Article Analysis: Marmor Vs. Michalski

Marmor vs. Michalski
Max C. Marmor wrote an article titled: “From Purgatory to the Primavera: Some Observations on Botticelli and Dante” in which he discusses the connections between Dante’s Divine Comedy and Botticelli’s Primavera. I will be comparing this article to one written by Sergiusz Michalski titled: “Venus as Semiramis: A New Interpretation of the Central figure of Botticelli’s Primavera,” which was published in the same issue of Artibus et Historiae in 2003. Michalski discusses Botticelli’s Primavera in this article, but unlike Marmor, his thesis does not include the influence of Dante, but instead revolves around the content and possible donor of the painting, not its basis in Dante’s literary works. The difficulty in comparing these articles comes from Marmor’s focus on Dante and the fact that Michalski hardly mentions Dante’s name or his enormous contributions to Botticelli’s life and work. The articles contain very little overlapping content, which is

He says that he does not wish to add to the endless discussion over details of the painting other than to propose his idea, that Semiramide’s name and its connections to the Babylonian queen Semiramis provide evidence that the painting was indeed commissioned for Semiramide. His main evidence comes from Semiramis’s connections to Venus, which loop back to the Venus/Semiramide figure in the Primavera, creating a circle that Michalski does a good job of arguing for. The Babylonian queen Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod and was often connected to Venus as a figure of beauty and love, however she earned the connection through other ways than simply being pretty: she is known to have started “false religions” based on her studies of astrology. Her beliefs were accepted by the people over which she ruled, and she gained great power in Nimrod’s territories, and was eventually thought of as “queen of