Michelangelo's Slaves and the Gift of Liberty

Michelangelo’s Slaves and the Gift of LibertyAuthor(s): Maria RuvoldtReviewed work(s):Source: Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Winter 2012), pp. 1029-1059Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669344 .

Accessed: 17/12/2012 15:58

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].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Renaissance Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Renaissance Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:58:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669344?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


Michelangelo’s Slaves and the Giftof Liberty*

by MARIA RUVOLDT

Sometime between 1544 and 1550, Michelangelo gave two sculptures, the Rebellious Slave andthe Dying Slave, to Roberto Strozzi, a fellow Florentine resident in Rome. Although the giftostensibly signified gratitude for Strozzi’s hospitality during the artist’s convalescence from a graveillness, it had strong political undertones. Shortly after receiving this extraordinary present,Strozzi, most likely with Michelangelo’s consent, gave the sculptures away, presenting them to theKing of France as part of an effort to persuade him to intervene on behalf of the FlorentineRepublic in its final struggle against Medici rule. Michelangelo’s loyalties, both personal andpolitical, were simultaneously revealed and concealed in this act of calculated generosity. Thisarticle situates the gift within the context of Michelangelo’s habits of gift-giving, his networks ofkinship, and the complicated politics of the 1530s and ’40s.

1. INTRODUCTION

The so-called Rebellious Slave (fig. 1) and Dying Slave (fig. 2) byMichelangelo (1475–1564) are talismans of the ‘‘tragedy’’ of the Julius

tomb.1 Originally conceived in 1505 as a monumental freestanding tombfor the della Rovere pope Julius II (r. 1503–13) with some forty sculptedfigures to be located in the new St. Peter’s, the project was graduallydiminished by the death of its patron, the squabbling of his heirs, and the

*I wish to dedicate this article to David Rosand.I presented a version of this paper at The Renaissance Society of America’s meeting in

San Francisco in 2006. I am indebted to Victoria Gardner Coates, who organized a series ofpanels with me on ‘‘The Art of the Gift/The Artful Gift’’; to Alexander Nagel, who wasa generous session chair; and to the collegial audience at the RSA for their contributions. I

am also grateful to Pamela Fletcher and William E. Wallace, who read and commented onearlier versions of this article, for their insights and encouragement, and to the anonymousreaders at RQ for their thoughtful criticism. Further research was supported by a Fordham

University Faculty Fellowship.1For the denouement of ‘‘la tragedia della sepoltura,’’ see Condivi, 47. In a letter to an

unknown monsignore (probably Cardinal Alessandro Farnese), Michelangelo lamented thathe had spent his youth ‘‘bound to’’ the Julius tomb: ‘‘Io mi truovo aver perduta tutta la mia

giovineza, legato a questa sepoltura’’ (Il Carteggio di Michelangelo [hereafter referred to asCarteggio], 4:151. For the identification of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese as the recipient, seeLetters, 2:259–62.

Renaissance Quarterly 65 (2012): 1029–59 [1029]



demands of subsequent popes on the artist.2 Its final realization as a walltomb in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli in 1545 (fig. 3) freedMichelangelo from his obligations and liberated the Slaves from the contextof the tomb. As we will see, Michelangelo held back the figures he called thePrisoners, arguing that they were no longer suited to the project, and keptthem at his house in Rome.

FIGURE 1. Michelangelo Buonarroti, Rebellious Slave, 1513–15. Paris, Mus�ee duLouvre. Photo: R�eunion des Mus�ees Nationaux/Art Resource.

2For a summary of the history of the project, see De Tolnay, 1943–60, vol. 4. See alsoPanofsky, 1937; Frommel; and more recent studies by Satzinger; Echinger-Maurach, 2003,

2006, and 2009; Bredekamp; Kempers.

RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY1030



Initially designed to alternate with figures of Victories at the base ofthe tomb, the Slaves respond in different ways to the thin straps that bindthem. The Rebellious Slave struggles to free himself; the Dying Slave appearsto take pleasure in his own captivity, or at least to acquiesce. The LouvreSlaves, and their less-finished brethren now in the Galleria dell’Accademia inFlorence, present an iconographic problem that puzzled even Michelangelo’scontemporaries. Perhaps they represented the liberal arts, constrained by thedeath of their great patron, Julius.3 Or they personified the Italian provinces

FIGURE 2. Michelangelo Buonarroti, Dying Slave, 1513–15. Paris, Mus�ee duLouvre. Photo: R�eunion des Mus�ees Nationaux/Art Resource.

3Condivi, 24–25.

1031MICHELANGELO’S SLAVES



subdued by the warrior pope.4 Or they functioned as Neoplatonic allegories,signifying the human soul, imprisoned in the flesh.5 Divorced from thetomb, the Slaves have come to represent Michelangelo himself, hisNeoplatonic aspirations, his attitude toward the act of sculpture and the

FIGURE 3. Michelangelo Buonarroti, Tomb of Julius II, completed 1545. Rome,San Pietro in Vincoli. Photo: Scala/Art Resource.

4In the edition of 1550, Vasari identified the Slaves as captive provinces; in 1568, heincorporated Condivi’s interpretation, suggesting that some of the prisoners representsubjugated provinces, and that others are the Liberal Arts: Vasari, 1:29.

5For this Neoplatonic interpretation of the Slaves, see Panofsky, 1962, 171–230.




aesthetic of the non-finito, his struggles with the demands of patrons, andwith his own homoerotic tendencies.6

This article proposes to look beneath those layers of meaning anddiscuss the Slaves as a gift, a present that Michelangelo gave to a friend.Michelangelo’s biographers report that the artist gave these two sculptures toRoberto Strozzi (d. 1566) — a member of the prominent Florentine familyof bankers — sometime after 1544.7 It was an extravagant gesture, and yetthe Slaves were quickly given again, sent by Strozzi to the King of France in1550. This essay aims to recapture the meaning of the initial gift and itsultimate fate. According to Michelangelo’s biographers, the gift of the Slaveswas motivated by personal obligation. It was, on the surface, a thank-youpresent, an acknowledgment of the hospitality that Strozzi had offeredMichelangelo during a period of illness. The Slaves were given at a timewhen Michelangelo was particularly cautious about overt expressions ofpolitical allegiance, and often obscured his connections to those who did notshare his sense of discretion. But the context of Michelangelo’s gift-givingpractices, his lifelong entanglements with the Strozzi family, and the shiftingpolitical landscape of the period leading up to and following the donationof the Slaves, suggest that the gift was motivated as much by political as bypersonal concerns.

2. FR IENDSHIP AND KINSHIP

In the summer of 1544, the sixty-nine-year-oldMichelangelo was gravely ill,and many feared that his death was imminent. Pope Paul III (r. 1534–49)demanded daily reports on his health, andMichelangelo’s nephew Lionardo(b. 1513) rushed to Rome to be at his side.8 Michelangelo moved into theStrozzi residence in Rome, where Luigi del Riccio (d. 1546), the Strozzi’s

6For a summary of interpretations of these figures from Michelangelo’s lifetime tocontemporary scholarship, see Motzkin.

7Vasari, 1:122: ‘‘He gave the two Prisoners to Signor Ruberto Strozzi’’; Condivi, 63:‘‘He has made gifts of many of his own things, which would have earned him a great dealof money had he sold them; if it were only those two statues which he gave to his verydear friend Messer Ruberto Strozzi’’; Borghini, 513: ‘‘Ruberto Strozzi received from

Michelangelo, who had been ill in his house, two statues representing two prisoners,which had been made for the tomb of Julius II, but which then were not used in the work,which Ruberto sent as gifts to the King of France, and they are now in Ecouen.’’ In all of the

sixteenth-century sources, Strozzi’s first name is spelled ‘‘Ruberto,’’ although most modernscholarship reverts it to the more conventional ‘‘Roberto,’’ which I use here.

8Carteggio, 4:182 (Luigi del Riccio to Roberto Strozzi, 23 June 1544); ibid., 183

(Michelangelo to Lionardo Buonarroti, before 11 July 1544).




business manager and Michelangelo’s close friend, cared for him. DelRiccio, a fellow Florentine, had proved himself both a trusted companionand an indispensable advisor toMichelangelo.9 He managedMichelangelo’saffairs, negotiating agreements between quarrelling members of theworkshop and possibly handling the final contract for the Julius tomb in1542.10 He also kept up a regular correspondence with Michelangelo’snephew in Florence, exchanged poems with the artist, and prepareda selection of Michelangelo’s verse for publication.11 The letters, notes,and poems that passed between the two men reveal a warm, affectionateconnection and mutual respect. The untimely death in January 1544 of delRiccio’s nephew, Cecchino Bracci (1529–44), a young man much admiredby Michelangelo’s Roman circle, may have cemented the bond betweenthem. At del Riccio’s request, Michelangelo designed a tomb for Bracci andpenned a series of epigrams, a madrigal, and a sonnet in his memory.12

Recuperating in Roberto Strozzi’s palace under del Riccio’s care,Michelangelo was drawing on ties that bound the Buonarroti and theStrozzi and that stretched back to the generation of Roberto’s grandparents,Filippo Strozzi the Elder (1428–91) and his wife, Selvaggia Gianfigliazzi(1460–1525). They had been served by Michelangelo’s relations —Bernardo Rucellai (1448–1514), an advisor to Selvaggia and father-in-lawto her son Lorenzo, and Baroncello Baroncelli, who managed the financesfor the construction of the Strozzi palace in Florence — in the fifteenthcentury.13 It was likely through this network of kinship that Michelangelo’sbrother, Buonarroto (1477–1528), also entered into the orbit of the Strozzi.Filippo Strozzi the Younger (Roberto’s father, 1489–1538) and his brother,Lorenzo (1482–1549), employed Buonarroto in their wool business, and he

9See Steinmann. See alsoWallace, 2010, 200–10. Del Riccio features prominently as aninterlocutor with Michelangelo in Donato Giannotti’s dialogue on Dante: see Giannotti.

10For the conflict in the workshop, see Carteggio, 4:130–31. In a letter of 20 July 1542to Pope Paul III, Michelangelo recounted the history of his work on the tomb, and soughtthe pope’s assistance to achieve a final resolution of the contract. One copy of the letter is in

del Riccio’s hand; the other, in an unknown hand, has corrections by del Riccio: seeCarteggio, 4:135, 138.

11For the correspondence with Lionardo Buonarroti, see Carteggio indiretto, 2:6–18,23, 25–28. Working with Donato Giannotti (1492–1573), del Riccio selected 105 poems

for publication, but the project was abandoned on del Riccio’s death in 1546: see Poetry, 53.12Steinmann, 13 (Luigi del Riccio to Donato Giannotti, 12 January 1544); see also

Vasari, 1:124. For Bracci’s tomb, see Echinger-Maurach, 2006. For the verse honoring

Bracci, see Poetry, 339–90.13For Michelangelo’s kinship ties to the prominent Florentine families of the Strozzi,

Medici, and Rucellai, see Wallace, 1992a and 2000. Bernardo Rucellai’s daughter Lucrezia

was betrothed to Lorenzo Strozzi in 1493; they were married in 1503: see Bullard, 1980, 4.




eventually became a partner.14 Michelangelo himself used the services of theStrozzi bank from the last decade of the fifteenth century, and developeda close relationship with Roberto Strozzi, his ‘‘very dear friend.’’15

The Buonarroti ably leveraged distant ties to two of the most powerfulfamilies in Florence, the Strozzi and the Medici, to advance their owninterests. Connected by marriage to the Medici, Michelangelo’s fatherenjoyed the patronage of Lorenzo the Magnificent (1449–92), who helpedsecure him minor posts in government, and who took the youngMichelangelo into his household.16 Scholars have detailed how suchdynamics of familial bonds, social connections, and patronage shapedFlorentine society, creating a culture of obligation that operated through theexchange of gifts, the granting of favors, and other forms of reciprocalbenefit.17 Michelangelo felt these obligations keenly. His letters and poemstestify to his acute awareness of his duties to family members, friends, andpatrons, and to the necessity of discharging his obligations appropriately.18

3. GIFTS AND POLIT ICS

Above all, Michelangelo understood the power of gifts.19 He was therecipient of gifts designed to win his favor, especially presents of food fromfriends and family. Luigi del Riccio encouraged his work on CecchinoBracci’s tomb through gifts of wine, truffles, and other delicacies, andadvised Michelangelo’s nephew Lionardo to send cheese, plums, and raviolito stay in his uncle’s good graces.20 More exalted connections rewarded himwith princely gifts, such as the horse Cardinal Ippolito de’Medici (1511–35)bestowed upon him, complete with a groom and a supply of fodder.21

Michelangelo received these tributes with apparent enthusiasm (volentieri ),and offered gifts of his own in return, including verses for del Riccio, and

14See Wallace, 1997.15Condivi, 63: ‘‘messer Ruberto Strozzi, suo amicissimo.’’16See Wallace, 1992a and 2000. For Michelangelo’s early years with the Medici, see

Elam, 1992; Hirst, 1994; Joannides, 1996.17See, among others, Klapisch-Zuber; Molho; Kent, 1987; Wiessman; Bullard, 1990;

Elam, 1993; Kent, 1994; and Wallace, 1999.18See Parker, 87–115.19The classic anthropological study of the dynamics of gift-giving is Mauss. See also

Morris; Cunnally; The Gift ; Nagel, 1997; Warwick; Davis; Butters.20See Steinmann, 16; Carteggio indiretto, 2:15 (Luigi del Riccio to Lionardo Buonarroti,

11 July 1545). For del Riccio’s gifts of food to Michelangelo, see Wallace, 2010, 206.21Vasari, 1:118.




wine and fresh fruit for Pope Paul III.22 Michelangelo practiced manyvarieties of gift-giving, from the freely given tokens of love —most notably,the presentation drawings for intimate friends such as Tommaso de’Cavalieri(ca. 1509–87) and Vittoria Colonna (1492–1547) — to more practical giftsof cartoons to artists in his circle to be developed into finished paintings, andeven works by his own hand for them to sell.23 He gave to charity, doweredorphan girls, and supported his extended family respectably.24 Paradoxically,we know about Michelangelo’s gift-giving practices because he was widelyreputed to be a miser, a charge that Giorgio Vasari (1511–74), AscanioCondivi (1525–74), and Benedetto Varchi (1503–65) all hastened to dismissby cataloguing his acts of generosity.25 Understandably, Michelangelo’sdefenders were less informative about his more calculated gifts, thosedesigned to create a sense of obligation in their recipient and to compela reciprocal act.

One such calculated gift — in fact, among the first of Michelangelo’srecorded gifts — went to the Strozzi family. In 1506, a dagger he designedwas rejected by its patron, the Florentine Piero Aldobrandini.26 The ever-practical Michelangelo decided to recycle it, giving it to his brother,Buonarroto, and instructing him to present it to Filippo Strozzi as a gift,clearly imagining that Buonarroto would thus ingratiate himself to hisemployer. ‘‘Make him a present of it,’’ Michelangelo instructs, ‘‘as fromyourself, and do not say anything to him about the cost.’’27 It was a failedeffort. Buonarroto bungled the gift, and opted to sell the dagger to Strozziinstead. A disappointed Michelangelo chided his brother for behaving ina ‘‘stingy’’ manner with Strozzi.28

It is likely that Michelangelo had himself made a gift to the Strozzi sometime earlier. It was again calculated to reap a benefit. In the wake of the firstMedici expulsion from Florence in 1494, Michelangelo presented a now-lost monumental sculpture of Hercules to the Strozzi, in an effort to attract

22Carteggio, 4:270 (Michelangelo to Lionardo Buonarroti, 18 June 1547); ibid., 299(Michelangelo to Lionardo Buonarroti, 5 May 1548).

23For the gift drawings, see Nagel, 1997, with further bibliography; Nagel, 2003. Seealso the record of Michelangelo’s generosity in Vasari, 4:2053–74.

24For Michelangelo’s charitable contributions, see Hatfield, 192–94; Wallace, 2010,307–12.

25See Vasari, 1:122–23; Condivi, 63–64; Varchi, 35–36.26Wallace, 1997. My account here summarizes Wallace’s analysis.27Carteggio, 1:35 (Michelangelo to Buonarroto Buonarroti, 31 March 1507):

‘‘[F]agniene un presente chome da�cte, e non gli dire niente quello che�lla costa.’’28Ibid., 38 (Michelangelo to Buonarroto Buonarroti, 20 April 1507): ‘‘pidochiosamente.’’




their patronage. The origins of the work are somewhat obscure and subjectto debate, centering on the question of payment. Condivi and Vasari reportthat the Hercules was an independent project, undertaken at Michelangelo’sown expense as he recovered from the death of Lorenzo the Magnificent in1492.29 But such a substantial block of marble may well have been beyondMichelangelo’s means, and these much later retellings of the story may havebeen designed to conceal a commission by the disgraced Piero de’Medici(1472–1503).30 When he fled Florence, Piero left behind a wealth of objectsthat were distributed by a committee of six Sindaci appointed by the republicto settle Medici debts.31 Among them was a marble Hercules restored on11 August 1495 to a certain ‘‘Bonaroti,’’ who is surely Michelangelo.32 Afterits restitution to Michelangelo, theHerculesmay have been sold by the artistto Selvaggia Gianfigliazzi Strozzi, or to one of her sons.33 But William E.Wallace makes the compelling suggestion that Michelangelo offered theHercules to the Strozzi as a gift, a proposal that is in keeping withMichelangelo’s practice of giving strategic gifts to potential patrons.34

However the Hercules was originally produced and acquired by the Strozzi,it was installed in the courtyard of the Palazzo Strozzi in 1506, having beentransferred there from the family’s old residence.35 It remained there until1529, when the Strozzi sent it to France as a gift for Francis I (1494–1547).36

The Hercules was donated to the French king through the efforts ofBattista della Palla (1489–1530), an ardent republican who was acquiring

29See Condivi, 14; Vasari, 1:12–13. If the figure was indeed more than four bracciahigh, it would have been nearly eight feet tall.

30For Piero’s patronage, see Hirst, 1985 and 1994; Elam, 1992. A letter fromMichelangelo to his father, Lodovico, records that in 1497, the sculptor abandoneda commission he had from the exiled Piero de’Medici, for which the block of marble

proved faulty: see Carteggio, 1:4–5.31See Le collezioni medicee.32Florence, Archivio di Stato, Carte strozziane, I, 4, cc. 46v–47r, as cited by Caglioti,

2000, 1:263. For the document of restitution and its interpretation, see ibid., 263–65.Consulting the original document, Caglioti corrects errors of transcription that appear inLe collezioni medicee, 60, and that obscure its meaning. Although the restitution does notdefinitively settle the question of payment, Caglioti dismisses the idea that Michelangelo had

paid for the Hercules himself.33Joannides, 1977.34Wallace, 1992a, 155–56. The suggestion is endorsed by Cox-Rearick, 1996, 304;

and, implicitly, by Caglioti, 2000, 1:265.35See Carteggio indiretto, 2:323–24.36Elam, 1993, 58–59. For the subsequent history of the sculpture in France, see

Joannides, 1981; Cox-Rearick, 1996, 302–12, with further bibliography.




works of art for Francis, hoping both for personal profit and political gain.37

The French crown had long been an ally of the Florentine republic, and therelationship had been enhanced by diplomatic gifts of art. In 1502, duringthe first Medici exile, the Florentine Signoria had commissioned a bronzeDavid fromMichelangelo as a gift in exchange for a debt owed to France byFlorence.38 When the Medici returned to power in Florence in 1512, theyadopted the same strategy of political gifts to curry favor with the French,and maintained the practice from Rome after their subsequent expulsion in1527.39 In 1529, della Palla’s enterprise was part of a larger political strategyto maintain French support for the Florentine republic, as the Medicigathered strength in Rome and sought to recover control of Florence. DellaPalla appealed directly to Filippo Strozzi the Younger, who activated hisnetwork of friends and connections to aid della Palla in his efforts to securetreasures for the king.40 Della Palla purchased a number of works for Francis,but he also received two extraordinary gifts for the king through hisassociation with the Strozzi. The Strozzi themselves presented Herculesto della Palla, and likely helped persuade Giovanni Bandini (1498–1568)to offer Moses and the Daughters of Jethro (1523), a painting by RossoFiorentino (1494–1540), as a gift for Francis.41

It is difficult to untangle Filippo Strozzi’s motivations for assisting dellaPalla in his efforts and, more significantly, for donating his own Herculesto the king. The gift of the Hercules came at a crucial moment, during thebrief respite from Medici rule that lasted from 1527 to 1530, whenrepublican Florence was under siege by papal and imperial armies. It waslikely intended, as were the other objects procured by della Palla, to persuadeFrancis to support the republic. Although the Strozzi had a longstandingrivalry with the Medici, and had been their political adversaries in thefifteenth century, by the sixteenth century the fortunes of the two familieswere inextricably linked through marriage, social patronage, and business.42

In 1508, Filippo Strozzi the Younger had married Clarice de’Medici(1493–1528), the daughter of the deposed Piero de’Medici, in open defianceof the wishes of Piero Soderini (1450–1522), Gonfaloniere for Life of theFlorentine republic, who feared the match was designed to bolster Florentine

37For Battista della Palla, see Elam, 1993; Cox-Rearick, 1996, 83–88.38For the bronze David, see Elam, 1988; Gatti; Caglioti, 1996; Hirst, 2000.39For Medicean gifts to France, see Cox-Rearick, 1994.40Elam, 1993.41Ibid., 58–59, 63–69.42For the Strozzi family, see Goldthwaite, esp. 85–107; Bullard, 1980 and 1991. For

the fifteenth-century Strozzi and their rivalry with the Medici, see Gregory. For the later

history of the family, see Borsoi.




support for the exiled Medici.43 With the restoration of Medici rule inFlorence in 1512, Soderini’s fears came to pass.

As the Medici developed a center of power in Rome, solidified by theelection of Clarice’s uncle, Giovanni de’Medici (1475–1521), as Pope Leo Xin 1513, the Strozzi were their allies, benefitting from the connection as theyestablished a branch of their bank in Rome and procured the business of thepapacy. Filippo Strozzi enjoyed a particularly close relationship with thenextMedici pope, Clement VII (Giulio de’Medici, 1478–1534), supportinghim through the crisis of the Sack of Rome and actively working for therestoration of Medici leadership in Florence by supplying the funds tofinance the papal army besieging the city.44 He was rewarded in return withlucrative offices, titles, and other financial benefits that depended onmaintaining Clement’s patronage. From 1527 until Clement’s death in1534, Strozzi undertook increasingly risky loans on the pope’s behalf,endangering the stability of his bank and further binding his fate toClement’s.

Yet at the time of the gift of the Hercules in 1529, Filippo’s loyaltiesseem to have been in flux. He had offered himself as a hostage on Clement’sbehalf in 1526 — an act of apparent devotion — but promised, as acondition of his release, to dislodge the Medici from power in Florence.45

Despite his close ties to the Medici, he did not favor their absolute rule,which would have shifted the traditional balance of power among the greatFlorentine patrician families too far.46 Filippo’s sense of obligation to theMedici may have been altered by the death of his wife Clarice in 1528, andby Clement’s failure to make their son Piero (1510–58) a cardinal, despiterepeated promises.47 Finally, he may have recognized the despotic tendenciesof Alessandro de’Medici (1511–37), Clement’s choice to rule Florence.Shortly after his installation as duke in 1532, Alessandro turned againstFilippo and his sons, and unleashed his full fury after Clement’s death in1534, sending assassins to Rome to eliminate Filippo.48 This move forced

43Bullard, 1979.44For details of Filippo’s financial dealings with the papacy and the interdependence

of the Medici and Strozzi from 1508 to 1534, see Goldthwaite, 100; Bullard, 1980, esp.151–65.

45Bullard, 1980, 154; Bullard, 2003.46Elam, 1993, 40. The transformation of Florentine government from a republic to

a dukedom threatened the interests of the very families who had benefitted from Medici

patronage: see Bullard, 1980, 10–11.47See ibid., 126n21.48Ibid., 175; Goldthwaite, 100. Alessandro managed to alienate most of the patrician

Florentine families who might otherwise have been pro-Medici: see Spini, 1964, 597.




Filippo’s hand, and he joined the faction supporting Cardinal Ippolitode’Medici, attempting to persuade Charles V (1500–58) to deposeAlessandro in Ippolito’s favor, a plan thwarted by Ippolito’s mysteriousdeath en route to meet the emperor.49 When Alessandro’s assassination in1537 brought the young Cosimo I (1519–74) to the fore, Filippo initiallywas inclined to support the new duke, but the Strozzi sons, Piero andRoberto, convinced their father to ally with France and oppose him.50 Ina dramatic shift of loyalties, Filippo Strozzi became a leader of Florentineresistance to the Medici, arranging marriages for his sons to the sisters ofAlessandro’s assassin, Lorenzino de’Medici (1514–48), and commandingtroops against Cosimo at the Battle of Montemurlo in 1537. He wascaptured as Cosimo emerged victorious over the rebels, and imprisonedin the Fortezza da Basso, a prison whose construction he had personallychampioned. Just four years after the death of his patron and protectorClement VII, Filippo died a suicide in prison in 1538, and was subsequentlyremembered as a martyr to the cause of Florentine liberty and as a passionateanti-Medicean.51

Michelangelo was personally embroiled in the siege of 1527–30,devoting his services to the republic as governor general of its fortifications‘‘lovingly, and for free.’’52 But Michelangelo’s loyalties, like those of theStrozzi, were divided. Having enjoyed the patronage of the Medici familyfrom the earliest years of his career, Michelangelo had maintained a closeconnection to both Leo X and Clement VII. Not only did he serve themas an artist, but both pontiffs referred to him in familiar terms. Recallingtheir youth in Florence, an emotional Leo reportedly called Michelangelo‘‘his brother,’’ for they had been ‘‘raised together.’’53 Clement spoke ofMichelangelo ‘‘with such affection and love that a father could not speakmore warmly of his son.’’54 Michelangelo’s relationship with Clement, an

49Bullard, 1980, 176. For Ippolito de’Medici, see Rebecchini.50Simoncelli, 2003, 299.51For the romantic history of Filippo Strozzi as a Republican martyr, see Bullard, 1980,

1–2, with further bibliography.52For Michelangelo’s work on the fortifications of the city, see De Tolnay, 1940;

Manetti; Wallace, 1987. A document dated 7 April 1529 in the Archivio di Stato in Florence

appointing Michelangelo superintendent of the Florentine fortifications notes that hisservice to the city has been given ‘‘gratis et amorevolmente’’: see Gotti, 2:62.

53Carteggio, 2:253 (Sebastiano del Piombo toMichelangelo, 27 October 1520): ‘‘un suo

fratello’’; ‘‘nutriti insiemi.’’54Ibid., 3:305 (Sebastiano del Piombo to Michelangelo, 29 April 1531): ‘‘Et parla de

vui tanto honorevolmente et con tanta afectione et amore, che un pardre non diria de un

figliolo quello dice lui.’’




astute collector and patron despite his political shortcomings, is revealedin their extensive correspondence.55 Clement sought frequent reports onMichelangelo’s progress on his projects at San Lorenzo, read his letters aloudto his court, and wrote to Michelangelo in his own hand, speaking movinglyof his own sense of mortality while addressing Michelangelo with thefamiliar tu.56 Yet when the Sack of Rome in 1527 led to the expulsion ofthe Medici from Florence, Michelangelo sided with the republic rather thanwith Clement, his great patron, who lamented that ‘‘Michelangelo is wrong;we have never done him injury.’’57

Just as it is difficult to trace the evolution of Filippo Strozzi’s politics, sotoo are Michelangelo’s motivations during the Siege of Florence somethingof a mystery. His very public support for the Florentine republic was adeparture from his habitual avoidance of outward declarations of politicalallegiance.58 During the first Florentine republic he accepted importantcommissions from the Signoria — most notably for the bronze David in1502 and the Battle of Cascina in 1504— and benefitted from the patronageand friendship of Piero Soderini.59 But in 1518, when Soderini was an exilein Rome after the return of the Medici, Michelangelo ignored severalovertures from him involving a commission for a reliquary tabernacle at SanSilvestro in Capite, a church associated with the Florentine community inRome.60 Fearful of reprisals, Michelangelo’s primary concern was always theprotection of his family and interests in Florence. He urged caution on hisrelatives, just as he practiced it himself, counseling his brother ‘‘do not speakeither good or evil of anyone, because no-one knows what the outcome willbe. Attend only to your own affairs.’’61 Whether he accepted the post asdesigner of the city’s fortifications out of patriotism, self-preservation, or, asGiorgio Spini suggests, pride, Michelangelo devoted himself to the defenseof his city until, in September 1529, he feared that his own life was in

55See Reiss, 1992 and 1999; Hirst, 1999; Wallace, 2005.56See ibid., 196–97.57Carteggio, 3:305 (as reported by Sebastiano del Piombo to Michelangelo, 29 April

1531): ‘‘Michelangelo �a torto; non li feci mai inzuria.’’58For a thorough analysis of Michelangelo’s politics and their roots in his patrician

identity, see Spini, 1964, 592, who points out the ‘‘singularity’’ of Michelangelo’s decision to

side with the Republic, a significant departure from his usual political timidity.59For Michelangelo and Soderini, see Wallace, 1992b.60Wallace, 1999. San Silvestro in Capite housed the relic of the head of St. John the

Baptist, the patron saint of the city of Florence.61Letters, 1:74; Carteggio, 1:136 (Michelangelo to Buonarroto Buonarroti, 18

September 1512): ‘‘non parlate di nessuno n�e bene n�e male, perch�e non si sa el fine delle

cose. Actendete solo a’ chasi vostri.’’ See also Wallace, 2010, 98–100.




danger, and fled.62 Now both an enemy of the pope and a traitor to theFlorentine republic, he escaped to Venice, intending to make his way toFrance. Michelangelo was declared a rebel by Florence, and his property wassubject to confiscation. At the urging of Battista della Palla, whose assistancehe had sought, Michelangelo returned to Florence in November 1529 andremained there until the city fell on 12 August 1530.63

Whatever the nature of his politics in 1529, Michelangelo was nothappy with the Strozzi’s decision to send the Hercules off to France. A letterto Filippo Strozzi from his brother Lorenzo concerning the sculpture’stransfer to France records that ‘‘many people are displeased that we areparting with it, most of all Michelangelo.’’64 Michelangelo may have beendispleased because his pride was wounded. If we accept that the Hercules,whether commissioned, purchased, or donated, was part of an apparentlysuccessful attempt to solidify bonds with the Strozzi, it is not at all surprisingthat Michelangelo might feel injured when, after it had spent decades in thecourtyard of the family palace, the family decided to give it away. (TheStrozzi, in fact, referred to it as the ‘‘giant of the house’’ and it is easy toimagine that, given such prominent placement, it was linked to the family’spublic identity.)65 But perhaps more importantly, Michelangelo wasremoved from the cycle of the gift: so much time had passed between hisinitial gift (or presentation) of the sculpture and the Strozzi’s subsequentgiving it away that Michelangelo’s role in the exchange was limited, if noterased. He was simply the maker of the object. In other words, his large-scalesculpture Hercules was traded like a commodity, without his apparentinvolvement. Nothing could have irritated him more. As his reputationgrew, Michelangelo was especially prickly about questions of status, andopenly objected to being treated like one of those artists who kept a bottega.66

Michelangelo’s objection certainly could not have been to thedestination of the Hercules. As the sculpture made its way to France in

62Spini, 1964, 593–95. For Michelangelo’s explanation of his flight, see Carteggio,3:280–81.

63Ibid., 282–83. Clement later forgave Michelangelo his transgressions, on thecondition that he return to work on the family complex at San Lorenzo.

64Elam, 1993, 102 (Florence, Archivio di Stato, Carte strozziane, Ser. V, 1209, fasc. I,no. 30, Lorenzo Strozzi to Filippo Strozzi, before 8 April 1529): ‘‘Come per l’altra ti dissia Batista della Pala si consegn�o il gigante o per meglio dire Hercole, quantunche a molti siadispiaciuto ce ne priviano, ex maxime a Michelagnolo.’’

65Ibid., 98 (Florence, Archivio di Stato, Carte strozziane, Ser. V, 1209, fasc. I, no. 97,Piero Strozzi to Filippo Strozzi, 11 March, 1529): ‘‘Holle consegnate a Batista della Palla, etdel gigante di casa, per parte vostra gli ho facto dono.’’

66Carteggio, 4:299 (Michelangelo to Lionardo Buonarroti, 2 May 1548).




1530, Michelangelo was making a very similar gesture, dispatching hispainting of Leda, known today only through copies, to France in the care ofhis acolyte Antonio Mini (d. 1533). Michelangelo had given the painting toMini as a gift so that he might profit from its sale, and it is clear from theletters they exchanged that Francis I was the intended purchaser.67 Thegift to Mini was also an act of calculated diplomacy, as Wallace hasdemonstrated. The painting had been executed originally for Alfonso d’Este,Duke of Ferrara (1486–1534), in the hopes of persuading him to interveneon behalf of the Florentine republic by committing artillery and otherresources to the defense of the city during the siege. Michelangelo hadtraveled to Ferrara in 1529 to inspect the city’s fortifications and was warmlygreeted by the duke himself, who personally escorted the artist on his tourand proudly showed off his extraordinary collection of paintings.68 Alfonsohad sought a work by Michelangelo since 1512, but had been frustrated inhis attempts to obtain one.69 As a host of Florentine ambassadors labored tosecure loans of Alfonso’s artillery to defend their city, Michelangelo was inthe unique position of being able to provide Alfonso with something hecoveted in exchange for his assistance. The promise of the Leda was meant tobe a persuasive part of the Florentine approach to the duke. But, unwillingor unable to supply the aid the beleaguered Florentines sought, Alfonsodithered, Florence fell, and Michelangelo punished the duke by sending theLeda off to a more likely ally, Francis I.70

The episode of the Leda — snatched from the clutches of the faithlessAlfonso d’Este, bestowed upon Antonio Mini and destined for France —highlights that most of Michelangelo’s gifts, artistic and monetary, weremade in the 1530s and ’40s, in the years after the Siege of Florence.71 Thereare several potential reasons for this. The intense personal relationshipsMichelangelo developed with Tommaso de’Cavalieri and Vittoria Colonna

67Wallace, 2001. Francis did eventually obtain the Leda. For its history in France, seeCox-Rearick, 1996, 237–41.

68Condivi, 42–44; Vasari, 1:60.69Wallace, 2001, 479.70According to Michelangelo’s biographers, Alfonso lost the Leda not because of

political intrigue, but because of the foolishness of his agent, Jacopo Laschi, who came to

collect the painting for him in October 1530, not long after Florence was recaptured by theMedici. When Laschi declared the picture ‘‘a small thing,’’ Michelangelo was offended andrefused to relinquish it. It seems more likely, as Wallace argues, that Michelangelo no longer

felt obligated to Alfonso, who had failed to keep his faith with Florence, and used Laschi’simpolitic remark as an excuse to keep the painting: see Wallace, 2001, 498. For this episode,see also Rosenberg.

71See Hatfield, 192–93.




in these years clearly motivated the presentation drawings, his best-knownand best-documented gifts of artwork.72 It was also a period of increasedreligious fervor for the artist. Combined with an ever-pressing sense of hisown mortality, an appreciation of the obligations of his faith may well havemoved him to acts of charity.73

These episodes of generosity may also stem from Michelangelo’saristocratic aspirations. In his later years Michelangelo was increasinglyobsessed with his social status, claiming a noble lineage for the house ofBuonarroti and distancing his artistic activity from the commercial practicesof the bottega. From around 1530, Michelangelo ceased attaching the wordscultore to his signature, and protested when his family continued thepractice.74 Such sensitivity to public perception may have informed hischaritable giving. Michelangelo’s politics, too, reflect some of these concerns.His associations with the Florentine exiles in Rome were limited almostexclusively to the great Florentine families like the Strozzi, whose pedigreeappealed to his own sense of social identity.75

But beyond these personal considerations, the 1530s and ’40s werecritical years in the ongoing struggle between the Medici dukes who ruledFlorence and the exiled Florentines— the fuorusciti—whowished to unseatthem and to restore the Florentine republic. Although Cosimo I hadseemingly secured his position with his victory at the Battle of Montemurloin 1537, the Florentine exiles continued to work tirelessly against him.Cosimo’s defeat of the rebel forces had the unexpected result of unifyingresistance to the Medici.76 Before Montemurlo the pro-Republican movementhad consisted of two factions, divided along class and ideological lines: theplebian popolani, who had long agitated for more inclusive government,and the patrician ottimati, such as the Strozzi, who favored an oligarchy.Each was distrustful of the other. The personal sacrifice of Filippo Strozziconfirmed the bona fides of the ottimati, and his son, Piero, emerged as theleader of the anti-Medicean exiles.77

72Nagel, 1997.73Although he had always channeled his earnings for the maintenance and advancement

of his family, Michelangelo’s first charitable donations began in the later 1540s: see Hatfield,

193.74Carteggio, 4:166 (Michelangelo to Lionardo Buonarroti, 14 April 1543): ‘‘And when

you write to me, don’t address it: ‘Michelagniolo Simoni,’ nor ‘sculptor.’ It’s enough to say:

‘Michelagniol Buonarroti,’ because that is how I’m known here.’’75See Spini, 1964, 597.76See Simoncelli, 2003, 301.77Ibid. See also Cosentino and De Los Santos, 142.




By the early 1540s, Piero Strozzi and his brother Leone (1515–54) hadsecured positions at the French court, commanding land and naval troops,respectively, in the service of the king.78 Piero Strozzi moved frequentlybetween France and the Italian peninsula, assembling allies and seeking anyopportunity to unseat the Medici.79 Roberto Strozzi, their brother andMichelangelo’s great friend, took charge of the family bank, and used hisresources to finance the activities of the exiles. Piero and Roberto Strozziassociated openly with their brother-in-law, the assassin Lorenzino de’Medici;gathered with other exiles in Venice and Rome; and were under constantsurveillance by Cosimo’s spies, who dutifully tracked and reported theirsuspicious activities.80 The Strozzi brothers posed enough of a threat thatCosimo’s ambassador in Rome proposed in 1542 that an assassinationmight bethe best solution: ‘‘with Piero Strozzi’s death, the exiles would be forgotten.’’81

The ambitions of the Florentine exiles depended upon the longstandingenmity between their protector, the French king, and Cosimo’s mostimportant ally, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Having supported theMedici restoration in 1530, Charles had confirmed Cosimo’s successionto the dukedom, investing him with the Duchy of Florence in 1537, andhad arranged for his marriage in 1539 to Eleonora da Toledo (1522–62),a daughter of Charles’s viceroy in Naples.82 The alliance with Charles lentimperial authority to Cosimo’s rule, but at the price of Florentineautonomy.83 Cosimo’s fate as duke was now linked directly to Charles’sfortunes and to the course of political events on the larger European stage,creating an opportunity for the exiles to exploit tensions between Franceand the Hapsburgs for their own ends. Although Francis and Charles hadreached a truce in 1538, hostilities were reignited in 1542. A new alliancebetween France and the Ottoman Empire provoked Charles to join forceswith the English king Henry VIII (1491–1547) against them, resulting inan Anglo-imperial invasion of France and Franco-Ottoman attacks on theTuscan port of Piombino. Competing French and imperial claims to large

78For the Strozzi brothers and other Florentine fuorusciti at the French court, seeRomier, 1:132–77; Contini, 63–74.

79Simoncellli, 2003, 302.80Ibid., 303. See also Simoncelli, 1992, 31–49; Contini, 67–75.81Simoncelli, 2003, 302 (remarks of Averardo Serristori to Cosimo de’Medici, 8 March

1542).82Cosimo had hoped to marry Margaret of Austria, Charles’s natural daughter and the

widow of Duke Alessandro de’Medici, to strengthen both his dynastic claims and his alliancewith the emperor. But Charles offered Margaret as a bride to Ottaviano Farnese instead, inthe hopes of appeasing the Farnese Pope, Paul III. See Cochrane, 33; Spini, 1979, 423.

83See Cochrane; Simoncelli, 2003; Spini, 1979 and 1983; Contini.




swaths of the Italian peninsula made Italy the focus of military action. WhenFrancis decided to assert his claim to the Duchy of Milan, Piero Strozzi ledhis troops into Italy to confront imperial forces in Piedmont, and it wasassumed that Strozzi would march directly to Florence should he be able.84

A fragile peace between Francis and Charles was achieved again in 1544,and for a short time normal diplomatic relations were established betweenthe Duchy of Florence and the Kingdom of France.85 Cosimo turned hisattention to territorial expansion, paying Charles for the privilege of controlover Tuscan fortresses and lobbying to replace the imperial garrisons in theRepublic of Siena with his own forces, in the hopes of annexing that city.86

But the exiles sought other means of undermining imperial, and byextension, Medicean, power. In 1546, with the implicit approval ofFrancis, the fuorusciti provided funds to finance the Schmalkaldic League,a group of Lutheran princes opposed to Charles, although their hopes weredashed with Charles’s victory at the Battle of M€uhlberg in 1547.87 Cosimoresponded to these threats by imposing severe penalties on Florentinecitizens who had dealings with the fuorusciti and attempting to restrict theflow of funds from Florentine banks in Rome.88 In February 1548 hisagents assassinated Lorenzino de’Medici in Venice, avenging Alessandro’smurder and reminding the exiles that Cosimo’s reach extended beyond theborders of his state.89

Led by Piero Strozzi, the exiles continued to press their case againstthe Medici at the French court, first with Francis and then with hissuccessor, Henri II (1519–59). Henri’s wife, Catherine de’Medici (1519–89),supported the Florentine opposition to her cousin, Cosimo. Orphaned asa child, Catherine had been fostered by her maternal aunt, Claricede’Medici, and maintained close ties with Clarice’s children, the Strozzibrothers.90 She promoted their cause and their fortunes at her husband’scourt, and Henri adopted an anti-Medicean Italian policy. In 1552 he sentFrench troops, funded by the Florentine exiles, to Siena to support an

84Spini, 1979.85See Contini, 63. The Florentine ambassador was recalled almost immediately in

1545.86See ibid., 75; Spini, 1979, 427–29.87Simoncelli, 2003, 303–04.88Ibid.89Newly discovered documents suggest that Lorenzino was assassinated by agents of

Charles V, to avenge Alessandro’s murder and, perhaps, to further bind Cosimo to theEmperor: see Dall’Aglio.

90For Catherine de’Medici’s continuing connections in Florence, see Jensen;

Simoncelli, 2003, 305.




anti-imperial uprising there and installed Piero Strozzi as governor of thecity. Piero used Siena as a base of operations to harass Cosimo as Henrisent letters of encouragement to the community of fuorusciti in Rome,promising to restore the republic.91 But the tide turned against Piero whenhe was defeated at the Battle of Marciano in August 1554 after his Frenchreinforcements failed to appear. Cosimo annexed Siena in 1555, furtherconsolidating his power.

Many of Michelangelo’s gifts in the turbulent 1530s and ’40s weredirected at anti-Medicean Florentines and their potential allies, a tacit signof his sympathy with their political aims. In addition to the gift of Ledain 1530, Michelangelo supplied Antonio Mini with drawings, cartoons,models, and other works to entice the French king.92 Mini shared some ofthese treasures with Giovanni Francesco Rustici (1474–1554), a Florentinesculptor and political exile in France.93 The Florentine banker BindoAltoviti (1491–1556), an avowed republican and enemy of Cosimo I,received a cartoon related to the Sistine Ceiling as a gift.94 Michelangelo alsomade a gift of the cartoon of Venus and Cupid to Bartolommeo Bettini(d. 1552), another passionate defender of the republic and his ‘‘very dearfriend,’’ in the mid-1530s so that Jacopo Pontormo (1494–1556) mightproduce a painting from it.95 Bettini retained the cartoon even after thepainting was seized by agents of Duke Alessandro de’Medici, an act designed‘‘to do an injury to Bettini.’’96 This is the context in which the extraordinarygift of the Slaves to Roberto Strozzi and their subsequent transfer to theFrench king must be seen. Such gifts represent at the very least a snub to theMedici dukes, as Alessandro’s covetousness confirms. Despite multipleovertures and promises of benefits, they could not quite manage to bringMichelangelo directly into their service, or even, after 1534, to persuade himto return to his native city. With the rise of the vindictive Alessandro and therepressive policies of his successor, Cosimo I, Michelangelo’s instincts forself-preservation led him to adopt the subtle means of gift-giving and self-imposed exile to convey his critique of the Medici regime.

91Simoncelli, 2003, 314.92Vasari, 1:122.93For Giovanni Francesco Rustici, see Cox-Rearick, 1996, 285–89.94Vasari, 1:118. The date of this gift is undocumented, but a date in the 1530s is

probable, when Michelangelo and Altoviti were in regular contact: see Pegazzano, 72.95Vasari, 1:122; ibid., 4:1936: ‘‘suo amicissimo.’’ For the Venus and Cupid and Bettini’s

patronage, see Aste.96Vasari, 4:1936: ‘‘per far male al Bettino.’’




4. THE GIFT OF THE SLAVES

This context begins to clarify the rather strange story of the gift of the Slavesto Roberto Strozzi, who had persuaded his father to resist the Medicidukes, and who continued to work actively to unseat them long afterCosimo I was confirmed as Duke of Florence in 1537. The Slaves wereostensibly given to thank Strozzi for his hospitality, but they were not thefirst gift Michelangelo offered, nor was Roberto Strozzi even the intendedrecipient of Michelangelo’s first gesture of thanks.

Michelangelo was certainly very grateful for Strozzi’s hospitality duringhis illness in the summer of 1544. After he recovered, he asked Luigi delRiccio to convey his gratitude to Strozzi, declaring himself ‘‘obligated to . . .the house that kept him alive,’’ and offering a gift.97 But curiously, the firstgift he offered after his recovery was not directed to Strozzi, whose housemade his recovery possible, nor to del Riccio, who actually nursed him, norto the physician Baccio Rontini, who oversaw his care, but rather to FrancisI, King of France. In his letter to Roberto Strozzi, Luigi del Ricciorecords Michelangelo’s offer of the gift: ‘‘Remind the king . . . that if hewould restore the liberty of Florence [Michelangelo] would make a bronzeequestrian statue of him in the Piazza della Signoria at his own expense.’’98

Much has been written about the subtle nature of gift-giving, the unspokenbut powerful bonds of reciprocity and obligation it creates. Many ofMichelangelo’s gifts functioned in precisely that mode, but here the effect isquite different. In stating outright the conditions of the gift, Michelangelo’soffer to Francis becomes a kind of political ex-voto, an explicit petition foraid promising an appropriate gesture of thanks in return. Given Francis’sfrequently expressed desire for works by Michelangelo, it was a particularlyclever offer.99

It is remarkable that, in the wake of his near-fatal illness, Michelangelo’sfirst impulse was a political one, offering a gift — or, perhaps moreaccurately, a bribe — to promote the liberation of Florence. It suggests thathe saw his own escape from death as a metaphor for his native city’s apparently

97Carteggio, 4:184 (Luigi del Riccio to Roberto Strozzi, 21 July 1544): ‘‘Dice ha obbligocon Vostra Signoria che la casa l’ha mantenuto vivo.’’

98Ibid. (Luigi del Riccio to Roberto Strozzi, 21 July 1544): ‘‘ricordando al Re quanto limand�o a dire per Scipione . . . che, s’e’ rimetteva Firenze in libert�a, che li voleva fare unastatua di bronzo a cavallo in su la piazza de’ Signori a sua spesa.’’ Apparently, this was not the

first time Michelangelo had made this promise, as del Riccio refers to an offer already made‘‘per Scipione,’’ that is, via Scipione Gabbrielli.

99Francis I’s appetite for Italian art was legendary. He had been seeking a work by

Michelangelo since 1519. See Cox-Rearick, 1996, 283–85.




hopeless struggle for release from the Medici dukes. We are accustomed tothinking of how Florentine national identity was shaped through referenceto a genealogy of Florentine genius traced from Dante (1265–1321) toMichelangelo. It is interesting to see that principle at work in reverse, asMichelangelo seems to equate his own fate with that of the republic.

In January 1546, Michelangelo was again stricken, and again Luigi delRiccio nursed him back to health in the Strozzi palace. Del Riccio keptMichelangelo’s nephew, Lionardo, apprised of the situation, reporting thatMichelangelo had made confession, received communion, and written hiswill, but was already on the road to recovery.100 Sometime around thisperiod Michelangelo’s promise of an equestrian monument for Francis wasfollowed by the actual gift of the Slaves to Roberto Strozzi. The precise dateof the transfer is unclear, but it must have occurred sometime between 1542,when Michelangelo negotiated the final contract for the Julius tomb, andApril 1550, when Roberto Strozzi paid for their shipment to France.101 Itseems quite probable that they were given after Michelangelo’s second stayin the Strozzi palace in 1546. Since this extraordinary gift might have easilyprovoked the ire of both the Medici and the heirs of Julius II, it is not at allsurprising that the details of the exchange were not publicized.102

As sculptures originally created for the Julius tomb, the Slaves were not,of course, Michelangelo’s to give. But by 1542 he had essentially claimedownership of them by negotiating them out of the final contract for thetomb. The penultimate contract, agreed upon with Julius’s heirs and signedon 29 April 1532, had relocated the tomb to San Pietro in Vincoli andpromised completion within three years, with six figures by Michelangelo’sown hand, including the Moses and the two Slaves he was keeping at hishouse in Rome.103 The design for the tomb changed over time, but it seemsthat as late as 1533, when he began to install its framework in San Pietro inVincoli, Michelangelo still envisioned a place for the Slaves on it.104 The finalcontract, signed on 20 August 1542, reduced the number of sculptures by

100See Steinmann, 46–47; Carteggio indiretto, 2:17 (Luigi del Riccio to LionardoBuonarroti, 9 January 1546); ibid., 2:19 (Lionardo Buonarroti to Giansimone Buonarroti,16 January 1546).

101An exportation license was granted to Roberto Strozzi on 12 April 1550 for ‘‘duas

statuas novas’’: see Jestaz, 454. For the record of the payment in Strozzi’s account book forthe shipment of ‘‘the statues by Michelangelo sent to France,’’ see Vasari, 2:316.

102Steinmann, 23.103Contratti, 204–07. For Michelangelo’s reference to the figures in his house, see

Carteggio, 4:152: ‘‘le fighure che �o in casa.’’104See Eichinger-Maurach, 2003, who argues that the framework for the tomb was at

least partially installed by the summer of 1533.




Michelangelo’s own hand to three, and permitted ‘‘other good masters,’’working under Michelangelo’s supervision, to finish the others.105 This wasa concession to allow Michelangelo to meet his obligations to the tombproject, but also to proceed with work on the Cappella Paolina for theFarnese pope, Paul III, who mediated the agreement. AlthoughMichelangeloalready had three sculptures near completion — Moses and the two LouvreSlaves — he made the astonishing offer of two new works to accompany theMoses, the figures of the Active Life and the Contemplative Life, thus removingthe Slaves from the work.

In July 1542 Michelangelo had appealed to Pope Paul III for assistancein resolving the contract, reasoning correctly that the pontiff’s desire to havethe exclusive use of Michelangelo’s services would settle the matter swiftly.In legalistic prose, referring to himself in the third person, Michelangelodescribed the conflict between his obligations to the tomb project and hisdesire to ‘‘serve His Holiness with all his powers,’’ and offered a rationale forreplacing the Slaves with the Active and Contemplative Life : ‘‘It remained tohim to finish the three statues by his own hand, that is, the Moses and twoCaptives; the which three statues are almost finished. But because the saidtwo Captives were executed when the work was designed to be much larger,and was to include many other statues, which work was afterwards in theabovementioned contract curtailed and reduced; for this reason they areunsuited to the present design, nor would they by any means be appropriatefor it. Therefore, the said Messer Michelangelo, in order not to fail to honorhis obligation, began the other statues to go in the same zone as the Moses,the Contemplative Life and the Active, which are well enough advanced tobe easily finished by other masters.’’106 Michelangelo further requested thatthe pope ‘‘negotiate with the . . . Duke of Urbino for his complete releasefrom the said Tomb, cancelling and annulling every obligation betweenthem.’’107 Although he did not mention the Slaves again in the letter,Michelangelo repeated the stipulation that this final agreement should leavehim ‘‘entirely free,’’ and ‘‘release [him] from every contract and obligation’’relating to the tomb.108 Arguing that the Slaveswere no longer ‘‘appropriate’’for themonument, and insisting that all prior contracts were now null and void,Michelangelo effectively reverted the sculptures to his personal ownership.

105Contratti, 250–54. For Guidobaldo della Rovere, Duke of Urbino’s concession thatwork on some figures could be done ‘‘per mano d’altro buono et lodato maestro,’’ see

Carteggio, 4:128.106Letters, 2:19–21; Carteggio, 4:136.107Letters, 2:21; Carteggio, 4:136.108Carteggio, 4:137.




Michelangelo’s argument that the Slaves no longer fit the tomb isdubious at best, since the design of the tomb had not changed substantiallyfrom 1532, when the Slaves were meant to have been included, and hischoice to begin two entirely new sculptures when the Slaves were ‘‘almostfinished’’ seems contrary to his stated goal of seeing the tomb finishedquickly. As he attempted to bring the Julius tomb to completion,Michelangelowas plagued with accusations that he had embezzled funds from theproject and was otherwise trying to cheat Julius’s heirs.109 Under thesecircumstances, the decision to retain for himself two already partiallyfinished sculptures is difficult to explain. It is impossible to know whetherMichelangelo had already determined to make the gift of the Slaves, but itwould seem that he had some other purpose for them in mind when henegotiated them free from the tomb in 1542.

Unlike the Hercules, which remained more than thirty years in the Strozzihousehold before it was sent to France, Michelangelo’s Slaves remained inRoberto Strozzi’s possession only for a short time. Released from the Juliustomb inAugust 1542, the Slaveswere on a ship bound for France in April 1550.Given Michelangelo’s practice of politically motivated gifts, his republicansympathies, and, most significantly, his initial offer of a gift to the French king,it seems likely that the Slaves were always intended to reach Francis.

The gift of the Slaves replaced the first offer of the equestrian sculpturefor Francis, and was meant to function in the same way, as a plea for politicalaid. The substitution makes a good deal of sense. Unlike the promisedmonument, which might take years to develop, the Slaves were alreadyavailable, and in Michelangelo’s sole possession.110 Unlike a statue honoringthe king, they arguably stated the political case more powerfully. Whatevertheir initial significance on the Julius tomb, it is easy to imagine a layer ofpolitical meaning attaching to these bound figures as visual expressions ofthe embattled Florentine republic. The language of liberation, obligation,sacrifice, and bondage pervades Michelangelo’s correspondence around theJulius tomb, and his own sense of enslavement to the project may haveseemed an apt parallel to the plight of Florence.111 Just as the pope hadintervened to rescue the sculptor, so the king might act to ‘‘restore the liberty

109For Michelangelo’s emotional account of his trials relating to the tomb, see ibid.,4:150–55. The accusation apparently had some currency, as it was repeated by PietroAretino in November 1545; see ibid., 4:216–17 (Pietro Aretino to Michelangelo, November

1545).110For the practice of using readily available works as diplomatic gifts rather than

commissioning new ones, see Cox-Rearick, 1994.111See Parker, 98–101.




of Florence.’’112 And, perhaps most significantly, unlike a monument tothe French king erected in a Florentine piazza — which might irk the localpopulace and would certainly be difficult for Francis to appreciate inperson — the Slaves could be ever before the king’s eyes, a constant, visiblereminder of his duty to his Florentine allies.

5. MIDDLEMEN AND MISDIRECTION

Neither the promise of the equestrian monument nor the actual gift ofthe Slaves went directly from Michelangelo to Francis. In both instancesRoberto Strozzi played the role of mediator. It had been his duty to remindFrancis that Michelangelo was willing to make the bronze monument, andit was through his agency that the Slaves eventually reached France. Therewere practical reasons for this arrangement, to be sure. Until 1546, all ofMichelangelo’s communications with the French king were indirect, asbefitting the difference in their status. In 1519, the Florentine GabrielloPaccagli wrote to informMichelangelo that the king had expressed his desire‘‘to have even the smallest work of yours,’’ and had asked Cardinal Bibbiena(1470–1520) to make the request on his behalf.113 When Michelangelo fledFlorence in 1529, he contemplated an escape to France, and enlisted bothBattista della Palla and the French ambassador in Venice to approach theking for him.114 Strozzi, who was influential at the French court and whooperated a branch of his bank in Lyons, was likewise an appropriate channelthrough which Michelangelo might address the king. He also controlled thefinancial resources necessary to provide for the transport of two life-sizemarble sculptures from Rome to France. Through his bank Strozzi had trustedagents in both Rome and France who could easily manage the logistics of thesculptures’ transfer and arrange for their safe arrival. Finally, his experience asa courtier meant that he could present the gift with the appropriate finesse,easing Michelangelo’s anxiety about being ‘‘a stranger to [formalities].’’115

112Carteggio, 4:184.113See ibid., 2:151–52.114See ibid., 3:280–81. For the letter regarding Michelangelo from the French

ambassador Lazare de Ba€ıf in Venice to King Francis I, 9 December 1529, see Dorez, 57.115Michelangelo often sought del Riccio’s advice about gifts and their proper

presentation. See, for example, Carteggio, 4:176 (Michelangelo to Luigi del Riccio inRome, December 1543); Letters, 2:39: ‘‘Because I know that you are as much an adept atformalities as I am a stranger to them, and because I have received from Monsignor Todi

a present which Urbino will tell you about, which I am sharing with you, I beg you, believingyou to be a friend of his lordship’s, to thank him in my name, when you conveniently can,with that formality which is as easy to you as it is difficult to me, and to make me your debtor

for a few trifles.’’




The need for an intermediary disappeared, however, after Michelangelo’ssecond illness in 1546. Shortly after his recovery, the king wrote directly tothe artist, informing him that his envoy, the painter Primaticcio (1504–70),would soon come seeking works by Michelangelo and would requestpermission to have casts made of two of his sculptures in Rome, the Piet�a(1499) and the Risen Christ (1521).116 If Michelangelo ‘‘should have someexcellent works already finished when he arrives,’’ Primaticcio was authorizedto acquire them.117 Michelangelo responded, humbly acknowledging thegreat honor of being addressed by a monarch. Citing his longstanding desireto be of service to the king, he promised ‘‘to execute for YourMajesty a workin marble, in bronze and in paint,’’ but lamented that his obligations to PopePaul III prevented him from fulfilling the request immediately.118 Of course,by this timeMichelangelo did have ‘‘some excellent works already finished,’’or nearly so: the Slaves. And yet he did not offer them up to Francis. He gavethem instead to Roberto Strozzi.

Michelangelo’s customary discretion may explain his silence about theSlaves. In 1531, he had learned that his letters were being intercepted, and hebegan to take precautions to protect his privacy, sending his letters throughintermediaries or having them addressed by other people so that his handwould not be recognized.119 The letters sometimes refer to messages thatwould be delivered in person, presumably because they were too sensitive tobe trusted to the post.120 Perhaps Michelangelo did not want evidence of hisplan for the Slaves in writing. By giving them to Strozzi, rather than toFrancis, he could deflect attention from their intended function as adiplomatic overture to the French king.

After the Siege of Florence, Michelangelo’s political sympathies were nomystery to the Medici, but he was careful not to cross the line into

116Cox-Rearick, 1996, 295 (Francis I to Michelangelo, 8 February 1546): ‘‘Sig.

Michelangelo, since I greatly desire some examples of your work, I have charged theAbbot of St. Martin de Troyes [Primaticcio], at present my envoy there, to acquire some; andI beseech you, if you should have some excellent works already finished when he arrives, to

entrust them to him. . . . And also I would hope that you might be willing, out of your lovefor me, for him to make casts of the Christ of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva and the NotreDame de la F�ebre, so I can decorate one of my chapels with them, having been assured theseare the most exquisite and excellent examples of your art’’; Carteggio, 4:229. Joannides, 1977,argues that this letter is proof that Michelangelo’sHercules had not yet reached Francis, but itseems equally likely that the letter is evidence that the king wanted as many examples ofMichelangelo’s work as he could acquire.

117Carteggio, 4:229.118Letters, 2:61; Carteggio, 4:237.119See Carteggio, 3:303.120For example, ibid., 4:3.




treasonous behavior, for which the consequences were severe. By associatingwith the Strozzi and other fuorusciti he risked the censure of the Medici, buthe continued to use the Strozzi bank and to maintain ties to the Florentinecommunity in Rome. In 1547, however, such friendships became criminalwhen the Florentine government issued a decree banning any contact withthe exiles. Alerted to the ban by his nephew, Michelangelo hastened todefend himself by distancing himself from the Strozzi and proclaimingignorance of others’ political affiliations: ‘‘I’m glad that you have informedme about the decree, because if up till now I’ve been on my guard abouttalking to the exiles and associating with them, I’ll be much more on myguard in future. As regards my being ill in the Strozzi’s house, I do notconsider that I stayed in their house, but in the apartment of Messer Luigidel Riccio, who was a very great friend of mine. . . . But since he died I nolonger frequent the said house, to which all Rome can bear witness, and tothe kind of life I lead, as I am always alone; I go about very little and talk tono-one, least of all to Florentines; but if I’m greeted in the street I cannot butrespond with a kindly word and pass on — though, if I were informed as towhich are the exiles, I would make no response at all.’’121 Michelangelo’srather unconvincing claims in this letter were part of a strategy of self-protection aimed at minimizing the risks to his family and interests inFlorence. Recognizing that he may have been observed consorting with thefuorusciti in public, he protests that he was constrained by common courtesyto return their greetings, an excuse that would be difficult to challenge. Ifa casual encounter with a fellow Florentine on the street in Rome couldprovoke alarm in Florence, it is not hard to imagine how the gift of twomonumental sculptures to a prominent anti-Medicean, or to a foreignmonarch, might be perceived. As a sign of solidarity with the cause of theFlorentine fuorusciti, the gift of the Slaves was dangerous.

6. CONCLUS ION: THE GIFT THAT FAILED

The Slaves were a twice-given gift. Initially, they were a thank-you present tothe Strozzi, at least ostensibly a sign of the debt Michelangelo owed to ‘‘thehouse that had kept him alive,’’ a memorial to his recovery. Given again,they were intended to ingratiate the Strozzi to Francis I and to persuade theFrench king to support their political agenda. By giving the Strozzisomething they could then give to someone else, Michelangelo repeated

121Letters, 2:82; Carteggio 4:279 (Michelangelo to Lionardo Buonarroti, 22 October1547): ‘‘Circa l’essere stato amalato in casa gli Strozzi, io non tengo d’essere stato in casa loro,

ma in camera di messer Luigi del Riccio, il quale era molto mio amico.’’




a pattern he had established with earlier gifts, such as the dagger for hisbrother and the painting of Leda for Antonio Mini, in which the gift ismeant to be given again. In giving the Slaves, he dispensed a gift of greatvalue that would profit the Strozzi and, by extension, all Florentines hopingfor liberty.

Despite Michelangelo’s efforts, however, the gift of the Slaves proved tobe an exercise in futility. Two unfortunate and unexpected deaths derailedwhat must have been the plan for their transfer from the Strozzi to Francis I.Luigi del Riccio died suddenly in 1546, leaving Michelangelo bereft andsevering the most immediate link between the artist and the Strozzi.122 Itwould surely have been del Riccio’s responsibility to arrange for theshipment of the sculptures. The plan for the Slaves might have recoveredfrom this setback, but the untimely death of Francis himself in 1547 madethe delivery of the gift impossible, and threw the Strozzi’s diplomatic effortsinto disarray. The Slaves were finally sent to Francis’s son, Henri II, theStrozzi’s relation through his marriage to their cousin, Catherine de’Medici,and another potential ally against Cosimo I.123 But although Henri took upthe cause of the Florentine exiles, he did not share his father’s artistic tastes,and he promptly gave the Slaves away to one of his nobles, Duke Anne deMontmorency, Constable of France (1493–1567), extending the cycle ofthe gift yet again.124 As a politically motivated gift, the Slaves failed to dotheir work. Florence remained in the hands of the Medici for centuries. Butthe gift did succeed on the personal level, forever linking the fortunes ofMichelangelo, the Strozzi, and the cause of Florentine liberty.

FORDHAM UNIVERS ITY

122The exact date of del Riccio’s death is unknown, but Michelangelo was in mourning

by 13 November 1546: see Steinmann, 26.123After the death of her husband Henri in 1559, Catherine revived the idea of an

equestrian monument by Michelangelo, and Roberto Strozzi served as her agent. See

Carteggio 5:185; Cox-Rearick, 1996, 296–97; B€ostrom; Starn.124For the subsequent history of the Slaves in France, see Cox-Rearick, 1996, 296;

Gaborit. For the neglected history of Henri and Catherine’s support for the ‘‘Florentine

Republic in Exile,’’ see Simoncelli, 2003, 317.




Bibl iography

Aste, Richard. ‘‘Bartolomeo Bettini e la

decorazione della sua ‘camera’

Fiorentina.’’ In Venere e Amore:Michelangelo e la nuova bellezzaideale, ed. Franca Falletti and Jonathan

Katz Nelson, 3–25. Florence, 2002.

Borghini, Rafaello. Il riposo. Florence,

1584.

Borsoi, Maria Barbara Guerrieri. Gli Strozzia Roma: Mecenati e collezionisti nel Sei eSettecento. Rome, 2004.

B€ostrom, Antonia. ‘‘Daniele da Volterra,

Ruberto Strozzi and the Equestrian

Monument to Henry II of France.’’

In The Sculpted Object 1400 –1700,ed. Stuart Currie and Peta Motture,

201–20. Aldershot, 1997.Bredekamp, Horst. ‘‘Ende (1545) und

Anfang (1505) von Michelangelos

Juliusgrab: Frei- oder Wandgrab?’’

In Totenkult (2004), 61–83.Bullard, Melissa Meriam. ‘‘Marriage Politics

and the Family in Florence: The

Strozzi-Medici Alliance of 1508.’’

American Historical Review 84 (1979):

668–87.———. Filippo Strozzi and the Medici:

Favor and Finance in Sixteenth-CenturyFlorence and Rome. Cambridge, 1980.

———. ‘‘Marsilio Ficino and the Medici:

The Inner Dimensions of Patronage.’’

In Christianity and the Renaissance:Image and Religious Imagination in theQuattrocento, ed. Timothy Verdon and

John Henderson, 467–92. Syracuse,

1990.———. ‘‘Filippo Strozzi il Giovane,

l’uomo e le sue lettere.’’ In PalazzoStrozzi met�a millennio 1489 –1989:Atti del convegno di studi Firenze, 3 –6luglio 1989, ed. Daniela Lamberini,

30–37. Rome, 1991.———. ‘‘Bindo Altoviti: Renaissance

Banker and Papal Financier.’’ In

Raphael (2003), 21–57.

Butters, Suzanne B. ‘‘The Uses and Abuses

of Gifts in the World of Ferdinando

de’Medici (1549–1609).’’ I TattiStudies: Essays in the Renaissance 11

(2007): 243–354.

Caglioti, Francesco. ‘‘Il David bronzeo

di Michelangelo (e Benedetto da

Rovezzano): il problema dei pagamenti.’’

Quaderni del Seminario di Storia dellaCritica d’arte 6 (1996): 85–132.

———. Donatello e i Medici: Storia del‘‘David’’ e della ‘‘Giuditta.’’ 2 vols.

Florence, 2000.Il Carteggio di Michelangelo. Ed. Giovanni

Poggi, Paola Barocchi, and Renzo

Ristori. 5 vols. Florence, 1965–83.

Il Carteggio indiretto di Michelangelo.Ed. Paola Barocchi, Kathleen Loach

Bramanti, and Renzo Ristori. 2 vols.

Florence, 1988–95.Cochrane, Eric. Florence in the Forgotten

Centuries 1527 –1800: A History ofFlorence and the Florentines in the Ageof the Grand Dukes. Chicago, 1973.

Le collezioni medicee nel 1495. Deliberazionidegli ufficiali dei ribelli. Ed. Outi

Merisalo. Florence, 1999.Condivi, Ascanio. Vita di Michelagnolo

Buonarroti. Ed. Giovanni Nencioni.

Florence, 1998.

Contini, Alessandra. ‘‘Aspects of Medicean

Diplomacy in the Sixteenth Century.’’

In Politics and Diplomacy in EarlyModern Italy: The Structure ofDiplomatic Practice, 1450 –1800, ed.

Daniela Frigo, trans. Adrian Belton,

49–94. Cambridge, 2000.

I Contratti di Michelangelo. Ed. Lucilla

Bardeschi Ciulich. Florence, 2005.

Cosentino, Paola, and Lucie De Los

Santos. ‘‘Un nuovo documento sul

fuoriuscitismo fiorentino: undici lettere

inedite di Luigi Alamanni a Filippo

Strozzi (aprile 1536–febbraio 1537).’’

Laboratoire italien 1 (2001): 141–67.




Cox-Rearick, Janet. ‘‘Sacred to Profane:

Diplomatic Gifts of the Medici to

Francis I.’’ Journal of Medieval andRenaissance Studies 24 (1994): 239–

58.———. The Collection of Francis I: Royal

Treasures. New York, 1996.Cunnally, John. ‘‘Ancient Coins as Gifts

and Tokens of Friendship During the

Renaissance.’’ Journal of the History ofCollections 6 (1994): 129–43.

Dall’Aglio, Stefano. L’assassino del duca:Esilio e morte di Lorenzino de’Medici.Florence, 2011.

Davis, Natalie Zemon. The Gift in Sixteenth-Century France. Madison, 2000.

De Tolnay, Charles. ‘‘Michelangelo Studies.’’

Art Bulletin 22 (1940): 127–37.———. Michelangelo. 5 vols. Princeton,

1943–60.Dorez, L�eon.Nouvelles recherches sur Michel-

Ange et son Entourage. Paris, 1918.Echinger-Maurach, Claudia. ‘‘Michelangelo’s

Monument for Julius II in 1534.’’

The Burlington Magazine 145 (2003):

336–44.———. ‘‘Michelangelos sp€ate

Grabmalskonzeptionen und ihre

Nachfolge.’’ Mitteilungen desKunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz50 (2006): 49–92.

———. Michelangelos Grabmal f €ur PapstJulius II. Munich, 2009.

Elam, Caroline. ‘‘Art and Diplomacy in

Renaissance Florence.’’ Royal Societyof Art Journal 136 (1988): 813–26.

———. ‘‘Lorenzo de’Medici’s Sculpture

Garden.’’Mitteilungen des KunsthistorischenInstitutes in Florenz 36 (1992): 41–

83.———. ‘‘Art in the Service of Liberty:

Battista della Palla, Art Agent for

Francis I.’’ I Tatti Studies 5 (1993):

33–109.Frommel, Christoph Luitpold. ‘‘‘Capella

Iulia’: Die Grabkapelle Papst Julius’

II in Neu-St. Peter.’’ Zeitschrift f €urKunstgeschichte 40 (1977): 26–62.

Gaborit, Jean-Ren�e.Michel-Ange: Les Esclaves.Paris, 2004.

Gatti, Luca. ‘‘‘Delle cose de’pictori et

sculptori si pu�o mal promettere cosa

certa’: la diplomazia fiorentina presso

la corte del re di Francia e il ‘Davide’

bronzeo di Michelangelo Buonarroti.’’

M�elanges de l’Ecole Francaise de Rome106 (1994): 433–72.

Giannotti, Donato. De’giorni che Danteconsum�o nel cercare l’inferno e ’lpurgatorio. Ed. Deoclecio Redig de

Campos. Florence, 1939.The Gift: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.

Ed. Aafke E. Komter. Amsterdam,

1996.Goldthwaite, Richard. Private Wealth in

Renaissance Florence: A Study of FourFamilies. Princeton, 1968.

Gotti, Aurelio. Vita di MichelangeloBuonarroti. 2 vols. Florence, 1875.

Gregory, Heather. ‘‘The Return of the

Native: Filippo Strozzi and Medicean

Politics.’’ Renaissance Quarterly 38.1

(1985): 1–21.Hatfield, Rab. The Wealth of Michelangelo.

Rome, 2002.

Hirst, Michael. ‘‘Michelangelo, Carrara,

and the Marble for the Cardinal’s

Piet�a.’’ Burlington Magazine 127

(1985): 154–59.

———. ‘‘The Sculptor of the SleepingCupid.’’ In Michael Hirst and Jill

Dunkerton, Making and Meaning:The Young Michelangelo, 13–28.

London, 1994.———. ‘‘‘Per lui il mondo ha cos�ı nobil

opera’: Michelangelo und Papst

Clemens VII.’’ In Hoch Renaissance(1999), 429–31.

———. ‘‘Michelangelo in Florence: Davidin 1503 and Hercules in 1506.’’ TheBurlington Magazine 142 (2000):

487–92.Hoch Renaissance im Vatikan: Kunst

und Kultur im Rom der P€apste 1503 –1534. Ed. Petra Kruse. Ostfildern-Ruit,

1999.




Jensen, DeLamar. ‘‘Catherine de’Medici

and Her Florentine Friends.’’ SixteenthCentury Journal 9 (1978): 57–74.

Jestaz, Bertrand. ‘‘L’�exportation des marbres

de Rome de 1535 �a 1571.’’ M�elangesd’Arch�eologie et d’Histoire 75 (1963):

415–66.Joannides, Paul. ‘‘Michelangelo’s Lost

Hercules.’’ Burlington Magazine 119

(1977): 550–54.———. ‘‘A Supplement to Michelangelo’s

Lost Hercules.’’ Burlington Magazine123 (1981): 20–23.

———. ‘‘Michelangelo and the Medici

Garden.’’ In La Toscana al tempo diLorenzo il Magnifico: politica, economia,cultura, arte. Convegno di studi promossodalle Universit�a di Firenze, Pisa, eSiena: 5 –8 novembre 1992, ed. LuigiBeschi, Mina Gregori, et al., 1:22–36.

Pisa, 1996.Kempers, Bram. ‘‘Die Erfindung eines

Monuments. Michelangelo und die

Metamorphosen des Juliusgrabmals.’’

In Totenkult (2004), 41–59.Kent, F. W. ‘‘Ties of Neighbourhood and

Patronage in Quattrocento Florence.’’

In Patronage (1987), 47–62.———. ‘‘Patron-Client Networks in

Renaissance Florence and the Emergence

of Lorenzo as ‘Maestro della Bottega.’’’

In Lorenzo de’Medici: New Perspectives:Proceedings of the InternationalConference Held at Brooklyn Collegeand the Graduate Center of the CityUniversity of New York, April 20 –May 2, 1992, ed. Bernard Toscani,

279–313. New York, 1994.

Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. ‘‘Parenti, amici,

vicini.’’ Quaderni storici 33 (1976):

953–82.The Letters of Michelangelo. Ed. and trans.

E. H. Ramsden. 2 vols. London,

1963.Manetti, Renzo.Michelangiolo: Le fortificazioni

per l’assedio di Firenze. Florence, 1980.Mauss, Marcel. The Gift: The Form and

Reason for Exchange in Archaic

Societies. Trans. W. D. Halls. New

York, 1990.Molho, Anthony. ‘‘Cosimo de’Medici:

Pater Patriae or Padrino?’’ StanfordItalian Review 1 (1979): 5–33.

Morris, Ian. ‘‘Gift and Commodity in

Archaic Greece.’’ Man n.s. 21 (1986):

1–17.Motzkin, Elhanan. ‘‘Michelangelo’s Slaves

in the Louvre.’’ Gazette des Beaux-Arts120 (1992): 207–28.

Nagel, Alexander. ‘‘Gifts for Michelangelo

and Vittoria Colonna.’’ Art Bulletin79 (1997): 647–68.

———. ‘‘Art as Gift: Liberal Art and

Religious Reform in the Renaissance.’’

In Negotiating the Gift: Pre-ModernFigurations of Exchange, ed. Gadi

Algazi, Valentin Groebner, and

Bernhard Jussen, 319–60. G€ottingen,2003.

Panofsky, Erwin. ‘‘The First Two Projects

of Michelangelo’s Tomb of Julius II.’’

Art Bulletin 29 (1937): 561–79.———. Studies in Iconology: Humanistic

Themes in the Art of the Renaissance.1939. Repr., New York, 1962.

Parker, Deborah. Michelangelo and the Artof Letter Writing. Cambridge, 2010.

Patronage, Art, and Society in RenaissanceItaly. Ed. F. W. Kent and Patricia

Simons. Oxford, 1987.

Pegazzano, Donatella. ‘‘A Banker as

Patron.’’ In Raphael (2003), 59–91.The Poetry of Michelangelo. Trans. James

M. Saslow. New Haven, 1991.

Raphael, Cellini and a Renaissance Banker:The Patronage of Bindo Altoviti. Ed.Alan Chong, Donatella Pegazzano,

and Dimitrios Zikos. Boston, 2003.Rebecchini, Guido. ‘‘Un altro Lorenzo’’:

Ippolito de’Medici tra Firenze e Roma(1511 –1535). Venice, 2010.

Reiss, Sheryl E. ‘‘Cardinal Giulio de’Medici

as Patron of Art, 1513–1523.’’ PhD

diss., Princeton University, 1992.

———. ‘‘Clemens VII.’’ In HochRenaissance (1999), 55–69.




Romier, Lucien. Les Origines Politiques desGuerres de Religion. 2 vols. Paris, 1913.

Rosenberg, Charles M. ‘‘Alfonso d’Este,Michelangelo, and the Man WhoBought Pigs.’’ In Revaluing RenaissanceArt, ed. Gabriele Neher and RupertShepherd, 89–100. Aldershot, 2000.

Satzinger, Georg. ‘‘Michelangelos Grabmal

Julius’ II. in S. Pietro in Vincoli.’’Zeitschrift f €ur Kunstgeschichte 64 (2001):177–222.

Simoncelli, Paolo. Il cavaliere dimezzato:Paolo del Rosso ‘‘Fiorentino e letterato.’’3rd ed., Milan, 1992.

———. ‘‘Florentine Fuorusciti at the Timeof Bindo Altoviti.’’ In Raphael (2003),285–328.

Spini, Giorgio. ‘‘Politicit�a di Michelangelo.’’

Rivista storica italiana 76 (1964):556–600.

———. ‘‘The Medici Principality and the

Organization of the States of Europein the Sixteenth Century.’’ Journal ofItalian History 2 (1979): 420–47.

———. ‘‘Il principato dei Medici e ilsistema degli stati Europei delCinquecento.’’ In Firenze e la Toscanadei Medici nel Europa del ‘500,1:177–216. Florence, 1983.

Starn, Randolph. ‘‘Daniele da Volterra,Michelangelo, and the Equestrian

Monument for Henry II of France:New Documents.’’ In Mosaics ofFriendship: Studies in Art and Historyfor Eve Borsook, ed. Ornella FrancisciOsti, 199–209. Florence, 1999.

Steinmann, Ernst. Michelangelo e Luigi delRiccio con documenti inediti. Florence,1932.

Totenkult und Wille zur Macht. Dieunruhigen Ruhest€atten der P€apste inSt. Peter. Ed. Horst Bredekamp andVolker Reinhardt. Darmstadt, 2004.

Varchi, Benedetto. Orazioni funerale di M.Benedetto Varchi, fatta e recitata dalui pubblicamente nell’essequie diMichelagnolo Buonarroti. . . . Florence,1564.

Vasari, Giorgio. La vita di Michelangelonelle redazioni del 1550 e del 1568. Ed.Paola Barocchi. 5 vols. Milan, 1962.

Wallace, William E. ‘‘‘Dal disegno allospazio’: Michelangelo’s Drawings for

the Fortifications of Florence.’’ Journalof the Society of Architectural Historians66 (1987): 119–34.

———. ‘‘How Did Michelangelo Becomea Sculptor?’’ In The Genius of theSculptor in Michelangelo’s Work, 151–67. Montreal, 1992a.

———. ‘‘Michelangelo In and Out ofFlorence Between 1500 and 1508.’’ In

Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphaelin Renaissance Florence from 1500 to1508, ed. Serafina Hager, 55–88.Georgetown, 1992b.

———. ‘‘Manoeuvring for Patronage:Michelangelo’s Dagger.’’ RenaissanceStudies 11 (1997): 20–26.

———. ‘‘Friends and Relics at SanSilvestro in Capite, Rome.’’ SixteenthCentury Journal 30 (1999): 419–39.

———. ‘‘MICHAEL ANGELVSBONAROTVS PATRITIVSFLORENTINVS.’’ In Innovationand Tradition: Essays on Renaissance Artand Culture, ed. Dag T. Andersson andRoy Eriksen, 60–74. Rome, 2000.

———. ‘‘Michelangelo’s Leda: The

Diplomatic Context.’’ RenaissanceStudies 15 (2001): 473–98.

———. ‘‘Clement VII and Michelangelo:

An Anatomy of Patronage.’’ In ThePontificate of Clement VII: History, Politics,Culture, ed. Kenneth Gouwens and

Sheryl E. Reiss, 189–98. Aldershot, 2005.———. Michelangelo: The Artist, the Man

and His Times. Cambridge, 2010.Warwick, Genevieve. ‘‘Gift Exchange and

Art Collecting: Padre SebastianoResta’s Drawing Albums.’’ Art Bulletin79 (1997): 630–47.

Weissman, Ronald. ‘‘Taking PatronageSeriously: Mediterranean Values andRenaissance Society.’’ In Patronage(1987), 25–45.




Michelangelo's Slaves and the Gift of Liberty

Documents

Transcript of Michelangelo's Slaves and the Gift of Liberty