Phyllis and Aristotle, 1530The humiliation of the Greek philosopher Aristotle was one of the most po

Phyllis and Aristotle, 1530The humiliation of the Greek philosopher Aristotle was one of the most powerful and popular pictorial examples of the theme of Weibermacht or the ‘Power of Woman’ in the late Middle Ages. Although Indian in origin, the legend was popularised by the 13th century cleric Jacques de Vitry in his Sermones feriales et communes, and by Cranach’s day had been treated in various texts and in a German 15th century play, Ain Spil von Maister Aristotiles. There are various versions of the legend of Phyllis and Aristotle, but Cranach would doubtless have been familiar with the essential elements. Aristotle is supposed to have admonished his student, usually identified as the young Alexander the Great, for paying too much attention to Phyllis, a woman of the court, and thus paying too little attention to his studies and state duties. Phyllis, angered by Aristotle’s interference, decided to revenge herself by seducing him. By promenading suggestively in the garden beneath Aristotle’s window, she succeeded in arousing the aged philosopher. The focal point of the narrative usually illustrated is when, as here, in return for the promise of her favours, Phyllis demands and receives a ride on the philospher’s back. Aristotle’s humiliation thus provides a salient lesson about the spiritual and physical vulnerability of even the most learned philospher.From the early Middle Ages to the Renaissance, the story of Phyllis and Aristotle invited many different interpretations. It could be seen as a moralistic denunciation of the ways of antiquity; a warning against the evil cunning of women (Weiberlist); a sermon on the powers of love; a depiction of man reduced to sin by his animal nature; or a humorous satire on a wise man’s follies (the philosopher turned fool). Although Hutchinson has argued that in the case of the Housebook Master, the story was used by modern humanists to ridicule the Via Antiqua, which was based on the philosophy of Aquinas and the principles of Aristotelian logic, it cannot necessarily be inferred that Cranach’s painting has a similar purpose in mind. Although such a reading would fit with the thinking that Cranach’s friend and patron, Martin Luther, was developing at Wittenberg, it is perhaps more likely that the true 'milieu’ of the painting lies in the courtly tastes of Cranach’s patron, Frederick the Wise, and his contemporaries. Cranach or his patron no doubt cared less about specific anti-Aristotelian thought than in the humorous theme of Weiberlist and its attendant moral warnings. This painting forms part of a group of similar subjects painted by Cranach throughout his career, such as Samson and Delilah, David and Bathsheba, Unequal Lovers and Hercules and Omphale, which clearly matched the tastes of his patrons. The series of paintings which are recorded as hanging in 1513 in the bedchamber of Prince Johann of Saxony, such as Salome, Hercules, Omphale, Venus and Cupid and Lucretia, were, for example, all historical characters which in the eyes of contemporaries could be connected with the saying 'was Fraueu alles vermochten’ (women doing as they please). The importance of such works lies in the fact that Cranach was the first (and usually the only) artist to take such 'erotic’ or 'moral’ themes which had previously only been used in graphic or decorative work, and use them in the 'higher’ form of panel painting. (Source) -- source link

More pics about