The True Nature of Love: La Primavera as a Depiction of Virtue and Vice in Marriage

Introduction

La Primavera by Italian Renaissance painter Sandro Botticelli is beautiful in its artistic finesse and depiction of moral themes. In spite of its initial ambiguity, the painting conveys complex–and often intentionally contradictory–themes of love, desire, and teleology through its characters and organization. At its foundation, La Primavera is simultaneously an idealistic portrayal of marriage’s potential to orient spouses toward contemplation of God and a realistic recognition of carnality and coercion within marriage. The painting’s idealism is revealed incrementally as an unfolding story; the chaste portrayal of the woman in the background reveals the painting’s theme of moderated sexuality within marriage, and the foreground builds upon this theme. Whereas the depiction of the florally-dressed woman on the right as beautiful and peaceful is a celebration of the fecundity and grace within marriage, the women and man on the left represent how marriage might attain these ideals by guiding the couple toward God.  On the other hand, La Primavera also conveys skepticism about the integrity of marriage in the real world: the inclusion of violence and carnality preceding marriage on the right of the painting and the danger of the loss of chastity on the left side reveal disapproval about the idyllicism often attributed to marriage. Thus, La Primavera is neither solely a praise or condemnation of marriage, but a presentation of the complex interplay between its virtues and vices.

Historical and artistic context

In order to understand La Primavera to its fullest extent as a painting about marriage, an understanding of its historical and artistic context is helpful. According to Giorgio Vasari, a 16th century Italian painter, La Primavera was kept in a country residence of the Medici family. Further study revealed that the painting was located in the bride’s chamber of wife and husband Semiramide Appiani and Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de’ Medici’s room.^[1]Zöllner, Frank, and Sandro Botticelli. Botticelli: Images of Love And Spring. Munich: Prestel, 1998, pp. 34 This suggests that the painting was commissioned specifically for the couple, which would corroborate the interpretation that La Primavera is about marriage. This interpretation is also supported by the specific flowers depicted in the painting: cornflower, violet, white campion, poppy, daisy, euphorbia, dandelion, corn marigold, and many more are all flowers connected to love or marriage in some way.^[2]Baldini, Umberto, and Casazza, Ornella. Primavera: the Restoration of Botticelli’s Masterpiece. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1986, pp. 104 Thus, the history and artistic details of La Primavera suggest that it is fundamentally a painting about marriage. 

Moreover, the importance bestowed upon the figure in the center of the painting, Venus, and her portrayal as the embodiment of chaste marriage, shows that La Primavera is specifically about moderated, intentional sexuality within marriage. Venus is at the center of the painting spatially but also aesthetically. Spatially, Venus is depicted as standing behind the other characters. This position does not diminish her spatial centrality but emphasizes it by framing her as a motherly figure under whose watch the painting’s scene unfolds. Aesthetically, her being enveloped by a frame of foliage reflects superiority or grandeur and establishes her as an important figure. Thus, due to the emphasis placed on Venus, it seems that the symbolism behind her inclusion is integral to understanding La Primavera. In order to understand the role Venus occupies in the painting, the artistic details behind her depiction and her identity must be explicated. Venus is surrounded by myrtle twigs, which are a symbol of “weddings and childbirth” but also “sexual desire.” Additionally, Venus is the goddess of love and sex while also being the “protectress of weddings and marriage.”^[3]Zöllner, 48 Given that she represents both sex and marriage, Venus is being portrayed as the embodiment of sexuality within marriage. Furthermore, the similarities between the depiction of Venus in La Primavera and the Virgin Mary in other Renaissance paintings suggests that Venus is specifically meant to represent chaste sexuality rather than carnal desire within marriage. Similar to the Virgin Mary, Venus is shown holding her hands aloft in the form of a blessing and veiling her hair in a display of modesty. Thus, given that the Virgin Mary is a Christian symbol of feminine chastity, the similtude of Venus’ depiction suggests that chastity is an integral component of her characterization in La Primavera. Therefore, given Venus’ spatial and aesthetic importance, the scene in the front can therefore be understood as relating to chastity in marriage. 

The depiction of virtuous marriage

Starting with the right side of the painting, the depiction–from right to left–of Zephyr, Chloris, and Flora juxtaposes the beauty of marriage with the ugliness of marriage. According to Greek myth, Zephyrus, the god of the west wind, abducts Chloris and forces her to marry him. Following this coercion, Zephyr transforms Chloris into Flora, the goddess of spring. That the woman to the left of Chloris is Flora is evidenced by the fact that the flowers embroidering the woman’s dress are identical to those sprouting out of Chloris’s mouth. Moreover, the depiction of Zephyr, Chloris, and Flora in close proximity sets up a clear juxtaposition between the first two and the third. First, the interaction between Zephyr and Chloris is depicted as dark and foreboding. Zephyr, whose frown and furrowed brow expresses frustration and anger, is clothed in murky, muted blue robes which stand in stark contrast to the flowery, red-white-black color scheme of the rest of the painting. He is so intent on abducting Chloris that he bends the trees beneath him in his pursuit. Furthermore, Chloris is clearly afraid, as suggested by her raised eyebrows, wide eyes, posture of flight from Zephyr, and slightly parted lips as if about to gasp. Thus, the interaction between Zephyr and Chloris is imbued with intense carnality, predation, and distress. Conversely, Flora’s portrayal represents an entirely different atmosphere. Her half-closed eyes, slight smile, and upright posture is indicative of tranquility and peace rather than trepidation and coercion. Flora also carries red and white roses in front of her stomach, which, given the sweetness and beauty associated with roses, symbolize the “progeny to be expected from her womb.”^[4]Zöllner, 56 This fecundity exudes joy and love, which is drastically different from the fear evident in Chloris and Zephyr’s depiction. This heavily contrasts the marital beauty and grace represented by Flora. This dichotomy could be understood as an emphasis on the merit of marriage: Flora’s depiction as a beautiful and fertile married woman seems to overshadow the despair of Chloris, thereby presenting marriage as wonderful. Such a theme would certainly be fitting for Boticelli’s presumed audience, which, as mentioned previously, is theorized to be a married couple. On the other hand, the inclusion of the ugliness of Zephyr and Chloris’ story suggests a subtle disparagement of marriage as coercive and dangerous. The contradictory portrayal of marriage as beautiful and ugly will be expanded upon later given its prevalence in La Primavera. For now, let us assume Flora’s beautiful and graceful depiction is a transition into the theme of the left side of the painting. Whereas Flora is a representation of the beauty of marriage, the left side of La Primavera develops the concept of how marriage may be beautiful. 

Through the three women’s chain of gazes and the man searching through the clouds, La Primavera presents the telos for marriage as pursuit of God. From right to left, the three women represent the three Graces: Pleasure, Chastity, and Beauty.^[5]Balidini, 92 In the painting, Pleasure is looking at Beauty, who is looking at Chastity, who is looking at Mercury to the left. Mercury’s use of a wand to penetrate the clouds above him represents studying the heavens, which can be considered as discerning God. Whether this is a reference to theology, philosophy, prayer, or something else is unclear, but the general desire to know God seems to be reflected in Mercury’s depiction. Mercury’s role as the embodiment of seeking after God is also suggested by the fact that, while every other character is looking at each other or at the viewer of the painting, Mercury looks up. In other words, Mercury seems to be uniquely interested in the divine rather than the human. Thus, the order of the Graces’ gazes can be understood as an ethical or didactic progression. Ethically, Pleasure is categorized as the most base and carnal by virtue of it not receiving the attention of any Grace. Next, there is Beauty, which is still human but more characteristic of the divine. Then, there is Chastity, a Christian virtue that is reflective of true sanctity. Finally, pursuit of God is depicted as the greatest virtue. Didactically, Pleasure is the first Grace in the chain of progression because it is the most ubiquitous and natural. Her gaze at Beauty, however, suggests that pleasure should only be oriented toward what is beautiful. Beauty looks toward Chastity because, especially within marriage, actions or thoughts derive their beauty from the extent to which they strengthen chaste self-control and self-sacrificial love. Finally, Chastity looks toward pursuit of God because the heart that obeys God in virtue ought to cultivate a mind that seeks God in knowledge. The placement of Mercury at the left-most end of a painting which is observed from right to left, then, indicates that the pursuit of God is the final telos of marriage. Rather than seek after carnal pleasure, the married couple should embrace mutual pursuit of God through chastity. Thus, while the right section of the painting depicts–in one sense–the beauty of marriage, the left section demonstrates exactly how marriage can orient itself toward this beauty. 

The hidden vices latent within marriage 

On the other hand, while the painting depicts the merits of marriage, it also portrays messages about how marriage can often be mired by coercion and carnality. In fact, the hermeneutic lens through which La Primavera is interpreted should account for some negative depictions of marriage since Botticelli himself was averse to marriage. In response to a friend’s suggestion that he marry, Botticelli reacts “I dreamt I had taken a wife, and I was so struck by grief by it that I woke up, and so as not to fall asleep again and dream of it once more, I got up and wandered up and down Florence all night like a madman.”^[6]Horne, H. P., Alessandro Filipepi, London, 1909, pp. 343 In fact, La Primavera subtly displays Botticelli’s skepticism about marriage through the depiction of the Graces and of Zephyr and Chloris. Regarding the Graces, although the center Grace, Chastity, is considered the highest virtue of the three Graces for the reasons mentioned previously, her clothing seems to indicate less chastity than that of the other Graces. Whereas Pleasure and Beauty are clothed fully, Chastity’s dress is depicted as falling off of her shoulder, thereby revealing more of her body. Chastity is the Grace that should be dressed the most modestly given the role of chastity in tempering sexual desire; instead, only Chastity is shown as not being fully clothed, which indicates a deliberate use of artistic irony. Furthermore, Chastity seems to be looking at Mercury with a countenance that differs from those of the other Graces. Pleasure seems nonchalant, as evidenced by her vacant expression and her head being slightly tilted up as if she is not especially focused. Beauty is curious; her eyes are wide open and her head is tilted in a gesture of uncertainty as she smiles slightly, indicating amusement or playful scrutiny. Chastity, however, is grave and resolute, with her gaze intensely focused on Mercury. Her eyebrows are slightly arched as if her brow is furrowed. In fact, her expression is more similar to that of Zephyr–whose face is twisted with carnal desire–than any of the other characters in the painting. Thus, Chastity’s countenance, in addition to her lesser modesty relative to the other Graces, suggests that her disposition is one of sexual desire rather than chastity. The fact that this depiction takes place in the midst of a portrayal of the divine end of marriage suggests the message that marriage, despite the religious expectation and teaching, is often driven by carnal desire. Given this interpretation, Cupid at the top of the painting–whose arrow is pointed toward Chastity–represents the loss of chastity within marriage because he threatens to intensify her carnal desire. In Roman mythology, Cupid’s flaming arrow causes the target to be overcome by uncontrollable desire. If Cupid’s arrow were to land on Chastity, then, her gaze could quickly turn into a carnal yearning that is anything but chaste. Furthermore, the depiction of Cupid as blindfolded is significant because blindfolds represent lack of discrimination, as in the case of Lady Justice. Cupid’s being blindfolded, therefore, suggests that no marriage is insulated from the threat of loss of chastity. Overall, these details confirm a subtle but intense skepticism about the institution of marriage: a conviction that marriage, despite the piety traditionally attributed to it, is often rife with hypocrisy. Additionally, this concept is evident in the inclusion of Zephyr and Chloris on the other side of the La Primavera. Given the painting’s theme of the divine beauty of marriage, the myth of Zephyr and Chloris is one that seems to not belong: it is a story which highlights the potentially coercive and carnal nature of marriage. However, the aforementioned skepticism about marriage suggests that the depiction of Zephyr and Chloris is deliberately meant to portray marriage as coercive and carnal. Thus, despite the idealistic praise and reverence bestowed upon marriage in the painting, La Primavera is thoroughly saturated with a disapproval of marriage and a contention about its supposed hypocrisy and carnality.

Conclusion

La Primavera is, at its foundation, a story of love, virtue, and desire; one that is clear in its idealism about the potential beauty of marriage in its ability to orient spouses toward God, but one that is also firm in its realism that marriage can often fail to abide by standards of virtue due to its carnality and coerciveness. This important dichotomy, which is undoubtedly fueled by religious and cultural trends surrounding marriage during the time of Botticelli, implies that La Primavera may not be the only painting in which Renaissance artists express a superficial approval but a subtle disapproval of marriage. As such, the historical context of and artistic details within other Renaissance paintings may be able to shed light on the different perceptions of marriage during the era. This knowledge would be instrumental to understanding and discussing marriage in modern society, where many of the same paradoxical views of marriage are espoused. Thus, although La Primavera may not depict characters of the real world, it concisely and powerfully depicts aspects of marriage in the gradually de-Christianizing world that require further philosophic reflection.