June 2019 René Kiers
WHO DESERVES THE CREDIT?
The authorship of the Biblioteca Laurenziana’s staircase:
towards a justified attribution.
Colophon
MA Thesis
Leiden University, Arts and Culture 2018-2019 – Art, Architecture and Interior before 1800
Student: Lourens René Kiers
Student number: s1176897
Email: r.kiers@gmail.com
First reader: Dr. E. Grasman Second reader: Dr. J. Roding
CONTENTS
Introduction 4
1 The architectural history of the Laurenziana’s staircase 9
2 Attribution of architectural design – a legal perspective 20
3 The earliest sketches, Michelangelo’s letters to Vasari and Ammanati, 24 and the staircase as executed
4 Earlier contemporary staircases 37
5 The match of the stairs with the rest of the vestibule 44
6 The role of the patrons 51
7 Conclusions 56
Bibliography 58
Introduction
The stairs in the Ricetto of the Biblioteca Laurenziana Medicea in Florence, giving entrance to the actual library on the first floor, are generally attributed to Michelangelo. For Bartolomeo Ammanati (1511-1592) only a marginal designer’s role in support of the realisation of the stairs is left. The library, and in particular the Ricetto with the stairs, is widely regarded as the defining example of mannerist architecture.1 Some writers, like James Ackerman even see the
Ricetto as Michelangelo’s greatest achievement in architecture.2 According to Wittkower the
Laurenziana stands at the beginning of a completely new view of architectural tradition.3
However, on closer look, the attribution of the staircase to Michelangelo appears to be
problematic. A troublesome and often postponed building process started in 1525. In 1526 the (very) library room and in 1527 the vestibule had essentially been completed. The stairs were foreseen for 1533, but were only executed and completed 30 years later in 1559 by
Ammanati. Ammanati could not base himself on Michelangelo’s original sketches dating back to the years 1524-1525, lost as they presumably were at the time. Ammanati had to work from nothing more than two very short descriptions in letters from Michelangelo, one to Vasari from 1555, and a second one, accompanied by a (supposedly lost) small clay model, to Ammanati himself, from 1559. Michelangelo, old, unhealthy and depressed by that time, had left Florence already in 1534 to settle for good in Rome. He wrote that he had great difficulty in remembering his original design. His letters offer very little detail and Ammanati must have had considerable influence on the eventual appearance of the stairs, in any case on the ornamentation on which Michelangelo remained silent, giving Ammanati full freedom. Given the considerable lapse of 35 years between commissioning of the library and realisation of the stairs, the important part played by Ammanati in the execution of the staircase and Michelangelo’s most limited role therein, it is surprising that the authorship of the design of the stairs as eventually realised has in fact remained unquestioned in scholarly literature.
1 Wallace 1994, p. 135
2 Ackerman, lyrical throughout his book, e.g. p. 44: Michelangelo’s “fantastic design of his stairway”;
Wittkower, p. 123; p. 216
3 Wittkower. p. 216: ‘The ideas here conceived go in their consequence and strength beyond anything
There hasn’t been any debate on the matter of attribution of the stairs as such.4 The
Laurenziana stairs did however receive ample scholarly attention, often in the context of
1. The San Lorenzo with the Ricetto (immediately to the left of the church with two rows of windows above the cloister) and the reading room, further to the left, with one long row of windows)
literature on the Ricetto or the library’s architecture as a whole. In 1934, Wittkower was the first who made an exhaustive research into the architectural history of the stairs.5 The roles of
others involved in the building process from 1524 onwards have been recognized and acknowledged.6 The latest substantial scholarly contributions to an analysis of the stairs’
4 As far as I can see the only writer who touches upon the subject of Ammanati’s part in the design seems to be
Robin O’Bryan, in his contribution as a graduate student at the Rutgers New Jersey State University in The
Rutgers Art Review, vol. 17, 1997, p. 22, 26 and 27. O’Bryan acknowledges the interventions by Ammanati as
far as the eventual design is concerned, but his remarks did not receive much attention, certainly not in the context of attribution of the design of the whole staircase and did not trigger any serious scholarly debate.
5 Wittkower, pp. 123-218
6 See extensively Wallace 1994 who lists many masons and stoneworkers by name and gives an overview of
design history are by Brothers7, Gronegger,8 Hemsoll9, par excellence by Wallace10 in his
major work on Michelangelo’s working practices on the floor at the San Lorenzo projects, and by Cooper on the design history of the Ricetto and of the secret room for rare books in
particular which had been contemplated originally.11 Especially Cooper’s article from 2011
may be regarded as an important upgrade of Wittkower’s work which by now may be seen as somewhat outdated and at some instances – many new instances later - also wrong.12 The first
three mentioned authors are not in full agreement on whether the stairs conform in all respects to Michelangelo’s instructions in his above letter to Vasari. However, even a positive answer to the question whether the stairs as executed match Michelangelo’s design, would not solve the problematic question of attribution given the very limited scope of Michelangelo’s instructions and the work subsequently done by Ammanati.
The subject of this thesis concerns the history of the design and building of the Biblioteca Laurenziana’s staircase. It is aimed at formulating a balanced judgment on the authorship of the stairs as executed, providing a fair and qualified attribution and giving credit to those who deserve it: Michelangelo, Ammanati and/or others.13
To that effect, first the theoretical framework for such proper attribution should be set, including criteria for the attribution of an architectural design to which more than one person contributed. Questions that arise in this connection are:
In how far do the stairs conform to the descriptions in Michelangelo’s letters to Vasari and Ammanati and to the thirty years earlier sketches?
How does the amount of detail in these written descriptions compare to the design work which still needed to be done in order to complete the stairs? Can this additional design – including ornamentation - be regarded as an
original artistic solution?
7 Brothers, 1969 8 Gronegger 2007, pp. 104-139 9 Hemsoll, pp. 29-62 10 Wallace 1994 11 Cooper, p. 49-90 12 Cooper, p. 51
13 The idea for this subject was born in 2014, when I addressed this question in a short paper which I had to write
on the Laurenziana in the second BA year, as part of a course preparing for an excursion to Florence including the Laurenziana.
How do the executed stairs compare to other contemporary stairs? Do the stairs match with the Ricetto as a whole?
What have been the roles of pope Clement VII and Duke Cosimo I with regard to the staircase? Has their involvement gone beyond normal contemporary patronage and would that possibly even justify attribution to them as well? The outcome of this research is that attribution of the design of the Laurentian staircase solely to Michelangelo is not justified. Ammanati, being responsible for many important and original design solutions, should at least be given the credit of a co-authorship or an independent authorship of his own. His ornamentation forms a significant part of the work, not only influencing the overall language of the staircase but also of the austere Ricetto as a whole. In comparison to Michelangelo’s input, the contribution of Ammanati to the design as realised is even more important. Then there are the patrons.Until his death in 1534 Pope Clement VII has been intensely committed to the realisation of the Laurentian library, the building and the design of which he commissioned to Michelangelo. However, from the outset he seems to have respected Michelangelo’s choices. Duke Cosimo I however is as a patron responsible for an important choice with respect to the design as eventually executed: Cosimo I ordered the execution of the stairs in pietra serena, disregarding Michelangelo’s strong preference for walnut. The role of Ammanati in this connection remains to be seen but might have been more decisive than generally assumed. The roles played by pope Clement VII and Duke Cosimo I, although each a conditio sine qua non for the end result, remain within the boundaries of patronage and do not amount to a co-authorship of the stairs or justify attribution. However, certainly the influence by Cosimo I has meant a further
diminishment of Michelangelo’s influence on the final result. Moreover this final result fits in contemporary developments of stairs-architecture, whereas the Laurenziana staircase does not match well with the rest of the Ricetto and the library room.
It is clear that attribution in matters like this remains a subjective exercise. Present day doctrines and notions of international copyright law proved helpful in giving some notions and guidance of how to arrive at a justified attribution of the stairs. At the end of the day however it remains a subjective view, to be formulated by the critical objective art historian.
My research method has mainly consisted of study of literature on the design history of the staircase including the letters from Michelangelo to Vasari and Ammanati, a draft letter to Vasari containing a tiny sketch, and the surviving earliest sketches of the staircase. I
compared the stairs with other contemporary architecture, particularly by Ammanati and Michelangelo. In order to address the issue of the attribution criteria I studied literature on nowadays doctrines on attribution in architecture and nowadays principles of international copyright law. Furthermore the involvement of pope Clement VII and Duke Cosimo I has been studied, again on basis of available literature.
In the following chapters I will first give an overview of the architectural history of the library (chapter 1). From that overview the problem of a well-balanced attribution will already become evident. To sharpen the mind I will address the conceptual problem of attribution in architecture, which in fact is a legal rather than an art historical question especially in this case where we have two known candidates who both contributed (chapter 2). Bearing that in mind, chapter 3 will make a close comparison between
Michelangelo’s early sketches in the 1520’s, his letters to Vasari and Ammanati in the 1550’s and the staircase as finally executed as from 1559. Chapters 4 and 5 will investigate the Laurenziana stairs in the context of other contemporary staircases, respectively the stairs’ match with the vestibule as a whole. The roles of Clement VII and Duke Cosimo I as Michelangelo’s most important patrons as far as the stairs are concerned, also deserve attention and will be discussed in chapter 6. This all leads to what I hope will be some useful conclusions with respect to a fair attribution of the Laurenziana stairs on basis of present day scholarly knowledge, in chapter 7.
1
The architectural history of the
Laurenziana’s staircase
“The Biblioteca Laurenziana must be reckoned as the most important and influential Italian secular building of the sixteenth century”. With these words, written almost four centuries after Vasari’s jubilation in his Live of Michelangelo,14 Wittkower opens his comprehensive
article in The Art Bulletin in 1934.15 It is ironic that in January 1524 Michelangelo, when
being assigned the task of the library, hesitantly remarked that building was not his profession.16 Wittkower’s article is the first exhaustive investigation of the Biblioteca
Laurenziana’s architectural history and has remained the stepping stone for other authors writing on the Laurenziana ever since. To my knowledge, no author has disputed the
architectural importance of the Laurenziana . The Laurenziana and in particular it’s vestibule, the Ricetto, has been acknowledged throughout the ages as a masterpiece and a decisive moment in western architecture, right from its completion in the early 1560’s by Vasari in his
Life of Michelangelo of 1568. The admiration continued up to the present day, by scholars
and by artists alike: Mark Rothko’s famous 1958 Seagram Murals were inspired by the
Ricetto (figure 2).17
Already in 1519 the idea of erecting a library at the premises of San Lorenzo had come up. The premises had already been acquired in 1477-78 by Lorenzo il Magnifico.18 The
library was to house de’ Medici family’s famous collection of antique writings started by Cosimo il Vecchio (1389-1464) and greatly enlarged by Lorenzo il Magnifico (1449-1492)
14 Vasari-De Vere, p. 642 et seq. 15 Wittkower, p. 123
16 Poggi, Carteggio III, p. 20 “…non sia mia professione.” Salmon, p. 419 17 See i.a. Van Eck, p. 30
by the end of the quattrocento.19 The plans however became only financially possible when
pope Leo X, who had spent enormous amounts of money on warfare, died and was succeeded by Giulio de ’Medici (1478-1534) as Clement VII. It was Clement VII who decided to
commission the building of the library. As Ackerman has remarked, it was a curious mixture of medieval and modern ideas that motivated the commissioning of the library.20
Traditionally, books were kept in monasteries, but humanist ideas asked for study by worldly scientists and a certain accessibility to the public.
2. Mark Rothko, Black on Maroon, 1958, Tate Modern, inspired by the vertical columns in the Ricetto walls
The commissioning and the building process of the library is closely connected to that of the New Sacristy in de San Lorenzo. Work on the New Sacristy started in November 1519 and its
19 Cosimo il Vecchio set up the Biblioteca Marciana in Florence in the convent of San Marco. His grandson
Lorenzo’s collection would eventually be housed in the Biblioteca Laurenziana, which opened to the public (that is: scholars) in 1571. In 1808 the Marciana collection was moved to the Biblioteca Laurenziana, from then on called the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana
architecture was probably essentially completed by January 1524.21 On the – not
unproblematic - selection of the site for the library much has been written, to start with by Wittkower, and in his footsteps by, amongst others, Salmon and Elam.22
Already one week after he was elected pope, Clement VII and Michelangelo met in Rome in December 1523. Michelangelo hoped to receive instructions to recontinue work on the New Sacristy of the San Lorenzo, which had been suspended. According to Wallace, Clement VII not only promised financial support for the New Sacristy but also instructed Michelangelo to build a library at the premises of the San Lorenzo.23 At that time however
Michelangelo had already done some work on the library, in particular in respect to the vestibule, at least if it is true what Ascanio Condivi (c. 1525-1574), Michelangelo’s
biographer writes. According to Condivi Michelangelo got temporarily out of work when in 1521 pope Leo X died. Leo X was succeeded by Pope Hadrian VI, whose papacy lasted only for a short time and who was rather indifferent to art. Giulio, then Cardinal de’ Medici wanted “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” so Condivi says.24 A more likely motive for Giulio’s assignment is that in this way he prevented
Michelangelo to work in Rome on the tomb for Julius II.25 Another theory, put forward by
Caroline Elam, is that it would also have been possible for Giulio to instruct Michelangelo to work on the façade of the San Lorenz, but that Giulio would have considered the façade’s style too “Leonine” (that is: too classical, as many other architectural works commissioned by Leo X), and preferred a break, perhaps seeking to find new ways. In the New Sacristy and the library Michelangelo could much better apply his new style, which was rapidly developing those years.26 In any case, it would mean that some work with respect to the vestibule had
already been done in the period between 1 December 1521 (when Leo X died ) and 26 November 1523 (when Giulio was elected pope). At that time Giulio, from 1519 until his election, was de facto governor of Florence and thus in a position for such commission. As Condivi (c. 1525) wasn’t even born at the time, it seems safe to assume that certainly for this
21 Elam 2005, p. 204, 206
22 Wittkower, p. 123-218, Elam 1979, p. 155-186, Salmon p. 29-62 23 Wallace, p. 189
24 Condivi-Wohl, p. 63 25 Salmon, p. 419
26 Elam 2005, 203. On Michelangelo’s new style see Elam, 2005 p. 201,215, 216; Ackerman p. 44 et seq. and p.
narrative Condivi has relied on Michelangelo. Of course Michelangelo might have been mistaken – Condivi’s biography contains many errors - 27 but on the other hand it is not just a
date but it concerns a crucial episode in Michelangelo’s career. It remains unclear what the “work” mentioned by Condivi entailed; perhaps it concerned only initial design work. The very first sketches we know of the staircase however are from c. 1524 (figure 5) . These are very rapid and rough, and mixed with other sketches and small drawings of figures on the same paper which makes it unlikely that any substantial work – even solely design work - on the staircase worth mentioning was already done in 1523 or even earlier. Salmon says that both the New Sacristy and the library were under discussion from 1519, but priority was given to the New Sacristy, the library only being pursued after Giulio’s election as pope.28
This is consistent with Salmon’s finding that the definite site of the library was agreed on 3 April 1524 with the acceptance of Michelangelo’s proposal thereto of 20 March 1524.29 As
Wallace describes, Michelangelo visited quarries for the selection of marble for the Medici chapel already in 1519.30 The Pietra Serena variety of the local Florence Macigno stone
(already used by Brunelleschi a century earlier for the old sacristy at San Lorenzo) which Michelangelo had selected for the library however began to arrive no earlier than January 1525. It was first applied in the reading room; subsequently the reading room and the vestibule were raised and roofed between March 1525 and August 1526.31 In August 1526
also the columns in the vestibule were in place.32 The reading desks, the tile floor and the
carved ceiling of the reading room were completed after Michelangelo’s definite departure to Rome, just as the staircase to which nothing yet had been done.33 Wallace says that ‘while
integral to the overall design’ these ‘are decorative furnishings of a largely completed building. Even the famous staircase is a piece of architectural furniture; it was a secondary problem that occupied Michelangelo far less than it has modern scholars.’ This view might well be correct. It could also be one of the reasons for Michelangelo’s lessened interest in the staircase more than thirty years later, as I will argue further down in this thesis. In any case the staircase regarded as just a piece of decorative furnishing would certainly explain why in
27 Wohl in Condivi-Wohl, p. xx, who remarks that ‘it has been rightly pointed out that Condivi is unreliable in
questions of fact and detail’.
28 Salmon, p. 419 29 Salmon, p. 422 30 Wallace p. 78 et seq.
31 Wallace, p. 146. See p. 147 et seq. for an overview of the Macigno quarries around Florence 32 Wallace p. 146, table 8: San Lorenzo: Chronology and Cost
April 1527 not more than initial ideas on the stairs as appearing from the early sketches existed.
3. Jacopo da Empoli, Michelangelo presenting models for the façade of San Lorenzo, the Laurentian Library and the Capella Medici to Pope Leo X and Cardinal Giulio de' Medici (the future Pope Clement VII), 1617-1619, oil on canvas
Foote in his dissertation and also Carroll give a detailed description of Michelangelo’s
working method, with precise working drawings, templates (“modani”) and models which he provided to his staff consisting of many masons and stone carvers.34 In 1976 full scale
drawings for the Medici chapel were discovered behind the walls of the New Sacristy
showing the smallest details – but not of the stairs. Such drawings must not be confused with the sort of the few tiny sketches of the stairs which have survived from these years and which will be discussed later in this thesis (figures 4 and 5).35
34 Foote, Well-tempered building: Michelangelo's full-scale template drawings at San Lorenzo, and Carroll, p.51
et seq. See also Brothers, p. 165
Michelangelo was repeatedly given to understand that he should spend whatever money was needed.36 Costs for the stone and the workmen were indeed huge37. According to Wallace
who was able to give a very accurate and detailed description of the workforce employed and its cost thanks to Michelangelo’s perfect administration, the work level reached a number of 500 to 600 man-day’s in 1525 over July and August at the San Lorenzo projects. A hundred stone (Macigno) carvers were employed at the library alone in the years 1524 and 1525. This was exceptionally high for the standards of the time.38 Michelangelo acting as a foreman (as
capomaestro), selected his workers carefully and knew them all. He took good care for them
which contributed to the stability of his workforce and hence the continuity of the work.39 All
work at San Lorenzo was supervised by Michelangelo himself. Some work was di suo mano but most was carried out by talented others following his detailed design.40
The building progress of the library room and the Ricetto from August 1524 until April 1527 can be followed closely in the intensive correspondence between Clement VII and Michelangelo. Three letters a week were no exception.41 Also letters from Michelangelo’s
agent in Rome, Giovan Francesco Fatucci, provide some insight in the decisions taken by Clement. It would seem that in April 1525 Clement agreed to a staircase occupying the full width of the vestibule.42 In April 1527 the walls – including the significant pilasters and
volutes - and roof were just completed when in May the sack of Rome meant the immediate suspension of all building activities at San Lorenzo, lacking any further budget.43 We owe the
detailed knowledge of the building progress in the years 1524-1527 to Michelangelo’s perfectionist mind seen back in his entrepreneurship and administration as well as to Clement’s close involvement from a distance which necessitated their intensive
correspondence. It also seems safe to assume that without the huge admiration of the ‘divine’ Michelangelo already in his own time by Vasari and the intense papal patronage, not so much information would have survived up to the present day. At the same time however, it
36 Wallace 1994, p. 144, p. 136 37 Wallace 1994, p. 182 38 Wallace 1994, p. 87 et seq. 39 Carroll, p. 53
40 Wallace 1994, p. 193 and also Salmon, p. 419 41 See Wallace 1994, p. 135 et seq.
42 Cooper, p. 65, Wittkower p. 37
regrettably also explains why our knowledge of the library project in the years after the sack of Rome is considerably less.
After the sack of Rome the Medici were expelled from Florence. The new republic choose the side of France in their war against the Liga of Cognac. The French however were defeated in Naples (1528) and Landriano (1529) and were forced to sign peace with Emperor Charles V. When subsequently pope Clement and Venice also signed peace with Charles V, Florence was on its own. Charles V ordered his armies to take Florence and install Alessandro de’ Medici, son of Clement. Michelangelo, deeply republican as he was, had volunteered for the defence of Florence and had been appointed director of the city’s fortifications. Florence had to surrender in August 1530 and Medici rule was re-established. Michelangelo was forgiven his defection and was asked to complete the project. Alessandro de’ Medici (1510-1537) became Duke of Florence in 1533 and ruled until 1537 when he was assassinated and succeeded by Duke Cosimo I (1519-1574) who would rule until his death in 1574.
Work on the library room and its ceiling was resumed only in 1533. Wittkower has pointed to a new contract, drawn up 20 August 1533 between Michelangelo and 5
stonemasons providing for the realisation of the staircase to be completed by the end of March 1534. It is most uncertain whether indeed work on the staircase was actually carried out in these years. Wittkower was convinced that indeed a part of the central flight was constructed under the supervision of Michelangelo, basing himself on the 1533 contract. This contract, according to Wittkower curiously overlooked by Michelangelo scholars, was quoted only in an obscure work, as Wittkower calls it himself, by Gaetano Guasti published in 1876.44 On
the grounds of this text, an own interpretation of its literal wording on basis of contemporary meaning and some other far going assumptions, Wittkower argues that this construction although not identical to the early sketches and neither to the later staircase as executed, would show some similarity to the later staircase in respect of the landing.45 O’Bryan disputes
Wittkower’s linguistic arguments but does seem to agree that some oval steps had been carved already in 1533 or 1534 basing himself on Vasari.46 In my opinion, this however
remains to be seen. It is likely that some stone had been selected and prepared, but if stones had been carved already into their final form, ready to be mounted, and if they still existed in
44 Wittkower, p. 167, note 82. 45 Wittkower, p. 168
1533/1534 (or even in the 1550’s) is another matter. Vasari writes in his Life of Michelangelo, when describing a fruitless attempt by the sculptor Niccolò Tribolo (1500-1550) at the
instruction of Cosimo I to gather some information about the stairs from Michelangelo in Rome:
‘Whereupon Tribolo finally asked him about the staircase of the library of S. Lorenzo, for which Michelagnolo had caused many stones to be prepared, but there was no model of it nor any certainty as to the exact form, and, although there were some marks on a pavement and some other sketches in clay, the true and final design could not be found. However, no matter how much Tribolo might beseech him and invoke the name of the Duke, Michelagnolo would never answer a word save that he remembered nothing of it.’47
‘had caused many stones to be prepared’: that is not exactly a completed step and certainly not a completed part of a staircase. What follows after these words in this passage would only seem to confirm that in fact nothing of the original material was left: ‘there was no model of it nor any certainty as to the exact form’ and ‘the true and final design could not be found’. Tribolo visited Michelangelo in the years of the papacy of Paul III (1534-1549). Wittkower dates Tribolo’s visit at the turn of the year 1549/1550.48 Vasari’s description in the Life of
Michelangelo concurs with his Life of Tribolo in which also an unsuccessful attempt by Tribolo to make a beginning with the stairs (according to Wittkower at the end of 1549 49) is
mentioned. Tribolo would have tried to place ‘four steps in position’, but failed and was sent off to Rome:
‘but not finding either the plan or the measurements of Michelagnolo, by order of the Duke he went to Rome, not only to hear the opinion of Michelagnolo with regard to that staircase, but also to make an effort to bring him to Florence. But he did not succeed in the one object or in the other, for Michelagnolo, not wishing to leave
Rome, excused himself in a handsome manner, and as for the staircase he declared that he remembered neither the measurements nor anything else’ 50
On basis of this narrative it is likely that indeed an attempt has been made by Tribolo.
Gronegger has extensively investigated traces on the walls of the vestibule, most probably of the failed attempt by Tribolo.51 On basis thereof Gronegger has tried to reconstruct the
supposed form of Tribolo’s plan in 3D, but the result is far away from both the early sketches
47 Vasari-De Vere, p. 711 48 Wittkower, p. 170 49 Wittkower, ibidem 50 Vasari-De Vere, p.249 51 Gronegger 2007, p. 113 et seq
by Michelangelo and the actual stairs.52 In my opinion, Vasari’s text in the Life of Tribolo
does not provide a convincing argument that already in 1534 a true part of the staircase had been constructed, also in view of the letters from 1555 and 1559 by Michelangelo to Vasari respectively Ammanati (which will be dealt with in Chapter 3) who would eventually realise the stairs in 1559-1560 after Tribolo’s death in September 1550. These letters do not in any way refer to earlier work done. Moreover, Michelangelo returned to Rome in November 1533 and visited Florence only briefly in May and, for the last time in his life, in June 1534. It is very unlikely that Michelangelo supervised the carving of some steps closely. Anyhow, for the purpose of answering the questions of this thesis the matter is not that relevant. Even if some oval steps had been carved in 1533-1534, and integrated by Ammanati in 1559-1560, this does not answer the question whether we may attribute the design of the staircase, constructed as a whole, solely to Michelangelo. In that context the just quoted passages are important however: these make it very unlikely that there were any useful sketches let alone drawings that Ammanati could work from. Even Michelangelo’s tiny sketches from
1524/1525 (figures 4 and 5) which have survived the centuries, were not available to him or Vasari in the 1550’s. And whatever might have existed in 1534, it apparently provided insufficient information for Tribolo to build the stairs succesfully in 1549. Neither did it for Ammanati in the second half of the 1550’s before he wrote to Michelangelo asking again tor information concerning the stairs. Apparently, the 1555 letter to Vasari didn’t give Ammanati enough clue. At the end of 1558 or early January 1559, on behalf of Duke Cosimo I, he asked Michelangelo’s advice on the staircase.53 Michelangelo replied in a short letter, sending him a
small clay model. The last letter is quite comparable to the 1555 letter to Vasari and will be dealt with extensively in Chapter 3. Michelangelo remained silent about details and explicitly left Ammanati full freedom as regards ornamentation.
In his two short letters from 1555 respectively 1559 Michelangelo provides some important thoughts on the stairs but also stresses his poor health. I believe Michelangelo’s health at the time is to a certain extent a relevant but neglected aspect in the architectural history of the Laurenziana stairs. Michelangelo’s repeated de facto not very helpful reactions can be seen as a refusal to go into detail because of a lack of interest, or lost interest, but also as an inability
52 Gronegger, p. 114, 118
53 Michelangelo-Ramsden, p. 184, letter no. 445 to Lionardo Buonarotti: “Bartolomeo Ammanati, clerk of works
at the Opera of Santa Maria del Fiore, writes to ask my advice, on behalf of the Duke, about a certain staircase which is to be built in the Library at San Lorenzo.” Ammanati’s own letter has not been discovered. For Michelangelo’s reply, see chapter 3.
to do so because of his deteriorating physical ànd mental health. Condivi writes in his biography, published in 1553, that
‘… although he was sickly as a boy, and as a man he has had two illnesses. But, for some years now he has had great discomfort in urinating, an affliction which would have developed into a stone if it had not been relieved by the efforts and diligence of the aforesaid Messer Realdo.’54
Vasari mentions that Michelangelo wrote to him that he had excused himself with Duke Cosimo to come to Florence saying inter alia that he was “in danger of his life from disease of the kidneys, colic, and the stone” and that he had “no heart for anything but death”.55 Vasari
quotes only a part of this letter, in which Michelangelo writes “…I have lost my memory and my wits…”.56 Vasari doesn’t mention a date, but it must have been shortly after
Michelangelo’s letter “concerning the staircase for the library” of 28 September 1555. Julius III, pope at the time of Condivi’s biography, assigned soon after his accession in 1550 the transformation of the Villa Giulia into a sumptuous papal residence to three architects, Vasari, Ammanati and Vignola. Michelangelo was hired as an advisor.57 These works were
completed in 1553-1554. Condivi writes: “the present pontiff, Julius III, has held him in no les esteem than all those mentioned above…. Out of respect for Michelangelo’s age, the pope has not employed him in doing this work.”58 Although Michelangelo would die almost ten
years later in 1564, it would seem clear that at the time of the realisation of the stairs, Michelangelo was indeed physically and mentally in poor condition. After the unsuccessful attempt by Tribolo (1549/1550), the short written reply to Vasari of 1555 and the again short reply to Ammanati 14 January 1559, Michelangelo each time stressing his poor health, the conclusion at the time must have been this was the best it would get and that further attempts would be useless even if Michelangelo would cooperate fully.
Finally, the stairs were completed by Ammanati in 1559-1560. It was decided to execute the stairs in Pietra Serena just as the walls of the Ricetto. It is not fully clear who decided that. Generally it is assumed that Cosimo I personally ordered it, believing personally
54 Condivi-Wohl, p. 108. Wohl, n128 remarks that Michelangelo was close to death in the summer of 1544 and
in December 1545. Also, Michelangelo had a generally depressive nature, Wohl p. 142-143
55 Vasari-De Vere, II p. 713 56 Ibidem
57 Condivi-Wohl, p. 140, n 109 58 Condivi-Wohl, p. 95
that stone would be a better match with the vestibule59, but Kaitlin Arbusto claims that for
unknown reasons it was Ammanati’s choice.60 Arbusto doesn’t substantiate her claim. It is not
unlikely that both assumptions are correct, Cosimo I and Ammanati having reached this solution together, or Cosimo approving a suggestion by Ammanati. In any case it was Ammanati who executed the stairs in stone which makes him artistically responsible for this choice. This matter would deserve further scholarly research. Further important additions which must be by Ammanati, lacking any proof of earlier designs or ideas on this by
Michelangelo, are the volutes at each side of the small steps of the central stairway61 and the
large volutes at the top ends of the side stairs (figure 12) which deviate considerably from Michelangelo’s voluted brackets in the walls (figure 13). These distinctive volutes mark the top end of the side stairs and fluidly lead the ascending visitor the way further to the library entrance. I would say that these volutes are more than mere ornamentation. It is relatively easy to list the limited number of characteristics of the staircase which can be attributed safely to Michelangelo. The list of inventions and solutions by Ammanati is of course much longer as they concern a whole staircase, which was his work.
The clay model has not been discovered to date and must be considered lost. Working with clay models was customary at the time and a standard way of working for
Michelangelo.62 Perhaps it was just thrown away when it wasn’t needed any longer. For sure,
no one expected it to be historically as important as we do now almost five centuries later. Although small, it would probably have given us a much better idea of in how far the staircase as we know it today resembles Michelangelo’s concept or results from Ammanati’s
contributions.
59 See i.a. O’Bryan, p. 26, note 28 60 Arbusto, p. 60
61 See also O’Bryan p. 22 who also concludes that this ornamentation must be Ammanati’s invention and does
not follow from the 1533 contract with the five stonemasons, as Wittkower believed.
2
Attribution of architectural design
A legal perspective
As it has become clear from Chapter 1, it can safely be assumed that both Michelangelo and Ammanati, each in their own way, contributed to the Laurenziana’s staircase. In order to answer the central question who deserves the honour of attribution, we should set fair criteria for such attribution. As a discipline Art history is rather silent on this. In Art history, certainly as far as the visual arts are concerned, the focus is often on one artist only – who is the maker? – and apart from stylistic comparison and research of sources, various modern technical methods are applied to answer that question. The Rembrandt Research Project is a good example thereof. In our times it has also become clear that sometimes paintings have two or even more makers, as was more or less standard practice in some late medieval or golden age studio’s in the Low Lands. This makes it even more difficult to distinguish whose hands painted which part, certainly if even a signature can’t be trusted. In our case, the situation is somewhat different. Here we know that (in any case) two artists were involved, we know who they are and we have a fairly good idea of their respective contributions - which will be examined and compared more closely in the next chapters. There is Michelangelo, who is responsible for an initial idea preceding the actual realisation by some 35 years and who made some general suggestions (including those probably appearing from the three dimensional example of the lost small clay model) just before the stairs’ realisation; and on the other hand there is Ammanati who actually realised the staircase in its present form. A form which might have departed from the original tiny design sketches and Michelangelo’s latest suggestions, but also differs substantially therefrom and was moreover much more elaborate, detailed and ornamented.
In answering the question how to value their respective contributions in order to assess if these contributions justify attribution to Michelangelo, Ammanati and/or others, a legal perspective, seeing the question as a matter of copyright law connected to authorship(s) or a
joint co-authorship can help to achieve a proper and fair attribution. As we will see, in the end of the day however it remains a subjective art historians opinion in how far the present stairs may be attributed to Michelangelo or Ammanati – or more accurately: to value each fair share in the attribution.
For the purpose of a fair attribution we are not so much interested in Florentine or Tuscan copyright law of the sixteenth century but in a present day notion of proper attribution. Therefore, only a present day general legal approach is relevant. A serious complication to a legal approach is that the law usually differs from country to country. In principle the same goes for copyright law, but some international widely acknowledged notions exist, laid down in international treaties and European directives aimed at regulating the protection of copyright in an international context. From these a number of general principles of copyright law can be derived. Although copyright protection varies often substantially per country , these general principles will assist in sharpening our thoughts on the subject matter. First of all the Berne Convention of 1886 should be mentioned. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is an international agreement recognizing copyright, which was first accepted in Berne, Switzerland, in 1886 and has been amended from time to time. Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically born by the mere fact of the creation of these works; they do not have to be registered or declared (Article 5 para 2 Berne Convention).63 Most of the countries in the
world are a party to this convention; at his moment in time about 177 in total. The convention is aimed at protection against infringements and attaches certain rights (such as to copy) to authorship. It does not provide a clear definition from which we can derive criteria to
establish what exactly is a ‘creative’ work constituting a copyright; that question is left to the laws of the individual states which are a member to the Berne Convention. From article 2 paragraph 1 however it follows clearly that architectural works and designs in the broadest sense and also 3-dimensional works (think of Michelangelo’s clay model!) relative to
63 Article 5 paragraph 2 Berne Convention: ‘The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject
to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed’.
architecture are within the scope of artistic work generating a copyright.64 In addition to the
convention, European copyright law exists, harmonised to a large extent although also EU legislation allows for important differences in copyright law protection on the level of the individual member states.
Just having an idea – the concept of a creation - in mind does not constitute a
copyright yet; it should be expressed in some way. For architectural works one can think of a building or a part thereof, like a staircase, as realised; or of the design drawings for that work. Also a sketch would suffice, a written or even a verbal description. It should be creative, too. That means that the work – in the broad sense – should be original. A mere technical solution or a drawing made necessary by local building regulations is not to be considered a creative work.65 But that is not how we can see the works of Michelangelo and Ammanati. To my
opinion it is beyond any reasonable doubt that Michelangelo’s drawings and sketches, how tiny they might have been, the descriptions in his letters to Vasari and Ammanati and also his 3D clay model now lost would have constituted a copyright in the modern legal sense. But also Ammanati’s creations would have done so as the staircase, as it was build, has been the work of Ammanati. The fact that to some (important) extent he was inspired and guided by Michelangelo’s inventions does not alter that. Inspiration does not prevent the creation of a new copyright by someone who takes the earlier ideas of another further and is not merely copying it. Ammanati cannot be said to have copied the design of Michelangelo; much more creative thought was needed to build the stairs. The staircase may resemble Michelangelo’s sketches – and even his lost clay model – but much more was added. The fact that the eventual staircase might not significantly deviate from Michelangelo’s ideas as expressed, does not mean at all that it was copied by Ammanati. The newly created work by Ammanati would nowadays constitute a copyright for Ammanati as well; in all likelihood it would be a copyright on the totality of the staircase as it was build. However, if there are two or more people who create a work together, and their contributions are not separate from each other,
64 Article 1 paragraph 1Berne Convention: ‘The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every
production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to
photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science. (emphasis added)
they will be “joint authors” of the work. Consequently, if the conclusion is that Michelangelo and Ammanati must be considered to have worked together in realising the stairs they would have a joint authorship and each would have an "undivided" interest in the entire work of the staircase. There is something to say for that conclusion: to a certain extent Michelangelo and Ammanati indeed worked together. Their correspondence in late 1558/January 1559 does amount to a level of cooperation. In any case each would have his own authorship, on the part attributable to him: Michelangelo on the idea (his ‘design’) of the ovoid steps and the division in a central flight and two flanking stairs, separated from each other from the mezzanine level downwards; and Ammanati for the detailing, the ornamentation, the distinctive large volutes at the top end of the side stairs at the landing and the volutes on each side of the small steps of the central stairs, and the staircase as a whole with its overall classical Renaissance
appearance in contrast to the innovative Mannerist walls of the vestibule.
Case law offers little help in setting precise criteria for our case. Jurisprudence is very case specific, and differs per country. Most cases concern plagiarism issues. If the
‘Michelangelo/Ammanati case’ at hand would be tried in court, both accusing each other of plagiarism, it would certainly not be an exceptional outcome if the court would call in expert witnesses, most likely art historians or architects, to give their opinion on the essential question if and how far the work and design by these architects must be attributed; to one of them or to both jointly. In fact, the same art historical questions this thesis is trying to answer. Another complication of a strictly legal approach is that perhaps Clement or Cosimo I must be considered to have the copyright as such, not because of their close involvement in the design process but simply because they were the patrons who commissioned the work. In many countries the ‘employer’ owns the copyright for work done by employees in his service. A legal approach is a purely academic exercise anyhow: any claim by the heirs of Michelangelo or Ammanati would be time barred by today’s standards. Their claims expired 50 years after their deaths.
3
The early sketches, Michelangelo’s
letters to Vasari and Ammanati, and the
staircase as executed
“Messer Giorgio, Dear Friend,
Concerning the staircase for the library, of which so much has been said to me, you may believe that if I could remember how I had designed it, I would not need to be entreated. There does, indeed, come back to my mind, like a dream, a certain staircase; but I do not believe that it is exactly the one which I conceived at that time, because it comes out so stupid. However, I will describe it here. Take a quantity of oval boxes, each one palm in depth, but not of equal length and breadth. The first and largest place on the pavement at such a distance from the wall of the door as may make the staircase easy or steep, according to your pleasure. Upon this place another, which must be so much smaller in every direction as to leave on the first one below as much space as the foot requires in ascending; diminishing and drawing back the steps one after another towards the door, in accord with the ascent. And the diminution of the last step must reduce it to the proportion of the space of the door. The said part of the staircase with the oval steps must have two wings, one on one side and one on the other, with
corresponding steps but not oval. Of these the central flight shall serve as the principal staircase, and from the centre of the staircase to the top the curves of the said wings shall meet the wall; but from the centre down to the pavement they shall stand, together with the whole staircase, at a distance of about three palms from the wall, in such a manner that the basement of the vestibule shall not be obstructed in any part, and every face shall be left free. I am writing nonsense; but I know well that you will find something to your purpose."66
The autograph of this letter of 28 September 1555 sent from Rome by Michelangelo has not been discovered. The letter to Vasari, as quoted by Vasari, differs slightly from Milanesi’s text which is based on a sixteenth century copy of Cavaliere Giuseppe Palagi.67In that version
the final sentence part “…but I know well that you will find something to your purpose” reads “…but I know very well that you and Messer Bartolomeo will make something of it.”
66 Vasari-De Vere, II p. 711-712
67 Ramsden in Michelangelo-Ramsden, p. 158-159 letter 406 and p. 159 note 3. There are also some otlher
differences between Vasari’s and Milanesi’s texts, but these are not relevant for the subject at hand. See also Poggi, Carteggio p. 47-49 letter MCCXV
Messer Bartolemeo, that is Bartolomeo Ammanati. If we assume for a moment that Milanesi’s text is in fact the true original one it may well be thatVasari for his version left out the name of Ammanati deliberately so that he, Vasari himself comes forward as the one and only person to whom the divine Michelangelo gave his trust to have his loose thoughts about the stairs turned into reality. If Milanesi’s text is correct, Ammanati was apparently already in 1555 in the picture to finalise the Ricetto. Furthermore, the letter in Milanesi’s text ends with a paragraph in which Michelangelo confirms that a model, apparently in Florence, may be send by Vasari to Duke Cosimo I: “As to the model of which you write me, do you not know that there was no need to write to me about it at all, but only to send it to the Duke, wherever he wanted it?” 68 Vasari may have left this final paragraph out of his quotation as he
considered it irrelevant for his Life of Michelangelo.
From Michelangelo’s letter to Vasari of 28 September 1555 it is in my eyes probable that Michelangelo had lost interest in the stairs and/or wasn’t able anymore, physically or mentally, to provide practical, solid information; see also chapter 1. He makes some
suggestions for the staircase but is happy to leave it to Vasari (and probably Ammanati, as we saw) to use elements of these suggestions as he seems fit: “easy or steep, according to your pleasure” and “I know that you will find something to your purpose”. “Easy or steep”: that makes quite a difference for the overall appearance of the staircase. The letter shows a certain lack of artistic pride or at least important uncertainty about the artistic quality of the
suggestions made: the staircase which comes back to Michelangelo’s mind like a dream “…comes out so stupid” and “I’m writing nonsense”. Michelangelo’s words cannot be regarded just as modesty or courtesy vis á vis Vasari. The letter to Vasari was sent via Michelangelo’s trusted nephew Lionardo di Buonarroti Simoni in Florence. In the accompanying letter of equal date to Lionardo Michelangelo writes again:
“ The reply to Messer Giorgio’s letter will be enclosed with this and as regards the staircase of the Library, I’m giving him, as if in a dream, the little information I can recall about it. I’m sending you this letter open, so that you may read it; give it to him in the same way, open.”69
In any case we cannot conclude from Michelangelo’s own letters that this is the same
staircase as he had in mind 30 years earlier at the height of his architectural development, on the contrary. As such, that would not be relevant for the question whether the stairs may be
68 Ramsden in Michelangelo-Ramsden, p. 159. There are also some other small differences between Vasari’s and
Milanesi’s text, but these are not relevant for the subject at hand.
attributed to Michelangelo. An positive answer to that can be given if the staircase as executed follows (a) one of the early designs (or better: sketches) dating from 1524/1525; and/or (b) the supposed contract concluded in 1533 between Michelangelo and five stonemasons; and/or (c) the just quoted letter to Vasari of 1555; and/or (d) his letter to Ammanati of 1558; and/or (e) the clay model he sent to Ammanati together with this last letter. There are no other drawings, letters, instructions by Michelangelo we know of. As already seen in Chapter 1 the debatable survival of stone selected by Michelangelo does not constitute any useful proof of his authorship of the present staircase. For the sake of a proper analysis I will deal with these further questions one by one.
(a) The early sketches
In my opinion certain elements of the stairs as executed show already some resemblance to the stairs as sketched in 1525. First of all there are the ovals. Michelangelo had a strong taste for ovals: the tomb for Julius II originally had an oval room planned; the ceiling of the library itself had the oval as dominant form, and the oval also appears in Michelangelo’s corridors of the Palazzo Farnese, the Sforza chapel, the chapel of San Giovanni and in versions of the interior design for the St. Peter domes.70 However, we should be careful in this respect
because the oval is not a form exclusively used by Michelangelo at the time; Pevsner remarks that the oval already appears in Serlio and was also used by Palladio and Bramante.71 For our
purpose however it isn’t so relevant whether Michelangelo invented the oval or was just inspired by predecessors. The question is: has he designed the ovals, or better: the ovoid steps, in these stairs? I believe that this question should be answered affirmatively. Oval steps are clearly shown in his early sketch of 1525 (the bottom sketch in figure 5) ánd are again, explicitly, mentioned in his 1555 letter to Vasari. Another, less convincing argument is that a rough draft (dated 26 September 1555) of the eventual letter dated 28 September 1555 as received by Vasari, contains a tiny drawing of the stairs in the margin (figures 8 and 9). Although the drawing is not bigger than a stamp (approximately 2,5x 3 cm) it can be seen that the central flight has again ovoid steps. This draft however remained in Lionardo’s possession and wasn’t available to Ammanati. The sketch of 1525 wasn’t either.
70 Ackerman, p. 138
71 Pevsner, p. 128, who also remarks, p. 136, that it is very difficult to pinpoint Mannerist architecture in this
4. Casa Buonarroti 89 A Recto - initial plans for the Ricetto with sketch for a staircase c. 1524
The sketch on a sheet known as Casa Buonarroti 89A is the oldest sketch of the Ricetto showing a staircase (figure 4, in the lower centre). Two symmetrical stairs are placed against the Ricetto’s walls. At their top, a few more steps sideward lead to a landing and another two or three steps then lead up to the entrance.72 Clearly this sketch doesn’t come even near the
actual stairs of 1559. In April 1525 Clement VII requested Michelangelo, through the intermediary of Giovan Francesco Fattucci, Michelangelo’s agent and purveyor of the San Lorenzo works, to design a staircase which would fill the entire width of the Ricetto’s floor.73
Probably, the sheet with sketches which survived as Casa Buonarroti 92A Recto (figure 6) followed this request, and show three staircases, two of them with two flights, seen in upward direction ending at a landing, two or three steps below the entrance to the library; behind a balustrade two short side flights lead further on to the entrance. In a third sketch, in the centre below, there appears to be a central third flight, ending in ovals. It is this third sketch which approaches the Laurentian stairs as executed most, but not without some fantasy. The ovals flanking the two side flights (side flights - if indeed a central flight was envisaged) pretty much resemble the bottom steps of the actual stairs as executed. But it is too farfetched to conclude that this drawing shows the actual staircase; it only contains elements of it, albeit characteristic elements: a tripartite lay out, and ovoid steps. The three sketches of the stairs on
72 Cooper, p 59 73 O’Bryan, p. 19
the sheet with survived as Casa Buonarroti 92A Verso (figure 5) come much closer, in
particular the lower one which shows a staircase with two side stairs. At their bottom end they join a few large ovals as last steps; in between the two stairs perhaps a central flight can be seen with ovoid steps if it is a central flight indeed. The sketch is rough and the present staircase deviates considerably from it, especially also at the top, but there is certainly some affinity between the two. Sketches from the same time on sheet Casa Buonarroti no. 92A
Recto (figure 6) differ considerably and are much more edgy. Clearly neither of these early sketches would justify full attribution of the actual stairs to Michelangelo. Thecharacteristic ovoid elements and thoughts about the lay out of the staircase are however already present. I believe it is safe to attribute the essential characteristics of the ovoid steps and the tripartite structure to Michelangelo, but only in combination with the letters to Vasari and Ammanati in 1555 and 1559 which both elaborated on these concepts.Cammy Brothers has closely
examined Michelangelo’s drawings for ornamentation, columns, bases, corniches, capitals etcetera for the Ricetto, and compared the same with the examples in the Codex Corner (c. 1505) by Bernardo della Volpaia containing carefully measured copies of antique
prototypes.74 These examples were copied minutely by Michelangelo around 1515/16, the
amount of detail being in sharp contrast with the roughness of his early sketches for the stairs. Altogether, it is problematic to consider the early sketches as seriously intended designs for the staircase. Unless Michelangelo made other, more detailed drawings, it is not so surprising that he had great difficulty in remembering a design thirty years later.
5. Michelangelo, studies for the Laurentian Library, c. 1525 Casa Buonarroti 92A Verso
(b) The 1533 contract between Michelangelo and the 5 stonemasons
The contract drawn up 20 August 1533 between Michelangelo and 5 stonemasons to which Wittkower has referred isn’t a solid basis for attribution to Michelangelo at all. As we have seen in Chapter 1 it is uncertain whether indeed work on the staircase was carried out in these years under the supervision of Michelangelo. The interpretation by Wittkower of this contract, only quoted in an “obscure” work of 1876 as he calls it, leads to an imagined possible
construction which would show some similarity to the later staircase in respect of the landing but is far from identical to the early sketches and neither to the later staircase as executed, as Wittkower admits.75
(c) The 1555 letter to Vasari
7. Draft letter Michelangelo to Vasari 26 September 1555, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
8. Detail figure 7, enlarged. True size approximately 2,5 x 3 cm
The famous letter to Vasari of 28 September 1555 as quoted above has been discussed over and again by many scholars. Scholars have extensively analysed the letter and compared it to the staircase as realised. Various reconstructions have been proposed in literature, Panofsky being the first one. In his footsteps Wittkower has measured the staircase very precisely, step by step.76 The latest attempts are by Gronegger.77 I will not do that once again. Such analyses
are very interesting but less relevant to the subject of this thesis, which is aimed at a justified attribution of the staircase, not only to Michelangelo but also to Ammanati. What these reconstructions do prove is that Ammanati seriously tried to follow the suggestions of
Michelangelo. But what they don’t show are the necessary additions, ornamentation, solutions and inventions by Ammanati, in short: the Ammanati part. Also, one cannot escape the
impression that often the conformities between Michelangelo’s dream and the staircase are stressed, contrary to the deviations which do not seem interesting enough to highlight. As an example, in his letter to Vasari Michelangelo’s suggests to let the steps of the central stairs correspond with the steps of the side stairs. But in fact the central stairs are slower78; the steps
do not correspond.
(d) The 1559 letter to Ammanati
76 See Wittkower, p. 175, 176 77 Gronegger, p, 122
In 1558/1559 Michelangelo seemed somewhat more interested to contribute to the realisation of the stairs than in his 1555 letter to Vasari. Perhaps it helped that the request was now made officially on behalf of Cosimo I. Although his letters to his nephew Lionardo Buonarroti in Florence continue to show a depressed, hypochondriac state of mind 79, these letters also show
a Michelangelo who is keen on a smooth delivery of a clay model of the stairs he was
despatching from Rome to Ammanati.80 At the same time however, Michelangelo still keeps
important distance from the question how the stairs should actually look: “I’ve made, rather
roughly, a little sketch of sorts for it in clay, as I think it might be done.”81 Also his eventual
accompanying letter of 14 January 1559 to Ammanati is, as was his letter to Vasari in 1555, very general, even rudimentary as to the design and explicitly leaves ample freedom to Ammanati:
“Messer Bartolomeo – I wrote you that I had made a little clay model of the Library staircase; I’m now sending it to you in a box, and as it’s a small affair, I have not been able to do more than give you an idea, remembering that what I formerly proposed was free-standing and only abutted on to the door of the Library. I’ve contrived to maintain the same method; I do not want the side stairs to have balusters at the ends, like the main flight, but a seat between every two steps, as indicated by the
embellishments. There is no need for me to tell you anything about bases, fillets for these plinths and other ornaments, because you are resourceful, and being on the spot will see what is needed much better than I can.
As to the height and length, take up as little space as you can by narrowing the
extremity as you think fit. It is my opinion that if the said staircase were made in wood – that is to say in a fine walnut – it would be better than in stone, and more in keeping with the desks, the ceiling and the door.
I think that’s all. I’m all yours, old, blind, deaf and inept in hands and in body. Your Michelangelo Buonarroti in Rome” 82
It is uncertain if the autograph by Michelangelo still exists. This text, a translation of Milanesi’s, is based on a copy in the Bustelli Collection acquired for Casa Buonarotti in
79 E.g. Michelangelo-Ramsden, p. 183-185, letters nos. 441, 442, 444, 445
80 Michelangelo-Ramsden, p. 184, 185, letters nos 445, 446 and 447 of respectively 16 December 1558 and 7
and 14 January 1559.
81 Michelangelo-Ramsden, p. 184, letter no. 445 to Lionardo
1861.83 Ammanati confirmed safe receipt of the clay model and cordially thanked
Michelangelo, by letter of 28 January1559, without any material comments or questions with respect to the stairs.84
As his letter to Vasari of 1555, Michelangelo’s letter to Ammanati of 1559 has been closely examined and compared to the present stairs. The present stairs evidently show resemblance to the stairs as described by Michelangelo in 1559, just as to the stairs he suggested to Vasari in 1555. The stairs are ‘free-standing and only abutted on to the door of the Library’; the side stairs don’t ‘have balusters at the ends, like the main flight’. Also ‘a seat between every two steps’ of the side stairs was realised by Ammanati.85
But there is of course also a huge, essential difference: the present stairs are not executed in walnut wood but in stone, in Pietro Serena, as decided by Cosimo I and/or
Ammanati (see Chapter 1). Another material, with another colour, causing a much colder feel. It makes a fundamentally different overall appearance ànd experience of the stairs; in fact of the whole Ricetto. Most authors – with the exception of Kaitlin Arbusto - do not pay much attention to this fact which they seem to take for granted, rejoicing at the overall present architecture of the Ricetto and its atmosphere. For the subject of this thesis however it is a crucial issue, which will be dealt with further in Chapter 5.86
(e) The 1559 clay model
Most regrettably the clay model must be considered lost and we will probably never know how it looked like. The same goes for a model which is mentioned in Michelangelo’s letter to Vasari from 1555 in Milanesi’s version, see hereabove Chapter 1. The only thing we do know from Michelangelo’s letter to Lionardo of 16 December 1558, is that it was made “rather roughly” and that is was small (“little”).87 In his letter to Lionardo of 7 January 155988 it is
again called “small” as well as in his eventual letter to Ammanati. It seems safe to assume that the small model did not deviate from the short written suggestions in this letter. That it added
83 Ramsden in Michelangelo-Ramsden, p. 186 note 1 and Appendix 39, p. 280 84 Poggi, Carteggio V, p. 154, letter MCCLXXXVI
85 With some good will: the last seats at the bottom ends of the side stairs cover three steps, not two 86 Arbusto, p. 42 et seq.
87 Michelangelo-Ramsden, p. 184, letter no. 445 to Lionardo 88 Michelangelo-Ramsden, p. 184, letter no. 446 to Lionardo
much more detail is unlikely given its small size and roughness according to Michelangelo’s own description. In any case, speculation about the clay model doesn’t help us very much. My assumption is that the clay model even if it would unexpectedly emerge as yet, would not shed another light on Michelangelo’s or Ammanati’s part in the eventual appearance of the staircase.
A first conclusion
A first conclusion from the above must be that Michelangelo’s early sketches dating back to the period 1524-1525 (in particular the lower sketch of Casa Buonarroti 92A Verso, figure 5), in combination with his 1555 and 1559 letters to Vasari and Ammanati justify attribution of the characteristic three stairs-concept with the oval steps of the central stairs to Michelangelo. Neither his 1533 contract with 5 stonemasons nor the lost clay model can add to this. The realisation of the staircase of course entailed much more than integrating these characteristics; it involved further design not only of details and ornamentation but also of style, particularly of the side stairs, size, steepness and use of material. The execution in
Pietra Serena as decided by Cosimo I or possibly even Ammanati himself, instead of in
walnut as wished by Michelangelo is in this context an essential deviation from
Michelangelo’s design. Important additions by Ammanati are the balustrade handrail, the volutes at each side of the small steps of the central stairway and the distinctive large volutes at the top ends of the side stairs (figure 18). These volutes mark the top end of the side stairs and fluidly lead the ascending visitor the way further to the library entrance. I would say that these volutes are therefore more than a mere ornamentation. It is relatively easy to list the few (but important) characteristics of the staircase which much be attributed to Michelangelo, but a list with all the elements which couldn’t have been Michelangelo’s inventions and must therefore be attributed to Ammanati would be much longer, and if every detail would be mentioned, endless. Just a photograph of the staircase in all its complexity and magnificence compared to the short passages (together not yet half a page) in Michelangelo’s letters to Vasari and Ammanati should tell enough. In my opinion, the ‘Michelangelo characteristics’ can only be seen as a conditio sine qua non for the stairs’ eventual overall appearance.
However, before providing a definite answer to the questions of attribution, the following two chapters will seek more relief to come to a final, balanced answer to those questions.
