fantasticare-pensarecoupling is common in his treatise. Clearly they are not

senseis intended, as when Bramante is ordered to produce "qualche digna fantasia da

139Letter of 13 January 1506: "seguitando quanto la fantasia me adiutera." See Kristeller

IEONARDO: INVENTION, IMAGINATION AND CREATION

action, demons, dragons as well asmore obvious landscapes.

[semplici] produces an infinite number of compounds, though he has no power to

vision of painting as "ornata d'infinite spectulationi" and embracing all manner of

surprisingly it is during this earlier phase that he is most concerned with

speculation to bear on the nature of all forms"; it is "ornata d'infinite speculazzioni"

production of a work of art is a substantial extension of Avicennian cogitativa and

167Urb. fol. 24v (McM. 48).

reconstructed by Carlo Pedretti), "judgment" is now seenasthe dominant faculty in

towards a more disciplined interpretation of invention and judgment, more in line

187Plato, Ion 533-534.

madness.",91 Renaissance interest in this last passageis illustrated by its direct

to reconcile with Alberti's or Ghiberti's Vitruvian requirements for the knowledge-

that Decembrio's Leonello feels compelled to make such an assertion probably

205G. Crichton, RomanesqueSculpture in Italy (London 1954) 4.

Trecento references to artist-ingegni remain, however, the exception rather than

(trimming) and expolitio (polishing); Natura herself contributes the inherently

214Alberti (n. 9 above)6.4 (2.459).

221 Alberti (n. 48 above) 60 (pp. 102-103).

226Baxandall (n. 58 above)310-319.

combination of a number of factors placed architects in this relatively favorable

Beyond such occasional referencesto individual artists, straightforward statements of

231Brunelleschi: in G. Rucellai's Zibaldone Quaresimale,ed. A. Perosa,Studies of the War-

easierto attribute ingenium to the safely-deceasedartists of Antiquity than to those

235Alberti (n. 48 above)p. 32.

Filarete's argument that anthropomorphic design methods permit man to "partici-

239Filarete (n. 5 above)fol. 5r-v.

247See Baxandall, Giotto (n. 4 above) 98 and 161-162.