Killing two birds with one stone
Double tomb monuments in Renaissance Rome
2
Killing two birds with one stone
Double tomb monuments in Renaissance Rome
C.J. van ter Toolen S1778927
Research Master Art History & Archaeology University of Groningen
Master’s thesis LKR999M30
Supervisor: Dr. J.L. de Jong
3
Tagebucheintragungen oder Briefäußerungen des Typs:
Habe heute den Bildhauer X mit dem Grabmal für Onkel Paul beauftragt, damit endlich wieder etwas Schwung in unsere Familienangelegenheiten kommt
würden es dem historischen Metier denn doch zu einfach machen. Ein wenig Interpretationskunst muss schon sein.
4
Contents
Introduction………..5
1. Single appearance………...………..9
The tomb monuments of Cristoforo and Domenico della Rovere; Domenico and Angelo Capranica; Paolo and Nicolò Capranica; Agapito and Paolo Rustico; Cincio and Marcello Rustico. 2. The “fictor” and the “pictor”..………20
The tomb monument of Antonio and Piero Pollaiuolo. 3. An agreeable submission...……….………27
The tomb monument of Giovanni Michiel and Antonio Orso. 4. Setting a good example……….……….33
The tomb monument of Johannes Knibe and Bernhard Schulte. 5. Man is truly a bubble……….……….37
The tomb monuments of Francesco Armellini de’ Medici and Benvegnate Pantalissi; Antonio and Michele Bonsi. Conclusion………..45
Catalogue………....47
Bibliography………...83
5
Introduction
Having entered the church of San Marcello al Corso in Rome and turning left, one finds on the inner side of the façade an intriguing tomb monument presenting not one, but two effigies: the upper one casually propped up on one elbow, his head with eyes closed leaning on his shoulder and his hand still on his book as if he has just drifted off into sleep; the lower one being represented more traditionally and more obviously portraying a deceased person, as he is lying on his back with his hands folded on his stomach. This is the tomb monument of cardinal Giovanni Michiel and bishop Antonio Orso.1
By reading the inscription the beholder of this monument discovers that it was according to Antonio Orso's last will that he would be buried underneath the cardinal, as “just as he had assisted him [i.e., Giovanni Michiel] during his entire life with loyal and exceptional love, he wished also in death to be seen as inseparable from this to him very agreeable submission”.2 Whereas the first thing that strikes the beholder is the sign of deep affection between the two men, immortalized together in this way, the curious phrasing prompts one to thinking: why would anyone wish to be remembered in this way?
This monument becomes even more intriguing when placing it in its historical context: sixteenth-century Rome, where tomb monuments were used more and more by patrons as a tool to present themselves.3 With the commissioning of a work of art a patron could present an image of himself; the work of art, which would either contain his coat of arms or allude to his name in another way, could be seen as proof of his wealth and high social status. Especially works of art in public places fulfilled this function. This not only holds for paintings, statues, fountains, or chapels, but also for tomb monuments in churches, as they were there for everyone to see.
What made tomb monuments especially valuable in terms of self-fashioning was the fact that they were aimed at the past as well as at the future: not only did these monuments keep the memory of the deceased alive, they also provided the commissioner with the opportunity to present himself and assure also his own commemoration, as his name would be visible on the tomb as well. Furthermore, by commissioning a tomb monument for someone else a patron could associate himself with this person and present his social affiliations. In this way, tomb monuments could be
1 Partially attributed to Jacopo Sansovino. Tomb monument of Giovanni Michiel and Antonio Orso, circa 1503-1519, Rome, San Marcello al Corso. See catalogue no. 10.
2 “[…] FAMILIARIS PIENTISS | SICVTI FIDE AC SINGVLARI AMORE TOTIVS SVAE VITAE TEMPORE ADSTITIT ITA ET IN MORTE | AB HAC SVA GRATISS SVBIECTIONE INSEPERATVM SE VIDERI CVPIENS […]”.
3
6
used for propagandistic purposes. Being aware of the fact that many fifteenth- and sixteenth-century tomb monuments were used in terms of self-fashioning, a double tomb monument – that is, a tomb monument commemorating two deceased persons – raises several questions. Most importantly, what happens to this self-image when there is more than one person to be commemorated in a tomb monument?
In this thesis I will investigate whether or not double tomb monuments might be justly called a genre and whether or not they are worth being studied as such within the scope of tomb
monuments being used in terms of self-fashioning. As this has never been investigated before and as an inventory of double tomb monuments in Rome did not exist, it was necessary to start this
research with a search for these monuments and the compilation of such an inventory.4 After having visited 101 churches in the historical center of Rome I have discovered twelve double tomb
monuments which have been made in the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Of these monuments I have gathered all the information I could find in order to create a catalogue (see pages 47-82). Throughout my paper I will refer to the catalogue numbers of the respective tomb monuments, where photographs of the monuments, translations of the inscriptions and more information about for example dating and attribution can be found.
Apart from the place where the tomb monuments had to be situated (churches in Rome) and the period (fifteenth and sixteenth century), in accumulating the material there was only one main criterion: the tomb commemorates no more and no less than two deceased persons.5 As a result the monuments differ in many ways. First of all with regard to the persons involved, such as the
deceased themselves. There are monuments made for two colleagues or for two friends, but also for relatives: such as for a father and son, for uncles and nephews or siblings.6 However, the question is whether or not the tombs that are made for two relatives should not simply be seen as family tombs. Therefore, I will investigate if the chosen form of the tomb as a double tomb influences the way in which the deceased are commemorated: is there an indication of a special bond between the two, validating the choice for a double tomb monument, or are they merely buried together because they are family and might this just as well have been a tomb for more than two people?
Secondly, there is a difference in who gave the commission for the tomb monument. The patron could be one of the two deceased and might have given the commission either during his life or by last will, but the patron could also have been a bereaved relative or an institution, such as for
4
I was able to accumulate all this material thanks to the scholarship I received of the Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome (KNIR), which allowed me to carry out my research in Rome for almost two months in the spring of 2014. 5 In my research I only focus on tomb monuments in churches and not on those in cemeteries, seeing as I am
interested in how tomb monuments could be used in terms of self-fashioning. Therefore, churches, as public spaces, seemed to be the most appropriate location to limit my research to.
7
example the church or the religious order to which the deceased had belonged. Additionally, there are of course differences in terms of style and execution. This is not only something that has to do with the fact that the monuments have been made by different artists; there are also choices involved with regard to the presentation of the two deceased. An example of such a choice is the portrayal of the persons commemorated in the tomb. Although all these double tomb monuments contain effigies, being either busts or full-length likenesses of the deceased, they do not always represent both of the persons for whom the tomb has been made, at first glance giving the impression that there is only one person being commemorated.7 It is only when the beholder has read the inscription that it becomes clear that these monuments are indeed double tomb monuments. The inscription, therefore, plays an important part in the commemoration of the deceased as well. Consequently, this research is an interdisciplinary one: not simply focusing on artistic style and choices, but on the content of the inscriptions as well. Taking all the elements mentioned above into account when investigating the way in which the deceased are presented in their tomb monuments, I will discuss five double tomb monuments at length in an attempt to shed more light on the reasons behind the choice to erect a double tomb monument.
With the fashioning of one's self-image by way of commissioning a tomb monument in mind the most fascinating question is what happens to this self-image when this monument
commemorates not one, but two persons. Are the deceased both commemorated equally, or differently – and most importantly: how? Furthermore, questions such as whose choice it was to erect such a monument prove to be interesting as well, as these might explain the way in which the deceased are commemorated. With regard to the (self-)images presented in these tombs, all the different elements mentioned above give rise to very different images. Therefore, I do not expect to come up with a definitive answer to the question why two people would want to be commemorated in one tomb and what consequences the shape of a double tomb monument has for the presented images of the deceased. I merely expect to be able to give an overview of possible reasons, while on the other hand in some cases the outcome of my research might prove to be negative (meaning that the monument, although commemorating two persons, does not have any special traits in being “double”).
To this day, double tomb monuments have never been investigated. Several of the
monuments I will discuss have been treated in recent articles and books, but mostly with regard to other aspects within this field, such as artistic style and attribution. Questions related to the
commemoration of the two deceased seem never to have come up before. However, I believe that these questions can lead to some interesting answers. By discussing the double tomb monuments I
8
discovered during my research in Rome and the images presented therein at length, I want to investigate in what different ways the fact that each monument commemorates two persons
9
1. Single appearance
The tomb monuments of Cristoforo and Domenico della Rovere; Domenico and Angelo Capranica; Paolo and Nicolò Capranica; Agapito and Paolo Rustico; Cincio and Marcello Rustico.
In the Cappella di San Girolamo, the first chapel on the right in the church of Santa Maria del Popolo, the monument of the brothers Cristoforo and Domenico della Rovere is situated.8 This tomb was commissioned by Domenico after the death of his younger brother and would be placed in the chapel which he already owned. The tomb is attributed to Andrea Bregno and Mino da Fiesole, the latter probably only being responsible for the relief representing the Virgin holding the Christ Child.
The chapel is dedicated to both Saint Jerome and the Virgin. Domenico commissioned Pinturicchio to make the frescoes which represent scenes of Saint Jerome's life and the altarpiece depicting the Adoration of the Christ Child. As the tomb overlaps the painted decoration of the chapel, these decorations must have been made before the commission for the tomb had been given. This means that the frescoes cannot have been made later than 1479.9 The right wall of the chapel is covered by a seventeenth-century tomb monument, which is the only element in this chapel that is not connected to Domenico della Rovere.
In the lower inscription of the della Rovere monument Domenico is referred to as cardinal of San Vitale, a title which he acquired only after Cristoforo's death in 1478, as he succeeded him in this position. However, 13 August 1479 Domenico was appointed another titular church: San Clemente. Given that Cristoforo died in 1478 and the inscription mentions Domenico as cardinal of San Vitale, the commission for the tomb monument must have been given shortly after Cristoforo's death and before Domenico received his new title. Interestingly, the inscription on the altar does refer to Domenico as cardinal of San Clemente, which means that the altarpiece and its frame were made once he had received his new title.10
As Domenico was the one who had acquired the rights for this chapel and had paid for its decorations, it is not surprising that he wanted to be commemorated there himself as well. The sudden death of Cristoforo, who died at the age of 43, provided him with the opportunity to connect his own commemoration to that of his younger brother. Interestingly, the church of Santa Maria del Popolo was already quite strongly associated with the della Rovere name. During the pontificate of Pope Sixtus IV (Francesco della Rovere) this church slowly turned into a della Rovere monument: Sixtus IV, for example, payed for the restoration of the church, cardinal Giuliano della Rovere
8 Andrea Bregno and Mino da Fiesole, Tomb monument of Cristoforo and Domenico della Rovere, circa 1478-1481, Rome, Santa Maria del Popolo, Cappella di San Girolamo. Catalogue no. 4.
9 La Malfa 2000, p. 269. During the same period Domenico della Rovere had also commissioned Pinturicchio to decorate his palace, the palazzo dei Penitenzieri on the Via della Conciliazione in Rome.
10
10
commissioned a new high altar in 1473 and Domenico had acquired the rights of not one, but two chapels, the second one being the Cappella di Santa Caterina.11 The della Rovere coat of arms, an oak tree, can be found multiple times inside the church.It should be noted, however, that although they have the same last name, Cristoforo and Domenico della Rovere were not related to Pope Sixtus IV. The two brothers stemmed from another branch of the della Rovere family, but the misconception that they belonged to the same family was not something they actively tried to rectify.12
Description
The della Rovere monument consists of an architectural framework reminiscent of triumphal arches from classical antiquity, with in the middle an effigy of one of the deceased lying in state on a sarcophagus. The area below the arch contains a relief of the Virgin Mary holding the Christ Child, flanked by two adoring angels. The monument holds two inscriptions: one in the form of a tabula ansata on the sarcophagus and the other taking up the lower part of the monument together with the della Rovere coat of arms.
The pillars and arch of the framework are covered with grottesche decorations containing acorns as a reference to the last name of the deceased. This same reference can be recognized in the decoration of the sarcophagus, which besides garlands, medals and ribbons also contains acorns, sprouting up at the base where the paws support the sarcophagus. This allusion to the name “della Rovere” stands out even more as their armorial bearings, depicted twice on this monument, contain acorns as well. In addition to the oak tree the escutcheon displays the letters “S.D.”, an abbreviation of Domenico's motto Soli Deo, and is topped by a cardinal's hat to refer to his being a cardinal.
The relief on the wall behind the sarcophagus, depicting two candelabra and a cross raised on a staff, can be conceived as a reference to an altar, as traditionally these objects were displayed on the altar table during Mass. The association with this ceremony gives an extra significance to the presence of the Virgin and Child surrounded by cherubs in the upper zone: not only is there an eternal Mass for the deceased being depicted here, but also a reference to the heavenly
intercession.13
This tomb monument is the first of a type that would be copied extensively during the
11
Bauman 2007, pp. 39-42 and Zuraw 1993, p. 980. In 1488 Domenico sold the Cappella di Santa Caterina to cardinal Giorgio Costa. According to Tenivelli (1789, p. 107) Christoforo and Domenico both owned one chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo, although it is uncertain which belonged to whom. Possibly, the Cappella di Santa Caterina used to belong to Cristoforo and came into Domenico's possession after his death, but this remains uncertain. See also Zuraw 1993, p. 980.
12 Zuraw, pp. 982-983. The art historian Lisa Passaglia Bauman seems to be under the impression that Cristoforo and Domenico were indeed nephews of Pope Sixtus IV (Bauman 2007, p. 39).
13
11
following decades. In Santa Maria del Popolo alone a few examples can be found, for example the tomb of cardinal Giorgio de Costa and that of Pietro Guglielmo Rocca.14 Although they are similar in appearance, there is one important characteristic that makes the della Rovere monument unique: namely the fact that it is a double tomb monument.
As the della Rovere monument contains only one sarcophagus and one effigy, one does not expect this to be a tomb monument meant to commemorate two persons. The beholder who casts a quick glance at the inscription might easily fail to notice that this is a double tomb monument as well, seeing that there is only one date of death mentioned. However, the more careful reader of the inscription discovers that Domenico made this monument “for his brother, who deserved it, and for himself”.15
Interestingly, not all art historians who studied either this monument or the chapel seem to be aware of the fact that Domenico was more than just the commissioner of this tomb and that he was indeed also one of the deceased being commemorated here.16
As a matter of fact, this chapel used to contain a slab indicating Domenico's burial here more clearly – but unfortunately this inscription does not exist anymore. Possibly, it was removed when the tomb monument of De Castro was placed in this chapel in the seventeenth century. It has, however, been recorded by the historian Pietro Luigi Galletti in his collection of Roman
inscriptions, which was first published in 1760.17 This inscription, which according to Galletti was placed in the floor, stated that Domenico della Rovere founded the chapel and rested here pro tempore, i.e. “for the time being”.18 This statement of temporariness is not surprising as in his last will Domenico expressed the wish to eventually be buried in Turin. And indeed, two years after he had been buried in Santa Maria del Popolo his remains have been transferred to his native city.19 But even though this monument cannot justly be called Domenico's final resting-place, it is important to note that the transfer of these remains does not alter the fact that this tomb monument is meant to commemorate two persons. Not only is this supported by the still existing lower inscription, as mentioned above, but also by the upper one on the sarcophagus, the translation of which runs as follows:
14 Both tombs are attributed to the school of Andrea Bregno, Tomb monument of cardinal Giorgio de Costa, circa 1480, Rome, Santa Maria del Popolo, Cappella di Santa Caterina, and Tomb monument of Pietro Guglielmo Rocca, circa 1483, Rome, Santa Maria del Popolo, sacristy. For more information on Andrea Bregno and this type of tomb monument, see Kühlenthal 2002.
15 “[...] V A XLIII M VII D XIX | OB AN VIII PONT XYSTI | K̅L FBR”, this date of death is Cristoforo's, who died 1 February, “K̅L FBR”. The part of the inscription stating that Domenico commissioned this monument both for his brother and for himself is as follows: “[...] FRATRI | B.M. ET SIBI POSVIT [...]”.
16
See for example Bauman 2007 and La Malfa 2000, who discuss the Cappella di S. Girolamo in depth, but mention Domenico merely as the commissioner of both the chapel and the tomb.
17 Galletti 1766, p. 17, no. 6
18 “DOMINICVS RVVERE CARD | TIT S CLEMENTIS QVI AEDEM | HANC A FVNDAMENTIS PER | FECIT HIC PRO TEMPORE | QVIESCIT”. Before citing the inscription Galletti mentions its location: “ibidem”, which in this case is the church of Santa Maria del Popolo, and “humi”, meaning “ground”.
12
The mixed ashes will follow the united hearts and souls so that you might say that it was a unity
and it will please to believe that these are the ashes of one body.20
Thus this inscription puts the appearance of the tomb monument in a whole new perspective, insinuating that the presence of only one effigy should be seen as a symbol of brotherly love.21 However, as only a select part of the viewers would have been able to read Latin, this message was not perceived by the public at large. Of course the majority of the inscriptions on tomb monuments of this period was written in Latin and therefore only to be understood in its entirety by those who mastered the language. What makes this trait different and in fact unique in the case of the della Rovere monument is that the content of the inscription complements what one sees in a playful way.
Choice of words
When studying the content of the inscription it is important to pay some attention to the choice of words: one might wonder if these poetic lines originate from a poem, especially as their content could only be grasped by the educated beholder. The untranslated inscription runs as follows:
CONCORDES ANIMOS PIASQ MENTES VT DICAS LICET VNICAM FVISSE
COMMISTI CINERES SEQVENTVR ET SE CREDI CORPORIS VNIVS IVVABIT
In fact, the expression concordes animos, “united souls”, in the context of being united in death, might remind the reader of what Narcissus says in Ovid's Metamorphoses – even though the choice of words is not literally the same.22 When he realizes that he will never be able to join his lover because he is in love with his own reflection, Narcissus decides to commit suicide and says that death does not worry him, as now “two united in a single soul would die as one”, nunc duo concordes anima moriemur in una.23
20 “CONCORDES ANIMOS PIASQ MENTES | VT DICAS LICET VNICAM FVISSE | COMMISTI CINERES SEQVENTVR ET SE | CREDI CORPORIS VNIVS IVVABIT”.
21 Curiously enough, Bauman writes “the upper inscription on the sarcophagus sings Cristoforo's praises”, while in my opinion defining this inscription as a kind of laudatory poem is incorrect (Bauman 2007, p. 48).
22 The resemblance of these lines to Ovid's Narcissus was pointed out to me by Dr J.A.R. Kemper (University of Groningen).
13
It is interesting to note that in many stories of Ovid's Metamorphosis the unity of two lovers is described in similar ways, often being in some way connected to death. Pyramus and Thisbe, for example, were “one until their last hour” and after their death they shared the same urn; Philemon and Baucis expressed the wish to be able to die together and Alcyone begs her husband Ceyx not to participate in battle as it would endanger “their life, which counted as one”.24
Although these are examples that at least to some extent intrinsically correspond to the inscription of the della Rovere monument, the exact wording differs. Furthermore, these are all examples concerning the unity of two lovers, whereas Cristoforo and Domenico della Rovere were brothers.
The utterance of Narcissus remains the most valid comparison because of the similar choice of words. Even more so because on the della Rovere tomb it is remarked that it will please to believe that these are the ashes of one body and Ovid's protagonist seems to have made the same “mistake”, but in reverse: after all, when falling in love with his own reflection Narcissus first thought that there were two bodies, where in fact there was only his own.
Still, describing the unity of two lovers in terms of “sharing one soul” is not simply an expression which should be attributed to Ovid. It was used more often, also by other writers, and in other cases as well: such as when describing a close friendship. In his commentary on Ovid's Metamorphosis William Anderson refers to Horace when discussing Narcissus's utterance, as he called his closest friends “half of my soul”.25
When Virgil departed for Greece, for instance, Horace wrote to him that he must take care of himself, so that “half of my soul” (animae dimidium meae) would remain unharmed. Another example is when he thinks of his friend Maecenas dying prematurely: Horace exclaims that this would mean he loses a part of his soul (meae partem animae) and that should this happen, he can think of no reason why he would prolong his own life.26 Although it remains uncertain whether or not the inscription on the sarcophagus of the della Rovere monument should be seen as a reference to Ovid, the phraseology does seem to fit into a kind of classical tradition. Even more so as this inscription mentions “ashes” (cineres), while in this period it was not common to be cremated. Instead, cremating the deceased was a tradition in
classical antiquity. There are more examples of renaissance inscriptions on tomb monuments mentioning ashes and urns. Interestingly, there are two examples of double tomb monuments, the first one commemorating the twins Ludovico Sebastiano and Daniel Maffei, who died circa 1480:
24 Ovid. Metamorphoses 4.156 and 4.166 (Pyramus and Thisbe), 8.708 (Philemon and Baucis) and 11.388 (Alcyone and Ceyx).
25 Anderson 1997, pp. 385-386. Anderson writes that Ovid lets Narcissus “trivialize” the language of lovers and close friends, because he makes him say the two of them will end up united in death anima in una, but why he calls this trivializing remains unclear to me.
14
One day has made these twins, equal in spirit and appearance, one day, with your death, has made those two unequal.
But because the vicissitudes of our younger years were alike, one urn will contain both your and my ashes.27
A second example is the inscription of a double tomb monument that used to be in San Nicolaus in Calcaria, a church in Rome of which nowadays only a ruin is left:
Here lay I to who Grace has given a holy name, my wife is buried together with my bones. One life held us together in harmony,
now it is also one urn that conceals the two of us deceased.28
In both of these inscriptions a poetic way of phrasing is combined with the use of the “classical” words cineres (ashes) and urna (urn). It seems that the mingling of ashes appealed more to the imagination than the statement that two people were simply buried together. In these instances the double nature of a tomb appears to have inspired a poetical approach, for which the ancients served as a source. Interestingly, in the fifteenth century funeral orations were more and more based on those of classical antiquity as well.29 Therefore, the combination of this specific kind of poetical approach to describe either friendship or love and the mentioning of ashes leads one to think that the della Rovere inscription should be seen as a literary reference to antiquity.30 In this context it is interesting to note that in the lower inscription the name of Pope Sixtus IV is written as “Xysti”, which is the classical way of spelling his name.
The bigger picture
The final element that should be taken into account when investigating the image presented by this
27 “VNA DIES ANIMO SIMILIS VVLTVQ GEMELLOS | VNA TVO FECIT FVNERE DISSIMILES | AEMVLA SED NOSTRAE FVERINT CV̅ FATA IVVE̅TAE | VNA MEOS CINERES CONDET ET VRNA TVOS”. This inscription was placed on the tomb of the brothers Ludovico Sebastiano and Daniel Maffei. The inscription can be found in the collections of Roman inscriptions by Schrader 1592, p. 256r, Chytraeus 1599, p. 17 and Forcella 1869,vol. XIV, p. 422, Forcella being the only one who mentions the inscription in its entirety (with the names of the deceased and the date). None of them mentions the location of the monument. Possibly it used to be in Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome, but this is uncertain.
28 “HIC JACEO SANCTVM DEDERAT CVI GRATIA NOMEN, | OSSIBVS EST VXOR CONTVMVLATA MEIS.| VITA DVOS OLIM TENVIT CONCORDITER VNA, | VNA QVOQ EXSTINCTOS OCCVLIT VRNA DVOS”. Only the inscription of this tomb monument remains and has been recorded by Schrader 1592, p. 163v and Chytraeus 1599, p. 32. Neither of these two writers mentions a specific name or date.
29 Strocchia 1992, pp. 143-148.
15
tomb monument is its context: the monument is situated in a chapel which belonged to the same patron and therefore deserves some attention. Domenico commissioned Pinturicchio to decorate the chapel with scenes of the life of Saint Jerome, one of the Church Fathers who is part of the
Christian period of classical antiquity. The five lunettes depict St. Jerome's Disputation, St. Jerome in the Desert, St. Jerome Extracting a Thorn from a Lion's Paw, St. Jerome in his Study and St. Jerome's Death. As the chapel is not only dedicated to this saint but also to the Virgin, the subject of the altarpiece is not a scene out of his life but depicts the Adoration of the Christ Child.
It is interesting to note that the frescoes in the chapel do not show Jerome as a penitent, as he was also commonly depicted, but as a scholar: the Disputation is an example of the triumph of Christianity over the heathens by means of reasoning and in the scene depicting the saint in his study he is paired with Saint Augustine. This underlines the association with scholarship even more as Augustine was known as a rhetorician and Jerome himself as a man of letters.31
The scenes in the chapel present Saint Jerome as a scholar, but at the same time also as a pious man. By associating himself with this saint, Domenico della Rovere could present himself as being just as pious and learned, or at least as aspiring to be. The tomb monument of the two della Rovere brothers fits neatly into this picture. There are religious elements, such as the relief of the Madonna and Child, but also classical ones. Not only do the triumphal arch and decorations refer to classical traditions, but as I demonstrated in the above the inscriptions did as well. The allusion to classical antiquity is underlined by the poetical sentences on the sarcophagus, which are reminiscent of Ovid and contain a reference to funerary rites of a bygone era, and in a small way also by the classical spelling of the pope's name in the lower inscription.
As it is only clear that this tomb monument is in fact a double tomb monument once one has deciphered the Latin inscription, this monument fits in perfectly with the sophisticated image Domenico had already created for himself and his family by commissioning the decoration of the chapel. This added layer of complexity makes the presented image even more valuable. Only the educated beholder would be able to see the patron the way he wanted to be seen: as a real scholar, who set classical antiquity as his example, whereas for the beholder who was not able to read Latin it was mostly the religious message put forth in this chapel that would stand out.32
Not only provided the double nature of this tomb Domenico with a way to express the brotherly love he felt for Cristoforo (for you would indeed think they were one), but also with an important tool in the fashioning of the sophisticated image of both himself and his family.
31 Also pointed out by Bauman 2007, p. 47 32
16
Other examples: the Capranica and Rustico tombs
There are four other examples of double tomb monuments of this period containing only one effigy and therefore appearing to commemorate just one person. Two of these have been commissioned by cardinal Angelo Capranica, who gave the commission for a double tomb monument to be placed in a chapel in Santa Maria sopra Minerva to commemorate his brother and himself, and a few years later ordered a double tomb monument for his other brother and a nephew, which was to be placed in the church of San Marco.33
Although both tombs are made according to a different design, they are similar in that they contain only one effigy (that of the second one being visible when looking at the tomb from a higher perspective, see Fig. 1). Therefore, the beholder only discovers that these tombs are made for two persons after having read the inscriptions.34 As opposed to the tomb of Cristoforo and
Domenico della Rovere, however, in these tombs there is no playful reference to the fact that two persons are represented by one effigy. Instead, the beholder simply remains uncertain as to which of the two deceased is depicted. The fact that both of the effigies wear a bishop’s hat is of no help, as all four of the commemorated men were bishops.
According to the inscription, cardinal Angelo Capranica commissioned the double tomb for his brother Domenico and for himself during the pontificate of Paul II, which was in the period 1464-1471.35 As Domenico had already died in 1458 and Angelo was still alive when the monument was finished, it is probable that the effigy represents the first. It should be noted, however, that this assumption is based on information that cannot be deduced from the inscription, as there are no dates of death mentioned.
Most of the inscription on the monument in Santa Maria sopra Minerva is dedicated to Domenico, whose religious functions and greatest achievements are stated. Angelo is mentioned in the last phrase, where it is stated that he was titular of the same church as his brother had been and that he commissioned this joint monument for his “unanimous” brother (indicating that they were of one mind) and for himself.36 By connecting the joint burial of the two deceased to their unity of mind and soul, this tomb monument seems to fit into a tradition: although less poetical in character,
33 Andrea Bregno, Tomb of Domenico and Angelo Capranica, circa 1464-1471, Rome, Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Cappella Capranica, catalogue no. 1. Unknown artist, Tomb of Paolo and Nicolò Capranica, 1476, Rome, San Marco, catalogue no. 3.
34
Sometimes the fact that these tombs commemorate two persons is not noticed at all, see for example Walther Buchowiecki, who mentions both tomb monuments in his handbook on the churches of Rome. In both cases he only mentions the deceased who is named first in the inscription, giving the impression that each of these tombs was made for one person (Buchowiecki 1970, p. 380, 721).
35
There is no date mentioned in the inscription. Instead, the inscription starts by stating the incumbent pope: “SEDENTE PAOLO II”.
17
the choice of words is reminiscent of the inscription on the tomb of Cristoforo and Domenico della Rovere, and of the epitaph of the Maffei twins discussed above. However, in the Capranica
tomb there is no reference to ashes or urns, nor is what the beholder sees complemented by what he reads, as is the case in the tomb of the della Rovere brothers. The presence of only one effigy therefore remains difficult to explain.
A few years later, in 1476, Angelo Capranica took care of a tomb to commemorate his brother Paolo and his nephew Nicolò. The latter had died relatively recently, in 1473, but by the time this monument was commissioned Paolo had already been dead for almost fifty years. As is stated in the inscription, the adjacent chapel in the church of San Marco had been founded by him.37 However, there was not yet a tomb monument to commemorate him by. When Nicolò died in 1473, Angelo seems to have seized the opportunity to dedicate a tomb not only to his recently deceased nephew, but also to his brother. In this way Angelo took care of the religious memory of both men.38
The first part of the inscription is dedicated to Paolo, whose virtues are praised and whose founding of the chapel, which he had left to his family, is mentioned. Moreover, the inscription states that he was much beloved by Pope Martin V, who entrusted him with his secrets and
bestowed him with the highest honorary posts.39 The second part of the inscription is dedicated to Nicolò and contains similar laudatory remarks. It can be read that he was rewarded with honorary posts as well, but it is not specified by which pope.40 Strangely, no explanation is given as to why these two men are buried together, which is especially striking as the one died almost fifty years before the other. There is no indication of a special bond between them, although this is not very surprising as Paolo died when Nicolò was only eight years old. Of course, it should be taken into account that they both belonged to the Capranica family and that they were both known to Angelo, who commissioned their tomb. Therefore, it seems that Angelo combined the commemoration of two family members based on the fact that they were related and that he did not choose this pair to be buried together because they had a special relationship. Consequently, the presence of only one effigy cannot be interpreted as an indication of a close bond between the two deceased and remains
37 “[...] ET | SACELLVM HOC MORIENS E SVO DOTATVM FAMILIAE SVAE | CAPRANICEN RELIQVIT [...]”. Nowadays only the decorations on the floor, which contain the Capranica coat of arms, remain as proof of Paolo's founding of this chapel. See also Buchowiecki 1970, p. 380.
38 In the inscription it is stated that Angelo placed this tomb from a sense of duty: “ANGELVS […] FRATRI ET NEPOTI B MEREN OB PIETATEM POS […]”.
39 From the inscription it can be deduced that Martin V had confided in Paolo when he was a cardinal, and still did so when he became a pope: “PAVLO ARCHIEPIS BENEVEN E CAPRANICA ORIVNDO QVI OB MOR |
CLAEMENTIAM ET PRAECLARAS ANIMI DOTES MARTINO V | PONT MAX IN PRIMIS CARVS
DIGNVSQ CVIVS FIDEI SECRETA SVA | ET CARDINALIS ET PONT CREDERET AC AD SVMMOS HONO | RES EVEHERET MAIORIB SVIS EXIMI VIRTVTE PRAELVXIT ET | SACELLVM HOC MORIENS E SVO DOTATVM FAMILIAE SVAE | CAPRANICEN RELIQVIT […]”.
18 unexplained.
The last two examples of double tomb monuments that contain only one effigy are located in the vestibule of the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva and are both commissioned by and for members of the Rustico family.41 The first one is the tomb of the brothers Agapito and Paolo
Rustico, which was commissioned by Paolo's seven sons, the second tomb was made for Cincio and Marcello Rustico, who were father and son, and was placed by their grandson and son, Antonio.42
Each of the monuments is placed on one side of the back entrance of the church. The monument of Agapito and Paolo is placed in the left wall of the vestibule, that of Cincio and
Marcello in the right. The two tombs, which were made shortly after each other, are attributed to the school of Andrea Bregno. At first glance they look identical: both contain one effigy on a bier supported by lion paws and are framed by an architectural structure reminiscent of classical antiquity, with two decorated pillars and a tympanum. The lower part of both tombs consists of an inscription flanked by the Rustico coat of arms. On closer scrutiny, however, some small differences can be observed. The frieze on the tomb of Agapito and Paolo contains cherubs, for example, and the effigies differ in features and attire. The question who is represented by the effigy can be answered for the tomb of Agapito and Paolo, as the effigy wears a bishop’s hat and this was a position that only Agapito held. The effigy of the other tomb wears a less distinctive hat, which makes it difficult to decide whether it represents Cincio or Marcello – if indeed the effigy represents only one of the two and should not be seen as a more general reference to “the deceased”.43
The two inscriptions are structured in the same way: they inform the beholder of the
positions these members of the Rustico family held, the virtues they possessed, who commissioned the monument and when it was placed. There is no indication of a special bond between the
deceased besides their being closely related, as the first tomb contains two brothers and the second one a father and son.44
Before becoming a vestibule in 1600, the space where these two tombs are situated used to be a chapel, which was dedicated to Saint Thomas Aquinas and belonged to the Rustico family.45 Although the two tombs were commissioned by different patrons, they are both placed by and for
41
School of Andrea Bregno, Tomb monument of Agapito and Paolo Rustico, 1482, and Tomb monument of Cincio and
Marcello Rustico, 1488, Rome, Santa Maria sopra Minerva. Catalogue numbers 5 and 6. Although in the inscription
their last name is written as “Rustico”, sometimes their name is written as “Rustici” (Berthier 1910, p. 260). 42 Gerald S. Davies, in his book on renaissance tomb monuments in Rome, writes that Antonio erected this tomb for
his father and uncle (Davies 1910, p. 272). The inscription, however, states that it was for his grandfather and father. 43
That Agapito was a bishop is mentioned in the inscription: “AGAPITO RVSTICO EP̅O CAMERTINO […]”. According to the historian J.J. Berthier, who wrote a book about the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, the effigy of the second tomb represents Cincio, but he does not explain why he assumes this (Berthier 1910, p. 265).
44 In the inscription of the first tomb is mentioned that Agapito and Paolo are brothers (“AGAPITO RVSTICO […] ET FR̅I PAVLO RVSTICO”) and that Paolo’s sons placed this for their uncle and father (“PATRVO ET PATRI”). In the inscription of the second tomb the relationship between Cincio and Marcello can be deduced from the fact that Antonio placed this “for his grandfather and father” (“AVO ET P̅RI”).
45
19
members of the Rustico family in their family chapel. Furthermore, the tombs mirror each other and are almost identical. This intentional uniformity causes these tombs to be seen as a whole, instead of as two individual tombs. Therefore, the double character of each tomb fades into the background, and although the deceased are individually praised, it is not a specific image of two persons that is conceived by the beholder of these tombs, but rather a shared commemoration of members of the Rustico family.
As demonstrated in the above, the tomb of the della Rovere brothers is not the only double tomb monument of this period that contains only one effigy and that therefore appears to
commemorate one person. However, in none of the other cases has this element been used to influence the way in which the two deceased are being commemorated. As a result, the beholder of those monuments is either unaware of the fact that the tomb commemorates two persons or
20
2. The “fictor” and the “pictor”
The tomb monument of Antonio and Piero Pollaiuolo.
In the church of San Pietro in Vincoli, placed against the first pier on the left side of the nave, one finds another tomb monument commemorating two brothers: this is the tomb of the Florentine artists Antonio and Piero Pollaiuolo, which was made circa 1498.46 As can be read in the
inscription, it was according to Antonio's last will that he would be buried together with his brother. The artist commissioned to make this tomb monument is unknown, but it is assumed that it was Luigi Capponi.47
Not only is this monument important because it is a double tomb monument, but also because of another uncommon aspect: it commemorates two artists. Interestingly, there are not many other examples of tomb monuments made for artists of this period. Two of the most important examples can both be found in Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome: the first being the tomb of Fra Angelico, which was made circa 1455, the other the monument for Andrea Bregno, of 1506.48 In being the first sepulchral monuments of this kind, they can provide important insights in how artists were presented in this period, either by themselves or by others. Interestingly, the monument in San Pietro in Vincoli is not meant to commemorate one, but two artists, which makes it twice as
interesting.
In his last will Antonio stated that should he die in Florence, he wished to be buried there, and should he die in Rome, he wished to be buried in San Pietro in Vincoli together with his
brother.49 It is uncertain if this means Piero had died in Rome, as there is very little known about his death. Antonio’s will, which was drawn up on 4 November 1496, provides a terminus ante quem for his date of death, as from this document it can be deduced that by this time Piero had already died. However, it remains uncertain when exactly: it is possible that he passed away earlier in 1496, but this might also have happened years before.50 In his testament Antonio does not specify the way in which he wants to be commemorated. He simply states that he wants to be buried with his brother and in which church. The fact that San Pietro in Vincoli was the titular church of cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, one of Antonio's most important patrons in Rome, might explain his choice to be
46 Luigi Capponi (?), Tomb monument of Antonio and Piero Pollaiuolo, 1498, Rome, San Pietro in Vincoli. Catalogue no. 7.
47 Maud Cruttwell, in the first book ever written on Antonio Pollaiuolo, assumes the artist to be Michele di Luca Marini (Cruttwell 1907, p. 19), while Gerald S. Davies considers the tomb to be made in Andrea Bregno's workshop (Davies 1910, p. 162). Nowadays, however, it is most commonly assumed that it was Luigi Capponi who made this monument. See for example the most recent monograph on both brothers, by Alison Wright (Wright 2005, p. 21). 48 Isaia da Pisa (?), Tomb monument of Fra Angelico, after 1455 and Luigi Capponi (?), Tomb monument of Andrea
Bregno, 1506, Rome, Santa Maria sopra Minerva.
49 Archivio del Convento di San Pietro in Vincoli, Jura diversa ab anno 1433 usque ad annorum 1665, ff. 545-547, reprinted by Cruttwell 1907, p. 246.
50
21
buried there. It was this cardinal who had commissioned him to make the bronze tomb monument for Pope Sixtus IV. It is, of course, possible that Antonio left instructions or designs as to the shape of the monument and content of the inscription, but this is unknown. Although Giorgio Vasari wrote in his biography of the brothers that they were buried by their family, no evidence remains as to who took charge to execute Antonio's testament. The inscription on the tomb monument, which will be discussed in more depth further on, merely states that it was according to Antonio's last will that he was buried here with his brother.51
Description
The tomb of the Pollaiuolo brothers consists of a small aedicula, with busts of the two brothers placed in rounded niches above the inscription and a coat of arms. The tympanum shows a blessing God the Father in relief. This kind of double tomb monument with clipeata busts is based on Roman tombs from classical antiquity and interestingly, the combination of this type of bust and an inscription can also be seen in the fifteenth-century cenotaphs commemorating Florentine artists and scholars in the cathedral of Florence.52 Therefore, the way in which the Pollaiuolo brothers are portrayed is not only classicizing, but might also be placed in a newly developing tradition of commemorating important writers and artists.
Andrea Bregno's tomb monument in Santa Maria sopra Minerva (Fig. 2), which was made relatively shortly after that of the Pollaiuolo brothers, contains similar classicizing elements. It might therefore be interesting to compare these two monuments, of which it is assumed that they were made by the same artist. There are, however, several notable differences to be named. For example, Bregno's monument refers more clearly to his status as an artist, as the decorations in the pilasters represent instruments from his workshop. Interestingly, such artistic references are lacking in the Pollaiuolo tomb. Instead, the monument of the brothers includes a coat of arms, suggesting an impressive social status, especially surprising as this was unusual for artists. Furthermore, the Pollaiuolo family did not have a coat of arms - possibly, the armorial bearings on the tomb have been adopted during Antonio's work in Rome, which had increased his social standing.53
Although the portraits of the two brothers do not fit neatly into the niches in which they are placed – Antonio's head, on the left, being bigger than that of Piero – and although the directions in which they are looking differ, they do seem to have been made by the same artist. Of Antonio there
51 Vasari 1972, p. 506. The relevant part of the inscription is as follows: “[...] REFAMIL COMPOSITA | EX TEST HIC SE CVM PETRO FRATRE CONDI | VOLVIT [...]”.
52
Schütz-Rautenberg 1978, p. 65. Also pointed out by Wright 2005, p. 21. There are two other examples of double tomb monuments with clipeata busts, see catalogue numbers 8 and 9.
22
are two other portraits known (Figs. 3-4). The first is part of a fresco by Filippino Lippi in the Brancacci chapel in Florence, which has been identified as Antonio by Giorgio Vasari in his biography of Lippi. The second is a woodcut portrait based on this very fresco by Vasari himself, which was added to the second edition of his artist biography of 1568.54 Of Piero there are no known portraits, which could explain why his face is somewhat more idealized than that of his brother. Another difference in the portrayal of the two brothers is that Piero is represented as a young man, as opposed to Antonio. Of course Piero was ten years younger than his brother and also died at a younger age, but another explanation for his youthful appearance might be that the
sculptor who made this bust had to fall back on a portrait of Piero from his younger years, although there is no proof of the existence of such a portrait.
The personalized features of the busts of both Antonio and Piero give the impression that we here obtain a true idea of the appearance of the two brothers. According to the art historian Maud Cruttwell, who wrote about this monument at the beginning of the twentieth century, even their personalities and the character of their works can be deduced by looking at these busts. In
Cruttwell's opinion, Antonio's appearance, though unattractive, “corresponds with the strength and energy of his work and the simple austerity of his life”, while his expression is proof of his
intellectual force and energy.55 Similarly, she is under the impression that Piero's portrait is a reflection of the character of his work:
Equally characteristic of his feeble work is the timid and fretful face of Piero, with its weak mouth and vacillating expression.56
Although naturally a difference in talent between the brothers can and must be acknowledged, this remark appears to be rather biased. Nevertheless, this is in line with how Piero has been written about ever since Giorgio Vasari changed his biography from a dual to a single biography of only Antonio, gradually changing his writing in plural to writing in singular, almost entirely omitting the younger brother.57 His acknowledgment of their artistic collaboration notwithstanding, Vasari makes clear that Antonio, once he had learned the art of painting, entirely surpassed his brother.
Significantly, in the second edition of this biography only the portrait of Antonio is added. After reading this and also other books on the Pollaiuolo brothers, which often turn out to be more about Antonio than Piero, it comes as no surprise that in the twentieth century art historians such as
54 Filippino Lippi, The crucifixion of St. Peter and the disputation with Simon Magus, c. 1482, Florence, Santa Maria del Carmine, Brancacci chapel. Antonio is depicted in the scene on the right. For the identification of Antonio in Lippi's fresco, see Vasari 1972, p. 561, for the woodcut portrait see p. 498.
55 Cruttwell 1907, p. 20 56 Ibidem.
57
23
Leopold Ettlinger start remarking that no attempt to do Piero justice has ever been made.58 Significantly, in 2003 the art historian Aldo Galli wrote an article called “Risarcimento [i.e. compensation] di Piero Pollaiuolo”.
The inscription
The inscription on the Pollaiuolo monument runs as follows:
ANTONIVS PVLLARIVS PATRIA FLORENTI NVS FICTOR INSIGN QVI DVOR PONT
XYSTI ET INNOCENTI AEREA MONIMENT MIRO OPIFIC EXPRESSIT REFAMIL COMPOSITA
EX TEST HIC SE CVM PETRO FRATRE CONDI VOLVIT VIX ANN LXXII OBIT ANNO SAL MIID
Before turning to the translation, there are already two interesting remarks to be made. The first is that, although the monument is made for both brothers and contains the busts of both, only one date of death is mentioned (“MIID”). The second is that one of the words in the inscription seems to have been manually and quite clumsily adapted. This is in the second line, where at first glance the word “PICTOR” seems to have been written, while in fact, on closer scrutiny, this turns out to be the word “FICTOR”. When looking closely one can see the serifs, proving this originally was the letter F and never a P. Comparing this letter to other F's and P's in the inscription confirms this (Figs. 5-6).
Interestingly, of all the articles and books in which this inscription is mentioned, there are only two in which the word is cited as “FICTOR”. The first to cite the word correctly is the art historian Aldo Galli in his article of 2003 already mentioned above, the second is the scholar Tyler Lansford in his book “The Latin inscriptions of Rome: a walking guide” of 2009.59
Of these two writers, only Galli mentions the fact that the F has been manually adjusted and therefore resembles a P, whereas Lansford simply reproduces the inscription faithfully. Strangely, the picture of the
58 For example, the title of Cruttwell's monograph is “Antonio Pollaiuolo”, even though she does discuss both brothers throughout the book (despite her low opinion of Piero). Another example is the book “Antonio e Piero del Pollaiolo” by art historian Attilio Sabatini (1944), which according to the title is about both brothers, but as the table of
contents indicates, is mostly about Antonio. Ettlinger writes: “[...] the role and stature of Piero must be properly assessed. No attempt to do him justice has ever been made, and the bad marks which Berenson gave him have been accepted uncritically like pronouncements ex cathedra.” (Ettlinger 1978, p. 7).
24
Pollaiuolo monument used by Galli in his article shows the adapted letter in a more clearly defined P-shape, which gives the impression that it has been restored to its original form as an F since. This assumption seems to be supported by Galli's other pictures, which show the busts of the two
brothers being painted: accentuating their hair, eyes, pupils and Antonio's eyebrows (Figs. 7-8). Unfortunately, Galli does not mention the source of these photographs, nor have I been able to discover when the monument has been restored. Nevertheless, that the monument has indeed been cleaned is certain, as nowadays there are no traces of the paint, which is clearly visible in Galli's pictures, left. As the letter F in Galli's picture shows a greater resemblance to the letter P than it does nowadays, it is possible that the roughly carved curve, making the F a P, used to be painted. However, this remains to be proven.
If this enigmatic word in the second line of the inscription is read as “PICTOR”, it would be translated as follows:
Antonio Pollaiuolo, Florentine by nationality, distinguished [painter], who by his marvelous craft made the brazen monuments of the two pontiffs
Sixtus and Innocent, his estate having been settled in accordance with his will, desired to be buried here with his brother Piero. He lived 72 years. He died in the year of Salvation 1498.60
As pictor means “painter”, Antonio would be described as a painter who by his marvelous craft, i.e. painting, made bronze monuments. This is strange and illogical, but has nonetheless thoughtlessly been quoted as such by almost every art historian who has written about this monument.61 The mistake is, however, somewhat understandable as Antonio was not only a goldsmith or sculptor, but also a painter.
When the word is read as “FICTOR” the sentence makes more sense, as the translation of this word is “sculptor”. Still, one might wonder why exactly it was this word that has been chosen, instead of the Latin sculptor, as fictor does not only mean “one who sculpts”:
fictor, […] one who makes images of clay, wood, wax, etc., an image-maker,
statuary. I. (Syn.: pictor, scalptor, sculptor, plastes, statuarius). […]
2. A maker, creator. […]
60 Translation by Tyler Lansford, see Lansford 2009, p. 101. I have replaced his translation of the word “FICTOR” (sculptor) for my translation of the word “PICTOR” (painter).
61
25
A. In gen., A maker, a former. […]
B. In partic., a feigner: fandi fictor Ulixes, a master of deceit, Verg. A. 9, 602.62
There are two interesting remarks to be made about the possible translations of the word fictor. The first is that pictor is one of the suggested synonyms, emphasizing its meaning as “image-maker”.63 Secondly, as the other translations prove, a fictor is first and foremost someone who creates, forms or feigns. I deliberately say “first and foremost”, even though these translations come after “image-maker”, as in my opinion image-making is simply a specific kind of creating and forming. This aspect of image-making might be an explanation for the choice of fictor over sculptor, as the latter implies cutting or engraving in stone, while Antonio started his career as a goldsmith and later sculpted in bronze, not in stone.
The example given with the translation of fictor as someone who feigns proves that this is not exactly meant in a negative way and should be seen as someone who devises and who is clever. However, as fictor is derived from fingere, which is also an Italian word of which to feign is one of the translations, one might wonder if the Italian beholder of the Pollaiuolo monument could have thought fictor, as “feigner” or “faker”, had a negative connotation and therefore changed it into pictor. Unfortunately, this is difficult to prove. Aldo Galli, as the only author to comment on the fictor/pictor mystery, does not have a satisfactory explanation either. He playfully suggests that some overzealous scholar who acted on behalf of Giorgio Vasari's description of the monument might be to blame, as Vasari was the first to ever quote the inscription – and he did so wrongly.64 Given that the inscription has been quoted incorrectly from the start, i.e. from the sixteenth century onwards, it is possible that the F has been turned into a P shortly after the Pollaiuolo monument was made. Unfortunately, the reasons for this adaptation remain unclear.
Although it is certain that it was according to Antonio's last will that he would be
commemorated together with Piero, it is not known who is responsible for the way in which the Pollaiuolo brothers are presented here. Therefore, it is difficult to decide to what extent this monument can be investigated in terms of self-fashioning. Leaving the self aside and focusing on the creation of an image only, this tomb proves to be an interesting example of a double tomb monument without an equal, double commemoration.
62 Lewis and Short 1969. I have omitted the translation of fictor as “a baker of offering cakes”, as this was most certainly not the intended meaning in the Pollaiuolo inscription and therefore irrelevant.
63
According to the art historian Anne-Marie Lecoq, however, in Antiquity the verb fingere (from which fictor is derived) was never associated with painting, only with plastic arts and poetry (Lecoq 1975, p. 229). Moreover, this also seems to have been the case in the fifteenth and sixteenth century in Italy, where fingendi or fictores were even mentioned separately from sculptors and goldsmiths – although opinions differed as to whom these terms applied to (Lecoq 1975, p. 226).
26
27
3. An agreeable submission
The tomb monument of Giovanni Michiel and Antonio Orso.
In the church of San Marcello al Corso one finds the tomb monument of cardinal Giovanni Michiel and bishop Antonio Orso, which is located at the inner side of the façade at the left side of the entrance.65 The inscription states that in his last will Antonio had expressed the wish to be buried with the cardinal and that it was his brother, Jacopo Orso, who took care of the commission of the tomb. The monument was made in the period between 1503 and 1519, and although it is agreed upon that the sculptor Jacopo Sansovino was one of the artists involved, it remains a point of debate which elements can justly be attributed to him.66
The relationship between the two deceased commemorated in this tomb is not always described in the same terms: it is certain that both men came from Venice, but some sources write that Antonio Orso was Giovanni Michiel's nephew, while others do not mention their being related and merely state that the two men were close friends.67 In this context it is worth mentioning that the inscription of the tomb monument in the church of San Marcello al Corso gives no indication whatsoever of the two men being relatives. Although naturally this does not exclude the possibility that a familial relationship between Orso and Michiel did exist, it is important to note that in this tomb monument they are at least not commemorated as two relatives.
A relationship that is mentioned in the inscription is that between Giovanni Michiel and Pope Paul II, who was the cardinal's uncle.68 In a different way Michiel was also connected to Innocent VIII, because of his contribution as an envoy to the peace-negotiations between this pope and King Ferdinand of Naples. With his assistance, according to the inscription, Michiel restored peace and quiet for the whole of Italy.69 During the pontificate of Alexander VI he was known as one of the richest cardinals in Rome. However, this fortune was probably also the cause of his death: on 10 April 1503 he was poisoned. It is assumed that it was Cesare Borgia, the son of Alexander VI, who was responsible for his death.70
65 Partially attributed to Jacopo Sansovino, Tomb monument of Giovanni Michiel and Antonio Orso, circa 1503-1519, Rome, San Marcello al Corso. Catalogue no. 10.
66 Götzmann 2010, p. 105, 147.
67 See for example Garrard 1970, p. 387, Zitzlsperger 2004, p. 110 and Götzmann 2010, p. 112, who describe Michiel and Orso as uncle and nephew. Their relationship is sometimes reversed as well: Antonio Orso would be Michiel's uncle, instead of the other way around (see Götzmann 2010, p. 112, n. 415), whereas on the English Wikipedia page on the church of San Marcello al Corso it is written that Orso was Michiel's grandson
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marcello_al_Corso, accessed 29-07-2014). Davies 1910, p. 239 and Weihrauch 1935, p. 28 are examples of sources not mentioning a blood relationship between these two men.
68 “[...] PAVLI II PONT MAX NEPOTI [...]” 69
“[...] PACEM IN MAGNAM ITALIAE QVIETEM COMPOSVIT [...]”.
70 Davies 1910, p. 238 and Götzmann 2010, p. 109. In his History of the Popes the historian Ludwig Pastor wrote: “In the night of the 10th of April the wealthy Cardinal Michiel died after two days of violent vomiting. Recent
28
Eight years later, on 28 September 1511, Antonio Orso died. As mentioned above it was his decision to be buried together with cardinal Michiel. Jacopo Orso, as executor of his brother's last will, commissioned this tomb. The chosen location for the monument was San Marcello al Corso, Michiel's titular church and the church of the Servite order to which both men belonged. Originally this tomb monument was placed in the Cappella della Madonna dei Sette Dolori, the third chapel on the left. In 1608 the monument was moved to its current location.71
Description
This tomb monument is similar to that of Cristoforo and Domenico della Rovere, discussed in chapter 1: the shape is reminiscent of a triumphal arch, the space underneath the arch contains a relief depicting the Virgin and Child, below this the effigy of the deceased is placed and the lower part of the monument consists of an inscription and a coat of arms. An important difference, however, is that this monument, as opposed to that of the brothers della Rovere, contains the effigies of both the deceased. In addition to this the tomb also has four small statues, representing saints John the Baptist, Michael, Peter and Paul. With its two full length effigies the tomb in San Marcello al Corso is quite unusual: there are only two other examples of double tomb monuments portraying both the deceased in full length. The first is that of the brothers Philippe and Eustache de Levis in Santa Maria Maggiore (catalogue no. 2), which originally was even more similar to the tomb of Michiel and Orso than it is nowadays, as besides the two effigies and the statues in the niches it contained a religious scene beneath its arch (Fig. 9).72 The second example is the tomb of Francesco Armellini de’ Medici and Benvegnate Pantalissi in the church of Santa Maria in
Trastevere (catalogue no. 12), which does represent both the deceased in full length, but is less comparable to the monument of Michiel and Orso because of its different structure.73
Antonio Orso's effigy, depicting the deceased lying on his back with his hands folded on his stomach, is placed on a bier supported by sculpted piles of books. After his death Antonio had left his library, consisting of 730 codices, to the Servite order of San Marcello al Corso. The stacks of books underneath his effigy might be seen as a reference to this donation. However, this motif can also be observed in other tomb monuments commemorating deceased who have made no such donation. An example of this is the double tomb monument of the brothers de Levis, where the bier
contemporaries, but the death of Cardinal Michiel is not one of these.” (Pastor 1901, volume VI, p. 128). 71 For more information on the original location of the tomb monument, see Götzmann 2010, pp. 118-121.
72 Andrea Bregno and his workshop, Tomb monument of Philippe and Eustache de Levis, 1475, Rome, Santa Maria Maggiore.
73 Baldassare Peruzzi, Angelo and Ludovico Marrini, Tomb monument of Francesco Armellini de’ Medici and
Benvegnate Pantalissi, 1524, Rome, Santa Maria in Trastevere. This tomb will be discussed more extensively in
29
on which the lower effigy is placed rests on piles of books as well. The books could therefore also simply be seen as a reference to intellect.74 The effigy of Giovanni Michiel is placed on a
sarcophagus and is not lying in state, but half upright with his head leaning on his shoulder and with his eyes closed as if he has just drifted off into sleep.75
The presence of the statues of Saint John the Baptist and Saint Michael in this tomb
monument has for a long time been understood as a reference to Giovanni Michiel's name: the one being a reference to his first, the other to his last name. However, as can be seen by the protruding pedestals, these statues do not fit into the niches they are placed in. It can therefore be concluded that they were not made for this monument and have been added later, probably in the seventeenth century. The same holds for the statues of Saint Peter and Paul, which in addition not only differ in style, but also in size.Whether these statues were added because the tomb monument was left unfinished or because the original statues had been lost remains a point of debate.76
So far, this monument has been mostly discussed within the context of attribution, with as main question what parts of the monument might have been executed by Jacopo Sansovino.77 Within the scope of my research this discussion is not of great importance. However, as the differences in style within this monument are not limited to the four small statues, but are also visible in the two effigies, a discussion of these differences is relevant – although the answer to the question which artist was responsible remains of lesser importance. The fact is that the dissimilarity between the two effigies gives rise to the question whether this tomb monument was meant to be a double tomb monument from the start.
When looking closely at the effigy of Antonio Orso, the bier and the strip running behind it, which contains his coat of arms and grottesche ornaments, one can see that these elements have been executed in a style different from that of the effigy of Giovanni Michiel (Figs. 10-11). Not only do the positions of these two effigies differ, that of Michiel being more modern, but also the execution of that of Michiel is more refined, with his lifelike pose and the naturally flowing folds of his robes. Instead, the figure of Orso comes across as stiff; the folds of his garments being more firmly cut.78 The difference in style can also especially be noticed when one compares Orso's coat
74 Götzmann 2010, p. 111-112 and Garrard 1970, p. 387 assume the books to be a reference to Orso’s donation. Gerald S. Davies observed that the piles of books can also be seen other tomb monuments (Davies 1910, p. 260-261). According to the art historian Henriette s'Jacob this feature in tomb monuments “clearly indicat[es] the bibliophile”. The examples she mentions include the monument of the De Levis brothers and that of Orso and Michiel (S'Jacob 1954, p. 207).
75 For more information on the origin of this pose, see Röll 1998.
76 Götzmann 2010, p. 140. Interestingly, Garrard assumes the statue of Saint Michael to be made for the tomb: “[...] the St. Michael must have been intended for this tomb, representing too unusual a subject to have been a handy
unattached piece,” (Garrard 1970, p. 396).
77 The most extensive treatment of this tomb monument can be found in Götzmann 2010, pp. 103-148. An overview of recent research on this tomb is given on pp. 104-108.
78
