Michelangelo, Tiberio Calcagni and the Florentine Pieta

Michelangelo, Tiberio Calcagni, and the Florentine "Pietà"Author(s): William E. WallaceSource: Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 21, No. 42 (2000), pp. 81-99Published by: IRSA s.c.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1483625 .

Accessed: 18/05/2014 14:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

IRSA s.c. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Artibus et Historiae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Sun, 18 May 2014 14:17:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=irsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1483625?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


WILLIAM E. WALLACE

Michelangelo, Tiberio Calcagni, and the Florentine Pietc

For Philipp Fehl

In one of his best known sonnets Michelangelo mused, "Not even the best of artists has any conception that a single marble block does not contain within its excess, and that is only attained by the hand that obeys the intellect..."1 Ever since Benedetto Varchi's commentary in the sixteenth century, this poem has served as a cornerstone for interpreting Michelangelo's artistic theory. It is, moreover, partly responsible for a ubiquitous image of the artist at work: in carving marble Michelangelo merely liberated a fully-formed figure impri- sioned within a roughly quarried block.2 Similiarly, Giorgio Vasari vividly but inaccurately described Michelangelo's marble carving as a gradual issuing forth from the block, like a figure that emerges as it is raised little by little from a tub of water.3 These are compelling images of creation but they have little to do with the realities of carving marble. Most of Michelangelo's sculptures, and the Florentine Pieta in particular [Fig. 1], tell a more tortuous and sometimes frustrated story of bringing life to resistant and spiritless material.

In this paper I intend to focus on a few interconnected issues that relate to Michelangelo's unfinished Pieta and its "completion" by his assistant Tiberio Calcagni. I will first con- sider the ambition and technical difficulty of carving a marble group of four figures-an ambition that may be partly responsible for Michelangelo's abandoning the work. I then will dis-

cuss Michelangelo's relations with Tiberio Calcagni and reconsider the latter's contribution to the Pieta and, most importantly, his salvation of the damaged sculpture. In particular, I will discuss the role that Mary Magdalene plays in the composition and iconography, for she is the figure that is most often denied to Michelangelo and dubiously "credited" to Calcagni.4

Whether by design or default, the Florentine Pieta was a collaborative endeavor, as the historical record and the sculpture itself amply attest. While Calcagni is often blamed for faults found with the sculpture he may also be responsible for ensuring its survival. At a difficult moment, Michelangelo trusted him to intervene, and Calcagni understood both what could and should not be done to finish the great work of art.

One of the challenges for Renaissance sculptors was to carve more than one figure from a single block of marble. Few artists of the fifteenth century attempted such complex ensembles; the difficulty of carving single figures was chal- lenging enough. The problem is one of visualization and careful planning: it is exceptionally difficult to "see" a composition of more than one figure inside an irregular block.

81



WILLIAM E. WALLACE

% Ni . ....:.: ...:.

.: :: .

.. .. , ? .:

::

, ?: ...'i ?: i

??~eQI :

??-

:::::

_?i::

: :N.

N ..

..........' "

.

i

, : ,,: ' , : :• - i :' ' ••: : . .

.. : •ii ,i: ! :,, , ,, ; : :

. .

..... . . ..

... .... .......

.. ."

, ...

' '• •• • '!

i•,iii!!!

i!ii!!:i'

i!!! • •

• • ,

' •':- .,• •!:

N

: ? . / i ::i:•:i.... -......... i.,.. .. :. ? . . . . ... . ..

,

.

..

..... .

• i .• . ............... ..

i i

....

........ .... ......

4:-.: ii

' : " :S. ..... . . . ........., ,1, is

: : :.."ti ,,

I:?l:.iiiIj::::.:l. :• :..:..x.?:.

• .;•:,: .

:i:::~ ::i,:'I :'?:i'::'::;: ?:::': , "::

" ;' ".?:.

I,:..:...-:.:,.:;. . . ???f:::y-?:

.--. N N

....... . ... .. N'. f 4f i:

M .:'? y.. -:-:?

: - -.: 1 ....

, :- :: : .:i •,.

. .. .

... . ?.,...

?.

5 :

..................

:i.: t

i4

N N ? ?'?. . :: f-`:??-f

n f ::--: - - N t

...... iii ?:." :?i ...... ... ......... :::::.. I::. N

tn!: J ..f N :!:i::l:' ;i :.:i: ?. :

I :.. ?. ;';;;;T..; :.ZL ,n :.:?:f:i ! R! 1i x is 1ii:: :.

... ... .. N 3L-C=.: . .......... .. .... ... . ... . ........... a . .........

19 U ;P n : - u - . . . . . . M. 2 U, -,fi;.nR W M ::?:s.L .T'. 1 A. -Lv? 2m: L ?: X

im . 4r.~~: :P m trom

waf W, O U?=S A"

LZ X i

t inrp ~ .?;ri ~ ii~ VIM? iil 14M

t 2? J, M ?*?:'Y

~--"iL

1) Michelangelo, <<PiettY, Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, Florence. Photo: Ralph Lieberman.

82



MICHELANGELO, TIBERIO CALCAGNI, AND THE FLORENTINE PIETA

"It : "

i•P ' Pi.

?VI

l ?

Ir.?i ?

??

.tr:

t i

?. . ,+ . • '

" 4:;'

2) Andrea Sansovino, <<Madonna and Child with St. Anne), Sant'Agostino, Rome. Photo: author.

With each addition the block also must grow, thereby increasing the difficulties of quarrying and transport as well as the likelihood of encountering problems once carving begins.5 Each figure multiplies by four the number of pro- truding limbs; a satisfying composition becomes more difficult to achieve and chances of breakage increase exponen- tially.

. ?

II• ?

C. i/

i' t

,,

''

• c

ll,.

...

? .i

:

"L. ":.?;; ?

<i•~K .. .~ . •- ,

i ~ -*?.".1 1 JtF~i~~rn~~i: ~Llt ? Pi t i~b ~li~J~'l~bri ~CJ j3Li

3) Francesco da Sangallo, <<Madonna and Child with St. Anne,,, Orsanmichele, Florence. Photo: Alinari.

Donatello created compositions with two figures in bronze, most notably his Judith and Holofernes, and the

83



WILLIAM E. WALLACE

Gattamelata. His Annunciation group in Sta. Croce, however, is pieced together from separate blocks of pietra serena, a standard practice for creating large-scale stone or marble sculptures. Only once did Donatello attempt two figures in marble: the Abraham and Isaac for the Florentine Cathedral.6 It is carved from a single block, yet the two figures are so tight- ly entwined as to form a single compact mass. There are a few other examples of two-figure sculptures in the Quattrocento-- mostly Madonnas with the Christ child-but scarcely anything of the scale and complexity of Michelangelo's early experi- ments in the genre: the Bacchus, Rome Pieta, and Bruges Madonna. These are ambitious sculptures, yet each is also a compact composition which recalls the original block.

In 1506, Michelangelo was present at the unearthing of the Laoco6n, by far the most complicated sculpture ever seen by the artist. There was instantly posed a new and greater challenge: to carve three figures "ex uno lapide," from a single block of stone, as Pliny inaccurately praised the ancient group.7 Michelangelo was fully aware that the Laoco6n was not carved from a single block, but this merely intensified the challenge posed by the celebrated antique: could a modern artist do what antiquity had failed to accomplish? Just a few years later, Andrea Sansovino created his Madonna and Child with St. Anne (1512) in the church of Sant'Agostino, Rome [Fig. 2]. it is much smaller than the Laoco6n, nonetheless, it is a group of three figures slightly smaller than life-size, carved from a single block of marble. Meanwhile Michelangelo was occupied with other projects and few of his contemporaries were inter- ested or capable of carving a multi-figure marble sculpture.

In 1522, while Michelangelo was working in the Medici Chapel, his younger colleague and assistant, Francesco da Sangallo, contracted to carve the cult statue for the votive altar dedicated to St. Anne in Orsanmichele [Fig. 3].8 It was one of the very few Renaissance sculptures to meet the challenge posed by the Laoco6n: to create a larger than life-size, three- figure group from a single block of marble. And it was carved, appropriately enough, by one of the persons present at the unearthing of the famous antique.9 Michelangelo both appre- ciated the challenge and helped Sangallo to meet it.

The commissioners authorized Sangallo to spend thirty gold florins to purchase marble from Carrara ("marmo car- rarese e bello")-a princely sum that alerts us to the importance of the commission and the expense of obtaining such an unusually large piece of statuary marble.10 Sangallo shipped the block to Florence taking advantage of the transport arrangements set up by Michelangelo for his San Lorenzo projects.1 After working on the sculpture for several months, Sangallo encountered problems and had to abandon the block-probably because of a previously undetected flaw.

Some six months labor was wasted, but so was a large and expensive marble. Rather than return to the quarries, Sangallo purchased a new block from Michelangelo who had quarried it for the Medici Chapel commission.12 The incident reminds us of the expense, difficulty, and uncertainty attending such an ambitious undertaking.

Sangallo's St. Anne group was finally completed and set in place approximately four years after it had been commissioned. The sculpture once was admired, but today it seldom receives much attention. Although little-loved, the sculpture is a forceful reminder of how few multiple figure marble groups there are, and how rarely they succeed as works of art. Indeed, Sangallo's accomplishment was more a technical feat than an aesthetic triumph. Even in its battered and unfinished condition, Michelangelo's Florentine Pieta is certainly the greater masterpiece.

The problems of carving a three-figure group are enor- mous; those attendant to carving four figures from a single block are unimaginably complex. As a result, it was a feat rarely attempted, even by Bernini and the great marble techni- cians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.13 Giorgio Vasari implicitly recognized the rarity of such an undertaking when he described Michelangelo's Florentine Pieta as an "opera faticosa, rara in un sasso."14 When Vasari first saw the group in progress he described it as "that work which, if he fin- ishes it, will surpass every other work of his given the difficulty of carving such perfect beings from that block."15 Vasari was so impressed that he aggrandized the exploit, subsequently remembering the group as consisting of five figures, an error-or a purposeful exaggeration intended to praise- that he twice repeated.16 And further, in the preface to his Lives of the Artists, Vasari invoked Michelangelo when he described the difficulties confronting the sculptor who must perceive what is contained in a marble block and carve it with little assistance from models and, unlike painting, with no room for error.

...for the sculptor there is necessary a perfection of judgment not only ordinary, as for the painter, but absolute and immediate, in a manner that it may see within the marble the exact whole of that figure which they intended to carve from it, and may be able to make many parts perfect without any other model before it combines and unites them together, as Michelagnolo has done divinely well; although for lack of this happiness of judgment, they make easily and often some of those blunders which have no remedy, and which, when made, bear witness for ever to the slips of the chisel or to the small judgment of the sculptor. This never happens to painters...17

84




4) Michelangelo, <<Rebellious Slave,,, Musee du Louvre, Paris. Photo: author.

5) Michelangelo, <<Rebellious Slave,,, Musde du Louvre, Paris. Photo: author.

85



WILLIAM E. WALLACE

6) Michelangelo, <<Rondanini Piet>>,, Castello Sforzesco, Milan. Photo: author.

No room for error. The Florentine Pieta is the most ambitious and complicated of Michelangelo's many sculptures, and herein may lie seeds of his frustration and eventual dis- satisfaction with the group. How was it possible to realize from the single block four figures in proper relation and proportion to one another, and arranged in a composition that would be meaningful as well as artistically satisfying? He first had to quarry an exceptionally large block of marble, or perhaps hav- ing obtained a large block, Michelangelo was inspired to attempt the nearly impossible feat. Except for the David, the Florentine Pieta is the biggest marble that Michelangelo ever carved-larger than the Rome Pieta, Moses, Victory, and each of the Accademia Slaves.18 Similarly, the block was the heavi- est and most massive marble that Michelangelo ever quarried and transported given that he inherited the marble for the David from the Opera del Duomo.19

Michelangelo supposedly had a legendary ability to "see" a figure in the block which he then liberated. Vasari, however, recognized that the reality of marble carving was more complex. When he described Michelangelo's St. Matthew, Vasari wrote of it as "a perfect work of art which serves to teach other sculptors how to carve a statue out of marble without making any mistakes, perfecting the figure gradually by removing the stone judiciously and being able to alter what has been done as and when necessary" (my emphasis).20 The freedom to alter what has been done requires extra marble. When Michelangelo carved the two slaves now in the Mus6e du Louvre (c. 1514), he utilized the full extent of the available marble, carving figures as large as the quarried blocks. Because there was no extra marble, Michelangelo sometimes found himself with little or no room to maneuver, especially if he encountered impurities, as was the case with the Rebellious Slave [Fig. 4]. Running through the face and neck of the figure is a disfiguring crack. Michelangelo may have made an unforseen compositional adjustment to the head, perhaps in an effort to avoid this flaw; nonetheless, the thin block did not permit him to escape the marble blemish. Similarly, there was not enough stone to complete the figure's right arm, which is why that side appears so flat [Fig. 5], and why most photog- raphers favor views taken from the opposite angle. Of course, the figure's collocation in the niche of the tomb of Julius II may have obviated these difficulties; nonetheless, it remains true that the extremely thin block made it difficult for Michelangelo to entirely avoid disfiguring impurities.

Despite Michelangelo's celebrated ability to judge the quality of marble, the artist could never be entirely certain that a block did not contain hidden flaws.21 Shortly after his expe- rience with the Louvre Slaves, Michelangelo encountered a similar problem with the Risen Christ which had to be re-

86




7) Michelangelo, <<Piet&, detail, Museo dell'Opera del Duomo. Photo: author.

carved because of a disfiguring black vein.22 Probably as a result of these experiences, Michelangelo began ordering substantially thicker blocks. Thus, he would have sufficient stone should he encounter a flaw. Moreover, because he tend- ed to change his mind while carving, the extra stone ensured that he could alter the form and disposition of figures as they emerged from the block. Unlike painting, of course, the reduc- tive process of marble carving removes the "pentimenti" of

earlier decisions; therefore, the evidence of change is much less common and more difficult to detect. The truncated arm of the Rondanini Pieta [Fig. 6], however, is a ghostly remnant of an earlier composition and the most vivid evidence of changes that Michelangelo made while carving. Rather than a peculiar anomaly, perhaps this should be viewed as incon- trovertible evidence of Michelangelo's usual working proce- dure.

But where is the excess stone of the Florentine Pieta? Rather than carving a two- or three-figure group from the block, I think Michelangelo was inspired to attempt something more ambitious, but once he had blocked out a four-figure composition he had little room for alterations. The Virgin is already small in comparison to Christ and the standing figure of Nicodemus. There is not enough stone left to finish her face without compromising the more realized head of her dead son [Fig. 7]. Similarly, it seems there is scarcely sufficient stone to finish carving the Virgin's left hand which helps to support Christ. To complete it might have resulted in the disfiguring of the more finished torso on which the fingers rest. And then Michelangelo encountered an even more intractable problem in carving Christ's left leg. Whatever changes he made affect- ed the other figures and required a reconsideration of the entire group. These are the sorts of problems whose cumula- tive effect may have resulted in his abandoning the sculpture.

We perhaps are reluctant to imagine the mature master making mistakes or meeting potentially irreconcilable problems. But surely it happened. He was unable to avoid the crack that disfigures the face of the Rebellious Slave, and he had to recarve the Risen Christ for a similar reason. An early figure he carved in Rome for his "own pleasure" had to be abandoned because the marble proved bad.23 He ran out of stone carving the left arm of Night in the Medici Chapel,24 and the Rondanini Pieta is eloquent testimony of the artist's relent- less and not always successful assault of the block.25 Putting the best light on these matters, Vasari wrote "that he was never content with anything he did" and further, "that when on revealing one of his figures he saw the slightest error he would abandon it and run to start working on another block, trusting that it would not happen again."26 We permit every artist but Michelangelo to make mistakes.

But in addition to technical problems, there were other factors as well. The PietA was supposedly carved as Michel- angelo's funerary marker.27 To carve one's own tomb is to confront one's mortality. To finish the sculpture was to bring the marble to life but also to resign oneself to death. As he once mused, probably shortly before giving up the work: "...with false conceptions and great peril to my soul, to be here sculpt- ing divine things."28

87



WILLIAM E. WALLACE

.. . ... . "

: a"

t

...

S i i., 7

Al i bero ta vientor

"'Wi

.......

8) Engraving of Michelangelo's Model for San Giovanni dei Fiorentini, Kunstbibliothek, Berlin. Photo: author.

For whatever reasons, Michelangelo abandoned the work, but he did not, as is sometimes implied, discard it. He gave it to his banker and close friend, Francesco Bandini, who in turn requested that the sculpture be repaired and finished by Michelangelo's young assistant Tiberio Calcagni.29

Francesco Bandini (c. 1496-1562) belonged to an old Florentine family-the Bandini-Baroncelli-who were parenti, amici, and vicini of the Buonarroti.30 In 1528, Francesco was part of the Florentine ambassadorial mission to Ferrara to cel- ebrate the wedding of Ercole d'Este, and may have still been in the city when Michelangelo traveled to Ferrara to entreat Alfonso d'Este to aid Florence during that city's struggle against the pope and Holy Roman Emperor during the Last Republic (1527-30).31 In 1538, Francesco transferred to Rome where he established a lucrative banking business and became a prominent member of the Florentine expatriate community. He was among Michelangelo's closest friends in Rome ("amicissimo"32) and served as the artist's banker/adviser from the mid-1550s until Bandini's death in 1562.33 Importantly, he was a Deputy of the fabbrica overseeing the design and construction of the Florentine church in Rome, San Giovanni dei Fiorentini. It was in this capacity that Bandini had frequent contact with a young Florentine sculptor/architect, Tiberio Calcagni. By pulling together scattered information on Calcagni and supplementing what we know with some

•:> • +

-...............

........."

....,..

? •

..........,.....

!I ?

,,

. .... .....

............ Fi C - .....

:: ?:.M,

9) Michelangelo and Tiberio Calcagni, Sforza Chapel, Sta. Maria Maggiore, Rome. Photo: Alinari.

new documents, we are now in a position to offer a fuller picture of Calcagni, his family, and his relationship with Michelangelo.

Born in Florence in 1532, Tiberio was one of twelve sib- lings (four brothers and eight sisters) of Lucrezia Buonaccorsi and Roberto Calcagni. Despite his infelicitous name, which means "heels," Tiberio was from a family of some means and rising social station. His mother belonged to an aristocratic Florentine family with whom Michelangelo had extensive pre- vious contacts.34 At an unknown date probably in the late 1530s or early 1540s the family transferred to Rome where Roberto Calcagni owned a house with two shops close to the church of San Celso in the Florentine quarter near Ponte

88




Sant'Angelo.35 Calcagni, a successful maker and seller of fine vestments, provided for his large brood and ensured the equi- table distribution of his patrimony.36 Two of his sons, Tiberio and Orazio, were given classicizing names; his other two sons, Raffaele and Nicolo, were successful merchants in the Florentine merchant community,37 and in 1566 three of the sons (Tiberio was already dead) obtained Roman citizen- ship.38 We know little of Tiberio's education and professional training, but we do know that he grew up in a well-furnished house adorned with books and a few paintings, including a portrait of his father ("Uno ritratto di messer Ruberto") by an unnamed painter.39 Tiberio boasted a family crest, took minor orders, and thanks to powerful patrons he held an ecclesiastic benefice already in 1560.40

Evidently well bred and well educated, Tiberio was still in his twenties when he was introduced in the early 1550s to Michelangelo by Francesco Bandini and another Florentine friend, the writer and ardent Republican, Donato Giannotti.41 Although we are uncertain of the precise date and circum- stances of the meeting, it occurred through the agency of Michelangelo's highly cultivated, humanist friends. Calcagni quickly became one of Michelangelo's closest assistant/com- panions, in some ways helping to fill the void left by the death of the faithful Pietro Urbino in 1556. He was an important collaborator in Michelangelo's old age, and first on the commission for San Giovanni dei Fiorentini. Calcagni drafted finished presentation drawings from the master's designs, for as Vasari informs us, Michelangelo was old and no longer able to draw straight lines.42 But much more than a factotum, Michelangelo entrusted Calcagni with traveling to Florence in March 1560 to present the designs to the commission's patron, Duke Cosimo de' Medici.43 Calcagni accomplished the task with aplomb, for the Duke was well pleased with the "most beautiful design" and Calcagni's "viva voce," that is, his personal presentation of the project.44 Calcagni was subsequently entrusted with making a clay then a wood model of the church which, because the latter was engraved [Fig. 8], offers valuable testimony of Michelangelo's intentions and the two artists' close collaboration. Vasari relates the facts of this commission at length and with unusual specificity, which is especially note- worthy given that it was never realized.45 It is evident that he was extremely well informed, and especially with regard to Calcagni's important role in the collaboration.

Calcagni proved to be a central figure not only at San Giovanni dei Fiorentini but also in Michelangelo's subsequent commissions for the Porta Pia (1561-64) and the Sforza Chapel in Sta. Maria Maggiore (c. 1560-) [Fig. 9].46 The patron of the latter commission was Guido Ascanio Sforza, the Cardinal of Santafiora, who likely was responsible for securing Calcagni's

u'*: f+..:+

Ni 11 . +Li[.

i

M,,

SI ETIAM r

...- ... .T i(. '"i +i

.; " i RA P 1 I.l " i :

OR?1 MA,

10) Detail of Tiberio Calcagni's Tomb Slab, San Giovanni Decollato, Rome. Photo: author.

ecclesiastic benefice, and who also employed or recommend- ed him to make drawings for the Villa Sforzesca near Proceno in northern Lazio.47 From a good Florentine family, Calcagni was at home in the world of princes and patricians.

Given Calcagni's diverse responsibilities in overseeing the execution of Michelangelo's late architectural commissions, it would be a mistake to number the accomplished and well-connnected Calcagni among the colorless "pupils" of Michelangelo. Rather, late in his life, Michelangelo discovered in Calcagni a talented, well-educated young assistant, as well as a warm and attentive friend. Moreover, Caroline Elam has recently discovered that Calcagni was the author of the marginal postille in an annotated copy of Condivi's life of Michel- angelo. She notes that "the handwriting is an educated one, the writing style economical and eloquent, the orthography largely correct."48 The new information supports the picture of Calcagni's good breeding and amply confirms his intimacy with the master. Indeed, along with Tommaso de' Cavalieri and Daniele da Volterra, Calcagni was among those few friends who were closest to Michelangelo in the master's final years. It is not surprising, therefore, that Calcagni often mentions these persons in his letters and, for example, once declared Cavalieri and Francesco Bandini to be "miei patroni."49 Vasari, who did not like all of Michelangelo's friends, knew Calcagni extremely well and considered him "very courteous and dis- creet."50 The judgment is well born out by the character of the man as revealed in his and Michelangelo's correspondence.

89



WILLIAM E. WALLACE

11) Michelangelo, <<Brutus,,, Bargello Museum, Florence. Photo: Alinari.

Calcagni frequently corresponded with Michelangelo's nephew, Leonardo Buonarroti, to whom he reported on affairs in Rome and particularly on the master's increasingly delicate health. He affectionately referred to Michelangelo as "il Vechio" or "Vechio nostro," while once happily exclaiming, "God be praised, he is extremely well for his age."'51 One time he reported speaking with Michelangelo as he rode to St. Peter's, from which we learn that at age eighty-six Michelangelo was in the habit of riding from his house near the forum of Trajan to the building works of the new church.52 In addition, Michelangelo took walks and rode every evening when the weather was pleasant.53 The habit proved to be of some concern when one day Calcagni came upon the eighty-eight year old master walking in the rain. To Leonardo he wrote:

12) Jacopo Pontormo (attrib.), <<Noli me Tangere)), Casa Buonarroti, Florence. Photo: Brogi.

I wanted to inform you that as I was going about Rome today, I heard from many persons that Michelangelo was ill. I went immediately to visit him and although it was rain- ing he was out walking. When I saw him I said that I did not think it was a good idea to be out in such weather. "What do you want me to do? I am not well and I cannot find peace and quiet anywhere." I have never before feared for his life but with his uncertain speech and look I was sud- denly afraid that he had little time left. However one must not despair, for God in his grace may yet grant him a little time... At least this letter is not ambassador of bad news.54

Yet just four days later, the man that Calcagni respectfully referred to as "questo santo huomo,"55 was dead. Just a year

90




later, at age thirty-three, Calcagni himself died and was buried in San Giovanni Decollato, the same Roman confraternity to which Michelangelo had belonged.

Calcagni's relationship with Michelangelo was extensive and intimate, both professional and personal. He was deeply inserted in the master's affections and closely involved with his late artistic projects. These included not only architectural commissions but sculpture as well, for he was accomplished in both arts, as his grave memorial attests: "Tiberio Calcagni, Florentine...would strive with utmost zeal towards outstanding excellence in sculpture and architecture..."56 [Fig. 10]. Vasari relates that "because he loved Calcagni, Michelangelo gave him to finish the marble Pieta that he had broken, and also a marble head of Brutus, with its torso, much larger than life- size, so that Calcagni could finish it."57 Following Vasari's authority, most persons attribute certain passages of Michel- angelo's Brutus [Fig. 11] to Calcagni's intervention, and more importantly for our purposes, he is also credited-or discred- ited-with working on the Florentine Pieta [Fig. 1]. Indeed, Calcagni often has served as a convenient whipping boy for faults in the latter sculpture, the Mary Magdalene being a particular locus of opprobrium. Typical criticisms are that she is oddly proportioned with overly short torso, too small in comparison with the other figures, and not well integrated into the overall composition. In particular, scholars have complained about the smooth surfaces and "comparative deadness" of the carving.58 I am unwilling to embark on a wholesale defense of this figure, but equally, I feel it deserves more than its usual hasty dismissal.

If Calcagni can be held liable for the surface appearance of the Magdalene, Michelangelo remains responsible for the overall conception and composition of the figure, as well as for its apparently small size. The Magdalene was already well advanced by the time Calcagni worked on the sculpture. Bridges of stone that connect the Magdalene's head to the right arm of Christ reveal that the relation between the two figures and their relative heights were not significantly altered by Calcagni.59 The Magdalene's pose, diminutive size, and overall relation to the rest of the group are Michelangelo's own. Rather than mistakes, it is possible these were conscious decisions, and therefore deserve some consideration.

The inclusion of Mary Magdalene in the composition was itself a significant decision. She appears at a time when Michelangelo was writing deeply affecting penintential poetry, and, like the Magdalene, was acutely conscious of his sins even while yearning for union with Christ. While the Magda-

13) Michelangelo, <<Pitti Tondo>>, Bargello Museum, Florence. Photo: author.

lene is commonly represented in scenes of the Deposition, she is less frequently part of a Pieta, especially in sculpture, and in neither case is she essential to the iconography of these two subjects.60 Except for the early Entombment painting now in the National Gallery in London and the Noli me Tangere [Fig. 12] designed by Michelangelo and painted by Pontormo, the Magdalene scarcely figures in the master's oeuvre.61 Condivi evidently was cognizant of some novelty when he introduced his laudatory description of the work by writing that Michelangelo was "a man who is full of ideas and so has to give birth to something every day."62 As an unexpected and original element in Michelangelo's sustained med- itation on the Pieta/Deposition theme, it is worth asking why and how he has included the Magdalene, particularly given the funerary purpose and personal nature of the sculpture.

The Magdalene kneels on the left side of the group which is at the privileged right hand of her lord and savior [Fig. 1].

91



WILLIAM E. WALLACE

14) Michelangelo, <<Pieta>>, Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, Florence. Photo: Ralph Lieberman.

She helps to sustain his dead body; his right arm and hand fall across her shoulder and his fingers lightly touch her back. The curving lines of their arms form a mandorla of limbs that enframe Christ's torso. The Magdalene helps fashion the holy

15) Michelangelo, detail of the Tomb of Julius II, San Pietro in Vincoli, Rome. Photo: Alinari.

configuration and is included within its sacred space. In addition, a half circle is described by the curve of Christ's right arm and extended fingers, the direction of which is continued by the drapery fold traversing the Magdalene's sleeve and bodice. The Magdalene's head, framed by her symmetrically arranged hair and seraphic diadem, rises above the implied tondo form, in a manner recalling the Pitti Madonna [Fig. 13]. The unspecific, distant glance of the Magdalene has affinities to those premonitory looks of resigned sorrow that often char- acterize Michelangelo's Madonnas, especially the Pitti and Medici Madonnas.

The Magdalene's is the only visage turned to us; she addresses the spectator and presents the body of Christ. Condivi is even more specific about her role: "And although she is grieving deeply, none the less this Mary does not fail to perform that office of the dead Christ which the mother cannot do because of her extreme grief."63 Like the didactic figure of an Albertian istoria, or the attendants performing the office of the dead in El Greco's Burial of Count Orgaz, the Magdalene reminds us of the rites properly associated with burial." She holds the winding sheet and helps to lower the body, her seraphic headdress suggests priestly garments and metaphorically sheds light, she addresses the spectator... While the Magdalene does not literally "perform" these func- tions, she does suggest a narrative dimension that prompted

92




Condivi, at least, to assign her the office of the dead. Her mute appeal calls to mind the words pronounced by the priest as the body is lowered into the tomb: "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me, even if he die shall live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die" (John 11:21- 27).65 And these in turn echo the words that Christ spoke to Nicodemus, "that whoever believes in him may have eternal life" (John 3:15). Indeed, the Magdalene is central to Christ's life after death, as first witness to his Resurrection. Her role as eyewitness and herald is emphasized by the manner in which she addresses the spectator.

In contrast to most images of the Magdalene, such as those by his contemporary Titian, Michelangelo has conceived her as a diminutive, even nubile girl. Her small breasts are close to Christ's naked flesh but contact is obviated by a thick fold of drapery and the chaste inclination of her upper torso. As in his earlier Noli me Tangere painting, Michelangelo heightens the tension imposed by physical proximity, discov- ering in the Magdalene's body a means of suggesting both her former life as a sinner and her new life devoted to Christ.66 Her unseen left hand embraces Nicodemus to whom she is a counterpart, suggested even in the counterpoised inclina- tions of their heads. Like Michelangelo himself, the Magdalene and Nicodemus are penitent figures who yearn for salvation through Christ.67 Thus, the linked figures of the Magdalene and Nicodemus lend special poignancy to a sculpture that Michelangelo intended to mark his grave.

The Magdalene's diminutive size is more apparent than real, for she grows and diminishes in stature, and importance, depending on the angle from which the sculpture is viewed [compare Figs. 1, 14].68 Her size and separated position are appropriate for her age and secondary role.69 She is physical- ly and iconographically a marginal figure, in a comparable relationship to the main group as the allegories of time are to the Medici dukes or Rachel and Leah are to Moses. The scale of these latter figures, especially in relation to the Moses, inspires frequent, often negative comment [Fig. 15].70 Michelangelo could have created Rachel and Leah at any scale; he certainly had large enough marble blocks available. The modesty of their size and expression, and the lesser degree of surface polish, were purposeful decisions; Michelangelo observed what may be called a decorum of size and finish. Thus, the Rachel and Leah do not compete with Moses; rather, like a chorus, they are foil and counterpoint. They frame, extend, and sustain our attention while guiding us to prayer and contemplation-a whisper joined to the com- manding voice of the prophet.

in style, manipulation of proportion, and overall purpose in a multi-figure ensemble, the Magdalene of the Florentine

Pieta finds a close counterpart in the nearly contemporary figures of Rachel and Leah. The greater challenge of the Magdalene was to integrate her into a four-figure group and still create a satisfactory composition.

These decisions were Michelangelo's not Calcagni's. It is likely that Calcagni perceived the beauty of the Magdalene and wished to fulfill its promise by completing it. At the same time he modestly abstained from radical interventions on the obviously incomplete figures of Christ and Mary, and the still roughly chiseled Nicodemus. Rather, he repaired the group as best he could, and may have done less than is usually supposed. Despite the evidence of Calcagni's chisel work, I would argue that his was mostly surface work rather than substantive and was carried out with the purpose of making the statue as presentable as possible given its unfinished and damaged condition.71

In the second edition of his Lives, Vasari wrote that the group was "put together by Tiberio from I don't know how many pieces."72 It would be wrong to construe this as a dis- paraging remark for, in fact, Vasari credits Calcagni only with repair work, and this done with the help of Michelangelo's models: "This would mean that Michelangelo's labors would not have been in vain. Michelangelo was content with this arrangement and gave it to them [Bandini and Calcagni] as a present."73 Thus, Calcagni proceeded with Michelangelo's blessing and may also have benefitted from the master's directions and advice. We cannot be certain that Michelangelo had nothing more to do with the group once he relinquished it, especially since it probably remained for some time in his house before it was transferred to Bandini.74 It was, after the David, the largest of all Michelangelo's marbles and not easily moved. Moreover, when Bandini took possession of the sculpture Michelangelo was entrusting the group to his friend and banker-a person likely to be responsible for the artist's affairs, even his burial, after death.75 The sculpture was now in the hands of one of his most trusted associates, to be completed by one of his closest friends.

Condivi, whose life of Michelangelo is frequently read as the closest that we have to the artist's autobiography is effu- sive in his praise of the sculpture. He describes it at length and with tender eloquence: "It would be an impossible task to describe in words the beauty and emotions shown in all the melancholy, grief-stricken countenances, or in that of the afflicted mother alone; so let this be enough. I must just say that it is a rare thing, and one of the most laboriously wrought works that he has made till now."76 Condivi, who lived for years with Michelangelo and the sculpture, was especially moved by the figure of Mary Magdalene. What Condivi does is encourage us to see with less prejudice; what Calcagni did was rescue a great work of art.

93



WILLIAM E. WALLACE

Michelangelo did not destroy nor did Calcagni ruin what was the master's most ambitious and difficult essay in marble. Despite its troubled history, it remains a moving and satisfying work of art. At once a Pieta and a Deposition, grave memorial and narrative icon, a real and spiritual self-portrait, the sculpture brings together several themes of Michel- angelo's art and life. What is significantly different is the joint presence of Nicodemus and the Magdalene, figures at the periphery of Christ's life and of Michelangelo's marble. But to these figures fall the responsibilty of sustaining and present- ing Christ's body and of speaking to us, through glance and gesture and by means of their more articulated, portrait-like characters. In these figures we see ourselves, the sinner and the secret follower of Christ, and through their intercession we gain access to our Lord and a means to salvation. They are the bearers of Christ, and of his promise of eternal life. In carving the theme once again in the Rondanini Pieta [Fig. 6], Michelangelo eliminated these accessory personages. Salvation he seems to have realized-in his contemporane-

ous poetry as well-was to be achieved mainly through personal devotion to Christ.

In the Florentine Pieta Michelangelo's youthful hubris as a marble carver came to an end. He completed no further sculptures and already, for more than twenty years, he had not signed himself "Michelangelo schultore." Rather the artist turned to drawing, prayer, and poetry, some of which shares affinities with this poignant work: deeply meditated, much re- worked, and often unfinished. In the midst of carving the Pieta he mused in an incomplete sonnet:

The soul gains more, the more it loses the world, and art and death do not go well together; in which, then, should I place my further hope?77

In the end he placed his hope in his devoted assistant and close friends and they ensured that the Pieta survived, if not as the artist's proper funerary monument then at least as eloquent cenotaph and artistic masterpiece.

For their advice and assistance, I would like to thank Paul Barolsky, Caroline Elam, Philipp and Raina Fehl, Ralph Lieberman, Tom Martin, John Paoletti, Peter Rockwell, Pamela Starr, and Jack Wasserman. I owe a special thanks to the late Franca Trinchieri Camiz for gener- ously sharing with me documents relating to Tiberio Calcagni and his family. I am grateful to the National Endowment for the Humanities and Washington University for financial support and to the American Academy in Rome for providing the ideal setting for writing this essay.

1 "Non ha I'ottimo artista alcun concetto/ c'un marmo solo in se non circonscrival col suo superchio, e solo a quella arriva/ Ila man che ubbidisce all'intelletto..." Translation from J. M. Saslow, The Poetry of Michelangelo: An Annotated Translation, New Haven and London, 1991, no. 151.

2 In particular see R. J. Clements, Michelangelo's Theory of Art, New York, 1961, pp. 233-29 and passim, and C. de Tolnay, The Art and

Thought of Michelangelo, trans. N. Buranelli, New York, 1964, Chap. 4. More generally, on Michelangelo's "theory of art," see D. Summers, Michelangelo and the Language of Art, Princeton, 1981; E. Panofsky, Idea: A Concept in Art Theory (1924), trans. J. J. S. Peake, New York, 1968, pp. 116-18; L. Mendelsohn, Paragoni. Benedetto Varchi's 'Due Lezzioni' and Cinquecento Art Theory, Ann Arbor, 1982, and L. C. Agoston, "Sonnet, Sculpture, Death: the Mediums of Michelangelo's Self-Imaging," Art History 20 (1997), pp. 534-55.

3 G. Vasari, La vita di Michelangelo nelle redazioni del 1550 e del 1568, ed. P Barocchi, 5 vols., Milan and Naples, 1962, 1, p. 119, and similarly described in the technical preface to his Lives, for which, see Vasari on Technique, trans. L. M. Maclehose, New York, 1960, p. 151. Vasari's description implies that Michelangelo carved inward from the frontal face of the block and that the fully realized figure emerged from a receding background plane of stone. The description

94




best applies to the relief-like character of the St. Matthew which, while consistent with other sculptures of the period (e.g. the Pitti and Taddei tondi), is not typical of Michelangelo's working methods in subsequent years (see G. M. Helms, "Materials and Techniques of Renaissance Sculpture," in Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, ed. S. B. McHam, Cambridge, 1998, p. 20, and esp. p. 35, n. 18). More commonly, Michelangelo attacked the block on the diagonal or from more than one face simultaneously, as one sees especially in the Accademia Slaves and the Medici Chapel figures. Figures like the Victory and the Apollo/David were worked from a multiplicity of sides and angles.

4 In a recent article, Moshe Arkin suggested a reversal of the identities of the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene (M. Arkin, "'One of the Marys...': An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Michelangelo's Florentine

Pieta," Art Bulletin 79, pp. 493-517). While the article raises

a number of interesting points, the argument is not wholly convincing. It should be noted, however, that the author implicitly argues that the traditionally identified Mary Magdalene is an important and beautiful figure, and one that Michelangelo cared about very much. For the purpose of this essay, I will maintain the traditional identifications of the two figures.

5 For the problems of quarrying and transport, see W. E. Wallace, Michelangelo at San Lorenzo: The Genius as Entrepreneur, Cambridge and New York, 1994, esp. pp. 38-62.

6 See J. Pope-Hennessy, Italian Renaissance Sculpture, London and New York, 2nd ed., 1971, fig. 6.

7 "Ex uno lapide eum ac liberos draconumque mirabiles nexus de consili sententia fecere summi artifices Hagesander et Polydorus et Athenodorus Rhodi" (The Elder Pliny's Chapters on the History of Art, trans. K. Jex-Blake, Chicago, 1976, pp. 208-10). For a discussion of sculpture groups carved ex uno lapide, see V. Bush, The Colossal Sculpture of the Cinquecento from Michelangelo to Giovanni Bologna, New York, 1976; I. Lavin, "The Sculptor's Last Will and Testament," Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin 34 (1977-78), pp. 4-39, esp. 20ff, and L. Barkan, Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and Aesthetics in the Making of Renaissance Sculpture, New Haven and London, 1999, pp. 336-38. More generally, see C. Klapisch-Zuber, Les Maitres du Marbre: Carrare 1300-1600, Paris, 1969; J. C. Rich, The Materials and Methods of Sculpture, New York, 1947; S. Adam, The Technique of Greek Sculpture in the Archaic and Classical Periods, London, 1966; B. Ashmole, Architect and Sculptor in Classical Greece, New York, 1972, and P. Rockwell, The Art of Stoneworking: A Reference Guide, Cambridge and New York, 1993.

8 D. Heikamp, "Der Werkvertrag fur die St. Anna Selbdritt des Francesco da Sangallo," in Kaleidoskop: Eine Festschrift fijr Fritz Baumgart zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. F Mielke, Berlin, 1977, pp. 79-86; R. J. Crum and D. G. Wilkins, "In the Defense of Florentine Republica- nism: St. Anne and Florentine Art, 1343-1575," in Interpreting Cultural Symbols: St. Anne and Late Medieval Society, ed. K. Ashley and P. Sheingorn, Athens GA, 1990, pp. 131-68, and J. Wasserman, "La Vergine e Cristo con Sant'Anna del Pontormo," Kunst des Cinquecento in der Toskana, Munich, 1992, pp. 146-51.

9 Sangallo was present at the unearthing of the sculpture and described it vividly in a letter, for which see C. Fea, Miscellanea filo- logica critica e antiquaria, Rome, 1790, p. 329.

10 Contract of 12 February 1522; see Heikamp, "Werkvertrag," p. 84.

11 Nonetheless, because of the large size of the block, shipping was costly, amounting to seven florins paid on 26 May 1522 to the bargeman, Ridolfo di Massimino: "Ridolfo di Massimino di contro de avere addi 26 di Maggio fiorini 7... ne pagho per lui Francesco di

Giuliano da Sanghallo schultore a noi di Firenze per nostro conto per chagione di marmi che detto ridolfo gli porta a Firenze" (Archivio di Stato, Pisa, Quaderno di Cassa 1522-25, 641, fol. 28 left and right; first entered in Archivio di Stato, Pisa, Entrata e Uscita 1522-25, 640, fol. 102 recto). For the incident, see Wallace, Michelangelo at San Lorenzo, p. 125.

12 Michelangelo noted that it was "uno pezzo di marmo di questi del Papa," that is, from the stock of marble blocks quarried for the papal commissions at San Lorenzo (I Ricordi di Michelangelo, ed. L. B. Ciulich and P Barocchi, Florence, 1970, p. 212).

13 It is important to acknowledge the later sixteenth-century achievements in multi-figure marble carving-partly inspired by Michelangelo's example-such as Giambologna's Rape of the Sabine Women or the four-figure marble Pieta group carved by Ippolito Scalza in Orvieto cathedral. The latter was believed to be a monolith by contemporaries and was praised as such. Recent conservation has shown that the group is a single block with the exception of the exten- sion of the ladder and a small portion of Nicodemus' right arm (see M. Cambareri, "Ippolito Scalzo e la trasformazione del Duomo di Orvieto nel '500: le sculture marmoree," in II Duomo di Orvieto e le grandi cat- tedrali del Duecento [Atti del Convegno Internazionali di Studi, Orvieto, 1990], ed. G. Balozzetti, Rome, 1995, pp. 199-212. I would like to thank Marietta Cambareri for this reference).

An especially extravagant example of a multi-figure group is Tommaso della Porta's five-figure Deposition carved from a single block of marble ("sono di un pezzo") in SS. Carlo e Ambrogio al Corso in Rome (1600). Inspired by Michelangelo's Florentine

Pieta, della

Porta attempted to outdo his predecessor by adding a fifth figure; however, he never completed the work. See G. Panofsky, "Tommaso della Porta's 'Castles in the Air'," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 56 (1993), pp. 119-67, esp. 137-42. The so-called Palestrina Pieta, sometimes attributed to Michelangelo, is also a three- figure group (unfinished), carved from a single block. See J. Pope- Hennessy, "The Palestrina Pieta," in Stil und Uberlieferung in der Kunst des Abendlandes: Michelangelo (Aktes des 21. Internationalen Kongresses fur Kunstgeschichte), Berlin, 1967, pp. 105-114.

14 Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 83. 15 In the first edition of his Lives of the Artists (1550): "...Ia quale

opera pub pensarsi che, se da lui finita al mondo restasse, ogni altra opera sua da quella superata sarebbe per la difficulta del cavar di quel sasso tante cose perfette" (Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 123).

16 In a letter of 18 March 1564 to Michelangelo's nephew, Leonardo (II Carteggio indiretto di Michelangelo, ed. P. Barocchi, K. L. Bramanti, and R. Ristori, 2 vols., Florence, 1988, 1995, 2, p. 181) and in his life of Baccio Bandinelli (Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 257).

17 "...allo scultore 6 necessario non solamente la perfezione del giudizio ordinaria, come al pittore, ma assoluta e subita, di maniera che ella conosca sin dentro a' marmi I'intero apunto di quella figura ch'essi intendono di cavarne e possa senza altro modello prima far molte parti perfette che e' le accompagni et unisca insieme, come ha fatto divinamente Michelagnolo; awenga che, mancando di questa felicita di giudizio, fanno agevolmente e spesso di quelli inconvenien- ti che non hanno rimedio e che, fatti, son sempre testimonii degli errori dello scarpello o del poco giudizio dello scultore. La qual cosa non avviene a' pittori..." (Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 195). English from Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, trans. G. De Vere, London, 1912-14, 1, p. xxvi. Of course, Michelangelo did make use of models as Vasari and surviving examples (e.g. Casa Buonarroti) attest.

18 Michelangelo's sculptures, of course, are highly irregular in shape, but using maximum dimensions the Florentine Pieta is a block

95



WILLIAM E. WALLACE

of 2.63 cubic meters (226 x 123 x 94 cm); the Rome Pieta is 2.17 cubic meters (174 x 195 x 64 cm); the Moses is 2.09 cubic meters (235 x 88 x 101 cm) and the Victory is 1.62 cubic meters (261 x 74 x 84 cm). All four slaves for the tomb of Julius II in the Accademia di Belle Arti, Florence are less than two cubic meters, the "Awakening" and "Atlas" slaves being the two largest blocks (1.92 and 1.87 cubic meters respectively).

19 There is a tradition, reported by Aurelio Gotti and John Addington Symonds, that the block was originally a capital from one of the eight columns of the Temple of Peace in Rome; see J. A. Symonds, The Life of Michelangelo Buonarroti, 2 vols., London and New York, 1899, 2, p. 201. It is more likely that the block for the Pietha had been quarried originally for the tomb of Pope Julius II, as was suggested by A. Parronchi (Opere giovanili di Michelangelo, 5, Florence, 1996, p. 54, n. 5).

20 G. Vasari, Lives of the Artists, trans. G. Bull, London, 1965, p. 340. 21 Some of the marble for the Medici Chapel, for example, had to

be re-ordered because, although seemingly flawless on the surface, it proved bad inside (see Wallace, Michelangelo at San Lorenzo, pp. 109-110). In addition, a few of Michelangelo's sculptures reveal that he sometimes had to confront less than perfect marble. For example, near the right buttock of the so-called "Atlas" slave in the Accademia di Belle Arti, Florence, one can see the discoloration of a black vein and an excavation several centimeters into the block. The chiseled excavation was most likely made by Michelangelo himself in an effort to discover the extent of the disfigurement, and to remove it. The pose of the figure seems to be partly determined by the presence and removal of this unexpected flaw. Something of the same may have happened with the left shoulder of the "Awakening" slave. The color of the marble in this area and the extreme pose of the figure suggest that Michelangelo had to carve deeply into the block, perhaps because of bad marble or because of a change of intention.

22 W. E. Wallace, "Miscellanea Curiositae Michelangelae: A Steep Tariff, a Half Dozen Horses, and Yards of Taffeta," Renaissance Quarterly 47 (1994), p. 332, and A. Parronchi, "II primo 'Christo Risorto' per Metello Vari," in Opere Giovanili di Michelangelo 2, Florence, 1975, pp. 157-90.

23 For the incident, see W. E. Wallace, "How did Michelangelo Become a Sculptor?", in The Genius of the Sculptor in Michelangelo's Work, Montreal, 1992, p. 160.

24 L. Goldscheider, The Left Arm of Michelangelo's 'Notte', Milan, 1955. In his dialogue I marmi, Antonfrancesco Doni explained the anomaly of Notte's arm by relating a fiction about the figure coming to life and changing positions thereby requiring Michelangelo to fashion a new arm for her (A. Doni, I marmi, ed. E.

Chiorboli, Bari, 1928, part III, p. 21).

25 For an alternative explanation for Michelangelo's unfinished sculptures, see J. Schulz, "Michelangelo's Unfinished Works," Art Bulletin 57 (1975), pp. 366-73.

26 Vasari, trans. Bull, p. 404. In a section entitled "Diverse materie," of Antonfrancesco Doni's II cancellieri del Doni, the author has Michelangelo remark on the special qualities required of an artist, including being aware of the difficulties faced and the patience required to correct oneself when one errs, "patiente in emendarsi quando erra; et misurarsi quanto, che, et come e puo fare le cose, conciosia che difficilmente, non facendo questo... (A. Doni, II cancellieri del Doni, Libro dell'eloquenza, Venice, 1562, p. 62). Recently, Kathleen Weil-Garris Brandt noted that Michelangelo sometimes encountered unresolvable technical difficulties; see K. Weil-Garris Brandt, "I primordi di Michelangelo scultore," Giovinezza di Michel- angelo, Florence and Milan, 1999, p. 83.

27 Vasari to Leonardo Buonarroti: "...Ia Pieta... faceva per la sepoltura sua" (Carteggio indiretto 2, p. 181); see also Vasari- Barocchi 1, p. 83, ibid. 3, p. 1438, and A. Condivi, Vita di Michelagnolo Buonarroti, ed. G. Nencioni, Florence, 1998, p. 51.

28 Saslow, Poetry, no. 282. And in one of his most famous sonnets, Michelangelo wrote: "So now I recognize how laden with error/ was the affectionate fantasy/ that made art my idol and sovereign..." and further: "Neither painting nor sculpture will be able any longer/ to calm my soul, now turned toward that divine love/ that opened his arms on the cross to take us in" (ibid. no. 285). See also the relevant discussion of the sculpture, Michelangelo's poetry, and death in Agoston, "Sonnet, Sculpture, Death," p. 534-55.

29 Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 99. 30 Archivio di Stato di Firenze: Ceramelli-Papiani 409

(Baroncelli); ASF: Catasto 1002 (Sta. Croce, Carro), fols. 217r-v. The family chapel of the consortium is in the right transept of Sta. Croce, "nella testa del bracio della chiesa di verso mezzo giorno a canto alla porta di Sagrestia" (ASF: Manoscritti 628 [Sepoltuario], fol. 538, no. 29). See also S. Ammirato, "Della famiglia de' Baroncelli e Bandini," Delizie degli eruditi toscani 14, Florence, 1783, pp. 200-37, and V. Borghini, Storia della nobilta fiorentina: discorsi inediti o rari, ed. J. R. Woodhouse, Pisa, 1974, pp. 132-33. Bandini was a successful banker and patrician, not a sculptor/architect as Barocchi mistakenly thought (Vasari-Barocchi 4, p. 1675). Vasari states that Bandini commissioned Pierino da Vinci to design his tomb in Sta. Croce (G. Vasari, Le vite de' pih eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architettori, ed. G. Milanesi, 9 vols., Florence, 1878-85, 6, p. 125).

For the relations between the Buonarroti and Baroncelli, see Wallace, "How did...", p. 156. Michelangelo was a "cugino" of Baroncello Baroncelli, and the families were next door neighbors on Via Bentaccordi in Florence as we learn from the Catasto declarations of the Baroncelli (ASF: Catasto 1002 [Sta. Croce, 1480], fol. 394r-v, and ASF: Decima della Repubblica 11 [Sta. Croce, 1498], fol. 571 r-v), and the Buonarroti (ASF: Catasto 1005 [Sta. Croce, 1480], fol. 265r-v); for the latter see H. Grimm, "Denunzia dei beni della famiglia de Buonarroti," Jahrbuch der k6niglich preussischen Kunstsammlungen 6 (1885), p. 192-95.

31 ASF: Dieci di Balia, Deliberazioni 63, fol. 99v, and ASF: Dieci di Balia, Carteggio, Legazioni e Commissarie: Istruzioni e Lettere ad Oratori 45, fols. 126v-128v. Michelangelo may have known Francesco Bandini from the time of the San Lorenzo facade commission (c. 1518) since Bandini was married to Ginevra di Alamanno Salviati, the family that helped finance the giant project and with whom Bandini himself had accounts (Archivio Salviati, Pisa 749, fol. 163 left).

32 Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 249. Bandini is cited among Michel- angelo's "maggiori amici" which included as well the Cardinal Rodolfo Pio da Carpi, Donato Giannotti, Tommaso de' Cavalieri, and Francesco Lottini (ibid. 1, p. 103).

33 See II Carteggio di Michelangelo, 5 vols, ed. P. Barocchi and R. Ristori, Florence, 1965-83, 5, pp. 28, 65, 70-72, 104, 230, 260, as well as Carteggio indiretto 2, pp. 56, 58, 60, 61 and passim. Michelangelo's business dealings with the Bandini bank began at least as early as 1540 (see Ricordi, p. 302).

34 Biagio Buonaccorsi (1472-1526) was a friend of Niccolo Machiavelli and was his colleague in the Florentine Chancery under the Republican government of Piero Soderini. In 1506, Biagio Buonaccorsi was involved in the negotiations between Pope Julius II and Florence regarding the return of Michelangelo to Rome, from where he had fled in April (Carteggio 1, p. 368-72). In addition Biagio was one-time secretary to Alessandro Nasi who in 1508 helped nego- tiate the commission for Michelangelo's (lost) bronze David. Briefly in

96




1515, he was secretary to Filippo Strozzi with whom Michelangelo also had close ties (see W. E. Wallace, "Manoeuvring for Patronage: Michelangelo's Dagger," Renaissance Studies 11 [1997], p. 20-26). Another member of the family, Giuliano Buonaccorsi, was treasurer and confidant of King Francis I. It was in the care of Giuliano Buona- ccorsi that Michelangelo's assistant, Antonio Mini, entrusted the painting of Leda (Carteggio 3, p. 369, 4, pp. 9-10, 56-62); for a clear recounting of this complex episode, see J. Cox-Rearick, The Collection of Francis I: Royal Treasures, New York and Antwerp, 1995, pp. 237-41. Finally, Michelangelo appointed a Piero Buonaccorsi as purveyor of the works during the construction of the Laurentian Library in Florence (Wallace, Michelangelo at San Lorenzo, p. 140). For the Buonaccorsi, see Dizionario biografico degli italiani 15, Rome, 1972, pp. 74-96, and II notaio nella

civilta fiorentina, secoli XIII-XVI, Florence, 1984, pp. 135-36, 144-45.

35 Archivio di Stato, Roma: Notai Auditor Camerae 6183, fols. 2r- 3r: testament of Roberto Calcagni (1 September 1560). Until the dis- covery of this testament, the identity of Tiberio's father and the large size of his family were unknown. Tiberio had three brothers-Raffaele, Nicolo, and Orazio-as well as eight sisters, four of whom were nuns, two were married, and two, Ippolita and Paola, were still living at home ("et doi altre putte piccole zitelle"). For the marriage of one of these sisters in 1558, Roberto Calcagni provided an ample trousseau valued at 193 scudi (ASR: Notai AC 6175, fols. 169r-v). Another sister, Cassandra, married Pietro Paolo Maffei "nobile romano" (ASR: Notai AC 3933, fol. 152). I am indebted to the late Franca T. Camiz for gen- erously bringing to my attention these documents and those cited in the following notes.

36 Roberto Calcagni's profession is confirmed by the inventory of his house and bottega made on 1 November 1561, approximately one year after his death (ASR: Notai Auditor Camerae 6190, insert no. 542), and by the fact that his sons Nicolo and Raffaele evidently carried on the family business (ASR: Notai AC 3933, fol. 174). Moreover, Roberto Calcagni's epitaph refers to him as "conficiendis sacrarum vestium ornamentis" for Paul Pope Paul IV (V. Forcella, Iscrizioni delle chiese e d'altri edifici di Roma dal secolo XI fino ai nostri giorni, Rome, 1876, 7, p. 549, no. 1185). I would like to thank Caroline Elam for sharing the latter information with me.

37 ASR: Notai Auditor Camerae 6183, fols. 2r-3r, and ASR: Notai AC 6201, fols. 314r and 568r-569v. In 1567, the "rede" of Robeto Calcagni puchased a vigna near Porta del Popolo from Camillo Orsini for 400 scudi (ASR: Collegio Notai Capitolina 1527, fols. 385r-386r and 461 v-462r).

38 Archivio Capitolino, Roma: Atti Camera Capitolina, Credenzone I, tomo 1, p. 89 and Credenzone I, tomo 23, p. 47. In 1569, Nicolo was made an officer ("Consigliere") of the Camera Capitolina (Archivio Capitolino, Roma: Atti Camera Capitolina, Credenzone I, tomo 4, p. 93).

39 Among the seven pages listing the household furnishings are paintings of Christ and one of the Madonna ("Un quadro del Salvatore," "Uno quadro di Nostra Madonna"), a crucifix ("Un crocif- iso picholo"), a gesso Madonna ("Una Madonna di gesso"), and an old painting of a woman ("Uno quadro vecchio d'una donna"). In addition there was a cabinet with "alcuni libri da legere" and a strong- box with "libri e schritture" (ASR: Notai Auditor Camerae 6190, insert no. 542).

40 We know about Tiberio's "beneficio ecclesiastico" from his father's will of 1560 (ASR: Notai Auditor Camerae 6183, fols. 2r-3r). Calcagni's influential patrons were quite likely the Sforza with whom Tiberio was closely associated (see note 47). On ecclesiastic benefices, see P. F. Starr, "Music and Music Patronage at the Papal

Court, 1447-1464," Ph.D. diss. (Yale U., 1987), esp. Chap. 1. I would like to thank Pamela Starr for her assistance.

41 Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 99. Giannotti (b. 1492) served in the Florentine Signoria (as "primo segretario dei Dieci") while Michelangelo supervised the building of the Florentine fortifications during the Last Republic (1527-30). Since coming to Rome in 1539, Giannotti was closely associated with the circle of Florentine "fuorius- citi" around Cardinal Niccolo Ridolfi, for whom Michelangelo and Calcagni carved the bust of Brutus. Giannotti undersigned Michelangelo's contract for the tomb of Julius II in 1542, and he made the artist a principal interlocutor in his dialog, "How Many Days did Dante Spend in Hell and Purgatory" written in 1546 (see R. Ridolfi, "Sommario della vita di Donato Giannotti," in Opuscoli di storia letter- aria e di erudizione, Florence, 1942, pp. 55-164). Michelangelo was familiar with the Calcagni family from Florence; he considered renting a house from them while he was working at San Lorenzo (Carteggio 3, p. 39).

42 Vasari-Barocchi 1:112. In general on Calcagni, see A. Venturi, Storia dell'arte italiana 11 vols., Milan, 1901-48, vol. XI, pt. 2, pp. 191- 201, and Dizionario biografico degli italiani 16, Rome, 1973, pp. 489- 90. On the project and the drawings attributed to Calcagni, see A. Nava, "Sui disegni architettonici per S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini in Roma," Critica d'arte 1 (1935-36), pp. 102-108; H. Siebenhiner, "San Giovanni dei Fiorentini in Rom," in Kunstgeschichtliche Studien fur Hans Kauffmann, Berlin, 1956, pp. 72-91; J. Vicioso, "La basilica di San Giovanni dei Fiorentini a Roma: individuazione delle vicende progettuali," Bollettino d'arte 72 (1992), pp. 73-114, and G. C. Argan and Bruno Contardi, Michelangelo Architect, trans. M. L. Grayson, London, 1993, pp. 342-47. For other architectural presentation drawings attributed to Calcagni, see L. Ragghianti-Collobi, II libro de' Disegni del Vasari, Florence, 1974, figs. 454-58.

43 Michelangelo to Duke Cosimo (5 March 1560): "lllustrissimo signor mio osservandissimo, questi deputati sopra la fabricha della chiesa de' Fiorentini si sono resoluti mandare Tiberio Chalchagni a Vostra E(ccellenza) illustrissima: la quale cosa mi e molto piaciuta, perche con i disegni che egli porta ella sara capace, piu che con la pianta che vidde, di quello ci occorrerebbe di fare..." (Carteggio 5:206), and Calcagni in Florence reporting to Michelangelo (8 April 1560): "...ho ragionato con Sua E(ccellenza) della faccenda ch'ella sa, et mostro Ii disegni della Signoria Vostra, che mi voglio serbare a bocca a farla maravigliar della haffetione che Sua E(ccellenza) porta a Vostra Signoria. In somma, non Ii possano piu piacere" (ibid., p. 218).

44 Luca Martini to Michelangelo (2 May 1560): "...messer Tiberio Calcagni se ne torna a Roma, et ha negotiato con Sua Eccellenza illustrissima le cose della fabbrica della chiesa de' Fiorentini et dira a Vostra Signoria quant'habbia fatto et la buona mente del nostro signor Duca, ch'e dispostissimo a fare

quant'e stato richiesto, mosso

sopra tutte le cose dal bellissimo disegno et dalla lettera di Vostra Signoria; le quali cose gli furono tanto care quanto immaginare si possa: del che lascer6 a quella intendere et dalle sue lettere et dalla viva voce di messer Tiberio." (Carteggio 5, p. 225). Note that, in addition, Duke Cosimo himself wrote to Michelangelo (30 April 1560): "...vi diciamo solamente che il disegno vostro per la chiesa della Natione ci ha innamorato si, che ci dispiace di non vederlo in opera perfetta, et per ornamento et fama della citta nostra, et anco per vostra eterna memoria, che ben la meritate; si che aiutate a porlo in esequtione, et rendetevi certo che noi non perderemo occasione alcuna per li com- modi vostri et per farvi ogni honore" (ibid., p. 224).

45 "Finalmente conclusero che I'ordinazione fussi tutta di Michelagnolo e le fatiche dello esseguire detta opera fussi di Tiberio,

97



WILLIAM E. WALLACE

che di tutto si contentorono, promettendo loro che egli gli servirebbe benissimo; e cosi, dato la pianta a Tiberio, che la riducessi netta e dis- egnata giusta, gli ordin6 i profili di fuori e di drento, e che ne facessi un modello di terra, insegnandogli il modo da condurlo che stessi in piedi. In dieci giorni condusse Tiberio il modello di otto palmi, del quale, piaciuto assai a tutta la nazione, ne faciono poi fare un modello di legno, che 6 oggi nel consolato di detta nazione: cosa tanto rara..." (Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 113). For the engravings, see The Renaissance from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo: The Representation of Architecture, ed. H. A. Millon and V. M. Lampugnani, Milan, 1994, p. 474.

46 Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 113; K. Schwager, "Die Porta Pia in Rom," Munchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 33 (1973), pp. 33-96, esp. 42ff. See also Argan-Contardi, Michelangelo Architect, pp. 348- 53. On August 20, 1562, Cardinal Ascanio Sforza added a codicil to his will stipulating the founding of a "collegio" and a chapel dedicated to St. Catherine in Santa Maria Maggiore. The codicil also mentions a model for the latter project (ASR: Sforza-Cesarini I Parte [Etichetta rettangolare], Busta 622, 7 folios). Cardinal Sforza died in 1564, the same year as Michelangelo and only one year before Calcagni. The work on the chapel and its decoration were completed, probably by Giacomo della Porta, in 1573 under the patronage of Guido Ascanio's brother, Alessandro Sforza, who is also buried in the chapel (see Cardinal Alessandro's will of 11 July 1580, ASR: Collegio Notai Capitolini 464, fols. 589r-598v).

47 A contract of 1564 stipulates that the drawings of "m. Tiberio architetto" be used for the building of a villa "dicta la Sforzescha" (see L. Calzona, 'La Gloria de' Prencipi': Gli Sforza di Santafiora da Proceno a Segni, Rome, 1996, p. 78). I would like to thank Lucia Calzona for her assistance regarding Calcagni at Proceno a Segni. At the same moment, Calcagni was working for the same patrons on the Sforza chapel in Sta. Maria Maggiore.

Giovan Francesco Lottini, whom Condivi and Vasari number among Michelangelo's close friends in old age, may also have been an important intermediary in the relations between Calcagni, the Cardinal Sforza, and Michelangelo. Lottini, a prominent humanist writer and member of the Florentine Academy, was Duke Cosimo de' Medici's agent in Rome and one-time secretary to Cardinal Guido Ascanio Sforza. He was made a bishop in 1560, helped persuade Michelangelo to build the wood model of the cupola of St. Peter's but was unsuccessful in persuading him to return to Florence. On Lottini, see F Diaz, II Granducato di Toscana: I Medici, Turin, 1976, pp. 206, 213-18, and Vasari-Barocchi 1, pp. 103, 118; 4, pp. 1598, 1697, 1701, 1880-81.

48 C. Elam, "'Che ultima mano!': Tiberio Calcagni's Marginal Annotations to Condivi's Life of Michelangelo," Renaissance Quarterly 51 (1998), pp. 75-97. I would like to thank Caroline Elam for gener- ously providing me with a copy of her article in advance of its publi- cation. The postille were first published by U. Procacci, "Postille con- temporanee in un esemplare della vita di Michelangiolo del Condivi," in Atti del Convegno di Studi Michelangioleschi, Firenze-Roma, 1964, Florence and Rome, 1964, pp. 279-94.

49 In a letter to another significant "patron," Michelangelo's nephew Leonardo (Carteggio indiretto 2, p. 108).

50 "...era molto gentile e discreto" (Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 112). 51 Carteggio indiretto 2, p. 154, and "Dio lodato, sta benissimo

per vechio" (ibid. 2, p. 108). 52 Carteggio indiretto 2, p. 107. On Michelangelo's ownership of

horses, an unusual luxury for a Renaissance artist, see Wallace, "Miscellanea Curiositae Michelangelae," esp. pp. 336-39.

53 Carteggio indiretto 2, p. 173.

54 Carteggio indiretto 2, p. 169. 55 Carteggio indiretto 2, p. 107. 56 "TIBERIO CALCANEO FLORENTINO...STATUARIAE ARTIS ET

ARCHITECTURAE ECCELLENTEM PRAESTANTIAM SUMMO STUDIO CONTENDERET..." The tools of both professions are represented in border cartouches on his grave slab in San Giovanni Decollato. I would like to thank John Paoletti for bringing this to my attention. Calcagni generally signed letters "Tiberio Calcagni scultore" (e.g. Carteggio indiretto 2, pp. 107, 109, 170). His mother, Lucrezia Bonaccorsi, and three brothers-Raffaele, Nicolo, and Orazio-are named on his tomb slab. On the other hand, Calcagni's father wished to be buried in San Giovanni dei Fiorentini (ASR: Notai AC 6183, fol. 2r).

57 Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 112 and 4, pp. 1792-1802. On the dating of this episode, see T Martin, "Michelangelo's Brutus and the Classicizing Portrait Bust in Sixteenth-Century Italy," Artibus et Historiae 27 (1993), pp. 67-83. A. Grunwald (Florentiner Studien, Prague, 1914, pp. 11-13) attempted to distinguish the hands of Calcagni and Michelangelo on the Brutus bust.

58 Frederick Hartt is characteristic of this line of criticism: "The original construction of the face was doubtless identical to that of the Christ, but Calcagni has chiseled and filed away Michelangelo's grad- ina marks to produce a smooth surface, and as a result, has reduced both forms and expression to nullity" (F. Hartt, Michelangelo's Three

Pietas, New York, 1975, p. 93). For a range of negative comments, see

Vasari-Barocchi 4:1674-75. Of course, we have no certainly attributed independent works by Calcagni which makes an assessment of his style extremely difficult.

59 A short bridge of stone-actually Nicodemus' finger-con- nects the back of the Magdalene's head to the upper arm of Christ, parts of the sculpture that are generally accepted as Michelangelo's work. A further bridge once existed at the right side of the Magdalene's head connecting to Christ's forearm. This was evidently broken when Christ's right arm was broken away, but neither head nor limb has been substantially altered. In fact, small cavities in the arm and at the side of the head-damage resulting from the breaking of the arm-reveal that head and arm are the same size and in the same relative position to one another as they had been before the breaking of Christ's arm. The point about the relative size of the figures was also made by Moshe Arkin (Arkin, "One of the Marys," p. 497).

60 See G. Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art II: The Passion of Christ, trans. J. Seligman, London, 1972; see also W. Pinder, Die Pieta, Leipzig, 1922; W. K6rte, "Deutsche Vesperbild in Italien," Kunst- geschichtliches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana 1 (1937), pp. 1- 138; W. H. Forsyth, The Entombment of Christ: French Sculptures of the 15th and 16th Centuries, Cambridge MA, 1970; idem, The Pieta in Late French Gothic Sculpture: Regional Variations, New York, 1995; M. Mosco, La Maddalena tra sacro e profano, Florence, 1986; M. Ingenhoff-Danhauser, Maria Magdalena: Heilige und Sunderin in der italienischen Renaissance, Tjbingen, 1984; J. E. Ziegler, Sculpture of Compassion: The Pieta and the Beguines in the Southern Low Countries c. 1300-c. 1600, Brussels, 1992, and S. Haskins, Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor, London, 1993. More generally, see H. Belting, Das Bild und sein Publikum im Mittelalter, Berlin, 1981.

61 In the National Gallery Entombment, the Magdalene performs a similar office in that she looks out of the painting and presents the Deposition group to the viewer. The picture, however, is not universal- ly accepted. For a sustained argument in favor of its attribution to Michelangelo, see M. Hirst and J. Dunkerton, The Young Michel- angelo: The Artist in Rome 1496-1501, London, 1994, and for the opposing view, see J. Beck, "Is Michelangelo's Entombment in the

98




National Gallery, Michelangelo's?" Gazette des Beaux-Arts 127 (1996), pp. 181-98. For the Noli me Tangere, see W. E. Wallace, "II Noli me Tangere di Michelangelo: tra sacro e profano," Arte Cristiana 76 (1988), pp. 443-50.

In addition, the Magdalene may be identified as one of the figures in the fragmentary drawing in the Teyler Museum, Haarlem which may be reasonably connected with the Florentine Pieta. See C. de Tolnay, Corpus dei disegni di Michelangelo, 4 vols., Novara, 1975-80, no. 434 (recently discussed by A. Nagel, "Observations on Michelangelo's Late Pieta Drawings and Sculptures," Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichte 4 [1966], pp. 548-72). Two other drawings (Tolnay, Corpus, nos. 268, 269) may also include the Magdalene although neither the identifications nor the attributions of these sheets are certain.

62 "Ora ha per le mani un'opera di marmo, qual egli fa a suo dilet- to, come quello che, pieno di concetti, e forza che ogni giorno ne par- torisca qualcuno" (Condivi, ed. Nencioni, p. 51).

63 "...Ia quale ancor che molto dolente si dimostri, nondimeno non manca di far quell'uffizio che la Madre per lo estremo dolore prestar non pu6" (Condivi, ed. Nencioni, p. 51).

64 G. Catalani, Rituale Romanum Benedicti papae XIV perpetuis commentariis exornatum 2 vols., Padua, 1760; The Catholic Encyclopedia 3, New York, 1913, pp. 71-78.

In Della Pittura, Leon Battista Alberti writes: "In an istoria I like to see someone who admonishes and points out to us what is hap- pening there; or beckons with his hand to see; or menaces with an angry face and with flashing eyes, so that no one should come near; or shows some danger or marvellous thing there; or invites us to weep or to laugh together with them. Thus whatever the painted persons do among themselves or with the beholder, all is pointed toward orna- menting or teaching the istoria" (L. B. Alberti, On Painting, trans. J. R. Spencer, New Haven and London, 1966, p. 78). In Italian: "Et piacemi sia nella storia chi admonisca et insegni ad noi quello che ivi si facci: o chiami con la mano a vedere o, con viso cruccioso e chon Ii occhi turbati, minacci che niuno verso loro vada; o dimostri qualche perico- lo o cosa ivi maravigliosa o te inviti ad piagniere con loro insieme o a ridere; et cosi, qualunque cosa fra loro o teco facciano i dipinti, tutto apartenga a hornare o a insegniarti la storia" (L. B. Alberti, Della Pittura, ed. L. Malle, Florence, 1950, p. 94).

On the office of the dead as represented in El Greco's painting, which may well owe something to Michelangelo's sculpture, see S. Schroth, "Burial of the Count of Orgaz," Figures of Thought: El Greco as Interpreter of History, Tradition, and Ideas (Studies in the History of Art 11), Washington D.C., 1982, pp. 1-17. Tolnay considered the Magdalene's direct address of the spectator to be similar in func- tion to the angel in Leonardo da Vinci's Madonna of the Rocks (C. de Tolnay, Michelangelo: The Final Period, Princeton, 1960, p. 88).

65 See Schroth, "Burial," p. 9. Evoking her earlier role in helping to prepare Christ's body for burial, Caravaggio includes the Mary Magdalene in his "Death of the Virgin" (see P Askew, Caravaggio's Death of the Virgin, Princeton NJ, 1980, esp. pp. 78-79). I would like to thank Franca T Camiz for bringing this example to my attention.

66 See Wallace, Arte Cristiana, 1988, pp. 443-50. On the medieval tradition regarding the erotic association of Christ and Mary Magdalene, see L. Steinberg, "The Metaphors of Love and Birth in Michelangelo's Pietas,"

in Studies in Erotic Art, ed. T. Bowie, New York, 1970, pp. 247-49 and Appendix C, pp. 277-80.

67 Of course, the identity of Nicodemus is not certain, for which, see W. Stechow, 'Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus?" Studien zur toskanischen Kunst: Festschrift fOr Ludwig Heinrich Heydenreich, ed. W. Lotz and L. L. Mller, Munich, 1964, pp. 289-302; J. Kristof, "Michel- angelo as Nicodemus: The Florence

Pieta," The Sixteenth Century

Journal 20 (1989), pp. 163-82; V. Shrimplin-Evangelidis, "Michelangelo and Nicodemism: The Florentine

Pieta," Art Bulletin 71 (1989), pp. 58-

66, and A. Parronchi in Opere giovanili di Michelangelo 4, Florence, 1992, pp. 61-69.

68 Werner K6rte noted that the scale of the figures depends on their importance ("Das Problem des Nonfinito bei Michelangelo," R6misches Jahrbuch fuir Kunstgeschichte 7 [1955], p. 296). Other writ- ers have noted the Magdalene's small size and attributed this to Calcagni's intervention, e.g. A. Bertini, "II problema del non finito nel- I'arte di Michelangelo," L'Arte 33 (1930), p. 137, and A. Perrig, Michelangelo Buonarrotis letzte Pieta-ldee, Bern, 1960, p. 66, n. 55.

69 Michelangelo conceived a similarly "detached" Magdalene in drawings of the "Lamentation" in the Albertina, Vienna and the Musee du Louvre, Paris (Tolnay, Corpus, nos. 268, 269). I find her detachment to be decorous-suited to her role and relationship with Christ vis-a- vis Christ's mother-rather than "estranged" as has been suggested by Moshe Arkin (Arkin, Art Bulletin, 1997, p. 497).

70 The supposed faults of these figures are sometimes attributed to the intervention of Michelangelo's collaborator, Raffaello da Montelupo (see C. de Tolnay, Michelangelo: The Tomb of Julius II, Princeton, 1954, rpt. 1970, pp. 121-23).

71 This was the conclusion also of Johannes Wilde (Michelangelo: Six Lectures by Johannes Wilde, ed. J. Shearman and M. Hirst, Oxford, 1978, p. 61). Symonds remarked that Calcagni "does not seem to have elaborated the surface in any important particular..." (Symonds, Michelangelo 2, p. 202).

A drawing of a wistful head in the Boymans van Beuningen Museum, Rotterdam may be for the Magdalene (see Tolnay, Corpus, no. 324). If this is the case, then it may be argued that Calcagni was merely realizing in stone-and successfully-what Michelangelo anticipated in this drawing.

72 i"... e rimessa insieme poi da Tiberio e rifatto non so che pezzi..." (Vasari-Barocchi 1, p. 100).

73 ,"...che con suo aiuto di modelli Tiberio la finissi per il Bandino, saria cagione che quelle fatiche non sarebbono gettate invano, e ne fu contento Michelagnolo; Ia dove ne fece loro un presente" (Vasari- Barocchi 1, p. 100).

74 The chronology of these events is impossible to reconstruct with precision. For the clearest exposition of the statue's fortunes subsequent to Michelangelo's abandonment of it, see the forthcoming volume on the Pieta edited by Jack Wasserman.

75 Bandini, however, died in 1562. Vasari at least still considered it a worthy funerary sculpture and tried to recover it from Bandini's son Pierantonio after the master's death (see Carteggio indiretto 2, p. 181).

76 "Saria cosa impossibile narrare la bellezza e gli affetti che ne' dolenti e mesti volti si veggiono, si di tutti li altri, si dell'affannata madre; pero questo basti. Vo' ben dire

ch'e cosa rara e delle faticose

opere ch'egli fin a qui abbia fatte..." (Condivi, ed. Nencioni, pp. 51- 52).

77 Saslow, Poetry, nos. 283.

99



Michelangelo, Tiberio Calcagni and the Florentine Pieta

Documents

Transcript of Michelangelo, Tiberio Calcagni and the Florentine Pieta