DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31769#0094
Bulrushes meticulous detail of this mythological painting by Bot-
ticelli makes it impossible to imagine that these particu-
lar plants are included by chance alone.
Towards the end of the fifteenth century there was as
yet no iconographic tradition of bulrushes in mytho-
logical paintings. Typha latijolia was known only from the
world of Christian imagery, above all from depictions of
the Baptism of Christ. Botticelli’s borrowing of this
general compositional type could perhaps account for
the plant’s inclusion in this representation of Venus.
Apart from this rather superficial explanation, there are
two further reasons for the inclusion of the bulrush in
Botticelli’s painting. At first this plant brings to mind
thoughts of the circumstances of Venus’s birth, which
immediately preceded this scene:
95
ticelli makes it impossible to imagine that these particu-
lar plants are included by chance alone.
Towards the end of the fifteenth century there was as
yet no iconographic tradition of bulrushes in mytho-
logical paintings. Typha latijolia was known only from the
world of Christian imagery, above all from depictions of
the Baptism of Christ. Botticelli’s borrowing of this
general compositional type could perhaps account for
the plant’s inclusion in this representation of Venus.
Apart from this rather superficial explanation, there are
two further reasons for the inclusion of the bulrush in
Botticelli’s painting. At first this plant brings to mind
thoughts of the circumstances of Venus’s birth, which
immediately preceded this scene:
95