patronage In considering the cultural bond linking cre-
ative artists and the grandees who supported them, the
Renaissance looked back for its model to a famous rela-
tionship in classical antiquity: the patronage bestowed by
Maecenas, the friend and minister of the Roman emperor
Augustus, upon the epic poet Virgil. As the epigrammatist
Martial said, “Sint Maecenates, non deerunt...Marones”
(As long as there are Maecenases... Virgils will not be
lacking). Maecenas was thus perceived as the epitome of
the liberal and discerning patron, and it was a standard
compliment from Renaissance literati to refer to an actual
or intended patron as a “Maecenas” (see SIDNEY, SIR
PHILIP).
At its most basic, the patron’s duty was to provide the
artist with financial security, either through long- or short-
term employment or by commissioning specific works
from him. The degree of enlightened encouragement that
a patron could provide naturally varied with the patron’s
own tastes, discernment, and funds. Poets, musicians, and
painters, along with competent falconers or riding mas-
ters, might well be considered little more than desirable
personnel in the entourage of any nobleman who wished
to cut a dash among his fellows, but ideally both sides
conceived the patronage relationship as considerably
more than a crude transaction whereby monetary advan-
tage was traded for gross flattery. Present enjoyment and
display naturally mattered to a patron, but the quality of
his artists’ output mattered too, because in a world in
which military glory and political power were seen to be
frail and transitory the discriminating prince could hope
to achieve lasting renown through his association with
works that would be admired by future generations.
This idealistic view of patronage applied particularly
to literature, less so to the visual arts, and hardly at all in
the case of music. Even so, writers were seldom primarily
employed for literary ends, as was the case with ARIOSTO,
who was sent on various diplomatic missions by his ESTE
employers. The relationship between painters, sculptors,
and architects and their patrons varied considerably. Some
artists had little, if any, more status than other house-
hold employees, but great figures such as MICHELANGELO,
Titian, and Cellini were highly mobile and were sought
after by popes and emperors. On the other hand, such
artists needed the scope provided by huge and expensive
projects for such patrons as POPE JULIUS II, Emperor
Charles V, and Francis I of France to realize their artistic
vision. Music, while an integral part of Renaissance life, is
scarcely included within the exalted concept of patronage;
popes, princes, great churches, or municipal corporations
generally just hired the best men available to compose and
perform music for grand occasions and for everyday re-
quirements.
While some patronage relationships in the visual arts
are well documented, especially the stormy ones like that
between Michelangelo and Pope Julius II, most evidence
for the system in the Renaissance derives from literature.
Compliments to patrons could be integral to the work it-
self (as in Ariosto’s glorification of the Este dynasty in the
storyline of ORLANDO FURIOSO) or the patron’s association
with it could be proclaimed via the dedication. With the
spread of printing the latter practice was easily debased,
with some authors claiming as “patrons” eminent persons
whom they scarcely knew, in the hope of a cash hand-out.
Further reading: Alison Cole, Virtue and Magnifi-
cence: Art of the Italian Renaissance Courts (Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1995); Mary Hollingsworth, Pa-
tronage in Renaissance Italy: From 1400 to the Early Six-
teenth Century (Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1996); Dale Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici and the Floren-
tine Renaissance: The Patron’s Oeuvre (New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press, 2000); Guy F. Lytle and Stephen
Orgel (eds), Patronage in the Renaissance (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1981); David C. Price, Patrons
and Musicians of the English Renaissance (Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press, 1981); Hugh Trevor-Roper,
Princes and Artists: Patronage and Ideology at Four Habs-
burg Courts 1517–1633 (London: Thames & Hudson,
1976).Paul II (1417–1471) Pope (1464–71)
A wealthy Venetian by birth, at age 23 Pietro Barbo was
created a cardinal by his uncle, Pope EUGENIUS IV. As Paul
II, he failed to gain Emperor Frederick III’s cooperation in
organizing a crusade against the Turks, but he enjoyed
more success in his fight against heresy in Bohemia, where
he excommunicated and deposed King George of Pode-
brady for his Hussite sympathies. Paul supported the can-
didature of the more loyal Catholic, King MATTHIAS
CORVINUSof Hungary, who was elected king of Bohemia in- Paul II made little progress in restoring papal au-
thority in the Papal States, but his restoration of ancient
monuments made Rome a more worthy papal capital; he
also amassed a collection of ancient coins and bronzes,
many of which passed into the ownership of Lorenzo de’
Medici (“the Magnificent”) at his death. During his pon-
tificate the first printing presses were founded in Rome,
but Paul clashed with the humanist scholars of the ROMAN
ACADEMY, led by Pomponio LETO. He temporarily closed
the academy in 1468 and arrested its members; one of
them, PLATINA, was tortured. At the root of these incidents
was Paul’s view that the study of the pagan writers of clas-
sical antiquity was an unsuitable activity, particularly on
the part of members of the papal staff. In his opinion, such
an activity would be likely to lead to paganism or heresy;
in fact it led to his humanist opponents portraying him as
a bigoted opponent of all learning.
Paul III (1468–1549) Pope (1534–49)
After enjoying the benefits of a humanist education in the
circle of Lorenzo de’ MEDICI, Alessandro Farnese becamePPaauull IIIIII 3 36655