As we stroll through the rooms of the Doge’s Palace, the quantity of historically themed paintings on the walls poses problems for us. Can we trust these reconstructions? Why, especially in the 16th century, did the Venetian Republic invest so much in iconographic programmes concerning its military successes?

The Taking of Constantinople and the Fourth Crusade

In the previous article we tried to answer this question by taking a particular painting as a reference, namely the Taking of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204 by Jacopo Palma the Younger (c. 1582, 575×625 cm, Great Council Chamber). It was recalled that, following a fire that broke out in the Doge’s Palace in 1577, several rooms had been rebuilt and, consequently, several works of art.

There was the initiative of a new cycle dedicated to the Fourth Crusade, of which the Presa was a part, and we had investigated the reasons why the Venetian Republic had decided to commemorate that unforeseen as well as ignoble adventure: it was, after all, anundue interference in the internal affairs of theByzantine Empire.

We had discovered that the cause of the cycle was probably to do with political contingencies, namely a possible alliance with the French in an anti-Habsburg and anti-Ottoman function, and that this painting supported the pro-war position within the Venetian Senate.

Commissioning and ideological control

Finally, it was noted that the Serenissima had delegated a historical advisor, Bardi, and two senators, Marcello and Contarini, to take care of the initiative; the latter, in particular, was a military expert, a circumstance that played no small part in theartistic activity.

Palma was not a specialist in war canvas, but the result was remarkable; the directives the committee gave him – and perhaps, although we have no proof, other documents he may have consulted – were invaluable.

The Battle of Lepanto: another reliable reconstruction

The Battle of Lepanto by Andrea ‘Vicentino’ Michieli (c. 1587, 520×1390 cm) also contains reliable details. It was the same commission of experts that provided him with the guidelines, and moreover at the same time: the work was to be placed in the Sala dello Scrutinio, i.e. the room where the most significant votes and elections took place in Venice, to replace Tintoretto‘s Battaglia, praised by contemporaries but irretrievably lost.

Geography, composition and symbolism

Observing Vicentino’s painting, we first notice that the geographical position of the scene is correct: on the upper left we see the hills of the Curzolari islands, while on the right the gulf of Patras appears. The proximity to the gulf is explained by the fact that the League commanders feared that the Ottomans would decide to avoid battle; staying below the coast would therefore have made their escape easier to manage.

The bulk of the men and boats are concentrated between the centre and the lower part of the image; this is probably a compositional artifice to enhance theintensity of the final phase of the battle. Sebastiano Venier’s galley, in the foreground, is placed in anintersection of lines starting from Ali Pasha ‘s boat on the left and arriving at that of Don Juan of Austria on the right: an effective choice, because it increases dynamism.

As for the colours, the dark red of the oars and the hull – the latter actually covered in black pitch – is questionable, but the choice is effective, as it stands out against thedarkness of the scene. Smoke and explosions create a gloomy atmosphere, while a yellow filter applied to the lights makes the whole look apocalyptic. The battle, in fact, had strong symbolic connotations: there were not just two armies facing each other, but Christianity against Islam.

The violence of combat

The real protagonist of the scene is the violence of combat, which Vicentino handled brilliantly. The dynamics are well known: each ship contained a hundred soldiers who, afterboarding, immediately jumped onto the enemy ship and fought hand-to-hand; the rowers also joined the fray.

In the painting, the soldiers are de-humanised: faces are not visible and all are intent on using crossbows, arquebuses, proto-guns and cannons. On the one hand, the Janissary corps employed firearms and bow and arrow indiscriminately; on the other hand, the infantrymen of the League could rely on very recent Germanic artillery.

Vicentino places the arquebusiers close to Admiral Ali Pasha, giving them – as historian Ana Echevarría has written – the role of bodyguards of the Sultan and his representatives. Several Ottoman soldiers, wounded or already dead, ended up in the water: the chances of survival were slim, as few knew how to swim and there was almost nothing to hold on to. It is plausible that there were thousands of casualties, as the fighting lasted three to four hours in hundreds of boats, in enormous excitement.

Inconsistencies in the naval arrangement

Up to this point, the reconstruction appears reliable; what leaves doubts, however, is the way Vicentino positions the naval units. The combat involved eight squadrons: in the centre were the captains of the two admirals Don Giovanni of Austria and Ali Pasha, in charge of the first strike; on the right side the Genoese Gianandrea Doria against Uluç Ali; on the left side the Venetian Agostino Barbarigo and Antonio da Canal ‘s captaincy against Mehmet Suraq. Behind them were the reserves.

In the painting, however, Ali Pasha ‘s vessel is placed in front of Don Giovanni‘s, but is only rammed by Venier’s galley, placed diagonally. The chronicles, in fact, place Venier’s galley behind, not to the side of, Ali Pasha’s, while the ship that rammed him would only have been Don Giovanni’s, with Venier acting as support. An explanation is urgently needed.

Geopolitical Readings and Interpretations

The scholar Antonio Manno interprets the issue from a geopolitical perspective. In 1571 Venetians and Spaniards were allies, but fourteen years later – at the time the painting was commissioned – the alliance was already over. There was no longer any reason to glorify the Spaniards, nor their allies or subordinates, i.e. the Genoese, as well as the papal forces; as for the Habsburgs, their continual demands to sail freely in theAdriatic had irritated Venetian senators to no small degree.

On the contrary, the 1573 peace treaty between the Serenissima and the Ottomans had reconciled the parties. Consequently,’ Manno argues, ‘the Ottoman forces and their commander were to be treated with respect, while everyone else could be marginalised.

Wolfgang Wolters takes a different view and emphasises the artist’s margin of freedom in characterising the protagonists; however, Manno’s deduction seems convincing, as the Ottoman infantry and navy are presented as a respectable military adversary. Ali Pasha is even depicted full-length: he appears authoritative and dignified while issuing orders, a characteristic that must have passed the scrutiny of the commissioners. Granting the honour of arms to the enemy always requires a good reason, not only in the visual arts.

Patrician families and internal propaganda

More generally, it is striking how the painting is full of flags, both of the national navies and of the Venetian patrician families involved: the Duodo, the Malipiero, the Giustinian and many others. According to Manno, the Serenissima intended to maintain close ties with its clans, especially in view of future expeditions.

By giving them public recognition for their military efforts, the Republic was carrying out an internal propaganda operation to support the Venetian polygarchy as a whole. Manno’s thesis is logically unexceptionable: without the support of its own elite, Venice would have run aground politically. This would also explain the monumental size of the painting: space was needed to represent all the Venetian protagonists of the enterprise.

The recipient of the image

Of the same opinion is the Turkish scholar Naz Defne Kut, according to whom the placement of the work in the Scrutiny Room leaves no doubt as to who was the recipient of this internal propaganda. The precise representation of coats of arms indicated which families could associate their names with victory.

Although the painting commemorated the triumph of the Holy League, it acted above all on theessence of Venetian political power, reaffirming its aristocratic character andthe authority of the ruling class. In other words, for Venice Lepanto became both a historical victory and an internal political asset.

In the following years, even after the peace treaty of 1573, the victory of Lepanto retained its military, spiritual and symbolic significance. According to Kut, its memory served to reaffirm Venetian leadership, the commitment of the patrician families and the stability of the established order within the polygarchical structure of the Republic. The image of the battle thus preserved the prestige of a Catholic victory and, at the same time, contributed to the legitimisation of the status quo.

Art, history and ideological filters

In conclusion, both the Taking of Palma the Younger and the Battle of Vicentino show that artists were not historiographers, but could deal with historical themes with great acuity. The events reported in the sources passed through various filters, starting with those applied by the commissioner through his appointees; as a result, the representations served political-ideological and propagandistic purposes, depending on the contingencies of the moment.

The artists had to stick to the priorities they received, which is why the two masterpieces analysed cannot be considered documentary sources in the strict sense. However, the target audience was taken into account. In the case of the Battle of Lepanto, the memory of the events was so close in time that every observer was perfectly familiar with their unfolding: to distort them would have been unthinkable. For the Presa, on the other hand, the availability of medieval sources on the Fourth Crusade in the city probably had a positive impact on the veracity of the work.

We do not know for sure what Palma and Vicentino consulted, apart from the committee guidelines, but the details analysed show that both were able to derive from what they read, saw or heard an articulate vision of historical events, interpreting it and translating it into masterly images.