Historiography: The Purpose of the Venus of Urbino

One of Titian’s most famous works, the Venus of Urbino, depicts the symbolic figure of a young bride about to be dressed in a pre-marital the ritual known in Venice as “il toccamano”, in which the woman expresses consent and dedication to the faceless, unnamed groom. This painting has erroneously been characterized by many scholars as “pornography for the elite”. As opposed to looking at its matrimonial or mythological significance commensurate to the period, numerous modern scholars focus on the nudity, direct gaze, and gesture of the figure and argue that it signifies eroticism. In doing so, such scholars project contemporary assumptions about sexual behavior onto Renaissance art while ignoring the cultural and historical context of these norms rife throughout the Renaissance period. 

In her essay “Sex, Space, and Social History in Titian’s Venus of Urbino”, Rona Goffen challenges these views and aims to correct modern misinterpretations of the painting. The thesis of her work is that Titian’s Venus of Urbino is a marriage picture whose nudity celebrates marital consent and fecundity within artistic norms of the Renaissance. Her thesis is clear: “The Venus of Urbino is then a marriage picture, unless its every clue, every indicator of meaning, is purposefully misleading”. She argues that paintings of this genre common throughout the Renaissance were commissioned by noble families to honor their young marriage, and always using a body double, not the actual subject. In the case of Venus of Urbino, the painting commemorates Duke Guidobaldo II della Rovere’s 1534 marriage to Giulia Varano. 

Goffen argues her case on three analytical fronts: formal, comparative, and historical context. Goffen analyzes the formal composition of the painting, arguing that the forceful gaze and asymmetric contrapposto are patent symbols of the time. Perhaps the most compelling aspect of Goffen’s formal analysis is when she writes, “In short, the eyes have it: Venus’s eyes, which irresistibly hold our own, assert her character, her intellect, and her power to choose”. The gaze demonstrates Venus’ agency and consent which is a key marital virtue. Goffen invokes other iconography in the painting. The two servants who are removing or replacing a gown in a cassone signifies the bride’s trousseau, a marital possession. The twin cassoni are the furniture equivalent of a bouquet of roses and a myrtle plant, which are understood as a sign of matrimony. 

Goffen actually begins her thesis with a comparative argument, citing that Renaissance marital paintings of the era were commonly nude, sexy in today’s judgement, and invoked the symbolism of Venus as muse. Goffen compares the Venus of Urbino to other Renaissance marriage paintings like Titian’s Sacred and Profane Love and Lotto’s Venus of Cupid to demonstrate that seemingly sexualized women are actually proprietary and part of a larger Renaissance artistic pattern that depicts fecundity. Goffen uses Lotto’s Venus and Cupid to argue that a sexy woman and metaphors for reproduction such as a boy urinating adjacent to a wreath are symbols of marital agency, commitment, and fecundity. 

Finally, Goffen contextualizes her argument by arguing that within Renaissance marital norms, writing that “society expected sexual consummation to seal the marital union and children to bless it”. She further articulates that Titian (the painter) was an experienced advisor to the Court; he would not have been so profane to offend the royal commissioners of the Venus of Urbino. 

As art history is a discipline that thrives on dialogue and reinterpretation, Goffen addresses alternative interpretations of pornographic detractors. Goffen debunks Heinse’s claim that the painting depicts only a courtesan rather than a mythological or matrimonial figure by re-articulating her thesis that the painting is iconographic of marriage. She refines Theodore Reff’s hypothesis that the painting commemorates Guidobaldo della Rovere’s marriage to Giulia Varano, addressing objections about Giulia’s youth by noting that “many noble brides were espoused at comparably tender ages, usually with the understanding that their marriages would be consummated only after they had reached menarche”. Finally, she builds on Vasari’s identification of a young Venus in the painting, arguing that this mythological framework that he projects serves a marital purpose as an “ideal image of Venus…standing in for the bride”. By grounding Venus’ promiscuity in renaissance norms, she counters interpretations that project modern sexual assumptions onto the work and reframes the painting as a celebration of marital union and fertility within the Renaissance context. 

Goffen’s analysis of the Venus of Urbino launches me into cogitation about the painting as her interpretation upends contemporary scholarly interpretations about the Venus of Urbino. I am largely persuaded by Goffen’s analysis, as she prosecutes her case exhaustively. However, I still believe that in the same way that marital sanctity may be both sexual and chaste, the Venus of Urbino could still be somewhat pornographic yet predominantly celebratory of matrimonial piety and exclusivity. An adult female nude with breasts exposed seems mildly erotic in any human epoch (although this might be the unwitting projection of my own interpretations from living in the contemporary era!). Nonetheless, my primary takeaway from reading Goffen’s analysis is that we must overcome the cognitive bias to project our contemporary norms onto different cultures and historical eras -- be it art, people, or a time period.