The Calumny of Apelles was a scene that dated back to classical antiquity. Apelles was a Hellenistic painter that was falsely accused of conspiracy against Ptolemy IV, the leader of Egypt, by a rival painter of the name Antiphilos. Even though Apelles had never met his supposed fellow conspirator, nor been to the location of their rendezvous, Ptolemy arrested him. Upon hearing a testimony to Apelles innocence by a current prisoner of the conspiracy, Ptolemy released Apelles and offered him Antiphilos as a slave and a large amount of gold. Apelles decided to act a more allegorical retribution, and created a painting of the scene that portrayed the king adorned with the ass’s ears of Midas.
Although the original description of the work did not survive, Lucian described it in his On Calumny. It goes,
“On the right of it sits a man with very large ears, almost like those of Midas, extending his hand to Slander while she is still at some distance from him. Near him, on one side, stand two women—Ignorance and Suspicion. On the other side, Slander is coming up, a woman beautiful beyond measure, but full of malignant passion and excitement, evincing as she does fury and wrath by carrying in her left hand a blazing torch and with the other dragging by the hair a young man who stretches out his hands to heaven and calls the gods to witness his innocence. She is conducted by a pale ugly man who has piercing eye and looks as if he had wasted away in long illness; he represents envy. There are two women in attendance to Slander, one is Fraud and the other Conspiracy. They are followed by a woman dressed in deep mourning, with black clothes all in tatters—she is Repentance. At all events, she is turning back with tears in her eyes and casting a stealthy glance, full of shame, at Truth, who is slowly approaching.”
As well, Leon Baptista Alberti described the scene in his On Painting, which was likely read by Sandro during his time as a young artist. In the final work, there is evidence that reflects both Lucian and Alberti as inspirations of Sandro’s painting.
It is a small, highly detailed painting. The amount of detail makes it possible that the painting was intended for minute observation. Every detail, the drapery, the attitude, and the coloring of each figure were expressly chosen to convey a profound sense of emotional expression. The dark colors of envy and remorse are purposefully chosen to contrast the light colors of fraud and conspiracy; it was likely that this was a commentary on the nature of these sins. All of the clothed characters are in contrast to the stark nudity of truth and upward motion of truth. This movement is similar to that of Plato in Raphael’s masterpiece, and conveyed the same message of idealized, heavenly thought as his Plato.
A judge is hearing a case. Two advisors, Ignorance and Suspicion, fondle his donkey ears.
Envy steps forth to make his case, leading the beautiful Calumny (Slander)
Intrigue and Fraud retouch her exquisite coiffure.
She drags in the naked Victim (the Slandered Man) by his hair. Frowning in misery and incomprehension, he turns to heaven for consolation.
Grim Penitence stalks before him and turns to give an annoyed look at Truth, who stands at the end of the queue, hidden from the judge.
You don’t need to be a Renaissance artist to commiserate with this victim. Everyone knows about these characters and has seen them perform.
Botticelli, the artist, was slandered. Perhaps he was a slanderer too. His biographer, Vasari, says he accused a friend of heresy “for a joke”. Vasari tells the mean story also just for fun—the fun of printing the friend’s reply to the tribunal. Botticelli had told people he believed the soul died with the body. “Oh, I can believe that as far as HE is concerned,” said the friend. “Because he’s not a human—he’s a brute.” And for further kicks, Vasari throws in the friend’s next dart: “And anyway, Botticelli barely knows how to read or write and he goes and does a commentary on Dante, which is taking [the great man’s] name in vain.”
Too little is known about Botticelli, which is a shame because he was one of the greatest artists. Most of what we do know comes from Giorgio Vasari, who didn’t like him. He tells cattish stories like the one above and gives the impression when he does praise Botticelli’s work that he is struggling to be fair, no more.
“He was one of the followers of Savonarola [the Dominican friar who preached hellfire and brimstone],” says Vasari, “…and he remained an obstinate member of the sect, becoming one of thesnivellers, as they were called then, and abandoning his work.” See how unstable he was? Unstable and irresponsible. Who was going to take care of him once he stopped working? “As an old man he found himself so poor that if Lorenzo de’ Medici…and then his friends and other worthy men who loved him for his talent had not come to his assistance, he would almost have died of hunger.”
As an artist, Botticelli was on the wrong side of history. He painted in a style that Michelangelo made obsolete even before Botticelli was old. The frescoes by both in the Sistine Chapel are the most graphic example. Botticelli’s look as though he had painted them with one foot in the Middle Ages, though in fact he finished them only twenty-five years before Michelangelo set to work there.