Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Presenting the Prince : the Medici Chapel at San Lorenzo and sixteenth-century theatre Wilson, Bronwen 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0657.pdf [ 7.56MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087552.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087552-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087552-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087552-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087552-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087552-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087552-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

PRESENTING THE PRINCE: THE MEDICI CHAPEL AT SAN LORENZO AND SIXTEENTH-CENTURY THEATRE  By Bronwen Wilson B.A. The University of British Columbia, 1987.  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS IN THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES. DEPARTMENT OF FINE ARTS  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  (i  The University of BriUsh Columbia September 1994 Copyright: Bronwen Wilson, 1994.  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or or her by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  (Signature)_  Department of  ?A  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date  2  /  /  Abstract Presenting the Prince: The Medici Chapel at San Lorenzo and Sixteenth-century Theatre. The devotion to theatre during the ducal reign of Cosimo  and his successors  has garnered an extensive literature. This theatre orientation was prepared for in the first stages of the Medici return, and was a deeply ingrained part of their political imaging. The revival of antique theatre, the emergence of scenography, and the spatial dynamics of theatrical representations became instruments of political persuasion. Theatrical devices and the development of prospettive presented the illusion of continuity beyond the space of the representation, linking the space of the audience with the space of the performer, creating a reciprocal involvement. Spectacles co-opted the viewer,  providing the means to physically structure the  relationship between the audience and the performance. The viewer could be both a spectator and a performer, sometimes at the same time: both a witness to, and a conspirator in, the production of meaning. The Medici program of legitimization through display was designed to counter the eradication of Medici signs during the republican years and to bolster their fragile position following their return to Florence in 1512. Theatrical spectacle, fueled by Giovanni de’Medici’s election to the papacy,  became the vehicle through which  Medicean cultural and poltical hegemony was propagated. Through theatrical illusion the family laid claim to the city. The Diamante and Broncone festivals and Leo’s Florentine entrata of 1515  provided events in which the Medici dramatized their  claims to Florence. The 1513 Capitoune celebration in Rome was a singular event, 11  discussed at length here in terms of its Florentine references and its connection to the chapel. These spectacles were exceptions to the recurring festivals, thus signifying with greater specificity, their political function magnified. Rapid transformations, fabric  Iaçades, wooden arches, paper friezes, and human sculptures provided the illusion that through Medici rule Florence was restored to good health. Through tableaux vivants and rappresentazioni, the Medici transformed republican space into court space, gradually shifting theatre from the public domain into the private dominion of the ‘prince’ At the death of Lorenzo in 1519, the last Medici heir, a family mausoleum was commissioned by Leo X and Cardinal Giullo de’Fvledici. The enclosed Medici Chapel --  its entrance protected from the outside world by effigies of the captains Lorenzo  and Giuliano  --  positions the visitor as the subject of the space.  Surveyed by the  captains and an object of scrutiny by the ubiquitous masks, the  spectator is  simultaneously on stage arid a member of the audience, a double role that permeates contemporary discourses where masks, performance, and disguise are central themes.  The argument of this thesis is that the Medici chapel is a permanent  theatrical presentation, in advance of the full Medici restoration.  Bronwen WUson The University of British Columbia 11].  Table of Contents  Abstract Introduction  1  Chapter 1 Early Sixtenth-century Theatre and the Medic  7  Chapter 2 1512-1519: The Entry of the Medici Prince onto the Florentine Stage  19  Chapter 3 The New Medici in the Medici Chapel: Theatre for Eternity  31  Notes  64  Bibliography  92  List of Illustrations  105  Illustrations  109  iv  Presenting the Prince: The Medici Chapel at San Lorenzo and Sixteenth-century Theatre. Bronwen Wilson  V  Introduction My focus in this thesis is on the church of San Lorenzo, a structure reclaimed by the Medici on their return to Florence in 1512. The church became an important link to the fifteenth-century period of Medici prominence, paralleling the Medici political strategy of reversing the constitutional changes instituted in their absence. The New Sacristy project,  replicating Cosimo’s Old Sacristy, is an extension of this political  agenda, an agenda which drew upon the old Medici in order to bolster the claims of the restored Medici.  What I am interested in reconsidering is how this space was  constructed, drawing on a tradition that the Medici had made their own, but which in the chapel, reaches a new level of specificity. In 1512, Giuliano de’Medici, his brother Giovanni, and his nephew Lorenzo returned to Florence after eighteen years of exile. Fueled by Giovanni de’Medici’s election to the papacy,  theatrical spectacle  became the vehicle through which  Medicean cultural and political hegemony was propagated. The Medici were between past and future: theatre was a way for them to bridge the gap. Both Leo’s devotion to ‘the theatrical mode and the Medici chapel are part of the theatrical climate of the Medici ‘resurrection.’ The years of the Medici return were positioned between the medieval tradition which “viewed representation as a sinister magic, and masks, which disguise reality, as paradigmatic of the falseness of perception,” 1 and the new “image of the world as 2 theatre.”  The medieval perception of space, conceived through an individual’s  experiential relation with the environment, had  been displaced, redefined by a  conception of the world, to use a term developed by David Harvey, that can be characterized as “perspectivism” and ordering its spaces.  --  transforming the world into images, reconfiguring  The new point of view positions individuals as members of  3 an audience, defining them as a single viewer.  Spectacles and the spaces in which  they are performed (the city, streets, theatre spaces) act as a kind of mirror, reflecting 1  an ‘image’ of reality, an image which could be more easily controlled as the spatial distinction between the stage and the audience became increasingly immutable.  A  powerful tool, the spaces of the performances structure the relation between the audience and  the producer  such that the reconfiguration of space defines the  spectator’s collective “moral responsibility within 4 of the prince.”  ..  .the geometrically ordered universe  Processions and theatre furnished the means through which to  replace ‘republican’ space, explained by Leonardo Bruni as one in which individuals move freely, with a spatial context which is restricted and controlled. Theatre was inextricably linked to political culture, promoting the transference of ducal rights in principalities, and in Rome, providing a new pontificate with the means 5 Theatre had already been utilized for to differentiate itself from its predecessors. political ends by the Borgia and della Rovere Popes and among the other courts of Italy.  However, few had exploited the potential of theatre and the new conception of  space with the enthusiasm of Giovanni de’Medici who, on his election to the papacy, financed spectacles of enormous proportions.  The outburst of theatre under the first  Medici Pope, as exemplified by the Capitoline theatre, paved the way for the future Popes of Rome. 6 In chapter one, I consider this productive coincidence of spending, theatrical experimentation, and political motivation.  The spectacles of Leo were new and  unconventional, in contrast with the recurring religious festivals, thus signifying their political  message more explicitly.  Beyond the  immediate gratification of the  performance as a display of ‘autoesaltazione,’ the Medici capitalized on the rhetorical persuasiveness and transformative mechanisms of theatrical representation as a means of establishing connections to the ‘glorious’ Medici past and to usher in an equally ‘glorious’ future. In chapter two, I examine the entry in 1512 of Giuliano and Lorenzo, the son and grandson of Lorenzo ii Magnifico, onto the Florentine ‘stage’ after their years in 2  exile. Giuliano, returning from the court of Urbino (where he was cast as a principle player in Castiglione’s Courtier  ),  abdicated his nascent authority to Lorenzo,  preferring his brother Leo X’s papal court in Rome to ruling Florence. The political exigencies of the Medici restoration and the ‘stage’ of public polity in which the family re-presented itself are central issues.  Despite Giuliano and Lorenzo’s relatively  insignificant and brief political careers, (the former died in 1515 and Lorenzo in 1519), they made a lasting appearance:  continuing to share the spotlight in the Medici  chapel for four and a half centuries. Chapter three focuses on the family mausoleum, a pendant to the Old Sacristy, commissioned by Leo X and Cardinal Giulio de’Medici. The Medici chapel has been In most instances, the sculptural project is  the subject of numerous reappraisals.  considered independently from the architecture and vice versa, but my interest has emerged from a consideration of how these two components are related.  The layout  of the architecture and the placement of the figures within the architecture has always been difficult to reconcile with contemporary tomb developments.  A close look at the  use of theatre by the Medici and the Capitoline programme, as discussed in Chapters one and two, allows for the placement of the layout within the tradition in which it belongs  --  the tradition of sixteenth-century stage design, and to thereby reinterpret the  chapel’s statement as a whole. The point of view developed in this thesis builds on connections between theatre and Medici artistic projects that have already been developed in the literature. It has long been recognized that Medici extravaganzas have formed the basis of more permanent  commissions. The spectacles which characterized Leo X’s reign, as  Janet Cox-Rearick suggests, furnished themes for the fresco decoration in the Gran Salone at Poggio a Caiano. 7 Temporary theatre constructions, according to other scholars, provided inspiration for the designs of the façade of San Lorenzo and early in this century, Steinmann looked to carnival as a source for the Medici chapel. The 3  contribution of this thesis is to investigate links between specific theatrical presentations and the particular theatrical mentality played out in Medici imagery in the years immediately preceding work on the chapel. For the returned Medici, private needs and public display were inextricable. The Medici chapel, as I will argue, was no exception to the rule.  In his monograph on Michelangelo’s architecture, James Ackerman proposes that the “the observer is there before the building is designed.” The absence of perspective sketches, he attributes to the architect’s thinking of “the observer being in motion.” 8 It is this idea which I believe is key to the chapel’s conception, and provides a departure point for discarding the notion of the chapel’s dramatic unity being determined by the position of the priest standing behind the altar. Even its liturgical function as  a chancery chapel  may not have been defined at the outset.  Clearly, the New Sacristy was conceived in relation to the Old Sacristy; the design of the New  presents itself in dialectical opposition to its forerunner,  reconceptualizing the plan and pietra serena of Cosimo and Brunelleschi’s structure, a transmutation into a new key of drama and emotional involvement for the viewer. In the Medici chapel, the figures were made to speak,  and it is the theatrical mentality of  Leo that has provided the frame that allows them to speak. As Leo had exploited theatre as a means to demonstrate Medici power, directing spectacles which proclaimed their ‘resurrection’ and legitimate status before its actualization, the S. Lorenzo projects and above all, the Medici Chapel, are an extension of this operative mode. The conceptualization of the Medici Chapel belongs fundamentally to the Leonine age, that is before Cosimo I assumes power, before the Medici usurp the political stage, and thus, (in true Machiavellian fashion), a statement that paves the way for the desired a goal, a statement avant le Iettre. 4  As contemporaries and  subsequent commentators had understood,  the chapel embodies Medici princely  9 power. Once the Medici were firmly in power, the point of view demonstrated in the Medici Chapel was a piece of a new reality.  The new Medici dukes constructed  theatres within their private courts, celebrating in rappresentazioni,  their apotheosis  before their death. For Cosimo ii primo, understanding fully the Leonine stance, the ‘ideological magnification’ of spectacles would continue to inflate the importance of the Medici, countering their relative insignificance on the world stage.  The  Medici chapel project as a whole, spanning the years 1519-1534, is  marked by changing political and social exigencies, and the differing agendas of its two patrons over the many years of its production.  Thus a single interpretation of the  meaning of the Medici Chapel is inevitably hypothetical.  Moreover, as Cox-Rearick  explains in her introduction to Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, the path to understanding art production from the “innovative phases of Medici patronage were not directly interpreted by contemporaries and their meanings must now be sought by indirect paths.” 10  These indirect paths provide the context for an interpretation  interpretation which is inevitably hypothetical Hubert Damisch, in an alternative history. 11  --  --  an  situating the work of art, to paraphrase My interpretation is drawn from sources  contemporary with the Medici chapel in addition to twentieth-century discourses, in particular the reconstructions of theatrical spectacles as presented by Shearman, Stinger, Cruciani, Bruschi, and Southern. The theatrical emphasis of my project is the result of this research, and the extension of this emphasis within the chapel, based on the way in which the space engages the viewer. In this regard, published photographs of the chapel are as a rule misleading, often framing the tomb sculpture independently from the architecture, and distorting the relationship of the visitor to the whole. Michelangelo’s correspondence includes, with seasonal regularity, references 5  to the annual carnival celebrations. One aspect of his interest in theatre is indicated by his use of masks, which are invariably incorporated into his architectural decoration, becoming a kind of signature, always acknowledging the spectator.  But it is the  theatrical mentality of Leo and the political exigencies of the Medici at the beginning of the artist’s architectural career which form the specific context of this thesis.  I would like to thank Rose-Marie San Juan for her suggestions, in particular regarding processions. I am indebted to Rhodri Windsor-Liscombe, not only for his continual assistance and pertinent criticisms but also for having directed me toward the field of Michelangelo’s architectural production.  Finally, I am grateful to Debra  Pincus, without whose enthusiasm, patient editing, and more importantly ideas  --  --  trenchant  this thesis would not have been possible. My thanks to Liz Harte for her help  and to David Vance for his encouragement and friendship.  6  Chapter 1 Early Sixteenth-century Theatre and the Medici.  The devotion to theatre during the ducal reign of Cosimo I (and his successors) has garnered an extensive literature. 1 This theatre orientation was an important part of Medici political imaging, prepared for in the first stages of the Medici return. Already in the sixteenth century, theatre at the Medici court was seen as a part of a deeply ingrained family tradition. Bastiano de’Rossi, recording one of the elaborate court spectacles of the Grand Duke Ferdinand of Tuscany, links the architectural magnificence of Cosimo ii Vecchio with the “the famous giostra of Lorenzo the Magnificent” and the Medici festivals of Leo X. 2  The first Medici Pope relished  theatrical spectacles, exploiting public processions, entrate, and rappresentazioni for his private political agenda, his campaign of Medici rule in Florence. The outburst of theatre toward the end of the fifteenth century in Italy was precipitated by the already well established conventions of dramatic representations. Sacre rappresentazioni,  or mystery plays, 3 and tableaux vi va nts  presented  religious stories as a means of appealing to worshipers through visual display. 4 In Florence, in particular, these performances took on a prescriptive role, as popular moralizing entertainments, extending the didactic aspect of theatre from its religious antecedents into the civic arena. Theatre became a persuasive means of instilling moral values, of instructing particular audiences about virtue. Spectacles were performed in public 7  piazze,  5  with viewers positioned in  surrounding buildings, in logge, and on elevated platforms. Temporary and more permanent structures for theatre, following precedents established in public representations, were constructed with canopied stages around the platea presenting  re  the popular space of the piazza in a more enclosed and controllable form.  Royal spectators and actors were seated on raised platforms (fig. 1 actors could descend into the platea,  ) from which the  a space shared by the performers and the  audience.G During the perFormance, the audience turned and moved as required by the action. Similar to the transformation of the entire city into a theatre during carnival, where as Peter Burke explains, “there was no sharp distinction between actors and spectators, 7 the space of the theatre positioned performers and spectators within the same dramatic space, as witnesses to the dramatic action.  Representations of  Medici festivals (fig. 2) illustrate a similar arrangement of raised platforms covered with canopies erected around a piazza.  In this way the Medici and their courtiers  oversaw the space of the representation while being displayed for the public and the performers. (figs.2,3,58) During carnival, religious and civic festivals, mechanical devices contributed to the dramatic illusion.  Representations were performed with elaborate apparati such  as those designed by Brunelleschi where “angels... about” and  in the heaven were moving  “heaven could open and close.” 8 Already, in Brunelleschi’s design for  the Old Sacristy in the Medici church, theatrical illusions were transforming architecture; the pietra serena molding at the base of the dome in the apse, as John Shearman has noted, suggesting “carved fictions of bunched cloth, wrapped around  8  with ropes” like those “drawn aside to reveal a Heaven in the elaborate Florentine mystery plays.” 9 (fig.4) ostensibly more democratic than the courts  The court of Lorenzo ii Magnifico,  of the Italian principalities, extended to the whole city, and theatre reflected this popular culture through canti carnscialeschi  and public tournaments or giostre. 10  Leo X was immersed in this environment of theatre and music in his father’s Florentine court, 11 even performing in Lorenzo’s own plays. 12  Musical instruction  and foreign visitors, importing technical expertise, contributed further to the unique character of theatre in Lorenzo’s court. 13 Among the festivals staged by the Medici were ceremonial entries into the city. Deriving from feudal precedents, entrate served as “a vehicle for dialogue between a ruler and the urban classes.” 14 decorations, entrate  With elaborately conceived programmes and  were designed to amaze spectators on one hand, while  15 thereby adressing a variety of furnishing “matter for contemplation by the learned,” audiences. Humanists scripted coded subtexts for the initiated which enabled processions to function on one level as vehicles for securing a coterie of supporters Paralleling the Medici’s fostering of an  privileged by their insider knowledge.  increasingly hierarchical organization of the government structure, spectacles cultivated distinctions of class and served to further entrench the new order. Through a process of idealizing the ruler, often presented as a triumphator, elicited a display of “civic devotion and loyalty,” political catharthis.” t1  these events  as Roy Strong explains, a kind of  “If the depiction is not of real existence but an ideal,” he 9  explains,  the pleasure it gives is no less genuine, or the vision any less authentic.”  In the Estense court in Ferrara, theatre was  recognized as a “rituale di  autoesaltazione” furnishing the means to “consolldare un ben concreto prestiglo dinastico” but it was the display of magnificence, the massive expense which provided “testimonianze indirett&’, a kind of enduring impression on spectators of the “autonomia della propria maestà poiltica.” 16 At the court of Urbino, there was less need to promulgate the power of the ruler, on account of the well entrenched position of the Montefeltro court. As a result, theatre tended to be more intellectual and less 17 Competition between rulers and a preoccupation with fashion 18 explicitly political. contributed to the extreme elaboration of theatrical representations and processions beyond the ephemeral festivities themselves as  and to their enduring significance  chronicled in ricordi and printed images. The Medici use of visual display exploded with the election of Giovanni de’Medici to the Papacy as Leo X. 19 Rome,  the theatrical imagination  --  In his posseso of April 1513, taking place in displaying the conflation of passion imagery and  imperial associations which were to characterize his papacy  --  is already fully in  evidence. The procession to the Lateran 20 was programmed with triumphaf arches protracting the parade, publicizing the virtues of the Pope and celebrating the Golden age of Leo X. In order to accommodate vast numbers of visitors  inside the basilica,  a huge stage was constructed over the floor elevating the coronation above the crowd.  Sustaining the festivities and commemorating the new Pope, ceremonial  entries into Rome by dignitaries lasted for a year and a half. 21 10  As manifested at the Lateran posesso, the parades of Leo X were lined with triumphal arches and temporary architectural constructions, punctuating the city with elaborate frames for propaganda.  In addition to inscriptions and painted imagery,  actors formed part of the sculptural decoration, posed on the arches or carried on  carri, or floats, within the procession. When the parade moved, the performers on the carri  and architectural elements remained statue-like; when the members of the  procession came to a stop, the event shifted into a more dramatic key and  a  rappresentazione would begin. By alternating static and dynamic elements there was less confusion between seeing and being seen. 22 A participant could be a member of the audience at one moment and a performer at another; the actorsculptures were often both at the same time. (fig. 5) Leo’s enthusiasm for dramatic entertainment stands out from the contemporary courts of Italy, in part, as a result of the magnitude of spending enabled by the papacy, but also for the facility with which he could exploit temporary cultural media for his private political agenda in Florence.  Fundamental to this campaign of legitimizing  Medici rule in Florence was the association of the present regime with Cosimo, pater patriae of the city. Processions invoking the returning triumphator provided an ideal vehicle for linking the family’s 1512 return with Cosimo’s return from exile in 1434. In order to more definitively represent the new regime as an extension of the old, Leo revived the family saints Cosmas and Damian, celebrated prior to the family’s flight in 1494.  The restoration of the festival “I Cosmalia  “  was fully understood by  contemporaries as honouring Cosimo rather than the saints themselves. 23 The 11  revival of the saints  --  the two doctors, medici  trope: the new Medici were  --  gave new meaning to the linguistic  restoring Florence to health through their peaceful  rule. 24 The Medici as good doctors was a particularly prominent concept in “theatre works.” in which  --  as Janet Cox-Rearick succinctly puts it  --  the return of the Medici is  “equated... with a medical cure for Florence.” 25 New plays, following antique examples in which characters were recognized as contemporaries, 26 were a source through which to dramatize the returned Medici as good doctors.  In Machiavelli’s  Mandrago/a and in Bonino’s Commedia di giustizia, the allegorical subtext implies ‘success in the face of Fortune,’ as Alessandro Paroncchi explains, “medic!.” 27  “  per virtU del  Promoting the saints Cosmas and Damian served a double function:  linking the present regime with Cosimo while proclaiming the ‘resurrection’ of Florence to health. These two themes figured prominently in 1515 when In 1515 Leo X made his entrance into Florence as the first Florentine Pope.  The parade entered the city at  the Porta San Piero Gattolini (now the Porta Romana) where the first of several triumphal arches was constructed. 28  The route of the procession was dictated by  curial precedent, but following Leo’s Lateran possesso,  temporary triumphal arches  marked each change of direction, like hinges, with each structure functioning as a kind of marquee on which to proclaim Leo’s virtues. 29  The first project presented  prudentia, horiestà, castità, modestia and abstinentia. Fortezza was the theme of the arch at the Piazza S. Felice and constantia was illustrated at the Ponte S. Trinita. 12  The most architecturally complex of the structures was a theatre marking the junction of the via de’Tournabuoni and the Porta Rossa (now the Piazza S. Trinita). Imagined by one chronicler to be “a reproduction of Castel Sant’Angelo,”  the  building contributing to spectators’ impressions of the transformation of Florence into Rome. 30 An inscription on the theatre proclaimed that Florence was protected by the “two Lions and two Johns,” 31 Leo X with the Florentine Marzocco, and Leo X with the city’s patron saint. Next on the itinerary, the parade passed the Loggia del Lanzi  in which a  colossal Hercules, symbolized virtue, 32 his lion skin a reference to Leo. Carved from wood and painted to resemble bronze, the figure surveyed the piazza, (fig.5) temporarily overshadowing Michelangelo’s republican monument, the David. According to Vasari’s illustration of the event as represented in his fresco in the  Palazzo della Signoria, the procession passed a sculptural tableau vivant  on  which human figures were substituted for marble, one resting on a lion and the other personifying the Arno. (fig.5)  lusticia,  The arch in the Piazza della Signoria,  was an arcus quadriphrons,  exhibiting  an unusual structure of two intersecting  arches, based on the Janus arch in Rome. (fig. 6) 33 Janus, the protector of Lorenzo  ii Magnitico and familiar to Florentines from the frieze at the family villa at Poggio a Caiano, (fig.7) was now reincarnated in Leo X.  Adjacent to the Palazzo della  Signoria, the structure was a connotative symbol, literally articulating the crossroads associated with the two-faced Janus as if to connect the past Medici with the new rulers of Florence. 34 13  The sequential proclamation of the Pope’s Platonic virtues, regularly highlighted in eulogies to Leo, culminated with the triumphs of Christianity and Religion dramatized on the fifth and sixth arches. The procession culminated at Santa Maria del Fiore, circling the duomo whose entrance was dressed with an elaborate temporary façade, an elaborate architectural backdrop for the entrata festivities.  A canvas tende, usually reserved for the feast of San Giovanni, was  stretched between the Duomo and the Baptistry effectively transforming the façade into an antique scenae frons under its velarium. 35 The Neoplatonic glorification of Leo X in Florence 36 was intended to be read as “an adventus regis pacifici  -  the coming of the King of Peace.” 37 A master of  coopting meaning, Leo X transferred the christological signification of a papal entrata to a private claim to ‘royar status. By conflating Leo X de’Medici, and the attribute of the lion skin  --  --  through his name, Giovanni  with S. Giovanni Battista, the usual  separation of the body of the Pope from the body of the man was short-circuited, presenting an opening through which to conflate the Pope’s entry into Florence with his return from exile.  Contemporary commentators, in fact, referred to Leo as a  prince rather than as a Pope, a secularization  which encouraged a parallel reading  of the entrata with the return of the Medici 38 to Florence: both the new regime of 1512 and Cosimo in 1434. Leo and Cosimo were linked unequivocally during the festivities in a performance of The Triumph of Camillus in which both were compared with the ancient republican hero.  Celebrating Camillus “as a New Romulus and second 14  11 39 the republican myth of the returning triumphator promoted a founder of Rome, reading of the papal entrafa as a recreation of the Medici return, underlining the association of the 1512 restoration with Cosimo’s triumphal return. Praised in a song scripted for the entrata as “Primo liberator, secondo Padre 40 Leo was reimagined as the second father of Florence, the new Cosimo. 41 Furthering Leo’s claims to the city was the route of the procession. Dictated by curial precedent, the parade circumnavigated the city’s ancient Roman walls, the temporary structures which punctuated the map being understood as ‘Roman’ buildings by chroniclers. Proclaimed after Romulus as the second founder of Rome, the transformation of Florence into Rome  --  the city ruled by the Pope  --  insinuated  Leo’s command over the physical spaces of Florence. 42 Taking over the prescribed curial programme altogether, Leo performed Sunday Mass at S. Lorenzo, sealing the entrata with a Medici stamp. For the returned Medici temporary spectacles appropriated Florence as a venue in which to re-cast its urban spaces, to illusionistically re-order the city. The city’s existing syntax could be adjusted and reframed by overlaying a network of architectural representations. Through arches which framed particular views of the city and structures displaying temporary grandeur,  the spaces of the city were  transformed into a theatre set, a well-ordered illusion of magnificence. A procession takes posession of a city, only appearing autonomous from the context in which it intervenes, a spectacle is ‘the place’ explains Cruciani, “in cui la società (della corte, celebra ii progetto del proprio essere, un cosmos che tutto assume e traspore.” 43 15  By constructing structures and draping unfinished buildings with fabric façades, Leo propagated the illusion that through Medici rule, Florence would be restored to health and “earth might approximate more to the perfection of heaven.” 44 The relationship between urban spaces and theatrical presentations as manifested during the enfrata, is a formulation concomitant with the development of prospettive,  or backdrops, displaying idealized cityscapes.  perspective and the  The codification of  rationalization of architectural spaces on a flat surface, as  evident in architectural vedute,  became a springboard for the new scenography. 45  By presenting an illusion of ‘real’ space continuing beyond the picture plane, the orthogonals of the perspective construction extend the space of the spectator beyond the surface of the representation and include the viewer within the space of the representation. 46 This effect was often intensified through stairs between the platea and the stage, either real or illusionistically painted on the prospettiva,  which  bridged, as it were, the space of the audience with that of the performance.  (fig. 8)  Designers also incorporated doorways and arches, presenting an illusion of access to spaces beyond the flat surface of the backdrop. (figs.8,9,1O)  Openings and  passageways were included as artists interpolated from descriptions of theatres and from Vitruvius, recreating in two dimensions the narthex structures of antique scene fronae. Sets designed by Raphael, Francabigio, Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio, Gerolamo Genga, and Peruzzi 47 provided architectural spaces which imposed themselves, to use Zorzi’s idea, “on the objects elaborated by medieval culture (the city being a 16  representative example) in order to adapt them to the ends of their own egocentric knowledge.” 48 Scenography soon became appropriated “into the precincts of the palace as an instrumentum regni, becoming “a divisive cultural formula in which an enclosed area of a palace was transformed into an auditorium, in which an elite few contemplated Neoplatonic visions re-affirming their right to rule.”  Civic piazze were  absorbed into the private domain of the prince (Ferrara); cortili were refigured as sites 49 and new palaces included theatres in for theatre (the Medici palace in Florence) their plans (Leo’s villa Madama).  Ultimately, “performance space and audience  space were.. .completely absorbed into the body of the palace.” As Carlson writes, “the cortile still bore many of the features of the public piazza, but the great hall was an unmistakable element in the prince’s own spatial domain, the performance his possession, and the audience his guests.” 50 As a guest at a 1514 performance of / suppositi  recorded, “the Pope himself stood at the door and only those whom he  selected for his blessing were allowed to enter.” 51 It has long been understood that these theatrical explorations  furnished  concepts for architectural projects. Peruzzi’s façade for the Farnesina, for example, was described by one contemporary as a “scaena pro comoedlis vol tradoedlis.” The projects commissioned at the Medici church of S. Lorenzo are further architectural manifestations of this theatrical mentality. Michelangelo’s scheme for the façade of S. Lorenzo, suggestive of a scena fronae, would have transformed the piazza into a kind of platea. As Michael Hirst has convincingly proposed, the project appears to wrap around the old façade, 52 creating the illusion of passageways into 17  an independent narthex, the same strategy adopted for dramatic prospettive.  The  dramatic tripartite stairs of the Laurentine ricetto, envisioned by Michelangelo as a vehicle for prominently displaying the ruler, flanked on either side by his or her retainers, became the model for Buontalenti’s later theatrical carri.  And the spatial  organization of the Medici chapel presents a court masque, a drama which co-opts the spectator as a witness to the political claims of the Mëdici.  18  Chapter 2 1512-1519: The Entry of the Medici Prince onto the Florentine Stage.  “Yet you may also take it to be implied in our rule that the Courtier should discreetly withdraw from the crowd, and do the outstanding and daring things that he has to do in as small a company as possible and in the sight of all the noblest and most respected men in the army, and especially in the presence of and, if possible, before the very eyes of his king or the prince he is serving...” Castiglione, The Courtier 1 ...  In 1512, after seventeen years of republican liberty in Florence, the ominous threat of the Spanish forces brought about the city’s capitulation to the Medici. 2 The return of Giuliano de’Medici from his years of exile  at the court of Urbino was  facilitated by the political oscillations of the Ottimati, whose support for the Republic in 1494 had waned as the base of political power had broadened. The ‘revenge’ of this aristocratic class enabled the reversal of constitutional changes instituted since the exile of their new allies.  However much the Medici governed through these  families, under the pretense of respecting the city’s sovereignty, the takeover of Florence as ‘new princes’  presented significant problems.  generation of civic participation, restoring  effective After a  the political conditions of pre-1494  Medicean control was an impossibility. The political gulf separating the years prior to 1494 with those of 1512 is evident in Vettori’s advice to the Cardinal Giovanni ‘de’Medici en route to Rome for the election which would elevate him to the throne of St. Peter. “Your ancestors,” he stated,” held this city by management (industria) rather than force; you, however must hold it by force. The reason is that since 1502 the city has been very well governed, and the memory of this will always make war on you; you have too many enemies to hold power through any combination you could possibly form within the walls.”  In contrast with the gradual consolidation of control 19  by the Medici in the fifteenth century, the swift return to power in 1512 and the brutal means by which it was executed  confronted the memory of liberty  which had  developed within the city. 6 The validation of Medici authority, with neither legislative nor imperial legitimacy, required special measures. The transformation from republic to tyranny  --  the increasing displacement of  the more broadly based government of the commune into a principality discussed in contemporary tracts.  --  was well  Advice books for princes replaced freedom of  movement with directives for procuring ‘security and peace,’  a rejection of  republican space explained by Leonardo Bruni. in his Ad Petrum Histrum Dialogus, as one in which individuals move freely among the urban spaces of Florence. 8 Despotisms, oligarchic  fueled by skepticism pointing to the inevitability of corruption within  ‘democracies,’  presented the appearance of well ordered states. As  Giovanni Rondinelli recollected at the end of the century, Florence had been  “‘filled  with towers, castles and quarelling factions’ until quelled by the Medici through the imposition of the Pax Medicea,  the peaceable rule of their own princely  9 This impression of turmoil under the republican regime in Florence, in government.” contrast with the apparent order of Medici control, was a key component in the family’s restoration. Imagery proclaiming the peaceful rule of the Medici was inscribed into virtually every decorative program undertaken during the reign of Leo X and initially in those of his cousin Clement VII. 10  And as an expression of civic peace, well ordered  urban landscapes were drawn onto illusionistic theatrical prospettive or represented in processions through temporary architectural constructions. Rapidly produced and inexpensive, cities could be dramatically reshaped in spectacles which celebrated the civilizing influence of Medici rule, the city purified and restored to health.  20  Representations of regularized cityscapes, clearly displayed for the viewer, proclaimed the benefits of monarchical rule. Like the well ordered urban spaces of a prospettiva,  reflecting an image of a  well governed city, the ‘mirror for princes’ texts presented rulers with an ideal image in which uto seek their reflection in its depthsY 2  Virtue, the result of public  participation as imagined by the civic humanists, was redefined as the privilege of princes, the quality reserved for the centric point of the hierarchical organization of a court. The mirror was more than simply a metaphor; in both manifestations, the image of the prince and the imagining of space, it was the appearance of virtue, the illusion of grace, which was stressed.  “The prince need not be honourable,” as  Machiavelli explains, “but he must by “judged  3 The effectiveness of honàurable.”  the ruler depended on his or her performance, on how the ruler was seen. 14 The rules of courtly conduct were spelled out by Castiglione, in whose Courtier Giuliano de’Medici is a principal player. 15  Inside the closed rooms of the  palace, a courtier’s performance is defined by the relations of the court where membership is privileged over liberty. 16 The courtier’s status is determined by his or her ability to “deceive, please or astonish the audience” 17  through a series of  performances which remain exclusive of the general public and interdependent on the enclosed audience of the court.  Directives for display specify how to dress, when  and to whom to perform, detailing the means with which to embellish one’s performance through “human effort and ingenuity.” Orchestrating rather than copying ‘nature’ through “the concept of cultus,” as Eduardo Saccone explains, the courtier “becomes part of 18 player.”  a drama of which [he or she is] the producer, director, and star  A member of the court is simultaneously an actor and a spectator, a  contributor to, and an object of scrutiny, a reciprocal condition of viewing underlined  21  by Castiglione’s circular arrangement of the participants in the discussions. The exclusionary practices of the court elevated the status of its members, furnishing the means through which to distinguish themselves from society, through dress, language, style.  At the same time, through the experience of the hierarchical  organization of the court, to paraphrase David Harvey, one learns who or what one is in society, 19 the organization of the court inculcating its members to their subject status. In the court of the returned Medici, intimacy, diplomacy, language and clothing were proferred in return for loyalty and conformity.  As Alamanni advised the Medici,  youths, less accustomed to political power during the republic on account of their age, could be diverted to the regime through “the pursuit of honor a/li costumi cortesani.” 20 Such symbols of membership served to underline the central role of the Medici, extending their programme of visual display, while structuring the tiered organization of a court. Replacing republican liberty  --  reconfiguring the horizontal structure of society  with the control of the individual prince  --  paralleled the hierarchical, perspectivist  ordering of the spaces of cities, as represented in architectureal vedute and theatrical  prospettive. And it is the visual appearance of the ruler organization of the court  --  --  the centric point of the  21 as Machiavelli asserts, that supports political claims.  After eighteen years of absence the process of reestablishing the Medici began with the installation of their stemme,  visibly marking their presence. Wax effigies of the  Medici heirs, Giuliano and Lorenzo, the son and grandson of Lorenzo II magnitico, were erected at the Annunziata, replacing the miraculous Virgin erected during the Soderini Republic. 22 As part of this programme of visually reinforcing their political return,  two  carnival spectacles were presented in 1513. The Broncone and the Diamante were  22  devised as a competition between Lorenzo and Giuliano. The former displayed the “Seven Triumphs of the Golden Age” in which the family’s return to power was dramatized in rappresentazioni rvledicean devices. 23  carried on floats  elaborately decorated with  The broncone (a laurel branch), through the return of its new  leaves, symbolized the rebirth of Lorenzo II magnifico in his grandson Lorenzo 24 while the healing qualities of the plant signified the restoration of Florence to health under the Medici doctors. 25 In the first float, designed by Pontormo, the figures of Saturn and Janus signified a new  Golden age, 26  proclaiming the ‘peaceful’ rule of the Medici,  specifying the general association of peace, as formulated in the ‘mirror for princes’ literature, in an expression of Medici mythological renovatlo.  In another  tableau  Vlvant, the body of a man clad in rusty armor lay dead over a Medici palla. From this symbol of the old iron age, a gilded nude boy emerged dramatizing the golden age of the family’s ‘resurrection.’ 27 Through symbols of cyclical regeneration, the Medici strove to bolster their new and thus vulnerable regime, linking the returned Medici with their famous ancestors both mythical and real. The election of Giuliano’s brother Giovanni as Leo X presented the Medici upon an expanded stage, inspiring confidence among Florentines in the family’s restoration. The papacy provided “breathing space” for the new regime to enlarge its base in Florence where the specifics of Medici government were still being 28 With few friends and many enemies, the Medici needed to exercise negotiated. their power openly while maintaining, as  Cardinal Giulio advised Lorenzo, an  exterior appearance of affability and politeness. 29  Theatre, through its various  mechanisms, had the potential to seve the Medici in exactly these demands. The new scenography enabled public theatre spaces to be reconfigured and systematized on  23  the one hand, while reformulating the increasingly private theatre on the other, the latter, an extension of the court’s control over the former. For the Medici, this enclosing of theatre signified a new stage of theatrical thinking, as elaborated by Leo in the Capitoline festivities of 1513, a spectacle ° Resurrecting an 3 described by one scholar as the “piu grandiosd’ of the century. ancient republican ceremony, Giuliano and Lorenzo were granted Roman citizenship by the city fathers on the Capitoline hill upon which an immense theatre was constructed. The role of the Capitoline as a site of Roman civic power had gradually been erased by Renaissance Popes increasingly asserting their control over the site. Vestiges of the site’s republican association were subsumed into a new level of signification as the hill had become populated with sculptures charged with imperial and papal references. 31 In Leo’s programme, the republican meaning of the site was buried under a parade of papal political imperialism in “a scenographic expression 32 Panels celebrating the civilizing influence of the of the myth of imperial renovatio.”  Etruscans were crowned with images of trophies while inside, a parade of tableaux vivants glorified the Medici, celebrating the “the restored Golden Age of peace and 33 concord.”  As proclaimed by Deus Capitolinus,  rappresentazione,  one of the characters in a  the Capitoline, having “lain deserted, deprived of glory  rise up again” through the Medici  ...  ...  would  under whose pontificate the toga-clad people will  regain its Empire.” “ Lorenzo, consolidating his power base in Florence, was absent as was Leo who, despite the privileged audience of the ostensibly public ceremony, restaged the entire event within the walls of the Vatican palace.  later  Giuliano, thus  established as the star of the production, was commemorated on coins, his embossed 35 profile linking the Medici with their imperial forerunners.  24  The temporary wooden structure was devised in the guise of an antique building with trompe l’oeil bas relief and gilded columns. Like a triumphal arch, the entrance displayed scenes from ancient Roman history propagandizing the “linked destinies” of Rome and Florence through Leo X. In the attic of the façade, paintings illustrated river gods personifying the Arno and the Tiber, the she-wolf with Romulus and Remus, and the Florentine Marzocco accompanying a Medici palla. 36 Other images paired the Golden Ages of Augustus and Leo X with the Golden Age deities of Rome, Saturn and Janus. Leo, as. the first Florentine Pope, was compared with Janus, the founder of Etruria, an affiliation drawn upon later in the 1515 entrata. Noah, the founder of the “first urban civilization” in Etruria, was coupled with Janus in Annio da Viterbo’s 1498 Antiquities (on the spurious evidence that they were both wine makers). Thus Leo as Noah, by association, could link his papacy with the ‘divinely revealed truth’ reconciled by the Neoplatonists. the tomb of St. Peter  --  of the prelapsarian religions  currently being  Further, as the founder of Janiculum  --  the site of  the legend conflated Janus with Peter on the evidence that  both were key bearers, 37 extending the cast of characters played by Leo to include the original receiver of the papal keys. Roman indebtedness to the civilizing influence of the Etruscans was another important theme in the festivities, among whose cultural accomplishments included ritual, a reference of course, to the Pope’s Florentine ancestry.  The proceedings  38 themselves provided evidence of Tuscan supremacy in “theater and stagecratt,” another cultural donation illustrated in the building’s decoration Moving to the interior of the square theatre, guests were seated on platforms extending  tiered  to the top of the door frames surrounding the stage on three  sides. (fig.42) Openings on either end of the stage provided access for the performers and carri, while five false doorways decorated the lower order of the architectural 25  scenae fronac.  Although serving no practical function, these ‘entrances’ were  covered with draperies presenting the illusion of spatial recession beyond the façade. (fig.45) A scenographic device which extends the spectator’s impression of space beyond the confines of the stage, the audience is included in the physical space of the performance as participants in the representation. Like the draped doorways, the giant velarium  which covered the building signified the sky, enclosing within the  space of the theatre a substitution of reality which furthers the sense of suspended disbelief. The audience, contained within the space of the representation, is thereby more effectively convinced of the reality of the illusion. The Florentine reference point emphasized in the architectural decorations was underscored by aspects of the evening entertainments. Among the floats which traversed the stage was a personification of Florence carried on a lion, the city supported, as it were, by the Herculean labours of the Pope.  The second day of the  rappresentazioni culminated with a carro drawn by a quadriga of white horses and a  pelican. The float carried the Pope’s mother Clarice Orsini who was framed by a laurel tree and flanked by personifications of the Tiber and Arno. The latter river god, cast as Cosimo,  “addressed Leo’s mother Clarice about the birth of her son in  Florence... whence Cosimo, father of the fatherland, returned to heaven and now, with fervent love and respect for it, inflames his own descendants.” 40 In one performance, peasants sang the praises of the Medici. Singing in the vernacular, the presentation underlined the cultural seriousness of the highlight of the ceremonies, the Latin performance of poenulus by Plautus. The ‘interruption by the ‘outsiders’ from the well guarded main entrance rather than from the stage doors, served to more fully distinguish the already exclusive audience of the Medici court. 41 As made clear by the intruding peasants in Rome, the content of the performance was considered exclusive of the general public.  26  Within the enclosed space of the theatre, no chance to visually dramatize the Medici was overlooked.  Even the food for the banquet was sculpted into Medici  symbols and presented to Giuliano, the senators and foreign ambassadors who were seated  “on  the stage of the theatre,” to use Pastor’s words, “in view of the  crowds who filled the arena.” 42 The performances linked Leo with Cosimo, scripting The  the dynastic Florentine relationship between the past and present Medici.  familys future was forecast in eulogies for Giuliano: ‘Thus as true physicians [Medici] your name will mount to the stars and the fame of your race will be celebrated eternally.”  The medicinal qualities of the laurel, displayed in rappresentazioni,  signified the return of the medic! (doctors) and, as propagated in the ceremonies, the restoration of Florence to health. doctors Cosmas and Damian  --  The association of the Medici saints  --  the  with the Capitoline hill endured beyond the event in  44 The specific use of the a poem composed for the annual saints’ day celebration. good doctor metaphor, linking Giuliano and Lorenzo with their ancestors through the Medici saints, involves the two individuals who are to be the focus of the permanent theatrical display that will take place in the Medici chapel. Continuing in his efforts to promote Giuliano and Lorenzo, and by extension, legitimizing Medici rule in Florence, Leo provided each with a captaincy. Giuliano, having accompanied his brother to Rome, was installed as captain of the Church’s troops in June 1515.  Soon after, his ducal status seemed assured as he was  promised the French Duchy of Nemours by Francis  Lorenzo, the Medici  figurehead in Florence, was installed as captain of the city’s military forces. In this republican ceremony, a baton is handed to a foreign condottiere on his departure from the city with his mercenaries.  Lorenzo, however, was not only a Florentine  citizen, but also commander of the militia which he had reinstituted in 27  1514.  Dramatically subverting the city’s sovereignty by reversing the symbolism,  Lorenzo emphasized his entry into the city and his military authority within it. As one chronicler, related the event:  giving the baton to Lorenzo “deprived the city of what  authority and force remained to it, and conferred so much honor upon him that it seemed one could not legitimately contradict his will and actions... Many noble Florentine youth [sic] who in the past had been soldiers or wanted to pursue this craft 47 were made his gentlemen and bodyguards within diverse types of militia.” Surrounding himself with a coterie of “gentil humoni,” Guicciardini concluded “that everything depended on [Lorenzo] and he was a prince,  . .  .a signor&’. 48  Tensions between the Signorial government and the actuality of Medici control persisted when the Pope made his entrance to Florence in 1515. The organization of the procession and the focus on the Pope was policed by the master of ceremonies, Paris de Grassis. There were symbolic allowances for Florentine sovereignty gates were removed rather than presenting the keys to the Pope  --  --  the  but the Signoria  49 The route and Gonfaloniere were denied equal billing with the papal contingent. of the procession around the ancient Roman walls was programmed with ‘reproductions of antique arches. As if recalling the return of a triumphator,  the  parade provided Leo with an event In which to elaborate the theme of the return of the 50 The return of the first Florentine Pope, carried through the city on a sedia, Medici. rallied Florentines, adding prestige to Florence and hence, the position of the Medici within the city. The symbolic route of the entrata around Florence was soon to be resurrected in the memory of Florentines when on the night of the seventeenth of March, 1515, following Giuliano’s early death, his body was carried from the abbey at Fiesole to 51 the Medici palace for an elaborate lying in state.  28  The coffin, covered in gold  brocade, was elevated on a stage in front of the palace. Displayed above the body were “suo vestito arrnis bellicis con un sajone di broccato di sopra, et Ia berretta ducale, Ia spada, e sproni... “, hut never actually conferred.  symbols of royal status, promised by the French king The baton commemorating his leadership of the  church’s troops, was also carried in the ceremony, “tutto covertafo di faffetta nero.” Giuliano’s position as a captain of the Church predicated aspects of the funerary procession including the baton and the map of the parade. A kind of Medici reliquary, the route around the ancient Roman walls of Florence has been related to the 54 medieval tradition in which relics were paraded around a city’s ancient walls.  In  this instance, the triumphal symbolism reinscribed the route of the Pope’s visit, insinuating once again the ‘resurrection’ of the Medici to Florence.  The inclusion of  55 The armor, ducal the ducat symbols framed the procession with royal pretenses. crown and sword, like an antique trophy, were presented above the sarcophagus, living symbols of a Medici prince paraded above the physical remains of the dead body.  Giuliano’s death provided the context in which to propagandize his ducal title,  a transferable symbol claiming the political and dynastic continuity of Medici rule. With the death of his brother in 1515, Leo’s use of the papacy for his dynastic ambitions seems almost to have been intensified. crown for Lorenzo, Leo exiled the Duke of Urbino,  Determined to provide a ducal ostensibly as punishment for  failing to assist papal troops. Utilizing his Florentine resources, Lorenzo seized the Duchy and he was installed by the Pope as “Duke of Urbino, Lord of Pesaro, and Prefect of the city of Rome” in September 1516.  Lorenzo’s hold was soon threatened  by the exiled Duke, assisted by Charles V and Francis I,  both of whom had an  56 Leo’s obsessive interest in prolonging the war and thereby weakening the papacy. resistance to capitulation at Urbino drained papal resources provoking massive venality 57 and the selling of indulgences as a means of funding the 29  58 Despite Leo’s excessive expenditures, his ambitions at Urbino were thwarted war. and Lorenzo was never formally invested. Like the Borgia, as contemporaries noted with acerbity, Lorenzo’s weak position within Italy and the insecurity of his crown were determined by the family pontificate. ° 5 In 1518,  Lorenzo married Madeleine de Ia Tour D’Auvergne, her arrival  celebrated with the staging of two plays by Filippo Strozzi, and a third, possibly Machiavelli’s Mandragola. The characters in the latter,  as argued by Paroncchi,  would have been recognizeable as contemporary figures:°°  Nicia,  (the deposed  leader of the republic Piero Soderini) is ousted from his marriage bed with Lucrezia (Florence)  by Callimaco (Lorenzo) with a medicinal potion.  devised perhaps, to sway Florentines to their prince in waiting,° 1  A political allegory but like Callimaco  in the play, Lorenzo’s stay with Florence was brief: he died the following year. The only remaining heirs were the illegitimate Sons of Lorenzo and Giuliano, Alessandro and lppolito, aged eight and nine. Undeterred, Leo once again, co-opting the Laurentine impresa  for himself.  reinvented himself  The laurel of Lorenzo ii  Magnifico, adopted by Lorenzo the younger, was re-attributed to Leo as manifested  in the frescoes at Poggio a Caiano. 62 Undefatible as ever, Leo assumed the role, displaying as Giucciardini stated, his “piena autorità sopra 10 stato di Firenze  .“  However unsuccessful in his attempts to secure a duchy for Giuliano and Lorenzo during their lives, Leo monumentalized the two captains in their deaths. Paraded as Dukes in their funeral processions, Sacristy  --  and then eternally memorialized in the New  permanent representations of the immortality of the new Medici era.  30  Chaper 3 The New Medici in the Medici Chapel: Theatre for Eternity Everyone sees what you appear to be.. Machiavelli, The Prince. 1 The church of S. Lorenzo, stripped of the Medici stemme for eighteen years, was reclaimed by the family on their return to Florence in 1512.  S. Lorenzo became  a centric point in the Medici programme of visual display. The goal was to restore the church to its pre-1494 Medicean prominence, thereby linking the new regime in physical as well as political terms with the past. In  1515, a competition was devised for the façade of the church. Numerous  architects submitted designs, focusing attention on the Medici church none was awarded the commission.  Then Leo X  --  --  although  in part out of jealousy of the  patronage of his predecessor, Julius ii, and eager to thwart the completion of Julius’ tomb  --  sent Michelangelo to Florence to work on the S. Lorenzo project.  the façade project was suddenly abandoned  3  2  In 1519  and Michelangelo was reassigned to  an important new commission at S. Lorenzo: a mausoleum for the recently diseased Giuliano and Lorenzo and the two Magnhfici after whom they were named, Giuliano (murdered 1478) and Lorenzo (dead 1492). The square room and pie tra serena  architectural system established a  parrallelism which was meant to recall the Old Sacristy, focusing on the burial function of the Old, in which the ancestors of the family were interred as well as extending the dynastic aspect of the S. Lorenzo complex. With the quattrocento 31  plan maintained,  ties’ were aligned on an axis which 4 the two funerary ‘sacres  passed through the crossing of the church, the crossing in which the founder of the family dynasty Cosimo ii Vecchio and pater patriae of Florence, was buried. (fig. 11) Entering the new chapel from the transept, the visitor is confronted by two figures on either side, each turned toward the door (figs. 13,14) These captains, dressed in antique military attire, monitor the entrance from their elevated viewing positions in the second storey of the marble architecture above their tombs. On the north wall (1igs.12,15), opposite the entrance, a small chancel frames an altar which projects into the central space, corresponding with the location of the sarcophagi. The priest would have stood behind the altar, or mensa, in accordance with early Christian practices, reciting prayers for the dead in uninterrupted succession as stipulated in Clement VlPs 1532 papal bull. 5 Opposite the altar are figures, also seated, of the Virgin and son flanked by the family saints, the doctors Cosmas and Damian. (fig. 16)  Referred to by Michelangelo as the sepoltura da testa, the  arrangement was intended to include two sarcophagi for the Magnifici above which the Virgin and saints were to have been seated, aligned horizontally with  the  captains. (fig. 17) Architecturally  the four façades of the room are virtually mirror images,  recalling the triumphal arch scheme delineated in pietra serena on the chancel wall of the Old Sacristy. The spatial organization, however, is entirely opposed to the calm focus and hierarchical ordering of nave to chancel seen in the earlier work. The exacting squareness of the new plan is exaggerated by the duplication of flanking 32  doors on each façade, a disorienting effect exacerbated by the dizzying vertical axis of the square nave. The orderly quattrocento framework of the companion chapel is disrupted further by the introduction of an intervening marble system which is divided into distinct architectural and sculptural formations. Contained within the giant order of the pietra serena,  the marble architecture is divided into two tiers: the lower  relatively unarticulated zone forming a kind of palcó,  or stage, for the canopied  recesses of the upper level from which the sculptural figures overlook the entrance. The captain on the west façade supports his head in contemplation, his elbow resting on a box decorated with a mask. (fig. 19) Dressed in Roman costume and a lion skin headdress,6 he holds a fabric bundle, resembling an antique mappa,  used  games. (fig.20) Below the pa/co are the two allegorical by Roman officials to initiate 7 figures, Crepuscolo and Aurora, poised, uneasily one imagines, on the curved volutes of the sarcophagus. Opposite this tableau, holding a baton and a handful of coins, the other captain displays his ideal antique profile and body, sheathed in a cuirass encrusted with masks. (fig.33) He sits above the figures of Day and Night who lie on their sloped bases even more precariously than their partners across the room. The ubiquitous masks animate the room, emerging from capitals, cornices, and the costumes of the Bastoniere and the Pensoso,  surveying the space. As Night  sleeps, aping the figure of Day to his side, a large mask keeps watch looking into the room, reciprocating the visitor’s gaze, reversing the object of observation. Combined with the representation of the dead captains as seated spectators, in anticipation of the visitor, the viewer is positioned as the subject of the space, on stage, as it were, 33  at the same time as being a member of the audience.  The modern literature on the chapel has tended to separate into two discourses, one part focusing on the sculpture, with a Neoplatonic script prevailing, and one part focusing on problems presented by the architecture.  Early in the  twentieth century, Erwin Panofsky set the terms for the scholarly interpretation of the chapel, detailing an elaborate Neoplatonic programme as the basis for the configuration of the sculptural groups. elevation of the wall,  Separating the central tombs from the  Panofsky linked the vertical figural arrangement with the  ascending schema of a Neoplatonic apotheosis.  The river gods, intended to flank  the bases of the sarcophagi, were interpreted as the four rivers of Hades, “the realm of sheer matter.” 8 The times of the day signify the “Realm of Nature,” 9 and the ‘fourfold aspect of life on earth as a state of actual suffering,” a conclusion based on the strained serpentine positions of the figures. 10 The bodies of the captains are interpreted as the “immortalized souls of the diseased,” 11 liberated from the carcer terreno, their apotheosis warranted by their active and contemplative lives. 12 Charles de Tolnay connected Panofsky’s Neoplatonic interpretation with Michelangelo’s personal vision, characterizing the chapel as a “meditation on death” that could be related to  the artist’s developing preoccupation with death and  13 Despite the absence of any evidence that either Neoplatonism in his poetry. Michelangelo or his contemporaries viewed the chapel in Neoplatonic terms, as has been pointed out,14 the notion has remained, curiously, intransigent. The perceived 34  unity between the Virgin and the two captains who appear to be turned toward her has tended to bolster the Neoplatonic interpretation. As a kind of con versazione, as articulated by Tolnay, the  sacra  captains are freed from their carcer  terreni through the intercession of the Virgin and saints to whom they are turned. A gloss on the concept of the chapel as a sacre con versazione was provided  by  Leopold Ettlinger’s exploration of the chapel’s liturgical function as a chancery 5 chapel.1  As Ettlinger pointed out, the only position, from which one is able to  perceive this unity of representation is the position of the priest standing behind the altar. Thus, he explains, the priest completes the circle between the captains, saints, and the Virgin and child who offer salvation through the Resurrection  --  the theme of  the fresco that was intended for the lunette above the sepoltura. A persistent issue in the historiography of the chapel is the problem posed by the effigies.  There is, in the first instance, the prominence of effigies of the relatively  minor personalities, the younger Giuliano and Lorenzo. 1521,  With the death of Leo in  the Cardinal became the sole patron, redirecting the narrative toward these  two captains. Abandoning figurative representations of the Magnifici,  a decision  related in part to the urgency with which the Cardinal wanted the tombs completed,lO Giulio propelled the representations of Giuliano and Lorenzo into the footlights, recasting these two minor Medici players in leading rOles.  By way of explanation,  Andrew Morrogh posits that it would have been indecorous to include sculptures of the elder Medici, a position shared by Richard Trexier and Elizabeth Lewis. 17 Following Ettlinger’s liturgical interpretation, the physical proximity of the Magnifici 35  tombs to the Virgin was more prestigious than the visual prominence of the captains. Frederick Hartt’s interpretation of the chapel decoration is based on Leo X’s judicial couterattack against the northern heretics, as manifested in the papal Bull, the Exurge Domine, the significance of the two effigies being related to their papal offices.18 However, while Giuliano was installed as captain of the Church’s troops by his brother, Lorenzo’s captaincy was of the Florentine troops, a condition which calls into question the papal specificity of Hartt’s reading. The longstanding view of the chapel effigies as idealized Dukes, after Vasari, has recently been refuted by Trexler and Lewis.  While Lorenzo was proclaimed  Duke by his uncle, he was never invested ceremoniously with the title, receiving neither the sceptre, nor the orb of Urbino. Similarly Giuliano, while promised the 19 Their Duchy of Nemours by the French king, was never conferred with the title. ducal status was an illusion, propaganda disseminated at each of their funerals. Minor Medici characters in life, Giuliano and Lorenzo were recast in death as principal players. Related to this problematical stature of the two captains is the slippage of identity between the two effigies  --  evident in the persistent uncertainty among  students of the chapel as to the identity of the two figures. The traditional association of Lorenzo with the Pensoso and Giuliano as the holder of the bastone di Santa Chiesa follows Vasari and is supported by Michelangelo’s notes in which he groups Giuliano with Day and Night, the two allegorical figures above whom the Bastoniere s!ts.20 However  scholars have tended to question this on the basis of their 36  personalities, pointing out the more compatible identification if the characters were reversed. 21  Trexler and Lewis have argued at length against the Vasarian  identification, pointing out that Lorenzo must be the Bastoniere  as it is unlikely that  Giuliano, captain of the churches’ troops, would be represented with a baton if the captain of the Florentine troops, Lorenzo, were not similarly endowed. Respecting the city’s sovereignty would have bound the Medici to present a Florentine official with equal authority, a position supported they assert, by evidence of Leo’s cautious respect for Florentine liberty. 22  Yet correspondence from the Pope and Cardinal  recommending Lorenzo to exercise prudence implies that he was behaving in an paranoia and opposite manner, his command, as Guicciardini confirms, producing 11 11 23 Rather, it was the appearance of caution which the Pope advised, repression. suggesting a superficial shift, rather than an actual change in approach. 24  Janet  Cox-Rearick, pointing to Vasari’s painting of Alessandro (fig, 22) supports this new identification of the Bastoniere, linking the artist’s examination of Michelangelo’s figures (still resting on the floor of the chapel) with Alessandro’s attempts to bolster his legitimate status as Lorenzo’s son, “and thus, as the remaining descendent of the main branch of the family, the legitimate ruler of Florence.” 25  The architecture of the New Sacristy is generally considered independently from the sculptural narrative. This division was generated in part by inconsistencies between the interior and exterior of the building, leading scholars to attribute perceived shortcomings in Michelangelo’s design to an existing structure. 26 The 37  discovery of a plan by Howard Burns (C. 1500), showing no indication of a structure, enabled Caroline Elam to conclude that Michelangelo was responsible for the design from the ground up, and its shortcomings, the result of his “inexperience as an rchitect.” 27 A re-examination of the documents and close inspection of the Stimmate chapel under the Sacristy, provided Howard Saalman with the evidence to conclude an existing building, probably designed by Giuliano da Sangallo c. 1490, was enlarged by Michelangelo to the west. 28 However, the recent publication of an inventory from the Laurentian archives indicates the Ginori Androne, the northern entrance to the church demolished for the New Sacristy, was still standing in 1507, 29 thereby limiting Saalman’s conclusions. The walls of the Stimmate chapel, as Saalman shows, were designed to support a structure, perhaps considered by Lorenzo II Magnifico. It would have been relatively easy to extend these foundation walls externally, as Michelangelo’s experiments in his early plan indicate, (fig. 24) but novelty was rejected in favour of replicating the Old Sacristy, of returning to the plan laid out prior to the Medici exile. Thus,  Figiovanni’s statement “Ia sacrestla in compangnia di quella già [fatta] “30  may refer neither to the Old Sacristy (Elam) nor an earlier project c. 1490 (Saalman), but to the existing, largely underground, foundation structure. 31 In 1519, the pietra serena  was ordered, as documents published by Elam  show, 32 and construction began on the new chapel.  The awkwardly extended  buttressing on the east of the drum indicates that it was at the level of the attic that the 38  decision was made to expand the project to the west. The enlargement of the dome to the west by necessity increased to the north, requiring adjustments to the existing buttress seen on the east elevation; following the earlier conception, the pilaster of the arcading aligns vertically with the first buttress. (fig.25) The replication of the  qua ttrocento arcading, by now cladding the structure, no longer corresponded to the interior where the revised proportions of Michelangelo’s scheme may have provoked the additional pietra serena piers which frame the central arches. (fig. 26) 33  *  *  *  Emulating Leo’s exploitation of visual imagery, as a means to entrench the conflation of his return from exile with that of Cosimo, 34 as manifested most explicitly in temporary cultural and political spectacles, the design of the New Sacristy visually replicates the frame of the Old,  a new mausoleum for Leo’s ancestors as Cosimo  had provided for his in the Old Sacristy.  The chapel was conceived as an extension  of Cosimo’s earlier project, a relationship embodied in the quattrocento pie tra serena skeleton which frames the marble arrangement commissioned by the new Medici regime. While for many scholars the relationship between the two chapels is one of conflicting architectural systems, resulting  in what James Ackerman has defined as  “the failure of the chapel to evoke a moving or even a coherent spatial experience,” 35 it is the very traditional nature of the quattrocento framework, a point elaborated by Ackerman, which provided the background against which the architect could  39  demonstrate his invenzioni.  The  narrative of the project emerges from the  juxtaposition of opposing architectural systems, enmeshing architectural ‘time’ with the dynastic script of the chapel. On one hand, the pietra serena system is intended to link the new family mausoleum with its S. Lorenzo antecedents; on the other hand, the contradicting architectural systems, their differences excruciatingly asserted, present a dialectic between the Brunelleschian pietra serena republican vocabulary, and Michelangelo’s marble invenzioni.  The former, highlighting Florentine and  republican architectural antecedents, is set against the second system which is contrived, princely,  and aristocratic,  the type of architecture Alberti would have  viewed as excessively ornamented, to use David Summers words, “as suited only for a limited audience...” 36 Michelangelo’s deliberate references to Brunelleschi’s design date from the outset of the chapel project, as illustrated in his sketch of the chancel. (fig. 55) The function of the chapel from its commencement was to encase the tombs within a dynastic Medici frame; the quattrocentro skeleton provided a departure point for a design whose architectural juxtapostion of old and new reiterated the familial. The design of the chapel elevations adapts the triumphal arch organization of the Old chancel façade, transferring the collective memory of past Medici ancestors to the present project. 37 The Brunelleschian pilasters and cornice are virtually replicated, I  distinguishable only on close inspection, an apparent similarity  which underlines  the innovations of the New Sacristy whose marble architecture is contained within the giant pietra serena order.  The Brunelleschian and ‘republican’ vocabulary 40  positioned the founders of the family, interred in the Old Sacristy, and Cosimo ii Vecchio, buried under the crossing, as dialectical counterpoints to the new Medici ‘Dukes’ visually represented in marble. On another narrative level, the emergence of the new marble from the old pietra serena enmeshed architectural ‘time’ with the dynastic, temporal narrative of the chapel. In Brunelleschi’s plan,  the  chancel is flanked by pedimented doors and  framed by a triumphal arch. The square nave is organized with a north south axis, following the rectangular shape of the central table, directing the focus of the viewer toward the altar in the apse, illuminated with a window. Rejecting this traditional axis, Michelangelo elaborates the square plan of the earlier project by adopting the pietra serena  scheme for all four façades.  The mirror-like symmetry of the room is  accentuated further by the eight doors of which four have no practical function.  Even  the altar, positioned like the tombs, intensifies the geometric regularity of the plan. The only signal to the disoriented visitor of the door through which he or she entered the space, is the holy font and elaborate carving which individuates the entrata door from the other porticelle. 38 In the same way that Michelangelo exploits the plan of the Sacristy, pushing its squareness to the extreme, the elevation expands upward as if forced vertically by the lateral compression imposed by the restrictive pietra serena piers, telescoping along an axis which culminates, finally, in the lantern. The arch of Brunelleschi’s altar is retained within an attic storey,  while the quattrocento  lunette is raised in a  pendentive zone. The unnerving verticality of the room, the height double the width, is intensified by the perspectival design of the windows in the pendentive zone and 41  by the ribs of the Pantheonic dome. In contrast with the vertical organization of the pietra serena and the upper half of the building,  the marble architecture is divided horizontally, into tiers. The  basement level, comprised of the eight  doors and marble panelling behind the  sarcophagi, is connected horizontally by a string course. This cornice has a double  function: on the one hand, as a flat arch capping the doors, and at the same time serving as the pavimento  of the second storey. The consoles which appear to  support the door lintels, sagging as if weighed down from the strain of carrying the giant tabernacle above, are in fact disconnected from the lintels, thereby denying the very structural function to which they appear to be reacting. (fig.28) The frames of the tabernacles swell as if attempting to break out of their pietra serena containment. The pressure is intensified by the piers which frame the central arch, 39  a device which increases the illusion of depth between the protruding  segmental pediment of the tabernacle and the space of the central arch. (fig.29) Throughout the chapel, architectural invenzioni display the reverse of the expected, a kind of architectural surprise which functions multivalently. Architectural members are disguised, performing a dual function: the lintel for a door becomes the base of a tabernacle. In the molding of the cornice is an egg and dart motif, but the oval eggs have been anthropomorphized into a chain of masked faces.  Underlining the  wittiness of the trope, the canonized version of the molding runs parallel to the mask frieze. (fig. 30)  Disguised in an illusionistic game, the architecture is a central player,  engaging the spectator in a reciprocal exchange. 42  In the center of the elevations the seated figures watch the entrance from the middle of three rectangular niches integrated into a single space by the  horizontal  base of the pediments which continue ‘behind’ the paired pilasters. (fig.31) Contributing to the illusion of a shared space is the absence of detailing on the frames of the niches. The jambs of the doors and tabernacles and the veneered lower storey are also comprised of flat panels and moldings instead of architectonic members. In fact, in contrast with the texture and plasticity to which the medium of marble lends itself, the marble architectural system appears designed to emphasize the linearity which characterizes wood construction, structures for spectacles.  suggestive of the temporary wooden  (fig.57) The flatness of the marble distinguishes the  sculpture from the architecture, the contrast enlivening the figures, liberating them from the backdrop which frames them. 40 One of the frequently cited sources for the arrangement of the Medici project is 4. (fig. 50) Popolo Sansovino’s double tombs at Santa Maria del l  Here each Cardinal  rests on his sarcophagus, a ‘living’ body positioned over his physical remains below. Yet the bodies, eyes closed and reclining, suggest an otherworldliness and a transgredience which is entirely different from the effect presented by the Florentine 2 More closely allied to Michelangelo’s tombs are his seated representation effigies.4 of Julius II as Moses, 43 and Pollaioulo’s tomb for Innocent VII. (fig. 52) Relocated from Old St. Peters, the bronze but vibrant Pope exhibits the spear tip of Longinus, convincing the spectator of the reality of the representation, as if the illusion of his own physical appearance attests to the actuality of the relic. 43  An image of a person kneeling or sitting over his or her remains emerged in French royal tombs in the fifteenth century, signifying the dialectical understanding in the late middle ages of the transience of the body with, as Kantorowitz explains, the “immortal splendor of a Dignity which that flesh was supposed to represent.” 44 While such tombs often functioned as momento mori, where the body is transgredient unaware of the viewer  --  --  some representations of the dead signified the two bodies of  the king. The remains of the physical body were interred in the tomb, while the seated effigy signified the continuity of the king’s political body. As Kantorowitz states, “The King could not die, was not allowed to die, lest scores of fictions of immortality were to break down.” 45 The ‘living body’ symbolized the crown, substantiating the ideology of dynastic absolutism and furnishing a stand in representative of the royal body during periods of interregna. It has been suggested that the Florentine tombs can be linked to these French 46 Like Innocent VIII, presenting the official body of the Pope, the two precedents. captains are aware of their audience, together displaying, the “political body” of the 47 The two bodies of each ‘Duke,’ ruler.  one in the sarcophagus and one  representation, suggest the two royal bodies, the immortal seated body politic and the interred remains of the body natural. The two effigies act out a visual illusion, legitimizing the idea, elusive in reality, of Medici royal status. A private chapel but displayed for a public audience, these permanent symbols of their wax precedents act out their authority; their command over the space of the chapel is a permanent playing out of Medici appropriation of civic space. 44  WhUe there is an apparent connection between the figures, the captains are not turned toward the Virgin but toward the entrance, as Creighton Gilbert posits. It is not the sepoltura da testa which animates the chapel’s narrative but “the stone men,” he writes, who “respond when they notice us, the flesh men, coming into their room.” 48 The visitor is not a stranger to the chapel, as posited by Tolnay, but a key participant in the representation, and the two captains are more than specific individuals, they are players in the theatre of ducality.  Michelangelo clearly  conceived of the stone figures coming to life, a common trope among contemporaries, 49 as the figures of time speak for themselves in the artist’s verse. For Michelangleo, the chapel was envisioned, literally, as speaking to the viewer: “Day and Night speak and say: “We in our swift course, have led Duke Giuliano to his death; it is only fair that he should take revenge on us as he does. And his revenge is this: Having been killed by us, he being dead, has deprived us of light, and by closing his eyes has shut ours, which no longer shine upon the earth. What might he have done with us then if he had lived. “50 ,  The idea that the figures were imagined in this light, like the actors in  tableaux  vivants, is expressed even more clearly in Carlo Strozzi’s famous quatrain: The Night that you see sleeping in such a graceful attitude was sculpted by an Angel in this stone, and since she sleeps, she must have life; wake her, if you don’t believe it, and she’ll speak to you. ,  51  As if characters in a rappresentazione, the room suggests a “kind of illusionism,” as Gilbert  writes, “supressing difference in kinds and levels of existence between  observer and carving, so that statues are affected by the sensory stimuli that also 45  move us.” 52  The extant drawings and copies of Michelangelo’s designs for tombs make it clear that the two images were interchangeable. 53 The absence of epitaphs and the continued reference by both  patrons and the artist to the anonymous “two  54 suggests that verisimilitude of features or personality was irrelevant to captains,” the chapel’s conception. Ascanio Condivi, Michelangelo’s biographer virtually avoids identifying the two captains: “The tombs are tour, placed in a sacristy built for the purpose in the left side of the church, across from the Old Sacristy. And, although there was one conception and one form for them all, neverthless the figures are all different and in different poses and attitudes. The tombs are placed in certain chapels and on their covers recline two great figures more than life-size, a man and a woman, representing Day and Night and, collectively, Time which consumes all. Then there are other statues which represent those for whom the tombs were built; ....“ 55 ...  The frequently quoted words of  Domenico Moreni, another contemporary of  Michelangelo, also implies the idealized images were never intended as portraits of the two men: “When Michelangelo had to carve the illustrious Lords of the most happy house of the Medici, he did not take from the Duke Lorenzo nor from the Lord Giuliano the model just as nature had drawn and composed them, but he gave them a greatness, a proportion, a dignity which seemed to him would have brought them more praise, saying that a thousand years hence no one would be able to know that they were otherwise...” 56 ...  Together, the two effigies represent the two faces of the ideal prince, as the concept had gradually developed and coalesced in the course of the fourteenth and 46  fifteenth centuries. Abandoning the two auxillary effigies was more than an expedient measure  --  on grounds of money and time-- it also accorded  with the focusing  imagery of the room. An important theatrical exemplar is being called into play here, the active and contemplaLive ideals, the two types who prevail over death in the poet’s Trionfi, the two faces of an ideal prince also reflected in the ‘mirror for princes’ Hterature.  In Petrarch’s “Triumph of Fame,” the fourth of his ‘antique’ processions,  military leaders are accompanied with philosophers, the two ideals to which one should aspire in life and who triumph over death by achieving fame.  This Petrarchan  Triumph is specifically referred to by Michelangelo on the bottom of a design for the Magnifici tombs (fig.17) where he wrote: “Fame holds the epitaphs to rest (a giacere), for they are dead and their work is stilled; she goes neither forward nor back.” 57 Illustrating the note (or vice-versa), the figure of Fame sarcophagi  --  --  sketched above the Magnifici  is depicted holding the epitaph slabs horizontal: laid to rest, dead, like  the bodies of the men intended for the tombs. 58  Although the figure of Fame was  rejected, Petrarch’s concept was retained in the typological division of the active and contemplative lives embodied in the captains. The organization of the figures in the chapel virtually replicates Petrarch’s “Triumph of Fame” in which he describes the procession as a spectator: his eyes turn to the right, where Fame is followed by military victors, and then to her left where she is accompanied by philosophers, illustrated respectively in the images of Giuliano and Lorenzo. The allegorical figures of Time, the fifth of the Trionfi,  are followed by  Petrarch’s final procession, Divine Eternity, expressed in the chapel’s dedication to  47  the resurrection.  The theme, with which Leo identified personally, was to have been  painted above the Virgin and Saints.  The representations of the ‘living’ Medici Dukes  triumphing over the figures of time would have evoked the eternal rule of the Medici, filtered through the Christian concept of eternity also embodied in the chapel. While clearly the Trionfi infused the textual narrative of the chapel,  of  particular interest to the spatial organization of the room is the way in which Petrarch relates the processions from a shifting point of view. The poet sometimes narrates from a spectator’s position as if seeing a moving procession, or as a member of an audience watching a stationary rapprosentazione. In other instances, the narrator’s voice is that of a performer acting in a spectacle as in the “Triumph of Time” when Apollo, envious of Fame, speaks in the first person: “for some [people] I see who after a thousand years, And other thousands, grow more famous still, While I continue my perpetual task.” 59 In some parts of the poems, the narrator may be a performer from one procession describing another rappresentazione;  to use Sticca’s words, Petrarch “is often  60 The shifting simultaneously participant in one spectacle and spectator of another.” dynamic between audience and performer which shapes the processions in the Trionfi mirrors the principles which structured actual processions and theatrical  The actors which decorated temporary constructions and  rappresentazioni.  performed on carri  ,  like those described in the Trionhi,  remained static until the  procession halted, alternating with the dynamic movement of the parade, a strategy 48  61 Actors were thus intended to avoid confusion between seeing and being seen. performers and spectators, often at the same time. The characters and imagery, drawn from Petrarch’s Trionfi, are infused with Medicean specificity, and brought to life through theatrical illusionism, a dynamic already explicit in the Trionfi, themselves processions.  A more immediate source than Petrarch illuminates the theatrical conceit at the heart of the Medici chapel. At this point it is necessary to return to the Capitoline and to the theatre commissioned by Leo which suggests many parallels with the Florentine building.  Already linked by scholars as a source for more permanent  Medici representations of propaganda, as the event in which Giuliano and Lorenzo were jointly invested with Roman patrician status, the celebrations include specific details that suggest it as a compelling precedent for the Medici chapel. 62 Already in the Capitoline festivities appear theatrical motifs that were to be highlighted in the Chapel. £33 The coins held by the Bastoniere,  like those thrown to a crowd following a  procession and symbolic of a prince’s liberality and magnificence, suggest the dramatic conclusion of the Capitoline festivities in which medals exploded into the audience form one of the floats. Giuliano’s portrait on the specially minted coins, like the profile presented by the Bastoniere,  was accompanied with Florentia and  Roma, 64 personifications of the two cities accompanying their respective river gods in representations of returning Medici.  River gods, planned for the base of the Medici 49  tombs (fig.36) were ubiquitous characters in the Medicean spectacles and media promoting the returned Medici. (figs. 5,56) 65 River gods personifying the Arno and Tiber reclined in the attic of the Capitoline façade and were paraded on the stage of the theatre. One of the actors, cast as the Arno in a tableau vivant, remaining static until the cairo reached the center of the stage, came to life as Cosimo, conversing with the Pope’s mother and praising his descendents. The river gods in the chapel, understood by contemporaries as the rivers of Florence and Rome, 66 attest to the joint citizenship of the Medici, as invested on the Capitoline, and to their respective captaincies, underlining the extended physical dominion of the Medici through the papacy. 67 Also decorating the triumphal façade of the Capitoline theatre were images of antique trophies, suggestive of those intended to crown each captain. 68 Placed above paintings illustrating historical myths, designed to (figs.37,38,39) propagandize the return of the Golden Age of Jupiter as embodied in Leo X, the trompe I’oeil  trophies evoke antique processions, proclaiming the Medici as  returning triumphators. 69 Michelangelo was in Rome during the preparations and festivities and he would also have known the plan of the Capitoline theatre as copied in the Coner Codex,  a source from which he was drawing during his work on the chapel.  O The almost square plan of the Roman theatre was surrounded on three 7 (figs.42,41) sides by tiered platform seating. As a reconstruction of the interior elevation indicates, spectators on the top row would be seated above the doors which surround the stage, 50  virtually exactly as the two captains sit in Florence. (figs. 43,44) projects resembles a cortile,  The plan of both  in which members of a court could view ceremonies  and dramatic exhibitions from the surrounding logge. The organization of these spaces capitalizes on the image of raised stages as places from which to see and be seen, transporting the concept of temporary platforms constructed for public giostre into interior spaces for private display. 71 In some medieval theatre, stages for the actors and selected spectators were elevated above the pla tea  with the performers moving vertically between the  surrounding platforms and the stage. Actors could descend into the performance or emerge from the audience as if spectators drawn into the action, an effect which enhanced the ‘reality’ of the presentation. This theatrical device was put to use in the Capitoline theatre when a group of ‘peasants’ entered the dramatic action from the space of the audience instead of the stage doors. In this way the actors, singing the praises of the Medici, establish an illusion of shared veneration, magnified by the spatial organization which defines the collective audience as a single viewer. 72 The pretense of popular support, however, was a carefully staged component, throwing into relief the prestige of the invited guests who were permitted through the well guarded theatre entrance. The architectural scenae frons  in the theatre was decorated with five  openings behind the stage and two on either end providing access for the floats carrying the actors and rappresentazioni. (fig.45)73  The false doors were covered  with draperies, presenting an illusion of space beyond their frames, signifying the 51  continuity of space beyond the stage of the theatre, extending the domain of the spectators and including them within the space of the representation. The shared physical space of the audience and actors, ‘inside’ the theatre, renders the ‘reality’ of the rappresentazione more convincing, while the performance engages the audience in a reciprocal exchange which contributes to and authenticates the illusion. Turning to the chapel, only four of the eight doors 74 which surround the space have a practical function. The remaining four enforce the symmetry of the façades, but they also imply  access beyond the space of the chapel.  Like the draped  doorways in the Capitoline theatre, they go nowhere, but they extend the visitor’s impression of space beyond the tombs, thereby positioning the visitor within the same narrative  space as the sculptures. In accordance with antique drama, the visitor is  provided visible testimony of imaginary events by his or her inclusion in the physical space of the event. Capitoline  The doors, perpendicular to each elevation, follow the  scheme, whose entrances from either side were incorporated into stage  designs. (fig. 10)76 The entrata to the right of the Bastoniere,  here explained as an  entrance from one of the stage wings, defines the visitor more explicitly as a performer. Within the chapel, the visitor can be said to be on stage at the same time as a member of the audience.  Highlighting, underscoring and participating in the theatricality of the presentation are one of the chapel’s most important unifying features: the ubiquitous masks. Michelangelo’s eccentric approach to the classical order has been summed 52  up in Vasari’s comment that he allowed himself license.  There is nothing more  flagrant in this concept of license than, the way in which Fvlichelangelo has infused masks throughout the membering of the chapel, infusing them into the narrative structure. Masks were a central motif in Giovanni da Udine’s fresco decoration of the ceiling. 77 They decorate the altar candelabra (fig.32) 78 and emerge form the pilasters which support the thrones above the captains. (fig.31) 79 In the frieze of masks circumnavigating the lower storey at eye level, a variety of faces emerge from the anthropomorphized molding.  Other masks cover the captains’ costumes. (fig.33)  The fierce mask on the breastplate of the Bastoniere, signifies to the visitor the character’s military persona. Concealed from view, however, the terrified face on the back of the cuirass turns the image upside down,  a theatrical reversal for the  initiated. •  i  The most prominent mask (fig.35), situated at eye level, is beneath the figure of night.  Mask pyrotechnics reach their height in a mask that has been interpreted as  a self-portrait of Michelangelo, the distorted physiognomy of the mask connected with 80 the artist’s self-fashioning. another level,  On one level it was surely meant to be that.  the mask, strategically placed,  On  watches the spectator, foiling the  visitor’s voyeuristic view of the sleeping figure of Night, reversing the object of observation, a  theatrical confrontation between the audience and actor.Bl The  masks in the chapel bring to the fore the visitor’s rOle as the subject of the space, a viewer as well as on view. In the Medici chapel, the masks  53  are a signifier of the  theatrical illusion,  winking  at the viewer,  alerting the spectator to her or his  participation in the rappresentazione, transforming the spectator into a witness, in collusion with Medici claims. This reciprocal exchange between viewer and performer .can also be affiliated with antique theatre precedents in which supporting actors are cast as citizens members of the audience the chorus  --  members are  --  as if  who watch the principals and comment on the action; 82 “actors and spectators at the same time. 11 83  The  mechanism through which these modes of representation engage the viewer, familiar from Medici processions and rappresentazioni, is extended to the chapel, casting the visitor as awitness to and a performer in the illusion. The masks serve as a uniting element that binds the sculpture and architecture to the viewer. 84  If theatre pervades the Medici chapel, as I have argued, furnishing a frame through which to interpret the means by which the project engaged the viewer, the prevailing script picks up an established Medici topos.  Continuing and expanding  upon the familiar qua ttrocento symbolism of cyclical time, as expounded in the temporary cultural media which characterized Leo’s campaign of legitimizing Medici rule, 85 time is foregrounded in the chapel. The allegorical figures Night, and Day  --  --  Dawn, Dusk,  appear as an extension of Medici temporal symbolism already  explicit in the dome of the apse in the Old Sacristy. (fig.4) The figures recall Lorenzo ii Magnifico’s portico frieze at Poggio a Caiano  where symbols of cyclical time flank  the central two faced Janus. (fig. 40,) 86 Standing at the threshold of the temple of  54  time, 87 Janus looks to the past and future, linking imagery pointing to the past Medici with symbols of peaceful rule in the future, forseeing, and with hindsight proclaiming, the returned Medici of Leo X. 88  Leo’s alter-ego Janus, rendered synonymous with  Leo in the Capitoline festivities,  was resurrected when Cardinal Giulio suggested  substituting Michelangelo’s proposal for a central monument with an arcus quadrifrons. While rejected as an independent structure, the suggestion was retained in the architectural organization of the chapel’s final design (figs.6,27)  89 The  architectural illusion of intersecting arches, links the chapel with the Janus arch in Rome and with its previous manifestations in Florence during Leo’s 1515 entrata. The form of the Medici chapel thus emerges as a kind of ‘temple of time’ signifying the return of the Golden Age of Jupiter through the agency of Leo, marking the crossroads of past Medici rulers with the future Medici Dukes. This temporal narrative is extended by the presence of the Medici saints, who as Cox-Rearick has suggested,90 signify a subtext within the chapel’s resurrection dedication. Shortly after the death of Lorenzo, when the chapel was commissioned, a son was born to the Pope’s sister Maria Salviati and her husband Giovanni delle Bande Nere. Christened Cosimo by Leo, the boy descended from both branches of the family, promising the regeneration of Medici fortunes. For Leo, the timely birth of Cosimo in 1519  --  reiterating the Pope’s  ‘resurrection’ with that of Cosimo II Vecchio  strategic representation of his own --  provided a protagonist for the  a focus for the chapel’s dedication. As the inevitable new leaves of the narrative, laurel branch had signified the ‘resurrection’ of Lorenzo I! Magnhfico in his grandson  55  Lorenzo’s  Broncone  procession of 1512,  the young Cosimo signified the  resurrection of Cosimo II Vecchio as suggested by the presence of the saint after whom he was named. 91 ‘Mth the death of Leo in 1521, the Cardinal Giulio became the sole patron, shifting the resurrection imagery away from the young Cosimo toward the two Medici captains in a revised statement. The shift in emphasis toward the captains and away from visual representations of the Magnifici can be explained in part by the differing ,  agendas of the two Medici Popes. While dynastic ambitions were shared by Leo and the Cardinal Giulio, family lineage predicated alternative choices for an heir.  For  the Cardinal, the young Cosimo descended from the branch of the family who had murdered his father in the Pazzi conspiracy. 92 Thus Alessandro, the illegitimate son of Lorenzo, (perhaps even the Cardinal’s own son), was a preferable heir. future Clement VII, cognizant of simmering hostility toward 93 combined with Lorenzo, (particularly following his  the  Medici  The  rule under  difficulty of governing Florence from Rome  election to the papacy), needed a new  strategy of  maintaining the family s jurisdiction in order to substantiate Atessandro’s future claim 1 to Florence.  Maintaining control in Florence amid increasing hostility toward the  Medici regency, fomented by the illegitimacy of the boys and discontent with their regent, Cardinal Passerini, became the centric point of Clement’s Florentine agenda. Where Leo positioned himself as Janus, looking  back to the dynasty  established by Cosimo, and forward to the inevitable regeneration of the family’s dominance in the new Cosimo, the future Clement VII transformed Leo’s narrative of 56  cyclical time into a narrative which foregrounded the continuity of Medici rule as embodied in the effigies, abandonning the cyclical time topos for permanence. The unprecedented representation of the two dead captains as living seated figures positions them as understudies who ‘stand in’ for the prince in anticipation of the future Dukes of Florence.  The space ‘speaks’ of a prince, a political function of the  chapel recognized by Michelangelo’s contemporaries and subsequent commentators who shared the view of the chapel as a representation of Medicean ducal power. 94  In 1527, the social and political disaster of the sack of Rome enabled republican forces to thwart the Medici one final time, delaying the public unveiling of the chapel.  With the capitulation of Florence following Clement’s monomaniacal  siege, the project was taken up again, with the conferring of Alessandro’s ducal status by Charles V. The carefully constructed illusion of ducal authority in the chapel 95 was no longer a rappresentazione of princely power, a space standing in for a prince: the representation had become reality.  Linking himself with the representation, the  duke commemorated his newly legitimized status in coins with figures of Cosmas and 90 Stepping into the rOle initially imagined by Leo X for the younger Cosimo, Damian. but made available by Clement VII, Alessandro co-opted the chapel, appropriating 97 the Medici saints to his own agenda.  The power of these ‘stand-in’ effigies  is illustrated by the events of 1527. The  sculptures in the chapel and “other figurative representations,” to use Trexier and 57  Lewis’ words, “were almost the only Medici in town.” Hostile republicans demolished the wax figures from the Annunziata and “proceeded to grind them to dust.” 98 “The murder of the Pope,” as one contemporary called the actions against Clement meant, in another’s words, that “having slaughtered him in wax, they would have all the more readily killed him in fact.” 99 As Florentines dissociated  all vestiges of Medici  signification from the city, the unfinished figures in the New Sacristy were locked up, as the prior Figiovanni implied, for protection against bodily harm. 100 *  *  *  Michelangleo’s early plan for the Medici chapel incorporated apsidal chapels which would have extended beyond the square room, (fig.24) a design which would have contained the tombs, framing the sculptures as objects.  But the artist’s final  project reverses this concept, constraining the visitor within the same space as the sculptures. By organizing the elevations according to a perspectival vanishing point which radiates from the head of each captain, Michelangelo effectively suggests the tomb structures are recessed under the arch, (figs. 53,54) 101 but now, instead of framing the figures for the visitor’s eye, the orthogonals in the chapel radiate from the two captains. / suppositi,  Similar to Raphael’s prospettiva  of Ferrara  for a production of  in which Leo’s throne was devised as the centric point, the two ‘Dukes’  command the space displayed before them. The visitor to the tombs is subjected to the scrutiny of the marble figures, as much surveyed as surveyor. Positioning the visitor as the object of the captains’ view, the organization of the  58:  space structures the visitor’s rOle, the monitored entrance of the chapel like the closed room of the court as Castiglione describes it. The visitor to the chapel, like the guests at Urbino, is contained within the space of the representation. Arranged in a circle, the selected participants define the manner in which an ideal courtier should act. (fig.59) Simultaneously purveyor of and subject to scrutiny, his or her performance reflects the code of behaviour expounded by the court. 102 The entrance to the chapel is surveyed by the captains, reminiscent of Leo X standing at screening guests before a performance of  the door  Ariosto’s I suppositi, determining  who will have access to the performance, 103 who will be permitted into the private sphere of the court and who will not.  A metaphor for the self reflexive society of the  court, the visitor is on stage at the same time as being a member of the audience, the butt of the joke at the same time as a conspiritor. The spectator is turned testifier, a witness to the rappresentazione of Medici Ducal power. Like “Front-row spectators,” to use Debord’s words, the visitors’ “only role is to make domination more respectable, never to make it comprehensible... [those]  who are stupid enough to believe they can understand something, not by  making use of what is hidden from them, but by believing what is revealed!” 104 As a member of the audience, “the spectator’s condition” ensures that “those who are always watching to see what happens next will never act.” 105 Positioned within the captains’ domain, the visitor becomes their subject, the spatial organization of the chapel inculcating his or her position relative to that authority. 106  59  The architectural and narrative tropes in the chapel are designed to amuse the audience, like Machiavelli’s contemporary plays and Castigilone’s Courtier, they are examples of “deception, mockery and the pleasure in contrasting Appearance with Reality.” 07 Architectural details masquerade, turning their function upside down, a narrative which reverses the viewer’s expectations and elicits the audience’s participation. Drawing on sophisticated complexities, reversals and juxtapositions.  invention is linked to clever  The characters are presented as binary opposites, as  visual oxymorons: Night with Day, male with female, young and old, active with contemplative, the round Pantheonic sphere with the square sacristy.  Contradicting  the serious with the ludic, as illustrated by the menacing and startled mask on the cuirass of the bastoniere, the signification is ironically reversed, emphasizing the debate rather than a resolved compromise. 108 meaning,”  as Louis Mann defines the serb  parallels a  Terrentian contaminatio,  A “completely gratuitous loss of  ludere, 109 the juxtaposition exactly  a theatrical representation of irreconcilable  opposites for rhetorical effect. 110 The same interest permeates Michelangelo’s poetry in which he had a predilection for presenting “an argument” as Gilbert states, “and then [asserting] the opposite argument to see if it would stand up.” 111 Playing with the irreconciliation of opposites and tropes, which are “based on a degree of dramatic contrast or contradiction between two terms or ideas,” as Saslow explains, the artist plays with “verbal structures that yoke disparate concepts or facts in ways that emphasize mutual incompatibility.” 112  The complexities in the Medici chapel do not only presuppose, “an audience able to appreciate them”113 they cultivate an audience, the more sophisticated the architectural game, the more ingenious the aritist, and the more elite the audience. In the self-reflexive environment of the court, members are judged for their discernment, as in the case of painting,  as viewers well versed in its particular  traditions, congratulating themselves for understanding the ‘complex allegory.’ 114 The architectural and sculptural conceits in the Medici chapel  --  an exhibition of “pure  artifice, fantastic invention and conspicuous brilliance of execution” -- elevate the 115 audience and the producer, a reciprocal display of self-aggrandizement similar to the kind of performance encouraged by the participants in Castiglione’s Courtier. 116 Theatre, as it emerged at the turn of the century, was a generative force in shaping this reciprocally collusive mentality. More than a tool of the courts, theatre was culturally invasive, transforming the relationship between the audience and the spectator. As examined earlier, processions were designed to astonish at one level while the coded subtext of the performance asserts the exclusionary practices of the court, structuring the two audiences implicit in the intent of sprezzatura: the one who gets it and one who doesn’t. 117 In the Courtier, the speakers champion sprezzatura, the art of concealment, a notion derived from Ovid as was the concept of cultus behaviour, the basis of Castiglione’s courtly performances. 118 The means to the the practice of cultus established “an  courtier’s improved self-representation, alliance between ornatus  and the aristocracy which privileged unadulterated  119 Theatre, and the media which it infused, provided the mechanisms for the artifice.” 61  Medici’s fostering of an aristocratic audience, inculcating their supporters to the rules of the court. 120 Concomitant with what Carison describes as “the developing idea of theatre as an art restricted to a learned society,” 121 popular theatre was subsumed into the private domain of the court.  The shift from public to private was physically  manifested as theatre moved from the civic spaces of the piazze into the cortile of palazzi.  With the increasing interiorization of theatre, the reconfiguration of urban  spaces, as represented on  prospettive, signified a prince’s authority over public  space as explicitly demonstrated during the staging of Ariosto’s I suppositi for Leo in Rome in 1519.  The Castel St. Angelo was “transformed into a large amphitheatre”  where some two thousand visitors watched as Leo “sat on a raised seat facing the stage, from which point the orthogonals of Raphael’s prospettiva radiated,”  of Ferrara  the city overseen by the single eye of the Pope.  In Medici spectacles there is no separation between the universes of art and reality, such that the designed world becomes real. 123  Leo’s theatrical imagination  enabled the Medici to exploit well entreched forms of public theatre, infusing carnival parades and processions with a script designed to differentiate the ‘public’ into distinct audiences, consolidating subaltern as witnesses.  privileged viewers as a co-conspiritors,  the  These events propelled Medicean dynastic claims to  Florentine rule into the spotlight as clearly illustrated by the Capitoline theatre in which a selected audience witnessed Leo’s claims of ‘imperial renovatlo.’  As Leo  had exploited theatre as a means to demonstrate Medici power, directing spectacles which proclaimed their resurrection and legitimate status before its actualization, the 62  S. Lorenzo projects are an extension of this operative mode. The representation in the Medici chapel is less a sacra conversazione, a static image in which the two Medici captains view the saints and Virgin, but a sacra rappresentazione, a theatrical space persuading the ‘privileged’ viewer of the actuality of the Medici princes.  63  Notes: Introduction I Michael Camille, The Gothic Idol. Ideology and image-Making in Medieval Art. Cambridge University Press (New York: 1991) p. 62. Augustine was hostile to masks and Roman theatre for “the obscenities of the stage, which modesty detests” and the grotesques on account of the relation “between idolatry and theatrical representation.” p. 161. 2 For example, the Globe theatre, Georg Braun’s Civitates Orbis Terrarum. See David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Basil Blackwell (Oxford: 1989) p. 247. 3 Harvey, p. 244-245. 4 Harvey after Edgerton, p. 244. 5 Francis. Haskell, Patrons and Painters. A Study in the Relations Between Italian Art and Society in the Age of the Baroque, Yale University Press, (New Haven: 1980) p. 6 The private and public potential of theatre had been exploited by Alexander IV, combining with carri and games political justification for his family’s claims, but it was Leo X who most fully integrated public and private theatre toward dynastic ends. See Guido Davico Bonino, La Commedia Italiana del Cinquecento e altre note su letteratura e teatro. Tirrenia Stampatori (Torino: 1989) p.64-75. 7 The Salone frescoes at Poggio a Caiano draw upon many of the same themes which were dramatized by Leo in the 1512 carnival parades, the Capitoline festivities and the Florentine entrata including famous men, dynasty, the virtues. See Janet Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art. Pen tormo, Leo X, and the Two Cosimos, Princeton University Press (Princeton, New Jersey: 1984) p.87-116, 132133,134. 8 James S. Ackerman The Architecture of Michelangelo, Penguin Books (Harmondsworth: 1986) p.47. 9 Hartt notes that Michelangelo’s contemporaries and later Bocchi, Cinelli, and Richardon “agree in awareness of [the chapel’s] central allegory of the princely power of the Medici and their immortal apotheosis.” Frederick Hartt, “The Meaning of Georg Swarzenski Michelangelo’s Medici Chapel.” Essays in honor of see fn 4 and p. 145 fn. Henry For summary bibliography Regnery Co., 1951, 146. a I p. Tolnay, 61-62. 2 p. 10 Cox-Rearick p. 6 11 Hubert Damisch, discussing Krautheimer’s analysis of what the Urbino and Baltimore panels “represent,” explains how this process “amounts to situating them within another context, incribing them within another history.” The Origin of Perspective, MIT Press (Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1994) p. 200.  64  Notes: Chapter 1 Giovanni Gaeta Bertelà e Annämaria Petrioli Tofani, a cura di, Feste e Apparati Med/ce! da Gosimo I a Gosimo II. Mostra di Disegni e lnc!sioni, Leo S. Olschki Editore (Firenze:1969); Arthur Blumenthal, Giulio Parigi’s Stage Designs. Florence and the Early Baroque Spectacle, Garland Publishing, Inc. (New York:1986); Arthur Blumenthal, Theater Art of the Medici, University Press of New England (Hanover, New Hampshire:1980); Eve Borsook, “Art and Politics at the Fvledici Court I: The Funeral of Cosimo I de’Medici,” Kunst (1965) p. 31-54; Jean Jacqot, Le Lieu Théátral a Ia Renaissance, Editions du Centre National de Ia Recherche Scientifique (Paris: 1964); Andrew C. Minor and Bonner Mitchell, A Renaissance Entertainment. Festivities for the Marriage of Gosimo I, Duke of Florence, in 1539, University of Missouri Press (Columbia: 1968); Bonner Mitchell,. Italian Civic Pageantry in the High Renaissance. A Descriptive Bibliography of Triumphal Entries and Selected other Festivals for State Occasions, Leo S, Olschki Editore (Firenze:1979); Bonner Mitchell, The Majesty of the State. Triumphal Progresses of Foreign Sovereigns in Renaissance Italy (1494-1600), Leo Olschki Editore (Firenze:1 986); A. M. Nagler, Theatre Festivals of the Medici, 1539-1637, Yale University Press (New Haven:1964); Roy Strong, Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals 1450-1650, The Boydell Press (WoódridgeSuffolk: 1984) 2 Strong, 1984, p.126. 3 Kennard, p. 61. 4 Kennard, p. 62. 5 Kennard, p. 31-34 6 The vernacular word piazza derives from the Latin platea, cited as the The Medieval space. Richard Southern, “Place of ordinary people” or popular Theatre in the Round: A Study of the Staging of the Castle of Perserverance and Related Matters. Faber and Faber (London: 1975) p. 100-101. 7 Peter Burke, The Italian Renaissance. Culture and Society in Italy. Polity Press (Cambridge: 1986) p. 78 182, fn 63. Also see Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World. Indiana University Press (Bloomington: 1984) p. 7. 8 Giorgio Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects in Four Volumes. Dent (London: 1966) p. 168. 9 John Shearman, Only Connect: Art and the Spectator in the Italian Renaissance. Princeton University Press (Washington D.C.: 1992) p.172. 10 Having come to power through political manouvering, the Medici were not condottieri, in contrast with other centres, so that such tournaments were particularly artificial. p. 83. 11 Carlo Falconi, Leone X. Giovanni de’Medici. Rusconi (Milano: 1987) p. 80. 12 Kennard, p. 31- 34 Lorenzo ii Magnifico wrote texts for lauds and sacre rappresentazionL 13 Falconi, p. 76-87. 14 Strong, 1984, p.11. 1  65  See Strong, 22-28. 18 Bonino, p. 14-15. 17 Bonino, p. 30. 18 As for example in the reports,from Chiericati to Isabella d’Este on the 1513 Investiture ceremonies and from England in 1516 and 1517. 19 A Medici, Lorenzo PUCCi, became the Pope’s principle advisor and “organizer of festivities” (Pastor p. 82-84) until a few years later when Giulio overtook this role. p. 86. 20 The possession of the Lateran was delayed until Easter Saturday to contribute to the Pope’s self fashioning as Christ, a date usually related to the Leo’s superstition, his good luck associated with his captivity by the French during Easter. 21 Pastor, p. 73. On March 12, 1514, the Portuguese embassy was received in an elaborate procession which included as a gift the famous white elephant later painted by Raphael in the Vatican. (Pastor, p.74-75) It seems to me that this is the ceremony for which the commemorative vessel would have been produced, and not ;he 1515 entrata, as discussed by Shearman. See his appendix. John Shearman, “The Florentine Entrata of Leo X, 1515.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Vol. 38, 1975, P. 136-154. 22 Shearman, 1975, p. 47- 49. 23 Cox-Rearick, p. 32-33. The date of the feast day was September 27. 24 This conflation was fostered by an increase in the number of hospitals constructed during the Medici papacies. Peter Partner, Renaissance Rome. 15001559. University of California Press (Berkeley: 1976) p 106-107. 25 Cox-Rearick, 38-39. As seen in Eufrosino Bonino’s Comedia di lust/cia, “one of the first Florentine plays written after the restoration.” Cox-Rearick, p.33. 26 For example in Aristophanes Nubi. Alessandro Parronchi, “Prima Rappresentazione della Mandragola: II Modello per l’Apparato.. .“ La Bibliofilia, Vol.64 (1962) p. 65. In addition, the use of the vernacular language contributed to the ‘contemporaneity’ of new plays as suggested by Machiavelli. See Bonino, p.40. 27 Parronchi, p. 57. Renaissance playwrights associated characters with living people. If Machiavelli’s Maschere and Ariosto’s Negromante were too explicit in their references, plays toward the end of the decade refined the satirical associations, presenting a more veiled ‘irony’ (Parronchi, p. 65), one in which the spectator’s ability to read between the lines contributed to his or her pleasure and participation in the theatrical game. 28 A plaque on the gate states LEO.X. PRIMVS INFLORCENTE EXNOBILIS SIIv1AMEDICAR FAMILIA PONT -MAX.BONO - NIAM PROFICISCENS FLOR.PATRIAM PRIMV INEOHONORE SVAM INTRAVIT DIRVTA - HVIVS MURI PARTE MAGNIFICENTISSIMOQ RER OMNIVMAPPAR ATV ETLETISSIMO TO TIVS CIVITATIS PLAVSV EXCEPTVS DIE XXX, NOVEMBRIS M.D.XV. PONT.SVI ANO Ill 29 Shearman, 1975, p.142-i 43. There were numerous sources from which the organizers could draw including carnival celebrations, in particular, the 1515 Roman Festa de Agoni, in which a series of carri illustrated the “the attributes of the Leonine 15  -  .  -  ,  66  pontificate.” Shearman also points to the entry of Francis I into Lyons as another source. 30 Shearman, 1975, p.140. 31 Shearman, 1975, p.140. 32 Hercules was a symbol of virtus in the Florentine entrata. Shearman, 1975, p. 150, tn 41. In one of the Sistine tapestries, Hercules supports a Medicean globe. 33 There was also an arcus quadriphrons erected at the corner of the Bischuri. Shearman, 1975, p.146 and fn 30. The structures contributed to Leo’s self image as the Christ pope according to Castiglione ‘s account of the Leo’s entrance to Florence as “Christ’s entry into Jerusalem. Shearman, 1975, P. 146. 34 Many of the ideas from the portico frieze at Poggio a Calano were taken up under Leo X. The first section of the frieze implies the unity and rationality of Medici an allusion to good government with the second part the hiding of Zeus government, understood by scholars as a suggestion to the Signoria of absolute and hereditary Medici rule. Janus, the center point of the frieze, the pax medicea and the return of time can be read as a prophecy of the new age. According to Giovanni Litta Medri, the frieze connects the Neoplatonic theme of the return of the soul to the return of the Medici, seen in the medals of Lorenzo and Giovanni. (Pogglo a Caiano) 35 Shearman, among others, suggests that the design may have stimulated the projects for San Lorenzo. 1975, p. 147, fn 33. 36 Skinner, The Age of Princes in The Italian Renaissance, p. 126. Patrizi’s text was dedicated to “Pope Sixtus IV in the 1470’s,” p. 117. 37 Cox-Rearick, p. 35. 38 The conflation of the entrata with the return of the Medici was already laid out in the Sistine tapestries where three of Leo’s own entries are woven into the borders of the fabric. (Cox-Rearick, p. 30) The importance of the 1512 return with that of Cosimo in 1434, is seen in the fresco painted above Raphael’s Death of Anias in the Vatican, and in Pietro Bartoli’s print, (fig. 56) both copied from one of the tapestry ‘returns.’ Florence, standing beside the Arno, reaches out for the Pope, then Cardinal Giovanni. See Matthias Winner, “Cosimo ii Vecchio als Cicero. Humanistisches in Francabigios Fresko zu Poggio a Caiano.” Zeitschrift Für Kunstgeschichte. München: Deutscher Kunstverlag, V. 33, 1970. Winner links this theme to the return of Cicero, p. 268. 39 Cox-Rearick, p. 36. 40 Nardi’s song for the entrata was “Trionfo della Fama, e della Gloria” Cox-Rearick, p.36. 41 Cox Rearick, p.35. 42 Bertelli links the encircling of the city during Leo’s entrata with the funerary procession of Giuliano which replicates the route, (although in the opposite direction). He suggests the map around the center of the city was intended to be read as a Medici ring, a kind of diamante. Sergio Bertelli II Corpo del re. Sacralitâ del potere neIl’Europa medie vale e moderna. Ponte alle Grazie. 1990, p.68-69. 43 Fabrizio Cruciani, .“Gli Allestimenti Scenici di Baldassare Peruzzi.” --  --  ,  .  67  Bollettino del Centro Internazionale di Stud! di Architettura Andrea PaIladlo. p. 50. 44 Magnificence 61 45 Hubert Damisch, The Origin of Perspective, MIT Press (Cambridge, p.199-211 ts: See 1994) Massachuset 46 Cesare Molinari, “Gil Spettatori e lo Spazio Scenico nel Teatro del Cinquecento.” Bollettino del Centro Internazionale di Stud! di Architettura Andrea Paliadlo. V.16, 1974. p. 146. 47 Francabigio’s Urbino and Baltimore panels, Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio’s sets for Lorenzo Strozzi’s plays, Gerolamo Genga’s backdrop of city buildings for Cardinal Bibbiena’s Ia Calandria at Urbino, and Peruzzi’s drawings are examples. 48 Zorzi cited in Carlson, p.22. 49 Linda Pellechia has recently argued that a drawing by Giuliano da Sangallo and Antonio the elder may have been intended for Lorenzo as a scheme in competition with one completed for Giuliano (whom apparently he hated) by Leonardo. The palace may have been intended to be completed for Leo’s entrata. She suggests Giuliano da Sangallo because the design seems to have been based on his own urban plan designed earlier for Lorenzo ii Magnitico, although “the all’antica villa of the early Cinquecento, by contrast [with Lorenzo’s civic plan] is a residence worthy of an emperor and reveals without subletly the monarchical aspirations of a new breed of Medici.” Henry Millon and Vittorlo Magnago Lampugnani, eds., The Renaissance from Brunellesch! to Michelangelo, Bompiani (MiIan:1994) p.673. Of particular interest here is the center cortile, surrounded by tiered stairs suggesting a kind of theatre space based on the Capitoline model. (fig.57) I 50 Carlson, p.41. 51 Alfonso Paulucci cited in Carison, p. 42. 52 Hirst, Michael. “A Note on Michelangelo and the S. Lorenzo Facade.” Art Bulletin, V. 68, n.2 (June 1985) p.323-326.  68  Notes: Chapter 2 Baldesar CastigNone, The Book of the Courtier. Doubleday (New York: 1959) p. 103. 2 Supported by the Spanish, the Medici entered Florence whose resistance was weakened by fears of the Spanish following the brutal events at Prato. (conveyed in a letter from Michelangelo to his father, E.H. Ramsden, The Letters of Michelangelo. V. 1. 1496-1534, Stanford University Press (Stanford: 1963) p. 138 Trexler and Lewis, on the other hand, suggest that the Medici were able to enter because ‘honours [they] received from “such an unquestioned noble entity as [the kingdom of Spain] provided the city with those honourific resouces. 95 3 Cited in Aifredo Bonadeo, “The ‘Grandi’ in Machiavelli’s World.” Studies in the Renaissance. Vol. 16, 1969, p. 9. This class had supported Cosimo but in 1494 they changed allegiences and supported the Republic on account of Piero de’Medici’s ungrateful years in office. The new regime followed the more broadly based Venetian system but did not provide the Ottirnati with the select control over Florentine politics which the senate provided in Venice. Pocock, p. 119. 4 Among the alliances which facilitated their return was the 1508 marriage of dance, Lorenzo ii Magnitico’s granddaughter, to Filippo Stozzi. Cox-Rearick, p. 25. 5 Vettori cited in John S A. Pocock, Machiavellian Moment. Florentine political thought through the Atlantic republican tradition, Princeton University Press, (Princeton:1975) p. 147. 6 Guicciardini, Ricordi, p. 17,115. Pocock, p.152. 7 Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Volume One: The Renaissance, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge: 1978) p. 123. 8 See Pocock, p.87-88. 9 Cited in Skinner, p. 124-1 25. 10 See Cox-Rearick p. 37-38. The yoke, a Leonine symbol of gentle rule, the peacemaker, and security, accompanies Bandinelli’s Orpheus (1516-1517) in the cortile of the Palazzo Medici. It is particularly prominent in the ceiling decoration at Pogglo a Calano and in the Vatican. 11 Under the Medici popes, many civic projects were undertaken in Rome and Florence. See for example Hubertus Günter, “Urban Planning in Rome under the Medici Popes” in Mellon, p. 550-545. In many cases the grandiosity of the schemes prohibited their completion, sometimes even their commencement. (see and Pellechia in Mellon, p.672-673) In the instance of the facade of S. Lorenzo, the pope seems to have tired of the project’s slow pace in contrast with the rapid gratification of spectacles. 12 Skinner, p. 118. 13 See Skinner, p. 132. 14 Skinner, p. 168. 15 According to Falconi, “II Gastilione rimase sempre un compiacente decoro delle manifestazioni letterarie leoniane, p. 486. 16 As Ottaviano states,: “If.... I were to tell [the Prince] freely what I think, I fear I 1  ..“  69  should soon lose that favour.” Learning and artistic endeavors, are to be undertaken, not for one’s pleasure, but for impressions. 17 Saccone in Wayne Rebhorn, Courtly Performances: Masking and Festivity in Cast!glione’s Book of the Courtier. Wayne State University Press (Detroit: 1978) p. xiv. A courtier’s success is judged through a series of performances “designed to deceive, please or astonish the audience,” by improving on nature through the art of deception. According to Saccone, sprezzatura, the art of concealing art, derives from Ovid’s “ludic perspective, the ideal of art exalting because it hides its existence.” This represented a shift from copying nature to orchestrating it, “the concept of cultus, the improvement of nature by human effort and ingenuity.” p. xiv xiv. 18 Saccone in Rebhorn, p. xv. Music for instance, is not to be played in front of large crowds or, writes Castiglione, “in the presence of persons of low birth..” Castiglione, p. 77. 19 David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Basil Blackwell (Oxford: 1989) p. 214. 20 Pocock, p. 153. 21 Machiavelli, p. 22 An effigy of Giovanni de’ Medici was added to those of his nephew and brother following his election to the papacy. Richard C.Trexler and Mary Elizabeth “Two Captains and Three Kings: New Lewis, Light on the the Medi’ Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History. Vol. IV Vancouver: The University of British Columbia, 1981. p. 95-96. 23 Mitchell, Bonner. Italian Civic Pageantry in the High Renaissance. A Descriptive Bibliography of Triumphal Entries and Selected other Festivals for State Occasions. Leo S, Olschki Editore (Firenze: 1979) p.38 24 “According to Vasari, Lorenzo chose the broncone as his device, “per rnostrare che rinfrescava e risurgeva II nome deli’ avolo” (to signify that he was reviving and restoring the name of his grandfather.) cited in Cox- Rearick, p.25-26. 25 Cox- Rearick, p. 26. 20 Vasari, Le Vite, v.5, p. 312-313. 27 Vasari, p.312-313 The themes paraded in the 1513 carnival floats included illustrious ancestors, a new Golden age, triumph and peace, displayed in a programme directed toward legitimizing (ultimately dynastic) Medici rule. The restoration is paramount in Giovio’s poem for the event. He explains Leo’s anima Glovis, as si voig[ej Glory, Fame, Honor, Victory, Justice, and Wisdom. Cox Rearick, p. 27-30. The emphasis on rebirth and the cyclical, and the passage of time are seen in numerous images commissioned by Leo. See Cox-Rearick, esp. p. 30. The presence of the laurel in Leonine imagery stresses, to paraphrase Cox the inevitablity of Medici regenereration (p. 30-31). See Pastor regarding the humanists on the 1513 processions p. 42. 28 Guicciardini discussed in Pocock, p.149. 29 See letter of 1514 in Pastor, p. 80. Guicciardini’s writings convey the shifting relationship between Florentines and the Medici during these years. Guicciardini’s pessimism is reflected in his advice to Lorenzo, where, like Vettori, he ,  -  ,  70  recommends building an army from the con tado with as many urban nobles in charge as possible. From the Discorsi, cited in Bonadec, p. 27. 30 See Bonino, p.72-75. The date of the event from which Lorenzo and Leo were absent, was September 13- 14, 1513. Both were also made citizens of Venice in October 17, 1512. 31 Stinger, p. 140. 32 Stinger, p. 140 and p.151 regarding the 1515 statue of Jove. The imperial and Florentine themes of the performances seems intended to underline the sirnUarity between the pretense of sovereignty in Rome with that of Florence, both cities controlled by the Medici Pope. 33 Stinger, p.151. 34 Stinger, p.147. 35 The coins are evidence, according to Winner, that Giuliano is being presented as a new Cicero. See Winner. One of the medals minted for the event, (n.183, Bargello) reads MAGNVS IVLIANVS MEDICES with Rome on the reverse while another, shows Virtue extending a hand to Fortune/Peace who gives him a cornucopia, themes similar to to those fabricated for Leo. The theme of Medici claims to peaceful rule is prevalent throughout Leonine imagery. 36 Charles Stinger, “The Campidoglio as the Locus of Renovatlo imperil in Renaissance Rome.” Art and Politics in Late Medieval and Early Renaissance Italy: 1250-1500. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, p. 144. 37 Stinger, 149-150 38 Stinger, p.145. 39 Stinger, p. 148. 40 Paolo Palliolo cited in Pastor, p. 31. “Ira gil lauri di Apollo et gig!i...orzde Cosimo, patre della patria, ritornô in cielo et hora, con Tervente amore et pietate di essa, incende gil suoi nepoti.” 41 The Pope who was not present for the two days of ceremonies, but he had the expensive proceedings (6000 ducats), which included a performance of poenulus by Plautus, entirely restaged soon after inside the Vatican. Pastor, p.169. 42 Pastor 169 43 Stinger, p.147. 44 Cox-Rearick, p. 33. 45 Giuliano never received the title, nor was Lorenzo formally invested with the title Duke of Urbino. Lorenzo was never captain of the churches troops, as believed by Tolnay and Hartt. He was named by Leon “Duke of Urbino, Lord of Pesaro and Prefect of the city of Rome... But the ceremony never took place” as Trexier and Lewis show, “Lorenzo never received the scepter of Urbino.” p. 99 fn 18. 46 The chronicler Cambi recorded the republican transfer stating, he “took the baton of the militia of the Florentine popolo.” Trexler and Lewis citing Cambi, p. 102. 47 Albertini’s comments cited in Trexier and Lewis, p. 102. According to Trexier and Lewis, the baton actually limited Lorenzo’s ability to “establish a lordship in Florence.. .[driving] him to the idea of giving up the captain-generalcy altogether and 71  seeking his fortune elsewhere.” p. 103. In accordance with their interpretation of Medici respect for the Republic during the years of the return, the authors view this event as an an effective demonstration of the citys sovereignty. 48 Guicciardini, p. 357. 49 According to Pastor, “They appealed to Leo, who upheld Paris’s decision. The Gonfaloniere and Priori sulked appallingly, refusing to greet the cardinals at Porta San Piero Gattonlini.” fn 56 p. 152. “U quail Signor! furno indiferentia con gil Car. Ii perche coleano andare a cavallo a paro a loro: ma ii maestro do le Cerernonie Ii fece star’ quiete avanti. et drieto.” From Chiericati’s correspndence to Isabella, Pastor, p. 152. Trexler and Lewis view Leo’s caution during the entrata as respect for the citVs sovereignty, arguing that Leo governed through the city’s civic institutions rather than “lording it over them.” p.97-98. 50 The importance of the theme is attested to by the numerous representations of entrate including those in the borders of Raphael’s contemporary tapestries. (fig. 56) 51 Sergio Bertelli, II Corpo del re. Sacralità del potere nell’Europa medievale e moderna. Ponte alle Grazie. (1990) p. 31. 52 Comparsero p01 tutti I Magistrati, le Art! [...J furonvi due a cavailo copertati, abe porta vane le bandiere della Signoria e della parte, e postisi a sedere i pro fat! Magistrati, uscI fuori Lorenzo con II capperruccione [sic?] imbastito con tutta Ia famiglia del Duca et di Madonna vestit a bruno con cappuccioni ancor loro e posti adedere M. Marcello Adriani fece l’oratione funerale in laude do! defunto, Ia quale fornita seguirno tutte Jo religioni et dora [...J seguiva I’elmetto del duca pratato in sur una mazza da un ragazzo 1...]. Feciono Ia via de’fondamenti. [doe contornarono II duornol “a! palaglo del podestâ, el piazza, di mercatonuovo, da S. Trinita, dalla piazza degil Antinori, da S. Maria Maggiore of borgo san Lorenzo e finalment in S. Lorenzo.” Bertelli citing Moreni p. 68-69. 53 In order to reduce the baton’s significance for Giuliano (arguing that the bastoniere in the Medici chapel is Lorenzo) Trexler and Lewis claim that the baton was covered up with black taffetta as a concession to Florentine sovereignty, p. 113,114. See Chapter 3, fn. 54 Bertelli, p. 69. 55 Bertelli, p. 68-69. 56 Pastor, p. 209. 57 Leo nominated 27 wealthy men to the purple. Pastor, p.197, 199-202. 31 were finally elected in spite of opposition and apparently in fear of the Pope. Pastor, p. 200. 58 Encouraged by Leo, Ariosto’s following play Negromante was soon rejected for the satirical approach to indulgences (Falconi, p.173), the means which Leo had invented to pay for the excesses of his papacy notably the war at Urbino. Ariosto, who had come to Rome following Leo’s election, met with dissapointment. Pastor, p. 20. Pasquinades against the dead Pope were rampant. “Roma trinofa ormal, Leone e moflo” and “Volete sapere perché Leone non poté ricevere i sacrament!? Li aveva vendufi” are examples of the critiques. A prohibition on the printing of pasquinades . . .  -  was followed in 1519, with a the “soppressione della festa annuale della statua” because this was the day in which the majority of critiques were presented. Falcone, p.434. 59 Pocock, p.149. Leo’s increasing military activity and Lorenzo’s insecure position within the country were noted by Guicciardini and Lodovico Amanni. Pocock, p. 151-152. 60 Machiavelli’s Maschere (1504) had been destroyed by his grandson on account of the play’s criticism of contemporary political figures. Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa, eds.. The Portable Machiavelli. Penguin Books Ltd (Harmondsworth: 1983) p. 430. 61 For criticism of this view see Bondanelli and Musa, p.431. 62 See Cox-Rearick.  73  Notes: Chapter 3 1 Machiavelli, The Prince, p.34. 2 Initially Michelangelo was commissioned as part of a team including J. Sansovino. 3 According to Condivi “... the Cardinal de’Medici, ..did not want him to go, and, to keep him occupied and to have some pretext, he set him to work on the vestibule of the Medici Library in S. Lorenzo and also on the sacristy with the tombs of his ancestors...” Ascanlo Condivi, The Life of Michelangelo, (Louisiana State University Press Baton Rouge: 1976) p. 63. Also see Falconi, p. 438-439. 4 Although the Sacristy was the term used for the commission by Figiovanni, (“ Ia libreria et Ia sacrestia in cornpangnia di quella gia [fatta]...” Gino Corti, “U na Ricordanza di Giovan Battista Figiovanni,” Paragone, Vol. 175, 1964, p.27.) there was no intention of using the room as a sacristy according to L. Ettinger, “The Liturgical Functions of Michelangelo’s Medici Chapel.” Florence. Kunsthistorisches lnstitut. V. 22 no.3 (1978) p. 287. 5 Ettlinger, p. 294. These probably commenced in 1545, when the chapel was opened to the public. See Howard Burns for his suggestion that the same liturgical practice was performed in the main church. “San Lorenzo in Florence Before the Building of the New Sacristy: An Early Plan. Florence. Kunsthistorisches Institut v. 23 no.1-2 (1979) p. 150. 6 The lion’s headdress worn by the Pensoso refers to Leo X and to the Florentine marzocco, ubiquitous in Leonine return imagery and found in the decorations on the two theatre entrances in the Florentine entrata and on the façade of the Capitoline theatre in Rome. At the same time, the costume refers to Hercules, a Leonine image familiar from the borders of Raphael’s tapestries and the 1515 entrata in which Bandinelli’s illusionistic bronze oversaw the proceedings from the Loggia de’Lanzi. (figs. 5,6) As if restating the juxtaposition of Hercules and the Janian arcus quadriphrons, seen in the piazza della Signoria, the Janian design of the chapel, intimated by the impression of intersecting arches, is suggestive of the myth of Hercules at the crossroads. According to the legend, Hercules chooses virtue over vice and his immortality is assured by Fame and Time, central figures in the chapel scheme. Hercules was a familiar Medicean symbol, seen at Poggio a Calano on the portico frieze. His lion skin contributed to Leo’s conflated self-identification with both Hercules and Florence’s patron saint, S. Giovanni Battista (also his name saint) and to the symbol of Florence, the marzocco. 7 In the Palazzo del Conservator! Rome, several late imperial statues (discovered in the temple of Minerva Medica, 4rth c. AD) of Roman magistrates are represented with mappae. Using the map to signal the commencement of games was a duty established during the Roman Republic which continued under the emperors as a symbolic function. The idea that the Pensoso is holding a mappa, is a suggestion of Richard C.Trexler and Mary Elizabeth Lewis, “Two Captains and Three Kings: New Light on the the Medici Chapel,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History. Vol. I’!, Vancouver: The University of British Columbia, (1981) p. 115. 8 Panofsky, “The Neoplatonic Movement and Michelangelo,” Studies in .  ,  74  Iconology. Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. New York: Harper and Row (1962) p. 205. 9 Panofsky is incorrect, it seems to me, in his association of time with the level of human existence: “the only sphere subject to time” (1962, p.205) According to Petrarch’s Trionfi, an important source for the chapel’s narrative, time is not related to the level of human existence but to eternity. Time continues after death, triumphing over Fame. Also see Chapter 3 below. 10 Panofsky,1962, p.206. 11 Panofsky, 1962, p.208. 12 Panofsky, 1962, p. 208-209. 13 Charles de Tolnay, The Medici Chapel, Princeton University Press (Princeton: 1970) p. 84 and “Nouvelles Remarques,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts) p. 7677. Neoplatonic scholars interpret the fresco decoration and the pendentive zone as the celestial sphere. (Tolnay, 1966, p.77) Panofsky, separating the sculpture from the architecture) considers the fourth zone of the tomb as “the supercelestial sphere above the celetial.” (Panofsky,1962, p. 212) Among the problems of a Neoplatonic interpretation of the chapel is the contradiction between the sculptural and architectural zones. According to Ficino, a Neoplatonic universe had five levels, more easily seen in the vertical architectural zones of the chapel than in the sculptural program, usually interpreted as four zones by scholars. 14 Hartt, 1951, fn 2, p. 146. Hartt states “it would be remarkable if their supposed Neoplatonic significance had eluded a humanist like Varchi, on whom at least one modern champion of Neoplatonic interpretations depends for much of his evidence.” p. 153. See also fn 41 and 43. 15 Ettlinger, p. 287-304. Ettlinger links the proposal for an arcus quadriphrons with Clement’s 1532 papal bull stipulating uninterupted prayers, (see in particular p. 291 and 294-298) which he links to the figures of the times of day. Ettlinger presents the chapel as a representation of a Iaus perennis, recited by a kneeling priest who like “the duchi are turned in [the Virgin’s] direction.” (p.300) However, even were the priest to kneel on a bench in order to see over the high altar, the two Medici are not turned toward the Virgin but toward the entrata as Creighton Gilbert demonstrates. While the patrons may have been thinking of the chapel’s liturgical function as a site for uninterrupted psalter readings before the bull provided for them, the late date of the bull (1532) relative to the design of the chapel (the tombs of the captains were essentially unaltered from the 1521 designs despite the chapel’s slow physical completion) seems curious as one would imagine Clement VII, who had pressed for the rapid completion of the chapel, to have more quickly taken advantage of his election to assure funding for the chapel’s liturgical rites. 15 Following the death of Leo in 1521 and the election of Hadrian to the papacy, the absence of papal funding slowed progress on the chapel. Nevertheless, the Cardinal directed Michelangelo to devise “qualche buona risoluzione da far presto dette sepulture”. In order to speed things up, Michelangelo prepared plaster and wood models for assistants to execute. Michelangelo’s letter to Giovanni Francesco Fattucci. Milanesi, p.421 n.CCCLXXIX. 17 Morrogh’s position seems curious here, given his analysis of drawings of 75  the sepoitura which included effigies of the elder men. He also suggests that as the design progressed, Michelangelo reduced the figures as the scheme became increasingly architectonic. Andrew Morrogh, “The Magnifici Tomb: A Key Project in Michelangelo’s Architectural Career,” Art Bulletin, V.74, n. 4 (1992) p. 586. Trexler and Lewis, p. 121. 18 Frederick Ham, 1951, p.145-15. 19 Trexier and Lewis, p.99, fn 18. 20 “Day and Night speak and say: “We, in our swift course, have led Duke Giuliano to his death..” James, M. Saslow, The Poetry of Michelangelo: An Press (New Haven:1991) p.84, no.14. Annotated Translation. Yale University 21 see Tolnay 1970, p.143. Trexler and Lewis propose a complicated explanation for the reversal of identities in which the Pensoso was reidentifled as Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de’Medici, positioned above the hated Alessandro whom the former had assassinated. (Both Lorenzo and Alessandro were found interred in the tomb under the Pensoso when it was opened in 1875.) See p. 146-160, esp. p.159. 22 Trexler and Lewis, p. 97,104,105. Trexler and Lewis reject the political posturing of Medici spectacles, characterizing them as “ephemeral [festivities] which exceeded the bounds of good taste,” in contrast with the chapel -- “an enduring designed with respect for monument of fundamental political significance” Florentine sovereignty. (p. 112) Yet these temporary festivals were the media through which the Medici established their authority, more explicitly signifying their dominant political role. Designed to amaze spectators on one level, humanists scripted coded subtexts for the initiated, vehicles for securing a coterie of supporters privileged by their insider knowledge, further entrenching Medici control of the oligarchic government. Paralleling the Medici’s fostering of an increasingly hierarchical organization of the government structure, spectacles cultivated distinctions of class, entrenching the new order, presenting Lorenzo and Leo as following the death of Lorenzo, “princes.” Not only an ephemeral illusion, Guicciardini further affirmed the Pope’s “piena autorità svpra lo stato di Firenze .“ Cited in Cox-Rearick, p. 25. 23 Glucciardini cited In Cox-Rearick, p. 24. 24 “Ic son certo che Ia M. V. horma! debbe conoscere Jo condition! et apet!ti di çodesti cittadini et io non per ricordare ma per discorrere of ape titi di codesti cittadini èt io non per ricordare, ma per discorrere judico che due cose sieno ad proposito of costino poco et possino giovare assai, l’una qualche ceremonia exteriore cdi affabil!tâ et gratitudine di parole de le quail no sarel liberale ....“ Cardinal Giullo de’Medici to Lorenzo de Medici, from Rome, 1514 February 11. Cited in Pastor, Vol. VII, p,80. Medici spectacles were calculated to enable some expression of sovereignty, providing a kind of vent for vestigial resistance, but such allowances were often subtly (or openly) undermined. For example Leo reversed the Roman republican ceremony turning it into an expression of imperial renovatlo. For the 1515 entrata where the members of the Signoria removed the gates to Florence rather than provide Leo with the keys as a symbolic expression of sovereignty but the event was orchestrated such that these Florentine officials were relegated to a ,  --  ,  ,  --  --  76  secondary position within the procession. 25 Cox-Rearick, p. 235. See p.235-236. Why Vasari would later reverse his identification in his biography of Michelangelo, and in his frescoes from the Palazzo Vscchio (in which Giuliano is the one of the two illustrated with a baton) however, remains unclear. While Vasari may have based the painting on the Bastoniere, the sculpture could have served as a model of an ideal leader, suggesting the pose, rather than a model of family resemblance. Given the contemporary dating of the two paintings, it is equally possible Vasarrs investigations of the Bastoniere were the source for his contemporary painting of Lorenzo ii Magnifico thereby linking the elder Lorenzo with his son Giuliano, as represented by Michelangelo. The painting of Alessandro by Vasari, would thus resemble the painting of Lorenzo ii Magnifico, (figs. 21-22) associating the Duke with his esteemed grandfather rather than the relatively insignificant younger Lorenzo. The two portraits, of which the Magnhtico appears to have been intended to accompany Pontormo’s painting of Cosimo ii Vecchio, would have cast Alessandro as the dynastic successor to the Medici crown, undermining the references to the younger Cosimo as suggested by Cox-Rearick for Pontormo’s painting. Cox-Rearick, p.30. 26 See for example, Tolnay, 1970, p.27-28,124. A drum on the exterior, partially squared by corner buttresses, corresponds to a pendentive zone on the interior. In addition, the quattrocento blind arcading and window frames which continue around two sides of the chapel suggest an earlier date although, as Tolnay noted, the foliage on the consoles of the chapel cladding are different to those on the body of the church. Rejecting an existing building, in part on the basis of a tiny sketch by Leonardo of S. Lorenzo (c.1502) with no existing chapel, Johannes Wilde argues that the building and sculptural programme were conceived together, the changes on the building’s exterior, a result of a change of plan for the interior tombs. “Michelangelo’s designs for the Medici Tombs,” Michelangelo. Six lectures by Johannes Wilde. Clarendon Press (Oxford: 1978) p. 54-66. Wilde’s explanation of the early building history is corroborated, in part, by the discovery of a plan (c.1500) with no indication of a chapel to the north. H. Burns, 1970. Caroline 8am rejects Wildes’ conclusions on the grounds of his interpretation positing “an impossibly late date for the design of the building, [which] makes the stylistic contrast between marble and pietra serena on the interior seem almost wilful.” C. 8am, “The Site and Early Building History of rvlichelangelo’s New Sacristy,” Florence. Kunsthistorisches Institut v. 23 no.1-2 (1979) p. 157. Although the extent of the change in the pietra serena proposed by Wilde has been mitigated by Elam’s presentation and documents, it seems to me that Wildes’ interepretation has not been entirely refuted. See my For further discussion on the discussion in Chapter 3 and fn. 28, and 31 below. building’s history see Ettlinger; Howard Saalman, “The New Sacristy of San Lorenzo before Michelangelo,” Art Bulletin, V. 67. n. 2. ,1985, p.199-228. 27 Elam, p.173. James Ackerman reversed his position from Tolnay’s (in favour of an existing building) with the discovery of the Figiovanni ricordanze and Elam’s conclusions in his 1986 edition: The Architecture of Michelangelo. Penguin Books (Harmondsworth: 1986). See p.296-297. 28 Saalman’s conclusions reconcile Vasari’s statement that “[Michelangelo] 77  wanted to make it in imitation of the old sacristy” with payments for land for the amplification of the existing structure: “dua case della famiglia de’ Nelli et delle mura della ctiiesa da qualla parte dove Ia sacrestia far si doveva,” (cited in Ackerman, 1986, p. 296-297) “pro ampliatione novi sacraril ecclesie S. Laurentii.” (Saalman, 1985, p. 207) According to Saalman, Figiovanni’s use of ampliatlo refers to spatial enlargement rather than width as translated by Elam.(Saalman pp. 207-208) The increase in the interior width was minimal (40 cm.), but the relative enlargement of the dome would have justified the change. Howard Saalman, 1985, p. 217. It is not clear why the corbels on the west side of the chapel, extended c. 1519-1520 according to Saalman (p.214), would correspond to those on the north and east sides, constructed 0.1490 (p.222). 29 Sheryl E. Reiss, “The Ginori Corridor of San Lorenzo and the Building History of the New Sacristy,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, V.52, n.3 (September 1993) p.339-343. 30 Figiovanni, in Corti, p. 27. 31 As has been suggested by Saalman among others, the Stimmate chapel which is situated under the New Sacristy was completed before the 1519 project commenced. Elam argues against “an hypothetical pre-existing structure” preferring to explain the design of the plan following an “initial conservatism on the part of the patron.” p.162. Yet the crypt walls extend several feet above the surrounding grade and appear to be constructed contemporaneously with the foundations of the church. The draftsperson of the Venice plan included none of the existing stairs to the entrance of S. Lorenzo, nor stairs which. would have been required up to the Ginori entrance from the piazza, thus a crypt beneath the Androne is entirely possible. Leonardo’s tiny sketch (c.1502) suggests that there was a platform above grade where the New Sacristy was to be conétructed. (The unusual pier in the center of the Stimmate chapel could have been added to support the heavier load of Michelangelo’s design, perhaps considered at the time of the plans for a central tomb.) Given the thickness of the walls of the Stimmate chapel (see Wilde, fn 3, p.57), there must have been plans to construct a building which corresponded to some extent with the Old Sacristy, as Saalman has shown, the final structure positioned further to the west than originally conceived. Saalman (1985) fig. 16, p.212. 32 Elam, p.163. 33 See Ackerman, p.88-89. According to Ackerman, “the loss of architectural coherence in the final design suggests that Michelangelo was concerned primarily with the sculpture.” 1986, p. . The artisVs “metamorphosis from sculptor to architect, 89 he posits, “was not fully consummated in the design of the Medici chapel.” p.78. Morrogh essentially redefines this position in his interpretation of the drawings for the chapel as evidence of Michelangelo’s development as an architect. See p. 567-598, esp. p. 586. 34 This conflation was central to Leonine imagery as woven into the borders of the Sistine tapestries and as propagated in Medici spectacles. See Chapters one and two above. 35 Ackerman, p.78. In Elam’s discussion and criticism of Wilds’s interpretation 78  of the chapel’s early building history, she cites Wilde’s insistence that the “chapel and tombs must have been conceived together,” stating that this “involves. .an impossibly late date for the design of the building, and makes the stylistic contrast between marble and pietra serena on the interior seem almost willful.” Elam, p.156-157’. As my discussion will posit, this last point as presented by Wilde, is arguably true (see below). At the outset, Michelangelo intended to design a central monument independent from the architecture, the. adoption of the Janus arch framework in 1521 for the elevation walls, as Tolnay convincingly argues, and visual evidence corroborates, supports Wilde’s hypothesis regarding a change. Moreover, the interior design and the exterior adjustments would be more easily explained if the attic storey was added to the design at this time. 36 Summers, 1981, p. 88. Al.berti preferred a ‘baser’ art which was intended for everyone, “[advocating] a kind of painting based on Ciceronian rhetoric rather than medieval poetics, [and viewing] such ornament as excessive.” Summers,1981, p. 91. The retention of the qua ttrocento framework has been viewed by Ackerman as “patriotic...evoking recollections of the days of leadership and liberty.” 1986, p.270. Regarding Michelangelo’s invenzioni: “the fantasy,” as Ackerman states, is always strictly disciplined by the realization that its effect depends on the variation of traditional forms that would be lost if these were abandoned for uncontrolled innovation.” 1986, p.90. For the chapel’s relation to Mannerism see Rudolf Wittkower, “Michelangelo’s Biblioteca Laurenziana.” The Art Bulletin v. 16,June 1934, p.123-218. Pevsner “The Architecture of Mannerism.” John Shearman, Mannerism, London: Penguin Books, 1990. 37 And with the Cardinal’s alternative of an arcus quadriphrons to Michelangelo’s central monument (around which four tombs could be more easily arranged), the list of ancestors would have been extended to include Janus. The Cardinal’s suggestion would have taken up less visual space in the chapel, enabling one to see through the monument from the altar, while providing a site for the Cardinal’s own tomb under the crossing. The idea for the arch was first suggested by Cardinal Giulio in a letter to Michelangelo (15 june 1520) “fussi da fare mel mezzo un archo che trasforassi, che verrebe a essër in ogni faccia uno archo, e intersecherebbonsi I! aditi di quest! arch! mel mezzo e passerebbes! sotto.” Tolnay posits that the departure from the tradition of niche tombs in Michelangelo’s wall designs comes from the transferring of his ideas for a central monument to the wall, 1970, p.37. The decision to return to wall tombs where the figure is buried under an arch in the wall followed an essentially “medieval conception” as seen in S. Maria Novella. Rudolf Wittkower, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism. p. 33. While the central structure was rejected, the Roman arch became the basis of the design for the wall tombs. The allusion to Janus, an important figure in Medici imagery, expands the ancestral theme already delineated in the pietra serena framework of S. Lorenzo to the Pope’s Etruscan alter ego. The two-faced Janus, who looks to the past and toward the future, bridges the disjuncture of the Medici past with the future in the image of the Pope. Janus, the central figure of the portico frieze at Poggio a Caiano, “not only sets time in motion and looks to east and west but who, according to tradition, knew the past and could forsee the future.. .in his temple [of 79  time] with Lorenzo and his villa suggests that the progression from the chaos implicit in the first panel to the order, peace, and prosperity of the last panels is a function of Medici rule.” Cox-Rearick, p. 81. And Saturn and Janus, as represented in the 1512 broncone pageant, have been linked by Cox-flearick to Pontormo’s Vertumnus and Pomona fresco in the Salone. p. 134. The allusions to Janus align the project with earlier symbolic manifestations, as seen in Leo’s entrata to Florence, and in the 1513 Capitoline ceremonies in which the first Florentine Pope was cast as the founder of Tuscany. The Leo-Janus parallel was the basis for decorations and rappresentazioni proclaiming the linked dynasties of Rome and Florence through Tuscan supremacy including the arts of theatre, stagecraft, and liturgical practices. 38 Wilde shares Tolnay’s impression of the chapel as a hermetically sealed crypt: “from the moment when the real door is shut and the spectator has attained the right orientation, “it is impossible to observe which is the point of ingress or egress.” Wilde, p. 64. This view is rejected by Gilbert who points to the carving and the font which distinguishes the entrance door from the other seven doors. He suggests Tolnay’s disorientation is compounded by the circuitous modern entrance to the chapel. p.401-402. Gilbert views the four functioning doors as ‘assisting orientation’ by “forming wings to the Dukes’ two tombs.” Gilbert, p.401. 39 Ackerman posits that the change from an ABA organization of the walls was given up when Michelangelo decided to add an extra story and crowd the design with the pietra serena piers, 1986, p. 82-89. 40 Ackerman, p.90. 41 The two sources for the tombs to which scholars most frequently refer, are Sansovino’s tombs at S. Maria del Popolo, Rome, and Rosellino’s project for Cardinal Jacopo de Portugal at S. Miniato al Monte, Florence, both cited for their formal integration between the architecture and the tomb. In his discussion of the latter, Tolnay suggests the putti who sit on the tombs may have been the source for the figures of night and day. 1966, p.66. The source even explains, he states, the position of the river gods following the figures on the bas relief base and the relation between the earthly soul and paradise. 1966, p.66-67. 42 In the Rossellino tomb, the Portugese Cardinal lies on his sarcophagus with his eyes open. Nevertheless, he seems unaware of any spectators, contemplating as it were, his apotheosis to another sphere. 43 Based on these papal precedents, Hartt suggests the unusual ‘living’ representation of the captains is the result of their papal offices. (1951) p.153. 44 It was out of this context which as Kantorowitz explains “the juridical tenets concerning the “Kings two Bodies” achieved their final formulation.” The Kings two Princeton Uneiversity Press I Bodies. A Study in Mèdiaeval Political Theology, (Princeton: 1957) p. 432. p. 436. In Italy, the notion of “Man’s Two Bodies” is enunciated in Dante’s commedia where Virgil crowns the poet stating,” TE SOPRA TE corona e mitrio.” The visual implication of this line, in which the image of one’s body can be imagined outside of its physical existence became a focus of Neoplatonic philosophy where the image of one’s earthly body contrasts with the “Dignity of Man” which “never dies.” See Kantorowitz, p. 493 -494. 80  45 Although kings died,  they were granted the comfort of being told that at least “as King” they “never died.” Kantorowitz, p. 437. An example of the transference of power from the public piazza to the tomb was orchestrated by Sabbioneta Vespasiano Gonzaga in 1591. He requested that a bronze sculpture of his ‘body be relocated from the city’s piazza to his sarcophagus “nel gesto del adlocutlo del principe pacificatore... “, (Leoni Leone 1588) Bertelil explains the duke’s image as “Ia rnaestà in faldistorlo.” Bertelli, p.203. 46 Bertelli, p. 203. 47 For Kantorowitz, the two bodies are “strong contrasts of fictious immortality and man’s geniune mortality, contrasts which the Renaissance, through its insatiable desire to immortalize the individual by any contrivable tour de force, not only failed to mitigate but rather intensified...” p.436. 48 Creighton E. Gilbert, “Texts and Contexts of the Medici Chapel.” The Art Quarterly. V. 34, n. 4, 1971, p. 397. In fact, the Bastoniere looks past the visitor, slightly above rather than directly at the door. From the door, one can’t actually see his head. According to Gilbert’s interpretation, the figures’ “mask..Iike” faces do not see us, but hear us, like “the figure of Homer in Rapheal’s Parnassus.” p. 404. 49 Saslow, p. 36. The notion that stone figures could come to life was a common trope. Vasari’s partisan anecdote relates how a block of marble for Michelangelo’s proposed Hercules slaying Cacaus fell into the Arno en route from Carrara. “After being destined for the genius of Michelangelo, [it] had learned that it was to be mauled by Baccio and in despair had cast itself into the river. E.H. Ramsden The Letters of Michelangelo. V. 1. 1496-1534. Stanford University Press (Stanford:1963) p.272. Michelangelo, responding to the Cardinal Giulio’s request for a colossus to be situated near the Medici palace, sarcastically suggested that it could be made to cry out. Letter to Giovan Francesco in Rome, October 1525, Milanesi, p. 448. 50 Saslow, p. 84, n.14. 51 Saslow, n. 247, p. 419. Michelangelo’s verse was composed in 1545-46, See Gilbert, p. 398 52 Gilbert, p.397. 53 Both captains were usually drawn with either a baton or a sceptre and the composition of each was interchanged over experiments for the positions of the allegorical figures. Copies of one of Michelangelo’s drawings for the tomb (Paris lnv 838 printed in Tolnay 1969 see description and the Dresden drawing n. 230 in Tolnay 1970) clearly show that Michelangelo had intended Giuliano to hold a sceptre-like attribute. The funeral processions of Giuliano and Lorenzo add further weight to the traditional identification of the figures. In both instances, the papacy specified details for the ceremonies. In accordance with his papal appointment, Giuliano was accompanied with his baton, whereas none of the sources mention a baton in Lorenzo’s funeral, an “accident” according to and Lewis. (p. 113-114) What is clearly displayed in both processions, instead, are symbols of each man’s alleged ducal status. When hidden by the prior of S. Lorenzo, (August to October, 1530, Hartt in -  81  Michelangelo Drawings p. 179 )(Considering the sketches found and attributed to Michelangelo see P. Dal Poggetto. For questions as to identification see Hartt fn 1, p. 206 in Michelangelo Drawings.) Trexier and Lewis suggest that Michelangelo may have considered returning to the idea of a sword. The drawing on the wall of the room under the chapel’s apse indicates “a brief flirtation during the Last Republic with the idea of changing the sovereign communal baton to a neutral sword.” (Trexier and Lewis, p.117) But such an interpretation is valid only if the figure was considered to embody the “hated” Lorenzo, which as the symbolism in the funerary processions suggest, is not likely. Moreover, Lorenzo had been dead for eleven years indicating anti-Medicean hostilities were surely to be directed toward the Pope and his ilHgitimate nephew Alessandro, (from whom Michelangelo, as a supporter of the Last Republic, was hiding). Given the Pope’s seige of Florence, assisted with papal troops of which Gluliano had been a captain, the drawing supports the traditional identification of the Bastoniere as Giuliano. Copies of Michelangelo’s plan, prior to the change from the sun and moon figures which were intended for Giuliano’s tomb, show the captain with a sceptre or gonfaloniere’s staff. In the Paris drawing, Cox-Rearick points to the broncone above the pilasters as evidence of the figure’s identity as Lorenzo, but as she explains, the broncone was also one of Leo’s imprese. used for liturgical and papal The duke is sitting on a faldistorio chair, of the churches troops the captain functions, an attribute more likely associated with than with the Florentine militia. Moreover, a copy of an early scheme for Lorenzo’s tomb, (attributed to Aristotle da Sangallo, after Berenson Tolnay 72 1969), where he carries a baton, suggests Lorenzo’s attribute was deliberately rejected in the final scheme. 54 “I have named two captains who have no experience at all and hold offices [usually] held by professionals. I don’t know how they will do if they have to exercise their offices.” Leo X and Michelangelo cited in Trexier and Lewis, p. 100 and p.93 respectively. On a drawing (c. 1524) Michelangelo refers to the “Duca Giuliano” as do his contemporaries. According to Trexier and Lewis this only occurs after 1530 citing Giovannbattista Mini, who wrote of “duke Lorenzo” and Sebastiano del Piombo referring to the ‘duke Giuliano” indicating the resignation with which Florentines were now facing Medici rule. (p.108-109) In order to argue that Michelangelo considered the two figures captains before the siege and dukes afterward, the authors need to show that Michelangelo’s reference was written on the 1524 sketch some nine years later on the evidence of the annotation “el cielo e Ia terra” the two figures which were to flank Giuliano, statues assigned to Trebolo in 1533. Trexler Lewis 109 and In. 59. 55 Ascanio Condivi, The Life of Michelangelo. Louisiana State University Press (Baton Rouge: 1976) p. 67. My emphasis. 56 Domenico Moreni, Delle tre suntuose Cappelle Medicee, cited in Hartt, 1951, p.147-148. 57 (My translation) See Gilbert’s explanation of this order for the phrases (393395) usually presented as follows “La fama tiene gil epitaff1 a giacere; non va né inanzi né indietro, perché son morti, e el loro operare è fermo.” Saslow,n. 13, p.82. I ,  82  concur with Gilbert’s order and reading of the three clauses but it seems to me that a giacere is not simply an explanation for the figure of fame holding the epitaphs “lying down, or horizonal” (p. 393-394); rather a giacere means lying down at rest, literally: dead. (As Gilbert’s own examples of the use of the word suggests. See p.394.) 58 This drawing for the magnifici tomb is usually dated to before the April 21 scheme but Andrew Morrogh convincingly places it later. “The Magnifici Tomb: A Key Project in Michelangelo’s Architectural Career.” Art Bulletin. V.74, n. 4, 1992, p. 583587. The figure of fame, however unusual, as noted by Panofsky and Wilde, (See Gilbert, p.394 clearly identifies the Petrarchan source for the chapel. In the sketch Fame holds the epitaphs at rest because, as Petrarch relates, time triumphs over fame; she goes neither forward nor back because she is ruled by time. However, while time can determine or limit one’s fame, fame is often undefeated, “saving one from the tomb” as Petrarch writes, “and giving life.” Petrarch, p. 114. For the significance of Petrarch’s Trionfi to Michelangelo’s poetry, see Saslow, p. 25. Printed editions of Petrarch’s Trionfi were illustrated with processions in which figures personifying the six themes: Love, Chastity, Death, Fame, Time and Divinity/Eternity were paraded on carri. The poems were frequently utilized as sources for figurative representations. Konrad Eisenbichler and Amilcare A. lannucci, eds. Petrarch’s Tirumphs: Allegory and Spectacle. Ottawa: Dovehouse Editions Inc. 1990. p. 111. Moreover, the Trionfi were linked to sacre rappresentazioni, as one Petrarchan scholar has explained, in their “religious and moral intent.” p. 110. See Bonino regarding the unique association of sacre rappresentazioni with the development of theatre in Florence. p. 34-36 Themes from Petrarch’s triumphs have already been absorbed into Leonine imagery. Figures personifying Fame, the Times of the day, Apollo, and resurrection imagery (the pheonix, grotteschi, and the laurel) are seen in the Sistine tapestry borders and at Poggio a Caiano where the times and seasons are presented with nafura genetrice or Eternity. (as Cox-Rearick defines her, fig.51) 5 Petrarch, p.96. It is interesting to recall Michelangelo’s often cited words, when criticized as to the accuracy of his portraits of the two captains that “a thousand years from now no one would be able to know that they looked otherwise.” Saslow, p. 25. Following their interpretation of the chapel as a republican monument, Trexler and Lewis interpret Michelangelo’s comments as evidence of his disillusionment with the Medici after the siege of Florence. See fn. 153, p. 141. 60 Sticca, in Konrad Eisenbichler and Amilcare Alannucci, eds, p. 55. 61 Shearman, 1975, p. 137. 62 According to Cox-Rearick, “the Salone at Poggio a Caiano is the Florentine counterpart of... Roman works. Its istorie featuring Roman exemplars and depicting events which prophesy the civic virtue and rule of the Medici recall the Capitoline restoring the theater decorations...” p.101. The theme of ‘imperial renovatlo’ Golden age of Jupiter which predominated in the Capitoline festivities, had already been transported to Florence for Leo’s entrance procession in 1515. The embellishments to the parade route included two theatres and two arcus of the city being quadriptirons, structures contributing to chroniclers’ impressions transformed into Rome. -  -  83  The Capitoline theatre was proposed by Hartt as a source for the empty thrones in the artist’s sculptural programme, (Hartt, 1951, p. 154. See also p. 148) a detail linked to ancient theatre by Panofsky which he states, allude to the “invisible presence of an immortal.” In antiquity, empty thrones were “carried to the theatre and placed at the disposal of the gods... on the occasion of the ludi scaenici. “ Panofsky, 1962, p.93. 64 To my knowledge, there were no coins minted with an image of Lorenzo. Winner links the images of Giuliano on the coins minted for the investiture ceremonies with representations of Cosimo as Cicero. p. 269. Tolnay points out that the image of Giuliano on the 1513 coins is different from the face on the Bastoniere in the chapel portrait. 1970, p.143. The “Liberalitas Augusti” panel from the arch of Constantine illustrates the emperor, seated on a fald!storio stool giving out money. A common theme in imperial art, the chair used in the Paris elevation for one of the chapel tomb and the concept of charity is suggestive of the Bastoniere. 65 In the entrata to Florence, in which the return was the dominant subtext, and in the entrate woven into the borders of the Sistine tapestries, representations of the Arno and Tiber signify the Popes’ dominion. (see figs. 5,56) 66 Steinmann concluded that the rivers refer to the Tiber and Arno, although he questioned the duplication of the allegories. See Tolnay, 1970, p. 67-68. Tolnay interprets the rivers as those of Hades, symbolizing tears of grief. Tolnay, 1970, p. 6768. According to Panofsky the four rivers of Hades follow Ficino: “The deep gorge of the sense is always shaken by the floods of Acheron, Styx, Cocytus and Phlegethon,” (1962, p.204) where the rivers are in the lowest realm of the Platonic Hartt questions these interpretations, noting that all of hierarchy, p. 205. Michelangelo’s other river god’s are Italian and that Varchi and Gandolfo Porrini identified the rivers as the Tiber and Arno. In a poem to the artist, Porrino refers to missing rivers: E I magnanimi re del Tebro e d’Arno Igran sepoicri aspettaranno indarno. Cited in Ham, 1951, fn 44, p. 153 -154. River gods signifying the Tiber and Arno accompanied personifications of Florence and Rome in imagery and theatrical representations including the often reproduced in the borders of Raphael’s tapestries, in the attic of the Capitoline theatre, and performances themselves. 67 See Cox-flearick with regard to Leo’s expanded ‘imperial’ program at Pogglo a Caiano “which alludes to the newly enlarged dominion and world view of the Medici during his papacy.” p. 110. 68 Ham notes the relation between “the empty thrones and the Roman trophies suggestive of the ceremony of 1513.” 1951, p. 154. As noted above, Cox-Rearick posits that the Capitoline decorations served as the source for the Salone decorations at Poggio a Caiano, in particular the association of Cosimo with Cicero. p.102-110. 69 The returning triumphator was taken up later by Francesco de’Medici. In Salviati’s painting of Francesco as Camillus, (fig. 39, Sala d’Udienza, Palazzo Vecchio, 1545-48) the duke is preceded by a trophy like that carved for the Medici chapel, and by a quadriga reminsicent of antique reliefs (Frederick Hartt, History of Italian Renaissance Art. Painting. Sculture. Architecture. Prentice-Hall Inc. 63  --  --  84  (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1987 P. 663) and also of processional carri as seen in the Capitoline performances. To the right of the fresco is another image of headress like the Herculean costume worn by the Francesco wearing a pensoso. Tolnay posits that Clement rejeóted the trophies (and the triumphal programme overall) as being too pagan. (1969, p.70) On the other hand Leo’s message of the triumphal return of the Medici, as manifested in the birth of the young Cosimo, may have been reworked according to Clement’s interests which were better served by a conception stressing the continuity of Medici rule. 70 This is clear in Michelangelo’s copies of the Codex Coner from which he devised the unusual window in the pendentive zone of the chapel. Michelangelo e II Codex Coner 71 For example, in the Palazzo Schifanola (which Michelangelo visited in Ferrara) is a scene illustrating a pallo in which the spectators watch the event from a raised platform. Above these figures, women, viewing the event from the palace logge, are in turn eyed by the younger men below, a kind of reciprocity of viewing enabled by the spatial organization. 72 See David Harvey, p. 245 and 247. Theatrical space increasingly prospettive, where the through view spectator’s individual orchestrated the perspective organized a multitude of viewers, focusing their views on the same vanishing point, thereby determining their collective perceptions as a single audience. 73 The stage was too shallow to incorporate perspectival corridors in accordance with Vitruvius, as Palladio and Scamozzi would later construct in Vincenza. See fig.46. 74 The eight doors, following Tolnay, are usually interpreted as a reference to baptistries and mausolea, in keeping with the chapel’s traditionally eight-sided dedication to the resurrection. Tolnay sees these as the doors of Hades, 1970, p.64. 76 Serlio’s stage design with Venetian buildings is an example of this. (fig.10) Millon, Henry and Lampugnani, Vittorio Magnago eds., p. 529-530 and fig. 166, p.531 and esp. 532. Also see Gilbert’s description of the doors flanking each captain as wings, p. 401. 77 See Tolnay, 1970,. p.157. Perino del Vaga may have assisted Giovanni da Udine. Ramsden, The Letters of Michelangelo. V. 1. 1496-1534, Stanford University Press (Stanford:1963) p. 287-288. 78 Masks on the candelabrum, according to Tolnay, signify deceipt as seen later in Ripa. Tolnay, 1970, p. 165-166. 79 Michelangelo’s drawing of masks from the Aeneas and Anchises group in Rome, linked by Tolnay to the capita! masks, was probably for a sculptural group considered for a fountain for the piazza della Signoria. 80 Paoletti sees this as a nod by Michelangelo to his patron Lorenzo; the missing tooth on the mask, he suggests, is a reference to the faun which the artist carved as a boy in the patron’s giardino. John T. Paoletti, “Michelangelo’s Masks.” Art Bulletin. September, 1992, p. 426. According to Paul Baroisky, Michelangelo’s lion’s  ,  85  masks present a kind of “freedom of artistic fantasy, a gay, almost laughing libertinage.” Paul Baroiski, Infinite Jest. Wit and Humour in Italian Renaissance Art. University of Missouri Press (Columbia: 1978) p.32. David Summers views the masks as a freedom from traditions, assisting Michelangelo in the construction of his own artistic madness, what Summers calles his “preoccupation with inspiration.” David Summers, Michelangelo and the Language of Art. Princeton. Princeton University Press (New Jersey: 1981) P. 17. Aristotle’s idea that “artistic and scientific success” were affiliated with melancholy was adapted by Ficino and conflated with Plato’s mania, to paraphrase Summers producing a “sacred madness of enthusiasm and inspiration.” (1981, p.102-103) By relating pazzia to mania, his “almost narcissicistic emphasis” (p.104) on his madness was fabricated as an expression of his soul, integrating, as it were, his character and artistic production. 81 The tension which results from the interaction of the viewer and the masks similar to what Richard Schnecher calls the “simultaneous presence and confrontation between the actors and the audience.” Cited in Carlson, p.129. 82 The chorus as Louis Mann explains, “represented the civic community on stage. They portray the citizens who have come to watch the performance and to take part in the tragic ceremony.” Louis Mann, Utopics: Spatial Play. Humanities (New Jersey: 1984) p. 68. 83 Mann, p. 68. Following this scenario, the “mask-like” faces of Giuliano and Lorenzo (as Gilbert describes them p. 407 ) designate the two as the heros and outsiders, or ‘other,’ to the chorus. 84 Numerous antique texts and images contributed to this revived fascination with disguise and theatre. See Phyllis Pray Bober, and Ruth Rubinstein, Renaissance Artists and Antique Sculpture. Harvey Miller Publishers, Oxford University Press, 1986. figs.39 and 38 and p. 79-80. Masks decorated manuscripts of Terrence, whose plays were prominent in Leo’s restoration of ancient theatre. Antique sculptures of muses displayed masks and decorated sarcophagi, and actors were buried with masks like those collected in the Renaissance, as illustrated in Vasari’s painting of Lorenzo ii Magnifico. In ancient Rome, the emphasis on rhetoric encouraged patrician students to study with actors. Thomas Noble Howe, “Vitruvius and the Invention of the Professional Myth,” presented at the Society of Architectural Historians, Philadelphia, 1994 Masks emerging from foliage, unearthed in the fresco decoration in Nero’s domus aurea, were absorbed into Leonine imagery, co-opted as signs of rebirth and regeneration. According to Bakhtin, these grotteschi “altered the usual static presentation of reality. There was no longer the movement of finished forms... in a finished and stable world: instead the inner movement of being itself was expressed in the passing of one form into the other, in the ever incompleted form of being.” Bakhtin, p. 32. See p.31-32. 85 Cyclical time deeply entrenched in Medicean return imagery, as Cox shifts into permanence in the S. Lorenzo chapel. See Reanick has demonstrated Cox-Rearick, p. 15-23 and chapter 1 above. 86 In the terracotta frieze, Night sleeps on a raised platrorm covered with a drape, to which the rolled volutes on Michelangelo’s sarcophagus lid is perhaps a ,  --  --  86  vestigial allusion. (Bertelli suggests that the curved volutes of Michelangelo’s sarcophagi are a reference to the curtains often held open by angels. ( p. 203) Tolnay suggests such a source in the Rossellino tomb for the Portuguese Cardinal at S. Miniato al Monte, (fig. 51) (1969, p. 65-80) and Dosio’s copy of a drawing for the tombs (Modena) suggests Michelangelo considered drapes. ) Janus appears again in the Medici family villa, as one of the many disguises of Vertumnus in Pontormo’s fresco for the gran salone, a project as Cox-Rearick argues, contemporary with the New Sacristy commission. (fig. 40) 87 SeeCox Rearick, p.81. 88 Giovanni Leta Medri, text accompanying the frieze at Poggio a Caiano. 89 The Cardinal’s proposal for an arcus quadriphrons in the Medici chapel, perhaps intended to resurrect the association of Leo with Justice, was suggested at the moment of the Pope’s judicial response to the Northern reformers, the Exurge Domine. The exaggerated language and hostility of the bull, counteracting the Pope’s dilatoriness, was directed toward reformers’ criticisms of liturgical practices. (“A Roma una pro fezia diceva che un eremita avrebbe gravement umiliata papa Leone.” Cited in Falconi, p.353. ) It was in July 1519, that for the first time, Luther personally attacked the papacy in a public debate with Eck. For a discussion of relations between Leo and Luther see Falconi, p.348-416. The suggestion of the Janus arch was perhaps intended to counteract intensifying attacks against the Pope in Rome and threats to Medici rule in Florence compounded by the death of Lorenzo. After all, the conflation of Leo with Janus as displayed in 1513, credited the first ‘Etruscan’ pope with vivifying Roman liturgical practices, a useful association given Leo’s support for the symbolic rites of the Roman church in his 1519 bull while Janus was already a well entrenched symbol of the continuity of Medici rule in Florence. The language of the bull, (printed on the same day as the Cardinal’s message to Michelangelo), has already been linked by Hartt to the themes of the intended frescos in the chapel. (Hartt, 1951, p. 151.) In particular, Luther had attacked the celebration of the Eucharist, the worshiping of relics, and the selling of indulgences, exploited to pay for the construction of St. Peter’s and the exorbitant war of Urbino, the duchy Leo had attempted to secure for Lorenzo. This led, ultimately, to the publication of Luther’s theses; his principle attack was directed to the selling of indulgences. Falconi, p. 348. After Leo’s death, his papacy was even more vehemently critized than during his Lutheran negotiations; pasquinades against the dead Pope were rampant. “Roma trinofa orma Leone è morto” and “Volete sapere perché Leone non poté rice yore i sacrament!? Li aveva venduti “are examples of the critiques. A prohibition on the printing of pasquinades was followed in 1519, (the same year in which the chapel was commissioned) with the “soppressione della festa annuale della statua.” p. 434. Other aspects of the New Sacristy, notably the Eucharist emphasis of the programme, may have been intended to counter criticism toward the Medici papacy. The focus of the chapel, Michelangelo’s sepoltura da testa, presents a Virgo Lactans, not only extremely rare in the cinquecento but unknown in the size of the image 87  represented here. (fig. 16) The Virgin feeds her child, like the pelican on one of the altar candelabra, a pointed reference to the Eucharist but also to Mary’s principle relic, her milk. In contrast with the saints, who were vivisected and disseminated to churches, Mary’s body had been assumed to heaven, enabling her to appear whole, as it were, in visions. Thus she could serve as an intercessor in contrast with the intermediary function of saints and relics which remained on earth, an issue which threatened the papacy whose spiritual authority was supported by the bones of Saint Peter. The Virgin’s position within the hierarchy of saints was being intensely debated in these years. At issue was the Virgin’s body which, carried to heaven, left no physical remains on earth. Lionel Rothkrug, “Religious Practices and Collective Perceptions: Hidden Homologies in the Renaissance and Reformation.” Historical Reflections. Vol. 7, No. 1, Spring, 1980, p. 9-10, 22. The Virgin is flanked by the two saints Cosmas and Damian, whose mortar, as Hartt suggests, is held as if to catch some of her milk. (1951) p.149 fn 22. According to the interpretation of Trexler and Lewis, the bowl holds Myrhh, used for embalming, and one of the gifts of the three kings, (p.137) but actually both saints have mortars. Cosmas rests his hand on his attribute, so that it is less visible in photographs. She looks past her child, unaware of the viewer (According to Tolnay’s interpretation, the Madonna’s ‘vacant stare’ is a “melancholy contemplation.” 1970, p.146.) who is offered salvation through the two Medici saints, who intercede for the spectator. The emphasis on the Virgin’s relic, the saints, and liturgical practices, suggested by the paterae and the vessels carved in relief above the tombs, reasserts the very issues being attacked by critics of the church. The intervention of the doctors Cosmas and Damian, would thereby signify the restoration of the church to health through the medic! doctors (the Medici Popes), in the form of the papal bull and later excommunication of Luther while reaffirming th.e liturgical hierarchy of the Roman church. This new representation of the lactating Virgin, made possible by increased funding with the election of Giullo as Clement VII, links the Virgin more explicitly to the Eucharist, extending the significance of the pelican feeding her young from the candlabrum. This revised image of the Virgin is also suggestive of the contemporary representation of Charity in a tapestry commissioned by the new Pope. (Vatican Museums, n.157 Religione Giustizia Car!tâ, manufactured by P. Van Aelst, Brussels, c. 1525) Religion, flanked by Charity and Justice, is enthroned upon a Medici Palla in which a peaceful urban setting is contrasted with a burning city. (fig.49) In addition to the representation of a lactating woman, details common to the chapel include fugures of time and fame, and grotteschi. Charity is reminiscent of the figure of Natura genetrice from the portico frieze at Poggio a Caiano, (fig. 48) already suggested as the source for Charity in medals of Leo X. (Giovanni Litta Medri, Poggio a Calano) lithe association of the Virgin with Charity, as suggested by the tapestry, was intended, the peaceful rule of the Medici would be an appropriate subtext to a reading of the chapel as a representation of Medici princely rule. a 1534 coin of Clement VII, Peace is standing in front of a temple to Janus, On destroying arms with fire. (363/364 Bargello) A 1533 medal of Alessandro presents the same image without the reference to Janus. (237/238 Bargello) The theme of peace is expanded on numerous coins of Alessandro. -  -  -  88  90 For Leo’s interest in Cosimo, see Cox-Rearick, p. 49-50. 91 This idea is persuasively argued by Cox-Rearick for Pontormo’s  contemporary painting. In addition, the saints days of Cosmas and Damian, abandoned in 1515 on account of their seasonal interference with the hunting season, were rejuvinated in 1519. Cox-Rearick suggests the broncone impresa, included in the pilaster capitals of the Paris elevation, (fig.36) may indicate the sitter is Lorenzo but as she notes, the symbol was extensively adopted by Leo, and as manifested in the Salone ceiling at Poggio a Caiano, may signify Leo’s intentions to personally rule Florence following the death of Lorenzo. 92 The Cardinal not only had little interest in the young Cosimo, he actually limited the influence of his father, Giovanni Bande Nere, keeping him in battle until he died in 1526. Cox-Rearick, p. 49. 93 The Cardinal was the subject of an assassination plot in 1522. “In late 1519 there was talk of sending lppoHto from Rome to Florence as a symbol of continuing Medici control, but Pope Leo apparently rejected the idea, even as a temporary expedient.” see Albertini 28-31 360-64 94 Hartt notes that Michelangelo’s contemporaries and later Bocchi, Cinelli, and Richardon “agree in awareness of [the chapel’s] central allegory of the princely power of the Medici and their immortal apotheosis.” Frederick Hartt, “The Meaning of fviichelangeio’s Medici Chapel.” Essays in honor of Georg Swarzenski. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1951, p. 146. For a summary bibliography see fn 4 and p. 145 tn. 2 Tolnay, p. 61-62. 95 Alessandro rejected the existing constitution, going even further than Giovanni had in 1512. In 1532 he was legitimized by Charles V. 96 The coin, uncatalogued in the Barge!!,, states: Alesander M R P Floren DVX. See Medaglie Italiane del Rinascimento Museo Nazionale del Bargello. 97 With the death of Clement VII in 1534, Michelangelo, unprotected from the wrath of Alessandro, fled Florence for Rome leaving the chapel unfinished. In 1537, the Duke was assassinated and interred in Lorenzo’s tomb. His now formal ducal authority transferred dynastically to his rival Cosimo, fulfilling Leo’s ambitions. In addition to the coins which replicate the figures of the saints from the chapel, Alessandro used the Bastoniere as model for his representation as painted by Vasari. (fig. 21) 98 Trexler and Lewis, p.106. 99 Varchi cited in Trexler and Lewis, p. 107. 100 “. ..ripresei le chiave et difesi da molti periculi ía fabbrica, da mafliJgni animi et mimic! mortal!.” Figiovanni, in Corti, p. 29. According to Trexier and Lewis the very survival of the statues was the result of the Signoria’s conviction that there was nothing which flew in the face of the Republic. p.108. 101 If, as Ackerman maintains, the tabernacles were constructed closer to 1534, their unusual design a result of Michelangelo’s experiments in the library, I would argue that rather than disrupting “the continuity between the entrance bays and the tomb, [making] the former seem disproportionately large,” (Ackerman, 1986, p.89) this  89  effect should be considered as dehberate. 102 See Castiglione, p.26. The laughter which runs through the Courtier releases the tension but only cloaks, to use Javitch’s words the fact that the pressures of autocratic rule shape the norms they advocate.” In Rebhorn, p. 16. 103 Carlson, citing Silvio d’Amicö, p. 42. 104 Debord, p.61. Debord’s emphasis in his discussion of La Boétie’s Discours sur Ia servitude volontaire. 105 Debord, p.22. 106 See Harvey’s discussion of Bourdieu, p.213-214. 107 Wayne, A. Rebhorn, in Courtly Performances: Masking and FestiWty in Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier. Wayne State University Press (Detroit: 1978) 108 The Courtier is filled with parallels: “...lndeed there is no better way of with it a certain freedom and carries showing oneself .because masquerading license...the bystanders immediately take in what meets the eye at first glance; whereupon, realizing that here there is much more than was promised by the costume, they are delighted and amused.” The example of a youth dressed as an old man “yet in loose attire so as to be able to show his vigor,” (Castiglione, p. 103) is praised for its ludic reversal. Bakhtin, discussing the “equally official” view of the serio-ludere juxtaposition “in the early period of the Roman state, states that “the ceremonial of the triumphal procession included on almost equal terms the glorifying and the the deriding of the victor. The funeral ritual was also composed of lamenting (glorifying) and deriding the deceased.” (p. 6) Although, as Bakhtin explains, the view of these events in the Renaissance was filtered through a differently organized state structure, in which the (p.6) these carnival and theatrical ludic was transfered to a “nonofficial level,” spectacles were exploited at the political level by Leo X. The fascination with opposites pervaded contemporary political discourses. Machiavelli, Patrizi, and Gianotti were among those who wrote about both Princes and Republics, the dialogue form of the latter’s treatise emphasizing the debate, like the symposium format seen in Castiglione’s Courtier. Contrapposto was derived from the Greek word Contrapositum “a rhetorical figure in which opposities were set directly against one another.” In the Renaissance the word was used for any number of oppositions such as chiaroscuro, “old and young, male or female.” Summers, 1981, p. 76. The kind of wit which Michelangelo displays through the architectural illusionism is a kind of cerebral humour which Paul Barolksy compares to Bibbiena’s discussion of “witty manipulations.” 1978, p. 8. 109 Mann, p. 80, 1984. 110 This was characteristic of the Latin playwrights currently being revived by Leo, a polarization also evident in the writing of Ariosto, Rabelais, Bibbiena, Bembo, Castiglione (and Erasmus and More in Latin), what Lousie Clubb calls Humanistic art: “art that sets out to have it both ways, an art that rests on principles of imitation and of contamination of plural elements, not merely in the Terentian sense of fusing two plots but in that of seeking out opposites for the contaminatio... The humanistic art I mean tries to reconcile in creative tension what is held to be unreconcilable, a self .  . .  90  conscious dandified art that plunges at challenge, sets out to square the circle, and tries to do it all: to be old while new, dark while light, ideal while real, grave while place vole. An art for which Neoplatonic phrases like discordia concors and serb ludere could serve as mottoes, though many practitioners of it were only armchair Neoplatonists, if at all.” Louise Clubb inHanning and Rosand, p.193-194. 111 Gilbert, p. 395. 112 Saslow, p.41-42. 113 Summers, p. 89. 114 The description, or the Ekphrasis, as Svetlana Alpers writes, became “the motivating force behind art itself.” p. 124 115 In terms of audience its aims were those of epideictic, aimed at persons who understood art and the “difficulties” of virtuosity.” Wayne Rebhorn, p.18. According to Summers, “Lomazzo considered the painting of grotteschi as being particularly indicative of skill because in the invention of grotteschi more than in anything else there runs a certain furor and a natural bizarria, and being without it they are unable to make anything, for all their art.” Summers, 1981, p. 62. 116 Michelangelo’s invenzioni propagated his ‘creative genius’ which Vasari’s text promotes. By elevating the “role of the creator,” the status of the patron and the audience were also raised. See Francis Haskell, Patrons and Painters. A Study in the Relations Between Italian Art and Socity in the Age of the Baroque. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980, p. 16. 117 Alpers, p.203. 118 Contemporary with the Medici chapel, Pontormo’s fresco at Poggio a Caiano illustrates Ovid’s story of Vertumnus and Pomona, in which Vertumnus disguises himself in order to gain entry to Pomona’s garden. The fresco decoration was commissioned, as Cox-Rearick argues, by Leo X after the death of Lorenzo the younger. p. 85. 119 Summers, 1981, p. 89. Michelangelo in his later work was critized by Lodovico Dolce and Aretino who compared his work to poets who “hid the greatest mysteries of human and divine philosophy under a veil of poety, so that they might not be understood by the vulgar.” cited in Summers, p. 19. G.A. Gilio, discussing the artist’s Crucifixion of St. Peter in his Degli error! de’ pittori, says: “He has done it only for the learned, and for courtiers, he has done just the opposite of the Apostle Paul...” Cited in Summers, p. 91. 120 The court provided the framework within which the courtier’s identity is constructed, an identity in which there is “a discrepancy between being and seeming.. .separating themselves from common usage.” Rebhorn, p. 24-25. 121 This transformation from public to private began in the cortile of princes. In one case a “temporary compromise” enabled some members of the public into the palace at Ferrara to see a performance of Plautus’ Menaechmi “as an accomodation of the principles of public access to the developing new idea of theatre as an art restricted to a learned society.” Carlson, p.39. 123 Molinari, p.147.  91  BiblIography  Ackerman, James S. “Architectural Practice in the Italian Renaissance.” Society of Architectural Historians Journal ,13-3 ( ): 3-11. Ackerman, James S. The Architecture of Michelangelo. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1986. Ackerman, James S. Distance Points. Essays in Theory and Rnaissance Art and Architecture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1991. Agosti, Giovanni, e Farinella, Vincenzo, a cura di. Michelangelo: studi di antichita dal Codice Coner. Torino: UTET, 1987. Alberti Leon Battista. On Painting. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966. ,  Aiberti, Leon Battista. On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1991. Allegri, Ettore, and Cecchi, Alessandro. Palazzo Vecchio e I Medici. Guida Storica. 1980. Alpers, Svetlana. “Ekphrasis and Aesthetic Attitudes in Vasari’s Lives.” JWCI, XXXII (1960) p. 190-215. Argan, Giulio, C. and Contardi, Bruno. “Michelangelo.” Art Dossier. 9, 1987. Argan, Giulio C. The Renaissance City. New York: George Braziller, 1969. Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984. Baxandali, Michael. Patterns of Intention. On the Historical Explanation of Pictures. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. Baxandall, Michael. Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy. A Primer in the Social History of Pictorial Style. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Barocchi, Paola. a cura di. Mostra di Disegni di Michelangelo (Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi) Firenze: Leo S. Olschki. 1972. Barocchi, Paola. Michelangelo e la sua scuola. I disegni delPArchivio Buonnarroti Testo e Tavole. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1964. -  Barocchi, Paola. Michelangelo e Ia sua scuola. I disegni di Casa Buonarroti e degli Uffizi. Tavole. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1962. -  92  Barocchi, Paola. Michelangelo e Ia sua scuola. I disegni di Casa Buonarroti e degli Ufuizi. Testo. Rrenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1962. -  Barolski, Paul. Infinite JesL Wit and Humour in Italian Renaissance Art. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1978. BaroIski, Paul. Michelangelo’s Nose: A Myth and its Maker. Pennsylvania State University, 1990. Baroiski, Paul. Why Mona Lisa Smiles and Other Tales by Vasari. Pennsylvania State University, 1991. Barthes, Roland. The Semiotic Challenge. New York: Hill and Wang.1988. Bartlett, Kenneth R., Elsenbichler, Konrad, and Liedl Janice. Love and Death in the Renaissance. Ottawa: Dovehouse Editions Inc., 1991. Bertelà, Giovanni Gaeta, e Tofani, Annamaria Petrioli, a cura di. Feste e Apparati Medicel da Cosimo I a Cosimo II. Mostra di Disegni e Incisioni. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1969. Bertelli, Sergio. II Corpo dcl re. Sacralità del potere neIl’Europa medic vale e moderna. Firenze: Ponte alle Grazie, 1990. Besdine, Dr. Matthew. The Unknown Michelangelo. Garden City, New York: Adelphi University Press,1 985. Blau, Herbert. The Audience. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1990. Bloch, Marc. The Historian’s Craft. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991. Blumenthal, Arthur. Giulio Parigi’s Stage Designs. Florence and the Early Baroque Spectacle. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1986. Blumenthal, Arthur. Theater Art of the Medici. Press of New England, 1980.  Hanover, New Hampshire: University  Bober, Phyllis Pray, and Rubinstein, Ruth. Renaissance Artists and Antique Sculpture. Harvey Miller Publishers, Oxford University Press, 1986. The Portable Machiavelll. Harmondsworth:  Bondanella, Peter, and Musa Mark. eds. Penguin Books Ltd. 1983.  Bonadeo, Altredo. “The ‘Grandi’ in Machiavelli’s World.” Studies in the Renaissance. VOl. 16, 1969, p.9-30.  93  Bonino, Guido Davico. La Commedia Italiana del Cinquecento e altre note su letteratura e teatro. Torino: Tirrenia Stampatori, 1989. Borsook, Eve. “Art and Politics at the Medici Court I: The Funeral of Cosimo I de’Medici.” Die Kunst (1965) p.31-54. Brucker, Gene. Renaissance Florence. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Bruschi, Arnaldo. Bramante. London: Thames and Hudson. 1977. Bruschi, Arnaldo, et. al., a cura di. Scritti Rinascimental! di Architettura. Milano: Edizioni U Polifilo, 1978. Bruschi, Arnaldo. “II Teatro Capitolino del 1513.” Bollettino dcl Centro Internazionale di Stud! di Architettura Andrea PaIladlo. p.189-218. Burke, Peter. The Italian Renaissance. Culture and Society in Italy. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1986. Burns, Howard. “San Lorenzo in Florence Before the Building of the New Sacristy: An Early Plan.Florence. Kunsthistorisches lnstitut v. 23 no.1-2 (1979): p. 145-154. Camille, Micheal. The Gothic Idol. Ideology and Image-Making in Medieval Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Cantagalli, Roberto. osimo I de’Medicigranduca di Toscana. Milano: Mursia, 1985. Carison, Marvin. Places of Performances. The Semiotics of Theatre Architecture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. Ernst, Kristeller, Paul Oskar, and Randall, John Herman Jr. The Cassirer, Renaissance Philosophy of Man. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1948. Castiglione, Baldesar. The Book of the Courtier. New York: Doubleday, 1959. Cellini, Benvenuto. The Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1983. Certeau, Michel, de. The Writing of History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Choay, Francoise. “Alberti and Vitruvius.” Architectural Design 49 (1979) p. 26-35. Clements, Robert J. Michelangelo, A Self-Portrait. New York: New York University Press, 1968. 94  Cochrane, Eric. Historians and Historiography Th the Italian Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Cochrane, Eric. Italy, 1530-1630. London: Longman, 1988. Cochran, Eric, ed. The Late Italian Renaissance. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Collingwood, R.G. The Idea of History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Condivi, Ascanio. The Life of Michelangelo. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1976. Corti, A. “Ricordanza di Giovan Battista Figiovanni.” Paragone. V.175 (1964) p. 24-31. Cox-Rearick, Janet. Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art. Pontormo, Leo X, and the Two Cosimos. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984. Crook, J.Mordaunt. The Dilemma of Style. Architectural Ideas from the Picturesque to the Post-Modern. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987. Cruciani, Fabrizio. “Gli AHestimenti Scenici di Baldassare Peruzzi. Boliettino del Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladio. (1974) p. 155172. D’Arnico, Jack. Knowledge and Power in the Renaissance. University Press of America, 1977.  Washington D.C.:  D’Amico, Silvio. Stone del Teatro Drammatico. II. Dal Rinascimento al Romanticismo. Milano: Garzanti Editore, 1968. Damisch, Hubert. “The Column and the Wall.” Architectural Design 49 (1979): 18-25. Dam isch, Hubert. The Origin of Perspective. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1994. Davidson, Clifford, ed. Word, Picture, Spectacle. Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 1984. Drawings by Michelangelo in the collection of Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor Castle, The Ashmolean Museum, the British Museum and other English collections. An exhibition held in The Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum. London: British Museum Publications Limited,1975. Drawings from the British Museum. New York: The Pierpont Morgan Library, 1979.  95  Eco, Umberto. The Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Eco, Umberto. The Open Work. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1989. Eco, Umberto. The Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Elsenbichier, Konrad, and lannucci, Amilcare A., eds. Petrarch’s Triumphs. Allegory and Spectacle. Ottawa: Dovehouse Editions Inc., 1990. Elam, Caroline. “The Site and Early Building History of Michelangelo’s New Sacristy.” Florence. Kunsthistorisches Institut V. 23 no.1-2 (1979) p. 155-186. Ettlinger, L.D. “The Liturgical Functions of Michelangelo’s Medici Chapel.” Florence. kunsthistorisches Institut. V. 22 no.3 (1978) p.287-304. Falconi, Carlo. Leone X. Giovanni de’Medici.  Milano: Rusconi, 1987.  Forster, Kurt, W. “Critical History of Art, or Transfiguration of Values?” New Literary History 3 (1972) p. 171-230. V  Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse of Language. New York: Pantheon Books, 1972. Fowlie, Wallace. A Reading of Dante’s Inferno. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981. Frommel, Christoph Luitpold. “Raffaello e il Teatro alla Corte di Leone X.” Bollettino del Centro Internazionale di Stud! di Arch!tettura Andrea PaIlad!o. (1974) p.173-i 87 Garin, Eugenio. Portraits from the Quattrocento. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1972. Gentili, Adriano, e Siena, Robertomaria. Scomposizione Analitica dell’Opera di Michelangelo. Roma: Trevi Editore, 1980. Giavarina, Adriano Ghisetti. Cola delPAmatrice Architetto a Ia Sperimentazione Classicistica del Cinquecento. Napoli:Società Editrice Napoletana, 1982. Gilbert, Creighton, E. “Texts and Contexts of the Medici Chapel.” The Art Quarterly. V. 34, n. 4(1971) . 408 391 p.  96  GodoN, Antonio e Natall, Antonio, a cura di. Luogtii della Toscana medicea. Firenze: Coop Officine Grafiche, 1980. Goldthwaite, Richard, A. The Building of Renaissance Florence. An Economic and Social History. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1990. Gombrich, E.H. Art and Illusion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1984. Gombrich, E.H. The Heritage of Apelles. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1976. Grafton, Anthony. Rome Reborn. The Vatican Library and Renaissance Culture. Washington: Library of Congress, 1993. Guicciardini, Francesco. The History of Italy. 1969.  London: The Macmillan Company,  Guicciardini, Francesco. Riccordi. Stone florentine. Milano: Editori Associati S.p.A., 1991. Hanning, Robert W. and Rosand, David, eds. Castiglione. The Ideal and the Real in Renaissance Culture. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1983. Ham, Frederick. History of Italian Renaissance Art. Painting. .9culture. Architecture. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1987. Ham, Frederick. “The Meaning of Michelangelo’s Medici Chapel.” Essays in honor of Geong Swarzenski. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1951, p. 145-155. Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. Harwood, Ronald. All the World’s a Stage. London: Martin Secker and Warburg Ltd., 1984. Haskell, Francis. Patrons and Painters. A Study in the Relations Between Italian Art and Society in the Age of the Baroque. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980. Hauser, Arnold. Mannerism. The Crisis of the Renaissance and the Origin of Modern Art. Volume I and II. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.1965. v.1 and 2. Hersey, G. L. Pythagorean Palaces. Magic and Architecture in the Italian Renaissance. Cornell University Press. 1976. Ithaca: Hirsch, E.D. Jr. The Aims of Interpretation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1976. 97  Hirst, Michael. Michelangelo and His Drawings. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hirst, Michael. “A Note on Michelangelo and the S. Lorenzo Facade.” Art Bulletin, V. 68, n.2 (June 1985) p.323-326. Hugh Smyth, Craig. Mannerism and Maniera. New York: 1962. Jacquot, Jean. Le Lieu Théâtral a Ia Renaissance. Paris: Editions du Centre National de Ia Recherche Scientifique, 1964. Jeffrey, David L. By Things Seen: Reference and Recognition in Medieval Thought. Ottawa: The University of Ottawa Press, 1979. Jan van Pelt, and Westlall, Carol William. Architectural Principles in the Age of Historicism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Jarzombek, Mark. On Leon Baptista Alberti. His Literary and Aesthetic Theories. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1989. Kantorowicz, Ernst H. The King’s Two Bodies. A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1957. Kastan, David Scott, and Stallybrass, Peter, eds. Staging the Renaissance. Reinterpretations of Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama. New York: Routledge, 1991. Kennard, Joseph Spencer. The Italian Theatre from its Beginning to the Close of the Seventeenth Century. New York: William Edwin Rudge, 1932. Kerrigan, William, and Braden, Gordon. The Idea of the Renaissance. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1989. Klein, Robert, and Zerner, Henri. Italian Art 1500-1600 Sources and Documents. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, lnc.,1966. Kristeller, Paul Oskar, ed. Micheal Mooney. Renaissance Thought and its Sources. New York’, Columbia University Press, 1979. Lavin, Irving. Bernini and the Unity of the Visual Arts. New York: The Stinehour Press and the Meriden Gravure Company, 1980. Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1991.  98  Leltes, Nathan. Art and Life. Aspects of Michelangelo. New York: New York University Press, 1986. Liebert, Robert, S. Michelangelo. A Psychoanalytic Study of His Life and Images. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1983. Lotz, Wolfgang. “Ricostruzione del Teatri Antichi nei Disegni del Cinquecento.” Bollettino del Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladlo. V.16 (1974) p. 139-140. Lotz, Wolfgang. Studies in Italian Renaissance Architecture. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press. 1983. Machiavelli, Niccolô. The Prince. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1983. Mann, Louis. Utopics: Spatial Play. Atlantics Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1984. Mann, Louis. The Portrait of the King. 1988.  Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,  Martines, Lauro. Power and Imagination. City-States in Renaissance Italy. New York: Alfred A. Knopt, 1979. Milanesi, G. per cura di. Le lettere de Michelangelo Buonarroti. OsnabrUck, Biblio Verlag, 1976. Millon, Henry and Lampugnani, Vittorlo Magnago eds. The Renaissance from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo, Milan: Bompiani, 1994. ,  Minor, Andrew C. and Mitchell Bonner. A Renaissance Entertainment. Festivities for the Marriage of Cosimo I, Duke of Florence, in 1539. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1968. Mirollo James V. Mannerism and Renaissance Poetry. Concept, Mode, Inner Design. New Haven: Yale University Press,1984. Mitchell, Bonner. Italian Civic Pageantry in the High Renaissance. A Descriptive Bibliography of Triumphal Entries and Selected other Festivals for State Occasions. Firenze: Leo 5, Olschki Editore, 1979. Mitchell, Bonner. The Majesty of the State. Triumphal Progresses of Foreign Sovereigns in Renaissance Italy (1494-1600). Firenze: Leo Olschki Editore, 1986.  99  Molinari, Cesare. “Gil Spettatori e Ia Spazio Scenico nel Teatro del Cinquecento.” Bollettino del Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Pa/Iadio. V.16 (1974) p. 145-154. Morrogh, Andrew. “The Magnifici Tomb: AKey Project in Michelangelo’s Architectural Career.” Art Bulletin. V.74, n. 4 (1992) p. 567-598. Murray, Peter. Renaissance Architecture. New York: Electa/IRizzoli, 1985. Nagler, A. M. Theatre Festivals of the Medici, 1539-1637. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1964. Ockman, Joan ed. Architecture Criticism Ideology Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 1985. O’Gorman, James. The Architecture of the Monastic Library in Italy 1300-1600. New York: New York University Press. 1972. Onians, John. Bearers of Meaning. The Classical Orders in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance, Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988. Costing, J. Thomas. Andrea Palladia’s Teatro Olimpico. Ann Arbor Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1981. Panorsky, Erwin. Meaning in the Visual Arts. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1982. Panofsky. Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1960. Panofsky. Saturn and Melancholy; studies in the history of natural philosophy, religion and art. [by! Raymond Klibansky, Erwin Panofsky and Fritz Sax!. London: Nelson, 1964. Panofsky. Studies in Iconography. Highland Heights, Ky: Northern Kentucky State College, 1975. Panolsky, Erwin. Studies in lconology. Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. New York: Harper and Row.1962 Paoietti, John T. “Michelangelo’s Masks.” Art Bulletin. (September 1992) p. 423-440. Parronchi, A. “Michelangeo al Tempo del Lavoro di San Lorenzo in una Ricordanza del Figiovanni.” Paragone. V.175 (1964) p. 9-24. Parronchi, Alessandro. “Prima flappresentazione della Mandragola: II Modello per l’Apparato...” La Bibliofilia, Vol.64 (1962) p. 37-86. 100  Partner, Peter. Renaissance Rome. 1500-1559. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Pastor, Dr. Ludwig. The History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages. New York, The Colonial Press, Vols. VII, VnI, IX, X, 1908. Petrarch. Triumphs. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1962. Pevsner, Nicholas. “The Architecture of Mannerism.” in Spencer, p. 119-148. Plato. The Symposium. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1986. Pocock, John G. A. Machiavellian Moment. Florentine political thought through the Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. Popp, A. E. Die Medici Kapelle Michelangelos. München, O.C. Recht Verlag, 1922. Ramsden, E.H. The Letters of Michelangelo. V. 1. 1496-1534. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963. Ramsden, E.H. The Letters of Michelangelo. V. 2. 1537-1563. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963. Rebhorn, Wayne, A. Courtly Performances: Masking and Festivity in Castiglion&s Book of the Courtier. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1978. Rice, Sheryl E. “The Ginori Corridor of San Lorenzo and the Building History of the New Sacristy.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. V.52, n.3 (September 1993) p.339-343. Robinson, Franklin W. and Nichols, Jr., Stephen G., eds. The Meaning of Mannerism. Hanover, New Hamphire: University Press of New England, 1972. Rossi-Pinelli, Orietta. “La Villa Imperiale di Pesaro come Spazio Scenico per Ia Corte Urbinate.” Bollettino del Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladio. (1974) p. 219-233. Rothkrug, Lionel. “Religious Practices and Collective Perceptions: Hidden Homologies in the Renaissance and Reformation.” Historical Reflections. Vol. 7, No. 1, Spring, 1980. Rowe, Cohn. The Mathematics of the ldeal Villa and Other Essays. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 1985. Ruggieri, Ruggero M. “II Canto IX deIl’lnferno.” Inferno. Letture degliAnni 1973-76. Roma: Bonacci Editore Roma. 1977. 101  Saalman, Howard. “Michelangelo at St. Peter’s: The Arberino Correspondence.” Art Bulletin. 60 (1978) pp. 483-493. Saalman, Howard. “The New Sacristyof San Lorenzo before Michelangelo.” Art Bulletin, V. 67. n. 2. (1985) p.199-228. Saslow, James, M. The Poetry of Michelangelo: An Annotated Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Singleton, Charles, S. ed. Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance. Baltimore: John Hoplins Press, 1967. Shearman, John. “The Florentine Entrata of Leo X, 1515.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Vo138 (1975) p. 136-154. Shearman, John. Only Connect: Art and the Spectator in the Italian Renaissance. Washington D.C.: Princeton University Press, 1992. Shearman, John. Mannerism. London: Penguin Books, 1990. Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Volume One: The Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Smyth, Craig Hugh, ed. Michelangelo Drawings. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1992. Southern, Richard. The Medieval Theatre in the Round: A Study of the Staging of the Castle of Perseverance and Related Matters. London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1975. Starn, Randolph and Partridge, Loren. Arts of Power. Three Halls of State in Italy, 1300-1600. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Stinger, Charles. “The Campidogilo as the Locus of Renovatio lmperii in Renaissance Rome.” Art and Politics in Late Medieval and Early Renaissance Italy: 1250-1500. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988, p.135-156. Strong, Roy. Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals 1450-1650. The Boydell Press, 1984.  Woodridge, Suffolk:  Summers, David. Michelangelo and the Language of Art. Princeton, New Jersey: Pnnceton University Press, 1981. Summers, David.” Michelangelo on Architecture.” Art Bulletin v. 54 no. 2 (June 1972) p.146-157. 102  Tafuri, Manfredo. “Discordant Harmony from Alberti to Zuccari.” Architectural Design 49 (1979) p.36-44. Tafuri, Manfredo. Theories and History of Architecture. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1976. Tafuri, Manfreclo. Venice and the Renaissance. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 1989. Tiberia, V. Giacomo della Porta un Architetto tra Manierismo e Barocco. Buizoni editore, 1974. Tolnay, Charles de. The Art and Thought of Michelangelo. New York: Pantheon Books, 1964. Tolnay, Charles de. The Medici Chapel. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. Tolnay, Charles de.”MheI Ange et Ia Casa Buonarroti a Florence. Nouvelles Recherches.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts. ser. 6 v. 67 (AvriI 1.966): 193-204. Tolnay, Charles de. Michelangelo e I Medic!. Firenze: Centro Di, 1980. Tolnay, Charles de. Michelangelo. Sculptor, Painter, Architect. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. Tolnay, Charles de. “Nouvelles Remarques sur Ia Chapelle Médicis.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts ser. 6. v. 73 (Feb.1969) 65-80. p. Trexler, Richard C. and Lewis, Mary Elizabeth. “Two Captains and Three Kings: New Light on the the Medici Chapel.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History. Vol. IV Vancouver: The University of British Columbia, 1981. Tzonis, Alexander, and Lefaivre, Liane. Classical Architecture. The Poetics of Order. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 1990. University of St.Thomas Art Department ed. Builders and Humanists; The Renaissance Popes as Patrons of the Arts. Houston: University of St.Thomas. 1966. Vasari, Giorgio. Le Vite d& PlU eccellenti Pittori Scultori e architettori nella redazioni del 1550 e 1568. Firenze, Studio per Edizioni Scelte. 1966. Vasari, Giorgio. The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects in Four Volumes. London: Dent, 1966. Veeser, H. Aram. The New Historicism. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc., 1989.  103  Vitruvius. The Ten Books on Architecture. Toronto: Dover Publications, Inc.,1960. Ward-Perkins, J.B. Roman Imperial Architecture. London, Penguin Books, 1989. White, John. The Birth and Rebirth of Pictorial Space. London: Boston Books, 1967. Wilde, Johannes. Michelangelo. Six lectures byJohannes Wilde. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. Wind, Edgar. Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1968. Winner, Matthias. Cosimo ii Vecchio als Cicero. Humanistisches in Francabigios Fresko zu Poggio a Caiano.” Zeitschrift Für Kunstgeschichte. MUnchen: Deutscher Kunstverlag, V. 33 (1970) p. 261 -297. Walker, D.P. Spiritual and Demonic Magic. From Ficino to Campanella. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975. Wittkower, Rudolf and Margot. Born Under Saturn. New York: Random House. 1963. Wittkower, Rudolf and Margot. The Divine Michelangelo. The Florentine Academy’s Homage on his Death in 1564. A facsimile edition of ‘Esequie del Divino Michelagnolo Buonarroti’ Florence, 1564. London: Phaidon Press. 1964. Wittkower, Rudolf. Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism. Random House, 1965.  New York:  Wittkower, Rudolf. “Fviichelangelo’s BibNoteca Laurenziana.” The Art Bulletin v. 16 (June 1934) p. 123-218. Wolin, Judith. “The Inner Eye: Speculations on Michelangelo’s Architecture and Florentine Neo-Platonism.” Modulus 14 (1980/1981) p. 68-77.  104  List of Illustrations Unless stated otherwise, photographs are taken by the author.  1  Jean Fouquet, The Martyrdom of St. Apollonia, c.1 455 Source: Richard Southern, Medieval Theatre in the Round.  2  Jaques Callot, Guerra d’Amore Source: A.M Nagler, Theatre Festivals of the Medic!.  3  Giostra from the rooms of Eleanora, Palazzo Vecchio. Florence. Source: Emma Micheletti, Family Portrait. The Medici of Florence  4  Brunelleschi, Apse Dome in the Old Sacristy, S. Lorenzo, Florence  5  Vasari, The Entrance of Leo X, Palazzo Vecchio, Florence Source: Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art. Pontormo, Leo X, and the Two Cosimos.  6  Dosio, Drawing of the Janus Arch Source: Borsi, Franco, et. al. Romantic! e I disegni di architettura agli UTfizi; Giovanni Antonio Dosio. Roma: Officina, 1976  7  Giuliano and Lorenzo de’Medici Source: Micheletti, Emma, Family Portrait. The Medic! of florence.  8  Serlio, Woodcut of Stage Design Source: Henry Millon and Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani, eds., The Renaissance from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo.  9  Bramante, Set Design Source: Millon and Lampugnani.  10 Serlio. Set Design with Venetian Buildings Source: Millon and Lampugnani. 11 Plan, S. Lorenzo, Florence Source,: Tolnay, The Medici Chapel, 1970. 12 Plan, Medici Chapel, Florence Source: Tolnay, 1970. 13 Michelangelo and assistants, Pensoso, Medici Chapel, Florence 14 Michelangelo and assistants, Bastoniere, Medici Chapel, Florence 105  15 Michelangelo and assistants, North Elevation, Medici Chapel, Florence Source: Tolnay, 1970. 16 Michelangelo and assistants, Sepoltura da testa, South Elevation, Medici Chapel, Florence 17  Michelangelo, Sketch of South Elevation, Medici Chapel Source: Tolnay, 1970.  18 Frontispiece for Triumph of Fame printed edition of Petrarch’s Tionfi Source: Konrad Elsenbichler and Amilcare A lannucci, eds., Petrarch’s Triumphs: Allegory and Spectacle. 19 Michelangelo and assistants, Pensoso 20  Imperial figure of Roman official with mappa, Capitoline Museum, Rome  21 Vasari, Lorenzo d&Medici Source: Micheletti. 22 Vasari, Alessandro de’Medici Source: Micheletti. 23 rvlichelangelo and assistants, Bastoniere 24 Exterior of the Medici Chapel, East Elevation 25 Exterior of the Medici Chapel, West Elevation 26 Interior Elevation 27 Michelangelo, sketch of Brunelleschi’s chancel above a sketch for proposed chapels on the Medici Chapel Source: Tolnay, 1970. 28 Detail of door lintel and console 29 Detail of east elevation 30 Detail of molding 31 Detail of capitals  32 Candelabrum with mask  106  33 Bastoniere, Front view Source: Tolnay, 1970 34 Bastoniere, Back View Tolnay, 1970 Source: 35 DetaU of mask under the figure of Night 36 Michelangelo, Drawing of a captain’s tomb for Medici Chapel Source: Tolnay, 1970. 37 Bruschi: Reconstruction of Capitoline theatre façade Source: Stinger, “The Campidoglio as the Locus of Renovatlo Imperil in Renaissance Rome.” Art and Poiltics in Late Medieval and Early Renaissance ltaly. 1250-1500. 38 Michelangelo and assistants, Trophy 39 Salviati, Detail of Triumph of Camilius, Palazzo Vecchi Source: Cox-Rearick. 40 Detail of terracotta frieze, Medici Villa, Pogglo a Caiano 41 Michelangelo, copy of page from the Coner Codex with the page from the Codex. Source: Giovanni Agosti, Vincenzo Farinella, a cura di, Michelangelo: stud! di antichita dal Co dice Coner. 42 Plan of the Capitoline Theatre after the Codex Goner Source: Stinger. 43 West Elevation, Medici Chapel 44 Bruschi, Interior Elevation, Reconstruction of the Capitoline theatre. Source: Stinger. 45 Axonometric, Reconstriiction of the Capitoline theatre Source: Arnaldo Bruschi, “II Teatro Capitoilno del 1513,” Bollettino del Centro Infernazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladlo. 46 Bennasuti, Ground Plan of the Teatro Olimpico, Vicenza Source: J. Thomas Costing, Andrea Palladlo’s Teatro Olimpico. 47 Candelabrum with Pelican, Medici Chape’ 48 Natura Genetrix from the Portico Frieze, Medici Villa, Pogglo a Caiano  107  49 Religion, Faith, Charity, Vatican Museums, n.1 57 Religione manufactured by P. Van Aelst, Brussels, c. 1525.  -  Giustizia Caritâ, -  50 Sansovino, Cardinal’s tomb, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome 51 Rossolino, Cardinal’s tomb, San Minato al Monte, Florence 52 Pollajoulo, Innocent VII, St. Peters, Rome 53 The Medici Chapel 54 The Medici Chapel 55 Michelangelo, Sketch for the New Sacristy Source: Tolnay, 1970. 56 Pietro S. Bartoli, print illustrating the Return of Leo to Florence from Exile, after Raphael’s design for one of the Sistine tapestries Source: Matthias Winner, “Cosimo il Vecchio als Cicero. Humanistisches in Francabigios Fresko zu Poggio a Caiano,” Zeitschritt Für Kunstgeschichte. 57 Plan for a Medici Palace in Florence Source: Millon and Lampugnani. 58 Domenico Morone, detail of cassone panel illustrating a tournament, c. 1494 Source: Castiglione, The Courtier, Fig. 19. 59 Fra Simone Fern da Urbino, early seventeenth-century illustration for a manuscript of The Courtier Source: Castiglione, Fig. 15.  108  •  •  :  fig. 1  Jean Fouquet, The Martyrdom of St. Apollonia, c. 1455  4  fig. 2 Jacques Callot, Guerra d’Arnore  ff0  fig. 3 Giostra from the rooms of Eleanora, Palazzo Vecchio, Florence  111  fig. 4 Brunelleschi, Apse Dome in the Old Sacristy, S. Lorenzo, Florence  i/a  -  tig. 5 Vasari, The Entrance ot Leo X, Palazzo Vecchio, Florence ,f.-  t p  s  fl_tv  )a.  *g  •h  •t St  fl  .,  H  c..  /  -? r4_[  —  a  —  -.  It.  z  -  “22  S.-  a-  -sf1 -  *  i  -‘C  2ç  ?  4  C.  -  __.-&__  4!v .Aij; -;t: W y-: -  —  -  -  I  c-  —  I c%tt JtSA1  t 1 I,  )  .. ....‘..  ‘F -  .-  ‘f  -  -  4 .  ...  if  /  ,“T:  :!  A  ••  A. ‘.  •.  :,  fig. 6 Doso, Drawing of the Janus Arch  i4  fig. 7 Giuliano de’Medici  Lorenzo de’Medici  f/c  ‘ 4%.% —  .4  4II. I  I  Pj  L  lii  ro  i/j  rw  C  -  ciLzn II  IñiI iMI1 II  JJJ  -  fl  WII—T.L1Jl .9  I  -  -rr  9zjL I  I  ‘  x  -  1 H aa  fig. 8 Serlio, Woodcut of Stage Design  (1  —  0  -h  ci)  CD  w  CD  :-  EJ CD Co CD  CD  0  -I  C,) CD  C  (p  --—_,‘•.-.9,•.  :,  CD Co CD  CD  a) CD  -I  03  CD  -h  CD ,  i  81/ -I,  • I  -U Cl) CD D N  a  -Il 0 -I  CD  U  0 CD  ,,  U  z  //  •.y.  -  (p -  I\)  -U  w  CD 0. C)  C) 1)  -o CD  m 0 -I CD  0 CD  fig. 13  Micheangeio and assistants, Pensoso. Medici ChapeL Florence  fig. 14 Michelangelo and assistanis, Bastoniere. Medici Chapel, Florence  fig. 15  Michelangelo and assistants, North Elevation, Medici Chapel, Florence  fig. 16  Michelangelo and assistants, South Elevation, Medici Chapel, Florence  ‘21  :‘  fig. 17  l  Michelangelo, Sketch of South Elevation, Medici Chapel  EAMAE  fig. 18 Frontispiece for Triumph of Fame from Petrarch’s Tionfi  TRIVMPHVS  owoj ‘Wfl&SflfrN eunoudea ‘eddew m!M P!#O UEWOd JO einSij (e!J&dWi  OSOSUOd  6  O 6fj  u  fig. 21  Vasari, Lorenzo deMedici  fig. 22  Vasari, Alessandro de’Medici  fig. 23  Michelangelo and assistants, Bastoniere  125  fig. 24 Exterior of the Medici Chapel, East Elevation  fig 25  Exterior of the Medici Chapel, West Elevation  fig. 26 interior Elevation  fz  -;;;  I  !,  :_  •‘‘  j:  9i—.-’  —  r:-L  I  .L4fl*  ,ucCIhi  !I  ---)‘“‘  3  0  —  ,_—_.._  L  4d  • ‘l”  —  o  ‘7  Cro V  4  Ii  9.cofr  Uo4m’ 1 S••  ‘r  3.’  —  —  ç  I  IC  u  4  fig. 27 Michetangelo, sketch of Brunelleschi’s chancel above a sketch for proposed chapels on the Medici Chapel  fig. 28  Detaii of door Nntel and consoie  fig. 29 Detail of east elevation  izq  fig. 30 Detail of molding  1  fig. 31  Detail of capitals  fig. 32 Qandelabrum base with mask  fig. 33 Bastoniere, Front View  fig. 34 Bastoniere, Back View  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items