Michelangelo Paintings

Frank Zöllner
Bibliotheca Universalis — Compact cultural companions

celebrating the eclectic TASCHEN universe at an unbeat
Christof Thoenes Frank Zöllner Il Divino
Christof Thoenes Meet the Renaissance master
The
able, democratic price! Since we started our work as cultural
archaeologists in 1980, TASCHEN has become synonymous
Complete
with accessible, open-minded publishing. Bibliotheca Universalis Before reaching the tender age of 30, Michelangelo Buonarroti
brings together more than 100 of our all-time favorite titles in a (1475–1564) had already sculpted Pietà and David, two of
Works I
neat new format so you can curate your own affordable library the most famous sculptures in the entire history of art. As a
of art, anthropology, and aphrodisia. sculptor, painter, draftsman and architect, the achievements
Bookworm’s delight — never bore, always excite! of this Italian master are unique – no artist before or since
him has ever produced such a vast, multifaceted and wide-
ranging oeuvre.
Michelangelo
The authors:
Frank Zöllner wrote his doctoral thesis on motifs originating This edition traces Michelangelo’s ascent to the cultural elite
from antiquity in the history of art and architecture of the of the Renaissance. Ten richly illustrated chapters cover the
Medieval and Renaissance periods, and his postdoctoral thesis artist’s paintings, sculptures and architecture, including a close
on motion and expression in the art of Leonardo da Vinci. analysis of the artist’s tour de force frescoes in the Sistine
He has published numerous works on Renaissance art and art Chapel. Full-page reproductions and enlarged details allow
theory. Other topics include the art of the late 19th and 20th readers to appreciate the finest details in the artist’s repertoire,
centuries, the art of the “Leipzig School” and the scientific while the book’s biographical essay considers Michelangelo’s
Michelangelo
works of Aby Warburg. In 1996 he was appointed Professor personal traits and circumstances, such as his solitary nature,
of the History of Medieval and Modern Art at the University his thirst for money and commissions, his immense wealth and
of Leipzig. He has authored XL monographs on Leonardo da his skill as a property investor.
Vinci and Michelangelo for TASCHEN.
Christof Thoenes (1928–2018) studied art history in Berlin
and Pavia, before completing his doctorate in Berlin. Thoenes
was Honorary Professor in Hamburg and worked many years
for the Bibliotheca Hertziana (Max-Planck-Institute) in Rome.
He contributed to numerous publications on Italian art,
particularly on architecture and architectural theory of the
The Complete Paintings,
15th to 18th centuries.
Sculptures and Architecture
“It goes without saying that this
book meets TASCHEN’s high
standards for producing detailed,
well-researched and beautifully
Cover:
constructed examinations of art Bacchus (detail), 1496/97
and culture.” Marble, height 203 cm
Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello
—The Washington Times
Back cover:
Delphic Sibyl
(detail of the Sistine ceiling), 1509
Fresco, 360 x 350 cm
Rome, Vatican, Sistine Chapel
Frank Zöllner Frank Zöllner
Christof Thoenes Christof Thoenes
Michelangelo
Michelangelo
Michelangelo
Frank Zöllner
Christof Thoenes
Michelangelo
1475–1564
The Complete Paintings,
Sculptures, Architecture
Contents
6, 14
Prefaces
16 36 70 324 378 492

I. The start of a II. Between Florence, III. The breakthrough VII. The sculptor VIII. Presentation drawings IX. The architect in Rome
magnificent career Bologna and Rome in Florence 1513–1534 and Last Judgement 1534–1564
1475–1491 1492–1500 1501–1504 1534–1541
586–749
Catalogues
Sculptures 586
Paintings 654
Architecture 706
750–791
Appendices
Bibliographical sources
106 126 294 546 582 for life and work 750
IV. Between Rome V. The Sistine Ceiling VI. The architect X. Late works: The final Epilogue Bibliography 758
and Florence 1505–1508 1508–1512 in Florence 1513–1534 paintings and sculptures Index 782
1540–1564 Credits 790
Preface
Frank Zöllner
The first publication of this book in 2007 and its second, 2014 edition were inspired by the
ambition to present Michelangelo’s work and his artistic concepts in comprehensive fashion.
This aim went hand in hand with the thesis that Michelangelo, as the prototype of the mod-
ern, self-expressive artist, succeeded in emancipating himself from the aesthetic conventions
of his day from an early stage in his career. My aim was also to situate Michelangelo’s works
within their contemporary context and within the history of their respective genres and to
interpret their content in ways that are both reasonable and comprehensible against this back-
drop. The main, biographical section of the book furthermore undertakes an evaluation of the
most important documentary sources, while the catalogue section offers a critical appraisal of
the literature of the past few decades. A survey of research published since 2007 would also be
desirable, but goes beyond the scope of this preface.
I believe it is important to discuss two new discoveries that have a significant bearing upon
Michelangelo’s relationship with antiquity, upon his beginnings as a sculptor and his work as
a painter, and upon his career plans in spring 1519. The first of these concerns the rediscovery,
publicly announced in June 2010, of a small antique marble group and its significance for
Michelangelo (ill. p. 8). The group, which shows three satyrs fighting a serpent, was originally
excavated in January 1489 on the Viminal in Rome (Sotheby’s Antiquities 2010, no. 29; Fusco/
Corti 2006, pp. 52–53). It was subsequently acquired by Lorenzo de’ Medici for his collection
of antiquities in Florence – the very place where the young Michelangelo became a sculptor.
Soon after this, however, the Three Satyrs was lost from view and as a consequence received no
attention in Michelangelo scholarship. The rediscovery of this marble group now makes it clear
Jacopino del Conte, Portrait of Michelangelo, c. 1535

Oil on canvas, 98.5 x 68 cm. Florence, Casa Buonarroti
7
MICHEL ANGELO PREFACE
Unknown artist, Three Satyrs Fighting a Serpent, 1st cent. The Battle of the Centaurs, 1492
Marble, 80 x 64.1 x 31 cm. Private collection Marble, 80 x 90.5 cm. Florence, Casa Buonarroti
that The Battle of the Centaurs (Cat. S2), the earliest work of sculpture confidently attributed life-sized marble figure of a Sleeping Cupid, which the artist produced in the winter of 1495–
to Michelangelo and produced between 1490 and 1492, was substantially influenced by this 1496, likewise after an antique model in the Medici collection. Both of these early sculptures
prominent piece in the Medici collection. Thus several motifs of movement in The Battle of the by Michelangelo, like the works on which they were based, are now lost. In view of this fact,
Centaurs go back to the Three Satyrs. A further parallel with Michelangelo’s œuvre can be seen the Three Satyrs from the Medici collection assumes a particular significance, since it allows
in the marble base of the Roman sculptural group, which has been left rough-hewn. We find us to form a first reliable opinion on how the young Michelangelo oriented himself towards
similar instances of marble surfaces that have been only roughly worked, and which hence give antiquity in concrete terms.
the impression of being unfinished, in The Battle of the Centaurs and in the Taddei Tondo and The second new discovery, one that has likewise received no attention in the literature,
Pitti Tondo (Cat. S12 and S13). Michelangelo’s trademark non finito is thus directly inspired by concerns Michelangelo’s role as a painter of minor commissions and his career plans in spring
antiquity (Zöllner 2010; 2015). 1519. It is a receipt dated 5 June 1519, today preserved in the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, in
To understand the great importance of the Three Satyrs, we should call to mind the con- which Michelangelo confirms a commission for a panel painting and a corresponding payment
crete examples with which Giorgio Vasari and Ascanio Condivi illustrate the importance of (Sternstunden 2008, p. 54; Zöllner 2011). Loosely translated, the text of the receipt runs as fol-
antiquity for Michelangelo’s beginnings as a sculptor. The two biographers report that Michel- lows: “I Michelangelo, son of Lodovico Simoni, Florentine sculptor here in Rome, received
angelo’s very first sculpture was the Head of a Faun, which he copied from an antique original on this day, the fifth of June, from Lionardo de Bartolini, also a Florentine, for a picture of
in the Medici sculpture garden, i.e. in around 1490. The story is the same with Michelangelo’s Our Lady which I have undertaken to paint, 100 ducats from the vault. To certify that this is
8 9
PREFACE
Michelangelo (?), Receipt addressed to Lionardo di Bartolini, 21.1 x 28 cm

Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Sammlung Darmstaeder 2o 1510: Buonarroti, Michelangelo, f. 1r
Self-portrait,
detail of The Conversion of Saul, 1542–1545
(ill. pp. 554/555)
true I have written this document in my own hand. 1519.” (Io Michelagniolo dilodovicho simoni
schultore Fiorentino qui in Roma o ricievuto oggi questo dí cinque diunio da lionardo debartolini
pur fiorentino per chonto di un di pinto di nostra donna ch’o preso a fare ducati cento dichamera e
per fede delvero o’ facta questa dimia mano propria 1519.)
The Bartolini receipt was purchased by the Berlin autograph collector Ludwig
Darmstaedter (1846–1927) in 1917 from the publisher and bookseller Alexander Duncker
(1813–1897), through the agencies of Martin Breslauer (1871–1940). Its provenance can thus be
traced back to roughly 1897. The Staatsbibliothek library record names Emperor Maximilian
of Mexico (1832–1867) as another former owner of the receipt, but there is no firm evidence
to support this.
Christoph Luitpold Frommel has recently voiced doubts over the authenticity of the
receipt and suggests that it is a feeble imitation from a later epoch (Frommel 2013, p. 125).
Palaeographical analysis argues against this conclusion, however. The text is set down on paper
in a confident and flowing manner and in a handwriting that corresponds with compara-
ble documents. Tracking Michelangelo’s whereabouts from his correspondence and records,
moreover, it emerges that he could indeed have been in Rome between 23 May and 5 June
11
MICHEL ANGELO
1519 (Carteggio II, pp. 190–197; Ricordi 1970, p. 85f ). The patron named in the document
is probably Lionardo di Zanobi de Bartolini. He was Leo X’s personal banker and a major
pillar of Medici papal politics inside and outside Rome (Tewes 2011, p. 145). There would be
nothing surprising about a commission for Michelangelo issuing from a Florentine
client attached to the Medici papal court. The receipt is interesting above all because it shows
Michelangelo, despite not yet having completed major projects such as the Julius Tomb and
the façade of San Lorenzo, accepting a relatively minor commission as a painter. If genuine, it
also puts into perspective the legend that Michelangelo perceived himself first and foremost
as a sculptor. Furthermore, the receipt coincides with the very same point in time at which
Michelangelo was facing the cancellation of his overly ambitious project for the façade of
San Lorenzo (Elam 1992b; Hirst 2011, pp. 159–165). He might therefore have been open to
accepting a smaller commission in June 1519. A more detailed investigation of Bartolini’s art
patronage would be useful, however – including with a view to a definitive authentication of
the receipt from the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin.
Self-portrait,
detail of Crucifixion of St Peter, 1546–1550
(ill. pp. 556/557)
12
Preface
Christof Thoenes
Casting an eye over Michelangelo’s artistic career, it is apparent that it saw a shift of emphasis:
in the latter years of his life, the greatest painter and sculptor of his generation turned his
attention predominantly to architecture. A number of objective reasons for this shift have
been put forward in the literature, but a subjective reason may be at least suspected to lie
behind it, too. In the famous quatrain with which Michelangelo replied to a conventional
piece of verse in praise of the Medici tombs in Florence (see Ch. VII), he has Night declare
that she wishes neither to wake up (i.e. come to life) nor to “see or hear”, but to be stone (esser
di sasso); in this way the “hurt and shamefulness” of the present cannot touch her. Not to be
able to speak, not to have to talk: of all the arts, architecture comes closest to this ideal. It may
have appealed to Michelangelo all the more strongly as his opinion of his own era grew more
pessimistic. His negative mood comes unmistakeably to the fore in the Last Judgement, a fresco
that was greeted not only with the usual formulaic flattery, but also with criticism, in which
mutterings of heresy could also be heard (see Ch. VIII). Here, evidently, Michelangelo had
overstepped a mark. A clearer rebuttal of the spirit of the age in a figurative medium was proba-
bly no longer conceivable; Michelangelo formulated it instead in his late works of architecture.
Saying no by falling silent: perhaps this is the ultimate “message” of Michelangelo’s architecture.
I have endeavoured to bring the bibliography right up to date for this 2017 edition. It was
not possible, however, to incorporate the new findings documented in these recent publica-
tions into the text. My thanks go to Philine Helas in Rome for her invaluable assistance with
the compilation of the latest literature.
Sketch of the façade of S. Lorenzo (detail), 1517

Pen, black and red chalk, 212 x 143 mm. Florence, Casa Buonarroti, 43Ar
14
I.
The start of
a magnificent
career
1475–1491
Frank Zöllner
Just as we put, O Lady, by subtraction,

Into the rough, hard stone
A living figure, grown
Largest wherever rock has grown most small,
Just so, sometimes, good actions
For the still trembling soul
Are hidden by its own body’s surplus,
And the husk that is raw and hard and coarse,
Which you alone can pull
From off my outer surface;
In me there is for me no will or force.
MICHELANGELO
MICHEL ANGELO THE START OF A MAGNIFICENT CAREER
When, in his epic poem Orlando furioso, published in 1532, Ludovico Ariosto described his membership of a profession still defined as working-class he thus occupied an unusual position
contemporary Michelangelo Buonarroti as il divino, “the divine one”, he thereby turned on its within the upper echelons of society, and as an aristocrat amongst artisans the role of outsider.
head the familiar comparison between God and an artist. For if the Middle Ages had likened He felt truly close only to his family, in particular his father, brothers, nephews and nieces, to
God to an artist as a means of illustrating the creative power of the Almighty, the artist and whose financial security and social betterment he pledged the large part of his vast wealth. He
his own powers of invention were now being compared with God. While the painters and amassed this wealth over the many decades of his career, often enduring great personal priva-
sculptors of the Quattrocento were happy to view themselves as the representatives of divine tion, living like a poor man for most of the time.
forces, Michelangelo was the first to become the perfect embodiment of the idea of the artist Michelangelo’s unique standing begins with his very birth. Whereas, in the case of many
as God. This simultaneously marked another paradigm shift: whereas the artists of the 15th 15th-century masters, we do not even know the exact year in which they were born, and have
century determined their position in society, their greatness and their rank by comparing only an approximate idea of their family ancestry, we are well informed about Michelangelo’s
themselves to the artists of antiquity and to contemporary men of letters, from the middle of origins and birth. Like other members of Florence’s upper middle classes, his father, Ludovico
the 16th century onwards Michelangelo served as the only yardstick. Michelangelo achieved di Leonardo Buonarroti Simoni, recorded important events in his family chronicle, includ-
this status through his creation of outstanding works of art that not infrequently surpassed ing the birth, on 6 March 1475, of the second of his altogether five sons. Michelangelo was
the normal bounds of individual ability. At the same time, he also demonstrated an unusual born in the town of Caprese, near Arezzo in the upper Tiber Valley, where his father had been
versatility not only in sculpture and painting but also in a rchitecture. He even managed to earn appointed magistrate (podestà) for a term of one year. The family subsequently moved back
himself a good press during his lifetime, in the form of the Life written by his pupil and friend to Florence, whether they lived alternately on a small country estate in Settignano and in a
Ascanio Condivi (c. 1525–1574), for example, which can be read in large part as Michelangelo’s city residence in the S. Croce district of the city. This information itself reveals that Michel-
autobiography. Crowning these biographical writings is the Life of Michelangelo by Giorgio angelo and his father belonged to a class of society whose members were eligible for public
Vasari (1511–1574), who makes the artist the end and the climax of the history of art. office. Ludovico Buonarroti was also a Guelph and as such part of a political tendency whose
The idea of the uniqueness of Michelangelo and his work remains valid in essence even supporters sought to defend the city of Florence against the threat of foreign rule. This threat
today. Although more recent authors also recognize the shadow side of his genius, namely his might come from outside, for example from the papacy or the emperor, but also from within,
abrupt manner of dealing with his contemporaries, his tightfistedness, his outbursts of anger from Florentine families such as the Medici, whose claim to power clashed with the republican
and his often unjustified tendency to complain, his monumental œuvre repeatedly inspires ideas of the Guelph middle classes.
astonishment, no matter how it is approached. In truth, Michelangelo was able, like no other Inevitably, Michelangelo’s political proximity to the Guelph party provoked conflicts
artist before him, to liberate himself from tradition and contractual constraints and to follow with important patrons on several occasions. In the first decades of his career, these patrons
his own creative impulses. He embodied the perfect artist of the modern era, one who brought included first and foremost the Medici. This family had steered Florence’s political fortunes
virtually every facet of his personality to his work and thereby replaced the medieval artist who in the 15th century in an indirect rather than direct fashion, via a broad network of political
simply produced to order. In assisting in the emergence of a modern breed of artist resolved to alliances, and also through lavish patronage of the arts. In the 16th century, on the other hand,
express only himself, Michelangelo thereby completed a process of emancipation initiated by the Medici increasingly opted to enforce their hegemony over republican tendencies quite
the artists of the late Middle Ages. openly and at times brutally. The potential conflict inherent in Michelangelo’s position was
Michelangelo’s talent and powers of invention are naturally founded not simply on his heightened by the fact that he took the first steps of his career as a sculptor under the protec-
personality alone. The artist, who was born in 1475 not far from Arezzo and who died in tion of Lorenzo de’ Medici (1449–1492).
Rome in 1564, grew up within a force field of fertile social, political and personal tension. He Generally speaking, we are extraordinarily well informed about Michelangelo’s life, right
was a member of a venerable Florentine family that, although part of the nobility, lacked the up to his death on 18 February 1564. Only in the case of his very early years and his beginnings
economic means and political influence this normally implied. As an artist he also fell into as an artist are we obliged to rely in part upon legend and conjecture. Our information about
the category of craftsman, with its comparatively low social status. Through his voluntary the artist’s youth comes from the lives of Michelangelo published by Giorgio Vasari (1550 and
1568) and Ascanio Condivi (1553). Condivi in particular aims to portray the artist as a youthful
prodigy who received no training of note. This biographer also tends to present Michelangelo’s
Page 17
The Battle of the Centaurs (detail), 1492 behaviour towards his patrons in a favourable light. This is particularly true in the case of the
(ill. pp. 28/29) conflict lasting four decades over the completion of the Julius Tomb. The accusation that
18 19
the artist had not always correctly disposed of

the vast sums entrusted to him continued to
hang over him nonetheless.
Documented in Florence and Tuscany
since the 12th century, Michelangelo’s family
had primarily brought forth merchants and
middle-ranking public officials, together with
a number of clerics such as Michelangelo’s
elder brother Leonardo Buonarroti – but no
artists. For this reason, the biographers take
great pains to justify Michelangelo’s choice
of profession. For Vasari, the decision came
from God, who arranged for a divine angel,
a “Michael Angelus”, to be born in Tuscany,
the home of the fine arts. But Vasari, like
Condivi, also offers a rather more mundane
explanation in the form of the well-known
anecdote about Michelangelo and his wet-
nurse in Settignano: “That part of the coun-
try is very rich in stone, especially in quarries
of grey-stone which are continuously worked
by stone-cutters and sculptors, mostly local people; and Michelangelo was put out to nurse
with the wife of one of the stone-cutters. That is why once, when he was talking to Vasari, he
said jokingly: ‘Giorgio, if my brains are any good at all it’s because I was born in the pure air
of your Arezzo countryside, just as with my mother’s milk I sucked in the hammer and chisels
I use for my statues.’”
Vasari’s account, however anecdotal its flavour, points directly to the fact that Michelan-
gelo, like many infants born into the upper classes, was nursed not by his own mother but
by a wet-nurse. The story also reflects an important aspect of Michelangelo’s boyhood: on
his father’s country estate in Settignano, he grew up amongst the local marble-cutters and
stonemasons and thus became intimate with marble and its carving early on. Michelangelo
respected the manual dimension of artistic activity right to the end of his life. He thereby
differed radically from his artist contemporaries, whose desire to rise up through the social
Giotto, The Ascension of St John the Evangelist (detail), c. 1320

Fresco, Florence, S. Croce, Peruzzi Chapel
Figure study after Giotto’s fresco of The Ascension of St John the Evangelist, c. 1491
Pen, 317 x 204 mm. Paris, Musée du Louvre, 706r
20 21
ranks was accompanied by a denial of their craftsman’s roots. Typical of this attitude is the low autobiography. Cellini relates how fellow sculptor Pietro Torrigiani (1472–1528) – unlike
opinion of the manual side of art expressed by Leonardo da Vinci in his treatise on painting. Cellini, a declared opponent of Michelangelo – broke his rival’s nose in a fight in the Floren-
Michelangelo is also one of the first artists of the early modern era whose appearance is tine church of S. Maria del Carmine. Cellini repeats Torrigiani’s version of events as follows:
well known to us, thanks to numerous portraits by his artist colleagues (p. 6). These likenesses “This Buonarroti and I used to go along together when we were boys to study in Masaccio’s
show a bearded face with high, sharply defined cheekbones and a broad, somewhat flattened chapel in the Church of the Carmine. Buonarroti had the habit of making fun of anyone else
nose. Michelangelo’s characteristics also emerge from the writings of his contemporaries: they who was drawing there, and one day he provoked me so much that I lost my temper more
evoke an untidily dressed, even somewhat unkempt, man who lived modestly, who could at than usual, and, clenching my fist, gave him such a punch on the nose that I felt the bone and
times be generous towards his inferiors and also rude towards his employers. But there must cartilage crush like a biscuit. So that fellow will carry my signature till he dies.”
also have been a well-dressed Michelangelo, who liked expensive shirts and afforded himself Those familiar with Michelangelo’s mockery and sarcasm from his letters will find
the luxury of a good horse. The earliest description of Michelangelo by a contemporary, and it no surprise that the enraged Torrigiani should throw a punch at him in S. Maria del
one that is probably plausible, is provided by Paolo Giovio around 1527, who writes: “The Carmine. Torrigiani’s violent reaction may also have been sparked by his bitter recognition
man with this talent was also so curt and uncouth by nature that, leaving aside the incredible that Michelangelo, only slightly his junior, was a draughtsman with whom he could not
filth of his domestic life, he granted posterity no successors in his art. For although implored compete. Whatever the case, this anecdote reveals that Michelangelo’s training was bound
to do so by the princes, he could never be persuaded to take on an apprentice or even allow up early on with drawing and that it took a practical rather a theoretical form. Indeed, he
onlookers in his workshop.” appears to have received little more than the standard primary education. A document of 28
Michelangelo’s physique is vividly described by Condivi: “Michelangelo is of sound con- June 1487 shows that the 12-year-old Michelangelo was already an errand-boy in the work-
stitution; his body is sinewy and bony rather than fat and fleshy; it is healthy above all by shop of Domenico Ghirlandaio (1449–1494). He had thus started working by this young age
nature and from physical exercise as well as his continence regarding sexual intercourse, as well and had no opportunity of continuing his education beyond elementary school. Nine months
as food; though in childhood he was very indisposed and sickly, and as a man he has had two later, on 1 April 1488, Michelangelo commenced his apprenticeship as a painter in Ghirlan-
serious illnesses.” The extent to which Michelangelo agreed with this description is revealed by daio’s workshop. Evidence for this is provided by a document cited verbatim by Vasari (1568),
some recently published notes in the margin of Condivi’s 1553 text: these notes can be traced recording the start of Michelangelo’s training and setting out the wages that Ghirlandaio
back to Michelangelo himself and state, for example, that he considered sexual abstinence to agreed to pay him.
be useful and the prerequisite of a long life. Precisely what the young artist did in Ghirlandaio’s workshop is difficult to reconstruct.
Vasari, the painter and artist biographer who originated from Arezzo, also describes Like other young apprentices, Michelangelo would have learned the foundations of drawing
Michelangelo’s austere way of life: “For example, as a young man he would be so intent on and the handling of colours. His later works as a painter – his frescoes in the Sistine Chapel,
his work that he used to make do with a little bread and wine, and he was still doing the same for example – bear impressive witness to the fact that he had made a thorough study of the
when he grew old, until the time he painted the Last Judgement in the [Sistine] chapel, when métier. This included not only the techniques of fresco and panel painting, but also the abil-
he used to take his refreshment in the evening after the day’s work was finished, but always ity to fill large surfaces with figural compositions in a convincing manner. Michelangelo had
very frugally. Although he became rich he lived like a poor man, and he rarely if ever invited a particularly suitable teacher in Ghirlandaio, who towards the end of the 15th century was
his friends to eat at his table; nor would he ever accept gifts from anyone, because he feared executing monumental fresco cycles in Florence and who also contributed to the first phase of
that this would place him under some kind of permanent obligation. This sober way of life decorations for the Sistine Chapel.
kept him very alert and in want of very little sleep, and very often, being unable to rest, he For information about the course of the young artist’s career we must once again turn
would get up at night and set to work with his chisel, wearing a hat made of thick paper with to anecdotes by the early biographers. According to the – slightly divergent – accounts of
a candle burning over the middle of his head so that he could see what he was doing and have Condivi and Vasari, Michelangelo was given a copperplate engraving of Martin Schongau-
his hands free.” Within this description, Vasari’s mention of Michelangelo’s candle-holding er’s Temptation of St Anthony by his friend Francesco Granacci, another young painter in
hat may be a little fanciful, but from an analysis of his bank account and from what we know Ghirlandaio’s workshop. Michelangelo, it seems, copied and coloured the engraving. So as to
about his household, the artist’s frugal lifestyle is not difficult to reconstruct. perfect some of its strange-looking figures, he went along to the fish market to study fishes’
As is well known, Michelangelo’s “trademark” was his squashed nose, the story of which is fins and eyes. Underlying this anecdote is the concept of the pupil who goes his own way:
told by the Florentine goldsmith and sculptor Benvenuto Cellini (1500–1571) in his celebrated he no longer follows his master, but learns directly from nature, in this case going to the
22 23
fish market to study his subject at first hand.

This episode, although rather implausible in
itself, may contain a kernel of truth: firstly,
the study of nature would undoubtedly have
formed part of an artist’s training towards
the end of the Quattrocento, and, secondly,
prints and engravings from north of the
Alps were in fact circulating in Italy during
this period. Indeed, illustrated books whose
plates were executed by northern European
artists provided inspiration for major works
of Italian art: the frescoes by Luca Signorelli
(c. 1450–1523) in Orvieto cathedral, for
example, which date from the 1490s, were
influenced by the illustrations to Hartmann
Schedel’s Chronicle of the World. Michelangelo
himself would draw inspiration from printed
sources on two occasions: when painting the
Sistine Ceiling, and when painting The Con-
version of Saul. The print as a source of inspi-
ration was something new in the history of
art; it exposed artists to new ideas from outside the workshop and their own sphere of activity.
The story that Cellini tells about Michelangelo copying the works of earlier masters, such
as the frescoes by Masaccio, also finds confirmation in the artist’s early drawings. Amongst
these are studies of Giotto’s Ascension of St John the Evangelist (p. 21) in the Peruzzi Chapel in
S. Croce in Florence, and of Masaccio’s Tribute Money (p. 25) in the Brancacci Chapel in S.
Maria del Carmine. The attribution and dating of these drawings are in some cases disputed.
Nevertheless, some of the sheets may be considered to convey an approximate impression of
Michelangelo’s beginnings as a draughtsman. A noteworthy feature of these drawings is their
choice of subject: at least three are copies after the two leading protagonists of Florentine
painting, Giotto (1266 [?]–1337) and Masaccio (1401–1429). These are precisely the two art-
ists to whom Vasari awards decisive roles in his historical construct: Giotto, around 1300,
marked the first phase in the upswing in the arts, and Masaccio, around 1420, the second,
Masaccio, The Tribute Money (detail), c. 1427

Fresco, Florence, S. Maria del Carmine, Brancacci Chapel
Figure study after Masaccio’s fresco of The Tribute Money, after 1490
Pen, partly over red chalk, 317 x 197 mm. Munich, Graphische Sammlung, 2191r
24 25
while Michelangelo himself personified the third and highest stage. Giotto and Masaccio had
already been acclaimed as the protagonists of modern art by other historiographers of Floren-
tine art before Vasari, such as Dante, Filippo Villani, Lorenzo Ghiberti, Cristoforo Landino
and Leonardo da Vinci.
Around 1490, i.e. at the same time that Michelangelo was making drawings after Giotto
and Masaccio, Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) described his own periodization model of art
history. Under the heading “How painting falls into decline and deteri-orates through the ages
when painters have no other authority than existing works”, Leonardo wrote: “The painter will
produce pictures of little excellence if he takes other painters as his authority, but if he learns
from natural things he will bear good fruit. We saw this in the painters who came after the
Romans. They always imitated each other and their art went ever into decline from one age
to the next. After these came Giotto the Florentine who was not content to copy the works of
his master Cimabue. Born in the lonely mountains inhabited only by goats and other beasts,
and being inclined by nature to such art he began to copy upon the stones the movements of Bertoldo di Giovanni, Battle relief, c. 1475
Bronze, 43 x 99 cm. Florence, Museo del Bargello
the goats whose keeper he was. And thus he began to copy all the animals to be found in the
countryside in such a way that after much study he surpassed not only the masters of his age
but all those of many centuries before. After this, art fell back into decline, because everyone Not long after his initial training in painting and drawing, Michelangelo was also offered
copied the pictures that had already been done, and thus from century to century the decline the opportunity to learn to sculpt in the legendary garden of S. Marco, which housed a collec-
continued until Tomaso the Florentine, nicknamed Masaccio, showed to perfection in his tion of antiquities founded by Lorenzo de’ Medici. Here the young artist was taught the basics
work how those who take as their authority any other than nature, mistress of the masters, of sculpture, probably under the tutelage of Bertoldo di Giovanni (c. 1420–1491).
labour in vain.” In his lives of Michelangelo and Torrigiani, Vasari describes in detail the garden in
Leonardo goes on to claim that studying acknowledged masters is of far less benefit to which Lorenzo de’ Medici invited young sculptors to train at his own expense. This training
the young artist than working directly from nature. Looking at Michelangelo’s earliest draw- primarily took the form of copying from the antique statues in the collection. The art that
ings, it is immediately apparent that they perfectly mirror the periodization of art history arose here was therefore modelled first and foremost on the example of art. This Medici
described by Leonardo. On the other hand, the extant drawings after the frescoes of Giotto and garden is documented from around 1475 onwards and was located opposite the monastery of
Masaccio (pp. 21, 25) also represent a blatant departure from Leonardo’s recommendations. S. Marco, on the corner of present-day Via Sangallo and Via degli Arazzieri. Senior political
Indeed, they document a break with the principle of copying directly from nature. For Michel- dignitaries are also documented as visiting the garden from around 1480 onwards; they were
angelo’s art, in its attested beginnings, arose less out of the study of nature than from the shown the garden, its collection of antiquities and perhaps also, as one of the attractions,
imitation of earlier and contemporary masters: Giotto, Masaccio and Schongauer’s engraving. the artists at work within it. Evidence that Michelangelo spent time in this academy, prob-
During his lifetime, Michelangelo destroyed vast numbers of his drawings, probably in ably between 1490 and Lorenzo de’ Medici’s death on 8 April 1492, is furnished by a letter
order to erase evidence of his training and his artistic beginnings. If the early copies he made of 14 October 1494, in which Michelangelo is described as the “sculptor from the [Medici]
after Giotto and Masaccio have survived, therefore, it can be assumed that the artist to a certain garden” (see Ch. II).
degree allowed them to do so. In other words, Michelangelo wanted posterity to view him as According to his biographers, the young artist distinguished himself in Lorenzo il Mag-
the direct successor to Florence’s two greatest painters. In selecting to keep these drawings, nifico’s garden with particularly witty copies of antique works of art. Thus he is supposed to
moreover, he also expressed his own theoretical standpoint, namely that his art proceeded not have copied the antique head of a faun and then to have broken off one of its teeth in “proof ”
only from the study of nature, but equally from the study of art. This moving away from the of its venerable age. As well as offering him his first contact with classical antiquity, Michelan-
imitation of nature as an artistic principle anticipates similar tendencies in Michelangelo’s late gelo’s time in the garden of S. Marco was important for another reason, too. As a member of
work (see Ch. X), but also directly reflects an opposite principle to mimesis, as revealed in The the Medici household, the young artist benefited from a patronage that was entirely untypical
Battle of the Centaurs from this same period (pp. 28/29). of an artist’s career at the time. This freed Michelangelo early on from the constraints of the
26 27
It was at this time that … Michelangelo carved from

a piece of marble … the Battle of Hercules with the
Centaurs. This was so beautiful that today, to those
who study it, it sometimes seems to be the work not of
a young man but of a great master with a wealth of
study and experience behind him.
GIORGIO VASARI
The Battle of the Centaurs, 1492

Marble, 80 x 90.5 cm. Florence, Casa Buonarroti
28 29
consumer-dictated art market and gave him, at the very start of his career, a social position that That The Battle of the Centaurs illustrates the treatment of art by art is also evidenced by the
the average artist-craftsman of his day did not hold. figure of a man visible on the left-hand edge of the relief. This man differs from the other figures
In the Medici household he met Bertoldo di Giovanni, who thanks to his teaching post in the scene on account of his advanced age and baldness (p. 32). The old man with the bald
in the private academy was similarly spared the usual hazards of the artist’s profession. Ber- pate is thought to represent an encrypted self-portrait of Michelangelo himself, not in the sense
toldo’s most important works include a battle relief inspired by antiquity (p. 27), distinguished of a faithful physical likeness but as a “crypto-portrait” in the tradition of antiquity. We know
amongst other things by the fact that its figures – in contrast to its antique forerunners from various Greek and Roman sources that the famous antique sculptor Phidias concealed his
in the Camposanto in Pisa – are entirely naked. Michelangelo takes up this motif in The own self-portrait in a work of art in the 5th century BC. The most detailed account of this story
Battle of the Centaurs (pp. 28/29), which together with The Madonna of the Stairs (Cat. S1), is provided by Plutarch (c. 46–c. 120) in his Parallel Lives, a collection of biographies of famous
whose attribution remains disputed, represents the earliest surviving work of sculpture by men, and specifically in his Life of Pericles. Plutarch writes of the envy and ill will that fame can
the artist. Inspired by the battle relief by his teacher Bertoldo di Giovanni, Michelangelo inspire in others, and in this context describes a Battle of the Amazons that Phidias had depicted
has created a mass of naked bodies, most of them hard to identify with any certainty. The on the exterior of a shield belonging to the goddess Athena on the Parthenon. Hidden within
subject of the relief is probably the story, related in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (XII.210–535) and this scene of the Athenians fighting the Amazons were two portraits, one of which Plutarch
elsewhere, of the wedding of the Lapith king Pirithous to Hippodamia. The guests include describes as follows: “But the reputation of his works was what brought envy upon Phidias, espe-
a party of part-human, part-animal centaurs, who proceed to get drunk and start a fight cially that where he represents the fight of the Amazons upon the goddess’s shield, he had intro-
over the Lapith women. There ensues a fierce battle that eventually ends with the centaurs’ duced a likeness of himself as a bald old man holding up a great stone with both hands […].”
defeat. Pirithous is aided during the fight by his friend Theseus, who is possibly portrayed Thus Phidias the artist had not portrayed himself autonomously, i.e. in a separate picture,
in the younger man left of centre armed with a large stone. This figure may also represent nor even recognizably as himself, but encrypted in the figure of a fighting warrior with a stone
Pirithous himself, however. The prominent figure in the centre of the composition is prob- in his hands. It was not possible for him to include his own portrait openly, but only in a
ably Eurytus, the leader of the centaurs. concealed fashion, a fact that – regardless of how much of this story is true – says a good deal
The women over whom the battle is actually being waged are similarly hard to identify. Two about the status of the artist in antiquity and his freedom to portray himself.
can be recognized in the background top left, and another figure characterized as female by her This evidently questionable worthiness of artists to create their own image is confirmed by
long hair can be seen in the right half of the relief. She seems to be almost throttling the young other classical sources, including Cicero in his Tusculanae disputationes (I.34). Writing about
man carrying her, but he is probably a Lapith who is bearing her to safety away from a centaur the artist-craftsman, Cicero also refers to the case of Phidias: “Artists (opifices) want to be ven-
approaching from the right. Other centaurs are difficult to make out. The figure already men- erated after their death. Why else did Phidias incorporate a likeness of himself into Minerva’s
tioned in the middle of the relief, whose human torso appears to give way to the lower body of shield, since he was not permitted to include an inscription?”
an animal, is probably one of this species. More clearly recognizable is a centaur who has sunk The striking old man with the bald head and the large stone in his hand in the Battle of
to the ground at the lower edge of the relief, and whose left hind leg lies between Theseus’s feet. the Centaurs is thus a reference to Phidias’s ruse, as recorded by Plutarch, Cicero and other
Just how hard it is to identify correctly the subject of Michelangelo’s relief is also illus- ancient writers, of immortalizing himself in his work by portraying himself in an indirect man-
trated by the information provided by Condivi. According to him, the relief was produced ner. As a sculptor of the post-medieval era, Michelangelo thereby positioned himself within
on the encouragement of the Medici in-house humanist, Angelo Poliziano, who suggested to the great tradition of antiquity. With this reference to Phidias, he demonstrated both his intel-
Michelangelo the subject of the “rape of Deianeira and the battle of the centaurs” and who lectual erudition and a certain understanding of art that we might today term conceptual. For
gave him a blow-by-blow account of the story. The subject named by Condivi seems unlikely in his relief of The Battle of the Centaurs, as already stated, he was concerned less with depict-
in view of the few female figures that can be made out, but perhaps that was not the point. ing the actual subject than with demonstrating the art-inspired character of his art. This same
Michelangelo was probably concerned less with depicting a specific scene than with exploring assumption can be made of Bertoldo’s relief, which already had a similar status. Michelange-
the formal language of antiquity – a language that Bertoldo, with the numerous nudes in his lo’s Battle of the Centaurs is an early example of artistic powers of invention wielded freely and
bronze relief, had already attempted to surpass. Michelangelo carved his relief in the context independently of the constraints of a predetermined subject, and of the fact that a work of
of an existing collection of antique art and with reference to a contemporary piece of bronze. art arises above all from the exploration of other works of art, both known (Bertoldo’s relief )
The real subject of Michelangelo’s Battle of the Centaurs is thus the exploration of art, both of and unknown (the works of Phidias). Michelangelo’s privileged position in the garden of
antiquity and of his own day. S. Marco was the essential precondition for concept art of this nature.
30 31
THE START OF A MAGNIFICENT CAREER
Michelangelo’s large degree of independence, by the standards of his day, from commer-
cial commissions also finds expression in the sketchiness with which sections of the relief are
executed. Thus the most prominent elements of the relief, their surfaces already perfectly pol-
ished, contrast with the less developed parts of the middle ground and the rough-hewn surface
at the upper edge. Michelangelo hereby provides a direct illustration of the stages involved in
the process of carving a work of art by hand. The irregular edges are a reminder of the fact
that the piece of marble was chiselled from a larger block, while the parts worked with a point
refer to the next phase of work on the relief, and the polished surfaces to its final stage of com-
pletion. This insistence upon exposing the manual process is remarkable for the 1490s, since
the artists of those years as a rule spared no effort to finish a work in all its parts and thereby to
erase all signs of the physical labour that went into its creation. Characteristic of this mindset
is the dismissive view of sculpture expressed by Leonardo in his treatise on painting; writing on
the paragone, the competition between the arts, he considers sculpture inferior to painting on
account of its laborious manual side, and he repeatedly stresses the theoretical and “scientific”
side of art. Leonardo’s insistence upon the socially nobler nature of painting and the painter
was foreign to Michelangelo. His own origins enabled him to remain indifferent to the social
ambitions of his artist colleagues and to make the manual dimension of his sculpture a subject
of The Battle of the Centaurs. Shining through here, too, is the intimacy with the technical and
material aspects of the sculptor’s profession that he effectively “sucked in” with his mother’s
milk during his childhood (see above), and which he would maintain his whole life by means
of his contact with marble-cutters in Settignano and Carrara. Michelangelo’s deep-rooted con-
nection with the craftsman’s milieu is reflected, too, in his modest lifestyle: although wealthy
enough to afford a comfortable lifestyle from early on in his career, he scorned the conveni-
ences of an aristocratic existence and, even at a very advanced age, continued his physically
extremely demanding work as a marble sculptor virtually right up to the day of his death.
The Battle of the Centaurs (detail), 1492
33
MICHEL ANGELO
The only feeling that the Divinity can

inspire in weak mortals is terror, and Michelangelo
seems born to imprint this dread in souls
by means of marble and colours.
STENDHAL
The Battle of the Centaurs (detail), 1492
34
II.
Between
Florence, Bologna
and Rome
1492–1500
Frank Zöllner
Marble was to a certain extent

Michelangelo’s destiny.
Only in marble was he able to give his
figures existence, only in marble did he
work with pleasure, fire and perseverance.
CARL JUSTI
MICHEL ANGELO
With the death of Lorenzo de’ Medici in 1492, Michelangelo lost not only a major patron
of his art but also a paternal friend and benefactor. It is not surprising, therefore, that the
young artist should initially return to his father’s home after Lorenzo’s death. Dating from
this period or soon afterwards are several works (some of them now lost) whose attribution
is disputed. These include the wooden Crucifix in the Florentine church of S. Spirito and
a Hercules that the artist may have carved on his own initiative from an old marble block
measuring about four braccia (c. 2.33 metres/7’ 8”) in height (cf. Cat. S4). This statue, which
is mentioned by Michelangelo’s biographers, was initially housed in the Palazzo Strozzi in
Florence before being taken to France, where its presence is recorded in the 17th century.
After this, all trace of the sculpture vanishes. The loss of the sparsely documented Hercules
has caused its enormous importance to be forgotten. With a height of nearly eight feet, it was
the largest marble sculpture of an antique subject to date. Even in the 16th century, only a few
works in the field of secular sculpture – Baccio Bandinelli’s Hercules and Cacus, for example
– would exceed this size (cf. p. 76).
A monumental sculpture such as the Hercules, created outside the usual context of a paid
commission, would have been unusual even for Michelangelo, whose life is full of anomalies.
Either the artist, still young, did indeed believe himself capable of selling a large sculpture
executed with no particular customer in mind, or the Hercules was in fact the result of a com-
mission from the Strozzi, in whose palace it stood until at least 1527. Within Florence, the
Strozzi ranked amongst the Medici’s most prominent rivals; if the lost Hercules did indeed go
back to a commission from this family, then it offers an early illustration of the vacillation so
characteristic of Michelangelo’s career, which saw him torn between two patrons, and between
parties who were entrenched enemies.
Pointing in another direction, on the other hand, is Condivi’s anecdote about the snow-
man that Michelangelo made for Piero de’ Medici. Since records show that Florence experi-
enced heavy snowfall on 14 January 1494, there may be a kernel of truth in this story, too. It
also indicates that Michelangelo continued to work for the Medici family even after the death
of his first benefactor, Lorenzo the Magnificent.
Michelangelo’s snowman has of course not survived, but from 1494 onwards we enter
the terrain of surviving and documented works. Their genesis is connected with the dramatic
events that took place in autumn 1494, and with the fact that Michelangelo had to decide
for which political factions he wished to work. In the autumn of 1494, the French troops of
Charles VIII were threatening to capture the city of Florence, and out of a fear that is still
not entirely understood today, Michelangelo decided to flee. How justified these fears were,
Page 37
Bacchus (detail), 1496/97
St Proculus, 1494/95
Marble, height 58.5 cm (including base), Bologna, Basilica of S. Domenico, Arca di San Domenico
38
BETWEEN FLORENCE, BOLOGNA AND ROME
however, emerged soon afterwards when Charles VIII’s army took Florence, drove out the
Medici and thereby created the conditions for a popular government to come to power.
In his version of Michelangelo’s dramatic flight, Condivi seeks to detract attention from
its political background. He gives a lengthy account of several visions experienced by a musi-
cian that eventually cause Michelangelo to leave the city. The 1490s were indeed years full
of warning visions, above all those of Girolamo Savonarola (1452–1498), who in his sermons
raged not only against the official Church and Florence’s ruling classes, but also against lux-
ury, and thus against certain artistic products. Savonarola became the spiritual leader of the
political movement that, following the expulsion of the older branch of the Medici, brought
Florence a republican constitution for the next few years. Michelangelo’s republican sympa-
thies placed him on the side of the new government, yet he must also have felt obligated to
the exiled Medici, in whose house he had been introduced to the métier of sculpture only a
short while previously. By fleeing Florence, Michelangelo placed himself in a serious conflict
of loyalty, as documented by a letter from one Ser Amadeo briefly cited earlier (see Ch. I): “I
learned that Michelangelo, the sculptor from the [Medici] garden, has departed for Venice
without saying anything to Piero [de’ Medici], and when the latter returned home, he was,
I believe, rather hurt.”
When Michelangelo fled Florence in mid-October 1494, he went first to Venice and
then Bologna, where he remained until the end of 1495, and where he was commissioned
to carve the figures of St Petronius (p. 40) and St Proculus (pp. 39, 43) and a Kneeling Angel
(p. 44) for the Arca di San Domenico, the shrine of St Dominic c ontaining the tomb of the
saint. During his time in Bologna, Michelangelo lodged with the prosperous Gianfrancesco
Aldovrandi, a trusted agent of the then ruler of Bologna, Giovanni Bentivoglio, who in turn
sheltered the Medici for a short while in November 1494 after they had been driven out of
Florence.
The full story of how Michelangelo obtained the San Domenico commission is still
unknown, but his biographer Condivi gives the following version of events: “One day, when
he [Gianfrancesco Aldovrandi] was taking him around and about Bologna, he led him to see
the tomb of St Dominic, in the church dedicated to this saint, from which there were miss-
ing two marble figures, namely a St Petronius and a kneeling angel with a candelabrum in his
hand. Being asked whether he dare try to make them, Michelangelo replied, yes; and so he
arranged for them to be given to him to do. For these, he had him paid 30 ducats: for the St
Petronius 18, and for the angel 12. The figures were 3 palms in height, and they can still be seen
in that same place.”
This story portrays Michelangelo as a sort of gentleman-artist who is offered a com
mission by another gentleman en passant. Like many other anecdotes, it may well be somewhat
St Petronius, 1494/95
Marble, height 64 cm (including base), Bologna, Basilica of S. Domenico, Arca di San Domenico
41
MICHEL ANGELO
exaggerated, but it probably contains a kernel of truth, since Michelangelo’s career indeed
displays some of the characteristics typically associated with the privileged artist.
Aldovrandi’s connoisseurship of the arts and his Florentine contacts, for example to the
Medici, were undoubtedly helpful in securing Michelangelo the San Domenico commission.
Despite the artist’s somewhat hasty departure from Florence, therefore, which he had evidently
not discussed in advance with Piero de’ Medici, Michelangelo thus profited in Bologna, too,
from his connections with his first patrons.
The shrine to St Dominic, begun by Nicolà Pisano in 1265, was decorated with statuary
by Niccolò dell’Arca between 1469 and 1473, but remained unfinished upon the latter’s death
in 1494. A total of three of the shrine’s figures are today considered to be the work of Michel-
angelo, and not just two as Condivi claims. This conclusion is drawn directly from stylistic
criteria and from information provided by the Bolognese writer Leandro Alberti, who in 1535
described an Angel with Candlestick and the figures of St Petronius and St Proculus as works by
Michelangelo.
Michelangelo was presented in Bologna with the task of augmenting an already existing
figural programme. This possibly explains why his St Petronius seems more traditional than
one might expect, in view of the Battle of the Centaurs, which had only recently preceded it.
Dressed in his alb, cope and mitre, the patron saint of Bologna holds a model of the city in his
hands. Beneath the heavy drapery of his undergarment, the movement of his right leg and the
suggestion of a classical contrapposto are clearly v isible. St Petronius, nevertheless, adheres con-
siderably more to Quattrocento tradition than does the figure of St Proculus executed shortly
afterwards.
Proculus, a soldier during the Roman persecution of the Christians in Bologna, was
martyred after killing an imperial official. His belted tunic, and the weapon that formerly
appeared in his hand, refer to his past as an officer in the imperial Roman army. The aggres-
sive frown on his brow takes up this martial tone and at the same time recalls the mar-
tyr’s bloody deed. The expression on his face already looks forward, moreover, to the David
(p. 72).
Michelangelo’s engagement in Bologna was just one episode along the path to more
important commissions, such as the artist hoped would follow his return to Florence in the
final quarter of 1495. There he addressed himself once again to the Medici, in this case to the
members of the family’s younger line, who had remained in the city. For them he produced
two marble sculptures, now lost, namely an infant St John the Baptist, which was probably
commissioned by Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de’ Medici, and a Sleeping Cupid apparently carved
on the artist’s own initiative. Legends have sprung up in particular around the Sleeping Cupid,
since the figure would be of decisive importance for the artist’s subsequent career. Through
St Proculus, 1494/95
42
the agencies of Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco, the sculpture evidently reached Rome, where it was
purchased by the art dealer Baldassare del Milanese for 30 ducats. The dealer claimed the figure
was an antique and proceeded to sell it for the inflated price of 200 ducats to Cardinal Raffaele
Riario, a powerful member of the clergy and an important art collector in Rome. The conse-
quences of this intrigue and its unravelling, described in a lively manner by Condivi, resulted
in Michelangelo’s first visit to Rome. The role played in this affair by Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco
de’ Medici, however, should not be underestimated: it was he whom Michelangelo dutifully
informed of his arrival in Rome. The letter of 2 July 1496 that the artist wrote from Rome to
his benefactor in Florence runs as follows: “Honourable Lorenzo […] Just to inform you that
last Saturday [25 June] we arrived safe and sound, and we went at once to visit Cardinal San
Giorgio [Raffaele Riario] and presented him with your letter. He seemed glad to see me and
wanted me to go forthwith to look at some statues, and this used up the whole day; so on
that day I did not give him your other letters. Then on Sunday [26 June] the Cardinal went
to his new house [the Cancelleria], where he asked for me; I met him there and he sought my
opinion of the things I had seen. I told him my opinion, thinking them without doubt most
beautiful. Then the Cardinal asked if I had it in me to undertake some beautiful work myself.
I replied that I might not make such splendid works as he possessed, but he would see what
I could do. So we have bought a piece of marble suitable for a life-size figure; and I shall start
work on Monday [4 July].”
As this letter makes clear, thanks to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco’s contacts, the young artist
was introduced to important individuals immediately upon reaching the Eternal City. Hardly
had he arrived in Rome when he was invited to visit a collection of antiquities and to give his
opinion on individual pieces. Michelangelo’s role as an expert on art may also be viewed in
conjunction with the well-documented commission for the Bacchus (p. 47), which the artist
executed for Cardinal Raffaele Riario in 1496/97.
Between July 1496 and July 1497, Michelangelo received a total of 150 ducats for his work
on the sculpture and 10 ducats for the marble block. The relatively low sum paid for the mar-
ble is an indication of its poor quality, which is evident when studying the original even today.
As a result of this experience with low-grade material, Michelangelo switched soon afterwards
to choosing the marble for his works in person, if necessary spending months at a time in the
quarries in Carrara looking for blocks of high quality.
Michelangelo’s Bacchus is an unusual figure in almost every respect. For the first time in
the history of the art of the modern era, a young, not yet established sculptor here created
a slightly over-life-size and hence, by the standards of its day, monumental marble figure
of an antique subject designed to be viewed in the round. This last characteristic – unique
in Michelangelo’s œuvre – took into account the fact that the sculpture was destined for an
Kneeling Angel (Angel with Candlestick), 1494/95

45
MICHEL ANGELO
open-air collection of antiquities, where it would be visible from all sides. In a reference to the
works in whose company it would stand, Michelangelo lent his Bacchus attributes and features
that would have accompanied a similar figure by an antique artist. Thus a cloven-hoofed satyr
nibbling on a bunch of grapes supports the unsteady legs of the god of wine (p. 54). Grapes,
vine leaves and ivy are wound as vegetal attributes around his head, and a cup in his right hand
refers to the intoxicating wine obtained from pressing the grapes (pp. 50/51). The rocky plinth
across which the inebriated god seems to be making his unsteady way, together with the animal
skin in his left hand, can be found in antique statues of Bacchus. The god’s broken-off member
and the fact that his right hand and drinking cup were absent until around 1553 are also refer-
ences to antiquity, or rather to the supposedly venerable age of the sculpture.
It is possible that Michelangelo deliberately furnished his Bacchus with slight defects in
order to give the impression that it was an authentic work of antiquity. By imitating ancient
art in this fashion, the artist took up seamlessly from the art dealer who had marketed Michel-
angelo’s Sleeping Cupid as a genuine antiquity and had been able to sell it on for an exorbitant
price.
In the case of the Bacchus, however, Michelangelo did not content himself solely with
creating a sculpture that looked like an antiquity. Then, as today, a characteristic feature of
authentic large-scale statues from classical antiquity was a firm contrapposto, a pose in which
a figure stands with one leg straight and the other slightly bent. Michelangelo had already
experimented with this carefully balanced pose in his St Proculus and probably also in the lost
Hercules. The Bacchus is quite different: with his inebriation and unsteady gait finding expres-
sion both in the unsteady position of his legs and in the angle of his upper body and head, he
seems to make a mockery of classical contrapposto.
The earliest interpretation of the Bacchus is provided by Condivi, who explains it as fol-
lows: “the merry face with its squinting, lascivious eyes indicates that Bacchus has fallen exces-
sively in love with wine, the drink that he himself discovered, as the vine leaves and ivy on
his head remind us. The animal pelt carries a particular significance, because Michelangelo
has shown only the skin and not the animal itself: the artist thereby wished to signify that the
craving for inebriating liquor inevitably leads to death.”
Condivi’s interpretation carries the moral that one would expect from an author of the
mid-16th century: those who drink wine to excess will die younger than the rest. More recent
authors see the drunkenness that is undoubtedly at the heart of the Bacchus in a considerably
more positive light, arguing that his intoxication may be understood in a metaphorical sense
as a pathway to the revelation of divine mysteries. While both interpretations remain firmly
within the bounds of the possible, it is probably precisely the presence of ambiguity that is
decisive here.
Bacchus, 1496/97
Marble, height 203 cm (184 cm excluding base), Florence, Museo Nazionale, del Bargello
46
MICHEL ANGELO BETWEEN FLORENCE, BOLOGNA AND ROME
departure from the classical rule.’ Astonished by my words, they replied: ‘Michelangelo com-
pleted this work a few days ago in order to deceive the Romans and the Pope.’ But the master
learned that he had not deceived me.”
Francisco de Holanda was a contemporary of Michelangelo, who in his Tractato da pintura
antigua of 1548 sought to reproduce the views on art prevalent in Rome at that time. His
treatise reveals that his contemporaries cultivated a high regard for antique sculpture and
formed their artistic judgements with reference to antiquity. A collector’s item from a garden
of antiquities was not necessarily required to hold a single and specific meaning, but rather
to present a semantic ambivalence and to match the expectations of the collector. In keeping
with this mood amongst Renaissance collectors in Rome, Michelangelo took up the greatness
of antiquity and the mystery of its cults in his Bacchus. At the same time, however, he placed a
sly question mark over the a ntique ideal of art through the god’s swaying figure. He imitated
antiquity in order simultaneously to surpass it with his wit.
But it seems that Cardinal Riario either did not understand the joke or did not appreciate
it, for soon after its completion the sculpture passed into the ownership of the banker Jacopo
Galli, with whom Michelangelo was on close terms. The reasons for the work’s transfer to
Galli’s garden, which like Riario’s collection of antiquities lay not far from the Campo de’ Fiori,
are not entirely known. It is possible that Riario made a gift of the sculpture to his neighbour;
Marten van Heemskerck, Bacchus in Jacopo Galli’s collection of antiquities in Rome, c. 1532–1535 it is more likely, however, that the p atron who had originally commissioned the statue was
Pen drawing, 130 x 203 mm. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett
not pleased with the result. This hypothesis is lent support above all by Condivi’s attempt to
(Berlin Sketchbook, I, fol. 72)
conceal both Riario’s role in commissioning the Bacchus and his rejection of the end result.
Condivi’s claim that Riario had no understanding of art can also be viewed as part of the same
Even more important, perhaps, than the semantic ambivalence of the Bacchus are the con- strategy. A letter from Michelangelo to his father Ludovico of 1 July 1497, in which he explains
text within which it arose and its reception by its contemporaries. It was planned right from the reasons for his delayed return to Florence, also points to difficulties with Riario: “Most
the start that the statue would be exhibited within a collection of antiquities, where it was to revered and dear father. Do not be surprised that I have not returned, because I have not yet
establish a dialogue with works testifying to Rome’s golden age as the political and cultural been able to settle my affairs with the Cardinal, and I do not want to leave until I have been
capital of the world. Michelangelo responded to an antique challenge – monumental sculpture satisfied and rewarded for my labours; and with these high and mighty people one has to go
– with an antique subject – Bacchus. How this particular imitation of antiquity was judged by gently, since they cannot be forced. Still I am absolutely sure that everything will be dealt with
his contemporaries is illustrated by the comments of the artist and art theoretician Francisco quickly this coming week.”
de Holanda: “In Rome I was shown a marble Bacchus accompanied by a small satyr carry- Probably only once the Bacchus was finished did Michelangelo seek further commissions
ing a basket full of grapes on his back, which was just like an astonishing work of antiquity. in Rome. These included the Apollo or Cupid (Cat. S5) mentioned by the early biographers.
And indeed it appeared to be the work of an important master, but nevertheless not antique, We also know of a commission from Piero de’ Medici, which Michelangelo mentions in a
although the colouring of the marble and all the details of its working pointed to this. When letter to his father of 19 August 1497: “From Piero de’ Medici I accepted the commission for
at this juncture a number of Romans asked me what I thought of the statue, I replied: ‘It is a statue and bought the marble for it; only I did not make a start because he did not give his
wonderfully beautiful, undoubtedly the work of an outstanding artist, but it does not stem consent; as a result I am going ahead alone and working on a figure for my own pleasure. And
from classical antiquity; for although the invention, the proportions, the flawless technique I bought a piece of marble for five ducats and it was no good and I threw the money away.
and the little satyr with the basket appear genuine, Bacchus’s hands and arms are shown in Then I bought another piece, again for five ducats, and on this I am working for my own
mid-movement, neither entirely let fall nor entirely raised, in contrast to antique custom; by pleasure, so you may well believe that I have expenses and troubles of my own; nevertheless
the same token, one leg is moving feebly and the other is not planted solidly enough, in a I shall send you what you request of me, even if I have to sell myself as a slave.”
48 49
MICHEL ANGELO
Michelangelo saw in Raphael study,

in himself nature: there learning, here gift.
FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
Pages 50/51 and 53

Bacchus (details), 1496/97
52
Here art would have live on

In just a living stone,
As long as there are years, one woman’s features.
Then how should Heaven treat her,
This being mine and she its handiwork,
Not to my eyes alone
A goddess and no creature?
Yet after a little stay her flight is quick,
And crippled in its right hand is her luck,
If a stone can remain, and death dislodge her.
Who then will revenge her?
Nature alone, if here alone can stay
Work of her child, and time steal hers away.
MICHELANGELO
Bacchus (detail), 1496/97
55
MICHEL ANGELO BETWEEN FLORENCE, BOLOGNA AND ROME
Michelangelo’s letter is indicative of his unusual professional situation: on the one hand, out by the contract for the Pietà of 27 August 1498, for which Jacopo Galli acted as witness and
he still represents at this stage the traditional artist-craftsman dependent upon concrete com- guarantor. The wording of the contract runs as follows:
missions, while on the other he is already acting as an autonomous, freelance artist who is “Let whoever may read this contract take note that the Most Reverend Cardinal di San
producing works on his own initiative to sell to customers. This is remarkable within the genre Dionigi has reached the following agreement with Master Michelangelo, the Florentine sculp-
of sculpture, whose high material costs required the artist to lay out a considerable amount of tor: the said Master is bound to execute, within one year from the date of the start of work
money in advance – an investment not without financial risks, as Michelangelo describes in and at his own expense, a Pietà of marble, namely a clothed Virgin Mary holding the departed
his letter. Christ in her arms, in the size of a natural person, for the price of 450 gold ducats in papal
His bad experience once again with flawed marble, the unreliability of Piero de’ Medici gold. The above-named Reverend Cardinal promises to effect the payment as follows: firstly, he
and perhaps also the problems with Raffaele Riario, eventually caused the artist, in the sum- pledges to give him 150 gold ducats in papal gold before the start of work. Once the work has
mer of 1497, to return to the métier in which he had first trained – painting. Recently uncov- begun, he promises to pay the said Michelangelo 100 ducats in the same currency every four
ered documents reveal that Michelangelo, who would later call himself a sculptor time and months, in such a manner that the aforementioned 450 gold ducats in papal gold shall be paid
again, and who thereby made his professional priorities clear, acquired a “wooden panel for in one year, when the said contract shall be fulfilled. Should the work be completed earlier, his
painting” on 27 June 1497. Vasari and Varchi both mention a St Francis Receiving the Stigmata Reverence is obliged to pay the full sum.
designed (Vasari) or painted (Varchi) by the artist. In August or September 1500, finally, And I, Jacopo Galli, promise the Reverend Monsignore, that the said Michelangelo will
Michelangelo was commissioned to paint an altarpiece for the burial chapel of Cardinal complete the work in one year and that it will be the most beautiful marble sculpture to be
Giovanni Ebu in the church of S. Agostino. Michelangelo’s activity as a painter and designer found in Rome today, and that no master today could do it better. And I promise the said
during his first years in Rome is thus documented beyond doubt. Whether the paintings of Michelangelo on the other hand that the Most Reverend Cardinal will effect payment exactly
the Manchester Madonna (Cat. P1) and the Entombment (Cat. P2) today housed in London as set out above. In confirmation of which I, Jacopo Galli, have set out the present record by
and a ttributed to Michelangelo bear authentic witness to this phase of his career remains to my own hand, according to the year, month and day as written above. It is agreed that any
be clarified, however. other record by my hand or from the hand of the said Michelangelo is rendered null and void,
Undisputed, on the other hand, is Michelangelo’s first true masterpiece, the Rome Pietà, and that this contract alone is legally binding […].”
which he created between 1498 and 1499 (p. 59). Carved from a single block of Carrara marble, The terms laid down in the contract include the normal deadlines and staggered payments
the work established his early fame as a sculptor, and, together with Leonardo’s Last Supper, is that were intended to ensure the work was delivered on time. What is striking about the con-
considered a high point of Renaissance art. tract is its date, which shows that it was drawn up after Michelangelo had obtained the marble
The execution of the work was preceded for the first time by an extended visit to block. Even before the contract was signed, therefore, a bond of trust existed between the
Carrara, where in November 1497 Michelangelo started looking in person for a suitable block artist, the patron and the guarantor, Jacopo Galli, who as a close friend of Michelangelo’s even
of marble. He was clearly determined to avoid a repeat of his previous experiences with stone promises the Cardinal a unique sculpture. All of this testifies to the unusual position enjoyed
of inferior quality. In June 1498 the selected block arrived in Rome, and shortly afterwards, in by Michelangelo, who within a short space of time had built up good relations with the most
August 1498, Michelangelo signed the contract with the patron who had commissioned the important patrons in Rome.
Pietà, Cardinal Jean de Bilhères-Lagraulas. One year later, in August 1499, the finished sculp- Michelangelo was barely twenty-four years old when the Pietà was installed in its
ture was installed in the S. Petronilla Chapel, also known as the Chapel of the Kings of France, intended location. In the handling of the marble, it demonstrates a mastery that would be
beside the southern aisle of the old St Peter’s. The Pietà was moved to its present location, in astounding even in the case of an older and more experienced artist. It is not surprising,
the first side chapel on the right inside the new St Peter’s, in the 18th century. therefore, that the Pietà marked Michelangelo’s breakthrough as the leading sculptor of his
Cardinal Jean de Bilhères-Lagraulas had come to Rome in 1491 as legate of the French epoch, indeed as the leading sculptor of the post-antique era, and that he would soon after-
mission sent by Charles VIII, and after the death of Pope Innocent VIII in 1492 had been wards become the embodiment of the “divine artist” and a paradigm of artistic genius. The
appointed Governor of Rome. This appointment had been arranged by an old acquaintance viewer’s eye is struck by the perfection of the execution: the life-size figure of the Virgin
of Michelangelo’s and his friend Jacopo Galli’s, namely Cardinal Raffaele Riario. It is thus supports in her lap the dead Christ, whose almost completely naked body offers a forceful
clear that Rome’s major patrons moved in the same circles and that Michelangelo was closely contrast to the Virgin’s abundant and minutely rendered garments. Michelangelo evidently
involved in this network from the moment he arrived in the Eternal City. This is also borne set himself here the difficult challenge of imitating, in the hard material of marble, the layers,
56 57
MICHEL ANGELO
folds, weight and smallest undulations of the soft cloth. He thereby portrayed not only the
Virgin’s own draperies in all their tactile wealth, but also the shroud spread between her lap
and the naked body of the dead Christ. This shroud refers to the Saviour’s death on the Cross
and indirectly also to the fact that the sculpture originally adorned the tomb of the patron in
the Petronilla Chapel.
Michelangelo’s Pietà, with its grieving Virgin holding the dead Christ on her lap, takes
up a compositional type familiar in northern Europe since the 14th century and originating
in popular religious devotion and the mysticism of the late Middle Ages. Known in German
as a Vesperbild, and widespread in the patron’s own native France, a small number of works
of this type had also made their way to Italy. These (as a rule) small-format wood sculptures
were distinguished by an expressive, somewhat crude realism that lent very direct expression
to suffering and grief.
The representation of the Pietà was particularly suited to conveying, in visual terms, the
connection between the Incarnation, or Christ made Flesh, and the sacramental Oblation,
the Sacrifice of Christ. In medieval theology, the Virgin was associated both with the birth of
the Saviour and with the altar upon which the Sacrifice of Christ was re-enacted during the
Mass. The body of Christ presented on the lap of a sculpture of the Virgin was understood
as analogous to the Host held up by the priest during Mass. This concept is also present in
the life-size marble sculpture created by Michelangelo for the altar of a burial chapel.
Alongside this Eucharistic aspect of the Pietà is the fact that its subject was enjoying a
revival of interest in Italy at the end of the 15th century. Indeed, this period saw numerous
reports of miracle-working Pietàs: in 1494 a Pietà in Assisi was said to have shed real tears
over the city’s depravity and excessive indulgence, and in 1519 a Madonna in Sanseverino was
reported to have wept over the wretched state of the Church and the heresy of Martin Luther;
a Madonna in Padua was even supposed to have halted an epidemic of the plague. The expres-
sive Vesperbild of the North thus exhibited quite miraculous powers in Italy and may for this
reason have been a subject that interested the patron. Michelangelo took up this compositional
type imported from the North but translated it into an aesthetically entirely different form:
the direct expression of suffering and grief typical of the northern European Vesperbild is here
transmuted into an ideal aesthetic orientated towards antiquity, which is intended to move the
public less through a drastic depiction of physical and emotional pain than through artistically
fashioned beauty.
The particular aesthetic of the Rome Pietà was already apparent to Condivi: no one was
unmoved by its beauty. All the same, a number of viewers reproached Michelangelo for having
shown the Virgin as too young, barely older than her son. To them Michelangelo replied: “Do
Pietà, 1498/99
Marble, height 174 cm (width of base: 195 cm, width of figural group: 166 cm, depth: 103 cm)
Rome, Vatican, St Peter’s Basilica
58
Among the many beautiful features (including the inspired garments)

this is notably demonstrated by the body of Christ itself.
It would be impossible to find a body showing greater mastery of art and
possessing more beautiful members, or a nude with more detail in the muscles,
veins and nerves stretched over their framework of bones,
or a more deathly corpse.
GIORGIO VASARI
Pages 60/61 and 62

Pietà (details), 1498/99
63
MICHEL ANGELO
you not know that chaste women remain far fresher than those who are not chaste? So much
more the Virgin, in whom never has the least lascivious desire ever arisen that might alter her
body.” The physical freshness of the Mother of God thus demonstrates her chastity. Michel-
angelo’s reflection, according to Condivi, would be worthy of a theologian: not only had the
artist produced unique workmanship but he had also shown himself capable of offering divine
thoughts on the work of his hands. This divinity finds indirect expression, too, in the signature
on the Pietà, which is chiselled in antique-style lettering along a band that falls diagonally
across the Virgin’s breast and which runs as follows: MICHAEL.A[N]GELVS.BONAROTVS.
FLORENTIN[VS].FACIEBA[T] (“The Florentine Michelangelo Buonarroti made it”; see
pp. 60/61, 62).
The beginning of the inscription is already revealing: the artist writes his name as two
clearly separate words, MICHAEL and ANGELVS, thereby alluding to the angel (Latin ange-
lus), or more specifically archangel, Michael, who was a messenger sent directly from God. If
we take this not exactly modest signature at face value, it would seem that the young Michel-
angelo already considered himself sent by God to act, like an angel, as an intermediary between
the earthly and the heavenly realms.
Artists of the late Quattrocento did not commonly sign their works. The same is true of
Michelangelo, whose Rome Pietà is the only one of his works to bear his name. On the other
hand, the old St Peter’s already contained several signed masterpieces, including the bronze
doors executed between 1433 and 1445 by Filarete (c. 1400–1469) and the tombs of Sixtus
IV (reigned 1471–1484) and Innocent VIII (reigned 1484–1492), only recently completed by
Antonio del Pollaiuolo (1432–1498).
St Peter’s mausoleum was already one of the most important and most visited sites of
Western Christianity, and by signing the Pietà that stood in this church, Michelangelo sought
to immortalize his own name alongside those of his earlier colleagues. At the same time, both
in the lettering of the inscription and in its choice of past tense, he took up a tradition familiar
from antiquity. Thus instead of using the perfect FECIT (“he has made it”) usually employed
in signatures in his day, he opted for the imperfect FACIEBAT (“he made it”). Michelangelo
thereby made reference to the wording employed by ancient sculptors, as described by Pliny
the Elder in the Preface (§26) to his Natural History. According to Pliny, the most famous
painters and sculptors of antiquity gave their finished works only an impersonal inscription
using the verb form faciebat. Pliny interpreted this practice as a token of modesty and as a
means by which the artists sought to avoid arousing the ill will of their colleagues. It is hard to
imagine that Michelangelo, who describes himself in the same inscription as “Angel Michael”,
shared this sense of modesty. It is more likely that he wished to allude to an ancient custom
and at the same time – as already in the Bacchus – to surpass antiquity.
Pietà (detail), 1498/99
64
For Michelangelo, the art of antiquity was not just an ideal to be admired but also a touch-
stone and a challenge. This is evidenced alone by the comparatively high proportion of classical
subjects within his early œuvre, unmatched by any other artist up to that point. When in 1499,
in other words at the very end of the Quattrocento, he inscribed a religious work of art – his
Rome Pietà – with a signature that effectively turned what in antiquity was a token of modesty
into its opposite, it indeed marked the dawn of a new era in art, one that was more than just
a renaissance of antiquity.
67
MICHEL ANGELO
The treatment of the skin is of a delicacy that has little equal.

The physique ranks amongst the master’s finest figures
and is perceptibly different from his della Minerva Christ in Rome.
It is Michelangelo’s best-proportioned figure.
GOTTFRIED SCHADOW
68
III.
The breakthrough
in Florence
1501–1504
Frank Zöllner
The first person since the great days of Greek sculpture

to comprehend fully the identity of the nude with great
figure art was Michelangelo. Before him it had been
studied for scientific purposes – as an aid in rendering
the draped figure. He saw that it was an end in itself,
and the final purpose of his art. For him the nude and
art were synonymous.
BERNARD BERENSON
THE BREAKTHROUGH IN FLORENCE
After completing the Pietà for Jean de Bilhères-Lagraulas, Michelangelo spent a few more
months in Rome, but by March 1501 he was back in Florence. In November, he even started
paying back the money that he had received a year earlier for an altarpiece in the church of
S. Agostino (see Ch. II). Michelangelo must nevertheless have carried out other commissions
during his first stay in Rome, and have been well paid for them, for he had amassed consider-
able savings by the time he returned to Florence. Bank statements for his account show that
he had already earned more between 1497 and 1501 in Rome than his father had in ten years.
Why, a few months after completing the Pietà that had caused such a stir in Rome, should
Michelangelo therefore return to Florence? One reason was undoubtedly his pronounced sense
of family duty: Michelangelo’s father had been urging his son to come home for years. Sec-
ondly, while still in Rome Michelangelo had probably already managed to secure the attractive
commission for fifteen marble figures for the so-called Piccolomini Altar in Siena cathedral.
This commission, the contracts for which were signed and sealed in May and June 1501, was
the largest the young artist had yet been awarded and brought him closer to his native city. By
1504, he had completed only four figures, however. A third, even more compelling reason to
return to Florence, however, was the possibility of taking over a commission that would eclipse
everything he had done before, namely the marble figure of a David, far bigger than life-size,
for one of the buttresses of Florence cathedral.
The historical background to the David is extraordinarily complex. The commission for
the sculpture and the choice of its final location were directly connected with the political
upheavals that had taken place in Florence in the years previously. Following the expulsion of
the older branch of the Medici in the autumn of 1494, power lay until 1512 with the representa-
tives of the upper middle classes, to whom Michelangelo’s family belonged. Michelangelo was
also on familiar terms with Piero Soderini, the most prominent political figure in this new
ruling class, just as he had been close to Lorenzo de’ Medici a decade earlier. Thus the change
of political regime had no adverse effects upon the artist’s position, although it did bring a
conflict of loyalty, since it was above all to the Medici that he owed the rapid start to his career.
The original specifications for the David (p. 72), one of the most spectacular sculptures of
more recent art history, were relatively prosaic. On 16 August 1501 Michelangelo reached an
agreement with the Opera del Duomo – the Office of Works managing the construction of
Florence cathedral – and the consuls of the wool merchants’ guild to complete a monumental
David within two years. The commission had its roots in a decorative programme originally con-
ceived in the 14th century, in which monumental figures of Prophets were to adorn the cathe-
dral’s buttresses. Little progress was made on this figural programme at first, but in the second
David, 1501–1504
Marble, height 516 cm. Florence, Galleria dell’Accademia
Page 71
David (detail), 1501–1504
73
MICHEL ANGELO
half of the Quattrocento the project was revived: by 1464 the sculptor Agostino di Duccio
(1418–1481) had produced a monumental terracotta figure described in documents as “a Giant
or Hercules” (uno gughante overo Erchole). This perishable clay Hercules was evidently consid-
ered insufficient, however, for between 1464 and 1466 the same artist worked on a marble block
nine braccia (about 5.25 metres/17’ 3”) high, with the idea of creating a gigantic figure for one
of the buttresses on the north apse. Agostino di Duccio laboured in vain, however, and the
marble block was left “badly roughed out” (male abbozzatum), as the documents put it, and
unfinished in the Office of Works.
In the summer of 1476, the sculptor Antonio Rossellino (1427–1479) tried his luck with the
block abandoned by Agostino di Duccio. But Rossellino, too, capitulated in front of the chal-
lenge and the enormous block spent another 25 years in the Opera del Duomo, until the heads
of this institution embarked, at the beginning of July 1501, on a fresh attempt to find an artist
for the task. It is possible, as mentioned above, that Michelangelo had already got wind of the
affair in Rome a few months earlier and that this was also why he returned to Florence. The
accounts given by Condivi and Vasari (1568) certainly suggest this was the case. At all events,
the commission was awarded to Michelangelo, who may thereby have been chosen over a rival
sculptor, Andrea Sansovino (1460–1529). The contract, which was provisionally worth a rather
modest 144 gold ducats, is worded as follows:
“The honourable Consuls of the Arte della Lana [wool guild] assembled in the audience
chamber of the Office of Works have, together with the Wardens, appointed, to the satisfac-
tion and honour of the Office of Works, the honourable Master Michelangelo Buonarroti,
citizen of Florence, to be sculptor of the Office of Works, and have commissioned him to
execute a figure, called ‘the giant’, from marble that is nine braccia tall and is currently located
in the said Office of Works and which was earlier badly roughed out by Master Agostino of
Florence, to be completed to the best of his knowledge and belief within two years calculated
from the next calends of September, against a remuneration and payment of six gold fiorini
per month. The work, of whatever kind, is to be carried out on the premises of the Office of
Works, which will do everything to help him and to provide him with assistants, wood and all
that is required. When the work, i.e. the man of marble, is complete, the officiating Consuls
and Wardens will decide whether the work is worth a higher price; this will be left to their
judgement.”
Michelangelo concluded this contract with two institutions that were particularly involved
in official patronage of the arts: the Opera del Duomo and the Arte della Lana, both of them
corporations within the Commune of Florence. The Commune had taken over the secular
management of the city’s most important religious buildings as early as the 12th century. The
larger guilds were thereby charged with maintaining the fabric of one or several buildings, and
74
MICHEL ANGELO
the Arte della Lana had held responsibility

for the cathedral of S. Maria del Fiore since
1331. Commissions from the Office of Works,
which acted in consultation with the relevant
guild, were thus awarded not so much by an
ecclesiastical body as by a corporation with a
political constitution; this was all the more
true since the expulsion of the Medici in 1494
and the installation of a republican form of
government in Florence. For Michelangelo,
moreover, the commission for the David
was a personal challenge at the political
level, since he came from a Guelph family,
who sympathized with the republican cause.
Michelangelo commenced work properly
on 13 September 1501, having four days earlier
chipped a “knot” off the “badly roughed out”
block. From this piece of information, men-
tioned in a document relating to the com-
mission, it follows that the figure begun by
Agostino di Duccio had already progressed to a certain stage: the upper body with a drapery
knot – such as that found on the marble David (p. 82 left) by Donatello (1386–1466), for
example – must already have been partially carved.
Work on the David evidently proceeded over the next few months to the satisfaction of
all concerned, for on 25 and 28 February 1502 the Opera del Duomo consented to a request
by Michelangelo that his fee should be increased to a handsome 400 gold ducats. Two years
later, on 25 January 1504, the figure is described in documents as nearly finished. It was
transported from the Office of Works to the Piazza della Signoria over the course of five
days, from 14 to 18 May 1504, and on 8 September it was erected on a specially built plinth
in front of the Palazzo della Signoria. There it remained until 1873, when it was moved to
the Accademia in Florence. Since 1910 a replica has stood in its place in front of the Palazzo
della Signoria (p. 76).
By 25 January 1504 at the latest, it must have been clear to everyone involved that Michel-
angelo had achieved a quite extraordinary sculpture – and did not merely c reate a more than
Herbert List, Michelangelo’s David (copy) and Baccio Bandinelli’s Hercules and Cacus
Florence, Piazza della Signoria, 1950
76
In front of a figure by Michelangelo, we think

of what it is doing, and not of what it is feeling.
STENDHAL
79
MICHEL ANGELO
[…] as most of my figures are taken from the male nude,

I am sure that I have been influenced by the fact that Michelangelo
made the most voluptuous male nudes in the plastic arts.
FRANCIS BACON
80
MICHEL ANGELO THE BREAKTHROUGH IN FLORENCE
Donatello David, 1415/16 Marble, 191 cm

Florence, Museo del Bargello
Donatello, David, c. 1440 (?), Bronze, 158 cm, diameter of plinth 51 cm
Florence, Museo del Bargello
Page 83
Arm study for the marble David (?), study for a bronze David, writing, 1501/02
Pen, 265 x 188 mm. Paris, Musée du Louvre, 714r
passable work of art from a bungled block. Already baptized “the giant” while still an unfin-
ished marble block, the David was a credit to his name from an artistic point of view, too.
The Florentines were evidently so overwhelmed that the original idea of placing the David
high up on a buttress of the cathedral was now dismissed. Since no one could agree on an alter-
native location, on 25 January 1504 a commission of some thirty well-known painters, archi-
tects and public officials convened to discuss how the figure was to be displayed. Amongst the
members of this commission were the painters Leonardo da Vinci, Sandro Botticelli, Filippino
Lippi, Cosimo Rosselli, Francesco Granacci, Pietro Perugino (at that time the most sought-
after painter in Italy) and Davide Ghirlandaio; and the architects Cronaca and Giuliano da
Sangallo, the last a close friend of Michelangelo’s.
82 83
The debate essentially centred around two locations: in the vicinity of the cathedral, or
beside the Communal palace housing the Florentine government, the Palazzo della Signoria
(today the Palazzo Vecchio), which was located on the similarly named Piazza della Signoria.
The first member of the commission to speak was Francesco di Lorenzo Filarete, the city’s First
Herald, a civil servant who was chiefly responsible for official protocol. In his opinion, there
were only two possible options, one near the entrance to the Palazzo della Signoria, where
Donatello’s Judith had recently (1495) been installed, the other the inner courtyard of the
palace itself, where at that time the bronze David (p. 82 right) by the same artist already stood.
Both proposals undoubtedly smacked strongly of politics, since the Donatello bronzes that
had been erected in the vicinity of the palace following a municipal decree of 9 October 1495
originally came from the collection of the Medici. Their relocation was a symbolic act, through
which the republican government appropriated the sculptures and expressed its political pri-
macy over the exiled Medici. Furthermore, both sculptures could be interpreted as symbols of
republican freedom. When Michelangelo’s David subsequently took the place of the Judith, it
also assumed the latter’s political connotations. At the same time, it was granted a particularly
symbolic location: towering to the left of the main entrance to the Palazzo della Signoria, the
David must have appeared to viewers as a gigantic palace guard.
As is well known, the biblical David was not only a king and poet but also a warrior of a
singular kind. As a shepherd boy, he had single-handedly, and armed only with a sling, slain
the giant Goliath and thereby won the Israelite’s seemingly hopeless battle against the Philis-
tines (I Sam. 17). David could thus be interpreted as a symbol of divine aid and of the victory
of the people of Israel in an unequal fight. This symbolism found its way into the political
iconography of Florence, where it left deep traces – as already evidenced by Donatello’s first,
marble David (p. 82 left), created for the Palazzo della Signoria in 1415/16 on behalf of the
Commune of Florence.
Donatello’s later, bronze David (p. 82 right) carried fundamentally political overtones. The
small-format sculpture confronts the viewer in heroic nakedness, in contrast to Donatello’s
earlier marble David, and was probably commissioned by Cosimo de’ Medici il Vecchio (1389–
1464) for his family palace following Florence’s military victory over the Visconti in 1440. The
Medici thereby positioned themselves symbolically at the forefront of the Florentine victory.
In 1476, the figure assumed a different political meaning when, by government decree, it was
removed from the Medici’s collection and erected in the Palazzo della Signoria. The bronze
David by Andrea del Verrocchio (c. 1435/36–1488) was subsequently installed in the Medici’s
city palace, probably by way of a replacement for Donatello’s sculpture, but this figure in turn
found itself politicized by the Commune: in 1494, with the expulsion of the Medici, it too
Figure studies for the Battle of Cascina (?) and the Bruges Madonna, 1504/05
Black chalk and pen over metal point, 315 x 278 mm. London, British Museum, 1859–6-25–564r
84 85
MICHEL ANGELO
was transferred to the Palazzo della Signoria. In view of this location and relocation of the
Davids by Donatello and Verrocchio, therefore, we may assume that Michelangelo’s David was
a highly political affair, either right from the moment of its commission or at the point when
it came to be transported to the Piazza della Signoria.
Michelangelo’s David is unusual in many respects. In its dimensions, it exceeds all previ-
ously known versions on the subject; it possesses almost no clear attributes; and in contrast
to the figures of Donatello and Verrocchio, for example, it depicts not a shepherd boy but a
powerful young man. With its monumentality, its nakedness, its clearly accentuated muscular
frame and its contrapposto, the David clearly recalls antique representations of Hercules and
thereby the cardinal virtue of fortitudo associated with this hero. This double encoding of
David and Hercules was joined by the belief, commonly held in Florence since the preaching
of Savonarola, that the name David meant “strong of hand and fair of face” (manu fortis et
pulcher aspectu) and that David’s perfection as the prototype of a “Christian” ruler was only
assured by his combination of strength and beauty together. Michelangelo’s sculpture, with
its powerful and at the same time aesthetically perfect physique, directly reflects Savonarola’s
thinking. It also lends expression to another idea put forward by Savonarola, namely that
David was ambidextrous (ambidestri), equally strong in both his right and left hands. Thus
Michelangelo’s David holds the sling draped loosely over his shoulder with his left hand, while
his right hand grasps a stone. A right-handed person, however, would hold the sling in his
right hand and the projectile in his left. Thus David is depicted here in precisely the way that
Savonarola perceived him.
Other elements of the sculpture also reveal David’s assimilation of an antique hero and his
combination of adult male strength and ideal physical beauty. In contrast to other Florentine
versions of the subject, Michelangelo’s David does not present Goliath’s severed head at his feet,
nor does he hold the sword with which he decapitated him. Michelangelo has thus portrayed
not the moment directly after David’s victory over the giant, but the moment before. This is sug-
gested by his intent gaze, the stone in his right hand and his left hand loosely holding the slack,
still empty sling. David appears before the viewer as a concentrated, deliberating warrior. The
expression on his face reflects and indeed amplifies his concentration. At the distant sight of the
Philistine, his brows contract threateningly, so that his face resembles that of a lion. In a similar
fashion to Andrea del Verrocchio’s Colleoni monument in Venice, a leonine physiognomy is also
intended in the David to symbolize exemplary combat strength and valour.
Michelangelo’s contemporaries recognized very well the political dimension inherent in the
David. As the Florentine chronicler Luca Landucci noted in his diary, stones were thrown at the
colossal sculpture even as it was being transported from the Office of Works, so that a guard had
to be mounted to protect it. The stone-throwing youths all came from pro-Medici families for
St Paul, 1501–1504
Marble, height 127 cm. Siena, Cathedral, Piccolomini Altar
86
Angelo seems to me one of those people having such depth of mind

and spirit that they do not find it easy to open themselves to others;
they are obliged to be very withdrawn, and this obligation gives them
a certain hardness, as a result of which they often find themselves
driven to being forceful and abrupt.
CARL GUSTAV CARUS
St Paul (detail), 1501–1504
89
whom the prospect of a figure with republican connotations being installed in front of the seat stronger Goliath with his sling. The artist is thus reflecting upon the relationship between his
of the Florentine government must have been thoroughly unpalatable. Their aggression cannot subject and the technical difficulties that he encountered during carving.
be dismissed, therefore, as nothing more than a thoughtless act of vandalism. Vasari subse- Just as in the case of the Battle of the Centaurs and the Rome Pietà (see Ch. I and II),
quently interpreted the David in an equally political fashion, describing the biblical David as a therefore, Michelangelo’s thoughts were preoccupied not solely with the subject that he had
just hero who defended his people and as a symbol of Florence’s republican rule. been commissioned to sculpt, but also with his own artistic practice. But the emphasis is now
The degree to which the biblical David, and hence also Michelangelo’s sculpture, could different. The Battle of the Centaurs with its indirect reference to a crypto-portrait by Phidias
be made to carry different meanings is illustrated by the example of Niccolò Machiavelli. was an erudite reference to antiquity, and the Pietà with its inscription an allusion to the paral-
Chancellor of the Florentine Republic from 1498 to 1512, Machiavelli had called at the start of lels between a divine mission and the mission of the artist. With this reference to the arco as
the 16th century for the creation of a militia, so that the city should no longer be dependent the sculptor’s tool, Michelangelo now places the manual aspect of his work in the foreground.
upon bribable mercenary troops in the event of warfare. It had been seen in the past that hired Even so, he does not focus upon the cruder side of carving, associated with the chisel, but the
mercenaries and condottieri served first and foremost their own interests and were politically more subtle work with the fine borer.
unreliable. In support of his idea of a Florentine armed force independent of outside arms, Between his return to Florence in March 1501 and his departure once more for Rome in
Machiavelli invoked the example of David as a warrior who had declined to use the armour March 1505, Michelangelo was inundated with work. Alongside the figures for the Piccolomini
and weapons of others. Altar (June 1501) and the David (August 1501), in August 1502 he was commissioned by the
It would be wrong, however, to reduce the sculpture to a political statement, for it also Florentine government to execute a bronze David, about a metre (a little over three feet) high,
bears witness to Michelangelo’s own understanding of himself as an artist. The commission for Pierre de Rohan-Gié, a retainer of the French king, Charles VIII. This bronze David was
for the David posed a very specific artistic challenge. The two Quattrocento sculptors had cast in October 1508 and is today lost. In April 1503, i.e. while still working on the marble
already made a start on the huge marble block and in doing so had practically ruined it. David, Michelangelo signed a contract with the wool merchants’ guild and the S. Maria del
Their botched preliminary efforts were not all that Michelangelo had to overcome, how- Fiore Office of Works for the over-life-size figures of twelve Apostles for Florence cathedral.
ever: he also faced the difficult dimensions of the block from the Office of Works. As is clear He appears to have embarked on only one of these, the St Matthew, commenced either in
even today when the finished figure is viewed from the side, for a sculpture over 5 metres 1505 or, more likely, 1506. This same period included three smaller, undocumented private
tall the original stone slab was very shallow. It was due not least to the unfavourable pro- commissions for the Taddei Tondo (Cat. S12), the Pitti Tondo (Cat. S13) and the Doni Tondo
portions of the block that the sculptors of the 15th century were unable to carve a satisfac- (p. 97). Well documented, on the other hand, is the so-called Bruges Madonna (p. 92), which
tory figure from it. How Michelangelo rose to this particular challenge can be seen not only the artist probably completed in October 1504. At around this same time Michelangelo also
from the figure itself, but also from a drawing executed by the artist during this same period agreed to execute a monumental mural of the Battle of Cascina for the Grand Council Cham-
(p. 83). Alongside a d esign for a bronze David, now lost, by Michelangelo (see below) and a ber in the Palazzo della Signoria, on which he was still working in March 1505 when Pope
sketch for the right arm of the Florentine David, the sheet bears a seemingly cryptic inscrip- Julius II summoned him to Rome.
tion – the first instance of an artist of the modern era offering a direct interpretation of his Within a period of four years, Michelangelo had thus accepted commissions for thirty-
own work: seven individual works, including thirty-one sculptures or reliefs in marble, of which thirteen
were nearly 2 metres (over 6’) tall. He had also committed himself to executing a small
“Davicte cholla Fromba “David with the sling bronze figure, even though he had no previous experience in the casting of bronze. He had
e io collarcho and I with the bow furthermore taken on the commission for the Battle of Cascina, despite never having painted
Michelagniolo Michelangelo anything on such a large scale before. Of all these works, Michelangelo completed only the
[…]” […]” marble David, the Bruges Madonna, the now lost bronze David and the Doni Tondo (p. 97).
The rest – individual works and larger-scale projects alike – hardly got off the drawing board:
By “bow” (collarcho) Michelangelo here meant the sculptor’s borer, a pointed tool that is the artist began just one of the twelve Apostles, St Matthew (p. 125), and completed only
inserted into a loop in the string of a bow and made to turn by horizontal bowing movements. four of the fifteen figures for the Piccolomini Altar. For the mural he designed only the car-
Michelangelo implies through this inscription that he has vanquished the hard, resistant mate- toon, and he never quite finished the two marble tondi. Michelangelo’s tendency to take on
rial of the giant marble block with the aid of his borer just as David defeated the physically far more commissions than he could finish within a reasonable time was thus already becoming
90 91
apparent. What drove him to do so was probably his unbridled ambition as an artist and his
thirst for money.
In view of this deluge of commissions, it is not surprising that the works Michelangelo
produced during this period are of differing quality. This is true, for example, of the marble
figures for the Piccolomini Altar, whose quality does not always match that of the Pietà or
the Bruges Madonna. This commission is interesting, all the same, because in the figure of
St Paul (p. 87) Michelangelo has for the first time portrayed himself. Thus the saint’s flat-
tened nose and curly locks, together with the creases on his brow and at the root of his nose,
recall the known, albeitmuch later, self-portraits of the artist. The self-portrait in the figure
of St Paul illustrates Michelangelo’s tendency to make himself the subject of his art – a ten-
dency already manifest in The Battle of the Centaurs and in his commentary on the David.
This c rypto-portrait takes on an added piquancy in light of the fact that the sculptures for
the Piccolomini Altar were originally commissioned from Pietro Torrigiani, the very
artist who a few years earlier had broken the young Michelangelo’s nose. That Michelangelo
should build a reference to that violent disagreement into St Paul’s squashed features bears
witness to his caustic sarcasm and at the same time looks forward to the Pauline Chapel,
where the artist would again portray himself towards the end of his career in the figure of
St Paul (ill. p. 10).
The terms of the contract for the figures of the Piccolomini Altar are very complex, since
Michelangelo was evidently thinking of executing the sculptures in Florence, while the client
wished to monitor the work from Rome. For this reason he insisted upon enlisting another
sculptor to assess the first two finished sculptures. He also demanded that Michelangelo should
supply him with detailed design drawings. The client even tried to lay down formal guidelines
for a St Francis preliminary begun by Torrigiani: Michelangelo was to finish the sculpture in
such a way that it harmonized with the other altar figures. Michelangelo, who had enjoyed
extensive freedom when it came to the design of his earlier works, accepted comparatively
restrictive conditions in the case of the Piccolomini Altar, something that again testifies to his
insatiable craving for new commissions.
Far less restrictive, on the other hand, were the design parameters for the Bruges Madonna
(p. 92), commissioned by the Flemish cloth merchant Jean-Alexandre Mouscron for his family
chapel in Notre-Dame in Bruges. The contract was awarded towards the end of 1503, since
documents show that Michelangelo received an initial payment for the sculpture at this time.
In August 1505, the Madonna was packaged for transportation and shipped to Bruges, where it
continues to adorn the chapel endowed by the Mouscron family even today. The first mention
of its presence in Bruges is provided by Albrecht Dürer, who expressly names it as a work by
Michelangelo in the entry of 21 April 1521 in the diary of his trip to the Netherlands.
Madonna and Child (Bruges Madonna), c. 1504/05

Marble, height 94 cm, (128 cm including base). Bruges, Onze Lieve Vrouwkerk (Notre-Dame)
93
MICHEL ANGELO
It would be impossible for any craftsman or sculptor no matter how

brilliant ever to surpass the grace or design of this work or try to cut and
polish the marble with the skill that Michelangelo displayed. For the Pietà
was a revelation of all the potentialities and force of the art of sculpture.
GIORGIO VASARI
Madonna and Child (Bruges Madonna) (detail), c. 1504/05
94
In its compact and harmonious design,

the Bruges Madonna takes up from the Rome
Pietà completed six years earlier. Peculiar
to both sculptures, too, is a high degree of
idealization in the antique manner. The
subject here is nevertheless a different one.
The Virgin is seated on a stepped rocky
plinth with the Child in front of her; fac-
ing towards the viewer amidst the tumbling
folds of the Virgin’s robes, the Infant clasps
his mother’s left hand with his right. The
Virgin’s face strikes the eye as a little elon-
gated in its proportions and thereby con-
trasts with the much broader and slightly
too large head of the Infant. This contrast is
continued in their respective physiognomies.
The facial features of the Bruges Madonna
are somewhat harder and more linear than
those of her counterpart in the Rome Pietà,
and the eyes have closed to narrow slits,
whereas the face of the Child is softer and more rounded. An explanation for this contrast
may lie in the unconventional representation of the Child. He is not seated on his mother’s
lap, as was otherwise the norm, but is standing on the ground. This statuary pose of the Infant
was without precedent in contemporary sculpture and contributes another antique dimension
to the overall concept of the sculpture. The tenderness of the mother for her child is thereby
also largely suppressed: in a similar fashion to The Madonna of the Stairs (Cat. S1), the Virgin
seems barely interested in her son.
The same is true of the two marble tondi executed only a short while later. Thus in the
Taddei Tondo (Cat. S12) the Virgin addresses her complete attention to the Infant St
John, before whom Jesus seems to flee almost in panic. This flight may refer to a barely
distinguishable bird in the young John’s hands, which can be interpreted as a symbol of the
Passion. Whatever the case, the motif of the Infant recoiling right across the pictorial ground
of the relief is just as unusual as the fact that the Virgin is paying a ttention neither to her
Luca Signorelli, Madonna and Child, c. 1490

Tempera (?) and oil (?) on panel, 170 x 117.5 cm, Florence, Uffizi
The Holy Family with the Infant St John (Doni Tondo), 1503/04 or 1507 (?)
Tempera on wood, diameter 91 cm (vertical), 80 cm (horizontal);
diameter with frame: 120 cm. Florence, Uffizi
96 97
Maddalena Strozzi in 1504, the painting shows the Virgin in the foreground being passed
the Child by her husband, Joseph. The Infant St John watches the scene with interest from
behind a wall on the right, while five male nudes occupy the background. In terms of picto-
rial type, the tondo numbers amongst the many Holy Family compositions that were com-
missioned by Florentine families during these years to mark important events such as wed-
dings and births.
Michelangelo’s Doni Tondo differs in a number of points, however, from conventional
paintings of this type. The round panel is distinguished first of all by its use of an intense pal-
ette of local colours. Joseph’s prominent position and direct involvement in the scene are also
striking factors; since he was only considered Jesus’ foster father, Joseph was frequently a purely
passive figure in representations of the Holy Family, often seen standing to one side, sometimes
even asleep, and at best playing only a subsidiary role. In the Doni Tondo, on the other hand,
Joseph not only rises considerably above the Virgin in height but also plays an active part in
the scene by passing the Child to Mary. It is likely that Michelangelo’s depiction of Joseph in
this manner reflects the latter’s increasing importance in popular religion during this period.
Not entirely without precedent, although still remarkable, are the five naked youths in the
background. Vasari saw them as purely artistic exercises through which Michelangelo wished
to demonstrate his mastery of painting. While this interpretation c ertainly cannot be dismissed
out of hand, there is probably more to them than this, as is revealed by a comparison with a
Madonna and Child tondo (p. 96) painted some twenty years earlier by Luca Signorelli, with
Anonymous, Battle of Anghiari, which Michelangelo was undoubtedly a cquainted. There, too, the background of the picture
16th-century copy after Leonardo da Vinci (Tavola Doria), after 1506
Oil on panel, 85 x 115 cm. Private collection includes a number of male nudes. Two of them appear to be playing trumpets, while a stand-
ing nude in rear view leans on a shepherd’s staff. The whole evidently depicts a bucolic scene
from antiquity. A ruin on the right behind the Virgin confirms this impression. With its refer-
son nor to his sudden movement. The communication between mother and child conveyed ence to pagan antiquity, the background scenery thus provides a foil to the foreground Virgin
in Madonna paintings by Michelangelo’s contemporaries, in particular those by Leonardo and Child, who represent the vanquishing of the heathen era by Christianity. A comparable
and Raphael, is clearly both more tender and more intense. In view of this fact, it has even Christian understanding of time is also present in the tondo’s imitation frame. Painted in
been surmised that the emotional vacuum of the Bruges Madonna and the Taddei Tondo is an monochrome above the main pictorial field are two seated Prophets and, between them, the
indirect reflection of the emotional isolation and poor bonding experienced by Michelangelo bust of St John the Baptist. The Prophets stand for the epoch of the Old Testament, while St
himself. John the Baptist represents the link with the New Testament, to which the main picture of the
The two other tondi from these years also reveal unusual details. Thus the Infant in the Virgin and Child is dedicated.
Pitti Tondo (Cat. S13) stands with one leg crossed casually over the other next to the Virgin, A comparable idea underlies the constellation of the Doni Tondo: the foreground figures of
whose eyes gaze beyond the viewer far into the distance. Curious, too, is the way in which the the Virgin and Child represent the New Testament age of grace, while the background with its
Child is using the book lying in front of him as a prop for his elbow. Earlier representations male nudes symbolizes the heathen era overcome by Christianity. Michelangelo’s male nudes
of the Virgin and Child often featured books, occasionally with legible lines of text, but are nevertheless infused with ambivalence. They are not standing beside antique ruins and
they are not made to serve as a support. Michelangelo thus introduces into his compositions they hold neither shepherds’ staffs nor trumpets. They could thus also be understood as the
genre-like elements that have never been featured before. embodiment of an ideal of male beauty, or indeed simply as a purely artistic exercise.
Unusual, too, is the Doni Tondo (p. 97) painted in tempera and surrounded by a highly The situation is similar in the case of the cartoon for the Battle of Cascina (p. 101), where
ornate gilt frame. Commissioned on the occasion of the marriage of A gnolo Doni and Michelangelo appears to have depicted first and foremost a company of naked men, rendered
98 99
in an extremely wide range of poses and movements (p. 84). The commission, which was
awarded in autumn 1504, nevertheless harboured a political dimension as well, since the large-
format painting was intended for the Grand Council Chamber in the Palazzo della Signoria,
where it was to form part of a decorative programme designed to remind the Florentine
Republic of the greatest military triumphs in the city’s history. At the heart of this decorative
scheme lay Michelangelo’s Battle of Cascina and a mural of the Battle of Anghiari (p. 98) com-
missioned from Leonardo da Vinci. This second painting, which Leonardo commenced in
the autumn of 1503 and abandoned unfinished in the spring of 1506, commemorated a battle
of 1440 in which the Florentines and their papal allies defeated their Milanese opponents
near the Tuscan town of Anghiari. Leonardo made the focus of his composition one of the
most important episodes in this battle, the capture of the enemy’s standard, enacted by figures
larger than life size. Leonardo’s mural was to appear directly alongside Michelangelo’s Battle
of Cascina, which depicted the raising of the alarm that, in July 1364, warned the Florentine
troops of the approaching enemy and led to their emerging victory from the subsequent
skirmish.
The surviving copies of the Battle of Anghiari show four horsemen fighting for possession of
a standard. The two left-hand figures are the leaders of the Milanese troops, Francesco Piccinino
Aristotile da Sangallo (?), Battle of Cascina, copy after Michelangelo’s cartoon (1505/06), before 1519 (?)
and his father Niccolò, pursued on the right by Piergiampaolo Orsini and Ludovico Scarampo, Grisaille on panel, 76.4 x 130.2 cm
protagonists of the allied papal and Florentine troops, who were to triumph in the conflict and Holkham Hall, Collection of the Earl of Leicester, Norfolk
with whom contemporary viewers would have been able to identify. The faces of the two riders Pages 102/103
on the left are twisted and distorted with rage in an expression of bestial fury (furor). Francesco Study of a battle skirmish with riders (for the Battle of Cascina), 1504
Piccinino’s belligerent nature is reinforced in iconographical terms by his armour, which reveals Pen, 179 x 251 mm. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, P. 294r
several of the attributes of Mars, the god of war. Thus the ram on his chest is the symbol of
Mars and the horns of Amon on his head and the ram’s fleece on his body are both derived
from traditional Mars iconography. The painting thereby alludes to the fact that condottieri in a 16th-century copy. The younger artist opted for an almost frieze-like arrangement of
such as Niccolò and Francesco Piccinino were considered “children of Mars” and enjoyed a naked bodies whose various actions are at first sight puzzling to the uninitiated viewer. But
bad reputation: the fact that they sold their services on the battlefield for money made their Michelangelo, too, was portraying a specific event in military history, one described in detail
allegiance ultimately unpredictable. Mars thus stood for an irrational and particularly corrupt in documentary sources. 28 July 1364 was a very hot day, and the Florentine soldiers and
form of warfare, quite the opposite of the Florentine ideal of a controlled military operation. generals decided to refresh themselves in the waters of the Arno not far from Cascina. All of
This new ideal of warfare, employing considered tactical strategy, is represented by the two a sudden, the enemy Pisan troops appeared. Fortunately Manno Donati, a Florentine com-
leaders of the Florentine troops, whose faces are far less contorted with combative rage: the mander, had not gone bathing with the rest and raised the alarm. This is the moment shown
helmets of the Florentine soldiers are surmounted in certain copies of the painting by a winged in Michelangelo’s cartoon: some of the soldiers are still getting out of the water, others are
dragon, a symbol of circumspection and prudence (prudentia), and in almost all the rest by the already drying themselves and starting to pull on their clothes and armour in great haste.
mask of Minerva, the goddess who, according to classical literature, guaranteed prudence in Several figures are portrayed in particular detail, such as the man in the centre of the com-
warfare and victory over the rash and thoughtless aggression of Mars. In the portrayal of the position winding a cloth around his head. He is probably the condottiere Galeotto Malatesta,
four protagonists, Leonardo’s composition thus reveals an antithetical underlying structure in a professional military leader hired by the city of Florence. When the alarm sounded he was
which Good (Minerva with prudentia) is opposed to Evil (Mars with furor). laid low with a temperature and had to be woken up, and soon afterwards he transferred the
The dynamism of Leonardo’s wall painting, which concentrates upon the violent clash of command to a collective of Florentine men. The significance of his figure becomes particu-
enemy horsemen, is utterly foreign to the composition by Michelangelo, which has survived larly clear when we remember the message underlying Leonardo’s Battle of Anghiari. For there
100 101
102 103
we find the same theme of the unreliability of hired condottieri, illustrated in the martial fig- bundle of radishes rather than muscular nudes” (MK § 333). The revival of Leonardo’s interest
ure of Francesco Piccinino. Michelangelo formulates his warning somewhat less dramatically in expressive male nudes was probably connected with the rise of the young Michelangelo and
than Leonardo: the emphasis in his composition is less on belligerent furor than on the virtues his innovative understanding of the nude: the rectilinear figural style of the 15th century had
of vigilance and prudence. This prudence finds expression above all in the figure raising the now been overtaken by a heroic style that Michelangelo, with his portrayal of powerful male
alarm in the upper right-hand side of the cartoon, who probably represents Manno Donati, bodies, was to elevate to a new ideal. In the battle of the two giants, the younger artist, Michel-
and whose helmet is crowned by a winged dragon. Donati had kept a cool head despite the angelo, seems to have made a greater impression upon the elder, Leonardo, rather than the
heat, had neither ventured into the water nor lain down for a rest, and was thus able to warn other way round. As the wealth of muscular nudes in the Sistine Chapel would demonstrate a
his comrades of the enemy attack. few years later, the rather more restrained style of the Quattrocento was already out of date. A
Significantly, the vigilance of this figure is emphasized by a symbolic animal, namely the new physical ideal began to appear in art, one created by Michelangelo.
dragon that also appears in the neighbouring Battle of Anghiari as a representation of pruden-
tia. In Michelangelo’s picture it was thus prudence (in the form of vigilance and circumspec-
tion) that stepped in to help – in this case, as a creature raising the alarm. Michelangelo even
introduced an element of visual humour at this point: his dragon has its mouth wide open,
shouting al’arme – “to arms!” – like its wearer, Manno Donati. There can be no doubt that
Donati’s dragon of vigilance is directly related to the same animal appearing on the helmet of
Piergiampaolo Orsini in Leonardo’s Battle of Anghiari.
In exploring this relationship, we might even go one step further. Leonardo portrayed his
dragon in artistically relatively straightforward profile and concentrated his powers of imagi-
nation and design on the physiognomies of Francesco and Niccolò Piccinino, the generals
associated with Mars. Michelangelo, on the other hand, not only strove to achieve intense
expressiveness in the individual faces of his figures, but even gave his dragon a facial expres-
sion pregnant with meaning. It is as though he wanted to complement and indeed trump the
masterly portrayal of human facial expression in Leonardo’s Battle of Anghiari with an equally
masterly portrayal of animal physiognomy.
In their dramatic depiction of armed conflict, the contrast between the two artists’ designs
could hardly have been greater. Leonardo focused on the violent encounter of opposing forces
and characterized the warring factions by means of recognizable attributes. Michelangelo,
on the other hand, attached less importance to identifying his figures and concentrated all
the more strongly on the expressive portrayal of the male nude, whose possibilities he had
already explored in his Battle of the Centaurs of 1492 and in his recently completed marble
David. Leonardo seems to have been impressed by the “muscular rhetoric” of his young but
By the time [Michelangelo] was thirty, he was generally
already successful rival: the one surviving drawing by Leonardo of a contemporary artwork
acknowledged to be one of the outstanding masters of his age,
is of Michelangelo’s David. Probably as a result of seeing the much talked-about sculpture equal in his way to the genius of Leonardo. The city of Florence
and the expressive figures of the Battle of Cascina, Leonardo embarked virtually straight away honoured him by commisioning him and Leonardo each to paint
upon an intensive study of muscular male nudes. Leonardo’s renewed enthusiasm for the male an episode from Florentine history on the wall of their Council
nude comes as something of a surprise, for during the period 1500 to 1506 he had been sharply Chamber. It was a dramatic moment in the history of art when
critical of depictions of exaggeratedly muscular male bodies. Thus he rebukes those “who, in these two giants competed for the palm, and all Florence watched
order to appear as great draughtsmen, make their nudes wooden and without grace, so that with excitment the progress of their preparations.
they seem to look like a sack of nuts rather than the surface of a human being, or, indeed, a ERNST GOMBRICH
104 105
IV.
Between Rome
and Florence
1505–1508
Frank Zöllner
… it is not difficult to imagine how fascinated Michelangelo

must have been to work for a man who possessed the means
and the will to carry out the boldest plans. With the Pope’s
permission he immediately travelled to the famous marble
quarries at Carrara, there to select the blocks from which
to carve a gigantic mausoleum. The young artist was over-
whelmed by the sight of all these marble rocks, which seemed
to be waiting for his chisel to turn them into statues such as
the world had never seen. He stayed more than six months at
the quarries, buying, selecting and rejecting, his mind seething
with images. He wanted to release the figures from the stones
in which they were slumbering…
ERNST GOMBRICH
MICHEL ANGELO BETWEEN ROME AND FLORENCE
With the commission for the tomb of Julius II, which in February 1505 took the artist to the The beginning of the enormous project to build a monumental freestanding tomb for
papal court in Rome, Michelangelo’s career entered a new phase. From now until the end of Julius II is very poorly and unreliably documented. We know from second-hand, often later,
his life, he would dedicate the major proportion of his creative powers to the most important sources that Michelangelo was summoned to Rome in February 1505 specifically for this pro-
artistic projects of his epoch. These large-scale commissions frequently required Michelangelo ject, probably at the recommendation of his old friend Giuliano da Sangallo (1445–1516), who
to act as sculptor and architect at the same time, even while elsewhere he was painting on a vast had already worked for Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere prior to the latter’s election as pope.
scale. They also bound him for years, sometimes even decades, to a small number of patrons, The original idea of a freestanding tomb, first conceived in 1505, was gradually scaled down
including popes and their representatives. This was true in particular of the Julius Tomb, the – over a succession of agreements negotiated in 1513, 1516, 1526, 1532 and 1542 – to that of a
two fresco campaigns in the Sistine Chapel, the projects for S. Lorenzo in Florence (façade, considerably smaller wall tomb. The final version of the tomb represents a very complex and
Medici Chapel, Laurentian Library; see Ch. VI and VII) and the complete redesign of the conflict-laden reduction of the first project; it was built in S. Pietro in Vincoli in 1542–1545,
Capitol and the supervision of the building of the new St Peter’s in Rome (see Ch. IX). These making use of elements already completed from earlier planning phases.
two last architectural projects, in particular, illustrate the scale of Michelangelo’s commit- Giorgio Vasari describes the origin of the scheme for the Julius Tomb in his Life of
ments, since in both cases it was clear from the start that the work to be done would never be Giuliano da Sangallo. The tomb was originally intended to be housed in its own chapel, rather
completed within the lifetime of one individual. By comparison, other important works, such like a mausoleum, which was to be specially built next to the old St Peter’s. Alternatively,
as his sculpture The Risen Christ (p. 345) and the frescoes in the Pauline Chapel (pp. 554–557), the freestanding tomb was to be installed in the so-called Rossellino choir, an extension to
appear relatively modest. the tribune of the old St Peter’s that had been commenced under Pope Nicholas V (reigned
A pivotal role in bringing Michelangelo back to Rome was played by Giuliano della 1447–1455), but which had got no further than the building of an exterior wall a few feet high
Rovere (b. 1443), Cardinal of S. Pietro in Vincoli, who in 1503 was elected Pope Julius II. Up (see Ch. IX). Whatever the case, the entire rebuilding of St Peter’s basilica was precipitated, as
till his death in 1513, Julius II – probably still the best-known Renaissance pope even today Vasari suggests in his biography, by the pretentious and – in terms of its scale – unheard-of idea
– initiated some of the most famous projects in the more recent history of art: the building of erecting the monumental tomb of a pope inside a church built over the final resting place
of the new St Peter’s as from April 1506; the painting of the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo of a Prince of the Apostles. Over the course of 1505, preparations for the Julius Tomb advanced
during the years 1508–1512; and the decoration of the papal apartments – the so-called Stanze swiftly. Contracts signed in November and December 1505 for the quarrying of the necessary
– in the Vatican Palace by Raphael (1483–1520) and his workshop starting in late 1508. Julius marble blocks and their transportation to Rome give a first impression of the vast dimensions
II thereby continued a process of renovation and redevelopment begun in Rome by his uncle, of the tomb and bear witness to Michelangelo’s eagerness to select and procure his materials
Pope Sixtus IV, in the form of various urban projects and the building of the Sistine Chapel himself. These contracts and the few letters that survive from this first planning phase remain
and its decoration with fresco cycles by the most important Italian artists of the day. silent, however, about the proposed design of the monument. For such information we have to
The personal relationship between Pope Julius II and Michelangelo is the stuff of numer- rely on the later accounts of Condivi and Vasari, and on a number of drawings whose dating
ous legends even today, not least on account of their several spectacular rows, reported with and attribution to Michelangelo or an artist in his circle remain disputed.
relish by their biographers. The two men evidently shared an impressive and at the same time The reliability of Michelangelo’s biographers is also a matter of dispute. Moreover, the
irritating characteristic that was summed up in the sources of their own day in the word ter- details provided by Vasari and Condivi give an only approximate impression of the tomb as
ribilità. This “terribleness” was a combination of explosive anger, harsh judgement, obstinacy originally planned. Thus Condivi does not distinguish precisely in his description between the
and unbending will, all of which led to violent conflicts. The coming together of Julius II and individual phases of the project, although he refers expressly to the first design for a freestanding
Michelangelo thereby defined an entirely new relationship between artist and patron. It could tomb of 1505 and gives its dimensions as an impressive eighteen by twelve cubits (about 10.5 x
almost be said that they met as equals, although this may seem a little exaggerated in view of 7 metres/36 x 24’). Condivi speaks of over forty sculptures and a series of bronze reliefs illustrat-
their difference in rank and the social hierarchies still very much in force in the 16th century. ing events from the life of Julius II. At ground level, the tomb was to feature niches occupied by
statues and between these niches herm pilasters (termini) accompanied by prisoners in bonds.
Michelangelo executed two of these Prisoners, also known in the literature as Slaves, between
Page 107
1513 and 1516 (pp. 326, 329) and four more around 1520–1530 (Cat. S15 d–g). None of these
Giacomo Rocchetti, Copy of Michelangelo’s modello drawing for the Tomb of Julius II
(project phase of 1513?), Pen and wash, 340 x 525 mm. sculptures, not all of which were finished, was incorporated into the final version of the Julius
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett Tomb in S. Pietro in Vincoli.
108 109
August Schmarsow, Tracing of Michelangelo’s modello drawing for the Tomb of Julius II
(narrow side, project phase of 1505/13?)
Reconstruction of the Tomb of Julius II, narrow and broad sides
(project phase of 1505; after Bedekamp/Klodt, 2004)
Page 111
Design for the Tomb of Julius II, 1505/13 (?)
Pen over black chalk and wash, 525 x 340 mm
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett, 15 305r
The upper storey of the monument, according to Condivi, was to contain four large seated
figures, including Moses (p. 337). A final storey was to contain two angels, one smiling and
one weeping, supporting a bier. Condivi describes the Prisoners bound to the herm pilasters as
personifications of the liberal arts, which here (contrary to their canonical definition) included
painting, sculpture and architecture, identified by corresponding attributes. The biographer
even offers an interpretation: the weeping angel in the top register of the tomb was lament-
ing the death of the Pope, while the second angel was rejoicing over the ascent of his soul to
Heaven. Condivi also states that the Pope was to be buried in a marble coffin inside the tomb.
In the 1568 edition of his Lives, Vasari supplements Condivi’s description of the tomb
with some important details. Thus Vasari understands the Prisoners as personifications of the
provinces subjugated by the Pope, and also of the liberal arts and sciences. In addition to the
Moses already named by Condivi, Vasari identifies the three other seated figures in the upper
storey as St Paul and personifications of the Active and Contemplative Life (the Vita activa,
p. 552, and the Vita contemplativa, p. 551). At the summit of the tomb he describes “two figu-
res, one of which was Heaven, smiling and supporting a bier on her shoulder, and the other,
Cybele, the goddess of the Earth, who appeared to be grief-stricken at having to remain in a
world robbed of all virtue through the death of such a great man, in contrast to Heaven who
is shown rejoicing that his soul had passed to celestial glory”.
110 111
Information about the first project for the Julius Tomb described by Condivi and Vasari is
also provided by a number of drawings. Although they refer to the project of 1513 in their over-
all design, they nevertheless reflect the iconography of the earlier plan in certain details. One
such drawing is a badly damaged sheet housed in the Kupferstichkabinett in Berlin and prob-
ably executed by Michelangelo himself (p. 111), whose lines, today barely visible, can be studied
in the tracing made by the Leipzig art historian August Schmarsow in 1884 (p. 110). Further
information is provided by a nother drawing also housed in Berlin, now attributed to Giacomo
Rocchetti (p. 107), and by a further sheet, in the Uffizi in Florence, which shows only the lower half
of the tomb.
Another view of the Julius Tomb is offered by a drawing of disputed date and attribution
today housed in New York (p. 113). Although the structure of this tomb is similar to that of
those in the Berlin and Florence sheets, its iconographical programme is strikingly different.
Absent here are the herm pilasters in the lower register that play an important role in the
other drawings and are described by Michelangelo’s biographers. In contrast to the Berlin and
Florence sheets, the ground-floor niches in the New York drawing contain personifications
of virtues, while the wall surface between them is occupied by two reliefs, the larger of them
showing the Israelites Gathering Manna in the Wilderness. The next storey reveals two seated
figures: the one on the left might be a Sibyl and the one on the right Moses. Between them,
the coffin with the semi-recumbent figure of the Pope, two angels and two putti leads up to
the third storey, where the Virgin and Child are flanked by two standing figures. These are
evidently youths holding vessels of holy water and incense. The seating in the second register
is decorated with over-sized acorns, and an acorn also appears in the centre of the relief of the
Israelites Gathering Manna. In both instances the artist makes blatant reference to the coat of
arms of the della Rovere family (see Ch. V).
Of all the drawings that have been attributed to Michelangelo in recent years, this is
undoubtedly the most interesting and at the same time the most problematic. Upon closer
examination, one cannot avoid thinking that a talented artist has here attempted to imitate as
much of Michelangelo’s art as he was capable of understanding. Thus the Moses in the second
storey contains clear compositional echoes of the Prophets on the Sistine Ceiling, while the
Sibyl resembles a compilation of various Michelangelesque motifs (Sistine Sibyls and Prophets,
Medici Chapel, Pauline Chapel). The youths holding the liturgical utensils in the top storey,
on the other hand, are quite out of keeping in terms of their form and content: comparable
figures will be sought in vain within Michelangelo’s œuvre. This is particularly true of the
youth on the left, whose open outline is unthinkable for Michelangelo. The complete lack
of harmony between the figures and the architectural framework of the design is also highly
Michelangelo (?), Design/variation for the Tomb of Julius II (project phase of 1505/13)
Pen and wash, 509 x 318 mm
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 62 931r
112 113
identification for the Pope himself. The figures of the Active and Contemplative Life sketched at
the same height to some extent round off the programme. They refer to the two fundamental
spheres of human activity and effort, namely to practical action in everyday life and its con-
templation in the spiritual act of reflection. Both will ideally be fused in an earthly life fruitful
in words and deeds, which will in turn ensure that the fama of the individual endures after
death. Above the seated figures rises the body of the Pope, supported by angels on a sarcopha-
gus. As such, the drawings seem to correspond more or less to the original 1505 plan for the
monument. In the drawings from 1513 onwards, however, the personifications of Heaven and
Earth are replaced by the Virgin and Child floating above the sarcophagus, giving the monu-
ment a Christian emphasis that was much less pronounced in the design of 1505 (see Ch. VII).
Vasari had already touched upon an important point with his interpretation of the Prison-
ers as the personifications of the provinces subjugated by the Church: the monumental free-
standing tomb as originally planned took up the triumphal iconography familiar, for example,
from coins surviving from the time of the Roman Empire. It is ultimately irrelevant whether
the Prisoners referred to the conquest of specific opponents; it was their reference to the antique
tradition of triumphal iconography that was significant. This tradition also found expression in
the architecture of the monument, with its several storeys and sculptural decoration, for which
forerunners could also be found amongst the buildings of antiquity.
Lodovico Pogliaghi, Ideal reconstruction of the Tomb of Julius II (Project phase of 1505), c. 1900
The personifications of the liberal arts described by Condivi and Vasari as a feature of the
Whereabouts unknown
early phases of the tomb project have direct forerunners in the two papal tombs designed by
Antonio del Pollaiuolo in 1493 for Sixtus IV (p. 120) and in 1498 for Innocent VIII in the old
unusual for Michelangelo. One cannot help wondering whether this drawing is not a much St Peter’s. The bronze monument for Sixtus IV – also a freestanding tomb, albeit significantly
later concoction. more modest in its dimensions – was framed by representations of the arts and the three
The other drawings make a clearly more homogeneous and hence more convincing theological virtues. A similar, if less extensive, programme characterizes the tomb of Innocent
impression. Thus the two Berlin sheets show the herm pilasters accompanied by Prisoners as VIII. Although demonstrating certain parallels to these earlier tombs, Michelangelo’s sculp-
described by the biographers. The direct attachment of the Prisoners to the pilasters underlines tural programme is weighted quite differently, as evidenced first and foremost by its borrow-
not just the fact that they are captives but also the close interplay, so typical of Michelangelo, ings from the triumphal iconography of antiquity, in the shape of the Victories, Prisoners and
between sculptural and architectural elements. This latter is also true of the clothed female herm pilasters. In later planning phases, however, Michelangelo moved away from identify-
figures in the niches, who are standing over the recumbent male nudes and can therefore be ing these sculptures with clear attributes (see Ch. VII). Having thus characterized one of the
interpreted as angels of victory. A late echo of these figures can be found in the Victory (p. 341), Prisoners with armour and a helmet in an early sketch, in order to underline its association
executed some twenty years later for the Julius Tomb, with which Michelangelo replaced the with triumphal iconography, he ultimately omitted any such attributes in the final sculptures.
clothed female Victory of his original plan by a naked male Victory. Michelangelo also removed all clothes from his Prisoners, thereby deviating significantly from
Both Berlin sheets show, on the right-hand side of the upper register, the figure of Moses, the antique sculptures known in his day, in which captives such as Dacians and barbarians were
who already looks forward to the final sculpture. The seated figure on the left-hand side prob- shown dressed. The priority that Michelangelo gave to naked figures is illustrated by other
ably represents either the Active Life or the Contemplative Life. St Paul, named as the pendant elements, too: thus he would transform the Victories, characterized in the early drawings as
to Moses only by Vasari, is thus not actually visible in the surviving drawings. The combina- clothed female figures, into a male nude in his later sculpture of Victory. This gradual process
tion of figures in the upper register is puzzling, since no similar constellation had previously of undressing his subjects can also be seen in the few surviving sketches relating to the Prison-
been employed within the tradition of papal tombs. Moses and St Paul may nevertheless be ers, which show the captives pulling at their shackles or against the herms to which they are
understood in their role as lawgivers and as champions of their faith and thus as figures of tied (p. 117). Portraying the dynamics of this struggling in a clothed figure was unthinkable.
114 115
His arrival at exclusively naked Prisoners reflects not only Michelangelo’s preference for the
male nude, however, as already evidenced in his Battle of Cascina, but also the transformation
of the antique motif into something general and iconographically non-specific; this yields the
figures a freedom of interpretation that would barely have been possible had Michelangelo
directly adopted the triumphal iconography of antiquity. Only by unclothing the antique
type does Michelangelo arrive at the pure power of expression of the naked body, which leaves
the meaning of the sculptures open. It was this that had already allowed Condivi and Vasari
to interpret the figures of the Julius Tomb in different ways, either as allegories of subjugated
provinces or as personifications of the arts.
The herm pilasters give formal and at the same time iconographical structure to the
ground level of the tomb. Similar termini familiar from antiquity could be understood as
boundary stones between this world and the next. In this respect, the herm pilasters lead
from the rather more profane iconography of the ground level to the sacred realm of the
upper register. At the same time, the termini are by their very nature a fitting element of a
funerary monument that is intended to express the passage from life to death and the hope
of admission to the heavenly realm. This notion is taken up in the first tomb project in the
allegorical figure of Heaven described by Vasari. In the second design, however, Heaven and
Earth have disappeared; in their place, the Virgin and Child hover above the whole within an
oval that can probably be read as a glory. This arrangement strongly recalls representations of
the Assumption of the Virgin, something underlined by the fact that the glory breaks through
the upper cornice. In this way – and as in a similar fashion in the Medici Chapel – the vertical
orientation of the upper register is emphasized, and with it the idea of ascension and its accom-
panying hope of redemption and resurrection. It would appear, from the descriptions that
have come down to us, that the tomb design of 1505 did not yet incorporate this rather more
traditional reference to the iconography of the Ascension. Between 1505 and 1513, therefore,
Michelangelo can already be seen replacing a number of the secular elements of his original
design with sculptures carrying clearly more Christian connotations. This tendency would
reach its culmination in the tomb finally executed in 1545 (see Ch. X).
There is a strange divergence between these high-flown plans for a monumental papal
tomb, innovative in its iconography and ambitious in its artistic design, and the drastic prob-
lems to which the vast project rapidly gave rise. For after the first marble deliveries reached
Rome in January 1506, problems escalated and artist and patron clashed relentlessly. Interest-
ingly, it was the monumentality of the first tomb and the immodest choice of its location that
were the undoing of the entire scheme. The overly ambitious first tomb project was too big for
Study for the figure beside the Libyan Sibyl,

sketch of an entablature (for the Tomb of Julius II?), and studies
for the Slaves for the Tomb of Julius II, c. 1512
Red chalk and pen, 286 x 194 mm, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, P. 297r
116 117
the old St Peter’s; it became evident, for other reasons, too, that a new and larger basilica was
required. This gigantic project would absorb virtually all of the Pope’s attention and financial
resources. The execution of the Julius Tomb would have to wait.
The conflict between the two “terribles”, Michelangelo and the Pope, is well d ocumented
in letters and illustrates the artist’s level of defiance towards his employer. In truth, on 17 April
1506 – one day before the laying of the foundation stone of St Peter’s – Michelangelo fled
Rome for Florence, reaching its territory before the papal courier dispatched in his wake could
overtake him. In a letter to Giuliano da Sangallo of 2 May 1506, Michelangelo explains why he
left the Eternal City in such a hurry. This explanation is accompanied by the suggestion that
the marble for the Julius Tomb should be sent to Florence so that he could work on it there:
“As for my departure, it is true that on Holy Saturday [11 April] I heard the Pope say, as he was
talking at table with a jeweller and with the master of ceremonies [Paris de Grassis], that he
did not want to spend another penny on stones, whether the small kind or the large; and this
amazed me. And yet before I left I asked him for part of what I needed in order to pursue the
work [on the Julius Tomb]. His Holiness answered that I should return on Monday [13 April].
And I did return on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday, as he saw himself.
Finally, on Friday morning [17 April] I was sent away, or rather driven out, and the person who
sent me packing said that he knew me, but that he was under orders. […] Enough then that it
made me wonder whether if I stayed in Rome my own tomb would not be finished and ready
before the Pope’s. And that was the reason for my sudden departure. Now you are writing to
me on behalf of the Pope; and so you will be reading this to the Pope. Then let His Holiness
understand that I am disposed more than I ever was to pursue the work; and if he himself is
absolutely determined to build the tomb, it should not annoy him wherever I do it, so long as
after Michelangelo
at the end of five years as we agreed it is put in St Peter’s, wherever it pleases him then, and is Copy after a design for the Tomb of Julius II (project stadium of 1505/13)
as beautiful as I’ve promised it will be; for I am certain that if it comes to be made, there will Pen, wash and red chalk, 290 x 361 mm. Florence, Uffizi, 608Er
be nothing like it in the whole world.”
The artist, still aged only thirty-one, thus presents none less than the Pope with the terms
on which he is prepared to continue the project. Michelangelo’s exaggerated self-confidence as this in exchange, to be chased from his presence like a rogue; and since His Holiness wished
an artist, for which there are no parallels in the history of art of the modern era, is also voiced no longer to continue with the tomb, he had discharged his obligation, nor did he want any
by his mouthpiece, Condivi, who reports his flight from Rome as follows: “Shortly after, other obligation.”
there arrived five of Julius’s couriers, who had been instructed to bring him back wherever This naturally sounds a little harsher than the letter of 1506, but a papal brief of 8 July 1506
they found him. But he had arrived at a place where they could not do him any violence, and indeed reveals that the artist’s standing with his high-ranking employer was astonishingly good
with Michelangelo threatening that if they tried anything he would have them murdered, they for his day. In the brief, which was addressed to Piero Soderini, gonfalonier of Florence, the
turned to entreaties. And when these were of no avail, they obtained from him the assurance Pope writes: “The sculptor Michelangelo, who departed from us in haste and without reason,
that he would at least respond to the Pope’s letter, which they had presented to him.” Condivi fears, so we have heard, to return to us. We harbour no ill feelings towards him. We are familiar
proceeds to give details of this letter from the Pope and the reply that Michelangelo sent back. with the moods of this type of person. In order that he should therefore put aside all suspicion,
“The tenor of the letter from the Pope was that when he saw the message, he should at once we exhort you to promise him on our behalf that he shall not be harmed or endangered if he
return to Rome, under pain of his disfavour. To which Michelangelo replied briefly that never returns to us, and that we shall continue to hold him in the same apostolic esteem in which he
would he return; and that he did not deserve for his good and faithful personal service to have was held before his departure.”
118 119
The Pope’s generosity is all the more money into personal property investments. Driven by his desire for money, as the means of
astounding considering that Michelangelo’s increasing his family’s social status, he evidently made more and more demands that inevitably
version of the events of 1506 does not quite brought him into conflict with the Pope.
match the truth. In his letter to Giuliano da Michelangelo’s uncompromising attitude towards Julius II was not the result merely of
Sangallo, Michelangelo had already touched pride and obstinacy; his prospects in Florence, from an earnings point of view at least, looked
on the subject of money and the fact that it dazzling. He had already been paid large sums for the Julius Tomb, and several lucrative large-
was apparently going to stop flowing. Michel- scale commissions now beckoned in Florence, including the twelve Apostles for the cathedral.
angelo returned to this issue in more detail in He worked on one of these figures, St Matthew (p. 125), over the following months, but in
the drafts of two letters to his friend Giovan the end the roughly worked block was left unfinished, the Apostle still seemingly extricating
Francesco Fattucci, composed in 1523/24: “So himself from the marble. Like the marble tondi of this same period, the St Matthew thereby
now I was in Rome with Pope Julius and had demonstrates how an unfinished figure, its specific features little developed, can nevertheless
been commissioned to make his tomb, which claim the rank of a completed work of art. Michelangelo equips St Matthew with a generic
would absorb one thousand ducats’ worth of rather than individual attribute, in the shape of a book that the Apostle is holding in his left
marble; and he had this paid to me and sent hand. What seems to be the subject here is less the identifiable person of a specific saint than
me to Carrara on account of it. And there I the motif of tortured movement, as a comparison with a preparatory sketch also makes clear
spent eight months having the blocks roughly (p. 122). In contrast to the undynamic representations of Apostles and Evangelists of the past,
shaped, and for the most part transported to moreover, Michelangelo creates his St Matthew as a dramatically animated figure who seems
the piazza of St Peter’s, with some remaining to be fighting with something, either with the hard material of the marble or with his difficult
at Ripa [river port in Rome]. Then after I had circumstances. We get the impression that this unusually dynamic St Matthew is not about
finally paid the freight charges for the marble and come to the end of the money I’d received an Apostle but about the physical struggle that Michelangelo had envisaged for the Prisoners
for the work, I furnished the house I had on the piazza of St Peter’s with my own household of the Julius Tomb, but which – since his flight from Rome – he was for the moment unable
goods and beds, relying on my hopes of doing the tomb; and, to work with me, I called from to realize.
Florence for some assistants, some of whom are still living in wait; and I paid them from my It is also likely that the motif of struggle and anguish portrayed in the St Matthew was
own money. At this time Pope Julius changed his mind and no longer wanted to do it; and in inspired by the most famous antique sculpture of the day, the Laocoön (p. 124). A celebrated
ignorance of this I went to ask him for money, and I was chased from the room. Enraged by work of antiquity already documented in the writings of Pliny, the Laocoön was excavated
this, I left Rome at once; what I had in my house came to grief; and the marble blocks I had near the church of S. Maria Maggiore in Rome on 14 January 1506. As we know from a letter
brought to Rome were left lying on the piazza of St Peter’s till the election of Pope Leo. So on of Francesco da Sangallo of 28 February 1567, in January 1506 his father, Giuliano da San-
one side and the other everything was ruined. Among the matters I can prove, there were taken gallo, and Michelangelo hurried to the excavation site, where they immediately recognized
from me, from Ripa, by Agostino Chigi, two pieces of marble of nine feet each, which had cost the outstanding significance of the sculptural group. Acting on Michelangelo and Giuliano da
me over fifty gold ducats. And these could be made good to me, because there were witnesses. Sangallo’s advice, Pope Julius II acquired the Laocoön on 23 March 1506 and in July that same
But to return to the marble, from the time I went to get it and stayed at Carrara, till when I year installed it in the Belvedere statuary courtyard in the Vatican.
was chased from the Palace, there passed a year or more: and all that time I had nothing at all, Even if the commission for the twelve Apostles would have kept the artist busy for several
and I invested scores of ducats.” years, the break with Julius II was insupportable in the long term. Not least through the agen-
Here, as so often where money was concerned, Michelangelo was not telling the truth. cies of high-ranking members of the Curia and the Florentine government, in late November
Prior to his flight from Rome, he had in fact already received substantial payments from the 1506 Michelangelo travelled to Bologna to effect his reconciliation with the Pope. Any hope
Pope, and although he had spent large amounts on marble, he had also diverted some of the that he might be able to resume work on the Julius Tomb was immediately dashed, however.
Instead, Julius II commissioned the artist to portray him in an over-life-size bronze statue,
Antonio del Pollaiuolo, Tomb of Sixtus IV, 1493 which was intended to celebrate the Pope’s triumph over the apostate provinces of the Church.
Bronze, Rome, St Peter’s Basilica Michelangelo accepted the task only with reluctance and completed the bronze in Bologna by
120 121
the end of February 1508. It was destroyed just three years later, when the city was retaken by
a member of its ousted ruling dynasty, the Bentivoglio family. The Bolognese sent the bronze
to Alfonso d’Este in Ferrara, who melted it down to make a canon. If we are to believe Vasari’s
account of this episode, the resulting piece of artillery was nicknamed “Julia”.
Michelangelo’s stay in Bologna is well documented by numerous letters to his family.
He writes about the upswing in the arts in Bologna, of the visit by the Pope to the artist’s
workshop, and about the preparations for casting the monumental bronze statue (February
to July 1507). At the same time, however, the correspondence from this period is punctuated
with Michelangelo’s usual moaning about his circumstances: the quality of life in Bologna
apparently left much to be desired, the wine was bad and expensive, the heat unbearable
(August 1507). His complaints are ultimately mixed with a certain pride at having mastered
the unfamiliar challenge of casting a monumental statue in bronze. Thus he writes on 10
November 1507 to his brother Buonarroto: “Let me tell you I desire far more than you do to
come back [to Florence] quickly, because I am in the greatest discomfort here, with the hard-
est kind of toil, and I’m busy with nothing but working day and night, and I have endured
and am enduring such labour that if I had another such again I don’t think my life would be
long enough, because it has been a very large piece, and if it had been in someone else’s hands
something would have gone wrong with it. But I think the prayers of a few people have helped
me and kept me healthy, for it was contrary to the opinion of all Bologna that I would ever
get it completed after it was cast; and even earlier nobody believed I would ever cast it. Suf-
fice it that I’ve brought it just about to completion…” But his pride over his accomplishment
rapidly switches to a mood of rebellion. As if the quarrel with the Pope two years earlier were
not enough, he once again threatens an abrupt departure. Thus he writes in mid-February
1508 to his brother in Florence: “Buonarroto. I hoped to be with you a good fortnight ago, for
I was of the opinion that they would erect my statue as soon as it was completed. Now they
are leading me up the garden path here and are doing nothing, and I am ordered by the Pope
not to leave here before it is erected, so that I seem to find myself in a fine muddle. I shall see
what happens all this week and if they make no other arrangements I will arrive without fail,
paying no more heed to the order.”
Two studies of the figure of a man with leg raised and arm bent (side view of an Apostle?)
and sketch of a cavalry scene (for the Battle of Cascina?), 1503/04
Pen and dark yellow ink, 186 x 183 mm. London, British Museum, 1895–9-15–496r
(formerly attached to Paris, Musée du Louvre, 12 691r)
122 123
MICHEL ANGELO
Laocoön, 1st-century BC (?)

Marble, height 242 cm. Rome, Vatican Museums, Cortile del Belvedere
St Matthew, 1506
Marble, height 216 cm. Florence, Galleria dell’Accademia
124
V.
The Sistine
Ceiling
1508–1512
Frank Zöllner
He intensified the power and depth of his drawing

with his palette, insofar as he ignored the quality of
the colours in places and relied only upon caprices
and eccentricities. Wherefore he made the portraits
in general so beautifully and expressively and in
accordance with his intention that everyone who sees
them, however clever he may be, concedes that in their
drawing and their colour more could not be done.
GIAN PAOLO LOMAZZO
MICHEL ANGELO THE SISTINE CEILING
On 15 February 1508, shortly after writing the letter in which he announces he is considering the most prominent examples of Italian painting of the 15th century. The walls of the chapel,
disobeying the Pope’s orders (see Ch. IV), the artist returned to his home city. Once there, he which measures 40.93 x 13.41 metres (35 x 44’), were decorated with fresco cycles compris-
evidently felt himself under no further obligation to his employer in Rome, for on 18 March ing altogether sixteen rectangular pictorial fields, of which only twelve survive today. The
1508 he rented a house for himself. He probably wanted at last to get on with the twelve Quattrocento artists had also executed thirty-two full-length portraits of the early Christian
Apostles for Florence cathedral (see Ch. III). It cannot have been long, however, before the popes in the chapel’s window zone, together with numerous elements of painted architecture
Pope decided to summon the artist back to Rome – not to resume work on the Julius Tomb, and imitation tapestries on the walls below the main fresco cycles. The 15th-century decora-
but for an equally monumental commission, the frescoing of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel tive programme employed the typological structure of the concordatio veteris et novi testamenti,
(pp. 130–133, 155–158). whereby Old Testament events from the story of Moses on the south wall face corresponding
In 1504, structural problems had caused cracks to appear in the ceiling, precipitating the New Testament scenes from the Life of Christ on the north wall. The programme was thereby
need for renovations and redecoration. The initial idea was to paint the vault with a starry intended to illustrate both the establishment and spread of the divine message of salvation to
sky, for which Piermatteo d’Amelia (c. 1450–1503/1508), an artist already working for Julius the Jews (Moses) and the Christians (Christ), and also the primacy of the Roman papacy. For
II, produced a design. In May 1506 it was proposed that the job should be given instead to through the fresco portraits of the early Christian popes, the current pope was established as
Michelangelo. In view of the disputes over the Julius Tomb, the artist’s flight from Rome and part of a traditional lineage that could be traced back through his predecessors all the way to
his subsequent work for the Pope in Bologna, this notion seems to have been subsequently the figures of Christ and Moses. As we shall see, Michelangelo’s ceiling fresco continues the
dropped. Not until the seated bronze statue of Julius II was completed in Bologna (see Ch. IV) genealogy established by the 15th-century frescoes on the lower walls of the Sistine Chapel,
did the Pope’s thoughts return to the fresco project. which leads from Moses and Christ, via the early Christian pontiffs, to the current pope.
In a letter to his father of 27 January 1509, Michelangelo gives the impression that he has Michelangelo mentions the commission for the frescoing of the Sistine ceiling in a terse
accepted this commission only with reluctance. A draft letter of December 1523 to his confi- entry in his domestic records (ricordi): “I record that I, the sculptor Michelangelo, today, on
dant Fattucci has a similar tenor. The artist describes how in 1505 Pope Julius II summoned 10 May 1508, have received 500 ducats of the Chamber from His Holiness, our Lord Pope
him away from well-paid commissions in Florence so that he could execute the Julius Tomb Julius II, paid to me by Master Carlino the Chamberlain and Master Carlo degli Albizzi, as a
and a statue of the Pope in bronze in Bologna. He was then also given the Sistine ceiling to first instalment for the painting of the ceiling in the chapel of Pope Sixtus. In accordance with
paint: “When the figure was set up on the façade of San Petronio and I returned to Rome, which I am starting work today, in line with those terms and conditions set out in a document
Pope Julius still did not want me to make the tomb, and having put me to painting the Sistine by the Reverend Monsignore [Francesco Alidosi] of Pavia and signed by myself.”
ceiling, we made a contract for 3,000 ducats. And the first design for the aforesaid work was This note by Michelangelo informs us not only about the existence of a contract, today
twelve Apostles in the lunettes (i. e. the fields between the spandrels) and the remainder a lost, but also about the first down payment and the intermediary role played by Cardinal
certain division into parts filled with ornaments in the usual way. Then when I had begun the Francesco Alidosi (1467–1511), who drew up a contractual agreement with the artist on behalf
aforesaid work, I felt it would turn out a poor thing, and told the Pope how I felt it would turn of the Pope and who is also known as one of Michelangelo’s benefactors and champions. The
out a poor thing in doing the Apostles only. He asked me why; I told him, because they were figure of 500 ducats given in the ricordi in all likelihood represented one-sixth of Michelan-
poor, too. Then he gave me a new commission to do whatever I wished, and he would make gelo’s total fee for the project, which came to just over 3,000 ducats, and which appears – from
me happy, and I should paint down to the stories painted below.” other letters and from movements in Michelangelo’s bank account – to have been paid in
The Cappella Sistina, named after its founder, Pope Sixtus IV, uncle of Julius II, is the further instalments up till October 1512.
chapel of the Vatican Palace. It was here that papal Mass was celebrated and that the cardinals Out of the first instalment the artist was expected to cover all his expenses, for e xample the
were housed during conclaves; it was here that the most senior dignitaries of the Church cost of paints and the wages of the assistants whom – as evidenced by one of his ricordi of the
gathered on important occasions. If Michelangelo expressed a certain reluctance to take on summer of 1508 – Michelangelo initially engaged from F lorence. But he soon sent the artists
the decoration of the Sistine chapel, it was a reflection of his notorious tendency to complain he had summoned to Rome back home again. He proceeded to tackle largely single-handedly
rather than of the importance of the commission. The Sistine Chapel also accommodated the enormous challenge of frescoing some 500 square metres (5,380 square feet), made up of 175
separate scenes containing some 350 individual figures. He employed only a handful of assis-
tants to prepare the ground for painting and to mix the colours. This unusual circumstance was
Page 127 remarked upon by Michelangelo’s own biographers and has been confirmed by recent research.
Ignudo above the Delphic Sibyl (detail), 1509
128 129
Michelangelo’s first design for the Sistine ceiling was probably conceived in spring 1508 history of the M accabeans. The four pendentives in the corners of the vault depict scenes
and is known to us from three drawings (pp. 136/137, 139, 140) and from the above-mentioned from the Old Testament whose primary theme is the delivery of the Jewish people from
draft letter of December 1523. In formal terms, the still modest scheme (which was never various perils.
executed) fell into the decorative tradition favoured at that time. It envisaged the figures of the Between the spandrels of the two long walls and the pendentives of the short
twelve Apostles in the surfaces between the spandrels and would have neatly complemented walls appear the seated figures of seven Prophets and five Sibyls, while the eight triangular
the frescoes of the 15th century with their episodes from the lives of Moses and Christ. spandrels themselves and the twelve semi-circular lunettes around the top of the windows
The Quattrocento cycles on the long walls of the chapel originally continued on the contain the Ancestors of Christ in the order in which they are listed at the start of St Matthew’s
altar wall in three frescoes which no longer survive, having being destroyed to make way for Gospel. All of these biblical characters are joined, finally, by figures whose meaning is less clear.
Michelangelo’s Last Judgement (see Ch. VIII): an altarpiece of the Assumption of the Virgin by Thus the painted architectural framework leaves room for seated male nudes, or ignudi,
Perugino (c. 1448–1523) lower down, and higher up the Finding of Moses and The Nativity. at the base of the fake wall arches, and for similarly naked putti on pedestals underneath.
The imitation niches above these three frescoes probably contained the figures of Christ, the The episodes from the story of Creation unfold across the individual fields of the vault in
Princes of the Apostles St Peter and St Paul, and the early Christian popes Linus and Cletis the following order: in the first field, God separates light and darkness, while in the second
(the lunettes higher up showed patriarchs from the Old Testament; see below); these, too, fell he creates the Sun, Moon and plants. In the next God separates the land and water and, in
victim to Michelangelo’s Last Judgement. The twelve Apostles that Julius II had envisaged in two separate fields, creates Adam and of Eve. The Fall and the Expulsion from Paradise, on
spring 1508 for the decoration of the Sistine ceiling would thus have tied in with the existing, the other hand, are combined into one picture, while the Sacrifice of Noah, the Flood and the
today no longer complete, pictorial programme on the chapel walls, since the Apostles were Drunkenness of Noah are divided into three separate fields. All of these scenes have their source
seen as the successors of Christ and simultaneously as the predecessors of the Pope. in the first book of the Old Testament, Genesis, but neither the selection of the episodes nor
In the above-mentioned draft letter of December 1523, Michelangelo claims that it was he their sequence precisely follows the biblical text on which they are based. Nor are the pictorial
who suggested to the Pope that the programme should be changed and was subsequently given fields organized exactly in accordance with the days of Creation: the creation of
the freedom to paint whatever he wished. That an artist still only thirty-three should be given a the plants (the third day) and the creation of the Sun and Moon (the fourth day)
free hand in the papal palace chapel sounds very risky, but in essence Michelangelo’s statement are combined into a single scene, for example, while the creation of Adam and
may be accurate. For the fresco programme he proceeded to paint adheres fundamentally to Eve (the sixth day) is split into two fields. The most significant departure from the
the Holy Scriptures, and specifically to the text and woodcuts of an Italian translation of the b iblical narrative is seen in the Sacrifice of Noah, which strictly speaking should
Bible that was widely available in the artist’s day. It is therefore not impossible that Michelan- appear after the Flood and not before it. One likely explanation for this obvi-
gelo could have designed the pictorial programme of the Sistine ceiling alone, rather than with ous m anipulation of events is the artist’s organization of the altogether nine scenes
the assistance of learned theologians, as has automatically been assumed in the past. into three trilogies. The first trilogy is devoted to the first chapter in the story
In formal terms, Michelangelo took up the subdivision of the lower vault zone that of Creation, in which sinful humankind does not yet appear. The second tril-
was established by the triangular spandrels above the windows. Starting from this structure, ogy is d evoted to the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, and the third to the fate
he designed a mock architecture whose fake wall arches and cornice running around the of humankind after the Fall, here represented by the story of Noah, the first Old Testament
entire vault frame the nine rectangular fields in the centre of the ceiling. Unfolding within patriarch.
these fields are episodes from the story of Creation up to the Drunkenness of Noah. Five of For practical reasons, and in deference to liturgical practice in the Sistine Chapel, Michel-
these fields are flanked to the right and left by a medallion containing an episode from the angelo commenced work with the three scenes that actually occur last in the biblical narrative:
the Drunkenness of Noah, the Flood and the Sacrifice of Noah. He employed a somewhat smaller
compositional scale in these first three fields than in the rest; it is probable that the artist
Pages 130–133 quickly realized that the figures looked too small and consequently painted the remaining six
Sistine chapel, interior view looking west fields on a deliberately grander scale. This contrast is particularly clear if we compare the Flood
Rome, Vatican
(pp. 172/173), whose numerous figures Michelangelo painted in 1508/09, with the opening
Pages 136/137 scenes of the story of Creation (pp. 226/227), executed two years later. In fact, larger figures
Compositional sketch for the Sistine ceiling, and hand and arm studies, c. 1508 can already been seen in the Drunkenness of Noah (pp. 166/167) and the Sacrifice of Noah
Pen over metal point and chalk, 275 x 386 mm. London, British Museum, 1859–6-25–567r
134 135
136 137
(pp. 180/181), painted immediately after the Flood. This increase in physical monumentality
can also be observed in the ceiling’s many, largely male, nudes. This is true both of the nudes
within the individual pictorial fields and of the famous ignudi, seated in sprawling poses on
pedestals within the painted architectural framework. Thus the ignudi beside the Separation of
Light and Darkness (pp. 232/233) are clearly larger than those beside the Drunkenness of Noah.
With the monumental nakedness and richly animated poses of the ignudi, Michelangelo
returns to his main theme, the male nude. Their naked bodies are nonetheless not merely
formal exercises intended – as Vasari saw it – to demonstrate the skill of the artist. Rather,
the ignudi, like the ceiling’s other nudes, constitute a leitmotif that holds the complex struc-
ture of the fresco together. The fact that they occupy the place that, in a first design for the
Sistine ceiling, is taken by angels (pp. 136/137) also makes them intermediary figures, both at
the formal level and in terms of their meaning. A similar role is played by the pairs of genii,
frequently naked, who accompany the seven Prophets and five Sibyls and who act as inter-
mediaries between the heavenly and earthly spheres (pp. 236–261).
A related concept applies to the Prophets and Sibyls themselves, who fill the space between
the spandrels and the pictorial fields of the vault. They are remarkable for their size alone, which
exceeds the dimensions of all the other individual figures in the ceiling fresco. Prophets had
predicted the arrival of a saviour in Old Testament times, and the mysterious pronouncements
of the ancient Sibyls were considered the heathen pendant to the prophesies of Jewish tradition,
which according to Christian thought were fulfilled with the birth of Christ. The Prophets and
Sibyls are thus intermediaries who convey the will of God. In their combination, moreover,
Michelangelo also demonstrated the interpretatio christiana so characteristic of the High Renais-
sance, according to which antique legends and mysteries were lent a Christian interpretation.
The Old Testament scenes illustrated in the middle of the vault conclude with the Drunk-
enness of Noah, but the “history” continues, as Vasari already recognized, in the individual
pictures of the Ancestors of Christ painted in the lunettes above the windows and in the
spandrels of the vault. This genealogical register originally started in the lunettes on the altar
wall, where the Old Testament patriarchs who came after Noah (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) could
be seen until they were destroyed in favour of the Last Judgement. By far the larger part of the
record of Jesus’ ancestors survives (pp. 278–293), however, and concludes with the representa-
tion of Joseph – the foster-father of Christ – in the south-eastern lunette on the entrance wall.
The Ancestors of Christ depicted in the lunettes and spandrels thus link Michelangelo’s Old
Testament scenes on the centre of the vault with the New Testament scenes painted by other,
earlier artists on the side walls of the chapel. Only with the complete illustration of this record
of Christ’s ancestors are the various groups of frescoes in the Sistine Chapel linked into a single
overall programme.
Compositional sketch for the Sistine ceiling, and a hand and torso study, c. 1508
Pen and black chalk, 360 x 250 mm. Detroit, Michigan, Institute of Arts, 27.2r
138 139
Separated out from the narrative on the ceiling are the four pendentives, one in each cor-
ner of the vault, containing episodes from the history of the Israelites (pp. 146–149). Together
with the representation of Jonah above the altar wall (p. 142), these frescoes rank amongst the
most impressive displays of artistic virtuosity. The unusual format of the corner pendentives
and their concave wall surfaces placed enormous demands on the painter and his skills. Thus
in Judith and Holofernes (p. 146) a wall projects diagonally out into the foreground. It thereby
runs in the opposite direction to the concave surface of the fresco on which it is painted,
and separates Judith and her maid from the interior, in which the decapitated Holofernes
is lying naked on his bed. Both the dividing wall and Holofernes’ corpse – which still seems
strangely alive – are thereby shown in perspective foreshortening. In the fresco David and
Goliath (p. 147), this use of foreshortening is taken even further in the figure of the giant
Goliath lying on the ground, while David – raising his sword to strike the deadly blow – might
be a study of extreme physical movement.
Animated bodies and perspective foreshortening also characterize the pendentives in the
opposite corners of the Sistine ceiling, which were executed slightly later. In The Brazen Serpent
(p. 148), opposite the tangled bodies and limbs of the victims of the poisonous snakes, stands
a regularly spaced, relatively immobile group of people who have been saved by the sight of
the serpent visible in the background. In The Punishment of Haman (p. 149), Michelangelo
once again uses a foreshortened wall to divide the pictorial field into two scenes. At the same
time, the figure of the crucified Haman, seen in extreme foreshortening in the middle of the
composition, serves to heighten the impression of spatial depth. Michelangelo is here carrying
the artistic device of perspective foreshortening to its extreme, and his reasons for doing so can
be found in the genesis of the commission for the Sistine ceiling. As Piero Rosselli reported in
a letter of 10 May 1506, Bramante had told the Pope that he doubted whether Michelangelo
had the ability to fresco figures at a great height and in foreshortening. In the pendentives,
Michelangelo proves Bramante wrong. This is also true of the monumental figure of Jonah
(p. 142) above the altar wall. Vasari (1568) considered Michelangelo’s virtuosity to have reached
a high point in the complex foreshortening of Jonah’s pose: “Then who is not filled with
admiration and amazement at the awesome sight of Jonah, the last figure in the chapel? The
vaulting naturally springs forward, following the curve of the masonry; but through the force
of art it is apparently straightened out by the figure of Jonah, which bends in the opposite
direction; and thus vanquished by the art of design, with its lights and shades, the ceiling
even appears to recede. What a happy age we live in! And fortunate are our craftsmen, who
have been given light and vision by Michelangelo and whose difficulties have been smoothed
away by this marvellous and incomparable artist! The glory of his achievement has won them
Compositional sketch for the Sistine ceiling, sketch for a seated female figure
(the Erythraean Sibyl?), and a hand study, c. 1508/09
Greyish-brown and black chalk, 384 x 260 mm. London, British Museum, 1887–5-2–118v
140 141
honour and renown; he has stripped away a glorious return to the Golden Age. This,
the bandage that kept their minds in dark- certainly, was immediately obvious to Vasari,
ness and shown them how to distinguish who interprets the festoons in precisely this
truth from the falsehoods that have clouded sense.
their understanding. You artists should thank With the symbolism of oak leaves and
heaven for what has happened and strive to acorns, Julius II effectively doubles the over-
imitate Michelangelo in everything you do.” all genealogical theme of the Sistine Chapel:
The frescoes, tied together by the Ances- the frescoes not only illustrate the continuity
tors of Christ into a wide-ranging and com- extending from the story of Creation to the
plex pictorial programme, illustrate not only first martyr-popes, but also the continuity
different aspects of the history of Christian- of a papacy linked to the acts of the della
ity but also a genealogical continuity that Rovere. The family’s history thus becomes
runs from the Creation, via the tempus sub part of the history of the popes and of Sal-
lege (“time under the law”) right up to the vation, and the genealogically determined
epoch of Julius II. This genealogy, “read” overall programme reaches its pinnacle in a
backwards, runs as follows: the Pope is the Golden Age under Julius II. The fresco dec-
successor in office to the early Christian oration of the Sistine Chapel corresponds,
popes depicted in the niches, who are them- lastly, to a peculiarity of papal family poli-
selves the successors of St Peter, the first pope, whose authority came from Christ himself. tics: in his function as supreme pontiff, the Pope could not – at least officially – produce any
Christ’s own lineage could be traced through the Ancestors all the way back to the Patriarchs offspring, and so could not bequeath his office directly to an heir. In order to circumvent
depicted in the lunettes (now destroyed) on the altar wall; this lineage continued in the story this restriction, the popes frequently groomed members of their extended family for senior
of Noah on the centre of the vault and ultimately extended right back to Creation itself. As a positions in the Church hierarchy. Thus popes and other high-ranking prelates frequently
motif, the continuity of the papacy over time corresponded directly to the personal ambition tried to secure ecclesiastical offices and their attendant privileges for their own nephews. This
of the patron behind the commission, whose motives might equally be described as genealogi- policy of favouritism amongst the Roman clergy gave rise to the term nepotismo (“favouring of
cal. Julius II was the nephew of the Sistine Chapel’s builder, Sixtus IV: in commissioning the nephews”), which has passed into the English language as nepotism. A good part of internal
frescoing of the vault, he carried on his uncle’s work and pointed to the continuity of his own papal politics focused upon obtaining well-paid posts – that of a cardinal, for example – for the
della Rovere family by including its symbols – oak branches and acorns (Italian rovere, oak) largest possible number of blood relatives. Nepotism achieved its ultimate goal when a nephew
– in no less a profusion than his uncle barely a generation earlier. The ornamentation of the promoted to cardinal by the pontiff was himself later elected Pope. The most successful exam-
painted mouldings around the spandrels and pendentives is indeed dominated by acorns in ple of such nepotism was that practised by the della Rovere at the start of the 16th century,
their hundreds. The same symbolism is found in the garlands held by some of the large ignudi when Julius II succeeded Sixtus IV as Pope nineteen years after his uncle’s death. In the broad-
in the middle of the vault. These garlands are made up of thick bundles of oak leaves and est sense, therefore, the pictorial programme in the Sistine Chapel reflects the political success
luxuriant clusters of acorns, some of them gilded (p. 143). Their iconography could hardly be of the della Rovere family, which succeeded in supplying two popes in rapid succession. A
clearer, since oak leaves and acorns allude unmistakeably to the coats of arms mounted on the short while later the Medici family achieved the same ambition within an even shorter space
interior and exterior walls of the Sistine Chapel and bearing the miniature oak tree of the two of time, producing a further two important Renaissance popes in the shape of Leo X (reigned
della Rovere popes. This use of oak leaves and acorns is even taken one step further: through 1513–1521) and Clement VII (reigned 1523–1534). Under the patronage of these two popes,
their partial gilding, the viewer is directly reminded of Julius II’s vision of his pontificate as Michelangelo would continue his rapid rise as the leading artist in Europe (see Ch. VII).
Sistine ceiling, Jonah (detail), 1511 Sistine ceiling, Ignudo with gilt acorns (detail), 1509
Fresco, 400 x 380 cm Fresco, 190 x 197.5 cm
142 143
Michelangelo also used the frescoing of the Sistine ceiling as an opportunity to reflect and even bombarded them with their excrement out of spite (Virgil, Aeneid, III.193–269).
upon himself and his work as an artist. On a sheet today housed in the Casa Buonarroti, for Michelangelo now relates the bird droppings from the Aeneid with the paint dripping down
example, he sketched himself at work on the fresco (p. 151), and in the accompanying sonnet, onto his face as he works on the ceiling fresco; he thereby slips into the role of the antique
written in the style of a burlesque, he described the physical discomforts of painting the Sistine hero Aeneas, who had to suffer the excrement of the Harpies just as the painter has to suffer
ceiling. He also complained – as he had already done in a letter to his father of 27 January his commission in the Sistine Chapel. The poem takes up not only the theme of suffering,
1509 – that he was not really a painter at all and that he was “not in a good place” in the Sistine however, but also that of the heroic labours of the artist to overcome it. The Harpies were
Chapel. The sonnet, dedicated to one Giovanni da Pistoia, who has yet to be identified, runs sometimes equated with the Stymphalian birds, a particularly aggressive species that the crafty
in translation as follows: Hercules managed to destroy by first flushing them out of their coverts and then shooting
them with a bow and arrow. Michelangelo makes reference to this labour performed by the
“I’ve got myself a goitre from this strain, virtuous hero Hercules, and to his bow, when he speaks in his sonnet of the arco soriano (Syr-
As water gives the cats in Lombardy ian bow). The artist’s body, itself bent like a bow under unspeakable tension, here appears as
Or maybe it is in some other country; a “weapon” against evil: even the real physical martyrdom endured by the painter becomes a
My belly’s pushed by force beneath my chin. statement of what it is to be an artist.
Being an artist does not just mean suffering a martyrdom that is externally imposed; it
My beard toward Heaven, I feel the back of my brain can also mean slipping into the role of victim with a tinge of pleasure and irony. Michelangelo
Upon my neck, I grow the breast of a Harpy; does the latter when he lends his own features to the severed head of Holofernes in the north-
My brush, above my face continually, eastern pendentive of the Sistine ceiling, in his first recognizable role portrait. Just how much
Makes it a splendid floor by dripping down. the pathos attached to the role of the victim, to self-sacrifice and suffering, was a dominant
factor in Michelangelo’s psyche is evidenced by a number of letters from this period. Thus on
My loins have penetrated to my paunch, 27 January 1509 he wrote to his father in Florence: “I am still deeply troubled in my mind (fan-
My rump’s a crupper, as a counterweight, tasia), since for over a year now I have received not one penny from this Pope, and nor do I ask
And pointless the unseeing steps I go. for anything either, because my work [in the Sistine Chapel] is not progressing and therefore I
don’t expect to earn anything; and therein lies the difficulty of my work, added to the fact that
In front of me my skin is being stretched it is not my profession and so I am wasting my time to no avail.” What is astonishing here is
While it folds up behind and forms a knot, the way in which Michelangelo automatically blames his troubles on circumstances that tally
And I am bending like a Syrian bow. only partly or not at all with the facts. In fact, he was not paid so badly as to warrant such
serious complaining, and it seems a little exaggerated to claim that fresco painting was not his
And judgement, hence, must grow, profession even as he was demonstrating his superlative mastery of the discipline and refusing
Borne in the mind, peculiar and untrue; the help of other artists.
You cannot shoot well when the gun’s askew. But his sufferings continued and intensified into sarcasm. Between February and March
1509, again in a letter to his father, he wrote: “I learn from your last how it has been said there
John, come to the rescue that I am dead. It’s a thing that matters little, since I am really alive. So let those who say it say
Of my dead painting now, and of my honour; it, and don’t talk of me to anybody, as there are evil men. I am attending to work as much as I
I’m not in a good place, and I’m no painter.” can. It’s now thirteen months since I’ve had money from the Pope […] I am unhappy and not
in too good health staying here, and with a great deal of work, no instructions, and no money.
In his description, rich in metaphor, of the physical contortions involved in painting But I have good hopes God will help me.” Afflicted by worldly cares and alone with himself
the Sistine ceiling, Michelangelo alludes in the second quatrain of his sonnet to the Har- and God – this was how Michelangelo saw himself in the months he spent working on the
pies in Virgil’s Aeneid, and thus to the sufferings of its protagonist. The Harpies, vicious Sistine Chapel, and on many subsequent occasions. He describes his sense of isolation from
birds with the faces of women, fell upon the food set out by Aeneas and his companions others in a letter of 17 November 1509 to his brother Buonarroto in Florence: “I am obliged
144 145
Sistine ceiling, Judith and Holofernes, 1509 Sistine ceiling, David and Goliath, 1509
Fresco, 570 x 970 cm Fresco, 570 x 970 cm
to love myself more than others, and I cannot provide myself with necessities. I live here in the one and only purpose of advancing his family. And this was indeed the leitmotif of his
great toil and great weariness of body, and have no friends of any kind and don’t want any, life. The Buonarroti were a distant branch of one of Florence’s ruling clans, but by the end
and haven’t the time to eat what I need; so I must not have any more bother, since I couldn’t of the Quattrocento their status and wealth had declined and no longer reflected the family’s
bear another ounce.” venerable age (see Ch. I). Michelangelo therefore saw it as his task to achieve great things in
In a letter to his brother Giovansimone in Florence, written at the end of June 1509, his true métier and earn “big” money in order to restore his family’s fortunes. For this reason
Michelangelo finally also reveals the reason why he has burdened himself with so much hard he invested enormous sums in property from an early age, including some of the funds he was
work and suffering: “For twelve years now I’ve been traipsing around Italy, borne all kinds of advanced for the not yet completed Julius Tomb, while he himself lived for the most part like
disgrace, suffered every calamity, lacerated my body with cruel toil, put my own life in danger a pauper. In those days, property ownership conveyed a higher social standing than a fortune
a thousand times, only to help my family; and now that I’ve started to raise our house up again in cash. Behind Michelangelo’s enormous productive powers, behind his willingness to make
a little, just you alone wish to be the one to confound it and ruin in an hour what I’ve achieved sacrifices, behind his search for suffering, even, lay what he felt to be a painful but remediable
after so many years and through such great toil. And by the body of Christ, that’s the truth! If deficit in his own family, whose status he sought to raise as quickly and enduringly as possible
needs be, I’m ready to confound ten thousand like you.” with the fruits of his labours.
Here speaks not only the intractable will of a strong personality capable of enduring suf- When, after ceaseless efforts and much complaining about his suffering, Michelangelo
fering, but also the voice of a man who assumed early on the responsibility for his entire completed the Sistine ceiling in October 1512, it seems to have brought him no sense of seren-
family and was prepared to brook no resistance to his plans. Here, too, the motive behind ity or optimism. In a letter to his father of 3 October 1512, the artist comments on the end of
Michelangelo’s tortured continuation with his work is made clear: he bore his situation for work in the following, terse manner: “I have finished the chapel I have been painting and the
146 147
Sistine ceiling, The Brazen Serpent, 1511 Sistine ceiling, The Punishment of Haman, 1511
Fresco, 585 x 985 cm Fresco, 585 x 985 cm
Pope is very well satisfied. But other things have not turned out for me as I’d hoped. For this These events included the return of the Medici to Florence in the autumn of 1512. This
I blame the times, which are very unfavourable to our art. I won’t be coming home this All put an end to the city’s republican rule, under which Michelangelo had also worked and with
Saints because I do not havewhat I need to carry out my plans, and nor is the time yet ripe. which he openly sympathized. At the same time, however, it meant the return to power of the
Make sure you live as well as possible and don’t rush into other affairs. Nothing else. Your family with whom Michelangelo had spent his first years as an artist and whose members he
Michelangelo, sculptor in Rome.” knew from his youth. In Michelangelo’s case, the political demise of one important source of
Michelangelo had just finished one of the most important artistic commissions to be had, commissions was directly connected with the rise of another. Next came the death of Julius II
but was complaining that the times were unfavourable to his art! Yet Michelangelo had far less in February 1513 and the election of Giovanni de’ Medici as Pope. As Leo X, he continued the
reason to complain now than a few months earlier, for with the completion of the fresco he major art projects initiated by his predecessor and commissioned some of his own. This was bad
could now turn his thoughts to the project for the Julius Tomb. As a result of the artist’s flight news for the Julius Tomb, for it was naturally of no interest to Leo X that Michelangelo should
from Rome in 1506, his subsequent work in Bologna and his frescoing of Sistine ceiling, com- waste time on a monument to his predecessor. On the other hand, the artist profited from the
bined with the decision to build a new St Peter’s, the tomb project had made no progress since triumph of the Medici on a scale he could never have imagined. The important commissions
its inception. It is true that Michelangelo had already chosen the marble blocks for the tomb that he carried out for the family over the next few years would eclipse even the Julius Tomb.
and had some of them transported from Carrara to Rome. But the political events of the fol- Thus Michelangelo was engaged to build the façade of S. Lorenzo in Florence and decorate it
lowing years, together with ever new and important commissions, would cause so much unrest with a large-scale programme of sculpture.
in his life that all thought of completing the ambitious first proposal for the Julius Tomb in This was followed by commissions for the Laurentian Library and the New Sacristy, more
the near future was banished. familiarly known as the Medici Chapel (see Ch. VI). For this reason, the design for the Julius
148 149
Tomb had to be repeatedly scaled down in new agreements reached in 1513, 1516, 1525/26, 1532
and 1542. Beginning with the projects for S. Lorenzo, over the following years Michelangelo
increasingly assumed the role of architect, which at times forced his activities as a sculptor
into the background and ultimately paved the way for the greatest and last commission of
his life, namely to draw up the plans and views that would guarantee the completion, one
day in the future, of St Peter’s in Rome. Only shortly after completing the Sistine ceiling and
resuming work on the Julius Tomb, in other words, Michelangelo found himself the most
sought-after artist in Italy, one who was now responsible for everything: sculpture, painting
and architecture.
Sonnet, self-portrait of Michelangelo painting the Sistine ceiling, 1511/12 (?)

Pen, 283 x 200 mm. Florence, Archivio Buonarroti, XIII, 111r
150 151
MICHEL ANGELO
Amminadab 3 Boaz 5 Obed Abijah 7
Salmon Rehoboam
Judah
an
Jacob
am
Prophet Persian
fH
Jeremiah Sibyl
to
en
Abraham
1
m
ish
n
Pu
Isaac
VI VII
… without having seen the Sistine Chapel, Separation Creation of Separation

Prophet of Light the Sun, of Land Creation
one cannot form a true picture of what one Jonah and Moon and of Adam
Darkness and Plants Water
person is capable of.
JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE
I II
Perez
Th
eB
Hezron
ra
ze
2
Libyan Prophet
n
Se
Sibyl Daniel
r pe
nt
Ram
Jesse Asaph
4 Nahshon David 6 Solomon Jehoshaphat 8 Jehoram
Sistine ceiling, Fall / Expulsion from Paradise (detail), 1509/10

Inside foldout
The Sistine ceiling, 1508–1512
Fresco, 40.5 x 13.2 m. Rome, Vatican, Sistine Chapel
152
Story of Noah
and
Jotham 9 Ahaz Abiud 12 Eliakim Akim 14 Eliud Medallions with the
History of the Maccabeans
Uzziah Zerubbabel
Joseph
Prophet Erythraean Prophet
D
Ezekiel Sibyl Joel
av
id
an
16
d
Go
Drunkenness of Noah
li
Jacob
ath
VIII IX X
Michelangelo executed the nine scenes from the story of Creation and the life of Noah in
reverse chronological order, i.e. he started with the Noah episodes at the east end of the chapel
Sacrifice Drunken- Prophet
Creation
of Eve The Fall of Noah The Flood ness of Zechariah and worked westwards. For this reason, most analyses of the frescoes of the vault still com-
Noah
mence with the Drunkenness of Noah, even though this episode falls last in the chronology.
For Tolnay’s Neoplatonic interpretation, indeed, it is imperative to start here, since the story
IV
III V
of Noah at one end and the act of Creation by God at the other mark the starting point and
conclusion of the process of deificatio and the return from physical to spiritual being.
Eleazar
s
The pictorial field containing the Drunkenness of Noah adheres very closely to the biblical
ne
er
of
ol
text and shows Noah with his three sons: in the centre Japheth, who is covering his father’s
15
H
d
Prophet Delphic Matthan

an
Cumaean
Isaiah Sibyl nakedness, beside him Ham, who gestures mockingly at Noah, and behind him Shem, who
ith
Sibyl
d
Ju
Hezekiah Josiah is trying to restrain Ham. Noah himself appears again in the background, digging over the
soil with a spade. This can be understood as a reference to Noah’s vineyard as mentioned in
the Bible.
Manasseh 10 Amos Jehoiachin 11 Shealtiel Zadok 13 Azor Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became
drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his
father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both
their shoulders, and walked backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were
turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and
knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall
he be to his brothers.” He also said, “Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his
slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be
Diagram of the Sistine ceiling his slave.” (Gen. 9:20–27)
161
Fall of Antiochus
Antiochus, an opponent of the Jewish people, was punished by God with stomach cramps,
which caused him to fall from his war chariot during a military expedition.
But the judgement of heaven rode with him! For in his arrogance he said, “When I get there I will
make Jerusalem a cemetery of Jews.” But the all-seeing Lord, the God of I srael, struck him with
an incurable and invisible blow. As soon as he stopped speaking he was seized with a pain in his
bowels, for which there was no relief, and with sharp internal tortures – and that very justly, for
he had tortured the bowels of others with many and strange inflictions. Yet he did not in any way
stop his insolence, but was even more filled with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the
Jews, and giving orders to drive even faster. And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it
was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body. (II Macc. 9:4–7)
Suicide of Razis
The five smaller of the nine pictorial fields in the vault are bordered by altogether ten painted
medallions, whose violent subjects are taken from the Old Testament.
Razis was held in high regard in Jerusalem and was known as the father of the Jews for his
goodness and fair-mindedness.
A certain Razis, one of the elders of Jerusalem, was denounced to Nicanor as a man who loved his
compatriots and was very well thought of and for his goodwill was called father of the Jews. […]
Nicanor, wishing to exhibit the enmity that he had for the Jews, sent more than five hundred soldiers
to arrest him; for he thought that by arresting him he would do them an injury. When the troops
were about to capture the tower and were forcing the door of the courtyard, they ordered that fire be
brought and the doors burned. Being surrounded, Razis fell upon his own sword, preferring to die
nobly rather than to fall into the hands of sinners and suffer outrages unworthy of his noble birth.
(II Macc. 14: 37, 39–42)
162
Story of Noah
The Flood
Michelangelo once again adheres to the biblical text in his depiction of the Flood: the waters
have floated the Ark, visible in the background, off the land and have a lready covered all but
the tops of the mountains in the left and right foreground, where people are desperately seek-
ing refuge. Perched on the roof of the Ark is even the dove that, by not returning, confirmed
to Noah and his family that the Flood had finally passed.
The flood continued for forty days on the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and
it rose high above the earth. The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth; and the ark
floated on the face of the waters. (…) At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark
that he had made and sent out the raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from
the earth. Then he sent out the dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the
ground; but the dove found no place to set its foot, and it returned to him to the ark, for the waters
were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took it and brought it into the
ark with him. He waited another seven days, and again he sent out the dove from the ark; and the
dove came back to him in the evening, and there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah
knew that the waters had subsided from the earth. Then he waited another seven days, and sent out
the dove; and it did not return to him any more. (Gen. 7:17–18, 8:8–12)
171
172 173
Story of Noah
and
Medallions with the
History of the M
accabeans
Sacrifice of Noah
In the Sacrifice of Noah, Michelangelo elaborates upon the fairly prosaic description given in
Genesis, whereby he may have turned to Leviticus for more precise details about the ceremony
of burnt offerings.
Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and
offered burnt-offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelt the p leasing odour, the Lord said in
his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the
human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. As
long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night,
shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:20–22)
177
Mattathias destroys the Altar in Modin
In this medallion Michelangelo portrays an episode from the life of Mattathias, the Jewish
priest in the city of Modin who spoke out vehemently against idolatry and destroyed an altar
dedicated to the heathen gods.
When he had finished speaking these words, a Jew came forward in the sight of all to offer sacrifice
on the altar in Modin, according to the king’s command. When Mattathias saw it, he burned with
zeal and his heart was stirred. He gave vent to r ighteous anger; he ran and killed him on the altar.
At the same time he killed the king’s officer who was forcing them to sacrifice, and he tore down the
altar. (I Macc. 2:23–25)
Punishment of Heliodorus
Heliodorus is shown being attacked by avenging angels as he attempts to steal the treasure of
the Temple of Jerusalem.
For there appeared to them a magnificently caparisoned horse, with a rider of frightening mien;
it rushed furiously at Heliodorus and struck at him with its front hoofs. Its rider was seen to have
armour and weapons of gold. Two young men also appeared to him, remarkably strong, gloriously
beautiful and splendidly dressed, who stood on either side of him and flogged him continuously,
inflicting many blows on him. When he suddenly fell to the ground and deep darkness came over
him… (II Macc. 3:25–27)
178
Creation and
Fall of Mankind
The Fall and the Expulsion from Paradise

After the Sacrifice of Noah, Michelangelo executed the fourth pictorial field with The Fall and
the Expulsion from Paradise. The figures assume a larger scale than those of the preceding two
fields and the fresco corresponds in only limited fashion to the biblical text. In the left half
of the picture, Adam and Eve take the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, and on
the right they are driven out of Paradise by Archangel Michael. In contrast to the majority
of Quattrocento artists, Michelangelo combines The Fall and The Expulsion into one scene.
Michelangelo depicts the serpent not just with a human head but also with an anthropomor-
phic body.
The disposition of the figures in The Fall is also indebted to a relief on an antique sar-
cophagus, showing Hercules in the garden of the Hesperides. This borrowing explains the
unusual fact that Adam – and not just Eve – is also reaching for the forbidden fruit.
186
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said
to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden?’” The woman said to
the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of
the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’” But
the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes
will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that
the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be d esired to
make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with
her, and he ate. (…) Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.” The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because
you have done this, cursed are you among all animals and among all wild creatures; upon your belly
you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the
woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.”
To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring
forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And to the man
he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which
I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it’, cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat
of it all the days of your life” (…) therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of
Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.
(Gen. 3:1–6, 14–17, 23–24)
189
192 193
Creation and Fall
of Mankind
and
Medallions with the
Creation of Eve
The pictorial field following The Fall and the Expulsion from Paradise shows the Creation of Eve
from the rib of the sleeping Adam. Here, too, Michelangelo a dheres to the bald account given
by the Bible. The Creation of Eve is a central scene – in the most literal sense – on the Sistine
ceiling and marks the halfway point in the nine biblical scenes along the vault. Eve herself may
be interpreted as the typological counterpart of the Virgin Mary, to whose Assumption the
Sistine chapel is dedicated. The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib was also seen as a metaphor
for the birth of the Church from the wound in Christ’s side.
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as
his partner.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of
the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called
each living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the
air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs
and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made
into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” Therefore
a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the
man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. (Gen. 2:18–25)
194
Death of Nicanor
This scene refers to the military clashes between the Jewish people under Judas M accabaeus
and the Seleucid general Nicanor. The ferocious battle being fought b efore the gates of Samaria
is shown synchronously with the presentation of Nicanor’s severed head and hands that fol-
lowed his defeat.
Nicanor and his troops advanced with trumpets and battle songs, but Judas and his troops met the
enemy in battle with invocations to God and prayers. So, fighting with their hands and praying to
God in their hearts, they laid low at least thirty-five thousand, and were greatly gladdened by God’s
manifestation. When the action was over and they were returning with joy, they recognized Nicanor,
lying dead, in full armour. (II Macc. 15:20–28)
Alexander the Great before the High Priest
Alexander the Great is shown kneeling before the High Priest, in submission to the priest’s
authority.
Alexander, when he saw the multitude at a distance, in white garments, while the priests stood
clothed with fine linen, and the high priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his mitre on his
head, having the golden plate whereon the name of God was e ngraved, he approached by himself,
and adored that name, and first saluted the high priest. (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book
XI, Chapter VIII, § 5)
197
Creation and
Fall of Mankind
Creation of Adam
The Creation of Adam has undoubtedly received more attention in the literature than any other
individual field in the vault. Reasons for this lie on the one hand in Michelangelo’s innovative
compositional solution, and on the other in the figures – difficult to identify – looking out
from beneath God’s arm and cloak. The inclusion of God the Father floating in a billowing
cloak and accompanied by secondary figures is unusual for a depiction of the Creation of
Adam. Neither the biblical text nor previous artistic conventions point in this direction. Only
the mist appearing behind Adam as a blue band of colour is mentioned in the Scriptures.
God’s finger, which Condivi explains simply as God giving Adam the precepts by which he
should live, symbolizes the animation of the first human.
… for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the
ground; but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And
the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and the man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:5–7)
203
206 207
Creation of the World
and
Medallions with the
Separation of Land and Water
Few convincing artistic sources have been found for the Separation of Land and Water. God the
Father, accompanied by three angels, floats above a grey plane that should probably be taken
as water. The area of blue above him to the right can be understood as the sky.
And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from
the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the
waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening
and there was morning, the second day. And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered
together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth,
and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Gen.
1:6–10)
213
Death of Absalom
This episode portrays the death of Absalom, King David’s favourite son. Fleeing before his
pursuer, Joab, Absalom was left hanging when his hair got caught in a tree, and was stabbed
to death.
During the battle, Absalom happened to come upon some of David’s men. He tried to escape on his
mule, but as he rode beneath the thick branches of a great tree, his hair got caught in the tree. His
mule kept going and left him dangling in the air. One of David’s men saw what had happened and
told Joab, “I saw Absalom dangling from a great tree.” “What?” Joab demanded. “You saw him
there and didn’t kill him?”… “Enough of this nonsense,” Joab said. Then he took three daggers and
plunged them into Absalom’s heart as he dangled from the oak still alive. Ten of Joab’s young armour
bearers then surrounded Absalom and killed him. (II Sam. 18:9–11, 14–15)
Healing of Naaman
(not executed)
214
Creation of the Sun,

Moon and Plants
The Creation of the Sun, Moon and Plants is somewhat richer in detail. The Creator, who is
portrayed twice, points with a grand gesture at the heavenly bodies he has created: the Sun
above left and the Moon on the right. On the left-hand edge of the fresco, beneath the second
representation of God, a small area of greenery is undoubtedly meant to represent the Crea-
tion of the Plants.
Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every
kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation:
plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God
saw that it was good. (Gen. 1:11–12)
224
226 227
and
Medallions with the
History of the M
accabeans
Separation of Light and Darkness
The iconography of the Separation of Light and Darkness is clear: God hovers b etween a light
and a dark zone, standing for light on one side and darkness on the other. A similarly bold
contrast is found in the corresponding woodcut illustration in the Malermi Bible of 1490, with
which Michelangelo was familiar, although in this case the Creator is not flying, but stands
between a light and a dark plane.
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and
darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then
God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God
separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Gen. 1:1–5)
229
Elijah in his Chariot of Fire
The scene shows the prophet Elijah being carried away in his fiery chariot.
As they were walking along and talking, suddenly a chariot of fire appeared, drawn by horses of fire.
It drove between the two men, separating them, and Elijah was carried by a whirlwind into heaven.
Elisha saw it and cried out, “My father! My father! I see the chariots and charioteers of Israel!” And
as they disappeared from sight, Elisha tore his clothes in distress. Elisha picked up Elijah’s cloak,
which had fallen when he was taken up. Then Elisha returned to the bank of the Jordan River.
(II Kings 2:11–13)
Sacrifice of Isaac
In obedience with God’s command, Abraham here raises the knife in his hand, ready to strike
his son Isaac, who kneels on the altar block awaiting his fate.
When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid
the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then
Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son. But the angel of the Lord called to
him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Do not lay
your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not
withheld your son, your only son, from me.” (Gen. 22:9–12)
230
Prophets and Sibyls
Prophets and Sibyls
Michelangelo filled the mock throne architecture in the pictorial fields between the spandrels
and pendentives with the over-lifesize seated figures of seven Prophets and five Sibyls. The par-
ticular significance of the Prophets and Sibyls is underlined in impressive fashion by their size,
which often exceeds by far that of the remaining figures on the Sistine ceiling. Prophets were
considered to be Old Testament seers who had prophesied, amongst other things, the birth
of Christ. The Sibyls were female seers of antiquity, whose prophecies were interpreted from a
Christian point of view as similarly announcing the coming of the Saviour.
Michelangelo’s choice of Prophets can be traced without difficulty to the Bible, which
alongside the books of the four “Major Prophets”, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, also
contains the books of the twelve “Minor Prophets”. Michelangelo included the four Major
Prophets in view of their s uperior hierarchical status, but the criteria upon which he based
his selection of the three Minor Prophets, Joel, Zechariah and Jonah, remain the subject
of dispute.
A more or less full explanation has also been proposed for Michelangelo’s choice of Sibyls.
The names of ten female seers of antiquity were recorded in Lactantius’s Divinae Institutio-
nes, from whose 15th-century editions Michelangelo frescoed those named first: the Delphic,
Erythraean, Cumaean, Persian and Libyan Sibyls.
Michelangelo infused his Prophets and Sibyls with considerably more dynamism than the
artists of the Quattrocento. He also portrayed them leafing through books, opening heavy
tomes, unfurling scrolls, reading and writing. With the exception of Jonah, all the Prophets
and Sibyls are accompanied by books or scrolls. In the case of Jeremiah, a piece of parch-
ment bearing the letters “ALEF” refers to the start of the Hebrew text of the Lamentations of
Jeremiah. As easily identifiable attributes, the books refer in general to the fact that the visions
experienced by the Prophets and Sibyls are recorded in books and scrolls.
236
MICHEL ANGELO
238
THE SISTINE CEILING
241
MICHEL ANGELO
242
THE SISTINE CEILING
245
246 247
THE SISTINE CEILING
251
THE SISTINE CEILING
253
MICHEL ANGELO
254
256 257
Pendentives with
the History
of the Israelites
Judith und Holofernes
Michelangelo’s depiction of the story of Judith and Holofernes follows the version of events
given in the Scriptures, albeit with a small number of deviations: after the Jewish widow Judith
has entered the camp of the enemy troops and decapitated their leader, Holofernes, she leaves
his quarters in order to give the head of her oppressor to her maid. Deviating from the apoc-
ryphal text, Judith places Holofernes’ head not in a sack but on a tray or platter that her maid
is carrying on her head. The head of Holofernes is probably a self-portrait of Michelangelo
himself.
When evening came, his slaves quickly withdrew. Bagoas closed the tent from outside and shut out
the attendants from his master’s presence. They went to bed, for they all were weary because the
banquet had lasted so long. But Judith was left alone in the tent, with Holofernes stretched out on
his bed, for he was dead drunk. Now Judith had told her maid to stand outside the bedchamber
and to wait for her to come out, as she did on the other days; for she said she would be going out for
her prayers. She had said the same thing to Bagoas. So everyone went out, and no one, either small
or great, was left in the bedchamber. Then Judith, standing beside his bed, said in her heart, “O
Lord God of all might, look in this hour on the work of my hands for the exaltation of Jerusalem.
Now indeed is the time to help your heritage and to carry out my design to destroy the enemies who
have risen up against us.” She went up to the bedpost near Holofernes’ head, and took down his
sword that hung there. She came close to his bed, took hold of the hair of his head and said, “Give
me strength today, O Lord God of Israel!” Then she struck his neck twice with all her might, and
cut off his head. Next she rolled his body off the bed and pulled down the canopy from the posts.
Soon afterwards she went out and gave Holofernes’ head to her maid, who placed it in her food bag.
(Judith 13:1–10)
263
MICHEL ANGELO
David and Goliath
Michelangelo also follows the Bible in his depiction of David and Goliath. According to the
biblical text, the giant Philistine fell forward onto his face after being struck by David’s stone.
As Goliath moved closer to attack, David quickly ran out to meet him. Reaching into his shepherd’s
bag and taking out a stone, he hurled it with his sling and hit the Philistine in the forehead. The
stone sank in, and Goliath stumbled and fell face down on the ground. So David triumphed over
the Philistine with only a sling and a stone, for he had no sword. Then David ran over and pulled
Goliath’s sword from its sheath. David used it to kill him and cut off his head. When the Philistines
saw that their champion was dead, they turned and ran. (I Sam. 17:48–51)
264
Pendentives with
the History
of the Israelites
The Brazen Serpent
The Brazen Serpent is one of the most complex pictures on the Sistine ceiling. It depictsthe
episode in which God sends poisonous snakes amongst the people of Israel as a punishment for
speaking out against Him. Only when Moses erects a replica of a serpent made out of bronze
is the deadly danger averted, for all who look upon it are protected from harm. This moment
is dramatically portrayed: on the right side of the picture, the grumbling Jews are overpowered
by poisonous snakes, while on the left they are saved by fervently contemplating the brazen
serpent.
Then the Lord sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Isra-
elites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned by speaking against the Lord and
against you; pray to the Lord to take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. And
the Lord said to Moses, “Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten
shall look at it and live.” So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever
a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live. (Num. 21:6–9)
271
MICHEL ANGELO
Punishment of Haman
The pendentive containing the Punishment of Haman comprises three separate scenes. On the
far left, the king of Persia, Ahasuerus (Xerxes), appears with his young Jewish wife, Esther, and
his chief minister, Haman. Esther accuses Haman, identified by his yellow robes in all three
scenes, of wanting to eradicate the Jewish people. In the scene on the far right, Xerxes is listen-
ing to readings from the chronicle of his royal rule and sends for Esther’s uncle, Mordecai,
who is seated on the threshold and is invited in by Haman. After Esther has revealed Haman’s
plotting and her uncle’s good intentions, the chief minister of the Persian Empire is executed.
This execution is portrayed in the foreground, whereby it does not adhere to the pictorial and
textual tradition according to which Haman was hanged, but shows him being crucified, as
described in Dante’s Divine Comedy (Purg. XVII. 25–30). In this way Haman’s punishment can
perhaps be understood as the antitype to the Crucifixion of Christ.
When the king returned from the palace garden to the banquet hall, Haman had thrown himself
on the couch where Esther was reclining; and the king said, “Will he even assault the queen in my
presence, in my own house?” As the words left the mouth of the king, they covered Haman’s face.
Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, “Look, the very gallows that
Haman has prepared for Mordecai, whose word saved the king, stands at Haman’s house, fifty cubits
high.” And the king said, “Hang him on that.” So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had
prepared for Mordecai. Then the anger of the king abated. (Esther 7:8–10)
272
Lunettes and
spandrels
with the Ancestors
of Christ
Michelangelo distributed the Ancestors of Christ across eight spandrels and originally 16
lunettes. Two of these lunettes, located on the altar wall, were sacrificed to make way for
Michelangelo’s Last Judgement and survive only in contemporary copies. These two lunettes,
containing Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, followed by Perez, Hezron and Ram. The record
continues in the first lunette on the north wall with Amminadab, and then jumps across to
Nahshon on the south wall. From here the line zigzags between the south and north walls until
it reaches the entrance wall, where it ends with Jacob and Joseph, the last two Ancestors of
Christ. This record of Christ’s ancestors closes the genealogical gap between the 15th-century
frescoes (not by Michelangelo) on the lower walls of the Sistine Chapel, depicting the life of
the Saviour, and the episodes painted by Michelangelo on the vault that end with the story
of Noah.
279
280 281
THE SISTINE CEILING
283
284 285
286 287
MICHEL ANGELO
288
MICHEL ANGELO
290
292 293
VI.
The architect
in Florence
1513–1534
Christof Thoenes
Later Michelangelo sought to make known and to demonstrate

his new ideas to even better effect in the library of San Lorenzo:
namely, in the beautiful distribution of the windows, the
pattern of the ceiling and the marvellous entrance of the
vestibule. Nor was such resolute grace, both in detail and
overall effect, ever seen as in the consoles, tabernacles and
cornices, nor any stairway more commodious. And in this
stairway, he made such strange breaks in the design of the
steps, and he departed in so many details and so widely from
normal practice, that everyone was astonished.
GIORGIO VASARI, 1568
MICHEL ANGELO THE ARCHITECT IN FLORENCE
Michelangelo’s home city was the cradle of Renaissance architecture, but its importance waned
towards the end of the 15th century as crises shook the city-states and princedoms of upper and
central Italy. Papal Rome, where Bramante (1444–1514) was introducing a new phase in mod-
ern architecture based on a detailed study of antique monuments, still appeared unchallenged.
Artists of the following generation, the majority of them painters and sculptors by training,
took up Bramante’s ideas and turned their talents to architecture; thanks to their successes,
the Roman High Renaissance became an international style. Michelangelo, too, would go to
Rome and achieve fame as a sculptor and painter. But the transition to architecture, made so
effortlessly by his rival Raphael, Bramante’s protégé, at first eluded him; indeed, he even had
to see his own sculptural projects sacrificed to the Pope’s architectural ambitions.
This may have strained Michelangelo’s relationship with architecture, which is strangely
contradictory. In the opening years of Leo X’s pontificate, Michelangelo fought determinedly
for his place as an architect. Yet in a letter of 1524 he expresses his only reluctant willingness to
provide a design for the Laurentian Library, “even though it is not my profession” (benché non
sia mia professione). “I am not an architect” (non sono architector), he writes as late as the 1540s
on a drawing of an architectural detail. As Condivi informs us, “he never wished to follow the
profession of architect”. Vasari tells us that Michelangelo refused to take over the supervision of
the building of St Peter’s, on the grounds that “architecture was not his vocation”, and Michel-
angelo himself later declared that he had accepted the job only because he had been forced to
(contra mia voglia e con grandissima forza) – although this did not prevent him from tackling
Rome, Castel S. Angelo, Chapel of Leo X, c. 1514
the structural problems dogging the construction with all the more energy. Michelangelo had
done something similar at the start of work on the Sistine ceiling, where – because “he lacked
the necessary experience” (Vasari) in fresco technique – he had summoned a team of skilled appears to have collaborated without conflict – professional differences of opinion aside. It
fresco painters from Florence, only to send them back home again after just a short while and was these same practical problems that attracted Michelangelo: to find the solution himself,
make do from then on with just a few assistants (see Ch. V). to master the métier (even if it is not “his”), remained his declared, often polemically paraded,
Michelangelo evidently had difficulty working with artists who were his equals and who aim. Of course Michelangelo had assistants: the job of architect could not be performed any
enjoyed the same acclaim. This is clear in the comparison with Raphael, whose strength lay other way. But the history of his buildings is also, almost always, a history of conflicts, argu-
not least in what we would today call his social skills and his ability to create a harmonious ments over areas of expertise, and disputes with rivals, subordinates, patrons and their agents.
working environment – qualities that Vasari praises effusively. Appointed first architect of St He did not believe, or would not acknowledge, that anyone knew or could do better than he.
Peter’s, Raphael was looking forward (as he wrote to his uncle) to working with the elderly This led to paradoxical situations. In a committee meeting convened by Pope Paul III to
Fra Giocondo, from whom he could learn the “secret” of architecture and apply it to his own discuss the construction of Rome’s fortifications, Sangallo responded to criticism from Michel-
art. When the problems of construction become acute, he found in Antonio da Sangallo the angelo with the rebuke that the latter was competent in the fields of sculpture and painting
Younger a full-time architect who was as competent as he was loyal and with whom Raphael but not in fortifications. Michelangelo replied that he knew little about those arts, but that
he was better informed about fortifications than Sangallo and all his people. Not equally well
informed, but better informed: what Michelangelo wanted – and what the Pope was ready to
Page 295
Florence, Laurentian Library grant him – was not the position of one professore among others (Sangallo was one) but that
Ricetto, stairs and view into the reading room, 1523–1533 and 1555–1558 of absolute genius who stood above all the individual arts. In a letter to his nephew Lionardo
296 297
Florence, cupola drum of S. Maria del Fiore with the gabbia dei grilli
(after Stegmann and Geymüller)
Reconstruction of Michelangelo’s design for the drum of
the cupola of S. Maria del Fiore (after Maurer)
Page 299
Cupola of S. Maria del Fiore with a view of the gabbia dei grilli
penned around this same time, Michelangelo expresses his annoyance with a Florentine priest
who has written to him as Michelangelo scultore – not because his other spheres of artistic
activity are left unmentioned, but because he does not wish to be classed as a tradesman. In
Rome, he informs Lionardo, he is known as Michelangelo Buonarroti, not by his first name
like some ordinary artist or sculptor who runs a bottega, where people go if they want to get
certain goods.
The desire to rise, within civic society, above the class of artisan runs like a thread through
almost all the biographies of the Italian artists of the era. An alternative career was that of
“court artist”, which carried greater risks but promised glamour and rewards to those who
succeeded. Michelangelo had experienced its drawbacks early on, however, and he never made
any secret about his reluctance to enter the service of princes. The figure he presented to
society, discernible to us in the style of his letters and in his manner of dress, signalled his
298 299
MICHEL ANGELO
non-membership of courtly society, his independence of its conventions and its criteria for
success. His business strategies – his repeated attempts to present himself to his patrons as
a financially independent contractor – reflected the enduring hope of Europe’s bourgeoisie
that, by signing commercial agreements with its ruling dynasties, they would be protected
from princely despotism. Michelangelo’s insistence upon the noble origins of the Buonarroti
family (which he did not shrink from having confirmed by the Pope: Clement VII elevated
the Buonarotti to counts palatine) reflects this same desire. Both correspond to the artist’s
existence that Michelangelo constructed for himself, one lived in absolute freedom and based
solely on personal virtues.
Perhaps there was another reason for Michelangelo’s allergic reaction to the word scultore:
it touched upon a taboo that he was unable to lift. For the emancipation he had won on the
material plane conflicted with the psychological stamp left by his origins as a sculptor. As a
rule, earning one’s daily bread through physical labour was, and remains, socially degrading.
Chiselling a figure out of a marble block nevertheless remained for Michelangelo the ultimate
in creative (including architectural) activity and a model for life: to face up to the stoniest
resistance, indeed to seek it out and overcome it, was the ground from which sprang both
his complaining and his sense of self-worth. Through his biographer Condivi, Michelangelo
explained his quasi-unnatural leaning towards sculpture, so incompatible with the social status
he claimed, with reference to his wet-nurse, who came from a family of stonemasons (see
Florence, S. Lorenzo: in the foreground,
Ch. I). It is difficult to tell how far this story, faithfully related by Condivi, is meant to be
the façade as left unclad, and in the right-hand background, the New Sacristy
taken seriously and how much it was meant as a joke; whatever the case, it shows that Michel-
angelo was aware of his dichotomy and suffered under it. As an architect, of course, he was
dispensed from working on materials. But it does not appear that he sought this out or that bronze balusters familiar from the painted architecture of the Sistine ceiling (see pp. 155–157).
it made him happy. Indeed, it is tempting to see the passionate commitment with which he The crossbar window, whose central post bears the vault of the interior, was a given element
devoted himself to the selection and dressing of the stone for his first major building project as of the design; Michelangelo surrounds it with an aedicule, flanked by narrow, receding mural
a sort of compensation for the hands-off nature of his new role. fields with niches. The Medici ring adorned with feathers in the pediment, and the lion heads
– a play upon the Pope’s name, Leo – above the niches, provide the only added decoration.
Michelangelo’s first appearance as architect is a surprise. He was living in Rome when Leo The pilasters, half-columns and volute consoles of the window frame (almost a Michelangelo
X mounted the papal throne in 1513. The new Medici pope instructed Antonio da Sangallo signature) furthermore form a h omogeneous, compact, interlocking, seemingly sealed struc-
to create for him a set of private apartments, including a chapel, in the Castel S. Angelo. ture of a kind that neither Sangallo nor any other architect active in Rome at the time could
How Michelangelo obtained the commission to design the exterior façade of this chapel is have conceived.
unknown; perhaps a sculptor was judged more appropriate for the task on the grounds of its The second prelude to Michelangelo’s career as an architect was played in Florence. The
format and materials. Neither the date of execution nor indeed Michelangelo’s authorship is cupola of the cathedral still lacked the gallery (ballatoio) planned by Filippo Brunelleschi
documented. This latter has never been doubted by art historians, however. The small façade (1377–1446) between the drum and the base of the dome. Under the gonfaloniership of Piero
(p. 297), today unhappily sandwiched between a circular niche containing a bust from the Soderini (in office 1502–1512), a model for this ballatoio was submitted by Cronaca (1457–1508),
era of Paul III and a staircase built under Urban VIII (reigned 1623–1644), strikes the eye first Giuliano da Sangallo (c. 1444–1516), Antonio da Sangallo the Elder and Baccio d’Agnolo. The
by virtue of its material: clean, light marble, combined in the window opening with slender design was accepted and, after lengthy discussion, implemented on the south-eastern of the
300 301
Sketch of the façade of S. Lorenzo (detail), 1517 Michelangelo with Pietro Urbano Model of the façade of S. Lorenzo, 1518
Pen, black and red chalk, 212 x 143 mm. Florence, Casa Buonarroti, 43Ar Poplar, 216 x 283 x 50 cm; scale 1:12. Florence, Casa Buonarroti
eight sides of the dome, with construction overseen by Baccio d’Agnolo. Unveiled in 1515, the dimensioned, sculptural framework. Michelangelo’s later designs for St Peter’s would look
result was poorly r eceived. According to Vasari, Michelangelo, who had just returned to Flor- directly back to his studies for the cupola of Florence cathedral.
ence from Rome, was particularly dismissive and derided it as a “cage of crickets” (gabbia dei The deeper significance of this episode lies in the fact that it anticipates two basic pat-
grilli) – a nickname that quickly stuck. No further work on the project was carried out and terns in the interventions that Michelangelo made to building projects inherited from other
funding, too, was probably discontinued by the Medici, who had meanwhile taken over the architects. The first relates to proportions: Baccio’s gallery was conceived as a separate element
rule of the city. in itself, whereas Michelangelo’s entablature makes reference to the total mass of the building,
as his roof cornice for the Farnese Palace would later also do. The second is Michelangelo’s
During these years, Michelangelo executed a number of drawings that relate to unhesitating re-interpretation of the existing building, justified as a return to the actual (or
Brunelleschi’s cupola. Their theme is not the transition from drum to dome, which was to be supposed) design of its original architect. We shall encounter this again in Michelangelo’s
concealed by the gallery, but the design of the conflict that emerged there. The stone brackets criticism of Sangallo and Labacco’s model for St Peter’s, which he considered to have misrepre-
(morse) left by Brunelleschi at the foot of the cupola evidently provided the starting point: sented Bramante’s vision. In both cases Michelangelo’s polemic is addressed at the products of
according to Vasari, Michelangelo made a great fuss about the fact that Baccio had either committee decisions and collective working, against which he holds up the work of great and
removed or ignored them. He wanted to introduce, at their height, a massive entablature that sovereign individuals such as Brunelleschi and Bramante.
would be supported by colossal pairs of Corinthian columns at each corner of the octagon. The building of the new S. Lorenzo – one of the earliest churches to be founded in
The drum walls with their incrustation of rectangular fields were to acquire a more generously Florence – had begun in 1421 under Brunelleschi, but had progressed only slowly during the
302 303
Quattrocento. With the election of Giovanni de’ Medici as Pope Leo X in 1513, however, the
history of its construction entered a new phase, which would end in 1534 with the death of
the second Medici pope, Clement VII. During this p eriod Michelangelo executed the model
for its façade, the New Sacristy/Medici Chapel, the Laurentian Library, and the balcony of the
Reliquary Tribune inside the church.
In November 1515, on his way to Bologna to meet the French king, Francis I, Leo X
stopped in his troubled native city, torn alternately between republic and principality. His
entry route into Florence was lined with a triumphal arch, statues and other temporary deco-
rations, including a wooden cathedral façade designed by Jacopo Sansovino and Andrea del
Sarto. This may have prompted him to start thinking about finally completing the façade of
St Lawrence’s basilica, which together with the neighbouring family palace had become the
primary focus of self-serving Medicean patronage. In front of S. Lorenzo, so the story goes,
a carved figure was erected of St Lawrence himself, beseeching the Pope to finish his church.
Michelangelo, Condivi and Vasari offer conflicting accounts of the events leading up to
the formulation of the commission, and it is not clear from whom the initiative came and
what precisely was to be propagated. Whatever the case, it was a project that attracted the
most famous artists in the land. According to Vasari, designs were produced by a host of
younger-generation architects from Florence and Rome, including Baccio d’Agnolo, Antonio
da Sangallo, Andrea and Jacopo Sansovino and Raphael. The large presentation drawings by
Giuliano da Sangallo, who died in October 1516, were possibly already to hand; the project
was not a new one, after all. There is no mention of Michelangelo at this early stage, which is
not surprising since he had yet to make a proper appearance as an architect; he was not even
invited to enter the competition for S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini in Rome two years later. The
S. Lorenzo façade was to incorporate sculptures, however, and that offered Michelangelo a
way in, which he seized by teaming up with Baccio d’Agnolo. The model produced by Baccio
was welcomed with just as little enthusiasm as the “cage of crickets” on the drum of the cathe-
dral cupola, however; Michelangelo himself dismissed it in the end as childish (una cosa da
fanciulli). Perhaps he had been gambling right from the start on winning the whole commis-
sion and had only used Baccio as a front man.
Whatever the case, in December 1516 Michelangelo travelled from Carrara (where he
was still engaged on procuring the marble for the Julius Tomb) to Rome, where the Pope
gave what Michelangelo considered to be his binding approval for the S. Lorenzo project.
He immediately began working on the design of the façade; a pen-and-ink sketch can be
dated to mid-January 1517 (Elam, 1992b). Baccio d’Agnolowas now out of the running, and
Ancient Roman entablatures, capitals and bases (copy after the Codex Coner), 1515/16
Red chalk, 288 x 215 mm. London, British Museum, 1859–6-25–560/2r
304 305
THE ARCHITECT IN FLORENCE
Jacopo Sansovino, who was supposed to be

contributing some of the sculptures, was also
forced out of the picture (as emerges from a
vituperative letter he addressed to Michelan-
gelo at the time). “I have been commissioned
by the Pope to do the façade of S. Lorenzo”,
Michelangelo wrote succinctly to a relative.
In February 1517, Domenico Buoninsegni,
Michelangelo’s correspondent in the Curia,
gave him, in the name of Cardinal Giulio
de’ Medici, a list of the individuals to be por-
trayed on the façade. It is a purely ecclesias-
tical, not especially interesting programme:
SS Lawrence, John the Baptist, Peter and
Paul, the four Evangelists, and SS Cosmas and
Damian, clearly identified as doctors (medici).
The clothing of the other figures was left up
to the artist; the Cardinal was not a tailor. In
his reply to Buoninsegni, Michelangelo formu-
lated his vision for the façade: it was to be “the mirror of all Italy” in architecture and sculpture.
It would be made entirely of marble; he would need six years to complete it and the whole thing
would cost 35,000 ducats. In return, he requested that the Pope should trust him entirely in
everything. He wished to draw up a contract in choctimo, i.e. on a piecework basis, meaning that
he would not be employed in the papal service but as an independent contractor. He also wished
to have the entire sum at his disposal, as he had already had to pay for some of the marble out of
his own pocket. Should the Pope and the Cardinal not reach a rapid decision, h owever, he would
refund the 1,000 ducats he had already received as a first instalment and consider the matter
closed. After reassurances from the Vatican, Michelangelo built a wooden model (p. 303) and
sent it to Rome; on the basis of this model, a formal contract was drawn up on 19 January 1518,
signed by the Pope in person and countersigned by the artist. Michelangelo was granted all the
powers he had demanded. The construction term was specified as eight years (from 1 February
1518) and the total fee increased to 40,000 ducats, payable in annual instalments of 5,000 ducats;
Michelangelo was also given permission to set up a workshop beside the church.
Florence, S. Lorenzo,
New Sacristy/Medici Chapel, 1519–1534
Niche above a door in the New Sacristy
307
MICHEL ANGELO
Thanks to the height of the room, which is lit only from above,
the feeling is that of being inside a crypt, cut off from the world of day.
The irrational proportions of the white marble architecture,
bordered by the pietra serena, are additionally disorientating.
In Italy, a chapel’s architectural organization was previously
always in harmony with its actual wall structure;
here the real walls seems to have vanished, with visionary façades
of white marble appearing in their place…
CHARLES DE TOLNAY, 1951
Michelangelo nevertheless remained in his marble quarries until the autumn of 1519, and
there is no evidence that the other party to the contract put pressure on him to start work on
S. Lorenzo. On the contrary: the Cardinal allocated marble from the quarries newly opened by
Michelangelo to the masons of Florence cathedral, something that upset the artist not a little.
In February 1520, the Cardinal asked Michelangelo to account for all his expenses to date; in
March a final settlement was agreed. No more happened after this, and Michelangelo began
to realize that the project had been shelved. In a letter to an unknown correspondent (perhaps
Buoninsegni), he sums up the situation: all that is left to him after three wasted years are 500
ducats, pecuniary damages of various kinds and the disgrace of not executing the commission
he had been promised. He lays the blame on Cardinal Giulio, who forced his way between him
and the Pope – whereby it remains unclear what role Leo X actually played in the whole affair.
How Michelangelo was planning to approach his first large architectural commission can be
deduced from his surviving drawings for the project, even if these are not always easy to date.
His starting point was the unfaced basilica as it still stands today (p. 301). Thus the three verti-
cal axes of the doors were already established, as was the roof silhouette, which rises in three
steps that correspond to the cross-section of the interior (side chapels, side aisles, central nave).
Giuliano da Sangallo had already demonstrated how to transform these raw elements into
a richly decorated façade of harmonious proportions. Michelangelo started from Sangallo’s
designs but at the same time experimented with a more interesting succession of storeys. In a
study laid out as a presentation drawing but never completed, the ground storey and mezzanine
are fused together; pillars on tall pedestals rise in front of the nave portion of the façade while
tabernacles on two-zone plinths dominate the sides. The tension – entirely foreign to Giuliano
Florence, S. Lorenzo
View of the cupola inside the New Sacristy
308
– that is thereby introduced is subsequently withdrawn as the design process evolves. An ener- classical architecture, by means of which Michelangelo caught up with the study of Roman
getically simplifying sketch in red chalk formulates a new idea: the full width of the ground ruins (and Bramante’s Rome works) obligatory for architects of his generation. He thereby
level is now to be treated as a plinth. The decisive breakthrough is captured in a drawing in pen understood the classical orders not as an accessory feature but as the true essence of a build-
and black and red chalk (p. 302): the flanking tabernacles have disappeared and the upper level ing, and identified himself, as it were, with their indwelling forces; he believed the architect
is continued across the full width of the façade. The original silhouette of Brunelleschi’s basil- needed to grasp their function and learn to master them in drawing just as the sculptor must
ica now disappears behind a sort of screen that is intended to stand in front of the old façade as learn to master the human figure. Consequently, Michelangelo’s learning process led him to an
an independent body, with its bays wrapping around the flanks of the basilica. A number of in-depth exploration of the insoluble paradox of all modern architecture all’antica, namely the
uncertainties still evident in the horizontal divisions are clarified in the wooden model: there, relationship between wall and members. It is no coincidence that the majority of his studies
the caesura clearly lies in the entablature of the lower order; the mezzanine is assigned to the deal with entablatures that are carried fictively by supports – projected on to the wall or placed
upper storey and lends it supremacy. in front of them – but in fact by the mass of the wall. This becomes a problem when it comes to
In addition to these overall designs for the S. Lorenzo façade project, a substantial num- the corners of the façade; he resolves it with mural bands projecting in front of the wall and
ber of drawings of a technical or semi-technical nature have also survived and provide fas- providing a background foil to the pairs of supports. Hence the rhythm of the members no
cinating insights into Michelangelo’s working methods. Casting an eye over these sheets, longer appears imposed upon the body of the façade (as in competing designs) but is actu-
of which there are more than thirty, one thing stands out: they are all, with one exception, ally produced by it; columns, pilasters and wall s urface are differently articulated parts of a
concerned solely with architecture. The presentation drawings would have included figures sculptural whole whose movement is also taken up by the entablature. It was Michelangelo’s
and the wooden model c ertainly included them, but in Michelangelo’s working drawings most influential invention in the field of architecture; he would bring it to full fruition thirty
they play no role. This comes as a surprise, for the façade was to be a synthesis of architec- years later in the articulation of the hemicycle walls in St Peter’s (p. 512). Here it is still barely
ture and sculpture, and it was from this angle that Michelangelo had approached the com- noticeable; the predominant impression is one of a study in the classical style. The moment of
mission. Indeed, the contract of 1518, which assigned him the responsibility for the entire tension contained in the proportions of the storeys is smoothed out and counterbalanced: an
project, was concerned chiefly with figures: the artist was to supply twelve over-life-size architecture that is holding its breath. The d esign of the details, Corinthian in both storeys,
marble statues, four seated figures in bronze, six further statues in half-relief, seven large also remains strictly canonical.
and fourteen smaller narrative reliefs, together with ornamentation, coats of arms, etc. –
a mountain of marble, even vaster than the Julius Tomb. Once again, Michelangelo started by In the summer or autumn of 1519, when Michelangelo was still lost in his vision of the façade,
going to the quarry. No other architect would have proceeded in such a fashion (nor indeed Cardinal Giulio and Leo X decided to build a family mausoleum in the S. Lorenzo complex.
ever has). For what he planned, designed and measured there were not figures but architectural The Cardinal pursued this project with great vigour and continued to do so after succeeding
elements: it is as if he saw architecture as an aspect of sculpture. his cousin as Pope Clement VII in 1523. What was needed first and foremost was the expertise
The end result of Michelangelo’s efforts has come down to us in the large wooden model of a sculptor, and this time Michelangelo was most certainly the first choice. For the location,
(p. 303). Although well preserved in itself, it is nevertheless a fragment: its wax figures, reliefs Giulio envisaged a sacristy that was to be erected as a counterpart to Brunelleschi’s “old” sac-
and decorations are now missing. Visualizing them back in place (a drawing of 1687 provides risty on the northern narrow side of the transept. He thereby remained within the bounds of
some clues), the model loses something of the almost p uritanical severity that it exudes today. tradition – Brunelleschi’s building had been endowed by Giovanni d’Averardo de’ Medici and
Even then, however, in comparison to the extravagant formal variety of Giuliano’s design, the housed the tomb of Cosimo il Vecchio (1389–1464) – and avoided an overly ostentatious public
exclusiveness with which Michelangelo concentrates upon the language of classical architecture statement from a family whose position of power in Florence was still by no means unchal-
– columns, pilasters, entablatures and pediments – becomes apparent. lenged. The architect’s brief would thus have been to reproduce the Quattrocento sacristy as
Languages have to be learned, and Michelangelo spared himself no pains to do so in the faithfully as p
ossible. Having been thwarted in his plans for the façade, however, Michelangelo
case of architecture. This is evidenced by a series of drawings, datable to around 1516/17, that produced a fount of ideas for the new project that evidently fascinated the Cardinal and intro-
he conscientiously copied from the drawings of Bernardo della Volpaia, a Florentine architect duced a dramatic note into the (now no longer fully reconstructible) p lanning process. Never
and surveyor of antiquities from Sangallo’s circle. These are the residues of a “crash course” in before and rarely afterwards was so much architecture (and sculpture) to be included within so
310 311
a third. The windows are shifted up

into the lunette zone and the daylight
falls steeply from above. The pietra
serena articulation of the lower level
corresponds to that of Brunelleschi,
but Michelangelo acknowledges mod-
ern Florentine architects (Giuliano
da Sangallo, Cronaca) in the design
of its details. In order to house the
original number of tombs planned,
he repeated the arched entrance on
the choir wall in the form of imita-
tion arches on the other walls; thus
the pilasters that, in Brunelleschi’s
Old Sacristy, are clearly separate from
the wall behind, here become part of
a wall mass imbued with advancing
and receding movement (p. 307). This
idea is explored further in a series of
design sketches for tombs that were
not executed (and in which, as in the
drawings for the façade, architecture
Design for a desk in the Laurentian Library, 1524–1533
Pen and red chalk, 158 x 199 mm. Florence, Casa Buonarroti, 94A
plays the lead role). Michelangelo operates with niches and projecting blocks of wall, aedicules
and full columns, which stand partly in front of and partly within the wall, “not as applied
Page 313
Florence, S. Lorenzo, Reading desk in the Laurentian Library décor, but as the visible parts of a widely branching organism” (Maurer). Sheets, in which vis-
ible and hidden, imaginary structures are overlaid, interweaving and then separating like the
main and accompanying voices of a line of polyphony, give an impression of what the New
little space. Its c onstruction, interrupted several times by the political events of the following Sacristy might have become in more fortunate circumstances.
years, proceeded only slowly and the programme was gradually reduced. Only after Giulio’s In the upper zones, the density of the articulation lessens. The intermediate zone features
death in 1534 and Michelangelo’s departure for Rome was the project brought to a more or less simple pilasters with freely invented composite capitals, while the aedicule windows in the cor-
provisional conclusion. ner fields again take up Florentine models. The light-giving windows of the top storey appear
Like the basilica as a whole, the New Sacristy has a plain exterior; its importance is to sit unanchored within the broad, smooth planes of the lunette arches; their trapezoid form,
betrayed only by the lantern of the dome, which is surrounded by eight freestanding columns which reinforces the suggestion that they are free-floating, follows the example of the Temple
supporting a radially projecting entablature. The interior was originally accessed from the of Vesta in Tivoli, which Michelangelo was acquainted with from the somewhat exaggerated
transept through an entrance passing at an angle through the wall. Inside, the room reveals copy by Bernardo della Volpaia. The dome is finished in a simple coffering in the manner
itself to be of surprising height (pp. 306, 309): Michelangelo introduced an intermediate zone of the Pantheon; the planned stucco and fresco decoration by Giovanni da Udine was never
above the main entablature and thereby extended the proportions of the Old Sacristy by about executed or did not last.
312 313
Florence, S. Lorenzo, Laurentian Library, Florence, S. Lorenzo, Laurentian Library,

reading room, 1523–1533 and 1555–1558 view into the Ricetto, 1523–1533 and 1555–1558
Sharply offset against the pietra serena articulation of the outer framework is the marble very differently and nevertheless to adhere strictly to the laws of architecture. Beauty requires
facing of the lower fields of the walls. The tombs in the arched lateral n iches follow the type discipline, but it is not necessarily based upon the repetition of pre-existing patterns.
of the funerary wall monument as developed in Florence and Rome in the Quattrocento, and As the work of a single artist, the New Sacristy appears astonishingly heterogeneous, not
their architecture does the same. In Michelangelo’s hands, however, the decorative style of the simply due to its combination of artistic genres; even within its architecture, the breadth of
15th century becomes lavishly exaggerated: the proportions are unclassically tall and narrow, its maniere is enormous. For Ackerman, this is explained by the substantial passage of time
the pilasters carry fantastical capitals and all the architectural members are spun with orna- between the first and last designs for the project – years in which Michelangelo not simply
ment, chased and detailed, albeit by no means freely invented; antique models can be identi- entered the field of architecture but broke new ground with every step. That so many ideas
fied for almost all their motifs (Krieg, 1999/2000). This is no longer the case, however, in the were left unrealized along the way may have accelerated their production: they could pass –
doorway/niche combinations on either side of the tombs, which were the last elementsto be without “frictional losses” incurred by detail work – into new projects, where their influence
designed (p. 307). In the Old Sacristy, much to Brunelleschi’s displeasure, Donatello had intro- would continue to be felt (Maurer, 2004). Michelangelo’s beginnings as an architect focused
duced heavy aedicule doors with stucco reliefs above; Michelangelo creates empty but large on the confrontation with tradition in all its variations, and it is almost as if he has made this
aedicule niches above small, unassuming doors. He thereby once again shifts key: after the finely the theme of the New Sacristy. The plurality of styles in the Medici Chapel indeed contains
detailed ornamentation of the tombs, an architecture on an abstract and austere scale, but with something ostentatious, comparable to the fashion in which Michelangelo paraded his crea-
an extremely complex stereometry; after the classicism of the pietra serena pilasters, a formal tive process in the Sistine ceiling (as did Raphael in the Vatican Stanze). In a famous passage
language of uncompromising innovation. The message is thus: it is possible to design aedicules in his Life of Michelangelo, Vasari celebrates the language of detail in the architecture of the
314 315
MICHEL ANGELO
New Sacristy as a sort of blow for freedom: it

showed contemporary architects a way out of
the dead-end of “reason and rule” (ragione e
regola), even if Michelangelo himself did not
pursue this path any further. Later art histori-
ans concentrated upon the impression made
by the overall space, interpreting the interior
as an “earthly prison” (carcer terreno) that the
soul wished to flee – an image suggestive even
for those unfamiliar with Michelangelo’s son-
nets and unaware of his interest in Neopla-
tonism. The architecture contributes towards
this impression in two ways: through its high
windows and the lighting these create, and
through the large number of blind, blocked
or sealed openings (doorways, niches) in the
lower storey. To what extent Michelangelo
was deliberately aiming to achieve this effect
is difficult to say.
Even while still a cardinal, Giulio de’ Medici had expressed his intention of making the
magnificent collection of manuscripts and books built up by his forebears Cosimo il Vecchio
and Lorenzo il Magnifico (ruled 1469–1492) accessible to scholars in a library. Elected Pope
Clement VII in November 1523, in December that same year he consulted Michelangelo on
the project. Discussions regarding a suitable location w
ithin the S. Lorenzo complex contin-
ued until April 1524, when it was decided to c reate an upper storey over the west wing of the
monastery complex.
Thanks to a wealth of surviving documents, it is possible to follow every stage of the con-
struction process. From the structural point of view, it was a challenging project: the founda-
tions had to be reinforced without interfering with the monks’ quarters; the prefabricated com-
ponents, including twenty-four column shafts each 5 metres (16’ 6”) in length, had to be hoisted
up to the height of the second storey and manoeuvred into position within a very tight space.
Michelangelo employed the experienced architect Baccio Bigio (Giovanni die Lepo) to assist on
the project; the Pope agreed to this arrangement since he wanted the sculptures
Florence, S. Lorenzo, Laurentian Library,

view into the Ricetto and detail of a coving, 1523–1533 and 1555–1558
316
for the New Sacristy to remain Michelangelo’s priority, although he warned him against mak- regimentation was now imposed by the architect, who – in the name of his Medici master –
ing Baccio the scapegoat should anything go wrong. But everything went well and, at the indicated to the user his place at the desks (to be executed after Michelangelo’s designs). “To
beginning, relatively fast as well. Work started in August 1524; by December 1525 the roof sit at them is to become part of the building” (Wallace).
was on the reading room and by April 1527, despite some interim financial problems, on the The Ricetto, in line with its function, is purely a room for passing through, its main pur-
entrance vestibule (the Ricetto) too. Construction was interrupted by the civic disturbances of pose being to resolve the height difference between the cramped and narrow access stairs and
1527 and resumed only in 1530, following the return of the Medici. After the Pope died in 1534 the reading room. But its atmosphere is that of a sacrarium, not dissimilar to the New Sacristy,
and Michelangelo left the city, Cosimo I, who became Duke of Florence in 1537, oversaw the above all thanks to the walls, with their strictly symmetrical organization, that enclose the
continuation of the project. In 1559, Ammannati built the stairs leading from the Ricetto up to vestibule on all sides, the substantial height of the ceiling and the light that falls in from above.
the reading room. The library was opened in 1571, even though the Ricetto was still littered Michelangelo had originally envisaged overhead windows in the flat roof, but for practical rea-
with building materials; its clerestory was not in fact finished until 1904. sons it was decided upon a clerestory with wall windows, which assumed its present form only
The Laurentian Library must also, strictly speaking, be counted amongst Michelangelo’s in 1904. The walls are articulated with dark pietra del fossato, the noblest, finest-grained and
unfinished works. It is nevertheless the most mature of his Florentine buildings and one in hardest variety of the local Macigno sandstone. The most striking motif are the twelve pairs
which he was finally able to formulate at least some of his concepts and demonstrate what of columns that rise from the level of the reading room (p. 315): they stand not in front of the
he understood architecture to be. The fact that it once again concerned a purely inner world wall but inside it (“in wall cupboards”, joked Jacob Burckhardt), as embodiments of the forces
seems characteristic of the still uncertain relationship between the Medici and the Florentine active within the masonry; the comparison with the Prisoners of the Julius Tomb is trite but
public. The number of surviving drawings is high; they extend from compositional sketches almost unavoidable. The niches in which they stand are faced left and right by pilasters, which
and detail studies (profiles, bases, capitals) to full-scale working drawings for the reading-room in the corners of the room present themselves as square pillars hidden in the wall.
windows, as p reserved on the side walls of the altar chapel in the New Sacristy, and templates It has been attempted to explain this articulation in terms of the skeleton construction
for the stonemasons. Carefully worked drawings of individual doorways and window frames, of the wall, in which the columns represent the load-bearing verticals – as if they actually
with chiaroscuro details added in wash, were sent to the Pope for approval. Letters also went performed the function they illustrate (Ackerman, 1961). Michelangelo shows, however, that
back and forth in rapid exchange between Michelangelo and G iovanni Francesco Fattucci, his this is precisely what they don’t do: the connection between the consoles, columns and pilas-
agent in Rome; they show the Medici pope (whose comments Fattucci passes on verbatim) as ters is deliberately interrupted and dissected; the cornice above them leaps backwards rather
extraordinarily interested as well as knowledgeable, demanding, encouraging and inspiring. than forwards; the blocks of wall between the pairs of columns advance. What is actually
The commission for the Laurentian Library confronted Michelangelo for the first time carrying the load is the wall. Thus the (for Bramante and his followers) “natural” tectonics
with what we consider the real task of architecture, “interior design”. The boundaries were of the column orders is presented for what it is: purely an art form. The same is true of the
already narrowly drawn: a single, rectangular block, to be subdivided into a square entrance architectural details. The columns fall into none of the standard, traditional categories (Doric
lobby with staircase, an elongated reading room (in whose desks the books were stored) and, or Tuscan) but might possibly be interpreted as the “demonstration of an abstract principle
according to the original plan, a chapel. This latter was subsequently substituted by a room regarding the construction of an order” (Krieg). The same is true of the forms of the frames
on a triangular ground plan (dictated by existing alignments) intended to house the library’s and the tabernacles with their tapering pilasters. Nothing is what it seems and nothing evolves
rarest manuscripts; this room, too, was never built. All that was left to design, essentially, were “organically”; each invention stands alone and wishes to be appreciated for itself. Of the door
the walls. For structural reasons these had to be as light as possible and also thin, but Michel- leading into the reading room with the inscription overhead, the Pope (according to Fattucci)
angelo did everything he could to make them appear “heavy” to the viewer. He articulated said that he had never seen anything more beautiful, e ither in the monuments of antiquity or
the r eadingroom (p. 314) with paratactically aligned windows and pilasters, whose arrange- in modern times.
ment is not determined by the skeleton of the substructure (Portoghesi/Zevi, 1964). Bright, The most alien feature of the Ricetto is undoubtedly the staircase (pp. 295, 315, 317). It
clearly laid out and designed right down to the last detail, the library stands for the access to forms the physical and functional centre of the vestibule, and Michelangelo worked on its
knowledge of a new humanist, non-clerical readership and no longer for scholastic exclusiv- design at length. He initially envisaged two flights of steps running up the side walls and con-
ity (Argan/Contardi, 1990). But the price of freedom was the internalization of authority: verging at a central landing in front of the entrance to the reading room. In the end, however,
318 319
Studies of fortifications for the Prato d’Ognissanti, Florence, 1528 or later Studies of fortifications for the Prato d’Ognissanti, Florence, 1528 or later
Pen, wash, black chalk and traces of red chalk, 283 x 396 mm. Florence, Casa Buonarroti, 20Ar Red chalk, pen and wash, 410 x 568 mm. Florence, Casa Buonarroti, 13Ar
the Pope favoured the idea of a single staircase rising in three parallel flights of steps from the sent Ammannati a probably fairly summary model in clay (“I have only been able to reproduce
centre of the vestibule. Michelangelo remarked in a letter that the two outer flights of steps, set the idea”, he wrote in an accompanying note). He imagined it being built in wood, but the
slightly back and without balusters, were intended for the servants, while the central flight was Duke insisted upon stone. On the basis of this, Ammannati built the staircase still in use today.
reserved for the master (el Signore) – something that sheds an interesting light on the envisaged
users. When it came to the actual building of the library, the stairs were lowest on the list of A group of drawings in the Casa Buonarroti contains designs for defensive works (pp. 320,
priorities, along with the wood ceilings and the furnishings for the reading room. A contract 321, 323). It is linked with one of the most dramatic episodes in Michelangelo’s life. In 1527,
was signed for these items in 1533, but construction then ground to a halt. Michelangelo left the Medici had been expelled from Florence and a military counterattack was anticipated. But
behind a clay model of the staircase, but Niccolò Tribolo, who was entrusted with its execution, the old city walls had long been inadequate for artillery warfare; Giulio de’ Medici had already
could not make sense of it and Michelangelo was evidently not prepared to co-operate with thought about modernizing them years earlier. This task now faced the Republic, and it fell
him. Vasari and Ammannati were only a little more successful in 1555. To a long letter from to Michelangelo, as the city’s most respected architect, to carry this work out – even while the
Vasari, the eighty-year-old Michelangelo replied: “Believe me, if I could remember how I had Pope in Rome was trying to make him continue work on the New Sacristy. On 3 October
planned it I would not need to be asked. A certain staircase comes to my mind just like a dream, 1528, Michelangelo was invited to visit the hilltop of S. Miniato, a location considered to be
but I don’t think it can be the same as the one I had in mind originally, as it seems so awkward.” particularly vulnerable; in January 1529 he was appointed a member of the city’s “committee
Michelangelo goes on to describe the staircase as he remembers it, although even to him it of nine on military affairs”, the Nove della Milizia, and placed in overall charge of defensive
sounds like “nonsense, but I know you will find something here to your purpose.” In 1559 he works. In this capacity he paid inspection visits to Pisa, Livorno, Ferrara and Arezzo, and
320 321
s upervised the construction of extensive fortifications at S. Miniato. After the fall of Arezzo
on 18 September, however, he was warned against traitors in the Republican ranks and fled to
Venice, with the intention of escaping from there to France. The Florentine Republic declared
him an insurgent, but friends in Florence persuaded him to return (under safe conduct) and
resume his work. In October, the imperial and papal armies commenced their siege and in
August 1530 the city capitulated. Michelangelo went into hiding and escaped the Medici’s
henchmen only by the skin of his teeth. In November that same year, the Pope nevertheless
showed himself pleased to hear that Michelangelo had got back down to work and instructed
his Florentine agent to flatter and “stroke” him (che sopra tutto Michelagnolo sia carezzato) and
to pay him his usual monthly stipend of fifty ducats – whereas the leaders of the Republican
party were beheaded.
The defences under Michelangelo’s supervision were erected in the face of an immedi-
ate threat and were therefore restricted to hastily dug earthworks reinforced with tow, straw
and unbaked bricks. The designs in the Casa Buonarroti, however, are evidently intended
to be built in masonry and must therefore have been executed before 1529. They neverthe-
less appear strangely charged with tension: entrenchments, casemates and outworks combine
into monsters of abstract zoomorphic shape, embroiled in a battle between life and death. It
is natural to see in them a reflection of the artist’s own troubled state of mind: Michelangelo
had obligations to both of the warring p arties, at times acted as a traitor to both, and in
the – foreseeable – event of the Republic’s defeat feared the very worst for his own person
(Bredekamp, 2006b). As far as treachery was concerned, however, it was an age that thought in
Studies of fortifications for the Prato d’Ognissanti, Florence, 1528 or later
terms of political expediency rather than of morals, and in this sense Michelangelo’s conflicting Pen, wash and traces of red chalk, 217 x 280 mm. Florence, Casa Buonarroti, 30A
loyalties were a judicious means of preserving his own life (and his life’s work). If
his fortification drawings reveal irrational traits, these must be seen in the context
of the crisis in contemporary warfare wrought by firearms. The dialectic of offence
and defence, opening and shelter, had to be completely reviewed, while the rational
theory of the bastion system – one with which Michelangelo experimented – had barely been
tested in practice. At the same time, the ethos of warfare underwent a transformation and
war became an “art”: chivalric virtues were replaced by “the skills acquired in civilian ways
by the engineer, foundryman and artilleryman” (Jacob Burckhardt). Michelangelo seized the The history of these drawings is incredible.
chance of inventing something extraordinary even here, and he indeed demonstrated flashes They have never been lost, never been attributed to other masters,
but for hundreds of years they were completely ignored.
of inspiration that would come to fruition in the fortification architecture of the 17th century
If it didn’t sound absurd, one would have to assume that between 1529
(Ackerman, 1961). But he did not exercise any direct influence on military practice in his own and 1927 no human eye fell upon them… But whoever studies these sketches
day; his designs remained largely unknown until their publication by Tolnay (1940). Since with an eye unclouded by academic prejudices cannot fail to see that they
then they have been appreciated above all as works of art: they testify sooner to the artist’s represent the most original, exciting and revolutionary moment in
fascination with modern military technology and its destructive power than to his practical Michelangelo’s architectural œuvre.
experience of warfare. BRUNO ZEVI, 1964
322 323
VII.
The sculptor
1513–1534
Frank Zöllner
I] have always tried to hold my ground before the scornfully

angry gaze of the hero, but sometimes I have slipped warily
out of the semi-darkness of the interior, as if I myself was one
of the rabble upon whom his gaze rests, the riffraff unable to
sustain a conviction, unwilling to wait or trust, and jubilant
when the illusion of the idol is restored to it.
SIGMUND FREUD
THE SCULPTOR
The size of the contract for the façade of S. Lorenzo, on a magnitude of 40,000 gold ducats,
and the fact that Michelangelo was employed on the project not in the service of Pope Leo X
but as an independent contractor (see Ch. VI), illustrate his rise – unparalleled in his day – to
the position of Italy’s leading artist. Even more than the Julius Tomb, the façade project for
S. Lorenzo, initiated in 1516, placed demands on Michelangelo’s expertise both as a sculptor
and as an architect. In truth he would have done better in the short term to devote himself
entirely to the Julius Tomb. But Michelangelo’s fatal tendency to take on too many things at
once was aggravated by the political events of the 1510s and their impact on the job market:
there seemed to be no more prospect of a continuity of work than of a continuity of political
regime. In the autumn of 1512, as Michelangelo was putting the finishing touches to the Sistine
Chapel, republican Florence fell back into the hands of the Medici. Not long afterwards, in
February 1513, the death of Julius II robbed the artist of his most important patron and hence
also of any hope of a rapid end to the “tragedy of the tomb” (Condivi). In order to salvage
the project, the deceased pope’s executors, Leonardo Grosso della Rovere and Lorenzo Pucci,
drew up a new, highly detailed agreement with the artist on 6 May 1513. A deadline of seven
years was set for the completion of the tomb and the unheard-of fee of 16,500 ducats agreed
for Michelangelo’s materials and labour. It can be deduced from letters from this period that
Michelangelo threw himself back into work on the project, complaining as usual about how
much he was suffering as a result: “I am so pressed I have no time to eat”, he wrote on 30 July
1513 to his brother Buonarroto in Florence.
A good impression of the proposed appearance of the second tomb project, of 1513, is
offered by the drawings in the Uffizi in Florence and the Kupferstichkabinett in Berlin (see
above, Ch. IV, pp. 107, 111). The figural programme of the freestanding tomb of 1505 is now
applied to a wall tomb, evidently with no significant reduction in the number of sculptures –
over forty – given by the biographers for the first project. Such a reduction was subsequently
introduced by a new contract of 8 July 1516, which envisaged a shallower wall tomb with sub-
stantially fewer sculptures. On the other hand, this contract made express mention for the first
time of a Virgin and Child, who were to crown the top of the tomb.
In the intervening period between the contracts of 1513 and 1516, Michelangelo executed
two of the Prisoners already envisaged in 1505, also known as The Rebellious Slave (p. 326) and
The Dying Slave (p. 329). During this same period, Michelangelo completed at least the large
part of the Moses (p. 337), which unlike the two Prisoners would be included in the final 1542–
1545 version of the tomb. The image that Michelangelo had already evoked in his commentary
Page 325
Moses (detail), c. 1513–1516 and 1542 (?)
(ill. p. 337)
The Rebellious Slave (The Rebellious Prisoner), c. 1513–1516
Marble, height 215 cm. Paris, Musée du Louvre
327
MICHEL ANGELO
on his marble David (see Ch. III), namely of the artist’s battle against the hard material of
marble, is lent perfect sculptural expression in the two Prisoners. The sculptures were originally
intended to represent allegorical figures of defeat and humiliation, but in their final form, and
in their liberation from the context for which they were originally conceived, they assume a
more general significance. This is evidenced, amongst other things, by the “undressing” of the
Prisoners, who, counter to antique tradition, now appear almost entirely naked (see Ch. IV).
The motif of bondage evident in the first sketches and modello drawings, in which the captives
are tied to the terminal figures, has also receded in the final sculptures. Their original bonds
are barely visible. The same is true of their helmets and breastplates. All that remain of these
attributes are reminiscences, such as the rough-hewn marble block beneath the right foot of
The Rebellious Slave. In the case of The Dying Slave, an echo of an earlier design survives in the
only blocked out, but still clearly identifiable, figure of an ape, which seems to support the
sculpture from b ehind (p. 330). 16th-century art theory associated the ape with the principle of
the imitation of nature: ars simia naturae – “art apes nature”. Just as the ape “apes” everything
around it, so art creates everything in imitation of nature. According to this idea, the ape
behind The Dying Slave might symbolize the artistic principle of mimesis and hence fine art.
Such an interpretation does not marry smoothly with Michelangelo’s views on art, however:
in contrast to the painters and sculptors of the Quattrocento, Michelangelo distanced himself
from mimesis as the dominating principle of art (see Ch. I). It is more likely that the ape
should be viewed in the context of the original iconography of the tomb, perhaps as a symbol
of the pitiable state of a captive c reature (although the possibility cannot be excluded that
Michelangelo, with his penchant for sarcasm, intended it as a joke).
Whatever the case, by suppressing the attributes that had accompanied the sculptures
in the earlier design stages, Michelangelo emancipates his Prisoners almost completely from
the triumphal iconography of their original context and secures them greater freedom of
interpretation. Released from their context, the Prisoners are no longer the triumphal gestures
of an over-ambitious pope, but the expression of the creative power of an individual in a
position to free himself from the strictures of a paid commission. The powerful and at the
same time softly modelled corporeality of the sculptures also plays a role: their nakedness no
longer radiates an antique ideality but rather a realistic fleshiness that is in turn contradicted
by the hardness of the stone. The palely shimmering marble, hard and yet at the same time
seemingly soft like wax, thereby conveys an unreal physicality that recalls Michelangelo’s
ambivalent relationship to the body. On the one hand, he associated the indulgence of car-
nal desires with the sapping of strength and freshness (see Ch. I), while on the other he was
attracted all his life by the eroticism of the naked male body. This attraction reveals itself even
in his statuary for a papal tomb.
The Dying Slave (The Dying P risoner), c. 1513–1516

Marble, height 229 cm. Paris, Musée du Louvre
328
THE SCULPTOR
While the Prisoners, in their captive state, are the expression of a passive nature, the Moses
(p. 337), executed during the same period, embodies an unbending will to act. The restlessly
worked parts of the sculpture, such as the beard, robes, hair and face, radiate a pronounced
sense of activity quite different from the Prisoners. The powerful upper arms, the right hand
fingering the flowing beard, the turn of Moses’ head and his furrowed brow are obvious signs of
determination. The Moses, together with the seated St Paul originally planned as his pendant,
was undoubtedly intended to embody precisely those qualities of dynamic leadership that Julius
II claimed for himself. The contrast between an active and triumphal principle in the figure
of the Moses on the one hand, and the rather more passive surrender of the Prisoners on the
other, would also be taken up by the personifications of the Active Life (Leah) (p. 552) and the
Contemplative Life (Rachel) (p. 551), allegorical figures that already featured in the early designs
for the tomb but who were executed only as part of the final project of 1542–1545 (see Ch. X).
Michelangelo’s work on the sculptures of the Julius Tomb was delayed not only by political
events, but also by other commissions that the artist need not have taken on. In addition to
the façade of S. Lorenzo (see Ch. VI), one such was the roughly life-size sculpture of The Risen
Christ (p. 345), commissioned by Metello Vari, Bernardo Cencio and Mario Scappucci in June
1514. The contract specifically talks of a naked figure and allows the artist the relatively gener-
ous deadline of four years within which to deliver the final statue. The patrons were evidently
aware that they were dealing with a very busy man.
Work on the figure began in 1514, but was interrupted in 1516 when a dark vein was dis-
covered during the carving of the face, and also because Michelangelo returned to Florence.
A fresh piece of marble had to be ordered, but due to transportation problems Michelangelo
made a start on the new block only in the years 1519 to 1520. In 1521 the finished second version
of the statue was taken from Michelangelo’s Florentine workshop to Rome and at Christmas
that same year installed in a specially built tabernacle to the left of the entrance to the choir in
S. Maria sopra Minerva. The sculpture’s problems were not yet over, however. Michelangelo
instructed one of his assistants, the otherwise capable and reliable Pietro Urbano, to rework a
few parts of the figure. Urbano made a bad job of it, as Sebastiano del Piombo (c. 1485–1547) in
Rome wrote to Michelangelo in Florence in a letter of 6 September 1521. Sebastiano describes
the damage inflicted by Urbano (which subsequently had to be repaired by Federigo Frizzi) as
follows: “I expect you are weary of hearing fresh tales about your Pietro Urbano […], but my
affection for you compels me to inform you of some of his fine behaviour […] He has spoiled
the marble wherever he touched it. In particular, he shortened the right foot and cut the toes
off; the hands too, especially the right hand, which holds the Cross, have been mutilated in
the fingers. Frizzi says the hands seem to have been worked by a biscuit-maker, not wrought
in marble, but kneaded by someone used to dough […] I certainly believe that he [Pietro
Monkey, detail of The Dying Slave (ill. p. 329)
331
THE SCULPTOR
It is one of the secrets of his art that has been admired ever since, that,
however much he lets the bodies of his figures twist and turn in violent
movement, their outline always remains firm,
simple and restful. The reason for this is that, from the very beginning,
Michelangelo always tried to conceive his figures as lying hidden in a
block of marble on which he was working: the task he set himself as a
sculptor was merely to remove the stone which covered them.
ERNST GOMBRICH
The Rebellious Slave (The Rebellious Prisoner), and

The Dying Slave (The Dying Prisoner), c. 1513–1516
333
MICHEL ANGELO THE SCULPTOR
Urbano] will come to a bad end. He gambles, wants all the women of the town, struts like a
Ganymede in velvet shoes through Rome, and flings his cash about.”
Sebastiano’s description is undoubtedly a little exaggerated, both with regard to Urbano’s
sexual freestyle and in terms of the damage he inflicted on The Risen Christ. But Sebastiano’s
tone conveys a good impression of the mockery and sarcasm that characterized not only the
letters of Michelangelo, but sometimes those of his correspondents, too. Whatever the case,
the three men who had commissioned the sculpture, and in particular Metello Vari, who had
been exerting pressure on the artist to finish it for years, were satisfied.
Michelangelo created The Risen Christ for the tomb of Marta Porcari, who had died in
1512. The figure was to adorn the altar of her tomb in the nave of S. Maria sopra Minerva. In
the end, however, it was decided to install the figure in its more prominent position near the
choir. This decision may have been politically motivated, but it is also conceivable that the
extraordinary aesthetic quality of the sculpture prompted the change in location. This aesthetic
quality was also recognized by Sebastiano del Piombo, who in the same letter of 6 September
1521 wrote of the Cristo sopra Minerva that “the knees of this statue are worth more than all
Rome together”.
Michelangelo’s sculpture has undergone several modifications over the course of the cen-
turies. Thus the Saviour’s nakedness was concealed behind a bronze loincloth from 1588 at the
latest, although this did not prevent a monk from breaking off Christ’s genitals in the 17th
century. A metal shoe was also fashioned to cover the right foot, in order to protect it from the
kisses of female worshippers. Michelangelo’s Risen Christ – like a number of other sculptures in
the Eternal City – played an important role for the traditionally superstitious Romans. While
young men believed they could increase their virility by touching the testicles of the horse in
the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius on the Capitol, young women believed that kissing
The Risen Christ’s right foot would help them find a partner. Pregnant woman would visit
Jacopo Sansovino’s Madonna del Parto in S. Agostino in order to pray for a straightforward
delivery. In 16th-century Rome, in other words, sculpture was part of everyday culture to a
degree that is almost impossible to imagine today.
As he had already done in his Rome Pietà (p. 59), Michelangelo once again departs in
The Risen Christ from the conventions of tomb sculpture. Thus his Christ appears with the
instruments of the Passion, the rope, sponge and reed, recalling the medieval tradition of the
Christ as a Man of Sorrows. At the same time, however, he grasps in both hands a compara-
tively solid cross, which can be interpreted not only as an instrument of the Passion but also as
a triumphal cross. Michelangelo has thus portrayed a triumphant and hence Risen Christ; it
is as such, moreover, that the statue is described in the acknowledgement of receipt belatedly
issued by Metello Vari in June 1532.
The Rebellious Slave (The R

ebellious Prisoner), and
The Dying Slave (The Dying P risoner), c. 1513–1516
334 335
MICHEL ANGELO
Antiquity no doubt had heroes of similarly enormous strength

and stormy temperament, but as symbols of momentous physical
deeds or of uprising against the gods above and their rule. In this
case it is the deliverer of eternal commandments to the people,
the appointedof the Almighty himself, who in fulfilment of this
mission arouses and unleashes in himself and others a wild upsurge
and destructive violence.
CARL JUSTI
Moses, c. 1513–1516 and 1542 (?)

Marble, height 235 cm. Rome, S. Pietro in Vincoli
336
THE SCULPTOR
As compositional types, both the Man of Sorrows and the Triumphant Christ suit the
funerary context for which the sculpture was originally conceived. For according to Christian
thinking, without Christ’s suffering and death there would be no hope of Resurrection. Not
least in order to underline this aspect, Michelangelo lent his figure attributes that, in their
number and clarity, are unusual within his œuvre. The Risen Christ nevertheless possesses a
semantic ambivalence typical of Michelangelo, since by monumentalizing a male nude –
particularly one lacking the stigmata of Christ – its corporeality approaches an antique ideal.
This aestheticism, strikingly unexpected in a sacred work of art, is reflected in the supersti-
tious worship of the statue by young Roman women. They may thereby have been encour-
aged by the fact that The Risen Christ was never erected above the tomb for which it was
intended, but was immediately installed in a much more prominent position within S. Maria
sopra Minerva. Such changes in final location were typical of Michelangelo’s sculptures.
Metello Vari was one of Michelangelo’s most patient patrons. Although he grew angry
over the artist’s slow progress on The Risen Christ, he did not let himself be d iscouraged by
the delays. Despite the problems with the first marble block, Michelangelo completed this
comparatively small commission, for which his fee was only 200 gold ducats, relatively fast,
perhaps because he was more inclined to honour his professional obligations towards smaller
customers than towards clerics and princes craving only recognition. Indicative of this is a
letter from the artist to Lionardo Sellaio in Rome, written in late December 1518: “I have
also been pressed by Master Metello Vari regarding his statue [the Christ for S. Maria sopra
Minerva in Rome], which is also in Pisa and will arrive on one of the first barges. I have never
replied to him and will also not write to you again until I have started work; for I am dying of
embarrassment and feel like a swindler against my own wishes.”
But even before Michelangelo could resume work on the second version of The Risen
Christ in December 1519, the summer of that same year saw the conception of another large
project whose contract scope was to surpass anything that had gone before: the Medici Chapel
(New Sacristy) and the Laurentian Library in Florence. Writing a few years after the event, the
priest of S. Lorenzo, Giovan Battista Figiovanni, described the origins of these two projects.
Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici, the later Pope Clement VII, spoke to the artist during this period
and announced his intention of spending, in addition to the budget for the façade of the
church itself, another 50,000 ducats on the library and sacristy of the S. Lorenzo complex. He
was particularly anxious to build a new burial chapel for his Medici forebears and relatives.
Since its rebuilding by Filippo Brunelleschi, the church of S. Lorenzo, together with
its Old Sacristy adjacent to the south transept, had served as the principal burial place of
the Medici family. The founder of the Medici line, Giovanni di Bicci (d. 1428) and his wife
Piccarda Bueri were interred in the Old Sacristy, and Cosimo il Vecchio de’ Medici (d. 1464)
Moses (detail), c. 1513–1516 and 1542 (?)
339
MICHEL ANGELO
Faced with Michelangelo’s bodies,

it never even occurs to one that they might
move in any other way, and vice versa:
the emotional process, the principle stated
by the movement as it were, can have
no other subject than these same bodies.
GEORG SIMMEL
Victory, c. 1520–1525 or 1532–1534 (?)

Marble, height 261 cm. Florence, Palazzo Vecchio
340
THE SCULPTOR
in the crypt of S. Lorenzo. The latter’s sons, Piero de’ Medici (d. 1469) and Giovanni de’
Medici (d. 1463), were also buried in the Old Sacristy, as were Giuliano de’ Medici (d. 1478)
and his brother Lorenzo de’ Medici, il Magnifico (d. 1492). In 1559, however, at the instigation
of Cosimo I de’ Medici, these two last members of the family were re-interred in the New
Sacristy.
Apart from a few interruptions, work on the family chapel for the Medici in S. Lorenzo
would keep Michelangelo busy right up to his final move to Rome in 1534. These fourteen
years marked by far his most productive phase as a sculptor. B etween 1520 and 1534 he created
a total of thirteen marble figures, almost all of them over-life-size, as well as numerous wax
and clay models, of which only very few survive. These large marble sculptures include the
Medici Madonna, the two seated figures of the Medici dukes and the four allegories of the
Times of Day for the New Sacristy; the Victory (p. 341) and the four so-called Boboli Slaves for
the Julius Tomb; and the Apollo for Baccio Valori.
The reasons for Michelangelo’s productivity during these fourteen years lie in his
extraordinarily privileged position as artist. With Leo X (b. 1475) in Rome and Cardinal
Giulio de’ Medici (b. 1478) in Florence (and from 1523 as Pope Clement VII in Rome), the
artistic tempo was set by the very people whom Michelangelo had known since his youth
and in whose Medicean garden of S. Marco in Florence he had received his first training as
a sculptor. In terms of age, they belonged to e xactly the same generation as Michelangelo.
All of this contributed to the fact that even serious crises, such as the shelving of the façade
project for S. Lorenzo and Michelangelo’s active collaboration with the anti-Medici Flor-
entine Republic of 1527–1530, did not lead to a definitive split between the artist and his
high-ranking employers.
The decision to build a new Medici burial chapel in S. Lorenzo as a pendant to the Old
Sacristy was prompted by the premature deaths of two members of the family of whom much
had been expected. Giuliano de’ Medici, who was the son of Lorenzo il Magnifico and brother
of Leo X, and who had been made Duke of Nemours by the French king in 1514, died in 1516.
Giuliano’s death was followed just three years later by that of Lorenzo de’ Medici, designated
Duke of Urbino, son of Piero de’ Medici and nephew of Leo X. With the deaths of the two
Medici dukes, the continuation of the elder branch of the family in a direct male and legiti-
mate (!) succession from Cosimo il Vecchio was placed seriously in doubt: the two remaining
male members of the line, Pope Leo X and Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici, were both men of the
cloth and were not allowed – officially, at least – to sire offspring, while Alessandro de’ Medici
was a bastard.
The Medici burial chapel in the New Sacristy of S. Lorenzo thus marked the provisional
climax of a dynasty that could look back over an unparalleled ascent lasting a century. This
Victory, (detail), c. 1520–1525 or 1532–1534 (?)
343
MICHEL ANGELO
The figure of Christ by M. Angelo in the Minerva, embracing

his cross and instruments of suffering,
is sublimely conceived, powerfully arranged;
but neither his features nor expression are those of Christ.
HENRY FUSELI
The Risen Christ (Il Cristo sopra M inerva), 1519–1521

Marble, height 205 cm, (excluding Cross). Rome, S. Maria sopra Minerva
344
MICHEL ANGELO
ascent found expression in the ducal titles borne by Giuliano and Lorenzo, but also – and
above all – in the papal rank attained by Giovanni de’ Medici as Leo X and Giulio de’ Medici
as Clement VII. Not least for this reason did the latter express the wish to be buried with Leo X
in the New Sacristy.
The formal model for the Medici Chapel and its decoration was the Old Sacristy. This
building, with its conventional iconography, upheld the memoria of the deceased family mem-
bers and secured the salvation of their souls. Giovanni di Bicci, as the founder of the Medici
dynasty, is buried beneath the Sacristy table in the centre of the room, and the Sacristy as a
whole is dedicated to St John the Evangelist, as reflected in the stucco reliefs in the pendentive
zone, showing episodes from the life of the saint. This iconographical reference to Giovanni
(John) di Bicci and his family is complemented by the inclusion of SS Cosmas and Damian,
the patron saints of the Medici, in a stucco relief above an inner door.
Construction of the New Sacristy started in November 1519 with the demolition of two
houses adjacent to the north side of S. Lorenzo. The following year, Michelangelo and his
patron Giulio de’ Medici deliberated over the choice between a freestanding tomb in the centre
of the room and tombs along the walls. On the basis of liturgical considerations, the decision
was quickly reached to place the tombs along three walls (pp. 350/351). Thus the south wall
opposite the altar contains the double tomb of the Magnifici, Lorenzo and Giuliano de’ Medici,
who at that point were still interred in the Old Sacristy. The east and west walls house the sepa-
rate tombs of the two recently deceased Medici dukes, also known as the Captains (Capitani):
on the east wall (on the right, as viewed from the entrance) Giuliano, Duke of Nemours, and
opposite him Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino. The two tombs were to form part of a complex sculp-
tural programme that is known from several drawings from Michelangelo’s circle. The present
constellation of completed figures offers an incomplete reflection of the original programme.
The Magnifici tomb (pp. 350/351, against the rear wall) clearly falls into an earlier t radition.
Its largely unfinished arrangement consists of a Madonna and Child, also known as the Med-
ici Madonna, executed by Michelangelo himself, flanked by St Cosmas and St Damian, the
patron saints of the Medici family. St Damian was carved by Raffaello da Montelupo after a
model by Michelangelo and was completed at the latest by 1534, while Giovanni Angiolo da
Montorsoli executed the St Cosmas largely independently between 1533 and 1537. All the other
sculptures in the Medici Chapel are the work of Michelangelo himself: on the east wall, the
seated figure of Giuliano de’ Medici (p. 354) and beneath him the allegories of Night (pp. 357,
358) and Day, and on the west wall Lorenzo de’ Medici (p. 355) with the allegories of Dusk
(p. 370) and Dawn (p. 369). Of the four allegories, only Night is clearly identified by attrib-
utes, namely by an owl beneath her left knee (p. 358) and a diadem with stars and a crescent
Moon. Michelangelo also placed a mask below her left shoulder.
inerva), (detail), 1519–1521

The Risen Christ (Il Cristo sopra M
346
the surviving preliminary drawings that Michelangelo was very much concerned with fusing
architecture and sculpture into a single unity. Thus the formal language of the architectural
framework takes account of the three-dimensional nature of sculpture. The finished monu-
ments deploy architectural elements that advance, recede and turn right-angled corners,
and which together with consoles and ornamentation lend the wall surface greater depth.
The contrasts between vertical and horizontal elements and the effects of light and shade
produced by the architectural details similarly serve to infuse the walls with a dynamic sense
of depth.
The arrangement of the sculptures on the two ducal tombs goes back to Michelangelo
himself. But while the seated figures of dukes Giuliano and Lorenzo were installed in 1534,
shortly before the artist departed for Rome for good, the four allegories were mounted on the
convex tops of the tombs only in 1546. The programme is nevertheless incomplete. Original
sketches by Michelangelo (pp. 375, 376) and modello drawings (p. 372) based on lost designs,
together with scattered written sources, point to the fact that further sculptures were also
intended for the wall tombs. Two river gods were to lie beneath each of the two sarcophagi,
and further allegories – possibly including Heaven and Earth – were to appear in the niches
on either side of the seated dukes. In the upper register, trophies, herms and grieving youths
with bowed heads were to appear above the main cornice. In contrast to the figures finally
executed, the allegories were originally intended to be more easily recognizable: in an anony-
mous modello drawing housed in Paris, the reclining figure of Day (left) is clearly identified
Silvio Cosini (after Michelangelo)

Trophies with a worm and a pruned bough, c. 1521–1532
Florence, S. Lorenzo, entrance to the New Sacristy
The Virgin on top of the Magnifici tomb is to be understood in her intercessionary role
as a medium of divine grace, and is supported in this function by SS Cosmas and Damian.
The overall arrangement – the Virgin and Child in the company of saints – corresponds to the Schematic ground plan of the New Sacristy
(not executed sculptures in brackets)
compositional format of the sacra conversazione, which Michelangelo has here modified into a
sculptural group. This adaptation of a traditional altarpiece type particularly favoured by the Pages 350/351
S. Lorenzo, New Sacristy, view from the altar
Medici in Florence in the 15th century is more apparent in the present arrangement than in
into the chapel
Michelangelo’s designs (pp. 375, 376). There, the chapel wall with its detailed articulation is
Pages 352/353
granted the same importance as the sculptures it houses.
S. Lorenzo, New Sacristy,
The individual tombs of the dukes also remained unfinished, but in both cases the com- view of the altar and the tomb of Lorenzo
plex articulation of the walls against which they stand is complete. It is clear even from de’ Medici
348 349
MICHEL ANGELO
by four rays of light from the Sun god Sol above her head, while the allegory of Night possibly
carries the crescent of the mood god Luna as her attribute. The expressions of grief worn
by the grieving boys and the two figures in the lateral niches can also be made out without
difficulty (p. 372).
Similarly unambiguous are the trophies – executed by Silvio Cosini on Michelangelo’s
behalf – intended for the ducal tombs but today located at the entrance to the New Sacristy
(p. 348). They recall antique funerary art, in which they signify triumph over death. Here,
however, the symbolism of the trophies may go even further, since emerging from their breast-
plates are, in one case, a bough with its shoots pruned and, in the other, a worm. In a similar
fashion to the Julius Tomb (see Ch. IV), the trophies in the New Sacristy were thus intended
to refer to the triumphal iconography of Ancient Rome. The worm appearing from the breast-
plate of a trophy, instead of from a body, also recalls the transience of earthly life; the image of
the corpse eaten by worms was familiar from the iconography of the Dance of Death. In con-
trast, the pruned branch of the second trophy points to the iconography of regeneration that
was very popular in Michelangelo’s day. The pruned bough thus represented the precondition
for the sprouting of new life. In the original context of a burial chapel, one trophy might thus
have referred to the transience of life and the other to its continuation, here not the continua-
tion of the life of an individual but rather of the family.
The dukes themselves are depicted in magnificent, antique-style armour in a reference to
their military rank as captain-generals of the Church and their status as honorary citizens of
Rome. The commander’s staff in Giuliano’s right hand is also part of the same military iconog-
raphy. This martial characterization of the two dukes stands in contradiction to their rather
paltry military services. But Michelangelo was in any case more concerned with achieving an
idealized representation conveying a general symbolism, as implied by a remark that he made
in a letter to Niccolò Martelli of 28 July 1544: the seated figures in the New Sacristy did not
need to capture a true likeness of Giuliano and Lorenzo de’ Medici, because in a thousand
years no one would know what the two men had looked like anyway.
The ideal nature of Michelangelo’s vision for the Medici Chapel sculptures and their
arrangement is illustrated by their proximity to other antique forerunners. These include
Night (Notte) (detail), 1525–1531

Page 354
The tomb of Giuliano de’ Medici
with the allegories of Night (Notte) and Day (Giorno), 1525–1534
Florence, S. Lorenzo, New Sacristy
Page 355
The tomb of Lorenzo de’ Medici
with the allegories of Dusk (Crepuscolo) and Dawn (Aurora), 1525–1531
Florence, S. Lorenzo, New Sacristy
356
THE SCULPTOR
individual figures, such as the Leda on a now lost relief whose pose Michelangelo took up in
his Night. The allegories in general display a formal relationship, too, with antique river gods
and naiads, numerous examples of which survived in Rome. The magnificent armour worn
by the two dukes, and the crossed position of Lorenzo’s lower legs, were also familiar from
imperial Roman iconography, while elements of the architectural décor (including garlands,
dolphins, shells and ram’s heads) can also be found in antique tomb art. At the same time, the
sculptural representation of allegories of the Times of Day falls into an antique tradition that
in this context even includes river gods. Amongst the best-known examples of such antique
allegories of Time are two circular reliefs on the narrow faces of the Arch of Constantine. On
one side, the Sun god Sol is driving his chariot towards a personification of the morning star,
while on the other side Luna rides towards a personification of the evening star. River gods
appear beneath both these allegories of Time.
Another source of inspiration for Michelangelo’s allegorical depiction of Time may be
seen in the relief on the lid of a sarcophagus from S. Lorenzo fuori le Mura in Rome. Once
again Sol on the left rises above a river god, probably Oceanus, while Luna descends on the
other side. Two Dioscuri in the centre possibly symbolize the morning and evening star. The
relief adorns the lid of a tomb and thus belongs within a funerary context. A further motive
for the inclusion of river gods in the original figural programme for the New Sacristy may also
have been their appearance in the decoration of the Sala di Costantino in the Vatican at about
this same time. Within the iconography of this decoration, decided by Leo X and Clement
VII, river gods symbolize both the Medici’s origins in Florence (Fluentia) on the banks of the
Arno, and their own Medici pontificates from 1513 to 1521 (Leo X) and 1523 to 1534 (Clement
VII) in Rome on the River Tiber. One of Michelangelo’s contemporaries, Gandolfo Porrini,
indeed interpreted the river gods intended for the Medici Chapel as the Arno and the Tiber,
and thus as symbolic references to the Medici claim to hegemony over the cities associated
with these rivers.
Without the inclusion of politically charged river gods, the iconography of the Med-
ici Chapel becomes much simpler. The idealized portraits of the deceased Medici dukes are
enthroned in their elevated positions above the course of Time, illustrated by the allegories of
Dawn and Dusk, Day and Night. As in the princely apotheoses of the Baroque era many dec-
ades later, they are removed from earthly time. This profane apotheosis inspired by antiquity is
paralleled on various levels by the thought of Resurrection that is automatically associated with
a Christian burial chapel, and which also raises the individuals entombed within it beyond
earthly time. For on the one hand the Medici Chapel is dedicated to the Resurrection of
Christ, and on the other the concept of resurrection is taken up by the extraordinary verticality
of its architecture (see Ch. VI). The fusion of pagan and Christian apotheosis is also taken up
Night (Notte) (detail), 1525–1531
359
MICHEL ANGELO
And that he conceives no filthy thoughts can also be recognized

from the fact that he has loved not only human beauty but
universally every beautiful thing, (...) looking at them
all with marvellous feeling and admiration and
so selecting what is beautiful from nature, as bees gather
honey from the flowers, to make use of it later in their works.
— ASCANIO CONDIVI
Pages 361 and 362/363

Giuliano de’ Medici (details), c. 1526–1534
360
MICHEL ANGELO
by the two candelabra on the altar, whose ornamentation includes a pelican and a phoenix as
symbols of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and Resurrection. The pelican, which feeds its young
with its own blood and was therefore considered a symbol of caritas, also establishes a link with
the Madonna lactans (i.e. the Medici Madonna) on the other side of the Chapel, who may also
be understood as an expression of Christian charity.
A number of contemporary descriptions and interpretations of the New Sacristy have
survived, including some short observations on his sculptures by Michelangelo himself. As in
the case with his lines on the David and the frescoing of the Sistine c eiling, the artist thereby
offers us his own thoughts on his work, something unusual for his day. A famous sketch today
housed in the British Museum (p. 376) for the Magnifici double tomb bears the following
words:
La fama tiene gli epitaffi a giacere;

non va né inanzi né indietro,
perché son morti, e el loro operare è fermo.
A possible translation might be:

“Fame makes the tomb figures lie here,
It goes neither forward nor backward,
For they are dead and their activity is stopped.”
The meaning of the first line in particular remains a matter of contention; it is uncertain
whether the word epitaffi refers to a planned tablet bearing an epitaph, or possibly to the tombs
themselves. Whatever the case, in the last two lines Michelangelo expresses the idea that the
Magnifici buried within the tomb have finished their work on Earth.
Another fragment of text written on a drawing in the Casa Buonarroti refers to the tomb
of Duke Giuliano de’ Medici and its allegories:
“El Dì e la Notte parlano, e dicono:

Noi abbiàno col nostro veloce corso condotto alla morte el duca Giuliano;
è ben giusto che e’ ne facci vendetta come fa.
E la vendetta è questa:
Che avendo noi morto lui,
lui così morto ha tolto la luce a noi e cogli occhi chiusi ha serrato e nostri, che non risplendon
più sopra la terra. Che arrebbe di noi dunche fatto, mentre vivea?”
Lorenzo de’ Medici (detail), c. 1525
364
THE SCULPTOR
“Night and Day speak, and they say:

We have with our swift course led Duke Giuliano to his death, and it is only just that he has
his revenge for it, as he does.
And the revenge is this:
that we, having brought about his death,
he, thus dead, has taken the light from us, and with closed eyes, has sealed our own, which no
longer shine upon the Earth. What would he have done with us then while he lived?”
Here Michelangelo’s lines do not dwell on the inevitability of death, but lead into flattery
of the patron: the passage of time symbolized by the two allegories may have taken Duke
Giuliano’s life, but this loss ultimately rebounds upon Day and Night, whose eyes are now also
closed.
A similarly flattering panegyric was offered by Michelangelo’s friend Benedetto Varchi in
his Due lezzioni of 1549. Describing the four allegories in the Medici Chapel, the theoretician
effuses: “Who could ever find adequate words not just to praise but equally to wonder at the
genius and judgement of this man, who, when he came to make the tombs for the Duke of
Nemours and Duke Lorenzo de’ Medici, gave expression to his superior intellect in four blocks
of marble just like Dante in his verse? For since (I believe) he wished to express that a fitting
tomb for each one of the two was not just a single hemisphere but the whole world, he gave
one Night and Day and the other Dawn and Dusk, so that these take [the Dukes] into their
midst and cover them just as they do the Earth […].”
Varchi thus sees the ducal tombs as integrated within a cosmic context. One hemisphere
alone, i.e. half the world, was insufficient; the dukes’ final resting place deserved to be nothing
less than the whole world, symbolized by the four Times of Day.
Condivi interprets the allegories of Day and Night very specifically as all-consuming Time.
In order to make their meaning clearer, he informs us that Michelangelo provided Night with a
little owl as an attribute and planned to give Day a mouse, “since this little creature is continu-
ally gnawing and consuming, just as time is continually devouring everything”. Michelangelo
nevertheless remained true to himself even here, insofar as he reduced to a minimum the clear
or supposedly clear attributes a ccompanying his sculptures: he never made the mouse.
Vasari, finally, repeats in different words Varchi’s cosmic interpretation of the tomb, but
then tries to extrapolate a further level of meaning from the aesthetic form of the individual
figures: “But what shall I say of the Dawn, a nude woman who is such as to arouse melan-
choly in one’s soul and throw sculpture into confusion [smarrire]? In her attitude may be
seen the anxiety with which, drowsy with sleep, she rises up from her downy bed; for on
awakening she has found the eyes of the great duke closed in death, and her eternal beauty
Lorenzo de’ Medici (detail), c. 1525
367
MICHEL ANGELO
The women of Michelangelo are the sex.

Eve emerging from the side of Adam;
Eve reclining under the Tree of Knowledge,
in the Capella Sistina; the figures of Night
and Dawn on the tombs of the Medici,
are pure generic forms, little distinguished by character,
and more expressive by action than by emotion of features.
HENRY FUSELI
Dawn (Aurora) (detail), 1524–1527
368
THE SCULPTOR
is contorted with bitter sorrow as she weeps in token of her profound grief. And what can I
say of Night, a statue not only rare but unique? Who has ever seen a work of sculpture of any
period, ancient or modern, to compare with this? For in her may be seen not only the still-
ness of one who is sleeping but also the grief and melancholy of one who has lost something
great and noble. And she may well represent the Night that covers in darkness all those who
for some time thought, I will not say to surpass, but even to equal Michelangelo in sculpture
and design.”
Vasari’s observations are in many respects more accurate than his bombastic language
might lead us to expect. Thus he recognizes the entirely new, psychological character of the
allegories and their multiple layers of meaning. On the one hand, they convey to the viewer,
even without the aid of symbols, the different states of sleeping and waking, of falling asleep
and waking up. On the other hand, they point, in the details of their design, both to their
grief at the loss of the dukes and to the cosmic dimension of the chapel already mentioned
by Varchi. As earlier in his interpretation of the Sistine ceiling, moreover, Vasari naturally sees
Michelangelo’s art here, too, as the unsurpassed artistic paradigm of his age.
Towards the end of his description of the Medici Chapel, Vasari mentions that various
erudite contemporaries have composed verses in honour of its sculptures. He proceeds to cite
the first quatrain of a sonnet today attributed to Giovanni di Carlo Strozzi:
“The Night that you see sleeping

In such loveliness, was by an angel carved
In this rock; and by her sleeping she has life;
Wake her, if you disbelieve, and she will speak to you.”
Speaking in the person of Night, Michelangelo replied to this as follows:
“I prize my sleep, and more my being stone,

As long as hurt and shamefulness endure.
I call it lucky not to see or hear;
So do not wake me, keep your voice down!”
Vasari and in particular Strozzi here take up a literary topos already thoroughly overworked by
the mid-1550s, namely that of the speaking sculpture. It is easy to imagine that Michelangelo
was fed up with hearing it. There was nothing original about Strozzi’s comparison of Michel-
angelo with an angel, either, since the artist had already described himself as such decades
earlier, in the inscription on his Rome Pietà (see Ch. II). Michelangelo’s reply, penned in 1545,
Dusk (Crepuscolo) (detail), 1524–1531
371
is therefore sarcastic: he could not stand hearing any more flattery; it would be better to let
the statue sleep in peace!
One of the few attributes accompanying the sculptures in the Medici Chapel is the mask
beneath Night. It may symbolize the dream state and its accompanying hallucinations, or it
may be a reference by Michelangelo to himself and to his origins as a sculptor in the Medici
household (see Ch. I). His biographers indeed record that it was in copying the antique mask
of a faun in the S. Marco garden that the artist first demonstrated his extraordinary talent as
a sculptor, and that this talent was spotted by none less than Lorenzo il Magnifico. It is likely
that Night’s mask, which can also be found in a number of variations in the architectural décor
of the chapel, refers back to this incident.
A place of worship dedicated to the Resurrection of Christ, the New Sacristy is also a
monument to the dynastic ambitions of the Medici family – and a chapel of art. Even in the
16th century, little notice was taken of the laus perennis, the perpetual prayers that were recited
there for the salvation of the Medici souls. Vasari was not the only visitor to realize that in
the reclining figures of Dawn, Dusk, Day and Night a new, psychologically profound form of
allegorization had been born. From this the Medici Chapel derives an artistic value, in the
Hegelian sense, that would ultimately outshine its religious value. Because of this artistic value,
we see in the chapel the artist rather than the patron – a view that has a certain justification,
since Michelangelo erased all contemporary references from his sculptural programme, avoided
Anonymous
Copy after Michelangelo’s modello drawing of the Giuliano tomb, after 1521
Black chalk and wash, 321 x 205 mm. Paris, Musée du Louvre, no. 838
Reconstruction of the New Sacristy/Medici Chapel:
Anonymous east wall with the tomb of Giuliano, west wall with the tomb of Lorenzo, south wall with the
Copy of the modello drawing of the Magnifici tomb, after 1521 reconstructed tombs of the Magnifici (after Popp), 1922
Pen over black chalk, wash, 380 x 240 mm. Paris, Musée du Louvre, no. 837
372 373
the usual representation of virtues and deeds, and elevated the decoration of the chapel with
its allegories to a general plane.
Creating an exaggeratedly ostentatious showcase for his Medici patrons would possibly not
have been to Michelangelo’s taste. How scathing he could be of the ambitious projects of his
high-ranking clients emerges from his letter of December 1525 to Giovan Francesco Fattucci in
Rome, in which he makes fun of the Medici’s proposals to erect a colossal statue forty braccia
(about 23 metres/80’!) high near S. Lorenzo: “But on the other corner, where the barber shop
is, it [the colossus] would turn out much better in my opinion, because it has the square in
front and wouldn’t disturb the street so much. And since maybe removing the aforesaid shop
will not be tolerated, for the sake of the income, I thought the aforesaid figure might be made
seated, and the seat might be made high enough so the barber shop would go underneath, by
making the aforesaid work hollow inside (…) and the rent would not be lost. And also, since
the aforesaid shop ought to have a way to expel the smoke, as it does now, I feel the aforesaid
statue should have a horn of plenty in its hand, hollow inside, which would serve it for a chim-
ney. Then, since I would have the head of the figure hollow inside like the other members, I
think some use ought to be got out of that too, since there is a shopkeeper here on the square,
a great friend of mine, who has told me in secret that he would make a fine dovecote inside.
Then, too, another notion occurs to me that would be much better, but the figure would have
to be made much bigger, and it could be done, since a tower is made up of pieces, and this
is that the head could serve as a bell tower for S. Lorenzo, which badly needs one, and if the
bells were stowed inside and the sound came out of the mouth, the aforesaid colossus would
seem to be crying mercy, and especially on feast days when the ringing is more frequent and
with bigger bells.”
The artist’s sarcasm would soon wear off, for the following years would once again bring
a succession of dramatic events. Rome was sacked by the imperial troops of the Holy Roman
Emperor Charles V at the start of May 1527, and at the end of that same month the Medici
were once again expelled from Florence, which returned to being a republic for the next three
years. Michelangelo threw himself eagerly into planning the city’s fortifications and in this con-
nection was even appointed to senior public posts (see Ch. VI). As a Guelph, he now deployed
his talents entirely in the service of a political cause and his own convictions; he was no longer
the big earner who knew how to extract ever greater sums of money from the purses of his
powerful patrons. But neither the Florentine Republic nor Michelangelo’s commitment to its
perpetuation were lasting. At the end of September 1529, he fled Florence for two months, on
the one hand worried by dangerous internal conflicts within Florentine politics, and on the
other aware of the external threat of invasion by supporters of the Medici, who indeed retook
Study of the Duke’s tomb, c. 1520/21

Black chalk, 297 x 210 mm. London, British Museum, 1859–5-14–823r
374 375
the city in August 1530. Michelangelo, too, had to go briefly into hiding to escape the brutal
political recriminations that followed the Medici’s return. Figiovanni even claimed that Baccio
(Bartolomeo) Valori, the new governor of Florence, wanted to have Michelangelo killed. It
was not long, however, before the artist r eceived signals that his republican involvement over
the past three years would be forgiven. Michelangelo nevertheless felt himself obliged, at least
according to Vasari, to execute the sculpture of an Apollo for Baccio Valori in order to win his
goodwill. He also resumed work with renewed zeal on the figures for the Medici Chapel, to
which he had been able to devote himself only sporadically during the republican intermezzo.
By the time of his departure for Rome, he had nevertheless finished most of the figures to the
extent that it was possible to start thinking about their installation. But his enthusiasm to fin-
ish the Medici Chapel had its price. As Giovan Battista Mini, a close friend of the artist, wrote
to Baccio Valori in a letter of 29 September 1531, Michelangelo was working to the point of
complete exhaustion and his friends were afraid for his life. Out of consideration for his health,
Michelangelo should on no a ccount work on the sculptures for the chapel over the winter and
should ideally be r eleased from his obligations relating to the Julius Tomb. At this point in
time it was already clear to everyone involved, including the Pope, that the artist had created
something extraordinary: the allegories in particular were a cosa di grande maraviglia, a thing
of great wonder. It was impossible to imagine anything better.
Study for a double tomb of the Magnifici, writing, c. 1520/21

Pen, 209 x 162 mm. London, British Museum, 1859–6-25–543r
376 377
VIII.
Presentation
drawings
and
Last Judgement
1534–1541
Frank Zöllner
Whence the lingering melancholy of a creator blessed by

heaven with overwhelming powers of pictorial invention?
I think the explanation lies in an enormous and oppressive
sensuousness, one thereby constantly battling towards the
pure, the spiritual, the divine, and construing itself always as
a transcendent longing. “And often in dreams,” he says, “carry
me from the lowest / To where I hope to go, the highest point”.
This point is love, a condition that does not want to end, that
runs like a thread throughout his whole life, a love for the
image, living beauty, human charm.
THOMAS MANN
MICHEL ANGELO PRESENTATION DRAWINGS AND L AST JUDGEMENT
The early 1530s were also turbulent and dramatic years for Michelangelo. March 1531 brought
the death of his father, who was eighty-eight, and thus of the most important of his family ties
in Florence. Meanwhile, the heirs of Julius II were putting renewed pressure on the artist to
fulfil his obligations. Several trips to Rome and the intervention of Pope Clement VII proved
necessary in order to find a compromise. In a contract of 29 April 1532, Michelangelo now
pledged to produce a new model for the Julius Tomb and to execute six sculptures by his own
hand within three years. Conditions had thus once again improved for Michelangelo and from
August 1532 onwards he spent increasing amounts of time in the Eternal City. It was there, in
the autumn of 1532, that he met Tommaso de’ Cavalieri, a Roman nobleman whose beauty
captivated the artist, who was now fifty-seven years old. On 23 September 1534 Michelangelo
finally left Florence for good, in order to settle permanently in Rome.
The death of his father and his love for Tommaso de’ Cavalieri were not the only reasons
why the artist moved to the Eternal City. Other factors included the repressive regime in Flor-
ence and the upturn in the arts in Rome, where there was enormous work to be done in the
wake of the Sack of Rome by the imperial troops of Charles V in 1527. In the recovering capi-
tal of Western Christendom, Michelangelo also encountered a more stimulating intellectual
climate than in Florence.
Indicative of this difference between metropolis and provincial city was his introduction
to Vittoria Colonna, Marchioness of Pescara. Michelangelo had already produced the design
for a Noli me tangere for the Marchioness in 1531, and in 1536 he met the widow, then forty-
six years old, in person. As witnessed by the exchange of correspondence and poems between
Michelangelo and Vittoria Colonna, the younger Marchioness was particularly important for
the subsequent intellectual development of the artist. It was she who acquainted him with
the Catholic reform movement in Italy that would shape Michelangelo’s religious thinking in
his latter years. His friendships with members of the nobility, such as Vittoria Colonna and
Tommaso de’ Cavalieri, furthermore carried considerable social prestige, since Michelangelo,
as the most important artist in Italy, was now moving in elevated social circles not just in his
dealings with high-ranki of which arose at the beginning of the 1530s. In a letter to the artist
of 5 September 1533, Cavalieri describes how three sheets undoubtedly intended for himself –
The Punishment of Tityos, The Rape of Ganymede and The Fall of Phaeton – have been received:
the Phaeton greatly pleased the Pope and Cardinal Ippolito de’ Medici and everyone in Rome
Page 379
One of the damned from the Last Judgement (detail), 1536–1541
(ill. p. 401)
The Rape of Ganymede, 1532 (?)
Black chalk, 361 x 275 mm
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Museums, Fogg Art Museum, 1955/750
380 381
382 383
wished to see these and other drawings by Michelangelo. The Cardinal also wished to have the
two motifs of the Tityos and the Ganymede cut as gems.
Michelangelo’s presentation drawings and his love poems for Tommaso de’ Cavalieri are
the testament to an astonishing relationship, one that is difficult to judge by today’s ideas and
attitudes. The impression that the young nobleman made on the ageing Michelangelo must
have been quite extraordinary. Even if the artist’s letters and sonnets are stylized in line with
the poetic conventions of the day and therefore seem somewhat exaggerated, they nevertheless
testify to an adoration that Michelangelo had never previously known. In a letter written at the
end of December 1532, he describes the youth, then aged about seventeen (his precise date of
birth is unknown), euphorically as “the light of our century and matchless in all the world”. A
letter of 28 July 1533 written by the artist in Florence to Cavalieri in Rome conveys the intensity
of his feelings: “I know for sure that I’ll forget your name the day I forget the food I live on;
indeed, I could sooner forget my food, which sadly nourishes only the body, than your name,
which nourishes body and soul […].” In an earlier letter to Cavalieri of 1 January 1533, the artist
talks of the presentation drawings that he had sent from Florence to the young man in Rome:
“[…] I would feel as if I had never been born or had died in disgrace with Heaven and Earth,
had I not come to believe from your letter that your Lordship would gladly accept some of my
works. This has caused me great astonishment but equal pleasure. And if it is true that you feel
inwardly the way you write to me openly, as regards your opinion of my works, then if one of
them happens to please you as I hope it will, it must be through my good fortune rather than
merit. I shall write no more, in case I tire you. Many things I could say remain unpenned […].”
Michelangelo, who almost never adopted a subservient tone towards high-ranking patrons
even as a young man, here prostrates himself both before Tommaso as his beloved and towards
Tommaso as his social superior. This, too, fell in line with poetic convention. At the same
time, however, Michelangelo expresses himself with an unconditional, almost childlike aban-
don that reflects the state of his emotions, which are here evidently inflamed with love for the
first time in his life. The intensity of his feelings surpassed even all the beauty that he, Michel-
angelo, could imagine or create:
“There is no other image in my fancy,

Of naked shadow or of earthly flesh,
However high my thought, such that my wish
Can arm itself with it against your beauty.
Pages 382/383
The Punishment of Tityos, 1532
Black chalk, 190 x 330 mm. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, RL12 771r
The Fall of Phaeton, 1533
384 385
For, leaving you, I find I sink so deeply,

That every power I have Love steals and strips;
In hoping to make my pain diminish,
It doubles, and comes prepared to kill me.
So it’s pointless for me to strain and fly,

And redouble my enemy beauty’s run;
What’s slower can’t escape from what is fast.
Love with his hand can cause my eyes to dry,

Assuring a reward for all my pain,
And it cannot be trash at such a cost.”
What is unusual in this case is not Michelangelo’s love itself, but the fact that his p assion
for a very much younger man spilled over into a number of ambivalent drawings. The artist
had already executed a few such drawings prior to his friendship with Cavalieri, but from
1532 onwards their intimate character increases. Just like many of his poems, they become a
direct expression of his personality. The artist identified very closely with the characters in
his presentation drawings, through whom he illustrated primarily his most intimate feelings.
Thus the majority of the sheets for Tommaso de’ Cavalieri carry more or less patently erotic
connotations, as for example The Punishment of Tityos and The Rape of Ganymede, in which
Michelangelo expresses both the torment bound up with his homoerotic desires and the pun-
ishment for such sinful cravings.
The general theme of The Punishment of Tityos (pp. 382/383) is the penalty for lust. The
Titan Tityos had attempted to rape the goddess Leto, mother of Apollo and Artemis. In pun-
ishment for his wantonness and violence, he was killed and then chained to a rock in the
Underworld, where he was condemned to have his liver – traditionally considered the seat of
passion – torn out of his body by a vulture daily for all eternity. Virgil describes this scene in
his Aeneid (VI.595–600) as follows: “Tityos too I could see, the nurseling of Earth, mother of
all, his body sprawling over nine whole acres while a huge vulture with hooked beak cropped
his immortal liver and the flesh that was such a rich supplier of punishment. Deep in his
breast it roosts and forages for its dinners, while the filaments of his liver know no rest but are
restored as soon as they are consumed.”
Certain details of this gruesome act of eternal punishment for lust are tellingly modified
in Michelangelo’s drawing: the vulture has become the noblest of all birds of prey, an eagle,
The Fall of Phaeton, 1533

Black chalk, 413 x 234 mm. Windsor Castle, Royal Library, RL12 766r
386 387
Having no feathers, on your wings my flight,

By your keen wits forever drawn toward Heaven,
As you decide it I am flushed and wan,
Cold in the Sun, at the cold solstice hot.
My wishes are within your will alone,

Within your heart are my ideas shaped,
When you have taken breath, then I can speak.
It seems that I am like the lonely Moon,

Which our eyes fail to see in Heaven, except
The fraction of it that the Sun may strike.”
On the other hand, of course, The Rape of Ganymede is also about the sexual attraction experi-
enced by an older man for a younger one. In the sonnet, this attraction is expressed – through
the key words veggio (I see), volo (flight, I fly), vostro (your), voler (wish) and voglia (will, desire)
Luca Signorelli, The Resurrection of the Flesh (detail), 1501/02 – in terms of a combined flight that culminates in the final triplet in a bold metaphor of light,
Fresco, Orvieto, Cathedral, Capel of S. Brizio and thereby leads back to the act of seeing, which is not possible without light (cf. Italian
text p. 754). What is here barely hinted at comes almost candidly to the fore in the drawing.
Furthermore, the age difference between Zeus and Ganymede also corresponded to the gap
evidently equivalent to the same bird in The Rape of Ganymede (see below). Instead of iron between Michelangelo and his beloved. Finally, we should not overlook the drawing’s obvious
fetters, Michelangelo has opted in his Tityos for light shackles that have come away partly or homosexual overtones. Ganymede offers almost no resistance, his right arm lies limply across
entirely from the ankles. Nor is the bird plunging its beak into the young man’s entrails as the eagle’s mighty pinion: here, too, is the motif of passive sexual surrender. The position of the
described by Virgil. Tityos himself, moreover, appears to be putting up almost no defence, eagle behind Ganymede’s back makes almost blatant reference to contemporary homosexual
while the soft modelling of his body lends him a certain sensual quality, allowing us to see in practices of sodomy.
this drawing not only an illustration of the punishment for lust but also a more or less clear The Rape of Ganymede as the soul’s ascent towards God or as a homoerotic allusion – the
depiction of passive sexual surrender. ambivalence of the subject and its portrayal fundamentally permit both interpretations. The
There is a similar ambiguity to The Rape of Ganymede, which has survived in several draw- same ambivalence also characterizes The Fall of Phaeton, a moralizing fable related, for exam-
ings of disputed attribution (eg. p. 380). The subject – the rape of the youth Ganymede by ple, in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (II.304–404). Phaeton, son of Apollo, borrowed the chariot of
Zeus, the father of the gods, in the shape of an eagle – is itself ambivalent. On the one hand, it the Sun from his father, ignored all the advice he was given, overestimated his strength as a
illustrates a spiritual concept particularly popular in the philosophy of Neoplatonism, namely charioteer, caused the chariot to turn over with his reckless driving and thereby set the world
that of the ascent of Ganymede’s soul – and thus also of the souls of Tommaso de’ Cavalieri on fire. Zeus eventually hurled a thunderbolt at the chariot, which plunged with its arrogant
and Michelangelo. This concept of the ascent of two souls is illustrated by a sonnet that the driver into the River Eridanus. Along the banks of this river, which is today known as the
artist composed for Tommaso de’ Cavalieri probably later, in 1546: Po, Phaeton’s grieving sisters, the Heliads, were transformed into poplars in punishment for
lamenting the loss of their brother, while Cygnus, a friend of Phaeton, was turned into a swan.
“I with your beautiful eyes see gentle light, If the subject is interpreted in the traditional, moral way, then it refers to the arrogance implicit
While mine are so blind I never can; in Michelangelo’s love for a younger, socially superior man. In this sense, The Fall of Phaeton
With your feet, on my back can bear a burden, might be a stylized gesture of humility by Michelangelo towards his higher-ranking beloved,
While mine are crippled, and have no such habit. as also found in the sonnets he wrote for Cavalieri.
388 389
A total of four surviving Phaeton drawings are considered more or less authentic. All the
sheets reveal a very similar composition: at the top the eagle and Zeus hurling his bolt, in the
middle Phaeton tumbling to earth amongst a balled tangle of horses and Sun chariot, and at
the bottom Eridanus, depicted as a river god, with the Heliads and, in just one of the draw-
ings, Cygnus in the shape of a swan. The moral ambivalence of the scene is evident above all
in the – at first sight less spectacular – top section of the sheets in London and Windsor Castle
(pp. 385, 386). For there, a patently too youthful father of the gods is “riding” an eagle, who
shrinks away almost in fear and who is not mentioned, moreover, in Ovid’s version of the
story. It is d
ifficult to believe that this eagle represents simply a metamorphosis, an alter ego
or an attribute of Zeus. It is easier to see in their combination – as already in The P unishment
of Tityos and The Rape of Ganymede – ambivalent figures of identification for Michelangelo
and Tommaso.
Contemporary sources are naturally silent on these risqué interpretations of the draw-
ings, but Michelangelo and Tommaso evidently conducted a dialogue on what they should
look like. A sheet today housed in the British Museum (p. 385) carries an inscription at the
bottom in which Michelangelo asks the drawing’s intended recipient whether he approves of
it: “Messer Tommaso, should this sketch not please you, then tell [Pietro] Urbano, so that I
can find time to make you another one before tomorrow evening, as I promised you. And if
you like it and you would like me to finish it, send it back to me.” It is conceivable that, after
a discussion with Tommaso de’ Cavalieri, Michelangelo enlarged the London version of Zeus
and the eagle in the Windsor Castle sheet (p. 386), which was probably executed later, in order
to make its erotic allusion clearer.
The Fall of Phaeton combines a remarkable number of motifs from antique and contempo-
rary art. Phaeton himself recalls a famous sarcophagus relief from S. Maria in Aracoeli in Rome
and the personifications of Eridanus, the river gods for the New Sacristy, and their antique
forerunners. The Heliad on the right is a mirror image of Eve in the Expulsion from Paradise in
the Sistine Chapel (p. 153), and the figure and position of Zeus, the plunging bodies and the
overall composition already anticipate Michelangelo’s first designs for The Last Judgement. The
strongly developed plasticity of some of the individual figures in The Fall of Phaeton similarly
looks forward to The Last Judgement, and there are even parallels in their content: in both
cases a god is delivering judgement, and in both cases the condemned are falling to earth in a
wild tangle of bodies.
The genesis of The Last Judgement (p. 401) dates back to the summer of 1533. In a letter
of 17 July 1533, Sebastiano del Piombo informed his friend and colleague Michelangelo of a
spectacular commission for Clement VII, by which he was probably referring to the fresco for
the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel. But no more h appened after this. Not until Michelangelo
arrived in Rome in September 1534 did things start moving, albeit not quite in the manner he
had been expecting. The Last Judgement had originally been commissioned by Clement VII, at Bonamico Buffalmacco, Last Judgement (detail), destroyed, 1330–1345
whose wish Michelangelo moved to Rome on 23 September 1534. Just two days later, however, Lithograph by Carlo Lasinio in: Pitture a fresco del Campo Santo di Pisa, Florence 1812
390 391
from the artist in Rome. Paul III’s motives were just the same. After the death of Clement VII,
it at first looked as if Michelangelo would finally be able to fulfil his obligations towards the
della Rovere and finish the Julius Tomb. But the new pope would have none of it. Following
his election in October 1534, so Condivi informs us, Paul III lost his temper over Michelan-
gelo’s contract with the della Rovere of 29 April 1532, as he had always wanted to employ the
artist himself: “Already thirty years I have had this wish, and now that I’m pope cannot I satisfy
it? Where is this contract? I will tear it up.”
In view of the numerous prominent commissions that Paul III, who was also known as
a humanist and patron of the arts, would award to Michelangelo over the course of his pon-
tificate, his long-standing wish to employ the artist, and his outburst of anger, seem highly
plausible. He would appoint Michelangelo chief architect of St Peter’s, the largest and most
important church in Western Christendom (see Ch. IX). He would also employ him to fresco
the Pauline Chapel and complete his own family palace, the Palazzo Farnese, as well as give an
entirely new face to the Capitoline Hill in Rome, and overhaul the fortifications of the Vatican
Borgo. How seriously the Pope took Michelangelo’s art, and how he sought to do everything in
his power to encourage him, is also apparent in the numerous privileges that he bestowed upon
the Pope died. The project was never in jeopardy, however: Paul III, a member of the F arnese the artist: in September 1535, he welcomed him into the circle of his own family and appointed
family and Clement VII’s successor, immediately gave his approval for work to begin. After him chief architect, sculptor and painter to the Vatican, with far-reaching powers and a lavish
the preliminary preparations, which in the case of the altar wall included the destruction of the salary. In November 1536, Paul III even issued a motu proprio releasing the artist in full from
existing frescoes by Perugino and Michelangelo himself (see Ch. V), the artist embarked on the terms of his contract with the della Rovere. The same document stated that Michelangelo
the actual frescoing in the spring of 1536, and the monumental painting was officially unveiled was carrying out his current activities against his will and at the express wish of Paul III, and
on 31 October 1541. The artist, by now sixty-six, had thereby taken slightly longer to complete that he was therefore quite unable to fulfil his obligations towards the heirs of Julius II. All of
The Last Judgement than the Sistine ceiling, whose frescoing was both more difficult and more this effectively added up to a tearing up of the contract for the Julius Tomb.
extensive. The composition of Michelangelo’s Last Judgement is at once traditional and innovative.
The decision to destroy the existing decoration on the altar wall to make way for a new Christ appears between the Apostles and martyrs in order to judge the damned and the saved.
fresco was taken for a number of reasons. The idea of redecorating some parts of the Sistine Angels holding the instruments of the Passion fill the two lunettes above him, while the figures
Chapel may have been prompted by the areas of damage it was now displaying: the lintel of of the Virgin, St John the Baptist, the Apostles and martyrs are grouped around him. In the
the door in the west wall had collapsed in 1522, for example, while in 1525 a fire had scorched zone beneath, the elect rise towards Heaven while the damned descend into Hell. In the centre
the frescoes on the altar wall, and further damage had been caused during the Sack of Rome in of this lower zone, a group of angels are blowing their trumpets, sounding the call to judge-
1527. Plundering by the troops of Charles V had resulted in the loss of the tapestries designed ment, and holding up the Book of Life to the elect and the Book of Death to the damned.
by Raphael and hung in the chapel on feast days. At the bottom of the fresco, the entrance to Limbo can be seen in the centre, and on the far
Another not inconsiderable factor in the decision were the personal wishes of the Pope. right the fiery chasm of Hell itself. Between these two, Charon the boatman is ferrying the
Clement VII had followed Michelangelo’s work in the New Sacristy in Florence with great sat- damned in his barque to their place of torment. Familiar from ancient mythology, Charon is
isfaction and had been determined to bequeath to posterity a work that he had commissioned also described by Dante, one of Michelangelo’s favourite authors, in his Divine Comedy (Inf.
III. 109–111):
Bertoldo di Giovanni, Portrait medallion of “Charon, his eyes red like a burning brand,
Filippo de’ Medici, reverse, c. 1468/69
Bronze, diameter 5.6 cm. New York, Thumps with his oar the lingerers that delay,
Metropolitan Museum of Art And rounds them up, and beckons with his hand.”
392 393
Michelangelo’s Charon is an almost literal illustration of Dante’s verse. The ferry-

man is indeed swinging his oar to strike the sinners recoiling from the Hell before them
(pp. 480/481). The scene on the left-hand side is almost equally faithful to another
text, namely to a passage from Ezekiel (Ezek. 37:2–14) in which the Prophet describes
the resurrection of the flesh. Condivi, Michelangelo’s unofficial mouthpiece, specifi-
cally acknowledges this source in his discussion of The Last Judgement. Dante’s verse
and Ezekiel’s vision had already inspired Luca Signorelli in his frescoes – much admired
by Michelangelo – for the chapel of S. Brizio in Orvieto cathedral (p. 388), where
Signorelli had also displayed the same artistic interest in nudes in dramatic poses.
The list of parallels between Michelangelo’s Last Judgement and earlier treatments of the
same subject is nevertheless short. The angels with the instruments of the Passion at the top
of the fresco, for example, and the position of Christ and the Virgin immediately beside each
other, could already be found in the lost fresco by Bonamico Buffalmacco in the Campo Santo
in Pisa, even if the two figures did not appear quite so close together (p. 391). In the dynamic
organization of the ascending and descending nudes, and the arrangement of the instruments
of the Passion, Michelangelo also looked back to Bertoldo di Giovanni’s portrait medallion of
Filippo de’ Medici (p. 392). But the comparison between the Sistine Chapel fresco and earlier
versions of The Last Judgement only serves to highlight the wealth of innovations that Michel
angelo brought to the theme. Thus Michelangelo completely abandoned the earlier convention
of presenting the Apostles and martyrs in rows, in different groups according to a strict hier-
archy, and he reduced their accompanying attributes to a minimum. Apart from Christ and
the Virgin, the only saints who can be confidently identified are Peter, Paul, John the Baptist,
Andrew, Lawrence, Bartholomew, Catherine, Simon, Blaise and Sebastian; and with slightly
less certainty, Simon of Cyrene and Dismas. Charon in his bark and Minos, the guardian of
Hell, can also be recognized without difficulty in the bottom right-hand corner of the fresco.
In striking contrast to pictorial tradition, in other words, Michelangelo has not attempted to
depict all the members of the various groups of saints. Thus the majority of the twelve Apostles
are absent; groups such as the Prophets, Patriarchs and Church Fathers are not represented at
all (or are not recognizable); and angels are not characterized as such.
In this Last Judgement without order or completeness, in other words, there emerge just a
few accents. Thus the martyrs, represented by SS Lawrence, Bartholomew, Catherine, Simon,
Blaise and Sebastian, are more numerous than the Apostles, with Lawrence and Bartho-
lomew occupying a particularly prominent position directly at Christ’s feet. Crosses also
play a prominent role and appear with unusual frequency, namely as an enormous symbol
Page 395
Anonymous
Copy after Michelangelo’s modello drawing for The Last Judgement, mid-16th century
Pen over black chalk and metal point, 565 x 420 mm
London, Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery
394 395
of Christ’s Passion in one lunette (pp. 416/417) and as the respective attributes of St Andrew,
Simon of Cyrene and the Good Thief, Dismas. These crosses may reflect the increased reli-
gious fervour of the epoch, something that would make itself felt a short while later in a
presentation drawing that Michelangelo executed for Vittoria Colonna (p. 410). Striking, too,
is the way in which the ascending figures of the elect and, on the other side, the descending
bodies of the damned infuse the entire fresco with a sense of dynamism. In place of a hierar-
chy of groups of saints, an almost circular movement seems to pervade the entire composition
and is evident even in Michelangelo’s preliminary drawings (p. 398). Studying these drawings
and the copies made from them (p. 395), one gains the impression that the artist was con-
cerned first and foremost in his fresco with accommodating the greatest possible number of
nudes, whom he captured in an extremely wide variety of dramatic poses.
The subject of the fresco is of course the Second Coming of Christ and the salvation and
damnation that follow The Last Judgement. Michelangelo’s real topic, however, is the torsion of
the naked body and its masterly rendition in paint. This theme finds expression most clearly of
all on the right-hand side of the composition, in the bodies of the damned tumbling towards
Hell and struggling against the devils, but it also extends to the figure of Christ. Here, too,
Michelangelo has flagrantly breached the tradition of monumental depictions of The Last
Judgement: his beardless, muscular, over-life-size, towering and forcefully gesticulating Christ,
entirely naked but for a loincloth (p. 438), was more than unusual for his day. Only Bertoldo
di Giovanni had already ventured something similar in his above-mentioned portrait medal-
lion (p. 392), and thus within a very small-format genre intended for the private sphere. Such
a bold step could probably have been risked only by Michelangelo, undisputed as the greatest
artist of his day, and even then only because the beardless nude directly took up an antique
ideal of nudity embodied by the most famous figure of classical sculpture, the Belvedere Apollo.
In the bottom right-hand corner of the fresco, meanwhile, a sarcastic footnote to this ideal of
nakedness and display of flesh seems to be offered by the naked figure of Minos, the guardian
of Hell, into whose genitals a snake is sinking its fangs (p. 487). If we are to believe the anec-
dote related by Vasari, Minos is a portrait of the papal master of ceremonies Biagio Martinelli
da Cesena, who was one of the first to criticize Michelangelo’s improper portrayal of The
Last Judgement: he considered it “disgraceful that in so sacred a space there should have been
depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully”.
Interpretations of Michelangelo’s Last Judgement are legion. One that perhaps seems rather
curious today is the complicated exegesis offered by the priest and sculptor Jacopo Vivo, which
was published in 1590 in the form of an enormous copperplate engraving by Ambrogio Bram-
billa (p. 396). No less complicated are some of the views put forward by art historians, of
which only the most extreme are cited here. Thus the fresco has been seen as a reaction to
the Sack of Rome, as the expression of heretical or Protestant ideas, and as an illustration of
Ambrogio Brambilla and Jacopo Vivo Michelangelo’s Last Judgement
and scenes from the Sistine ceiling with captions, c. 1570 the doctrinal arguments of the Counter-Reformation. It is true that the representation of the
Copperplate engraving, 109 x 170 cm. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana martyrs and their attributes is granted emphasis within the composition, and that this echoes
396 397
the theology of the Counter-Reformation, but it also corresponds to a sense of suffering that
was typical of Michelangelo. The artist had already seen himself on numerous occasions as a
tortured outsider and thus in a role comparable to that of martyr (see Ch. V). The true signifi-
cance of The Last Judgement, however, probably lies in the fact that it was painted not just by
anyone, but by Michelangelo, who made it a showcase of his virtuosity.
How greatly the character of The Last Judgement as a work of art overshadowed its func-
tion is evident even from its genesis and the first reactions to its composition. According to the
early biographers, the commission for the fresco was a pure act of artistic patronage. Accord-
ing to Condivi, the highly discerning Clement VII thereby wished to give Michelangelo the
opportunity to demonstrate the full range of his powers. Adopting a similar line, Vasari sees
the fresco as an example of the terribilità of Michelangelo’s art and even speculates on the art-
ist’s motivations: “[…] this extraordinary man chose always to refuse to paint anything save the
human body in its most beautifully proportioned and perfect forms and in the greatest variety
of attitudes, and thereby to express the wide range of the soul’s emotions and joys.” What
mattered to him was to introduce the “grand manner” (gran maniera) to the painting of the
nude. In the treatment of his main subject, the human body, moreover, he made no attempt
to include the “delicate refinements” typical of other artists.
It is also evident that Michelangelo took up another of his favourite themes in The Last
Judgement, namely his own person. Thus the flayed skin that St Bartholomew is holding out,
almost ostentatiously, towards the viewer bears the unmistakeable features of the artist (p. 428).
The face on this skin has attracted more interpretations than any of Michelangelo’s other self-
portraits. It would not be surprising if the artist were here once again illustrating his personal
sense of suffering, since expressions of anguish were one of his familiar trademarks. The face
may also conceal a certain sarcasm, also typical of the artist: thus the skin hangs precariously
close to the zone of the damned, towards which Michelangelo’s face seems to be turned. Pos-
sibly, however, he also wanted to express the idea that only with the loss of the outer, physical
shell can man be released from his earthly torment. More recent authors also see a parallel
between the skin in St Bartholomew’s hand and a passage from Dante’s Divine Comedy (Para.
I. 19–24), where a comparable case, the flaying of Marsyas, is interpreted as the artist receiving
divine inspiration.
The Last Judgement, and in particular its large numbers of naked figures, attracted great
attention not only from Biagio Martinelli da Cesena. Perhaps the most intelligent, but also
the most malicious, criticism of The Last Judgement was voiced by the Venetian writer Pie-
tro Aretino. He had enquired repeatedly after the fresco from 1537 onwards and had begged
Michelangelo to give him a number of drawings. Unsatisfied with Michelangelo’s response, the
prince of poets launched one of the most vicious hate campaigns in the more recent history
Compositional sketch for The Last Judgement, 1533/34

Black chalk, 420 x 297 mm. Florence, Casa Buonarroti, 65Fr
398 399
MICHEL ANGELO
Prudish moral censorship is out of place here,

for while Michelangelo does not refrain from illustrating every vice
and its punishment as graphically as possible, he does so
in a style that excludes all thoughts of indecency: in the most
serious style that art has ever brought forth.
EUGÈNE DELACROIX
The Last Judgement, 1536–1541

Fresco, 17 x 15.5 m. Rome, Vatican, Sistine Chapel
400
Marcello Venusti, The Last Judgement, copy after Michelangelo, 1548/49

The Last Judgement, diagram of o
verpainted areas Oil on panel, 180.9 x 145.4 cm. Naples, Museo Capo di Monte, inv. no. 139
402 403
of art. In November 1545, his invective climaxed in a cascade of accusations that referred not was probably as a result of these anxieties that Michelangelo evolved the idea of a biography
only to obscene details in The Last Judgement but also to the newly concluded “tragedy” of the that would cover the most important events of his life, and in which – through the pen of
Julius Tomb (see Ch. X). Aretino even went so far as to allude to Michelangelo’s homosexual Ascanio Condivi – he would be able to set the record straight.
tendencies and to reverse, right at the start of his letter, the dependent relationship between The criticisms offered by other contemporaries were inspired less by wounded vanity than
Michelangelo and Raphael: “Now that I have seen again the design of the whole of your Last by relatively specific details of the composition. Thus Niccolò (Nino) Sernini, the Mantuan
Judgement, I am able to perceive the noble grace of Raphael in the beauty of its invention. As ambassador in Rome, in a letter of 19 November 1541 to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, writes
a baptized Christian, however, I am ashamed at the licentiousness, unworthy of the human enthusiastically about the fresco unveiled barely three weeks earlier: “I see no one who would
spirit, with which you have expressed the concepts towards which every purpose of our truest be capable of repeating with the same speed what Michelangelo has given in his new paint-
faith ultimately strives.” ing, for it is large and difficult and contains over five hundred figures of such a kind that
The letter continues in this vein for a while longer, until Aretino accuses the painter of in my opinion it would be a problem for the painters to copy even one. Although the work
having placed his art above the Christian faith and of having depicted the holy figures in possesses a beauty that Your Reverence can well imagine, it does not lack critics: the venerable
obscene poses and with too much emphasis on their genitalia. He concludes by insisting that Theatines are the first to declare that the naked figures, exposing their private parts, do not
his criticism has nothing to do with his disappointment at not having received any gifts from belong in such a place, even if [the artist] has taken great care, so that amongst so many only
Michelangelo, but then proceeds to discuss the favourable opinion shaped by just such gifts, some ten are indecent. Others complain that he has portrayed Christ beardless and too young
which would have protected Michelangelo from malicious rumours about his penchant for and without the appropriate majesty. In short, there is no lack of criticism. But the Reverend
handsome young men. This is followed by his accusations relating to the Julius Tomb and Cornaro, who has examined it in depth, has a favourable opinion of it; he has added that he is
Michelangelo’s embezzlement of its funds: “But if the riches that Julius II bequeathed to you willing to pay Michelangelo any price if he will paint him a picture with one of these figures.
so that his mortal remains would rest in a monument sculpted by yourself did not prove suf- He is right, for in my opinion there is nothing here than can be seen anywhere else. The same
ficient for you to fulfil the obligations you had entered into, what else can we expect of you? It Cardinal has ordered a copyist, and even without wasting a moment he will need not less
is not your ingratitude, not your greed, great painter, that has brought things to this, but the than four months. I shall make a point of obtaining at least a sketch, so that Your Illustrious
grace and the merit of the supreme Shepherd, for God Himself wished that the eternal fame Reverence can see the section that he has copied. Which will not satisfy you entirely; Messer
of Julius II should endure in a simple tomb and for itself, and not be conveyed by the arrogant Giulio [Romano] would have performed the task admirably. It is, as you shall see, a very dif-
sepulchral monument as provided by your art. In this matter your failure with regards to your ferent work from that which one imagines, for one sees that he was concerned with creating
obligations must be taken as theft.” strange figures in a multitude of poses. I shall not be able to send you the drawings straight
In conclusion, Aretino rounded off his attack with an argument drawn from the icono- away, but I shall at least endeavour to describe the relevant section, so that you may derive
clastic school of thought: the memory of Julius II would in any case endure for posterity some pleasure from it.”
thanks to his merits rather than to a monumental work of art. With his reference to Gregory Sernini’s letter bears impressive witness to the discernment shown by some of Michelan-
the Great as the destroyer of pagan idols, Aretino finally anticipates the criticism of art voiced gelo’s contemporaries in their artistic judgement and the extent to which they were prepared to
in the Counter-Reformation: “[…] our souls are more in need of the feeling of devotion than tolerate even blatant breaches of decorum as long as the quality of the art was high. Even those
of the pleasure that accompanies vitality of design. May God enlighten Pope Paul [III], as he who were angered by the work recognized that its artistic value still counted for a great deal.
inspired Pope Gregory [the Great] of blessed memory, who wished rather to strip Rome of its Thus Don Miniato Pitti of Montoliveto, for example, in a letter to Giorgio Vasari of 1 May
adornment of the proud statues of the idols than to hinder, because of them, the reverence due 1545, found fault with both the indecent nudes and the incorrect portrayal of St Bartholomew,
to the humble images of the saints.” but had to admit at the same time that he would be considered a dunce for his criticism. “My
With his massive accusations regarding the Julius Tomb and his harsh criticism of the Last dear Messer Giorgio, greetings. I have not written for several days because I have not had time,
Judgement, Aretino was attempting nothing less than to destroy the artist and his works, using since I have had to devote myself to the monks. I have much to say: that I am well and that I
a defamatory rhetoric aimed at precisely those areas about which Michelangelo was most sensi- hope to hear the same of you; that I have received your letter telling me that I am considered
tive: his homosexual tendencies and his greed for money. Since copies of Aretino’s letters were an oaf in Naples because I prefer the vault [the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel] to the wall [the
circulated within Italy and were frequently published in print, Michelangelo had every reason Last Judgement]. For it contains a thousand heresies and in particular that skin of St Bartho-
to fear that the “tragedy” of the Julius Tomb completed in 1545 would be stirred up again. It lomew without the beard; the flayed man wears a beard, which shows that the skin is not his.”
404 405
The fact that even Michelangelo’s harshest critics were prepared to acknowledge his artistic
achievement is illustrated by the Dominican Ambrogio Poli (called Caterino), who in 1551
wrote in his commentaries to the Epistles of St Paul: “There is a noteworthy painter and
sculptor in our age: he is called Michelangelo and understands magnificently how to represent
the nakedness of the human body and its private parts. I commend his art in this [The Last
Judgement], but the work itself I loathe most violently and I denounce it. For it is improper
to see such bodies in their nakedness on the altars and in the houses of God. This blemish is
compounded by numerous other serious abuses that are likely to sully the Church, the Bride of
Christ. I am trying to make this clear for the sake of my own conscience, insofar as I say that
Michelangelo, this outstanding painter, in his depiction of these hideous and obscene nudes
(which Nature itself demands to hide), foregoes the perfection that belongs to the Apostle,
when he denounces the disgraceful nudity of the heretics with the living brush of spirit.”
In his Il Libro di Sogni of 1563, the painter and art theoretician Gian Paolo Lomazzo
writes more discerningly about Michelangelo and offers a more apt set of observations: “It is
said that he wished to make on this wall a cage with a company of louts and players climbing
up inside it; it is stressed that the male members and testicles that can be seen so clearly, not
only on the devils and spirits but also on the saints, are indecent; and that he allows them to
appear near Christ and lets St Catherine show her nature in a pose that, like that of many
other women, sooner inspires lascivious thoughts in the viewer than the repulsion one would
expect on such a terrible day as this. It is also said that the kisses (pp. 440/441) exchanged at
the top are improper and only fit for weddings and brothels. And much more is said besides,
while people forget or do not know that this work is the true splendour of all Italy, also for the
painters who come from the most distant lands in the North to see and draw it. Only a while
ago, the Theatine Paul IV wanted to have it destroyed; he said that its insolent images of naked
members and its theatrical gestures were not in accordance with St Peter.”
As the “true splendour of all Italy”, The Last Judgement was effectively ensured a protection
that would have been unthinkable for the works of other artists. When the Council of Trent,
meeting in November 1563, devoted its final session solely to a discussion of Michelangelo’s
fresco and its offensive elements, it was decided not to chip off the fresco altogether – as some
critics were demanding – but to paint over its most offensive areas (p. 402). One of the artists
who, in 1564/65, carried out this task was Daniele da Volterra, earning him the nickname of the
“breeches painter” (braghettone). The whole affair had no adverse effect upon Michelangelo’s
immediate career: the violent reactions to The Last Judgement in no way discouraged Paul III
from commissioning the artist, now sixty-six, to fresco the Pauline Chapel, only shortly after
he had completed work in the Sistine Chapel (see Ch. X).
after Michelangelo, Pietà with two additional figures s upporting Christ

(Pietà for Vittoria Colonna)
Black chalk, 295 x 193 mm. Boston, Massachusetts, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
406 407
The Last Judgement launched a critical debate about the parameters of fine art that was thus the body does not fall as if slumped in death but is seen as a living being, wracked and
by far the most public, strongly worded and dangerously conducted up to that point. Paint- contorted by a bitter torment.” Condivi’s remarks refer to the words Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani
ers, clerics, theoreticians, writers and diplomats all voiced their opinions and offered differ- (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) from the Gospels (Matt. 27:46; Mark
ent verdicts as to what an artist might or might not do, and how he ought to treat religious 15:34) and thus to the crucified Christ, who calls out to his Father in his moment of deep-
subjects. With The Last Judgement, Michelangelo had probed the boundaries of his profession est despair. The subject of the drawing is thus not solely the sacrifice on the Cross of Jesus
and exploited its scope in an age of confessional conflict, without this making him a heretic Christ, the Son of God, but also the humanity inherent in his despair. More recent authors
as a result. have linked this unusual portrayal of a despairing and thus human Redeemer with the doc-
His unusual composition does not change the fact that Michelangelo was at this time a trinal arguments of the Catholic reform movement, whose representatives included Vittoria
devout Christian and sought to convey his faith in his works. Indeed, the intensity of religious Colonna. No Catholic reform theology is necessary, though, to explain the religious fervour
expression in his works seems to have increased overall in the 1530s. There were a number of of this drawing.
reasons for this. Firstly, Italy was experiencing a general upturn in spirituality, one that the The forcefulness of Christ’s physical presence is itself enough to arouse the suspicion that
artist experienced at first hand through his friendship with Vittoria Colonna and other repre- this presentation drawing is more than simply the expression of an intensely experienced faith,
sentatives of the Catholic reform movement. Secondly, Michelangelo was now advancing in formulated by Michelangelo for a woman from a higher social class whom he greatly esteemed.
years and was becoming increasingly aware of his own mortality (see Ch. X). The drawings In the Crucifixion, just as in The Last Judgement, the religious subject is yet again accompanied
that he made as gifts for Vittoria Colonna may be seen in this context. From the information by the theme of the heroic male nude. For confirmation we need only look at the pictorial
provided by Condivi and Vasari, and from the correspondence between Michelangelo and tradition of the “human” Christ on the Cross, addressing his gaze upwards towards his Father
Vittoria Colonna, we know of three such drawings, executed between 1538 and 1541. While a in despair and bewailing his abandonment. In earlier examples of this compositional type, in
Crucifixion (p. 410) and a Pietà (p. 407) have survived in sheets contentiously attributed to particular those from the Middle Ages, Christ is portrayed with a racked and emaciated body.
Michelangelo himself, the presentation drawing of Christ and the Woman of Samaria is known Michelangelo, on the other hand, presents Christ with a largely uninjured body, a powerful
only in copies by other hands. chest and a seemingly athletic muscular definition. Here, too, the artist has remained true
A deepening of Michelangelo’s faith can be seen most clearly in the Pietà that he drew to himself, and his Crucifixion drawing thus serves as another document of his artistic and
for Vittoria Colonna. Christ’s dead body, held by two angels, lies slumped between the legs personal preferences.
of the grieving Virgin. The very heaviness with which his corpse sinks to the ground seems to An undated letter (probably composed around 1538–1541) from Vittoria Colonna to
express the gravity of his sacrifice. But to underline the significance of this sacrifice yet further, Michelangelo testifies to the fact that the Crucifixion is not only about the religious sentiment
a line from Dante’s Divine Comedy (Para. XXIX. 92) is written on the stem of the Cross: “Non associated with its subject, but also about its artistic value and its possible implications: “To
visi pensa, quanto sangue costa” (“Ye little think how great the cost in blood”). What is thereby Michelangelo, the unique master and my very particular friend, I have received your note and
meant is that the importance of Christ’s sacrifice cannot be valued too highly. If we compare I have seen the Crucifixion, which has certainly crucified in my memory all other such pictures
this combination of image and inscription with the Rome Pietà and its signature (p. 59), the I have ever seen. I do not see how anything could be better done, more vividly conceived or
conceptual distance between the two works is clear. The Rome sculpture was more closely admirably executed. I have indeed no words in which to express my sense of its marvellous
indebted to an antique ideal and the pride of its aspiring young artist (see Ch. II), the d rawing subtlety […].”
for Vittoria Colonna to the religious communing of the ageing Michelangelo. In a play upon words, Vittoria Colonna transfers the motif of crucifixion onto art: faced
Another presentation drawing, executed in black chalk, of a Crucifixion flanked by two with the artistic quality of Michelangelo’s drawing, other pictures must feel as if crucified, i.e.
small angels, is perhaps even more unusual. On the one hand, the drawing takes up, now in punished or degraded. A second letter from Vittoria Colonna to Michelangelo, undated but
a religious subject, the softly modelled style that can already be seen in the erotically charged written during this same period (c. 1538–1541), and probably also concerning the Crucifixion,
drawings for Tommaso de’ Cavalieri. On the other hand, Christ is depicted as still alive, as again illustrates how drawings with a religious subject could provide a starting point for a
indicated by his tired gaze raised heavenward. This striking aspect of Michelangelo’s design is broader reflection upon art and artists. Thus the Marchioness writes that it would be pos-
expressly emphasized by Condivi: “For love of her [Vittoria Colonna], he also made a draw- sible, for those who believe, to enhance even perfect works of art though goodness (bontà).
ing of Jesus Christ on the Cross, not in the semblance of death, as is commonly done, but in Michelangelo, in her view, has created a perfect work in his drawing with the aid of super-
a godlike attitude, raising his countenance to the Father, and appearing to say ‘Eli, Eli’: and natural grace granted by God. Vittoria Colonna then discusses the little angel grieving on the
408 409
right of Christ: “And I must tell you how particularly pleased I am that the angel on the right
[of Christ] should be so much more beautiful, for surely St Michael will place you, Michael
Angelo, upon God’s right hand on the last day.”
It did not escape Vittoria Colonna either, in other words, that most of Michelangelo’s
works were also about himself. At the same time, her letter reveals the religious background
to her thinking. For the “miracle” (miraculi) of this perfect drawing had been made possible
only by divine grace, the same grace that would allow the angel to reserve the artist a place
at God’s right hand. Michelangelo would subsequently try to earn this place himself with his
acceptance of major architectural projects in Rome. Thus the artist would insist that he had
taken over the construction of St Peter’s not for earthly rewards, but per l’amor de Dio, for the
love of God (see Ch. IX).
Michelangelo (copy?)
Crucifixion with two angels (Crucifixion for Vittoria Colonna), c. 1538–1541 (?)
410 411
The Instruments
of the Passion
In contrast to earlier treatments of The Last Judgement, Michelangelo did not organize his
figures into well-ordered, hierarchical rows of Apostles, saints and choirs of angels. Instead
he created a powerfully dynamic composition of ascending and descending bodies, at whose
centre Christ the Judge appears to orchestrate the fall of the damned and the ascension of the
risen. In the two lunettes above the zone containing the saints, angels are raising Christ’s Cross
and Column of Flagellation, which represent not only the instruments of the Passion but also
symbols of the Redeemer. Further instruments of the Passion, such as the crown of thorns
(left) and a ladder and a stick with a sponge (right), can be made out only with difficulty.
The best and most exhaustive contemporary description of The Last Judgement stems from
Giorgio Vasari, who saw the entire history of painting reaching its high point in the fresco.
Here, he believed, Michelangelo had even surpassed his earlier achievement on the vault of the
Sistine Chapel: “for The Last Judgement was finer by far, and in it Michelangelo outstripped
himself. He imagined to himself all the terror of those days and he represented, for the greater
punishment of those who have not lived well, the entire Passion of Jesus Christ, depicting in
the air various naked figures carrying the cross, the column, the lance, the sponge, the nails
and the crown of thorns. These were shown in diverse attitudes and were executed with con-
summate facility.”
413
414 415
Christ as
Judge with Virgin
and Saints
If you neglect visiting the Vatikan often, and particularly the Capella Sistina,
you will neglect receiving that peculiar advantage which Rome can give above
all other cities in the world. In other places you will find casts from the antique,
and capital pictures of the great painters, but it is there only that you
can form an idea of the dignity of the art, as it is there only that you can see
the works of Michael Angelo and Raffael. If you should not relish them at
Michelangelo’s Last Judgement deviates from pictorial tradition in the dynamic first, which may probably be the case, as they have none of those qualities
organization of its figures. The composition is dominated by Christ the Judge, which are captivating at first.
who appears with the Virgin Mary in almost the exact middle of the upper third of the JOSHUA REYNOLDS
fresco. He forms the centre of the heavenly sphere and its host of saints and martyrs.
Since Michelangelo presents his figures within no schematic hierarchy and in most
cases without attributes, only a few can be plausibly identified. Apart from Christ
and Mary, the two figures most plainly recognizable are the martyrs SS Lawrence and
Bartholomew sitting at their feet, the first holding the gridiron of his martyrdom and
the second his own flayed skin and a knife. St Peter, appearing to the right of Christ, is
also holding the distinctive attributes of two keys in his hands. Behind him stands the
second Prince of the Apostles, Paul, who can be identified on the basis of his proxim-
ity to Peter and his red robe. Beside Christ on the left, the powerful naked figure of
John the Baptist is recognizable by his animal-hide cloak and St Andrew by his cross.
The martyrs on the right-hand side of the fresco are also accompanied by clear
attributes: St Catherine by a wheel, St Simon a saw, St Blaise two wool-combs and
St Sebastian several arrows. A large male nude on the right-hand edge of the picture
is thought to be Simon of Cyrene, who carried Christ’s Cross on the road to Calvary
(Matt. 27:32), while the the smaller figure between SS Blaise and Simon is interpreted
as Dismas, the Good Thief at Christ’s Crucifixion.
433 434
MICHEL ANGELO
436
Angels of the
Last Judgement,
Saints and
the Damned
The entire lower half of the fresco falls into three parts. On the left – and hence on Christ’s
right for those within the picture – the risen dead are ascending towards Heaven; a number
are being hoisted up out of Limbo in the lower centre. Opposite these elect, on the right-hand
side, the damned are plunging towards Hell. The area in the middle is occupied by a group of
angels with trumpets, sounding the call to Judgement and holding up the smaller Book of Life
to the elect and the much larger Book of the Dead to the damned.
Michelangelo’s most important source of inspiration was the Bible, where the Last Judge-
ment is described in the Revelation of St John:
And I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. (…) Now
the seven angels who had the seven trumpets made ready to blow them. (…) And I saw the dead,
great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened,
the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. And
the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and
all were judged according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake
of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and anyone whose name was not found written in
the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 8:2; 8:6; 20:12–15)
445
446 447
Two of the elect are being hauled upwards by a saint (?), using a rosary as a rope. The variety,
animation and dramatic expression of the figures in The Last Judgement, and above all its many
nudes, are unsurpassed. Vasari saw in these latter the proof that Michelangelo had outstripped
by far all the other artists that had worked in the Sistine Chapel before him: “We are shown
the misery of the damned and the joy of the blessed. When The Last Judgement was revealed it
was seen that Michelangelo had not only excelled the masters who had worked there previously
but had also striven to excel even the vaulting that he had made so famous.”
451
The figures of the damned, who are being dragged down into the depths by demons of bizarre
shapes, provided Michelangelo with a means through which his virtuosity and powers of
invention could be demonstrated. Vasari makes the apt observation that, in the depiction of
his nudes, Michelangelo distanced himself from the manner of other artists: “It is enough for
us to understand that this extraordinary man chose always to refuse to paint anything save the
human body in its most beautifully p roportioned and perfect forms and in the greatest variety
of attitudes, and thereby to express the wide range of the soul’s emotions and joys. He was
content to prove himself in the field in which he was superior to all his fellow craftsmen, paint-
ing his nudes in the grand manner and displaying his great understanding of the problems
of design. Thus he has demonstrated how painting can achieve facility in its chief provices:
namely, the reproduction of the human form. And concentrating upon this subject he left to
one side the charm of colouring and the caprices and novel fantasies of certain minute and del-
icate refinements that many other artists, and not without reason, have not entirely neglected.”
457
In his enthusiasm for the virtuosity and variety of the figures, Vasari sometimes loses his bear-
ings in his energetic description of The Last Judgement. Thus he praises on the one hand the
bold use of foreshortening in the representation of the damned, only to jump immediately
to the saved: “on one side, depicted with perfect judgement, may be seen the seven mortal
sins in the form of devils, assailing and striving to drag down to hell the souls that are flying
towards heaven, all striking the most beautiful attitudes and wonderfully foreshortened. Nor
did Michelangelo hesitate to show to the world, in the resurrection of the dead, how they take
to themselves once more bones and flesh from the same earth and how, with the help of others
already alive, they go soaring towards heaven…”
458
Resurrection
of the Flesh
The depiction of the Resurrection occupies the lower half of the fresco. A first a ccurate descrip-
tion is provided by Condivi:
“At the sound of the trumpets the burial places on earth are seen to open up and
humankind issues forth in all kinds of marvellous attitudes. Some, following the prophecy of
Ezekiel, have their skeletons just reassembled, others have them half-clothed in flesh, and oth-
ers completely so. Some are naked, some attired in the shrouds and winding-sheets in which
they were wrapped when borne to the grave, and from which they are seeking to divest them-
selves. Among these are some who as yet still do not seem really fully awake, and looking up to
Heaven they stand there as if in doubt as to where divine justice is calling them. Here, too, it
delights the eye to see some with great effort still forcing their way out of the earth, while some
take flight with arms outstretched to heaven. Others are already in flight: they soar in the air,
some higher, some lower, displaying varied postures and attitudes.”
The hand of the Lord came upon me, and he brought me out by the spirit of the Lord and set me
down in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. He led me all round them; there were very
many lying in the valley, and they were very dry. He said to me, “Mortal, can these bones live?” I
answered, “O Lord God, you know.” Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them:
O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: I will cause breath
to enter you, and you shall live. I will lay sinews on you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and
cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the
Lord.” So I prophesied as I had been commanded; and as I prophesied, suddenly there was a noise,
a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. (Ezek. 37:1–7)
461
462 463
Vasari attests that the figures of The Last Judgement possess an emotional power achieved by
no earlier master: “To any discerning critic The Last Judgement demonstrates the sublime force
of art and Michelangelo’s figures reveal thoughts and emotions that only he has known how to
express. Moreover, anyone in a p osition to judge will also be struck by the amazing diversity
of the figures, which is reflected in the various and unusual gestures of the young and old, the
men and the women. All these details bear witness to the sublime power of Michelangelo’s art,
in which skill was combined with a natural inborn grace. Michelangelo’s figures stir the emo-
tions even of people who know nothing about painting, let alone those who understand. The
foreshortenings that appear to be in actual relief; the way he blended his colours to produce a
mellow softness and grace; and the delicate finish he gave to every detail: these serve to show
the kind of picture that a good and true artist should paint.”
466
In his description, Vasari postulates the primacy of painting drawn from real life as opposed to
academic learning and philosophy: “Michelangelo painted the heads of his demons with such
marvellous force and variety that they are truly like monsters out of hell. And in the figures of
the damned we can see the presence of sin and the fear of eternal punishment. Apart from the
beauty of its every detail, it is extraordinary to see how this painting p roduces in its finished
state an impression of such harmony that it seems to have been executed all in one day, and
even so with a finish unrivalled by any miniature. To be sure, the awesomeness and grandeur
of this painting, with its vast host of figures, are so overwhelming that it defies description; for
in it may be seen marvellously portrayed all the emotions that mankind can experience. The
discerning eye can easily distinguish the proud and the envious, the avaricious, the lustful,
and other sinners of various kinds; for in this painting Michelangelo observed all the rules of
decorum, and gave his figures the appropriate expressions, attitudes and settings. This was a
great and wonderful achievement; but it was all the same well within his powers, because he
was always shrewd and observant and he had seen a lot of mankind, and thus he had acquired
by contact with the day-to-day world the understanding that philosophers obtain from books
and speculation.”
468
Limbo
and
Charon’s bark
Hell is indicated only by a fiery chasm on the far right; in its place appears the b arque of
Charon described in Dante’s Divine Comedy, which is ferrying the damned across the Styx to
their place of eternal punishment:
“When from the far bank lo!

A boat shot forth, whose white-haired boatman old
Bawled as he came: ‘Woe to the wicked! Woe!
Never you hope to look on Heaven – behold!

I come to ferry you hence across the tide
To endless night, fierce fires and shramming cold.’”
DANTE ALIGHIERI, THE DIVINE COMEDY, INF III. 100–120
475
In these pages, the dramatic representation of the damned reaches its greatest intensity in exag-
gerated gestures, terrifying faces and demonic figures. Individual figures and figural groups
recall the vivid imagery of Michelangelo’s favourite poet, Dante, to whom his Last Judgement
fresco is a memorial:
“But those outwearied, naked souls – how gash

And pale they grew, chattering their teeth for dread,
When first they felt his harsh tongue’s cruel lash.
God they blaspheme, blaspheme their parents’ bed,

The human race, the place, the time, the blood,
The seed that got them, and the womb that bred;
Then, huddling hugger-mugger, down they scud,

Dismally wailing, to the accursed strand
Which waits for every man that fears not God.
Charon, his eyes red like a burning brand,

Thumps with his oar the lingerers that delay,
And rounds them up, and beckons with his hand.
And as, by one and one, leaves drift away

In autumn, till the bough from which they fall
Sees the earth strew with all its brave array,
So, from the bank there, one by one, drop all

Adam’s ill seed, when signalled off the mark,
As drops the falcon to the falconer’s call.
Away they’re borne across the waters dark,

And ere they land that side the stream, anon
Fresh troops this side come flocking to embark.”
DANTE ALIGHIERI, THE DIVINE COMEDY, INF III. 100–120
483
Minos
On the far right-hand edge of the fresco, surrounded by demons, stands Minos, the guardian
of Hell. According to an anecdote particularly popular amongst Italian writers, this negative
figure in fact represents an unflattering portrait of one of the artist’s own contemporaries. Just
as the prior of the monastery of S. Maria delle Grazie in Milan appears in Leonardo da Vinci’s
Last Supper (where he is portrayed as Judas), so Michelangelo here shows us the papal master
of ceremonies. Vasari takes up the story: “Biagio da Cesena, the master of ceremonies and a
very high-minded person, h appened to be with the Pope in the chapel and was asked what
he thought of the painting. He answered that it was most disgraceful that in so sacred a place
there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully, and
that it was no work for a papal chapel but rather for the public baths and t averns. Angered
by this comment, Michelangelo determined he would have his revenge; and as soon as Biagio
had left he drew his portrait from memory in the f igure of Minos, shown with a great serpent
curled round his legs, among a heap of devils in hell; nor for all his pleading with the Pope and
Michelangelo could B iagio have the figure removed, and it was left, to record the incident, as
it is today.”
490
IX.
The architect
in Rome
1534–1564
Christof Thoenes
On the way to St Peter’s and seeing the enormous dome,

Goethe called out that he always felt a sort of
fear of Michelangelo, because he seemed to exercise
a kind of spell over modern Rome
CONRAD GESSNER (?), AFTER PETER HUME BROWN, 1787
THE ARCHITECT IN ROME
When the fifty-nine-year-old Michelangelo left Florence in 1534, none of his architectural
projects had been completed. Although the unfinished Julius Tomb never ceased to worry
him, his other Florentine buildings slipped from his mind; if he was required to recall them,
his old ideas floated back like dreams (like the stairs for the Laurentian Library). In Rome,
new horizons had opened up before him, and although Cosimo I repeatedly tried to entice
him back to his court, it seems that at no point did Michelangelo seriously consider return-
ing to Florence.
But the city where Michelangelo would spend the rest of his life was no longer the Rome
of the Renaissance. After the death in 1534 of the second Medici pope – the politically cata-
strophic Clement VII – Alessandro Farnese ascended to the papal throne as Paul III. Born in
1468 and educated in the school of the great Quattrocento humanists, this Saul-turned-Paul
spearheaded the reform of the Catholic Church; he also fulfilled a wish that he had harboured
(as he said himself ) for thirty years, namely to engage the services of Michelangelo. The Rome
of the early Counter-Reformation presented the architect with new challenges that claimed
an increasing amount of his creative energy: the design of grand public spaces and exteriors
(the Capitol, the Farnese Palace, the Porta Pia), the transformation of great monuments of
antiquity (the Baths of Diocletian in the church of S. Maria degli Angeli) and the ongoing
construction of St Peter’s. In most cases he was required to intervene on buildings already exist-
ing or begun; planning and construction phases were protracted, and it is often not easy to be
precise about Michelangelo’s contribution, especially since few drawings and models survive.
The only building he designed entirely himself, S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, never got off the
drawing board; his most interesting interior, the S forza Chapel, was merely a side chapel in
a large basilica. The stylistic breadth of these Rome works is astonishing. In Florence he had
produced a quasi-hermetically sealed group of buildings for the same patron, their origins all
closely interlinked (see Ch. VI). In Rome his work is thoroughly heterogeneous. His explor
ation of the Roman High Renaissance – the path by which Michelangelo developed his own
style in Florence – was finished. He sometimes borrowed its forms (as in the palaces on the
Capitoline Hill and in St Peter’s) and other times not (as in the Porta Pia). These are decisions
that he made freely and on a case-by-case basis; they did not lead to a new “manner” (as would
evolve amongst Michelangelo’s Florentine followers), but fuelled dialogues at the highest level
of architecture, with Palladio, Bernini and Borromini.
Michelangelo made his first mark upon the architectural face of Roma moderna with his
designs for the Capitol. As the caput mundi, the “capital of the world”, the smallest and most
distinguished of the seven hills of Ancient Rome had become the focal point of medieval
Page 493
Rome, drum of the dome of St Peter’s
View of the Capitol
495
MICHEL ANGELO THE ARCHITECT IN ROME
Roman ideology: constituted as a commune in the 12th century, “the Senate and the people
of Rome” chose it as their seat of government. But the popolo (the leading families who made
up the Senate and voted each other into municipal office) remained economically weak, and
the dream of a rebirth of the Roman Republic evaporated once and for all with the return of
the papacy from Avignon. Under the pontificate of Nicholas V, the “Cardinal camerlingo” of
the Curia also acted as Governatore di Roma. Subordinate to him were the three Conservators
elected by the Senate as the highest officials in the executive, while the power of jurisdiction
lay in the hands of the Senator appointed by the pope. A conflict of political interests was thus
established on the Capitol itself, and this – coupled with the Commune’s meagre revenues –
sufficed to hinder any building initiatives. Thus the hill had remained until the 16th century
in the form known to us from Maerten van Heemskerck’s vedute.
As at Rome’s other cardinal points, the initiative to develop the Capitol came from Paul
III. His initial motivation appears to have been purely personal, as he proceeded to have a sum-
mer villa built for himself in the vicinity of the Franciscan monastery of S. Maria in Aracoeli
on the northern summit of the hill. The villa was connected by ramps and steps both to his
living quarters in the Palazzo Venezia and also to the S enator’s Palace and the Roman Forum. It
was nevertheless probably his unspoken intention right from the start to restore the Capitol to
something of its ancient glory and to make the Piazza del Campidoglio the civic centrepiece of
a new Rome radiating the re-established authority of the papacy. Within the constant field of
tension between the papacy and the Commune, construction proceeded in numerous phases
that, although small and seemingly unrelated, continued in unbroken succession into the 17th Leonardo Bufalini, Plan of Rome showing the Capitol (detail), 1551
century. Drawing upon the groundbreaking archival research of Pio Pecchiai, it has been pos- Woodcut
sible to trace all these steps. Precisely when and by whom the major planning decisions were
taken, however, is not documented and remains the subject of lively controversy.
Michelangelo’s contributions to the redevelopment of the Capitoline Hill fall into three The transverse axis ran from the entrance to the Conservators’ Palace (above which still stood
phases. The main event of the first phase of 1537/38 was the installation of the equestrian the bronze she-wolf ) and ended in the central bay of a terrace to be built below S. Maria in
statue of Marcus Aurelius “according to the judgement of Michelangelo the sculptor” (secun- Aracoeli. Bufalini’s 1551 plan of Rome provides an overall view of the city’s layout (p. 497).
dum iudicium d. Michaelis Angeli sculptoris). By erecting antique statues on the Capitol, the The Roman patrician and humanist Latino Giovenale Manetti, who held several civic offices
Roman citizenry had sought to legitimate itself as the s uccessor to the populus romanus; the under Paul III, may have contributed to its design; Michelangelo can also be suspected, but
Pope now took up this tradition and turned it to his own ends. The old bronze statues, mod- not proven, to have played a part.
els of republican civic virtues, were banished to the interior of the Conservators’ Palace and The second phase was launched at the beginning of the 1540s and marked the start of
their place taken by the figure of a ruler. The key innovation of this phase was the deci- actual construction. In 1542 work commenced on the Aracoeli terrace, the Senator’s Palace and
sion to place the M arcus Aurelius monument at the centre of the square: this required the the rearward stairs and loggias, and from 1554 on the Cordonata (the stepped ramp leading
trapezoid open space between the Senator’s Palace, the Conservators’ Palace and S. Maria up from the city) and its parapet. Most important was the regularization of the façade of the
in Aracoeli to be re-interpreted as a piazza and integrated into Rome’s street network. Senator’s Palace and the construction of the large open-air staircase in front of it. This task fell
A longitudinal axis was created between the Senator’s Palace (whose central portal was to be to Michelangelo. No changes were made to the Conservators’ Palace at this stage, but there is
re-built for this purpose) and the Via Nuova Capitolina, a new road traced or planned in some evidence that Michelangelo had already finalized his plans for its alteration. He may have
1535, which was to turn off the old Via Papalis in the vicinity of the present-day Gesù, run been encouraged in this by his friend and confidante Tommaso de’ Cavalieri, who was gaining
in a straight line to the bottom of the Capitoline Hill and a scend it in the form of a ramp. in influence on the council during these years (Frommel, 1979).
496 497
The third phase was initiated once again by a pope, this time Pius IV, who was elected
in 1559 (reigned until 1569). Resolved to see order finally established on the hill, Pius IV also
provided the necessary funding. In 1561, the pedestal bearing the equestrian statue of Marcus
Aurelius and the square radiating out around it finally assumed their definitive form. In 1563,
work started on alterations to the Conservators’ Palace on the basis of plans by Michelangelo.
Initially headed by Guidetto Guidetti, the project was carried to completion by Giacomo
della Porta (c. 1540–1602) following Guidetti’s death in 1564. Renovations to the interior of
the Senator’s Palace began in 1573, followed as from 1593 by the redecoration of the façade and
the installation of further statues on the Capitol. Finally, after several false starts, the Palazzo
Nuovo was built between 1645 and 1662 on the Aracoeli side of the piazza.
An appraisal of Michelangelo’s Capitol must start from his individual contributions, as we

can identify them today. His name first appears in conjunction with the proposed relocation
of the Marcus Aurelius monument (p. 498), to which he was opposed: Michelangelo was of
the opinion that “this horse is better left standing where it is”, recorded a contemporary. Pope
Paul, himself a large-scale collector of antiquities, nevertheless wanted the statue moved from
the Quirinal to the Capitoline Hill; Michelangelo might have been able to prevent it, but
he erected the imperial effigy nonetheless and to maximum effect. Whereas Quattrocento
equestrian monuments such as Donatello’s Gattamelata and Verocchio’s Colleoni tower high
above the heads of the crowd, Marcus Aurelius sits low enough to communicate with the
spectator and nevertheless rules over the square unconditionally; it is the same combination
of commanding authority and human proximity that also characterizes Titian’s portraits of
princes, for example. The oval pedestal evokes the idea of a carved column; in 1561 it was rede-
signed, probably for technical reasons, and the surrounding oval step was created at the same
time, subjugating the piazza to the equestrian statue. The star p attern in the paving was laid
out as late as 1940, on the basis of the Faleti engraving of 1567; there is no evidence to suggest
that the idea came from Michelangelo.
The Senator’s Palace, originally built in the 12th century over the ruins of the Tabularium,
the Roman records office, had since evolved into a complex of four wings with crenellated tow-
ers at its corners. Its main façade looked over the piazza; behind the walls of the ground floor
lay dungeons and magazines; on the first floor the courtroom, accessed via an outside stair-
case; and on the right half of the façade an open-air balcony, above it probably the Senator’s
private apartments. There were not enough funds to carry out a complete renovation of the
old building; it was the architect’s task to regularize the façade overlooking the square, to shift
the entrance to the courtroom on to the central axis, and to redesign the staircase accordingly.
It was undoubtedly Michelangelo’s idea to enlist the whole of the ground floor in his plans.
Rome, equestrian monument to Marcus Aurelius on the Capitol
499
He designed a ceremonial staircase in the style of his first sketches for the Ricetto in the
Laurentian Library: two long flights of steps rising symmetrically from left and right and meet-
ing at a platform in front of the entrance (p. 295). The niche underneath was intended to house
an antique statue of Jupiter, and the platform itself (from where sentences were pronounced)
to be covered by a sort of baldachin. Above this, a proposed open-air balcony communicated
with a walkway in front of the full-length windows of the upper storey; in the background, at
the rear of this same front wing, rose a campanile. In this way, the visitor approaching from
the city, ascending the Cordonata to the Capitol, would be presented with Marcus Aurelius,
Jupiter, the baldachin and the campanile, one above and behind the other – an impressive
demonstration of supreme judicial authority.
With all of this, the fortified character of the building was expressly preserved; the ash-
lar basement, the emphasis upon the central axis and the two corner towers, around which
the steps had to be additionally routed, recall the papal palace of justice begun by Bramante
for Julius II in the Via Giulia, and which the Pope had intended to assume the function of
the Senator’s Palace. But the construction of the baldachin never progressed beyond the ini-
tial (still visible) stages, and it was eventually abandoned after the palace interior underwent
modifications in 1573/74 and the sequence of floors was changed. The colossal order on the
front façade was added only after 1593. Its pilasters take up the system on the Conservators’
Palace, but consist of no more than flat strips of travertine stucco; there was no room for a
more pronounced articulation as the depth of the façade was dictated by Michelangelo’s stairs, Giovanni Antonio Dosio, Sketch of the steps in front of the Senator’s Palace
which ran right up against the old palace wall. This supports the conclusion that, at least in Florence, Uffizi, A2560r
the 1540s, Michelangelo was not yet thinking of a pilaster order. It is still uncertain whether he
later changed his mind: it would have meant having either to rebuild his staircase or chisel the
wall relief out of the existing masonry. Perhaps the whole idea came not from him but from a he introduced a colossal order of pilasters extending the height of both floors and c arrying a
later patron – Pius IV, for example – who wanted to upgrade the Senator’s Palace and give the cornice crowned by a balustrade with statues. This configuration of two orders, pilaster and
Capitol a uniformly modern face. In the form in which they were subsequently executed by column, can be traced back through designs by Peruzzi and Raphael to Bramante’s plans for St
della Porta (or Girolamo Rainaldi), the pilasters sooner resemble festive decoration added at a Peter’s, in which the architraved columns of the old basilica are combined with large pilaster
later date. The motif that lends the façade its true grandeur remains Michelangelo’s staircase. piers. It was Michelangelo, however, who first interpreted this configuration as a sort of power
The Conservators were naturally most concerned with their own palace. Founded around station: his columns plant themselves (so it seems) beside the pilasters in order to shoulder
the middle of the 15th century by Nicholas V, its architecture was quite the opposite of that of the weight of the upper storey. The intermediate entablature continues behind the pilasters
the Senator’s Palace: a relatively low, long, two-storey building with a columned arcade run- but is firmly tied to the deep wall openings that accompany them. The exposed brickwork of
ning the full length of the ground floor. Behind lay the premises of the municipal guilds, and the walls in the upper storey was in fact originally rendered with travertine plaster (Frommel,
in the upper storey administrative offices and assembly rooms. The building makes a slightly 1997); the façade should therefore be visualized more correctly as a homogeneous wall relief
run-down impression in contemporary v edute and the desire to lend it greater magnificentia rather than as the skeleton structure visible today.
was probably a general one. Michelangelo’s project concerned not just the façade, however, The pier/architrave system is continued inside the portico and in the passage through to
but the entire structure of the building, including the courtyard and the stairs (Morrogh, the courtyard, creating rectangular cells with coffered ceilings. The accompanying columns
1994). What he p roposed was a thoroughly new type of architecture. Michelangelo’s basic idea rise within channels semi-recessed into the wall. The whole gives an impression of almost
was to replace the columned arcade with an architrave system supported on piers, in which exaggerated stability but in structural terms is highly problematic, since stone beams possess
columns serve as additional load-bearing members (pp. 504/505, 506, 509). Along the façade, only very limited bend strength; Palladio, attempting a similar construction in the Palazzo
500 501
Chiericati in Vicenza, used wooden beams for the architrave. In the Conservators’ Palace, it
was necessary to employ elaborate methods of reinforcement (relieving arches concealed in the
masonry of the façade, iron stays in the porticos) in order to prevent the lintels from breaking
(Frommel, 1997).
Seen in this light, the architecture of the Conservators’ Palace represents a kind of anti-
thesis to the vestibule in the Laurentian Library (p. 295): if the classical tectonics of load and
support was there presented as artificial, here every artifice was employed to make it appear
natural. A reconciliation with classicism (but not a relapse into convention) is also indicated
in the design of the details. The large pilasters are strictly Corinthian, the columns Ionic, but
their capitals, with the laurel festoons hanging down between the volutes, are the creations of
Michelangelo the sculptor the masks and a personal signature. By comparison, the window
aedicules of the upper storey appear somewhat uninspired; they were executed only when
Guidetti had taken over the project. His successor della Porta was responsible for the capitals
and the entablature of the large pilaster order, and for the proto-Baroque central window that
abruptly – and certainly contrary to Michelangelo’s intentions – interrupts the regularity of the
bays. A certain monotony, even rigidity, is indeed one of the characteristics of this façade. Its
elongated overall proportions were predetermined by the original building, but the individual
bays also appear strikingly wide, as if pressed down by the weight of the entablature. Perhaps
Michelangelo wanted to emphasize the contrast with the considerably taller Senator’s Palace,
or perhaps he was mindful of the fact that, within the ensemble of the piazza, the palaces along
the sides are generally seen in foreshortening, and that they are viewed squarely from the front
as an exception rather than as a rule.
Hardest to reconstruct is the evolution of the project as a whole. For Michelangelo’s Capitol
was a highly complex creation: as described by Vasari in 1568 and illustrated with a few vagar-
ies by Dupérac, it was certainly not the work of an instant. The idea of a group of buildings
organized symmetrically along an axis may have been in Michelangelo’s mind since 1538, but
he had no opportunity to turn it into reality. His time was also fully taken up during these
years with work on the Last Judgement. Only after the completion of the fresco in 1541 did
he return to his architectural duties. Over the following years he probably produced what
Vasari, taking its familiarity amongst his readership for granted, in 1550 called il disegno del
Campidoglio. This design certainly included the staircase in front of the Senator’s Palace and
probably also the plans for the Conservators’ Palace, reflections of which are already appar-
ent in other architects’ works from around the 1550s, in Palladio’s Chiericati and Valmarana
Rome, view of the steps in front of the Senator’s Palace

Pages 504/505
Rome, view of the Conservators’ Palace
503
palaces and in Vasari’s Uffizi. By the time building commenced, Michelangelo was already
eighty-eight: it is unlikely that he would have embarked on such a complicated, technically
challenging and labour-intensive project at this point in time. He appears not to have visited
the construction site again.
There is no evidence to suggest that Michelangelo had more extensive plans for the Sena-
tor’s Palace, and it is by no means certain that he envisaged it – as it appears in Dupérac’s
engravings – as a hierarchically superior mirror image of the two palaces on either side. Bearing
in mind the different functions served by each building, their architecture might mean some-
thing entirely different: thus the antiquated exterior of the Senator’s Palace – with Michelan-
gelo’s stairs in front of a façade guarded by corner towers – could refer to an authority derived
from feudal tradition; while the satellite palaces, with their modern take on classical architec-
ture, might represent the forces active in civic society, namely the municipal council and the
guilds. This contrast, if such was Michelangelo’s intention, has been levelled out in Dupérac’s
version, in which the pilasters are flattened and generalized into purely decorative motifs.
Even after its remodelling, the Senator’s Palace remained imposing above all due to its elevated
position, its silhouette and its volume; the Conservators’ Palace, due to its articulation. The
colossal order appears in the former as regal and abstract, in the latter as concrete and carrying
real stresses; we can see it “working”.
Though Michelangelo’s Capitol is political architecture, its “message” is not easy to under-
stand. Paul III wanted to transform the seat of the Commune into a showcase of magisterial
power. Rome’s imperial forums, in particular Trajan’s Forum, provided examples of public
spaces laid out around the figure of a ruler. Whatever Michelangelo’s thoughts on the matter,
he made Paul’s ambition his own and realized it in grand style. The Capitol remains even today
the seat of Rome’s municipal government, even if it allows no room for democratic action:
indeed, a mayoral decree of 1998 expressly prohibits demonstrations of any kind on the piazza,
in view of the “cultural assets that make it one of the most prestigious sites in Rome”. In put-
ting art before politics, pomp and circumstance before the exercise of power, Romans have
behaved the same way ever since medieval times.
In the Middle Ages, the representatives of the people displayed antique statues on the
Capitoline Hill as a testament to the greatness of Rome. Michelangelo proceeded to lend an
architectural dimension to this utopian collection of antiquities by providing them with an
appropriate built environment. For, as always, his architecture aimed higher than was neces-
sary for practical purposes. In functional terms a complex of administrative buildings like
Vasari’s Uffizi, his Capitol palaces rise above the everyday life of the city as a secular Acropo-
lis. Michelangelo expected of Paul IV that he should “set about putting the world to rights”
instead of worrying about individual details in the Sistine frescoes. Perhaps we may see in his
Rome, Conservators’ Palace, detail of the façade
507
MICHEL ANGELO
Capitol something like the ideal of an ordered community, a successor to the ideal cityscapes
of Renaissance painting. But where freedom and order there combine automatically into one,
tension now exists between them. Michelangelo’s ideal city arose out of the modern era’s crisis
of consciousness.
With the death of Antonio da Sangallo the Younger in September 1546, the largest build-
ing site in Rome, the basilica of St Peter’s, was orphaned. It had been inaugurated forty years
earlier and Sangallo had served it ever since – as Bramante’s a ssistant and then as second
architect to Raphael, before finally rising to chief of works after Raphael’s death. Sangallo had
seen all the successive plans for the project and had contributed to most of them. Now Michel-
angelo, who since his first defeat against Bramante had kept away from St Peter’s, took over in
his place – on the orders of the Pope, “against my will and under tremendous pressure”, as he
later declared. He must have known that he would not be able to get out of the task. But he
also knew what it meant. After five crisis-shaken pontificates, the plans for the vast building
were hopelessly bogged down; bureaucracy within the relevant authorities had grown, corrup-
tion and financial mismanagement were widespread and the building had become a hostage
in the hands of those running it. So it was not a question of producing more new designs,
however attractive, but of getting construction back on track, against the resistance of the setta
sangallesca – the “Sangallo sect”, as Michelangelo grimly called it – and its supporters within
the Curia.
Michelangelo’s weapon was a counter-alliance between himself and the Pope as the
supreme decision-making authority with absolute sovereignty, a tactic he had already employed
in his Florentine projects. Authors have spoken quite rightly of Michelangelo’s “artistic absolut-
ism”; it corresponds to the option by the European bourgeoisie for a modern, centrally gov-
erned state instead of the privileged system of feudal society. Paul III justified the extraordinary
powers that he granted to his architect on the grounds that Michelangelo was carrying out his
duties purely per l’amor de Dio, having renounced the salary to which he was entitled. This
assured Michelangelo of the unassailability of one sent by God. He told the commissioners
of the Congregazione della Fabbrica – the commission overseeing the building of the new St
Peter’s – that it was their duty to raise the necessary money and guard it against “thieves”, by
which he meant deceitful workmen and officials. Designing the building was his affair and
he would discuss it only with the Pope – something that Paul III and his successor Julius III
(reigned 1550–1555) expressly confirmed. In the Fabbrica, Michelangelo provoked a scandal,
found fault with every aspect of Sangallo’s design and replaced the leaders of the Sangallo
clique by men he trusted. It was and remained a battle with a many-headed monster: just a
year before his death, Michelangelo had to threaten to resign in order get the appointment of
his arch enemy Baccio Bigio as soprastante revoked.
Rome, Conservators’ Palace, view into the interior of the portico
508
The history of the planning and construction of the new St Peter’s cannot be summarized
here. The stage that it had reached at the time of Michelangelo’s appointment is illustrated
by Sangallo’s famous wooden model of 1539–1546, a colossal work more than 7 metres (over
22’) long, illustrating every detail perfectly to scale. It has no nave, probably at the wish of
the Pope, who wanted to see finite limits placed on the construction period; on the other
hand, Sangallo had designed an absurdly complicated vestibule and façade that, had they been
executed, would have made any time savings an illusion. In the meantime, a curious architec-
tural hybrid was created at the construction site itself: the front half – still standing – of the
nave of the old St Peter’s was consolidated and made fit for the resumption of regular worship.
Sangallo linked it to the still open eastern arm of the new basilica via an intermediary tract and
thereby created a de facto nave, which was naturally only intended as a provisional solution but
which would remain in place until the new nave was built in the 17th century.
What Michelangelo proposed instead is revealed by a series of engravings by Dupérac.
These show a building that at first sight has virtually nothing left in common with Sangallo’s
model. Gone is the façade with its towers and superstructures; reduced, too, is the size of the
central body, from whose apses Michelangelo has trimmed Bramante’s outer ambulatories,
which he believed – as emerges from a letter – to be a disfiguring addition by Sangallo. He
evidently took as his starting point the choir arm that Bramante, at the wish of Julius II and
deviating from his own design, had to erect over the Quattrocento foundations of the Rossel-
lino choir. Michelangelo envisaged four such arms, single-aisled, without ambulatories, lit by
large windows and articulated inside and out by colossal pilasters. The St Peter’s that floated
before him was “clear and pure, full of light, freestanding all around”, as he himself formulated
his ideal. It was a radical departure from the traditional basilica and its hierarchic organization,
spatial complexity and diffuse lighting, which lived on in Bramante’s designs and had also been
preserved by Sangallo.
Michelangelo was probably well aware that he would not live long enough to com-
plete the building. His prime concern was thus to ensure his compositione against altera-
tions by his successors. Two structures may be viewed as typical of the whole build-
ing: the hemicycle (apse) of the south transept arm and the dome. Sangallo had already
built the lower level of the semicircular ambulatory at the end of the hemicycle. Its
abandonment met with fierce resistance from the commissioners, who were unwill-
ing to accept any reduction in the scale of the building. Once Michelangelo had fin-
ished, they insisted, the Pope would have to change the name S. Pietro to S. Pietrino –
“little St Peter’s”. But the economic arguments were irrefutable: sacrificing the work a lready
done would mean significant savings in time and costs for the remainder of the building.
Only gradually did Michelangelo’s contemporaries come to appreciate the aesthetic gains that
Rome, view of the southern tribune of St Peter’s
511
were also made; Vasari pithily sums up the effect of Michelangelo’s building as minor forma,
ma sì bene maggior grandezza (“diminished size, but increased grandeur”). This reduction did
not, however, mean that planning was s implified – on the contrary. Unfortunately, however,
due to lack of relevant drawings we are unable to reconstruct Michelangelo’s procedure. An
urgent priority was to r eplace the four spiral ramps planned by Sangallo for delivering build-
ing materials to the higher levels. Michelangelo created new stairwells inside the buttressing
piers on the building’s perimeter. Outside, he gave these secondary piers diagonal faces and
thereby lent the exterior a cohesive body. An impression of the complexity of the structure
is conveyed by Ferrabosco’s engravings, which present horizontal and vertical cross-sections
through masonry bodies and cavities, vaults, steps and corridors, drawn in various planes on
a detailed scale of 1:100.
With regard to the overall plan for the new basilica, Michelangelo’s goal was clear: the
concept at the core of Bramante’s design – the large dome above a structure of columns and
arches – was also to be visible in the building’s exterior. Where Sangallo, adhering faithfully
to Vitruvius, had stacked one order of columns above another, colossal pilasters, grouped into
pairs, now indicated the load-bearing parts of the apse wall of the building. Niches opened
up between the pilasters at ground level, and above them windows, also colossal (p. 510). The
critical zone was that of the vault. The apse vault, like the wall rising up to it, was to be entirely
of travertine, “something rarely seen in Rome”, as Michelangelo wrote to Vasari, and was to be
made up of three curved sections. But Michelangelo’s instructions were apparently not clear
or not detailed enough: the workmen trained under Sangallo constructed the vault in the
traditional style, and when Michelangelo (who now visited the site only rarely) saw the results,
he wanted to “die of shame”. He insisted that the sections already in place be dismantled and
re-built. Above the main entablature on the outside, corresponding to the vaults, was the attic
storey: Michelangelo left its surfaces plain and carved three massive arched windows into its
smooth walls, so as to allow light into the interior. It was an unconventional idea, and straight
after Michelangelo’s death the cladding visible in the Dupérac engravings was added (first on
the north side) and the funnel-shaped light shafts were given rectangular window frames.
Michelangelo’s architecture considerably taxed contemporary powers of comprehension.
Roman tastes were shaped by the classicism of the school of Bramante and Raphael, with
which Sangallo’s model fell fully in line: for those who knew the rules of “good architec-
ture”, its design made logical sense. Against this background, the hemicycle that Michelan-
gelo presented in 1546/47, first in clay and then in his wooden model, must have seemed a
monstrosity born of pure caprice. This can be deduced from a letter in which Michelangelo
rebuffs a critic, probably a member of the Congregazione della Fabbrica, with a commonplace
of architectural theory: since he has altered the ground plan, he has also had to change the
Rome, window of the southern tribune of St Peter’s, exterior view
513
MICHEL ANGELO
adornamenti, the two being interrelated like the limbs of the human body; someone who
hadn’t studied anatomy would not understand. He was no doubt aware that what he wanted
to do and what he had done could not be explained in rational terms. Rather, the novelty
of his architectural language lay in the emotional charge carried by all its forms, including
and especially those couched in conventional terms. Thus he left untouched the elements
providing the interior articulation of the hemicycle – Bramante’s large pilasters and archi-
traved columns – but placed each one under tension: load-bearing members project forwards,
cornices return upon themselves and the windows are set in deep shafts within which the
square-stoned masonry work of the interior wall is exposed. The window frames are thrust
against the lower edge of the entablature and their pediments split open (p. 515). On the exte-
rior of the building, too, the individual forms are not necessarily new when seen on paper;
standing before them, however, what overwhelms the viewer is primarily their size and per-
haps a subconscious fear of the forces kept in motion by their stony bulk, far in excess of
what is structurally required. This impression was probably even more forceful prior to the
addition of the facing, when the jostling of the articulations still contrasted with Michel-
angelo’s smooth attic. Even so it remains an astonishing piece of “absolute” architecture,
as such comparable with the Ricetto in the Laurentian Library. Instead of turning its back on
classical tradition, however, it now incorporates it and illustrates ways of deploying it.
As soon as work had started on the new hemicycle, Michelangelo turned his attention to
the dome. Its execution still lay far off, but it would crown the building and ensure that his
vision for St Peter’s would endure. Bramante had done the same, committing to paper “before
he died” (Serlio) his own design for the dome, which Serlio then published as a woodcut. No
serious steps towards raising the dome had been taken since then. Only under Michelangelo’s
supervision did the new basilica gain a little more height, with the erection of the drum on
Bramante’s supporting arches. Although he got no further than this, he left behind a wooden
model of his design (p. 522). Twenty years after Michelangelo’s death, della Porta executed
the dome in a slightly different form: the profile of the outer shell was made steeper, so that
the apex lies over 8 metres (26’) higher than Michelangelo intended. The model itself was
also altered during these years. This has prompted efforts to reconstruct Michelangelo’s dome
on the basis of early drawings of the model, Dupérac’s series of engravings and the detailed
description provided by Vasari; after intensive discussion in the literature, the issues thereby
raised can be considered essentially resolved.
Art and science came together in the construction of the dome, as the shape of the design
is influenced by the consideration of static forces and structural strength. Bramante had imag-
ined placing the hemispherical dome of the Pantheon on a freestanding, light-filled drum and
weighting it at the apex with a lantern – a bold synthesis of heterogeneous elements taken
Rome, window of the southern tribune of St Peter’s, interior view
514
from various building traditions. His

successor Sangallo was sceptical; he
preferred to base his own designs on
a contemporary large-scale example,
Brunelleschi’s dome for Florence
cathedral (p. 298). He explored the
possibility of a pointed-arch pro-
file and in his own wooden model
of St Peter’s gave the interior of the
dome an elliptical cross-section; he
retained Bramante’s hemisphere for
the exterior, but concealed its foot
zone behind a two-storey gallery that
was intended to reinforce the drum
against the thrust of the vault. Early
on in his work on St Peter’s, Michelangelo, too, sent for the dimensions of the Florentine
dome. But he wanted to free the drum from Sangallo’s gallery and make the vault fully visible
again. In his early designs he vacillates between hemispherical and slightly pointed profiles. A
new structural concept thereby emerges: the outer shell of the vault is no longer treated purely
as a covering but itself assumes a load-bearing function. In the Haarlem drawing it looks as
if it is specifically intended to carry the lantern, which Michelangelo perhaps recognized as
the real problem of the dome. In contrast to Sangallo, he wanted to leave the inner shell as
a hemisphere but steepen the sides of the outer shell, so that the gap between them widened
towards the top. This remained a feature of his design even in his wooden model and was also
adopted by della Porta; precedents could already be found in Florence in the work of Giuliano
da Sangallo (Bellini, 2006). In the model, both shells were hemispherical in shape, but the cen-
tres of the curves were offset against each other in a complex fashion (p. 522), as Michelangelo
explained in detail in a letter to Vasari. At all events, its construction lay at the very bounds
of what was technically possible (whereas Sangallo’s ellipse was fairly close to ideal in terms
of statics); whether it would have proved successful, and whether della Porta’s modifications
indeed improved it, are questions that remain to be investigated.
In the design of the drum, Michelangelo looked back to his designs for the cathedral in
Florence of thirty years earlier. In the Lille drawing he is still considering twelve large circu-
lar windows; these later give way to sixteen tall rectangular windows with pediments. The
Rome, view of the south transept arm of St. Peter’s

Paris Nogari, Idealized veduta of St Peter’s (detail), 1587,
Fresco, Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica,Vaticana, La Sala Sistina
517
MICHEL ANGELO
The dome of St Peter’s reveals new beauties at every time of the day
and year: whether it is gleaming at dawn or in the midday heat,
whether the windows of its drum are lit by the setting sun, or whether
it is cast into shadow by dark rain and storm clouds,
even when the leaden skies of the scirocco lie over the Eternal City…
It is magnificent from every angle, from Pincio and from the imperial
palaces. Seen from the heights of the Alban Hills,
it dominates all the other buildings of Rome.
LUDWIG VON PASTOR, 1926
Pages 518/519 and 521

Dome of St Peter’s
520
convincingly a ttributed to Vignola, whereas the two minor domes actually standing today stem
from della Porta. No designs by Michelangelo have survived; whether structures such as these
were anything like what he had in mind, or how else he was thinking of s olving the technical
problems associated with the construction of the corner chapels (lighting, water supply), we
do not know.
St Peter’s is Michelangelo’s largest work of architecture and the one with which he identi-
fied most unreservedly. Invited to return to Florence by Cosimo I, Michelangelo asked Vasari
to convey to the Duke that, for the love of God and St Peter, he could not leave Rome as
other people would spoil the fabric of his basilica: this would be a misfortune, a disgrace and a
great sin. The more preoccupied he became with death (“not a thought arises in me that does
not have Death carved within it”), the more urgently he felt the need to realize his vision of
a new church liberated from the chains of tradition. He almost succeeded. But construction
continued after his death: a nave was added and the centralized building with its dome hidden
from sight. By means of corrections and additions, Michelangelo’s building was smoothed out,
toned down and integrated within the historical context of the old St Peter’s. The building
today offers only a fragmentary glimpse of Michelangelo’s original vision.
To the viewer on the piazza before it, “the Farnese dice” (il dado dei Farnese; p. 524/525) betrays
virtually nothing of the ups and downs that accompanied the almost one hundred years of its
construction history. Begun in 1514 by Antonio da Sangallo, the building progressed relatively
Model of the dome of St Peter’s, i nterior and exterior view, 1558–1561
Rome, Reverenda Fabbrica di S. Pietro slowly until, twenty years later, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese was elected Pope Paul III. What
had been conceived as a residential inner-city palace now assumed the role of a princely resi-
dence, even if not much could be changed about its location and size. Sangallo made solid pro-
hemisphere in the Dupérac engravings (p. 729) weighs heavily on the drum (whereas della gress on his revised design, leaving Michelangelo no choice but to pursue the same line when,
Porta’s cupola soars easily above it); the lateral thrust is taken up around the springing line by after Sangallo’s death, Paul III appointed him to take over this project as well. Michelangelo
sixteen buttresses weighted down with colossal statues. Rising in front of these buttresses are was nonetheless determined to leave his own mark upon the new palace.
paired columns that seem to concentrate, r egularize and hold in check the rhythm of the pilas- Michelangelo’s changes to the front façade caused a furore. Sangallo, just as he had done
ter order in the building below. The doubled lines of force continue in the ribs of the dome on the exterior of St Peter’s, had stacked one register upon another (the ground and first floors
(the Dupérac engraving shows it in the form originally planned) and culminate in the sixteen were completed before his death, the third, lower in height, was still under construction).
pairs of columns in the lantern. Michelangelo took into account the overall proportions of the block and – as in his design for
With regard to the building as a whole, two questions remain open. The Dupérac engrav- the façade of S. Lorenzo in Florence (p. 302) – shifted the weight of the composition upwards,
ings show an entrance façade of two rows of columns, but the illustration c ontains funda- insofar as he raised the height of the third register and crowned it with an over-heavy cornice
mental contradictions and there are grounds to suggest that it was added at a later date. In an that related to the mass of the building as a whole (p. 526). This was something new for Rome.
early, very summary drawing, Michelangelo has sketched an open portico, rather like that of A temporary section of cornice over 3.50 metres (12’) in length was made out of wood and
the Pantheon, in front of the east hemicycle. He was probably considering a solution of this provisionally mounted on the top right-hand corner of the façade; after being approved by the
type for the entrance but left behind no a ctual design. It therefore fell to his successors to Pope, it was executed in stone. But members of the setta sangallesca were quickly on the scene:
complete “the Michelangelo project”, which was to be documented in engravings. The case a document written probably by Antonio’s brother Giambattista listed all the “errors” in the
was the same with the minor domes, or more accurately the open-sided false domes over the new cornice. Baccio Bigio warned that its excessive (physical) weight would endanger the life
four corner chapels in the church below. The designs shown in the Dupérac engravings are of the façade. He probably knew that the foundations of the front wing were partly based on
522 523
weak antique masonry; they did indeed later have to be reinforced. A second change affected
the central window on the piano nobile. Sangallo had already given it a balcony, columns and
an arched opening post-1534; Michelangelo opted as always for a flat architrave; on the wall
area thereby gained, he mounted a colossal marble coat of arms crowned by a tiara and keys.
After the death of Paul III, Michelangelo handed over the running of the project to
Vignola, who had already been employed by the Farnese for two years. The architecture of the
courtyard nevertheless largely adhered to Michelangelo’s design (p. 529). In the second storey,
Sangallo’s columned arcade, whose components were probably already made, was enriched
and alienated from its Vitruvian origins with an exquisitely carved frieze. The third storey is
pure anti-Sangallo: steep proportions, aedicule windows of deliberate eccentricity, no arches,
no half-columns, but instead groupings of shallow pilasters and a brilliantly foreshortened,
exquisitely ornamented entablature. Vasari pronounced that Michelangelo had here “enno-
bled” Roman travertine by treating it like marble.
A princely residence should command a powerful presence and dominate its surround-
ings. The Farnese Palace succeeds by its volume alone, visually accentuated by Michelangelo.
Although its design parameters were significantly restricted by its urban location, it still proved
possible to create a square in front of the palace and to lay out a more or less straight road run-
ning from the Campo dei Fiori up to the entrance portal. Michelangelo seems to have wanted
to continue this visual axis through the palace complex: thus the loggias on the ground and
first floors of the rear courtyard façade were to remain open, in order to allow a view into the
second courtyard, where a marble sculpture of the Farnese Bull, recently excavated in the Baths
of Caracalla, was to be installed. According to Vasari, Michelangelo even proposed building a
bridge over the Tiber on the same axis, in order to connect the Farnese Palace with the family’s
suburban villa, the Farnesina, on the opposite bank. This would have created within the city’s
bounds a palace complex along the lines of the Vatican – a goal that Paul III evidently already
had in mind when he built his Aracoeli villa. Pope Paul’s Roma farnesiana (Bruschi, 2004)
would thereby have received its dominant centre.
Michelangelo’s Roman buildings are the works of his old age: when he took up the post of
chief architect of St Peter’s, he was seventy-one. Architectural commissions were bestowed
upon him even after this, and although he never refused them, he restricted his contribution
as a rule to proposals or advice; he was no longer prepared to take responsibility for an entire
project. On four occasions in the final five years of his long life, nevertheless, he came up with
ideas that were entirely new and which challenged all the conventions of his day.
Pages 524/525
Rome, Farnese Palace exterior
Farnese palace, detail of the cornice
527
MICHEL ANGELO
Within the palace over the first storey of the courtyard

Michelangelo continued the other two storeys,
with their i ncomparably beautiful, graceful, and v aried windows,
ornamentation and crowning cornice. Hence, through the labours
and genius of that man, the courtyard has been transformed into
the most beautiful in all Europe.
GIORGIO VASARI
Rome, Farnese Palace, view of the inner courtyard
528
In the history of S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, the national church founded in 1484 for
Florentines living in Rome, there appear the names of the most famous architects of the
Renaissance. Although there was no lack of magnificent plans for the church, construc-
tion – for a variety of reasons – never progressed beyond the opening stages. Not until 1583
did della Porta finally start building the church that stands today. So when the Florentines
asked Michelangelo for a design in July 1559, he was able on this one occasion to give free
rein to his powers of invention. He also said yes immediately, without the usual prevari-
cation, but let it be known that he wished to be asked by the Duke himself. Cosimo de’
Medici did so in the most ingratiating manner (“We would like to ask you, if it isn’t too
much trouble, to lend us a bit of a hand…”). Michelangelo replied by return of post that he
had already made various designs and that the commissioners had chosen the most beauti-
ful. According to Vasari, the artist declared to the Florentines that this would be a building
“superior to anything done by either the Greeks or the Romans”, in an apparent return to
the euphoric mood that had accompanied his first commission for the Medici, the façade
for S. Lorenzo (“the mirror of all Italy”). Michelangelo’s plans were translated into presenta-
tion drawings by his assistant Tiberio Calcagni, and a clay model and a wooden model were
built, the latter 1.80 metres (6’) high. In March 1560, Calcagni travelled to Pisa to deliver
a set of drawings to the Duke. The latter was effusive in expressing his delight and paying com-
pliment to the artist – “I have fallen in love with your design (…) The building will uphold
the glory of our city and your eternal memory, as you truly d eserve” – and also promised
somewhat vaguely to release the necessary funds. In May, a building contractor was appointed
and work began on the foundations under the direction of Calcagni. But the money was never
very forthcoming and dried up altogether in 1562, marking the end of the project.
Michelangelo’s wooden model survived into the 18th century and is well documented in
drawings and engravings (pp. 533, 534, 738). Harder to assess are his designs. Three or four
ground plans in the Casa Buonarroti can be linked to S. Giovanni. But these are working
drawings, not finished plans (Michelangelo apologized to the Duke that old age prevented
him from completing proper presentation drawings), even though one of them may have been
shown to the Duke (“the ground plan that you have seen”). Michelangelo used just one sheet
for each design, exploring and correcting his work with a pencil, pen and brush – not for the
sake of achieving a “painterly” effect but in order to save himself the effort of having to draw the
construction all over again. Thus guidelines, sketches, preliminary ideas and corrections are laid
down one of top of the other, and the forceful washes should be understood not as expressions
of the draughtsman’s energy but as a means of clarifying the end result. These sheets do not yield
details of the church’s elevation and it is not always clear how Michelangelo saw it in the round.
Ground-plan design and sketches for S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, 1559

Pen, wash, red and black chalk, 425 x 295 mm. Florence, Casa Buonarroti, 120Ar
530 531
What is clear is that Michelangelo wanted a centralized building – the plot was suitable
for such a shape – and that his definition of this concept was astonishingly broad. Familiar
with the examples of the Pantheon, S. Costanza and S. Stefano Rotondo, the Baptistery in
Florence, Brunelleschi’s S. Maria degli Angeli and Bramante’s Tempietto, with its round court-
yard, it became Michelangelo’s aim to surpass them all by blending their basic forms. Circle
and square, ambulatory, octagon, Greek cross and St Andrew’s cross were to be combined and
fused into a higher union. His guiding principle appears to have been the centralized symme-
try imposed more rigorously with each design and to which all the functional components of
the church (portico, baptismal chapel, presbytery, main and side altars, chapels and sacristies)
are subordinate. But this grand synthesis is only partially successful. In the definitive version
illustrated in the model, the ambulatory has disappeared, the inner circle of paired columns
has shifted to the periphery, and cylinders and hemispheres form a central space of elemental
simplicity, surrounded by a succession of clearly separate peripheral areas, partly rectangular
and partly oval. The walls consist of eight piers rhythmically grouped between the arms of the
compass card, with larger and smaller arcades opening alternately between them. Above every
pier (!) in the drum zone sits a large window, whose angled light shaft widens towards the
exterior. Each peripheral room includes another two small windows, making a total of twenty-
four in the rising walls; combined with the lantern of the dome, the result would have been a
Pantheon flooded with daylight from all sides.
The treatment of the walls is strictly tectonic, with full columns in two storeys, niches and a
few framed fields left plain; future generations of donors could have added their own flourishes Jacques Le Mercier, Michelangelo’s and Tiberio Calcagni’s
here had the building been executed. The exterior is articulated with maximum economy by wooden model for San Giovanni dei Fiorentini, 1607
plain (“Tuscan”) pilasters; the attic is smooth, the dome a purely pivotal body devoid of all relief.
It is strange to think that Michelangelo was working on his model for the dome of St Peter’s dur-
ing these very same years, 1558–1561. Was he solely interesting in exploring the breadth of formal The patron was Cardinal Guido Ascanio Sforza, dean of S. Maria Maggiore, who died
possibilities, or was S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini to be a contemplative, self-contained counterpole in 1564. The Sforza Chapel was to serve not just as a burial chapel for the Sforza family but
to the rhetoric of power politics employed in the papal basilica? The ideal of a calm centrality, also as the chapel of the Holy Sacrament for the basilica as a whole. This perhaps explains its
symmetrical on all sides and disturbed by no pull in any direction, may also be understood in unusual shape: a square crossing with a column at each corner and tomb niches along the
this sense: a symbol of the renunciation of an Active Life dedicated to the conflicts of this world. walls to the right and left of the entrance, followed by a deep altar chapel, or sacellum. A tab-
ernacle housing the Holy Sacrament was to stand on the altar in the sacellum, where it would
The Sforza Chapel (pp. 536/537) in the left-hand side aisle of the church of S. Maria M aggiore be easily visible from the nave of the main church. It may be deduced from the preparatory
was for a long time thought to be a posthumously executed and thereby a corrupted work of sketches that the motif of the four columns was originally conceived for the sacellum and only
dubious authenticity. Only recently have its origins been clarified and Michelangelo’s author- later found its way into the burial chapel; its inspiration is therefore not to be sought in the
ship confirmed in all essential points (Satzinger, 2005), casting his late work as a whole in thematic context of a “mausoleum”. The square central area and the semicircular lateral niches
a new light. The design must have been conceived in late 1561 or early 1562, in other words are clearly distinct in the sketches; only when built did the Sforza Chapel acquire the open
directly after that for S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini. By August 1562 there was a model, and by structure that today so easily confuses the viewer. The four central columns, carrying blocks
1563 construction was underway under the direction of Tiberio Calcagni; he must have made of entablature and backed by jutting sections of wall, face diagonally across a space whose
rapid progress since Sicciolante’s altarpiece is dated 1565. The entrance façade in the side aisle bounds escape the eye. The shallow conches, whose ends disappear b ehind the two-pronged
of the main church was added in 1573, probably by Giacomo della Porta. piers, suggest the idea of an all-embracing rotunda; at the same time, however, a second set
532 533
autonomous architecture – the same ideal that underlay his early work in Florence. It is prob-
ably no coincidence that the Sforza Chapel contains echoes of the “polyphonic” compositional
technique of those years (New Sacristy, Laurentian Library): the half-hidden columns facing
towards the wall and the motif of what might be called a “reversed offset” (whereby the col-
umns recede and the wall areas between them advance) are both symptomatic of this technique
(p. 541). And here, as before, the most ambitious plans went hand in hand with the risk of fail-
ure. Even for later eyes accustomed to Baroque architecture, there remains something abrupt
and inconsistent about the Sforza Chapel; some of its views remain objectively ugly because
they are incomprehensible; their intended context is not made clear. Perhaps Michelangelo
never quite finished thinking his ideas through. But he knew that he alone could still turn
them into reality.
The Baths of Diocletian, the largest building complex to have survived from imperial Rome,
were the subject of regular reconstruction attempts by the architects of the Renaissance. Yet
the name Diocletian – a Roman Emperor who had persecuted early Christians – filled the
Church with horror: it evoked images of hordes of Christian slaves whose sweat and blood
were shed in the construction of the Baths. It therefore seemed only proper that the ruins
should be converted into a memorial to these same martyrs. A Sicilian priest by the name of
Antonio del Duca, a friend of I gnatius Loyola and Filippo Neri, took up the cause, but failed
to gain Paul III’s support against the Commune of Rome, under whose jurisdiction the ruined
Baths fell. Under Julius III, however, del Duca was granted permission to erect fourteen altars
in the well-preserved central hall of the complex. The Baths were eventually converted into
a proper church as part of the urban planning measures initiated by Pius IV. Its new name,
Giovanni Antonio Dosio, S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, section through the wooden model S. Maria degli Angeli (St Mary of the Angels), was inspired by a vision of angels experienced
Modena, Biblioteca Estense, ms. Campori App. 1775 (C. 140v–141r) by del Duca, but also flattered the Pope, whose secular forename was Giovanni Angelico. To
this energetic Milanese, the uncle and champion of the great church reformer Carlo Borromeo,
we owe not only the end of the Council of Trent but also the existence of Michelangelo’s late
of four columns appears in the angle between the conches and the piers, as if there were more works of architecture: S. Maria degli Angeli, the Porta Pia, the Capitol and the Conservators’
space beyond them. The vault, to be imagined without arches (according to Satzinger) and Palace all arose at his wish. He may also have had a hand in the Sforza Chapel commission
not entirely successful in its execution, does not delimit the areas beneath but appears rather to (Satzinger, 2005).
billow above them like a sail (p. 539). Only in the sacellum are right angles, straight walls and With regard to the creation of the church in the former Baths of Diocletian, Michelangelo
a regular barrel vault given their due. made two decisions of great consequence. The first concerned its orientation. Del Duca had
As in S. Giovanni, Michelangelo was here too seeking alternatives to the conventional made his church in the former frigidarium, a rectangular hall measuring approximately 56 x
typology of the sacred interior. But whereas he returned, in his model for the Florentines’ 23 metres (184 x 76’), which he treated as a long nave. The altars were erected against the side
church, to a self-contained, hierarchically anchored spatial form, he moves forward in this walls and the entrance lay at one of the narrow ends of the hall. Michelangelo moved the main
smaller, less prominent chapel towards an architecture that does not yet exist. This implied entrance to the centre of one of the long walls and thereby onto the principal axis of sym-
a radical criticism of contemporary architecture in Rome, which was increasingly restrict- metry of the original complex; this allowed the circular tepidarium adjoining the frigidarium
ing itself to supplying a glittering framework for the doctrines of the Counter-Reformation. to the south-west to be incorporated as a vestibule – something no one else had thought
Michelangelo once again opposes such subservience with his ideal of an absolute, artistically of and “surpassing the expectations of all the architects” (Vasari). The main altar was sited
534 535
MICHEL ANGELO
As far as the design is concerned, however, it is a supreme

achievement of Buonarroti’s genius: of grandiose simplicity,
wonderful novelty, thereby strictly regular and terrifyingly large.
Whoever sees the chapel is overwhelmed: he has the impression that
this is no real building before him, but an abstract idea,
a fantasy or dream image of an architecture never seen before,
one that it is beyond the ability of the human intellect to grasp.
GIOVANNI BOTTARI, 1748
Pages 536/537
Rome, Sforza Chapel in S. Maria Maggiore, view of the altar area
Page 539
Rome, Sforza Chapel in S. Maria Maggiore, view of the vault
538
opposite the entrance. Behind it, Michelangelo created a chancel for the monks that commu-
nicated with the altar area through an open arrangement of columns, and at the same time was
easily accessible from the neighbouring monastery. The narrow sides of the hall were also given
entrances. Thus Michelangelo once again created a centralized building of sorts, although he
thereby avoided marking the centre itself in any way; the spatial form ultimately remains open
(pp. 542/543). This ties in with Michelangelo’s second major decision: to make no incursions
into the substance of the antique building. He does not exploit the all too obvious opportunity
to Christianize the pagan building in architectural terms, too, and to trump classical antiquity
with the modern style; rather, the raw scale of the imperial Roman monument is left to deliver
its full impact. Bare walls, large windows, eight colossal granite columns with composite capi-
tals and entablature blocks carrying a three-bay, unarticulated groin vault: this was Michel
angelo’s final, irrevocable rejection of the spirit of his age.
The renovation of the building did not take very long. A foundation stone was laid
beneath the main altar in August 1561 and construction was in progress by 1563. Mass was
already being said in May 1565. How much Michelangelo contributed towards individual
details (windows, doors etc.) is not documented. In the 17th century the church remained
essentially untouched (not least since private donors were put off by the size of the chapels)
and was considered by connoisseurs to be one of the most beautiful in Rome. Only in 1749
was Vanvitelli commissioned to bring it into line with contemporary taste. He faced the walls
with plaster and marble, linked the columns (to which he added a further six) by a continuous
entablature, coupled them with pilasters and thereby neutralized them into an articulating
“order” (pp. 542/543). Of Michelangelo’s Baths there remained nothing but the groin vault and Rome, Sforza Chapel in S. Maria Maggiore,
the vast dimensions of the original hall. view of the entablature
No sooner had he been elected Pope than Pius IV set about implementing a plan he had
probably harboured for a long time: the creation of a new street, to be called the Via Pia, run- denoting the eastern end of the new street: for the patron, an opportunity to see his own
ning along the crest of the hill from the Quirinal to the Porta Nomentana (p. 545). The old coat of arms rise like the Sun over his creation, and for Michelangelo, a chance to design an
street along the same route was straightened, levelled and widened, and its inhabitants were architectural – and modern – counterpart to the masterpieces of antique sculpture that stood
instructed to embellish the walls and gates of their gardens and vineyards – a request they at the west end of the same street, i.e. the Dioscuri, which were believed to be the works of
hastened to fulfil, as ambassadors writing from Rome report. These improvements do not Phidias and Praxiteles.
appear to have concealed any religious aims and no new churches or chapels were planned; Work on the new street commenced in 1560. The commemorative medal for the city gate
the construction of S. Maria degli Angeli in the nearby Baths of Diocletian may have pro- was commissioned before April 1561 and the foundation stone was laid in June; Michelangelo
vided an excuse. A new entrance to the city was to be created a short distance to the north was working on drawings for the outer gate in August. In May 1562 the sculptor Jacopo Del
of the old Porta Nomentana, and Michelangelo was invited to design a gateway that, as the Duca, a nephew of the priest of S. Maria degli Angeli, was paid for completing the papal coat
“Porta Pia”, was to crown the Pope’s scheme. The commemorative medal issued in 1561 shows of arms. The attic of the gate was under c onstruction by 1564, but was never finished; follow-
a gate crowned by two towers incorporated within the crenellated city wall; this gate was ing the death of the Pope in December 1565, it was left only half-built. The shape in which it
intended to admit access to an inner courtyard, from which a second gateway would open appears in the Faleti engraving published in 1568 – which, like other contemporary engravings
on to the Via Pia. This relatively thin-walled inner structure was the first to be built, before of the Capitol and St Peter’s, was supposed to document “the Michelangelo project” – is not
the project ground to a halt. Thus the Porta Pia is not a true city gate but a visual marker authentic. How far the details of the lateral wings go back to Michelangelo himself is a matter
540 541
MICHEL ANGELO
of contention. The present pediment and the outer gate were commissioned by Pius IX and
were built by Vespignani in 1853 and 1861–1868.
Michelangelo’s designs for the inner gate are exceptionally well documented: three
large-format drawings and a series of sketches can be linked with the commission. The large
sheets show carefully constructed linear grids, above which the artist develops the archi-
tectural motifs of the gate: semicircular, flat and straight arches, flanking columns, vari-
ous pediments, an inscription tablet. Opaque layers of white have faded over the course of
time, revealing ghostly underdrawings beneath. But the design process never becomes
entirely clear; we are left with the impression of an “accumulation” of possibilities rather
than a chronological unfolding of ideas (Maurer, 2006). Contradictions are left unresolved,
triangular and segmental pediments are no longer alternatives, but proceed one from the
other and fuse into a dual entity that is structurally absurd, in a similar fashion to Michel-
angelo’s designs for the reading room of the Laurentian Library. Architecture was to shake
off its sense of frozen permanence and appear as if captured in the process of becom-
ing. A central problem of Michelangelo’s architectural production, as Horst Bredekamp
recognized, is the fact that “the completion of the work [signifies] the death of the creative
process”. This perhaps e xplains the curious fact that Michelangelo (according to Vasari) pre-
sented not one but three different designs for the Porta Pia, just as he had produced several
alternatives for S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, without himself opting for one particular plan
of execution.
The final gate (p. 545) differs considerably even from the designs, as indeed from anything
else built before; it almost appears as if Michelangelo was here trying to illustrate – contrary
to his drawings – the solidification of idea into matter. Any reference to “nature” is avoided,
any “organic” understanding of architecture deliberately thwarted. Rusticated voussoirs, Doric
guttae and garlanded Ionic volutes appear as hugely magnified fragments and acquire their
value in an abstract, alien, no longer intuitable whole. Only the mascherone (grotesque face)
projecting above the keystone exudes a sense of three-dimensional life. Everywhere else, model-
ling has been avoided and the individual forms are sharp-edged and smooth; calculated to be
seen from a distance, they take into account even the changing angle of the Sun. When viewed
from along the Via Pia (today the Via XX Settembre) they are indeed extraordinarily effective.
Within the cityscape of Rome, the Porta Pia remained a foreign body, impossible to assimilate
and indeed not assimilated even by Michelangelo’s Baroque admirers. Only Bernini would
permit himself to cite a detail from the gate, just once, on the interior of the Porta del Popolo.
Pages 542/543
S. Maria degli Angeli
Porta Pia
544
X.
Late works:
The final paintings
and sculptures
1540–1564
Frank Zöllner
Do you know Michelangelo’s love sonnets?

Where this hard enormously strong man
is as tender as a child. He was a vessel that
love was almost able to burst.
PAULA MODERSOHN-BECKER
L ATE WORKS: THE FINAL PAINTINGS AND SCULPTURES
In the final twenty-five years of his life, Michelangelo ceased executing smaller commissions
for private clients almost entirely. A prominent exception here is the bust of Brutus, begun
around 1539 for Niccolò Ridolfi. Michelangelo’s late œuvre is characterized instead by large
papal commissions carried out in Rome, including the completion of the Julius Tomb (p. 548)
and the frescoing of the Pauline Chapel (pp. 554–557). These were accompanied by several
architectural projects, which took up the large part of his time (see Ch. IX). He also created,
for himself, the Florentine Pietà (p. 569) and the Rondanini Pietà (pp. 578, 581), the two last
sculptures by his hand. During these same years, Michelangelo also executed a number of
drawings, including designs for paintings by other artists. From reliable statements by his con-
temporaries, however, we also know that, towards the end of his life, Michelangelo destroyed
the majority of his drawings. Many sheets relating to his late works that have traditionally been
attributed to Michelangelo himself probably stem from artists within his circle. When assessing
Michelangelo’s late work, therefore, these drawings come into consideration only where their
authorship is confirmed beyond doubt.
Any other sixty-six-year-old artist would probably have allowed himself a period of rest
after completing the Last Judgement, or indeed would have had to take a break if he didn’t want
to risk falling off the scaffolding. Not so Michelangelo. The colours of the fresco were barely
dry when he agreed to decorate the Pauline Chapel in the Vatican for Paul III. The scheme is
first mentioned by Cardinal Ascanio Parisani in a letter of 23 November 1541 to Guidobaldo
della Rovere, Duke of Urbino since 1538 and administrator of the estate of Julius II. Not only
did he want new decorations on the walls, but the Pope also wished that any sculptures no
longer required for the Julius Tomb should also be installed in the Pauline Chapel. Something
similar had been contemplated a few years earlier, when it was suggested that figures from the
first tomb project might be used in the Medici Chapel. In the latter instance, the tomb sculp-
tures would at least have ended up in a funerary chapel, and thus in an appropriate location.
This latest proposal by Paul III went significantly further, however, since it meant removing
the figures altogether from their original context and profoundly altering their significance.
But the Pope had overestimated his powers. The sculptures were not transferred and the dis-
pute with the della Rovere heirs, who were pushing for the completion of the Julius Tomb
now that Michelangelo had finished the Last Judgement, grew even more acute. Here, too,
Michelangelo found himself torn between the conflicting interests of his employers. With
the two walls to be frescoed in the Pauline Chapel facing him and the della Rovere breathing
down his neck, he was regularly seized with despair. In a sarcastic letter written to his friend
Page 547
Michelangelo and Tiberio Calcagni, Pietà (detail), c. 1547–1555
(ill. p. 569)
The Tomb of Julius II, 1505–1545
Rome, S. Pietro in Vincoli
549
MICHEL ANGELO
Luigi del Riccio in late October 1542, he longs for an end to the “tragedy” of the Julius Tomb:
“[…] painting and sculpture, labour and trust have ruined me, and it’s still going from bad to
worse. It would have been better if in my early years I had set myself to making matches […]
I don’t want to live under this burden any more, nor be vituperated daily as a cheat by those
who have taken my life and honour from me. Only death or the Pope can free me from it.” In
a very long, very detailed letter written at about this same time to a church dignitary who has
yet to be identified, Michelangelo goes over the whole history of the commission yet again.
His purpose is thereby to defend himself against the renewed, and not entirely unjustified,
accusation of misappropriation of funds, on the grounds that he had pocketed enormous sums
for the Julius Tomb but failed to deliver the promised result.
But a durable compromise was already close at hand. In a petition of 20 July 1542, submit-
ted on Michelangelo’s behalf by Luigi del Riccio, the artist requested a further reduction in the
sculptural programme and a limit upon the number of figures to be executed by his own hand.
Out of the six statues that were now planned, he asked that he should be permitted to finish
only three himself – the Moses and two Prisoners – and to give the other three – the Madonna,
Sibyl and Prophet – to Raffaello da Montelupo to complete. In his petition Michelangelo also
asks his patrons to bear in mind that the two almost finished Prisoners were conceived for a
significantly larger monument with a more extensive figural programme and hence were no
longer appropriate for the more modest project. For the sake of “his honour” (per non mancare
a l’onore suo) he was therefore willing to deliver two additional allegories of the ‘Contemplative
and Active Life’.
An agreement signed with Guidobaldo della Rovere on 20 August 1542 adheres closely
to this compromise proposal: the Sibyl, the Prophet and the Contemplative and Active Life are
described as almost complete, and the Madonna as finished. Raffaello da Montelupo is to
assume responsibility for completing the two allegories while Michelangelo pledges to install
the all but finished Moses in the tomb at his own expense. A two-storey tomb featuring a total
of seven figures was finally built in the right transept of S. Pietro in Vincoli (p. 548), incorpo-
rating in its construction architectural elements made twenty years earlier. The centre of the
lower level is occupied by Moses, flanked by Rachel (Contemplative Life) on the left (p. 551) and
by Leah (Active Life) on the right (p. 552). This lower storey is articulated by pedestals, gigantic
volutes (which replace the Prisoners), a cornice that follows the contours of the façade, the
plinth and the herm pilasters. These are accompanied by elaborate decoration in the form of
stylized leaves and flowers, masks, dragons, garlands of fruit, c ornucopias, flames and torches.
The upper register is less richly ornamented and contains the sarcophagus with the recum-
bent effigy of the Pope and, above it, the Madonna and Child. The Sibyl and Prophet appear
to the left and right respectively. This upper storey is also articulated by herm pilasters, which
Rachel (Vita contemplativa), c. 1542–1545

Marble, height 209 cm. Rome, S. Pietro in Vincoli
550
in this case rise on substantially longer shafts and terminate in the heads of fauns in place of
capitals. The tomb concludes at the top with four candelabra and a cartouche containing the
della Rovere coat of arms and the papal insignia of keys and tiara. The formal arrangement of
the figures in this final design resembles that employed in other 16th-century tombs of popes
and cardinals: sarcophagus, gisant and Virgin and Child are flanked by allegorical female figu-
res in niches. Their particular constellation – a Moses and Contemplative Life and Active Life
combined with a Prophet and a Sibyl – is nevertheless unusual and has no precedents in papal
tombs. In the past, it was usually virtues and saints who surrounded the sarcophagus with its
gisant and Madonna.
Just as in the case of the Medici Chapel, which was provisionally finished in Michelangelo’s
absence (see Ch. VIII), the completion of the Julius Tomb in February 1545 was the result of
a collaboration by several artists. The Madonna and Child, for example, was commenced by
the sculptor Sandro Fancelli, who had received payment for his work as early as Decem-
ber 1537. Despite being described in the contract of 1542 as finished, it was then completed
by Raffaello da Montelupo. Michelangelo’s assistant, friend and factotum Urbino (real name
Francesco di Bernardino d’Amadore da Casteldurante) and the stonemason Giovanni de’
Marchesi assembled the tomb architecture from components carved much earlier, while
Tommaso di Pietro Boscoli – so Vasari tells us – executed the recumbent effigy of the Pope.
In accordance with a second agreement of 21 August 1542, however, Michelangelo probably
also reworked the face of the gisant and a number of the herms. The majority of the herms
carrying the entablature in the lower storey probably stem from Urbino, those in the upper
storey from Jacopo Del Duca.
In view of the considerable reductions made to the project originally planned – in his peti-
tion of July 1542, Michelangelo described the wall tomb as “a pared down work” (opera risecata)
– it is difficult to recognize a coherent iconographical programme in the executed monument.
In contrast to the early projects for the tomb, the monument in S. Pietro in Vincoli lacks the
personifications of Heaven and Earth (Cybele) and the Prisoners and Victories. The interplay
of Christian and antique elements so typical of the High Renaissance and characteristic of the
Medici Chapel, and in particular the echoes of the triumphal iconography of Ancient Rome,
have noticeably receded. Condivi was probably thinking of the final design’s radical depar-
ture from the original concept when he described the Julius Tomb as “botched and rebuilt”
(rattoppata e rifatta). Nevertheless, the biographer went on, the very fact that it contained
three statues from the hand of the master made it the most impressive monument of its kind
in all of Rome. He praised the Moses in particular as a “marvellous” figure who embodied both
thoughtful reflection and wisdom and who induced both love and terror.
Leah (Vita activa), c. 1542–1545

Marble, height 197 cm, Rome, S. Pietro in Vincoli
553
MICHEL ANGELO L ATE WORKS: THE FINAL PAINTINGS AND SCULPTURES
Conversion of Saul, 1542–1545

Fresco, 625 x 661 cm. Rome, Vatican, Pauline Chapel
554 555
Crucifixion of St Peter, 1546–1550

Fresco, 625 x 662 cm, Rome, Vatican, Pauline Chapel
556 557
with Moses, a figure originally designed for a quite different context and difficult to integrate
within the final tomb concept. In the Divine Comedy, Rachel o ccupies a seat amongst the
blessed (Para. XXXII. 7–10) and belongs, like Moses, to the most important of the Old Testa-
ment elect, saved by Christ himself (Inf. IV. 53–61). Through the presence of Rachel, therefore,
the figure of Moses can also be associated with a common theme of tomb iconography, namely
the idea of Redemption. Rachel’s particular importance is reflected in her place of honour at
the right hand of Moses, but also in aspects of her design: through her more animated pose, her
raised hands and the angle of her head she appears clearly more active than Leah, who as the
Active Life paradoxically makes a calm impression. Through the dialectic of these two figures –
the Contemplative Life appears animated, the Active Life passive and reflective – Michelangelo
emphasizes the superior rank of the contemplation of the divine illustrated by Rachel.
The concept of Redemption is taken up again in the Madonna and Child located in the
upper register, where the Virgin as the Mother of God and the Christ Child himself symbolize
the salvation that was a standard theme of Renaissance tombs. A bird in the Infant’s hands even
provides an allusion to the Passion as a precondition of Redemption. The Sibyl and Prophet in
Nicolas Beatrizet, Copy of Michelangelo’s, Conversion of Saul, after 1545

Etching, 43.5 x 54.5 cm
More significant, however, is Condivi’s identification of the allegories of the Active (Leah)
and Contemplative Life (Rachel). He bases his interpretation of the two female figures upon
Dante’s Divine Comedy (Purg. XXVII. 100–109), where we learn that Rachel prefers to sit at
her mirror lost in thought while Leah finds pleasure in making garlands: “For on her own
bright eyes she still prefers / To gaze, as I to deck me with my hands; / Action is my delight,
reflection hers.” Michelangelo illustrates Leah’s delight in adornment through her belted and
gathered dress and her luxuriant hair, which the young woman has partly plaited into a braid
and partly drawn through an ornamental hoop in her right hand. The laurel wreath in her left
hand similarly underlines her love of ornament. The figure of Rachel, on the other hand, is
characterized by a much greater simplicity of design. No decorative accessories accompany her
raised hands, clasped in prayer, and no ornament or lavish hairstyle distracts attention from
her heavenward gaze and thus from the contemplation of the divine.
As allegories of the Contemplative Life and the Active Life, Rachel and Leah represent in Giovanni Battista Cavalieri, Copy of Michelangelo’s Crucifixion of St Peter, 1567
a very general sense the different paths to God. Rachel in particular, however, provides a link Etching, 43.3 x 57.5 cm
558 559
Confronted with his own advancing years and the deaths in his immediate circle, Miche-
langelo devoted increasing space in his letters to lamenting his approaching end. Typical of his
mood, too, is a sarcastic poem written around 1546, in which he describes his living conditions
in his house on Macel de’ Corvi (“Crow Square”) near Trajan’s Forum. Michelangelo evokes
the miserable nature of the district – where he himself had chosen to live, incidentally – and
his health problems (the urgent need to pass water at night, vomiting, colds, poor digestion,
flatulence, shortness of breath etc.) as follows:
“I live shut up here, like the doughy middle

Inside the bread crust, poor and all alone,
Like a genie shut up in a bottle.
And in my sombre tomb, a narrow run,

The spider and her thousand works and toilers
Leone Leoni, Portrait medallion of Michelangelo, 1560 Have become their own bobbin as they’ve spun.
Silver, diameter 6 cm. Florence, Museo del Bargello
There is the dung of giants at my doors;
the niches beside the Madonna and Child may be understood as the seers of antiquity and the Those who eat grapes or take some medicine
Old Testament, whose prophecies were interpreted as predicting the coming of the Saviour. Go nowhere else to empty, in great numbers.
This particular aspect of Christian chronology had already served to structure Michelangelo’s
Sistine ceiling (see Ch. V), but can also be found in earlier retables, where Sibyls and Prophets Then I have made acquaintance too with urine
appear in the frames and make reference to their own prophecies. And the tube it comes out of, through the slit
The fact that the Julius Tomb in S. Pietro in Vincoli is merely a pale reflection of the ori- That summons me before it’s day each morning.
ginal project of 1505 can also be seen from the individual sculptures. Only the Moses (p. 337)
remains the sole reminder of the heroic style of the High Renaissance. His individual terribilità Any who have a cat, corpse, stool or pot,
is contrasted, through the figures of the Active and Contemplative Life, with the ideal of faith For keeping house with, or to save a journey,
that had already found expression in the drawings that Michelangelo made as gifts for Vittoria Won’t ever come to change my sheets without.
Colonna (see Ch. VIII), and which would also find its way into the artist’s final works, the
frescoes in the Pauline Chapel and his Florentine Pietà and Rondanini Pietà sculptures (see My soul has this advantage of the body,
below). To some extent, Leah and Rachel lead on to these more personal works by the artist That if a purging made the smell diminish,
and to their r eligious intensity. Bread and cheese would not keep her company.
For Michelangelo, the 1540s were amongst the most difficult years of his life, not only
because of the problems surrounding the Julius Tomb. Serious illnesses in July 1544 and Janu- Only my cough and cold prevent my death;
ary 1546 forced the indefatigable artist to stop work. Several deaths within Michelangelo’s circle If she does not go out the lower gate
of family and friends reminded him of the finite nature of all earthly life: his friend Luigi del My mouth can scarcely just emit my breath.
Riccio passed away in 1546; his sole female friend, Vittoria Colonna, in February 1547; Sebas-
tiano del Piombo, the only painter of rank with whom he was on close personal terms, in June I am broken up, ruptured and cracked and split
1547; and his brother Giovansimone Buonarroti in January 1548. With the death of Paul III in From my labours so far; death is the inn
November 1549, Michelangelo also lost the pope for whom he had worked the longest. Where I by paying rent can live and eat.
560 561
I get my happiness from my dejection, The common port, at which we land to tell
And these disturbances give me my rest; All conduct’s cause and warrant, good or bad,
To him who asks it, God may grant ill fortune!
[…]” So that the passionate fantasy, which made
Of art a monarch for me and an idol,
Alongside such thoughts on domestic squalor, ill health and death, Michelangelo also reflected Was laden down with sin, now I know well,
upon his reputation and his works and upon whether they would endure for posterity. In a Like what all men against their will desired.
sonnet composed probably around 1542 for Vittoria Colonna, he adopts an optimistic tone,
believing that the works he has carved with such effort from hard marble may preserve the What will become, now, of my amorous thoughts,
artist’s fame even after his death: Once gay and vain, as toward two deaths I move,
One known for sure, the other ominous?
“How can it be, Lady, what long acquaintance
Lets everyone observe, that the live figure There’s no painting or sculpture now that quiets
In the hard mountain stone can last far longer The soul that’s pointed towards that holy Love
Than its maker, whom age returns to dust? That on the cross opened Its arms to take us.”
The causes yield and bow to the results; This phase of profound reflection upon death and of reorientation towards a new r eligious
Hence it is art that overpowers nature. ideal, as made clear in the final triplet of the above sonnet, also coincided with Michelangelo’s
I know, I’ve tested it in beautiful sculpture, last work as a painter, the frescoing of the Pauline Chapel (pp. 564/565). The two large-format
Time and death to the work will not keep trust. paintings were executed between 1542 and 1550 and depict the Conversion of Saul (pp. 554/555)
on one wall and the Crucifixion of St Peter (pp. 556/557) on the other. The frescoes were com-
Thus I can give a long life to us both, missioned by Paul III and in their choice of subject allude both to his own person and to his
By either means, with carving or with paint, office. Not only did his papal name directly reflect his veneration of the Prince of the Apostles,
Portraying the faces of us two, St Paul, but his position as Pontifex Maximus made him the successor in office to the first
Prince of the Apostles, St Peter, who had been a popular subject of art in papal Rome ever since
So that a thousand years after our death the mosaic cycles of the Early Christian basilicas.
They’ll see how you were beautiful, I faint, The construction of the Pauline Chapel, built to replace an earlier structure, had begun
And that I was no fool in loving you.” under Antonio da Sangallo the Younger in 1538. Situated right beside the Sala Regia and the
Sistine Chapel, it functioned as the Vatican’s chapel of the Holy Sacrament, i. e. it was here
In a letter written to Michelangelo in 1545 or 1546, however, Vittoria Colonna radically ques- that the consecrated Host was kept. It was also where a new pope was elected during a conclave
tions the lasting nature of earthly fame: “Illustrious master Michelangelo. So great is the fame of cardinals. The Pauline Chapel was thus the place where popes were “called” to office. The
that you have won through your genius that you might perhaps have deemed it superior to fresco the Conversion of Saul draws a parallel between the election of the pope by the conclave
time and change, had that divine light never entered your soul which shows us that all earthly and the call directly issued to Saul by Christ. In the Crucifixion of St Peter, martyrdom is held
renown, however long it may endure, has at last its second death.” up as the most drastic consequence of following in Christ’s footsteps. On the other hand, even
That Michelangelo immediately absorbed this idea of a “second death” is evidenced by a the supreme ceremonial significance and solemnity of this chapel did not deter the artist from
sonnet that the artist included with a letter to Giorgio Vasari of 1554: passing a caustic comment on the commission. Referring to the frescoing of the Pauline Cha-
pel in the letter, mentioned earlier, that he addressed to an unidentified dignitary in October
“My course of life already has attained, 1542, Michelangelo writes: “But to return to the painting: I can deny nothing to Pope Paul.
Through stormy seas, and in a flimsy vessel, And I shall paint miserably and make miserable things.”
562 563
The fresco on the left-hand wall of the Pauline Chapel as seen from the entrance was in defiance of convention – raises his head to look out at the viewer creates further d ynamic
the first to be painted. It illustrates the events that befell Saul as he was taking the road to tension within the fresco. In a comparable fashion, Christ in the Conversion of Saul captures
Damascus, where he was intending to pursue his merciless persecution of the Christians (Acts with his gaze the person entering the Pauline Chapel and proceeds to direct him towards the
9:1–19). Shortly before Saul reached the city, a brilliant light suddenly shone down on him altar with the gesture of his arm. In designing his two frescoes, Michelangelo thus attached
from heaven; blinded, he fell to the ground and heard the voice of Jesus saying to him: “Saul! great importance to engaging the viewer and leading his gaze towards the altar area, and thus
Saul! Why are you persecuting me?” After this encounter Saul was taken on to Damascus, to where the Sacrifice of Christ was ritually e nacted with the raising of the consecrated Host.
where Ananias, a believer, healed him of the blindness caused by the heavenly light. From this The Pauline Chapel did not cause the same sensation as Michelangelo’s other two fresco
point on Saul became an ardent defender of Christianity and changed his name to Paul to schemes in the Vatican. Like these, it also had its critics, but their tone was less harsh than
symbolize his conversion. in the case of the Last Judgement. Thus Andrea Gilio da Fabriano, for example, in his treatise
Michelangelo sets Saul’s fall within a hilly landscape, with the city of Damascus visible on Degli errori de’ pittori circa l’istorie, published in 1564, found fault with the excessive foreshorte-
the horizon in the right-hand background. In contrast to conventional treatments of the same ning of the figure of Christ as follows: “To my way of thinking, Michelangelo has completely
subject, the centre of the composition is occupied not by the figure of Saul lying prone on the mishandled the Christ who appears to St Paul at his conversion; He lacks all dignity and
ground, but by his horse, which appears to be fleeing into the depths of the picture. This rear solemnity. He looks as if He is falling from Heaven in a most unstately pose, whereas His
view of the horse and other details correspond in formal terms to a woodcut by Domenico appearance ought to proceed with such dignity and majesty as befits the King of Heaven and
Campagnola of around 1517. Michelangelo departs from the woodcut, however, in his clear Earth and a Son of God.” Not everyone appears to have been pleased with the “unseemly”
division of the pictorial field into a heavenly zone and an earthly zone. Christ, portrayed in bold portrayal of naked flesh in the Pauline Chapel, either, but the nudity of the angels in the
foreshortening and surrounded by largely naked attendants, is descending from above. Some of Conversion of Saul did not produce a scandal and was overpainted without much fuss. Two
these attendants, who may probably be interpreted as angels and the blessed, turn towards the copperplate engravings by Nicolas Beatrizet (p. 558) and Giovanni Battista Cavalieri (p. 559)
ray of light that is streaming from Christ’s right arm down into the earthly zone and is causing reproduce the appearance of the frescoes before this overpainting.
the majority of those present on the ground to shrink in terror. Only a handful do not break out One facet of Michelangelo’s frescoes in the Pauline Chapel that has attracted regular cri-
in panic, including a figure to the left of Saul, who seems to be helping him up. ticism, nevertheless, is the often strangely disproportionate handling of the figures. Thus the
Michelangelo based his composition for the Crucifixion of St Peter, executed between 1546 powerful outstretched arm of Christ in the Conversion of Saul, for example, is much too big,
and 1550 on the right-hand wall of the chapel, primarily upon The Golden Legend and thus, as and the same disregard for proportional accuracy can be seen in other parts of the composi-
so often, upon a source that was readily available. It describes the martyrdom of the Prince of tion, too. The figures grouped around Christ are portrayed on a noticeably smaller scale, as are
the Apostles in detail: Peter wished to be executed in the same manner as Christ, but insisted the two men on the lower right-hand edge of the fresco, whose size bears no realistic relation
on being crucified head down. This wish is interpreted in The Golden Legend as a gesture to the main characters in the middle ground. The rules of proportion are also infringed in the
of humility and at the same time as a reference to the fact that Peter came from the earth. Crucifixion of St Peter, where the protagonist Peter is clearly too large, for example. One cannot
Furthermore, this form of crucifixion corresponded to the nature of man, who at birth – in help thinking of Michelangelo’s sarcastic threat to paint the conclave chapel with “miserable”
analogy with the fall of Adam – is “dropped prone upon the earth”. Conventional represen- figures (see above). It is unlikely, however, that the artist would have allowed his sarcasm to
tations of the martyrdom of St Peter up till then had translated this idea literally, placing the overflow into the ceremonial heart of the Vatican, of all places; the commission was too impor-
upside-down cross bearing the Prince of the Apostles in the centre of the composition. The tant for him, as illustrated not least by the inclusion of his own self-portrait in the frescoes of
scene was frequently flanked by Roman landmarks of the day, such as Nero’s obelisk and the the chapel (see below).
pyramid of Cestius, which served to localize the martyrdom to the Eternal City. Michelangelo Nor can the disproportions of these frescoes be blamed on a lack of skill or a d iminishing
breaks radically with this pictorial tradition: no upright cross, no recognizable topography. He of the artist’s creative powers. Although the distribution of the giornate – the areas of plaster
also introduces a sense of dynamism through the diagonal angle of the cross projecting into the corresponding to a day’s work – does indeed indicate that Michelangelo was now working
foreground – another of the innovations in his Crucifixion of St Peter. The fact that Peter – again somewhat more slowly, it was with the same enormous confidence as ever. In a letter of 15
March 1549 to his nephew Lionardo Buonarroti, the hypochondriac artist – who normally
Pages 564/565 never missed an opportunity to complain about his aches and pains – even emphasizes how
Interior view of the Pauline Chapel, Rome, Vatican well he is feeling despite his kidney stones: “I am physically almost as I was at thirty.”
566 567
MICHEL ANGELO
Figures that do not quite correspond to the classical canon of proportion should not really
come as a surprise in Michelangelo’s oeuvre. Even in such early works as The Battle of the Cen-
taurs (pp. 28/29) he did not always stick slavishly to the principle of the faithful imitation of
nature (see Ch. I). The rules of proportion are deliberately defied in a number of his sculptures
– in the overly large right hand of the David, for example (see Ch. III). In a similar manner to
the artists of the Middle Ages, who conveyed a figure’s greater importance by portraying him
or her on a larger scale, Michelangelo used a change of scale as a symbolic means of accentu-
ating particular persons or parts of the body. The protagonists Peter and Paul in the Pauline
Chapel, both of them strictly speaking too large in proportion to the rest of the composition,
obey this same principle of accentuation. In offending against the theory of proportion and
hence the principle of the imitation of nature, moreover, Michelangelo closely anticipated
some of the ideas put forward in a treatise by Vincenzo Danti published only shortly after-
wards, the Trattato delle perfette proporzioni. The author associated the traditional imitation
of nature with the word ritrarre, whereas he reclaimed the word imitare to mean perfecting
the image of Nature on the basis of an artistic ideal. Michelangelo had already exercised this
same principle of the imitation of an ideal in the frescoes of the Pauline Chapel, insofar as he
subordinated what is represented to the principle of representation and thereby paved the way
for an autonomous aesthetic.
In the Pauline Chapel, his last work as a painter, Michelangelo once more made himself a
subject of his art. Thus the figure of Saul may be seen as a “role-portrait” of the artist (p. 10).
There is indeed a resemblance between the Prince of the Apostles, with his beard, squashed
nose, furrowed brow and sunken cheeks, and Michelangelo portraits from this period. In
lending Saul his own likeness, the artist was obliged to deviate from the convention that had
begun to establish itself since Raphael: Saul was not in fact an old man at the time of his con-
version and consequently the Apostle was depicted in most cases as relatively young. Miche-
langelo was expressly rebuked for this departure by Andrea Gilio da Fabriano in his above
mentioned treatise on the “errors of painters”, Degli errori de’ pittori circa l’istorie.
In addition to the role-portrait of Michelangelo in the Conversion of Saul, another self-
portrait of the artist has been identified in an elderly man on the right-hand edge of the
Crucifixion of St Peter (p. 13). In this case, however, the physical resemblance with surviving
portraits of Michelangelo is less convincing. This humble figure of the “blind pilgrim” never-
theless corresponds to a portrait medallion described by Vasari. The medal was made by
Leone Leoni and shows a portrait of Michelangelo in profile on the obverse (p. 560), and on
the reverse an ageing and blind pilgrim, accompanied by the following legend: Docebo iniquos
vias tuas et impii ad te convertentur (“I shall teach the wicked your ways, and the impious will
be converted to you”; Psalm 51:13).
Michelangelo and Tiberio Calcagni, Pietà, c. 1547–1555

Marble, height 226 cm. Florence, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo
568
He gave his figures a terrible form, one that he extracted from the
deep secrets of anatomy that are known only to a few: languid, but
full of dignity and sublimity.
GIAN PAOLO LOMAZZO
Pietà (detail), c. 1547–1555
571
MICHEL ANGELO
The pilgrim is considered a figure of identification for the artist, and although the inter-
pretation of the inscription is disputed, Leoni’s medallion has been understood to refer to
Michelangelo’s “conversion” to a more intense religiosity – a renewed confession of faith that
is also made in the frescoes of the Pauline Chapel, on the one hand in the artist’s self-portrait
as Saul and on the other in the humble figure of the “pilgrim” in the Crucifixion of St Peter.
In his last frescoes, in other words, Michelangelo has portrayed himself in the context of the
new religious c onsciousness awakened in him via his contact with Vittoria Colonna (see Ch.
VIII). Even from this religious point of view, however, Michelangelo’s appearance as Saul in
the Pauline Chapel remains a remarkable example of an artist’s inclusion of himself in his
composition: portraits of this kind were traditionally confined to marginal figures, and no
artist would lend his own features to the protagonist of a fresco in a high-ranking chapel.
Even if Michelangelo’s religiosity had changed, his desire to portray himself had remained
the same.
Although religious reflection and concern for the salvation of his soul seem to have deter-
mined the last two decades of Michelangelo’s life, they did not bring him serenity or freedom
from care. Numerous letters from these years testify to his sarcastic tongue and his troubled
mind. He remained mistrustful towards the closest members of his family, whom he had
supported for several decades with large sums of money. Thus he wrote on 6 February 1546
to his nephew Lionardo Buonarroti in Florence: “And I tell you, I want to go slow, because
I have earned the money by a labour here that no one can know that was born clothed and
shod like you. […] enough for you to throw away the money you haven’t earned. You are so
anxious not to lose this inheritance! And you say it was your duty to come here for the love
you bear me; the termite’s love! If you bore love toward me you would have written at this
point: ‘Michelangelo, spend the three thousand ducats there [in Rome] for yourself, since you
have given us so much it’s enough for us; we prefer your life to your property.’ You have lived
on what was mine for forty years now, and I have never had a good word from you, not to
mention anything else.”
A few months later, on 5 June 1546, he wrote angrily to his nephew yet again: “And don’t
write to me any more, for whenever I have one of your letters I get a headache, it’s such work
to read it! I don’t know where you learned to write. I believe if you had to write to the world’s
greatest ass, you’d write more carefully. So don’t add bothers to those I have, for I have enough
to suffice me.”
Contemporaries who did not form part of Michelangelo’s family were taken less severely
to task. But the artist could not help himself making a few jibes even at a man as well disposed
towards him as Benedetto Varchi. Varchi had instigated the famous – and infamous – paragone,
the competition between the fine arts, by enquiring whether sculpture or painting was the
superior discipline. In a letter written to Varchi between April and June 1547, Michelangelo
572
formulates an initially diplomatic reply: “But enough that both sculpture and painting spring
from the same intellect, and so can make their peace the one with the other and put all these
disputes behind them.” But in the very next sentence, he implies that academic wrangling over
the issue should be dropped, “for more time is spent on such dispute than on fashioning the
figures themselves”. As for the experts who said that painting was nobler than sculpture, they
understood less of the matter than his servant girl. “Countless things, as yet unspoken, could
be said about similar kinds of learning; but, as I mentioned, this would take too much time,
and I have little enough of that, because I am not just an old man, but almost to be counted
amongst the dead. So I pray you to hold me excused. And I send you my regards and thank
you the best I can for doing me too much honour, which is not deserved.” With this some-
what sarcastic reply, the artist not only dismissed a burdensome issue but also placed an ironic
question mark over academic art theory of the 16th century.
Another example. Following his appointment as chief architect of St Peter’s, Michelangelo
had to get to grips with the plans bequeathed to him by Antonio da Sangallo the Younger.
Examining his predecessor’s model for the new basilica, Michelangelo was particularly sca-
thing about the poor lighting of the interior. In a letter to Bartolommeo Ferratini of January
1547, he writes sarcastically of the flaws he perceives in Sangallo’s design, which has “so many
hiding-places above and below, all dark, that they provide great opportunities for no end of
vile misdemeanours: such as the concealment of outlaws, the counterfeiting of money, getting
nuns pregnant and other sordid misbehaviour; and so in the evening after the church closes,
you would need twenty-five men to seek out those who are hidden there. Even then it would
be very difficult, the way things are.”
It was probably during this same period, i. e. before the completion of the frescoes in
the Pauline Chapel and at the beginning of his appointment as architect of St Peter’s, that
Michelangelo embarked on his Florentine Pietà (p. 569). It is Michelangelo’s most complica-
ted sculpture, since it consists of four figures carved from a single piece of marble, something
that been admired since antiquity as a particularly difficult achievement in sculpture (Pliny,
Natural History, XXXVI.iv.37). Even at an advanced age, therefore, the artist was setting
himself extraordinary challenges.
Just as in the Pauline Chapel, the figures making up the Florentine Pietà do not adhere
slavishly to the rules of proportion and scale. Thus Nicodemus is significantly larger than Mary
Magdalene and the Virgin, who support Christ’s body on the left and right. Christ’s left arm –
an obvious citation from the famous Meleager sarcophagus that Raphael, too, had used decades
earlier as the model for his dead Christ in his Baglioni altarpiece – hangs heavy and over-large
from his slender torso. It thereby contrasts with Christ’s less powerful right leg in what is once
again an infringement of the theory of proportion and the principle of imitation. As in the case
of the frescoes in the Pauline Chapel, this break with classical aesthetics serves to increase the
575
inner drama of the composition. At the centre of the Florentine Pietà there now stands a sense Beauty through time only if she endure,
of profound religious emotion, conveyed above all by the disproportions of Christ’s body, the It will delight me, so I’ll make her fair.”
intimate concern expressed by the two Marys and the devout contemplation embodied by the
figure of Nicodemus. Role-portraits as such were not unusual, but instances in which the image of the artist
Vasari reports that Michelangelo had intended this figural group to adorn his own tomb, appeared in a prominent position, as here in the centre of a life-sized figural group, began to
but that he had smashed it in a fit of rage after experiencing problems with the stone. It is increase only in the 16th century. Nicodemus also held a particular significance for sculptors
more likely, however, that the artist was not satisfied with his work on the complex sculptural and their profession, for according to a legend in circulation since the 9th century, it was he
group: perhaps he had made a mistake during carving and therefore opted to break off cer- who had made the very first wooden effigy of Christ – a crucifix with miraculous powers
tain parts in a controlled manner, so that he could continue work on the block that was left. known as the Volto Santo (Holy Face) and housed in Lucca. Amongst the characters in the
Michelangelo considered this second version to be equally unsuccessful, however, and ended New Testament, Nicodemus was thus an ideal figure of identification for the sculptors of
up giving it away. The damaged Pietà was subsequently pieced back together by Michelangelo’s Michelangelo’s era. Both Tilman Riemenschneider and Baccio Bandinelli portrayed themselves
pupil Tiberio Calcagni, who reattached the broken limbs and reworked Mary Magdalene’s face as Nicodemus, for example.
and Christ’s left hand. Calcagni also created the recess with the square dowel hole for Christ’s Michelangelo’s role-portrait in the Florentine Pietà also refers to the artist’s hope of Resur-
missing left leg. rection. In the Bible, Nicodemus is described initially as a sceptic who asks dubiously how
The Florentine Pietà once again testifies to Michelangelo’s absolute will to portray himself someone who is old can be reborn. Christ uses a range of imagery in his reply and refers to the
in his art. As we know from a letter that Vasari wrote to Lionardo Buonarroti on 18 March fact that eternal life is linked with his Passion and a firm belief in God (John 3:1–21). Nicode-
1564, the all-dominating figure of Nicodemus represents a self-portrait of the artist – a state- mus was thus a doubter whose belief was established – or re-established – by the Word and the
ment confirmed by a comparison of the face of Nicodemus with contemporary portraits of Sacrifice of Christ. It may be possible to see in this a parallel with Michelangelo, whose faith
Michelangelo (p. 570). We are confronted here, in other words, with a role-portrait wearing intensified in the latter years of his life. The idea of Resurrection is also conveyed, lastly, by the
the artist’s own features. Nicodemus thereby translates into a work of sculpture, perhaps more figure of Mary Magdalene, whose inclusion in a Pietà is unusual: she was first to see the Risen
clearly than anywhere else, one of the leitmotifs of the artist’s entire œuvre – the portrayal of Christ after he had left the tomb.
himself. It furthermore illustrates a notion that Michelangelo expressed in his poetry, namely The fragmented state of the Florentine Pietà, on which Michelangelo probably conti-
of carving aspects of himself in stone. In a madrigal composed in the early 1540s, for example, nued to work until about 1555, directly reflects the troubled “evening” of the artist’s life. He
Michelangelo explains that, in his sculpture, he illustrates that tortured part of himself that is was surrounded by vexations on all sides. His position as chief architect of St Peter’s earned
suffering due to his rejection by his (fictive) beloved: him the permanent enmity of scheming rivals in Rome. Every change of pope was also a
potential cause of upheaval. With the death of Paul III on 10 November 1549, for example,
“As, in hard stone, a man at times will make Michelangelo lost a patron who belonged to his own generation and was very fond of him.
Everyone else’s image his own likeness, The artist feared a cut in the princely salary that Paul III had paid him since 1535 (see Ch.
I make it pale with weakness VIII). Although the 100 gold ducats promised to him every month were not always delivered
Frequently, just as I am made by her, in full, the size of his salary still exceeded by far the wages usually paid to artists. It was his
And always seem to take generous income from the Farnese pope, moreover, that allowed Michelangelo to insist that
Myself for model, planning to do her. he was supervising the building of the new St Peter’s without remuneration and purely for
The stone where I portray her the “love of God” (see Ch. IX), since he was not paid a direct wage as architect of the project,
Resembles her, I might but continued to receive “only” the monthly salary agreed in 1535. This salary was indeed
Well say, because it is so hard and sharp; substantially reduced under popes Julius III and Paul IV, only to be increased again in 1560
Destroyed and mocked by her, by Pius IV. Meanwhile, criticism of his art also threatened to lead to upsetting consequences.
I’d know, at any rate, Vasari in his Life of Daniele da Volterra and Lomazzo in his Libro de’ Sogni both record that
Nothing but my own burdened limbs to sculpt. Paul IV had considered having the Last Judgement chipped off the wall due to its shameless
And yet if art can keep nudity (see Ch. VIII).
576 577
Another issue troubling Michelangelo was Duke Cosimo de’ Medici’s request, issued with
increasing frequency over the course of the 1540s, that he should return to Florence. The artist
felt so pressured by these requests that he asked a high-ranking middle man, Cardinal Rodolfo
Pio da Carpi, to convey to the Duke, in a letter of 24 May 1558, that he wished to be allowed
to continue his work on St Peter’s in peace. Arranging advantageous marriages for the mem-
bers of his family was also a source of worry. In 1537, he had succeeded in marrying his niece
Francesca to Michele Guicciardini, the scion of a very highly regarded Florentine family. The
social ennoblement that went with this liaison was worth a handsome dowry of 1,400 gold
florins to him. It would be a few more anxious years before Michelangelo found a similarly
good match for his nephew Lionardo, who in 1553 was married to Cassandra Ridolfi, a woman
of a comparably good lineage.
Michelangelo’s greatest source of unrest, however, was undoubtedly himself. His rivals on
the construction site of St Peter’s, the election of new popes with new wishes, cuts in his salary,
the urgings of Duke Cosimo and the irresolution of his nephew – Michelangelo mastered all of
these problems despite his advanced age. As the conflicts over the enormous building projects
in Rome in particular made clear, he was now unassailable. Indeed, he was an international
star: Francis I offered him vast sums to lure him to France or to acquire a work by his hand,
or so at least Condivi tells us. Content with much less were some German visitors to Rome,
whom Michelangelo made happy simply by receiving them in the Macel de’ Corvi.
The cause of Michelangelo’s unrest was his continuing unbridled creativity, as described
particularly vividly by the French traveller Blaise de Vigenère: “I saw Michelangelo at work.
He had passed his sixtieth year, and although he was not very strong, yet in a quarter of an
hour he had caused more splinters to fall from a hard block of marble than three young men
in three or four times that length of time. No one can believe it who has not see it with his
own eyes. And he attacked the work with such energy and fire that I thought it would fly into
pieces. With one blow he brought down pieces three or four fingers in breadth, and so exactly
at the point marked, that if only a tiny piece of marble more had fallen, he would have been
in danger of ruining the whole work.”
Michelangelo’s creative drive even as an old man emerges once again from a letter by
Daniele da Volterra to Lionardo Buonarroti of 11 June 1564, in which Volterra reports that
the artist was still working on a Pietà up to 12 February 1564, six days before his death.
Michelangelo had begun this sculpture, today known as the Rondanini Pietà (pp. 578,
581), back in the 1550s. Probably after several bungled attempts to carve a still passa-
ble sculpture from the block, Michelangelo eventually arrived at this reduced, fragmen-
ted final version, in which the Virgin supports the almost entirely upright body of Christ
from behind. These two unfinished figures make up the centre of the composition, while
Rondanini Pietà, 1552/53–1564

Marble, height 195 cm. Milan, Museo del Castello Sforzesco
579
MICHEL ANGELO
to one side an arm of Christ appears in isolation, bearing witness to the original idea for a
somewhat larger Pietà. Michelangelo left this fragment where it was, even though it must
have got in his way as he continued carving the rest of the block. In the case of any other
artist, one might view such a sculpture as a failure; not so with Michelangelo, in whose case
one can sooner speak of a “testament in marble”. The Rondanini Pietà is in fact the ulti-
mate consequence of Michelangelo’s creative drive and his concept of art. Starting with the
Battle of the Centaurs, but in particular in later paintings such as the Last Judgement and the
frescoes of the Pauline Chapel, Michelangelo left the “correct” imitation of nature far behind
him, so that finally even its fragmented image could assume an artistic value. Other sculptu-
res, such as the Prisoners that Michelangelo never quite finished for the Julius Tomb, paved the
way to our acceptance, indeed our appreciation, of the unfinished as a valid work of art. Only
with this acceptance can an art emancipated from the needs of the patron and an autonomous
aesthetic take shape. Michelangelo was single-handedly responsible for their invention.
The soul’s return upon itself, suffering, disappointment

with life, the struggle against the limits of the material –
these are the foundations of his inspiration.
AUGUSTE RODIN
Pietà Rondanini, 1552/53–1564

Marble, height 195 cm. Milan, Museo del Castello Sforzesco
580
Epilogue
With a vexatious heavy load put down,

O my dear Lord, and from the world set free,
I like a fragile craft turn to You, weary,
From fearful tempest into gentle calm.
The thorns and nails, the left and the right palm,
Your face, benign, humble, and filled with pity,
Pledge that for great repentance there is mercy,
To the sad soul give hope You will redeem.
Let not your holy eyes with justice watch

My past, and let not your immaculate ear
Make your unsparing arm stretch out to it,
Only your blood my trespass wash or touch

And more abound as my old age grows more,
With ready aid and pardon absolute.
MICHELANGELO
MICHEL ANGELO EPILOGUE
Michelangelo died on 18 February 1564 towards five o’clock in the afternoon in the company of was also the wish of the deceased. The artist’s body was therefore returned to his home city,
several doctors and friends, including Tommaso de’ Cavalieri, Daniele da Volterra and Antonio as Vasari relates at the end of his Life of Michelangelo, albeit not without infusing his account
del Francese, his manservant. A year earlier, Vasari had already arranged with Duke Cosimo de’ with a suitable element of drama. There was much theatre, too, following the body’s arrival
Medici that a close eye should be kept on the ageing artist’s household. There was particular in Florence. It was taken first to the customs office, then to the Compagnia dell’Assunta near
concern that some of his works might go missing even before his death, or straight afterwards. the church of S. Piero Maggiore and finally to S. Croce, the traditional burial place of the
Hence an inventory was immediately drawn up on 19 February 1564 of everything left in the Buonarroti family. Here Michelangelo would later find his final resting-place. But first the
house on Macel de’ Corvi. There wasn’t much to write down. Apart from the household goods Florentine Accademia del Disegno (the first art academy of the early modern era, founded
furnishing his modest quarters, the document lists the small sculpture of a Christ with a Cross, by Vasari in 1563), and in particular its vice-president, Don Vincenzo Borghini, arranged for
a statue of St Peter probably intended for the first version of the Julius Tomb, the Rondanini the corpse to be laid out in state in the Medici church of S. Lorenzo and honoured with an
Pietà and ten “cartoons” (cartoni). Two letters by Daniele da Volterra, one to Giorgio Vasari (17 enormous catafalque and a solemn Requiem Mass. Only princes had previously commanded
March 1564) and the other to Lionardo Buonarroti (11 June 1564), confirm the disappointing a comparable degree of respect. But Michelangelo, il divino, was venerated not merely like a
nature of the artist’s Roman bequest. Considerably larger finds had been expected, above all ruler, but like a saint. This saintliness was already indicated by the fact that, even after twenty-
with regard to drawings. In a letter of 5 March 1564, Cosimo de’ Medici expresses his positive five days, Michelangelo’s corpse had begun neither to decompose nor smell. This not entirely
indignation at the poor results yielded by the Macel de’ Corvi. credible story deliberately links in with medieval legends of the saints, so as to lend the artist
Cash, on the other hand, was present in abundance: a total of 8,289 gold coins, whose total a sacred aura. Added to this, hundreds of mourners made the pilgrimage to see the corpse on
value could more or less have bought Michelangelo the Palazzo Pitti, the most monumental its bier and to touch the artist’s face, which still seemed fresh and not like that of a dead man.
palace of the Florentine Renaissance. Michelangelo was already well aware that banks were not The Accademia del Disegno and its artists thus succeeded in making the body of their great
to be trusted. Not least for this reason – and because it bought social prestige – Michelangelo contemporary and exemplar the centrepiece of a grandiose public spectacle. Such pomp and
invested the remainder of his enormous fortune in property for his family. His cash reserves ceremony was not at all what the artist would have wished, however. Michelangelo was mod-
and his property holdings would have allowed him to live like a prince. But that didn’t interest est, in life and in death. In that, too, no one has surpassed him.
him.
Property ownership was also a theme of the days and weeks immediately following Michel-
Page 583
angelo’s death, but in this case the property was his body. The Romans wanted to keep it in Giorgio Vasari, Michelangelo’s tomb, 1564–1575
Rome, while the Florentines were anxious to bring it back to Florence and bury it there. This Florence, S. Croce
584 585
Catalogue
of
Paintings
Frank Zöllner
Sometimes Raphael was held to be superior, at other times

Michelangelo, which only ultimately proved that man is
such a limited being that, even if his mind has opened itself
to greatness, he has never acquired the ability to recognize
and pay equal tribute to greatness of different kinds.
JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE
MICHEL ANGELO CATALOGUE OF PAINTINGS
The London panel, which is not mentioned Madonna’s heavy eyelids, which are also found
in sources of the artist’s day, belongs to a group in the London Entombment (Cat. P2) and in
of six paintings that were earlier attributed to the Crucifix in S. Spirito (Cat. S3). The artist’s
various of Michelangelo’s contemporaries and authorship is also suggested by the iconicity of
followers and were dated for the most part the composition, the Virgin’s lack of interest in
between 1501 and 1535 (Tolnay, I, pp. 236–237). the Child – a familiar feature in Michelangelo’s
Two paintings in this group – the Manchester works (see Cat. S1, 11–13, 17a) – and the athletic
Madonna and the London Entombment (Cat. poses of the infants Christ and St John. On the
P2) – have recently been accepted as works by other hand, both the London Entombment and
Michelangelo himself (Hirst, 1994). Hirst (1994, the S. Spirito Crucifix are works whose attribu-
pp. 39–40) also considers a third work in this tion is disputed, and it is possible to explain the
group, the tondo known as the Madonna with Michelangelesque characteristics of the London
the Candelabra in the Akademie in Vienna, to picture, for example, as stemming from the hand
have been executed by a third hand after a design of an artist in Michelangelo’s circle who copied
by Michelangelo. his style in the years after 1500. The objections
The attribution of the Manchester Madonna raised by Beck (1996; 1998) to the attribution of
to Michelangelo depends on the authorship the London Entombment to Michelangelo run
of the London Entombment, to which it bears along these lines. According to current scholar- P2. Michelangelo (?)
P1. Michelangelo (?) formal similarities. It is not a new idea, how- ship, therefore, its authorship remains open to Entombment, 1500/01
Madonna and Child with the Infant ever: the painting had already been linked with debate. This debate is complicated by a drawing Oil on panel, 162 x 150 cm
St John and Four Angels (Manchester Michelangelo around 1700, when it still hung in sketched partly by Michelangelo probably after London, The National Gallery
Madonna), 1497 (?) the Villa Borghese in Rome (Gould, 1975, p. 149; 1500 (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 1, Cat. D19), which Tol-
Tempera on poplar, 104.5 x 77 cm Hirst, 1994, pp. 37–38). When the panel came nay (I, p. 236) sees as a preliminary study for the The unfinished panel painting of the Entomb
London, The National Gallery onto the British art market in the 19th century, Infant St John in the Manchester Madonna, but ment shows the dead Christ and behind him
this attribution at first enjoyed only mixed sup- which Echinger-Maurach (1991, pp. 239–240; Joseph of Arimathaea, who offered the Saviour
Known as the Manchester Madonna since its port. A need to link the painting more seriously Giovinezza di Michelangelo, 1999, p. 376) links his own tomb hewn out of the rock (Matt.
exhibition in Manchester in 1857, the unfinished with the name of Michelangelo arose only with with the Bruges Madonna (Cat. S11) and there- 27:60). The arrangement of rocky ledges in the
work shows the seated Virgin Mary together its acquisition for the N ational Gallery in Lon- fore dates to around 1505. right-hand background is probably a reference
with the Infant Christ and Infant St John with don in 1870. Conclusion: The attribution of the Man to this tomb. The identification of the remain-
four singing angels in the background. The left In the light of documents both newly dis- chester Madonna to Michelangelo must be con- ing figures is still disputed (Gould, 1974; 1975,
third of the panel in particular remains only covered and freshly analysed by Hirst, Michel- sidered an issue not yet finally resolved. p. 146; Butterfield, 1989; Hirst, 1994, pp. 66–67).
partially completed. Similar figural groupings angelo’s authorship seems somewhat more plau- On the basis of the biblical figures found in tra-
can be found in Florentine painting of the 15th sible than it did at the start of the 20th century. ditional depictions of the Entombment, possible
century (Weil-Garris Brandt, in: Giovinezza di These documents prove that in summer 1497, candidates include Nicodemus, John and the
Michelangelo, 1999, pp. 434–440), albeit they after finishing the Bacchus (Cat. S7), the artist so-called Three Marys (Mary Magdalene, Mary
are less monumental in style. The placing of the was also active in Rome as a painter (Hirst, 1994, Cleophas and Mary Salome). It is likely that the
Madonna on a stone pedestal recalls Francesco p. 37). To this must be added the testimony of figure dressed in red on Christ’s left represents
Granacci’s Rest on the Flight to Egypt of around Pomponius Gauricus, who names Michelangelo St John the Evangelist, and that the blank area
1494 (Dublin, National Gallery of Ireland). The as a painter in his treatise De sculptura of January in the lower right-hand corner was to be filled by
painting’s technique and materials look forward 1504; Michelangelo must therefore have already the Virgin Mary. Standing behind this missing
to the Doni Tondo (Cat. P3) and recall practices executed paintings prior to this date (Michel figure is probably Mary Magdalene, recogniz-
in Ghirlandaio’s workshop, where Michelangelo angelus Bonarotus, etiam pictor; Gauricus, 1504, Page 655 able by her bare head. The woman immediately
had received his training as a painter (Dunker- c. 38v; Tolnay, I, pp. 166–167). Support for the The Last Judgement (detail), 1536–1541 beside her and the female figure kneeling lower
ton, in: Hirst/Dunkerton, 1994, pp. 83–105). attribution to Michelangelo is p rovided by the (ill. p. 401) left are probably intended to represent Mary
656 657
Cleophas and Mary Salome. Less convincing, in that Ebu’s chapel (which today houses Caravag- rise to the thesis that the tondo was a wedding
my view, is the suggestion by Butterfield (1989) gio’s Madonna di Loreto) lay just to the left of present from the Strozzi family, since Madda-
that the figure seen in rear view between Christ the church entrance and was dedicated to the lena Strozzi married Agnolo Doni on 31 January
and Mary Magdalene represents St John and is Pietà, a theme with which the Entombment com- 1504 (Cecchi, 1987). It is also possible, however,
inspired by one of the Dioscuri on a sarcophagus menced by Michelangelo would seem to fit. The that the painting was commissioned to mark the
relief in the Camposanto in Pisa. soundness of this reasoning has been recently birth of Agnolo Doni and Maddalena Strozzi’s
The painting is first documented in 1649 cast into doubt by the well-argued case presented first daughter, Maria Doni, on 8 September
in the Farnese collection in Rome, where it was by Hatfield (2002, p. 11). 1507 (Natali, 1985; 1992). These theses do not
already attributed to Michelangelo. The panel In view of the arguments put forward so far, provide a firm dating for the painting, however
remained in Rome up to the beginning of the there is evidence both for and against the attri- (for a summary, see Echinger-Maurach, 2000,
19th century. In 1846, it was purchased by the bution of the Entombment to Michelangelo. The note 37). The situation is further complicated
Scottish photographer and painter Robert Mac situation is equally fraught when it comes to the by the fact that Pomponius Gauricus describes
pherson, who smuggled it back to Britain and in drawings that have been linked with the paint- Michelangelo as “also a painter” in his treatise
1868 sold it to the National Gallery (Gould, 1975, ing. These include a study for the figure seated De sculptura of January 1504 (c. 38v; see Cat. P1),
p. 147; Bailey, 1994; Hirst, 1994, p. 60). After this on the left and identified as one of the Three whereby he might possibly be referring to the
acquisition, opinions over the panel’s attribu- Marys (TC31r). While Hirst (1988a, pp. 63–64; Doni Tondo: Gauricus namely dedicated his trea-
tion to Michelangelo were divided (Gould, 1975, 1994, p. 69) assigns the study to Michelan- tise to Laurenzio Strozzi, a relative of Maddalena
pp. 147–148). Only since the publication of new gelo, Monbeig Goguel (1994) and Beck (1998) Strozzi (Tolnay, I, pp. 166–167, 264).
documents by Mancusi-Ungaro (1971, pp. 7–8, strongly oppose this attribution. Even more P3. Holy Family with the Infant St John Three preliminary drawings for the tondo
152–159) and their analysis by Hirst (1981; 1994, problematical is another drawing, in the Louvre (Doni Tondo), 1503/04 or 1507 (?) are now almost unanimously attributed to
pp. 57–58, 97) has Michelangelo’s authorship (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 1, Cat. D15), which Gould Tempera on panel, diameter 91 cm (vertical) Michelangelo: two studies in red chalk, one
been accepted in some camps (e. g. Shearman, (1974), Hirst (1988a, p. 64; 1994) and Joannides and 80 cm (horizontal); for the head of the Virgin (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 3,
1992, pp. 79–80; Nagel, 1994; Hirst/Dunkerton, (2003) see as a preliminary study by Michelan- diameter with frame 120 cm Cat. D62) and another for her left arm (D212;
1994, pp. 57–81; Nagel, 2000, pp. 22–48 and pas gelo for a St John originally located on Christ’s Florence, Uffizi H14; TC3r), as well as a dynamic ink sketch for
sim). Others have argued against this attribution, right. the right leg of the Christ Child (D260; H13;
amongst them Beck (1996; 1998), Hatfield (2002, The most exhaustive analysis of the Entomb The Doni Tondo is first mentioned by the TC29r). The chalk study for the head of the Vir-
pp. 11–14) and Wasserman (2003, p. 154). Hat- ment is found in Nagel (2000, pp. 25–99). Like Anonimo Magliabechiano (Vincenzo Borghini, gin can also be viewed as a preliminary drawing
field makes substantial objections in particular to Hirst (1994, pp. 61–63) before him, Nagel exam- c. 1537–1547; Frey, 1892, p. 114), who had seen for Jonah in the Last Judgement, however.
Hirst and Nagel’s interpretation of the archival ines the possible sources of inspiration for the it in the house of Agnolo Doni (1476–1539). The Doni Tondo’s formal relationships with
sources. Beck also discusses the institutional and panel work and suggests that, in its portrayal of The tondo is named again soon afterwards the Madonna and Child tondo by Luca Signo-
commercial interests behind the Michelangelo a sacramental theme, the painting fuses a tra- by Anton Francesco Doni in a letter of 17 relli (see Ch. III, ill. p. 96), as well as with the
attributions of the past few decades. ditional subject with a new pictorial language August 1549 (Bottari, III, p. 347) and by Vasari Madonna and Virgin and Child with St Anne
The new documents mentioned above are oriented towards the models of Leon Battista (1550, 1568) and Condivi (1553) in their Lives of compositions by Leonardo da Vinci from
statements from Michelangelo’s account with Alberti. In view of the fact that Alberti’s ideas Michelangelo. Condivi states that the price of the period between 1501 and 1508, are regu-
the Balducci bank. From these records it can were a bsorbed little or not at all by the artists of the painting was seventy ducats. These sour- larly emphasized in the literature (e. g. Wilde,
be deduced that, in September 1500, the artist the day (Zöllner, 1997), however, this thesis does ces seem to support the idea that Agnolo Doni 1953b; Hayum, 1981; Echinger-Maurach, 2000).
received a total of sixty ducats for an altarpiece not strike me as tenable. Nagel’s consideration commissioned the painting; on the other hand, Signorelli indeed includes male nudes in the
destined for the chapel of the recently deceased of the altarpiece within its functional context is the carved and gilded frame, which was proba- background of his tondo, while the pyramidal
Giovanni Ebu, Bishop of Crotone (Calabria), fruitful, on the other hand. bly not made by Michelangelo himself (Lisner, arrangement of the foreground figures in the
in the church of S. Agostino in Rome. When Conclusion: Questions relating to the Lon- 1965; Cecchi, 1987; see Ch. III, ill. p. 97), bears Doni Tondo points to an intensive study of Leon-
Michelangelo left Rome in March 1501, he paid don Entombment’s historical type are largely on its left-hand side, roughly at the height of ardo’s compositions of the opening years of the
the money back, and another artist by the name resolved, whereas the debate surrounding its Christ’s head, three crescent Moons and thus 16th century. By way of reservation, however,
of Andrea took over the commission. A docu- attribution to Michelangelo must be considered the Strozzi coat of arms (Poggi, 1907; Tolnay, it should be noted that conclusions are being
ment recently published by Nagel (1994) proves still open. I, p. 166; Hayum, 1981, note 21). This has given drawn from works whose dating and attribution
658 659
to Leonardo are not secure. Cases in point p. 164) as representatives of the pagan world and
include the drawing of the Virgin and Child with the tempus ante legem; Eisler (1961) as Christian
St Anne in a Swiss private collection, which is athletes of virtue; Levi d’Ancona (1968) as five
probably an imitation (e. g. Echinger-Maurach, sinners awaiting purification through baptism;
2000, ill. 15), and Leonardo’s unreliably dated Blanckenhagen (1976) as lovers whose move-
Virgin and Child with St Anne compositions ments express the concept of Platonic love; and
(Zöllner, 2003, Cat. XX, XXa–b, XXVII). Hayum (1981) as the sons of Noah. The most
Several works of antique art have been sug- recent interpretations base themselves primarily
gested in recent times as sources of inspiration on the Epistles of St Paul (including Gal. 3:23;
for the foreground figures and the nudes in the 4:24; Rom. 3:9; Eph. 1:22; 2:1–5; 2:11–15; 2:19–22;
background: a cameo of a satyr and the young 4:22–24). According to this line of thought, the
Dionysus today housed in Naples (Museo Nazi- wall in the middle ground represents the divi-
onale) is thought to have inspired the grouping sion, broken down by Christ, between the old
of the Holy Family (Smith, 1975), and a small and the new eras (Natali, 1992). The compo-
bronze of a Maenad attributed to Lysippus sitional tension between the foreground and
(Museum of S. Barbara) the twisting pose of background may indeed correspond with this
the Virgin (Cittadini, 2000). Natali (1992) has Christian doctrine of two epochs (see Ch. III), as
proposed other antique sculptures, including the frequently taken up, moreover, in Quattrocento
Belvedere Apollo and the Laocoön, discovered in paintings of the Virgin and Child. Thus the fig-
1506, which would confirm the later 1507 dating ures in the background stand for the Old Tes- unusual and is difficult to reconcile with the P4. Aristotile da Sangallo (?)
of Michelangelo’s tondo. None of the antique tament, for the time before and under the Law second hypothesis (birth of a daughter). Joseph’s Copy after Michelangelo’s cartoon
forerunners put forward so far is truly convinc- (tempus ante legem and tempus sub lege), while the dominance may be explained, on the other hand, for the Battle of Cascina, before 1519 (?)
ing, however; this also applies to the examples Infant St John waiting behind the wall on the by the Doni family’s genealogical inferiority to Grisaille on panel, 76.4 x 130.2 cm
offered by Tolnay (I, p. 165). right directs us with his gaze towards the time the Strozzi. Holkham Hall, Norfolk, Collection of the Earl
Up to the start of the 20th century, the Doni under grace (tempus sub gratia), as embodied by Conclusion: Only the recent contextualiza- of Leicester
Tondo found little favour amongst critics (Baroc- the Holy Family. tion of the Doni Tondo permits a plausible inter-
chi, 1962, II, p. 244; Blanckenhagen, 1976), Alongside the interpretations mentioned pretation of the painting, which probably arose In the late summer (Morozzi, 1988/1989) or
but then gave rise to numerous interpretations. above, others put forward in recent times con- in connection with a marriage. autumn of 1504, the Florentine government
Brockhaus (1909, p. 5), for example, sees in the sider the tondo in the context of Agnolo Doni’s commissioned Michelangelo to execute a mon-
pose of Joseph – who is lifting the Infant Jesus patronage of the arts and his family alliances umental wall painting for the east wall of the
onto the Virgin’s shoulder and is thus giving her (Hayum, 1981; Natali, 1985; Cecchi, 1987; Natali, Grand Council Chamber in the Palazzo della
the Child – as a reference to the person who pos 1992). Two possibilities hereby emerge: either the Signoria. Michelangelo’s composition was to
sibly commissioned the painting or was to be painting arose in 1504 to mark the marriage of appear alongside another wall painting already
its recipient, whose name Doni corresponds in Agnolo and Maddalena Doni, or in 1507 to mark commissioned from Leonardo da Vinci in
Italian to the imperative doni, or “give”. Tolnay the birth of their first child (see above). The first 1503. While the terms of Leonardo’s contract
(I, p. 165) considers this somewhat far-fetched. date seems to me more probable, for the follow- are known from surviving documents (Zöllner,
Other authors interpret the rotational movement ing reasons: 1) In the 16th century, the birth of 2003, pp. 164–168, 208–209, and cat. no. XXVI),
within the Holy Family group as reflecting the a daughter is less likely to have prompted the no such contract has survived for Michelangelo.
Neoplatonic idea of a dynamic world structured commissioning of a painting than the birth of a Documentary evidence of the painting is never
in rotating circles (Conforti, 2002). son. 2) Pomponius Gauricus’s above-mentioned theless provided by records relating to payments
The widest range of interpretations, how- description of Michelangelo as “also a painter” for paper supplies (Isermeyer, 1964; Bambach,
ever, has been reserved for the five male nudes and Michelangelo’s exploration of the compo- 1999b) and by a number of references in Michel-
in the background. Wilde (1953b, p. 69) sees sitions of Leonardo argue for an earlier dating. angelo’s correspondence and Lives (Köhler, 1907;
them as the descendants of angels; Tolnay (I, 3) Joseph’s prominence within the painting is Tolnay, I, pp. 209–211). Whatever the case,
660 661
Michelangelo executed a full-size cartoon that and starting to don their clothes and weapons. The most important surviving documentary P5. Sistine Ceiling, 1508–1512
he probably completed, at least in part, prior to Several figures are rendered in particular detail: sources are also found in the latter and in Frey Fresco, 40.5 x 13.2 m
being summoned to Rome in March 1505. It is one such is the man in the centre of the picture (1907) and Isermeyer (1964). Most subsequent Rome, Vatican, Sistine Chapel
unclear, however, whether and to what extent who is wrapping a turban around his head. He art historians have approached Michelangelo’s
he transferred his design to the wall (Tolnay, I, is probably the condottiere Galeotto Malatesta, a cartoon from a purely formal point of view (e. g. More has been written about the ceiling frescoes
pp. 210–211; Morozzi, 1988/1989). Any such pro- professional military leader hired by the city of Gould, 1966; Grohn, 1972; dalli Regoli, 1994). of the Sistine Chapel than about any other of
gress would have to have been made primarily Florence. At the time of the alarm he had been Only Hartt (1983), Rubinstein (1991) and Zöll- Michelangelo’s many works. The artist’s own
in the months following the artist’s return to laid low with a fever. In Michelangelo’s compo- ner (2003, pp. 173–174) take into account the contemporaries were astounded by the very
Florence from Rome in April 1506. Whether the sition he is winding a cloth around his head, fact that Michelangelo’s composition, just like monumentality of the fresco, whose continu-
grisaille copy today housed in Holkham Hall which in conjunction with his name – Mal-a- Leonardo’s Battle of Anghiari (see Ch. III, ill. ous painted surface of over 500 square metres
and usually attributed to Aristotele da Sangallo testa (“headache” in Italian) – may be a reference p. 98), belongs to the genre of politically charged (5,380 square feet) and around 350 individual
shows the whole of Michelangelo’s composition, to his impaired state of health. One of the most paintings destined for governmental buildings figures was without precedent in its day. Initial
and whether it goes directly back to the origi- striking figures is the old man crouching in the and so should be viewed in conjunction with plans for this much-admired key work of Renais-
nal cartoon, also remain matters of dispute. If right-hand foreground and crowned by an ivy other politically motivated commissions issued sance art are found in a letter of 10 May 1506
true, the Holkham Hall copy must have arisen wreath, who is mentioned by Vasari. Ivy (Ital- by the Florentine city council. Hartt and Rubin- from Piero Rosselli to Michelangelo (Carteggio,
before 1519, since the original cartoon was prob- ian edera) may refer to Pontedera, a location not stein have thus convincingly shown that Michel- I, p. 16, no. X). Rosselli reports a conversation
ably cut up before this date in order to serve as far from Cascina. The ivy wreath could also be angelo and Leonardo’s compositions both reflect in which Bramante remarked in front of Pope
study material for other artists (Cellini, 1956, interpreted as a symbol of victory, in line with the notion of a civilian militia propagated by Julius II that Michelangelo lacked the courage
pp. 30–31; Vasari, 1550; Köhler, 1907; Tolnay, I, antique tradition (Pliny, Natural History, XVI. Niccolò Machiavelli in Florence around 1503, (animo) to fresco the ceiling. The background
p. 211). Vasari’s claim that Michelangelo’s rival lxii.144). something also true of Michelangelo’s David to this polemic was the fact that problems
Baccio Bandinelli was responsible for cutting Other figures whom Michelangelo has (Cat. S10) from this same period. The figure of with the Julius Tomb had led Michelangelo to
up the cartoon was probably no more than a characterized in particular detail include, on Manno Donati, moreover, can also be read as a flee Rome on 17 April 1506 (Cat. S15, and Ch.
malicious rumour (V/M, VI, pp. 137–138). The the right of Malatesta, a naked elderly man with symbol of a vigilant civilian militia that is inde- IV). After much to-ing and fro-ing, the result-
fate of the cartoon fragments, which are today a spear in his left hand, who seems to be run- pendent of hired mercenaries (see Ch. III). ing dispute between Julius II and Michelangelo
considered lost, is traced thoroughly by Köhler ning towards the viewer; above him, the herald Conclusion: Precisely when the grisaille was eventually settled and the artist proceeded to
(1907) and by Tolnay (I, pp. 211–213). Not yet sounding the alarm; immediately behind him a panel in Holkham Hall was executed is a ques- accept a commission to execute a bronze statue
fully resolved, finally, is the attribution of a num- chubby-faced person in profile, also blowing an tion not yet fully resolved. Formalistic analysis (now destroyed) of the Pope for S. Petronio in
ber of drawings linked with the Battle of Cascina instrument; next to this trumpeter, one of the of the cartoon is increasingly being joined by an Bologna. Only after this statue was installed on
cartoon (Köhler, 1907; Barocchi, 1962; Gould, two fully dressed figures, armed with a shield, approach that takes into account the genre of 21 February 1508 (Steinmann, 1905, II, p. 697,
1966; Tolnay, I, pp. 188–189, 213; Hartt, 1975a, lance and helmet surmounted by a dragon; and painting, to which the Battle of Cascina belongs. no. 8) could Michelangelo turn his thoughts to
pp. 45–61; Hirst, 1986a). further to the right, another soldier in armour. frescoing the Sistine ceiling. Since he wanted to
Michelangelo’s cartoon depicts an important The soldier with the dragon on his helmet is work as a sculptor on the Julius Tomb, Michel-
episode in Florentine military history, namely probably Manno Donati, whose vigilance saved angelo evidently embarked on the frescoes
the moment preceding a decisive battle against the Florentines from military defeat. The epi- against his will, as he himself emphasized in two
the troops of the neighbouring city of Pisa. On sode portrayed by Michelangelo probably goes drafts for a letter to Giovan Francesco Fattucci
28 July 1364, the Florentine soldiers and generals back to Filippo Villani’s Cronaca (11.97; Tolnay, of December 1523 (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 426–430;
were bathing in the Arno not far from the town I, pp. 217–218; Rubinstein, 1991, note 34). Cecchi Carteggio, III, pp. 7–11).
of Cascina when the enemy Pisans suddenly (1997), however, considers Leonardo Bruni’s His Several of Michelangelo’s ricordi from
appeared. Fortunately, one of the Florentine toria Florentini Populi to be its main source, and April to July 1508 (Ricordi, pp. 1–3, nos. I–III)
commanders, Manno Donati, had not ventured Marcello Virgilio Adriani to have acted as pro- document his preparations for the fresco. These
into the water and so raised the alarm. This is gramme adviser to Leonardo and Michelangelo. “memoirs” mention a preliminary payment of
the moment captured by Michelangelo: some of Still the most comprehensive study of 500 gold ducats, the start of work on 10 May
the bathing soldiers are still climbing out of the Michelangelo’s Battle of Cascina is by Köhler 1508, the summoning of assistants from Florence
water, while others are already back on the land (1907), whose results are summarized by Tolnay. and a contract drawn up by Cardinal Francesco
662 663
Alidosi but now lost. Further information on the implications for the chronology of the fresco of accompanied by “the usual ornamentation” (see and Chapman (2006, p. 110). The most likely
progress of work can be gleaned from the diary a lengthy interruption in work between Septem- Ch. V). Several drawings by the artist testify to candidates for these theological consultants
kept by papal master of ceremonies Paris de ber 1510 and the summer of 1511. Bound up with the accuracy of this information (see Ch. V, ill. are thought to be Sante Pagnini (Wind, 1944),
Grassis, the Vatican books of accounts and let- this issue is the question of the scaffolding that pp. 136/137; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 3, Cat. D52, D53; Marco Vigerio (Hartt, 1950), Egidius of Viterbo
ters to and from the artist (Steinmann, 1905, II, Michelangelo used (Gilbert, 1981; Joannides, Weil-Garris Brandt, 1992a; Fastenrath, 2000). (Dotson, 1979; Bull, 1988) and Francesco Alidosi
pp. 693–741; Salvini, 1965, pp. 97–99; Seymour, 1981b; Hartt, 1982; Mancinelli, 1986; Gilbert, Opinions differ only over a further remark by (Beck, 1990). On the other hand, the biblical
1972, pp. 104–109). Michelangelo tersely informs 1994, pp. 191–244). Opinions also clashed over Michelangelo: namely that he himself had pro- texts that undoubtedly underlie the fresco (see
his father that he had finished the project at the the amount that Michelangelo was paid for the posed a wider-ranging pictorial programme and below) and the results of the recent restoration
beginning of October 1512 (Milanesi, 1875, p. 23; Sistine ceiling (Tolnay, II, pp. 191–192; Ramsden, that the Pope had given him an entirely free (Mancinelli, 1992) suggest that Michelan gelo
Carteggio, I, p. 137, no. CIV). In his diary entry 1963, I, pp. 240–246), a sum that has recently hand to design it. The majority of art historians conceived the decorative programme largely
for 31 October 1512, Paris de Grassis also com- been calculated by Hatfield (2002, pp. 123–125, consider it unlikely that an artist would have himself. Only a minority of recent art historians
ments on the completion of the frescoes that 318) as 3,121 gold florins and 19 soldi. This cor- enjoyed complete freedom to fresco the papal (Leach, 1985; Hope, 1987) take this illuminating
same month (Steinmann, 1905, II, pp. 735–736, responds more or less to one of the two sums chapel in the Vatican. Instead, the structure of view, however.
no. 108). It can be deduced from the sources, given by Vasari. the decorative programme would have been Condivi (1553), Michelangelo’s biographer
therefore, that work began in the spring of In his above-mentioned draft letter of conceived by Julius II, or rather by theological and mouth piece, also names the Old Testa-
1508 and that frescoing was finished in October December 1523, Michelangelo writes that he was advisors in his circle, as argued most recently ment as a textual source for the Sistine ceiling,
1512. Disagreement still reigns, however, over the initially supposed to paint only twelve Apostles by Kemp (1997, pp. 249–250), Bosch (1999) a claim confirmed by even a cursory look at
664 665
Page 666
The Creation of Adam,
before restoration
(see ill. pp. 206/207)
Left
Ignudo above the Erythraean
Sibyl, before restoration,
(see ill. p. 176)
Right
Eva, detail of The Fall
before restoration
(see ill. p. 187)
the fresco itself. The nine pictorial fields of the various poses on imitation pedestals and flank Christian auspices was indeed a favourite notion also represents an important turning point in
vault, five smaller and four larger, show episodes the nine episodes from the story of Creation. of the papacy in Rome (see Ch. V). the divine plan for salvation, for it is with him
from the story of Creation up to the Drunken Beneath these ignudi, pairs of putti and other Michelangelo’s episodes from the story of that God makes the Old Covenant, which will
ness of Noah, whereby the five smaller fields are bronze-coloured nudes fill in the architectural Creation unfold along the Sistine vault in the endure until the advent of Christ. A specifically
flanked by altogether ten medallions containing spaces directly above the spandrels and the four same direction as the Quattrocento frescoes on Christian understanding of time thus provides
further scenes from the Old Testament (nos. pendentives. These nudes are probably orna- the walls below. In other words, the cycle starts one of the structuring elements of the fresco’s
I–X in diagram ill. pp. 154, 159). The four pen- mental in character (see below). Providing a at the west end of the chapel, above the altar, overall design. This can also be seen in the depic-
dentives in the corners of the vault also depict clear and meaningful leitmotif throughout the and finishes at the entrance wall at the east end. tions of the Ancestors of Christ: in accordance
Old Testament subjects referring to the delivery fresco, on the other hand, are the many clusters Michelangelo arranges the events taken from with Christian chronology, Michelangelo’s picto-
of the Jewish people from various perils: the of acorns and festoons of oak leaves, which are Genesis across the nine pictorial fields of the rial narrative is taken up by the individual figures
Brazen Serpent (Num. 21:6–7), the Punishment of assigned to some of the ignudi and fill the spaces vault in the following order: in the first field, of the Ancestors of Christ in the lunettes above
Haman (Esther 7:10), David and Goliath (I Sam. around some of the medallions. Hundreds of God separates light and darkness (Gen. 1:3–5), in the windows and in the spandrels of the vault.
17:49–51) and Judith and Holofernes (Judith 13). stylized acorns also decorate the imitation mar- the second he creates the Sun, Moon and plants The Redeemer’s forebears thereby link the Old
Seven Prophets and five Sibyls appear between ble mouldings of the spandrels and pendentives. (Gen. 1:11–13; 1:16). Next come the separation of Testament subjects along the vault (the story of
the triangular spandrels of the two long walls Oak leaves and acorns are generally land and water (Gen. 1:9–10) and, in two sepa- Creation, and life of Noah) with the New Testa-
and the pendentives of the short walls, and lower acknowledged to refer to the pope who commis- rate fields, the Creation of Adam (Gen. 2:6–7) ment events (the life of Christ) on the north wall
down the massive figure of Jonah above the altar sioned the fresco, Julius II, and specifically to his and Eve (Gen. 2:21–25). The Fall (Gen. 3:6) and of the chapel.
wall at the west end of the vault and the some- family name of della Rovere (Italian rovere, oak). the Expulsion from Paradise (Gen. 3:24) are In addition to the Bible, interpretations
what less monumental Zechariah at the opposite Symbolic references to the della Rovere family combined into one picture, while the Sacrifice of Michelangelo’s Sistine ceiling frescoes have
end. The twelve semi-circular lunettes and the had already been incorporated into the fresco of Noah (Gen. 8:20), the Flood (Gen. 7:7–20) drawn upon numerous other sources: medieval
eight triangular spandrels above them contain cycles commissioned for the chapel walls in 1481 and the Drunkenness of Noah (Gen. 9:20–23) (Bull, 1988; Pfeiffer, 1993 [Joachim del Fiore]),
representations of the Ancestors of Christ, as by Julius II’s uncle, Sixtus IV, depicting episodes are divided into three separate fields. Neoplatonic (Tolnay, II, pp. 24–45, 141–144;
listed at the start of St Matthew’s Gospel. from the lives of Moses and Christ. Julius II took The nine scenes along the vault are organ- Kuhn, 1975, pp. 84–148), liturgical (Wind,
The individual scenes and figures making up the same idea. The symbolism of oak leaves ized into three trilogies: the first is devoted to 1944; Bosch, 1999), Augustinian (Dotson, 1979;
up the fresco are organized into fields bounded and acorns, some of them gilded, was already the part of the story of Creation still unclouded Pfeiffer, 1995), Franciscan (Hartt, 1950), Domin-
by a painted architecture. A cohesive role is also apparent to Vasari (1568), for whom they rep- by the deeds of sinful humankind; the second to ican (Wind, 1944), cabbalistic (Schuyler, 1986;
played by the altogether ninety-four naked fig- resented the Golden Age ushered in with the the first man and woman, Adam and Eve; and 1987; 1990) and Savonarolan (Hatfield, 1991;
ures of differing sizes. These include first and reign of Julius II. This programmatic reference the third to the fate of humankind after the Fall, Pfeiffer, 1995) – to name just a few. Their very
foremost the famous ignudi, who are seated in to an ideal age of antiquity re-established under here represented by the story of Noah. Noah number and variety makes it doubtful whether
666 667
these sources contribute to an understanding of and Kliemann/Rohlmann (2004, pp. 479–482). Bambach, 1994; Colalucci, 1994). The restora- pp. 116–121; Zöllner, 2005b). Recent research
the frescoes. It is possible that the Bible provided Still indispensable are Steinmann (1901–1905, tion has also made it possible to assess more pre- sees other, albeit indirect, comments by Michel
the basis of virtually the entire programme. II, pp. 693–741), who offers the best collection cisely the amount of work carried out by Michel- angelo on his art and its practice in the compari-
There are two particular reasons why the Bible of documents, and Tolnay (II) and Camesasca angelo’s assistants (Wallace, 1987a; Mancinelli, son with the Quattrocento frescoes lower down
should be viewed as the primary source for the (in: Salvini, 1965, II), who as well as listing the 1993; 1994b). In this context, Hatfield (2002, the chapel walls (Rohlmann, 1999) and in the
majority of the individual pictures and for the sources offer a résumé of older research. An pp. 22–30) argues on the basis of a scrupulous head of Holofernes, interpreted as a role-portrait
programme as a whole: overview of the most important documents in analysis of Michelangelo’s bank accounts that (Tolnay, II, pp. 95, 180; Agoston, 1997; Zöllner,
1) In his depiction of the Ancestors of Christ, English translation is found in Seymour (1972) the artist employed assistants only for less skilled 2005b).
Michelangelo has adhered to the exact order in and a selection of relevant primary sources in tasks, and not for the actual painting. This falls The most recent interpretations of the Sis-
which they are recorded in the Gospel of St Mat- German translation in Zöllner (2004). Wallace in line with Vasari’s claim that Michelangelo sent tine Chapel aim towards its contextualization.
thew (Matt. 1:1–16), and also, as Poeschel (2000) (1995b, II) reprints important but largely out- home the artists he had summoned from Flor- Like the Quattrocento cycles, Michelangelo’s
has recently observed, to a similar record in the dated interpretations. ence and painted the ceiling on his own. fresco is concerned with the primatus papae
Gospel of St Luke (Luke 3:54). Furthermore, the Whereas earlier scholars concentrated pri- Unlike the cartoons, which are today lost, (Ettlinger, 1965), in other words the promo-
ancestors are accompanied by inscriptions giv- marily on explaining the fresco’s content and several original drawings relating to the fresco tion and legitimization of the Roman papacy
ing their names, which proves that they were uncovering the rele vant literary sources and have survived, although in many cases their vis-à-vis other institutions inside and outside
intended to be recognized as the ancestors of artistic forerunners, the restoration of the fresco attribution to Michelangelo remains disputed the Church (e. g. Sinding-Larsen, 1969; Ver-
Christ listed in St Matthew’s Gospel. The same carried out from 1980 to 1989 has encouraged (H62–124; TC119–174; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 3, don, 1992; Pappas, 1992; Rohlmann, 1995; 1999;
desire for clarity is evidenced by the inscriptions, other areas of enquiry. These include above all Cat. D52–91; Hirst, 1993; Chapman, 2006, Kliemann/Rohlmann, 2004, pp. 88–94). This
on painted tablets, identifying the Prophets and discussions of Michelangelo’s painting tech- pp. 102–141). Secure attributions include the emerges plainly from the chapel’s overall deco-
Sibyls and the positively inflationary profusion nique and of issues relating to the restoration. sketches mentioned earlier for the first, subse- rative programme. With the lives of Moses and
of acorns and oak leaves (see above). The results of the restoration are documented quently rejected design for the ceiling (see Ch. Christ and the portraits of the popes executed
2) In his design of the medallions, in par- in several publications (La Cappella Sistina. I V, ill. pp. 136/137, 139), most of the drawings in in the 15th century, and with Michelangelo’s
ticular, Michelangelo borrows formally from primi restauri; 1986; La Cappella Sistina. La volta the so-called Oxford sketchbook (Pöpper, 2016, Ancestors of Christ and episodes from the life
the woodcut illustrations accompanying Nicolò restaurata, 1990; Weil-Garris Brandt, 1994a and Ch. 3, Cat. D75–90), a red-chalk study for the of Noah, the chapel presents a seamless geneal-
Malermi’s Italian translation of the Bible, pub- b). Its most important aspects are summarized Libyan Sibyl, which also features sketches for ogy descending from the patriarchs of the Old
lished in 1490 (Wind, 1960; Hope, 1987). But anew in The Sistine Chapel: A Glorious Resto the Slaves for the Julius Tomb (see Ch. IV, ill. Testament through the ancestors of Christ to
a number of other scenes are also inspired by ration, a collection of essays with an introduc- p. 117; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 3, Cat. D61), a study Christ himself; and from there via the succes-
the text and illustrations in this popular Bible tion by Pietrangeli (1992, English translation for the pendentive of Judith and Holofernes (Pöp- sion of popes to the person of Julius II. In this
(Hatfield, 1991; see below). Michelangelo thus 1994). While the majority of scholars have wel- per, 2016, Ch. 3, Cat. D55), several studies for respect the frescoes also serve as publicity for the
drew directly upon the Scriptures in their most comed the restoration as a contribution towards individual figures (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 3, Cat. Pope and the papacy (Stinger, 1985, pp. 308–314;
accessible format, one demonstrating quite the a greater understanding of Michelangelo’s paint- D56–63), a study for Jonah (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. O’Malley, 1986), something true, moreover, of
opposite of the philological and philosophical ing methods, it has been harshly criticized in sev- 3, Cat. D62), which is also considered a study most large-scale papal commissions.
sophistication that has been tacitly taken for eral studies, above all by Beck (Beck, 1988; 1991a; for the Doni Tondo and a rapid sketch showing The genealogical leitmotif running through
granted by most scholars up till now. In fact, all Beck/Daley, 1996; see also Cast, 1991; Weil- the artist himself at work on the ceiling fresco the Sistine Chapel is in fact its most remarkable
complicated explanations of Michelangelo’s ceil- Garris Brandt, 1987b). (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 3, Cat. D92). Written on the feature, since it directly reflects the central aim of
ing are based on circular reasoning: the majority One of the first areas to be re-assessed in the same sheet is the famous poem to Giovanni da papal policy and in the case of Julius II and his
of art historians presuppose that the fresco must wake of the fresco’s restoration was its colour pal- Pistoia, in which Michelangelo complains about uncle Sixtus IV also illustrates the dynastic ambi-
be based on an elaborate theological programme ette (e. g. Shearman, 1994; Hall, 1992, pp. 123– the painful contortions involved in frescoing the tions of the della Rovere family (Zöllner, 2002,
and proceed to cite texts that appear to confirm 129), previously barely recognizable beneath a Sistine ceiling (Frey, 1964, no. 9; see Ch. V, p. pp. 93–96). Michelangelo took up the theme of
the complexity of a concept assumed a priori to centuries-old layer of grime. Discoveries made 144). Together with Michelangelo’s comments the “primacy of the pope” already expressed in
be complex. during the course of restoration also shed light on his marble David (Cat. S10) in Florence, this the Quattrocento portraits of popes and Moses
The most important literature relating to on Michelangelo’s use of full-scale cartoons, is the earliest instance in the post-medieval era and Christ fresco cycles and carried it to a final
the Sistine ceiling, organized by subject area, which were transferred to the wall by methods of an artist offering personal thoughts on his climax: just as Julius II had fulfilled his uncle’s
can be found in Rohlmann (1995, pp. 39–55) including spolvero and incisione (Borsook, 1994; own work (Lavin, 1992; 1993; Zöllner, 2002, dynastic ambitions through his election as pope,
668 669
so his own scheme for the Sistine ceiling com- such as the jug in the left-hand foreground and
pleted the decoration of the papal chapel com- the gestures made by Noah’s sons, appear to go
menced under Sixtus IV (see Ch. V). back to the woodcuts in the Malermi Bible of P5.1a. Drunkenness of Noah, 1509
Conclusion: On the basis of the most recent 1490 (Hatfield, 1991) and 1493 (Wind, 1960). Fresco, 170 x 260 cm
scholarship, it seems highly improbable that a The figure of Noah busy with the spade in the
complex, perhaps even philosophically inspired, background can be found in a relief by Jacopo P5.1b. The Flood, 1508/09
programme lay behind the iconography of the della Quercia on the façade of S. Petronio in
Sistine ceiling. Determining factors are much Bologna (Cornelius, 1896, p. 137). The reclin-
P5.1c. Sacrifice of Noah, 1509
more likely to have been the concept of the ing figure of the patriarch is clearly inspired by Fresco, 170 x 260 cm
papacy on the one hand, and Michelangelo’s antique river gods (Mariani, 1964, p. 56).
individual creative will on the other. The Drunkenness of Noah immediately
prompts the question as to whether the frescoes
P5.1a–i. The Biblical Narratives of the vault can be interpreted as individual
(the Story of C
reation and the Story of Noah) scenes as well as part of a whole. The various
possibilities yielded by this approach have been
Michelangelo executed the nine scenes from the summarized amongst others by Salvini (1965,
Story of Creation and the Life of Noah in reverse pp. 193–194). It is probably more productive to
chronological order, i. e. he started with the view the individual scenes as part of an overall
Noah episodes at the east end of the chapel and programme – in this case the Drunkenness of
worked westwards. For this reason, most analy- Noah as an episode dating from the New Cov-
ses of the frescoes of the vault still commence enant, to which the Ancestors of Christ in the
with the Drunkenness of Noah, even though this lunettes are chronologically linked.
episode falls last in the chronology. For Tolnay’s The Drunkenness of Noah is followed to the
(II) Neoplatonic interpretation, indeed, it is west by the Flood. The recent restoration has
imperative to start here, since the story of Noah confirmed Condivi’s claim that this was the first
at one end and the act of Creation by God at scene to be frescoed (Mancinelli, 1993). Michel-
the other mark the starting point and conclusion angelo once again adheres to the biblical text in
of the process of deificatio and the return from his depiction of the Flood (Gen. 7:6–20): the
physical to spiritual being. waters have floated the Ark, visible in the back-
The pictorial field containing the Drunken ground, off the land and have already covered
ness of Noah adheres very closely to the biblical all but the tops of the mountains to the left and
text (Gen. 9:20–23) and shows Noah with his right, where people are desperately seeking ref-
three sons: in the centre Japheth, who is cov- uge. Perched on the roof of the Ark there is even
ering his father’s nakedness; beside him Ham, the dove that, by not returning, confirmed to
who gestures mockingly at Noah; and behind Noah and his family that the Flood had finally
him Shem, who is trying to restrain Ham. passed (Gen. 8:8–12). On the basis of this dove
Noah himself appears again in the background, and other birds, Hatfield (1991) supposes that
digging over the soil with a spade. This can be Michelangelo drew his inspiration here, too,
understood as a reference to Noah’s vineyard, as from the Malermi Bible of 1490. Other pos-
mentioned in the Bible. sible sources suggested by Tolnay (II, p. 132) prosaic description given in Genesis (Gen. 8:20), formal sources of inspiration in treatments of
A scene depicting the same subject in and Salvini (1965, pp. 194–195) seem to me less whereby he may have turned to Leviticus the same subject by Paolo Uccello and Jacopo
Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Gates of Paradise is considered plausible. for more precise details about the ceremony della Quercia (Steinmann, 1905, II, pp. 310–315;
to have provided a model for the composition In the next picture, the Sacrifice of Noah, of sacrifice (Lev. 1:7–8, 1:11–12; Kuhn, 1975, Tolnay, II, pp. 29, 133; Salvini, 1965, p. 196).
(Tolnay, II, p. 131), while a number of details, Michelangelo elaborates upon the fairly p. 34). Art historians in the past have seen More convincing, in my opinion, is the
670 671
reference to the figure of Althaea on a Meleager More significant, to my mind, is the reference
sarcophagus today housed in the Villa Albani, to the 1490 edition of the Malermi Bible, whose
which probably provided the pose and gesture of woodcut also combines the Fall and the Expul-
the figure assisting Noah on the left (Gombrich, sion into a single pictorial field (Hatfield, 1991).
1937; Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 116). Michelangelo expands upon the Malermi com-
The Sacrifice of Noah is occasionally also position by depicting the serpent not just with a
identified as the Sacrifice of Cain and Abel or as human head but also with an anthropomorphic
the Sacrifice of Abel (e. g. Condivi, 1553; Vasari, body.
1568; Beck, 1991b; Joost-Gaugier, 1996). In the The disposition of the figures in The Fall is
biblical narrative, in fact, the Sacrifice of Noah also indebted to a relief on an antique sarcopha-
takes place after the Flood; it is possible, there- gus, showing Hercules in the garden of the Hes-
fore, that this fresco depicts a different scene perides. This borrowing explains the unusual fact
from the one generally accepted. Michelan- that Adam – and not just Eve – is also reaching
gelo’s fresco does not correspond to the typical for the forbidden fruit (Ronen, 1974). Whether
format of a Sacrifice of Cain and Abel, however, the trees and tree stumps here and in the Crea
nor would the subject have fit logically with the tion of Eve possess a particular significance is a
rest of the programme. Hence the majority of matter of dispute (Barolsky, 1990a; Schwedes, P5.1d. The Fall, 1509/10
scholars support the traditional identification. 2000). While this is certainly the case in the Fresco, 280 x 570 cm
Michelangelo is thought to have manipulated Malermi Bible woodcut, it is not really apparent
the order of the three Noah scenes either on for- in Michelangelo’s fresco. Equally unconvincing, P5.1e. Creation of Eve, 1509/10
mal grounds (e. g. Steinmann, 1905, II, p. 303) in my opinion, is Schuyler’s (1990) suggestion
or for reasons of content (e. g. Sinding-Larsen, that the anthropomorphic serpent represents P5.1 f. Creation of Adam, 1510
1969; Kuhn, 1975, pp. 34–40; Rohlmann, 2004, Lilith, Adam’s first wife. Fresco, 260 x 570 cm
p. 91). He also altered the sequence of events in The next pictorial field shows the Creation of
the third trilogy comprising the opening scenes Eve from the rib of the sleeping Adam. Here, too,
of the story of Creation (see below). Michelangelo adheres to the short account given
After the Sacrifice of Noah, Michelangelo in the Bible (Gen 2:21–25). His fresco bears for-
executed the fourth pictorial field, The Fall mal similarities to corresponding compositions
(Gen. 3:6) and the E xpulsion from Paradise in the mosaics of S. Paolo fuori le Mura (Fillitz,
(Gen. 3:24). The figures assume a larger scale 1985), a relief by Jacopo della Quercia (Stein-
than those of the preceding two fields and mann, 1905, II, pp. 320–323) and the Malermi
the fresco corresponds in only limited fashion Bible of 1490 (Hatfield, 1991). These similarities
to the biblical text. In the left half of the pic- are partly dictated by the subject, however. The
ture, Adam and Eve have taken the forbidden Creation of Eve is a central scene – in the most
fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, and on the literal sense – on the Sistine ceiling and marks
right they are driven out of Paradise by the the halfway point in the nine biblical scenes
Archangel Michael. In contrast to most artists along the vault. Eve herself may be interpreted
of the Quattrocento, Michelangelo combines as the typological counterpart of the Virgin
the Fall and the Expulsion into one scene. Ear- Mary, to whose Assumption the Sistine chapel is
lier scholars nevertheless cited similar compo- dedicated. The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib
sitions by Masaccio in the Brancacci Chapel was also seen as a metaphor for the birth of the
and Jacopo della Quercia in S. Petronio as the Church from the wound in Christ’s side (Hartt,
sources of Michelangelo’s inspiration (Tolnay, 1950; Sinding-Larsen, 1969; Rohlmann, 1995,
II, pp. 31–32, 134; Salvini, 1965, pp. 196–198). pp. 30–31; Rohlmann, 1999).
672 673
The Creation of Adam has undoubtedly God’s left hand is resting, as a representation of
received more attention in the literature than the New Adam and thus as a reference to Christ;
any other individual field in the vault. Reasons the figure beneath God’s left arm is thereby seen
for this lie on the one hand in Michelangelo’s as a prefiguration of Eve. This argument finds
innovative compositional solution, and on the support from Steinberg (1992), who also consid-
other in the figures – difficult to identify – look- ers one of the figures beneath God’s right arm
ing out from beneath God’s arm and cloak. The to be a rebellious angel. Other authors view the
inclusion of God the Father floating in a billow- somewhat larger figure, feminine in appearance,
ing cloak and accompanied by secondary figures beneath God’s left arm (Tolnay and Steinberg’s
is also unusual for a depiction of the Creation of Eve) as the female aspect of the divine nature
Adam. Neither the biblical text (Gen. 2:6–7) nor (Schuyler, 1986) or as the personification of
previous artistic conventions point in this direc- Divine Wisdom (Klaczko, 1898, p. 328; Kuhn,
tion. Only the mist appearing behind Adam as a 1975, pp. 28–29; Hall, 1993; Rzepin´ska, 1994),
blue band of colour is specifically mentioned in who is described in Proverbs as being present
the Scriptures. at God’s side during Creation (Prov. 8:22–31).
The motif of the floating God is occasion- Schüssler (2002), on the other hand, is able to
ally linked with the Victories of the Arch of Titus demonstrate convincingly through medieval
(Wilde, 1932) and with the wind god in Botti- examples that these figures are indeed angels.
celli’s Birth of Venus (Maryni, 1964, p. 60). More The next scene probably depicts the Separa
convincing, in my opinion, is the reference to tion of Land and Water, as already observed by
earlier treatments of the Creation of the World Vasari, and hence the events of the second day
(Schüssler, 2002), which Michelangelo here of Creation (Gen. 1:9–10). It is followed by the
applied to the Creation of Adam. Barolsky (1998) Creation of the Sun, Moon and Plants (Gen. 1:11–
also refers to Botticelli and sees the wind or spirit 13; 1:16), representing the third day, and finally
(spiritus) of Creation in God’s flowing hair and the Separation of Light and Darkness (Gen. 1:3–5)
billowing cloak. Following this line of argument, on the first day of Creation. Viewed from the P5.1g. Separation of Land and Water, 1511
however, the quickening wind of Creation would entrance wall, therefore, the first trilogy contain- Fresco, 155 x 270 cm
be blowing straight into the Creator’s face! God’s ing the story of Creation has also been modified,
finger, finally – which Condivi explains simply so that the pictorial fields no longer appear in P5.1h. Creation of the Sun, Moon and Plants, 1511
as God giving Adam the precepts by which he quite the same sequence as the events related in Fresco, 280 x 570 cm
should live – thereby symbolizes the animation the Bible.
of the first human. The most important evi- Studies of the Separation of Land and Water P5.1i. Separation of Light and Darkness, 1511
dence of this interpretation of the digitus Dei have identified few convincing artistic sources and
has recently been summarized and discussed by yielded complex interpretations (most significant
Schüssler (2002). possibilities are found in Salvini, 1965, p. 200).
The identification of the figures gathered God the Father, accompanied by three angels,
around the Creator forms another area of par- floats above a grey plane that should probably
ticular controversy. Condivi, with his familiar be taken as water. The area of blue above him to
tendency towards simple explanations, describes the right can be understood as the sky. The com-
them as naked and youthful angels. This view position has been linked with the corresponding
was accepted by the majority of earlier scholars woodcut in the 1490 Malermi Bible, which is
up to Steinmann (1905, II, p. 330). Tolnay (II, also lacking in detail (Tolnay, II, p. 138; Hatfield,
p. 136) and a number of authors before him 1991), and the hovering figure of God with earlier
interpreted the figure on the right, upon whom panel paintings (Tolnay, II, p. 139).
674 675
The Creation of the Sun, Moon and Plants P5.2a–t. The Ignudi Even though their iconography has been The five smaller of the nine pictorial fields
in the following pictorial field is richer in detail. conclusively explained, the ignudi still retain the in the vault are each bordered by two painted
The Creator, who is portrayed twice, points P5.3a–j. Medallions containing episodes from ambivalence described by Vasari. They are not medallions, whose vio lent subjects are taken
with a grand gesture at the heavenly bodies he the history of the Maccabeans, 1509–1511 merely the vehicles of papal symbolism, but are from the Old Testament. In the case of several
has created: the Sun above left and the Moon on Frescoes, diameter: 135 cm also artistic figures that illustrate Michelangelo’s of these medallions, as demonstrated by Wind
the right. On the left-hand edge of the fresco, virtuosity and permit other interpretations. In (1960) and explored further by more recent
beneath the second representation of God, a A total of twenty seated nudes (ignudi) border his first design for the Sistine ceiling, Michelan- authors (Hope, 1987; Hatfield, 1991), Michel-
small area of greenery is undoubtedly meant to the five smaller of the nine pictorial fields along gelo had envisaged twelve Apostles accompanied angelo drew upon woodcuts and passages of
represent the Creation of the Plants (Gen 1:11). the vault and at the same time flank the medalli- by angels (see above). The ignudi who appear in text from the 1490 and 1493 editions of Nic-
The iconography of the Separation of Light and ons placed on either side of these smaller biblical the final, and much more complex, fresco pro- colò Malermi’s Italian translation of the Bible.
Darkness is similarly clear: God hovers between scenes (see below). Probably inspired in formal gramme can be interpreted without difficulty Hope (1987) presumes that the parallels between
a light and a dark zone, standing for light on terms by the Belvedere Torso (Bober/Rubinstein, as the successors to these original angels, even if Michelangelo’s medallions and the rather undis-
one side and darkness on the other. A similarly 1986, no. 132; Wünsche, 1998, pp. 31–37), these they have no wings (Emison, 1998). Precedents tinguished illustrations of the Malermi Bible
bold contrast is found in the Malermi Bible of male nudes are described in most of the literature can indeed be found within Michelangelo’s were intended to make the subjects in the medal-
1490, although in this case the Creator is not fly- as ignudi, although some authors consider them œuvre for wingless beings who, in their ambiva- lions, most of which were rarely represented in
ing, but stands between a light and a dark plane to be atlases (Steinmann, 1905, II, pp. 241–261), lence, can be interpreted as angels; these include painting, more easily recognizable. This explana-
(Tolnay, II, p. 141; Hatfield, 1991). This scene has genii (Tolnay, II, pp. 24–45, 141–144), God’s the background figures in The Madonna of the tion is simplistic, however. It assumes that the
been interpreted more recently as a portrait of athletes (Eisler, 1961), cherubim (Kuhn, 1975, Stairs (Cat. S1), and the wingless angels in the public for whom the Sistine Chapel was painted
the artist, since the pose of God recalls that of pp. 52–58) or wingless angels (Emison, 1998). Creation of Adam (see above). – in those days the highest ranks of the clergy –
Michelangelo in the marginal sketch accompa- Vasari (1568) sees the ignudi as masterly examp- Like these other nudes, the ignudi can be was more familiar with a Bible in the vernacular
nying his sonnet for Giovanni da Pistoia (e.g. les of the representation of the human body, understood as intermediaries between the human than with the Vulgate or the original Latin and
Bondeson/Bondeson, 2001; Rohlmann, 2004). through which Michelangelo demonstrates the and the divine (see Ch. V). This is best clarified Greek texts.
Although unconvincing, this reference shows perfection of his art. On the other hand, as Vasari by the Neoplatonic interpretation put forward The first medallion in the biblical chronol-
at least how the search for sources of inspiration also notes, the ignudi carry festoons of oak leaves by Tolnay (II, pp. 24–45, 141–144), which seeks ogy (see diagram, no. I, p. 79) flanks the north-
that dominated earlier scholarship has now been and are accompanied by gilt acorns and bund- to deduce the deeper meaning of the ignudi spe- ern side of the pictorial field containing the
replaced by a new methodical paradigm, the les reminiscent of overflowing cornucopia, all cifically from Michelangelo’s poems and from Separation of Light and Darkness and depicts the
search for the artist expressing himself. of which supply the viewer with unmistakeable the writings of Lorenzo de’ Medici, Cristoforo Sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 22). It thereby adopts a
If Michelangelo can be said to have heraldic references to the family of the Pope. Landino, Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico compositional formula established by Ghiberti’s
depended in any way at all upon earlier sources, Vasari concludes that these emblems of the della della Mirandola. According to Tolnay, the nar- Gates of Paradise: obeying God’s command,
then these were first and foremost the two illus- Rovere family point to the Golden Age ushered rative sequence of events that begins above the Abraham raises the knife in his hand ready to
trated editions of the Malermi Bible of 1490 in with the reign of Pope Julius II (see above). altar wall with the Separation of Light and Dark strike his son Isaac, who kneels on the altar block
and 1493. A number of persuasive parallels also Joost-Gaugier (1996) expounds upon this the- ness and finishes above the entrance wall with the awaiting his fate. The following relief, which
exist with the reliefs by Jacopo della Quercia in ory in a seminal essay, in which she draws upon Drunkenness of Noah should be read in the oppo- appears beside the Separation of Land and Water,
S. Petronio in Bologna, and with the antique numerous sources to explain in greater detail why site direction. Only by reversing the traditional illustrates the Death of Absalom (II Sam. 18).
works named by Gombrich (1937) for the Sac the ignudi, with their garlands of oak leaves and chronology does the fresco reveal its deeper Absalom, King David’s favourite son, is fleeing
rifice of Noah and by Ronen (1974) for The Fall. acorns, represent the Golden Age that blossomed meaning, namely the illustration of deificatio, before his pursuer, Joab, but is left hanging when
Michelangelo thereby showed himself increas- under Julius II. The relevant antique sources – the process through which man, imprisoned in his hair gets caught in a tree and is stabbed to
ingly independent of earlier influences, above all re-interpreted in a Christian light – had been in a human body, returns to the divine. The fres- death. The composition reveals minor parallels
in his frescoing of the final trilogy on the vault wide circulation since the Middle Ages and by coes thus depict man’s ascension (ascensio) or with the Malermi Bible.
containing the first three scenes from Genesis. the end of the 15th century were even available return to God (ritorno a Dio). In this context the The next medallion shows Alexander the
The flying figure of God the Father in the Sepa in Italian translation (Ovid, Metamorphoses, I.89– ignudi and other nudes can be read as genii and Great before the High Priest, kneeling in submis-
ration of Light and Darkness is thus not intended 113; Pliny, Natural History, XII.ii.3; XIII.ilix.137; “cupids” and hence as mediators between the sion to the priest’s authority. No such scene is
by Michelangelo as a self-portrait, but rather as XV.i.1; XVI.v.11; Virgil, Georgica, II.536–543; human and the divine in the process of ascen- described in the Vulgate, but is found only in
a symbol of his striving towards artistic freedom. Aeneid, VI.793–797; VII.202–205; VIII.315–330). sion to God. the text of the Malermi Bible (Hope, 1987),
676 677
P5.2a. Pair of ignudi above the which again underlines the importance of this
Delphic Sibyl, 1509 source for Michelangelo. It is followed by an
Fresco, 190 x 385 cm episode from Maccabees II, one of the books
P5.3a. Suicide of Razis, 1509 (V)
of the Apocrypha, depicting the Punishment of
P5.2b. Pair of ignudi above Joel, 1509 Heliodorus (II Macc. 3), in which Heliodorus is
Fresco, 190 x 385 cm attacked by avenging angels while attempting
P5.3b. Fall of Antiochus, 1509 (X) to steal the treasure of the Temple of Jerusalem.
In its composition, the medallion resembles the
P5.2c. Pair of ignudi above Isaiah, 1509 Malermi Bible of 1493 (Hatfield, 1991). The final P5.2a; P5.3a P5.2b; P5.3b
Fresco, 190 x 395 cm medallion on the north side of the vault is con-
P5.3c. Punishment of Heliodorus, 1509 (IV) sidered by Hope (1987) to represent the Death of
Abner (II Sam. 3). Hatfield (1991), on the other
P5.2d. Pair of ignudi above the
Erythraean Sibyl, 1509 hand, identifies it more convincingly as the Sui
Fresco, 190 x 390 cm cide of Razis (II Macc. 14) and refers to the cor-
P5.3d. Mattathias Destroys the responding woodcut in the Malermi Bible.
Altar in Modin, 1509 (IX) The chronological sequence continues
on the south side of the vault, where it recom-
P5.2e. Pair of ignudi above the mences above the altar wall in the second medal- P5.2c; P5.3c P5.2d; P5.3d
Cumaean Sibyl, 1509/10 lion flanking the Separation of Light and Darkness
(diagram, no. VI, p. 79). This medallion depicts
P5.3e. Alexander the Great before
the High Priest, 1509/10 (III) Elijah in his Chariot of Fire (II Kings 2) and in
formal terms is inspired not by the Malermi
P5.2 f. Pair of ignudi above Ezekiel, Bible but rather by antique depictions of war
1509/10 chariots (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 172). The
Fresco, 195 x 385 cm next medallion was left empty and is followed
P5.3 f. Death of Nicanor, 1509/10 (VIII) by the Death of Nicanor (II Macc. 15) beside the
pictorial field containing the Creation of Eve. P5.2e; P5.3e P5.2f; P5.3f
P5.2g. Pair of ignudi above Daniel, 1511
This scene, whose subject refers to the military
P5.3g. Death of Absalom, 1511 (II) clashes between the Jewish people under Judas
Maccabaeus and the Seleucid general Nicanor,
P5.2h. Pair of ignudi above the demonstrates certain parallels with the corre-
Persian Sibyl, 1511 sponding woodcut in the Malermi Bible of 1493.
Fresco, 200 x 395 cm In both cases, the ferocious battle being fought
P5.3h. Not executed: Healing of before the gates of Samaria is shown synchro-
Naaman (VII) nously with the presentation of Nicanor’s severed
head and hands that followed his defeat. Here P5.2g; P5.3g P5.2h; P5.3h
P5.2i. Pair of ignudi above the
Libyan Sibyl, 1511 and in the formal layout of the scene, Michel-
Fresco, 195 x 385 cm angelo followed the woodcut, although he also
P5.3i. Sacrifice of Isaac, 1511 (I) deviated from the earlier composition in several
details (e. g. in the number of hands dangling
P5.2j. Pair of ignudi above from the spike).
Jeremiah, 1511 In the penultimate medallion Michelangelo
Fresco, 200 x 395 cm portrays an episode from the life of Mattathias,
P5.3j. Elijah in his Chariot of Fire, 1511 (VI)
the Jewish priest in the city of Modin who spoke
P5.2i; P5.3i P5.2j; P5.3j
678 679
out vehemently against idolatry and destroyed P5.4a–l. The Prophets and Sibyls the subject of dispute. Thus Gilbert (1994, the context of his Neoplatonic interpretation,
an altar dedicated to the heathen gods (I Macc. pp. 87–88) finds a conclusive explanation only Tolnay (II, p. 48) sees these as antithetical “genii”
2). Michelangelo orientated himself towards the Michelangelo filled the mock throne architec- for Jonah, as a symbol of the Resurrection. Tol- who represent man’s light and dark side respec-
Malermi Bible insofar as he depicted the priest ture in the pictorial fields between the spandrels nay (II, pp. 46–56, 147–151), on the other hand, tively. Kuhn (1975, p. 50) holds them to be “spir-
Mattathias and his sons in military-style dress, and pendentives with the over-life-size seated fig- traces the selection of Prophets back to relevant its of prophecy” through whom Michelangelo
something that does not correspond with the ures of seven Prophets and five Sibyls (Tolnay, II, passages in the Bible, an approach that in the wishes to express the inner spiritual practice of
text. The final medallion follows the Malermi pp. 46–62, 145–158; Wind, 1993 [1960]; Gilbert, case of the representations of Daniel (Dan. 7:1) the Prophets and Sibyls. In general terms, they
Bible in its formal layout, although not in its 1994, pp. 64–91). The particular significance of and Jonah (Jonah 2:1, 4:6) is convincing. Kuhn may be understood as beings who, like the angels
details. It shows the Fall of Antiochus (II Macc. the Prophets and Sibyls is underlined in impres- (1975, p. 48), lastly, sees a Messianic tendency to whom they are related (Piper, I, 1847, pp. 343–
9). Antiochus, like Nicanor an opponent of the sive fashion by their size, which often exceeds by expressed in the choice of Prophets; he further- 373), function as spirits of inspiration and inter-
Jewish people, is punished by God with stom- far that of the remaining figures on the Sistine more cites the biblical passages already named by mediary agents of the remote divine. In the case
ach cramps, which cause him to fall from his war ceiling. Prophets were considered to be Old Tolnay, which again underline the importance of of the Erythraean Sibyl, for example, the genius
chariot during a military expedition. Testament seers who had prophesied, amongst the Scriptures for Michelangelo’s process of pic- brings divine illumination with a burning torch.
While Wind (1960) names only four of the other things, the birth of Christ. The Sibyls were torial invention. Also relevant to this process is Michelangelo infused his Prophets and Sib-
Malermi Bible woodcuts as direct models for female seers of antiquity (LCI, IV, col. 150–153), the question of formal models for the Prophets. yls with considerably more dynamism than the
Michelangelo’s medallions, Hatfield (1991) con- whose prophecies were interpreted from a For Joel, Daniel and Jeremiah, Tolnay (II, p. 56) artists of the Quattrocento had. Furthermore,
siders that almost all the medallions were derived Christian point of view as similarly announcing proposes the corresponding figures by Jacopo he portrayed them leafing through books, open-
from this source. In my opinion, however, only the coming of the Saviour. Michelangelo was della Quercia on the portal of S. Petronio in ing heavy tomes, unfurling scrolls, reading and
the following examples are truly plausible: Alex thereby able to draw upon a rich tradition, dat- Bologna, while Hatfield (1991) points to a wood- writing. With the exception of Jonah, all the
ander the Great before the High Priest (diagram, ing back to the Middle Ages, both of individual cut in the Malermi Bible of 1493 for Ezekiel. Prophets and Sibyls are accompanied by books
no. III), the Punishment of Heliodorus (IV), the representations of the Prophets and Sibyls and A more or less full explanation has also been or scrolls. In the case of Jeremiah, a piece of
Suicide of Razis (V), the Death of Nicanor (VIII), their arrangement in facing pairs (Piper, I, 1847, proposed for Michelangelo’s choice of Sibyls. parchment bearing the letters “ALEF” refers to
Mattathias Destroys the Altar in Modin (IX) and pp. 472–507; Künstle, 1928, I, pp. 303–311; Gil- The names of ten female seers of antiquity were the start of the Hebrew text of the Lamentations
the Fall of Antiochus (X). In all of these cases, bert, 1994, pp. 64–91). An example can be seen recorded in Lactantius’s Divinae Institutiones, of Jeremiah. As easily identifiable attributes, the
moreover, it is clear that Michelangelo drew in the frescoes in the Collegio del Cambio in from whose 15th-century editions Michelan- books refer in general to the fact that the visions
upon the woodcuts only as a source of inspira- Perugia (1496–1500), in which Perugino com- gelo frescoed those named first (Gilbert, 1994, experienced by the Prophets and Sibyls are
tion from which to evolve his own solutions. bines six Old Testament Prophets with six pagan pp. 85–86). By the start of the 16th century, recorded in books and scrolls.
Scholars noted early on the martial character Sibyls. moreover, a broad pictorial tradition of repre- A prominent position amongst the Prophets
of the medallions. The scenes they represent are The total of five Sibyls and seven Prophets senting the Sibyls had already evolved. Although and Sibyls is occupied by Jonah, who possesses
taken for the most part from the Old Testament on the Sistine ceiling is explained by the archi- Michelangelo orientated himself towards this neither book nor scroll, is portrayed in a pose of
books of the Maccabees, a dynasty of priests who tectural structure. The original design envisaged tradition, he also varied it radically. For this extraordinary dynamism and is accompanied by
also took up arms to defend their faith and who twelve Apostles, who – after Michelangelo modi- reason, the identification of formal sources for two attributes – the plant in the background and
seem to have particularly interested Julius II. A fied his plan – were replaced by the altogether the Sibyls – for example, in the Malermi Bible the fish at his side – specifically mentioned in
number of Maccabean relics were namely housed twelve seated figures of the seven Prophets and (Hatfield, 1991) – has been unsuccessful. the Book of Jonah. It is also evident that Michel-
in S. Pietro in Vincoli, his titular church as car- five Sibyls (Gilbert, 1994, p. 89). Michelangelo’s Attempts to trace the figures of the Prophets and angelo has drawn directly from the Malermi
dinal (Wind, 1960), and the military-minded choice of Prophets can be traced without dif- Sibyls back to specific literary sources seem to translation of the Bible (Hatfield, 1991), and it is
Pope may well have viewed the Maccabees as ficulty to the Bible, which alongside the books me only partially convincing. These include the even possible to define the exact moment in the
suitable role models (Hope, 1987; Rohlmann, of the four “Major Prophets” (Isaiah, Jeremiah, reference by Tolnay (II, pp. 59, 155–158) to Ovid biblical text that is being portrayed. Jonah, fol-
1995; 2004). Ezekiel and Daniel) also contains the books of (Metamorphoses, XIV.143–159), whose characteri- lowing his “resurrection” out of the belly of the
the twelve “Minor Prophets”. Michelangelo zation of the Cumaean Sibyl as an old woman fish (Jonah 2; Matt. 12:38–41), is seated beneath
chose the Major Prophets in view of their supe- might have inspired Michelangelo. a leafy plant that God has caused to wither away,
rior hierarchical status, but the criteria upon In the context of the Prophets and Sibyls, in order to illustrate to the Prophet the principle
which he based his selection of the three Minor mention should be made of the largely naked of mercy (Jonah 4); for this reason, Michelan-
Prophets, Joel, Zechariah and Jonah, remain secondary figures accompanying them. Within gelo paints the last leaves of the plant in a paler
680 681
colour. At the same time, of course, Jonah can

be interpreted as a symbol of the Resurrection
(Matt. 12:40; Wilde, 1958; Isermeyer, 1986, p. 125;
Gilbert, 1994, pp. 87–88; Barolsky, 1997) and as
a virtuoso representation of the human figure
(Vasari, 1568; Winner, 1993, 1994; Rohlmann,
1995) that is simultaneously programmatic in
character (Verdon, 1992; Rohlmann, 1995).
P5.4a P5.4b P5.4c P5.4d
P5.4a. Zechariah, 1509

P5.4b. Delphic Sibyl, 1509
P5.4c. Joel, 1509
P5.4d. Isaiah, 1509
P5.4e. Erythraean Sibyl, 1509
P5.4e P5.4f P5.4g P5.4h
P5.4 f. Cumaean Sibyl, 1510
P5.4g. Ezekiel, 1510
P5.4h. Daniel, 1511
P5.4i. Persian Sibyl, 1511
P5.4j. Libyan Sibyl, 1511
P5.4k. Jeremiah, 1511
P5.4l. Jonah, 1511
P5.4i P5.4j P5.4k P5.4l
682 683
P5.5a–d. Corner pendentives containing epi- speaks expressly of a camera (room) and not of a
sodes from the history of the people of Israel tent (Hatfield, 1991).
Michelangelo also follows the Bible (I Sam.
P5.5a. Judith and Holofernes, 1509 17:49–51) in his depiction of David and Goliath.
Fresco, 570 x 970 cm According to the biblical text, the giant Philis-
P5.5b. David and Goliath, 1509 tine fell forward on to his face after being struck
Fresco, 570 x 970 cm by David’s stone. Michelangelo may have drawn
P5.5c. The Brazen Serpent, 1511 formal inspiration from an anonymous Floren-
Fresco, 585 x 985 cm tine copperplate engraving offering a variation
P5.5d. Punishment of Haman, 1511 upon the same composition in Ghiberti’s Gates of
Fresco, 585 x 985 cm Paradise (Tolnay, II, p. 179, fig. 370). This argu-
ment is supported by Haitovsky (1988). David’s
P5.5a P5.5b
In terms of biblical chronology, the scenes in the pose may also be derived from a Mithras relief
four corner pendentives illustrating the delivery today housed in the Louvre (Bober/Rubinstein,
of the Jewish people from extreme danger belong 1986, no. 46). Less plausible, in my opinion,
to the same Old Testament era as the medallions is the suggestion put forward by Posèq (1997),
and the Ancestors of Christ in the lunettes. who in an essay on the iconography of David
Their thematic emphasis thereby falls upon the and Goliath claims to see significant formal simi-
idea of the delivery of the chosen people, which larities between Michelangelo’s fresco and Leon-
in turns looks forward to the redemption offered ardo da Vinci’s drawing of Aristotle and Phyllis
by Christ (Thode, 1980, I, p. 331). Each of the (Zöllner, 2003, no. 396).
four episodes can be interpreted in this light. The Brazen Serpent (Num. 21:6–7) is one of
Michelangelo’s depiction of the story of the most complex pictures on the Sistine ceiling.
Judith and Holofernes follows the version of It depicts the episode in which God sends poi-
events given in the Scriptures (Judith 13), albeit sonous snakes amongst the people of Israel as a P5.5c P5.5d
with a small number of deviations: after the Jew- punishment for complaining about him. Only
ish widow Judith has entered the camp of the when Moses erects a replica of a serpent made the struggle between man and snake (Salvini, does not adhere to the pictorial and textual tra-
enemy troops and decapitated their leader, Hol- out of bronze is the deadly danger averted, for 1965, p. 22; Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 122). dition according to which Haman was hanged,
ofernes, she leaves his quarters in order to give all who look upon it are protected from harm. The pendentive containing the Punishment but shows him being crucified, as described in
the head of her oppressor to her maid. Devi- This moment is dramatically portrayed: on the of Haman (Esther 7:10) comprises three sepa- Dante’s Divine Comedy (Purgatorio XVII. 25–30;
ating from the apocryphal text, Judith places right side of the picture, the grumbling Jews are rate scenes. On the far left, the king of Persia, Duppa, 1806, p. 167). In this way Haman’s pun-
Holofernes’ head not in a sack but on a tray or overpowered by poisonous snakes, while on the Ahasuerus (Xerxes), appears with his young Jew- ishment can perhaps be understood as the anti-
platter that her maid is carrying on her head. left they are saved by fervently contemplating the ish wife, Esther, and his chief minister, Haman type to the Crucifixion of Christ (Wind, 1938).
Michelangelo thereby followed a compositional brazen serpent. (Esther 7.1–5). Esther accuses Haman, identified According to this train of thought, The Brazen
type popularized by Sandro Botticelli with his The composition, which has fuelled much by his yellow robes in all three scenes, of want- Serpent, in which the serpent is mounted on a
panels in the Uffizi. The head of Holofernes is reflection amongst modern art theoreticians, ing to eradicate the Jewish people. In the scene pole in the shape of a cross, could also be read as
probably a self-portrait of Michelangelo himself has only a few possible forerunners (Steinmann, on the far right, Xerxes is listening to readings a prefiguration of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.
(Tolnay, II, pp. 179–180; Agoston, 1997; Zöllner, 1905, II, pp. 295–297), whereby Michelangelo from the chronicle of his royal rule and sends for Amongst the drawings relating to the four
2005b), not a portrait of Julius II (Beck, 2001, departs even from earlier versions by omitting Esther’s uncle, Mordecai (Esther 6), who is seated pendentives, a preliminary conceptual sketch for
p. 224; see Ch. V). Deviating from pictorial tra- altogether the central figure of Moses (Tolnay, on the threshold and is invited in by Haman. Judith and Holofernes (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 3, Cat.
dition and from the canonical text of the Bible, II, pp. 98, 182–183) or by portraying him in such After Esther has revealed Haman’s plotting and D56) in the Teylers Museum in Haarlem, and
Michelangelo shows Holofernes not in a tent but a way that he cannot be definitively identified. her uncle’s good intentions, the chief minister two nude studies for the Punishment of Haman
in a room bounded by walls. Here he adheres The Laocoön, discovered in 1506, is viewed as a of the Persian Empire is executed. This execu- in Haarlem (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 3, Cat. D72 and
directly to the text of the Malermi Bible, which source of formal inspiration for the portrayal of tion is portrayed in the foreground, whereby it Add. D3) and the British Mu seum (Pöpper,
684 685
2016, Ch. 3, Cat. D73), may be accepted as P5.6 f. Jesse, David, Solomon
authentic works by Michelangelo. Gilbert (1996) P5.6g. Rehoboam, Abijah
considers a further drawing, clearly showing a P5.6h. Asaph, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram
flight of steps and a male nude (Pöpper, 2016, P5.6i. Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz
Ch. 3, Cat. D91), to be an unrealized design by P5.6j. Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amos
Michelangelo for the pendentive of Judith and P5.6k. Josiah, Jehoiachin, Shealtiel
Holofernes. This drawing was previously consid- P5.6l. Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim
ered to be a sketch for Michelangelo’s scaffolding P5.6m. Azor, Zadok
in the Sistine Chapel. P5.6n. Akim, Eliud
Since Thode (1908, I, p. 331), the four pen- P5.6o. Eleazar, Matthan
dentives have been viewed amongst other things P5.6p. Jacob, Joseph
as prefigurations of the future redemption of P5.6c P5.6d
humankind through the life and death of Christ. Prior to the restoration of the Sistine Chapel car-
Tolnay (II, pp. 179, 167–183), on the other hand, ried out from 1980 to 1989, the frescoes in the
sees them as part of the sphere of Death that is to spandrels and lunettes were so dirty that they
be overcome, a sphere to which the lunettes also were paid little attention or judged in rather
belong. This view is today considered outmoded. negative terms. A characteristic example is the
Crucial aspects of the pendentives are undoubt- interpretation offered by Tolnay (II, pp. 77–92),
edly the divine aid and individual faith (David, who saw in this part of the fresco programme
Judith, Moses, Esther) that save the chosen Jew- the sphere of darkness and death. Restoration
ish people from mortal peril. It is also clear that has revealed the luminous palette employed in
the pendentives have been carefully positioned: the lunettes and spandrels, however, and recent
above the entrance wall, two stories of decapita- scholars have approached both the colouristic
tion that were traditionally interpreted as victo- qualities of these pictorial fields (e. g. Maeder,
ries of virtue over vice and arrogance; and above 1993; Weil-Garris Brandt, 1994b) and their sub-
P5.6e P5.6f P5.6g
the altar wall two compositions calling to mind jects from a fresh angle; we may mention in this
the Crucifixion of Christ and with this the ritual context the important contributions by Gilbert
re-enactment upon the altar of the Redeemer’s (1994, pp. 115–149) and Poeschel (2000).
blood sacrifice. Seen in these terms, the penden- Michelangelo distributed the Ancestors of
tives assume an extraordinary significance, to Christ across eight spandrels and originally six-
which the bold foreshortenings and dramatic teen lunettes. Two of these lunettes, located on
animation of Michelangelo’s figures directly cor- the altar wall, were sacrificed to make way for
respond (see Ch. V). Michelangelo’s Last Judgement and survive only
in contemporary copies (Tolnay, II, pp. 175–176,
P5.6a–p. Lunettes and spandrels containing figs. 30–31; Salvini, 1965, pp. 229–230). These
the Ancestors of Christ, 1511/12 two lunettes, containing Abraham, Isaac, Jacob
Frescoes, 215 x 430 cm and Judah followed by Perez, Hezron and Ram
(spelled Phares, Esron and Aram in the actual
P5.6a. Destroyed: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, lunette; see below), marked the start of the line P5.6h P5.6i P5.6j
Judah of Christ’s ancestors. The record continues in
P5.6b. Destroyed: Perez, Hezron, Ram the first lunette on the north wall with Ammi-
P5.6c. Amminadab nadab, and then jumps across to Nahshon on the
P5.6d. Nahshon south wall. From here the line zigzags between
P5.6e. Salmon, Boaz, Obed the south and north walls until it reaches the
686 687
entrance wall, where it ends with Jacob and although appearing only in the lunettes, also
Joseph, the last two ancestors of Christ. As relate to the spandrels directly above. The names
already mentioned above, this record of Christ’s are rendered here in their modern spelling.
ancestors closes the genealogical gap between
the 15th-century frescoes depicting the life of the
Saviour and the episodes on the vault that end
with the story of Noah.
When it came to portraying the Ancestors of
Christ, Michelangelo had no established picto-
rial tradition upon which to draw. He may have
found sources of inspiration in illuminated man-
uscripts of St Matthew’s Gospel or in the quatre-
foil portraits in Giotto’s Arena Chapel in Padua
P5.6k P5.6l
(Gilbert, 1994, pp. 119–132). But whereas several
of the ancestors in the Arena Chapel can be iden-
tified from their attributes, Michelangelo’s fres-
coes contain no such attributes. The lunettes are
accompanied only by painted inscriptions that
give the names of the ancestors portrayed but do
not permit them to be identified individually.
Although earlier scholars made fanciful attempts
to arrive at such individual identifications (e. g.
Tolnay, II, pp. 84–92; Camesasca, in: Salvini,
1965, pp. 223–230), these are only convincing in
a few cases (Poeschel, 2000). It seems more likely
P5.6m P5.6n
that the small family-type groups, which feature
a relatively high proportion of women (Pap-
pas, 1991; Gilbert, 1994), should be understood
as allusions to the Holy Family and hence as
Marian elements (Poeschel, 2000). In this way,
the record of Christ’s ancestors leads not only
chronologically but also metaphorically right up
to the Holy Family. The Marian connotations of
the lunettes and spandrels also refer to the dedi-
cation of the Sistine Chapel to the Assumption
of the Virgin, as also proclaimed up until 1537
by Perugino’s frescoed altarpiece of the Assumptio
P5.6o P5.6p
Mariae.
The Ancestors of Christ are listed here in the
sequence taken by Michelangelo from St Mat-
thew’s Gospel, and not (as in the case of other
individual frescoes) in their disputed order of
execution. Michelangelo’s painted inscriptions
giving the names of the Ancestors of Christ,
688 689
P6. The Last Judgement, 1536–1541 term “resurrection” probably means the resur- the Julius Tomb, Paul III expressly mentions of Pope Paul III (Kamp, 1993, p. 27; see Ch.
Fresco, 17 x 15.5 m rection of the dead and not the Resurrection of a cartoon (designum cartonum) for the fresco VIII, ill. p. 403).
Rome, Vatican, Sistine Chapel Christ (Perrig, 1976, p. 24; Hall, 1976). The sub- begun under Clement VII (Steinmann, 1905, Michelangelo’s Last Judgement deviates from
ject of the fresco is only expressly named as the II, pp. 748–752; Contratti, 2005, pp. 215–219). pictorial tradition in the dynamic organization
The documents relating to the planning of Last Judgement (historia ultimi iustitii) in a papal This reference, while its reliability is not proven of its figures. The composition is dominated by
Michelangelo’s Last Judgement, the history of brief of 1 September 1535, whose subject was beyond doubt (Barnes, 1998, p. 5), argues Christ the Judge, who appears with the Virgin
which has already been summarized by sev- Michelangelo’s appointment as chief architect, against a change of programme. The issue of Mary in almost the exact middle of the upper
eral authors (e. g. Feldhusen, pp. 1–3; Tolnay, sculptor and painter to the Vatican (Milanesi, whether or not changes were made to the design third of the fresco. He forms the centre of the
V, pp. 19–22; Barnes, 1998, pp. 4–5, 19; Hall, 1875, p. 708; Steinmann, 1905, II, pp. 742–744; relates above to the question of whether Michel- heavenly sphere and its host of saints and mar-
2005, pp. 4–5) are reproduced in Steinmann Contratti, 2005, pp. 211–212). With this appoint- angelo’s fresco reflects the reforms to the Catho- tyrs, only a very few of whom can be identified
(1905, II, pp. 742–778), Dorez (1932, II, Index, ment Michelangelo became a familiaris of the lic Church initiated by Paul III (see below). (see below). Above this heavenly zone, in the two
under Jugement dernier) and Redig de Campos papal court, a position that carried the exor- The comprehensive restoration carried out lunettes that – as part of the Sistine ceiling – ori
(1964, pp. 83–94, 105–107) and make it pos- bitantly high annual salary of 107 gold florins on the fresco from 1990 to 1994 has yielded new ginally contained frescoes of several Ancestors of
sible to reconstruct events as follows. In 1522, (Hatfield, 2002, pp. 159–164). information both about Michelangelo’s painting Christ (Cat. P5.6a–b), angels are raising Christ’s
the entrance wall and its frescoes were partially Surviving receipts relating to the prepara- technique and about the amount of overpaint- Cross and Column of Flagellation, which rep-
destroyed when the architrave over the door tion of the wall and the ordering of paints – in ing by other artists (Michelangelo. La Capella resent not only the instruments of the Passion
collapsed, and in 1525 Perugino’s fresco of the particular large quantities of ultramarine blue, as Sistina, 1999). On the altar wall, measuring but also symbols of the Redeemer (Matt. 24:30).
Assumption of the Virgin on the altar wall was the accounts reveal (e. g. Dorez, 1932, II, p. 150) about 180 square metres (19,380 square feet), They also correspond with the prefigurations of
damaged by fire (Steinmann, 1905, I, pp. 166, – make it possible to date the start of painting Michelangelo frescoed some 390 individual Christ’s Passion in the pendentives of the Sistine
516, 559; Tolnay, V, p. 101). The idea of redeco- to May 1536 and to follow the fresco’s progress figures. The most important of these were vault, namely The Punishment of Haman and
rating both walls was probably born as a result. over the following five years in very close detail. transferred to the wall in advance with the aid The Brazen Serpent. Further instruments of the
Vasari (1568) certainly claims that the Pope The ceremonial unveiling of the fresco is known of cartoons, using largely the spolvero method Passion, such as the crown of thorns (left) and a
wished to have both the narrow walls of the to have taken place on 31 October 1541 (Stein- in the upper section of the wall and by scor- ladder and a stick with a sponge (right), can be
chapel repainted, the entrance wall with a Fall of mann, 1905, II, p. 776). The lengthy period that ing directly into the damp plaster in the made only out with difficulty.
Lucifer and the altar wall with a Last Judgement. elapsed between Michelangelo’s arrival in Rome lower section (Mancinelli/Colallucci/Gabrielli, The entire lower half of the fresco can be
How far this idea of two new frescoes was devel- in September 1534 and the start of work on the 1993). The resto ration has reconfirmed the devided into three parts. On the left – and
oped remains a matter of contention, however. fresco in May 1536 can be explained by the usual overpainting of the genitalia of several figures hence on Christ’s right for those within the
Probably the earliest mention of a new preliminary tasks that had to be completed and by the “breeches painter” (braghettone or bra picture – the risen dead are ascending towards
fresco for the altar wall is found in a letter of 17 the fact, recorded by Vasari (1568), that Sebas- chettone) Daniele da Volterra and other art- Heaven; a number are being hoisted up out
July 1533 from Sebastiano del Piombo to Michel- tiano del Piombo originally prepared the altar ists between 1564 and 1565 (V/M, VII, pp. 65, of Limbo in the lower centre. Opposite these
angelo, which talks of a spectacular commis- wall for an oil mural, whereas Michelangelo 240; Tolnay, V, p. 98; Salvini, 1965, pp. 248–250; elect, on the right-hand side, the damned are
sion from Clement VII (Milanesi, 1890, p. 106; ultimately insisted upon the fresco technique. Mancinelli/Colallucci/Gabrielli, 1993; see dia- plunging towards Hell. The area in the middle
Carteggio, IV, pp. 17–19, no. CMX). This project The Last Judgement was originally commis- gram p. 402). Almost all of these later additions in occupied by a group of angels with trumpets,
may have been discussed on 22 September 1533 sioned by Pope Clement VII, at whose request were executed a secco; only in the cases of St sounding the call to Judgement and holding up
at a meeting between Clement VII and Michel- Michelangelo moved back to Rome on 23 Sep- Catherine and St Blaise (see below) was the cor- the smaller Book of Life to the elect and the
angelo in S. Miniato tedesco (Milanesi, 1875, tember 1534. Two days later the Pope died, but responding area replastered and refrescoed. much larger Book of the Dead to the damned.
p. 604; Ricordi, 1970, p. 278). A note by Onorato his successor Paul III confirmed that the fresco The original appearance of the fresco, with Hell itself is indicated only by a fiery chasm on
Agnello, the Mantuan ambassador in Venice, was to go ahead. It is unclear how far Michelan- the genitalia of its naked figures still exposed, the far right; in its place appears the barque of
dated 2 March 1534 mentions a “resurrection” (si gelo had progressed with the design prior to the is well documented by contemporary cop- Charon described in Dante’s Divine Comedy,
farà la resurrectione, si che gia era fatto il tavolato) death of Clement VII, and whether the election ies (Tolnay, V, pp. 257–262; Michelangelo e la which is ferrying the damned across the Styx to
that Michelangelo was to paint above the altar of the new pope entailed any changes to the pic- Sistina, 1990, pp. 229–262), such as the paint- their place of eternal punishment.
in the Sistine Chapel (Pastor, 1956, IV.2, p. 567, torial programme. In a papal brief of November ing by Michelangelo’s pupil Marcello Venusti, Since Michelangelo presents his figures
note 2; Tolnay, V, p. 19). This is probably already 1536, in which Michelangelo is released from which was housed in the 16th century in the within no schematic hierarchy and in most cases
a reference to the Last Judgement, whereby the his contractual obligations of 1532 relating to chapel of the Palazzo Farnese, the family palace without attributes, only a few can be plausibly
690 691
The Last Judgement, 1536–1541 The Last Judgement, before restoration

Fresco, 17 x 15.5 m
Rome, Vatican, Sistine Chapel
692 693
identified. Apart from Christ and Mary, the two Bartholomew belong to the earliest and hier- portraits of the poet, the fact that he is bald In contrast to earlier treatments of The Last
figures most plainly recognizable are the martyrs archically most senior of the early Christian contradicts this identification (Feldhusen, 1953, Judgement, Michelangelo did not organize his
SS Lawrence and Bartholomew sitting at their martyrs; the two last also enjoyed a particular p. 34; Steinberg, 1980b; Barnes, 2004). figures into well-ordered, hierarchical rows of
feet, the first holding the gridiron of his martyr- significance in the liturgical calendar of the Other authors, most recently Fillitz (2005), Apostles, saints and choirs of angels. Instead
dom and the second his own flayed skin and a Sistine Chapel and were probably portrayed see likenesses of the popes in the Princes of the he created a powerfully dynamic composition
knife. St Peter, appearing to the right of Christ, prominently for this reason (Tolnay, V, p. 114; Apostles – in the figure of St Peter, for example, of ascending and descending bodies, at whose
is also holding the distinctive attributes of two Feldhusen, 1953, p. 33; Wind, 1944). Combina- a portrait of Clement VII. Schmidt (2000), on centre Christ the Judge appears to orchestrate
keys in his hands. Behind him stands the second tions of Christian saints generally permit several the other hand, sees the features of Paul III in the fall of the damned and the ascension of
Prince of the Apostles, Paul, who can be identi- interpretations, however, so that other justifica- St Peter and a portrait of Clement VII in John the risen. This dramatization, and equally the
fied on the basis of his proximity to Peter and tions for Michelangelo’s selection of figures are the Baptist, whom he identifies as Adam. All of many naked figures, had forerunners in Luca
his red robe. Beside Christ on the left, the pow- also possible. this seems fairly implausible. The only sugges- Signorelli’s Orvieto frescoes, which Michelan-
erful naked figure of John the Baptist is recog- The figures with crosses – Simon of Cyrene, tion widely accepted is that Michelangelo has gelo – who already had a p reference for nudes
nizable by his animal-hide cloak and St Andrew Andrew, Dismas and an angel with the Cross of portrayed his own face in the skin held by St in animated poses – was able to d evelop further.
by his cross. Christ – deserve additional comment at this Bartholomew (see below). Further self-portraits Other starting points were provided by sculp-
The martyrs on the right-hand side of the point. Unusual for a Last Judgement is not so have been seen in the monk at the bottom left- tural treatments of The Last Judgement and
fresco are also accompanied by clear attributes: much the enormous size of most of the crosses, hand edge of the fresco and in the face of an by Bertoldo di Giovanni’s portrait medal of
St Catherine by a wheel, St Simon by a saw, St but their number and distribution. Earlier treat- angel in the right-hand lunette, near the console Filippo de’ Medici (Draper, 1992, pp. 82–86),
Blaise by two wool-combs and St Sebastian by ments of the subject for the most part show just beneath the Prophet Jonah (Hartt, 1992a; Wang, on the reverse of which is an equally dynamic
several arrows. Less certain are the identities of one cross, also of considerable size, as a symbol 2005, p. 66). The plausibility of these identifica- representation of a Last Judgement incorpo-
two other figures, each with a cross: one is the of the Passion. Here, however, they seem to tions and the interpretations based upon them rating a similar arrangement of Christ’s Cross
large male nude on the right-hand edge of the refer, through the presence of Simon of Cyrene has recently been critically assessed by Barnes and Column of Flagellation (see Ch. VIII). In
picture, who is thought to be Simon of Cyrene, and Dismas, to the Crucifixion of Christ and (2004). Michelangelo’s first design drawing for The Last
who carried Christ’s Cross on the road to Cal- thereby to the altar placed directly in front of As Condivi and Vasari have stressed with Judgement, the compositional parallels with this
vary (Matt. 27:32), the other the smaller figure the altar, on which Christ’s sacrifice on the regard to individual aspects of The Last Judge medal become even clearer. Bertoldo’s medal
between SS Blaise and Simon, who is inter- Cross was ritually re-enacted. Through these ment, Michelangelo’s most important source for Filippo de’ Medici may also have interested
preted as Dismas, the Good Thief at Christ’s crosses Michelangelo thus also characterizes his of inspiration was the Bible, even if he did not Michelangelo due to its motto: ET INCARNE
Crucifixion (Luke 24:40–43). Undisputed, fresco as an altarpiece, one that would replace reproduce all its details literally (Feldhusen, MEA / VIDEBO DEVM SALVATOREM /
finally, are the two figures from Dante’s Inferno, to a certain extent the destroyed altarpiece by 1953, pp. 26–30; Tolnay, V, pp. 33–35). His fresco MEVM (Steinberg, 1980b). This verse from the
Charon in his barque and Minos, the guard- Perugino. nevertheless offers clear parallels with the fol- Book of Job (Job 19:26: “And in my flesh shall
ian of Hell, in the bottom right-hand corner. A We shall mention in passing some of the lowing passages from the Scriptures: the arrival I see God”) refers to the hope of resurrection at
broader overview of other proposed identifica- numerous but decidedly dubious efforts to of Christ on a cloud to judge the world (Matt. The Last Judgement, and possibly finds expres-
tions, most of them unconvincing, is found in identify certain faces in The Last Judgement as 24:30–31; Rev. 1:7); the angels sounding trum- sion, too, in the skin held by Michelangelo’s St
Salvini (1965, pp. 247–273). portraits of Michelangelo’s contemporaries (Tol- pets and opening the Book of Life and the Book Bartholomew (see below).
If it is difficult to identify the saints indi- nay, V, pp. 45–46). Thus Vasari (1568) claimed of the Dead (Rev. 8:2; 8:6; 20:12–15); and the Michelangelo may have found another
vidually, so it is only partly possible to explain that, in the figure of Minos in the bottom right- resurrection of the dead (Ezek. 37:1–7). Michel source, finally, in Bonamico Buffalmacco’s
their constellation. The Virgin and John the hand corner, Michelangelo had depicted the angelo may have drawn further inspiration Last Judgement in the Camposanto in Pisa
Baptist appear alongside Christ in their tradi- Vatican master of ceremonies, Biagio Martinelli from St Paul’s teachings on the resurrection of (1330–1345). Buffalmacco also includes angels
tional role of intercessors (Wilde, 1978, p. 164). da Cesena, so as to punish him for criticizing the flesh (I Thess. 4:13–18; see below). Lastly, bearing the instruments of Christ’s Passion in
Peter and Paul are part of the standard cast the nudes in his fresco (see below). Some earlier Minos, the guardian of Hell in the bottom the upper section of his fresco and in contrast
of Last Judgements; as Princes of the Apos- and more recent scholars consider the head of St right-hand corner, and Charon and his barque to most other treatments of the subject portrays
tles, founding fathers of the Church, figures Bartholomew to be a portrait either of Paul III go back to verses in Dante’s Divine Comedy the Virgin and Christ side by side, albeit more
of identification for the popes and the patron (Posèq, 1994) or Pietro Aretino (e. g. Tolnay, V, (Inferno III.109–11; V.4–6) that Luca Signorelli clearly separate than in the fresco by Michelan-
saints of Rome, their presence in the fresco was p. 45; Nagel, 2000, pp. 195–197). Although the had already illustrated in his frescoes for the gelo, who makes an almost intimate scene out of
assured. SS Sebastian, Catherine, Lawrence and saint’s facial features roughly resemble known Chapel of S. Brizio in Orvieto cathedral. the grouping of the two figures (see Ch. VIII).
694 695
Earlier scholars in particular, but also some Michael (see Ch. VIII, ill. p. 398; Pöpper, 2016, itself heard in the following years and decades, (e. g. Steinmann, 1905, II, p. 627; Chastel,
more recent ones (e. g. Kleiner, 1950; Feldhusen, Ch. 9, Cat. D206). A compositional sketch in sparked chiefly by the presence of so much 1983, pp. 191–200; de Maio, 1978, p. 37; Bor-
1953, pp. 68–72; Tolnay, V, p. 113; Barnes, 1998, Bayonne (Musée Bonnat) shows the saints gath- nudity and leading, as already mentioned, to oughs, 1995). In this context, the presence of
pp. 58–69; Rohlmann, 2004), have tried to ered around Christ (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 9, Cat. the genitalia of many figures being overpainted. the martyrs might indicate the need for a re-
identify individual figures within the fresco D207); a sheet in Windsor Castle several figure Vasari (V/M, VII, pp. 65, 240) even claims sanctification of Rome following the terrors
with prominent works of antique sculpture. We studies for the risen dead in the left half of the that this overpainting was a reaction to the of the sacking. Very recent authors, however,
shall name only the most convincing of these, in picture (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 9, Cat. D213); and proposal by Paul IV (1555–1559) to destroy the view the period following the Sack of Rome as
first place of course the Belvedere Apollo in the a drawing in the Uffizi of the figure of Christ, whole fresco. The critical appraisals of The Last one of constructive political re-orientation by
Vatican (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 28), whose the Virgin and a number of martyrs (Uffizi 170 Judgement have been comprehensively docu- the Roman papacy, not as years of apocalyptic
pose and facial type has often been compared S, TC349r). These are joined by several other mented and analysed in the literature (Baroc- gloom whose spirit needed channelling into a
with Michel angelo’s Christ (e. g. Tolnay, V, drawings of disputed authorship containing chi, 1956, 1962, III, pp. 1254–1270; de Maio, fresco in the papal chapel (Mayer, 2005; Chap-
p. 113; Barnes, 1998, pp. 58–60; Hub, 2005). The detailed studies (Hartt, 1975a, nos. 370–497; 1978, pp. 17–107; Chastel, 1984, pp. 188–177; man, 2006, p. 270).
Belvedere Torso is considered to have served as the Chapman, 2006, pp. 229–247) and two modello Möseneder, 1997; Barnes, 1998, pp. 71–101; see Other authors believe that Michelangelo’s
formal model for St Bartholomew and Simon of drawings by other artists after lost designs by Ch. VIII). fresco sets out a new theological argument for-
Cyrene (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 132; Justi, Michelangelo (Barnes, 1998, figs. 22, 35; see Ch. Alongside the most important monographs mulated under Paul III as part of the Counter-
1909, p. 328; Feldhusen, 1953, pp. 70–71; Rohl- VIII, ill. p. 395). These drawings are possibly on the Last Judgement (Feldhusen, 1953; Perrig, Reformation (e. g. Feldhusen, 1953; von Einem,
mann, 2004); the Farnese Hercules in the Museo based on a first design executed by Michelan- 1976; Barnes, 1998; Shrimplin, 2000), we may 1959, pp. 128–129; de Maio, 1978). The fresco
Nazionale in Naples as the model for John the gelo for Clement VII (Barnes, 1998, pp. 54–57; mention a number of individual analyses. Tol- is thereby directed against Luther’s doctrine of
Baptist (Haskell/Penny, 1981, no. 46; Feldhusen, Schmidt, 2000). nay (1940a) saw in the beardless, Apollonian justification and demonstrates to the viewer
1953, p. 69); and a Kneeling Venus in the British First reactions to The Last Judgement Christ and the bodies grouped around him an that divine grace can be obtained not only
Museum as the formal inspiration for the Virgin reached the artist long before the fresco was fin- anticipation of the ideas of Nicolaus Coperni- through faith alone but also through good deeds
Mary (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 18; Barnes, ished. In a letter written as early as 16 September cus. A little later, in the final volume of his great – something illustrated by the use of rosaries,
1998, p. 61). The formal parallels between the 1537, Pietro Aretino offered Michelangelo some monograph (Tolnay, V, pp. 47, 120 and pas with whose aid the risen dead are drawn up to
above-named sculptures and the figures by suggestions on how best to design his Last Judge sim), he reiterated his “cosmic” interpretation, Heaven (e. g. Schmidt, 2000).
Michelangelo are most cogent in the case of ment (Carteggio, IV, pp. 82–84). True to char- now without Copernicus but with the empha- Hall (1976) sees The Last Judgement as the
St Bartholomew, Simon of Cyrene and Christ. acter, Michelangelo ignored Aretino’s advice. sis nevertheless upon a heliocentric worldview expression of a contemporary theological debate
An Apollonian Christ might indeed form part Biagio Martinelli da Cesena, the Vatican master as expressed in the Apollonian figure of Christ. surrounding the Resurrection. Its subject is less
of a vision of The Last Judgement understood in of ceremonies, is alleged to have criticized the In him, according to Tolnay, Michelangelo the eternal fires of damnation and the weighing
general cosmic terms, in which Christian and number of naked bodies even before the work translates the antique deity Sol invictus into a of souls than the resurrection of the flesh, based
classical ideas are fused (Tolnay, 1940a; Tolnay, was completed; in response, Michelangelo is Christian Sol iustitiae. This solar symbolism, on Pauline theology (I Thess. 4–5), which would
V, pp. 47, 120). This interpretation, first put said to have drawn his portrait as the figure which is based solely on the phenomena of the also explain the dominance of human bodies in
forward by earlier scholars, continues to be of Minos, tormented by snakes (Vasari, 1568). aureole around Christ and the circle of bodies Michelangelo’s fresco. Greenstein (1989) sees a
expounded in new variations by more recent Indeed, one infernal snake is even biting his sex, in the Last Judgement, was accepted and further particular significance in the juxtaposition of St
authors (Feldhusen, 1953; von Einem, 1959; which recent authors have seen as a reflection of developed by several other authors (e. g. Redig Peter and St John the Baptist and interprets this
Shrimplin-Evangelidis, 1990; Shrimplin, 1994; Michelangelo’s view of sinful sexuality (Manca, de Campos, 1964, pp. 75–76; von Einem, 1959, as a reference to the Transfiguration of Christ.
2000). 1994), but whose significance may not neces- p. 127; Hibbard, 1975, p. 246; Shrimplin, 1990; Fillitz (2005), however, interprets the figure
Several drawings for The Last Judgement still sarily be negative (Steinberg, 1980b). Whether 2000). of St Peter as a role-portrait of Clement VII.
survive, although their attribution to Michelan- Vasari’s identification is actually correct, moreo- The majority of earlier art historians start St Peter, alias Clement VII, moreover holds
gelo and their relationship to the final fresco are ver, and whether the figure of Minos really from the assumption that the subject and com- two damaged keys in his hands, which refer
partially disputed. In first place is the composi- shows Biagio da Cesena, is disputed (Steinberg, position of the fresco in the Sistine Chapel to the weakened position of the papacy at that
tional sketch in the Casa Buonarroti, probably 1980b). reflect, more or less directly, the historical time. By contrast, Schmidt (2000) regards both
executed at an early date, in which space is still Reactions were also divided following the events of the day. Thus The Last Judgement keys as fully intact and the subject of the fresco
reserved along the bottom edge for Perugino’s unveiling of the fresco in October 1541. Along- has been understood as a horrified reaction to as the strengthened role of the papacy under
frescoed altarpiece and a figure of the Archangel side rapturous praise, harsh criticism made the Sack of Rome by imperial troops in 1527 Paul III.
696 697
As in the case of the Pietà (Cat. S21) in the face on the skin as a self-portrait of the art- With the overall meaning of The Last Judge
Florence, the most controversial interpretation ist (La Cava, 1925). The only reference to this ment the subject of so many theories, some of
of The Last Judgement is that offered by Stein- self-portrait prior to the 20th century is found which radically contradict others, Barnes (1998,
berg (1975a; 1980b). He recognizes in the fresco in a contemporary copperplate engraving by p. 3) has aptly identified a hermeneutic stale-
a merciful Christ, a Hell that will not endure Nicolas Beatrizet, which bears a corresponding mate that is primarily attributable to the overt
for eternity and even heretical Protestant ideas: inscription (Steinberg, 1980b, fig. 17). In view of ambivalence of Michelangelo’s fresco. Barnes
Michelangelo, he believes, sought to convey the the silence maintained on the subject by com- and also Rohlmann (2000) see a way out of this
hidden message that the faithful can be saved mentators over several centuries, the identifica- dilemma in a more thorough contextualization
by faith alone, but this message was veiled by tion of this self-portrait has occasionally been of the fresco, bearing in mind the identity of
his followers. This interpretation has found lit- doubted (Angeleri, 1942; Hughes, 1997, p. 254). those to whom The Last Judgement is addressed.
tle support, as Michelangelo’s sympathies for Nevertheless, the similarity between the face Equally important in my view, however, is the
genuinely Protestant ideas cannot be convinc- on the skin and the many surviving portraits of aspect contributed to the debate right from the
ingly proven, making it difficult to uphold the Michelangelo cannot be dismissed out of hand start by Vasari and Condivi and by a number of
argument that he illustrated heretical views in (Steinmann, 1913; 1930). early critics: The Last Judgement is to be under-
the papal chapel. For a complete overview of the various stood not solely in terms of its function, but also
In expounding his theory, Steinberg nev- interpretations of Michelangelo’s self-portrait as an autonomous work of art that goes beyond
ertheless offers a number of interesting obser- in The Last Judgement, the reader is referred to functional requirements and the regard for its
vations: the facial features of St Bartholomew Rohlmann (1999, note 45), Barnes (2004) and audience, and which could have been executed
deviate significantly from the physiognomy of Hub (2005, note 53). There are three main trains only by Michelangelo as an exceptional artist
the person whose skin he holds in his hands; of thought: (see Ch. VIII).
moreover, the saint’s original skin was housed 1) In including his self-portrait, Michel- Conclusion: The majority of previous inter-
in the collection of relics owned by Frederick angelo saw himself not only in the role of the pretations of The Last Judgement are outdated.
the Wise in Wittenberg, a centre of Protestant- martyr St Bartholomew, but also as the antique From a methodological point of view, the task
ism. Before the middle of the 16th century, this Marsyas, as Dante describes him in his Divine remains of extrapolating logical starting points
skin relic had been illustrated in art on several Comedy (Paradiso I.19–24). According to this for analysis from the immediate context of the
occasions, including in a prominent woodcut theory, the portrait takes up the topos of the suf- fresco, without thereby neglecting the fact that
by Lucas Cranach the Elder. As a rare illustra- fering artist and at the same time the theme of Michelangelo was here creating a painting that
tion of the skin of St Bartholomew in Italian the divine inspiration that Marsyas drew from as a work of art looks beyond its setting.
art, Michelangelo’s fresco could have been seen being flayed by Apollo, god of the arts (e. g.
as a reference to heretical positions. Steinberg’s Wind, 1987 [1958], pp. 200–201, 216; Barolsky,
argumentation does not hold water, however, 1990b, pp. 30–31; Posèq, 1994; Barnes, 1995;
since Frederick the Wise did not convert to the Wyss, 1996, pp. 11–14; Jacobs, 2002).
Protestant faith. In fact, contemporary critics 2) Through his self-portrait in the skin of St
did not take exception to the fresco’s possible Bartholomew, Michelangelo was referring to the
proximity to Protestantism, but merely to the motif of the self-renunciation of the lover that
fact that the features displayed by the flayed the artist expressed in his sonnets to Tommaso
skin did not match the intact face of St Bartho- de’ Cavalieri (Frey, 1964, no. 64; e. g. Pietrass,
lomew – thus, for example, Don Miniato Pitti 2004, p. 61; Hub, 2005).
in a letter to Vasari of 1 May 1545 (Frey, 1923, 3) The skin face refers to the hope, expressed
pp. 148–149; see Ch. VIII). in the Book of Job (Job 19:26), of appearing
The difference between St Bartholomew before God at The Last Judgement in one’s own
and the physiognomy of his flayed skin has skin and flesh (Bohde, 2003; Preimesberger,
attracted great attention in recent years, pri- 2005). The argument put forward by Barnes
marily in connection with the identification of (2004) tends in a similar direction.
698 699
P7a–b. The frescoes in the Pauline Chapel, to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga (Baumgart/Biagetti, with the Sistine Chapel and the Sala Regia, the (Baumgart/Biagetti, 1934, pp. 72–74; Kuntz,
Rome, Vatican 1934, p. 72; Kuntz, 2003; 2005), evidently did Pauline Chapel forms the ceremonial centre of 2003; 2005). Receipts for payments dated 16 and
not deter Paul III from commissioning another the Vatican Palace. The ceremonial function 19 November 1541 also refer to the grinding of
P7a. Conversion of Saul, 1542–1545 painting from Michelangelo, now aged sixty- of this chapel has been researched in depth in pigments and the erection of scaffolding in the
Fresco, 625 x 661 cm six, even before work on the Sistine Chapel was recent years (Kuntz, 1998; 2003; 2005), allow- chapel (Baumgart/Biagetti, 1934, p. 69; Kuntz,
Rome, Vatican, Pauline Chapel completed. The new commission, which would ing certain conclusions to be drawn about the 2005, note 21). The artist, who mentions the
P7b. Crucifixion of St Peter, 1546–1550 be the artist’s last work in paint, was for another nature of Michelangelo’s decorative scheme. The fresco project himself in a letter of 24 October
Fresco, 625 x 662 cm chapel inside the Apostolic Palace, namely the most comprehensive monographs on Michelan- 1542 to Luigi del Riccio (Baumgart/Biagetti,
Rome, Vatican, Pauline Chapel capella parva (today the Cappella Paolina or gelo’s frescoes in the Pauline Chapel are those by 1934, pp. 75–76; Carteggio, IV, pp. 148–149, no.
Pauline Chapel), which served as the conclave Baumgart/Biagetti (1934) and Steinberg (1975b). M), delayed starting work until November 1542,
The violent reactions of some viewers to The Last chapel and Chapel of the Sacrament and had The earliest concrete references to Paul however (Baumgart/Biagetti, 1934, pp. 72–73;
Judgement, as recorded, for example, in a letter been rebuilt for Paul III by Antonio da San- III’s plans to have the conclave chapel frescoed Tolnay, V, p. 136).
written on 19 November 1541, just nineteen days gallo the Younger between 1538 and 1546 (Hem- by Michelangelo survive in the form of two Michelangelo began with the Conversion of
after the fresco was unveiled, by Nino Sernini mer, 2003; Kuntz, 1998; 2003; 2005). Together letters of 12 October and 19 Nov ember 1541 Saul on the side-wall on the left, as seen from the
700 701
entrance, and continued with the Crucifixion of Michelangelo. In this case, Vasari’s information Christians, saw a light in the sky outside the gates The Pauline Chapel served as the papal
St Peter on the opposite wall. This chronology is would be correct. In my opinion, however, the of Damascus and heard the voice of Christ, ask- Chapel of the Sacrament, i. e. it was here that
accepted on stylistic grounds by the majority of view of Kuntz (2005), namely that the pairing ing Saul why he was persecuting him. Dazzled the consecrated Host was kept; it also served
scholars; only Gilbert (1978) considers the mar- of a Conversion of Saul and a Crucifixion of and temporarily blinded by the light, Saul fell off as the conclave chapel in which the cardinals
tyrdom scene to have been painted first. From St Peter corresponds to the original plan and the his horse, subsequently converted to Christian- elected the new Pope. The presence of the con-
a visit that Pope Paul III paid to the chapel on functional and ceremonial requirements of the ity, took the name of Paul and became one of the secrated Host during a papal election and thus,
12 July 1545, it is concluded that the Conver Pauline Chapel, seems more convincing. most ardent champions of his new faith. At the in the view of the Catholic Church, the pres-
sion of Saul was already finished by this stage The overpainting, in an earlier century, centre of Michelangelo’s fresco is not Saul, who ence of Christ himself lent heightened legiti-
(Baumgart/Biagetti, 1934, pp. 78–79; Tolnay, V, of parts of the landscape in the Crucifixion of has fallen to the ground, but rather his fleeing macy to the act of election (Kuntz, 1998; 2003;
p. 136). St Peter, and of the nakedness of a number of horse, whose presence is not mentioned in the 2005). To underline their particular sacredness,
Michelangelo embarked on the second angels in the Conversion of Saul, was partially Bible but which can be found in earlier treat- chapels of the Sacrament were often decorated
fresco, the Crucifixion of St Peter, in March 1546. removed during the restoration of 1933/34 ments of the subject. Amongst the many older with frescoes of the Passion of Christ. The fact
By 13 October 1549 the painting was sufficiently (Baumgart/Biagetti, 1934, pp. 41–48; Tolnay, V, works put forward as possible sources of inspira- that, instead of a Passion cycle, the conversion
far advanced for the Pope to view it. The fresco pp. 138, 143). A copperplate engraving by Nico- tion for Michelangelo’s composition (e. g. Tol- of one Prince of the Apostles and the martyr-
was probably only finally completed in Decem- las Beatrizet shows the Conversion of Saul in nay, V, p. 141; Steinberg, 1975b, pp. 22–25), only dom of another were depicted on the walls of
ber 1549 or January 1550 (Baumgart/Biagetti, probably its original form, with the majority of the large woodcut by Domenico Campagnola of the Pauline Chapel represented a significant
1934, pp. 79–80). In the meantime, the Pope angels naked (Tolnay, V, ill. 300). In contrast to 1517, recently identified by Hemmer (2003), is break with pictorial tradition. This break was
who had commissioned the work, Paul III, had the overpainting of the Last Judgement, the same convincing. probably connected with the fact that Paul III
died on 10 November 1549. measure carried out in the Pauline Chapel passed The fresco of the Crucifixion of St Peter on wished to see depicted the saint whose name he
In the first edition of his Lives (1550), Vasari unremarked in contemporary sources (Kuntz, the right-hand side-wall adheres more or less to had taken and with whose writings and works
describes the subject of this fresco not as the 2005). Even so, Michelangelo’s Pauline frescoes the description of St Peter’s martyrdom given in he identified. St Peter offered an ideal pendant
Crucifixion of St Peter but as the Presentation of again proved offensive to conservative critics the Golden Legend: Peter wished to die the same to St Paul as the very first pontiff and thus the
the Keys to St Peter, something that has sown such as Gilio da Fabriano (Steinberg, 1975b, martyr’s death as Christ, but out of humility supreme figure of identification for subsequent
much confusion. In the second edition of Vasa- pp. 25, 37; see Ch. X). insisted on being crucified not upright, but head popes. The combination of a conversion scene
ri’s Lives (1568), however, as in Condivi (1553), The surviving fragment of a cartoon for down. Michelangelo deviates from local picto- and a martyrdom scene may also have held a
the subject is given as it actually appears in the the Crucifixion of St Peter, today housed in the rial tradition in his depiction of this scene. The programmatic significance: conversion could be
painting. From the information provided in the Museo Nazionale in Naples, shows the rear-view most prominent Roman examples of the Cru understood as vocation, and martyrdom as the
first edition, some scholars have concluded that figures of three soldiers from the right-hand side cifixion of St Peter – Giotto’s Stefaneschi altar- ultimate consequence of Apostolic teaching and
Michelangelo may have instigated a change to of the composition (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 9, Cat. piece and Filarete’s bronze doors for St Peter’s practice in the footsteps of Christ. The alloca-
the original plan; the pairing of a Conversion D219; Bambach-Capel, 1987; Spinosa, 1988). The basilica – show the cross already installed in its tion of the two founding Apostles of the Church
of Saul with a Presentation of the Keys would attribution of Michelangelo’s preparatory draw- upside-down position, and set, moreover, within of Rome to their respective walls in the Pauline
indeed come closer to an expected, traditional ings for the Pauline Chapel (TC378–384) and the recognizable topography of Ancient Rome. Chapel may also go back, moreover, to the best-
programme (Tolnay, 1971, p. 135; Barocchi, 1962, their relationship to the final frescoes remain To ensure that this location could be identi- known medieval manual for young priests, the
III, pp. 1415–1416; Steinberg, 1975b, pp. 45–46). contentious. The same is true of sketches for a fied, these two earlier adaptations of the sub- Rationale divinorum officiorum by Durandus
Tolnay (V, p. 135), Steinberg (1975b, pp. 45–46) Christ Driving the Moneylenders from the Temple ject included two antique pyramids known as (Gilbert, 1978). Durandus (VII.44.6, Corpus
and Joannides (1996a) also assume that Michel- (Tolnay, V, pp. 77–78; H 442–447; TC385–387; the Meta R omuli and the Meta Remi, between Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis, CXL B,
angelo proposed the change of subject so as to Chapman, 2006, pp. 266–269). Whether this which – according to legend – St Peter is sup- p. 118) recommends placing paintings of scenes
incorporate auto biographical references into subject was in fact destined for the pictorial field posed to have been martyred. Michelangelo from the life of St Paul on the right of Christ and
the Crucifixion of St Peter. Steinberg (1975b, above the entrance, as earlier scholars assume, is evidently felt he could dispense with these usual thus to the right of the altar (i. e. on the left as
pp. 45–46), Joannides (1996a, p. 186) and most far from certain. references to Rome’s ancient topography; Fehl viewed from the entrance) and on the other side
recently Hemmer (2003) furthermore believe The Conversion of Saul depicts an event (1971) nevertheless sees a concrete reference to scenes from the life of St Peter.
they can identify a composition for the Presenta described in Acts of the Apostles (Acts 9:1–9; the site of the Apostle’s martyrdom in the back- More recent literature has emphasized the
tion of the Keys in a drawing and a miniature by 22:6–10). Michelan gelo’s fresco captures the ground of the fresco. This view has failed to find relevance of the viewer’s position for an apprecia-
Paolo Clovio that goes back to a lost design by moment when Saul, the persecutor of the support, however. tion of the two frescoes (Wallace, 1989a). Other
702 703
MICHEL ANGELO
authors seek to interpret the decorative pro- upon which Vasari commented and which takes
gramme as a response to the Protestant doctrine up the theme of the religious conversion of
of justification (Hemmer, 2003). In my opinion, those who have departed from the faith (Pope-
however, a direct link between the frescoes and Hennessy, 1966, p. 209; Schumacher, 2004).
this aspect of the religious controversy cannot This portrait, authorized by Michelangelo him-
really be reconstructed. A primacy of the Roman self, can thereby be seen as a confession of faith
papacy, as already expressed in the two Princes by the artist, who converted to a more intense
of the Apostles and in the ceremonial function piety in his latter years. This same interpreta-
of the chapel (Kuntz, 1998; 2003; 2005), may be tion may also be applied to a lesser extent to the
seen as underlying the fresco programme in gen- so-called pilgrim in the Crucifixion of St Peter.
eral terms, however. In his last frescoes, just as in his last sculptures,
A large part of more recent research, finally, Michelangelo once more made himself and his
is devoted to the question of whether, and to piety a subject of his art.
what extent, Michelangelo illustrated personal Conclusion: The frescoes in the Pauline
concerns and his own self in cryptic portraits Chapel deviate significantly in their choice of
in the Pauline Chapel (e. g. Steinberg, 1975b; subject from comparable decorative programmes
Barolsky, 1990b, pp. 37–41, 44–47; Balas, and also take as their subject, to a previously
1994; Wang, 2005, pp. 105–157). Already form- unknown extent, the artist’s piety and personal
ing part of this line of enquiry is the assump- state of being.
tion, mentioned earlier, that the artist may
have been responsible for altering the subject
of the St Peter fresco for his own reasons (see
above). More concrete are the suggestions that
the artist’s self-portrait is to be found amongst
the secondary figures, something common-
place in painting since the end of the Middle
Ages (Asemissen/Schweikhart, 1994, pp. 48–56;
Müller-Hofstede, 1998; 2000). The majority
of authors agree that Michelangelo’s features
can be recognized in Saul, who is portrayed as
a bearded old man (e. g. Tolnay, V, pp. 71–72;
Steinberg, 1975b, p. 39; Balas, 1994; Wang, 2004,
p. 114; see ill. p. 9). Balas (1994) believes she can
identify no less than four self-portraits in the
two frescoes, including in the so-called pilgrim
on the right-hand edge of the Crucifixion of
St Peter (see ill. p. 705). Most other authors share
this opinion, in particular since the pilgrim
corresponds in terms of type to a famous por-
trait medallion by Leone Leoni. Michelangelo
had himself portrayed by Leoni in profile on
the obverse and as a blind old pilgrim on the Self-portrait,
reverse (see ill. p. 560). The reverse also bears detail of Crucifixion of St Peter, 1546–1550
an inscription taken from Psalms (Ps. 51:13), (ill. pp. 556/557)
704
Catalogue
of
Sculptures
Frank Zöllner
The present catalogues of sculptures and pain- have been updated in line with the most recent
tings aim to summarize the relevant data per- publications.
taining to Michelangelo’s works and to high- Letters from Michelangelo’s correspon-
light questions relating to their history, genre dence mentioned in the text are generally
and content. Lengthy quotations from the given with date and addressee to make it
sources, formal analyses, and my own interpre- easier to locate them in their various modern
tations of the works discussed in the catalogue editions and translations. In addition to the
are as a rule found in the main text. most recent critical editions of Michelangelo’s
Since scientific investigations into letters (Carteggio di Michelangelo) and docu-
Michelangelo’s sculptures and paintings have ments (Ricordi di Michelangelo; Contratti di
been conducted in only varying degrees, I Michelangelo), I also cite earlier editions of
have omitted the discussion of this a spect in the sources (Milanesi, 1875; Steinmann, 1905;
the majority of cases. The dimensions of indi- Baumgart/Biagetti, 1934; Redig de Campos,
vidual works, for which conflicting measure- 1964), since these are more widespread and
ments can frequently be found in the literature, often more user-friendly.
MICHEL ANGELO CATALOGUE OF SCULPTURES
formal weaknesses, together with the unusual Madonna, which is possibly to be understood as
iconography, that argue in favour of an attribu- a reference to Christ’s burial shroud. The lack of
tion to Michelangelo (see below). In view of the intimacy between Virgin and Child could also be
deficiencies, typical of an early work (see Cat. interpreted in psychological terms as a r eflection
S2), in the representation of the Virgin’s feet and of the fact that Michelangelo was not nursed by
hands and in the imperfect proportions of the his own mother (most recently Goffen, 1999,
Infant Jesus, a dating of the relief to the period pp. 43–45).
between 1489 and 1492 appears more plausible The most convincing and iconographically
than the significantly later dates suggested by most comprehensive interpretation to date is
some authors (e. g. Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 414, that put forward by Calì (1967): drawing upon
who proposes 1508–1512). earlier and contemporary treatises, she interprets
As already noted by Vasari, the relief is exe- the stairs leading up on the left as the stairway to
cuted in the style of Donatello, who had indeed Heaven (scala coeli), which stands symbolically
carved similar works in rilievo schiacciato (shallow for Christ’s Incarnation and for humankind’s sal-
relief ). Certain formal parallels between the steps vation by the Virgin Mary and Christ. She inter-
and Donatello’s Feast of Herod (Lille, Musée des prets the putti as angels, whose depiction with- S2. The Battle of the Centaurs, 1492
Beaux-Arts) and between the angels and Dona- out their previously conventional wings is an Marble, 80 x 90.5 cm
tello’s Madonna of the Clouds (Boston, Museum innovation by Michelangelo. Sources supporting Florence, Casa Buonarroti
S1. Michelangelo (?) of Fine Arts) have often been emphasized, as has the Virgin’s symbolism as the stairway to Heaven
The Madonna of the Stairs the relationship borne by the handling of the (St Augustine, Sermones de sanctis, CCVIII.10, First mentioned in a letter of 27 March 1527
(Madonna della Scala), 1489–1492 draperies and the overall composition with the Migne, PL 39, col. 2133) are also cited by von from Giovanni Borromeo to Federigo Gonzaga
Marble, 57.1 x 40.5 cm Dudley Madonna by Desiderio da Settignano Einem (1973b) in his interpretation of the relief. (Tolnay, I, p. 133), the relief of The Battle of the
Florence, Casa Buonarroti (London, Victoria & Albert Museum; Tolnay, Conclusion: The doubts concerning Centaurs was subsequently described in greater
I, p. 129; Giovinezza di Michelangelo, 1999, no. Michelangelo’s authorship expressed by Benkard depth by Condivi and Vasari (1568). Condivi
This shallow relief is considered to be the young 1 and pp. 69–75). Other formal sources pro- (1933) and Eisler (1967) have not been entirely reports that Michelangelo based his treatment
Michelangelo’s earliest work of sculpture. It is posed by Berti/Ragionieri (2001) seem to me dispelled, but alternative attributions are even of the subject on a detailed account of the story
first mentioned in the second edition of Gior- unconvincing. less convincing. Questions of interpretation have given to him by the Medici court poet Angelo
gio Vasari’s Lives (1568) and subsequently in In terms of compositional type, the Virgin been largely resolved. Poliziano, and that he finished the work shortly
Raffaele Borghini’s Riposo of 1584. According to represents a Madonna lactans, here surrounded before the death of Lorenzo de’ Medici (8 April
Vasari, Michelangelo’s nephew, Lionardo Buon- by a total of four partially visible putti, who 1492). Condivi also stresses the great value that
arroti, gave the relief to Cosimo I de’ Medici; display neither nimbuses nor wings and can Michelangelo attached to the relief, which evi-
Grand Duke Cosimo II de’ Medici gave it therefore be interpreted as angels only with dif- dently remained in his possession. Vasari tells us
back to the Buonarroti family in 1617 (Tolnay, ficulty. Unusually, too, the Virgin is turned away that Michelangelo was given the marble for the
I, p. 125). The work’s well-attested provenance from her child and looks left with apparently relief by Lorenzo de’ Medici, and that it was kept
strengthens the occasionally doubted attribution complete detachment, seeming to foresee the by Lionardo Buonarotti, the artist’s nephew.
of the work to Michelangelo (Benkard, 1933; death of her son (Tolnay, I, p. 127, with a refer- Unfinished by today’s standards (as indeed per
Eisler, 1967; partly also Barolsky, 1995). Never- ence to St Bernardino of Siena). A premonition Borromeo’s above-mentioned letter), the relief
theless, the weighty objections to Michelangelo’s of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, as frequently displays a number of flaws typical of an early
authorship voiced by Benkard (1933) have never incorporated into Madonna and Child paintings work, as already encountered in the Madonna of
been adequately refuted. Benkard points above of the Quattrocento, is also suggested by other the Stairs (Cat. S1). Possibly inspired by antique
all to the formal weaknesses of the relief, to aspects of the composition: its formal affinities sarcophagus reliefs (Tolnay, I, p. 135), it shows a
its stylistic affinities with the œuvre of Baccio with antique tomb reliefs (Strzygowski, 1891), Page 587 battle between largely naked men and centaurs,
Bandinelli, and to problematic points in its prov- the sleeping Infant (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1999, Pietà (Detail), 1498/99 accompanied by a few female figures and female
enance. In my view, however, it is precisely these p. 74) and the cloth held by two putti behind the (ill. p. 59) heads. The identity of the figures portrayed is
588 589
uncertain, however (see diagram in Giovinezza Barolsky (1990b, pp. 107–109) and Thielemann
di Michelangelo, 1999, pp. 78–79; Weil-Garris (1996, pp. 172–177; 2000, p. 37) each indepen-
Brandt, ibid., 1999). Differing descriptions of dently identify the bald-headed figure on the
the protagonists and the scene are offered even left-hand edge of the composition as a reference
by Condivi and Vasari: the former sees the com- to Plutarch’s Life of Pericles (XXXI.8). Accord-
position as “the rape of Deianeira and the battle ing to Plutarch, the antique sculptor Phidias
of the centaurs”, the latter as the battle of Her- included a portrait of himself in the Amazo-
cules with the centaurs. This uncertainty as to nomachy, where he appears on Athena’s shield
the identification of the figures, the subject and in the figure of a bald-headed old man, raising a
the relevant sources is reflected in all subsequent stone in order to cast it into the battle (see Ch.
research. Thus Wickhoff (1882, p. 419), for I). Pericles appears alongside him with a spear,
example, names Ovid’s Metamorphoses (XII.210– fighting an Amazon. Hence Thielemann sees the
535), Strzygowski (1891), the Fabulae of Hyginus figure left of centre, previously identified as The-
(33–34), Justi (1900), Tolnay (I, p. 133 f.) and seus, as a reference to Pericles and at the same
Boccaccio’s Genealogia deorum (IX.29). In addi- time to one of the Horse Tamers on the Quiri-
tion to Ovid and Boccaccio, Lisner (1980) adds nal in Rome, which at that time was still con-
Petrarch, Salutati and in particular Landino, in sidered to be the work of Phidias. In the figural
order to support the hypothesis that Hercules is style of Michelangelo’s relief and in its subject,
here fighting against tyranny in the shape of the meanwhile, Thielemann (2000, pp. 45–55) sees S3. Michelangelo (?) 1 February 1492 in S. Croce in Gerusalemme in
centaurs, in a battle that alludes to the politics a reference to the fantastical images of monsters Crucifix, c. 1492/93 Rome, and which was brought to the attention
of Lorenzo de’ Medici. Pope-Hennessy (1996, and centaurs that can be made out in clouds or Polychrome wood, 139 x 135 cm of Lorenzo il Magnifico immediately after its dis-
p. 417), on other occasions a decided opponent in rock formations, as described in writings from Florence, S. Spirito covery (Parronchi, 1966; 1968, pp. 85–87). The
of political interpretations, accepts Lisner’s argu- classical antiquity (Philostratus, Life of Apollon- present Crucifix was also executed after this date.
ment; Poeschke (1992, p. 70) and Thielemann ius of Tyana, II.22; Lucretius, On the Nature of Albertini (1510), Vasari and Condivi mention a Michelangelo’s authorship is today accepted
(2000, p. 20–21) consider it implausible, believ- Things, IV.127–144). These interpretations are wooden Crucifix by Michelangelo in the Flor- by the majority of scholars, even if certain
ing that the characters would be more clearly just as contradictory, however, as that of Lisner entine church of S. Spirito. The work is docu- doubts remain (e. g. more recently Parronchi,
characterized in a political allegory. This clarity (1980), rightly criticized by Thielemann (2000, mented there up till the end of the 18th century, 1968, pp. 49–84; Middeldorf, 1978; Vasconcel-
is indeed lacking in Michelangelo’s relief. It nev- pp. 21 and 79). The older man clearly charac- after which all trace of it vanishes (Poeschke, los, 1993; Barolsky, 1995; Beck, 1998a; see also the
ertheless seems most likely that the relief depicts terized by a bald head on the left-hand edge of 1992, pp. 71–73; Giovinezza di Michelangelo, contributions in Volume 10 of the journal Crit-
the battle of the centaurs that broke out during Michelangelo’s relief may nevertheless be seen 1999, p. 288). In 1962, Lisner rediscovered the ica d’arte, 2001). Lisner (1980) in particular dis
the wedding of the Lapith king Pirithous to as a reference to the self-portrait by Phidias. Crucifix in the monastery of S. Spirito (Lis- misses such doubts. It should also be pointed out
Hippodamia. In this episode, related by Ovid, The Battle of the Centaurs thus stands at the ner, 1963; 1964). In 1964 the work was taken to that, with the attribution to Michelangelo of the
the drunken centaurs started a fight over the beginning of a lengthy series of works in which the Casa Buonarroti in Florence and restored Manchester Madonna (Cat. P1) and the London
Lapith women, a battle they ultimately lost. Michelangelo makes himself, or rather his being (Procacci/Baldini, 1964); since 2000 and another Entombment (Cat. P2), new stylistic arguments
During the battle, Theseus came to the aid of his an artist and his artistic activity, a subject of his restoration it has been housed once more in come into play: in both the Crucifix and the two
friend Pirithous. The younger man left of centre art (see Ch. I and passim). S. Spirito (Il crocifisso di Santo Spirito, 2000). paintings, the eyelids are depicted as heavy and
is probably intended to represent Theseus, hurl- Conclusion: The Battle of the Centaurs is today Christ’s hair is made of tow; the loincloth he large, so that it might be possible to speak here
ing a stone at Eurytus, the leader of the centaurs, seen less as a political statement or a demonstra- probably wore is missing, as is the original cap- of a common stylistic feature in Michelangelo’s
seen in the centre of the composition. tion of humanistic scholarship than as an early tion bearing the words “Jesus of Nazareth, King early work.
Whereas earlier authors concentrated upon iden- attempt by Michelangelo to portray himself in a of the Jews” (John 19:19–20) in Hebrew, Greek The sculpture probably arose after the death
tifying the relevant literary sources, formal fore- conceptual sense as an artist. and Latin, today replaced by a copy. The inscrip- of Lorenzo de’ Medici (1492). We are given to
runners and characters portrayed, more recent tion, which is written from right to left in all understand from the information provided by
scholars have seen the relief as incorporating three languages, probably goes back to a panel Condivi and repeated by Vasari that the prior of
a self-referential statement by the artist. Thus bearing a similar inscription that was found on S. Spirito (at that time Nicholaio di Giovanni
590 591
di Lapo Bicchiellini; see Giovinezza di Michel- Buonarroti (no. 55), while Weinberger (1967, I,
angelo, 1999, p. 288) had provided Michelangelo p. 46) and Joannides (1977) see an etching by
with a room and the opportunity to conduct Israel Silvestre, probably dating from 1649, as the
anatomical studies in the monastery of S. Spirito; most reliable testament to the appearance and
in gratitude, Michelangelo carved the wooden location of the Hercules in Fontainebleau. Joan-
Crucifix, which subsequently hung over the high nides (1977; 1981a) has taken this identification
altar. It has recently been suggested that Piero de’ as the basis of an analysis of other contemporary
Medici, engaged at S. Spirito from 1493 onwards, representations of Hercules, including a Hercu-
was involved in the commission for the Crucifix les drawing in the Albertina in Vienna. More
(Giovinezza di Michelangelo, 1999, p. 288). convincing, in my opinion, is the meticulous
In terms of type, the Crucifix takes up the argumentation by Châtelet-Lange (1972), who
formal tradition of the Late Middle Ages but is refers in this context to a drawing by Jacques
distinguished by certain innovative elements, as Androuet Du Cerceau. This drawing gives an
emphasized by Lisner (1964) and most recently impression of what Michel angelo’s sculpture
Poeschke (1992, p. 72). Not ably, it avoids a looked like: Hercules was probably resting his
frontal view of individual parts of the body and right hand on a club and holding the apples of
contains a dynamism that is lacking in earlier the Hesperides in his left hand.
examples. The fragility and youthfulness of the The sculpture is significant for our under-
figure of Christ have recently been linked with S4. Hercules, c. 1492/93 or 1494 (lost) standing of Michelangelo’s early work for several S5. Michelangelo (?)
the writings of Girolamo Savonarola (Fischer, Marble, height c. 234 cm reasons. Condivi records that the artist used a Apollo/Cupid (?), c. 1494 (?) or 1497 (?)
1990, pp. 82 and 104; Giovinezza di Michelan- large block of marble that had been lying around Marble, height approx. 100 cm
gelo, 1999, p. 288). In my view, however, the Jacques Androuet Du Cerceau in Florence for some time; the work may there- New York, Services culturels de l’Ambassade
lines from Savonarola’s Trattato dell’amore di Jesu Drawing after Michelangelo’s fore perhaps have been one that the artist exe- de France
Christo of 1492 cited in this regard are too general lost Hercules, c. 1560 (?) cuted on his own initiative. It is also possible,
to permit them to be called a source for Michel Paris, Musée du Petit Palais, inv. Br. 188, fol. 83r however, that the Hercules arose as a reaction to Currently the most spectacular and at the same
angelo’s Crucifix. the death of Lorenzo de’ Medici and was com- time most contentious attribution of a sculpture
Conclusion: Michelangelo’s authorship still Vasari (1550; 1568) and Condivi describe a marble missioned by Piero de’ Medici (Wright, 1994), or to Michelangelo is that of the Fanciullo arciere
cannot be considered one hundred percent cer- Hercules four braccia high (2.3 metres/7’ 8”: one was even carved for the Medici’s political rivals, (“boy archer”), also known as the Fifth Avenue
tain, but no alternative, more convincing attri- Florentine braccio measured 58.36 cm/23”), that the Strozzi, in whose possession the sculpture Marble, the Manhattan Marble and the Payne-
bution has been put forward. The debate is still Michelangelo carved after the death of Lorenzo il could be found up to 1529/30. Whitney Marble, due to its current location in
dominated by questions of style and genre, while Magnifico (1492). The statue stood in the Palazzo Conclusion: The original context and func- the Payne-Whitney building on Fifth Avenue in
a convincing analysis from the point of view of Strozzi until the siege of Florence (1529/30), tion of the marble Hercules remain unclear; only Manhattan. The figure first appeared as a work
function is still needed. when Giovanbattista della Palla arranged for it to its appearance seems to have been reconstructed attributed to Michelangelo in a Christie’s auction
be sent to France. This information was recently with a degree of certainty. in London in 1902, but then sank into oblivion.
made plausible by the publication of several Not until 1968 did Parronchi, having studied the
letters from Filippo Strozzi (Elam, 1993). This sculpture only in a photograph, conclude that
Hercules is securely documented in the Jardin de he had rediscovered in it a lost early work by
l’Etang in Fontainebleau up to the middle of the Michelangelo (Parronchi, 1968, pp. 131–148). His
17th century (Châtelet-Lange, 1972, 1977). claim was taken up by Weil-Garris Brandt (1996)
Several attempts have been made to recon- and reinforced with further arguments.
struct the shape of the statue on the basis of The marble figure, whose head is unfinished
drawings, engravings, bozzetti and replica sculp- in several places and whose limbs are no longer
tures. Thus Tolnay (1964) refers to a Rubens fully intact, shows a young boy with a quiver
drawing in the Louvre and a bozzetto in the Casa hanging from a cord over his left shoulder. This
592 593
attribute allows the figure to be identified either as a forgery of the 19th century, he highlights the
as Cupid or the young Apollo. Weil-Garris problematic issue of dating, the disproportion
Brandt (1996; Giovinezza di Michelangelo, 1999, of the figure when seen in front view and the
pp. 300–304) has sought to strengthen the plau- wig-like hair. He therefore rejects Michelangelo’s
sibility of the work’s attribution to Michelangelo authorship, as does Heikamp (2000a; 2000b) in
on the basis of stylistic observations. Further two balanced reviews of the 1999 Paris exhibition
arguments in favour of Michelangelo’s author- of the Manhattan Marble.
ship are provided by a drawing by the French Conclusion: The Manhattan Marble is prob-
artist Jean-Robert Ango, who sketched the still ably not a 19th-century forgery, as some recent
intact sculpture in Rome between 1759 and authors have asserted; whether it is the work of
c. 1773 (Draper, 1997; Giovinezza di Michel- Michelangelo, however, remains uncertain.
angelo, 1999, pp. 380–381). On the basis of this
drawing, today housed in the Cooper-Hewitt
Library in New York, the work may be assumed
to have a Roman provenance extending as far
back as the 18th century. This Roman prove-
nance is possibly confirmed by Jacomo Manilli’s
1650 guidebook to the Villa Borghese, in which
he describes a very similar figure in the Borghese S6a–c. Three Sculptures for the Tomb of mission, which was completed in autumn
gardens (Weil-GarrisBrandt, 1997; Giovinezza St Dominic (Arca di San Domenico) 1495, have survived, and the little information
di Michelangelo, 1999, pp. 424–427). Further ref- Bologna, Basilica of S. Domenico, provided by Michelangelo’s biographers and
erences to the Manhattan Marble may perhaps Arca di San Domenico by 16th-century Bolognese authors is in places
be deduced from early 16th-cen tury sources: contradictory. Thus Condivi and subsequently
Condivi and Vasari both mention a Cupid and S6a. St Petronius, 1494/95 Vasari speak of only two figures by Michelan-
Varchi an Apollo for Jacopo Galli (Barocchi, Marble, height 64 cm (including base) gelo, namely an Angel with Candlestick and a
1962, I, p. 16; II, pp. 159–170). In his catalogue S6b. St Proculus, 1494/95 St Petronius, and relate that they were commis-
of Rome’s antique works of art, published in 1556 Marble, height 58.5 cm (including base) sioned by Gianfrancesco Aldovrandi. Condivi’s
and 1558, Ulisse Aldrovandi also mentions an S6c. Kneeling Angel (Angel with information sounds reliable, since he even gives
Apollo in the collection of Jacopo Galli (text cited Candlestick), 1494/95 a breakdown of how much Michelangelo was
e. g. in Weil-Garris Brandt, 1996, p. 658; Giovin- Marble, height 51.5 cm (including base) paid for the two figures – twelve and eighteen
ezza di Michelangelo, 1999, p. 300). The figure ducats respectively. From the writings of local
mentioned in these 16th-century sources is not The shrine of St Dominic was constructed by Bolognese historians, however, we also know
necessarily identical with the Manhattan Marble, Nicolà Pisano around 1265 and decorated with that Michelangelo executed a third figure, St
however (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1996). figures by Niccolò dell’Arca and his workshop Proculus. These sources (Frey, 1907, pp. 130–
The attribution of the Manhattan Marble between 1469 and 1473. It was still unfinished, 132; Tolnay, I, pp. 138–139; Dodsworth, 1995,
to Michelangelo is supported, for example, by however, when dell’Arca died on 2 March 1494 pp. 105–106; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 416; Gio
Eisler (1996), who conversely is much more scep- (Dodsworth, 1995, pp. 24–54). Michelangelo, vinezza di Michelangelo, 1999, p. 292) also record
tical about The Madonna of the Stairs. Its fiercest who had fled Florence before 14 October 1494, that the St Petronius stems “almost completely”
critic is Beck (1998a), who does not accept the was commissioned, probably in the autumn of from Michel angelo, implying that it already
stylistic arguments put forward so far, profoundly that same year, to supply the missing sculptures: been commenced by Niccolò dell’Arca. Deduced
questions the figure’s provenance and considers two figures of saints on the ornamental consoles from this is the current suggestion that Michel-
it to be a 19th-century forgery. Poeschke (2000) of the sarcophagus lid, and an angel holding a angelo first finished the figure of St Petronius and
offers a more detailed stylistic assessment; candlestick at the foot of the sarcophagus. No then carved the Kneeling Angel and St Proculus
although he does not see the Manhattan Marble contemporary documents relating to the com- (Pope-Hennessy, 1996). It is true that the last
594 595
figure displays greater dynamism than St Petro- intense gaze appears more powerfully expressive.
nius. With regards to the Kneeling Angel, finally, St Proculus, who probably originally held a lance
it has recently been argued that it adapts itself to (e. g. Tolnay, I, p. 137; Poeschke, 1992, p. 73) or
the style of the 13th century (Luchs, 1978). That an axe (Robertson, 1983) in his right hand, was a
Michelangelo possessed the necessary giudizio soldier and martyr at the time of the Roman per-
dell’occhio for this has recently been emphasized secution of the Christians in Bologna. According
anew (Longsworth, 2002). to legend, he killed an imperial official who had
The two saints have suffered a fair degree of been sent to Bologna (Robertson, 1983), hence
damage, in particular the statue of St Proculus, his warrior-like countenance, which is often seen
which fell to the ground during cleaning in 1572 as anticipating Michelangelo’s David (Cat. S10).
and had to be pieced back together (Robertson, Conclusion: The authorship of the tomb
1983). To what extent this operation affected sculptures is largely resolved, as is their role
the figure’s present appearance remains a mat- within the context of the monument as a whole
ter of dispute (Giovinezza di Michelangelo, 1999, and the identification of the two saints.
p. 296). It is agreed, on the other hand, that all
three statues stem from Michelangelo and that
Niccolò dell’Arca may have executed a prelimi-
nary bozzetto for St Petronius.
It has been suggested that Michelangelo S7. Bacchus, 1496/97 that, by 1506, the statue had already entered
drew inspiration from a number of sources. Marble, height 203 cm (184 cm excluding base) Galli’s collection of antiquities (Maffei, 1506,
The pose adopted by St Proculus, for example, Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello fol. CCCv; also cited in Dunkerton/Hirst,
may have been modelled on Niccolò dell’Arca’s 1994, p. 74). From this change of ownership,
St Vitalis of Bologna, a neighbouring sculpture Michelangelo created the marble Bacchus, which and from the criticism expressed by Condivi
on the shrine of St Dominic, while the statue’s stands slightly taller than life-size, between July (and thereby indirectly also by Michelangelo) of
physiognomy may have been influenced by 1496 and July 1497 for Cardinal Raffaelle Riario Riario’s lack of appreciation for art, it has tradi-
Andrea del Verrocchio’s Colleoni monument in in Rome. This can be concluded from several tionally been assumed that the Cardinal turned
Venice. St Petronius exhibits parallels with Jacopo payment receipts issued by the Balducci bank, down the sculpture carved for him and that the
della Quercia’s sculpture of the same saint over as published by Hirst (1981a; Hirst/Dunkerton, Bacchus consequently ended up in the neigh-
the portal of S. Petronio in Bologna (Tolnay, 1994, pp. 31, 74). Two letters from the artist, to bouring collection of Michelangelo’s friend Galli
I, pp. 140–141; Weinberger, 1967, pp. 51, 49). Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de’ Medici of 2 July (e. g. Frommel, 1992). The sculpture may have
The influence of Ferrarese painting on Michel- 1496 and to his father of 1 July 1497, probably changed hands for other reasons, too (Emmer-
angelo has recently also been emphasized, with also refer to the Bacchus (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 375– ling-Skala, 1994, p. 249). It is possible that Riario
the suggestion that the St Proculus was inspired 376; Carteggio, I, pp. 1–3, nos. I–II). Michelan- gave the Bacchus to his neighbour Galli in grati-
by the Dean of Aries in the Palazzo Schifanoia gelo received a total of four payments from the tude for services rendered (Frommel, 1999).
(Marongiu, 2000). To me, however, it seems Balducci bank: three of fifty ducats for his labour The presence of the Bacchus in Galli’s art
more probable that Michelangelo orientated and one of ten ducats for what was evidently a collection – which like Riario’s city palace (today
himself towards the Bolognese works mentioned very reasonably priced block of marble. the Cancelleria) lay not far from the Campo
first above. On the strength of the documents pub- de’ Fiori (Frommel, 1999) – is documented in
St Petronius, patron saint of Bologna, is lished by Hirst, the versions of events originally a drawing by the Netherlandish artist Marten
dressed in his bishop’s vestments and holds as given by Condivi (1553), probably concocted van Heemskerck (see Ch. II, ill. p. 46). In the
his attribute a model of the city in his hands. by Michelangelo himself and later repeated by drawing, which arose between 1532 and 1535, the
Seen beside the more traditional draperied figure Vasari (1568), must be discounted: the Bacchus statue is missing its right hand. Another drawing
of St Petronius, the St Proculus with his tightly was in fact commissioned not by Jacopo Galli, probably dating from 1550 (Cambridge, Trinity
belted tunic, his slightly oversized head and but by Raffaelle Riario. It is nevertheless true College; Wind, 1987, fig. 99) shows the same
596 597
defect. Since Condivi expressly mentions the writings of Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Miran- the artist hints in a letter of 2 July 1496 and
cup that Bacchus is holding in his right hand, it dola, Bacci (1985) cites Ovid’s Metamorphoses would fit the original context of the commission.
must have been reattached by 1553 at the latest, (III.511–733) and the seventh Homeric Hymn, and Michelangelo designed his Bacchus to be viewed
possibly by Michelangelo himself, as the major- Emmerling-Skala (1994) refers to Lucian and the in the round in a garden, and in Riario’s collec-
ity of scholars assume, or by a clumsy restorer mythographers of the Middle Ages. tion of antiquities it would have been displayed
(Wind, 1987, p. 206). It therefore remains uncer- All of the above-mentioned literary sources alongside works from classical antiquity. The size
tain whether Michelangelo deliberately created display just as many departures from Michel- of Michelangelo’s sculpture, uncommonly large
the Bacchus with a missing right hand, so as to angelo’s figure as correspondences with it. for its day, its unusual subject-matter and its
trick viewers into thinking they were looking at Attempts to identify true forerunners of the Bac- symbolic and formal ambivalence all lend weight
a work all’antica, as Boissard (1557, I, pp. 34–35) chus amongst the antique sculptures known in to the argument that Michelangelo was compet-
suggests. It is equally unclear whether the broken- Michelangelo’s day are equally inconclusive (Tol- ing directly with antiquity (see Ch. 2).
off penis was also part of Michelangelo’s original nay, I, p. 144). What is most likely is that Michel Conclusion: The origins of the commission
concept; traces of carving in the area make this angelo was familiar with some of the Bacchus for the Bacchus can be considered fully estab-
a possibility, however. The sculpture also dem- statues and sarcophagus reliefs of Bacchic scenes lished. Interpretations of the figure’s iconology
onstrates very varying degrees of finish. In 1572, already excavated (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, nos. have receded into the background in the more
the statue passed from the collection of the Galli 69–93), as well as with common works of litera- recent literature, while questions relating to
family into the possession of the Medici in Flor- ture, such as Ovid’s Metamorphoses, but that he the sculpture’s original location have gained in
ence and in 1871 to the Bargello (Giovinezza di gave free rein in the Bacchus to his own creativity. relevance.
Michelangelo, 1999, p. 362). We shall conclude with a summary of the S8. Pietà, 1498/99
Michelangelo lends his Bacchus a number most important interpretations proposed for the Marble, height 174 cm (width of base: 195 cm,
of characteristics and attributes familiar from Bacchus. Condivi sees the sculpture as expressing width of figural group 166 cm, depth 103 cm)
classical literature and popular tradition: his the punishment for sensual indulgence, in par- Rome, Vatican, St Peter’s Basilica
unsteady walk, a garland of ivy and vine-leaves ticular the consumption of a lcohol. Wind (1987)
in his hair, barely visible horns on his head, interprets the animal skin as a guarantee of spir- Michelangelo carved the Pietà for the tomb of
the skin of a wild beast in his left hand and a itual renewal and resurrection after death: shed- the French Cardinal Jean de Bilhères-Lagraulas,
drinking bowl in his right (if this hand indeed ding the skin brings to light the true inner core, which was formerly located in the chapel of
stems from Michelangelo; see above). The god which lays claim to continued life. Tolnay (I, S. Petronilla on the south side of the old St Peter’s
of wine is also accompanied by a satyr behind his pp. 89–90, 142–145), on the other hand, sees the basilica. After S. Petronilla – also known as the
left leg, who seems to be nibbling on a bunch of sculpture as a cosmic symbol of vegetative life: Cappella Regum Francorum, the Chapel of the
grapes. The pelt is described by Condivi (1553) the flayed skin stands for death, the satyr eat- Kings of France – was demolished, the Pietà was
and Vasari (1568) as that of a tiger, but alternative ing the grapes for the newly awakened life forces displayed in various locations within the old
identifications – and their corresponding inter- and Bacchus himself for the autumnal maturity St Peter’s from around 1517/18 onwards, before
pretations – put forward in recent years include and fullness of life, whereby the figure’s sense moving in 1749 to its present site in the new St
lynx (Weinberger, 1967, p. 65), leopard (Wind, of heaviness already announces decay. Hirst Peter’s, where it occupies the first chapel to the
1987, p. 213) and lion (Tolnay, I, p. 89; Bacci, (Hirst/Dunkerton, 1994, p. 34) understands right of the entrance (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1987a,
1985, p. 131; Schwedes, 1998, pp. 155–156). Bacchus’s intoxication in the broader sense as the pp. 87–90; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 418).
Condivi and Vasari (1568) claim that path to an understanding of divine mysteries. Following the evaluation of existing docu-
Michelangelo’s Bacchus corresponds in every In recent years, the Bacchus has also been ments (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 613–614; Frey, 1907,
detail to the ideas of the ancient writers. Almost seen as an instance of Michelangelo competing p. 140; Tolnay, I, pp. 146–147; Contratti, pp. 5–6),
all art historians right up to Freedman (2003) with antique sculptors such as Praxiteles (Sum- the records of payments by the Balducci bank
have accepted this opinion and have sought to mers, 1981, pp. 265–268) and Lysippus (Emmer- published by Hirst (1985; Hirst/Dunkerton,
use antique and in part post-antique sources to ling-Skala, 1994, pp. 269–270), who executed 1994, pp. 47–55) and other archive material
support their interpretation of the sculpture. comparable works. This desire to compete with (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1987a, pp. 105–107), it
Thus Carman (1983), for example, names the the sculptors of antiquity is something at which would appear that Michelangelo began his
598 599
preparations for the Rome Pietà in the closing 1992b). The sculpture is possibly conceived to that Michelangelo left this unusual inscription Significant for a concrete interpretation
months of 1497. In November 1497 he travelled take account of a light source located overhead because he was very pleased with the work. In of the sculpture is the strikingly heavy length
to Carrara to begin his search for a suitable block (Wallace, 1992b; Schwedes, 1998, p. 78) and a the second edition, he enlarges upon this expla- of cloth that spreads itself between the Virgin
of marble; his presence is documented in Carrara viewer approaching from the left. With regard nation by relating an anecdote that may go and the body of the dead Christ. This cloth can
in February 1498. By March 1498 Michelangelo to its function, the Pietà is probably a memorial, back to Pliny (Pon, 1996), but whose origins probably be seen as a direct reference to Christ’s
was back in Rome, where the block of marble not an altarpiece (Wallace, 1992b), although the can be found in a letter to Vasari (Frey, 1930, shroud, and thereby to the Saviour’s sacrifice
was delivered in June. On 27 August 1498 a con- one does not seem to me necessarily to exclude p. 64; Barocchi, 1962, II, p. 187) and which was on the Cross and its liturgical repetition by the
tract was drawn up between Michelangelo and the other, particularly since the chapel in which probably intended to deflect any accusations of priest during Mass (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1987a).
the Cardinal, with Jacopo Galli acting as witness it originally stood in S. Petronilla also contained artistic arrogance (Pestilli, 2000): visitors from A similar interpretation can also be applied to
and guarantor (see Ch. II). Michelangelo’s fee for an altar and an antique-style tombstone today Lombardy had erroneously attributed the sculp- The Madonna of the Stairs (Cat. S1).
the Pietà was fixed as 450 papal gold ducats. The housed in the Vatican Grottos (Weil-Garris ture to a Lombard artist, prompting Michelan- Conclusion: The Pietà’s location in S.
contract also stipulated that the work should Brandt, 1987a). gelo to add his signature to it. Petronilla, and the height of the plinth or altar
be finished within a year, a deadline that seems The Rome Pietà, acclaimed as a high point A very detailed analysis of the inscription on which it stood, have yet to be fully recon-
to have been met: the documented payments in Michelangelo’s early œuvre ever since its has recently been published by Wang (2004), structed. The iconographical interpretation by
by the Balducci and a mason’s bill of 6 August enthusiastic reception by Vasari and Condivi, who concludes that, as such, it is unusual. In Weil-Garris Brandt (1987a) and the explana-
1499 suggest that the Pietà had been installed in takes up a medieval type (the Vesperbild) that the design of its lettering, it imitates the mock tions of the inscription by Jurˇen (1974) and Wang
the burial chapel of the patron, who died that originated in northern Europe. The motif of stone inscriptions found in painting and the (2004) seem to me convincing, the functional
same day (Hirst/Dunkerton, 1994; an alternative the Virgin holding the dead Christ on her lap spontaneity of handwriting, and in its choice of analysis by Wallace (1992b) more contentious.
interpretation of the documents is offered by subsequently reached Italy in the form of expres- the imperfect tense – “faciebat” instead of “fecit”
Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 418). sive woodcarvings, for example in the church – goes back to the information offered by Pliny
In the more recent literature, attention has of S. Domenico in Bologna (Körte, 1937). (Natural History, Praef. § 26; Jurˇen, 1974; Weil-
focused in particular upon the various locations Towards the end of the 15th century, the theme Garris Brandt, 1987a, p. 93) that this was the
in which the Pietà was displayed, its possible also gained popularity in Florentine painting wording with which artists such as Apelles and
northern European forerunners and/or parallels, (Tolnay, I, p. 148; Weinberger, 1967, p. 68). It Polyclitus signed their works.
its function, its political iconography and the was probably not Michelangelo but Cardinal Ever since Condivi, who broadcasts Michel-
significance of the artist’s signature (see below). de Bilhères-Lagraulas who chose the subject for angelo’s own thoughts in explaining the Virgin’s
Further subjects under discussion include the his tomb, particularly since the Pietà was a type youthful appearance as the consequence of her
restoration in 1736 of four fingers of the Madon- frequently found in a sepulchral context in his virtuous lifestyle (see Ch. II), the Rome Pietà has
na’s left hand (e.g. Lavin, 1966), the rhetoric of native France (Wallace, 1992b). Michelangelo’s been the object of widely differing interpreta-
her gesture (Schwedes, 1998, pp. 148–163) and Pietà differs from its northern European coun- tions. Many others have commented in particu-
the influence exerted by the Pietà on subsequent terparts in one decisive point, however: whereas lar upon the youthful appearance of the Virgin
art (e.g. Smick, 2000). Noteworthy, too, are the medieval Pietàs north of the Alps are character- (Barocchi, 1962, II, pp. 188–190). Fundamental
discussions, conducted chiefly in the press, of the ized by their dramatic emphasis upon suffer- for an understanding of the Pietà is also the con-
loan of the Pietà to the New York World’s Fair of ing and grief, Michelangelo idealizes the scene text in which it arose: the patron, Cardinal Jean
1964, and of the attack on the sculpture carried through the perfection of his representation (see de Bilhères-Lagraulas, arrived in Rome in 1491 as
out by a mentally disturbed visitor to St Peter’s Ch. II). head of the delegation sent by the French king,
on 21 May 1972. The Rome Pietà is Michelangelo’s only Charles VIII, and would play a leading political
As the varying degrees of finish on the signed work (Jurˇen, 1974; Pon, 1996; Wang, role in the city right up to his death. Thus the
back of the Pietà suggest, it originally stood in 2004). On a band running diagonally across the furnishing of the Chapel of the Kings of France
a niche, by all appearances to the right of the Virgin’s chest can be found the following signa- with the Cardinal’s tomb must be understood
entrance of S. Petronilla and on an altar lower ture: MICHAEL.A[N]GELVS.BONAROTVS. as a political act, through which de Bilhères-
than its present one (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1987a; FLORENTIN[VS].FACIEBA[T] (“The Flor- Lagraulas was expressing his efforts to nurture
Hirst/Dunkerton, 1994, p. 49), or even on a entine Michelangelo Buonarroti made it”). good relations between the French ruling house
plinth just a few centimetres high (Wallace, In the first edition of his Lives, Vasari explains and the Roman papacy.
600 601
one hundred ducats. The eleven figures still out- finally SS Pius and Gregory. The rigid poses of
standing had probably fallen victim to the other these two last figures make them less convincing
commissions that Michelangelo had accepted in terms of their formal design.
since 1501 (the bronze David for Rohan-Gié, Conclusion: The figures of the Piccolomini
the marble David, twelve Apostles for Florence Altar bear the earliest witness to Michelangelo’s
cathedral, the Battle of Cascina mural, the Doni fatal tendency to take on more work than he
Tondo and the Pitti Tondo). Documents never- could manage.
theless show that Michelangelo was still seriously
intending to finish the commission, even in 1508
(Jenkens, 2002). A document recently uncovered
by Hirst (2000) also suggests that a marble deliv-
ery for the Florence cathedral Office of Works in
November 1502 was partly destined for Michel-
angelo and the Piccolomini Altar.
Recent summaries of the history of the com-
mission are found in Poeschke (1992, pp. 77–80)
S9a–d. Four Saints for the Piccolomini Altar 1511, first published by Milanesi (1856, III, p. 26) and in the exhibition catalogue Giovinezza di
Siena, Cathedral and subsequently by Mancusi-Ungaro (1971, Michelangelo (1999, pp. 308–310), with impor-
pp. 98–99). tant additions by Jenkens (2002). The most
S9a. St Paul, 1501–1504 The documents relating to the Piccolomini comprehensive assessment of Michel angelo’s
Marble, height 127 cm Altar known up till 1971 were published by Man- contribution to the Piccolomini Altar is pro
S9b. St Peter, 1501–1504 cusi-Ungaro accompanied by an English transla- vided by Mancusi-Ungaro (1971), who also dis-
Marble, height 124 cm tion. They include the very comprehensive and cusses the identification of the figures and their
S9c. St Pius, 1501–1504 detailed contract that was agreed with Michelan- iconography. Michel angelo’s statues, unlike
Marble, height 134 cm gelo on 5 June 1501 and additional declarations those of Bregno, reveal a striking absence of clear
S9d. St Gregory, 1501–1504 by the artist of 22 May 1501 (ibid., pp. 60–73; attributes, giving rise to some uncertainty as to
Marble, height 136 cm Contratti, pp. 7–11). After Bregno had completed their identity.
the altar itself and its figures, in 1501 Michelan The attribution of the statues to Michelan-
The Piccolomini Altar is the name given to a gelo’s adversary Pietro Torrigiani was commis- gelo, first documented in the above-mentioned
large-scale sculptural altarpiece commissioned sioned to provide further sculptures. Torrigiani letters of 1508 and 1511, and regularly re-asserted
by Cardinal Francesco Todeschini-Piccolomini succeeded only in almost completing the figure from the 17th century onwards (Giovinezza
from Andrea Bregno in 1481, and occupying a of St Francis. di Michelangelo, 1999, pp. 308–310), has estab-
chapel along the left-hand aisle of Siena cathe- The contract of 1501 stipulated a fee of lished itself above all since the formal analysis
dral. The altar itself, with its figural decoration, 500 ducats and a deadline of three years for the by Kriegbaum (1942). It has not found universal
is surmounted by a stone framework in the style production of altogether fifteen figures, includ- acceptance, however: Tolnay (I, pp. 229–231), for
of a triumphal arch, containing numerous reliefs ing the completion of the St Francis begun by example, sees Michelangelo’s authorship at best
and freestanding sculptures. Condivi and Vasari Torrigiani, whose style Michelangelo was sup- in St Peter. The figure of St Paul is artistically the
make no reference to the four figures of saints posed to match. Bregno remained contractually most sophisticated of the four sculptures and
today attributed to Michelangelo and forming bound to the project right up to his death in 1503 has attracted the greatest attention amongst art
part of this marble surround. SS Peter, Paul, (Pöpper, 2003). After the expiry of the three historians. Some consider it a self-portrait by
Pius and Gregory are first attributed to Michel- years and the death of Piccolomini, a new agree- Michelangelo (Kriegbaum, 1940, p. 43), others
angelo in a letter of 20 May 1508 addressed to ment was implemented on 11 October 1504, the product of a different hand altogether (Bal-
Francesco Todeschini-Piccolomini’s nephew from which it can be deduced that Michelangelo dini, 2001a). The majority of critics assume that
(Jenkens, 2002) and in a now lost letter of had completed four sculptures and been paid the artist executed first St Paul, then St Peter, and
602 603
CATALOGUE OF SCULPTURES
S10. David, 1501–1504 ure was considered to be too small and so in 1464
Marble, height 516 cm a new sculpture was commissioned from Agos-
Florence, Galleria dell’Accademia tino di Duccio. Progress on this second David
was thwarted early on, however, when Agostino
Michelangelo received the commission for the or a colleague made a bad job of blocking out
marble David from the Operai (Overseers) of the piece of marble procured from Carrara. In
Florence cathedral and hence from an official May 1476, Antonio Rossellino took over work
body. This fact, together with the spectacular size on the bungled block, again without success, and
and artistic quality of the final sculpture, have in July 1501 the Operai were once more obliged
made the David one of the most thoroughly to look for a sculptor (documents in Poggi, 1906,
documented artworks of the early modern era. nos. 405–499; Frey, 1909, pp. 104–109; Tolnay,
Despite this, confusion reigned right up to the I, pp. 151–152; Seymour, 1972, pp. 108–137; Con-
very recent past as to the actual dimensions of tratti, pp. 12–17; partly also in Milanesi, 1875,
the figure (Schwedes, 1998, pp. 109, 235; Herzner, pp. 620–623, and Pope-Hennessy, 1996, pp. 422–
2003), whose height is now officially given as 516 423). In the contract of 16 August 1501 (Milan-
cm (16’ 11”). It weighs a total of 5,660 kg (12,480 esi, 1875, p. 620; Contratti, p. 12), Michelangelo
lbs) and has a surface area of 19.47 square metres appears as the artist to whom the commission has
(209.57 square feet) (Il David, 2004, p. 51). been awarded.
The commission for the David went right Why the choice should have fallen upon
back to the start of the 15th century, when it Michelangelo has given rise to many legends and
was to form part of the decoration of Florence much conjecture, starting with the accounts of
cathedral. In as early 1408, the Opera del Duomo Vasari and Condivi. In all probability, Michel-
– the Florence cathedral’s Office of Works – angelo was chosen because he had good connec-
ordered a David from the Florentine sculptor tions within his native city, because his political
Donatello for one of the cathedral’s flying but- sympathies were in line with those of the Flor-
tresses (see Ch. III, ill. p. 82). The resulting fig- entine Republic and because he had just earned
605
himself an excellent reputation as a sculptor with 14 to 18 May 1504. The sculpture was provision- to mount the David on one of Florence cathe- An alternative political interpretation is
his Pietà in Rome. ally put in position on 8 June 1504, but was only dral’s f lying buttresses, where it was to have been proposed by Verspohl (1981; 1991a; 2001), who
A contract-like agreement of 16 August 1501 installed on the plinth made by Cronaca and paired with a Hercules on another buttress. By sees the David as expressing the ideas of Nic-
stipulates that the artist had to complete the Antonio da Sangallo on 8 September 1504. The all appearances, David, with his physical resem- colò Machiavelli and specifically the concept of
sculpture within two years for a monthly salary final payments of 31 October 1504 relate to a gold blance to Hercules, was intended to embody a people’s militia. A similar argument is offered
of six fiorini. An appendix to this text of 13 Sep- garland and the gilding of the tree stump sup- courage and strength (Tolnay, I, pp. 152–153; by Barolsky (2004), though without once men
tember 1501 states that Michelangelo had com- porting David’s right leg and of the sling run- Seymour, 1967a). Both this borrowing from tioning the almost identical theories put forward
menced work on the “giant” that very day and ning down his back (Frey, 1909, p. 132). Recent Herculean iconography and the original plan to previously.
had already chipped a knot (nodus) off the mar- examinations of the figure have been unable to install the sculpture with other monumental fig- Contemporaries evidently viewed Michelan-
ble block on 9 September. The large majority of find any traces of this gilding, however (Bracci, ures may furthermore be understood as a direct gelo’s David in a political light from the start. In
authors interpret this comment as a reference to 2004, pp. 58–59). reference to antiquity. Not least for this reason his diary entry for 14 May 1504, Luca Landucci
a drapery knot that had previously been carved On 26 February 1527 the left arm of the is Michelangelo’s David considered the embodi- records that stones were thrown at the sculpture
out of the block by Agostino di Duccio. In line sculpture was badly damaged during the civic ment of the Renaissance ideal. even while it was being transported from the
with traditional representations of the subject, unrest that accompanied the expulsion of the This leads us to the interpretations placed Opera del Duomo. As Hirst (2000, note 30) was
the David commenced by Agostino would have Medici (V/M, VII, p. 156; Tolnay, I, p. 150). This upon the sculpture, which fall primarily into able to show, the delinquents in question – all of
been clothed; by removing this knot of drapery, damage was repaired in 1543. The sculpture was two categories. First is the traditional interpre- them young – were young men from the Medici
Michelangelo was thus already aiming for a moved from the Piazza della Signoria to the Acc- tation, put forward in earlier times and going circle. Hirst nevertheless sees the incident as
naked figure. ademia delle Belle Arti in 1873 (Smith, 1999) and right back to Vasari (1550; 1568) and Condivi. an act of juvenile vandalism. But since existing
At Michelangelo’s request, on 25 and 28 a replica erected in its place in 1910. The David The two biographers understood Michelangelo’s David figures in Florence dating from the Quat-
February 1502, his originally agreed fee of 144 underwent thorough cleaning between 2002 and David as a courageous defender of the people, a trocento already bore clear political connotations
fiorini was increased to 400 fiorini. A document 2004 (Bracci, 2004; Il David, 2004). just ruler and, with reference to Florence, a sym- (Herzner, 1978; 1982; Butterfield, 1995; Verspohl,
recently published by Hirst (2000) suggests that Michelangelo’s sculpture shows David, the bol of the Palazzo della Signoria (Vasari, 1550: 2001), it seems more than plausible that Michel-
the David was already substantially finished by King of Israel, in his role as a young shepherd per la insegna del Palazzo) and thus of the repub- angelo’s sculpture – at least after its completion
summer 1503, since a public viewing of the sculp- who, armed only with his sling, defeated the lican form of government. Although this inter- – should have been read in political terms (see
ture was scheduled for 23 June 1503 in the Opera physically far superior Goliath from the ranks of pretation is viewed with scepticism in the stand- Ch. III).
del Duomo. This contradicts other documenta- the Philistines (I Sam. 17). The figure, standing ard works on Renaissance sculpture (Poeschke, A second main theme of the interpretations
tion, known to scholars since the 19th century, in classical contrapposto, clasps a stone in his 1992, p. 86; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 423) and placed upon the David concerns Michelangelo’s
according to which the David was considered right hand, while his raised left hand holds the is dismissed by a number of other authors as concept of himself as an artist and is based on
to be nearing completion only on 25 January sling, which hangs over his left shoulder and falls having been applied to the David by Michel- the sole autograph drawing that can be related
1504. On this date a commission made up largely down his back. A David who was significantly angelo’s biographers after the event (e.g. Krieg- beyond doubt to the genesis of the David (see
of artists, architects and craftsmen met to dis- larger than life, naked and accompanied by baum, 1940, p. 43; Barocchi, 1962, II, p. 202; Ch. III, ill. p. 83; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 2, Cat. D22).
cuss a suitable site for the David. The members none of the traditional attributes was unusual by Parks, 1975; Shearman, 2003), it has been put Alongside a sketch probably for Michelangelo’s
of this commission included the most famous the standards of the day. Although Donatello’s forward in ever new variations right up to recent bronze David, it features a preliminary study
artists and architects active in Florence at that bronze David (Ch. III, ill. p. 82), with which times. for the right arm of the marble David and a
time: Cosimo Rosselli, Cronaca, Filippino Lippi, Michelangelo’s figure is often compared, is also Thus Tolnay (1949, pp. 16–17) sees Michel- note by the author in the margin. In this note,
Sandro Botticelli, Giuliano da Sangallo, Andrea naked, it is considerably smaller (158 cm/5’ 2”) angelo’s David as a symbol of republican free- Michelangelo compares himself and his work as
Sansovino, Piero di Cosimo, Leonardo da Vinci, and furnished, moreover, with the usual attrib- dom. His view has been expanded upon by Sey- a sculptor with David’s fight against Goliath (see
Pietro Perugino, Lorenzo di Credi and others. utes – a sword and the head of Goliath. Michel- mour (1967a; 1967b), Levine (1974) and Fader Ch. III). Papini (1930) sees in this a reference to
A majority voted for erecting the statue to the angelo has also created a clearly older and more (1977), for example. Levine even considers the Michelangelo’s artistic rivalry with Leonardo;
left of the main entrance of the Palazzo della athletic David than his predecessor. The size, figure to harbour a political message that was Brion (1942, pp. 124–127) understands the sculp-
Signoria, where Donatello’s Judith had stood nakedness, age and physique of Michelangelo’s initially secret and had been planned since 1501. ture as a moral self-portrait by Michelangelo and
since 1495 (in detail in Seymour, 1967a and b; David prompt associations with the traditionally Parks (1975) firmly opposes this line of argument at the same time as a token of his victory over
Levine, 1974). Transporting the David from the more powerful figural type of Hercules. These and shows that the surviving documents do not Leonardo. Seymour (1967b, pp. 3–17) argues
Office of Works to its new location took from same associations emerge from the original plan support such a hypothesis. that Michelangelo saw himself as David and as a
606 607
republican-minded victor over the gigantic block on the same sheet, implying that Michelangelo Like the Rome Pietà, and in contrast to
of marble. Lavin (1992; 1993) lends support to could have started on the Bruges Madonna only the marble tondi that Michelangelo produced
this interpretation in particular from an icono- at the beginning of 1505. at almost the same time, the Bruges Madonna
graphical viewpoint. Pfisterer (2002, pp. 395– The documents published by Mancusi- reveals a very high degree of finish. Possible
398) compares Michel angelo’s sculpture with Ungaro (1971, pp. 36–40, 136–145, 160–177), sources of inspiration for the work have been
Davids by other artists, while Zöllner (2005a) largely from the records of the Balducci bank, sought most recently by Schwedes (1998, p. 106).
examines the role of the David within the his- confirm previous conclusions regarding the However, no truly convincing parallel can be
torical development of artist self-portrayals. date (summary in Schwedes, 1998, pp. 95–96) found in contemporary 16th-century sculpture
More interesting studies on the David and the execution of the Bruges Madonna: the with the motif of the Infant viewed frontally,
include Summers (1978), who considers the accounts show that payments of fifty gold ducats standing between the Virgin’s knees.
figure’s leonine physiognomy, and Weil-Garris were made to Michelangelo in December 1503 Conclusion: The dating of the Bruges
Brandt (1983), who discusses its installation on and October 1504. These payments relate to the Madonna and the circumstances surrounding
a plinth. Levine (1984) and Echinger-Maurach Madonna itself and correspond to the price of its commission are largely established; a more
(1998) analyse Michelangelo’s drawings for the the work given by Condivi as one hundred gold detailed analysis of its function might yield fur-
David, whereby it is not conclusively established ducats. Further documents of August 1505 and ther insights.
whether these can indeed be extended to more of April, June, August and October 1506 relate
than the sketch mentioned above. to the sculpture’s transportation. Whether a let-
Conclusion: Whether the political sig- ter written by Michelangelo on 31 January 1506
nificance of Michelangelo’s David had an influ- (Carteggio, I, pp. 11–12, no. VII) also refers to the
ence upon the figure’s design is a question that S11. Madonna and Child (Bruges Madonna), Bruges Madonna remains disputed; in it, the art-
remains open (see Ch. III). More reliable would c. 1504/05 ist asks his father to allow what he describes only
seem to be the interpretation of the sculpture Marble, height 128 cm (including base) as a marble Madonna to be brought unobserved
in the sense of a self-portrayal of the artist, as Bruges, Onze Lieve Vrouwkerk (Notre-Dame) into his house. Equally contentious is a docu-
implied by Michelangelo himself in the marginal ment discovered by Tolnay (1933, p. 113), cited
note on his above-named drawing. Since the marble sculpture of the Madonna and most recently by Pope-Hennessy (1996, p. 419)
Child was sent to Bruges in 1506, shortly after its and discussed again by Schwedes (1998, p. 99),
completion (see below), Condivi and Vasari never from an archive in Bruges, which apparently
had the opportunity to examine it for themselves. makes mention of the Bruges Madonna and its
For this reason they both describe the work incor- installation.
rectly as cast in bronze (Condivi) and as a tondo The Bruges Madonna was commissioned
in bronze (Vasari). Condivi’s version of events by Alexandre Mouscron (see text), the head of a
suggests, moreover, that the Bruges Madonna was Bruges firm of cloth merchants who maintained
executed at the start of 1504, following the com- offices in Rome and Florence. It was probably
pletion of the marble David (Cat. S10). This date executed for the altar tabernacle in which it still
also arises indirectly out of a drawing whose attri- stands today, and not for the Piccolomini Altar
bution to Michelangelo is accepted and which in Siena (Cat. S9a–d), as assumed by Valentiner
shows a study for the Bruges Madonna together (1942), Mancusi-Ungaro (1971) and most recently
with a compositional sketch for the Battle of Pope-Hennessy (1996, p. 420). Poeschke (1992,
Cascina (Cat. P4; Brinckmann, 1925, no. 9; see p. 80) is the most recent author to argue con-
Ch. III, ill. p. 84; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 2, Cat. D37). vincingly against this latter idea. The commis-
Since the mural of the Battle of Cascina was com- sion for the Bruges Madonna probably reached
missioned in October 1504, Michelangelo’s draw- Michelangelo via his friendship with his Rome
ing for the scene must date from this period. The bankers, the Balducci brothers (Mancusi-
sketch for the Madonna was probably drawn later Ungaro, 1971, p. 41).
608 609
These events, which fall into the year 1506, do S13. Madonna and Child with the Infant
not allow the work to be dated with absolute cer- St John (Pitti Tondo), c. 1504–1506 (?)
tainty, however. The same is true of two draw- Marble, height 85.5 cm, width 82 cm
ings that have been related to the tondo: a dis- Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello
puted sheet in the British Museum (H11; TC48v)
showing several studies for the Infant St John, Vasari mentions the tondo for Bartolommeo
and a sheet in Berlin (H10; TC27r) whose dating Pitti in the same sentence as the Taddei Tondo
and attribution are both uncertain and which (Cat. S12), from which it has been concluded
therefore permits even fewer conclusions to be that the two marble reliefs were executed at
drawn. approximately the same time. In all probability,
The tondo, in some places only roughed the Pitti Tondo arose after the Taddei Tondo, a
out with a chisel, is unfinished. Carving – either chronology suggested by the formal proximity
by Michelangelo himself or by another artist – of the Virgin in the Pitti Tondo to the Delphic
evidently started on the face now making up Sibyl on the Sistine ceiling (Wölfflin, 1891, p. 45;
the back of the tondo. The marble on this side Kriegbaum, 1940, p. 41; see Ch. V, ill. p. 241) and
revealed a hard vein, a flaw that can also be seen by other stylistic factors (Pope-Hennessy, 1996,
in the face of the Virgin on the front (Larson, p. 418).
1991). Hirst (2005) recently discovered the signa- The tondo, in places still unfinished, depicts
S12. Madonna and Child with the Infant ture “LA” on the back, possibly stemming from In the Taddei Tondo, Michelangelo evidently the Virgin and Child, the latter propped against
St John (Taddei Tondo), c. 1504–1506 (?) Lapo di Antonio di Lapo, one of Michelangelo’s considered it important to identify the Infant St a book in his mother’s lap. The figure in the back-
Marble, diameter 109 cm colleagues, who may also have obtained the mar- John by a baptismal bowl. This lack of ambigu- ground, devoid of specific attributes, is generally
London, Royal Academy of Arts ble for him. ity is particularly striking in comparison with identified as the Infant St John. However, since
Lightbown (1969) places the tondo within the angels of The Madonna of the Stairs (Cat. S1) it is also possible to find angels in comparable
Vasari mentions the tondo in the possession of the Florentine tradition of its genre. More recent and with the saints carved for the Piccolomini positions in other painted (Botticelli) and carved
Taddeo Taddei in the same breath as the Pitti studies centre primarily on formal and icono- Altar (Cat. S9a–d), who are largely devoid of tondi (Olsen, 2000, p. 159) of the Quattrocento,
Tondo (Cat. S13) and in conjunction with the graphical issues. Thus Poeschke (1992, p. 81) and attributes. and also in Michelangelo’s own Madonna of the
marble David for the Signoria (Cat. S10). This Echinger-Maurach (2000) stress that the Taddei Conclusion: The dating of the Taddei Tondo Stairs (Cat. S1), this identification is not conclu-
would suggest that the tondo was carved some- Tondo represents Michelangelo’s exploration of and its original context are not yet fully clarified. sive. As in The Madonna of the Stairs, the Virgin
time between 1501 and 1504 (for a summary of Leonardo’s Madonna compositions. The ico- It also remains unclear whether Taddei com- is seated on a stone block.
datings, see Echinger-Maurach, 2000, p. 148, nography of the Taddei Tondo is borrowed above missioned the tondo or whether Michelangelo A pen drawing in the Musée Condé in
note 67). Stylistic considerations and a draw- all from painting. This applies to the Madonna’s carved it on his own initiative. Chantilly, whose attribution to Michelangelo
ing by Raphael (Paris, Musée du Louvre), how- pose, which resembles that of a Virgin of Humil- remains disputed, is considered a figural study
ever, together with the Bridgewater Madonna ity, and also to the bird in the hands of the Infant for the Virgin in the Pitti Tondo (Tolnay, I,
(Edinburgh, National Gallery of Scotland) also St John, which can probably be understood as a p. 161; H56); this identification is based on
attributed to Raphael, imply a slightly later date symbol of Christ’s Passion (Echinger-Maurach, generic correspondences and hence is not con-
of execution. Raphael, who evidently knew Tad- 2000, with further details). The precise orni- clusive. Indeed, it deviates from the tondo in
deo Taddei quite well (Tolnay, I, p. 162) and was thological identification of the bird remains particular in the turn of the Virgin’s head, the
active (with interruptions) in Florence between disputed and is unlikely to be resolved. Equally angle of her left shoulder and the position of her
1504 and 1508, takes up the unusual pose of the controversial is the question of whether the right leg.
Infant Christ found in Michelangelo’s tondo. Infant Jesus is recoiling from the symbol of the Tolnay (I, p. 160) considers the Virgin in the
This nevertheless yields only a terminus ante quem. Passion in the young Baptist’s hands. Easton Pitti Tondo to be a “sibylline Madonna”, since
Lightbown (1969) names several important (1969) categorically rejects the possibility of such her headdress features a cherub. Tolnay believes
events in Taddeo Taddei’s biography that might an interpretation, while Leach (1979) argues this cherub refers to a prophetic ability described
have prompted him to commission the tondo. expressly and persuasively in its favour. by Dionysius the Areopagite (i.e. Pseudo-
610 611
Dionysius the Areopagite, De coelesti hierar- Hennessy, 1996, pp. 423–424). While staying of the sculpture. A further sketch in the Uffizi
chia, VII.1). Although the Madonna’s somewhat in Florence from April to November 1506, and (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 2, Cat. D34) corresponds to
absent gaze out of the relief seems to imply such thus even after the cancellation of the contract, a large degree to the British Museum drawing,
an interpretation, it is be entirely convincing. Michelangelo nevertheless seems to have worked but its attribution to Michelangelo is disputed.
The motif of the Infant Christ’s legs, one on the sculpture. This at least is implied by a let- The non finito is more clearly a stylistic char-
crossed over the other, is unusual for a tondo ter written by Piero Soderini on 27 November acteristic of the St Matthew than in Michelan-
and may be inspired by a putto on an antique 1506 (Gaye, II, pp. 91–92). On the basis of this gelo’s earlier works, some of which are similarly
Phaedra sarcophagus in the Camposanto in Pisa letter and other evidence (Amy, 2000), the sculp- unfinished (Tolnay, I, p. 171; Körte, 1955). The St
(Wilde, 1932–34; Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. ture is dated to the year 1506. Matthew also clearly illustrates the use of the var-
111). The book on the Virgin’s lap finds parallels Numerous sources of formal inspiration ious carving tools: the point in the rough-hewn
in earlier Quattrocento Madonna paintings, for have been proposed for the unusual pose of the areas, the tooth chisel in particular in the area
example in Sandro Botticelli’s Madonna del Libro St Matthew (Tolnay, I, p. 170; Poeschke, 1992, of the chest and the bush-hammer on the right
(Milan, Museo Poldi Pezzoli) and Madonna del p. 89; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 425), including knee and left arm.
Magnificat (Florence, Uffizi). In both of these the Laocoön discovered on 14 January 1506 in The sculpture is largely carved from the
panels, however, the Virgin and Child are con- Rome and excavated in Michelangelo’s pres- front of the block. This method of working is
siderably more engaged with each other or with ence (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 122; Bottari, described by Vasari (Barocchi, 1962, I, p. 119) and
the book. Also unusual, and without precedent, 1822–1825, III, p. 474; see Ch. IV, ill. p. 124). The Cellini (Trattati, Ch. VI; Cellini, 1968, pp. 830–
is the fact that Jesus is leaning with his elbow pose comes closest, however, to that of the frag- 832) as optimal for a sculptor and typical of
on the book. An identical propped pose is found ment of a marble figure known as the Pasquino Michelangelo. This remark applies only to those
in representations of Melancholia (Wittkower, S14. St Matthew, 1506 (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 155), which today early works, including the St Matthew, in which
1969, p. 104). Barolsky (2003), on the other Marble, height 216 cm stands on the Piazza Pasquino in Rome and was Michelangelo has carved three-dimensional fig-
hand, sees the book as sym bolizing Christ’s Florence, Galleria dell’Accademia particularly popular in Renaissance times. ures in a similar fashion to reliefs. In his later
incarnation as the Word, an interpretation that In view of the unfinished state of the sculp- sculptures, he carved the block from several sides
has no concrete points of reference, however. Vasari and Condivi both state that the St ture, its interpretation is naturally problematical at once (Baumgart, 1934; Wallace, 2000, note 3;
Conclusion: As in the case of the Taddei Matthew was destined for Florence cathedral. (Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 424). The question of see Cat. S15d–g).
Tondo, the context and dating of the Pitti Tondo A contract of 24 April 1503, drawn up between its inner significance nevertheless deserves con- Conclusion: The St Matthew, whose dating
remain to be fully clarified. The Pitti Tondo, too, Michelangelo and the consuls of the Arte della sideration here. Poeschke (1992, p. 89) sees the is largely secure, is representative of Michelan-
incorporates a number of unusual elements that Lana (the representatives of the Wool Guild starting-point for Michelangelo’s striking design gelo’s early approach to sculpture.
await further explanation. responsible for the cathedral), provides precise as the calling of Matthew to become a disciple of
details of the commission: the artist was to pro- Christ (Matt. 9:9–10). Since the somewhat tor-
duce the figures of twelve Apostles within twelve tured nature of the Apostle’s pose has no paral-
years, and during this period would be paid two lels in earlier representations of the subject, the St
gold ducats a month. He was also offered a house Matthew may perhaps best be seen as a reflection
to the value of 600 gold ducats, which would of personal strains afflicting the artist, for whom
be built for him and which would pass into his the weightiest conflict of his career – the “trag-
full ownership depending on the progress he edy” (Condivi) of the Julius Tomb (see Cat. S15
had made on the twelve sculptures (Milanesi, and Ch. IV) – had begun in spring 1506.
1875, pp. 625–626; Contratti, pp. 18–21). As a Just how far Michelangelo departed from
consequence of his other commitments (David, traditional Apostle representations is also dem-
Bruges Madonna, Piccolomini Altar, cartoon for onstrated by the preliminary study from his own
the Battle of Cascina), however, Michelangelo hand in the British Museum (see Ch. IV, ill.
got no further than the unfinished St Matthew. p. 122; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 2, Cat. D30). This
On 18 December 1505 the contract was there- sketch still echoes Quattrocento conventions
fore annulled (Tolnay, I, pp. 168–169; Pope- and does not yet reveal the inner physical tension
612 613
(1991) and Forcellino (2002, pp. 270–288) and to Michelangelo of 1,000 gold ducats, expressly The above-mentioned documentary sources
the history of the tomb projects summarized by for the Julius Tomb (Hirst, 1991). testify to the existence of a monumental project
Poeschke (1992, pp. 89–100, 102–106, 119), Pope- 3) In two draft letters to Giovan Francesco commenced in February 1505 and interrupted in
Hennessy (1996, pp. 425–435) and Satzinger Fattucci of December 1523, Michelangelo talks of April 1506 as a result of disagreements between
(2001). We shall therefore content ourselves here selecting the marble in Carrara (April to Decem- Michelangelo and Julius II. More concrete infor-
with a brief overview of the designs of 1505, 1513, ber 1505) and of problems encountered during mation is provided only by the contract of 6 May
1516, 1525/26, 1532 and 1542. his preparations for the Tomb in Rome (Mil- 1513, which speaks of a wall tomb. This tomb was
Condivi describes the first project of 1505 as anesi, 1875, pp. 426–430; Carteggio, I, pp. 7–11). to be executed within seven years for a fee of
a freestanding tomb measuring 18 by 12 cubits Recent scholars have exposed this information as 16,500 ducats and decorated with forty over-life-
(approx. 10.5 x 7 m/36 x 24 feet) and destined incorrect (Hatfield, 2002, pp. 65, 126–138; For- size sculptures. The broader front façade and the
for the tribune of the old St Peter’s. The design cellino, 2006, pp. 193, 273). two shorter sides leading back to the wall were
encompassed “over forty sculptures”, several 4) Two contracts, of 12 November 1505 and to contain, at ground level, six niches contain-
bronze reliefs and an inner chamber housing 10 December 1505 (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 630–631; ing Victories and, between them, twelve Prison-
the Pope’s sepulchre. The sculptural programme Contratti, pp. 35–39), also concern the procure- ers (see Cat. S15a–b and S15d–g). In the upper
included, at ground level, prisoners (prigioni) ment of the marble. register, four angels and six further figures were
on plinths in front of herm pilasters (termini), 5) Michelangelo mentions the expected to be grouped around a sarcophagus with the
and between them niches containing further delivery of the marble in a letter to his father of recumbent effigy of the Pope, and above this a
unidentified statues. The upper storey was 31 January 1506 (Milanesi, 1875, p. 6; Carteggio, capelletta with five figures. Each side of the tomb
to contain four large figures, one of which I, pp. 11–12, no. VII). was also to be decorated with three reliefs show-
– the Moses – was used in the final tomb in 6) In a letter to Giuliano da Sangallo of 2 May ing figural scenes.
S. Pietro in Vincoli. The upper storey was also 1506, Michelangelo explains why he fled Rome In line with the terms of the contract of 1513,
to include a sarcophagus (arca) borne by two on the eve of the laying of the foundation stone Michelangelo probably worked until 1516 on the
angels. of the new St Peter’s (18 April 1506), and suggests two Louvre Slaves (Cat. S15a–b) and the Moses
S15a–j. The Tomb of Julius II, 1505–1545 Vasari (1568) takes much of his information that the marble for the Tomb be brought to Flor- (Cat. S15c). The scale of the project was then
Rome, S. Pietro in Vincoli from Condivi, but bolsters it with further details. ence so that he could work on it there (Milanesi, reduced again by a new contract of 8 July 1516:
Thus he names the four figures in the upper reg- 1875, pp. 377–378; Carteggio, I, pp. 13–14, no. 8). the depth of the tomb was reduced by more than
The tomb for Pope Julius II della Rovere was ister as Moses, St Paul and the Active Life and Con- 7) In a letter of 1542 to an unidentified half to just under three metres; the lower level
Michelangelo’s most protracted commission. templative Life. Vasari also identifies the angels at “Monsignore” (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 489–494; was now to contain only twelve figures (four
Between March 1505, when the monument was the top as Heaven and Cybele, while he describes Carteggio, IV, pp. 150–154, no. MI), Michelangelo niche figures and eight Prisoners), the upper reg-
first commissioned, and its final construction Condivi’s arca as a bier (bara). describes establishing a workshop near St Peter’s ister two seated statues, and between them the
in S. Pietro in Vincoli in Rome in 1545, the art- The descriptions provided by Condivi and and his conflict with the Pope of spring 1506. figure of the Pope with two accompanying fig-
ist designed a total of six versions of the proje ct, Vasari give an approximate impression of the 8) Julius II mentions Michelangelo’s flight ures and a Madonna and Child.
about which we are variously well informed. mausoleum-like character of Michelangelo’s first in a papal brief of 8 July 1506 and guarantees he The sculptural programme was reduced yet
The original tomb project of 1505, described design for the Julius Tomb. Little specific infor- will not be punished if he should return to Rome again in a fourth project of 1525/26, as can be
by Condivi and Vasari as a freestanding mauso- mation is yielded by the other written sources (Steinmann, II, 1905, p. 695; see Ch. IV). deduced from Michel angelo’s correspondence
leum destined to stand in St Peter’s (see below), relating to the first project. These comprise the 9) It is clear from a letter of 10 May 1506 (Tolnay, IV, pp. 49–52; Pope-Hennessy, 1996,
is the most poorly documented, with the writ- following documents, listed here in order of the from Piero Rosselli in Rome to Michelangelo p. 430). Nothing is known of the precise scope of
ten sources providing only contradictory or date of the events to which they refer: in Florence that the commission to fresco the this revised project, however. Firmer information
unsubstantiated information about its proposed 1) The record of an initial payment of 100 Sistine ceiling leads to work on the Tomb being is provided about the fifth project, on the other
design. The authorship, dating and reliability of gold ducats, made to Michelangelo in February interrupted (Carteggio, I, p. 16). hand, by a contract of 29 April 1532, in which
the majority of the surviving drawings relating to 1505 by the Pope, which probably relates to the 10) A note by Michelangelo of April 1508 Michelangelo promises to complete the tomb
the Julius Tomb are also uncertain. Julius Tomb (Hirst, 1991). relates to payments for the Julius Tomb and within three years. This version is to include six
Research on the Julius Tomb has recently 2) A letter of 28 April 1505 from the papal the first agreements (primi pacti) with Julius II marble figures already commenced by Michel-
been analysed in detail by Echinger-Maurach treasurer Francesco Alidosi confirms a payment (Ricordi, p. 1, no. I). angelo but not yet finished, together with five
614 615
other statues by other sculptors. The reference to tion in the figural programme. Of the three stat- by Moses, Rachel and Leah positively ridicule guishable) figure of the Pope surrounded by
the figures by Michelangelo may relate either to ues he is supposed to be carving himself, he now the ideal of heroic nakedness achieved shortly angels from the New York drawing.
the Moses, the Madonna and Child, the Prophet wishes to complete just one, namely the Moses, beforehand in the Last Judgement. Michelangelo 6) A sheet housed in the British Museum
and the Sibyl (all Rome, S. Pietro in Vincoli) and which is already nearly finished. He also pro- could nevertheless console himself with the fact showing a sketch for the ground level of the
the two Slaves in the Louvre, or to the Moses, the poses replacing two of the Prisoners (the Slaves that the “tragedy” of the tomb had earned him Julius Tomb, notes in Michelangelo’s hand and
four Prisoners in the Accademia in Florence and today in the Louvre; Cat. S15a–b) planned for the enormous sum of around 11,872 gold florins sketches of marble blocks for the Tomb (Pöpper,
the Victory (Cat. S15h). Pope-Hennessy (1996, S. Pietro in Vincoli with allegories of the Con- (Hatfield, 2002, pp. 126–138, 318–323), even if he 2016, Ch. 2, Cat. D49).
p. 431) also considers it possible that a statue templative Life (Rachel, Cat. S15j) and the Active had realized only a fraction of the project origi- 7) An architectural drawing for the narrow
of the Pope mentioned in Michelangelo’s cor- Life (Leah, Cat. S15i); these latter are already at nally planned. side of the upper level of the 1516 project (Pöp-
respondence (see below) and dating from the an advanced stage and can easily be completed A number of surviving modello drawings are per, 2016, Ch. 2, Cat. D48).
very first project of 1505 may represent one of by other masters. The agreements reached up of importance for the reconstruction of the Tomb Michelangelo’s authorship is undisputed
the six figures named in the 1532 contract. This to this point are set down in a contract of 20 projects. Although they match none of the plan- only with regard to drawings 6 and 7. The dat-
contract explicitly states for the first time that August 1542. Raffaello da Montelupo is given ning phases one hundred per cent, they can be ing and authenticity of the remaining draw-
the tomb is to be erected not in St Peter’s but the Madonna, Prophet and Sibyl to finish, as well roughly assigned to the project of 1513 and reveal ings (TC55–67 and TC293–296) remain sur-
in S. Pietro in Vincoli, of which Giuliano della as the Active Life and Contemplative Life. These parallels with the information given by the biog- rounded in some cases by considerable doubt.
Rovere had been titular cardinal prior to his elec- last two, however, were subsequently reworked raphers. These drawings are the following: This is particularly true of the New York draw-
tion as Pope. The ground storey and the herm by Michelangelo himself, as can be deduced 1) The so-called Beckerath drawing in Ber- ing. S everal authors (Hirst, 1988b, pp. 26–28;
pilasters in front of it, together with an effigy – from the final invoice of 3 February 1545 and an lin (Kupferstichkabinett), a very badly damaged Joannides, 1991b; Frommel, 1994; Echinger-
probably virtually finished – of the recumbent undated letter by Michelangelo of October or study whose a ttribution to Michelangelo is dis- Maurach, 1998; 2002; Poeschel, 2001; Kem-
Pope, were already in situ in S. Pietro in Vincoli November 1542 (Milanesi, 1875, p. 496; Carteg- puted, and which is known to scholars primarily pers, 2000; 2004) have recently argued that this
by sometime between 1533 and 1535 (Satzinger, gio, IV, p. 158, no. MIV). In addition, the sup- through the copy made by Schmarsow (1884; see drawing represents an original design for the
2001; Echinger-Maurach, 2003). plementary contract of 21 August 1542 states Ch. IV, ill. p. 110; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 2, Cat. D44). planned project of 1505, in which the tomb was
With the signing of the contract for the Last that Michelangelo is to rework the face of the 2) A copy of the Beckerath drawing made not freestanding but stood against a wall. This
Judgement at the start of 1534, work on the Julius recumbent figure of the Pope, probably already by Giacomo Rocchetti, also in Berlin (Kupfer- claim stands in complete contradiction to the
Tomb was delayed yet again. In a motu proprio of in situ since 1533–1535 (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 717– stichkabinett; see Ch. IV, ill. p. 107). information provided by the biographers and to
17 November 1536 (Steinmann, II, 1905, pp. 748– 718; Contratti, pp. 256–258). On the basis of this 3) The so-called Mariette drawing (Florence, all earlier scholarship. In truth, the 1505 project
752; Contratti, pp. 215–219), Paul III released the supplementary contract, and following the res- Uffizi), a study attributed to Aristotile da Sangallo cannot be reliably reconstructed on the basis
artist from the terms of the 1532 contract. Julius toration of the tomb in 1999, it is now proposed (e.g. Tolnay, IV, pp. 10, 138 and fig. 97; Verspohl, of the hypothetical attribution and dating of
II’s heirs thus found themselves obliged to accept that parts of this figure should indeed be attrib- 2004, p. 67) or to Michelangelo himself (Joan- this drawing. Bredekamp (2004) and Verspohl
further cuts to the programme of 1532. Several uted to Michelangelo himself (Forcellino, 2002; nides, 1971; Hirst, 1976; Echinger-Maurach, (2004, note 284) adopt what seems to me the
agreements, of 27 February, 16 May, 1 June, 20 Forcellino/Forcellino, 2002; Echinger-Maurach, 1991, pp. 247–290; Poeschke, 1992, p. 93) for the more likely view that the plan in 1505 was for a
August (contract) and 21 August 1542 (supple- 2003). Vasari considers it to be the work of Maso ground level of the Julius Tomb (see Ch. IV, ill. p. freestanding tomb, that the New York drawing
mentary contract), together with entries and del Bosco. 119; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 2 Cat. D46). does not stem from Michelangelo and that it
letters, indicate the following sequence of events Raffaello da Montelupo was paid for his 4) A compositional sketch sold on the art illustrates a planning phase of c. 1525/26 or is
(Satzinger, 2001; Contratti, pp. 235–263): on 27 Madonna, Prophet and Sibyl, all three of which market in 1961 and today housed in New York even a later copy.
February 1542 three figures begun by Michelan- were already installed, on 25 January 1545 (Metropolitan Museum of Art; see Ch. IV, ill. The individual studies for the Julius Tomb
gelo are given to Raffaello da Montelupo, who (Carteggio, IV, p. 197). This marked the con- p. 113; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 2, Cat. D45), which whose attribution is considered secure are
evidently completes them within six months. As clusion of what Condivi called the “tragedy” of Hirst (1976) attributed to Michelangelo and devoted for the most part to the Prisoners (Cat.
emerges from a petition of 20 July 1542 addressed the Julius Tomb. The original vision of a free- initially assigned to the 1513 project, but which S15a–b). These studies are:
by Michelangelo to Pope Paul III, these are the standing monument featuring over forty, mainly several more recent authors have linked with a 1) A design for the cornice of the Julius
Madonna, Prophet and Sibyl for the upper regis- unclothed statues had been reduced to a tomb project of 1505 (see below). Tomb, and six small sketches of bound captives
ter (Milanesi, 1875, p. 485; Carteggio, IV, pp. 135– placed against a wall and incorporating merely 5) A Louvre sheet assigned to Michelangelo on a sheet in Oxford (Ashmolean Museum; see
140, nos. CMXCIII–CMXCIV). In the same three sculptures only more or less by Michel- by Joannides (1991b), which may also relate to Ch. IV, ill. p. 117; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 3 Cat. D61),
petition, Michelangelo proposes a further reduc- angelo’s own hand. The draperies thereby worn the 1505 project and shows the (barely distin- which also contains studies for the Libyan Sibyl
616 617
on the Sistine ceiling and is therefore dated to Imperial Roman tombs, whose design was known enthroned pope, as Panofsky (1937) would have and Contemplative Life are to be read in terms
around 1511 by Dussler (1959, no. 194). from ancient coins, for example, also served as a it, or as a pendant to the St Paul. of Florentine Neoplatonism as pointing the way
2) A pen-and-ink drawing of the sarcopha- formal starting point for the Julius Tomb, above Panofsky’s reconstruction of the structure of towards eternal contemplation of the divine and
gus figure of the Pope that probably relates to all for the first project (Frazer, 1975). Verspohl the freestanding tomb has been followed by von immortal life. Tolnay even interprets the tomb as
the project of 1516 (Florence, Casa Buonarroti; (2004, note 253) has recently cast doubt on Einem (1973b) and Frommel (1977), and more a cosmic building, symbolizing the human soul
Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 2, Cat. D51). whether a Roman sarcophagus from the Museo recently Bredekamp (1999; 2004) and Verspohl and its ascent from its earthly prison.
3) A compositional sketch of a Slave for the Pio Clementino, often cited in the context of the (2004), although these two last take Condivi’s In contrast to the idealistic interpretations
1505 project (Paris, Musée du Louvre; Pöpper, Julius Tomb, could also have served as a model. description literally and decorate the tomb with offered by Panofsky and Tolnay, more recent
2016, Ch. 1, Cat. D19). A considerable proportion of research to forty-one figures. There has been less support authors take account of the egotism displayed
Just as important as the drawings for the date has been devoted to reconstructions of the for the reconstruction proposed by Tolnay (IV), by most of the Renaissance popes and empha-
Julius Tomb is the question of its original tomb projects of 1505, 1513, 1516 and 1532. The who in place of a sedes gestatoria on the top of size the triumphal character of the Julius Tomb
intended location. Earlier authors (e. g. Tolnay, contradictory nature of the sources and the dis- the tomb proposes a semi-recumbent figure of (Frommel, 1977; Poeschke, 1992, pp. 96–98).
IV; von Einem, 1951) tended to assume that the puted authorship and dating of the drawings the Pope supported by angels. Other reconstruc- The formal proximity of the original tomb pro-
tomb was destined for the crossing of St Peter’s. means that these reconstructions are largely tion attempts differ chiefly insofar as they see ject of 1505 to triumphal monuments of antiq-
Such an option has also been considered in hypothetical, however. Proposed reconstructions the tomb crowned simply by a sarcophagus. The uity does indeed support such an interpretation.
recent times (Kempers, 2002), but in the wake of the freestanding tomb project of 1505 can be reconstructions of the wall-tomb projects are The Victories in the niches and the Prisoners in
of the reconstructions by Frommel (1977) must grouped loosely into two categories. The most all based on the modello drawings, but modify front of the herm pilasters (Cat. S15a–b, S15d–g)
be considered eliminated. It is likely that the influential hypothesis is that put forward by certain of their details; they are discussed in can also be interpreted from this angle, insofar
tomb was destined, as Condivi claims, for the Panofsky (1937; 1964a), who suggested that the depth by Echinger-Maurach (1991). as they recall Dacians, barbarians and caryatids,
tribune at the west end of the old St Peter’s. Also freestanding tomb of 1505 was to be crowned by The history of the interpretations placed and thereby fall into the antique tradition of
known as the Rossellino choir after its architect, the seated figure of the Pope enthroned in a sedes upon the Julius Tomb, and of the problems triumphal iconography. Even the combination
the tribune had been commenced under Pope gestatoria (the meaning, according to Panofsky, surrounding them, begins even with Condivi of Prisoners and herm pilasters (termini) points
Nicholas V (reigned 1447–1455) as an extension of terms arca and bara employed by Condivi and Vasari (see Ch. IV). Condivi describes the in this direction, for these too were known
to the apse, but had got no further than the and Vasari respectively). This hypothesis initially Prisoners as allegories of the liberal arts, as well from antiquity as symbols of victory (Echinger-
foundation walls. Nicholas V’s plans to extend appeared to be confirmed by a papal figure found as painting, sculpture and architecture; Vasari Maurach, 1991, pp. 190–198). Michelangelo
the early Christian basilica – plans that would amongst the items left after Michelangelo’s death sees some of them as the arts, and others as ultimately repudiated this antique tra dition,
ultimately result in the building of the new St (Frey, 1930, II, p. 54), which was thought to be representing the ecclesiastical provinces subju- however, insofar as he portrayed his Prisoners
Peter’s – were now taken up by Julius II, who identical to a portrait of Julius II mentioned in gated by Julius II. But one would expect to see entirely naked and largely without attributes;
probably intended to site his mausoleum in the letters (Carteggio indiretto, I, p. LV; II, pp. 239– female rather than male figures for allegories of the Victories would probably have been carved
west choir, the “Capella Iulia”, which in Bra- 241, 246–247, 270–272; nos. CCCLXXXVIII, the arts (Garrard, 1984; Poeschke, 1992, p. 96), in the same fashion. The composition thereby
mante’s design was to be built over the Rossellino CCCLXXXIX, CCCXIIC, CCCCIV) and to while in 1505 Julius had yet to subjugate any moves beyond a purely triumphal iconography
choir. A freestanding tomb in the middle of the have been later reworked by Nicolas Cordier provinces (Tolnay, IV, p. 24). (see Ch. IV). As a result, the interpretations put
choir of St Peter’s would have recalled not just the into a figure of G
regory the Great for the church The interpretations offered in the literature forward by more recent authors correspond once
freestanding tomb of Sixtus IV, but also, and in of S. Gregorio Magno in Rome (Hess, 1943; are also contradictory. Panofsky (1939/1997, more to the positions of Panofsky and Tolnay,
particular, the imperial and royal funerary monu- Barocchi, 1962, IV, p. 1852). As archival records pp. 262–270) and Tolnay (IV, pp. 23–25) view who emphasize the “pure human content” of the
ments of the Middle Ages. It would also have have since revealed (Pressouyre, 1984, I, pp. 168– the first project for the Julius Tomb as a monu- project (Tolnay, IV, p. 25).
offered unmistakeable parallels with the tomb 173; II, no. 2), Cordier carved the sculpture, ment to spiritual triumph. Thus the ground Of the interpretations of the figures in the
complexes of antiquity, as Vasari himself recog- which is 202 cm/6’ 7 1⁄2” high, in 1602 not from level represents life on Earth, with the captives upper register, the following selection may suf-
nized. Indeed, one of the most important sources the figure blocked out by Michelangelo, but embodying the prison (prigione) of the Earth- fice: Moses and St Paul may be understood as
of inspiration for the Julius Tomb was the Mauso- from a piece of marble specially obtained for bound soul; hence, too, the ape as the attribute symbols of the Old and New Testament (Tolnay,
leum at Halicarnassus, one of the Seven Wonders the purpose. The possibility cannot be entirely of the Dying Slave in the Louvre (Cat. S15a), IV, p. 24; Bredekamp, 1999), of the Old and New
of the Ancient World described by Pliny (Natural dismissed, however, that the papal figure (today which Panofsky interprets as a symbol of the base Covenant (Frommel, 1977) or as champions and
History, XXXVI.iv.30–31), which also comprised lost) from Michelangelo’s estate was destined for nature that man must overcome. In the register disseminators of the Christian faith (Tolnay,
several levels and sculptures (Frommel, 1977). an early project for the Julius Tomb, either as an above, the figures of Moses, St Paul and the Active IV, p. 24; Lindahl, 1963). The allegories of the
618 619
Contemplative Life and Active Life are variously parallels are to be found in the St Sebastian ico- In contrast to the four Slaves in the Acca-
seen as metaphors of the path to God, as the nography of the 15th century (Thode, I, 1908, demia in Florence (see below, Cat. 15d–g), the
expression of a statesmanlike ideal in the spirit of p. 207; Tolnay, IV, p. 100), and whose ambiva- two figures in the Louvre display a considerably
Florentine Neoplatonism (Armour, 1993), as the lence permits various interpretations, including higher degree of finish and are also lent attrib-
embodiment of an ideal life between reflection the Neoplaton ic constructions of earlier and utes, although their identification and meaning
and action (Bredekamp, 1999) and as an ideal more recent times (Panofsky; Tolnay, see above; are disputed. In the case of the Dying Slave, this
way of life that leads to God (Poeschel, 2001). Motzkin, 1992; Armour, 1994). attribute takes the form of an ape, clearly recog-
It is not impossible, however, that Michelangelo The Dying Slave and the Rebellious Slave nizable even though only blocked out, which is
designed the allegories only for the project of were probably carved between 1513 and 1516 for supporting the sculpture and possibly holding a
1542 and hence that they were not part of the the tomb project of 1513; it is to the Rebellious mirror in one hand. This ape may be interpreted
earlier projects at all. Slave that Michelangelo is most likely referring in line with Condivi’s description of the Tomb as
Conclusion: The drawings relating to the in a letter of May 1518 (Milanesi, 1875, p. 391; symbolizing the fine arts, here painting, which
Julius Tomb in particular require critical exami- Carteggio, II, pp. 7–8, no. CCLXXXV), in which according to Renaissance thought “aped nature”,
nation. The marked shifts in iconographical he mentions a marble figure four cubits high, as in the maxim ars simia naturae (Kriegbaum,
emphasis over the forty years of planning make it with its hands clasped behind its back. Both 1940, p. 36; Janson, 1952, pp. 295–301; Pope-
all the harder to arrive at a definitive interpreta- sculptures possibly belonged to the six figures Hennessy, 1996, p. 433; Verspohl, 2004). No
tion of the Julius Tomb, although this neverthe- that were to be included in the project of 1532 convincing pictorial tradition exists to support
less seems to me more important than a focus on (see above). In the 1542 version of the tomb, such an interpretation, however (Tolnay, IV,
new attempts to reconstruct ideas that Michelan- they were probably originally intended to flank pp. 98–99; Garrard, 1984). Echinger-Maurach
gelo might have had. S15a. The Dying Slave the Moses, but were ultimately replaced by the (1991, pp. 342–344) furthermore points out
(The Dying Prisoner), c. 1513–1516 allegorical figures of the Active Life and the Con- that Michelangelo would certainly not have
Marble, height 229 cm templative Life (Cat. S15i–j). In 1546, Michelan- embraced the concept, linked with the ape, of
Paris, Musée du Louvre gelo presented the two Prisoners, now no longer the imitation of nature. This brings back into
needed, to Ruberto Strozzi, who took them with play interpretations that see the Slaves as alle-
S15b. The Rebellious Slave him into exile to Lyons. The sculptures subse- gories of overcoming the mundane (overview in
(The Rebellious Prisoner), c. 1513–1516 quently found their way into the collection of Echinger-Maurach, 1991, Index, s. v. “Michelan-
Marble, height 215 cm Francis I and in 1794 passed into the possession gelo”, “Werke”, “Deutungen der Sklaven”).
Paris, Musée du Louvre of the French State (Tolnay, IV, pp. 97–98). Interpreting the meaning of the Slaves is
The six sketches for the bound prison- just as problematical as calculating the sig-
The first five projects for the Julius Tomb envis- ers included on the sheet, mentioned earlier, in nificance of the Julius Tomb as a whole. This
aged sculptures that were to stand in front of Oxford (Ashmolean Museum; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. is illustrated by a final look at the Rebellious
herm pilasters and on dados in the lower register 3, Cat. D61) confirm Condivi’s statement that Slave, behind whom the face of an ape is also
and which are described as “prisoners” (prigioni) Michelangelo wanted to bind the prisoners to suggested (Panofsky, 1939/1997, p. 268; Tolnay,
both in Michelangelo’s petition of July 1542 (see terminal figures (second sketch from the left). IV, p. 101; Echinger-Maurach, 1991, pp. 243–244
above, Cat. S15) and by Condivi. These sculp- Michelangelo has also here placed armour (and and Index, s. v. “Affe”). The Rebellious Slave also
tures have also become known as Slaves, prob- a helmet?) between the herm and the Prisoner, rests his right foot on a roughly hewn block of
ably since the Michelangelo monograph by which in turn corresponds to Vasari’s interpreta- marble. If this block is taken to be a capital, then
Grimm (1860–1863/1922, I, p. 385; thus Tolnay, tion of the captives as the personification of the the Rebellious Slave can be understood as an alle-
IV, p. 99). Both names designate the bound male provinces subjugated by Julius II (see above). This gory of architecture (e. g. Kriegbaum, 1940) or
nudes carved by Michelangelo and extensively same sketch is, moreover, a study for the Rebellious of sculpture (Janson, 1952). This identification of
indebted to a ntique depictions of captives (see Slave, while the sketch on the far right represents the block as a capital lacks plausibility, however.
above). The subject of bondage remains barely a first idea for the Dying Slave. The same possibly Furthermore, the sketch that can be assigned to
recognizable, however. Instead, Michelangelo applies to the previously mentioned sheet in the the Rebellious Slave on the sheet in Oxford (see
portrays physical contortions whose closest Louvre (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 1, Cat. D19). above) shows armour (and a helmet?), and thus
620 621
commenced much later, since the figure seems to The most exhaustive interpretation of the
fit remarkably well into its ground-level niche Moses as an individual figure is offered by Ver-
considering that it was designed to be viewed spohl (1991b; 2004), who sees in Moses the fig-
from below (Echinger-Maurach, 1991, p. 335). ure of a benevolent leader who faces the people
Verspohl (2004, p. 71) even suggests that Michel of Israel in “an anticipated battle with death”
angelo started the Moses in 1516 and reworked it (Verspohl, 2004, p. 68). This ideal of a leader
in the 1530s. The figure would thus directly reflect corresponds with some of the characteristics and
the entire life’s work of the Pope. the self-image of the tomb’s original patron, and
Michelangelo characterizes his Moses by over the course of the forty years between the
means of a long beard, the stone tablets under tomb’s conception in 1505 and its final comple-
his right arm and the horns on his head, which tion in 1545, the figure of Moses indeed became
go back to an error in the translation of the Vul- identified with Julius II. The sculpture is not
gate (Exod. 34:29). Whereas the original Hebrew only astonishingly well suited to form the cen-
speaks of a shining halo around Moses’ face, this tral focus of the tomb. It also perfectly embodies
was translated as “horns” in the standard Latin the papal desire for public commemoration first
Bible (quod cornuta esset facies sua; Tolnay, IV, exhibited by Sixtus IV with his fresco cycles for
pp. 102–105; Verspohl, 2004, p. 42). One of the the Sistine Chapel, and reiterated by his nephew
standard attributes in representations of Moses Julius II with the award of further commissions
an attribute carrying very different connotations. S15c. Moses, c. 1513–1516 and 1542 (?) in the Middle Ages and early modern era, their to Bramante (the building of the new St Peter’s),
It follows that Michelangelo evidently made Marble, height 235 cm inclusion here makes general reference to the Raphael (the Stanze) and Michelangelo (the Sis-
radical changes to his plan, which in turn com- Rome, S. Pietro in Vincoli episode in the Old Testament from which they tine ceiling). Just as Julius II combined his func-
pletely altered its significance. Interpretations of are derived: Moses has come down from Mount tion as Pope with military campaigns and artistic
the Slaves should also keep their context clearly A Moses was envisaged right from the start of the Sinai a second time, his face bathed in shining patronage, so Moses can be seen simultaneously
in sight: the Slaves were in fact conceived in con- planning for the Julius Tomb and was to appear light as he brings back the stone tablets inscribed as an ideal spiritual leader, lawgiver, military
junction with the Victories in the niches and in the upper register (Condivi, 1553; Vasari, with the terms of God’s covenant. Whether commander and patron of the arts. In hindsight,
the termini placed behind them, making it most 1568). He continued to occupy this location in Michelangelo has portrayed the exact moment the installation of the Moses in a central position
likely that they were part of a coherent overall the projects of 1513 to 1532 (Rosenthal, 1964), to following Moses’ second descent from Mount lent it a significance that had little to do with the
concept (Echinger-Maurach, 1991, pp. 206–219; which the Beckerath drawing and its copy (see Sinai, however, is a question that remains open original plan. As in the earlier case of the David,
see Ch. IV). above and Ch. IV, ill. pp. 107, 111) probably refer. (Verspohl, 1991b; 2004). we encounter a paradox in the evolution of the
Only with the final tomb project of 1542 was it The figure of Moses has attracted numerous statue’s meaning, whereby the significance of the
decided to place his figure at the centre of the analyses (e. g. Panofsky; Tolnay; Frommel, 1977; Moses was also generated by events subsequent to
lower register. Armour, 1993; Verspohl, 1991b; 2004; Poeschel, its actual completion (see Ch. VII).
The majority of authors suspect that Michel- 2001), in most cases problematical, however,
angelo began work on the Moses, which today since the sculpture must strictly speaking be
occupies the centre of the ground level of the interpreted in conjunction with the other figures
tomb in S. Pietro in Vincoli, in 1513 for the sec- of the tomb. Its relationship to Rachel and Leah
ond tomb project, and that by 1516 it was as good deserves particular mention at this point. As Poe-
as finished. From 1542, however, the figure had to schel (2001) has recently been able to show, the
be reworked in order to suit its now much lower combination of Moses, Rachel and Leah can be
position (Tolnay, IV, pp. 102–105; Poeschke, 1992, traced back to Michelangelo’s reading of Dante’s
pp. 99–100; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, pp. 432–433; Divine Comedy (Inf. IV. 51–63; Purg. XXVII. 100–
Forcellino, 2002, pp. 206–211). It is also possi- 109; Para. XXXII. 7–10): appropriately within the
ble, however, that the Moses was completed later, context of a tomb, the three figures embody the
between 1533 and 1544 (Wilde, 1978, p. 110) or was hope of resurrection (see also Ch. IV).
622 623
S15d–g. The four later Slaves for the Tomb artist moved permanently to Rome, leaving Kriegbaum (1940, p. 37), taking up an earlier as typical of his way of working. This is far less
of Julius II (The Boboli Slaves or Boboli the monumental sculptures in his Florentine hypothesis by Adolf Hildebrandt (1916), adopts the case with the Boboli Slaves, which are carved
Prisoners) workshop. Another, albeit not secure date can the view that the Boboli Slaves were blocked out from several sides at once, at least in places.
Florence, Galleria dell’Accademia be deduced from a letter by Leonardo Sellaio of chiefly by assistants after modellos by Michel- Various bozzetti in wax and terracotta con-
13 February 1519 [stile comune], which speaks of angelo, and were then reworked by the mas- tinue to be proposed as modellos by Michelan-
S15d. Young Slave (Young Prisoner), four figures to be executed in the near future ter. This hypothesis is of consequence for our gelo’s own hand for the Boboli Slaves (Poeschke,
c. 1520–1530. Marble, height 256 cm (Carteggio, II, p. 160, no. CDIX; Frey, 1899, understanding of the figures above all because 1992, p. 106). Amongst these thoroughly conten-
S15e. Bearded Slave (Bearded Prisoner), p. 135). Tolnay (IV, pp. 113–115) argues for the their largely unfinished state has substantially tious attributions, the best candidate is a wax
c. 1520–1530. Marble, height 261 cm latest possible dating, while Poeschke (1992, shaped the modern concept of the non finito in modello in the Victoria & Albert Museum in
S15 f. The Slave Atlas (The Prisoner Atlas), pp. 104–106) proposes the period from 1520 to Michelangelo’s work. In the struggling poses of London (Evelyn, 1996).
c. 1520–1530. Marble, height 282 cm 1530. Echinger-Maurach (1991, pp. 356–359) and the unfinished statues, which seem to be fight- Conclusion: The Boboli Slaves, just like
S15g. Awakening Slave (Awakening Prisoner), Pope-Hennessy (1996, p. 434) argue for the early ing their way out of the marble, a romantically the Victory, illustrate the flexible significance of
c. 1520–1530. Marble, height 277 cm 1520s and c. 1519 respectively. The attribution of minded proportion of earlier authors saw a direct Michelangelo’s sculp tures. Despite some pro-
the Slaves, moreover, is just as disputed as their illustration of the artist’s own soul wrestling with visos, they continue to represent the supreme
The four Boboli Slaves owe their name to the dating. matter in true Neoplatonic fashion (Echinger- expression of the non finito.
fact that Grand Duke Francesco I de’ Medici The four Boboli Slaves, together with the Maurach, 1991, pp. 80–84; Pope-Hennessy, 1996,
had them erected, in 1588, in the grottoes of Victory, probably belonged to the twelve figures p. 95).
the Boboli Gardens behind the Palazzo Pitti. for the ground level of the tomb project of 1516 Regardless of whether the blocks were carved
Together with the Victory (Cat. S15h), the four (Kriegbaum, 1940, p. 37; Poeschke, 1992), which chiefly by members of Michelangelo’s workshop,
figures were housed in Michelangelo’s Floren- envisaged a reduction in the sculptural pro- the four Boboli Slaves are good examples of a
tine workshop in Via Mozza at the time of his gramme and at the same time a slight increase change in the manner in which the master and
death in 1564. The attribution and dating of the in the scale of the figures retained. Two of the his assistants worked. Michelangelo had earlier
sculptures are rendered difficult by the absence Prisoners – possibly the Bearded Slave and the carved the St Matthew (Cat. S14) largely from the
of reliable documentation and their varying Young Slave (Echinger-Maurach, 1991, p. 347) – front of the block towards the back, just as Vasari
degrees of completion. A terminus ante quem were thereby probably intended to frame Victory (Barocchi, 1962, I, p. 119) and Cellini (Trattati,
can be established as 1534, since in this year the in his niche. Ch. VI; Cellini, 1968, pp. 830–832) describes
624 625
S15h. Victory, c. 1520–1525 or 1532–1534 (?) form of female figures triumphing over recum- (evidence in Tolnay, IV, p. 112; Balas, 1989). This S15i–j. The last two figures for the Tomb
Marble, height 261 cm bent male nudes. Michelangelo must have modi- interpretation is contradicted, however, by the of Julius II
Florence, Palazzo Vecchio fied his plan for female Victories in the 1520s to most probable dating for the sculptural group
the extent of replacing them with a male Victory. (Michelangelo met Cavalieri in autumn 1532) S15i. Leah (Active Life), c. 1542–1545
The Victory, whose origins are not documented, Secondly, the Victory is wearing overly large oak and its original destination (Poeschke, 1992, Marble, height 209 cm
is first mentioned after Michelangelo’s death, in leaves in his hair, which can be interpreted not p. 103; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 433). Rome, S. Pietro in Vincoli
a letter from Giorgio Vasari to Lionardo Buonar- just as an attribute of Victory but also as a refer- The Victory, which is also considered a key
roti of 10 March 1564. At that point it stood in ence to the della Rovere family of popes, who work of Mannerist sculpture, was transferred in S15j. Rachel (Contemplative Life), c. 1542–1545
Michelangelo’s Via Mozza workshop in Florence in view of their name (Italian rovere, oak) con- December 1565 to the Salone dei Cinquecento Marble, height 197 cm
in the company of the four Boboli Slaves today sidered oak leaves and acorns as their very own in the Palazzo della Signoria, where in 1568 it Rome, S. Pietro in Vincoli
in the Accademia (Cat. S15d–g). Dates proposed emblems. With these oak leaves, moreover, the acquired a pendant in the shape of Giambolo-
for the statue range from 1506 (Kriegbaum, 1940, Victory is identified as a possible vehicle of sym- gna’s Victory of Virtue over Vice. Since this latter The two figures of the Active Life and the Con-
pp. 35–36) to 1532–1534 (Tolnay, IV, p. 110). In bolism more plainly than any other figure for the represented an allegory of Florence’s triumph templative Life go back to the final (1542) revision
view of its formal proximity to the figures in Julius Tomb. over the neighbouring city of Pisa, Michelan- of the Tomb project (see above). In the petition
the Medici Chapel, it is today assumed to date The sculptural group lives above all from its gelo’s figure also assumed this new significance. of 20 July 1542 mentioned earlier, the sculptures
from between 1532 and 1534 (Poeschke, 1992, contrasts: the upright, animated and physically Conclusion: The Victory is one of Michel- are named as replacements for two Prisoners,
pp. 102–104; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, pp. 433–434), youthful victor rises above the cowering, very angelo’s least regarded large works in marble and which no longer had a place in the reduced pro-
whereby the possibility cannot be excluded that much older figure he has subdued. This contrast at the same time proof of how easily the artist’s gramme. Michelangelo speaks in his petition of
the statue was first designed shortly before 1524 is further underlined by the two figures’ differing sculptures, once removed from their original two almost finished figures. On the basis of this
(Echinger-Maurach, 1991, p. 357). degrees of finish. An autobiographical element context, can be interpreted in other ways. statement by the artist, and stylistic differences
Two clues point to the fact that the Victory has frequently been read into the sculpture, not between the two sculptures, Wilde (1971, p. 110)
originally formed part of the figural programme least due to the contrast between the youthful- and, in his wake, Pope-Hennessy (1996, p. 434)
of the Julius Tomb. Firstly, the undisputed mod- ness of the Victory and the advanced age of his reach the conclusion that the Active Life (Leah)
ello drawings (see above, Cat. S15, nos. 1–4) show victim: it has been suggested that Michelangelo was conceived earlier, around 1532, and executed
allegories of Victory in the niches between the has here expressed his Platonic affection for the by 1544 – a claim that remains unconvincing,
Prisoners. These Victories take the traditional considerably younger Tommaso de’ Cavalieri however.
626 627
If we are to believe the information supplied both for the figure and for its transportation the above-mentioned Federigo Frizzi made a
by Condivi and Vasari (see above), allegories (Ricordi, pp. 22, 105, 109, 275, 381), together with tabernacle for the sculpture, but this fell victim
of the Contemplative Life and Active Life were documents relating to work by assistants and one to renovations carried out inside the church in
already planned for the Tomb project of 1505, autograph drawing by Michelangelo (Pöpper, 1848/49. Its appearance is preserved in woodcut
albeit as seated figures in the upper register. In 2016, Ch. 6, Cat. D156). At least thirty-two let- illustrations in guides to Rome (see below), a
design terms, the standing figures eventually ters by Michelangelo, referred to in the surviving copperplate engraving and a drawing (Panofsky,
installed in S. Pietro in Vincoli have nothing to correspondence, must be considered lost, how- 1991, figs. 9–10; Schwedes, 1998, figs. 8–9).
do with these original sculptures. On the basis ever. The commission is nevertheless very well As can be deduced from a letter from Frizzi
of present knowledge, they must be seen as gap- documented, a fact due to its many problems. to Michelangelo of 10 March 1520 (Carteggio, II,
fillers for the obsolete Prisoners (or for Victories, The contract with Metello Vari, the most impor- p. 222, no. CDLIX), the Risen Christ was origi-
as Vasari says, probably bearing in mind the pro- tant of the three executors, concerns the life-size nally destined to be installed beside the door to
ject of 1505). The two sculptures were given to figure of a naked Christ, which Michelangelo the cloisters on the left (north) wall of the nave.
Raffaello da Montelupo to complete (see above); was to finish within four years for a fee of 200 In this letter and in another of 19 October 1521
the extent of his contribution to their final form gold ducats. It seems that the artist embarked (Carteggio, II, pp. 324–325, no. DXXXVII),
is a matter not yet fully clarified. on this figure in his Rome workshop on Macel Frizzi suggests placing the sculpture beside a pil-
As Condivi himself remarked, the identifica- de’ Corvi near Trajan’s Forum soon after signing lar in the central aisle, where the lighting would
tion of the Contemplative Life as Rachel and the the contract. Delays then set in for the following be better. The final choice, however, fell upon
Active Life as Leah goes back to Michelangelo’s reasons: another location also mentioned by Frizzi in his
reading of Dante, who characterizes the two Old S16a. The Risen Christ 1) In the summer of 1516, having already got second letter, namely beside the left (north) pil-
Testament sisters correspondingly in his Divine (Il Cristo sopra Minerva), 1519–1521 as far as carving a rough first version of the figure lar of the choir – a far more prominent position
Comedy (Purgatorio XVII.101 ff.). Their identifi- Marble, height 205 cm. (excluding Cross) in Rome (Cat. 16b), Michelangelo uncovered a than originally envisaged. Whether this final
cation nevertheless remains problematic. Rachel Rome, S. Maria sopra Minerva dark vein in the marble in the region of the face location can be traced back to the intervention
– and hence the Contemplative Life – is fur- (Carteggio, II, p. 328, no. DXL, and p. 334, no. of Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici (Panofsky, 1991),
nished with no attributes whatsoever; only her S16b. Michelangelo/Unknown 17th-century DXLIV). It was therefore necessary to order a so as to allow the Medici to link their own inter-
upturned gaze may be interpreted as contempla- sculptor new block of marble, on which the artist worked ests with the Risen Christ, remains a matter of
tion (Poeschke, 1992, p. 118). Leah – and thus the The Risen Christ, 1514–1516 and after 1607 between December 1519 and March 1521 in his dispute (see below).
Active Life – holds the attribute of a laurel wreath Marble, height 205 cm (excluding Cross) Florence workshop. These conclusions can be Amongst Michelangelo’s larger sculptures,
in her left hand and an object that Condivi calls Bassano Romano, S. Vicenzo Martire drawn indirectly from the correspondence men- the Risen Christ has attracted the most criticism,
a mirror in her right. It is more likely to be a tioned above, and also from the recent rediscov- not least on account of the damage it suffered
diadem, with a strand of hair running though The Risen Christ was commissioned by Bernardo ery of the first version of the figure (Baldriga, at the hands of Pietro Urbano (see above), as
it (Kriegbaum, 1940, p. 35). This and her down- Cencio, Mario Scappucci and Metello Vari in 2000). remarked upon by contemporaries such as Sebas-
ward gaze may refer to her roots in the earth. their capacity as executors of the will left by 2) The delivery of the new block of marble to tiano del Piombo and Federigo Frizzi (letters of
Overall, however, Michelangelo remains true in Marta Porcari, a widow who had died childless Rome was delayed by the Tiber’s low water-level. 6 and 7 September 1521, Carteggio, II, pp. 313–
both sculptures to a principle that is found right in June 1512. Michelangelo’s figure was prob- 3) Michelangelo’s assistant, Pietro Urbano, 317, nos. DXXVIII, DXXX; see Ch. VII). This
from his early works: the provision of his figures ably intended to adorn the altar of her tomb, was commissioned to complete the second ver- verdict has since been revised by recent authors
with few and unspecific attributes. In conjunc- which lay along one wall of the nave of S. Maria sion of the figure after it arrived in Rome in (Panofsky, 1991; Wallace, 1997; Schwedes, 1998,
tion with the Moses, Rachel and Leah neverthe- sopra Minerva, beside the door to the cloisters July/August 1521, but spoiled parts of the face, pp. 31–72). In fact, the Risen Christ enjoyed and
less refer to the right path to God and salvation (see below). The commission for Il Cristo sopra hands and feet, so that the sculptor Federigo enjoys great popularity, as testified not only by
(Poeschel, 2001; see Cat. S15c). Minerva, as the sculpture is also known, is doc- Frizzi had to repair the damage in September the numerous copies and reproductions made
umented by a contract of 14 June 1514 and by 1521. of the sculpture (Schwedes, 1998, pp. 231–233),
sixty-eight letters written between June 1516 and The figure was installed beside the left-hand but also by the almost superstitious reverence
August 1532 (Barocchi, 1962, III, pp. 887–901; pillar of the choir of S. Maria sopra Minerva in in which it is held by Rome’s faithful. As can
Panofsky, 1991, pp. 193–231). Several receipts and Rome on 19 October 1521 and unveiled on 27 still be seen in old photographs (Panofsky, 1991,
notes also survive, relating to payments made December that same year. Shortly beforehand, fig. 4; Baldriga, 2000, fig. 1), Christ’s right foot
628 629
was covered until recently by a metal “shoe” to endowed by Metello Vari on behalf of Marta is today housed in S. Vicenzo Martire in Bassano S17a–i. The sculptures for the New
protect it from the kisses of female worship- Porcari and her family (Isermeyer, 1965, p. 333), Romano, was finished in the 17th century by an Sacristy/Medici Chapel in S. Lorenzo,
pers. Young Roman women believed that kissing as indicated by an accompanying inscription, as yet unknown sculptor (Baldriga, 2000), but Florence, 1521–1534
Christ’s foot would help them find a suitor more recorded by Ulisse Aldrovandi (Statue antiche, nevertheless reveals that Michelangelo initially
quickly (Schwedes, 1998, note 71). Venice 1556, p. 245) and in guides to Rome (Le had a less dynamic figure in mind and that his The Medici Chapel in S. Lorenzo was initiated
Michelangelo’s Christ is expressly described cose maravigliose dell’alma città di Roma, Rome second, final version is more than just a copy of and funded by Giulio de’ Medici (later Pope
as a Risen Christ in an acknowledgement of 1588, p. 66; after Lotz, 1965, pp. 144–145) and the first (see Ch. VII). Clement VII) and his cousin Pope Leo X, fol-
receipt issued by Metello Vari (Ricordi, p. 275, confirming that Metello Vari had founded the Conclusion: All the most essential questions lowing the deaths of Giuliano de’ Medici, Duke
no. CCXLIX). The heroic nakedness of the altar on behalf of Marta Porcari. Indeed, this regarding the location, significance and original of Nemours, in 1516, and of Lorenzo de’ Medici,
figure, and the accompanying Cross, both fall inscription and the accompanying woodcut context of the figure have now been answered. designated Duke of Urbino, in May 1519. The
in line with this subject. Unusual for a Risen showing Michelangelo’s Risen Christ suggest that The comparison of the Cristo sopra Minerva first plans for the new chapel, which was to be
Christ, however, is the inclusion of the instru- the latter was conceived as an altar sculpture with its first version could be explored further, built onto the northwest corner of the church,
ments of his Passion, the rope, sponge and expressing the donor’s hope of resurrection. however. were drawn up that same May in 1519 (Ettlinger,
reed. This led earlier authors to conclude that The most comprehensive recent studies 1978; Elam 1979; Wallace, 1994, pp. 77–81). The
Michelangelo has in fact portrayed Christ as a of the Risen Christ include those by Panofsky Medici Chapel, whose ground plan and elevation
Man of Sorrows or a Christ who mixes the two (1991), Wallace (1997) and Schwedes (1998). Pan- are based on Brunelleschi’s Old Sacristy, houses
types (von Einem, 1959, pp. 104–105; Tolnay, III, ofsky considers the Medici and their clientele to on its east and west walls the tombs of the two
pp. 91, 197; Weinberger, 1967, I, pp. 207–208). have exerted a decisive influence upon the ico- above-named Medici dukes, who are also known
Here, as in other figures by Michelangelo, how- nography of Michelangelo’s figure, which she as the Capitani (Captains) due to their military
ever, the ambivalence of the statue arises out of interprets as a “New Adam” in view of its heroic dress. On the south wall lies the joint tomb of
its innovative composition. The statue is first nakedness. Originally destined for the Porcari the two Magnifici, i. e. Giuliano de’ Medici, who
and foremost intended as a Risen Christ, as con- tomb in the side aisle of S. Maria sopra Min- was murdered in 1478, and Lorenzo de’ Medici,
firmed by Vari’s above-mentioned receipt. The erva, in its new location Michelangelo’s Risen known as il Magnifico, who died in 1492. The
artistic decision to complement the type of the Christ also promised redemption for the Medici. chapel’s sculptural programme was designed by
Risen Christ with the attributes of a Man of Sor- Wallace examines the angle from which the fig- Michelangelo and executed to a large extent by
rows infuses the sculpture with the drama of the ure was seen and thereby emphasizes the impor- his own hand. The tombs of the dukes comprise
Passion and may also have been prompted by the tance of its original situation in the niche of an the seated figures of the two Captains, Giuliano
statue’s initially proposed location against the aedicule for its impact on the viewer. He also and Lorenzo, accompanied by allegories of the
north (left-hand) wall of the nave or beside a pil- sees in Michelangelo’s figure the iconographical four Times of Day (Night/Day, Dawn/Dusk), one
lar in the centre aisle. The left-hand side of the types of the Rising and Risen Christ combined. pair reclining on each tomb. The joint tomb of
figure with the instruments of the Passion and Schwedes, finally, conducts a thorough review of the Magnifici remains largely a fragment. Only
the Cross would in fact have been the first part all the research on the Risen Christ and concludes the Madonna sculpted by Michelangelo himself,
of the sculpture visible to the viewer approach- that Michelangelo has here created a paradigm of accompanied by the Medici patron saints Cosmas
ing from the entrance. Following the direction his sculptural ideas and has translated into mar- and Damian executed by other artists, were actu-
of Christ’s head, the viewer’s gaze would then be ble rhetorical stylistic devices from the tradition ally installed. St Damian was carved in 1533/34
directed toward the main altar (Wallace, 1997) of Leon Battista Alberti. by Raffaello da Montelupo from a modello by
and thus to the point at which Christ’s Passion We owe the most important new insight Michelangelo, while St Cosmas was executed
is ritually re-enacted in the Eucharist. The Cross into the Cristo sopra Minerva, however, to the largely independently by Giovanni Angiolo da
on Christ’s right may be interpreted both as an identification of the first figure, left unfinished Montorsoli in 1533–1537 (Poeschke, 1992, p. 188;
instrument of the Passion and as a Triumphal in the summer of 1516, which Michelangelo pre- Laschke, 1993; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 441).
Cross, and thus as a symbol of the Resurrection. sented to his patron Metello Vari, probably as The identification and current position of the
This interpretation marries well with the context compensation for the delayed completion of the two saints is disputed (Verellen, 1979).
for which the sculpture was originally conceived: project and for the damage caused to the second The complex history of the Medici Chapel is
up until 1848/49, it formed a unity with the altar version by Pietro Urbano. This sculpture, which discussed in depth by Poeschke (1992, pp. 106–115)
630 631
allegories (Gaye, II, pp. 228–230). The project 2) Four sketches in the Casa Buonarroti
came to a provisional halt when, after making (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 5, Cat. D128–130, 138) and
a succession of trips to Rome from April 1532 one in the British Museum (Cat. D131) for the
onwards, Michelangelo moved permanently to freestanding tomb project at one stage proposed
the Eternal City in September 1534, the same by Michelangelo (see above).
month in which Clement VII died. Before leav- 3) Five drawings in the British Museum in
ing Florence, however, Michelangelo installed London (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 5, Cat. D126, 127,
the two capitani in their niches. The allego- 132, 134, 135) showing the elevation of the wall
ries of the Times of Day were mounted on the tombs and their sculptural decoration.
tombs in 1546. 4) A red-chalk drawing in Florence featur-
About a dozen drawings by Michelan- ing three sketches of pilaster bases (Pöpper, 2016,
gelo’s own hand and at least the same number Ch. 13, Cat. D365) and notes in which Michelan-
of copies after his original designs bear witness gelo reflects upon the allegories of Day and Night
to the artistic evolution of the Medici Chapel. on Giuliano’s tomb (see below) and names the
Detailed analyses of the drawings can be found personifications of Heaven and Earth.
in, amongst others, Wilde (1955), Perrig (1981), 5) A sheet in the British Museum in London
Morrogh (1992a), Lingo (1995) and Pope- featuring two working drawings for a river god
Hennessy (1996, pp. 438–439). Joannides (1972; with dimensions noted in Michelangelo’s own
and Pope-Hennessy (1996, pp. 437–446), while first delivery of marble was shipped to Florence 1991a; 1996c; 2003, pp. 135–143) in particular hand (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 5, Cat. D140).
current positions adopted in the literature are in June 1521, with further deliveries continu- seeks to attribute further sheets to Michelan- These sheets are joined by the copies, which
examined in Poeschke (2005); detailed mono- ing up until the end of 1524. On 10 March 1526 gelo. For a comprehensive résumé of all the are somewhat more detailed than the surviving
graphs on the chapel and its figural programme Leonardo Sellaio, Michelangelo’s close friend in drawings, including those whose attribution originals:
have been published by Popp (1922), Tolnay (III, Rome, writes of eight modellos, on the basis of is disputed, see Hartt (1975a, pp. 165–195) and 6) Two copies in Paris after lost finished
1948), Prater (1979b) and Beck/Paolucci/Santi which four sculptures were almost completed; Tolnay (TC178–229); for those whose attribu- drawings by Michelangelo shed light on his
(1993). A detailed examination of Michelangelo’s the other figures were to be finished by Sep- tion is secure, see the catalogue of Pöpper (2016, original vision for the tomb of Duke Giuliano
organization of the works in S. Lorenzo, which tember (Carteggio, III, p. 214). From a letter Ch. 5, Cat. D125–132, 134, 135, 137, 138). (see Ch. VII, ill. p. 372 left) and the joint Mag-
also sheds new light on the Medici Chapel, is by Michelangelo to Giovan Francesco Fattucci The drawings relating to the Medici Chapel nifici tomb (see Ch. VII, ill. p. 372 right). Per-
found in Wallace (1994). of 17 June 1526 (Carteggio, III, pp. 227–228), it fall into several categories. A group of original rig (1981, notes 57 and 67) and Joannides (2003,
Although no contract exists for the Medici can be deduced that four allegories of the Times designs by Michelangelo, namely a ground plan pp. 137–138) have identified further, in many
Chapel, its history is well documented in corre- of Day, one Captain and the Madonna for the and elevations, refer either to the concept of a cases identical, copies of these finished drawings.
spondence between members of Michelangelo’s Magnifici tomb were almost finished, and that freestanding tomb in the middle of the chapel, Joannides (1972; 1991; 1996; 2003, pp. 135–143)
circle. Several letters written between 28 Novem- the artist was intending to begin the second or to wall tombs. These latter can be subdivided and Lingo (1995) attribute the two Paris draw-
ber and 28 December 1520 bear witness to a Captain within the next fortnight. At the end into sketches relating to the ducal tombs and ings either entirely or in part to Michelangelo
freestanding tomb project that Michelangelo of May 1527, the expulsion of the Medici from those for the joint Magnifici tomb. These are himself. However, they are probably modellos
had evidently proposed to Cardinal Giulio de’ Florence meant an interruption to work on the joined by sketches for partial views and details, that Michelangelo had drawn by other artists
Medici (Tolnay, III, pp. 52–60; Pope-Hennessy, chapel. The project was resumed following their together with working drawings for the mar- (Perrig, 1981; Wallace, 1987b; Ascher, 2002).
1996, pp. 437–438; Carteggio, II, pp. 260, 264, return to power in August 1530, as emerges from ble blocks. A number of other drawings, most These modellos prove that Michelangelo
267–268). By 21 April 1521 the pietra serena artic- a letter of 17 November 1530 (Carteggio, III, of them showing elevations for the ducal and had origin ally planned a more extensive set
ulation of the chapel’s interior had progressed as p. 291). Two letters by Sebastiano del Piombo Magnifici tombs, issue from Michelangelo’s cir- of figures for the wall tombs. River gods were
far as the architrave, meaning that the architec- of 16 June and 19 August 1531 report further pro- cle and reproduce his ideas. The group of auto to be placed at the feet of the sarcophagi (see
tural framework for the sculptural programme gress on the figures (Carteggio, III, p. 308). In graph drawings includes: below and Cat. S17h), while trophies and griev-
was now in place. Michelangelo went to Car- another letter from Giovanbattista Paolo Mini 1) A sketch of the ground plan, in the Casa ing youths (Ch. VII, ill. p. 375 and Cat. S17i;
rara to obtain the marble, drawing up contracts to Bartolomeo Valori of 29 September 1531, the Buonarroti in Florence (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 13, see below) were to appear in a zone above the
with the quarriers on 22 and 23 April 1521. A writer stresses the extraordinary beauty of the Cat. D357). ducal effigies. On two of the original drawings,
632 633
moreover, Michelangelo has left clues as to a pos- just a single hemisphere, is sufficient to serve as which is perhaps intended to signify triumph 18th-century replica (Moreni, 1813, pp. 105–106).
sible interpretation. Thus the red-chalk drawing a tomb for the Dukes. Vasari expresses a similar over death (Tolnay, III, p. 165). Two trophies exe- The ornamentation on the candelabra includes
for the pilaster bases also bears the following opinion and goes on to emphasize the manner in cuted by Silvio Cosini at Michelangelo’s behest a pelican and a phoenix as symbols of Christ’s
inscription: which the allegories of Dawn and Night express (V/M, IV, p. 482; Joannides, 1972; Prater, 1979b, sacrifice and Resurrection (Physiologus, nos. 4
their profound grief over the death of the duke. pp. 98–101) are today on display in the entrance and 7; see Ch. VII). This decoration at the same
El Di e la Nocte parlano e dichono: Finally, Vasari records an epigram by Giovanni to the New Sacristy; emerging from their breast- time refers to the chapel’s dedication to the Res-
Noi abiàno chol nostro ueloce chorso chondocto di Carolo Strozzi, inspired by the allegory of plates are, in one case, a branch with its shoots urrection of Christ, and to the fact that the New
alla morte el ducha Guliano; Night, and the sarcastic poem that Michelan- pruned and, in the other, a worm (see Ch. VII, Sacristy is not just a place of burial but also a
è ben gusto che e’ ne facci uendecta chome fa. gelo writes in response (Frey, 1964, no. CIX.17). ill. p. 348). place of worship. Indeed, in a papal bull of 14
E la uendecta è questa: These contemporary interpretations of the alle- The ornamentation of the Medici Chapel November 1532, Pope Clement VII instated the
Che auendo noi morto lui, gories in the Medici Chapel should nevertheless also included stucco decoration executed by practice of perpetual prayer (laus perennis) in the
lui cosi morto ha tolta la luce a noi e chogli ochi be treated with caution (see Ch. VII). Giovanni da Udine in 1532/33 but painted over chapel. Interrupted only by three daily Masses,
chiusi serrato e nostri, che non risplendon più Any attempt at an interpretation of the in 1556. It is possible that Michelangelo was the Psalms were recited day and night for the
sopra la terra. Medici Chapel is complicated from the outset additionally planning fresco scenes in the fields salvation of the Medici buried there (Ettlinger,
Che arrebbe di noi dunche facto, mentre uiuea? by the fact that Michelangelo had originally above the tombs. From a letter of 25 December 1978). The allegories of the Times of Day reflect,
(Frey, 1964, no. XVII; for English translation, planned a different and more ambitious sculp- 1531 written by Giovanni da Udine (Carteggio, at least indirectly, this practice of round-the-clock
see Ch. VII) tural programme. Thus the niches on either side III, pp. 362–363, no. DCCCXLII) and from prayer.
of Duke Giuliano were to contain personifica- corresponding drawings by Michelangelo, Popp Interpretations of the Medici Chapel as a
Beneath a drawing in the British Museum in tions of Heaven and Earth, as Michelangelo (1922, pp. 158–163), for example, deduces the the- whole are rendered problematical not only by
London (see Ch. VII, ill. p. 376) for the joint indicates in his marginal notes on the above- ory that a Resurrection of Christ was originally the fact that Michelangelo did not implement
Magnifici tomb are the following lines: mentioned draw ing in the Casa Buonarroti planned above the Magnifici tomb, and a Plague in full the programme that he had originally
(Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 13, Cat. D365; see above, of Serpents (Num. 21:6) and a Brazen Serpent planned, but also by the ambivalence of many of
La fama tiene gli epitafi a giacere; Cat. S17, no. 4) and as Vasari confirms in his (Num. 21:9) over the tombs of the dukes. The the individual elements of the décor (see below).
non ua ne inanzi ne indietro, Life of Tribolo (V/M, VI, p. 65). Whether the idea that the lunettes were to be frescoed with Among earlier art historians, Brockhaus (1909,
perche son morti, e e’ loro operare fermo. corresponding niches beside Duke Lorenzo Old Testament scenes is shared amongst oth- pp. 63–115) bases his interpretation upon the
(Frey, 1964, no. XVIII; for English translation, would have contained personifications of Fire ers by Panofsky (1997, p. 279) and Tolnay (III, Ambrosian hymns and sees almost every detail,
see Ch. VII) and Water, with all four figures thereby stand- pp. 48–51, 157–161), while Joannides (1996c), including the masks, weapons and scallops of the
ing for the four elements, is a question that must in his review of the relevant material, considers decoration, as an expression of the general theme
Michelangelo himself, therefore, interpreted remain open (Popp, 1922, p. 164; Hartt, 1951). In reliefs more probable than frescoes. Even if the of day and night, light and dark, salvation and
the tombs as representing all-consuming Time: the Paris modello drawing for Giuliano’s tomb representations in the lunettes concentrate upon damnation. This interpretation and Panofsky
the passage of time (here Day and Night) has (see above, drawings, no. 6; Ch. VII, ill. p. 372), the theme of Resurrection in line with the chap- and Tolnay’s subsequent Neoplatonic readings
brought a rapid end to Giuliano’s life. Although however, and in Tribolo’s description, the two el’s dedication, the scarcity of factual evidence of the Medici Chapel were rejected, however,
the translation and significance of the inscrip- allegories are characterized as grieving figures. gives grounds for scepticism (Pope-Hennessy, by following generations of art historians (e. g.
tion relating to the Magnifici tomb remains dis- The Paris modello also shows that griev- 1996, p. 437; Poeschke, 2005, note 9). A joking Hartt, 1951; Gilbert, 1971; Perrig, 1981; Poeschke,
puted (Gilbert, 1971), it is perhaps to be under- ing boys in a crouching position were originally reference to a planned frescoing of the vault in 1992; Pope-Hennessy, 1996). It is today particu-
stood in a similar way: the earthly works of the planned for the upper register. The Crouching the lantern is found, moreover, in a letter from larly difficult to take seriously the Neoplatonic
Magnifici are ended. Condivi’s interpretation of Youth attributed to Michelangelo in St Peters- Sebastiano del Piombo to Michelangelo dated 7 triad that has been analogously claimed for other
the Times of Day also confirms that the tombs burg may belong to this phase of the project July 1533 (Milanesi, 1890, p. 104). of Michelangelo’s works. According to this inter-
are bound up with the notion of all-consuming (Cat. S17i). In this same modello, and in an Of no small significance for an under- pretation, the lower zone with the river gods
Time. Benedetto Varchi (Due lezzioni, Florence original drawing by Michelangelo (see above, standing of the Medici Chapel, finally, are the symbolizes the underworld; this is followed by
1549, p. 117; cited in Brockhaus, 1909, pp. 53–54; no. 3; Ch. VII, ill. p. 375), the upper register two candelabra on the altar. Both were made to an earthly domain represented by the allegories
Pope-Hennessy, 1996, pp. 444–445), on equally contains a trophy, a triumphal motif that designs by Michelangelo; the one on the left is of the Times of Day, above which rises the heav-
the other hand, sees the sculptural programme also played a role in the Julius Tomb (Cat. S15; attributed to Silvio Cosini (Wallace, 1994, p. 134; enly sphere. Panofsky’s attempt to assign both
as illustrating that only the whole world, and not Echinger-Maurach, 1991, I, pp. 190–192) and Clifford, 2002), while the one on the right is an the four humours and the four elements to the
634 635
chapel’s allegories must today also be considered sees the Medici Chapel as a marked example of time the unfinished state of a figure as an artistic
erroneous. It seems more plausible to view the Michelangelo’s general tendency to transcend concept.
chapel as a “grandiose allegory of princely and precise historic references and render them in an The Medici Madonna represents another
papal might” (Hartt, 1951) or the steep-sided abstract manner. He also notes that the decora- unconventional Virgin and Child composition
dome as a symbol of Resurrection (Dixon, 1976). tive programme is unconventional insofar as it by Michelangelo. It appears to fall into the cat-
These lead on to the interpretation proposed by omits all illustration of the actions and virtues egory of a Madonna lactans, although it is not
Prater (1979a), who sees in the chapel a sequence of the deceased. Only the Times of Day, and clear whether Jesus actually reaches for the Vir-
of four times: historical time, profane time (in the planned river gods and personifications of gin’s breast. The fact that Christ turns his back
the four allegories), liturgical time (in the per- Heaven and Earth, hint at the grief suffered by upon the viewer and the celebrant at the altar
petual prayer instigated by Clement VII) and the the whole of Nature at the deaths of the dukes opposite is an unusual factor already present in
end of time, which finds typological expression (see Ch. VII). The Madonna of the Stairs (Cat. S1). The Virgin’s
in the chapel’s dedication to the Resurrection. A separate problem is posed, finally, by the crossed legs are also striking and are occasion-
Popp (1922, p. 163) was already thinking along mural drawings uncovered as from 1975 in the ally traced back to works of antiquity (e. g. von
similar lines when he identified the contrast in rooms beneath the New Sacristy. Attributed Einem, 1973a, pp. 16–17).
the chapel between earthly time, represented by to Michelangelo by Dal Poggetto (1979), these The installation of the Madonna and Child
the ducal tombs, and celestial time, as embod- mural drawings are accepted e. g. by Hartt flanked by SS Cosmas and Damian is essentially
ied by the Medici Madonna. This argument (1992b), although Elam (1981) presents good a return to tradition, as it corresponds to the
also approaches that of Perrig (1981), who sees grounds for doubting their authorship. Even if compositional format of the sacra conversazi-
the chapel as the antechamber to eternity. Here these drawings should indeed be attributed to one employed in Quattrocento altarpieces (Fra
the dukes are waiting, with the Times of Day Michelangelo, this would not solve the problem S17a. Madonna and Child (Medici Angelico; Filippo Lippi) and especially popular
beneath them as symbols of Time, and the river of interpreting the Medici Chapel. Madonna), 1521–1534 with the Medici: the Virgin, in the company of
gods of the original plan as symbols of the pas- Conclusion: Just as in the case of the Julius Marble, height 226 cm the patron saints of the Medici family, acts in her
sage of human life. This use of personification Tomb (Cat. S15), the majority of authors con- Florence, S. Lorenzo intercessionary role as a conduit of divine grace
and allegory to illustrate the course of human life centrate upon the reconstruction of Michelan- and salvation. More elaborate readings strike me
may be inspired by antique art. Reliefs on the gelo’s original scheme for the Medici Chapel. The Medici Madonna and the figures of SS Cosmas as less convincing: von Einem (1973a) interprets
sides of the Arch of Constantine, for example, More recent readings of the chapel and analyses and Damian (see above) were intended to fill the the sculpture as a Madonna dell’umiltà and the
and a sarcophagus relief from S. Lorenzo fuori of its function seem to hold out much promise, niches above the joint Magnifici tomb, as evi- steps on which she is seated as the scala coelestis
le Mura in Rome (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. however, and should be pursued further. denced by the modello in the Louvre (no. 837; see leading up to God. Hartt (1951), on the other
196), employ a similar symbolism: Sol (Sun) and above, no. 6 and Ch. VII, ill. p. 372) copied from hand, sees the figure as a Madonna lactans and
Luna (Moon) stand as personifications of Time an original drawing by Michelangelo. The block as such as a meaningful complement to the ceil-
beside recumbent river gods (Petersen, 1906; of marble selected for the Madonna is specifically ing fresco of the Resurrection planned above her.
Steinmann, 1907, pp. 42, 64–65; see Ch. VII). mentioned as early as 23 April 1523 in a document He also points out that the Madonna is at once
In view of the repeated cuts made to docu- drawn up by the Carrara stonemasons (Milanesi, Virgin and Mother, in contrast to the female alle-
mented parts of the decoration (e. g. the tro- 1875, p. 696). gories of the Times of Day, of whom – as Tolnay
phies) in the wake of modifications to Michelan- The Madonna, which was left unfinished, (III, p. 67) early on observed – Dawn may be
gelo’s original plan, together with Michelangelo’s must have remained behind in Michelangelo’s understood as a Virgin in view of her firm breasts,
reluctance to deploy unambiguous symbols, Florentine workshop in the 1540s; together with and Night with her sagging breasts as a mother.
attributes and inscriptions, it may be concluded the two saints, it was probably installed in the Interpretations of this kind are today of interest
that the Medici Chapel cannot for the most part Medici Chapel in 1559, following the reburial of only from a feminist or anthropological point of
be interpreted in the same concrete manner as the Magnifici (Anton Francesco Doni, Disegno, view, however.
typically applied, for example, to S. Lorenzo’s Venice 1549, p. 48; Popp, 1922, p. 118; Tolnay,
Old Sacristy. Hence Poeschke (1992, p. 114; 2005, III, p. 145; Barocchi, 1962, III, p. 1149). Vasari
note 10), in particular, considers all the interpre- saw it there. Tolnay (III, p. 145) observes that the
tations put forward to date as too specific. He Madonna caused Vasari to appreciate for the first
636 637
S17c. Dawn (Aurora), 1524–1527 S17d. Dusk (Crepuscolo), 1524–1531

Marble, length 206 cm Marble, length 195 cm
Florence, S. Lorenzo Florence, S. Lorenzo
The recumbent figure, which is still unfinished, The allegory of Dusk also does not quite fit the
S17b–d. Tomb of Lorenzo de’ Medici The reference to the virtue of parsimonia seems most notably around the feet, does not quite fit convex lid of the sarcophagus and had to be
to me the most acceptable. the lid of the sarcophagus and had to be slightly slightly raised with filling material. It is unfin-
S17b. Lorenzo de’ Medici, c. 1525 The two figures of the dukes are described raised with filling material to match its inclina- ished around the head and limbs. In line with
Marble, height 178 cm in a famous letter by Niccolò Martelli of 28 July tion. Vasari sees the Dawn as expressing pain the masculine gender of the Italian word crepus-
Florence, S. Lorenzo 1544 as highly idealized portraits whom it was and sorrow over the death of Duke Lorenzo. He colo, Dusk is depicted as a male nude. In contrast
impossible to identify since they bore no resem- bases his interpretation upon the figure’s pose, to Night and Dawn, Dusk possesses not even a
The tomb of Duke Lorenzo on the west wall of blance to their sitters. Michelangelo responded gesture and face. Her veil may correspondingly hint of an attribute. It therefore seems particu-
the chapel is adorned with two figures reclining that in a thousand years, no one would be able be viewed as a symbol of mourning (Steinmann, larly difficult to interpret this figure as a symbol
on top of a sarcophagus: the allegories of Dawn to check whether the portraits were a true like- 1907, p. 92; Tolnay, III, p. 132). For Panofsky of the elements or the humours, as Steinmann
(Aurora) on the left and Dusk (Crepuscolo) on ness anyway (Niccolò Martelli, Il primo libro (1997, p. 275), Dawn symbolizes the element (1907, pp. 98–102) and Panofsky (1997, pp. 275)
the right. Placed in a niche above them is the delle lettere di Niccolò Martelli, Florence 1546, of air and the sanguine temperament. These seek to do.
largely finished seated figure of Lorenzo, dressed fol. 4912, after Tolnay, III, pp. 68, 143). Pope- interpretations lack cogency. Bor ghini (1584,
in antique-style armour and wearing a somewhat Hennessy (1996, p. 444) compares the statues pp. 65–66) recognized the difficulty of inter-
leonine helmet. He rests his head lightly on his with contemporary portraits of the two Dukes preting the figures when he noted that, in con-
left hand in a pose that is generally understood and argues that a certain resemblance neverthe- trast to antique allegories of the Times of Day,
to symbolize melancholy and which prompted less does exist. Dawn, Dusk and Day possess no attributes and
Vasari to call the figure il pensieroso (Panofsky, therefore cannot be identified. While the figure
1997, p. 278; Büchsel, 1983; Bredekamp, 1989). bears a formal resemblance to antique river gods
Lorenzo’s left elbow rests on a casket decorated (Tolnay, III, p. 133), this provides no basis for an
with an animal head. The casket may be a cash- interpretation.
box: it has been interpreted as a reference to
greed (Panofsky, 1997, p. 278) or alternatively to
the virtue of parsimonia (economy) (e. g. Prater,
1979b, p. 118) or to the honorary Roman citi
zenship bestowed on Lorenzo and Giuliano in
1513 (Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 442; see below).
638 639
gaze, has been much debated and interpreted by Giovanni di Carlo Strozzi and in Michelan-
(see Perrig, 1981, note 84; Poeschke, 2005, note gelo’s reply to it (see above). In formal terms,
15). How futile such discussions are can be seen Night resembles an antique Leda known in the
in the example of Giuliano, who in my opinion 16th century (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 5) but
is looking at the inner face of the pilaster of his today lost. No conclusions regarding the signifi-
S17e–g. Tomb of Giuliano de’ Medici who was commander of the Florentine troops. niche, from which no meaning can be drawn! cance of Michelangelo’s figure can be inferred
Convincing arguments against this identification from this formal relationship, however.
S17e. Giuliano de’ Medici, c. 1526–1534 of the staff and the reversal of the two Captains’ S17 f. Night (Notte), 1525–1531
Marble, height 173 cm identities have been put forward most recently Marble, length 194 cm S17g. Day (Giorno), 1526–1531
Florence, S. Lorenzo by Beck (Beck/Paolucci/Santi, 1993, p. 28) and Florence, S. Lorenzo Marble, length 185 cm
Poeschke (2005). Florence, S. Lorenzo
The seated figure of Duke Giuliano, clad in The coins in Giuliano’s left hand may be The allegory of Night is closest to completion
antique-style military dress, occupies the corre- understood either as symbols of his liberalitas of all the recumbent figures; only parts of the The head and right hand of the figure are unfin-
sponding niche in the east wall above the recum- (e. g. Hibbard, 1974, p. 188) or magnanimitas left arm and the left hand and the diadem in ished. Like Night, Day is first identified by
bent figures of Day and Night. The sculpture’s (Panofsky, 1997, p. 278), as the obolus of the the figure’s hair are not quite finished. With the Michelangelo himself in the above-mentioned
identity is yielded by a note in Michelangelo’s departing souls or as a reference to the honor- owl under her left knee and the diadem, which inscription (Frey, 1964, no. XVII). This has given
own hand on a study in red chalk for the pilaster ary citizenship of Rome bestowed upon Giuliano contains a star and a sickle Moon, Night is the rise to the theory that the allegories of the Times
bases in the Medici Chapel (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. and Lorenzo in 1513, whose award would have only one of the allegories to have clear attributes. of Day signify all-devouring Time. Correspond-
13, Cat. D365), and which specifically mentions been accompanied by gold coins. In this case, The owl as a symbol of night is mentioned early ing with this interpretation is a piece of infor-
Duke Giuliano in conjunction with the allegories the cashbox held by Lorenzo (see above) would on by Condivi and Borghini (1584, p. 65). The mation supplied by Condivi, who relates that
of Day and Night (Frey, 1964, no. XVII). have to be interpreted in a similar light (Pope- allegory of Night is also accompanied by a gar- Michelangelo had originally planned to give Day
Giuliano holds several coins in his left Hennessy, 1996, p. 442). land under her left foot and a mask below her the attribute of a mouse (see Ch. VII), which was
hand and a commander’s staff in his right. The The military staff and the coins in Giuliano’s left shoulder. The garland is often identified as to be understood as the power of Time to gnaw
majority of authors see this staff as a reference to hand may also make distant reference to the vir- poppy and hence as a symbol of fertility or sleep away and ultimately consume all. This symbol-
Guiliano’s appointment as Capitano e Gonfalo- tues appropriate for a leader of men (strength, (Steinmann, 1907, pp. 86–87). The mask may ism of the mouse is familiar from other tombs
niere di Santa Chiesa, commander-in-chief of the magnanimity), but it is also noticeable that be understood as a symbol of dreaming (Stein- and from Etruscan art (Panofsky, 1964b).
papal troops, in 1515, whereas Trexler and Lewis Michelangelo has largely avoided the panegyric mann, 1907, p. 86) or as an indirect portrayal of The original idea for a mouse, although
(Trexler/Lewis, 1981; Trexler, 2000) consider it that at the time usually characterized representa- the artist himself (Paoletti, 1992; see Ch. VII). never realized, not only confirms Condivi’s
the staff of a Florentine capitano. In this case, tions of rulers. Night is mentioned together with Day in interpretation but also shows that Michelangelo
the present effigy would also have to be identi- The direction in which the figures are look- an inscription by Michelangelo (Frey, 1964, no. tended, here as in other instances, to avoid lend-
fied not as Giuliano but as Lorenzo de’ Medici, ing, and hence the direction of Giuliano’s own XVII; see above and Ch. VII) and in an epigram ing his figures clear attributes. This tendency is
640 641
also demonstrated by the modello drawing sur- the Medici’s dominion over their provinces. A angelo’s finished drawings do not correspond S18. Michelangelo (?)
viving only as a copy in the Louvre (see above, similar view was expressed by Kriegbaum (1940, exactly with that of the Crouching Youth in St Two Wrestlers (Hercules and Cacus/Samson
no. 6; see also Ch. VII, ill. p. 372), in which the p. 15). Petersburg. and the Philistine?), c. 1525–1528
allegory of Day is still equipped with sunbeams Popp’s attribution of the sculpture to Clay, height 41 cm
as attributes. S17i. Michelangelo (?) Michelangelo remains a matter of dispute. The Florence, Casa Buonarroti
Crouching Youth, c. 1524/25 exhibition of the Crouching Youth in the Casa
S17h. River God, c. 1524 Marble, height 54 cm Buonarroti in Florence in 2000 was accompa- As can be deduced from Michelangelo’s corre-
Wood, clay, wool and plant fibres, St Petersburg, Hermitage nied by efforts to strengthen the case for Michel- spondence and the contracts with his patrons,
length 180 cm angelo’s authorship on the basis of stylistic cri- the artist worked in many cases both with small-
Florence, Casa Buonarroti Between 1768 and 1779 this sculpture passed teria (Baldini, 2001b) and analyses of the marble scale and with life-size bozzetti. Due to their
from the collection of John Lyde Brown in Wim- (Gorgoni/Pallante, 2001). However, this same fragile nature, however, the vast majority of
As emerges from two sketches by Michelan- bledon into the possession of the family of the exhibition also exposed the uncertainty and these preparatory models have been lost. Along-
gelo himself, and from a number of copies of tsar (Tolnay, III, p. 152; Androsov, 2000). It is irregularity evident in the handling of the tooth side the bozzetto of a River God for the Medici
his presentation drawings executed by artists uncertain whether the figure indeed stemmed chisel, arguing against the sculpture’s attribution Chapel (Cat. S17h), the terracotta group of the
in his circle (see below), two river gods were from the possession of the Medici, as vague refer- to Michelangelo. Two Wrestlers is thought to be the only other
originally planned beneath each of the ducal ences in Michelangelo’s correspondence have led extant modello from Michelangelo’s own hand.
tombs. The most concrete evidence for this many to assume. Whatever the case, the Crouch- However, the attribution and iconography of the
scheme is the bozzetto in the Casa Buonarroti, ing Youth has been considered since Popp (1922, group, which is known under various names, are
whose attribution to Michelangelo is for the pp. 58, 136, 142) as a figure destined for the New based on several assumptions.
most part accepted by more recent scholars. The Sacristy in S. Lorenzo, as evidenced by a draw- The clay bozzetto was brought to the atten-
significance of the river gods is disputed, how- ing by Michelangelo today housed in the British tion of scholars by two essays by Johannes Wilde
ever. Popp (1922, p. 164), for example, interprets Museum (see above, Cat. S17 and Ch. VII, ill. (1928a; 1928b), who reassembled the group from
them as the four rivers of the world and hence p. 375; Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 5, Cat. D132). How- a number of fragments in the Casa Buonar-
as symbols of the earthly sphere. Tolnay (III, ever, the pose of the crouching youth on the roti and identified its two wrestling figures as
pp. 67–68) sees in them the four rivers of Hades, uppermost cornice of the tomb in the London Hercules and Cacus. According to Wilde, the
Hartt (1951) specific Italian rivers that refer to drawing and in the copies made from Michel- design was intended for the third project for the
642 643
Julius Tomb and was to serve as a pendant to the therefore possible to doubt both the traditional
Victory (Cat. S15h). This theory was rejected by identification of the group and its attribution to
Panofsky (1997 [1939], pp. 327–329) and Tolnay Michelangelo.
(III, p. 185). Most authors meanwhile consider Conclusion: Neither the attribution of the
the clay bozzetto to be a design by Michelangelo Two Wrestlers to Michelangelo nor its intended
for a project, initiated in 1508, for a second colos- function is certain.
sal sculpture to stand beside the marble David
(Cat. S10) in front of the Palazzo della Signoria
(Tolnay, III, pp. 98–103, 183–187; Barocchi, 1962,
III, pp. 1079–1088). The arguments for assigning
the clay model to this project also lack cogency,
however (Ragionieri, 2003, pp. 83–84).
Michelangelo made a start on the pen-
dant to the David in 1525. Soon afterwards, the
work was entrusted to Baccio Bandinelli, before
being handed back to Michelangelo in 1528. In
1534, following the Medici’s return to Florence,
Bandinelli finally created the figural group of
Hercules and Cacus (see Ch. III, ill. p. 76) situated S19. Apollo, c. 1530–1532 mia fighura, which the majority of authors inter-
in front of the Palazzo della Signoria, which with Marble, height 146 cm pret as a reference to the Apollo (Barocchi, 1982b,
its clear Medicean connotations can be under- Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello p. 18; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 435; Carteggio, III,
stood as an anti-republican counterpart to the p. 386, no. DCCCLVI).
David (Verspohl, 1991a). On the other hand, the The unfinished figure of the youthful Apollo has The sculpture is listed in an inventory,
original plan of 1508 made provision for a Hercu- attracted relatively little attention in the litera- drawn up in 1553, of the Florentine collections
les who can be interpreted, just like the David, as ture. This may be connected with the motives of Cosimo I and is mentioned by Borghini (1584,
a symbol of the Florentine Republic (V/M, VI, behind its execution, which cast Michelangelo in p. 514) as forming part of the collection of Grand
p. 148; Tolnay, III, p. 98). a less than flattering light. Vasari, who describes Duke Francesco de’ Medici. Until 1824, the
Information regarding the plans for a Her- the Apollo in both editions of his Lives, states Apollo stood in the Boboli Gardens beside the
cules as a pendant to the David is provided by that Michelangelo carved it for Baccio (Bartolo Palazzo Pitti, then in the Uffizi and from 1871 to
the correspondence of the Florentine govern- meo) Valori in order to gain his favour. Valori 1873 in the Bargello (Barocchi, 1982b, pp. 14–20;
ment, a letter from Michelangelo to Fattucci of was Clement VII’s papal governor in Florence Poeschke, 1992, pp. 117).
October 1525 (Milanesi, 1875, p. 452) and Vasari and a very important individual from Michel- Both the correct identification of the sculp-
in his Life of Michelangelo and Life of Bandinelli angelo’s point of view. Following the expulsion ture (see below) and its dating are the subject
(V/M, VI, pp. 148–151; Tolnay, III, pp. 98–103, of the Medici from Florence in 1527, Michelan- of dispute. Earlier authors judged the figure to
183–187). Vasari states that the original plan was gelo had taken the side of the Republic and was have been executed in the mid-1520s, chiefly on
for a Hercules group, but that Michelangelo consequently afraid he would face huge reprisals the basis of stylistic criteria. More recent schol-
then decided upon a Samson and Two Philistines, when the Medici returned in 1530 (Forcellino, ars consider it likely that the sculpture arose, as
i. e. a group comprising three figures. The clay 2006, pp. 210 –212, 375). The Apollo, a sculpture Vasari claims, in connection with Baccio Valori,
bozzetto in the Casa Buonarroti consists of only of very high quality, may therefore be seen as a giving it a date of between 1530 and 1532.
two wrestlers, however. Poeschke (1992, p. 116) rare example of Michelangelo’s political oppor- The identification of the figure is rendered
suggests that these two wrestling figures repre- tunism; this is probably why Condivi, Michel- problematical chiefly by the unfinished charac-
sent an early stage of the design process, in which angelo’s mouthpiece, makes no mention of it. In ter of its attributes. The hemispherical, unfin-
Samson appears with just one Philistine. This a letter to Michelangelo probably written in 1531 ished object beneath the figure’s right foot may
explanation is far from convincing, however. It is or 1532, however, Baccio Valori himself writes of represent the Sun, which would make it an
644 645
attribute of Apollo. A band of marble, only Ridolfi’s secretary in 1539 have led to the bust far as to suggest that Michelangelo has portrayed
roughly worked, running down the figure’s back being dated to the years 1530 to 1540 (Tolnay, IV, Brutus and Giannotti simultaneously in the pro-
could be the start of a quiver. The left hand p. 131), although this dating has recently been file portrait on the fibula. The visual material
raised up to the right shoulder might indicate questioned (Martin, 1993; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, cited as evidence fails to support such a theory,
that Apollo is withdrawing an arrow from his p. 414). however.
quiver; this is how Vasari understood the fig- In the years after 1530, tyrannicide and the In view of historical events, the Brutus bust
ure. On the other hand, the sculpture has also role of Brutus in the murder of Julius Caesar ought to have become a symbol of tyrannicide
been identified as David on the basis of a Med- were current topics among Florentine exiles and of the republican patriotism of Florentines
ici inventory of 1553 (Tolnay, III, p. 183; Pope- and became a bloody reality with the success- in exile. But Michel angelo’s sculpture by no
Hennessy, 1996, p. 435). In this case, the hemi- ful assassination of Duke Alessandro de’ Medici means expresses unqualified support for the
spherical bulge could be interpreted as a helmet (Gordon, 1957). Giannotti, for example, wrote propagation of tyrannicide and the assassina-
or the head of Goliath. Michelangelo might have an apology for tyrannicide in his major work tion carried out by Lorenzino. The bust suggests
tried to convert a sculpture that he had com- of political theory, the Republica Fiorentina of a more ambivalent attitude, with Michelangelo
menced as a David into an Apollo at a later date 1531 to 1534 (Bredekamp, 1995a, p. 57), while torn between sympathy for the republican moti-
(Tolnay, III, p. 96). This hypothesis is implau- the assassination of an unlawful ruler is also vation behind the bloody deed and his respect
sible, however. The movement of the left arm the theme of his Two Dialogues on the Days that for Dante, who banished the murderer Brutus to
corresponds far better to the idea of a youthful Dante Spent in Hell and Purgatory. Giannotti was Hell (Bredekamp, 1995a, p. 62). In his Two Dia-
Apollo drawing an arrow from his quiver. It also planning to write a Brutus tragedy (Tolnay, logues, Donato Giannotti has his friend Michel
should also be borne in mind that Michelan- S20. Michelangelo and Tiberio Calcagni (?) IV, p. 132). Against this backdrop, Benedetto angelo express a correspondingly critical view of
gelo liked to avoid clearly defined attributes Brutus, c. 1530–1540 Varchi, for example, in his Storia Fiorentina, was tyrannicide (Giannotti, 1968, pp. 97–98).
and to employ unusual forms of expression in Marble, height 74 cm able to celebrate the assassin Lorenzino as a new Conclusion: The Brutus is a good example of
his works. This is also the case here, for in con- Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello Tuscan Brutus (Nouvo Bruto Toscano; Tolnay, IV, Michelangelo’s problematical position as a sup-
trast to the large-scale works of antique sculpture p. 132; Barocchi, 1982b, pp. 22–25; Bredekamp, porter of the Florentine exiles in Rome.
known in his day, Michelangelo’s Apollo is left- Vasari (1568) mentions Brutus somewhat in 1995a, p. 60).
handed, as can be seen from the fact that he is passing and only after he has already discussed The discussion of the antique tradition of
withdrawing the arrow from the quiver with his Michelangelo’s works for St Peter’s and other tyrannicide in contemporary sources also finds
left hand, which for those who are right-handed later architectural projects. He reports that direct expression in Michelangelo’s sculpture.
is the hand that holds the bow. Michelangelo gave the bust to his pupil Tiberio The artist has oriented himself in formal terms
The presence of numerous dark veins in the Calcagni so that he could finish it. More recent towards Roman busts of Caracalla (Tolnay, IV,
marble also raises the possibility that Michel- authors nevertheless consider the bust to be p. 133; Haskell/Penny, 1981, no. 18) and, with
angelo broke off work on the figure as a result largely the work of Michelangelo himself. Vasari respect to Brutus’s beardlessness, towards an
of these flaws in the material. Other reasons also states that the Brutus was executed for Car- Early Augustan portrait in the Capitoline Muse-
may have included the distasteful nature of the dinal Niccolò Ridolfi at the request of Michelan- ums, which up till around 1800 was wrongly
commission for Michelangelo and the fact that gelo’s friend Donato Giannotti. Giannotti had identified as a Brutus (Bredekamp, 1995a,
Valori was soon replaced as governor of Florence been Secretary of the Florentine Republic until p. 57). Vasari states that Michelangelo based the
(Wilde, 1978, p. 147). 1530 and had worked in the service of Cardi- Brutus on an antique cameo, a claim that has yet
Conclusion: The political background to nal Ridolfi since 1537. The two men numbered to be verified. The fibula pinning the paluda-
the Apollo, which must have made Michelan- amongst the most prominent Florentine exiles mentum over Brutus’s right shoulder is inspired
gelo uncomfortable, and the uncertainty sur- and anti-Medicean figures in Rome. The his- by antique coins (Tolnay, IV, p. 133). Whether
rounding the figure’s iconography, have up till torical background to the commission for the the head in profile view that can be made out
now detracted attention from its extraordinary Brutus was probably the murder of the tyran- on the brooch and the bust itself may be con-
quality. nical Duke Alessandro de’ Medici by his cousin sidered actual portraits is a matter of contention
Lorenzo (Lorenzino) di Pierfrancesco de’ Medici (Tolnay, IV, pp. 77, 133; Poeschke, 1992, p. 118;
in 1537. This and Giannotti’s appointment as Bredekamp, 1995a, p. 61). Riklin (1996) goes so
646 647
it shortly afterwards and where it remained until Michelangelo’s household only after the death of Tintoretto, Savoldo and Bandinelli, for exam-
1649. In 1671 it was purchased by Grand Duke Michelangelo’s previous servant Urbino (Franc- ple – of lending representations of Nicodemus
Cosimo III and in 1674 brought to Florence and esco di Bernardino d’Amadore da Casteldurante) the features of the artist (Pope-Hennessy, 1966,
installed in the crypt of S. Lorenzo. In 1721 it was in December 1555. pp. 290–300; Schleif, 1993; Paoletti, 2000, notes
moved to the cathedral and in April 1981, finally, Condivi (1553) also describes Michelangelo’s 32–34). For Michelangelo, appearing in the role-
to the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo (Wasser- work on the still unfinished figural group and portrait of Nicodemus must have held particular
man, 2003, pp. 99–117: contribution by Camiz). emphasizes in particular the differentiated treat- significance, since according to medieval legend
Michelangelo’s biographers remain our most ment of the draperies. He, too, identifies the Nicodemus was the sculptor of the first wooden
important source of information regarding the bearded figure towering behind the body of effigy of Christ, the Volto Santo (Holy Face) in
Florentine Pietà. Vasari mentions the blocked- Christ as Nicodemus and the young woman on Lucca (Stechow, 1964; Isermeyer, 1965, p. 362;
out group in the first (1550) edition of his Lives the left as one of the Marys. It is likely, therefore, Schleif, 1993; Verdon, 2003). That Michelangelo
and gives further details of its history in three that she represents Mary Magdalene. For Con- should portray himself as Nicodemus was thus
places in the second edition (1568): divi the group represents a Deposition, for Vasari more than obvious. Nicodemus offered him a
1) In his chronological account of Michel- the moment afterwards, whereas it is referred to figure of identification in spiritual terms, too
angelo’s works, Vasari states that the group was in the entire literature, for simplicity’s sake, as a (see Ch. X).
intended for Michelangelo’s own tomb and com- Pietà. Other authors identify it as a mixture of a Further controversies have arisen over the
prised, alongside the dead Christ, two Marys and Man of Sorrows, Deposition and Lamentation physical state of the sculpture. Evidently Michel-
the figure of Nicodemus. (von Einem, 1959, pp. 155–156); as a Deposition angelo broke off Christ’s right forearm and
2) In a later passage in his Life of Michelan- and Lamentation (Tolnay, V, p. 86); as the evo- entire left arm, the left arm of the Virgin and the
S21. Michelangelo and Tiberio Calcagni gelo, Vasari reports that the artist had destroyed lution of a Deposition, Pietà and Entombment right arm of Mary Magdalene, and possibly also
Pietà, c. 1547–1555 the partly finished group in an attack of rage, into an iconic image (Hibbard, 1974, p. 284) Christ’s left leg, something that has been inter-
Marble, height 226 cm that his assistant Antonio del Francese had and as a dramatized Pietà (Wasserman, 2003, preted in all sorts of ways. Many of the opinions
Florence, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo wanted to rescue it and that Tiberio Calcagni pp. 34–35). voiced up till now have been invalidated, how-
had pieced it back together and finished it. The Here, as in other cases, it is evident that ever, by the technical investigations published by
The Florentine Pietà is one of Michelangelo’s last resulting sculpture subsequently passed into the Michelan gelo is offering a marked variation Wasserman (2003). Tiberio Calcagni used dowels
authentic works of sculpture and shows the dead ownership of Francesco Bandini’s family. upon established iconographical formulae. The to reattach the severed leg to the main part of
Christ flanked by the Virgin on the right and 3) In his Life of Bandinelli, Vasari repeats title Pietà may nevertheless be retained, even if the block and repaired other areas of damage.
Mary Magdalene on the left. The bearded elderly the information that the group was originally Michelangelo has added Mary Magdalene and He is also responsible for Christ’s left hand, the
man behind is probably Nicodemus (see below). intended as a tomb sculpture and again identifies Nicodemus to the cast. The latter figure is occa- reworkings to the face of Mary Magdalene and
The indubitable focus of the composition is the the bearded elderly man as Nicodemus (V/M, sionally identified as Joseph of Arimathaea, since the square socket for Christ’s left leg (Wasser-
presentation of Christ’s body. The sculpture has VI, pp. 188–189). it does not correspond in terms of type to a Nic- man, 2003, pp. 76, 88, 91 and passim). Going
long been the object of heated controversy as to From Vasari’s first edition of the Lives, it odemus (e. g. Hartt, 1975b, p. 73); other authors against the dramatic account given by Vasari and
its dating, title, attribution, iconography and is deduced that Michelangelo embarked on leave its identification open (Stechow, 1964; Was- the whole of the literature (most recently Forcel-
interpretation, as well as to opinions regarding the sculpture sometime between c. 1547 and serman, 2003, pp. 57, 156). Other clues, however, lino, 2005, p. 345), Wasserman (2003, pp. 67–73)
its material state. Only the recently published 1550 (Perrig, 1960, pp. 37–46; Isermeyer, 1965, argue in favour of the designation of the bearded argues that Michelangelo “damaged” the sculp-
monograph by Wasserman (2003), based on a pp. 346–352; Poeschke, 1992, pp. 119–120). After old man as Nicodemus. Thus we know from a ture deliberately, not by hitting it at random but
thorough analysis of the work, has been able to analysing the sources, Wasserman (2003, p. 30) letter from Vasari to Lionardo Buonarroti of 18 by removing the limbs in a controlled manner.
resolve some of the outstanding questions sur- specifies the year as 1549. Michelangelo ceased March 1564 (Carteggio indiretto, II, pp. 179–183, As in the case of Rondanini Pietà (Cat. S22),
rounding the sculptural group. working on the Pietà around 1555. This date is no. CCCLXII; Wasserman, 2003, p. 229) that Michelangelo then intended to resume work on
The sculpture, today exhibited in the deduced from Vasari’s statement that the art- this figure is a self-portrait of Michelangelo, as the now smaller block that remained.
Museo dell’Opera del Duomo in Florence, was ist himself partly destroyed the figural group, confirmed by a comparison with contempo- The today missing left leg is the starting
first acquired by Francesco Bandini. In 1564 it but was persuaded by his a ssistant Antonio del rary portraits. This self-portrait in turn takes point for the controversial “slung leg” hypothesis
passed from his estate to Pierantonio Bandini’s Francese to let him have the damaged work. up a tradition amongst painters and sculptors put forward by Steinberg (1968). According to
villa on the Quirinal in Rome, where Vasari saw Antonio had taken over the post of servant in – including Tilman Riemenschneider, Titian, Steinberg, Christ’s left leg was originally slung
648 649
across the Virgin’s lap in a position that carried Thus the Florentine Pietà would possess a Mention should lastly also be made of the
sexual connotations and which could therefore Eucharistic symbolism, a dimension already rec- Palestrina Pietà, a work from Michelangelo’s cir-
have been understood in the theological sense ognized in the Rome Pietà (Cat. S8), for exam- cle, which in conceptual terms appears related to
of a “mystic marriage” of Mary and Christ. ple, and one that can be generally assumed in an the Florentine Pietà (Tolnay, V, pp. 152–154) but
Michelan gelo recognized the potential offen- altar sculpture. which is not mentioned in the early sources and
siveness of the position and therefore knocked Arkin (1997) identifies the female figure on whose provenance can be traced back only to
the left leg off. This interpretation has provoked the left as the Virgin on account of the angelic the 18th century. Amongst more recent authors,
numerous reactions, some of them far from head above her brow, and the female figure Perrig (1960, pp. 94–110) in particular has sought
objective (e. g. Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 447), behind Christ’s body accordingly as Mary Mag- to argue the case for attributing the sculpture to
together with a detailed reiteration of his posi- dalene. Adopting a psychoanalytical approach, Michelangelo. His view has not found accept-
tion by Steinberg (1989) and sober examina- he also suspects that Michelangelo has portrayed ance, however. Recent attempts to recognize in
tions by Wasserman (2003, pp. 63–70) and Fehl himself in the role of the son in Christ and as the Palestrina Pietà at least a design by Michel-
(2002), who consider that the left leg may have a grown man in Nicodemus. This hypothesis, angelo, subsequently executed by assistants
occupied other positions than the one suggested like earlier attempts to interpret Michelangelo’s (Michelangiolo. Tutta la scultura, 1989, no. 11;
by Steinberg. sculpture in psychoanalytical terms (Liebert, Nagel, 1996), are not very convincing in my view.
More recent analyses of the Pietà often refer 1977; Carroll, 1990), is unlikely to stand the test Conclusion: The Florentine Pietà is
to Michelangelo’s self-portrait as Nicodemus. of time. Considerably more convincing, in my undoubtedly one of the most important testa-
Shrimplin-Evangelidis (1989) and Kristof (1989), opinion, is the attempt by Wallace (2000) to ments to Michelangelo’s concern, as he neared
for example, see the figure of Nicodemus as a explain the Florentine Pietà’s unusual inclusion the end of his life, to create a fitting sculpture for
declaration of Michelangelo’s sympathy for the of a Mary Magdalene in terms of its function as a his own tomb. S22. Rondanini Pietà, 1552/53–1564
Catholic reform movement, which was also tomb sculpture. He also raises a significant point Marble, height 195 cm
known as Nicodemism. The political problems regarding the technical ambition bound up with Milan, Museo del Castello Sforzesco
arising out of such a declaration might also the work: as a four-figure group, the Pietà is
explain his partial destruction of the sculpture. comparable with the Laocoön excavated in 1506, Directly after discussing the Florentine Pietà
Wasserman (2003, p. 67) rules this out. Quite which Pliny (Natural History, XXXVI.iv.37) (Cat. S21) Vasari (1568) mentions another work
independently of the significance of its Nicode- claims was sculpted from a single piece of mar- with the same subject, by which he was prob-
mus, however, the Florentine Pietà, together ble (Nagel, 2000, p. 202; Wallace, 2000; Fehl, ably referring to the sculpture fragment today
with the Rondanini Pietà and the drawings 2002). Although Pliny’s claim was soon proved known as the Rondanini Pietà, housed in the
of the same subject (see Ch. VIII, ill. p. 407; incorrect, the challenge to carve more than one Castello Sforzesco in Milan. The same sculp-
Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 10, Cat. D237, 238), presented figure from a single block had been issued (Wal- ture is evidently meant in an inventory of works
to Vittoria Colonna as gifts, belong to a phase lace, 2000). left in Michelangelo’s house on Macel de’ Corvi
of intensive religious reorientation in Michel- In view of the physical state of the sculpture, after his death (on 18 February 1564), and which
angelo’s life. A number of formal parallels exist the question lastly arises as to whether its unfin- included un’altra statua principata per uno Christo
between the gift drawings and the Pietà sculp- ished and fragmentary nature has an artistic con un’altra figura di sopra, attaccate insieme, sboz-
tures (Perrig, 1960; Nagel, 1996). value in itself, as a personal statement by the art- zate e non finite (Barocchi, 1962, IV, pp. 1848–
Of the other interpretations of the sculp- ist, or whether the Florentine Pietà and the Ron- 1851; Fiorio, 2004, p. 13). The Pietà is also men-
ture, finally, the following selection may be men- danini Pietà are simply testaments to Michel- tioned in a letter from Daniele da Volterra to
tioned. Tolnay (V, p. 87) reads the close bodily angelo’s frustration and debility (Hibbard 1974, Lionardo Buonarroti of 11 June 1564 (Carteggio
contact between the Virgin and Christ as a sym- pp. 288–289). This question has recently been indiretto, II, pp. 198–200, no. CCCLXX), in
bol of the sposalizio of mother and son, which explored by Barricelli (1993), who has attempted which Daniele describes how the aged Michel-
partly anticipates Steinberg’s hypothesis. Verdon to write a spiritual biography of the artist on the angelo worked on the Pietà up till 12 February
(2003) sees in the Pietà an emphasis upon the basis of his four Pietàs (i. e. including the Pale- 1564, six days before his death.
real presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucha- strina Pietà in the Accademia in Florence, whose Michelangelo had already bequeathed this same
rist, as propagated in the Tridentine Reform. attribution is more than contentious; see below). Pietà to his servant (famulus) Antonio in a notarial
650 651
MICHEL ANGELO
deed of 21 August 1561 (Steinmann/Wittkower, by Federico Zuccari (Rome, Galleria Borghese),

1927, pp. 426–427). Why the sculpture was still it has been attempted to identify specific sources
standing in Michelangelo’s house on Macel de’ of inspiration for the sculptural group (most
Corvi after his death is just as unclear as its fate recently Fiorio, 2004, pp. 24–28) and to recon-
in the years that followed. Only in 1807 (Fiorio, struct the artist’s original intentions (Tolnay,
2004, p. 14), or alternatively 1809 (Paoletti, 1934; Baumgart, 1935; Frey, 1956). It is possible,
2000, note 1), does it reappear in an inven however, that the Pietà arose entirely without
tory of the estate of the Rondanini family in precedent (Perrig, 1960). Reconstructions of the
Rome. Having been acquired by the Vimercati- project must remain conjectural, meanwhile,
Sanseverino family when they purchased the since the drawings associated with the Rondanini
Palazzo Rondanini in the 1820s, the sculpture Pietà are in most cases of disputed attribution
was later sold to the Commune of Milan and and cannot be seen as direct preliminary stud-
in 1952 was installed in the Castello Sforzesco ies for the sculpture. An exception is an auto-
(Tolnay, V, p. 155; Paoletti, 2000; Fiorio, 2004, graph sheet in Oxford (Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 10,
pp. 16–18, 107–113). In 2003/04 the figural group Cat. D240), containing sketches that appear to
underwent a thorough cleaning. point towards the design of the Rondanini Pietà
The majority of authors date the Rondanini (Tolnay, 1934; Nagel, 1996; Paolucci, 1997,
Pietà to the years between 1552 and 1564 and pp. 135–191; Nagel, 2000, pp. 202–212).
consider it to have been executed in two or even More productive, in my opinion, is the
three phases (Perrig, 1960, pp. 71–93; Isermeyer, explanation recently proposed by Paoletti
1965; Hartt, 1972, no. 36; Paoletti, 2000); in (2000), namely that the Pietà should be seen as
essence, therefore, it arose after the Florentine a palimpsest. Thus the artist has left his initial
Pietà. Wasserman (2003) argues that the Floren- ideas for the composition – ideas he could easily
tine Pietà arose later than the one in Milan. have chiselled off – to stand ambivalently along-
The Rondanini Pietà shows the dead Christ, side his newer, ultimately unfinished concept. In
who is being held by a figure standing behind contrast to the Florentine Pietà, however, it is
him. Visible on the left is a relatively finished evident that the idea of portraying himself in the
forearm, which belonged to a first, somewhat role of Nicodemus and the dominance of Mary-
larger version of the figure of Christ. A bare Ecclesia has receded in the Rondanini Pietà in
lower leg on the right behind Christ and the favour of an emphasis upon the corporeal nature
roughed-out face visible on the head of the of Christ. Nagel (2000, pp. 202–215) pursues a
standing figure may also be understood as frag- different line of argument, understanding the
ments of an earlier design. In the 1970s, the Rondanini Pietà as the expression of a slowly
fragment of a head of Christ also came to light, evolving iconoclasm.
but few have accepted its attribution to Michel- Conclusion: Just like the Florentine Pietà
angelo or its assignation to the Rondanini Pietà (Cat. S21), so too the Milan Rondanini Pietà tes-
(Mantura, 1973; Paolucci, 1997). tifies to Michelangelo’s absolute determination
On the basis of the sculpture’s two or even to carve a sculpture for his own tomb, even as
three recognizable design phases, as well as a his diminishing physical powers made such an
number of drawings by Michelangelo and a Pietà ambition virtually impossible.
Rondanini Pietà (detail), 1552/53–1564

652
Catalogue
of Architecture
Christof Thoenes
Behind art lies an ability, and it is an ability to work.

Those who admire art, admire a labour, a very skilled
and accomplished labour. And it is necessary to know
something about this labour, in order to admire it and
to enjoy its result, the work of art.
BERTOLT BRECHT, 1961
I confess I am unable to get excited about an artwork

without knowing its technique and the circumstances
of its production.
ROBERTO DE MAIO, 1978
MICHEL ANGELO CATALOGUE OF ARCHITECTURE
Page 707
Rome, S. Maria Maggiore, Cappella Sforza,
section and ground plan (detail), from:
Giovanni Giacomo de Rossi, Disegni di vari
altari, Rome 1689, plate 13
Page 708
Rome, Castel S. Angelo, Chapel of Leo X
(Survey drawing after Mariano Borgatti, 1890)
Right
Reconstruction of Michelangelo’s design for
the drum of the cupola of S. Maria del Fiore,
Florence (after Maurer)
The mention “Cat. D” accompanying the inside the chapel, of Raffaello Petrucci, who was the façade to the drawing, using round panes in A2. Cathedral, S. Maria del Fiore, designs for
drawings discussed in this catalogue of architec- castellan of Castel S. Angelo from 1513 to 1517, the upper half of the window, for example, and the completion of the drum of the dome, 1516
ture is a reference to the catalogue of architec- and by Michelangelo’s return to Florence in 1516. placing a bench in front of the plinth. The Lille Florence
tural drawings compiled by Thomas Pöpper in The attribution of the façade to Michel- drawing was subsequently identified as the work
Michelangelo, The Graphic Work, Ch. 13, Colo- angelo was first proposed by Geymüller (1904) of Raffaello da Montelupo (Nesselrath, 1983; The history of the drum and its ballatoio (gal-
gne 2016. and has never been doubted since. It is based 1994), who worked on the papal apartments on lery) is summarized by Nova (1994). Michelan-
on a drawing in a sketchbook, today in Lille, behalf of Paul III in 1544; its “deviations” were gelo became involved while still in Bologna in
A1. Castel S. Angelo, Chapel of Leo X, by an artist in Sangallo’s circle, which contains thus reinterpreted as modifications of the origi- July 1507, when he received a letter from the
1513–1517, Rome a drawing of the façade accompanied by the nal project, and in a restoration campaign of Operai di S. Maria del Fiore requesting him,
inscription: queste in chastello di roma di mano 1988 the changes made at the start of the century as an upright citizen of Florence and a building
The Chapel of Leo X lies along the south wall of di Michel agnolo di traverti[no]. The stylistic were correspondingly reversed. More recently specialist, to provide a design (uno modello o dis
the court of honour (Cortile dell’Angelo, Cor- arguments in favour of this attribution are still, however, a closer examination of the façade egnio) for the still unfinished gallery (published
tile delle palle) on the third level of the Castel summarized by Ackerman (1961, II, pp. 1 f.); has revealed that Montelupo’s drawing probably by Marchini, 1977, and Ristori, 1983). How he
S. Angelo. A set of papal apartments had been see also Argan/Contardi (1990, pp. 64 f.). The does show the original design (Krieg, 1999/2000, responded is not known. Four autograph draw-
housed here since the 15th century; in 1514 Pope façade comes closest to the architecture of the pp. 227 f.). The entrance portal inside the chapel ings (Cat. D344–347), today unanimously dated
Leo X commissioned Antonio da Sangallo to Sistine ceiling and the Julius Tomb. Drawings by may also stem from Michelangelo (ibid.). to around 1516 (Tolnay, 1975–1980, IV, pp. 491 f.;
extend these with a new private chapel (see pay- Michelangelo have not survived; Tolnay’s attri- Maurer, 2003), have inspired numerous, more or
ment records in K. Frey, 1910/11, p. 34). The bution of a sketch for a ground plan (TC493v) less free reconstructions by a number of authors
chapel was dedicated to SS Cosmas and Damian, fails to convince. (Maurer, 2003, pp. 94 f.), whereby Maurer dem-
the patron saints of the Medici family. It receives The Lille drawing demonstrates consid- onstrates the realistic aspect of Michelangelo’s
light from a window in its right-hand side wall, erable deviations from the built façade, a fact design, whose character is matched to the exist-
which fronts onto the courtyard. This wall was that would spark a curious chain of events. In ing building. According to Vasari, the project
clad with a marble aedicula façade. Although its the assumption that the drawing reproduced was pursued to the stage of a model, which was
construction is not documented, an approximate Michelangelo’s original design (Geymüller), a then discussed in d etail with Cardinal Giulio de’
dating is yielded by the coat of arms, mounted restorer at the start of the 20th century matched Medici (V/M, V, pp. 353 f.). A series of wooden
708 709
Page 710
Giovanni Battista Nelli
Florence, S. Lorenzo, elevation of
the façade model, 1687
Pen and wash, 420 x 550 mm
Florence, Uffizi, 3697A
Ground plan of S. Lorenzo with extensions

(after Portoghesi/Zevi)
1. New Sacristy
2. Laurentian Library
3. Reliquary Tribune
models of the drum are preserved in the Opera A3. S. Lorenzo, façade project, 1516–1520 the summaries in Millon/Smyth (1988a), Millon December 1516–December 1517, existing
di S. Maria del Fiore; two of them (nos. 143 Florence (1994b) and Elam (2002, pp. 215 f.). foundations are inspected and pronounced inad-
and 144) resemble Michelangelo’s design – large According to Condivi and Vasari, a competi- equate; new ones are planned and completed by
corner pilasters, entablature, no arcaded gal- The history of S. Lorenzo’s construction prior to tion was held for the façade design and Leo X December 1517: correspondence Michelangelo–
lery – and have indeed been attributed to him Michelangelo is reliably related by Paatz (1941) forced a very u
nwilling Michelangelo to take part. Baccio–Niccolini–Ferrucci, 30 December 1516, 7
(Marchini, 1977; De Angelis d’Ossat, 1966). and in greater depth by Saalman (1993). The fact This version of events, probably suggested by the January, 23 (?) May, 8 and 12 July 1517.
These attributions do not stand up to detailed that the rough masonry shell of the front façade artist himself, is given no credence by scholars January–March 1517, Baccio’s model and
criticism, however (Nova, 1994). was initially left exposed reflects contemporary (most recently Maurer, 2004, pp. 27–32). On the Michelangelo’s criticism of it: correspond-
Italian building practices (see Ackerman, 1961, contrary, the relatively large number of surviv- ence Michelangelo–Niccolini–Buonarroto di
I, pp. 11 f.). The decision to clad the façade was ing documents (letters, ricordi) gives the impres- Lodovico Simoni–Buoninsegni, 7 January, 17
evidently prompted by the visits paid to Flor sion that Michelangelo was deliberately working February, 7, 13 and 20 March 1517.
ence by Leo X from 30 November to 3 Decem- towards winning the entire commission right February 1517, Michelangelo is given details
ber 1515 and from 23 December 1515 to the end from the start. A résumé of events based on the of the façade programme: letter from Buonin-
of February 1516 (Pastor, IV.1, pp. 89–91, 96; sources is given below. Letters are cited according segni, 2 February 1517.
for Leo X’s ceremonial entry into Florence, see to their date, so that they can be located in any March–May 1517, Michelangelo makes his
also Elam, 2002, pp. 212–215, and the special- edition. Michelangelo himself summarizes the own clay model (with Francesco di Giovanni da
ist literature cited there). Vasari names five art- project in his notes of March 1520, most recently Settignano, known as “La Grassa”), announces
ists who put forward designs for the S. Lorenzo reproduced in Ricordi (1970, pp. 97–103). his plans and his financial terms: correspondence
façade project: Baccio d’Agnolo, Antonio da Autumn 1516, joint project by Baccio Michelangelo–Buoninsegni–Niccolini, 2 and 23
Sangallo, Andrea Sansovino, Jacopo Sansovino d’Agnolo/Michelangelo: Michelangelo–Baccio– (?) May 1517.
and Raphael (V/M, VII, p. 188); proposals were Buoninsegni correspondence, 7 and 13 October, Autumn 1517, Michelangelo makes a wooden
also submitted by Giuliano da Sangallo. A series 3, 19 and 21 November, 11 December 1516. model with Pietro Urbano, who in Decem-
of drawings relating to the project has survived, December 1516, Michelangelo makes a trip ber takes it to Rome: correspondence Michel-
and their identification and attribution has to Rome and accepts the joint project: Ricordi angelo–Niccolini–Urbano–Buoninsegni, 15 June
been discussed in depth in the literature; see (loc. cit.). and 29 December 1517, 2 January 1518.
710 711
January 1518, Michelangelo travels to Rome; Sansovino’s letter of 30 June 1517). Some thirty- Michelangelo with Pietro Urbano
contract of 19 January 1518 for the building of five drawings and sketches of all sizes and styles Florence, San Lorenzo, Model of the
the façade on the basis of Michelangelo’s wooden can be linked with Michelangelo’s project for the façade
model (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 671 f.). S. Lorenzo façade. The most recent overview of
January 1518, Michelangelo travels to Rome; the widely ramified discussion regarding their
contract of 19 January 1518 for the building of attribution and chronology is offered by Millon
the façade on the basis of Michelangelo’s wooden (1994b, pp. 566–574). Three types of façade can
model (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 671 f.). be identified:
1516–1519, complaints relating to the marble 1) A façade with three orders, stepped three
quarries in Carrara, Pietrasanta and Serravezza: times in line with the masonry construction
various letters from these years. behind and articulated by six, four and two pairs
March 1520, Michelangelo’s final settle- of columns or pilasters respectively. This design
ment: letter to Buoninsegni (?), end of February/ is documented by just one, barely legible sketch
10 March 1520. (Cat. D326). The overall scheme is preserved in existing masonry but stands in front of it as an of changes of plan but could also represent inac-
The reasons why the project was shelved are later copies by Raffaello da Montelupo, however, independent block, one bay deep. In its defini- curacies on the part of the draughtsman. Fur-
not evident from the correspondence, although and in a sheet in the Uffizi (1923A; anonymous). tive shape – the wooden model – it was to pro- ther information is provided by Michelangelo’s
an examination of the motives of those involved The concept, as far as can be made out, appears ject considerably beyond the existing building, sketches for the requisite marble blocks (Pöpper,
may provide some clues. From the very begin- somewhat primitive; it may represent the design both in width and height; see Michelangelo’s 2016, Ch. 11, Cat. D245–272); Ackerman (1961,
ning, and thus even before Michelangelo’s produced in collaboration with Baccio d’Agnolo sketch Cat. D332 and the montage by Maurer II, pp. 16–17) has used these, like the pieces of a
appearance on the scene, the driving force in 1516 and rejected by Michelangelo as “childish” (2004, p. 185). The ground level of this façade puzzle, to reconstruct large sections of the façade.
behind the façade project appears to have been (cosa da fanciugli) in spring 1517. Whether the block was to contain vestibule spaces, as already Finally, as later evidence shows, following the
the Florentine community of artists, not the scale drawing Cat. D325 – probably not an auto- proposed by Raphael, and the upper storey an signing of the contract in January 1518, a second,
patron. The sculptural programme – which was graph sheet – belongs to this group, is unclear. open light shaft, screened at the sides, in front larger wooden model was built, representing
only formulated some way into the planning of 2) A two-storey façade of the basilica type, of the central window of the church b ehind; the final version of the project (Millon/Smyth,
the façade (February 1517) – is conventional in with four columns/pilasters in the central bay see the analysis of the drawing Cat. D335 by 1988a, pp. 69–73). This must be the model that
style and shows little evidence of particular inter- and tabernacle-like wings on either side, in the Maurer (2004, pp. 184–193). The appearance of survives today.
est. Whether Michelangelo’s dream of a “mirror” manner of certain designs by Giuliano da San- the façade emerges for the first time only in the
not just for the house of Medici or the city of gallo (Uffizi 277A, 278A). This project is pre- sketch Cat. D331 (see Ch. VI, ill. p. 302); the pro-
Florence but of “all Italy” (May 1517; see Ch. VI) served in a large but unfinished presentation ject is brought to maturity via a large number of Michelangelo with Pietro Urbano
was intended to boost his employer’s enthusiasm drawing (Cat. D327), together with a series of studies and technical drawings (see Pöpper, 2016, Model of the façade, 1518
for the project, is still uncertain. Michelangelo’s later copies, brought together by Millon/Smyth Ch. 11, Cat. D245–273, 306 and Cat. D333–341, Poplar, 216 x 283 x 50 cm; scale 1:12
business plan was also evidently based on a false (1988a, pp. 27 and 31). The three design sketches 388, 400). Part of this process must have fallen Florence, Casa Buonarroti
estimation of the sums his patron was able and Cat. D328–330 can also be linked with this into the period of the spring/summer of 1517; its
willing to spend on the project, and indeed of second project, whereby Cat. D329 belongs result was the clay model by “La Grassa” of May The model (see Ch. VI, ill. p. 303) was most
his own capacity to manage the work and in par- either at the start of the series (most recently 1517, which was followed in autumn by Urbano’s recently restored in the 1980s. It was thereby
ticular cooperate with colleagues. This aspect has Millon, 1994b) or already looks forward to the wooden model. The drawing of a column in the discovered that the wood, where it was not hid-
been thoroughly examined by Wallace (1994), next group. In terms of chronology, this second scale used for the model has survived in three den behind decorative facings (now missing),
who demonstrates that Michelangelo was capa- façade design must have been conceived in the fragments (TC182v, 183v, 184v; cf. Hirst, 1988a, was painted white (Tinunin, 1992); on drawings
ble of organizing and running a large, complex months following Michelangelo’s trip to Rome p. 103). The project is preserved in a series of after the model – Dupérac, Nelli, Rossi – see
business with an extensive workforce. This has in December 1516, after he had disassociated drawings by other hands – Antonio da Sangallo, Millon/Smyth (1988a, pp. 63–65).
no bearing, however, on his aversion to work- himself from Baccio. The sketch Cat. D328 can Aristotile da Sangallo, Baccio Bandinelli (?),
ing with other artists. His notorious reputation be dated to January 1517 (Elam, 1992b). Giovanni Battista da Sangallo (?), anonymous
as a loner is not a modern legend, but reflects the 3) A façade with two storeys extending (Millon/Smyth 1988a, pp. 53 ff.) – that demon-
first-hand experience of his contemporaries (see across its full width, which no longer clads the strate small variations, which may be the result
712 713
S. Lorenzo, New Sacristy, section that the three walls already intended to receive
(after Stegmann and Geymüller) tombs should now be assigned to the Popes, the
Dukes and the Magnifici in that order of rank
Page 715
(lettersof 23 and 29 May 1524). Michelangelo’s
Ground plan of the New Sacristy
(after Portoghesi/Zevi) counter-proposal, namely to locate the papal
tombs in the left-hand room flanking the altar
chapel (quello lavamani dove è la scala), must
have caused heads to shake in Rome; it was left
to Fattucci to break this to the artist gently (let-
ters of 7 and 25 June 1524). In the end Clement
decided his tomb should be housed inside the
main church, either in the choir or in another
suitably worthy location (letter from Fattucci of
21 July 1524), and the matter was thereby shelved;
two years later it was still unresolved (letter from
Fattucci of 12 September 1526).
The 1520/21 design for the side walls was
thus retained. By the summer of 1526, the
tomb of Lorenzo on the west wall was all but
A4. S. Lorenzo, New Sacristy/Medici Chapel, standing in the way. In March 1520, when Gio- November 1520 [?]). The Cardinal expressed finished, and work on the Giuliano tomb was
1519–1534, Florence vanni Battista Figiovanni was appointed provve his approval, but also his concern that the space begun (letter by Michelangelo of 17 June 1526).
ditore, construction was already underway. By left around the monument would be restricted As a consequence of the political crises of these
The main source of information regarding the 1521 the ground floor was finished. By 1524 the (letters of 28 November and 28 December 1520, years, however, work dragged on until 1531/33.
background and progress of the commission is housing, i. e. the masonry structure and its pietra the latter from Buoninsegni), whereby he was The contracts for the entrance wall with the
Michelangelo’s correspondence with his patron, serena articulation, was completed; the lantern probably thinking primarily of the liturgical Magnifici tombs (la sepoltura doppia de la sagres
Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici; after the latter’s elec- was erected over the cupola and in 1525 crowned rites that would be conducted in the chapel (see tia) were supposed to be awarded in 1533 (letter
tion as Pope Clement VII in 1523, Giovan Franc- with a gilded polyhedron (see Wallace, 1989b). Ettlinger, 1978). The plan consequently changes from Sebastiano del Piombo to Michelangelo of
esco Fattucci wrote on his behalf. These letters More difficult to follow is the history of the to wall tombs: the two dukes – also known as the 16 August 1533). But it seems the project got no
can be found in Carteggio, II–IV, now with an marble decoration of the interior. Four tombs Captains (capitani) – opposite each other on the further: when Michelangelo left Florence in 1534,
excellent commentary by Maria Teresa Sambin were planned (see in detail Cat. S17): those of side walls, and the two Magnifici on the entrance individual pieces of the sculptural programme
De Norcen (2003). Michelangelo’s personal the two Magnifici, Lorenzo il Magnifico and wall, accompanied by a Madonna and St Cosmas lay strewn across the floor of the New Sacristy.
notes from the years 1521–1524 are reproduced in Giuliano, and those of Duchi Giuliano and Lor- and St Damian. On 10 April 1521, Michelangelo In 1545, Tribolo and Montelupo assembled them
the Ricordi (pp. 105 ff.). enzo, both of whom had died young. Giuliano was in Carrara, organizing the quarrying of into their present form. Vasari’s proposal (1563)
More recent scholarship has been able to (1478–1516), Duke of Nemours, was a son of Lor the marble for the tombs (Ricordi, p. 105); the to finish the New Sacristy to Michelangelo’s
resolve the questions surrounding the start of enzo il Magnifico and brother of Leo X; while design must therefore have already been chosen. designs remained unfulfilled.
the project: Michel angelo was not presented Lorenzo (1492–1519), Duke of Urbino, was a In March 1524 he announced that the architec- Michelangelo’s architectural drawings for
with a building already existing or begun (as still grandson of Lorenzo il Magnifico and nephew tural surrounds for the two ducal tombs would the New Sacristy and those by his assistants can
hypothesized by Ackerman, 1961, but corrected of Leo X – it was probably his unexpected death be finished in the course of the year (letter from best be studied in Tolnay’s corpus; those relating
in Ackerman/Newman, 1986, and Tolnay, 1976), in May 1519 that prompted the construction of Fattucci, 3 April 1524). to architecture can be divided into five groups:
but built his New Sacristy from the ground up the burial chapel. Michelangelo based the idea In the meantime, however, a new idea had 1) Two sketches of ground plans (Cat. D357,
(Frommel, 1967; Burns, 1979; Elam, 1979; Reiss, for his first plan on the Old Sacristy, with its been put forward: at the suggestion, supposedly, 359).
1993/94). In October 1519 a contract was signed sepulchre standing in the centre. Thus he of Jacopo Salviati, the New Sacristy was now 2) Detail studies of the masonry con-
for deliveries of pietra serena, while Novem- sketched a freestanding monument intended also to house the tombs of the two Medici Popes struction itself (windows, dome, lantern: Cat.
ber saw the demolition of a number of houses to hold all four tombs (letter fragment of Leo X and Clement VII. Fattucci proposed D361–371).
714 715
Florence, Laurentian Library, Ricetto,

elevation of the reading-room wall
Page 717
Laurentian Library, section through the
reading room and the Ricetto
3) Sketches and studies for the architecture but refashioned it with the aim of making the A5. S. Lorenzo, Laurentian Library, 1523–1533 the plans for the New Sacristy and the Lauren
of the tombs (overall designs and details: Pöpper, boundaries between room and tomb architec- and 1555–1558, Florence tian Library in parallel, it is not always easy to
2016, Ch. 5, Cat. D126–132, 134–138, and ibid. ture disappear. His response to the traditions of distinguish between the designs for the two
Ch. 13, Cat. D358, 360, 361, 365–371, 373–375, sepulchral architecture has been most thoroughly Modern scholarship remains indebted to the projects.
383, and papal tombs, for various locations: ibid, analysed by Ackerman (1961, I, pp. 28 f.); see also fundamental analysis of the Laurentian Library Cardinal Giulio expressed his intention to
Ch. 5, Cat. D125 and ibid, Ch. 13, 376–379, 440, Krieg (1999/2000, p. 126). For the designs for by Wittkower (1934). Partly differing inter- build a new library in as early as 1519, as docu-
443). the freestanding tomb (which cannot always be pretations are offered by Ackerman (1961), mented in Figiovanni’s ricordanze (Corti, 1964;
4) Sketches for marble blocks (architecture clearly distinguished from those for wall tombs), Portoghesi/Zevi (1964), Portoghesi (1967), Parronchi, 1964). Soon after Guilio’s election as
and sculpture: ibid, Ch. 11, Cat. D283–304). see in particular Morrogh (1992a); important Sinding-Larsen (1978), Lieberman (1985) and pope in November 1523, a disegnio by Michel-
5) Not discussed by Tolnay are the mural insights into Michelangelo’s methods of compo- Hemsoll (2003). A detailed account of the angelo is mentioned for the first time (30
drawings discovered in 1976 in the altar chapel of sition are found in Morrogh (1992b) and Maurer library’s construction is provided by Wallace December 1523). From January to March 1524
the New Sacristy, eleven of which refer to indi- (2004). The overall picture of the design process (1994), while new observations and interpre- discussions centred on the question of a suit-
vidual details of the architecture surrounding the nevertheless remains hazy: Michelangelo reacted tations are found in Krieg (1999/2000) and able location (30 January, 9 February, 10 and 22
tombs; see Dal Poggetto (1979, pp. 180–195) and both to changing specifications and to his own Maurer (2004). March 1524); see the plan sketched in Cat. D382
Elam (1981). new ideas; one concept overlaps another, but Our chief source of information is once and, in Cat. D418, a plan of the houses requir-
Viewed overall, these drawings provide an without arriving at a definitive synthesis. again Michelangelo’s correspondence, as repro- ing demolition. By the start of April the site had
impressive insight into Michelangelo’s design duced in Carteggio, III–V; now with the com- been chosen (3 April 1524): the library was to be
processes. If it is nevertheless hard to follow mentary by Sambin De Norcen (2003). The built over the west wing of the S. Lorenzo mon-
the chronological evolution of his ideas, this letters, most of them from Fattucci, are cited astery complex. Design proposals for its interior
only reflects the complexity of the task facing here by date. They are joined by over fifty draw- included: a Latin and a Greek library (2 January
him. This task was primarily sculptural: tombs ings, brought together and discussed in depth in 1524); two small studies (studietti) at the nar-
were to be installed within a space that – if so Tolnay’s corpus (see Ch. VI, ill. p. 312 und Cat. row end of the reading room (10 March 1524); a
far only at the conceptual stage – was predeter- D380–399, 402–438), and two mural drawings crociera (?; 13 April 1524); and a chapel (2 August
mined. Michelangelo did not accept this space in the New Sacristy (Dal Poggetto, 1979, nos. 112 1524), whose ground plan – a rectangular room
as it was, or was intended to become, however, and 137). Since Michelangelo was working on with an oval vault – is probably sketched in Cat.
716 717
D391 and to which the sketches in Cat. D437 the height difference of six braccia (about 3.5 Various sketches for figures and fortifications,
are possibly related. As a precaution against fire, metres/11 1⁄2 ’) between the entrance lobby – the after 1528 (?)
the ceilings of both the library and the monk’s Ricetto – and the reading room itself (10 March Pen, wash and red and black chalk, 562 x 407 mm
Florence, Casa Buonarroti, 27Ar
quarters underneath were to be vaulted (30 Janu- 1524). Michelangelo was asked to produce a
ary 1524); this was subsequently limited to just design, to be drawn in such a way that the Pope
the latter, with the reading room to be given a would be able to understand it (3 and 7 April
wooden ceiling (10 March, 3 and 13 April 1524). 1524). An initial design with two flights of stairs
The ground floor also needed reinforcing with pleased the Pope (29 April 1524), but one year
buttresses, but these were not to impact too later he opted for a single staircase occupying the
much upon the existing rooms (29 April, 13, 17 entire room (12 April 1525). Michelangelo seems
and 29 May, 9 July 1524); see Cat. D419–422. to have experimented right from the start with
Baccio Bigio was put in charge of this difficult various options (Cat. D384, 385); the convex-
task (ibid. and 17 September 1524). concave steps on Cat. D384 are inspired by Bra-
The Pope requested a detailed overall plan mante’s Belvedere stairway. Cat. D389 and 391
for the reading room and its furnishings; the show two flights of steps converging in the shape
library of the monastery of S. Marco was cited of a horseshoe, while the transition to the defini-
as an example (2 August 1524). The architectural tive solution with three parallel flights of stairs
details of the reading room were finalized on takes place in Cat. D392 and 393; see also Cat.
the basis of drawings provided by Michelangelo D475. Three drawings by Antonio da Sangallo,
(window: 12 April 1525; door: 3 and 18 April, probably from the late 1520s, offer a reflection of 1525 (23 December 1525), from summer 1526 the sent it to Ammannati (16 December 1558, 13, 14
2 June 1526; reading desks: 3 April 1526). these designs (Uffizi 816, 817 and 1464A, “Scala costs and consequently the speed of the project and 28 January 1559; see also the correspondence
The extant drawings comprise: early designs della libreria”). For the time being, however, the had to be reduced (17 July, 1 and 4 November between Ammannati, Francesco di Ser Jacopo
for a two‑storey wall system, whose essential stairs were left unbuilt. 1526). After 1527, not a great deal more was done. and the Duke in Gaye, III, 1840, pp. 11–14).
elements – recessed columns, buttresses – resur- Further major themes of the correspond- Prior to Michelangelo’s departure for Rome, he The staircase was executed on the basis of this
face in the Ricetto (Cat. D375, 383, 417); studies ence over the Ricetto were its ceiling and its arranged for work to be continued in his absence new model. The library was opened in 1571
and presentation drawings for windows (Cat. lighting (29 November and 23 December 1525), and left behind a clay model for the staircase (20 (Wittkower, 1934, p. 200).
D423, 427, 431) and for the door to the Ricetto issues that would remain unresolved right up to August 1533; Milanesi, 1875, p. 707). The ceiling
(Cat. D430–432); designs for the wood ceil- the start of the 20th century. The wall system and floor of the reading room were probably fin-
ing (Cat. D380, 381); designs for reading desks is not discussed in the letters, but its evolution ished only in the 1540s (V/M, VII, p. 203); a pro A6. City fortifications, 1528/29
(Cat. D433–435, and Ch. VI, ill. p. 312); and can be traced through Michelangelo’s sketches posal by Tribolo to execute the staircase came to Florence
the full-scale mural drawings for one internal and designs (Cat. D390–399). In the case of the nothing (V/M, VI, p. 92, and VII, p. 236).
and one external window (Dal Poggetto, 1979, detail studies of profiles (Cat. D400–416) and In 1555, Vasari and Ammannati were com- The most detailed account of the events of
nos. 112, 137). Reading rooms specifically for door and window frames (Cat. D423–432), it is missioned to build the staircase. A fragment of a 1527–1530 is found in books IX and X of Bened-
rare books were mentioned only on 10 March not always clear to what they belong. A num- draft letter from Michelangelo to Vasari contains etto Varchi’s Storia Fiorentina (on Michelangelo’s
1524; on 12 April 1525 it was requested that the ber of the door and window designs were sent two summary sketches – front and side eleva- role, see vol. II, pp. 133 f., 146 f. and 399 f. of the
chapel at the narrow end of the reading room be to Rome as presentation drawings. The Pope tions – for the three flights of the staircase (26 Gaetano Milanesi edition – Varchi, 1858). Addi-
replaced by a libreria secreta. By 10 November expressed enthusiasm for a design for the door September 1555; Cat. D394). The subsequent let- tional documents were published by Gaye (1839).
1525, Michelangelo had produced a design (Cat. leading from the Ricetto to the reading room (18 ter (28 September 1555) includes a description in Michelangelo’s official appointment as head of the
D436, 438); the triangular ground plan appears April 1526; see Cat. D425, 426). which Michelangelo states that the central flight city’s fortifications was recorded on 6 April 1529
to be dictated by the bounds of the site. It was Work on the construction of the library was for use by “the master” and those at the (Milanesi, 1875, p. 701). The relevant correspond-
never executed. began in the winter of 1524/25 and evidently pro- sides for the servants: whether this was intended ence by Michelangelo is found in Carteggio, III,
The correspondence concerning the Ric- gressed fast. In June 1526, five of the Ricetto col- ironically (Argan/Contardi, 1990, p. 121) under 2 March 1528, 31 May and late September
etto is dominated by the discussion of the umns were in place (17 June 1526). But although remains impossible to prove (see Ch. VI). In 1529; see also the two letters from Sebastiano del
stairs, which had to overcome the problem of the Pope was still calling for haste at the end of 1558, Michelangelo made a new clay model and Piombo of 24 February and 29 April 1531.
718 719
The designs for fortifications by Michelan- a low priority. As an alternative, Michelangelo

gelo in the Casa Buonarroti (Cat. D446–472; proposed a tribune (pergamo) over the central
see ill. p. 719 and Ch. VI, ill. pp. 320, 321 and portal on the inner side of the entrance façade;
323) were known to Thode and Berenson, but this was built in 1531/32 and blended perfectly
were published only shortly after the outbreak with Brunelleschi’s church (see the letters of late
of the Second World War by Tolnay (1940); October/early November 1531, 7 and 19 Octo-
since then they have been regularly discussed ber 1532, 25 July 1533; Cat. D444, 445, possibly
in the Michelangelo literature. They have been also Cat. D441, 442, and the studies of capitals,
the object of special studies by Manetti (1980), D476–481). Whether the sketches for an octago-
Wallace (1987c), Fara (1988; 2003) and nal structure (Cat. D349, 350) relate to this com-
Bredekamp (2006b). A detailed discussion of the mission is dubious (Ackerman, 1961, II, pp. 31 f.;
literature up to 1980 is found in Tolnay (1975– Argan/Contardi, 1990, pp. 172 and 198 f.).
1980, IV, pp. 74–85).
Ground plans for houses are found in Cat.
D 351–353, 486 and 490. They were linked
A7. Miscellaneous works of architecture and hypothetically by Tolnay with the Casa Buo-
architectural projects, 1514–1534 narroti and Michelangelo’s studio in the Via
Florence, Rome, Venice Mozza; the sheet Cat. D486 bears the word lal
tapacio, which refers to the Palazzo Altopascio-
Windows in the Medici Palace, Florence, Grifoni. A rapidly sketched biforate window in A8. The Capitol, 1538–1564 administration; the office of Architetto del Popolo
c. 1517: according to Vasari, Michelangelo made Cat. D533 bears similarities with the windows Rome Romano was created only after Michelangelo’s
a model for the windows that served to close of the Quattrocento Cocchi-Serristori palace death (Kempfer, 1997). Nor is Michelangelo’s
the loggias on the ground floor of the Palazzo (TC494). Known only from written referen- For the complicated political history of the work on the Capitol mentioned or discussed
Medici (V/M, VI, p. 557, and VII, p. 191). The ces are Michelangelo’s designs for the façade of Capitol in the post-antique era, Rodocanachi either by himself or by his contemporaries. This
term that Vasari uses to describe them – finestre the Palazzo Santi Quattro in Rome (letters of 8 (1904) remains indispensable; more recent his- makes it difficult to reconstruct. What follows
inginocciate, or “kneeling windows” – probably February and 16 March 1525), a house for Bar- torical literature is found in Güthlein (1985) and is a summary chronology of the building works
refers to the consoles that rise from the ground tolomeo Valori in Florence (letter of early April Ebert-Schifferer (1988). In the conflict between carried out during the artist’s day, as far as this
beneath the external window-ledge. These are 1532) and the Rialto Bridge in Venice (Condivi, communal autonomy and state absolutism, is supported by documentary evidence. Written
particularly striking in the (autograph?) drawing 1987, p. 58, and Vasari, V/M, VII, p. 199). Con- Michelangelo is popularly numbered amongst sources are accompanied by their relevant loca-
Cat. D348, whose details in places diverge; see temporary sources also confirm the traditional the champions of republican ideals of freedom. tion in the literature, while visual sources are
Ackerman/Newman (1986, p. 295) with reference attribution to Michelangelo of the portal of The most discriminating arguments in support cited in the form of numbers in square brack-
to Marchini (1977) and Argan/Contardi (1990, S. Apollonia in Florence, built around 1530 (cf. of this view are presented by Burroughs (1993); ets, which refer to the list at the end of this
p. 172). Argan/Contardi, 1990, p. 201). Güthlein, on the other hand, emphasizes the art- entry. More detailed discussions are found in
ist’s proximity to the Pope and sees the munici- Ackerman (1961), De Angelis d’Ossat (1966),
S. Lorenzo, Reliquary Tribune, Florence, pal institutions working to obstruct his plans. D’Onofrio (1973), Argan/Contardi (1990) and
1525–1531/32: Pope Clement VII’s desire to ins- This falls in line with the extremely protracted in the anthologies by Tittoni (1994–1997). For
tall a ciborium over the altar of S. Lorenzo, in history of construction work on the Capitoline the sculptural decoration of the buildings and
which the church’s relics could be stored and Hill. Michelangelo was engaged on the Capitol the piazza, which are not discussed here, Bud-
exhibited, was expressed in a letter from Fat- for twenty-six years, longer than on any other densieg (1969) remains essential.
tucci dated 14 October 1525 and reiterated on a of his architectural works. His role, however,
number of occasions in the correspondence of was not that of chief planner with sole respon- A8a. Via Capitolina, Cordonata
Page 721
the following year. Michelangelo sent drawings, Etienne Dupérac sibility (something to which he attached such In 1535 (10 December) a strada del Campidoglio
but the ongoing work on the New Sacristy and Rome, Piazza del Campidoglio, great importance in other cases), and nor did fino alli Maddaleni is planned (De Angelis
Laurentian Library meant that the project was Michelangelo’s project, 1569 any such position exist within the Commune’s d’Ossat/ Pietrangeli, 1965, p. 24). In 1538 a tax
720 721
restoration of their palace and the square in front

(in adornamento et m agnificentia del palazzo e
della piazza di esso; Pecchiai, 1950, pp. 36 f.); on
28 November 1537, the Lateran chapter resolves
to protest to the Pope about the removal of the
equestrian monument (Künzle, 1961, pp. 257 f.).
In January 1538, the equestrian monument is
transported to the Capitol and set up (Künzle,
1961, p. 257, various documents). On 22 March
1539, funding is approved for the installation of
the equestrian monument secundum iudicium
d. Michaelis Angelis sculptoris and for the build-
ing of walls on the piazza (the Aracaeli terrace;
Pecchiai, 1950, pp. 46 and 210); vedute show the
equestrian monument on Michelangelo’s base
[2–8] and the Aracoeli terrace with its central
bay [4, 6–9, 11, 12, 14]. In 1561–1564, the base of
the equestrian monument is modified and the
raised oval step created around it (Künzle, 1961,
is raised pro Via Capitolina (Siebenhüner, 1954, pp. 262–269; Bedon, 1997) [10–12, 14]; in 1659,
p. 61). In 1541 there is talk of a Via publica de this step is rebuilt: filling with eight radial bands
novo constructa itur ad Capitolium (Gesche, 1971, (Carlo Rainaldi); in 1849, the piazza is paved,
p. 73; see also Andreani, 2005). In 1544 building and in 1938/39 repaved with the star pattern by
land is purchased at the foot of the Cordonata Dupérac (not by Michelangelo: Bedon, 1997).
(Siebenhüner, 1954, p. 62); the ramp appears in
1551 as a project [6], but by around 1554 has yet
to be commenced [8]. In 1562 earthworks are in
progress and in 1564 masonry work (Pecchiai,
1950, p. 43); over the course of the 1560s, the
Cordonata is finished [13, 14]. Della Porta pro-
poses an extension to the ramp that will reduce
its angle of ascent; his design is accepted on 11
October 1578 and built 1581/82 (Pecchiai, 1950, A8c. Senator’s Palace was complete [4]. The right-hand side was built
pp. 51 and 53 f.). The medieval building is discussed by Paul after the demolition of the Squarcialupi loggia,
Bernardo Faleti (1963) and Pietrangeli (1965), its subsequent the account for which was settled on 12 Octo-
A8b. Piazza and Equestrian Monument Rome, Piazza del Campidoglio, Michelangelo’s alternations in the 16th century most recently ber 1547 (ibid., p. 78). A bill for stonemasonry is
In 1535 (?), the piazza area is levelled (Brancia project, 1567 by Contardi (1994; 1995) and Frommel (1995). dated 21 May 1552 (ibid., p. 85); see Cat. D474
d’Apricena, 1997/98, p. 443); a project is planned Design drawings by Michelangelo for the with Michelangelo’s sketches of profiles for the
for a portico on the Aracoeli side? [1]. In 1537 Page 723 (above) open-air staircase perhaps survive amongst base of the plinth for the river gods. By 1554,
Rome, façade of the Senator’s Palace
(after 23 May), Michelangelo objects to the relo- the sketches on Cat. D121 and 122 (Pöpper, work has commenced on the entrance por-
(after De Angelis d’Ossat/Pietrangeli)
cation of the equestrian monument from the 2016, Ch. 5). We have no precise dates for its tal on the platform at the top of the staircase
Lateran to the Capitol (Künzle, 1961, pp. 260 Page 723 (below) execution. By 1542, the project was finalized (ibid., pp. 86 f.) and the tower at the right cor-
and 269 f.); on 23 October and 6 November Rome, façade of the Conservators’ Palace (Pecchiai, 1950, pp. 76 f.); a few years later, the ner has been extended up to the height of the
1537, the Conservators approve funding for the (after De Angelis d’Ossat/Pietrangeli) masonry work for the left-hand flight of stairs gallery in front of the upper storey [8, 10–12].
722 723
After an inspection by Pius IV on 5 November 10 December a payment is made to Guidetti for

1561, repair work is carried out (ibid., p. 87); at drawings and works on the palace (ibid.). On 13
the Pope’s request, a new project is conceived February 1564, Michelangelo dies, followed in
to regularize the façade (il nuovo designo restatothe autumn of that same year by Guidetti. On
presso di m. Thomao del Cavalieri) [20?], works 12 December, Giacomo della Porta is appointed
for which are paid for on 24 April 1564 (ibid., Guidetti’s successor (ibid.). On 24 August and 31
p. 89). The widening of the right-hand corner December 1565, della Porta receives payments for
tower is completed [13]; on subsequent works to a wooden model of a capital and the entablature
the palace, see Contardi (1994; 1995). of the giant order (ibid., pp. 126 and 231); see the
drawing by Cherubino Alberti in Buddensieg
A8d. Conservators’ Palace (1969, p. 204). Further details are found in Ack-
For the preceding buildings of the 14th and 15th erman (1961, II, pp. 53–58) and Argan/Contardi
century, see Ebert-Schifferer (1988, pp. 90–102); (1990, pp. 256 f.); early views showing the pal-
their appearance prior to remodelling is docu- ace in places still under construction are housed
mented in [2, 3, 8]. Resolutions of 22 and 26 in Vienna (Albertina, It. Arch. Rome, 29–31),
September 1537 to renovate the palace (Lanciani, Florence (Uffizi, 1768A, 7922 A, 7923A) and
1903, II, p. 68) came to nothing. The works car- New York (Metropolitan Museum of Art, Scholz
ried out after Michelangelo’s designs have been Collection, 49.92.64 and 49.92.69 [details]).
more recently discussed by Morrogh (1994),
Contardi (1996; 1997), Frommel (1997) and A8e. Overall plan
Pagliara (1997). Cat. D484 preserves Michelan- Ideas for a comprehensive remodelling of the
gelo’s design sketches for the portico; window Capitoline Hill were first mooted as from 1534
designs on sheets Cat. D487 and 488 vary motifs and the beginning of the pontificate of Paul III
from the courtyard windows for the Farnese pal- (Brancia d’Apricena, 1997/98; Bruschi, 2004).
ace and may refer to aedicules in the stairwell of Michelangelo’s involvement can be documented
the Conservators’ Palace (Morrogh, 1994). This only for the installation of the equestrian monu-
would date Michelangelo’s planning activities to ment (1538/39), but the stairs of the Senator’s Pal-
the 1540s and 1550s; see Vasari’s note that Michel- ace might also belong to this planning stage. The
angelo had wanted to use Aristotile da Sangallo views [4] and [6–14] record the Campidoglio
“for the building [fabbrica] that the Romans were and its buildings as they appeared then and up
planning on the Capitol”, but that the latter had to the start of the 1560s. The Capitol of today,
returned to Florence in 1547 (V/M, VI, p. 449). with its two lateral palaces facing each other in
Since the steps in front of the Senator’s Palace mirror image, appears only in the Faleti/Dupérac
were already nearing competition, it is most likely engravings of 1567–1569 [15–19]; see the detailed
that this note refers to the Conservators’ Palace. description by Vasari of 1568 (V/M, VII,
On 11 March 1563, after a site inspection, pp. 222 f.). No earlier sources have survived.
Pius IV orders the beginning of work on the This has fuelled a protracted discussion in the
new building (Ackerman, 1961, II, p. 53); on literature which cannot be explored here. Those (1559–1565). Siebenhüner (1954), Bonelli (1964) Rome, ground plan of the Capitol, modern
8 June, the right-hand bay of the old façade is who believe that an overall design for the Capi- and Argan/Contardi (1990) see the design day (after Portoghesi/Zevi)
demolished and the foundations laid for the tol was conceived around 1538 include Ackerman assuming concrete form in a number of stages,
pier in the right-hand corner of the new build- (1961), Barbieri and Puppi (in Portoghesi/Zevi, whereby the date of the proposal for the third
ing (Pecchiai, 1950, p. 123). On 26 July 1563, 1964), Thies (1982) and Burroughs (1993). Bran- palace remains open. Ackerman has recently
Guidetto Guidetti is placed in charge of Michel- cia d’Apricena (1997/98, p. 456) suspects a later revised his position in favour of an evolution in
angelo’s building works (ibid., p. 230), and on date, namely during the pontificate of Pius IV stages (Ackerman, 2001, pp. 277–279).
724 725
A8 f. Vedute, plans of Rome and other illustra- Piazza del Campidoglio, engraving, 1568 – [19]
tions of Michelangelo’s Capitol projects Etienne Dupérac, Piazza del Campidoglio,
engraving, 1569 (ill. p. 723) – [20] Etienne
[1] Anon., Piazza del Campidoglio, fresco in Dupérac (circle of?), Palazzo Senatorio, Berlin,
the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala delle Oche, Kupferstichkabinett, c. 1578.
before 1538 (?) – [2] Francisco de Holanda, The
equestrian monument of Marcus Aurelius in
front of the Palazzo dei Conservatori, sketch- A9. St Peter’s, 1546–1564, Rome
book, El Escorial, 1539/40 – [3] Anon., Piazza
del Campidoglio, fresco in the Palazzo dei The most coherent overall presentation con-
Conservatori, Sala delle Aquile, 1541/42 – [4] taining the greatest wealth of material remains
Hieronymus Cock, Piazza del Campidoglio, Ackerman (1961, II, pp. 83–112), see also
engraving, ed. 1562, c. 1544/47 – [5] Nicolas the abridged but updated new version in
Beatrizet, Marcus Aurelius, engraving, 1549 – [6] Ackerman/Newman (1986, pp. 317–324); men-
Leonardo Bufalini, plan of Rome, 1551 (see Ch. tion should also be made of Millon/Smyth
IX, ill. p. 497) – [7] Pirro Ligorio, plan of Rome, (1976; 1994), Argan/Contardi (1990), Bellini
1552 – [8] Anon., Piazza del Campidoglio, Paris, (2001; 2002; 2006), Millon (2005) and Thoenes
Musée du Louvre, c. 1554 (ill. p. 726 top) – [9] (2006).
Anon., Piazza del Campidoglio, Braunschweig,
Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, c. 1561/64 (ill. Michelangelo’s appointment and
p. 726 bottom) – [10] Giovanni Antonio Dosio, administration
Palazzo Senatorio, Florence, Uffizi, 2560A, In the long history of the construction of St
c. 1561/62 (see Ch. IX, ill. p. 501) – [11] Antonio Peter’s basilica, the Michelangelo years are the
Lafréry (ed.), Piazza del Campidoglio, engrav- most dramatic, the most strongly stamped by
ing, c. 1563/64 – [12] Bernardo Gamucci, Piazza the personality of the architect and so in this
del Campidoglio, woodcut, 1565 – [13] Anon. regard the best documented. The candidate
Fabriczy, Cordonata, Stuttgart, Kupferstichkabi- selected by the deputies of the Fabbrica to
nett, c. 1565 – [14] Salvestro Peruzzi, Capitoline succeed Antonio da Sangallo, who died on 29
Hill, Florence, Uffizi, 660A and 274A (plan of September 1546, was Giulio Romano (V/M, V,
Rome), before 1567 – [15] B. Faleti (ed.), Piazza pp. 554 f.). But he, too, died just one month
del Campidoglio, ground plan, engraving, 1567 later, on 1 November (see K. Frey, 1916, pp. 31 f.).
(ill. p. 722) – [16] Etienne Dupérac (?), Piazza The subsequent appointment of Michelangelo
del Campidoglio, left half, Florence, Uffizi, evidently went back to a decision by Paul III –
2702A, before 1568 (?) – [17] Etienne Dupérac, reached, in Vasari’s opinion (V/M, VII, p. 218),
Piazza del Campidoglio, Oxford, Christ Church in a moment of divine inspiration; for the res-
College, before 1568 (?) – [18] Etienne Dupérac, ervations harboured by the deputies towards
the person of Michelangelo, see the letter from
Francesco Pallavicino in Bardeschi Ciulich
Anonymous (1977, p. 272). According to later testimonies by
View of the Capitol, c. 1554
the artist himself (letters of 11 May 1555 and 22
Paris, Musée du Louvre
May 1557; see also V/M, VII, p. 218), Michel-
Anonymous angelo was stubbornly opposed to the idea. On
View of the Capitol, c. 1561/64 the other hand, by early December – prior to his
Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum official appointment – he was already working
726 727
on a wooden model, and thus had a project income (in his correspondence with Vasari of 20
ready to hand (K. Frey, 1912/13, p. 93). Whatever August 1554 and 22 May 1557, he calls its mem-
the case, negotiations resulted in his engagement bers ladri (thieves): “if they are allowed to carry
on an exceptional basis: Michelangelo received on with their schemes, the building will never
his pay – which was twice as high as the usual be finished”). Problems with opponents contin-
architect’s salary – not from the Fabbrica, but ued, with Michelangelo coming under attack for
directly from the papal treasury, probably in his his practice of managing construction from a
capacity as painter, sculptor and architect to the distance (K. Frey, 1916, pp. 33 f.). Michelangelo
Vatican palace (papal brief of 1 September 1535; threatened his resignation in order to prevent
Vasari/Barocchi, III, pp. 1192 f.; on the question undesired appointments (ibid., pp. 46 f.; V/M,
of salary, see K. Frey, 1916, p. 34). Michelangelo VII, p. 256) and to counter slanderous accusa-
did not have to take any orders from the depu- tions (letter of 13 September 1560); the quarrels
ties, therefore, and did not do so. This gave rise would drag on until the final year of Michel-
to conflicts of authority (see the correspondence angelo’s life (6 September 1563). Following the
published and discussed by Saalman, 1978, and death of Paul III, Michelangelo was powerless to
Bardeschi Ciulich, 1977, 1983), that affected both prevent construction slowing down due to lack
Michelangelo’s relations with other individuals of money (letter to Vasari, 22 May 1557). Duke
(see in detail K. Frey, 1916, pp. 31–52) and his Cosimo tried to exploit Michelangelo’s depres-
plans for the building and their implementation sion to persuade him to return to Florence, but
(instructions to the workforce). This resulted the artist steadfastly refused (six letters between
on 11 March 1547 in a serious disagreement, September 1554 and June 1557): rather than
which the enraged commissioners took to the ending his days in his home city of Florence,
Pope; the latter, driven by his anxiety to see he needed to see through to the end the “toil
progress on the new basilica, sided with Michel- and trouble” (fatica e fastidio) of the work on St
angelo on every point (Bellini, 2006, pp. 99 f.). Peter’s (to the Duke, before 22 May 1557).
In order to avoid further complications, on 11
October 1549 Paul III issued a motu proprio Michelangelo’s project
in which he granted Michelangelo unlimited The chief source regarding Michelangelo’s project
lifelong authority in all matters relating to St for St Peter’s is the building itself, or at least the
Peter’s (V/M, VII, p. 220; see K. Frey, 1916, parts that were constructed under his supervision.
p. 32, and Vasari/Barocchi, III, pp. 1456–1458, Of the models that were produced in the course
with a transcript of the astonishing document). of work (see Argan/Contardi, 1990, pp. 324 f.),
This was confirmed in a papal brief of 23 Janu- only the 1558–1561 model of the dome has sur-
ary 1552 by Paul’s successor, Julius III (reigned vived, in a greatly altered form (see Ch. IX, ill.
1550–1555), who also supported Michelangelo in p. 522). With the exception of a number of sheets
a renewed conflict with the deputies, represented relating to the dome, all the design drawings are
by their spokesman Cardinal Marcello Cervini lost. The Lucchino engraving of 1564 can be con-
(V/M, VII, pp. 228, 232 f.; Vasari/Barocchi, IV, sidered a source for the exterior articulation of
pp. 1581–1583; ibid. an angry memorandum from the southern hemicycle. Of limited documentary
the deputies, probably from the same year; see
undated letters by Michelangelo in Carteggio,
IV, pp. 338 and 360). Michelangelo saw the San- Page 729 and 730
gallo clique, deeply entrenched in the Fabbrica, Etienne Dupérac
fighting to preserve its legal and illegal streams of Rome, St Peter’s, Michelangelo’s project, 1569
728 729
into a planning process that had started four A problematical facet of the exterior archi- In view of the unresolved situation on the
centuries earlier. These interventions aimed tecture is the attic, which on the southern side eastern side of the building, Michelangelo does
primarily at reducing the building’s volume: was built unadorned during Michelangelo’s not appear to have pursued his ideas for the
from Sangallo’s project Michelangelo trimmed lifetime, but which on the northern side – built façade. A sketch of the topography of the Vatican
apsidal ambulatories, arms of corner chapels, immediately after his death – was given the buildings at the start of planning (Cat. D493, see
corner sacristies and ramp shafts (see Thoenes, facing that can still be seen today (under con- the relevant remarks in the “Messer Bartolomeo”
1995, pp. 372 f.), vestibules and campanili. This struction in an engraving, signed HCB, of the letter) indicates that he was originally thinking
made it necessary – or possible – to develop new Belvedere Courtyard that can be dated to the of an open portico in the style of the Pantheon.
elevation systems for the interior and exterior summer of 1565). Millon/Smyth (1969) have No other documents exist; who proposed the
walls of the affected areas. This was probably the shown that the plain attic, as it appears in the solution shown in the Dupérac engravings and
purpose of the models that Michelangelo had Lucchino engraving (ill. p. 732 right) and the the Naples drawing, with its unfortunate eleva-
built in 1546/47 (K. Frey, 1909, p. 171; 1912/13, Naples drawing, was intended to be definitive; tion and its façade clashing with the attic facing,
pp. 92–96; Pollak, 1915, pp. 52 f.). These models it was Michelangelo’s successor, Ligorio, who remains uncertain (Thoenes, 1998 and 2006;
are usually related in the literature to the build- opted to add the facing, which in 1605–1611 Bellini, 2002).
ing as a whole and are linked with the Passig- was subsequently mounted on the south side The dome represents a subject in itself
nano painting of 1618/19, but the model depicted as well (see also Keller, 1976, pp. 37–40). Hirst (Wittkower, 1964 and 1978; Saalman, 1975; Di
there is more likely to have been a fiction by the (1974) opposes this argument with reference to Stefano, 1980; Millon/Smyth, 1988a and 1994).
artist; had it really existed, we would surely a later design by Michelangelo and to a detail Its diameter and basic circular form were dic-
value are illustrations executed after Michel have greater evidence of it. The architecture of on the Lille drawing for the dome (Cat. D494); tated by the building below, but it had otherwise
angelo’s death, such as the Dupérac engravings the apses and the angled walls flanking them is this latter can also be related to the Porta Pia got no further than the project stage (Bramante,
of 1569 (p. 446; regarding their flaws, most undoubtedly Michelangelo’s, whereas the articu- (Millon/Smyth, 1975), however, or to the drum Sangallo); here, therefore, Michelangelo had a
recently Bedon, 1995; Bellini, 2002, pp. 303–306; lation of the corner chapels – built only after of the dome; see also the detail sketches in Cat. free hand to design something new. We are
Bellini, 2006, p. 47) and the anonymous eleva- Michelangelo’s death – is dubious in individual D507. The discussion has since remained in familiar with his project from two design draw-
tion (section and exterior view) in the Biblioteca details (see the partial discrepancies between flux (summarized in Argan/Contardi, 1990, ings (Cat. D494 and 495), a series of detail stud-
Nazionale in Naples (Keller, 1976; Bellini, 2002, the Dupérac engravings and the Naples draw- pp. 327 f., and Millon/Smyth, 1994a). ies and sketches (Cat. D491, 492, possibly 483,
pp. 302 f.). Further light is shed on Michelan- ing, Bellini, 1999/2002). Further information 497–505), a sketch from the Fabbrica archives
gelo’s intentions by a number of written sources: on individual aspects of the planning process (Millon/Smyth, 1988a, no. 33; Bellini, 2006,
Michelangelo’s letters to one “Messer Bartolo- is provided by Millon/Smyth (1969; 1976) and p. 104), a drawing, surviving only in fragments,
meo” and one “Mons.re reverendissimo” from Saalman (1975), who attempts to reconstruct a for a window for the drum of the model project
the early planning stages (Carteggio, IV, pp. 251 f. first design phase with the aid of the anonymous (Cat. D489 and 506, with a segmental instead
and V, p. 123; regarding the first letter see also Uffizi drawings 95A and 96A (workshop copies of triangular pediment) and the ground plan for
Thoenes, 2006, regarding the second Frings, or later views of the building?). The divergence, a buttress (Cat. D500), these two last employ-
1998) and his comments, as conveyed by Vasari, observed by Millon/Smyth (1976, pp. 199 f.), ing the scale used for the wooden model, 1:15.
on the Sangallo model (V/M, IV, pp. 162 f., V, between the axes of the exterior and interior The ground plan is difficult to interpret, since
pp. 467 f., VII, pp. 218 f.). articulation requires further investigation (see no account is taken of the curve of the drum,
As the letter to “Messer Bartolomeo” shows, Thoenes, 2012, pp. 58–61). On the error in the and an inscription in Michelangelo’s hand men-
Michelangelo had a vision for the overall build- vaulting of the southern hemicycle (V/M, VII, tions an ochio (round window?) which cannot
ing. He could only articulate his project, how- pp. 246–248), see Michelangelo’s letters to Duke be related to the project for the model. Of the
ever, in the form of individual interventions Cosimo and Vasari (before 22 May, 1 July and model itself – today housed in the Fabbrica di
17 August 1557, the two latter with explanatory S. Pietro (see Ch. IX, ill. p. 522) – only the drum
Page 731 drawings, Cat. D510, 511), discussed by K. Frey and the inner shell of the dome are original;
Antonio Lafréry and Antonio Labacco (1923, pp. 481–484), and Cat. D508, a sketch still the outer shell and the lantern were altered by
Rome, St Peter’s, ground plan as designed by not satisfactorily interpreted; see most recently della Porta and Vanvitelli (della Porta’s interven-
Antonio da Sangallo, 1549 Maurer (2004, pp. 122–125) and Brodini (2006). tions are dubious: Schiavo, 1965; Bellini, 2006,
730 731
pp. 41 f.). The altered and/ or lost parts of the he had probably been occupied with the rede-
original model can be reconstructed with the sign of the hemicycles – Michelangelo asked his
aid of the drawings by Dosio (Uffizi 92A, 94A, nephew in Florence to send him the dimensions
2031–2033A, perhaps made when the model of the cathedral cupola, in particular its height
was under construction), and a group of draw- from the ground to the foot of the lantern, and
ings from the circle of Dupérac (?) in New York the height of the lantern itself (Carteggio, IV,
(Metropolitan Museum of Art) and Stockholm pp. 271 f.). The designs in Lille and Haarlem
(Nationalmuseum; for a detailed discussion, see (Cat. D494, 495), the sketches Cat. D491 and
Millon/Smyth, 1994c, pp. 659–662; d’Orgeix, 492 and the sketch from the Fabbrica archives,
2001), in conjunction with the detailed descrip- datable to 1548, arose after this. They show
tion by Vasari (V/M, VII, pp. 250–257) and, with Michelangelo’s two most important innovations:
some reservations, the Dupérac engravings. the drum is surrounded by buttresses with paired
Every possible opinion has been voiced in columns and crowned by statues, and the dome
the literature regarding the dating and attri- consists of two separate shells which move away
bution of the dome design, each based on its from each other towards the apex (see Bellini,
own reasoning. Two planning phases can be 2006, p. 104); steps lead upwards on the roof
identified. On 30 July 1547 – up to this point of the inner shell (see also the sketch Cat. D91
in Pöpper, 2016, Ch. 3). But the dome is here
subdivided into only twelve segments (see most
Antonio Labacco and Antonio Salamanca
Rome, St Peter’s, southern hemicycle as recently Maurer, 2004, pp. 126–134), and the
designed by Antonio da Sangallo, 1546 mural fields of the drum are correspondingly
wider and contain circular windows; the dome –
Vincenzo Lucchino or at least its outer shell – is slightly tapered, and
Rome, St Peter’s, southern hemicycle as its lantern takes up Florentine examples (cathe-
designed by Michelangelo, 1564 dral, New Sacristy).
The second planning phase is represented
Page 733
by the model. In it, the Florentine character-
Martino Ferrabosco
Rome, St Peter’s, ground plan and sections istics have receded: the drum now has sixteen
through the northwest quarter of the segments and rectangular aedicule windows; a
building, from: Architettura della Basilica di hemispherical cupola carries a somewhat larger
S. Pietro in Vaticano, 1620, plates 9, 10 lantern. The new drum must have been defined
732 733
before 1554: in January of that year, construction north, c. 1562 (Dosio, Uffizi 91A); an interior
was already underway on the exterior articula- view looking west, c. 1562 (Naldini, Hamburg,
tion and from April 1555 on the interior articula- Kunsthalle); and lastly an exterior view from the
tion (Wittkower, 1964, pp. 95 f.). In May 1555, northeast, 1565 (engraving monogrammed HCB).
Michelangelo was confident that he would be The state of the building in 1546 is illus-
able to vault the dome soon (presto; letter to trated in diagrams in Ackerman (1961, I, fig.
Vasari, 11 May 1555). But his hopes came to noth- 12) and Millon/Smyth (1976, no. 5a); see also
ing as construction ground to a halt in 1556 due Argan/Contardi (1990, p. 324). The course of
to lack of funds. At the insistence of a number construction is described most thoroughly by
of friends, Michelangelo decided to record his Ackerman (1961, II, pp. 89–95), and summarized
project in an official wooden model (V/M, VII, by Millon (2005, pp. 95–97). When Michelan-
pp. 248 f., letters from the end of 1556/beginning gelo took over, work was in progress on the bar-
of 1557, 13 February 1557, before 22 May 1557). rel vault of the southern arm; this continued and
A clay model was paid for in July 1557 and the was completed in December 1547. The vaulting
wooden model was in progress between Novem- of the northern arm continued until November
ber 1558 and November 1559 (Wittkower, 1964, 1549. The first signs of new construction were
pp. 93 f.). For the construction of the profile of the four large spiral ramps (lumache) inside the
the vault (according to Vasari and Dosio), see buttressing piers, probably installed as from
Ackerman (1961, II, pp. 106 f.) and Wittkower 1547. At the same time, work on the ambulatory
(1964, pp. 15–25). There are no sources linking at the end of the southern hemicycle was bro- A10. Farnese Palace, 1546–1549, Rome his assistant from 1541/42, retained this posi-
Michelangelo with the minor domes above the ken off and from 1549 the new apse erected; it tion under Sangallo’s successor, Michelangelo.
corner chapels. These make their first appear- was here that the error was made in the vaulting. Although built for purely private purposes, the After Meleghino’s death in 1549, he seems to
ance in the Dupérac engravings (ill. p. 729) and In 1564, the southern hemicycle was complete. Farnese Palace – like the Capitol and St Peter’s have been replaced by Vignola. From this point
the Naples drawing; the attribution of the minor The northern hemicycle followed after a slight basilica – numbers amongst the grandest under- on Michelangelo is no longer mentioned in
domes in the Dupérac engravings to Vignola, as delay (see the two Berlin vedute); in 1565 its attic takings of the Roman Renaissance. From the the sources; on the other hand, Vignola is not
proposed by Coolidge (1942), remains uncon- was under construction but the dome still open very start, the ambitions of its founder, Ales- documented as Cardinal Ranuccio’s architect
tested. For the two minor domes by della Porta, (HCB engraving). The raising of the drum must sandro Farnese, far exceeded his income, which until 1557 (Lotz, 1981, p. 236; Tuttle, 2002). The
begun in 1578, see Bellini (1999/2002). have been preceded by the completion and back- meant that the vast complex could proceed history of the planning and construction of the
ing of the pendentives; these must also have been only at a slow, albeit steady, pace. With his eyes palace is recounted in greatest detail in Frommel
The building under Michelangelo commenced in 1547/48. In 1548–1552 the base of fixed firmly on the future, the Cardinal and his (1973; 1981); but see also Ackerman/Newman
The growth of the new St Peter’s under Michel- the drum was erected and in the following years descendants, complete with their households – (1986, pp. 313–317) and Argan/Contardi (1990,
angelo is documented in the archives of the Fab- the drum itself; by 1564 it had risen to the level which by 1527 encompassed exactly 366 people – pp. 264–271). Only a meagre volume of build-
brica; more recent scholarship is largely based on of the capitals of the exterior order. In 1565, work lived for decades in a building site that consisted ing records have survived from Michelangelo’s
the records published by K. Frey (1909, 1910/11, started on the entablature on the basis of Michel- of half-finished and in places only half-built day (Frommel, 1973, II, pp. 111 f.), although
1912/13, 1916) and Pollak (1915). Additional infor- angelo’s model. Large-scale excavations began in wings, foundations, exterior walls and older this is partly compensated by a surprising
mation is provided by six vedute, which illustrate 1561 on the northern side of the basilica, prob- buildings earmarked for demolition. After Ales- wealth of secondary visual material (ibid., III,
the progress of construction on the hemicycles ably for the northwest corner chapel; on the con- sandro was elected Pope Paul III in 1534, funds pp. 49–59), plus an anonymous view of the
and the drum of the dome (all reproduced in tinuation of construction after Michelangelo’s from the Vatican treasury were also funnelled façade under construction in the Biblioteca
Wittkower, 1964): a rapidly sketched exterior view death see Ackerman (1961) and Millon (2005). into the building; the palace passed nominally Nazionale in Naples (see Argan/Contardi, 1990,
from the southeast, dating from the beginning of to his son Pier Luigi and was then chiefly occu- p. 264). None of Michelangelo’s drawings can
the 1550s (anonymous, Uffizi 4345A); two exterior pied by the latter’s son, Cardinal Ranuccio (see be securely linked with the Farnese Palace, how-
views from the north and southwest (recto and Page 735 in depth Frommel, 1973, II, pp. 127–131). ever, and he makes no mention of the palace in
verso of the same sheet, c. 1555, anonymous, Ber- Nicolas Beatrizet Antonio da Sangallo was architect of the pal- his correspondence. Hence the sources for his
lin, Kupferstichkabinett); an interior view looking Rome, Farnese Palace, façade, 1549 ace up to his death in 1546. Jacopo Meleghino, project remain – apart from the building itself
734 735
VII, p. 223). The Pope came to view it twice, In July 1549, payment was made for a model
before 2 March and before 6 July 1547 (above- of the rear façade of the palace (le loggie del
mentioned letter by Prospero Mochi, and letter palazzo verso il giardino; Ackerman/Newman,
from Serristori to Cosimo I; Frommel, 1973, II, 1986, p. 316); this was probably Michelangelo’s
p. 111, no. 58). Probably between these two dates last contribution to this project. Sangallo had
it was decided to raise the façade by a little over planned a closed palace wing with a vestibule
2 metres (6 1⁄2’) (ibid., pp. 140 f.). In a letter of analogous to the entrance wing; according to the
4 May 1547 (Carteggio, IV, pp. 267 f.), Francesco Lafréry engraving, which perhaps reproduces the
Ughi wrote to Michelangelo about the damage model, Michelangelo’s wing would have been
that the wooden cornice had caused to the build- just one bay deep and would have offered a view
ing and about Nanni di Baccio Bigio’s intrigues; through the ground and first floors onto the gar-
see also the recollections of Michelangelo’s col- den courtyard facing the Tiber. Not illustrated
league Galeazzo Alghisi in his treatise on forti- is the sculptural group the Farnese Bull, which
fications (Alghisi, 1570, III, p. 2). “Vitruvian” it from other family palaces of its day and that according to Vasari was to be converted into a
criticism of Michelangelo’s model is levelled in so impressed Vasari (il più bel cortile di Europa; fountain and installed in this second courtyard.
the draft of a letter to Paul III, probably com- V/M, VII, p. 224). The loggias of the lateral In July 1548, the Pope apparently wished to build
posed by Antonio da Sangallo’s brother Giovanni wings became corridors walled off against the a bridge that would allow him to pass directly
Battista (“il Gobbo”), reproduced with a com- outside world, with mezzanine rooms above; from his palace to the Farnese properties on the
mentary in Carteggio (IV, pp. 242–245); see also Michelangelo turned the loggia of the front other side of the river (Frommel, 1973, II, p. 111,
– the detailed but not easily verifiable descrip- Summers (1981, pp. 553 f.). wing, which provided access from the stairs to no. 62); Vasari attributes the idea to Michelange-
tion by Vasari (V/M, VII, pp. 223–225, see also Sangallo had designed the balcony window the reception rooms, into a “Ricetto”: the walls lo’s “judgement and powers of design” (giudizio
I, p. 18), and for the façade the 1549 engraving in the centre of the piano nobile with staggered are articulated with pilaster strips and blind e disegno) and describes the view it would offer
by Beatrizet (ill. p. 735) and for the courtyard freestanding pillars, a concentric double arcade arches, while the vaulting – whose unusual cross- from the front piazza, from where it would be
the Lafréry engraving of 1560 (ill. p. 737). The and a papal coat of arms in the tympanum (see section Vasari admiringly describes as having possible to see the vestibule, the courtyard, the
stage reached by construction at the time of the façade elevation by Meleghino [?] in the “the form of a half oval” (di mezzo ovato) – only fountain, the Via Giulia, the bridge and the gar-
Sangallo’s death can be approximately recon- Graphische Sammlung in Munich, no. 34 356). begins above the apex of the arches and lends the den on the other bank, all the way to the gate
structed from a letter by the stonemason Nardo Michelangelo replaced the arcade by a straight room a dignified height. It is also possible that opening onto the Via della Lungara. But a veduta
de Rossi to Sangallo of 9 January 1546 and a let- entablature, created a new, larger cartouche Michelangelo raised the ceiling of the great hall and a ground plan, both c. 1560 (Frommel, 1973,
ter from the agent Prospero Mochi to Pier Luigi for the coat of arms and added an extra pair of – already two storeys high in Sangallo’s design – III, figs. 59a and 55c), show that no further pro-
Farnese of 2 March 1547 (Frommel, 1973, II, columns against the inner wall of the window. by a few more metres. We are poorly informed gress had been made on the rear wing at that
pp. 139 f.; the texts of the letters ibid. pp. 120 f., The new window was finished at the latest in about the construction history of these parts of point. Planning after this date lay in the hands
nos. 51 and 55). The entrance façade had reached 1549, the year the Pope died (Frommel, 1973, II, the palace, however. The courtyard windows of of Vignola and from 1575 onwards Della Porta.
the height of the crowning cornice; inside, the p. 141). The present balcony parapet is modern. the third storey are clearly Michelangelo (for a
courtyard loggias and some of the utility rooms The interior of the palace offered more formal analysis, in addition to the previously
on the ground floor were complete, as were the scope for remodelling. In Florentine and Roman named authors see also Hedberg, 1970/72); those
reception rooms on the first floor (piano nobile) fashion, Sangallo had wanted to surround the of the second storey, stylistically very different,
in the left half of the front wing; those in the inner courtyard with open loggias on all four are attributed by Frommel to Michelangelo, by
right half were still under construction. sides and on all three storeys. On the evidence of Ackerman to Vignola. For the architecture of
Michelangelo’s modifications to the façade the Lafréry engraving (ill. p. 737), Michelangelo the Ricetto we have the emphatic testimony of Antonio Lafréry
Rome, Farnese Palace, view of the
were restricted to the upper cornice and the cen- envisaged closing the loggias on the two upper Vasari, but the interior decoration of the wing
courtyard, 1560
tral window. He built a full-scale wooden model storeys; only along the rear wall were the middle as a whole – door surrounds, chimneys, coffered
of his cornice design, some 3.5 metres (11 1⁄2 ’) in three arches of the piano nobile to remain open. ceilings, floors – stems from Vignola (Lotz, 1981; Page 736
length, which was temporarily mounted on the It was this that lent the Farnese Palace the exclu- Tuttle, 2002). Vasari does not mention Vignola’s Paul Letarouilly
top right-hand corner of the palace block (V/M, sive, politely cool character that distinguished contribution. Rome, Farnese Palace, ground plan
736 737
Page 738
Valérien Regnard
Michelangelo’s wooden model for S. Giovanni
dei Fiorentini, exterior view and section, from:
Praecipia Urbis Templa, 1650
Valérien Regnard
Rome, S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, ground
plan, from: Praecipia Urbis Templa, 1650
A11. S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, 1559/60, Rome the Duke, from whom he evidently expected design, Cat. D514 (on the recto and verso of the model; this latter was housed in the church up
greater recognition of his artistic ambitions; see same sheet; see Ch. IX, ill. p. 530), to a certain till 1720 and displayed as an attraction (Günther,
The complex history of the Florentine the correspondence between the Duke and the extent recall the theoretical studies of Leonardo 1994a, p. 474). After this all trace of it vanishes.
national church in Rome is summarized in building commissioners, who are instructed to da Vinci. Michelangelo gives almost no thought An accurate picture of Michelangelo’s design is
Argan/Contardi (1990, pp. 342–347) and treated accept Michelangelo’s designs unchanged (Gaye, to the practical requirements of a parish church conveyed by three engravings:
in depth by Tafuri (1992, pp. 159–188), Vicioso III, 1840, pp. 16–21, 36), as well as the records (Günther, 1994a, pp. 473, 562); the twenty small 1) Jacques Le Mercier, 1607, gives a perspec-
(1992), Günther (1994a) and Günther (2001). from the church archives in Nava (1936), where side altars in the wooden model (after Regnard’s tive view of the model on its wooden base (see
Michelangelo’s contribution was never translated the end of the affair after two years’ work on the ground plan, ill. p. 739) could be understood as Ch. IX, ill. p. 533). It shows the left half of the
into construction but can be followed in some foundations is also documented. an (ironic?) response to objections of this kind. church; the right half is indicated as a ground
detail in the sources. Vasari, interested in the pro- According to Vasari, Michelangelo pre- Three further drawings are hypothetically plan on the base plate. According to Lemercier’s
ject as a Tuscan himself, describes events in terms sented the Florentines with “drawings for five linked with S. Giovanni: Cat. D509 contains inscription, the scale was 1:24.
of the role played by Tiberio Calcagni, who acted beautiful churches”. Amongst these were prob- various architectural sketches, some of which can 2), 3) Two engravings by Valérien Regnard,
as the elderly Michelangelo’s assistant (V/M, VII, ably the three large ground plans in the Casa be interpreted as ideas for S. Giovanni (Tolnay, not datable before 1650 (Günther, 1994a, p. 561),
pp. 261–263; see Schwager, 1973, pp. 40–43). Buonarroti (Cat. D513, 514, 517); Cat. D516, a 1975–1980, IV, p. 99); Cat. D512 shows a design give a ground plan and a combined elevation of
Julius III had already asked Michelangelo for smaller sheet, shows detail studies for the plan for a four-pier centralized building, which bears exterior view and section in orthogonal projec-
tomb designs for the church in 1550, but the in Cat. D517, including a rapidly sketched eleva- no relation to the other plans; Cat. D518 con- tion (ill. pp. 738, 739). Preliminary drawings for
artist, citing its rudimentary state, had declined tion of the interior articulation. Michelangelo tains sketches of ground plans for chapels and these can be found in the Berlin Kupferstichkabi
(letters to Vasari of 1 August and 13 October himself recognized that the three main sheets the elevation of a tomb (for the Sforza Chapel?, nett (KdZ 20 976, ground plan), and in the Uffizi
1550). Between 15 July 1559 and 2 May 1560 there did not possess the finished character of presen- Satzinger, 2005, pp. 397 f.); its association with (perhaps also a copy after the engraving: Günther,
followed a lively exchange of letters between tation drawings and apologized for this to the S. Giovanni arises out of the connection between 1994a, p. 474). Drawings after the model in Mod-
Michelangelo, his nephew Lionardo, Calcagni, Duke (letter of 1 November 1559). Michelangelo its verso and that of Cat. D517 (Joannides, 1978; ena (ill. p. 534.), Siena, Oxford and Madrid reveal
Duke Cosimo I and Luca Martini (Carteggio, V). takes up the “centralized building” theme with Tolnay, 1975–1980, IV, p. 108). slight differences that may be explained partly
In characteristic fashion, Michelangelo sought which Jacopo Sansovino had won the competi- The definitive project was developed out of as variations upon the same plan and partly as
to arrange matters so that he would be dealing tion of 1519 and develops it in a magnificently the design in Cat. D517. As was the convention, inaccuracies on the part of the copyist (Günther,
not with the Florentine merchants but with abstract manner; the preparatory sketches for the Calcagni executed first a clay and then a wooden 1994a, pp. 561 f.; Argan/Contardi, 1990, p. 374).
738 739
no recognizable relation to the given site; simi-

lar motifs are fleetingly sketched in Cat. D483,
which must be dated to the late 1540s, however.
Cat. D512 is usually associated with S. Giovanni
dei Fiorentini (Cat. A13), but might also belong
amongst the preliminary studies for the Sforza
Chapel (Hartt, 1971, p. 363; Joannides, 1981) or
for S. Maria degli Angeli (Tolnay, 1975–1980, IV,
pp. 115–117). Whether the design for a tomb on
Cat. D518 belongs to S. Giovanni or the Sforza
Chapel is also disputed (Ackerman 1961, II,
p. 123; Satzinger, 2005, pp. 397–400). None of
these sketches leads directly to the project under-
lying the chapel. Hence Satzinger has deduced
Michelangelo’s scheme purely from an analysis of
the building; only the vault seems incompatible,
in its executed form, with Michelangelo’s prob-
able intentions (Satzinger, 2005, pp. 363–376).
Thanks to its unusual architecture, the
Sforza Chapel aroused lively interest amongst A13. S. Maria degli Angeli, 1560/61–1564
connoisseurs in subsequent years; see the com- Rome
pilation of copies and engravings, as well as liter-
ary references, in Satzinger (2005, pp. 402–408). In the post-antique history of Rome’s ruins, the
Of particular interest are the drawings (after the plans by Pius IV and Michelangelo for the Baths
model?) by an anonymous artist, today housed of Diocletian mark the turning point from the
A12. Sforza Chapel, 1561/62, Rome statement that it “remained unfinished” (restata in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation. This
imperfetta) probably referred to the entrance York, and that of a capital by Borromini (Satz- is illuminatingly analysed by Ackerman (1961, I,
For Michelangelo’s authorship of the Sforza façade in the side aisle of the main church, inger, 2005, figs. 57–59, 75). Borromini noted on pp. 123–128); on the Baths in the Renaissance see
Chapel we have only the testimony of Vasari, which according to its inscription was added in his drawing that the vault, executed by Calcagni also Günther (1994b). For the remodelling car-
who states that Tiberio Calcagni commenced 1573, probably by Giacomo della Porta. Whether after Michelangelo’s death, was misinterpreted ried out in the 16th century, the chronicle writ-
the work on the basis of a design (ordine) by the and to what extent Michelangelo occupied him- and did not fit the bizzaria of Michelangelo’s ten around 1580 by Mattia Catalani, a friend of
master, but was unable to complete it because self with the chapel once the model was made, architecture. Antonio Del Duca’s, provides the most impor-
both Cardinal Ascanio Sforza and Michelangelo, remains open. tant source (Biblioteca Vaticana, Cod. Vat. Lat.
and indeed the young Calcagni himself, all died Neither the model nor designs for it have 8735), reproduced in full in Pasquinelli (1925);
shortly afterwards (V/M, VII, p. 264). This led survived, but a number of Michelangelo’s regarding Antonio Del Duca (or Lo Duca), see
scholars to conclude that the chapel has come sketches can be linked with the commission. also Bernardi Salvetti (1965).
down to us in an only distorted form. Satzinger Cat. D535 shows a rapidly sketched ground plan Summaries of the history of construction
(2005) has been able to show, however, that a that can be interpreted as a preliminary step Rome, S. Maria degli Angeli, are given by Ackerman (1961, II, pp. 132 f.) and
model was already in existence in August 1562, in the planning process. More concrete refer- ground plan (after Lucilla Micozzi) Argan/Con tardi (1990, pp. 354–357), with a
that the chapel itself was already under construc- ences emerge from a ground plan accompanied discussion of earlier specialist literature. Three
Page 740
tion in 1563 and that Sermoneta’s altarpiece is by a number of detail sketches (Cat. D520). Rome, S. Maria Maggiore, Sforza Chapel, woodcuts from old Rome guides give a primi-
dated 1565, the year of Calcagn’s death. In all its Ground plans and elevations for octagonal cross section and detail of ground plan, from: tive impression of the interior before and after
essential points, therefore, the structure of the chapels articulated by columns and semicircu- Giovanni Giacomo de Rossi, Disegni di vari Michelangelo’s interventions (Gamucci, 1565; ill.
chapel is most probably Michelangelo’s; Vasari’s lar conches are seen in Cat. D519, albeit bearing altari, Rome 1689, plate 13 and plate 14 p. 743 top; Franzini, 1588; Martinelli, 1722; cf. ill.
740 741
Page 742 eventual competitors. According to Catalani,

Rome, S. Maria degli Angeli, the Pope approached Michelangelo directly and
view of the interior, from: Fr. Bianchini, De asked him to design the project and draw up
Kalendario…, Rome 1703 an estimate of costs (Pasquinelli, 1925, p. 350);
perhaps Michelangelo formulated his propos-
Rome, S. Maria degli Angeli,
Baths of Diocletian, from: B. Gamucci, Libri als even during their subsequent joint site visit.
quattro dell’Antichità… di Roma, Rome 1565 As well as satisfying economic and liturgical
demands (Ackerman, 1961, I, pp. 124 f.), they
Rome, S. Maria degli Angeli, Baths also testify to an understanding of the structure
of Diocletian, view of the choir of the antique complex that had escaped Del
from: Fioravante Martinelli, Roma ricercata nel suo Duca. Perhaps Michelangelo was also thinking
sito, Ed. Rome 1722 of Alberti’s description of the Baths of Diocletian
(De re aedificatoria, VIII, 10), in which the cham-
bers adjoining the southwest side of the central
not only to build a monastery on the site, but – hall are defined as entrance vestibules (vestibula).
to pacify the conservationists – to assume respon- Whatever the case, with the relocation of the
sibility for the preservation and protection of the main entrance to this southwest axis, the rectan-
antique monument (la tutela di questa veneranda gular central bay of the great hall was restored to
antichità). On 5 August 1561, the Pope laid the its role as the centre of the entire complex. Fur-
p. 743 bottom); other visual sources include an pope in December 1559, whose urban schemes foundation stone for the altar in the presence of thermore, the remodelling was restricted to the
engraving of 1703 (Bianchini, De Kalendario…) (Via Pia, see Cat. A14) required the Christianiza- twenty cardinals, large numbers of other clerics
and an undated picture, attributed to (Pieter?) tion of the Baths. The church was now no longer and representatives of the Senate and People of
van der Hulst in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in to be run by a college of priests but by an order Rome; a medal and a marble tablet proclaimed
Chambéry, all reproduced in Argan/Contardi of monks, and Pius chose the Carthusians, prob- the purification of the heathen building and its
(loc. cit.). ably in view of the church’s location in a still dedication to the Virgin (Quoad fuit Idolum,
The pre-history of the Baths’ conversion undeveloped site that resembled something of a nunc Templum est Virginis, Auctor est Pius ipse
is recounted by Catalani, extensively cited and wilderness. But the area was rapidly urbanized pater, daemones aufugite; Schiavo, 1953, p. 231). In
evaluated by Schiavo (1953, pp. 225–229). Of and Pius himself raised the profile of his crea- July 1564, Pius visited the building site and urged
Del Duca’s fourteen altars, the seven on the tion by making S. Maria degli Angeli a titular the cardinals accompanying him to assume the
left (northeast) side were to be dedicated to the church shortly before his death; the title went to patronage of the side chapels. The first Mass was
archangels, and the seven on the right (south- his nephew Giovanni Antonio Serbelloni. said in the almost finished church in May 1565.
west) side to the martyrs. According to Catalani, The date of the start of remodelling is Following the Pope’s death in December that
Del Duca tried to interest Michelangelo – who unclear; according to a papal brief of 10 March same year, construction appears to have ground
lived in the parish of S. Maria di Loreto beside 1560, addressed to the General of the Car- to a halt, and in June 1566 a final account was
Trajan’s Forum, where Del Duca said the Mass thusian Order (cited in Italian translation by drawn up. Whether it was Pius IV’s intention to
– in his plans even at this stage; the artist is Meliu, 1950, pp. 20 f.), work had already begun leave the building as plain as Michelangelo seems
supposed to have promised him a statue of the (abbiamo comminciato ad edificare la chiesa). The to have imagined it, remains unknown.
Archangel Michael, perhaps seeing an opportu- official announcement was made in a papal bull In his usual fashion, Vasari traces Michel-
nity for a hidden self-portrait. In a papal bull of of 27 July 1561 (ibid., pp. 21 f.; the accompany- angelo’s receipt of the commission back to the
10 August 1550, Julius III proclaimed the Baths a ing notarial documents are reproduced verbatim superiority of his design over those by “various
church and on 25 August held a consecration cer- in Schiavo, 1953, pp. 277–287): Pius unhesitat- excellent architects” (V/M, VII, p. 261). But
emony, but the complex continued to be used for ingly declared the Baths to be the property of the we know neither this design (Tolnay’s attempt
secular purposes by the populace and the nobil- Vatican and barred all rights of the Commune of to relate Cat. D535 to S. Maria degli Angeli is
ity. This situation was ended by Pius IV, elected Rome. The Carthusians were thereby obligated unconvincing), nor any others submitted by
742 743
conversion – or rather, retention – of the great Bernardo Faleti Michelangelo’s authorship of the design for
hall; the annexes were reduced to four large side Rome, Porta Pia, façade and ground plan, 1568 the Porta Pia is indirectly documented in the
chapels, two lateral vestibules and a choir arm. sources, and he also seems to have concerned
The parallels with Michelangelo’s project for St himself – via intermediaries – with its construc-
Peter’s (minor forma, maggior grandezza; see Ch. tion. The Porta Pia is presented as the work of
IX) cannot be overlooked. the architectural façade of this enclosure on the Michelangelo in Vasari’s Life of 1568 (V/M, VII,
The specific measures that needed to be city side. According to the testimony of Tiberio p. 260) and in the engraving by Bernardo Faleti
taken, and were subsequently carried out, are Calcagni (Millon, 1994, p. 477), Michelangelo (ill. p. 477) published at the same time. This lat-
recounted by Catalani (Pasquinelli, 1925, p. 352). also appears to have given some thought to the ter provides a largely accurate reproduction of
They were largely conser vationist in nature: design of the outer gate, but this latter was never the gate as far as the actual portal is concerned
a roof was built over the previously uncovered built. A medal issued in 1561 to commemorate (regarding small deviations, see Millon, 1994a,
vaults, the interior of the vaults was plastered the construction of the gate depicts an architec- p. 477). Whether the upper sections visible in
and uniformly whitewashed and the capital of ture that resembles Michelangelo’s designs for the engraving – attic, crenellations, obelisks
one of the massive columns was replaced; walls the inner gate, but within a walled surround that – were based on a design by Michelangelo is
were built to close off the side rooms, and sec- rather calls to mind an outer gate. This remains unknown. The decoration of the mural fields
ondary entrances were created in the two narrow the subject of heated debate in the literature flanking the portal also corresponds with their
ends of the hall. The main altar was sited beneath (Millon, 1994, pp. 477 f.). actual execution, but this could have been car-
the central arch of the northeast wall (directly The history of the construction of the ried out after Michelangelo’s death; its authen-
opposite the main entrance) between two prob- inner gate is documented in a host of sources ticity is therefore not entirely assured (Maurer,
ably antique columns carrying an entablature A14. Porta Pia, 1561–1564, Rome from the year 1561. The Mantuan ambassador 2006). Michelangelo has sketched slightly differ-
(see the woodcuts of 1565, ill. p. 743, and 1588). to Rome writes about the planning of the Via ing window surrounds on Cat. D527 and 528;
It was also necessary to create a new choir for the Pius IV’s urban projects are discussed in depth and the Porta Pia on 18 January, and on 18 June the anonymous drawings of window aedicules
monks, a long, barrel-vaulted rectangular room by Fagiolo/Madonna (1972/73); an important about the laying of the foundation stone for the in New York (Tolnay, 1975–1980, IV, p. 113) and
that ended in an apse (see Dupérac’s 1577 plan source for the Via Pia is Gamucci (1565, pp. 118– Porta Pia. The medal was commissioned from Florence (Uffizi 2737A; Argan/Contardi, 1990,
of Rome); the altar was later moved into this 121). The sources for the history of the plan- Federigo da Parma, known as Bonsagni, before 1 p. 353) were probably copied from the existing
chancel (woodcut, 1722; engraving, 1703, ills. pp. ning and construction of the new city gate are April. In May the foundations were laid and on building.
742, 743). None of the architectural details illus- widely scattered; see the overviews in Ackerman 2 July a contract was concluded with the munici- Vasari speaks of three drawings – tutti strava
trated or surviving demonstrates Michelangelo’s (1961, II, pp. 125–131) and Argan/Contardi (1990, pal planning authorities, the Maestri delle strade; ganti e bellissimi – that Michelangelo presented
signature, nor is there ever any reference to him pp. 350–353). Special studies have been contri issues of rights and ownership relating to the to the Pope. This would seem to point towards
or one of his assistants overseeing construction. buted amongst others by MacDougall (1960), new building were regulated by a motu proprio the three large-format designs all drawn on about
According to a contract of 3 January 1565, the Schwager (1973) and Maurer (2006). Written from the Pope of 13 August. In May 1562, Jacopo the same scale, Cat. D522, 525, 526, today housed
sculptor and later architect Jacopo Del Duca, references to the Porta Pia by Michelangelo Del Duca and a certain Luca were paid for carv- in the Casa Buonarroti. These are working draw-
a nephew of Antonio Del Duca, was to cast in himself are unknown, but a series of autograph ing a papal coat of arms (di fuori di detta porta, ings in various stages of non-completion and in
bronze a ciborium designed by Michelangelo drawings (Cat. D521–529) are of the greatest i. e. for the outer façade?). Further payments are this respect are strictly speaking unsuitable for
(Schiavo, 1953, p. 241); the work, which is of the interest; see in addition to the above-mentioned recorded over the following years, the last on presentation purposes. When it came to Michel-
highest quality and which Vasari also mentions authors also Tolnay (1975–1980, IV, pp. 208–215) 6 December 1565, three days before the Pope’s angelo, however, such considerations were prob-
in conjunction with S. Maria degli Angeli (V/M, and Millon (1994, pp. 475–478). death. The crowning central section of the inner ably overlooked, as in the case of S. Giovanni
VII, p. 261), is today located in the Charterhouse The new gateway was to replace the old city façade was still under construction at this point; dei Fiorentini (Cat. A11). The sheets convey an
of Padula in southern Campagna. gates to its north and south, the Porta Salaria and as so often the case in Rome, it was left unfin- impression of the immense pains that Michel-
The later alterations to the building, in Porta Nomentana (Porta Sant’Agnese), which ished. The present attic was added in 1853 under angelo took over his late architectural projects.
particular the remodelling by Vanvitelli as from were subsequently sealed. It consists of a walled Pius IX, after the gate was struck by lightning. Its He thereby employed the full range of drawing
1749, are discussed in depth by Schiavo (1954) enclosure built against the inside of the city wall previous fragmentary state is shown most clearly techniques; in Cat. D525 and 526, clean pieces
and summarized in Ackerman (1961, II, p. 137). and evidently intended as a “transit area for arriv- in an engraving by Alessandro Specchi of 1706 of paper are glued on and carefully smoothed
als” (Maurer, 2006). Michelangelo’s gate forms (Tolnay, 1975–1980, IV, p. 111). out so that corrections can be incorporated into
744 745
a sheet in progress. Contrasting solutions nev- architecture, there have been attempts to A15. Miscellaneous works of architecture who is documented as working on the bridge in
ertheless appear one beside the other, so that it decipher the “message” of the Porta Pia. It has and architectural projects, 1534–1567 1551. According to Vasari, Michelangelo there-
is not always clear which one the draughtsman thereby been interpreted as expressing every- Rome, Padua upon predicted that the bridge would collapse.
ultimately chose; the predominant impression is thing from a joke, to satire, to a fascination This indeed happened when the river flooded in
of a world of forms in the process of constant with the mystery of death and visions of Hell. In the latter years of Pope Paul III’s pontificate, 1557; after further repairs in 1574/75, the bridge
metamorphosis, within which the architectural For Tolnay (1930), Michelangelo’s gate expressed Michelangelo was involved in two engineering collapsed again in 1598, this time for good. What
“orders” also become confused. Even the dimen- the ageing master’s “fatefully crumbling vital- projects, namely military fortifications for the remained of its structure passed into the Roman
sions and proportions of the central opening ity”; in 1951 he compared it with Dante’s gate of Vatican and structural repairs to one of the Tiber toponym as the Ponte Rotto (broken bridge).
vary from design to design. A series of leit- Hell. For MacDougall (1960) the gate is dom bridges. The strengthening of Rome’s fortifica- Julius III engaged Michelangelo’s services
motifs nevertheless emerges: for the gate open- inated – in what she considers a deliberate sty- tions was one of the burdensome tasks inher- for three residential projects. He wanted to add
ing, a straight lintel with angled corners (not listic decision – by its Rustic accents: these were ited by the Farnese Pope following the Sack of a second floor to the single-storey villa built by
yet in Cat. D522), above it a segmented reliev- intended to take account of the character of the Rome in 1527. The planning and management Bramante on the Belvedere hill within the Vati-
ing arch, an emphatically pronounced keystone, new villa-lined street. Ackerman (1961) argued of the project lay in the hands of Antonio da can. Michelangelo’s contribution consisted of
the central inscription tablet, multiple pediment in a similar fashion when he linked the Via Pia Sangallo up until his death in 1546, when they the design for an open-air stairway made up of
structures – as far removed as possible from the with Serlio’s stage sets, in particular with the passed to Jacopo Meleghino. From a letter of two flights of steps, which replaced Bramante’s
conventional semantics of the triumphal arch (of Tragic Scene, the only design to include a city 26 February 1545 addressed by Michelangelo to convex-concave stairs in the central niche. Vasari
the sort the Pope might have been expecting). In gate. Schwager (1973) emphasized the grotesque, the prefect of Castel S. Angelo, it emerges that mentions the staircase as a work by Michelan-
the executed gate, all of this appears abstracted sinister features of the (apotropaic?) mascherone the artist tried to influence the plans even before gelo (V/M, VII, p. 228); its construction is docu-
in a formulaic manner; the contours coexisting (grotesque face or mask). Maurer (2006), who Sangallo’s death. That same year the Pope called mented for 1550/51 (Ackerman, 1954, pp. 75, 165).
in polymorphic fashion in the designs crystal- summarizes these and other interpretations, sees a conference to discuss the fortification of the It represents a simplified version of the stairway
lize into a sequence of sharply delineated and the gate as a transition from the inner-city world hillside beneath the Vatican Belvedere. Michel- for the Senator’s Palace; a number of sketches by
thereby strangely immaterial layers of relief. We to the countryside beyond, wild and open but angelo also attended, and it was here that he Michelangelo might relate to the latter and to
hear nothing about a wooden model that might also a source of nourishment; for him, the theme and Sangallo exchanged several heated words, as the Belvedere steps (Cat. D121, ill. p. 749, and
have preceded the gate’s translation into stone. of buon governo in city and country remains in recorded by Vasari (V/M, VII, p. 217; see Ch. D483, 511). A drawing in the Scholz Scrapbook
The sole surviving witness to the construction the background. None of these interpretations VI). In 1547, overall charge of works seems to (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art) shows
phase is a finely detailed drawing attributed by can summon any evidence from contemporary have lain in the hands of Michelangelo, who the Michelangelo staircase in its original form;
Schwager (1973) to Tiberio Calcagni and today texts and none explains all the characteristics of revoked some of the measures ordered by San- later alterations affected the front of the central
housed in the Uffizi (2148A; on its insignificant the gate: “an opaque residue is left” (Schwager, gallo (letters from Prospero Mocchi to Pierluigi landing – installation of the stone pine cone
deviations from the executed gate, see once again 1973). An approach based purely on the analysis Farnese; Rocchi, 1902, pp. 278 f.). After this from the atrium of the old St Peter’s under Paul
Millon, 1994, p. 477). of form and focusing upon the dialectic of “law” there is no further mention of his name. It is no V – and the balustrade, which was replaced at
In addition to the main sheets, a series of and “licence”, at first formulated by Burckhardt longer possible to determine what was built to the start of the 18th century under Clement XI.
sketches and unfinished designs has survived (1855) in a challenge to the classicist yardstick by Michelangelo’s design. According to Vasari (V/M, VII, pp. 228, 233
(Cat. D521, 523, 524, 529, 530, 532). Some of these which art was judged in his own epoch, perhaps The Roman bridge known in Michelan- and 694), Michelangelo made a decisive contri-
could have been intended for villa portals (along holds out the best chance of coming closer to an gelo’s day as the Ponte di S. Maria – formerly bution to the design of the Villa Giulia. There is
the Via Pia?), or perhaps for Rome’s other gates, understanding of the work. the Pons Aemilius – stands downstream of the no other evidence for Vasari’s claim, any more
for which – according to Vasari – Michelangelo Tiber Island. Weakened by the turbulence of the than for his own role in the project, which he
also provided Pius IV with drawings. They tes- current, it was showing signs of damage, and duly emphasizes while making only passing ref-
tify to a newly awakened interest in the subject Paul III instructed Michelangelo to carry out the erence to Vignola, the architect actually named
of the monumental gate; in these same years, necessary repairs (V/M, VII, pp. 234 f.). Records in the documents. This casts doubt on the ver
authors of architectural treatises, such as Serlio of payment for his work survive for the period acity of Vasari’s account; on the other hand, in
and Vignola, were publishing series of portal from October 1548 to January 1549 (Podestà, view of the confused lines of authority amongst
designs. 1875, pp. 130 ff.; Lanciani, 1903, II, p. 22). Paul’s the architects working for Julius III, the possi-
Ever since art history first addressed itself successor, Julius III, handed the project over to bility that Michelangelo contributed to the for-
seriously to understanding Michelangelo’s Michelangelo’s old rival Nanni di Baccio Bigio, mulation of the design cannot be excluded. The
746 747
state of scholarship on the Villa Giulia is sum- on until construction finally began in 1568 (see
marized by Frommel (2002). Ackerman, 1961, II, pp. 141 f.); no active contri-
A project that was never realized was the bution by Michelangelo can be identified. Plan-
Pope’s idea of converting the mausoleum of ning lay initially in the hands of Nanni di Baccio
Augustus on the present-day Piazza Augusto Bigio; a ground plan attributed to him in the
Imperatore into a residential palace. The monu- Uffizi (1819A, TC 604) shows a number of red-
ment’s circular interior would pro b
ably have chalk corrections that may (but equally well may
formed the palace courtyard. Vasari (1568) is not) stem from Michelangelo’s hand (Tolnay,
effusive in his praise for Michelangelo’s model 1975–1980, IV, p. 100, with the older literature).
for the façade, which he states was at that time A number of urban schemes are documented
in the possession of Duke Cosimo I, who had from the final years of Michelangelo’s life:
received it as a gift from Pius IV (V/M, VII, In 1558, he presented the municipal coun-
p. 233). The manufacture of the model is con- cil with a proposal to build an enclosure around
firmed by documents from 1551/52 (Podestà, Trajan’s Column, whose base had been uncov-
1875, p. 136; K. Frey, 1909, pp. 161 f.); accord- ered under Paul III. The idea was approved, but
ing to these, it differed considerably from the not carried out until 1575–1577 (Lanciani, 1903,
– probably fictional – model that Michelangelo II, pp. 125 f.), as perhaps illustrated in the Dyson
is presenting to Pope Julius III in a painting by Perrins Codex, fol. 105r (Wittkower, 1963).
Fabrizio Boschi of 1615–1617 in the Casa Buonar- According to an ambassador’s report of 1558,
roti (Millon, 1979). Paul IV asked Michelangelo to take on a pro-
During the papacy of Julius III, Michelan- ject for a stairway linking the Quirinal with the
gelo’s name also appears in connection with two Piazza Venezia. The idea was mooted again by
building projects for churches. There had been Pius IV, but dropped on account of the technical
plans since the 1530s to remodel the choir and difficulties involved (Ackerman, 1961, II, p. 147).
the transept apses of Padua cathedral. Docu- The medieval bridge over the Arno near the
ments of 1551 refer to a “modello for the choir church of S. Trinita in Florence had collapsed
made by the most very famous master Michel- in 1557 and was rebuilt by Ammannati in 1567–
angelo” (modellum ipsum chori factum per longe 1569. In a letter to Duke Cosimo of 8 April 1560,
famosissimum dominum Michaelem Angelum); Vasari reports that he had spoken to Michelan-
Bishop Francesco Pisani, who presented the gelo about i disegni del ponte Sta Trinita. Noth-
model, may have met Michelangelo in Rome in ing more about this is known (Ackerman, 1961,
1547 (Bellinati, 1977, with the older literature). II, p. 148). The elliptical arches of Ammannati’s
The design, which was subsequently imple- bridge go back to Serlio’s Primo libro, published
mented by local architects, contains certain in 1545 (Di Teodoro, 1981) and area thus no indi-
echoes of Michelangelo’s hemicycles for St cation of Michelangelo’s involvement.
Peter’s. Tolnay (1975–1980, IV, pp. 98 f.) pro-
posed linking a sketch on Cat. D509 with
Padua; the sheet cannot be dated earlier than
1557, however.
Drawings and a modello for the new church
Tomb designs (for Cecchino Bracci?),
of the Gesù in Rome are mentioned in four let- architectural designs, figure study (a St John
ters written in the summer of 1554 (Pirri, 1941, the Baptist for Daniele da Volterra?), c. 1545 (?)
p. 201). The project, which was first conceived in Black chalk, 192 x 197 mm
1550, had a complicated prehistory that dragged Florence, Casa Buonarroti, 19Fr
748 749
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES FOR LIFE AND WORK
logy between Pietà and celebration of Mass (Krüger, da Sangallo (V/M, IV, p. 282) – Julius Tomb and
1992, pp. 21–22) – Miracle-working Pietàs (Körte, 1937, Rossellino choir (Frommel, 1977) – Contracts for mar-
Bibliographical sources pp. 96–97) – Signature on the Pietà (Juren, 1974; Weil-
Garris Brandt, 1987a; Wang, 2004).
ble of November and December 1505 (Milanesi, 1875,
pp. 630–631) – New York modello drawing (Hirst,
for life and work 1988a; Joannides, 1991b; Kempers, 2000; 2004; Bre-
III. The breakthrough in Florence, 1501–1504 dekamp, 2004) – Liturgical utensils in the New York
Biography (Giovinezza di Michelangelo, 1999, pp. 75– modello drawing (Bredekamp, 2004) – Madonna for
95, 447–450) – Refund of payment for the S. Agostino the Julius Tomb in the contract of 8 July 1516 (Mila-
altarpiece (Hirst, 1994, p. 58) – Michelangelo’s activi- nesi, 1875, pp. 646 and 650; Contratti, pp. 64 and 67)
The bibliographical sources for the main text are re- pp. 77–78) – Michelangelo on sexual abstinence (Con- ties in Rome (Hatfield, 2002, pp. 15–16) – Early histo- – Freestanding tombs on imperial Roman coins (Fra-
stricted below to the most essential, since the full divi, 1987, p. 65) – Bank accounts and household (Hat- ry of Michelangelo’s David (Seymour, 1967a; Hibbard, zer, 1975) – Antique precedents for the Julius Tomb
breadth of the extensive literature is referenced and field, 2002; Forcellino, 2006, pp. 7–16 and passim) – 1974, p. 52; Levine, 1974) – “badly roughed out block” (Frommel, 1977) – Termini as the boundary between
analysed in the catalogue sections. Wherever Michel Torrigiani’s punch (Cellini, 1956, p. 31) – Michelangelo (Milanesi, 1875, p. 620) – Contract for the David this world and the next (Echinger-Maurach, 1991,
angelo’s letters are cited or mentioned in the ten chap- as errand-boy (Cadogan, 1993) – Michelangelo’s trai- (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 620–622; Contratti, p. 16) – Art pp. 206–219) – Papal brief of 8 July 1506 (Bottari, III,
ters of the main text, moreover, sources are given only ning and level of education (Hatfield, 2002, pp. 145– patronage by the major guilds (Verspohl, 2001, pp. 91– 1822, p. 472; Steinmann, 1905, II, p. 695; based on Ger.
for those letters that cannot easily be located by date 151) – Contract of apprenticeship (Vasari, 1965, p. 327) 92) – Documents and debate regarding the David’s lo- trans. after Guhl, 1913) – Michelangelo diverts funds
and recipient. In Chapters VI and IX, sources are re- – Schongauer’s Temptation of St Anthony (Möseneder, cation (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 620–623; Seymour, 1967b, into property purchases (Hatfield, 2002, pp. 65, 126–
stricted to literal quotations; all other bibliographical 1993) – Leonardo’s periodization model (Kemp, 1989, pp. 108–137; Levine, 1974; Beck, 2001, pp. 138–149) 138; Forcellino, 2006, pp. 193, 273) – Discovery and
sources are given in the catalogue section. MK §500, p. 193) – Garden of S. Marco (Elam, 1992a, – Political iconography of the David (Herzner, 1978; excavation of the Laocoön (Haskell/Penny, 1981, no.
The English translations of Michelangelo’s letters pp. 41–84; Joannides, 1996b) – “Sculptor from the gar- Verspohl, 1991a; 2001) – Donatello’s bronze David 52; Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 122) – Reconciliation
and poems are taken from Creighton Gilbert (1963) den” (Poggi, 1906) – Phidias’s cryptoportrait (Barolsky, (Herzner 1982; Verspohl, 2001, p. 41) – Savonarola’s with the Pope in Bologna (Forcellino, 2006, pp. 110,
and George Bull (Condivi, 1987), those of Vasari and 1990b, pp. 107–109; Thielemann, 2000) – Plutarch’s fair and strong David (Brockhaus, 1909, pp. 12–19, 363–364)
Condivi’s Lives of Michelangelo also from George Bull Life of Pericles (Plutarch, 1864) – Leonardo’s paragone 103 and 108–109) – David interpreted by Machiavelli
(Vasari, 1965; Condivi, 1987). The spelling of Italian (Kemp, 1989, MK § 69–93, pp. 38–46). (Verspohl, 2001, pp. 110–120) – Michelangelo’s com- V. The Sistine Ceiling, 1508–1512
texts has been modernized in the main text. ment on his work on the David (Lavin, 1992; 1993) Biography (Seymour, 1972, pp. XIX–XXI and pas-
II. Between Florence, Bologna and Rome, – Michelangelo’s ambition and hunger for money sim; Hatfield, 2002, pp. 23–30; Forcellino, 2006,
I. The start of a magnificent career, 1475–1491 1492–1500 (Hatfield, 2002, p. XXV and passim; Forcellino, 2005, pp. 112–133) – Rental of a house in Florence (Gaye,
Michelangelo’s early biography (Frey, 1907; Tolnay, Biography (Giovinezza di Michelangelo, 1999, pp. 127– pp. 84, 104–108, 129–130 and passim) – Bruges Madon- II, pp. 477–475; Tolnay, II, p. 3) – Sources relating
I; Giovinezza di Michelangelo, 1999, pp. 17–113 and 162 and 439–446; Forcellino, 2006) – Crucifix for na (Mancusi-Ungaro, 1971; Schwedes, 1998, pp. 95– to the Sistine Chapel (Steinmann, II, 1905; Seymour,
444–446; Hatfield, 2002, passim; Forcellino, 2006, S. Spirito (Lisner, 1964) – Michelangelo’s Hercules 108) – Doni Tondo (Levi d’Ancona, 1968; Echinger- 1972; Zöllner, 2002; 2004) – Pietro Rosselli’s letter to
pp. 19–45) – Artist as God (Leonardo, Trattato, § 19; (Chatelet-Lange, 1972) – Snowfall in Florence (Hirst, Maurach, 2000) – Joseph in the Doni Tondo (Hayum, Michelangelo of May 1506 (Carteggio, I, p. 16) – Draft
Kris/Kurz, 1934/1979; Panofsky, 1924/1982; Neumann, 1994, p. 17) – Mich-elangelo’s flight (Poggi, 1906; 1981/1982) – Political iconography of Leonardo and letter of December 1523 to Giovan Francesco Fattuc-
1986, pp. 82–86) – Michelangelo as yardstick of art Elam, 1992a, pp. 58, 73) – Michelangelo with Gian- Michelangelo’s wall-paintings (Hartt, 1983; Rubin- ci (Carteggio, III, pp. 7–9, based on Ger. trans. in
history (Emison, 2000, pp. 59–110) – Condivi’s Life francesco Aldovrandi in Bologna (Giovinezza di Miche- stein, 1991) – Interpretation of the Battle of Anghiari Zöllner, 2002, p. 81) – Ricordo of 10 May 1508 (Ricordi,
of Michelangelo (Condivi, 1987; Elam, 1998; Hirst, langelo, 1999, pp. 127–141 and 440) – Riario’s commis- (Zöllner, 1998; 2003, pp. 164–174) – Leonardo’s “sack pp. 1–2) – Payment for the Sistine ceiling (Hatfield,
1998) – Commissioned artist vs creative artist (Zöll- sion for the Bacchus (Hirst, 1981a; Hirst/Dunkerton, of nuts” (Kemp, 1989, § 333, p. 130). 2002, pp. 123–125 and 318) – Michelangelo has no costs
ner, 2005b) – Michelangelo’s social status and ascent 1994, pp. 29–35) – Bacchic mysteries in the Renais- for assistants (Hatfield, 2002, pp. 22–30) – First design
(Hatfield, 2002, pp. 186–188, 222–225 and passim; sance (Wind, 1958/1987, pp. 205–219) – Intoxication of IV. Between Rome and Florence, 1505–1508 for the Sistine ceiling (Sandström, 1963; Weil-Garris
Forcellino, 2006, p. 11 and passim) – Michelangelo’s Bacchus as pathway to knowledge (Hirst/Dunkerton, Biography (Hibbard, 1974, pp. 85–95; Hirst, 1991; Hat- Brandt, 1992a; Fastenrath, 2000) – Michelangelo’s
proximity to the Guelphs and his political position 1994, p. 34) – Francisco de Holanda’s text (based on field, 2002, pp. 17–23; Forcellino, 2006, pp. 99–112) illustrated Italian Bible (Wind, 1960; Hope, 1987; Hat-
(Tolnay, I, pp. 3–5; Tolnay, 1947, pp. 9–36; Spini, 1999; Ger. trans. in Emmerling-Skala, 1994, pp. 255–256) – Terribilità of Michelangelo and Julius II (Barocchi, field, 1991) – The trilogies on the Sistine ceiling (Kuhn,
Hatfield, 2002, pp. 201–234) – Michelangelo’s misu- – Vasari and Varchi on a St Francis Receiving the 1962, II, pp. 472–479; Summers, 1981, pp. 234–241; 1975, pp. 14–40; Rohlmann, 1995, p. 21) – Genii as
se of funds earmarked for the Julius Tomb (Hatfield, Stigmata (V/M, VII, p. 149; Barocchi, 1962, I, p. 16, Zöllner, 2002, pp. 111–113) – Conflict between Miche- divine intermediaries (Piper, I, 1847, pp. 343–373) –
2002, pp. 26–138, 228; Forcellino, 2006, pp. 193, 273) – and II, pp. 158–159; Hirst, 1994, p. 37) – Altarpiece langelo and Julius II (Beck, 2001, pp. 157–231) – Over- Prophecies of the Sibyls (LCI, IV, col. 150–153; Gil-
Michelangelo’s wet-nurse (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1992b; for S. Agostino (Hirst, 1994, pp. 37–46; Nagel, all discussions of the Julius Tomb (Echinger-Maurach, bert, 1994, pp. 64–91) – Record of Christ’s ancestors
Goffen, 1999) – Michelangelo and the stone-cutters 1994; Hatfield, 2002, pp. 5, 11–14, 120) – Pietà in St 1991; Poeschke, 1992, pp. 89–100, 102–106, 119; Pope- (Poeschel, 2000, pp. 197–201) – Bramante’s doubts
(Wallace, 1992a) – Portraits of Michelangelo (Stein- Peter’s (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1987a; Hirst/Dunkerton, Hennessy, 1996, pp. 425–435) – Michelangelo’s sum- that Michelangelo has the talent for foreshortening
mann, 1913) – Michelangelo’s lifestyle (Hatfield, 2002, 1994, pp. 47–71) – Contract for the Pietà in St Peter’s mons to Rome in February 1505 (Hirst, 1991) – First (Carteggio, I, p. 16) – Golden age of the della Rovere
pp. 183, 188, 232) – Giovio (text after Steinmann, 1930, (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 613–614; Contratti, pp. 5–6) – Ana- plans for the Julius Tomb in Vasari’s Life of Giuliano (Hartt, 1950, pp. 133–134; Stinger, 1985, pp. 296–299;
750 751
MICHEL ANGELO BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES FOR LIFE AND WORK
Joost-Gaugier, 1996) – Genealogy as the programme of Unwillingness to be a court artist (cited in De Maio, (Neufeld, 1966; Perrig, 1981; Wallace, 1987b; Ascher, VIII. Presentation drawings and Last Judgement,
the Sistine Chapel (Zöllner, 2002, pp. 94–96) – Poem 1978, pp. 361–376) – Michelangelo’s wet-nurse (Condi- 2002) – Reconstructions of the Medici Chapel (Popp, 1534–1541
about frescoing the Sistine ceiling (Frey, 1964, no. IX; vi, 1987, p. 9, and V/M, VII, p. 137) – “cage of crickets” 1922) – Architectural details (Krieg, 1999/2000) – Silvio Biography (von Einem, 1959, pp. 107–134; Forcellino,
Gilbert, 1963, pp. 5–6): (V/M, V, p. 353) – “una cosa da fanciulli” (Carteggio, Cosini’s trophies (Tolnay, III, p. 165) – Regeneration 2006, pp. 222–250) – Contract for the Julius Tomb
I, p. 267) – Sansovino’s letter (Carteggio, I, p. 291) – iconography of pruned trees (Ladner, 1960) – Niccolò of 1532 (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 702–709; Contratti, pp. 199–
“I’ho già fatto un gozzo in questo stento, “commissioned by the Pope” (Carteggio, I, p. 266) – Martelli’s letter of 28 July 1544 (Tolnay, III, pp. 68, 143) 207) – Noli me tangere for Vittoria Colonna (Hirst/Mayr,
come fa l’aqua a’ gatti in Lombardia Façade programme (Carteggio, I, pp. 245–247) – “the – Leda, river gods and naiads as sources of inspiration 1997) – Michelangelo and Vittoria Colonna (Campi,
ovver d’altro paese che si sia, mirror of all Italy” (Carteggio, I, pp. 277–279) – Ex- (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, nos. 5, 62, 64–67) – Orna- 1997; Vittoria Colonna, 1997; Vittoria Colonna e Mi-
ch’a forza ’l ventre appicca sotto ’l mento. penses, final payment, balance (Carteggio, II, pp. 218– ment and cult of the dead (Tolnay, IV, p. 165) – Ori- chelangelo, 2005) – Tommaso de’ Cavalieri’s letter to
221) – “parts of a widely branching organism” (Maurer, gins of the allegories in the Medici Chapel (Steinmann, Michelangelo of 5 September 1533 (Carteggio, IV, p. 49)
La barba al cielo e la memoria sento 2004, p. 93) – Antique forerunners (Krieg, 1999/2000) 1907, pp. 64–66) – Sarcophagus relief from S. Lorenzo – Phaeton drawing and Ippolito de’ Medici (Chapman,
in sullo scrigno e ’l pecto fo d’arpia, – no “frictional losses” incurred by detail work (Mau- fuori le Mura in Rome as a conceptual source of ins- 2006, pp. 224–226) – Tommaso de’ Cavalieri’s date
e ’l pennel sopra ’l viso tuttavia rer, 2004, p. 101) – “ragione e regola” (V/M, VII, piration (Petersen, 1906; Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. of birth (Panofsky-Soergel, 1984; Kirkendale, 2001,
mel fa, gocciando, un richo pavimento. p. 193) – “become part of the building” (Wallace, 1994, 196) – Tiber and Fluentia in the Sala di Costantino p. 46; Chapman, 2006, p. 224) – Sonnet for Cavalieri
p. 191) – Columns “in wall cupboards” (Burckhardt, (Quednau, 1979, pp. 500–504) – Gandolfo Porrini (Gilbert, 1963, pp. 56–57; Frey, 1964, no. LXIII):
E’ lombi entrati mi son nella peccia, 1953, p. 312) – “demonstration of an abstract principle” on the Tiber and Arno (Steinmann, 1907, pp. 62–63;
e fo del cul per contrapeso groppa, (Krieg, 1999/2000, p. 153) – Door to the reading room Barocchi, 1962, III, pp. 950–952) – Pelican and phoenix “Non posso altra figura immaginarmi
e’ passi senza gli occhi muovo invano. (Carteggio, III, p. 221) – Flights of stairs for “Signore” as symbols of Christ’s Sacrifice and Resurrection (Phy- O di nud’ombra o di terrestre spoglia,
and servants (Carteggio, V, p. 43) – Vasari’s letter (V/M, siologus, nos. 4 and 7) – Michelangelo’s inscription re- Col più alto pensier, tal che mie voglia
Dinanzi mi s’allunga la corteccia VII, pp. 236 f.) – Michelangelo’s reply (Carteggio, V, garding the double tomb of the Magnifici (Cat. D134; Contra la tuo beltà di quell’s’armi.
e per piegarsi adietro si raggroppa, pp. 47–49; Vasari, 1967, pp. 400 f.) – Clay model, Frey, 1964, no. XVIII; Gilbert, 1971) – Michelangelo’s
e tendomi com’arco soriano. Michelangelo’s letter (Carteggio, V, p. 146) – Execution inscription regarding the tomb of Duke Giuliano de’ Ché da te mosso, tanto scender parmi,
in wood or stone (Carteggio, V, pp. 151 f.) – “Michel Medici (Frey, 1964, no. XVII; Eng. trans. Girardi, Ch’amor d’ogni valor mi priva e spoglia
Però fallace e strano angelo sia carezzato” (Gaye, 1839–1840, pp. 22 f.; see 1960, p. 166) – Psychology of the allegories (Neufeld, Ond’a pensar di minuir mie doglia
sorge il giudizio, che la mente porta, also Carteggio, III, pp. 303–306) 1966) – Benedetto Varchi on the allegories in the Me- Duplicando la morte viene darmi.
chè mal si tra’ per cerbottana torta. dici Chapel (Varchi, 1549, p. 117; text also in Pope-
VII. The sculptor, 1513–1534 Hennessy, 1996, pp. 444–445) – Giovanni di Carlo Però non val che più sproni mie fuga,
La mia pittura morta Biography (von Einem, 1959; pp. 71–112; Forcellino, Strozzi on the Medici Chapel (Frey, 1964, no. CIX.17): Doppiando ’l corso alla beltà nemica,
difendi orma’, Giouanni, e ’l mio onore, 2006, pp. 137–224) – Symbolism of the ape (Janson, Ché ’l men dal più veloce non si scosta.
Non sendo in loco bon nè io pittore.” 1952, pp. 295–301) – Physicality of Michelangelo’s “La Notte, che tu vedi in sì dolci atti Amor con le sue man gli occhi m’asciuga,
sculpture (Hall, 2005) – The Risen Christ (Panofsky, 1991; Dormire, fu da un Angelo scolpita Promettendomi cara ogni fatica:
– Interpretation of the Harpies and the Syrian bow Schwedes, 1998, pp. 31–72) – Sebastiano del Piombo’s In questo sasso: e, perchè dorme, ha vita: Che vile essere non può chi tanto costa.”
(Lavin, 1992; Zöllner, 2002) – Michelangelo’s self-por- letter of 6 September 1521 about Pietro Urbano’s beha- Destala, se no’l credi, e parleratti.
trait in the head of Holofernes (Tolnay, II, pp. 95–96, viour (Carteggio, II, pp. 313–315; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, – Presentation drawings for Cavalieri (Panofsky,
180; Agoston, 1997, pp. 546–547; Zöllner, 2005b) – p. 436) – Political motives for the positioning of the Grato m’ è il sonno, e più l’esser di sasso, 1939/1997, pp. 279–290; Hartt, 1975a, pp. 249–258;
Michelangelo’s property investments (Hatfield, 2002, Risen Christ (Panofsky, 1991) – Sebastiano del Piombo’s Mentre che ’l danno e la vergogna dura. TC, II, pp. 103–110; Testa, 1979; Hirst, 1988a, pp. 111–
pp. 61–114). letter of 6 September 1521 about the knees of the Risen Non veder, non sentir, m’è gran ventura; 118; Winner, 1992) – Liver as the seat of passion
Christ (Milanesi, 1890, p. 30) – Loss of Christ’s ge- Però non mi destar; deh! parla basso.” (Panofsky, 1939/1997, p. 217) – Virgil’s account of the
VI. The architect in Florence, 1513–1534 nitals in the 17th century (Lotz, 1965, note 35) – Su- punishment of Tityos (Virgil, 1990, p. 151):
“not my profession” (Carteggio, III, p. 20) – “not an ar- perstitious Roman women (Schwedes, 1998, note 71) – Symbolism of the mask (Leuschner, 1997, pp. 195–
chitect” (Wilde, 1953c, p. 109; Cat. D534) – “never – Acknowledgement of receipt issued by Metello Vari 201) – Mask as self-portrait of Michelangelo (Pao- “Nec non et Tityon, terrae omniparentis alumnum,
wished to follow the profession” (Condivi, 1987, p. 65) in June 1532 (Ricordi, p. 275, no. CCXLIX) – Giovan letti, 1992) – “Perpetual prayers” (Ettlinger, 1978) cernere erat, per tota novem cui iugera corpus
– “not his vocation” (Vasari, 1965, p. 385) – “contra mia Battista Figiovanni on the genesis of the Medici Cha- – Generalization of the allegories (Poeschke, 2005) – pottigitur, rostroque immanis vultur obunco
voglia” (Carteggio, V, pp. 30 and 105) – Decoration pel (Corti, 1964) – Relocation of the Magnifici in 1559 Figiovanni on plots to murder Michelangelo (Corti, immortale iecur tondens fecundaque poenis
of the Sistine Chapel (V/M, VII, pp. 173–175) – “la- (Ettlinger, 1978, p. 302, note 29) – Start of construc- 1964, p. 29) – Giovan Battista Mini’s letter to Bac- viscera rimaturque epulis habitatque sub alto
cked the necessary experience” (Vasari, 1965, p. 351) – tion work on the Medici Chapel (Ettlinger, 1978; Elam, cio Valori of 29 September 1531 (Carteggio, III, 1973, pectore, nec fibris requies datur ulla renatis.”
Raphael and Fra Giocondo (Camesasca, 1994, 1979) – SS Cosmas and Damian in the Medici Cha- pp. 329–330; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, p. 440).
pp. 175 f.) – Fortifications for Rome (V/M, VII, p. 217) pel (Laschke, 1993, pp. 31–33; Pope-Hennessy, 1996, – Ganymede (Testa, 1979; Vittoria Colonna, 1997,
– “Michelangelo scultore” (Carteggio, IV, p. 299) – p. 441) – Michelangelo’s designs for the Medici Chapel pp. 327–329) – Ganymede’s flight to the higher realms
752 753
(Panofsky, 1939/1997, pp. 212–218) – Michelangelo’s Einem, 1959, pp. 128–129; De Maio, 1978) – Miche- resign (V/M, VII, pp. 264–266) – “clear and pure, full (Bredekamp, 1999) – Sandro Fancelli’s work on the
sonnet for Cavalieri of c. 1546 (Gilbert, 1963, pp. 65– langelo as artist-martyr (Zöllner, 2005b) – Significance of light” (Carteggio, IV, pp. 251 f.) – Insurance against Julius Tomb Madonna and Child (Milanesi, 1875,
66; Frey, 1964, no. CIX.19): of the flayed skin (Wind, 1958/1987, pp. 200, 216) – alterations (Carteggio, V, pp. 84 and 110) – “S. Pietri- p. 604) – Urbino’s work on the Julius Tomb (Milanesi,
Bartholomew and Marsyas (Magnusson, 1984; Posèq, no” (Saalman, 1978, p. 491) – “minor forma” (V/M, 1875, pp. 712–713; Contratti, pp. 239–241) – Agree-
“Veggio co be vostr’ occhi un dolce lume, 1994; Barnes, 1995, p. 69; Wyss, 1996, pp. 7–25; Jacobs, VII, pp. 220 f.) – “something rarely seen in Rome” ment of 21 August 1542 (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 717–718;
Che co mie ciechi già veder non posso. 2002) – Criticism of the Last Judgement (Barocchi, (Carteggio, V, pp. 117 f.) – “die of shame” (Carteggio, Contratti, pp. 256–258; Forcellino, 2002, pp. 100–110)
Porto co vostri piedi un pondo adosso 1956; 1962, III, pp. 1254–1270; De Maio, 1978; Chas- V, pp. 113 f.) – Letter to critic (Carteggio, V, pp. 123 f.) – Attribution of the herms (Echinger-Maurach, 1991,
Che de mie zoppi non è lor costume. tel, 1984, pp. 188–207, 277–282; Möseneder, 1997; – Serlio on Bramante’s dome (Serlio, 1540, pp. 9 f.) pp. 381–385 and passim) – The role of Rachel in the Ju-
Barnes, 1998, pp. 71–101) – Aretino’s criticism of the – Cupola designs by Giuliano da Sangallo (Bellini, lius Tomb (Poeschel, 2001) – Michelangelo’s illnesses
Volo con le vostr’ ale e senza piume. Last Judgement (Carteggio, IV, pp. 82–91, 181–182, 208– 2006) – Michelangelo cannot leave Rome (Carteggio, between 1544 and 1546 (Forcellino, 2006, pp. 315–317)
Col vostro ingegno al ciel sempre non mosso. 209; Zöllner, 2002, pp. 103–106) – Quotations from V, pp. 35 f.) – Not a thought without death (Carteggio, – Sarcastic poem of around 1546 on living conditions
Da vostro arbitrio son pallido e rosso, Aretino’s letters (Carteggio IV, pp. 215, 217, 218–219; V, pp. 35 f.) – “il dado” (local Roman nickname) – in the Macel de’ Corvi (Gilbert, 1963, pp. 151–151; Frey,
Freddo al sol, caldo alle più fredde brume. Aretino, 1976, pp. 226 ff.) – Genesis of Condivi’s Life Trial section of cornice (V/M, VII, p. 223) – Its critics 1964, no. LXXXI):
of Michelangelo (Condivi, 1987, pp. 5–6; Condivi, 1874, (Meller, 1909) – Nanni di Baccio Bigio (Carteggio, IV,
Nel voler vostro è sol la voglia mia. § LII) – Niccolò Sernini’s letter of 19 November 1541 pp. 267 f.) – Travertine “ennobled” (V/M, I, p. 123) – “I’ sto rinchiuso come la midolla
I miei pensier nel vostro cor si fanno. (De Maio, 1978, p. 17; Chastel, 1984, p. 277) – Don Tiber bridge (V/M, VII, pp. 224 f.) – “Roma farnesiana” da la sua scorza, qua pover e solo,
Nel vostro fiato son le mie parole. Miniato Pitti’s letter to Giorgio Vasari of 1 May 1545 (Bruschi, 2004) – Michelangelo wishes to be asked by come spirto legato in un’ampolla:
(Chastel, 1984, p. 278) – Ambrogio Poli’s commentary the Duke (Carteggio, V, pp. 175 f.) – “We would like
Come luna da se sol par ch’ io sia, of 1551 (De Maio, 1978, pp. 19–20, 48; Chastel, 1984, to ask you…” (Carteggio, V, p. 181) – Michelangelo’s e la mia scura tomba è picciol volo,
Che gli occhi nostri in ciel veder non sanno p. 280) – Lomazzo’s review (Chastel, 1984, p. 281) – reply (Carteggio, V, p. 183) – “either the Greeks or the dov’è Aragn’ e mill’opre e lavoranti,
Se non quel tanto che n’ accende il sole.” Overpainting of the Last Judgement (De Maio, 1978, Romans” (Vasari, 1965, p. 414) – “I have fallen in love” e fan di lor filando fusaiuolo.
p. 39; Barnes, 1998, p. 88) – Correspondence between (Carteggio, V, p. 224) – The necessary funds (Carteggio,
– Phaeton (Brinckmann, 1925, pp. 45–47; Testa, 1979; Michel angelo and Vittoria Colonna, presentation V, p. 217) – Michelangelo apologizes (Carteggio, V, D’intorn’a l’uscio ho mete di giganti,
Chapman, 2006, pp. 224–227) – Phaeton sarcopha- drawings (Carteggio, IV, pp. 101–105, 224, 269; Campi, p. 183) – “the ground plan” (Carteggio, V, p. 206) – Pius ché chi mangi’uva o ha presa medicina
gus (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 27) – Sebastiano 1994; 1997; Vittoria Colonna, 1997, pp. 396–403; Vitto- IV and the Sforza Chapel (Satzinger, 2005) – “surpas- non vanno altrove a cacar tutti quanti.
del Piombo’s letter to Michelangelo of 17 July 1533 ria Colonna e Michelangelo, 2005, pp. 178–189; Chap- sing the expectations” (Vasari, 1965, p. 412) – One of
(Carteggio, IV, pp. 17–19) – Last Judgement (Steinmann, man, 2006, pp. 252–257) – Copies after presentation Rome’s most beautiful churches (B. Gamucci, Libri I’ ho ’mparato a conoscer l’orina
1905, II, p. 776; Tolnay, V, pp. 19–22; von Einem, 1959, drawings for Vittoria Colonna (Kamp, 1993; Vittoria quattro dell’antichità, Venice 1565, cited from De Maio, e la cannella ond’esce, per quei fessi
pp. 113–129; Barnes, 1998; Hall, 2005; Chapman, 2006, Colonna e Michelangelo, 2005, pp. 170–175) – Pietà 1978, p. 331) – Ambassadors’ reports: 18 January and 18 che ’nanzi dì mi chiamon la mattina.
pp. 229–232) – Genesis of the Last Judgement (Tolnay, for Vittoria Colonna (Campi, 1997; Vittoria Colonna, June 1561 (Pastor, VII, pp. 638 and 644) – “the comple-
V, p. 22; Rohlmann, 2000; Kliemann/Rohlmann, 1997, p. 426) – Presentation drawings as an expressi- tion of the work” (Bredekamp, 1995, p. 122) Gatti, carogne, canterelli o cessi,
2004, pp. 97–99) – Divine Comedy, Inf. III. 109–111 on of Catholic Reform theology (Campi, 1994; 1997) chi n’ha per masserizi’ o men vïaggio
(Dante, 1949, p. 88): – “Human” Christ in medieval examples (Haussherr, X. Late works: The final paintings and sculptures, non vien a vicitarmi mai senz’essi.
1971) – Vittoria Colonna’s letters about Michelangelo’s 1540–1564
“Caron dimonio, con occhi di bragia Crucifixion (Carteggio, IV, p. 104, 105). Biography (von Einem, 1959, pp. 135–163; Forcellino, L’anima mia dal corpo ha tal vantaggio,
Loro accenando, tutte le raccoglie; 2006, pp. 250–352) – Drawings for paintings by other che se stasat’ allentasse l’odore,
Batte col remo qualunque s’ adagia.” IX. The architect in Rome, 1534–1564 artists (Chapman, 2006, pp. 257–272) – Cardinal seco non la terre’ ’l pan e ’l formaggio.
Paul III’s wish (V/M, VII, p. 206) – “secundum iudi- Ascanio Parisani’s letter of 23 November 1538 (Baroc-
– Vasari on Michelangelo’s admiration for Signorelli’s cium d. Michaelis Angeli” (Lanciani, 1903, pp. 11, 69) chi, 1962, III, p. 1199) – Figures from the Julius Tomb La toss’ e ’l freddo il tien sol che non more;
frescoes (V/M, III, p. 690) – Bertoldo di Giovanni’s – Michelangelo’s opposition (Gronau, 1906, pp. 9 f.) for the Medici Chapel (Carteggio, III, pp. 342–347, se la non esce per l’uscio di sotto,
portrait medallion of Filippo de’ Medici (Draper, 1992, – Description of the Capitol (Vasari, 1550, pp. 987 f.; letter from Sebastiano del Piombo to Michelangelo per bocca il fiato a pen’ uscir può fore.
pp. 82–86) – Preliminary drawings for the Last Jud- Vasari, 1568; V/M, VII, pp. 222 f.) – Mayoral decree of 15/21 November 1531) – Despairing letter to Luigi
gement (Chapman, 2006, pp. 233–247) – Ambrogio (Corriere della Sera, 8.11.1998) – Paul IV should “set del Riccio of late October 1542 (Gilbert, 1963, p. 258) Dilombato, crepato, infranto e rotto
Brambilla’s copperplate engraving of the Last Judge- about putting the world to rights” (Vasari, 1965, p. 402) – Michelangelo’s letter to an unidentified dignitary; son già per le fatiche, e l’osteria
ment (De Maio, 1978, pp. 43, 62–63) – The Last Judge- – “against my will” (Carteggio, V, p. 105; p. 102) – “setta embezzled funds (Carteggio, IV, pp. 150–155; Hatfield, è morte, dov’io viv’ e mangio a scotto.
ment as a reaction to the Sack of Rome (Chastel, 1983, sangallesca” (V/M, VII, p. 218) – “artistic absolutism” 2002, pp. 126–138) – Julius Tomb in general (Echinger-
pp. 191–200; De Maio, 1978, p. 37; Boroughs, 1995), (Bredekamp, 1995b, p. 120) – “per l’amor de Dio” Maurach, 1991; Satzinger, 2001) – Agreement of 20 La mia allegrezz’ è la maninconia,
as heresy (Steinberg, 1975a; 1980a), as an expression (V/M, VII, p. 220) – Commissioners to raise money August 1542 (Milanesi, 1875, pp. 715–716; Contratti, e ’l mio riposo son questi disagi:
of the Counter-Reformation (Feldhusen, 1953; von (Saalman, 1978, p. 489) – Michelangelo threatens to pp. 250–255) – Comparison with Renaissance tombs che chi cerca il malanno, Dio gliel dia.”
754 755
– Sonnet of 1542 for Vittoria Colonna on the fame Peter in The Golden Legend (Voragine, 1993, Vol. destruction of the Last Judgement (V/M, VII, p. 65;
of the artist (Gilbert, 1963, p. 133; Frey, 1964, no. I, p. 346) – Viewer’s gaze guided by the frescoes Lomazzo, cited in Chastel, 1984, p. 281, and above,
CIX.92): (Wallace, 1989) – Gilio’s criticism of Christ in the Ch. VIII) – Cardinal Rodolfo Pio’s letter to Cosimo
Pauline Chapel (Barocchi, II, p. 44; Steinberg, 1975b, de’ Medici (Barocchi, 1962, IV, p. 1696; Carteggio
“Com’esser, donna, può quel c’alcun vede p. 37) – Reception of the Pauline Chapel (Barocchi, indiretto, II, p. 101) – Michelangelo arranges socially
per lunga sperïenza, che più dura 1962, III, pp. 1411–1430) – Day’s work in the Pauline advantageous marriages for his family (Hatfield, 2002,
l’immagin viva in pietra alpestra e dura Chapel (Forcellino, 2006, pp. 276–278) – Vincenzo pp. 103–105, 223–224; Forcellino, 2006, pp. 321–322)
che ’l suo fattor, che gli anni in cener riede? Danti’s concept of the imitation of nature (Barocchi, – Michelangelo’s special position in conflicts (Brede-
1960, I, pp. 241, 263; Summers, 1981, pp. 279–282) kamp, 2006) – Michelangelo receives German visitors
La causa a l’effetto inclina e cede, – Gilio’s criticism of Saul’s age (Barocchi, 1960, I, to Rome (Gaye, 1840, II, p. 419) – Blaise de Vigenère
onde dall’arte è vinta la natura. p. 45; Steinberg, 1975b, pp. 25, 60) – Leoni’s por- (Barocchi, 1962, II, p. 232; French text also in Lavin,
I’ ’l so, che ’l pruovo in la bella scultura, trait medal and Michelangelo as “pilgrim” (Pope- 1992, note 26) – Daniele da Volterra on Michelangelo’s
c’all’opra il tempo e morte non tien fede. Hennessy, 1966, p. 209; Barolsky, 1990b, pp. 44–46; unceasing urge to work, in a letter to Lionardo Buonar-
Schumacher, 2004) – Michelangelo’s letter to Varchi, roti of 11 June 1564 (Carteggio indiretto, II, pp. 198–200,
Dunche, posso ambo noi dar lunga vita April and June 1547 (Condivi, 1987, p. 120) – Nuns no. CCCLXX) – Rondanini Pietà as a “testament in
in qual sie modo, o di colore o sasso, getting pregnant in St Peter’s (Milanesi, 1875, p. 535 marble” (Fiorio, 2004, p. 13) – The quality of being
di noi sembrando l’uno e l’altro volto; [as a letter to Bartolommeo Ammannati], no. CDLX- unfinished (Schulz, 1975; Barricelli, 1993).
XIV; Condivi, 1987, p. 119) – Meleager sarcophagus
sì che mill’anni dopo la partita, (Bober/Rubinstein, 1986, no. 118) – Michelangelo’s Epilogue
quante voi bella fusti e quant’io lasso controlled refashioning of the Florentine Pietà (Was- Michelangelo’s death (Gaye, 1840, III, p. 126)
si veggia, e com’amarvi i’ non fu’ stolto.” serman, 2003) – Vasari’s letter to Lionardo Buonarroti – Inventory of Michelangelo’s estate (Barocchi,
of 18 March 1564 (Carteggio indiretto, II, pp. 179–183) – 1962, IV, pp. 1848–1851) – Disappointment over
– Letter by Vittoria Colonna of 1545 or 1546 on the Madrigal about a cold-hearted (fictive) female beloved Michelangelo’s estate (Frey, 1930, II, pp. 53–54, 902;
“second death” (Carteggio, IV, p. 224) – Michelangelo’s and self-portrait (Gilbert, 1963, p. 135; Frey, 1964, no. Carteggio indiretto, II, pp. 198–200) – Michelan
sonnet on the “second death” (Gilbert, 1963, p. 159; CIX.53): gelo’s cash reserves in the Macel de’ Corvi (Hat-
Frey, 1964, no. CXLVII): field, 2002, pp. 183–185) – Michelangelo’s
“S’egli è che ’n dura pietra alcun somigli funeral and saintliness (V/M, VII, p. 285; Wittkower,
“Giunto è già ‘l corso della vita mia, talor l’immagin d’ogni altri a se stesso, 1964, pp. 1–17, 77 and passim; Barolsky, 1990, p. 55;
con tempestoso mar, per fragil barca, squallido e smorto spesso Pon, 1996).
al comun porto, ov’a render si varca il fo, com’i’ son fatto da costei;
conto e ragion d’ogni opra trista e pia. e par ch’esempio pigli
Ogni or da me, ch’i’ penso di far lei.
Onde l’affettüosa fantasia ben la pietra potrei
che l’arte mi fece idol e monarca per l’aspra sua durezza,
conosco or ben com’era d’error carca in ch’io l’esempio, dir c’a lei s’assembra;
e quel c’a mal suo grado ogn’uom desia. del resto non saprei,
Gli amorosi pensier, già vani e lieti, mentre mi strugge e sprezza,
che fien or, s’a duo morte m’avvicino? altro scolpir che le mie afflite membra.
D’una so ’l certo, e l’altra mi minaccia. Ma se l’arte rimembra
agli anni la beltà, per durare ella,
Né pinger né scolpir fie più che quieti farà me lieto, ond’io la farò bella.”
l’anima, volta a quell’amor divino
c’aperse, a prender noi, ’n croce le braccia.” – Self-portrait of the artist as Nicodemus (Pope-
Hennessy, 1966, pp. 289–300; Schleif, 1993; Nagel,
– Pauline Chapel (Baumgart/Biagetti, 1934; Steinberg, 2000, pp. 202–212; Zöllner, 2005b) – Volto Santo in
1975b; Kuntz, 1998; 2003; 2005; Hemmer, 2003) – Mich- Lucca (Stechow, 1964; Schleif, 1993; Verdon, 2003)
elangelo’s letter to an unidentified dignitary of October – Role of Mary Magdalene in the Florentine Pietà
1542 (Condivi, 1987, p. 114) – Woodcut by Domenico (Wallace, 2000) – Papal salary payments to Miche-
Campagnola (Hemmer, 2003) – The martyrdom of St langelo (Hatfield, 2002, pp. 160, 164–167) – Planned
756 757
BIBLIOGRAPHY
dei secoli XIV, XV, XVI, 3 vols, Aufzeichnungen, ed. and trans. Giorgio Vasari, Das Leben des Michel-
Florence 1839–1840 T. Lücke, Munich 1952 angelo. Neu übersetzt v. V. Lorini.
Bibliography Donato Giannotti, Gespräche mit
Michelangelo. Zwei Dialoge über
Michelangelo, Lebensberichte, Briefe,
Gespräche, Gedichte, ed. and trans.
Hrsg., komm. u. eing. v. Caroline
Gabbert, Berlin 2009
die Tage, in denen Dante Hölle und H. Hinderberger, Zurich 1947 Giorgio Vasari, Das Leben von Lionar-
Fegefeuer durchwanderte, ed. and Michelangelo, Sonette, ed. and trans. do da Vinci, Raffael von Urbino
trans. J. Frommel-Haverkorn van K. Kleinschmidt, Bremen 1964 und Michelangelo Buonarroti,
Rijsewijk, 2nd edn, Amsterdam Michelangelo, Zeichnungen und ed. R. Kanz, Stuttgart 1996
1968 (Castrum Peregrini Dichtungen, ed. H. Keller, trans. Giorgio Vasari, La vita di Michel-
Abbreviations of the Pietro Aretino, Selected Letters, trans. Ascanio Condivi, The Life of Michel- LXXXIV–V) Rainer Maria Rilke, Frankfurt angelo nelle redazioni del 1550 e del
bibliographical sources George Bull, Harmondsworth 1976 angelo, trans. A. S. Wohl, C. E. Gilbert, Complete Poems and Se- am Main 1975 1568, ed. P. Barocchi, 5 vols,
and the bibliography P. Barocchi (ed.), Trattati d’arte del ed. H. Wohl, 2nd ed., University lected Letters of Michelangelo, ed. Michelangelo, The poetry of Michel- Milan/Naples 1962
Cinquecento fra manierismo e con- Park 1999 Robert N. Linscott, Princeton 1963 angelo, an annotated translation Giorgio Vasari, Leben der ausgezeich-
AB: The Art Bulletin troriforma, 3 vols, Bari 1960–1962 I Contratti di Michelangelo, ed. L. Paolo Giovio, Michaelis Angeli Vita by James M. Saslow, New Haven netsten Maler, Bildhauer und
AeH: Artibus et Historiae P. Barocchi (ed.), Giorgio Vasari. La Bardeschi Ciulich, Florence 2005 [c. 1527], in: Frey, 1887, pp. 403– (et al.) 1991 Baumeister von Cimabue bis zum
AH: Art History vita di Mich-elangelo nelle redazioni Dante Alighieri, La divina commedia, 404, and Steinmann, 1930, Michelangelo, see also Carteggio; Jahre 1567 (1568) [trans. V. A. See-
BM: The Burlington Magazine del 1550 e del 1568, 5 vols, ed. G. A. Scartazzini, Milan 1893 pp. 77–78 Contratti; Engelhard; Erpel; Frey; beck], ed. L. Schorn and E. Förster,
CA: Critica d’arte Milan/Naples 1962 Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (ed. Hinderberger; Koch; Milanesi; 6 vols, Stuttgart/Tübingen 1832–
CT: Il Carteggio di Michelangelo, Raffaello Borghini, Il Riposo, Florence trans. Dorothy L. Sayers, 3 vols, and trans.), Das Leben des Benvenuto Nelson; Ramsden; Ricordi 1849
1965–1983 1584 (reprint Milan 1967) Harmondsworth 1949 Cellini florentinischen Goldschmieds G. Milanesi, Le lettere di Michelangelo (reprint Worms 1983, ed.
D: Dussler, 1959 Giovanni Gaetano Bottari/Stefano M. Engelhard (ed. and trans.), und Bildhauers von ihm selbst ge- Buonarroti, pubblicate coi ricordi J. Kliemann, 2nd edn, 1988)
GBA: Gazette des Beaux-Arts Ticozzi, Raccolta di lettere sulla Michelangelo. Gedichte, Frankfurt schrieben, 2nd edn, Leipzig 1971 ed i contratti artistici, Florence 1875 Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de’più eccellenti
H: Hartt, 1975a pittura, scultura ed architettura, am Main 1999 E. Guhl (ed.), Künstlerbriefe der (reprint Osnabrück 1976) architetti, pittori, et scultori italiani
JbPKS: Jahrbuch der Königlich 10 vols, Milan 1822–1825 (reprint F. Erpel (ed.), Michelangelo. Von Renaissance, Berlin 1913 G. Milanesi, Les correspondants de da Cimabue insino a’ tempi nostri
Preußischen Kunstsammlungen Hildesheim 1976) Kunst und Leben. Aus Briefen und Francisco de Holanda, Diálogos de Michel-Ange. 1. Sebastiano del [1550], ed. L. Bellosi and A. Rossi,
JWCI: Journal of the Warburg and Il Carteggio di Michelangelo. Edizione Gesprächen, (East) Berlin 1964 Roma, ed. M. Mendes, Lisbon 1955 Piombo, Paris 1890 Turin 1986
Courtauld Institutes postuma di G iovanni Poggi, ed. K. Frey (ed.), Le vite di Michelangelo Francisco de Holanda, Dialogues with H. Nelson (ed. and trans.), Michel- Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellen-
LCI: Lexikon der christlichen Ikonog- P. Barocchi and R. Ristori, 5 vols, Buonarroti scritte da Giorgio Vasari Michelangelo, trans. C. B. Holroyd, agniolo Buonarroti. Dichtungen, ti pittori, scultori ed architettori
raphie, 1968–1976 Florence 1965–1983 e da Ascanio Condivi, Berlin 1887 London 2006 Jena 1922 [1568], ed. G. Milanesi, 9 vols,
MD: Master Drawings Il Carteggio indiretto di Michelangelo, K. Frey (ed.), Il Codice Magliabe- G. D. Folliero-Metz (ed.), Francisco Physiologus. Naturkunde in frühchrist- Florence 1906 (reprint 1981)
MKIF: Mitteilungen des Kunsthis- ed. P. Barocchi, K. L. Bramanti and chiano, Berlin 1892 (reprint de Hollanda, Diálogos em Roma licher Deutung, ed. and trans. Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists,
torischen Institutes in Florenz R. Ristori, 2 vols, Florence Farnborough 1969) [1538]. Conversations on Art U. Treu, Hanau 1981 trans. George Bull, Harmonds-
s. c.: stile comune (year starts on 1 Jan- 1988–1995 K. Frey (ed.), Sammlung ausgewählter with Michelangelo Buonarroti, Plutarch, Parallel Lives, trans. John worth 1965
uary, in contrast to s. f., stile fioren- Benvenuto Cellini, Opere, Briefe an Michelagniolo Buonarroti, Heidelberg 1998 Dryden 1683, rev. Arthur Hugh Vasari, see also Barocchi; Frey
tino, year starts on 25 March, the ed. B. Maier, Milan 1968 Berlin 1899 M. Klein (ed.), Michelagniolo Buonar- Clough, 1864 P. Vergilius Maro, Aeneis, 5. und 6.
day of the Annunciation) Benvenuto Cellini, see also Goethe K. Frey (ed.), Il carteggio di Giorgio roti. Gedichte zur Kunst, Munich E. H. Ramsden (ed. and trans.), Buch, trans. and ed. E. and
SCJ: The Sixteenth Century Journal Ascanio Condivi, Das Leben des Vasari, Munich 1923 1988 The letters of Michelangelo, 2 vols, G. Binder, Stuttgart 1998
SiI: Studies in Iconography Michelangelo Buonarroti [1553], K. Frey (ed.), Der literarische Nachlass H. Koch (ed. and trans.), Gedanken Stanford 1963 Virgil, Aeneis. 12 Gesänge, trans. and
TC: Tolnay, 1975–1980 trans. R. Valdek, Vienna 1874 Giorgio Vasaris, 2 vols, Munich eines Einsamen. Der unbekannte J. P. Richter (ed.), The Literary Works ed. W. Plankl, Stuttgart 1976
V/M: Vasari, 1906 (reprint Osnabrück 1970) 1923–1930 Michelangelo in Rede und Prosa, of Leonardo da Vinci, 2 vols, 3rd edn, Virgil, The Aeneid. A new prose trans-
ZfKG: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte Ascanio Condivi, Michelangelo. Life, K. Frey (ed.), Die Briefe des Michel- Hamburg 1943 Oxford 1970 (first published 1883) lation, trans. D. West, Harmonds-
Letters and Poetry, trans. George agniolo Buonarroti, new edn. H. Koch, Michelangelo. Mit Selb- I Ricordi di Michelangelo, ed. L. worth 1990
Sources Bull, Oxford 1987 H.-W. Frey, Berlin 1961 (first stzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten, Bardeschi Ciulich and P. Barocchi,
Francesco Albertini, Memoriale di Ascanio Condivi, Vita di Michelagno- published 1907) Reinbek bei Hamburg 1999 (first Florence 1970 Secondary Literature
molte statue et picture sono nella lo Buonarroti, ed. E. Spina Barelli, K. Frey (ed.), Die Dichtungen des published 1966) Benedetto Varchi, Due lezzioni […], J. S. Ackerman, The Cortile del
inclyta ciptà di Fiorentia […], Milan 1964 Michelagniolo Buonarroti, 2nd edn, Leonardo da Vinci, Das Buch von Florence 1549 Belvedere, Vatican City 1954
Rome 1510 (reprint London 1909) Ascanio Condivi, Vita di Michel- new edn. H.-W. Frey, Berlin 1964 der Malerei, ed. H. Ludwig, 3 vols, Benedetto Varchi, Storia Fiorentina, (Studi e documenti per la storia del
Pietro Aretino, Il libro de le lettere, agnolo Buonarroti, ed. G. Nencioni, (first published 1897) Vienna 1882 ed. G. Milanesi, 3 vols, Florence Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano, 3)
6 vols, Venice 1538–1556 Florence 1998 G. Gaye, Carteggio inedito d’artisti Leonardo da Vinci, Tagebücher und 1857–1858 J. S. Ackerman, The Architecture of
758 759
MICHEL ANGELO BIBLIOGRAPHY
Michelangelo, 2 vols, London 1961 H. U. Asemissen/G. Schweikhart, Cappella Sistina”, in: Weil-Garris Sistina”, in: Atti e memorie dell’ Matteo e negli schiavi del monu- The Culture, the Business and the
J. S. Ackerman, Punti di distanza: Malerei als Thema der Malerei, Brandt, 1994a, pp. 83–102 Accademia Toscana di Scienze e mento a Giulio II”, in: Bolletino Scandal, New York 1996
saggi sull’architettura e l’arte Berlin 1994 C. C. Bambach, Drawing and Paint- Lettere ‘La Colombaria’, 7, 1956 d’arte, 28, 1934, pp. 344–356 J. Beck/A. Paolucci/B. Santi, Un
d’Occidente, Milan 2001 M. Bacci, “Le fonti letterarie del ing in the Italian Renaissance Work- [pub. 1957], pp. 175–212 F. Baumgart, “Die Pietà Rondanini. occhio su Michelangelo: Le tombe
J. S. Ackerman/J. Newman, The Bacco di Michelangelo e il proble- shop. Theory and Practice, 1300– P. Barocchi, Michelangelo e la sua Ein Beitrag zur Erkenntnis des Al- dei Medici nella sagrestia nuova di
Architecture of Michelangelo, ma del committente”, in: Antichità 1600, Cambridge, MA, 1999 scuola, 3 vols, Florence 1962–1964 tersstiles Michelangelos mit einer S. Lorenzo a Firenze dopo il restauro,
Chicago 1986 viva, 24 (1/3), 1985, pp. 131–134 (Bambach, 1999a) P. Barocchi, Il Bacco di Michelangelo, Rekonstruktion von Arno Breker”, Bergamo 1993
G. Agostini/V. Farinella (eds.), M. Bailey, “The Rediscovery of C. C. Bambach, “The Purchases of Florence 1982 (Barocchi, 1982a) in: JbPKS, 56, 1935, pp. 44–56 A. Bedon, “Le incisioni di Du Pérac
Michelangelo. Studi di antichità Michelangelo’s Entombment. The Cartoon Paper for Leonardo’s ‘Bat- P. Barocchi, Michelangelo: Tondo F. Baumgart/B. Biagetti, Gli Affreschi per S. Pietro”, in: Il disegno di
dal Codice Coner, Turin 1987 Rescuing of a Masterpiece”, in: tle of Anghiari’ and Michelangelo’s Pitti, Apollo-David, Bruto, Florence di Michelangelo e di Lorenzo architettura, 6 (12), 1995, pp. 5–11
L. C. Agoston, “Sonnet, Sculpture, Apollo, 140 (392), 1994, pp. 30–33 ‘Battle of Cascina’”, in: I Tatti 1982 (Barocchi, 1982b) Sabbatini e Federico Zuccari nella A. Bedon, “La Stella capitolina:
Death: The Mediums of Michel- E. Balas, “Michelangelo’s Victory: Studies, 8, 1999, pp. 105–133 P. Barolsky, “Metaphorical Meaning Cappella Paolina in Vaticano, Michelangelo non c’entra. Un
angelo’s Self-Imaging”, in: AH, Its Rôle and Significance”, (Bambach, 1999b) in the Sistine C eiling”, in: Source, Vatican City 1934 esproprio incauto di Muñoz di
20, 1997, pp. 534–555 in: GBA, 113 (1441), 1989, L. Bardeschi Ciulich, “Documenti in- 9 (2), 1990, pp. 19–22 (Barolsky, J. Beck, “The Final Layer: ‘L’ultima un’invenzione del Du Pérac”, in:
F. Ames-Lewis/P. Joannides (eds.), pp. 67–80 editi su Michelangelo e l’incarcio di 1990a) mano’ on Michelangelo’s Sistine Capitolium, 1 (1), 1997, pp. 80–83
Reactions to the M aster: Michelange- E. Balas, “Michelangelo’s Double San Pietro”, in: Rinascimento, 17, P. Barolsky, Michelangelo’s Nose. Ceiling”, in: AB, 70, 1988, A. Bedon, Il Campidoglio, Storia di
lo’s Effect on Art and Artists in the Self-Portrait in His Vatican Fresco 1977, pp. 235–275 A Myth and its Maker, University pp. 502–503 un monumento civile nella Roma
Sixteenth Century, Aldershot 2003 ‘The Conversion of Paul’: A Hypo L. Bardeschi Ciulich, “Nuovi docu- Park 1990 (Barolsky, 1990b) J. Beck, “Cardinal Alidosi, Michel- papale, Milan 2008.
M. J. Amy, “The Dating of Michel- thesis”, in: Arte cristiana, 82 (760), menti su Michelangelo architetto P. Barolsky, The Faun in the Garden: angelo, and the Sistine Ceiling”, C. Bellinati, Il Duomo di Padova
angelo’s St. Matthew”, 1994, pp. 3–12 maggiore di San Pietro”, in: Michelangelo and the poetic origins in: AeH, 11 (22), 1990, pp. 63–77 e il suo battistero, Sarmeola di
in: BM, 142, 2000, pp. 493–496 U. Baldini, L’opera completa di Rinascimento, 23, 1983, pp. 173–186 of Italian Renaissance art, University J. Beck, “Michelangelo’s Pentimen- Rubano 1997
F. Andreani, Michelangelo e l’arte Michelangelo scultore, Milan 1973 L. Bardeschi Ciulich/P. Ragionieri Park 1994 to Bared”, in: AeH, 12 (24), 1991, F. Bellini, “La costruzione della
della città. Storia della via Nova U. Baldini, Michelangelo. Die Skulp- (eds.), Michelangelo: Grafia e P. Barolsky, “The Mysteries of Michel- pp. 53–63 (Beck, 1991a) Cappella Gregoriana in San Pietro,
Capitolina, Rome 2005 turen, Stuttgart 1982 (first pub- biografia. Disegni e Autografi del angelo: Michael Hirst and Jill J. Beck, “Michelangelo’s ‘Sacrifice’ di Giacomo Della Porta: cronolo-
S. Androsov/U. Baldini (eds.), lished in Italian in 1981) Maestro, exh. cat., Florence 2002 Dunkerton, Making and Meaning: on the Sistine Ceiling”, in: J. gia, protagonisti e significato icono-
L’“Adolescente” dell’Ermitage e la U. Baldini, “Il crocifisso di Santo L. Barkan, Unearthing the Past. The Young Michelangelo”, in: Monfasani/R. G. Musto (eds.), logico”, in: Quaderni dell’Istituto
Sagrestia Nuova di Michelangelo, Spirito di Michelangelo. ‘Perfettis- Archaeology and A esthetics in the Source, 14 (3), 1995, pp. 37–40 Renaissance Society and Culture: di Storia dell’Architettura, 34/39,
Florence et. al. 2000 simo sopra tutti li altri corpi’”, Making of Renaissance Culture, P. Barolsky, “Looking Closely at Essays in Honor of Eugene F. Rice, 1999/2002, pp. 333–346
C. Angeleri, “L’autoritratto di in: CA, 64 (19), 2001, pp. 21–37 New Haven/London 1999 Michelangelo’s Seers”, in: Source, Jr., New York 1991, pp. 9–18 F. Bellini, “I grandi cantieri: Campi-
Michelangelo nel Giudizio Univer- (Baldini, 2001a) B. Barnes, The Invention of Michelan- 16 (4), 1997, pp. 31–35 (Beck, 1991b) doglio, San Pietro, ‘Studium
sale. Lo videro i contemporanei?”, U. Baldini, “L’Adolescente dell’ gelo’s ‘Last Judgement’, PhD thesis, P. Barolsky, “Michelangelo and the J. Beck, “Is Michelangelo’s Entomb- Urbis’”, in: Storia dell’architettura
in: Miscellanea, 1942, pp. 231–251 Ermitage e il suo rapporto con la Charlottesville, VA, 1986, [pub.] Spirit of God”, in: Source, 17 (4), ment in the National Gallery italiana, Il secondo Cinquecento,
G. C. Argan/B. Contardi, Michelan- Sagrestia Nuova di Michelangelo”, Ann Arbor 1988 1998, pp. 15–17 Michelangelo’s?”, in: GBA, 127, ed. C. Conforti and R. Tuttle,
gelo architetto, Milan 1990 in: CA, 64 (10), 2001, pp. 57–59 B. Barnes, “A Lost ‘Modello’ for Mi- P. Barolsky, “The Meaning of Michel- 1996, pp. 181–198 Milan 2001, pp. 66–93
M. Arkin, “‘One of the Marys…’: An (Baldini, 2001b) chelangelo’s ‘Last Judgment’”, in: angelo’s Pitti Tondo”, in: Source, 22 J. Beck, “Connoisseurship. A Lost F. Bellini, “La basilica di San Pietro
Interdisciplinary Analysis of Mi- I. Baldriga, “The First Version of MD, 26 (3), 1988, pp. 239–248 (2), 2003, pp. 10–12 or a Found Art? The Example of a in Vaticano”, in: Jacopo Barozzi
chelangelo’s Florentine ‘Pietà’”, in: Michelangelo’s Christ for S. Maria B. Barnes, “Metaphorical Painting: P. Barolsky, “Machiavelli, Michelan- Michelangelo Attribution: ‘The da Vignola, ed. R. J. Tuttle and
AB, 79, 1997, pp. 493–517 sopra Minerva”, in: BM, 142 (1173), Michelangelo, Dante, and the ‘Last gelo, and David”, in: Source, 23 (3), Fifth Avenue Cupid’”, in: AeH, 19 B. Adorni, Milan 2002, pp. 300–306
P. Armour, “Michelangelo’s ‘Moses’: 2000, pp. 740–745 Judgment’”, in: AB, 77 (1), 1995, 2004, pp. 32–33 (37), 1998, pp. 9–42 (Beck, 1998a) F. Bellini, “Da Michelangelo a Giaco-
A Text in Stone”, in: Italian Studies, C. C. Bambach, “A Note on Michel- pp. 65–81 J.-P. Barricelli, “Michelangelo’s J. Beck, “È di Michelangelo mo Della Porta”, in: Petros Eni:
48, 1993, pp. 18–43 angelo’s Cartoon for the Sistine B. Barnes, Michelangelo’s ‘Last Judg- ‘Finito’: In the Self, the Later l’Entombment della National Catalogo della Mostra, ed. M. C.
P. Armour, “The Prisoner and Ceiling: Haman”, in: AB, 65, 1983, ment’. The Renaissance Response, Sonnets, and the Last ‘Pietà’”, in: Gallery?”, in: I. Bigazzi/G. Falaschi Carlo-Stella, P. Liverani and M. L.
the Veil: The Symbolism of Michel- pp. 661–665 Berkeley et al. 1998 New Literary History, 24 (3), 1993, (eds.), Per Alessandro Parronchi. Polichetti, exh. cat., Monterotondo
angelo’s Tomb of Julius II”, in: Ital- C. C. Bambach, “Michelangelo’s B. Barnes, “Skin, Bones, and Dust: pp. 597–616 Atti della giornata di studio. Firenze, 2006, pp. 81–104
ian Studies, 49, 1994, pp. 40–69 Cartoon for the ‘Crucifixionof St. Self-Portraits in Michelangelo’s F. Baumgart, “Contributi a Michel- 10 febbraio 1995, Rome 1998, F. Bellini, “La cupola di San Pietro da
Y. Ascher, “Michelangelo’s Projects Peter’ Reconsidered”, in: MD, 25, ‘Last Judgment’”, in: SCJ, 35 (4), angelo: I. Daniele da Volterra e pp. 137–160 (Beck, 1998b) Michelangelo a Della Porta”, in:
for the Medicean Tombs: Rereading 1987, pp. 131–142 2004, pp. 969–986 Michelangelo, II. La Madonna J. Beck, Three Worlds of Michelangelo, Satzinger/Schütze 2008.
of the Story of the Medici Chapel”, C. C. Bambach, “Problemi di tecnica P. Barocchi, “Schizzo di una storia Doni, III. Differenze nel trattamen- New York 1999 E. Benkard, Michelangelos Madonna
in: AeH, 23 (46), 2002, pp. 83–96 nei cartoni di Michelangelo per la della critica cinquecentesca sulla to del marmo, nella figura di J. Beck/M. Daley, Art Restoration. an der Treppe, Berlin 1933
760 761
C. Bernardi Salvetti, S. Maria degli sul Campidoglio”, in: Römisches Totenkult und Wille zur Macht. Die M. Bull, “The Iconography of the scritti: lettere, firme, sonetti, saggi Vecchio”, in: Prospettiva, 83–84,
Angeli alle Terme e Antonio Lo Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana, unruhigen Ruhestätten der Päpste in Sistine Chapel Ceiling”, in: BM, tecnici e teorici, Milan 1994 1996, pp. 102–115
Duca, Rome 1965 32, 1997/98, pp. 409–478 St. Peter, Darmstadt 2004 130, 1988, pp. 597–605 E. Camesasca, see also Redig de H. Chapman, Michelangelo Drawings.
L. Berti/P. Ragionieri, “Note circa H. Bredekamp, “Grillenfänge von A. E. Brinckmann, Michelangelo. J. Burckhardt, Der Cicerone. Eine An- Campos Closer to the Master, exh. cat.,
la Madonna della Scala di Michel- Michelangelo bis Goethe”, in: Mar- Zeichnungen, Munich 1925 leitung zum Genuss der Kunstwerke E. Campi, Michelangelo e Vittoria London 2005
angelo”, in: CA, 64 (10), 2001, burger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissen M. Brion, Michel-Ange, Paris 1942 Italiens, 1855, reprint of the original Colonna, Turin 1994 A. Chastel, The Sack of Rome. 1527,
pp. 16–20 schaft, 22, 1989, pp. 169–180 [= Fest- H. Brockhaus, Michelangelo und die edition, Stuttgart 1953 E. Campi, “Kruzifixus und Pietà Mi- Princeton 1983
P. H. v. Blanckenhagen, “Die Ignudi schrift für Hans-Joachim Kunst] Medici-Kapelle, Leipzig 1909 H. Burns, “San Lorenzo in Florence chelangelos für Vittoria Colonna. A. Chastel, Chronik der italienischen
der Madonna Doni”, in: Festschrift H. Bredekamp, Repräsentation und A. Brodini, “Michelangelo e la volta before the Building of the New Der Versuch einer theologischen Renaissancemalerei 1280–1580, Würz-
für Gerhard Kleiner zu seinem Bildmagie der Renaissanceals Form- della cappella del re di Francia in Sacristy: An Early Plan”, in: MKIF, Interpretation”, in: Vittoria Colon- burg 1984 (first pub. in French 1983)
fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag am problem, Munich 1995 (Bredekamp, San Pietro”, in: Annali di architet- 23, 1979, pp. 145–154 na. Dichterin und Muse Michelan- L. Châtelet-Lange, “Michelangelos
7. Februar 1973, ed. H. Keller et al., 1995a) tura, 17, 2006, pp. 115–126 H. Burns, “Building against Time. gelos, ed. S. Ferino-Pagden, Vienna Herkules in Fontainebleau”, in:
Tübingen 1976, pp. 205–214 H. Bredekamp, “Michelangelos A. Brodini, Michelangelo a San Pietro, Renaissance Strategies to Secure 1997, pp. 405–412 Pantheon, 30, 1972, pp. 455–468
P. P. Bober, Drawings After the Modellkritik”, in: Evers, 1995, Rome 2009. large Churches against Changes to La Cappella Sistina. I primi restauri: L. Châtelet-Lange, “Noch einmal
Antique by Amico Aspertini: Sketch- pp. 116–123 (Bredekamp, 1995b) A. Brodini, “‘Carico d’anni e di pec- their Design”, in: J. Guillaume la scoperta del colore, ed. M. Boroli, zu Michelangelos Herkules”,
books in the British Museum, H. Bredekamp, “Grabmäler der cati pieno’, Michelangelo nel can- (ed.), L’église dans l’architecture de Novara 1986 in: Pantheon, 35, 1977, pp. 14–17
London 1957 Renaissancepäpste. Die Kunst der tiere della basilica di San Pietro”, la Renaissance, Actes du colloque La Cappella Sistina. La volta restaura- R. Cittadini, “Michelangelo e Lisip-
P. P. Bober/R. Rubinstein, Renaissance Nachwelt”, in: Hochrenaissance im in: G. Curcio (ed.), ‚Porre un limite tenue à Tours 1990, Paris 1995, ta: il trionfo del colore, ed. P. de po: La Madonna del Tondo Doni”,
Artists and Antique Sculpture. A Vatikan 1503–1534. Kunst und all’infinito errore’, Studi di storia pp. 107–131 Vecchi, Novara 1992 in: Corpi: azioni e passioni, ed. S.
Handbook of Sources, London 1986 Kultur im Rom der Päpste I, ed. dell’architettura dedicati a Christof C. Burroughs, “Michelangelo at the C. H. Carman, “Michelangelo’s Bordini and M. G. Messina, Rome
D. Bohde, “Skin and the Search for P. Kruse, exh. cat., Ostfildern-Ruit Thoenes, Rome 2012. Campidoglio: Artistic Identity, Bacchus and Divine Frenzy”, in: 2001, pp. 63–78 (Ricerche di storia
the Interior: The Representation of 1998, pp. 259–267 C. Brothers, “Disegni dal Codice Patronage, and Manufacture”, in: Source, 2 (4), 1983, pp. 6–13 dell’arte, 71, 2000)
Flaying in the Art and Anatomy H. Bredekamp, St. Peter in Rom. Das Coner, studi dall’antico e da archi- AeH, 14 (28), 1993, pp. 85–111 A. C. Carpiceci, “Progetti di Michel- T. Clifford, “A Candelabrum by
of the Cinquecento”, in: Bodily Prinzip der produktiven Zerstörung, tetture romane”, in: Mussolin 2009. C. Burroughs, “The ‘Last Judgment’ angiolo per la Basilica Vaticana”, in: Michelangelo: A Discovery at the
Extremities: Preoccupations with the Berlin 2000 C. Brothers, “Designing what you of Michelangelo: Pictorial Space, Bollettino d’arte, 76 (68/69), 1991, Cooper-Hewitt National Design
Human Body in Early Modern Euro- H. Bredekamp, “Ende (1545) und cannot draw: Michelangelo and the Sacred Topography, and the Social pp. 23–106 Museum in New York”, in: Apollo,
pean Culture, ed. F. Egmond et al., Anfang (1505) von Michelangelos Laurentian Library”, in: Maurer/ World”, in: AeH, 16 (32), 1995, M. P. Carroll, “Michelangelo’s ‘Pietà’ 156 (487), 2002, pp. 30–40
Aldershot/Burlington, VT, 2003, Juliusgrab. Frei- oder Wandgrab?”, Nova 2012. pp. 55–89 and a Neglected Memory of His G. Colalucci, “La tipologia dei carto-
pp. 10–47 in: Bredekamp/Reinhardt, 2004, A. Bruschi, “Michelangelo in Campi- J. B. Bury, Two Notes on Francisco Childhood”, in: American Imago, ni e la tecnica esecutiva della volta
L. Bondeson/A.-G. Bondeson, “The pp. 61–83 doglio e l’ ‘invenzione’ dell’ordine de Holanda, London 1981 47 (3–4), 1990, pp. 321–335 della Cappella Sistina”, in: Weil-
Creator Separating Light from H. Bredekamp, “Antipoden der Sou- gigante”, in: Storia architettura, A. Butterfield, “A Source for Michel- D. Cast, “Finishing the Sistine”, Garris Brandt, 1994a, pp. 77–82
Darkness: A ‘New’ Self-Portrait of veränität: Künstler und Herrscher”, 4 (1), 1979, pp. 7–28 angelo’s National Gallery ‘Entomb- in: AB, 73 (4), 1991, pp. 669–684 G. Conforti, “Michelangelo. Il Tondo
Michelangelo?”, in: Konsthistorisk in: U. Raulff (ed.), Vom Künstler- A. Bruschi (ed.), Storia ment’”, in: MKIF, 33 (2/3), 1989, (reprint with addenda in Wallace, Doni”, in: Arte documento, 16,
tidskrift, 70, 2001, pp. 189–192 staat. Ästhetische und politische dell’architettura italiana. pp. 390–393 1995b) 2002, pp. 78–83
R. Bonelli, “La Piazza capitolina”, Utopien, Munich/Vienna2006, Il primo Cinquecento, Milan 2002 A. Butterfield, “New Evidence for the A. Cecchi, “Il restauro del Tondo B. Contardi, “La facciata e i progetti
in: Portoghesi/Zevi, 1964, I, pp. 31–41 (Bredekamp, 2006a) A. Bruschi, “Roma farnesiana. Città e Iconography of David in Quattro- Doni di Michelangelo”, in: Arte di Michelangelo per il Campi-
pp. 425–496 H. Bredekamp, “Im Zustand der architetture al tempo di Paolo III. cento Florence”, in: I Tatti Studies, christiana, 74 (713), 1986, doglio”, in: Tittoni, 1994, pp. 81–99
E. Borsook, “Michelangelo e l’uso Belagerung. Michelangelos Prinzip Il caso del complesso capitolino”, 6, 1995, pp. 115–133 pp. 117–120 B. Contardi, “La storia della facciata
dei cartoni nella Cappella Sistina”, der Kompilation”, in: Das Modell in: M. E. Avagnina/G. Beltramini J. K. Cadogan, “Michelangelo in the A. Cecchi, “Agnolo e Maddalena tra Michelangelo e Della Porta”, in:
in: Weil-Garris Brandt, 1994a, in der bildenden Kunst des Mittel- (eds.), Per Franco Barbieri: studi di Workshop of Domenico Ghirlan- Doni committenti di Raffaello”, Tittoni, 1995, pp. 47–57
pp. 103–106 alters und der Neuzeit, Festschrift storia dell’arte e dell’architettura, daio”, in: BM, 135 (1), 1993, in: Studi su Raffaello, ed. M. S. B. Contardi, “Il progetto di Michel-
L. M. F. Bosch, “Genesis, Holy Satur- für Herbert Beck, ed. P. C. Bol, Venice 2004, pp. 131–153 pp. 30–31 Hamoud and M. L. Strocchi, 2 angelo”, in: Tittoni, 1996, pp. 51–61
day, and the Sistine Ceiling”, in: Petersberg 2006, pp. 65–84 M. Büchsel, “Die gescheiterte ‘Mel- M. Calì, “La ‘Madonna della Scala’ vols, Urbino 1987, I, pp. 429–439 B. Contardi, “I lavori alla facciata del
SCJ, 30, 1999, pp. 643–652 (Bredekamp, 2006b) ancholia generosa’. Melencolia I”, di Michelangelo: il Savonarola e la A. Cecchi, “Niccolò Machiavelli o Palazzo dei Conservatori dopo la
S. Bracci et al. (eds.), Exploring H. Bredekamp, “Zwei Souveräne: in: Städel-Jahrbuch, 9, 1983, crisi dell’Umanesimo”, in: Bollettino Marcello Virgilio Adriani? Sul morte di Michelangelo”, in: Titto-
David: Diagnostic Tests and State Paul III. und Michelangelo, das pp. 89–114 d’Arte, 52, 1967, pp. 152–166 programma e l’assetto compositivo ni, 1997, pp. 41–46
of Conservation, Florence 2004 ’Motu proprio’ vom Oktober 1545”, T. Buddensieg, “Zum Statuenpro- E. Camesasca, L’opera completa di delle ‘Battaglie’ di Leonardo e B. Contardi, “Tu es Petrus”, in: A.
M. Brancia di Apricena, “La commit- in: Satzinger/Schütze 2008. gramm im Kapitolsplan Pauls III”, Michelangelo pittore, Milan 1966 Michelangelo per la Sala del Amendola/B. Contardi (ed.),
tenza edilizia di Paolo III Farnese H. Bredekamp/V. Reinhardt (eds.), in: ZfKG, 32, 1969, pp. 177–228 E. Camesasca (ed.), Raffaello. Gli Maggior Consiglio in Palazzo San Pietro, Milan 1998.
762 763
J. Coolidge, “Vignola, and the little F. Di Teodoro, Una ipotesi sui rapporti L. Dussler, Michelangelo-Bibliographie Vorträge G 190), Opladen 1973 (von P. Emison, “The ‘Ignudo’ as Proto- Rivelata, ed. G. Capecchi, A. Fara
Domes of St. Peter’s”, in: Marsyas, dimensionali del Ponte a Santa 1927–1970, Wiesbaden 1974 Einem, 1973a) Capriccio”, in: Word & Image, 14 and D. Heikamp, exh. cat., Flor-
2, 1942, pp. 63–123 Trinita, Florence 1981 M. Easton, “The ‘Taddei Tondo’. H. von Einem, Michelangelo, (3) 1998, pp. 281–295 ence 2003, pp. 372–387
T. E. Cooper, “I modani”, in: Millon/ J. W. Dixon, “The Medici Chapel as A Frightened Jesus?”, in: JWCI, 32, Stuttgart 1959 (2nd edn, Berlin P. Emison, Creating the ‘Divine W. Fastenrath Vinattieri, “Terribilità
Lampugnani, 1994, pp. 494–498 a Resurrection”, in: Southeastern 1969, pp. 391–393 1973; von Einem, 1973b) Artist’. From Dante to Michelangelo, – Bizzaria – Capriccio. Zum
D. Cordellier, “Fragments de jeu- College Art Conference Review, 9 (1), S. Ebert-Schifferer, “Ripandas kapito- C. Eisler, “The Athlete of Virtue. Leiden/Boston 2004 Dekorationssystem der Sixtinischen
nesse: Deux feuilles inédites de 1976, pp. 7–17 linischer Freskenzyklus und die The Iconography of Ascetism”, A. Emmerling-Skala, Bacchus in Decke”, in: Michelangelo. Neue
Michel-Ange au Louvre”, in: Revue J. W. Dixon, “The Christology of Selbstdarstellung der Konservatoren in: De artibus opuscula XL. Essays der Renaissance, 2 vols, Hildesheim Beiträge, 2000, pp. 151–179
du Louvre, 41 (2), 1991, pp. 43–55 Michelangelo: The Sistine Chapel”, um 1500”, in: Römisches Jahrbuch in Honour of Erwin Panofsky, ed. et al. 1994 P. Fehl, “Michelangelo’s ‘Crucifixion
C. Cornelius, Jacopo della Quercia. in: Journal of the American Academy für Kunstgeschichte, 23/24, 1988, M. Meiss, 2 vols, New York 1961, I, L. D. Ettlinger, The Sistine Chapel be- of Saint Peter’. Notes on the Identi-
Eine kunsthistorische Studie, of Religion, 55, 1987, pp. 503–533 pp. 75–218 pp. 82–97 fore Michelangelo. Religious Imagery fication of the Locale of the Ac-
Halle 1896 B. W. Dodsworth, The Arca di San C. Echinger-Maurach, Studien zu C. Eisler, “The Madonna of the and Papal Primacy, Oxford 1965 tion”, in: AB, 53, 1971, pp. 327–343
G. Corti, “Una ricordanza di Giovan Domenico, New York et al. 1995 Michelangelos Juliusgrabmal, 2 vols, Steps. Problems of Date and Style”, L. D. Ettlinger, “The Liturgical Func- P. Fehl, “Michelangelo’s Tomb in
Battista Figiovanni”, in: Paragone/ C. D’Onofrio, Renovatio Romae. Hildesheim et al. 1991 in: Stil und Überlieferung in der tion of Michelangelo’s Medici Rome: Observations on the ‘Pietà’
Arte, 15 (175), 1964, pp. 24–31 Storia e urbanistica dal Campidoglio C. Echinger-Maurach, “Zu Michel- Kunst des Abendlandes (Akten des Chapel”, in: MKIF, 22, 1978, in Florence and the ‘Rondanini
Il crocifisso di Santo Spirito, Florence all’EUR, Rome 1973 angelos Skizze für den verlorenen 21. Internationalen Kongresses der pp. 287–304 Pietà’”, in: AeH, 23 (45), 2002,
2000 L. Dorez, La Cour du Pape Paul III Bronzedavid und zum Beginn der Kunstgeschichte, Bonn 1964), 3 vols, P. Evelyn, “‘Broken and Repaired’: pp. 9–27
G. dalli Regoli, “Leonardo e Michel- d’après les registres de la Trésorerie ‘gran maniera degli ignudi’ in Berlin 1967, II, pp. 115–121 Michelangelo’s Wax Slave in the R. Feldhusen, Ikonologische Studien
angelo: il tema della ‘Battaglia’ agli Secrète, 2 vols, Paris 1932 seinem Entwurf für den Marmor- C. Eisler, “Michelangelo and the Victoria and Albert Museum”, in: zu Michelangelos Jüngstem Gericht,
inizi del Cinquecento”, in: Acha- É. d’Orgeix, “The Goldschmidt and david”, in: ZfKG, 61, 1998, Payne Whitney Marble. His BM, 138, 1996, pp. 809–812 PhD thesis, Hamburg 1953 (reprint
demia Leonardi Vinci, 7, 1994, Scholz Scrapbooks in The Metro- pp. 301–338 Development by Imitation and B. Evers (ed.), Architekturmodelle der Unterlengenharth-Bad Liebenzell
pp. 98–106 politan Museum of Art: A Study C. Echinger-Maurach, “‘Gli occhi Deception”, in: Apollo, 144 (416), Renaissance. Die Harmonie des Bau- 1978)
P. Dal Poggetto (ed.), I disegni murali of Renaissance Architectural Draw- fissi nella somma bellezza del Figli- 1996, pp. 7–13 ens von Alberti bis Michelangelo, H. Fillitz, “Michelangelos Genesis-
di Michelangiolo e della sua scuola ings”, in: Metropolitan Museum uolo’. Michelangelo im Wettstreit C. Elam, “The Site and Early Build- Munich/New York 1995 Darstellungen in der Sixtinischen
nella Sagrestia Nuova di San Loren- Journal, 36, 2001, pp. 169–206 mit Leonardos Madonnenconcetti ing History of Michelangelo’s New M. A. A. Fader, Sculpture in the Kapelle und die Fresken von S.
zo, Florence 1979 E. G. Dotson, “An Augustinian Inter- der zweiten Florentiner Periode”, Sacristy”, in: MKIF, 23, 1979, Piazza della Signoria as Emblem Paolo fuori le Mura”, in: Römische
P. d’Ancona/A. Pinna/I. Cardellini, pretation of Michelangelo’s Sistine in: Michelangelo. Neue Beiträge, pp. 155–186 of the Florentine Republic, historische Mitteilungen, 23, 1981,
Michelangelo. Architettura, pittura, Ceiling”, in: AB, 61, 1979, pp. 223– 2000, pp. 113–150 C. Elam, “The Mural Drawings in Ann Arbor 1977 pp. 329–334
scultura, Milan 1964 256, 405–429 C. Echinger-Maurach, “Zwischen Michelangelo’s New Sacristy”, M. Fagiolo/M. L. Madonna, “La H. Fillitz, “Zum Problem der Deck-
S. Danesi Squarzina, “The Bassano J. D. Draper, Bertoldo di Giovanni. Quattrocento und Barock: Michel- in: BM, 123, 1981, pp. 593–602 Roma di Pio IV: la ‘Civitas Pia’, la enfresken Michelangelos in der
‘Christ the Redeemer’ in the Gius- Sculptor of the Medici Household. angelos Entwurf für das Juliusgrab- C. Elam, “Lorenzo de’ Medici’s ‘Salus Medica’, la ‘Custodia Ange Sixtinischen Kapelle”, in: Römische
tiniani collection”, in: BM, 142, Critical Reappraisal and Catalogue mal in New York”, in: Sculpture Garden”, in: MKIF, 36 lica’” and “La Roma di Pio IV: il historische Mitteilungen, 27, 1985,
2000, pp. 746–751 Raisonné, Columbia/London 1992 Poeschke/Kusch-Arnold/Weigel, (1/2), 1992, pp. 41–84 (Elam, 1992a) sistema dei ‘centri direzionali’ e la pp. 401–412
Il David di Michelangelo. Un capolav- J. D. Draper, “Ango after Michelange- 2002, pp. 257–277 C. Elam, “Drawings as Documents: rifondazione della citta”, in: Arte H. Fillitz, Papst Clemens VII. und
oro dopo il restauro, Florence 2004 lo”, in: BM, 139, 1997, pp. 398–400 C. Echinger-Maurach, “Michelan- The Problem of the San Lorenzo Illustrata, 5 (51), 1972, pp. 383–402 Michelangelo. Das Jüngste Gericht
G. De Angelis d’Ossat, “Uno scono- J. Dunkerton, “Michelangelo as a gelo’s Monument for Julius II in Façade”, in: Michelangelo Drawings, and 6 (54), 1973, pp. 186–212 in der Sixtinischen Kapelle, Vienna
sciuto modello di Michelangelo Painter on Panel”, in: Hirst/ 1534”, in: BM, 145, 2003, 1992, pp. 99–114 (Elam, 1992b) F. Falletti/J. Katz Nelson (eds.), 2005 (Österreichische Akademie
per S. Maria del Fiore”, in: Arte Dunkerton, 1994, pp. 83–133 pp. 336–344 C. Elam, “Art in the Service of Venere e Amore: Michelangelo e la der Wissenschaften. Veröffentli-
in Europa. Scritti di storia dell’arte J. Dunkerton/R. Ashok, “The Mate- École Française de Rome (ed.), Liberty: Battista della Palla, Art nuova bellezza ideale, exh. cat., chungen der Kommission für
in onore di Edoardo Arslan, 2 vols, rials of a Group of Late Fifteenth- Le Palais Farnèse, Rome 1981 Agent of Francis I”, in: I Tatti Florence 2002 Kunstgeschichte, 6)
Milan 1966, I, pp. 501–504 Century Florentine Panel Paint- H. von Einem, “Michelangelos Studies, 5, 1993, pp. 33–109 A. Fara, “Michelangelo e l’architet- M. Finch, “The Sistine Chapel as a
G. De Angelis d’Ossat/C. Pietrangeli, ings”, in: National Gallery Technical Juliusgrab im Entwurf von 1505 C. Elam, “‘Ché ultima mano!’: Tiber- tura militare”, in: C. Cresti, A. Fara Temenos. An Interpretation sug-
Il Campidoglio di Michelangelo, Bulletin, 17, 1996, pp. 20–31 und die Frage seiner ursprünglichen io Calcagni’s Marginal Annotations and D. Lamberini (eds.), Archi gested by the Restored Visibility of
Milan 1965 R. Duppa, The Life and Literary Bestimmung”, in: Festschrift für to Condivi’s Life of Michelangelo”, tettura militare nell’Europa del XVI the Lunettes”, in: GBA, 115 (1453),
R. De Maio, Michelangelo e la Contro- Works of Michel Angelo Buonarroti, Hans Jantzen, Berlin 1951, in: Renaissance Quarterly, 51, 1998, secolo: atti del convegno di studi, 1990, pp. 53–70
riforma, Rome/Bari 1978 (rep. 1990) London 1806 pp. 152–168 pp. 475–497 (also in: Condivi/ Siena 1988, pp. 73–90 M. T. Fiorio, La Pietà Rondanini,
R. Di Stefano, La cupola di San L. Dussler, Die Zeichnungen des H. von Einem, Die Medicimadonna Nencioni, 1998, pp. XXIII–XLVI) A. Fara, “Michelangelo e la difesa Milan 2004
Pietro: storia della costruzione e dei Michelangelo. Kritischer Katalog, Michelangelos (Rheinisch-Westfä- C. Elam, “Firenze 1500–50”, in: della città tra le porte San Miniato C. Fischer, Fra Bartolomeo.
restauri, 2nd edn, Naples 1980 Berlin 1959 lische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bruschi, 2002, pp. 208–219 e San Giorgio”, in: La Reggia Master Draughtsman of the High
764 765
Renaissance. A selection from the Rot- K. Frey, “Zur Baugeschichte des St. C. L. Frommel, “Il Palazzo Senato- Quellen, Munich 1904 (= Die Fritz Saxl (1890–1948). A Volume Studi su mille anni di arte europea
terdam albums and landscape draw- Peter. Mitteilungen aus der Rever- rio”, in: Tittoni, 1995, pp. 31–45 Architekturder Renaissance in of Memorial Essays from his Friends dedicati a Max Seidel, Venice 2001,
ings from various collections, exh. endissima Fabbrica di S. Pietro C. L. Frommel, “Il Palazzo dei Toscana, vol. VIII) in England, ed. D. J. Gordon, pp. 451–464
cat., Rotterdam 1990 [cont. and con.]”, in: JbPKS, 37, Conservatori: Forma e struttura”, C. E. Gilbert, “Texts and Contexts of London 1957, pp. 281–296 K. Güthlein, “Der ‘Palazzo Nuovo’
A. Forcellino, “Sul ponteggio michel- 1916, supplement, pp. 22–136 in: Tittoni, 1997, pp. 21–30 the Medici Chapel”, in: AB, 34, C. Gorgoni/P. Pallante, “Sulla des Kapitols”, in: Römisches Jahr-
angiolesco per la decorazione della D. Frey, Michelangelo-Studien, C. L. Frommel, “Raffaele Riario, 1971, pp. 391–410 provenienza del marmo dell’ buch für Kunstgeschichte, 22, 1985,
volta sistina”, in: Weil-Garris Vienna 1920 la Cancelleria, il teatro e il ‘Bacco’ C. E. Gilbert, “The Usefulness of Adolescente dell’Ermitage”, pp. 83–190
Brandt, 1994a, pp. 57–59 D. Frey, “Die Pietà-Rondanini und di Michelangelo”, in: Giovinezza Comparisons between the Parts and in: CA, 64 (10), 2001, pp. 60–79 D. Haitovsky, “Sources of the David
A. Forcellino, Michelangelo Buonarro- Rembrandts ‘Drei Kreuze’”, in: di Michelangelo, 1999, pp. 143–148 the Set: The Case of the Cappella C. Gould, Michelangelo: Battle of and Goliath in the Sistine Chapel:
ti. Storia di una passione eretica, Kunstgeschichtliche Studien für C. L. Frommel, “Villa Giulia a Paolina”, in: Actas del XXIII Con- Cascina, Newcastle upon Tyne 1966 Continuity and Variation in the
Turin 2002 Hans Kauffmann, Berlin 1956, Roma”, in: Jacopo Barozzi da greso International de Historia del C. Gould, “Michelangelo’s ‘Entomb- Meaning of Images”, in: Source, 7
A. Forcellino, Michelangelo. Eine pp. 208–232 Vignola, ed. R. J. Tuttle and B. Arte, 3 vols, Granada 1978, III, ment’: A further Addendum”, in: (2), 1988, pp. 1–8
Biographie, Munich 2006 (first M. Frings, “Zu Michelangelos Archi- Adorni, Milan 2002, pp. 163–195 pp. 519–531 BM, 116, 1974, pp. 31–32 J. Hall, Michelangelo and the Reinven-
published in Italian in 2005) tekturtheorie. Eine neue Deutung C. L. Frommel, “Michelangelos C. E. Gilbert, “On the Absolute C. Gould, The Sixteenth-Century tion of the Human Body, London
A. Forcellino/M. Forcellino, “Il des sog. ‘Prälaten-Briefes’”, in: Handschrift und die Chronologie Dates of the Parts of the Sistine Italian Schools, London 1975 2005
restauro della tomba di Giulio II ZfKG, 61, 1998, pp. 227–243 seiner frühen Zeichnungen”, in: Ceiling”, in: AH, 3 (2), 1980, J. M. Greenstein, “‘How Glorious the M. B. Hall, “Michelangelo’s ‘Last
a S. Pietro in Vincoli. Una nuova C. L. Frommel, “S. Eligio und die C. Echinger-Maurach/ A. Gnann/ pp. 158–181 Second Coming of Christ’: Michel- Judgment’: Resurrection of the
lettura del monumento e del Kuppel der Cappella Medici”, in: J. Poeschke (ed.), Michelangelo als C. E. Gilbert, Michelangelo On and angelo’s ‘Last Judgment’ and the Body and Predestination”, in: AB,
Mosé”, in: Incontri, 17 (1), 2002, Stil und Überlieferung in der Kunst Zeichner, Münster 2013, pp. 117–144. Off the Sistine Ceiling, New York Transfiguration”, in: AeH, 10 (20), 58, 1976, pp. 85–92
pp. 43–59 des Abendlandes (Akten des 21. Inter- C. L. Frommel, “San Pietro, storia, 1994 1989, pp. 33–57 M. B. Hall, Color and Meaning. Prac-
A. Frazer, “A Numismatic Source for nationalen Kongresses der Kunst- genesi, ricostruzione”, in: P. C. E. Gilbert, “Michelangelo’s Stair- H. Grimm, Leben Michelangelos, 19th tice and Theory in Renaissance Paint-
Michelangelo’s First Design for the geschichte, Bonn 1964), 3 vols, Berlin Jacobone (ed.), La Basilica di San case Sketch: New Light on an Old edn, Stuttgart 1922 (first published ing, Cambridge, MA, et al. 1992
Tomb of Julius II”, in: AB, 57, 1975, 1967, II, pp. 41–54 Pietro, Forlì 2015. Problem”, in: Apollo, 144 (416), 1860–1863, 2 vols) M. B. Hall, “‘Who’s Who in Michel-
pp. 53–57 C. L. Frommel, Der römische Palast- Laurie Fusco/Gino Corti, Lorenzo 1996, pp. 3–6 H. W. Grohn, “Michelangelos angelo’s Creation of Adam’ Contin-
L. Freedman, “Michelangelo’s Reflec- bau der Hochrenaissance, 3 vols, de’Medici. Collector and Antiquari- Giovinezza di Michelangelo, ed. Darstellung der Schlacht von ued”, in: AB, 75 (2), 1993,
tions on Bacchus”, in: AeH, 24 Tübingen 1973 (Römische an, Cambridge (Mass.) 2006. K. Weil-Garris Brandt et al., exh. Cascina. Versuch einer Rekonstruk- pp. 340–344
(47), 2003, pp. 121–135 Forschungen der Bibliotheca M. D. Garrard, “The Liberal Arts cat., Florence 1999 tion”, in: Jahrbuch der Hamburger M. B. Hall (ed.), Michelangelo’s ‘
K. Frey, “Die Gedichte des Michelan- Hertziana, 21, 1–3) and Michelangelo’s First Project for R. Goffen, “Mary’s Motherhood Kunstsammlungen, 17, 1972, Last Judgment’, Cambridge 2005
gelo Buonarroti im Vaticanischen C. L. Frommel, “‘Capella Iulia’: Die the Tomb of Julius II (With a Coda According to Leonardo and Michel- pp. 23–42 Handwritten. Ten Centuries of Manu-
Codex”, in: JbPKS, 4, 1883, pp. 41– Grabkapelle Julius’ II in Neu-St. on Raphael’s ‘School of Athens’)”, angelo”, in: AeH, 20 (40), 1999, G. Gronau, “Die Kunstbestrebungen script Treasures from Staatsbibliothek
49, 108–117 Peter”, in: ZfKG, 40, 1977, in: Viator, 15, 1984, pp. 335–404 pp. 35–69 der Herzöge von Urbino. II”, in: zu Berlin, National Library of
K. Frey, Michelagniolo Buonarroti. pp. 26–62 J. W. Gaye, “Sulla fuga di Michelan- L. Goldscheider, Michelangelo’s JbPKS, 27, 1906, supplement, Australia, Canberra 2011
Quellen und Forschungen zu seiner C. L. Frommel, “Michelangelo und gelo da Firenze nel 1529”, in: Rivista Bozzetti for Statues in the Medici pp. 1–11 F. Hartt, “‘Lignum Vitae in Medio
Geschichte und Kunst. I. Michel Tommaso dei C avalieri”, in: Europea, 3, 1839, pp. 107–114 Chapel. The Clay and Wax Models V. Guazzoni, Michelangelo. Der Paradisi’: The Stanza d’Eliodoro
agniolos Jugendjahre, Berlin 1907 Castrum Peregrini, 139–140, 1979 The Genius of the Sculptor in Michel- in the British Museum, the Pietri Bildhauer, Stuttgart/ Zurich 1988 and the Sistine Ceiling”, in: AB, 32,
K. Frey, “Studien zu Michelagniolo (sep., Amsterdam 1979) angelo’s Work, ed. P. C. Marani, Collection, Caracas and at Florence (first published in Italian in 1984) 1950, pp. 115–145, 181–218
Buonarroti und zur Kunst seiner C. L. Frommel, “Sangallo et Michel- exh. cat., Montreal 1992 in the Accademia delle Belle Arti and H. Günther, “Storia della costruzione F. Hartt, “The Meaning of Michelan-
Zeit”, in: JbPKS, 30, 1909, supple- Ange (1513–1550)”, in: Le Palais J. A. Gere (ed.), Michelangelo Buonar- the Casa Buonarroti, London 1957 di S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini”, in: gelo’s Medici Chapel”, in: Beiträge
ment, pp. 103–180 Farnèse, 1, 1981, pp. 127–224 roti 1475–1564: An Exhibition to L. Goldscheider, Michelangelo. Millon/Lampugnani 1994, pp. 472– für Georg Swarzenski zum 11. Januar
K. Frey, “Zur Baugeschichte des St. C. L. Frommel, “Jacobo Gallo als Commemorate the 400th Anniversary Gemälde, Skulpturen, Architekturen. 475, 552–562 (Günther, 1994a) 1951, Berlin 1951, pp. 145–155
Peter. Mitteilungen aus der Rever- Förderer der Künste: Das Grabmal of his Death, exh. cat., London 1964 Gesamtausgabe, 6th edn, Cologne H. Günther, ‘Insana aedificia ther- F. Hartt, The Drawings of Michelange-
endissima Fabbrica di S. Pietro”, seines Vaters in S. Lorenzo in J. A. Gere/N. Turner, Drawings by 1971 (first published as Michelange- marum nomine extructa’: die Diokle- lo, London 1971
in: JbPKS, 31, 1910 (pub. 1911), Damaso und Michelangelos erste Michelangelo, exh. cat., London 1975 lo. Paintings, Sculpture, Architecture, tiansthermen in der Sicht der Renais- F. Hartt, Michelangelo. La scultura,
supplement, pp. 1–95 römische Jahre”, in: Kotinos. I. Gesche, Neuaufstellungen antiker London 1951) sance, Alfter 1994 (Günther, 1994b) Milan 1972
K. Frey, “Zur Baugeschichte des St. Festschrift für Erika Simon, Statuen und ihr Einfluss auf die E. H. Gombrich, “A Classical Quota- H. Günther, “Die Planung von F. Hartt, Michelangelo Drawings, New
Peter. Mitteilungen aus der Rever- ed. H. Froning et al., Mainz 1992, römische Renaissancearchitektur, tion in Michael Angelo’s ‘Sacrifice San Giovanni dei Fiorentini im York 1975 (first published 1970)
endissima Fabbrica di S. Pietro pp. 450–460 Mannheim 1971 of Noah’”, in: JWCI, 1, 1937, p. 69 Wettstreit zwischen fürstlichen [with Handlist of Newly Accepted
[cont.]”, in: JbPKS, 33, 1912 (pub. C. L. Frommel [cat. nos. 278–279, H. von Geymüller, Michelagnolo D. J. Gordon, “Giannotti, Michelan- Mäzenen und bürgerlichen Drawings by Michelangelo, 1976]
1913), supplement, pp. 1–153 304], in: Millon/Lampugnani 1994 Buonarroti als Architekt nach neuen gelo and the Cult of Brutus”, in: Auftraggebern”, in: Opere e giorni. (Hartt, 1975a)
766 767
F. Hartt, Michelangelo’s Three Pietàs, (5), 2000, pp. 200–209 (Heikamp, M. Hirst, Sebastiano del Piombo, tangere’ für Vittoria Colonna”, in: P. Joannides, “Michelangelo’s Medici G. W. Kamp, Marcello Venusti.
New York 1975 (Hartt, 1975b) 2000a) Oxford 1981 (Hirst, 1981b) Vittoria Colonna, 1997, pp. 335–344 Chapel: Some New Suggestions”, Religiöse Kunst im Umfeld Michel-
F. Hartt, “The Evidence for the D. Heikamp, “The Youth of Michel- M. Hirst, “Michelangelo, Carrara and C. Hope, “The Medallions on the in: BM, 114, 1972, pp. 541–551 angelos, Egelsbach et al. 1993
Scaffolding of the Sistine Ceiling”, angelo. The New York ‘Archer’ the Marble for the Cardinal’s Sistine Ceiling”, in: JWCI, 50, P. Joannides, “Michelangelo’s Lost F. E. Keller, “Zur Planung am Bau
in: AH, 5 (3), 1982, pp. 273–286 Reconsidered”, in: Apollo, 151 (460), Pietà”, in: BM, 127, 1985, 1987, pp. 200–204 Hercules”, in: BM, 119, 1977, der römischen Peterskirche im
F. Hartt, “Leonardo and the Second 2000, pp. 27–36 (Heikamp, 2000b) pp. 154–159 B. Hub, “‘… e fa dolce la morte’: pp. 550–556 Jahre 1564–1565”, in: Jahrbuch der
Florentine Republic”, in: The Jour- P. Hemmer, “Michelangelos Fresken M. Hirst, “I disegni di Michelangelo Love, Death, and Salvation in P. Joannides, “A Supplement to Berliner Museen, 18, 1976, pp. 24–56
nal of the Walters Art Gallery, 44, in der Cappella Paolina und das per la ‘Battaglia di Cascina’ (ca. Michelangelo’s ‘Last Judgment’”, Michelangelo’s Lost Hercules”, M. Kemp, Behind the Picture: Art and
1986, pp. 95–116 ‘Donum Justificationis’”, in: 1504)”, in: Tecnica e stile: Esempi in: AeH, 26 (51), 2005, pp. 103–130 in: BM, 123, 1981, pp. 20–23 Evidence in the Italian Renaissance,
F. Hartt, “Michelangelo in Heaven”, Functions and Decorations: Art and di pittura murale del Rinascimento A. Hughes, Michelangelo, London (Joannides, 1981a) London/New Haven 1997
in: AeH, 13 (26), 1992, pp. 191–209 Ritual at the Vatican Palace in the italiano, ed. E. Borsook and F. 1997 P. Joannides, “On the Chronology W. Kemp, “Disegno. Beiträge zur
(Hartt, 1992a) Middle Ages and the Renaissance, ed. Superbi Gioffredi, 2 vols, Florence A. Hughes, [review of ] “Joannides of the Sistine Chapel Ceiling”, Geschichte des B egriffs zwischen
F. Hartt, “Michelangelo, the Mural T. Weddigen, Turnhout 2003, 1986, I, pp. 43–58 (Hirst, 1986a) Louvre Catalogue”, in: BM, 146, in: AH, 4 (3), 1981, pp. 250–253 1547 und 1607”, in: Marburger
Drawings, and the Medici Chapel”, pp. 131–152 M. Hirst, “‘Il modo delle attitudini’. 2004, pp. 766–768 (Joannides, 1981b) Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, 19,
in: Michelangelo Drawings, 1992, D. Hemsoll, “The Laurentian Library Michelangelo’s Oxford Sketchbook C. A. Isermeyer, “Die Arbeiten Leon- P. Joannides, “A Newly Unveiled 1974, pp. 219–240
pp. 179–211 (Hartt, 1992b) and Michelangelo’s Architectural for the Ceiling”, in: The Sistine ardos und Michelangelos für den Drawing by Michelangelo and the B. Kempers, “‘Julius inter laudem et
F. Haskell/N. Penny, Taste and the Method”, in: JWCI, 66, 2003, Chapel: Michelangelo Rediscovered, großen Ratssaal in Florence. Eine Early Iconography of the Magnifici vituperationem.’ Ein Papst unter
Antique. The Lure of Classical Sculp- pp. 29–62 ed. M. Giacometti, 2 vols, London Revision der Bild- und Schriftquel- Tomb”, in: MD, 29 (3), 1991, gegensätzlichen Gesichtspunkten
ture 1500–1900, New Haven/London V. Herzner, “David Florentinus. I. 1986, II, pp. 208–217 (Hirst, 1986b) len für ihre Rekonstruktion und Ge- pp. 255–262 (Joannides, 1991a) betrachtet”, in: Hochrenaissance im
1981 Zum Marmordavid Donatellos im M. Hirst, Michelangelo and His schichte”, in: Studien zur Toskani P. Joannides, “La Chronologie du Vatikan 1503–1534. Kunst und Kul-
R. Hatfield, Trust in God: The Sources Bargello”, in: Jahrbuch der Berliner Drawings, New Haven/ London schen Kunst. Festschrift für L. H. tombeau de Jules II à propos d’un tur im Rom der Päpste I, ed. P.
of Michel-angelo’s Frescoes on the Museen, 20, 1978, pp. 43–115 1988 (Hirst, 1988a) Heydenreich zum 23. März 1963, ed. dessin de Michel-Ange découvert”, Kruse, exh. cat., Ostfildern-Ruit
Sistine Ceiling, Florence 1991 V. Herzner, “David Florentinus. M. Hirst, “Michelangelo in 1505”, in: W. Lotz, Munich 1964, pp. 83–130 in: Revue du Louvre, 41 (2), 1991, 1998, pp. 15–29
(Occasional Papers Published by II–IV”, in: Jahrbuch der Berliner BM, 133, 1991, pp. 760–766 C. A. Isermeyer, “Das Michelangelo- pp. 32–42 (Joannides, 1991b) B. Kempers, “‘Capella Iulia’ and
Syracuse University, F lorence, 1) Museen, 24, 1982, pp. 63–142 M. Hirst, “Die gezeichneten Entwür- Jahr 1964 und die Forschungen P. Joannides, Michelangelo and His ‘Capella Sixtina’: Two Tombs, One
R. Hatfield, The Wealth of Michelan- V. Herzner, “Unbekannte Größe fe”, in: Pietrangeli, 1993, pp. 8–25 zu Michelangelo als Maler und Influence. Drawings from Windsor Patron and Two Churches”, in:
gelo, Rome 2002 oder: Mutmaßungen über David”, M. Hirst, “The Artist in Rome 1496– Bildhauer von 1959 bis 1965”, in: Castle, London 1996 (Joannides, Sisto IV: Le arti a Roma nel primo
R. Hatfield, “Michelangelo and the in: Journal für Kunstgeschichte, 7, 1501”, in: Hirst/Dunkerton, 1994, ZfKG, 28, 1965, pp. 307–352 1996a) Rinascimento, ed. F. Benzi, Rome
fortifications of Florence”, 2003, p. 219 pp. 13–81 C. A. Isermeyer, “‘Veduta ferma’: P. Joannides, “Michelangelo and the 2000, pp. 33–59
in: Maurer/Nova 2012. J. Hess, “Michelangelo and Cordier”, M. Hirst, “Introduction”, in: Condivi/ Zur Bedeutung der Schrägsicht für Medici Garden”, in: La Toscana al B. Kempers, “Die Erfindung eines
R. Haussherr, Michelangelos Kruzifix- in: BM, 82, 1943, pp. 55–65 Nencioni, 1998, pp. I–XXII die Sixtinische Decke”, in: Forma tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico. Poli Monuments. Michelangelo und die
us für Vittoria Colonna. Bemerkun- H. Hibbard, Michelangelo, M. Hirst, “Michelangelo in Florence: et subtilitas. Festschrift für Wolfgang tica, economia, cultura, arte, 3 vols, Metamorphosen des Juliusgrab-
gen zu Ikonographie und theolo New York 1974 ‘David’ in 1503 and ‘Hercules’ Schöne zum 75. Geburtstag, Pisa 1996, I, pp. 23–36 (Joannides, mals”, in: Bredekamp/Reinhardt,
gischer Deutung, Opladen 1971 A. Hildebrandt, Gesammelte Aufsätze, in 1506”, in: BM, 142, 2000, ed. W. Schlink and M. Sperlich, 1996b) 2004, pp. 41–59
A. Hayum, “Michelangelo’s ‘Doni Strasbourg 1916, pp. 119–121 pp. 487–492 Berlin/New York 1986, pp. 94–129 P. Joannides, “Michelangelo: The J. Kempfer, Das Amt des Architetto del
Tondo’: Holy Family and Family M. Hirst, “Michelangelo Drawings M. Hirst, Tre saggi su Michelangelo, F. Jacobs, “(Dis)assembling: Marsyas, Magnifici Tomb and the Brazen Popolo Romano, Frankfurt am Main
Myth”, in: SiI, 7–8, 1981/82, in Florence”, in: BM, 105, 1963, Florence 2004 Michelangelo, and the Accademia Serpent”, in: MD, 34 (2), 1996, 1997
pp. 209–251 pp. 166–171 M. Hirst, “The Marble for Michelan- del Disegno”, in: AB, 84, 2002, pp. 148–167 (Joannides, 1996c) W. Kirkendale, Emilio de’ Cavalieri.
G. Hedberg, “The Farnese Courtyard M. Hirst, “A note on Michelangelo gelo’s Taddei Tondo”, in: BM, 147 pp. 426–448 P. Joannides, Michel-Ange, élèves et “Gentiluomo Romano”. His life and
Windows and the Porta Pia: and the Attic of St. Peter’s”, in: (1229), 2005, pp. 548–549 H. W. Janson, Apes and Ape Lore in copistes, Paris 2003 letters, his role as superintendent
Michelangelo’s Creative Process”, BM, 116, 1974, pp. 662–665 M. Hirst, Michelangelo. The Achieve- the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, C. L. Joost-Gaugier, “Michelangelo’s of all the arts at the Medici Court,
in: Marsyas, 15, 1970/72, pp. 63–72 M. Hirst, “A Project of Michelange- ment of Fame I. 1475–1534, London 1952 ‘Ignudi’ and the Sistine Chapel and his musical compositions,
D. Heikamp, “Ein Michelangelo in lo’s for the Tomb of Julius II”, in: New Haven/ London 2011. A. L. Jenkens, “Michelangelo, the as a Symbol of Law and Justice”, Florence 2001
New York? Ausstellungen in Flor- MD, 14, 1976, pp. 375–382, M. Hirst/J. Dunkerton (eds.), Piccolomini and Cardinal Franc- in: AeH, 17 (34), 1996, pp. 19–43 J. Klaczko, Rome et la Renaissance.
ence und Paris präsentierten den 427–430 Making and Meaning: The Young esco’s Chapel in Siena Cathedral”, V. Juren, “Fecit-Faciebat”, in: Revue Essais et esquisses: Jules II, Paris 1898
umstrittenen ‘Fanciullo arciere’. II M. Hirst, “Michelangelo in Rome: Michelangelo. The Artist in Rome in: BM, 144, 2002, pp. 752–754 de l’art, 26, 1974, pp. 27–30 G. Kleiner, Die Begegnungen Michel-
[review of ] ‘Le Cupidon de Man- An Altarpiece and the ‘Bacchus’”, 1496–1501, exh. cat., London 1994 P. Joannides, “A Note on the Julius K. Justi, Michelangelo. Neue Beiträge angelos mit der Antike, Berlin 1950
hattan. Un Michel-Ange retrouvé?’, in: BM, 123, 1981, pp. 581–593 M. Hirst/G. Mayr, “Michelangelo, Tomb 1513”, in: BM, 113, 1971, zur Entwicklung seiner Werke, Ber- J. Kliemann/M. Rohlmann, Wand-
Paris 2000”, in: Kunstchronik, 53 (Hirst, 1981a) Pontormo und das ‘Noli me pp. 149–150 lin 1909 malerei in Italien. Die Zeit der
768 769
Hochrenaissance und des Manieris- M. A. Kuntz, “A Ceremonial Ensem- E. C. Leach, “Michelangelo’s Genesis: versus Process in the Iconography C. Magnusson, “En not om Michel- R. Manetti, Michelangiolo: Le fortifi-
mus 1510–1600, Munich 2004 ble: Michelangelo’s ‘Last Judgment’ A Structuralist Interpretation of the of the Medici Chapel”, in: AeH, 16 angelo och Belvederetorson”, in: cazioni per l’assedio di Firenze,
W. Köhler, “Michelangelos Schlacht- and the Cappella Paolina Frescoes”, Central Panels of the Sistine Chapel (32), 1995, pp. 91–100 Konsthistorisk Tidskrift, 53, 1984, Florence 1980
karton”, in: Kunstgeschichtliches in: Hall, 2005, pp. 150–182 Ceiling”, in: Semiotica, 56 (1–2), M. Lisner, “Der Kruzifixus Michel- pp. 45–46 B. Mantura, “Il primo Cristo della
Jahrbuch der Kaiserlich-Königlichen P. Künzle, “Die Aufstellung des 1985, pp. 1–30 angelos im Kloster S. Spirito in E. Mâle, L’Art religieux de la fin de Pietà Rondanini”, in: Bolletino
Zentralkommission für Erforschung Reiters vom Lateran durch Michel- M. C. Leach, “Michelangelo invenit, Florence”, in: Kunstchronik, 16, Moyen Age en France. Étude sur d’Arte, 58 (4), 1973, pp. 199–201
und Erhaltung der Kunst, 1, 1907, angelo”, in: Miscellanea Bibliothecae Joos van Cleve explicavit”, in: SiI, 1963, pp. 1–2 l’iconographie du Moyen Age et sur G. Marchini, “Le finestre ‘inginoc-
pp. 115–172 Hertzianae zu Ehren von Leo 5, 1979, pp. 93–106 M. Lisner, “Michelangelos Kruzifixus ses sources d’inspiration, 2nd edn, chiate’” and “Postilla alle ‘finestre
W. Körte, “Deutsche Vesperbilder in Bruhns, Franz Graf Wolff Metter- E. Leuschner, Persona, Larva, Maske. aus S. Spirito”, in: Münchner Jahr- Paris 1922 inginocchiate’”, in: Antichità viva,
Italien”, in: Kunstgeschichtliches nich, Ludwig Schudt (Römische Ikonologische S tudien zum 16. bis buch der bildenden Kunst, 15, 1964, J. Manca, “Sin, Sadomasochism, and 15 (1), 1976, pp. 24–31 and 15 (5),
Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana, Forschungen der Bibliotheca frühen 18. Jahrhundert, Frankfurt pp. 7–36 Salvation in Michelangelo’s ‘Last 1976, pp. 27–28
1, 1937, pp. 1–138 Hertziana, 16), Munich 1961, am Main et al. 1997 M. Lisner, “Zum Rahmen von Judgment’”, in: Source, 13 (3), 1994, G. Marchini, “Il ballatoio della
S. W. Krieg, “Das Architekturdetail pp. 255–270 M. Levi d’Ancona, “The ‘Doni Michelangelos Madonna Doni”, pp. 20–26 cupola di Santa Maria del Fiore”,
bei Michelangelo. Studien zu seiner F. La Cava, Il volto di Michelangelo Madonna’ by Michelangelo: An in: Studien zur Geschichte der F. Mancinelli, “The Technique of in: Antichità viva, 16 (6), 1977,
Entwicklung bis 1534”, in: Röm. scoperto nel Giudizio finale. Un Iconographic Study”, in: AB, 50 (1), europäischen Plastik. Festschrift Michelangelo as a Painter: A Note pp. 36–48
Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana, dramma psicologico in un ritratto 1968, pp. 43–50 Theodor Müller, ed. K. Martin, on the Cleaning of the First V. Mariani, Michelangelo. The
33, 1999/2000 [2003], pp. 101–256 simbolico, Bologna 1925 S. Levine, “The Location of Michel- Munich 1965, pp. 167–178 Lunettes in the Sistine Chapel”, Painter, New York 1964
F. Kriegbaum, Michelangelo Buonar- A. de La Chapelle, “Michel-Ange. Le angelo’s ‘David’: The Meeting of M. Lisner, “The Crucifix from Santo in: Apollo, 117, 1983, pp. 362–367 M. Marongiu, “Michelangelo e la
roti. Die Bildwerke, Berlin 1940 choix de ses papiers?”, in: Joannides January 25, 1504”, in: AB, 56, 1974, Spirito and the Crucifixes of F. Mancinelli, “Michelangelo at pittura ferrarese: un modello per
F. Kriegbaum, “Michelangelos 2003, pp. 409–422 pp. 31–49 Taddeo Curradi”, in: BM, 122, Work: The Painting of the Ceil- il ‘San Procolo’”, in: CA, 63 (6),
Statuen am Piccolomini-Altar im G. B. Ladner, “Vegetation Symbolism S. Levine, “Michelangelo’s Marble 1980, pp. 812–819 ing”, in: Pietrangeli, 1986, 2000, pp. 45–51
Dom zu Siena”, in: JbPKS, 63, and the Concept of Renaissance”, ‘David’ and the Lost Bronze E. L. Longsworth, “Michelangelo and pp. 218–259 T. Martin, “Michelangelo’s ‘Brutus’
1942, pp. 57–78 in: De artibus opuscula XL. Essays ‘David’: the Drawings”, in: AeH, 5 the Eye of the Beholder. The Early F. Mancinelli, “La progettazione and the Classicizing Portrait Bust
E. Kris/O. Kurz, Die Legende vom in Honour of Erwin Panofsky, ed. (9), 1984, pp. 91–120 Bologna Sculptures”, in: AeH, 23 della volta della Cappella Sistina in Sixteenth-Century Italy”, in:
Künstler. Ein geschichtlicher Versuch, M. Meiss, 2 vols, New York 1961, I, Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, (46), 2002, pp. 77–82 di Michelangelo”, in: Michelangelo AeH, 14 (27), 1993, pp. 67–83
Frankfurt am Main 1980 (first pp. 303–322 ed. E. Kirschbaum, 8 vols, W. Lotz, “Zu Michelangelos Christus Drawings, 1992, pp. 43–55 W. Maurenbrecher, Die Aufzeichnun-
published Vienna 1934) R. Lanciani, Storia degli scavi di Rome/Freiburg et al. 1994 in Santa Maria sopra Minerva”, in: F. Mancinelli, “Michelangelo: gen des Michelangelo Buonarroti im
J. Kristof, “Michelangelo as Nicode- Roma, 4 vols, Rome 1902–1912 (first published 1968–1976) Festschrift für Herbert von Einem, Das Problem der Werkstatt”, Britischen Museum in London und
mus: The Florence Pietà”, in: SCJ, J. Larson, “The Cleaning of Michel- R. Lieberman, “Michelangelo’s ed. G. von der Osten, Berlin 1965, in: Pietrangeli, 1993, pp. 46–79, im Vermächtnis Ernst Steinmann in
20, 1989, pp. 163–182 angelo’s Taddei Tondo”, in: BM, Design for the Biblioteca Lauren- pp. 143–150 266–268 Rom, Leipzig 1938 (Röm. Forschun-
K. Krüger, Der frühe Bildkult des 133, 1991, pp. 844–846 ziana”, in: Renaissance Studies in W. Lotz, “Vignole et Giacomo F. Mancinelli, “Il ponteggio di Mi- gen der Bibliotheca Hertziana 14)
Franziskus in Italien. Gestalt- und B. Laschke, Fra Giovan Angelo da Honor of Craig Hugh Smyth, ed. A. della Porta (1559–1589)”, in: chelangelo per la Cappella Sistina e G. Maurer, “Michelangelos Projekt
Funktionswandel des Tafelbildes im Montorsoli. Ein Florentiner Bildhau- Morrogh and F. Superbi Gioffredi, École Française de Rome, 1981, i problemi cronologici della volta”, für den Tambour von Santa Maria
13. und 14. Jahrhundert, Berlin 1992 er des 16. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1993 Florence 1985, II, pp. 571–595 pp. 225–241 in: Weil-Garris Brandt, 1994a, del Fiore”, in: Römisches Jahrbuch
R. Kuhn, Michelangelo. Die Sixtinis- I. Lavin, “Michelangelo’s Saint Peter’s R. Lieberman, “Regarding Michelan- A. Luchs, “Michelangelo’s Bologna pp. 43–49 (Mancinelli, 1994a) der Bibliotheca Hertziana, 33, 2003,
che Decke. Beiträge über ihre Pietà. New photographs”, in: AB, gelo’s Bacchus”, in: AeH, 22 (43), Angel: ‘Counterfeiting’ the Tuscan F. Mancinelli, “Il problema degli aiuti pp. 85–100
Quellen und zu ihrer Auslegung, 48, 1966, pp. 103–104 2001, pp. 65–74 Duecento”, in: BM, 120, 1978, di Michelangelo”, in: Weil-Garris G. Maurer, Michelangelo: Die Ar-
Berlin/New York 1975 I. Lavin, “David’s Sling and Michel- R. S. Liebert, “Michelangelo’s Mutila- pp. 222–225 Brandt, 1994a, pp. 107–114 (Man- chitekturzeichnungen. Entwurf-
K. Künstle, Ikonographie der christli- angelo’s Bow”, in: M. Winner (ed.), tion of the Florence ‘Pietà’. A Psy- E. B. MacDougall, “Michelangelo cinelli, 1994b) sprozeß und Planungspraxis, Regens-
chen Kunst, 2 vols, Freiburg Der Künstler über sich in seinem choanalytic Inquiry”, in: AB, 59, and the Porta Pia”, in: Journal of the F. Mancinelli/G. Colallucci/N. Ga- burg 2004
1926–1928 Werk, International Symposium at 1977, pp. 47–54 Society of Architectural Historians, brielli, “Das ‘Jüngste Gericht’ und G. Maurer, “Überlegungen zu
M. A. Kuntz, The Cappella Paolina: the Bibliotheca Hertziana (Rome R. W. Lightbown, “Michelangelo’s 19, 1960, pp. 97–108 seine Restaurierung: Anmerkungen Michelangelos Porta Pia”, in:
before and after Michelangelo, Ann 1989), Weinheim 1992, pp. 161–190 Great Tondo: Its Origins and Set- L. Macucci, “Progetti e modelli della zu Geschichte, Technik und Erhal- Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca
Arbor 1997 I. Lavin, “David’s Sling and Michel- ting”, in: Apollo, 89, 1969, pp. 22–31 basilica nella 1a metà del ’500”, in: tung”, in: Pietrangeli, 1993, Hertziana, 37, 2006
M. A. Kuntz, “Designed for Ceremo- angelo’s Bow: A Sign of Freedom”, G. Lindahl, “Michelangelos erster Ent- A. Pinelli (ed.), La Basilica di San pp. 236–255 G. Maurer/A. Nova (ed.), Michelan-
ny: The Cappella Paolina at the in: Past-Present: Essays on Histori- wurf des Juliusgrabes”, in: Konsthis- Pietro in Vaticano, Modena 2000. H. R. Mancusi-Ungaro, Michelangelo, gelo e il linguaggio dei disegni di ar-
Vatican Palace”, in: Journal of the cism in Art from Donatello to Picas- torisk Tidskrift, 32, 1963, pp. 65–79 E. Maeder, “Die Gewänder der Vor- the Bruges Madonna and the Piccolo- chitettura, Venice 2012.
Society of Architectural Historians, so, ed. I. Lavin, Berkeley 1993, E. Lingo, “The Evolution of Michel- fahren Christi”, in: Pietrangeli, mini Altar, New Haven/London T. F. Mayer, “The Historical and
62, 2003, pp. 228–255 pp. 29–61 angelo’s Magnifici Tomb: Program 1993, pp. 194–223 1971 Religious Circumstances of the
770 771
‘Last Judgment’”, in: Hall, 2005, Michelangelo. La rappresentazione C. Monbeig-Goguel, “A Propos des Signifikanz im Bildkontext. Jan van A. Nesselrath, “Il ‘Libro di Michelan- G. Panofsky-Soergel, “Postscriptum
pp. 76–94 dell’architettura, Milan 1994 dessins du ‘Maître de la femme Eyck, Dieric Bouts, Hans Memling, gelo’ a Lille”, in: Quaderni to Tommaso Cavalieri”, in: Scritti
G. Mayr, see Hirst H. A. Millon/C. H. Smyth, “Michel- voilée assise du Louvre’. Réflexion Joos van Cleve”, in: Autobiographie dell’Istituto di Storia dell’Architet- di storia dell’arte in onore di Roberto
A. Meliu, S. Maria degli Angeli alle angelo and St. Peter’s. 1: Notes on a méthodologique en faveur du und Selbstporträt in der Renaissance, tura, 24, 1994 [1997], pp. 35–52 Salvini, ed. C. de Bendictis,
Terme di Diocleziano, Rome 1950 Plan of the Attic as originally built ‘Maître de Santo Spirito’ (Agnolo ed. G. Schweikhart, Cologne 1998, G. Neufeld, “Michelangelo’s Times Florence 1984, pp. 399–405
S. Meller, “Zur Entstehungsge- on the South Hemicycle”, in: BM, et/ou Donnino di Domenico del pp. 38–68 of Day. A Study of their Genesis”, J. T. Paoletti, “Michelangelo’s Masks”,
schichte des Kranzgesimses am 111, 1969, pp. 484–501 Mazziere?)”, in: E. Cropper (ed.), J. Müller-Hofstede, “Florentiner in: AB, 48, 1966, pp. 273–283 in: AB, 74, 1992, pp. 423–440
Palazzo Farnese in Rom”, in: H. A. Millon/C. H. Smyth, “A Florentine Drawing at the Time of Maler des Trecento und Quattro- E. Neumann, Künstlermythen. Eine J. T. Paoletti, “The Rondanini ‘Pietà’:
JbPKS, 30, 1909, pp. 1–8 Design by Michelangelo for a City Lorenzo the Magnificent, Bologna cento im Zeichen von Heilserwar- psycho-historische Studie über Krea- Ambiguity Maintained Through
S. Meloni (ed.), Il Tondo Doni di Gate: Further Notes on the Lille 1994, pp. 111–129 tung und Künstlerruhm. Zur En- tivität, Frankfurt am Main 1986 the Palimpsest”, in: AeH, 21 (42),
Michelangelo e il suo restauro, Sketch”, in: BM, 117, 1975, D. Moreni, Delle tre suntuose Cappelle tstehung des frühen Selbstporträts A. Nova, Michelangelo architetto, 2000, pp. 53–80
Florence 1985 (Gli Uffizi, Studi pp. 162–166 Medicee situate nell’imp. Basilica di im Kontext der sakralen Historie”, Milan 1984 A. Paolucci, Michelangelo. “Le Pietà”,
e ricerche 2) H. A. Millon/C. H. Smyth, “Michel- S. Lorenzo di Firenze, Florence 1813 in: Florence in der Frührenaissance. A. Nova, Michelangelo. Der Architekt, Milan 1997
Michelangelo. La Cappella Sistina. angelo and St. Peter’s. 2: Observa- L. Morozzi, “La ‘Battaglia di Cascina’ Kunst, Literatur, Epistolographie in Stuttgart/Zurich 1988 G. Papini, “David con la fromba”,
Documentazione e Interpretazioni, tions on the Interior of the Apses, di Michelangelo: nuova ipotesi sulla der Sphäre des Humanismus. Gedenk- A. Nova, “Il ballatoio di Santa Maria in: Il Vasari, 3 (1), 1930, pp. 1–14
2 vols, Novara 1999 a Model of the Apse Vault, and data di commissione”, in: Prospetti- schrift für Paul Oskar Kristeller del Fiore a Firenze”, in: Millon/ A. Pappas, “Observations on the
Michelangelo Drawings, ed. C. H. Related Drawings”, in: Römisches va (Scritti in ricordo di Giovanni (1903–1999), ed. J. Müller-Hofstede, Lampugnani, 1994, pp. 593–599 Ancestor Cycle of the Sistine
Smyth, Washington 1992 (Studies Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 16, Previtali: I), 53–56, 1988–1989, Rheinbach 2002, pp. 35–108 J. R. J. M. Olsen, The Florentine Tondo, Chapel Ceiling”, in: Source, 11 (2),
in the History of Art 33) 1976, pp. 137–206 pp. 320–324 Myssok, Bildhauerische Konzeption Oxford 2000 1991, pp. 27–31
Michelangelo e la Sistina. La tecnica, H. A. Millon/C. H. Smyth, Michel- A. Morrogh, “The Magnifici Tomb: und plastisches Modell in der Renais- J. O’Malley, “The Theology behind K. T. Parker, Catalogue of the Collec-
il retauro, il mito, Rome 1990 angelo architetto. La facciata di San A Key Project in Michelangelo’s sance, Münster 1999 Michelangelo’s Ceiling”, in: tion of Drawings in the Ashmolean
Michelangelo. Neue Beiträge, ed. Lorenzo e la cupola di San Pietro, Architectural Career”, in: AB, 74, M. Mussolin (ed.), Michelangelo Pietrangeli, 1986, pp. 92–148 Museum, Vol. 2: Italian Schools,
M. Rohlmann and A. Thielemann, Milan 1988 (Millon/Smyth, 1988a) 1992, pp. 567–598 (Morrogh, 1992a) architetto a Roma, Milan 2009. W. and E. Paatz, Die Kirchen von Oxford 1956
Acts of the Michelangelo Collo- H. A. Millon/C. H. Smyth, “Pirro A. Morrogh, “‘The Medici Chapel’: A. Nagel, “Michelangelo’s London Florence, 6 vols, Frankfurt am Main N. R. Parks, “The Placement of Mi-
quium (Cologne 1996), Ligorio, Michelangelo, and St. The Designs for the Central ‘Entombment’ and the Church of 1940–1954, II, 1941 chelangelo’s ‘David’. A Review of
Munich/Berlin 2000 Peter’s”, in: Pirro Ligorio, Artist and Tomb”, in: Michelangelo Drawings, S. Agostino in Rome”, in: BM, 136, P. N. Pagliara, “Le tecniche di costru- the Documents”, in: AB, 57, 1975,
Michelangiolo. Tutta la scultura, Antiquarian, ed. R. W. Gaston, 1992, pp. 143–161 (Morrogh, 1992b) 1994, pp. 164–167 zione nel XVI seculo”, in: Tittoni, pp. 560–570
Florence 1989 (La scheda d’arte, 3) Florence, 1988, pp. 216–286 A. Morrogh, “The Palace of the A. Nagel, “Observations on Michel- 1997, pp. 59–66 A. Parronchi, “Michelangelo al tempo
U. Middeldorf, “The Crucifixes of (Millon/Smyth, 1988b) Roman People: Michelangelo at the angelo’s Late ‘Pietà’ Drawings and E. Panofsky, Idea. Ein Beitrag zur dei lavori di San Lorenzo in una
Taddeo Curradi”, in: BM, 120 H. A. Millon/C. H. Smyth, “La volta Palazzo dei Conservatori”, in: Sculptures”, in: ZfKG, 59, 1996, Begriffsgeschichte der älteren Kunst- ‘Ricordanza’ del Figiovanni”, in:
(909), 1978, pp. 806–810 absidiale e l’attico del transetto me- Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca pp. 548–572 theorie, 4th edn, Berlin 1982 (first Paragone/Arte, 15 (175), 1964,
H. Millon, “A Note on Michelange- ridionale di Michelangelo in S. Pie- Hertziana, 29, 1994, pp. 129–186 A. Nagel, Michelangelo and the published 1924) pp. 9–24
lo’s Façade for a Palace for Julius III tro”, in: Millon/Lampugnani, 1994, K. Möseneder, “Der junge Michelan- Reform of Art, Cambridge, MA, E. Panofsky, “The First Two Projects A. Parronchi, “‘Titulus Crucis’”,
in Rome: New Documents for the pp. 650–657 (Millon/Smyth, 1994a) gelo und Schongauer”, in: Italienis- et al. 2000 of Michelangelo’s Tomb of Julius in: Antichità viva, 5 (4), 1966,
Model”, in: BM, 121, 1979, H. A. Millon/C. H. Smyth, “Il pro- che Frührenaissance und nord A. Natali, “L’antico, le scritture e II”, in: AB, 19, 1937, pp. 561–579 pp. 41–42
pp. 770–775, 777 getto del tamburo e della cupola di europäisches Spätmittelalter. Kunst l’occasione. Ipotesi sul Tondo E. Panofsky, Studies in Iconology, A. Parronchi, Opere giovanili di
H. A. Millon, “Michelangelo e Porta S. Pietro a Roma”, in: Millon/ der frühen Neuzeit im europäischen Doni”, in: Meloni, 1985, pp. 21–37 Oxford 1939 Michelangelo, 6 vols, Florence
Pia”, in: Millon/Lampugnani 1994, Lampugnani, 1994, pp. 657, 665– Zusammenhang, ed. J. Poeschke, A. Natali, “Dating the Doni Tondo E. Panofsky, Grabplastik. Vier 1968–2003
pp. 475–478 (Millon, 1994a) 672 (Millon/Smyth, 1994b) Munich 1993, pp. 259–270 through Antique Sculpture and Vorlesungen über ihren Bedeutungs- L. Partridge, Michelangelo. The Sistine
H. A. Millon, “Michelangelo e la H. A. Millon/C. H. Smyth, “Il K. Möseneder, “Michelangelos ‘Jüng- Sacred Texts”, in: The Genius of wandel von Alt-Ägypten bis Bernini, Chapel Ceiling, Rome, New York
facciata di San Lorenzo a Firenze”, gruppo dei disegni del Dupérac al stes Gericht’. Über die Schwierig- the Sculptor, 1992, pp. 307–322 Cologne 1964 (Panofsky, 1964a) 1996
in: Millon/Lampugnani, 1994, Metropolitan Museum of Art e i keit des Disegno und die Frei A. Nava, “La storia della chiesa di S. E. Panofsky, “The Mouse that P. Pasquinelli, “Ricerche edilizie su
pp. 566–574 (Millon, 1994b) relativi fogli al Nationalmuseum di heit der Kunst”, in: K. Möseneder Giovanni dei Fiorentini. Documen- Michelangelo Failed to Carve”, in: Santa Maria degli Angeli”, in:
H. A. Millon, “Michelangelo to Mar- Stoccolma”, in: Millon/Lampug- (ed.), Streit um Bilder. Von Byzanz ti del suo Archivio”, in: Archivio Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann, Roma, 3, 1925, pp. 349–356, 395–407
chionni, 1546–1784”, in: St. Peter’s nani, 1994, pp. 659–672 bis Duchamp, Berlin 1997, della r. deputazione romana di storia ed. L. Freeman Sandler, New York L. von Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste im
in the Vatican, ed. W. Tronzo, (Millon/Smyth, 1994c) pp. 95–117 patria, 59, 1936, pp. 337–362 1964, pp. 242–251 (Panofsky, 1964b) Zeitalter der Renaissance von der
Cambridge, MA, 2005, pp. 93–110 L. Mojon, Michelangelo, die Entwürfe J. Müller-Hofstede, “Der Künstler im A. Nesselrath, “Das Liller ‘Michelan- G. S. Panofsky, Michelangelos Wahl Innocenz’ VIII. bis zum Tode
H. Millon/V. M. Lampugnani (eds.), zu San Giovanni dei Fiorentini, Humilitas-Gestus. Altniederlän- gelo-Skizzenbuch’”, in: Kunstchron- “Christus” und sein römischer Julius’ II. 1484–1513, III. 1–2,
Rinascimento da Brunelleschi a Berne 2009. dische Selbstporträts und ihre ik, 36, 1983, pp. 46–47 Auftraggeber, Worms 1991 5th–7th edn, Freiburg 1924
772 773
L. von Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste im Renaissance. Bemerkungen eines P. Pirri, “La topografia del Gesù di G. Poggi, “Della prima partenza und Überlieferung in der Kunst des R. Quednau, Die Sala di Costantino
Zeitalter der R
enaissance und der Archäologen”, in: Zeitschrift für bil- Roma e le vertenze tra Muzio di Michelangelo Buonarroti da Abendlandes (Akten des 21. Interna- im Vatikanischen Palast. Zur
Glaubensspaltung von der Wahl dende Kunst, 17, 1906, pp. 179–187 Muti e S. Ignazio: Secondo nuovi Firenze”, in: Rivista d’arte, 4, 1906, tionalen Kongresses für Kunst- Dekoration der beiden Medici-
Leos X. bis zum Tode Klemens’ VII. H. W. Pfeiffer, “Gemalte Theologie documenti”, in: Archivum histori- pp. 33–37 geschichte, Bonn 1964), 3 vols, Päpste Leo X. und Clemens VII.,
1513–1534, IV. 1–2, 13th edn, in der Sixtinischen Kapelle. Teil I: cum Societatis Iesu, 10, 1941, G. Poggi, “Michelangelos Madonna Berlin 1967, II, pp. 3–11 Hildesheim/New York 1979
Freiburg 1956 Die Szenen des Alten Testamentes pp. 177–217 Doni in den Uffizien”, in: Jahres- P. Portoghesi/B. Zevi (eds.), Michel- (Studien zur Kunstgeschichte, 13)
J. Paul, Die mittelalterlichen Kommu- ausgeführt unter Sixtus IV.”, in: B. Podestà, “Documenti inediti bericht des Kunsthistorischen Instituts angiolo architetto, 2 vols, Turin 1964 P. Ragionieri, Casa Buonarroti,
nalpaläste in Italien, Cologne 1963 Archivum historiae pontificiae, 28, realtivi a Michelangelo Buonarroti”, in Florence, 1906/07, p. 10 A. W. G. Posèq, “Michelangelo’s Milan 2003
A. A. Payne, The Architectural 1990, pp. 99–159 in: Il Buonarroti. Scritti sopra le arti G. Poggi [note], in: Kunstchronik, 18, Self-Portrait on the Flayed Skin of D. Redig de Campos, Il Giudizio Uni-
Treatise in the Italian R
enaissance: H. W. Pfeiffer, “Gemalte Theologie e le lettere, 10, 1875, pp. 128–137 1907, col. 299 St. Bartholomew”, in: GBA, 124 versale di Michelangelo [with contrib.
Architectural Invention, Ornament in der Sixtinischen Kapelle. Teil II: S. Poeschel, “Capricci straordinari e G. Poggi (ed.), Il Duomo di Firenze. (1506/07), 1994, pp. 1–14 by E. Camesasca], Milan 1964
and literary Culture, Cambridge/ Die Fresken des Michelangelo nuovi. Michelangelos ‘Ahnen Documenti sulla decorazione della A. W. G. Posèq, “Rotatory Effects in S. E. Reiss, “The Ginori Corridor
New York 1999 Buonarotti ausgeführt unter Julius Christi’ in der Sixtinischen chiesa e del campanile, tratti dall’ the ‘Beheading of Goliath’ before of San Lorenzo and the Building
P. Pecchiai, Il Campidoglio nel II.”, in: Archivum historiae ponti- Kapelle”, in: Michelangelo. Neue archivio dell’opera, Berlin 1909 (Ital- and after Michelangelo”, in: Wiener History of the New Sacristy”, in:
Cinquecento, sulla scorta dei ficiae, 31, 1993, pp. 69–107 Beiträge, 2000, pp. 181–203 ienische Forschungen 23–24) Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 50, Journal of the Society of Architectural
documenti, Rome 1950 H. W. Pfeiffer, “Gemalte Theologie S. Poeschel, “Moses und die Frauen O. Pollak, “Ausgewählte Akten zur 1997, pp. 173–183 Historians, 52, 1993, pp. 53 and 339–
S. Percario, “Indagini sul ‘Tondo in der Sixtinischen Kapelle. Teil III: des Jakob: Das Konzept des Julius- Geschichte der römischen Peter- P. Pouncey/J. A. Gere, Italian Draw- 343, 1994, pp. 123–124
Doni’ di Michelangelo”, in: CA, 66 Die Sibyllen und Propheten”, in: Grabes von 1545”, in: Heilige und skirche (1535–1621)”, in: JbPKS, 36, ings in the Department of Prints and A. Riklin, Giannotti, Michelangelo
(20), 2004, pp. 54–67 Archivum historiae pontificiae, 33, profane Bilder: Kunsthistorische 1915, supplement, pp. 21–117 Drawings at the British Museum: und der Tyrannenmord,
A. Perrig, Michelangelo Buonarrotis 1995, pp. 91–116 Beiträge aus Anlass des 65. Geburts- L. Pon, “Michelangelo’s First Signa- Raphael and his Circle, 2 vols, Berne/Vienna 1996
letzte Pietà-Idee. Ein Beitrag zur U. Pfisterer, Donatello und die tags von Herwarth Röttgen, ed. S. ture”, in: Source, 15 (4), 1996, London 1962 R. Ristori, “Una lettera a Michelan-
Erforschung seines Alterswerkes, Entdeckung der Stile 1430–1455, Poeschel, R. Steiner and R. Wegner, pp. 16–21 A. Prater, “Architektur und Zeit in gelo degli operai di S. Maria
Berne 1960 Munich 2002 Weimar 2001, pp. 55–78 J. Pope-Hennessy, The Portrait in the Michelangelos Capella Medicea”, del Fiore: 31 luglio 1507”, in: Rinas-
A. Perrig, “Michelangelo und U. Pfisterer/V. von Rosen, Der J. Poeschke, Die Skulptur der Renais- Renaissance, New York et al. 1966 in: Alte und Moderne Kunst, cimento, 23, 1983, pp. 167–171
Marcello Venusti. Das Problem Künstler als Kunstwerk. Selbstpor- sance in Italien. Michelangelo und (reprint 1989) 24 (166/167), 1979, pp. 12–21 C. Robertson, “Bramante, Michelan-
der Verkündigungs- und Ölberg- träts vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegen- seine Zeit, Munich 1992 J. Pope-Hennessy, Italian High (Prater, 1979a) gelo, and the Sistine Ceiling”, in:
Konzeption Michelangelos”, in: wart, Stuttgart 2005 J. Poeschke, “Ein Michelangelo in Renaissance & Baroque Sculpture, A. Prater, Michelangelos Medici- JWCI, 49, 1986, pp. 91–105
Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch, 24, C. Pietrangeli, “I Palazzi Capitolini New York? Ausstellungen in Flor- London 1996 (first published 1963) Kapelle. “Ordine composto” als D. A. Robertson, “Michelangelo’s
1962, pp. 261–294 prima di Michelangelo”, in: De ence und Paris präsentierten den A. E. Popham/P. Pouncey, Italian Gestaltungsprinzip von Architektur ‘Saint Proculus’ ‘Reconstructed’”,
A. Perrig, Michelangelo Studien III: Angelis d’Ossat/Pietrangeli, 1965, umstrittenen ‘Fanciullo arciere’. I Drawings in the Department of und Ornament, Waldsassen 1979 in: AB, 65, 1983, pp. 658–660
Das Jüngste Gericht und seine Vorge- pp. 1–20 [review of ] ‘Giovinezza di Michel- Prints and Drawings in the British (Prater, 1979b) E. Rocchi, Le piante icnografiche e
schichte, Frankfurt am Main 1976 C. Pietrangeli (ed.), The Sistine angelo’, Florence 1999/2000”, Museum: the Fourteenth and Fif- R. Preimesberger, “Rilievo und prospettiche di Roma del secolo XVI,
A. Perrig, “Die Konzeption der Chapel: The Art, the History, and in: Kunstchronik, 53 (5), 2000, teenth Centuries, 2 vols, London Michelangelo: ‘… benché igno- Turin 1902
Wandgrabmäler der Medici- the Restoration, New York 1986 pp. 189–199 1950 rantemente’”, in: Visuelle Topoi. G. Rocchi Coopmans de Yoldi (ed.),
Kapelle”, in: Städel-Jahrbuch, 8, C. Pietrangeli, Die Sixtinische Kapelle, J. Poeschke, “Historizität und A. E. Popham/J. Wilde, The Italian Erfindung und tradiertes Wissen San Pietro. Arte e storia nella
1981, pp. 247–257 Zurich 1993 (first published in Symbolik im Figurenprogramm Drawings of the XV and XVI Centu- in den Künsten der italienischen Basilica Vaticana, Bergamo 1996
A. Perrig, Michelangelo’s Drawings: Italian in 1992; in English in 1994) der Medici-Kapelle”, in: Poeschke/ ries in the Collection of His Majesty Renaissance, ed. U. Pfisterer and E. Rodocanachi, Le Capitole romain,
The Science of Attribution, New K. Pietrass, Die Selbstdarstellung Mi- Kusch-Arnold/Weigel, 2005, the King at Windsor Castle, London M. Seidel, Munich/Berlin 2003, antique et moderne: La citadelle,
Haven/London 1991 chelangelos. Eine Untersuchung des pp. 145–169 1949 pp. 303–316 les temples, le Palais Sénatorial,
A. Perrig, “Räuber, Profiteure, werkimmanenten Rollenspiels – J. Poeschke/B. Kusch-Arnold/T. A. E. Popp, Die Medici-Kapelle R. Preimesberger, “Michelangelo le Palais des Conservateurs, le musée,
‘Michelangelos’ und die Kunst Der Künstler als leidende, liebende Weigel (eds.), Praemium virtutis I. Michelangelos, Munich 1922 Buonarroti”, in: Pfisterer/von Paris 1904
der Provenienzen-Erfindung”, und glaubende P ersönlichkeit, MA Grabmonumente und Begräbnis T. Pöpper, Andrea Bregno 1418– Rosen, 2005, pp. 52–53 S. Roettgen, Die Wandmalerei der
in: Städel-Jahrbuch, 17, 1999, thesis, University of Leipzig, zeremoniell im Zeichen des 1503. Studien zu Leben und Werk, S. Pressouyre, Nicolas Cordier. Frührenaissance in Italien, 2 vols,
pp. 209–286 Leipzig 2004 (unpub.) Humanismus, Münster 2002 PhD thesis, Münster 2003 Recherches sur la sculpture à Rome Munich 1996–1997
L. Pestilli, “Michelangelo’s Pietà: F. Piper, Mythologie und Symbolik der J. Poeschke/B. Kusch-Arnold/T. Th. Pöpper, Michelangelo, The autour de 1600, 2 vols, Rome 1984 M. Rohlmann, Michelangelos “Jonas”.
Lombard Critics and Plinian christlichen Kunst von der ältesten Weigel (eds.), Praemium virtutis II. Graphic Work, Cologne 2016 U. Procacci/U. Baldini, “Il restauro Zum Programm der Sixtinischen
Sources”, in: Source, 19 (2), 2000, Zeit bis in’s sechzehnte Jahrhundert, Grabmäler und Begräbniszeremoniell P. Portoghesi, “La Biblioteca Lauren- del crocifisso di Santo Spirito”, in: Decke, Weimar 1995
pp. 21–30 2 vols, Weimar 1847 and 1851 in der italienischen Hoch- und ziana e la critica michelangiolesca Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden M. Rohlmann, “Kontinuität und
E. Petersen, “Zu Meisterwerken der (reprint Osnabrück 1972) Spätrenaissance, Münster 2005 alla tradizione classica”, in: Stil Kunst, 15, 1964, pp. 32–36 Künstlerwettstreit in den Bildern
774 775
der Sixtinischen Kapelle”, in: R. Salvini, The Sistine Chapel, 2 vols, nete Arbeit fortsetzen möge’: Neues C. Seymour, Jr., “‘Homo Magnus et S. Sinding-Larsen, “The Laurenziana L. Steinberg, “Michelangelo’s Floren-
Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch, 60, New York 1965 (first published in zur Genese von Michelangelos Albus’: The Quattrocento Back- Vestibule as a functional Solution”, tine ‘Pietà’: The Missing Leg”,
1999, pp. 163–196 Italian in 1964) ‘Jüngstem Gericht’ in der Sixtinis- ground for Michelangelo’s ‘David’ in: Acta ad archaeologiam et artium in: AB, 50, 1968, pp. 343–353
M. Rohlmann, “Michelangelos M. T. Sambin De Norcen, “Michel- chen Kapelle unter Paul III”, in: of 1501–04”, in: Stil und Überlief- historiam pertinentia, 8, 1978, L. Steinberg, “Michelangelo’s ‘Last
‘Jüngstes Gericht’ in der Sixtinis- angelo e Clemente VII: Corrispon- Das Münster, 53 (1), 2000, erung in der Kunst des Abendlandes, pp. 213–222 Judgment’ as Merciful Heresy”,
chen Kapelle. Zu Themenwahl und denza e corrispondenti nella genesi pp. 16–29 ed. F. Deuchler, 3 vols, Berlin 1967, C. Sisi (ed.), Michelangelo e i maestri in: Art in America, 63 (6), 1975,
Komposition”, in: Michelangelo. della sacrestia Nuova e della bibli- J. Schulz, “Michelangelo’s Unfinished II, pp. 96–105 (Seymour, 1967a) del Quattrocento, exh. cat., pp. 48–63 (Steinberg, 1975a)
Neue Beiträge, 2000, pp. 205–234 oteca Laurenziana”, in: Annali di Works”, in: AB, 57, 1975, C. Seymour, Jr., Michelangelo’s David: Florence 1985 L. Steinberg, Michelangelo’s Last
M. Rohlmann, “Rom, Vatikanpalast, architettura, 15, 2003, pp. 75–87 pp. 366–373 A Search for Identity, Pittsburgh R. J. Smick-MacIntire, “Evoking Paintings. The Conversion of St. Paul
Cappella Sistina”, in: Kliemann/ S. Sandström, Levels of Unreality. A. Schumacher, “Leone Leonis Michel- 1967 (Seymour, 1967b) Michelangelo’s Vatican Pietà: and the Crucifixion of St. Peter in the
Rohlmann, 2004, pp. 88–123 Studies in Structure and Construc- angelo-Medaille. Porträt und C. Seymour, Jr., Michelangelo. The Transformations in the Topos of Cappella Paolina, Vatican Palace,
V. Romani (ed.), Daniele da Volterra, tion in Italian Mural Painting Dur- Glaubensbekenntnis des alten Sistine Chapel Ceiling, New Living Stone”, in: The Eye of the London 1975 (Steinberg, 1975b)
amico di Michelangelo, exh. cat., ing the Renaissance, Uppsala 1963 Buonarroti”, in: G. Satzinger (ed.), York/London 1972 (reprint 1995) Poet. Studies in the Reciprocity of L. Steinberg, “A Corner of the ‘Last
Florence 2003 G. Satzinger, “Michelangelos Grab- Die Renaissance-Medaille in Italien J. Shearman, “The Collections of the the Visual and Literary Arts from Judgment’”, in: Daedalus, 109,
A. Ronen, “An Antique Prototype mal Julius’ II. in S. Pietro in Vinco- und Deutschland, Münster 2004, Younger Branch of the Medici”, the Renaissance to the Present, 1980, pp. 207–273 (Steinberg,
for Michelangelo’s ‘Fall of Man’”, li”, in: ZfKG, 64, 2001, pp. 177–222 pp. 169–194 in: BM, 117, 1975, pp. 12–27 ed. A. Golahny, Lewisburg 1996, 1980a)
in: JWCI, 37, 1974, pp. 356–358 G. Satzinger, “Michelangelos Cappel- G. Schüssler, “Michelangelos J. Shearman, “Only Connect…”. pp. 23–52 L. Steinberg, “The Line of Fate
E. E. Rosenthal, “Michelangelo’s la Sforza”, in: Römisches Jahrbuch ‘Erschaffung des Adam’ in der Art and the Spectator in the Italian R. J. Smick, “Vivid Thinking: Word in Michelangelo’s Painting”, in:
‘Moses’, dal di sotto in sù”, in: AB, der Bibliotheca Hertziana, 35, 2005, Sixtinischen Kapelle”, in: K. Renaissance, Princeton 1992 and Image in Descriptive Tech- Critical Inquiry, 6 (3), 1980,
46, 1964, pp. 544–550 pp. 327–414 Möseneder and G. Schüssler (eds.), J. Shearman, “Le funzioni del colore”, niques of the Renaissance”, in: pp. 411–454 (Steinberg, 1980b)
J. Rowlands (ed.), Master Drawings G. Satzinger/S. Schütze (ed.), “Bedeutung in den Bildern”. in: Weil-Garris Brandt, 1994, A. Payne, A. Kuttner and R. J. L. Steinberg, “Michelangelo’s Floren-
and Watercolours in the British St. Peter in Rom 1506–2006, Festschrift für Jörg Träger zum pp. 159–165 Smick (eds.), Antiquity and its tine ‘Pietà’: The Missing Leg
Museum, exh. cat., London 1984 Munich 2008. 60. Geburtstag, Regensburg 2002, J. Shearman, “Art or Politics in the Interpreters, Cambridge 2000, Twenty Years After”, in: AB, 71,
N. Rubinstein, “Machiavelli and the A. Schiavo, Michelangelo architetto, pp. 309–328 Piazza?”, in: Benvenuto Cellini. pp. 159–173 1989, pp. 480–505
Mural Decoration of the Hall of Rome 1949 J. Schuyler, “The Left Side of God. Kunst und Kunsttheorie im G. Smith, “A Medici Source for L. Steinberg, “Who’s Who in Michel-
the Great Council of Florence”, in: A. Schiavo, La vita e le opere architet- A Reflection of Cabala in Michel- 16. Jahrhundert, ed. A. Nova and Michelangelo’s Doni Tondo”, angelo’s ‘Creation of Adam’: A
Musagetes. Festschrift für Wolfram toniche di Michelangelo, Rome 1953 angelo’s Genesis Scenes”, in: Source, A. Schreurs, Cologne/Vienna 2003, in: ZfKG, 38, 1975, pp. 84–85 Chronology of the Picture’s
Prinz zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, A. Schiavo, “Santa Maria degli Angeli 6 (1), 1986, pp. 12–19 pp. 19–36 G. Smith, “‘The Great Slinger was Reluctant Self-Revelation”, in: AB,
ed. R. G. Kecks, Berlin 1991, alle Terme”, in: Bollettino del Centro J. Schuyler, “The Female Holy Spirit V. Shrimplin-Evangelidis, “Michel- Himself Slung’. The Transfer of the 74 (4), 1992, pp. 552–566
pp. 275–285 di Studi per la Storia dell’Architet- (‘Shekhinah’) in Michelangelo’s angelo and Nicodemism: The David to the Academy in 1873”, E. Steinmann, Die Sixtinische Kapelle,
P. Ruschi, Michelangelo architetto a tura, 8, 1954, pp. 15–42 ‘Creation of Adam’”, in: SiI, 11, Florentine Pietà”, in: AB, 71, 1989, in: Source, 18 (3), 1999, pp. 27–33 2 vols, Munich 1901–1905
San Lorenzo, quattro problemi A. Schiavo, “Questioni anagrafe e 1987, pp. 111–136 pp. 58–66 Sotheby’s Antiquities. Egyptian, Classi- E. Steinmann, Das Geheimnis der
aperti, Florence 2007. tecniche sul modello della cupola J. Schuyler, “Michelangelo’s Serpent V. Shrimplin-Evangelidis, “Sun- cal and Western Asiatic Antiquities. Medicigräber Michel Angelos,
M. Rzepiłska, “The Divine Wisdom di San Pietro”, in: Studi romani, 13, with two Tails”, in: Source, 9 (2), Symbolism and Cosmology in Auction in New York Friday 11 June Leipzig 1907
of Michelangelo in ‘The Creation 1965, pp. 303–327 1990, pp. 23–29 Michelangelo’s ‘Last Judgment’”, 2010, New York, 2010. E. Steinmann (ed.), Die Porträt-
of Adam’”, in: AeH, 15 (29), 1994, C. Schleif, “Nicodemus and Sculp- K. Schwager, “Die Porta Pia in Rom. in: SCJ, 21 (4), 1990, pp. 607–644 L. Spezzaferro/M. E. Tittoni (eds.), darstellungen des Michelangelo,
pp. 181–187 tors: Self-Reflexivity in Works by Untersuchungen zu einem ‘ver- V. Shrimplin, “Hell in Michelangelo’s Il Campidoglio e Sisto V, Rome 1991 Leipzig 1913
H. Saalman, “Michelangelo. S. Maria Adam Kraft and Tilman Riemen- rufenen Gebäude’”, in: Münchner ‘Last Judgment’”, in: AeH, 15 (30), G. Spini, Michelangelo politico e altri E. Steinmann, Michelangelo im
del Fiore and St. Peter’s”, in: AB, schneider”, in: AB, 75 (4), 1993, Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 24, 1994, pp. 83–107 studi sul Rinascimento fiorentino, Spiegel seiner Zeit, Leipzig 1930
57, 1975, pp. 374–411 pp. 599–626 1973, pp. 33–96 V. Shrimplin, Sun Symbolism and Milan 1999 E. Steinmann/R. Wittkower, Michel-
H. Saalman, “Michelangelo at St. A. Schmarsow, “Ein Entwurf Michel- K. Schwedes, Historia in Statua. Cosmology in Michelangelo’s ‘Last N. Spinosa, Michelangelo a Capodi- angelo-Bibliographie 1510–1926.
Peter’s: The Arberino Correspond- angelos zum Grabmal Julius’ II”, Zur Eloquenz plastischer Bildwerke Judgment’, Kirksville 2000 monte. Il Restauro del cartone per With a documentary appendix
ence”, in: AB, 60, 1978, in: JbPKS, 5, 1884, pp. 63–77 Michelangelos im Umfeld des H. Siebenhüner, Das Kapitol in Rom. gli affreschi della Cappella Paolina edited by R. Freyhan, Leipzig 1927
pp. 483–493 E. D. Schmidt, “Die Überlieferung Christus von Santa Maria sopra Idee und Gestalt, Munich 1954 a Roma, exh. cat., Naples 1988 (reprint Hildesheim 1967)
H. Saalman, “The New Sacristy of S. von Michelangelos verlorenem Minerva zu Rom, Frankfurt am S. Sinding-Larsen, “A Re-reading of W. Stechow, “Joseph of Arimathea or Sternstunden eines Mäzens. Briefe von
Lorenzo before Michelangelo”, in: Samson-Modell”, in: MKIF, 40, Main et al. 1998 the Sistine Ceiling”, in: Acta ad Nicodemus?”, in: Studien zur toska- Galilei bis Einstein aus der
AB, 67 (2), 1985, pp. 199–228 1996, pp. 78–147 K. Schwedes, “Michelangelos ‘Römi- archaeologiam et artium historiam nischen Kunst. Festschrift für Ludwig Sammlung Ludwig Darmstaedter,
H. Saalman, Filippo Brunelleschi. M. Schmidt, “‘Papst Paul wünschte, sche Pietà’”, in: Michelangelo. Neue pertinentia (Institutum Romanum Heinrich Heydenreich, ed. V. W. exh. cat. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin,
The Buildings, L ondon 1993 dass er die von Clemens angeord- Beiträge, 2000, pp. 93–112 Norwegiae), 4, 1969, pp. 143–157 Lotz, Munich 1964, pp. 289–302 Berlin 2008.
776 777
C. L. Stinger, The Renaissance in Schütze 2008 3, 1940, pp. 125–146 (Tolnay, 1940a) Statuettes of the P iccolomini Altar 1992, pp. 73–114 (Wallace, 1995b)
Rome, Bloomington 1985 Ch. Thones, “Alfarano, Michelangelo C. de Tolnay, “Michelangelo Studies. in Siena”, in: Art Quarterly, 5, 1942, Vittoria Colonna, Dichterin und Muse W. E. Wallace, “Michelangelo’s Risen
J. Strzygowski, “Studien zu Michel- e la Basilica Vaticana”, in: L. Gulia II: Michelangelo’s Projects for the pp. 3–44 Michelangelos, ed. S. Ferino- Christ”, in: SCJ, 28 (4), 1997,
angelo’s Jugendentwicklung”, et al (ed.), Società, cultura e vita Fortification of Florence in 1529”, A. Vasconcellos, Uma pequena história Pagden, exh. cat., Vienna 1997 pp. 1251–1280
in: JbPKS, 12, 1891, pp. 207–219 religiosa in età moderna, Sora 2009 in: AB, 22, 1940, pp. 130–137 verdadeira: o Crucifixo de madeira Vittoria Colonna e Michelangelo, W. E. Wallace, “Michelangelo, Tiber-
D. Summers, “David’s Scowl”, Ch. Thoenes, “Michelangelo e (Tolnay, 1940b) de Miguel Angelo, Lisbon 1993 ed. P. Ragionieri, Florence 2005 io Calcagni, and the Florentine
in: W. Stedman Sheard and J. T. architettura”, in: Mussolin 2009. C. de Tolnay, Michelangelo, 5 vols, P. de Vecchi, Michelangelo. Der Maler, Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Pietà”, in: AeH, 21 (42), 2000,
Paoletti (eds.), Collaboration in Ch. Thoenes, “Über einige Anoma- Princeton 1947–1960 [cited as Stuttgart/Zurich 1988 (first pub- Legend. Readings on the Saints, pp. 81–99
Italian Renaissance Art, New Haven lien am Bau der römischen Peter- Tolnay, I–V] lished in Italian in 1984) trans. William Granger Ryan, 2 W. E. Wallace, “Michelangelo and
1978, pp. 113–124 skirche”, in: Römisches Jahrbuch der C. de Tolnay, Werk und Weltbild T. Verdon, “Potere e misericordia: vols, Princeton 1993 Marcello Venusti: a Case of
D. Summers, Michelangelo and the Bibliotheca Hertziana, 39, 2009/10 des Michelangelo, Zurich 1949 (first Il ‘Giona’ della volta sistina”, W. E. Wallace, “Michelangelo’s Multiple Authorship”, in: Ames-
Language of Art, Princeton 1981 (published 2012), pp. 43–63 published in French in 1948) in: M. Cämmerer (ed.), Kunst des Assistants in the Sistine Chapel”, Lewis/Joannides, 2003, pp. 137–156
M. Tafuri, Ricerca del Rinascimento. Ch. Thoenes, “Der Neubau”, C. de Tolnay, Michelangiolo, Cinquecento in der Toskana, in: GBA, 110 (1427), 1987, pp. 203– A. J. Wang, “Michelangelo’s Signa-
Principi, città, a rchitetti, Turin 1992 in: H. Brandenburg/A. Ballardini/ Florence 1951 Munich 1992, pp. 43–56 216 (Wallace, 1987a) ture”, in: SCJ, 35 (2), 2004,
J. A. Testa, “The Iconography of Ch. Thoenes (ed.), Der Petersdom C. de Tolnay, Michelangiolo architetto, T. Verdon, “Michelangelo and W. E. Wallace, “Two Presentation pp. 447–473
the ‘Archers’: A Study of Self- in Rom, Petersberg 2015 Florence 1955 the Body of Christ. Religious Drawings for Michelangelo’s Medi- A. J. Wang, Michelangelo’s Self-
Concealment and Self-Revelation C. Tinunin, “Restoration of the C. de Tolnay, “L’Hercule de Michel- Meaning in the Florence ‘Pietà’”, ci Chapel”, in: MD, 25 (3), 1987, Fashioning in Text and Image,
in Michelangelo’s Presentation Wood Model for Michelangelo Ange à Fontainebleau”, in: GBA, in: Wasserman, 2003, pp. 127–148, pp. 242–260 (Wallace, 1987b) Ann Arbor 2005
Drawings”, in: SiI, 5, 1979, Buonarroti’s Façade of San Lorenzo 64, 1964, pp. 125–140 168–169 W. E. Wallace, “‘Dal disegno allo J. Wasserman, Michelangelo’s Florence
pp. 45–72 in Florence”, in: Michelangelo C. de Tolnay, Corpus dei disegni di T. Verellen, “Cosmas and Damian in spazio’: Michelangelo’s Drawings “Pietà”, Princeton 2003
G.-R. Tewes, Kampf um Florenz. Drawings, 1992, pp. 263–267 Michelangelo, 4 vols, Novara the New Sacristy”, in: JWCI, 42, for the Fortifications of Florence”, K. Weil-Garris, “On Pedestals:
Die Medici im Exil 1494–1512, M. E. Tittoni (ed.), La facciata del 1975–1980 1979, pp. 274–277 in: Journal of the Society of Architec- Michelangelo’s David, Bandinelli’s
Cologne et al 2011. Palazzo Senatorio in Campidoglio: C. de Tolnay/P. Squellati Brizio, F.-J. Verspohl, “Michelangelo und tural Historians, 46, 1987, pp. 119– Hercules and Cacus and the Sculp-
A. Thielemann, Phidias im Quattro- momenti di storia urbana di Roma, Michelangelo e i Medici, exh. cat., Macchiavelli. Der David auf der 134 (Wallace, 1987c) ture of the Piazza della Signoria”,
cento, PhD thesis, Cologne 1992, Ospedaletto 1994 Florence 1980 Piazza della Signoria in Florence”, W. E. Wallace, “Narrative and in: Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunst-
[pub.] Cologne 1996 M. E. Tittoni (ed.), La facciata del R. C. Trexler, “True Light Shining: in: Städel-Jahrbuch, 8, 1981, Religious Expression in Michel- geschichte, 20, 1983, pp. 377–415
A. Thielemann, “Schlachten Palazzo Senatorio in Campidoglio: vs. Obscurantism in the Study of pp. 204–246 angelo’s Pauline Chapel”, in: AeH, K. Weil-Garris Brandt, “Michelan-
erschauen – Kentauren gebären. momenti di un grande restauro a Michelangelo’s New Sacristy”, in: F.-J. Verspohl, “Der Platz als 10 (19), 1989, pp. 107–121 gelo’s ‘Pietà’ for the Cappella del Re
Zu Michelangelos Relief der Ken- Roma, Ospedaletto 1995 AeH, 21 (42), 2000, pp. 101–117 politisches Gesamtkunstwerk”, in: (Wallace, 1989a) di Francia”, in: “Il se rendit en
taurenschlacht”, in: Michelangelo. M. E. Tittoni (ed.), Il Palazzo dei R. C. Trexler/M. E. Lewis, “Two W. Busch (ed.), Funkkolleg Kunst. W. E. Wallace, “The Lantern of Italie”: Études offertes à André
Neue Beiträge, 2000, pp. 17–92 Conservatori e il Palazzo Nuovo in Captains and Three Kings: New Eine Geschichte der Kunst im Wan- Michelangelo’s Medici Chapel”, Chastel, ed. G. Briganti, Rome
H. Thies, Michelangelo. Das Kapitol, Campidoglio: momenti di storia Light on the Medici Chapel”, in: del ihrer Funktionen, 2 vols, 2nd in: MKIF, 33 (1), 1989, pp. 17–36 1987, pp. 77–119 (Weil-Garris
Munich 1982 urbana di Roma, Ospedaletto 1996 Studies in Medieval and Renaissance edn, Munich 1991, II, pp. 363–391 (Wallace, 1989b) Brandt, 1987a)
H. Thode, Michelangelo. Kritische M. E. Tittoni (ed.), Il Palazzo dei History, 4, 1981, pp. 91–177 (Verspohl, 1991a) W. E. Wallace, “How did Michelan- K. Weil-Garris Brandt, “Twenty-Five
Untersuchungen über seine Werke, 3 Conservatori e il Palazzo Nuovo in N. Turner/R. Eitel Porter, Italian F.-J. Verspohl, “Der Moses des Michel- gelo become a Sculptor?”, in: Questions about Michelangelo’s
vols, Berlin 1908–1913 Campidoglio: momenti di un grande Drawings in the Department of angelo”, in: Städel-Jahrbuch, 13, The Genius of the Sculptor, 1992, Sistine Ceiling”, in: Apollo, 26
C. Thoenes, “St. Peter 1534–46: restauro a Roma, Ospedaletto 1997 Prints and Drawings in the British 1991, pp. 155–176 (Verspohl, 1991b) pp. 151–167 (Wallace, 1992a) (310), 1987, pp. 392–400 (Weil-
Sangallos Holzmodell und seine C. de Tolnay, “Zu den späten archi- Museum: Roman Baroque Drawings F.-J. Verspohl, Michelangelo Buonar- W. E. Wallace, “Michelangelo’s Garris Brandt, 1987b)
Vorstufen”, in: Evers, 1995, tektonischen Projekten Michel- c. 1620 to c. 1700, exh. cat., roti und Niccolò Machiavelli. Der Rome Pietà. Altarpiece or Grave K. Weil-Garris Brandt, “Michel-
pp. 101–109, 360–378 angelos”, in: JbPKS, 51, 1930, London 1999 David, die Piazza, die Republik, Memorial?”, in: Verrocchio and angelo’s Early Projects for the
C. Thoenes, “Osservazioni sulla fac- pp. 1–48 and 53, 1932, pp. 231–253 N. Turner/J. M. Matilla, Museo del Berne/Vienna 2001 Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, Sistine Ceiling. Their Practical and
ciata di San Pietro di Michelange- C. de Tolnay, “Michelangelostudien Prado, Catálogo de Dibujos, Tomo F.-J. Verspohl, Michelangelo Buonar- ed. S. C. Bule et al., Florence 1992, Artistic Consequences”, in: Michel-
lo”, in: C. Thoenes, Sostegno e ador- (Die Jugendwerke)”, in: JbPKS, 54, V: Dibujos Italianos del Siglo XVI, roti und Papst Julius II. Moses – pp. 243–255 (Wallace, 1992b) angelo Drawings, 1992, pp. 56–87
namento, Milan 1998, pp. 48–57 1933, pp. 95–122 Madrid 2004 Heerführer, Gesetzgeber, Musenlenk- W. E. Wallace, Michelangelo at San (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1992a)
C. Thoenes, “Michelangelos St. C. de Tolnay, “Michelangelo’s Ron- R. J. Tuttle, “Palazzo Farnese a er, Göttingen/Berne 2004 Lorenzo. The Genius as Entrepre- K. Weil-Garris Brandt, “The Nurse of
Peter”, in: Römisches Jahrbuch der danini ‘Pietà’”, in: BM, 65 (379), Roma”, in: Jacopo Barozzi da J. Vicioso, “La Basilica di San Gio- neur, Cambridge 1994 Settignano. Michelangelo’s Begin-
Bibliotheca Hertziana, 37, 2006. 1934, pp. 146–157 Vignola, ed. R. J. Tuttle and B. vanni dei Fiorentini a Roma: Indi- W. E. Wallace, Michelangelo. Selected nings as a Sculptor”, in: The Genius
Ch. Thoenes, “Über die Grösse der C. de Tolnay, “Le Jugement Dernier Adorni, Milan 2002, pp. 196–205 viduazione delle vicende progettua- Scholarship in English, 5 vols, of the Sculptor, 1992, pp. 21–43
Peterskirche”, in: Satzinger/ de Michel Ange”, in: Art Quarterly, W. R. Valentiner, “Michelangelo’s li”, in: Bollettino d’arte, 77 (72), New York/London 1995 (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1992b)
778 779
K. Weil-Garris Brandt (ed.), J. Wilde, “Michelangelo and Leonar- R. Wittkower, La cupola di San Pietro F. Zöllner, “Leon Battista Albertis
Michelangelo. La Cappella Sistina. do”, in: BM, 95, 1953, pp. 65–77 di Michelangelo: Riesame critico delle ‘De pictura’. Die kunsttheoretische
Documentazione e interpretazioni. (Wilde 1953b) testimonianze contemporanee, und literarische Legitimierung von
Atti del Convegno Internazionale di J. Wilde, “Michelangelo’s Designs for Florence 1964 Affektübertragung und Kunst-
Studi, Roma, marzo 1990, Novara the Medici Tombs”, in: JWCI, 18, R. Wittkower, “Michelangelo’s Dome genuß”, in: Georges-Bloch-Jahrbuch
1994 (Weil-Garris Brandt, 1994a) 1955, pp. 54–64 of St. Peter’s”, in: R. Wittkower, des Kunstgeschichtlichen Seminars
K. Weil-Garris Brandt, “Cangianti e J. Wilde, “The Decoration of the Sis- Idea and Image: Studies in the der Universität Zurich, 4, 1997,
cambiamenti nei colori di Michel- tine Chapel”, in: Proceedings of the Italian Renaissance, London 1978, pp. 23–39
angelo sulla volta della Cappella British Academy, 44, 1958, pp. 61–81 pp. 72–89 F. Zöllner, La “Battaglia di Anghiari”
Sistina”, in: K. Weil-Garris Brandt, J. Wilde, Michelangelo. Six Lectures, R. and M. Wittkower, The Divine di Leonardo da Vinci fra mitologia e
1994a, pp. 167–188 (Weil-Garris ed. J. Shearman and M. Hirst, Michelangelo. The Florentine politica (XXXVII Lettura Vinciana),
Brandt, 1994b) Oxford 1978 (reprint 1991) Academy’s Homage on His Death Florence 1998
K. Weil-Garris Brandt, “A Marble in E. Wind, “The Crucifixion of in 1564, London 1964 F. Zöllner, Michelangelos Fresken in
Manhattan. The Case for Michel- Haman”, in: JWCI, 1, 1937–1938, R. and M. Wittkower, Born under der Sixtinischen Kapelle. Gesehen von
angelo”, in: BM, 138, 1996, pp. 245–248 Saturn. The Character and Conduct Giorgio Vasari und Ascanio Condivi,
pp. 644–659 E. Wind, “Sante Pagnini and Michel- of Artists: A Documented History Freiburg 2002
K. Weil-Garris Brandt, “More on angelo: A Study of the Succession from Antiquity to the French F. Zöllner, Leonardo da Vinci 1452–
Michelangelo and the Manhattan of Savonarola”, in: GBA, 26, 1944, Revolution, London 1969 (first 1519. Sämtliche Gemälde und Zeich-
Marble”, in: BM, 139, 1997, pp. 211–246 published 1963) nungen, Cologne 2003
pp. 400–404 E. Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the H. Wölfflin, Die Jugendwerke des F. Zöllner, “Die Quellen zu Michel-
K. Weil-Garris Brandt, “I primordi Renaissance, London 1958 Michelangelo, Munich 1891 angelos Deckenfresken in der
di Michelangelo scultore”, in: E. Wind, “Maccabean Histories in A. Wright, “The Myth of Hercules”, Sixtinischen Kapelle”, in: Kunsthis-
Giovinezza di Michelangelo, 1999, the Sistine Ceiling. A Note on in: G. C. Garfagnini (ed.), Lorenzo torische Arbeitsblätter, 7/8, 2004,
pp. 69–103 Michelangelo’s Use of the Malermi il Magnifico e il suo mondo, Flor pp. 37–46
K. Weil-Garris Brandt/N. Baldini, Bible”, in: Italian Renaissance ence 1994, pp. 323–339 F. Zöllner, Sandro Botticelli, Munich
“Cronologia ragionata del periodo Studies. A Tribute to the Late C. M. R. Wünsche, Der Torso. Ruhm und 2005 (Zöllner, 2005a)
giovanile di Michelangelo (1475– Ady, ed. E. F. Jacob, London 1960, Rätsel, exh. cat., Munich 1998 F. Zöllner, “Leonardo und Michelan-
1504) con particolare riguardo al pp. 312–327 B. Wyss, Der Wille zur Kunst. Zur gelo: Vom Auftragskünstler zum
primo soggiorno romano”, in: E. Wind, “Michelangelo’s Prophets ästhetischen Mentalität der Moderne, Ausdruckskünstler”, in: Leonardo
Giovinezza di Michelangelo, 1999, and Sibyls”, in: Art and Politics in Cologne 1996 da Vinci all’Europa. Einem Mythos
pp. 435–451 Renaissance Italy. British Academy V. Zanchettin, “Un disegno auf den Spuren, ed. M. Huberty
M. Weinberger, Michelangelo Sculptor, Lectures, Oxford 1993, pp. 263–300 sconosciuto di Michelangelo per and R. Ubbidiente, Berlin 2005,
2 vols, London/New York 1967 (first published in Proceedings of l’architrave del tamburo della pp. 131–167 (Zöllner, 2005b)
F. Wickhoff, “Die Antike im the British Academy, 51, 1960, cupola di San Pietro in Vaticano“, F. Zöllner, “Was die Satyrn lehrten”,
Bildungsgange Michelangelos”, pp. 47–84) in: Römisches Jahrbuch der in: DIE ZEIT, 29.07.2010, No. 31
in: Mitteilungen des Instituts für M. Winner, “Michelangelo’s ‘Il Bibliotheca Hertziana, 37, 2006 F. Zöllner, “Michelangelo und die
Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 3 Sogno’ as an Example of an Artist’s (published 2008). Antike. Die Drei Satyrn aus der
(3), 1882, pp. 408–435 Visual Reflection in His Drawings”, V. Zanchettin, “La verità della pietra, Sammlung Lorenzos de’ Medici”,
J. Wilde, “Due modelli di Michel- in: Michelangelo Drawings, 1992, Michelangelo e la construzione in in: M. Heun, S. Rößler und B. Rux
angelo ricomposti”, in: Dedalo, 8, pp. 227–242 trevertino di San Pietro“, in: (ed.), Kosmos Antike. Zur Rezeption
1928, pp. 653–671 (Wilde, 1928a) M. Winner, “Jona: Die Körper- Satzinger/Schütze 2008. und Transformation antiker Ideen
J. Wilde, “Zwei Modelle Michel- sprache”, in: Pietrangeli, 1993, V. Zanchettin, “Il tamburo della in der Kunst, Weimar 2015,
angelos für das Julius-Grabmal”, pp. 110–119, 268 cupola di San Pietro in Vaticano“, pp. 241–249
in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen M. Winner, “Il linguaggio del corpo in: Mussolin 2009. F. Zöllner, “Prestigeauftrag für
Sammlungen in Vienna, 2, 1928, di Giona”, in: Weil-Garris Brandt, V. Zanchettin, “Michelangelo e il Michelangelo”, in: Frankfurter All-
pp. 199–218 (Wilde, 1928b) 1994a, pp. 195–199 disegno per la costruzione in pietra: gemeine Zeitung 15.9.2011
J. Wilde, “Eine Studie Michelangelos R. Wittkower, “Michelangelo’s ragioni e metodi nella rappresen-
nach der Antike”, in: MKIF, 4 (1), Biblioteca Laurenziana”, in: AB, 16, tazione in proiezione ortogonale“,
1932–1934, pp. 41–64 1934, pp. 123–218 in: Maurer/Nova 2012.
780 781
INDEX
Cavalieri, Giovanni Battista Cranach, Lucas, the Elder 698 F

Crucifixion of St Peter (copy after Credi, Lorenzo di 606 Fabriano, Andrea Gilio da 567,
Index Michelangelo) 559, 567
Cavalieri, Tommaso de’ 381,
Cronaca, Il (Simone del Pollaiuolo)
85, 301, 313, 606, 662
568, 702
Faleti, Bernardo 499, 541, 722, 724,
384, 387–390, 408, 497, 584, 727, 744, 745
626–628, 698, 724 D Fancelli, Sandro 553
Cellini, Benvenuto 22, 24, 613, Dante (Dante Alighieri) 26, 272, Farnese, Alessandro (see Pope
625, 662 367, 393, 394, 399, 408, 475, 483, Paul III)
Cencio, Bernardo 331, 628 558, 623, 628, 647, 685, 694, 695, Farnese, family 15, 392, 527
A Beatrizet, Nicolas 558, 567, 698, Bramante, Donato 141, 296, 303, Cerceau, Jacques Androuet Du (see 698, 746 Farnese Hercules 696
Adriani, Marcello Virgilio 662 702, 727, 735, 736 311, 500, 501, 508, 511, 513, 514, Du Cerceau, J acques Androuet) Danti, Vincenzio 568 Farnese, Pier Luigi 735, 736, 747
Agnello, Onorato 690 Conversion of Saul (copy after 516, 531, 618, 623, 663, 718, 731, Cervini, Cardinal Marcello 728 Delacroix, Eugène 400 Farnese, Cardinal Ranuccio 735
Agnolo, Baccio d’ 301–304, Michelangelo) 558, 567, 702 747 Cesena, Biagio da (see Martinelli Desiderio da Settignano Fattucci, Giovan Francesco 120,
710–713 Belvedere Apollo 397, 660, 696 Brambilla, Ambrogio 396, 397 da Cesena, Biagio) Dudley Madonna 588 128, 318, 319, 374, 615, 632, 644,
Agostino di Duccio 74, 76, 605, Belvedere Torso 676, 696 Brecht, Bertolt 706 Charles V, Emperor 374, 392 Donatello (Donato di Niccolò) 663, 714, 715, 717, 720
606 Bentivoglio, family 123 Bregno, Andrea 602 Charles VIII King of France 314, 588 Ferrabosco, Martino 513, 733
Alberti, Cherubino 724 Bentivoglio, Giovanni 41 Piccolomini Altar 602–603 38, 41, 56, 91, 601 David (bronze) 76, 82, 85, 86, Ferratini, Bartolommeo 575
Alberti, Leandro 42 Berenson, Bernard 70, 720 Brunelleschi, Filippo 301–303, Chigi, Agostino 120 606–607 Ficino, Marsilio 598, 677
Alberti, Leon Battista 630, 658, Bernini, Gian Lorenzo 495, 544 310, 311, 313, 314, 339, 512, 531, Cicero 31 David (marble) 76, 82, 85, Figiovanni, Giovan Battista 339,
743 Bertoldo di Giovanni 30 631, 720 Clement VII, Pope (Giulio de’ 86, 605 374, 714, 717
Albertini, Francesco 591 Battle relief 27, 27, 30, 31 Bruni, Leonardo 662 Medici) 143, 300, 304, 311, 316, Feast of Herod 588 Filarete, Francesco di Lorenzo 85
Aldovrandi, Gianfrancesco 41, Portrait medal of Filippo de’ Bufalini, Leonardo 339, 343, 346, 359, 381, 390, 392, Gattamelata 499 Bronze doors of St Peter’s 64,
42, 595 Medici 392, 394, 397, 695 Plan of Rome 497, 497, 727 393, 394, 495, 631, 633, 635, 636, Judith 85, 606 703
Aldrovandi, Ulisse 594, 630 Bicci, Giovanni di (see Giovanni Buffalmacco, Bonamico 645, 690, 691, 695, 696, 698, Madonna of the Clouds 588 Fra Angelico 637
Alghisi, Galeazzo 736 d’Averardo de’ Medici) Last Judgement 391, 394, 695 714, 715, 720 Donati, Manno 101, 104, 662, Fra Giocondo 296
Alidosi, Cardinal Francesco 129, Bigio, Baccio (Giovanni di Lepo) Buonarroti, family 148, 300, 585, Clovio, Paolo 702 663 Francese, Antonio del 584, 648
615, 664, 665 316, 318, 508, 523, 718, 736, 588 Cock, Hieronymus 727 Doni, Agnolo 98, 659, 660 Francis I, King of France 304,
Alighieri, Dante (see Dante 747, 748 Buonarroti, Giovansimone 561 Colonna, Vittoria 381, 397, 406, Doni, Anton Francesco 637, 659 579, 621
Alighieri) Bilhères-Lagraulas, Cardinal Jean Buonarroti, Lionardo 568, 572, 408, 409, 411, 560–562, 572, 650 Doni, Maria 659 Frederick the Wise, Elector of
Amelia, Piermatteo d’ 128 de 56, 73, 599–601 576, 580, 584, 588, 589, 626, Condivi, Ascanio 8, 18–20, 22, Dosio, Giovanni Antonio 501, 534, Saxony 698
Ammannati, Bartolomeo 318, 320, Boccaccio, Giovanni 590 649, 651 23, 30, 38, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 58, 727, 732, 734 Freud, Sigmund 324
321, 719, 748 Bologna, Giovanni da Buonarroti, Ludovico 19, 49 64, 74, 109, 110, 112, 115, 116, Duca, Antonio Del 535, 741–744 Frizzi, Federigo 331, 334, 629
Ango, Jean-Robert 594 (see Giambologna) Buoninsegni, Domenico 307, 308, 118–119, 203, 296, 300, 304, 327, Duca, Jacopo Del 540, 553, 744, Fuseli, Henry 344, 368
Apelles 601 Borghini, Don Vincenzo 585, 639, 711, 712, 715 360, 367, 393, 394, 399, 405, 745
Arca, Niccolò dell’ (see Niccolò 641, 645, 659 408, 409, 461, 553, 558, 579, Duccio, Agostino di (see Agostino G
dell’Arca) Borghini, Raffaelle 588 C 589–595, 597–598, 600–602, di Duccio) Galli, Jacopo 49, 56, 57, 594, 597,
Arch of Titus 674 Borromeo, Carlo 535 Calcagni, Tiberio 531, 646 605, 607–609, 612–614, 617, Du Cerceau (Ducerceau), Jacques 598, 600
Aretino, Pietro 399, 404, 695, Borromeo, Giovanni 589 Brutus 646, 646 618–622, 628, 634, 641, 642, 645, Androuet 592, 593 Gamucci, Bernardo 727, 741,
696 Borromini, Francesco 495, 741 Florentine Pietà 547, 569, 576, 649, 659, 665, 670, 672, 674, Dupérac, Etienne 503, 507, 511, 743, 744
Ariosto, Ludovico 18 Boschi, Fabrizio 748 648, 648–651 695, 699, 702, 711, 720 513, 514, 522, 713, 721, 722, 724, Gauricus, Pomponius 656, 657,
Bosco, Maso del 617 Porta Pia 745, 746 Conte, Jacopino del 727–732, 729, 734, 744 659, 660
B Boscoli, Tommaso di Pietro 553 S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini 533, Portrait of Michelangelos 6, 22 Durandus, Gulielmus 703 Gessner, Conrad 492
Bacon, Francis 80 Bottari, Giovanni 538 738–739 Copernicus, Nikolaus 697 Dürer, Albrecht 93 Ghiberti, Lorenzo 26
Bandinelli, Baccio 577, 588, 644, Botticelli, Sandro 82, 606, 611, S. Maria Maggiore 532, 740, 741 Cordier, Nicolas 619 Gates of Paradise 670, 678, 684
662, 713 684 Campagnola, Domenico 566, 703 Cosimo, Piero di (see Piero di E Ghirlandaio, Davide 82, 656
Hercules and Cacus 38, 76, 644 Birth of Venus 674 Carpi, Cardinal Rodolfo Pio Cosimo) Ebu, Bishop Giovanni 56, 658 Ghirlandaio, Domenico 23, 24,
Bandini, Francesco 648 Madonna del Libro 612 da 579 Cosini, Silvio Este, Duke Alfonso d’ 123 656
Bandini, Pierantonio 648 Madonna del Magnificat 612 Carus, Carl Gustav 89 Trophies S. Lorenzo 348, 356, Giambologna (Jean Boulogne)
Bartolini, Lionardo di 9, 11, 12 Bracci, Cecchino 749 Catalani, Mattia 741–744 635 Victory of Virtue over Vice 627
782 783
MICHEL ANGELO INDEX
Giannotti, Donato 646, 647 L Marchesi, Giovanni de’ 553 365, 366, 367, 373, 373, 631, 634, 302, 303, 304, 307–311, 313, Laurentian Library 312
Giotto di Bondone 26, 27 Labacco, Antonio 303, 730–732 Martelli, Niccolò 359, 638 638, 638–640, 714, 715 327, 331, 343, 710, 710–713, 713 Florence cathedral 530
Ascension of St John the Lactantius 236, 681 Martinelli da Cesena, Biagio 397, Medici, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco Laurentian Library 108, 149, 295, S. Lorenzo 302
Evangelist 20, 24 Lafréry, Antonio 727, 730, 731, 736, 399, 694, 696, 741 de’ 42, 45, 597, 647 296, 304, 312, 313, 314, 315, Battle of Cascina 84, 102/103, 122
Frescoes of the Arena Chapel 689 737, 737 Martini, Luca 738 Medici, Piero de’ 38, 41, 42, 49, 56, 317, 318, 343, 495, 500, 503, Figures 21, 25, 83, 84, 117, 122, 749
Stefaneschi altarpiece 703 Landino, Cristoforo 26, 590, 677 Masaccio (Tommaso Cassai) 23, 343, 346, 593 514, 535, 544, 711, 716, 717, Gift drawings
Giovanni, Bertoldo di (see Landucci, Luca 86, 607 24, 26 Meleager sarcophagus 575, 672 717–719, 720 – Fall of Phaeton 385, 386
Bertoldo di Giovanni) Laocoön 121, 124, 613, 650, 660, 685 Tribute Money 24, 26 Meleghino, Jacopo 735, 736, 747 New Sacristy/Medici Chapel – Punishment of Tityos 382/383
Giovio, Paolo 22 Lapo, Antonio di Lapo di 610 frescoes in the Brancacci 108, 149, 301, 301, 304, 306, – Rape of Ganymede 380
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von 152, Lapo Bicchiellini, Nicholaio di Chapel 24, 672 307, 312, 313, 315, 339, 343, Tombs
492, 654 Giovanni di 592 Mausoleum at Halicarnassus 618 Michelangelo Buonarroti 346, 350/351, 352/353, 354, 355, Magnifici double tomb
Gonzaga, Cardinal Ercole 405, Le Mercier, Jacques 533, 739 Medici, family 19, 27, 30, 38, Architecture 356, 359, 390, 392, 534, 631, 376
700 Leo X, Pope (Giovanni de’ 41, 42, 73, 76, 85, 86, 143, 148, Capitol 15, 108, 334, 393, 494, 495, 711, 714, 715, 714–716 Tomb for Cecchino Bracci 749
Gonzaga, Federigo 589 Medici) 12, 143, 149, 296, 300, 300–302, 318, 321, 322, 327, 339, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 503, Reliquary Tribune 304, 711, 720 Ducal tombs 375
Granacci, Francesco 23, 82 304, 308, 311, 327, 343, 346, 359, 343, 346, 348, 359, 373, 374, 377, 507, 508, 535, 541, 721, 721, 722, S. Maria degli Angeli 495, 531, Julius Tomb 111, 113, 117, 119
Rest on the Flight to Egypt 656 631, 708, 710, 711, 714, 715 531, 585, 598, 606, 607, 629–635, 722, 724, 725, 726, 727, 735 535, 540, 542/543, 741, 742, 743 Last Judgement 398
Grassis, Paris de 118, 664 Leonardo da Vinci 22, 26, 33, 82, 637, 642–646, 708, 712 Conservators’ Palace 496–503, 741–744 Receipt of Michelangelo 11
Gregory the Great, Pope 404, 606, 608, 610, 662, 739 Medici, Duke Alessandro de’ 504/505, 506, 507, 509, 535, 723, S. Maria del Fiore, cupola Sistine ceiling 136/137, 139, 140, 151
602, 619 Aristotle and Phyllis 685 346, 646, 647 724, 727 drum 298, 299, 301, 709, Sculptures
Guicciardini, Michele 579 Battle of Anghiari, Tavola Doria Medici, Cosimo de’ (il Vecchio) Piazza and Equestrian Monument 709–710 Bruges Madonna 84
Guidetti, Guidetto 499, 503, 724 (16th-century copy after 85, 311, 316, 343, 346 (Marcus Aurelius) S. Maria Maggiore, Sforza David 83
Leonardo da Vinci) 98, 100, Medici, Duke Cosimo I de’ 318, 334, 496, 498, 499, 727 Chapel 15, 495, 532–535, 536/537, Slaves 117
H 101, 104–105, 663 343, 495, 522, 579, 584, 588, 645, Senator’s Palace, façade 496–500, 539, 541, 707, 740, 739, 741 Sonnet by Michelangelos 151
Heemskerck, Marten van 496, 597 Last Supper 56, 490 728, 730, 736, 738, 748 501, 502, 503, 507, 723, 723, St Peter 15, 108, 109, 118, 150, 296, Studies after
Bacchus in Jacopo Galli’s collection Virgin and Child with St Medici, Grand Duke Cosimo II 724, 727, 747 303. 393, 411, 493, 495, 508, 510, Giotto
of antiquities in Rome 48 Anne 659–660 de’ 588 Via Capitolina, Cordonata 721 514, 517, 510, 512, 515, 516, 517, – The Ascension of St John
Holanda, Francisco de 48, 49, 727 Leoni, Leone, Portrait medallion of Medici, Grand Duke Cosimo III Castel S. Angelo, Chapel of 518/519, 521, 523, 532, , 577, 579, the Evangelist 21
Hulst, Pieter van der 742 Michelangelo 560, 568, 572, 704 de’ 648 Leo X 297, 300, 708, 709, 747 727–734, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733 Masaccio
Hyginus 590 Letarouilly, Paul 736 Medici, Filippo de’ 392, 394 Farnese Palace 303, 393, 495, Cupola/Dome 303, 493, 511, – The Tribute Money 25
Ligorio, Pirro 727, 731 Medici, Grand Duke Francesco I 524/525, 526, 529, 691, 724, 735, 513, 514, 517, 518/519, 520, 521,
I Lippi, Filippino 82, 606 de’ 624, 645 735–737, 736, 737 522, 522, 523, 532, 728, 731,
Ignatius von Loyola 535 Lippi, Fra Filippo 637 Medici, Giovanni d’Averardo de’ Florence cathedral (see S. Maria del 732, 734 Paintings
Innocent VIII, Pope 56, 64, 115 Lomazzo, Gian Paolo 126, 406, (Giovanni di Bicci) 311, 343, 346 Fiore) 76, 91, 298, 299, 301, 709 Hemicycles 311, 510, 512, 515, 732, Battle of Cascina 93, 99–101, 101,
571, 577 Medici, Giovanni de’ (see Pope Fortifications 297, 320, 321, 323, 734, 748 102/103, 104, 116, 122, 603, 661,
J Loyola, Ignatius of (see Ignatius Leo X) 320–323, 393, 719, 719–720, 747 Tiber bridge, repairing the 747 661–663
Julius II, Pope (Giuliano della of Loyola) 535 Medici, Giuliano de’ 343, 346, 348, Mausoleum of Augustus, façade 748 Trajan’s Column, enclosure 748 Doni Tondo 91, 92, 97, 98, 99, 656,
Rovere) 91, 108–110, 112, 114, Lucchino, Vincenzo 728, 731, 732 373, 714 Medici Palace, windows 720 Vatican, fortification 747 659, 659–661, 669
116, 118–121, 128, 129, 134, 142, Lucian 598 Medici, Duke Giuliano de’ 343, Padua cathedral, choir and transept Villa Giulia 747, 748 Last Judgement 15, 22, 134, 138, 279,
143, 147–150, 327, 331, 381, 393, Lysippus 599 346, 348, 349, 354, 356, 359, 361, apses 748 390–409, 401, 503, 549, 577, 580,
404, 500, 511, 549, 614–623, 362/363, 367, 373, 631, 633, 634, Porta Pia 15, 495, 535, 540, 544, 616, 617, 655, 686, 690–699,
663, 665–667, 669, 670, 677, M 638, 640, 640, 641, 714, 715 545, 731, 744, 744–746 Drawings and studies 692, 693
680, 684 Machiavelli, Niccolò 90, 607, 663 Medici, Cardinal Giulio de’ (see Quirinal/Piazza Venezia, Anatomical and proportional studies Angels of the Last Judgement,
Julius III, Pope 508, 535, 577, 728, Macpherson, Robert 658 Pope Clement VII) stairway 748 83, 136/137, 139, 140 Saints and the Damned 444,
738, 742, 747, 748 Malermi, Nicolò 229, 668, 670, Medici, Cardinal Ippolito de’ 381 Residential projects 747 Architecture 117, 302, 305, 312, 320, 445, 446–450, 451, 452–456,
Justi, Carl 36, 336, 590, 696 672, 674, 676–678, 680–682, Medici, Lorenzo de’ (il Magnifico) S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini 304, 321, 323, 719, 749 457, 458, 459
684 7, 19, 27, 38, 73, 316, 343, 346, 495, 527, 530, 532, 533, 534, 544, Antique studies (after Codex Christ as Judge with the Virgin and
K Manetti, Latino Giovenale 497 348, 373, 589, 590–593, 631, 714 738, 739, 738, 739, 745 Coner) 305 Saints 429–432, 433, 435–443
Kneeling Venus 696 Manilli, Jacomo 594 Medici, Duke Lorenzo de’ 346, S. Lorenzo Architectural details 117, 305 Instruments of the Passion 411,
Mann, Thomas 378 348, 349, 352/353, 355, 356, 359, Façade 12, 108, 149, 301, 301, Fortifications 320, 321, 323, 719 413, 414–428
784 785
MICHEL ANGELO INDEX
Limbo and Charon’s Bark – The Flood 135, 138, 171, Ignudi 127, 135, 138, 143, 160, Active Life (see Leah) – Night (Notte) 354, 357, Milanese, Baldassare del 45
474, 475, 476–482, 483, 172–175, 667, 670–672, 671 163, 176, 179, 184/185, 195, 196, Awakening Slave 624, 625 367, 371, 633, 634, 641, 641 Mini, Giovanbattista Paolo 633
484–489 – Sacrifice of Noah 138, 177, 212, 215, 222/223, 228, 231, Bearded Slave 624, 624 Tomb of Lorenzo de’ Medici Mithras-Relief 684
Minos 490, 491 180–183, 671, 672 666, 667, 676–680, 679 Contemplative Life (see Rachel) 327, 328, 331, 343, 346, 348, Mochi, Prospero 736
Resurrection of the Flesh 460, – Separation of Land and Prophets 135, 138, 236, 237–239, Dying Slave 327, 328, 329, 330, 352/353, 355, 356, 359, 631, 638, Modersohn-Becker, Paula 546
461, 462–465, 466, 467, 468, Water 135, 213, 216–223, 242–245, 247–249, 252, 253, 332, 335, 619, 620, 620–622 638, 639 Montelupo, Raffaello da 346, 550,
469–473, 495 667, 675, 675, 678 256, 260/261, 680–684, 682, Leah (Active Life) 110, 114, 115, – Dawn (Aurora) 348, 355, 553, 616, 628, 709, 712, 715
London Entombment 56, 591, 657, – Separation of Light and 683 331, 550, 552, 553, 558, 559, 614, 364, 365, 369, 374, 639, 639 St Damian (copy after
656–658 Darkness 135, 138, 229, – Jonah 141, 142, 142, 616, 617, 619, 620, 627, 627 – Dusk (Crepuscolo) 348, Michelangelo) 348, 631
Manchester Madonna 656, 656, 232–235, 667, 675, 675–678 260/261, 666, 681, Madonna and Child 112, 115, 116, 355, 364, 370, 374, 639, 639 Montorsoli, Giovanni Angiolo da
657 History of the Israelites 682–684, 683 327, 615, 616 – Lorenzo de’ Medici 348, St Cosmas 346, 631
Pauline Chapel 93, 108, 112, 393, 141, 263, 271, 272, 684–687 Sibyls 135, 138, 236, 240/241, 246, Moses 110, 112, 114, 115, 326, 328, 349, 356, 359, 365, 366, 367, Mosaics of S. Paolo fuori le Mura 674
406, 549, 560, 563, 564/565, 560, – The Brazen Serpent 141, 250/251, 254, 255, 257–259, 618, 331, 337, 338, 550, 553, 559, 638, 638 Mouscron, Jean-Alexandre 93,
563, 568, 572, 575, 576, 580, 148, 271, 274/275, 666, 666, 668, 669, 680–684, 682 560, 614–620, 622, 622, 623 Piccolomini Altar 73, 91, 93, 602, 609
700–704 684–686, 685 St Francis Receiving the Stigmata 56 Prisoners (see Slaves) 603, 603, 609, 611, 612
The Conversion of Saul 10, 26, – David and Goliath 141, Prophets 550, 553, 560 St Gregory 602, 602, 603 N
554/555, 558, 563, 566–568, 572, 147, 264, 265, 267/268, 666, Rachel (Contemplative Life) 331, St Paul 87, 88, 93, 602, 602, 603 Nelli, Giovanni Battista 710, 713
700, 700–704 684, 685 Sculpture 550, 551, 553, 558, 559, 614, St Peter 602, 602, 603 Neri, Filippo 535
The Crucifixion of St Peter 13, – Judith and Holofernes 141, Apollo, Florence 343, 377, 645, 616, 617, 619, 620, 627, 625 St Pius 602, 602, 603 Nicholas V, Pope 109, 496, 500,
556/557, 559, 563, 566, 567, 572, 146, 262, 263, 266/267, 645, 646 Rebellious Slave 326, 327, 328, Pitti Tondo 8, 91, 98, 603, 610, 611, 618
701, 700–704, 705 666, 669, 684–686, 685 Apollo/Cupid, New York 49, 593, 332, 335, 620, 620–622 611, 612 Niccolò dell’Arca 42, 595, 596
Sistine ceiling 24, 105, 108, 112, 128, – Punishment of Haman 141, 593, 594 Sibyl 550, 553, 616–618 Risen Christ 628, 628–631 St Vitalis of Bologna 596
129, 130–133, 134–150, 142, 143, 149, 272, 276/277, 666, Bacchus 37, 45, 46–49, 47, 53, 54, Slave Atlas 624, 624 Risen Christ (Il Cristo sopra Nietzsche, Friedrich 52
146, 147, 148, 149, 155–158, 296, 684–686, 685, 691 64, 597, 597–599, 656 Slaves 109, 319, 343, 615, 618, Minerva) 108, 334, 339, 345, 347, Nogari, Paris
364, 371, 396, 413, 560, 664/665, History of the Maccabeans 135, Battle of the Centaurs 8, 9, 17, 26, 620–622, 624–626 628, 628–631 Idealized veduta of St Peter’s 517
663–689, 671, 673, 675, 679, 682, 162, 178, 197, 214, 230, 28/29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 42, Young Slave 624, 624 Roman Pietà 56–58, 59, 60/61, 62,
683, 685, 687, 688 676–680 91, 93, 104, 568, 580, 589, 589, Victory 114, 116, 340, 342, 343, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 73, 91, 93, O
Ancestors of Christ 135, 138, 142, – Alexander the Great before 590 616, 626, 626, 627 96, 339, 373, 587, 599, 599–601, Ovid 30, 390, 590, 598, 677, 681
278, 279, 280–293, 666–668, the High Priest 197, 199, Bruges Madonna 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, Madonna of the Stairs (Madonna 609
670, 684, 686–689, 687, 678, 679, 680 98, 608, 608, 609, 612, 657 della Scala) 30, 98, 588, 588, 589 Rondanini Pietà 549, 560, 578, 580, P
688, 691 – Death of Absalom 214, 219, Brutus 549, 646, 646, 647 Medici Chapel 108, 112, 116, 150, 581, 584, 650–652, 651, 653 Pagnini, Sante 665
Biblical narratives 135, 141, 194, 678, 679 Crucifix, S. Spirito 38, 591, 591, 592 304, 343, 346, 359, 364, 367, 371, Sleeping Cupid 9, 42, 45, 46 Palla, Giovanbattista della 592
670–676 – Death of Nicanor 197, 198, David (bronze) 85, 91, 93, 603 373, 374, 377, 549, 553, 631–636 St John the Baptist 42 Palladio, Andrea 495, 501, 503
– Creation of Adam 135, 203, 678, 679, 680 David (marble) 42, 71, 72, 73–76 Crouching Youth 635, 642, 643 St Matthew 91, 121, 125, 612, 612, Pallavicino, Francesco 727
202–211, 666, 667, 673, 674 – Elijah in his Chariot of 75, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, 90, Magnifici double tomb 346, 613, 625 Parisani, Cardinal Ascanio 549
– Creation of Eve 135, 194, Fire 230, 232, 678, 679 91, 93, 104, 328, 568, 603, 604, 348, 349, 364, 371, 376, 631, Taddei Tondo 8, 91, 98, 99, 610, Parma, Federigo da (Bonsagni) 745
198–202, 667, 672, 673, – Fall of Antiochus 162, 166, 605, 605–608, 610, 623, 644, 633, 634 610–612 Pasquino 613
674, 680 678, 679, 680 663, 669 – Madonna and Child (Medici Tomb of St Dominic (Arca di San Pastor, Ludwig von 520
– Creation of the Sun, Moon – Healing of Naaman 214, Florentine Pietà 547, 549, 560, Madonna) 348, 553, 637, 637 Domenico) 41, 595, 596 Paul III, Pope (Alessandro Farnese)
and Plants 135, 224, 678 569, 570, 573, 574, 575–577, 648, – River God 642, 642, 643 Kneeling Angel (Angel with 297, 300, 392, 393, 406,
225–227, 667, 674–676, – Mattathias Destroys the 648–651, 698 Tomb of Giuliano de’ Medici Candlestick) 495–497, 507, 508, 523, 527, 535,
675 Altar in Modin 178, 179, Hercules 38, 46, 74, 592, 592, 593 327, 328, 331, 343, 346, 348, 41, 42, 44, 595, 596 549, 561, 563, 577, 616, 690, 691,
– Drunkenness of Noah 135, 678, 679 Julius II, bronze statue of 121, 123, 349, 354, 356, 357, 359, 367, St Petronius 40, 41, 42, 595, 694, 694, 697, 700–702, 703,
138, 141, 161, 164–169, 666, – Punishment of Heliodorus 128 371, 631, 634, 640, 640–642 595, 596 709, 718, 727, 728, 735, 736,
667, 670, 671, 677 178, 180, 678, 679, 680 Julius Tomb 12, 20, 108–118, 121, – Day (Giorno) 367, 371, St Proculus 39, 41, 42, 43, 46, 747, 748
– The Fall/Expulsion from – Sacrifice of Isaac 230, 233, 123, 128, 148, 150, 304, 310, 319, 633, 634, 641, 641, 642 595, 596 Paul IV, Pope 408, 507, 579, 748
Paradise 135, 153, 186, 187, 678, 679, 680 327, 331, 343, 356, 377, 381, 393, – Giuliano de’ Medici 348, Two Wrestlers 643, 643, 644 Pecchiai, Pio 496
188, 189, 190–193, 194, 667, – Suicide of Razis 162, 167, 404, 405, 495, 549, 550, 553, 560, 349, 356, 359, 360, 362/363, Perugino (Pietro Vanucci) 82,
672, 673, 676 678, 679, 680 580, 584, 613, 614, 614–620 634, 640 392, 606
786 787
MICHEL ANGELO INDEX
Altarpiece, Sistine Chapel R Sangallo, Francesco da 121 Strozzi, family 38, 593, 659, 661 662, 664, 667, 669, 672, 676,
(Assumption of the Virgin) 134, Rainaldi, Girolamo 500 Sangallo, Giovanni Battista da Strozzi, Filippo 592 677, 684, 690, 695, 697–699,
392, 689, 690, 694, 696 Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio) 52, 98, (il Gobbo) 713, 736 Strozzi, Giovanni di Carlo 371, 702, 704, 709–711, 715, 719, 720,
Frescoes in the Collegio del 108, 296, 304, 392, 404, 501, 508, Sangallo, Giuliano da 82, 109, 118, 634, 641 724, 727, 728, 730, 732, 734,
Cambio in Perugia 680 513, 568, 575, 610, 710, 713 120, 121, 301, 303, 304, 308, 313, Strozzi, Laurenzio 659 736–740, 743, 744–748
Peruzzi, Salvestro 727 Bridgewater Madonna 610 517, 606, 615, 710, 712 Strozzi, Maddalena 98, 659 Tomb of Michelangelo 583
Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) 590 Stanze 108, 315, 623 Sansovino, Andrea 74, 304, 606, Strozzi, Ruberto 621 Venusti, Marcello 691
Petrucci, Raffaello 708 Regnard, Valérien 738, 739, 739 710 Last Judgement (copy after
Phidias 31, 91, 541, 590 Reynolds, Sir Joshua 434 Sansovino, Jacopo 304, 307, 334, T Michelangelo) 403, 691
Philostratus 590 Riario, Cardinal Raffaele 45, 49, 710, 712, 738 Taddei, Taddeo 610, 611 Verrocchio, Andrea del
Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni 56, 597, 599 Madonna del Parto 334 Three Satyrs Fighting a Serpent Colleoni Monument 86, 499, 596
598, 677 Riccio, Luigi del 550, 560, 701 Sarto, Andrea del 304 7–8, 8 David 85
Piero di Cosimo 606 Ridolfi, Cassandra 579 Savonarola, Girolamo 41, 86, 592 Titian (Tiziano Vecellio) 499, 649 Vespignani, Virginio 544
Piombo, Sebastiano del Ridolfi, Cardinal Niccolò 549, Scappucci, Mario 331, 628 Todeschini-Piccolomini, Cardinal Vigenère, Blaise de 579
(see Sebastiano del Piombo) 646, 647 Schadow, Gottfried 68 Francesco 602 Vigerio, Marco 665
Pisani, Bishop Francesco 748 Riemenschneider, Tilman 577, 649 Schedel, Hartmann 24 Torrigiani, Pietro 23, 27, 93, 602 Vignola, Giacomo Barozzi da 523,
Pisano, Nicolà Rocchetti, Giacomo 107, 112, 617 Schmarsow, August 110, 112, 617 St Francis 93, 602 527, 734, 735, 737, 746, 747
Shrine to St Dominic 42, 595 Rohan-Gié, Pierre de 91, 603 Schongauer, Martin 23, 26 Tribolo, Niccolò 320, 634, 715, 719 Villani, Filippo 26, 662
Pistoia, Giovanni da 144, 669, 676 Romano, Giulio 405, 727 Temptation of St Anthony 24 Vimercati-Sanseverino, family 652
Pitti, Bartolommeo 611 Rosselli, Cosimo 82, 606 Sebastiano del Piombo 331, 334, U Virgil 144, 145, 387, 388, 676
Pitti, Don Miniato 406, 698 Rosselli, Piero 141, 615, 663 390, 560, 629, 632, 635, 690, Uccello, Paolo 671 Viterbo, Egidius of 665
Pius IV, Pope 499, 500, 535, 540, Rossellino, Antonio 74, 605 715, 719 Udine, Giovanni da 313, 635 Vitruv (Marcus Vitruvius
577, 723, 724, 741–744, 746, 748 Rossi, Nardo de 736 Sellaio, Leonardo 624, 632 Ughi, Francesco 736 Pollio) 513, 736
Pius IX, Pope 541, 745 Rovere, della, family 112, 142, 143, Serbelloni, Giovanni Antonio 742 Urban VIII, Pope 300 Vivo, Jacopo 396, 397
Pliny the Elder 64, 121, 575, 601, 393, 549, 550, 553, 626, 666, Ser Jacopo, Francesco di 719 Urbano, Pietro 303, 331, 334, 629, Volpaia, Bernardo della 310, 313
618, 650, 662, 676 669, 676 Serlio, Sebastiano 514, 746, 748 630, 711, 713, 713 Volterra, Daniele da 406, 577, 579,
Plutarch 31, 590 Rovere, Giuliano della (see Pope Sernini, Niccolò (Nino) 405, 700 Urbino (Francesco dell’Amadore) 584, 651, 691, 749
Pogliaghi, Lodovico 114 Julius II) Settignano, Desiderio da 553, 649
Poli, Ambrogio (Caterino) 406 Rovere, Guidobaldo della 549, 550 (see Desiderio da Settignano) Z
Poliziano, Angelo 30, 589 Rovere, Leonardo Grosso della 327 Settignano, Francesco di Giovanni V Zevi, Bruno 323
Pollaiuolo, Antonio del Rubens, Peter Paul 592 da (La Grassa) 711 Valori, Baccio (Bartolomeo) 343, Zuccari, Federico
Tomb of Pope Innocent VIII Sforza, Cardinal Guido Ascanio 374, 377, 632, 645, 646, 720 Pietà 652
64, 115 S 533, 740 Vanvitelli, Luigi 540, 731, 744
Tomb of Pope Sixtus IV 64, Salamanca, Antonio 732 Sicciolante de Sermoneta, Giro- Varchi, Benedetto 56, 367, 371,
115, 120 Salutati, Coluccio 590 lamo 372, 594, 634, 647, 719
Polyclitus 601 Salviati, Jacopo 715 Altarpiece, S. Maria Vari, Metello 331, 334, 339, 628–631
Porcari, Marta 334, 628, 630 Sangallo, family 508, 708 Maggiore 532 Vasari, Giorgio 8, 15, 18–20, 22–24,
Porrini, Gandolfo 359 Sangallo, Antonio da, the Elder Signorelli, Luca 26, 29, 30, 56, 63, 74, 90, 94, 99,
Porta, Giacomo Della 499, 500, 302, 713, 728 Last Jugdement 24, 388, 394 109, 110, 112, 114–116, 123, 138,
503, 514, 517, 522, 526, 531, 532, Sangallo, Antonio da, the Younger Madonna and Child 96, 99, 659 141–143, 294, 296, 302, 304, 315,
722, 724, 731, 734, 737, 740 297, 296, 300, 301, 303, 304, Silvestre, Israel 593 320, 367, 371, 373, 377, 397, 399,
Praxiteles 541, 598 508, 511, 513, 514, 517, 523, 527, Simmel, Georg 340 405, 408, 413, 451, 457, 458, 466,
Pucci, Lorenzo 327 563, 575, 606, 700, 708, 710, Sixtus IV, Pope 64, 108, 115, 120, 468, 490, 503, 507, 513, 514, 517,
713, 718, 727, 730, 732, 735–737, 128, 142, 143, 618, 623, 666, 527, 528, 531, 535, 544, 553, 562,
Q 747 669, 670 568, 576, 577, 584, 585, 588–592,
Quercia, Jacopo della Sangallo, Aristotile da 713, 724 Soderini, Piero 73, 119, 301, 613 594, 595, 597, 598, 600–602,
Reliefs on the portal of Battle of Cascina (copy after Specchi, Alessandro 745 605, 607, 608, 610–614,
S. Petronio 596, 670, 672, Michelangelo) 100, 101, 617, Stendhal (Marie-Henri Beyle) 34, 617–619, 621, 622, 625–628, 634,
674, 676, 681 661, 661, 662 79 637–639, 644–649, 651, 659,
788 789
CREDITS
Credits
The publisher wishes to thank the museums, libraries, Archivio Fotografico della Fabbrica di San Pietro in The Bridgeman Art Library, London: pp. 101, 102-103, © Studio Fotografico Paolo Tosi, Florence: pp. 4 t. l.,
archives and other institutions mentioned in the Vaticano, Rom. Per gentile concessione della Fabbri- 117, 122, 136-137, 376, 385, 407, 410, 661 17, 28-29, 32, 81, 97, 348 l., r., 354, 355, 560, 589, 659,
captions and in the credits for their kind assistance. ca di San Pietro in Vaticano: pp. 512, 515, 516, 518- 710
We are particularly grateful for the assistance pro- 519, 521, 522 Casa Buonarroti, Photo © Antonio Quattrone,
vided by Dott.ssa Rosanna Di Pinto of the Vatican Florence: pp. 323, 749 © The Trustees of The British Museum, London:
Museums, Dott. Pietro Zander of the Fabbrica di San Archivio Fotografico Jemolo, Rome: pp. 297, 313, 315, pp. 84, 140, 305, 375
Pietro, Dott.ssa Elisabetta Archi of the Fondazione 338, 506, 509, 526, 542-543, 583 Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery, London:
Casa Buonarroti, Paolo Tosi, Vera Silvani of the Agen- p. 395 Royal Collection Trust/ © Her Majesty Queen
zia Fotografica Scala, Noëlle Pourret and Leïla Audouy Archivio Fotografico Musei Vaticani. Per gentile Elizabeth II 2017: pp. 382-383, 386
of the Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Antonio concessione dei Musei Vaticani, Rome: pp. 10, 127, © The Detroit Institute of Arts, 1992, Detroit,
Quattrone and the collaborators at Alinari. 130-131, 142, 143, 146-149, 155-158, 163-170, 174-176, Michigan: p. 139
180-185, 187, 188, 190-193, 196, 198-202, 204-209, 212,
Abbrevations: t. = top, t. l. = top left, t. r. = top right, 216-223, 225-227, 228, 231, 234-235, 237-262, 266- Harvard University Art Museums, Fogg Art Museum,
b. = bottom, b. l. = bottom left, b. r. = bottom right, 270, 274-278, 280-293, 379, 401, 416-417, 422-423, Photo: Allan Macintyre © President and Fellows of
c. = centre. 428-432, 435-444, 448-450, 452-456, 459, 460, 462- Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts: p. 337
463, 464-465, 467, 469-474, 476-482, 484-489, 491,
517, 554-557, 564-565, 655, 664-667, 671, 673, 675, Herbert List & Max Scheler Estate, Hamburg: p. 76
Agenzia Fotografica Scala, Antella, Florence: pp. 20, 679, 682-683, 685, 687, 688, 692-693, 700-701
24, 27, 40, 44, 72, 82 l., 82 r., 87, 88, 96, 120, 124, INDEX Ricerca Iconografica, Florence: pp. 114, 299,
151, 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 309, 312, 320, 321, 326, Aurelio Amendola, Pistoia: pp. 2, 4, 5, 37, 39, 47, 50- 545, 596
329, 337, 352-353, 358, 388, 398, 403, 493, 494, 498, 51, 53-54, 62, 65, 66, 69, 71, 75, 78, 92, 95, 125, 325,
501, 510, 524-525, 530, 548, 551, 552, 591, 595 l., c., r., 332, 335, 341, 342, 361-363, 365, 366, 369, 547, 569, © National Gallery, London: pp. 656, 657
602 o. l., 604, 605 l., r., 622 r., 627 l., r., 638 r., 640 570, 573, 574, 587, 588, 593, 597 l., r., 601, 602 2.-4.
r., 643 r., 719 from l., 603, 604, 608, 611, 612, 614, 620 l., r., 624 l., © Giorgio Nimatallah, De Agostini Editore, Milan:
625 l., r., 626 l., 627 l., 628 r., 638 l., 639 l., r., 640 l., p. 35
akg-images/Erich Lessing, Berlin: p. 315 641 l., r., 642, 643 l., 645, 646, 648, 651, 653
Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Paris
ALINARI Archives, Florence: pp. 5, 77, 295, 314, 316, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome: p. 396 © Photo RMN: pp. 330, 592, 726 t.;
317, 502, 529, 624 r., 628 l., 637, 648 © Photo RMN / © Michèle Bellot: p. 372 l.;
Biblioteca Estense Universitaria, Modena: p. 534 © Photo RMN / © Madeleine Coursaget, p. 372 r.;
Araldo De Luca, Rome: pp. 59, 345, 347, 504-505, 599 © Photo RMN / © Thierry Le Mage: pp. 21, 83
© Bibliotheca Hertziana – Max-Planck-Institut
Archive of the publisher or authors: pp. 98, 110, für Kunstgeschichte, Rome: pp. 298 l., r., 497, 533, Royal Academy of Arts, London: p. 610
154/159, 349, 373, 391, 402, 708, 709, 711, 714-717, 536-537, 558, 559, 707, 721, 722, 729-733, 735-740,
723, 725, 741 742, 743 Sotheby’s, New York: p. 8
© Archivio Fotografico Antonio Quattrone, Florence: © bpk, Berlin: pp. 4 b. l., 48, 107, 111 Staatliche Graphische Sammlung, München: p. 25
pp. 6, 350-351, 539, 541, 632
© bpk, Berlin/The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin: p. 11
New York: 113, 392
790 791
Imprint
EACH AND EVERY TASCHEN BOOK Page 2:

PLANTS A SEED! Victory (detail),
TASCHEN is a carbon neutral publisher. Each c. 1520–1525 or 1532–1534 (?)
year, we offset our annual carbon emissions with Marble, height 261 cm
carbon credits at the Instituto Terra, a reforestation Florence, Palazzo Vecchio
program in Minas Gerais, Brazil, founded by Lélia
and Sebastião Salgado. To find out more about this Endpapers:
ecological partnership, please check: Detail of the Sistine ceiling,
www.taschen.com/zerocarbon 1509–1511, Fresco
Inspiration: unlimited. Carbon footprint: zero. Rome, Vatican, Sistine Chapel
To stay informed about TASCHEN and our

upcoming titles, please subscribe to our free © 2020 TASCHEN GmbH
magazine at www.taschen.com/magazine, follow Hohenzollernring 53, D–50672 Köln
us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook, or www.taschen.com
e-mail your questions to [email protected].
Original edition: © 2007 TASCHEN GmbH
Project managment: Petra Lamers-Schütze,

Meike Nießen, Cologne
Editing original edition: Brigitte Beier, Hamburg
Translation: Karen Williams, Rennes-le-Château
Collaboration original edition:
Mahros Allamezade, Nicole Bilstein and
Ute Kieseyer, Cologne; Chris Murray, Crewe;
Michele Tilgner, Gröbenzell
Design: Birgit Eichwede, Claudia Frey, Cologne
Production: Ute Wachendorf, Cologne
Printed in China
ISBN 978–3–8365–3716–2

Michelangelo Paintings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michelangelo Paintings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michelangelo Paintings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Frank Zöllner

Bibliotheca Universalis ­— Compact cultural companions

16 36 70 324 378 492

Jacopino del Conte, Portrait of Michelangelo, c. 1535

Michelangelo (?), Receipt addressed to Lionardo di Bartolini, 21.1 x 28 cm

Sketch of the façade of S. Lorenzo (detail), 1517

Just as we put, O Lady, by subtraction,

the artist had not always correctly disposed of

Giotto, The Ascension of St John the Evangelist (detail), c. 1320

fish market to study his subject at first hand.

Masaccio, The Tribute Money (detail), c. 1427

It was at this time that … Michelangelo carved from

The Battle of the Centaurs, 1492

The Battle of the Centaurs (detail), 1492

The only feeling that the Divinity can

The Battle of the Centaurs (detail), 1492

Marble was to a certain extent

Kneeling Angel (Angel with Candlestick), 1494/95

Michelangelo saw in Raphael study,

Pages 50/51 and 53

Here art would have live on

Bacchus (detail), 1496/97

Among the many beautiful features (including the inspired garments)

Pages 60/61 and 62

Pietà (detail), 1498/99

Pietà (detail), 1498/99

The treatment of the skin is of a delicacy that has little equal.

Pietà (detail), 1498/99

The first person since the great days of Greek sculpture

David (detail), 1501–1504

the Arte della Lana had held r­esponsibility

In front of a figure by Michelangelo, we think

David (detail), 1501–1504

[…] as most of my figures are taken from the male nude,

David (detail), 1501–1504

Donatello David, 1415/16 Marble, 191 cm

Angelo seems to me one of those people having such depth of mind

St Paul (detail), 1501–1504

Madonna and Child (Bruges Madonna), c. 1504/05

It would be impossible for any craftsman or sculptor no ­matter how

Madonna and Child (Bruges Madonna) (detail), c. 1504/05

In its compact and harmonious design,

Luca Signorelli, Madonna and Child, c. 1490

… it is not difficult to imagine how fascinated Michelangelo

Study for the figure beside the Libyan Sibyl,

Laocoön, 1st-century BC (?)

He intensified the power and depth of his drawing

Sonnet, self-portrait of Michelangelo painting the Sistine ceiling, 1511/12 (?)

Amminadab 3 Boaz 5 Obed Abijah 7

… without having seen the Sistine Chapel, Separation Creation of Separation

4 Nahshon David 6 Solomon Jehoshaphat 8 Jehoram

Sistine ceiling, Fall / Expulsion from Paradise (detail), 1509/10

Prophet Delphic Matthan

Mattathias destroys the Altar in Modin

The Fall and the Expulsion from Paradise

Alexander the Great before the High Priest

Separation of Land and Water

Creation of the Sun,

Separation of Light and Darkness

Elijah in his Chariot of Fire

Bibliotheca Universalis — Compact cultural companions

the Arte della Lana had held responsibility

It would be impossible for any craftsman or sculptor no matter how

The Dying Slave (The Dying P risoner), c. 1513–1516

The Rebellious Slave (The Rebellious Prisoner), and

The Risen Christ (Il Cristo sopra M inerva), 1519–1521

inerva), (detail), 1519–1521

And that he conceives no filthy thoughts can also be recognized

Study for a double tomb of the Magnifici, writing, c. 1520/21

after Michelangelo, Pietà with two additional figures s upporting Christ