Two Presentation Drawings for Michelangelo's Medici Chapel.

Two Presentation Drawings for Michelangelo's Medici ChapelAuthor(s): William E. WallaceSource: Master Drawings, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 242-260Published by: Master Drawings AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1553827 .

Accessed: 18/05/2014 14:38

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].

.

Master Drawings Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to MasterDrawings.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Sun, 18 May 2014 14:38:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1553827?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


NOTES Two Presentation Drawings for Michelangelo's Medici Chapel

William E. Wallace

THERE is little agreement among scholars regarding the attribution and purpose of two drawings in the Louvre

(inv. nos. 83 7, 83 8) that have long been associated with

Michelangelo's Medici Chapel (Figs. I, 2).1 The first is

a design for a wall tomb closely related to those actually erected in the chapel, while the second represents a de-

sign for the double tomb of the Magnifici that was never carried out. These sheets have often been cited as evidence of Michelangelo's intentions for the sculptural decoration of the chapel, although the drawings them- selves are usually considered to be no more than copies or pastiches by an undetermined draughtsman.2 In 1972, however, Paul Joannides argued convincingly that the

drawings represent the final stage in the design of the Medici tombs, and he even attributed them to Michelan-

gelo.3Joannides reiterated this opinion in 198 , referring to the drawings as "stunning and autograph."4 In the same year, Alexander Perrig published a detailed study of the conception and evolution of the designs for the Medici tombs that included a lengthy discussion of the two sheets in the Louvre as well as numerous related

drawings.5 In his opinion, the drawings represent Mi-

chelangelo's final conception for the Medici tombs, but he believes them to be no more than faithful copies of lost originals. Thus, while Perrig does not acceptJoan- nides' attribution, he agrees that the drawings are important documents that warrant scholarly attention.

This study presents an alternative hypothesis, and a

position midway between Joannides and Perrig. It ar-

gues that the drawings were made by two different

draughtsmen working for Michelangelo and from his sketches. Following common practice, Michelangelo occasionally turned over designs to competent assistants who drew up finished presentation drawings intended for a patron or a contract. In my opinion, the Louvre

drawings are two such examples. They are here termed "presentation drawings" rather than modelli since, it will

be argued, they were made primarily to satisfy the patron rather than as a normal part of Michelangelo's working procedure.6 Each sheet is explained by unique circumstances, but such drawings are not unique in Mi-

chelangelo's oeuvre. While I do not attribute the Louvre drawings to Mi-

chelangelo himself, they are more thanjust copies of lost

designs. To the contary, they should be considered "au-

tograph" in so far as they were drawn from designs furnished by the master and at his behest, and so they were treated by Michelangelo's patrons and his contem-

poraries. Recognition that Michelangelo participated in such practice undermines a narrowly conceived notion of authenticity and offers a means of explaining a large number of doubtful drawings in the penumbra of the

Michelangelo corpus.

THE DRAWING FOR THE DUCAL TOMBS

An examination of Michelangelo's collaboration with his long-time assistant, Stefano di Tommaso Lunetti, reveals that the latter frequently furnished drawings for the master, and particularly in connection with the Medici Chapel and the Laurentian Library. Bernard Ber- enson noted the close professional relationship between

Michelangelo and Stefano, and he further suggested that the preliminary study for the Medici tombs in the Ash- molean Museum was by his hand (Fig. 3).7 Thus Beren-

son, and more recently James Ackerman and Caterina

Furlan,8 have acknowledged that Stefano's collaboration with Michelangelo included the making of drawings, yet, for the most part, these remain unidentified, and more importantly, the implications of the relationship between master and his draughtsman/assistant have not been examined. Documentary, stylistic, and circumstan- tial evidence suggests that Stefano is the author of several

drawings in the Michelangelo corpus, including Louvre

838 (Fig. I). Stefano was Michelangelo's professional associate and

his chief assistant during the first phase of construction and decoration of the Medici Chapel. Born in Florence around I465, he was trained as a miniaturist in the Flor- entine workshop of Gherardo and Monte di Miniato del Fora. Vasari informs us that Stefano left the profession of illuminator on the death of Gherardo in 1497, and thereafter turned his attention to architecture.9

Stefano is first documented in connection with Mi-

[242 ]



Fig. 1 Attributed to STEFANO DI TOMMASO LUNETTI.

Design for a Wall Tomb.

Paris, Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins. Photo: Giraudon.

NOTES

[243 ]



NOTES

Fig. 2 Attributed to GIOVANNI ANGELO DA MONTORSOLI.

Design for the Double Tomb of the Magnifici.

Paris, Mus6e du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins. Photo: Giraudon.

[244]



chelangelo in April 152I, but the two evidently knew one another prior to this date.10 Stefano was left in charge of the Medici Chapel when the master went to Carrara to obtain marble for the tombs. He continued in Michel-

angelo's employ until his death in I534, and appears regularly in documents and correspondence during these

years. He was Michelangelo's right-hand man at San Lorenzo and a capomaestro in the Medici Chapel. Among other tasks, he supervised the erection of thepietra serena

membering in the chapel and the lantern that crowns the dome." In his frequent letters reporting on affairs in

Rome, Michelangelo's friend, Giovanni Fattucci, often closed with a salutation to Stefano and once referred to him as "vostro amicissimo."12

Michelangelo's correspondence reveals a number of instances in which Stefano was responsible for making drawings in connection with the Medici Chapel and the Laurentian Library. In a letter of 30 January 1524, for

example, Giovanni Fattucci wrote that Pope Clement VII was anxious to know all that Michelangelo was

doing and would like to have drawings sent to him in Rome. In order not to waste Michelangelo's time, how-

ever, the pope suggested that Stefano or someone else make them: "I1 Papa mi disse di sua bocha che arebbe caro ... di vedere et di sapere quello disegniate di fare; et disse, perche voi non perdessi tenpo [sic], che voi gli facessi fare a Stefano o a chi voi volete." Earlier in the same letter Fattucci had already mentioned the pope's request that Michelangelo have Stefano prepare a draw-

ing: "[I1 papa] vorebbe che voi facessi fare a Stefano di nuovo la pianta di sotto" and he concluded by reminding Michelangelo: "Dite a Stefano che m'avisi di tutto quello che voi fate, per poterlo dire al Papa."13

In another letter Fattucci related the uncertainty felt in Rome about whether a drawing for the Laurentian Li-

brary had been made by Michelangelo or Stefano. On behalf of the pope, Fattucci requested that another draw-

ing be made, and he cosed by reiterating this request: "Racomandatemi a Stefano et fategli fare presto quello disegnio, et siate a ogni modo con lui, perche il Papa vol che sia di vostra mano. "'4 Stefano was to make the draw-

ing, but it would be considered Michelangelo's ("di vostra mano") if he supervised its making or provided the

design for it ("siate a ogni modo con lui").'5 In reply Michelangelo wrote that he understood that the pope wanted a drawing by his hand, "vuole che'l disegnio

Fig. 3 MICHELANGELO.

Design for the Medici Tombs.

Oxford, Ashmolean Museum.

della liberria [sic] sia di mia mano," but complained that architecture "non sia mia professione."'6 The protesta- tion, sometimes interpreted broadly to mean that Mi-

chelangelo did not consider himself an architect, was rather a means of putting off a task that he preferred Stefano to carry out for him. Stefano could make a better

drawing, Michelangelo implied, and further, he was

really the proper person to do it. In one further instance, Fattucci requested a design for

the decoration of the cupola in the Medici Chapel and

suggested that Michelangelo should have Stefano make the drawing: ". . . et se avete pensato ancora allo hor- namento della cupola per fare di stucho, siate contento di farle rit[r]arle a Stefano, come gli 6 scritto, e man- datele. "17

These notices prove that one of Stefano's tasks as Mi-

chelangelo's capomaestro was to make drawings, and not

just for the stonecutters in the Medici Chapel, but more

significantly, for the patron in Rome. Most of the draw-

ings mentioned in the correspondence probably are not as highly finished as Louvre 838; however, neither are

they merely working sketches that Stefano might routinely have made in the course of carrying out work in the chapel. These drawings were made for the express purpose of keeping the patron informed of progress in the chapel and of Michelangelo's intentions. Given spe-

[245 1



NOTES cial circumstances, Louvre 838 may be another such

drawing. In April 52 I, Michelangelo left for Carrara after re-

ceiving two hundred ducats to begin quarrying marble for the Medici Chapel.18 Most scholars assume that a final design for the tombs existed by this date.9 Joan- nides believes that Louvre 838 is this final design.20 By this date, discussion and correspondence concerning the tombs had occupied Michelangelo for nearly five months.21 It was finally decided to erect four all-marble wall sepulchres in the chapel, an extraordinarily expensive scheme requiring an enormous financial commitment on the part of the Medici. Given the expense of the

commission, the cardinal's keen interest, and the fact that he was in Florence in April, it is likely that Louvre 838 was made to encourage him to proceed with the

project after the protracted design period, and perhaps in anticipation of his imminent departure for Rome. The cardinal may have requested such a drawing prior to

disbursing funds for the marble, or as a presentation sheet that he could show Pope Leo X. Indeed, the draw-

ing is more pictorial than functional, and could never have been intended for the stonecutters. Elements such as the garlands, the winged genii, and the bulrushes behind the rivergods are difficult to imagine in marble, but they are suitable embellishments of a purposefully attractive drawing calculated to impress and entice the

patron.22 In fact, the draughtsman modified certain features of Michelangelo's preparatory drawings (Figs. 3-4) specifically to please the patron. In addition to the high degree of finish and attractive appearance, the central niche was accentuated and the commemorative inscription was greatly enlarged. The enthroned figure is represented with a baton of office, he is crowned by two

winged genii, and his niche is surmounted by a prominent trophy group. The drawing assured Cardinal de' Medici that his deceased relatives would be honored with

fitting memorials. But was it drawn by Michelangelo? The drawing is executed in black chalk and finished

with a brown wash. The complex and detailed architecture was drawn almost exclusively with a straightedge while a compass was used to score the curve of the

sarcophagus cover and the segmental pediments of the tabernacle niches. A preliminary grid of horizontal and vertical lines assisted the draughtsman in the overall or-

ganization of the sheet. The most prominent ruled lines

I1

Fig. 4 MICHELANGELO.

Design for the Medici Tombs.

London, British Museum.

of this schematic underdrawing are clearly visible in Fig- ures I and 5, and are presented in diagrammatic form in

Figure 6. For example, two clusters of ruled horizontals

(X and Y on Fig. 6) were used as guidelines for the definition of cornice moldings, capitals, and pilaster bases. This economical but unimaginative means of

draughting differs from Michelangelo's usual freehand

manner, which is characterized by numerous alternatives and constant revision with details such as capitals and

moldings, inspiring some of his most novel inventions. The figures are not as skillfully drawn as the elaborate

architecture, nor are they uniform in style. Those on the

sarcophagus are the most forceful and closely relate to

Michelangelo's own securely autograph preparatory drawing (Fig. 4). For the most part, however, the figures

[246]



NOTES

Fig. 5 Detail of Fig. I.

in the Louvre drawing were delineated with short, hesi-

tant, and frequently redundant strokes. Certain pass- ages, such as the left leg of the figure on the right hand side of the sarcophagus, are completely inarticulate.

Louvre 838 corresponds to the type of finished architectural drawing that one might expect of a professional draughtsman, and conversely, exhibits characteristics that are anomalous to Michelangelo's draughtsmanship. The small scale and busyness of the sheet, the reliance on a ruled preliminary grid and extensive use of a straightedge and compass, the feeble contours and oc-

casionally messy interior modeling of the figures, do not recommend this as an autograph drawing by Michelan-

gelo.23 There are, rather, strong affinities to manuscript illumination in the careful organization and overall de-

velopment of the sheet, the density of the workmanship, and the attention to finicky ornament. The scale and

style of this drawing reveal the hand of a miniaturist while the mechanical means employed are those of an architect. These qualities may explain the reluctance of

many scholars to accept the drawing as Michelangelo's own. At the same time, such qualities make an attribution to Stefano di Tomasso, a miniaturist turned ar-

chitect, all the more likely. The result is a sheet that is

obviously Michelangelesque in conception but without the technique and assured handling of the master's au-

tograph drawings. The drawing derives its Michelangelesque character

from the master's preparatory designs (Figs. 3, 4). The

correspondences between the preliminary sketches and Louvre 838 are so numerous that it is certain that the

draughtsman availed himself of Michelangelo's preparatory sketches. In fact, there are features of Louvre

838, such as the sarcophagus figures and the decoration

[ 247]



NOTES

K

a

Fig. 6 Diagram of principal ruled lines of Fig. i.

of the attic, that appear only on the British Museum and Ashmolean drawings and nowhere else among Michel-

angelo's preparatory designs or the executed tombs

(thereby greatly reducing the likelihood that the sheet is a later pastiche).

The attribution of Louvre 83 8 to Stefano di Tommaso would be greatly strengthened if we could compare it with other drawings by his hand; however, he has no

recognized oeuvre. Stefano was a capomaestro and an architectural draughtsman rather than an artist with an

independent style. The nature of the service he rendered

Michelangelo makes it difficult to identify his hand with

certainty since he drew from the master's sketches and for the purpose of conveying his intentions. Neverthe- less, a small group of drawings exhibit characteristics similar to Louvre 838 and deserve consideration as possible examples of Stefano's work for Michelangelo.

Fig. 7 STEFANO DI TOMMASO LUNETTI ?

Design for the Coffering of the Cupola of the Medici Chapel.

Florence, Casa Buonarroti.

A drawing in the Casa Buonarroti for the coffering of the cupola in the Medici Chapel (Fig. 7), and a design for a papal tomb in Christ Church, Oxford (Fig. 8), are

prime examples of drawings that were made by assistants working for Michelangelo, and possibly by Stefano di Tommaso.24 Michelangelo's letters and ricordi

clearly indicate Stefano's involvement with the stucco-

ing of the cupola.25 InJanuary 1524, Fattucci wrote ask-

ing if Michelangelo had given any thought to the decoration of the cupola, and suggested that he should have Stefano make a drawing: ". . . siate contento di farle

rit[r]arle a Stefano."26 Responding to the drawing that was sent to Rome, Fattucci wrote that the pope still desired to know how large the first coffers are, how

many there are in a row, and how many rows there are-all questions that are relevant to the Casa Buonar- roti sheet (Fig. 7).27 The drawing, therefore, was proba-

[248]

,;; - . 11

10 "~~~' A - 4. .~~~t



bly made in response to the patron's request, and by Stefano as Fattucci suggested. The sheet is currently attributed to the "school" of Michelangelo, although such a designation misleadingly associates it with a pupil's drawing lesson rather than correctly identifying it as a

workshop product. The sheet is also sometimes given to Giovanni da Udine since this artist was subsequently called from Rome to paint the vault.28 The drawing, however, is a general design for the form and regular diminution of the coffers rather than a sketch for the

painted decoration (which Vasari specifies was on the ribs rather than in the coffers29); therefore, it is more

likely that the sheet was drawn by Stefano than by Giovanni da Udine.

Charles de Tolnay related the drawing in Christ Church (Fig. 8) to Clement VII's request that Michelan-

gelo design papal tombs for himself and Pope Leo X.30 Since this request was made in October I525, a time when Stefano was frequently making drawings to send to Rome, it is possible that Stefano rather than Michelan-

gelo made the drawing for the pope. It is primarily an architectural drawing in which a straightedge was used

extensively and figures are only lightly indicated. Three-

dimensionality is achieved not by Michelangelo's usual manner of shading in chalk, but by means of a light brown wash. Although not as highly finished as Louvre

838, the drawing is comparable in style and technique. Indeed, Joannides declared it to be "identical in handl-

ing. "31

Other drawings could be considered but none are as elaborate or as highly finished as Louvre 838, thus argu- ments based on stylistic similarities become progres- sively less convincing. My purpose, however, is not to elevate the relatively unimportant Stefano di Tommaso, but rather to elucidate his close professional relationship with Michelangelo, which included making drawings for the master. Such a relationship, while somewhat at odds with the popular notion of Michelangelo as an isolated genius, is nonetheless entirely consistent with standard architectural practice in which there is a division of labor between the supervising architect and an architectural draughtsman who works up his design sketches.32 We know, for example, that Michelangelo employed Bartolommeo de' Rocchi and Tiberio Cal-

cagni to make finished drawings for San Giovanni dei

Fiorentini, and assistants probably also made the presen-

?....?Pc I

i 1 s tr- c?

i-?? 3 1 -* r r.

5

I

F` i . i ' ?t .?I

Fig. 8 STEFANO DI TOMMASO LUNETTI ?

Design for a Papal Tomb.

Oxford, Christ Church (Reproduced with Permissionfrom the Governing Body, Christ Church).

tation drawings for the Porta Pia commission.33 In an earlier instance, Piero Rosselli asked Michelangelo for a

design for a tabernacle and sent his assistant Antonio di

Filippo to Florence to make a drawing from the master's sketch and according to his instructions, "e lui lo

dise[g]nera seco[n]do li direte voi. "4 There is a different sense of "authorship" operative

here. A drawing, although not actually drawn by Mi-

chelangelo, was considered his and could even be described as "di sua mano" because he supervised its mak-

ing and it represented his concetto. We recall that when the patron inquired about the authorship of a drawing for the Laurentian Library, Fattucci implied that it was

Michelangelo's though drawn by Stefano since the latter would do nothing without Michelangelo's approval.35 Jacomo Rocchetti even inscribed his drawing of the tomb ofJulius II "di mano di Michelangelo" because it was the master's disegno or concetto - rather than the phys- ical sheet-that was "di mano di Michelangelo. "36 Thus, in sixteenth-century terms, a drawing such as Louvre 838 is properly considered Michelangelo's since he de-

signed it and provided the sketches. Similarly, Michelan-

[249]



NOTES gelo's contemporaries recognized him to be the author of the other presentation drawing associated with the Medici Chapel, Louvre 837, although this sheet is even more certainly not by his hand.

THE DRAWING FOR THE TOMB OF THE MAGNIFICI

Louvre 837 (Fig. 2) is a design for the double tomb of the Magnifici that appears, at first, to be similar to the

drawing just discussed. Comparison of the originals, however, proves that they were drawn on different type paper and by different draughtsmen. Louvre 837 is sim-

pler and less densely drawn than no. 838, and the indi- vidual features are defined with less care and precision. The figures, for instance, are large and dominate the

simply drawn architecture, whereas in no. 838 the figures are smaller and serve to embellish a detailed and

carefully rendered architectural drawing.37 The most obvious difference between these two sheets

is the manner in which ink wash was employed. A care-

fully controlled light brown wash was sparingly applied by the draughtsman of Louvre 838 primarily to accen- tuate the three-dimensionality of the architecture. In Louvre 837, on the other hand, a wash of varying tonal-

ity was extensively and loosely employed to model both

figures and architecture. The wash creates a vibrant

shimmering surface that is a dominant and attractive feature of the drawing. As an independent decorative

element, the wash tends to flatten the overall image. The drawing of the architecture is quite different as

well. Louvre 837 was not developed from a preliminary ruled grid and the straightedge was used with far less

patience and skill than in Louvre 838. Lines are hastily ruled and sometimes extend beyond the limits of the forms they are meant to describe, as can be clearly seen in the column pedestals and sarcophagi plinths. Al-

together, the architecture of Louvre 837 is less complex, less carefully drawn, and less convincingly three-dimensional than Louvre 838.

In my opinion the two drawings are not by the same hand, nor is Louvre 837 any closer than its companion to autograph works by Michelangelo. The figures are

large but drawn with thin scratchy strokes and modeled almost exclusively with wash. In fact, the wash is the dominant element of the sheet and is more important than contour lines for the definition of figures. The result is not the strong linear contours and solid muscular

forms one expects of Michelangelo. The weak contours, the extensive use of wash, the heavy reliance on the

straightedge, and the overall flat appearance of Louvre

837 make an attribution to the master highly doubtful. Historical and stylistic evidence suggests that this draw-

ing was made later than Louvre 838 and by a different

draughtsman. The most likely author, it will be argued, is Fra Giovanni da Montorsoli, the sculptor appointed to supervise the tomb of the Magnifici and Michelange- lo's principal assistant and collaborator in the latter stages of the Medici Chapel.

Michele di Angelo was born in Montorsoli near Flor- ence in 1507 and entered the Servite order in 1530,

adopting the name Fra Giovanni Angelo.38 Vasari informs us that Montorsoli was employed in the Medici

Chapel and Laurentian Library as a carver of ornament, and was highly regarded by Michelangelo for the speed and beauty of his work.39 When, in the early 153os, Pope Clement VII was seeking a sculptor to restore antiquities, Michelangelo recommended Montorsoli. He was

brought to Rome, given a room in the Belvedere, and was set to work restoring the Laocoon, the Apollo Belve- dere and other antiquities.40 Clement frequently visited Montorsoli in the Belvedere, and the young man, ac-

cording to Vasari, was so studious that he made drawings every night to show the pope in the morning ". .. e gli pose il papa grandissima affezione, e massimamente veg- gendolo studiosissimo nelle cose dell'arte, e che tutta la notte disegnava per avere ogni mattina nuove cose da mostrare al papa, che molto se ne dilettava. "41 This cor- dial relationship between Montorsoli and Pope Clement VII takes on added significance when viewed within the context of the later history of the Medici Chapel.

Work in the chapel had been interrupted sometime in

1526 due to a gradual drying up of funds. With the Sack of Rome in 1527 and the subsequent expulsion of the Medici from Florence, work came to a complete stand- still. Little or nothing was done on the project until after the capitulation of the Florentine Republic in 1530. In December of that year, Michelangelo's salary was re- stored and he resumed work on the chapel "con diligen- tia et sollecitudine," although Condivi noted that now he was "impelled more by fear than by love."42

It is evident that after the extended interlude of the Florentine Republic, Michelangelo no longer felt the same commitment to the project. More work was

[250 ]



turned over to assistants and Michelangelo spent increas-

ingly longer periods in Rome. He went there in Sep- tember I532, and remained more than six months in

spite of his recent agreement to devote the majority of his time to the Medici commissions in Florence.43 In late

spring or early summer, Clement sent Michelangelo, together with Montorsoli, back to Florence to complete the largely unfinished chapel.44 Montorsoli was placed in charge of the tomb of the Magnifici-a position of

major responsibility since the double tomb was to have been the centerpiece of the entire chapel.45 In August 1533, Sebastiano del Piombo wrote that the pope was

pleased that Montorsoli was directing work on the Mag- nifici tomb: "[Nostro Signore] dice che saria bono che detti scarpelini havesino un soprastante che intendese, che non imbrogliaseno l'opera, che cussi come volete che'l Frate sia soprastante a la sepoltura doppia de la sacrestia."46

In September 1533, Clement VII traveled north to attend the wedding of Catherine de' Medici in Marseil- les.47 Because of the delicate political situation following the demise of the Florentine Republic, Clement felt it was unwise to appear in the city in person; therefore, he called Michelangelo to a meeting at nearby San Miniato al Tedesco.48 Although the pope was unable to visit the Medici Chapel in person, he was intensely concerned with its progress. Louvre 837 may have been made either before or shortly after the meeting with the pope, to

mollify an impatient patron and to inform him of Mi-

chelangelo's intentions for completing the most important tomb in the chapel. Considering Montorsoli's

privileged position with both Michelangelo and Clem- ent, as well as his assignment to direct work on the

Magnifici tomb, it is likely that he would have been

responsible for the presentation drawing that promised its final appearance. We recall, moreover, that Montor- soli was on familiar terms with the pope and already in the habit of making drawings to please him.49

Montorsoli's early drawing style, especially during the years when he worked with Michelangelo in the Medici Chapel, has never been clearly defined. Louvre

837, however, seems consistent with what is known of his hand, as well as with his later development as a

draughtsman.50 For example, Louvre 837 can be com-

pared with Montorsoli's well-known design for a foun-

tain, although it was drawn more than a decade later

I

Fig. 9 GIOVANNI ANGELO DA MONTORSOLI.

Design for a Fountain.

Florence, Uffizi. Photo: Courtesy of Berenson Photo Archive, Villa I Tatti.

(Fig. 9). In both drawings, large and animated figures dominate the architecture which is executed with only modest talent and considerable reliance on a straightedge. The figures are indicated with a scratchy pen tech-

nique and are modeled with wash. In both, attention is lavished on sculptural ornament while there is a certain

disregard for the details of architecture. If Louvre 837 is by Montorsoli, then it is his earliest

identified drawing. This would account for its similarity to Louvre 838, which probably served as its general model.51 However, Montorsoli, a sculptor, greatly em-

phasized the figures while paying less attention to the

[251 ]



NOTES architecture. Indeed, Montorsoli began work on the

Magnifici tomb by carving the figure of St. Cosmas while the architecture was never begun. Slightly more than a year after Montorsoli had been charged with di-

recting work on the tomb, Clement died and the work on the chapel was again interrrupted.

After carrying out commissions in France, Genoa, Messina, and elsewhere, Montorsoli fially returned to Florence in i 56 , where he was instrumental in the foundation of the Accademia del Disegno.52 He was held in

high esteem by his contemporaries, partly because of his former position as Michelangelo's assistant and collaborator in the Medici Chapel. In March 1563, Vasari wrote to Michelangelo outlining plans to complete the unfinished chapel according to the sketches and designs already made for it, including, I would suggest, Louvre

837 and 838: "schizzi [e] disegni fatti gia per questa opera. "53 In listing the names of the many artists prepared to undertake the task, he gave special mention to Mon- torsoli "tutto ardente per farvi onore. "54 Montorsoli was

obviously the proper person to direct work in the chapel. It was eventually put into its present condition but little came of the aspiration to "complete" it, mainly because both Michelangelo and Montorsoli died shortly thereafter.

Five nearly identical copies of Louvre 837 are extant, and altogether more than a dozen drawings repeat its

design.55 Some of these were probably made by various members of the Florentine Academy, perhaps as draw-

ing exercises.56 It should be noted that the finished presentation drawing was repeatedly and faithfully copied, not Michelangelo's securely autograph preparatory sketches. It is reasonable that a drawing made by Mon- torsoli for Michelangelo, and from his sketches, would have been accorded such respect since it was the tomb

design-the concetto-that was admired, not necessarily the draughtsmanship of this particular sheet. Signifi- cantly, there are no equivalent copies of Louvre 838.57 The contrast between the "Nachleben" of the two Louvre drawings is striking and not explained merely by the accidents of survival and destruction. The explanation rests with the history of the chapel itself. The ducal tombs were largely complete by the time Michelangelo left Florence for Rome in 1534; therefore, copyists showed little interest in Louvre 83 8 but rather drew from the completed tombs.58 On the other hand, the tomb of

,: "IC-: I ~iI I I i: r

I ~ ~

I Ii

"~~~ ~~~~ Iz ' i~.::.~:'.- ? -:.~":'\~ .':" I' ?

''';~ ; , -~. ...'~;:: '' ~ . - i?' :' ;" .. ?~..' . . ~.^^ >- "^- I

.?A^ 11 ^ * */ "'- ,... . .-: ,:,~..; . ,.$1 ,~, ,~? .. ... ,. i, ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~.:.? . :

i~ I~~ . ~:~,:~, ~~:,: :,,,

Fig. 10 MICHELANGELO?

Design for the Tomb ofJulius II.

New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

the Magnifici was never carried out. Consequently, Louvre 837 remained, and still is, the most important and eloquent witness of Michelangelo's design intentions.

Presentation drawings such as Louvre 837 and 838 are

exceptional but not unique in Michelangelo's oeuvre. Some of the contracts for the tomb of Julius II seem to call for such drawings. In 1513 Michelangelo agreed to finish the tomb "secondo il tale desegnio et modello." The contract of 1516 stipulated that Michelangelo was to execute the tomb "secondo uno nuovo modello,

figura e disegnio fatto per detto Michelagniolo a detto

sepoltura"; and in 1532, "il detto maestro Michelagnolo promesse fare et dare nuovo modello o ver disegno del

[ 252 ]



NOTES

a :i

*:

t?. ?r

?;9; r

?;?r .??al

: ,;.,, AS '1 i r d. J;i? ' r? K*. ' C J

I ? '," .Z?. "?

. ; . ? ?. "-

??,.IC, ?I *i;L;; ig: .. i? ... Y.

"? "? .:?

C:i?;? . ?

I

i ~I d-

- -- - '"'t " -1 , io ...

C 1 -.

Fig. 11 BACCIO D'AGNOLO?

Design for the Facade of San Lorenzo.

Florence, Casa Buonarroti. Photo: Brogi.

detto sepolcro ad suo piacere."59 Some of these presentation sheets may still exist. There is, for example, the

previously mentioned drawing in Berlin best known from the copy byJacomo Rocchetti,60 and the drawing for a tomb in The Metropolitan Museum (Fig. o) that Michael Hirst and Frederick Hartt have attributed to

Michelangelo himself.61 Some scholars also have cred- ited Michelangelo with all or part of the large and im-

pressive presentation drawing for the facade of San Lorenzo now in the Casa Buonarroti (Fig. I ).62

Each of these examples raises complex problems of

dating, attribution, and purpose that cannot properly be treated here. However, it may be suggested that certain commissions called for a type of drawing that Michelan-

gelo willingly allowed other draughtsmen to make, especially finished architectural drawings meant to elicit funds or to satisfy the demands of a patron or contract. When special circumstances called for the making of such drawings, Michelangelo, like architects before and ever since, turned a sketch over to a draughtsman who

[253 ]



NOTES could translate the idea into a more finished and attractive form. I suggest that the contractual obligations associated with theJulius tomb, the short-lived collaboration with Baccio d'Agnolo on the facade of San Lorenzo, and the circumstances outlined in the present essay are several such instances.

The Louvre drawings belong to a type of finished architectural drawing that is being attributed to Michel-

angelo with increasing frequency. These are primarily pen and ink drawings made with a straightedge, evenly finished, and carefully modeled with ink wash. Techni-

cally and stylistically, they are different from most of

Michelangelo's undisputed architectural drawings. Like his sculpture, the architectural drawings are often highly resolved in certain areas while other portions are barely developed. Surfaces are densely worked and the forms described are convincingly three-dimensional. Multiple and overlapping lines compete for attention. An architectural form is often the result of an insistent and firmly drawn contour imposed on a myriad of alternatives.

Michelangelo's draughtsmanship is strong and self-as-

sured; it has a clarity that emerges from the fecundity of forms on the sheet rather than a neatness that is main- tained from the beginning. This sort of drawing is different in character and purpose from the sheets considered

here, which are carefully executed presentation drawings made to persuade or assuage, obligatory rather than

creative, and more rhetorical than exploratory. Although, in my estimation, most of these carefully

finished architectural drawings are not by Michelange- lo's hand, they are rightly associated with the master because they reflect his concetti, which is exactly how

they were understood and accepted by his contem-

poraries. Should not such drawings be considered part of the artist's oeuvre? Connoisseurship should acknowl-

edge degrees of authenticity, for insistence on the hand of the master takes a narrow view of the artist's working procedure and limits the possible explanations for draw-

ings that are clearly Michelangelesque but doubtfully autograph.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I would like to thank the curators who permitted me to study the drawings that are the subject of this article, in particular at the Musee du Louvre, Paris, the Ashmo- lean Museum and Christ Church, Oxford, the British Muse- um, London, and the Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi

and the Casa Buonarroti in Florence. I would also like to thank Columbia University, the Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities for generous financial assistance, as well as David Rosand, Alexander Perrig, PaulJoannides, Mark S. Weil, Richard E. Spear, Samuel Heath, and the late Howard Hibbard for reading drafts of this paper and offering many valuable suggestions.

1. Inv. no. 838. Black chalk and wash; 321 x 205 mm. (Dus- sler, no. 674b.) Inv. no. 837. Black chalk and wash; 380 x 240 mm. (Dussler, no. 674a.) Hereafter referred to as Louvre 838 and Louvre 837.

2. See, for example, Tolnay, 1948, p. 40; idem, "Nouvelles

remarques sur la Chapelle Medicis," Gazette des Beaux- Arts, LXXIII, 1969, pp. 65-80; A. E. Popp, Die Medici- Kapelle Michelangelos, Munich, 1922, pp. 129-30, 134, 147, I55; Berenson, nos. 1735, 1736; Dussler, nos. 674a, 674b, 699; E. Panofsky, "The Neoplatonic Movement and

Michelangelo," Studies in Iconology, 1939, rpt. New York, 1972, pp. 200-201; M. Weinberger, Michelangelo the Sculptor, London and New York, 1967, I, pp. 303, 315, and R. Zentai, "Un dessin de Giovanni Battista Sangallo et les projets de fresques de la Chapelle Medicis," Budapest. Bulletin du Musee Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, XXXVI, 1971, pp. 79-92, esp. pp. 85-89. Similarly, copies or versions of one or both of the Louvre drawings have been used as evidence to reconstruct Michelangelo's intentions for the Medici Chapel; see, for example, F. Kriegbaum, "Michel-

angelo und die Antike," Muinchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, III/IV, 1952-53, pp. 16-20; W. Gramberg, "Zur

Aufstellung des Skulpturenschmuckes in der neuen Sakris- tei von S. Lorenzo," Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Insti- tutes in Florenz, VII, 1953-56, pp. i 5 -60; M. Salmi, "Mi-

chelangelo," Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Quaderno no.

74), Rome, 1966, p. 23, fig. 22; H. von Einem, "Die Medicimadonna Michelangelos," Rheinisch-Westfilische Akademie der Wissenschaft, CXC, I973, p. I I, and H. Hib- bard, Michelangelo, New York, 1974, p. 8I.

3. Joannides, 1972, pp. 54I-5i. His "rehabilitation" of these

drawings was accepted by Kathleen Weil-Garris Brandt ("Comments on the Medici Chapel and Pontormo's Lunette at Poggio a Caiano," Burlington Magazine, CXV, 1973, pp. 641-49) and by Janet Cox-Rearick (Dynasty and

Destiny in Medici Art: Pontormo, Leo X, and the Two Cosimos, Princeton, 1984, pp. 91, 25 5n), but not by Tolnay (Corpus, nos. 186, I94).

4. Joannides, 1981, p. 682. Elsewhere in I98I, Joannides wrote: "My attribution [of these drawings] to Michelan-

gelo does not seem to have met with much success, but, after re-examination at the exhibition of Michelangelo's drawings at the Louvre in 1975, I am more than ever convinced that both are his" ("Michelangelo Filippino Lippi and the Half-Baluster," Burlington Magazine, CXXIII, I981, p. 154, n. 7).

[ 254 ]



5. Perrig, esp. pp. 266-71. His contribution substantially ex-

pands Johannes Wilde's fundamental study of the evolution of the tomb designs ("Michelangelo's Designs for the Medici Tombs," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Insti- tutes, XVIII, 1955, pp. 54-66; see also Michelangelo: Six Lectures byJohannes Wilde, Oxford, 1978, pp. II4-34).

6. In my terminology I follow Susan Lambert who has provided an efficient and precise vocabulary of drawings based on type and function (S. Lambert, Drawing: Technique and

Purpose, catalog of the exhibition, Victoria and Albert Mu- seum, London, I 98 I, and more fully in a book of the same title published in 1984). Lambert discusses presentation drawings under the heading "Drawing for Utility." They are "a means of explaining what a completed work in other media and often in three dimensions will look like in order to obtain a commission either privately or through a com-

petition." Such drawings "help a client envisage what a

proposed design will look like," and serve as vehicles of discussion betweeen artist and patron. Presentation draw-

ings, defined in this sense, are not necessarily made by the master himself, but can be produced by a studio assistant or "an artist employed specifically to put the ideas onto

paper in an attractive way" (Lambert, 1981, p. 55; ibid., 1984, pp. I 13-29; see also the remarks of L. Shelby, "The Role of the Master Mason in Mediaeval English Building," Speculum, XXXIX, 1964, pp. 387-403, esp. pp. 390-91; M. Fitzsimmons, "Purpose and Quality in Architectural Drawings," Drawing, IV, 3, 1982, pp. 55-59, and other references in note 32 below).

The Italian term modello is often used interchangeably with presentation drawing as defined by Lambert. Joseph Meder's discussion of modelli emphasized their role in studio practice, implying that they never left the hands of the artist who used them (J. Meder, Die Handzeichnung: ihre Technik und Entwicklung [1919], 2nd ed., Vienna, 1923,

pp. 284-335). The Tietzes remarked on the ambiguous character of modelli, noting that they were drawings made for patrons and contracts as well as for use in the workshop (H. Tietze and E. Tietze-Conrat, The Drawings of the Vene- tian Painters in the 15th and 16th Centuries, New York, 1944, pp. I2-I5). For my purposes it will be useful to distinguish between modelli and presentation drawings on the basis of function. Following Lambert and the conventional use of the term in architectural practice, "presentation drawing" will be used here to refer to project designs submitted to the patron. They are intended to impress and persuade and therefore are frequently highly finished and visually attractive. Once "presented" to a patron, the drawing may never be returned to the artist. Alternatively, it may subsequently serve the artist as a modello, a plan from which to execute a full-scale cartoon, or, in the case of architecture and sculpture, a three-dimensional model (also sometimes called a modello). Thus, the presentation drawing is intended for the patron, the modello for use by the artist. The same drawing could serve both functions.

The late Wolfgang Lotz suggested to me (private com-

munication) that Michelangelo probably never made presentation drawings in the sense discussed above since he

rarely revealed his full intentions and was, moreover, con-

stantly revising his designs. A similar thesis was presented in an important article byJuergen Schulz ("Michelangelo's Unfinished Works," Art Bulletin, LVII, 1975, pp. 366-73). I concur with Lotz and Schulz and would argue that their observations support my hypothesis that Michelangelo willingly allowed his assistants to make such drawings when circumstances or patrons demanded them.

7. Berenson I, pp. 217, 367 and II, no. 1709. Berenson (I, p. 367) went so far as to tentatively suggest that his so-called "Andrea di Michelangelo" may be Stefano; however, this would ascribe a large body of figural drawings to him whereas the evidence suggests that Stefano made primarily architectural drawings for Michelangelo.

8. J. S. Ackerman, The Architecture of Michelangelo, 2 vols., London, 1961, rev. ed. 1964, II, p. 33, and C. Furlan, "Giovanni da Udine e Michelangelo," Arte Veneta, XXIX, 1975, pp. 151, 155, n. 26.

9. G. Vasari, Le vite depiu eccellentipittori, scultori ed architettori, ed. G. Milanesi, 9 vols., Florence, 1878-85, III, pp. 241- 43, and Thieme-Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon, XXIII, Leip- zig, 1929, p. 471. Stefano di Tommaso is not to be con- fused with his son, Tommaso di Stefano (ca. 1495-1564), a pupil of Lorenzo di Credi.

10. I ricordi di Michelangelo, ed. L. B. Ciulich and P. Barocchi, Florence, 1970, p. Io6.

11. See my forthcoming article, "The Lantern of Michelange- lo's Medici Chapel" in the Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz. In addition, Stefano accompanied Mi-

chelangelo on an inspection trip of the fortifications of Pisa in I 529, and he played a prominent role in the construction of the Florentine fortifications under Michelangelo's direc- tion in 1529-30 (Ricordi, pp. 25 -52; R. Manetti, Michelan-

giolo: lefortificazioni per l'assedio di Firenze, Florence, 1980,

pp. 45-46, 68).

12. Carteggio, III, p. I7. Stefano addressed Michelangelo, "Michelagniolo carissimo" and, in turn, Michelangelo wrote to "Stefano mio caro" (e.g., Carteggio, IV, pp. 4, 5, 7).

13. Carteggio, III, p. 31.


15. Charles Seymour discussed a similar use of an analogous phrase, "di sua mano," in "'Fatto di sua mano': Another Look at the Fonte Gaia Drawing Fragments in London and New York," Festschrift Ulrich Middeldorf, Berlin, 1968, pp. 93-I05.

[255 ]

NOTES



NOTES 16. Carteggio, III, p. 20. Michelangelo reiterated this sentiment years later when Pope Paul insisted that he take over the

building of St. Peter's (see A. Condivi, The Life of Michel- angelo, trans. A. S. Wohl, ed. H. Wohl, Baton Rouge, LA, 1976, p. IoI). At different times in his life, Michelangelo similarly protested that architecture, painting, sculpture, and bronze casting were not his profession (see, for exam-

ple, Carteggio, I, p. I8; III, pp. 8, 206; IV, pp. 232, 247, and Vasari-Milanesi, VII, p. 217).

17. Carteggio, III, p. 24. In another letter, it is uncertain whether Fattucci is referring to drawings made by Stefano or by Michelangelo: "Michelagniolo, io 6 riceuta [sic] la vostra con quella di Stefano et insieme con d[u]e piante della libreria . . " (Carteggio, III, p. 41). Stefano also worked as an architectural draughtsman under Michelan-

gelo during the construction of the Florentine fortifications in 1529. In July, he was paid ten florins "per suo servitio di duo mesi per disegnatore sopra a bastionj" (Manetti, Fortificazioni, p. 45).

18. Ricordi, pp. I05-Io6.

19. Tolnay, 1948, pp. 53, i6o;Joannides, 1972, p. 54I; Acker-

man, Architecture, II, p. 24; C. Elam, "The Site and Early Building History of Michelangelo's New Sacristy," Mit-

teilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, XXIII, 1979, PP. 155-66.

20. Joannides, 1972, p. 546.

21. Cardinal de' Medici was actively involved in the design process, offering suggestions and comments on drawings sent to Rome by Michelangelo. See the evidence for this

relationship in the regular exchange of letters between Rome and Florence (e.g. Carteggio, II, pp. 260-6 , 264-65, 267-69).

Alternatively, the drawing could have been made two and a half years later, just before Michelangelo began actual construction of the tombs in 1524. In December 152I,

Pope Leo X died and the subsequent election of a foreign pope, Adrian VI, caused a temporary eclipse of the Medici. With their circumstances drastically reduced, the family was forced to curtail their patronage; the funds necessary to finance the costly chapel project were simply not available. In a letter of April 1523 (Carteggio, II, p. 366), Michel- angelo complained that it had been almost two years since he had returned from Carrara, but nothing had been done on the tombs because he was unable to obtain the cardinal's permission (i.e. the necessary funds) to proceed with the work. This situation, however, was dramatically altered with the election of Cardinal Giulio de' Medici to the papacy in November 1523. Michelangelo went to Rome in early December to confer with the newly elected pontiff concerning the Medici Chapel. It is possible that Louvre 838 was made and taken to Rome as a means of rekindling the patron's interest in the interrupted project. Now that Giulio de' Medici was pope, he had the means and the

obligation to carry out the expensive chapel that would both glorify his family and financially benefit his native

city.

22. Berenson (I, p. 21 ) characterized the drawing as "unplas- tic," implying the impossibility of translating it into marble. While the character, scale, and finish of Louvre 838 indicate that it was most likely made for the benefit of the

patron, it is possible that, in a general way, it may have served as a modello for Michelangelo and the woodworker, Bastiano Legnaiuolo, in constructing the full-scale wooden model between January and March, 1524 (see Michelangelo's Ricordi, pp. 113-24). A simple formal

comparison between the drawing and the completed tombs reveals their close relationship. Translations in scale and materials, first as a wooden model and finally in marble, would explain the variations between a drawing intended to impress the patron and the tombs as constructed.

23. Joannides has advised a general reconsideration of Michel-

angelo's use of a straightedge (review of I disegni di Michel-

angelo nelle collezioni italiane by C. de Tolnay in Art Bulletin, LV, 1978, p. 176); nevertheless, the excessive reliance on mechanical means evident in the Louvre sheet would be unusual for Michelangelo. I believe Michelangelo em-

ployed a straightedge only sparingly (e.g., the drawings for S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini). Prior to his old age, his hand is unerringly steady and while lines frequently have the appearance of having been drawn with mechanical assistance, close examination of the original drawings and a ruler laid alongside such lines proves that this is usually not the case.

After my first examination of Louvre 838 in 1980, I entertained the possibility that it was drawn by two different draughtsmen, thus accounting for the discrepancies in

quality between the architecture and the figures. However, repeated examinations of the drawing in 198I, 1982, and

1983, confirmed that only one draughtsman was responsible for the sheet.

24. Casa Buonarroti, no. I27A. Black chalk with brown wash; 250 x 210 mm. (P. Barocchi, Michelangelo e la sua scuola. I disegni di Casa Buonarroti e degli Uffizi, Florence, 1962, no. 259; Dussler, no. 484; Tolnay, Corpus, no. 206); and Oxford, Christ Church, inv. no. 0993, black chalk with brown ink wash, 19I x 255 mm. (J. Byam Shaw, Drawings by Old Masters at Christ Church, 2 vols., Oxford, 1976, no. 65; Dussler, no. 639; Tolnay, Corpus, no. 282).

PaulJoannides (1981, p. 682, no. 186) already associated these two sheets with the Louvre drawings and declared them "identical in handling." In addition, Joannides included two other sheets in this group (Christ Church, inv. no. 0992, Byam Shaw, no. 64; repr. in Tolnay, Corpus, no. 280; and Casa Buonarroti, no. 52A; repr. in Tolnay, Cor-

pus, no. 188). In my opinion, these are further examples of drawings made by draughtsmen in Michelangelo's em-

ploy, possibly Stefano di Tommaso. The verso of the

[ 256]



Christ Church sheet (Tolnay, Corpus, no. 280) is filled with drawings that are unquestionably by Michelangelo and which are significantly different in style from the

drawing on the recto, strongly suggesting that more than one draughtsman was responsible for the sheet. This situation makes an attribution of the recto drawing to Stefano

logical since Michelangelo and his capomaestro had a col- laborative relationship in which it is possible that both used the same sheet. Indeed, it appears that Michelangelo made various sketches for an altar on one side and Stefano drew up a more finished version based on these designs on the opposite side of the sheet. While such a situation

may at first seem illogical, other explanations for the diver-

sity of hands are more cumbersome and ignore the col- laborative relationship between Michelangelo and his

capomaestro. Alteratively, one might view the whole sheet as the work of an assistant or pupil (e. g., Dussler no. 63 8), in which case I would suggest that the Michelangelesque drawings on the verso are the result of working directly from autograph sketches of the master while the recto reveals the character of the draughtsman independent of the master's influence. In this scenario, Stefano di Tom- maso remains the most likely candidate given his position in the chapel and the likely circumstances under which such a sheet would have been drawn.

25. See Michelangelo's complete accounts regarding the erection of the scaffolding and the stuccoing of the vault

(Ricordi, pp. 113-23, esp. pp. 121-23).


27. "Ancora vorrei sapere quanto sono grandi e' primi quadri della volta, et quanti sono per filo et quanti fili sono"

(Carteggio, III, p. 35).

28. Tolnay (1948, p. 212) and Furlan ("Giovanni da Udine," p. 152) attributed the drawing to Giovanni da Udine; Dus- sler (no. 484) and Ackerman (Architecture, II, p. 25) left the attribution open; Tolnay (Corpus, no. 206) and Alessandro Cecchi ("Le perdute decorazioni fiorentine di Giovanni da Udine," Paragone, XXIV, n. 399, 1983, pp. 29-30) re-

turned to Henry Thode's original attribution of the draw-

ing to Michelangelo (Michelangelo. Kritische Untersuchungen iiber seine Werke, Berlin, III, 1913, pp. 44-45, no. 87).

29. ". .. nelle fregiature .. . che vanno a traverso rigirando i

quadri" (Vasari-Milanesi, VI, pp. 560-6I).

30. Tolnay, 1948, p. 274; idem, Corpus, no. 282. PaulJoan-

nides, Michael Hirst, J. Byam Shaw, and John Gere all concur with Tolnay's suggestion, and with his attribution of the drawing to Michelangelo himself.

31. Joannides, 1981, p. 682.

32. See M. S. Briggs, The Architect in History, Oxford, 1927,

rpt. 1974; J. S. Ackerman, "Architectural Practice in the Italian Renaissance," Journal of the Society of Architectural

Historians, XIII, 1954, pp. 3-I I; Shelby, "Role of the Mas-

ter Mason," pp. 387-403; E. B. MacDougall, "Michelan-

gelo and the Porta Pia,"Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, XIX, 1960, pp. 97-108; M. Hollingsworth, "The Architect in Fifteenth-Century Florence," Art His-

tory, VII, I984, pp. 385-410; F. Toker, "Gothic Architec- ture by Remote Control: An Illustrated Building Contract of 1340," Art Bulletin, LXVII, 1985, pp. 67-95; and The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, ed. S. Kostoff, New York, 1977, esp. chapters 4 and 5, L. D.

Ettlinger, "The Emergence of the Italian Architect during the Fifteenth Century," pp. 96-123, and C. Wilkinson, "The New Professionalism in the Renaissance," pp. 124- 60.

33. Vasari-Milanesi, VII, p. 262; A. E. Popp, "Unbeachtete

Projekte Michelangelos," MiinchnerJahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, IV, N.F., 1927, pp. 3 89-477; A. Nava, "Sui disegni architettonici per S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini in Roma," Critica d'arte, I, 1935, pp. I02-108; MacDougall, "Porta

Pia," pp. 97-108.

34. Carteggio, II, p. 29.

35. Carteggio, III, pp. 17-18.

36. Dussler, no. 374.

37. Louvre 837 is larger than Louvre 838 (380 x 240 mm. vs. 321 x 205 mm.) and was drawn on a lighter-weight paper. The paper of Louvre 838 is stiff and has a high tooth, and is in good condition. In comparison, Louvre 837 has less tooth, there are numerous small holes, and it is more badly foxed than Louvre 838. Neither sheet has a visible water- mark.

38. On Montorsoli, see Vasari-Milanesi, VI, pp. 629-60; S. Bottari, "Angelo di Michele," in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, III, Rome, 1961, pp. 230-32; A. Venturi, Storia dell'arte italiana, X, part 2, Milan, 1936, pp. 107-53; K.

Moseneder, Montorsoli: Die Brunnen, Mittenwald, I979; S. ffolliott, Civic Sculpture in the Renaissance: Montorsoli's Fountains at Messina, Ann Arbor, 1984, esp. pp. 1-19, and

Birgit V. Laschke, Ph.D. diss. in progress, University of Berlin.

39. Vasari-Milanesi, VI, p. 630.

40. Ibid., pp. 632-33, and Carteggio, III, p. 419; see also, A.

Prandi, "La fortuna del Laocoonte dalla sua scoperta nelle terme di Tito," Rivista dell'Istituto Nazionale d'Archeologia e Storia dell'Arte, III, 1954, pp. 78-Io8; F. Magi, "II ripristino del Laocoonte," Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di

Archeologia (Memorie), ser. III, IX, I, 1960, passim; H. Brummer, The Statue Court in the Vatican Belvedere, Stock- holm, 1970, pp. 74-119, and M. Winner, "Zum Nachle- ben des Laokoon in der Renaissance,"Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, XVI, 1974, pp. 83-121, esp. pp. III-I9.

[ 257 ]

NOTES



NOTES 41. Vasari-Milanesi, VI, p. 633. Montorsoli also did a portrait bust of Clement VII, now lost (ffolliott, Fountains, p. 4).

42. Condivi, Life, p. 67.

43. G. Milanesi, Le lettere di Michelangelo Buonarroti, pubblicate coi ricordi ed i contratti artistici, Florence, 1875, pp. 705-706.

44. In Vasari's words: "Finalmente avendo deliberato Cle- mente che il Buonarroto torasse a Firenze a finire l'opere della sagrestia e libreria di San Lorenzo, gli diede ordine, perche vi mancavano molte statue ... che si servisse dei

piu valentuomini che si potessero avere, e particolarmente del frate" (Vasari-Milanesi, VI, p. 633, and ibid., p. 64: "E

perche a cio fare punto non si tardasse, rimando il papa Michelagnolo a Firenze, e con esso lui Fra Giovanni Ag- nolo de' Servi . ."). InJuly 1533, Sebastiano del Piombo communicated Pope Clement's pleasure that Michelan-

gelo and Montorsoli had begun working: ". . . et li piace assai, e molto si contenta de le cosse havete hordenate et del Frate, che habi cominciato a lavorare" (Carteggio, IV, p. 17).

45. Popp, Medici-Kapelle, p. 157; Weinberger, Michelangelo the Sculptor, p. 304, and T. Verellen, "Cosmas and Damian in the New Sacristy," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XLII, I979, pp. 274-77.

46. Carteggio, IV, p. 39.

47. A. Prosperi, "Clemente VII," Dizionario biografico degli italiani, XXVI, Rome, 1982, p. 257, and L. von Pastor, The History of the Popes, ed. R. F. Kerr, X, London, 1938, pp. 231-32.

48. Ricordi, p. 278; A. Gotti, Vita di Michelangelo Buonarroti, Florence, 1875, I, p. 225.

49. Stefano di Tommaso was probably still capomaestro of the

building fabric, although he was old by this date and died the following year. The division of duties between Stefano and Montorsoli is hinted at in Sebastiano's letter: ". .. '1 Frate sia soprastante a la sepoltura doppia de la sacrestia, cussi havesti un altro soprastante a l'opera de macignio" (Carteggio, IV, p. 39).

Paul Joannides (personal communication) pointed out that if Louvre 837 dates from 1533 as I suggest, then it illustrates figures that were already obsolete (particularly the Madonna and Child). The explanation rests with the

type or genre of drawing to which Louvre 837 belongs. It does not document the state of the tomb in 1533 (the architecture of which had not been begun) nor the unfinished sculptures that were meant to adorn it. The draw-

ing is not "accurate," but, like other presentation draw-

ings, was an attractive pictorial creation made to satisfy and appeal to the patron. It was drawn, not from the tomb itself but from Michelangelo's preparatory studies (see note 51 below), to which it more faithfully adheres than

to the sculptures actually carved. John Pope-Hennessy, moreover, has suggested that the Medici Madonna may not have been intended originally for the Medici Chapel at all, but was only diverted there at a later date (J. Pope- Hennessy, Italian High Renaissance and Baroque Sculpture, London and New York, 1963, p. 25). In any case, the

group was in Michelangelo's studio on via Mozza and thus

probably less available to Montorsoli than the master's

preparatory sketches, particularly considering that the

drawing probably was made fairly rapidly in order to

satisfy the impatient patron.

50. See Caroline Elam's provocative discussion of the newly discovered mural drawings in the Medici Chapel, some of which she (and Ulrich Middeldorf before her) attributed to Montorsoli ("The Mural Drawings in Michelangelo's New Sacristy," Burlington Magazine, CXXIII, 1981, pp. 593-602; see also Z. Wazbiriski, "La Cappella dei Medici e l'origine dell Accademia del Disegno," Firenze e la Tos- cana dei Medici nell'Europa dell '500 (Convegno inter- nazionale di studi, Florence, 1980), I, Florence, 1983, pp. 55-69). A drawing attributed to Montorsoli in the Uffizi

(no. I4367F, a seated figure executed in pen and ink and

wash) is stylistically related to Louvre 837 and should, in

my opinion, be dated approximately the same time. For

examples of Montorsoli's later draughtsmanship, see P. Barocchi et al., Mostra di disegni deifondatori dell'Accademia delle Arti del Disegno (Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, XV), Florence, 1963, nos. 22-24; E. Battisti, "Di-

segni inediti del Montorsoli," Arte Lombarda: Studi in onore di Giusta Nicco Fasola, Milan, 1965, pp. 143-48, and G. Kubler, "Drawings by G. A. Montorsoli in Madrid," Col- laboration in Italian Renaissance Art, ed. W. S. Sheard and

J. T. Paoletti, New Haven and London, 1978, pp. 143-64.

51. As in the case of Louvre 838, Louvre 837 was based on sketches furnished by Michelangelo, including British Museum, inv. no. 1859-6-25-543 (repr. in Tolnay, Cor- pus, no. i 89); see also Musee du Louvre, inv. no. 686 verso

(repr. in Tolnay, Corpus, no. I93), and the discussion of these as preparatory designs byJoannides (1972, pp. 542-

45) and Perrig (pp. 259-66). Similar to Louvre 838 is the

prominent inclusion of a dedicatory tablet in Louvre 837- a feature guaranteed to interest and please the patron. The absence of inscriptions in the Medici Chapel was discussed

by Creighton Gilbert in "Texts and Contexts of the Medici

Chapel," Art Quarterly, XXXIV, 1971, pp. 39 1-408. Kath- leen Weil-Garris Brandt noted that "inscriptions were mandatory for funerary monuments and Michelangelo planned them in the early projects for the Medici Chapel" ("On Pedestals: Michelangelo's 'David,' Bandinelli's 'Her- cules and Cacus' and the Sculpture of the Piazza della Sig- noria," RomischesJahrbuch fur Kunstgeschichte, XX, 1983, p. 391, n. 6I); see also A. Hughes, "A Lost Poem by Michelangelo?," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Insti- tutes, XLIV, 1981, pp. 202-206.

[ 258 ]



52. See Vasari-Milanesi, VI, pp. 654-60, esp. p. 659; M. A.

Jack, "The 'Accademia del Disegno' in Late Renaissance Florence," The Sixteenth CenturyJournal, VII, 1976, pp. 3-20, esp. p. 8; C. Goldstein, "Vasari and the Florentine Accademia del Disegno," Zeitschrift fir Kunstgeschichte, XXXVIII, 1975, pp. 145-52; Karen-Edis Barzman, "In-

stitutionalizing Albertian Principles of Education: The Florentine 'Accademia del Disegno'," Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1984, and Z. Waibinski, L'Accademia medicea del disegno a Firenze nel Cinquecento: Idea e istituzione, 2 vols., Florence, I987.

53. Duke Cosimo I de' Medici charged the nascent academy with systematizing and completing the decoration of the Medici Chapel according to Michelangelo's original intentions (see G. Gaye, Carteggio inedito d'artisti dei secoli XIV, XV, XVI, Florence, III, 1840, p. 92, and Vasari's corre-

spondence with the Duke in K. Frey, Der literarische Nachlass Giorgio Vasaris, I, Munich, 1923, pp. 718-22). There is considerable discrepancy in the transcription of this passage that may have some bearing on how it is

interpreted. Karl Frey (ibid., p. 738) placed a comma between "schizzi" and "disegni" and cited another transcription in a footnote: "che havendo ella schizzi, partimenti o

disegni. ..." Gaetano Milanesi (Vasari-Milanesi, VIII, 368) transcribed it "schizzi di disegni." I have inspected the letter in the Archivio Buonarroti and the two words "schizzi" and "disegni" are written closely together without any connective word or punctuation. My interpola- tion seems consistent with the sense of the passage and with the facts at hand; there were extant sketches, "schizzi," and more developed drawings, "disegni," available to the academicians for carrying out the chapel accord-

ing to Michelangelo's wishes.

54. Among the artists listed are Vasari himself, Tribolo, Raf- faello da Montelupo, Francesco da Sangallo, Benvenuto Cellini, Giambologna, Bartolomeo Ammannati, Vin- cenzo de' Rossi, Vincenzo Danti, Agnolo Bronzino, "e altri maestri e molti giovani di buon disegno e pratica ne' colori, che si fanno onore" (Vasari-Milanesi, VIII, p. 368). Anton Francesco Doni gave similar prominence to Mon- torsoli in the letter he addressed to Michelangelo on 12

January 1543: "Ben si pub gloriare mastro [sic] Giovan

Angelo, che vi seguita con tanta riverenza" (Carteggio, IV, p. 162).

55. See Perrig, p. 266, n. 57. The five drawings that are closest in size, style, technique, finish, interal dimensions, and

general appearance are: I. Paris, Musee du Louvre, inv. no. 837 (380 x 240 mm.); 2. Vienna, Albertina, inv. no. 112 (390 X 257 mm.); 3. Oxford, Christ Church, inv. no. 0995 (388 x 244 mm.); 4. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Parker, no. 350 (251 x 236 mm., cut by 1/3); 5. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Parker, no. 349 (384 x 244 mm.). All these drawings were executed in black chalk and finished with an ink wash, with some overdrawing in pen

and ink (except Louvre 837). In each case the architecture was drawn first with a straightedge and compass, in a manner illustrated by a partially completed copy in Christ Church, Oxford (inv. no. 0094, Byam Shaw, Drawings at Christ Church, no. 72). The architecture of these copies is

virtually identical and the figures show only minor stylistic variations. Less wash and less finish characterize a second

group of at least five copies that otherwise accurately re-

peat the design and most details of Louvre 837: Florence, Uffizi, inv. no. 258F: Munich, Graphische Sammlung, inv. no. 4932; Paris, Musee du Louvre, inv. no. 789 and inv. no. 18359; Berlin, Dr. W. Kreis Collection. In addition, there is an odd assortment of drawings of varying quality that alter different aspects of the design. For exam-

ple, Uffizi, inv. nos. 6o7E and 3912A are variants of Louvre 837 attributed to Aristotile or Giovanni Battista da

Sangallo. In the Biblioteca Estense in Modena is an album of drawings by Giovanni Antonio Dosio that includes

copies and motifs derived from both Louvre 837 and 838 (E. Leporini, "Un libro di disegni di Giovanni Antonio Dosio," Critica d'arte, IV, 1957, pp. 442-67). Perrig (esp. pp. 257-58) argued that, rather than derivations from Louvre 837 and 838, some of the sheets cited above reflect

stages in the evolution of the final designs for the Medici tombs.

56. The academy actually met in the chapel between 1563 and 1565, the very years that discussion was current about completing it (see Frey, Der literarische Nachlass, p. 7io; R. and M. Wittkower, The Divine Michelangelo, London, 1964, p. 58, n. 18, andWaibiniski, "Cappella," pp. 55-69).

57. Drawings copied or derived from Louvre 838 are found in Dresden (repr. in Tolnay, 1948, fig. 230) and the Alber- tina, Vienna (repr. in Berenson, III, fig. 651), but both these examples are very different in size, technique, and

degree of finish. Another paraphrase of very poor quality is in the Musee du Louvre, inv. no. 737 (repr. in Tolnay, 1948, fig. 229).

58. As mentioned in Vasari (ed. Milanesi, VI, p. 285) and illustrated in two drawings by Federico Zuccaro in the Musee du Louvre, Paris, inv. nos. 4554, 4555 (repr. in P. dal Poggetto, I disegni murali di Michelangiolo e della sua scuola nella Sagrestia Nuova di San Lorenzo, Florence, 1978, figs. 15, I6).

59. Milanesi, Lettere, pp. 638, 649, 705-706.

60. Dussler, no. 374; repr. in Tolnay, Corpus, no. 55.

61. M. Hirst, "A Project of Michelangelo's for the Tomb of Julius II," Master Drawings, XIV, 4, 1976, pp. 375-82; F. Hartt in public lectures at the College Art Association Meeting, Washington D.C., 1978 and at Virginia Com- monwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, 1981; and Joannides, "Half-Baluster," p. 154, n. 2.

[ 259 ]

NOTES



NOTES 62. Tolnay, Corpus, no. 497; idem, "I progetti di Michelangelo per la facciata di S. Lorenzo a Firenze: Nuove Ricerche," Commentari, XXIII, 1972, pp. 53-72;Joannides, rev. of I

disegni di Michelangelo nelle collezioni italiane, 176, and idem, I981, p. 685.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berenson B. Berenson, The Drawings of the Florentine Painters, 3 vols., Chicago, 1938, rpt. 1970.

Carteggio II carteggio di Michelangelo, ed. P. Barocchi and R. Ristori, 5 vols., Florence, I965- I983.

Dussler L. Dussler, Die Zeichnungen des Michelangelo. Kritischer Katalog, Berlin, 1959.

Joannides, 1972 P. Joannides, "Michelangelo's Medici Chapel: Some New Suggestions," Bur- lington Magazine, CXIV, 1972, pp. 541-51.

Joannides, 1981 P. Joannides, review of C. de Tolnay, Corpus dei disegni di Michelangelo, Art Bulletin, LXIII, I98I, pp. 679-87.

Parker K. T. Parker, Catalogue of the Collection of Drawings in the Ashmolean Museum II: Italian Schools, Oxford, 1956.

Perrig A. Perrig, "Die Konzeption der Wandgrab- mlMer der Medici-Kapelle," Stddel-Jahrbuch, N.F. VIII, 1981, pp. 247-75.

Tolnay, 1948 C. de Tolnay, Michelangelo III: The Medici

Chapel, Princeton, 1948.

Tolnay, Corpus C. de Tolnay, Corpus dei disegni di Michelange- lo, 4 vols., Novara, I975-80.

NOTES 62. Tolnay, Corpus, no. 497; idem, "I progetti di Michelangelo per la facciata di S. Lorenzo a Firenze: Nuove Ricerche," Commentari, XXIII, 1972, pp. 53-72;Joannides, rev. of I

disegni di Michelangelo nelle collezioni italiane, 176, and idem, I981, p. 685.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berenson B. Berenson, The Drawings of the Florentine Painters, 3 vols., Chicago, 1938, rpt. 1970.

Carteggio II carteggio di Michelangelo, ed. P. Barocchi and R. Ristori, 5 vols., Florence, I965- I983.

Dussler L. Dussler, Die Zeichnungen des Michelangelo. Kritischer Katalog, Berlin, 1959.

Joannides, 1972 P. Joannides, "Michelangelo's Medici Chapel: Some New Suggestions," Bur- lington Magazine, CXIV, 1972, pp. 541-51.

Joannides, 1981 P. Joannides, review of C. de Tolnay, Corpus dei disegni di Michelangelo, Art Bulletin, LXIII, I98I, pp. 679-87.

Parker K. T. Parker, Catalogue of the Collection of Drawings in the Ashmolean Museum II: Italian Schools, Oxford, 1956.

Perrig A. Perrig, "Die Konzeption der Wandgrab- mlMer der Medici-Kapelle," Stddel-Jahrbuch, N.F. VIII, 1981, pp. 247-75.

Tolnay, 1948 C. de Tolnay, Michelangelo III: The Medici

Chapel, Princeton, 1948.

Tolnay, Corpus C. de Tolnay, Corpus dei disegni di Michelange- lo, 4 vols., Novara, I975-80.

A New Veronese Chiaroscuro

Drawing Richard Cocke

A New Veronese Chiaroscuro

Drawing Richard Cocke

VERONESE'S chiaroscuro drawings have long been

among the most admired part of his graphic output. Even so, their links with autograph paintings are distant and their dating and the functions for which they were

made remain open questions. The view that they were

produced most probably in the I55os as independent works in an experimental mode' is further supported by a recently rediscovered sheet in a private collection (P1.

I9).2 It resembles the other chiaroscuro drawings in its

handling, its rather distant relationship with frescoes at

Villa Barbaro, Maser and in the inscription added to the

verso at a later date by an unidentified hand.3

Veronese achieved a rich coloristic effect through the

combination of brush underdrawing, white heighten-

ing, and greenish-gray paper. The outlining of the shoul-

ders and legs in the underdrawing resembles that in other

autograph drawings, either the Allegory of Fortune in the

Stadelsches Kunstinstitut4 or the Triumph of Good Repute over Evil in the Louvre.5 The masterful and precise han-

dling of the white heightening matches that in this series

of chiaroscuro drawings. As with many of the related

sheets, the recently rediscovered drawing has been cut

down. This is clear from the limited space allowed for

the column. This must have risen further up the sheet

like the column behind the Virgin in the Pittura Quinta in the Mooney collection.6 The partial inscription on the

verso, which begins in mid-sentence, reinforces this as-

sumption. In spite of this and some inevitable fading, the drawing is comparatively well preserved and is the first chiaroscuro drawing of a nude. She wears a coronet

with a striking flame-like crown behind and stands in

front of a large globe with one foot on a step, holding a

cornucopia and looking back to the spectator's left. The attributes were clearly chosen to establish the fig-

ure within the spectrum of Abundance/Fortune/Provi- dence. The precise meaning, as so often, is difficult to

pin down. The first to attempt this was the anonymous compiler who added the inscription to the verso, almost

certainly without having consulted the artist. When the

VERONESE'S chiaroscuro drawings have long been

among the most admired part of his graphic output. Even so, their links with autograph paintings are distant and their dating and the functions for which they were

made remain open questions. The view that they were

produced most probably in the I55os as independent works in an experimental mode' is further supported by a recently rediscovered sheet in a private collection (P1.

I9).2 It resembles the other chiaroscuro drawings in its

handling, its rather distant relationship with frescoes at

Villa Barbaro, Maser and in the inscription added to the

verso at a later date by an unidentified hand.3

Veronese achieved a rich coloristic effect through the

combination of brush underdrawing, white heighten-

ing, and greenish-gray paper. The outlining of the shoul-

ders and legs in the underdrawing resembles that in other

autograph drawings, either the Allegory of Fortune in the

Stadelsches Kunstinstitut4 or the Triumph of Good Repute over Evil in the Louvre.5 The masterful and precise han-

dling of the white heightening matches that in this series

of chiaroscuro drawings. As with many of the related

sheets, the recently rediscovered drawing has been cut

down. This is clear from the limited space allowed for

the column. This must have risen further up the sheet

like the column behind the Virgin in the Pittura Quinta in the Mooney collection.6 The partial inscription on the

verso, which begins in mid-sentence, reinforces this as-

sumption. In spite of this and some inevitable fading, the drawing is comparatively well preserved and is the first chiaroscuro drawing of a nude. She wears a coronet

with a striking flame-like crown behind and stands in

front of a large globe with one foot on a step, holding a

cornucopia and looking back to the spectator's left. The attributes were clearly chosen to establish the fig-

ure within the spectrum of Abundance/Fortune/Provi- dence. The precise meaning, as so often, is difficult to

pin down. The first to attempt this was the anonymous compiler who added the inscription to the verso, almost

certainly without having consulted the artist. When the

[ 260 ] [ 260 ]



Two Presentation Drawings for Michelangelo's Medici Chapel.

Documents

Transcript of Two Presentation Drawings for Michelangelo's Medici Chapel.