1
Portraits of Tyrannicide?
Art patronage of the fuorusciti in Rome
between 1530 and 1554
2
Portraits of Tyrannicide?
Art patronage of the fuorusciti in Rome
between 1530 and 1554
Research Master Thesis Art History & Archaeology University of Groningen, Faculty of Arts
Final version
Name: J.J. (Julia) Dijkstra Student number: 1834517
Address: Kleine Leliestraat 15 9712 TD Groningen Telephone number: +31 629482498
Email address: j.j.dijkstra.5@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. H. Th. van Veen, Head of the department of Art History, University of Groningen
3
“Kunst ist Schön, macht aber viel Arbeit”
—
Karl Valentin
“It always seems impossible until its done”
4
Preface
This thesis has been written over a long period of time. It is the product of a process of evolving thoughts and ongoing research. In essence, it can be regarded as the apotheosis of my Art History degree at the University of Groningen. Not only because it actually is the final step before
graduation. More so, because it combines various topics I have been exploring throughout my curriculum. During my Research Master I worked as an KNAW subsidized Academy Assistant in the internationalization project “Trading Values: Cultural Translation in Early Modern Antwerp” (supervised by prof. dr. B.A.M. Ramakers). This position first inspired me to explore topics such as ‘identity’ and ‘exile’. Moreover, it gave me the opportunity to present a paper at the Sixteenth Century Society Conference (Cincinnatti, 2012). More and more I became interested in portraiture and self-portraiture. This led to the organization of the international graduate symposium “Visual Self-presentation in Western Europe between 1400 – 1800” (University of Groningen, February 2013). This symposium, of which I was co-organizer, allowed me again to further explore the themes mentioned above.
The direct inspiration for taking up this particular research on the patronage of Florentine exiles in Rome has been the research I conducted as an intern within the “Patrician Patronage Project: Commissioning Art in Florence during Medici Rule 1530 - 1670” (based at the University of Groningen). In the Fall of 2012, supported by a GWO-fund, I was so fortunate as to stay at the Dutch University Institute in Florence for several weeks and to make use of its library, as well as the many other (art) historical libraries in Florence. Since the aim of this internship was to
accumulate data on the art patronage of Florentine patricians, this thesis provided the opportunity for in-depth research, in order to further elaborate on the topic of the Florentine exiles.
5 and sociology. As such, the thesis reflects my personal interests and my aspirations as a researcher.
Working on this thesis, I have met and talked to various scholars from different disciplines. Their stimulating opinions have helped me shape my own thoughts on the subject. On that note, I would hereby like to thank the following people for their helpful contributions to my research.
Within the scope of the first part of this thesis, I thank in random order: Patricia McCobb (McCobb Landscape Architects), for sharing her references to Diomede Leoni and the Horti Leonini and explaining her argument in a lengthy e-mail correspondence; dr. Joost Keizer (Yale University), for sending me the Introduction of his not yet published book (Michelangelo and the
Politics of Art, forthcoming with Yale University Press 2014); dr. Lucinda Byatt (University of
Edinburgh), for exchanging thoughts on Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi and Michelangelo; dr. Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi and dr. Benedetta Chiesi of the Museo Nazionale del Bargello (Florence), for supplying me with unpublished information on the condition of the Brutus; Elisa Goudriaan (PhD Leiden University), for sharing references on the subjects of (theories of) networking and
Florentine patricians.
Furthermore I would like to express my gratitude to: dr. Donatella Pegazzano (University of Florence), for explaining her view on the political stance of Bindo Altoviti; Professor Kathleen Weil-Garris Brandt (New York University), for her elaborate response to my questions on the costume of Bindo Altoviti; Sara van Dijk (PhD Leiden University), for her kindness and
willingness for teaching me about Renaissance dress, and for thinking along with me about the use and meaning of Bindo’s skull cap; The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum (Boston), for providing me with the high-resolution photographs of the Bindo Altoviti bust free of charge; and to dr. Jan de Jong (University of Groningen), for giving me references to literature on the topic of Venetian tomb monuments.
6 the Institute in April and May of 2013. Invaluable was the opportunity to visit museums, libraries and archives in Florence, to conduct on site research and to make use of the excellent library and other facilities of the NIKI.
In addition to this long list of names, I want to state my sincere gratitude towards my supervisor, prof. dr. H. Th. van Veen. Professor Van Veen’s enthusiasm and interest for the subject have inspired me to take up the research. I have profited from his advanced knowledge on
Florentine art and society. Our conversations on my findings have been very enriching, and moreover have sharpened my research. I apologize for the time it took to formulate my thoughts and to submit the final version of this thesis and I hope the results meet the expectations.
Last, but definitely not least, I would like to express my gratitude towards my family and friends, whom I all love very much. Throughout the process of this thesis, which clearly was not written overnight, they have done a great job in keeping me sane and focused. In particular, I am thankful towards my parents. They have supported me unconditionally and stood by my side every step of the way. Never have they criticized my decisions to take up other activities while writing this thesis, nor have they second guessed my capabilities of finishing it. They have taught me a very valuable lesson, namely that research is a never ending process and that – especially in the fields of Humanities – there is no ‘absolute truth’. This lesson, as well as their faith in me, have guided me through the final efforts of shaping this thesis. Words cannot express how happy I am to finally show them the result of my hard labors.
7
Table of Contents
Preface ... 4 Table of Contents ... 71.
Introduction ... 10
1.1. Problem Statement ... 101.2. Main Question, Case-Studies and Research Goals ... 12
1.3. The Eye of the Beholder: a Theoretical Background ... 13
1.3.1. Self-Fashioning or Self-(Re)presentation? ... 15
1.3.2. Defining “Republicanism” and “Republican Art”... 17
1.4. Periodization: a Historical Background ... 19
1.4.1. The Florentine Diaspora: Exiles after the Fall of the Second Republic ... 20
1.4.2. The Florentine Exiled Community in Rome ... 23
1.5. Methodology and Added Value ... 25
2.
Case-Study 1 ... 28
2.1. Introduction ... 28
2.2. Literature regarding the Brutus (Present State of Research) ... 29
2.2.1. The Early Sources ... 30
2.2.2. Eighteenth Century Views ... 31
2.2.3. Transfer to the Bargello ... 33
2.2.4. Understanding: the Present State of Affairs ... 34
2.3. The Cult of Brutus ... 37
2.3.1. Emulating the Past: Revival of the Brutus Myth in Sixteenth-Century Florence and Rome 38 2.3.2. Anti-thesis: Caesar as Role Model for the Tyrant Alessandro ... 41
2.3.3. Visual Culture: Representations of Marcus Brutus ... 42
2.4. A Troubled Provenance ... 45
2.4.1. Donato Giannotti, Michelangelo and the Culture of Gift Giving ... 46
2.4.2. Cardinal Ridolfi, Donato Giannotti and the Occasion of the Bust ... 50
2.5. The Problem of Dating ... 52
2.5.1. Re-dating the Brutus ... 53
2.5.2. The ‘Afterlife’ ... 55
2.6. Discussion about the Authenticity ... 57
2.7. Issues of Style ... 61
8
3.
Case-Study 2 ... 69
3.1. Introduction ... 69
3.1.1. Visual Analysis ... 71
3.2. Literature on the Bindo Altoviti Portrait Bust (Present State of Research) ... 72
3.2.1. Cellini’s Vita and Vasari’s Vite ... 72
3.2.2. Out of Sight, Out of Mind? The Forgotten Centuries ... 74
3.2.3. The Bindo Altoviti Bust ‘Re-appreciated’: Avery and Pope-Hennessy ... 76
3.2.4. Celebrating Bindo: Raphael, Cellini & A Renaissance Banker (2003) ... 78
3.3. Bindo Altoviti: Renaissance Banker and Noble Patron ... 81
3.3.1. Who is Bindo Altoviti?: A Short Biography ... 81
3.3.2. An Uprising Career in Papal Banking ... 82
3.3.3. Alliances in a Rapidly Changing Political Community ... 84
3.3.4. Bindo and his Political Stance ... 85
3.3.5. The Cultural Expenditure of a Papal Banker: Bindo as Patron and Collector ... 88
3.4. Casting the Bronze Likeness of Bindo: Form, Content, Function ... 91
3.4.1. Dating ... 91
3.4.2. A Case of Appearance: ‘Dressing Up’ or ‘Dressing Down’? ... 93
The Costume ... 94
The Headgear ... 96
The Appearance of the Male Scuffie in Italy ... 100
3.4.3. Medium: The Bronze Portrait Bust in Mid-Sixteenth Century Italy ... 103
3.4.4. Choosing the Artist: Benvenuto Cellini ... 105
Cosimo I de’ Medici vs Bindo Altoviti: Battle of the Busts? ... 107
Dating: the Portrait Medal of Bindo Altoviti ... 109
3.4.5. Placing: Between the Studiolo and the Loggia ... 112
3.5. Conclusion ... 118
4.
Conclusion: At the Intersection of Art and Politics ... 123
9
INTRODUCTION
O QUAM DULCIS EXEMPTO LIBERTAS
O, how sweet liberty is to him from whom it is taken away1
Inscription medal Piero Strozzi
10
1.
Introduction
The collapse of the last Florentine Republic in 1530 marks an important turning point in the history of Florence. In August of that year, the city was forced to submit to the authority of Alessandro de’ Medici (1510 – 1536) after only three years of republican government.2 In 1532 Alessandro was created the first Duke of Florence, a position which the Medici family retained for over two centuries. Another result of the collapse of the republican regime was the exile of a substantial group of Florentine patricians, who were considered opponents of the Medici rule, so-called
fuorusciti.3 This group consisted of republicans banished by Alessandro as well as a large number of voluntary exiles who condemned Alessandro’s despotic rule.4 These exiles gathered in cities like Venice, Lyons, Ferrara and Rome. Strengthened by their anti-Medicean sentiments, an important network was set up connecting the fuorusciti throughout Europe. Their common goals were to overthrow Medicean Florence and to re-install the Florentine Republic. Little did these fuorusciti know that their Second Florentine Republic in fact was to remain Florence's Last Republic. The network of fuorusciti seems to have remained active during the reigns of first Alessandro (1530 – 1537) and then Cosimo I de’ Medici (1537 – 1574), but had its heyday in the 1530s and 1540s.
1.1. Problem Statement
In recent years, it has been suggested that literature commissioned by the fuorusciti can be linked to the republican or the anti-Medicean stance of its patrons. In the large exhibition catalogue on the Florentine banker and presumed fuoruscito Bindo Altoviti (2003), Paolo Simoncelli states that after the exiles’ tragic defeat at Montemurlo (1537), their attention shifted from waging war to the mental sphere of literature.5 Simoncelli makes an interesting remark with regard to the cultural activities of the Florentine exiles: “After the battle of Montemurlo, the literary undertakings and political thinking of the exiles became a refuge.”6 The focus of the fuorusciti turned away from physical to literary battle. In literature the exiles found a medium that could help ventilating their
2 The Second Florentine Republic was established in 1527 in the wake of the Sack of Rome. Under the guidance
of Filippo Strozzi, the Medici were forced to depart the city, thus marking the beginning of a new period of republican government in Florence. This event took place exactly twenty-five years after the fall of the first Florentine Republic (1494 – 1512). Piero Soderini was gonfaloniere a vita of this first Republic.
3 The correct Italian translation for exile is ‘fuoriuscito’. However, since in nearly all secondary literature
consulted in the light of this thesis, the Florentine exiles have been earmarked as ‘fuoruscito’ (without an additional ‘i’). Therefore, the correct term for indicating the Florentine exiles of the sixteenth century is unclear. In accordance with the majority of the secondary literature, this thesis will apply the term ‘fuoruscito’ when discussing the exiles after the Fall of the second Florentine Republic in 1530.
4 In the wake of the Siege, Alessandro banished about 150 republicans from Florence (Simoncelli 2003, p. 286.). 5
Simoncelli 2003, p. 302.
11 republican aspirations and ideals.7
In the same exhibition catalogue, Costamagna uses Simoncelli’s remark to address a set of portraits which presumably were commissioned by various fuorusciti after the fall of the Second Republic. Costamagna begins his article stating: “To affirm their ideals, the exiled republicans frequently employed images, particularly portraits.”8 The article discusses a number of portraits of Florentine exiles taking refuge in cities such as Rome and Venice, as well as of republicans who remained in Medicean Florence. The author affirms that the portraits he addresses carry an explicit political message, for: “Some Florentines who were initially involved in the defense of the
Republic, but remained in Florence, found in imagery the way to illustrate their political position.”9 Unfortunately, Costamagna fails in providing convincing evidence to underscore his interpretation. He does make an effort in answering what the message is these portraits ventilate. However, he does not answer the question how these portraits express this message. Yet, his line of thought is interesting to pursue.
In a call for papers for a panel held at the Renaissance Society of America meeting of 2014 in New York, Julia Siemon addresses a related topic. In her efforts to initiate a panel under the title “Arts of Dissimulation and Dissent”, she called for papers “exploring artistic expressions of political dissent in the Renaissance.”10 Her curiosity is fostered by a theory from literary studies expounded by James C. Scott in his book Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden
Transcripts.11 Scott argues that “every subordinate group creates, out of its ordeal, a ‘hidden transcript’ that represents a critique of power spoken behind the back of the dominant” and that the “hidden transcript is typically expressed openly – albeit in disguised form.”12 Siemon in turn seeks to explore whether and if so in what way works of art could incorporate messages of political resistance. Making a first step in applying Scott’s theory to art, Siemon interestingly turns to Michelangelo’s Brutus to illustrate her case (figure 1). This bust was made for the anti-Medicean cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi. As a result, scholars have often associated the bust with republican
ideology. This sculpture, Siemon states, succeeded in concealing a message of dissent by emulating forms from antiquity. Even though the context of the commission reveals the true motivation for making the bust, she claims, the subject’s classical pedigree hides its rebellious content. In
7
Nardi for instance – a pro-republican in exile – “developed in his work a strong anti-Medicean reading of the previous century of Florentine history.” (Simoncelli 2006, p. 16) A similar ‘reading’ is provided by Silvano, who claims that the Republica fiorentina by Donato Gianotti – the secretary of the Second Florentine Republic and exile after its fall – “expressed the feeling and the political dreams of the opposition.” (Silvano 1990, p. 15) See also Simoncelli 2003, p. 300. 8 Costamagna 2003, p. 329. 9 Costamagna 2003, p. 329. 10 Siemon 2012, http://arthist.net/archive/5341. (14/01/2015). 11 Scott 1990.
12 Siemon’s words, the bust is thus “able to simultaneously convey and conceal its message.”13
1.2. Main Question, Case-Studies and Research Goals
This thesis aims at providing a better understanding of the patronage and collecting of art by the group of Florentine patricians resident in Rome as anti-Medicean exiles (fuorusciti) after the fall of the Second Florentine Republic (1530). It aspires to question the assumptions made by scholars such as Costamagna and Siemon: is it justified to assume works of art commissioned by political minorities harbor a concealed political message, and in particular, do the artworks patronized by the fuorusciti indeed manifest a republican or anti-Medicean stance? The main question to be answered in this thesis is therefore: Did members of the Florentine exiled community in Rome
consciously use art as a means to express/ventilate their political sentiments?
Against the backdrop of the turbulent political developments in both Florence and Rome, this thesis will discuss the cultural activities of two members of the so-called fuorusciti movement, which make up for two case-studies. The object discussed in the first case-study is the Brutus (figure 1). This bust is without doubt one of the most important and controversial pieces of art with regard to the fuorusciti. According to Giorgio Vasari, the sculpture was intended as a gift for Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi, who was among the leaders of the fuorusciti. Michelangelo supposedly sculpted the bust at the suggestion of his friend Donato Giannotti – a Florentine historian in exile in Rome. The bust was made in order to commemorate Lorenzino de’ Medici, who allegedly
murdered duke Alessandro de’ Medici in 1537, a deed for which Lorenzino was hailed as the ‘new’ or ‘Tuscan Brutus’. Authors have therefore claimed that, since the bust originated in the context of the Florentine exiled community in Rome, the statue should be understood as a “symbol of
republican liberty”.14 Moreover, since the statue alludes to and celebrates the murder of Alessandro de’ Medici by his cousin Lorenzino, it supposedly communicates anti-Medicean sentiments. In general, the fuorusciti are described as a vociferous but ultimately powerless movement. Were their hopes and dreams really embodied in artworks such as the Brutus bust?
The second object is also a bust, though in bronze, made by Benvenuto Cellini and
commissioned by the portrayed, Bindo Altoviti (figure 32). Bindo Altoviti was a Florentine banker living in Rome who became associated with the fuorusciti at the end of the 1540s. Around that time he also commissioned Benvenuto Cellini to cast his likeness in bronze. Previously, Cellini had been employed by the archrival of the fuorusciti, Cosimo I de’ Medici. Cellini was responsible for a bronze portrait bust of the Duke, as well as the famous Perseus on display in the Loggia dei Lanzi.
13
Siemon 2012, http://arthist.net/archive/5341. (14/01/2015).
13 Given this track record, it seems remarkable that Bindo chose Cellini to immortalize him in bronze. Since these two busts are the only surviving bronze portrait busts Cellini casted, scholars have always been tempted to interpret them in conjunction. It has been established that the two portrait busts, although by the same artist, are in fact contrasting: Cosimo is depicted as an imperial general, whereas Bindo resembles a republican philosopher.15 Since Cosimo’s portrait pre-dates Bindo’s bust, it has been suggested that Bindo deliberately wanted to oppose Cosimo with his portrait bust. Did Bindo really want to rival with or even surpass Cosimo with his commission? And can the bust be understood as political propaganda?
At first sight, the objects chosen might seem random and unconnected. However, in the light of this research, the choice for these specific objects has been careful and deliberate. First of all, both objects were commissioned by patrons that have been regarded by history as so-called
fuorusciti at the time these sculptures were conceived. Interestingly, authors have described both
sculptures as ‘republican’ and ‘ anti-Medicean’. Whether or not these descriptions are a
consequence of the identity of the patrons remains to be questioned. Consequently, the objects in question make up for ideal case-studies to be examined in this thesis. Are the Brutus and Bindo
Altoviti busts truly ‘portraits of tyrannicide’, reflecting and commenting on contemporary issues of
tyranny in sixteenth century Italy?16 Do they communicate republican partisanship? Or do other circumstances shed different light on the meaning of these busts?
The sculptural commissions under discussion will be considered within a broader historical, artistic and literary context. The focus will be on reconstructing and reconsidering the original cultural framework of the busts. The aim of the case-studies goes beyond merely addressing the main question. The thesis also tries to provide an alternative interpretation, if possible.
Furthermore, it will take into consideration the question to what extent the terms ‘republicanism’ and ‘ anti-Medicean’ are equivalent. Within the context of the fuorusciti the meaning of these words has been blurred.
1.3. The Eye of the Beholder: a Theoretical Background
It is important to note that this thesis assumes that works of art tell stories and therefore
communicate messages.17 Art, in this sense, becomes a tool, a transmitter between a sender and a receiver. Furthermore, the messages transmitted are not limited to single stories. On the contrary,
15
Chong, Lingner & Zahn 2003, pp. 87-88.
16 The expression ‘portraits of tyrannicide’ has been adopted from Keizer’s statement on the Brutus, who refers to
the statue as a ‘portrait of tyrannicide’(Keizer, forthcoming, p. 31). Keizer considers the Brutus as the only surviving political statue that Michelangelo sculpted. According to him, the statue is an explicit anti-Medicean work of art.
14 different messages can be expressed at the same time. The content of these messages depends on a variety of aspects. First of all, a sender is involved. The ‘sender’ is the person who wants to
communicate a particular message. Nowadays the artist – the creator – is almost always considered the ‘sender’. However, in the sixteenth century the artist was less independent. In most cases, the sixteenth century artist worked on behalf of a client. Therefore, the patron – the one who paid for the object – should also be considered as a possible ‘sender’. With this in mind, this thesis
deliberately focuses on the art patron as sender. Subsequently, different elements of the art object may transmit ‘information’, such as material, style and subject matter. In order to get clues about the intended meaning of an object, these elements should be analyzed carefully.18 Moreover, the context in which the object functioned should be considered.
This reasoning about the functioning of art is partly inspired by concepts discussed by Michael Baxandall in his Painting & Experience in Fifteenth-century Italy: a primer in the social
history of pictorial style.19 With this publication, Baxandall has revolutionized the field of art historical research and the way Renaissance art is analyzed. He opens with:
“A fifteenth-century painting is the deposit of a social relationship. On one side there was a painter who made the picture, or at least supervised its making. On the other side there was somebody else who asked him to make it, provided funds for him to make it and, after he had made it, reckoned on using it in some way or other. Both parties worked within institutions and conventions, - commercial, religious, perceptual, in the widest sense social – that were
different from ours and influenced the forms of what they together made”.20
Although perhaps not intentionally, the first words of this citation fostered a curiosity of historians as well as art historians on the importance of art patronage.21 As such, Baxandall opened the door for an art historical approach that takes the object’s original and larger social and cultural context in consideration.22 This ‘art-in-context’ approach was already propagated by scholars like Martin Wackernagel and Francis Haskell, and can be considered a mainstream approach nowadays.23 It
18 Since a work of art is a product of its time, it also communicates so-called ‘unintended messages’ about the
society in which it was conceived. Its significance might be grasped when compared to other artworks of the time.
19 Baxandall 1988. 20 Baxandall 1988, p. 1. 21
Paul Hills states that Baxandall’s book is “one of the most celebrated and most misunderstood books of the past forty years” (Hills 2013, p. 151). He claims that the art historians of the 1970s and 1980s “eagerly embraced the first sentence as a manifesto for the social history of art” (Hills 2013, p. 151). This however, according to Hills, was not the aim of the book. Although Baxandall acknowledges “the importance of the patron and of the institutions that governed the relationships between artists, patrons and critics” (Hills 2013, p. 155), he is not “especially interested in patrons or collectors as personalities and eccentrics” (Hills 2013, p. 156).
22 Hupe 2011, p. 4.
23 Wackernagel M., Der Lebensraum des Künstlers in der Florentinischen Renaissance, Leipzig: E. A. Seeman,
1938 (English translation: The World of the Florentine Renaissance Artist: Projects and Patrons, Workshop and Art Market, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981); Haskell F., Patrons and Painters: a study in the
15 combines methods and theories from associate disciplines, such as (social and cultural) history, anthropology and sociology. In this respect, Ernst Gombrich and Aby Warburg cannot be left unnamed, for these scholars were also pioneers in propagating the ‘art-in-context’ approach. Gombrich, for instance, states that in order to grasp the ‘intended meaning’ or ‘principal purpose’ of an artwork, the context in which it was fashioned must be carefully considered:
“The programme confirms what has been suggested here from the outset, that taken in isolation and cut loose from the context in which they are embedded none of these images could have been interpreted correctly.”24
Gombrich thus argues that only a careful analysis of the original context of an artwork can lead to a correct interpretation of the object. This thesis is consistent with this approach. It springs forth from the assumption that an artwork is a product of its time, and that its intended meaning is rooted in the society that produced it.
1.3.1. Self-Fashioning or Self-(Re)presentation?
The present study discusses two portrait busts. It elaborates on the observation of Jill Burke in her book Changing Patrons: Social Identity and the Visual Arts in Renaissance Florence (2004), that “objects can function as mediators between the self and society” and in that sense can be regarded a construction of a ‘social identity’.25 This concords with Richard’s Brilliants stating that “portraits exist at the interface between art and social life [..]”.26 Portraits are nearly always designed to display the likeness of the sitter.27 A portrait can also reflect on the sitter’s persona. It is interesting to consider what the portrait displays or reveals about the sitter. How is the person displayed? Or even more interesting: how did he want himself to be depicted? The last question can be linked to the popular concept referred to as ‘self-fashioning’.
The practice of self-fashioning, or rather self-representation, was not uncommon in Renaissance Italy. As Peter Burke stated: “Material culture was, and is, an important vehicle for expressing views of the self”.28 Only the last two decades the concept of self-fashioning – “a way of designating the shaping of a given person's identity as revealed in his or her personality or mode
discussion on these texts, see: Shone & Stonard 2013, p. 148.).
24 Gombrich 1985, pp. 11 – 12. This thesis does not follow Gombrich’s assumption that a work of art can only
convey a single message. (Gombrich 1985, p. 16).
25 Burke 2004, p. 8. 26
Brilliant 1991, p. 11.
27 The significance and functioning of portraiture is aptly discussed by Richard Brilliant in Portraiture (London:
Reaktion Books, 1997). The introduction to The image of the Individual: portraits in the Renaissance by Nicholas Mann and Luke Syson (London: British Museum Press, 1998) also contains an interesting discussion on the appearance of individual portraits and the purposes of Renaissance portraits.
16 of behaviour”- has taken off in the field of Art History.29 The result was an “increased [Tudor] self-consciousness about the fashioning of human identities as a manipulable artful process, and about the internal self as an agent or subject.”30 From the 1990's onwards, under the influence of
Greenblatt's Renaissance Self-Fashioning, more and more publications have explored the way in which art conveyed and embodied the identity of patrons, artists, social groups, cities or nations in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.31 Greenblatt's adaptation of Goffmans pioneering
'Presentation of the Self' offered an interdisciplinary approach, in which history, culture, society and art were intertwined.
With regard to the art historical implementation of the concept, especially Mary Rogers’ volume ‘Fashioning Identities in Renaissance Art’ is notable. Different scholars contribute to the understanding of the topic in art historical terms. Although inspired by Greenblatt, the volume does not aim at a complete adaptation of his concept: “In adopting Greenblatt's term, the intention was not to declare an allegiance to his analyses of the cause of or patterns in verbal self-fashioning in the Renaissance […].”32 Hence, a coherent theoretical framework for art historical research, as Greenblatt provided for literary studies, is absent. Roger’s book highlights the dis-functionality of the term ‘self-fashioning’ in recent years. Although the term ‘self-fashioning’ is still used, other disciplines have discarded it.
An eye opening discourse on the topic was provided by Harry Berger’s ‘Fictions of the Pose: Rembrandt against the Italian Renaissance’.33 In his introduction Berger tackles the problem of ‘self-fashioning’ in a brave way. According to him, Greenblatt's term is out of date “due to overexposure and fuzzy usage these last years.”34 The term supposedly has a flaw built into it:
“Consider the difference between these two statements: ‘Rembrandt fashioned himself’; ‘Rembrandt fashioned his self’. In the first, the reflexive shifter circles back and disappears into the subject; in the second, the noun
phrase that is the object of the verb splits off from the subject and moves forward in search of the reification promised by the verb. […] An ontic rather than reflexive signifier, “The Self” denotes an independent entity and thus carries
theoretical commitments that are lacking – or at most implicit – in the first locution.”35
The author instead favours the terms self-presentation and self-representation. Since these terms play a central role in the present study, a brief attempt should be made to distinguish them. Under
29 Rogers 2000, p. 1. 30 Rogers 2000, p. 1. 31
Cardarelli, Anderson, Richards 2012, p. xix.
32 Rogers 2000, pp. xiii – xix. 33 Berger 2000.
34 Berger 2000, p. 14. A similar statement can be made about the concept of ‘identity’, which in recent years has
replaced Greenblatt’s term but similarly is often used without clear definition.
17 the term ‘self-presentation’ a direct presentation of one's persona is understood. Self-representation, on the other hand, implies presenting one's self by utilizing another medium, for instance a portrait or using a mythological story. Both play in their own rights part in the process of self-promotion.
1.3.2. Defining “Republicanism” and “Republican Art”
The aim of the present study is to probe the thesis that art was used by the fuorusciti to express their republican partisanship. Both busts central to this study have been named ‘republican’. Scholars, however, remain vague about what exactly makes these objects republican. Like
self-fashioning, the concept of “republicanism” is much debated, especially within the realm of
historical studies. Republicanism is a complicated concept. In strict sense, it refers to the ideology that supports the idea that a political system based upon the principles of a republic – a state in which supreme power is held by the people or their elected representatives, not by a monarch – is the correct political system.36 The term is often conveniently used by scholars, for its meaning seems self-explicatory. But, in fact, as recent scholarship has pointed out, it lacks a clear definition. As a consequence, it has been misused, resulting in even more ambiguities.
What does it mean then when art is coined ‘republican’? Keeping in mind the definition of republicanism, the designation ‘republican art’ would imply that the associated artwork expresses the ideology of republicanism in some sense or the other. But in what way can art embody this objective? This is addressed by Arjan de Koomen in his dissertation on the reception history of Donatello’s Saint George (2000).37 In his study, De Koomen signals two important shifts in the
reception history of the Saint George. First, he detects a sudden revival of interest in Donatello’s statue after the World War II. Furthermore, he points out that the meaning of the image changed. According to De Koomen, the post-war scholars extolled the St George statue, for it supposedly signaled the mental change that marked the beginning of the Renaissance. This interpretation, however – as De Koomen shows – is a cultural historical projection as a result of the post-war sentiments the art historians experienced in their own lives.
De Koomen describes how the concept of ‘republicanism’ entered the discipline of Art History after the World War II under the influence of Hans Baron’s so-called ‘Civic Humanism’.
Civic Humanism is a variant of republicanism, a concept developed in Baron’s publication The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance (1955), that indicates an active, participatory, patriotic
citizenship.38 Baron argues that the Renaissance mentality first started to develop among a group of
36 The Concise Oxford Dictionary 1991, ‘republican’ ~ republicanism. 37
The following analysis is based on Koomen 2000, Chapter XIII, pp. 281 – 306.
18 Florentine humanists around 1400, from which it was spread to the courts.39 The driving force behind the development of the new Renaissance mentality was the crisis inflicted upon the city of Florence as a result of the war with Milan.40 Baron’s thesis influenced the post-war interpretation of Saint George, which now became ‘the very symbol of early Florentine Renaissance’ and the embodiment of ‘republican ideology’.41 Frederick Hartt takes Baron’s thesis even further and argues in his Art and Freedom in Quattrocento Florence (1964) that the crisis of the wars and the subsequent moral mobilization described by Baron were the catalyst for the stylistic developments in the arts – primarily visible in sculpture – at the beginning of the sixteenth century.42 Hartt calls
Saint George “a symbol of the Republic at war”.43 In his interpretation, Hartt connects art and civic humanism. He furthermore sets out a kinship between style and culture that became exemplary in the field of Art History.
Thus, the Saint George became alive again after the World War II, for it allegedly gave expression to the ideals of Baron’s republicanism: personal freedom and civic participation. De Koomen, however, is sceptic about this interpretation. First of all, there is no textual evidence substantiating Baron or Hartt’s vision. A link between Donatello and the civic humanists cannot be established.44 Furthermore, references to art in the writings of the humanists are rare, which proves to De Koomen that the humanists did not consider art as a propagandistic medium for spreading their ideals.45 The question then rises whether the suitability of the Saint George to address republican values was purely by chance and therefore in that sense meaningless, or whether this is the only work which truly gives expression to Baron’s Civic Humanism.46
According to De Koomen, a marble sculpture was not meant to play a part in a political debate, rather it was destined to transcend current events.47 He thus excludes the Saint George from the realm of republicanism. Also Baron’s idea of republicanism is disputed, for the fifteenth
century Florentine city-state appears to have been more an oligarchy with imperialist tendencies than a republic with active civic participation.48
Yet, Baron’s thesis undeniably had an immense impact on the (art)historical writings of the second half of the twentieth century, as can be concluded from De Koomen’s analysis of the 39 Koomen 2000, p. 282. 40 Koomen 2000, p. 283. 41 Koomen 2000, p. 291. 42 Koomen 2000, p. 286. 43 Koomen 2000, p. 287. 44 Koomen 2000, p. 294. 45 Koomen 2000, p. 302. 46 Koomen 2000, p. 292. 47 Koomen 2000, p. 295. 48
19 reception history of the Saint George. How can this success be explained? Following De Koomen’s argument, the revival of the Saint George can be ascribed to the trauma inflicted by World War II. The experience of Fascism called for new academic and intellectual attitudes which could help to prevent such social disaster in the future.49 Topics such as democracy versus dictatorship and freedom versus tyranny became relevant.50 The Saint George statue fitted into this discourse. Post-war sentiments were projected onto the study of fifteenth century Florence, especially by scholars who experienced the trauma of the war first hand, such as Baron who was a Jewish immigrant. Unknowingly, the personal background of these scholars blurred their vision on history. Getting over the war trauma, they may have been encouraged to see connections that might not have been there. As such, De Koomen argues, the interpretation of the Saint George as an icon of
republicanism has become meaningless. It is emblematic for the (art)historical writings after the war, it does not however give a ‘correct’ interpretation of the statue according to De Koomen.
What significance has De Koomen’s study for the understanding of the present study? It emphasizes the importance of carefully considering how our present-day understanding of the sculptures under discussion has been shaped. In order to do so, a close analysis of the secondary literature on the statues is crucial. Determining what exatly is meant by ‘republican’ is of utmost importance. De Koomen’s study furthermore puts the question forward to what extent the current interpretation of the Brutus and the Bindo Altoviti as being republican manifestations is indebted to Baron’s outdated conception of Civic Humanism? This study sets out to answer this question. It does so without being too hopeful – for no scholar is free of its own frame of reference. Yet, it hopes to provide a clearer understanding of the topic.
1.4. Periodization: a Historical Background
The assumption about the functioning of art as described above assumes that the interpretation of an object can differ throughout the centuries, since time changes context and audience. It is therefore essential to cogitate the framework in which this thesis aims to understand the objects in question. This thesis aims at uncovering the intended meaning of the objects in question within the scope of their time, in order establish whether the objects functioned as anti-Medicean or
republican propaganda or not.
In doing so, special attention will be paid to the period between 1530 and 1554.51 This
49 Koomen 2000, p. 302. 50 Koomen 2000, p. 302. 51
Simoncelli employed the same period in his two volume work titled Fuoruscitismo repubblicano fiorentino
20 period is chosen with care. The first date marks the end of Florence as a republic, an important and crucial event given the main hypotheses of this thesis. Looking back, it can be said that the Fall of the Republic heralds the beginning of two centuries of Medici Rule in Florence. However,
contemporaneous inhabitants of the city were ignorant of this. Notably the supporters of the anti-Medicean faction kept hope freeing Florence of the Medici Rule and to regain power over the city. Around the middle of the sixteenth century changing attitudes toward Medici Rule can be
detected.52 Duke Cosimo offered a pardon, which was seized by some exiles. This event resulted in a reconciliation between the duke and these political dissidents. It enabled fuorusciti such as
Benedetto Varchi to return to Florence.53 Others, however, cut ties with Florence definitely and moved to save havens such as Rome, where they lived under the pope’s protection. It seems that during the War of Siena (1554), the fuorusciti breathed their final breath. Their hopes of regaining power over Florence were crushed.
1.4.1. The Florentine Diaspora: Exiles after the Fall of the Second Republic
The first half of the Cinquecento was in political, social as well as economic respect a tumultuous time in Florence.54 During this century, the city was exposed to internal as well as external political upheavals which caused social and cultural unrest within the city walls. At the beginning of the century, the city was a republic. This republic was created in 1494, after the expulsion of Lorenzo ‘il Magnifico’s’ successor Piero de’ Medici (1472 – 1503, nicknamed ‘the Unfortunate’). However, under the guidance of gonfaloniere a vita Pier Soderini (1452 – 1522), this newly founded republic barely survived the first decade of the sixteenth century. It came to an abrupt end in 1512, when the Medici reclaimed power. This time, the power of the Medici was not restricted to their ancestral playground, the city of Florence. Also in Rome the family asserted itself. In 1513 Giovanni de’ Medici was elected pope Leo X, a position which he fulfilled until death in 1521. After a short interval of the Dutch pope Hadrian VI, Giulio de’ Medici (1478 – 1534, named Clement VII) reinstated Medici power in papal Rome.
The golden years of the Medici family were briefly endangered when the family was expelled from Florence for a second time in 1527. In the aftermath of the Sacco di Roma the Republic revived by a combined faction of aristocrats (Ottimati) and republicans. Life in the
52 Costamagna 2003, p. 343. 53 Costamagna 2003, p. 336. 54
21 Republic was no bed of roses. In the first years of the new regime some thirty thousand lives (a quarter of the population) died due to the plague.55 Niccolò Capponi was elected gonfaloniere, but had to resign in the following year due to putative contacts with Medici pope Clement VII. This caused internal struggles between the Ottimati and the republicans. As a result, aristocratic families such as the Guicciardini, the Vettori, the Strozzi and the Valori, abandoned the Republic and
returned to the Medici. These rapid developments heralded the end of the Republic.
Indeed, the Republic was short-lived. From October 1529 onwards the city was besieged by imperial troops sent by the emperor Charles V. The Republic was unable to cope with the violence of these foreign powers. War, hunger and the plague had left the city exhausted. The Siege ended on the 11th of August 1530 and Alessandro de’ Medici reclaimed power on behalf of the Medici being backed up by a combined imperial and papal army. The consequences of the Siege were disastrous for Florence. About 36.000 people died during the battle.56 By the time the Medici returned, the population had dropped to 54.00 or less from about 110.000 citizens three years before.57
Shortly after the fall of the Republic, Charles V appointed Alessandro de’ Medici as head (capo) of the new regime. After the Republic had been dismissed, Alessandro ordered the exile of some 150 to 170 republicans.58 Initially, these exiles underwent their sentence without too much resistance. Simoncelli points to Varchi, who was among the fuorusciti himself and wrote that “the exiles hoped ‘if not foolishly then certainly vainly’ that they would be repatriated at the end of three years when the ban expired.”59 They, however, had a rude awakening when Alessandro ordained further restrictions to punish the exiles in 1533. Varchi noted: “Many of these decided to break the terms of their exile. They knew this made them rebels against the duke and consequently, either sold or concealed their holdings in order to avoid having their property confiscated.”60 In the meantime, Alessandro’s tyrannical rule caused more enemies. His role as ‘capo’ paved the way for his coup d’etat on the 20th of August 1532, when he named himself the first duke of Florence. This event stirred up ill-feelings among some Ottimati, who wished to rule Florence themselves in a Medici oligarchy. This stimulated a new wave of exiles, which included also voluntary exiles. The two rebelling factions – both aggrieved by Alessandro – joined forces in an anti-Medicean
movement which we now indicate as the ‘fuorusciti’.
22 vociferous anti-Medicean group assembled itself during these years, ultimately they were
powerless. Despite their failure to revive the Republic, some politically interesting turning points fostered the hopes of the fuorusciti. Under the leadership of Filippo Strozzi and Ippolito de’ Medici, various actions were undertaken to dethrone Alessandro in the 1530s. After the death of Clement VII in 1534 also the Florentine cardinals Niccolò Ridolfi, Giovanni Salviati and Giovanni Gaddi joined the opposition - under the protection of the new Farnese pope Paul III (Alessandro Farnese, 1468 – 1549). Interestingly, all three cardinals descended from de’ Medici family through their mothers. On different occasions support was sought from emperor Charles V. The fuorusciti claimed that Alessandro was not the legitimate heir to the Medici power. Instead, Ippolito de’ Medici was pushed forward as the rightful successor, presenting an alternative to the despotic rule of Alessandro.61 However, the emperor Charles V did not support the cause of the exiles. Instead, he reinforced his own power by making Alessandro his son-in-law, creating a powerful alliance. The fuorusciti suffered another blow when Ippolito suddenly died in August 1535, making their claim to replace Alessandro irrelevant. Nevertheless, strengthened by their hatred for Alessandro, they remained headstrong.
History takes a surprising turn when Alessandro’s cousin Lorenzino de’ Medici (1514-1548) takes matters into his own hands and murders the tyrannical duke on January 6, 1537. The murder is seen as an act of republicanism and Lorenzino is hailed as the new Brutus. The assassination presents the exiles with an unprecedented opportunity. However, a new successor announced himself quickly: the young Cosimo I de’ Medici is pushed forward as a candidate. Despite the slow reaction of the fuorusciti, they counteract by challenging Cosimo to a fight. After all they dedicated themselves to the republican cause: liberating Florence from the yoke of de’ Medici. The fuorusciti openly declare war. The clash takes place in July 1537 near the town of Montemurlo and settles in favor of Cosimo. The defeat at Montemurlo deeply wounds the fuorusciti. Their leader, Filippo Strozzi, is imprisoned and subsequently commits suicide, leaving the anti-Mediceans leaderless.
The 1540s passed by quietly, the character of the movement being more introvert. In the meantime Cosimo I was busy creating his Tuscan Duchy. Even though the fuorusciti were defeated at Montemurlo, Cosimo kept a sharp eye on their every movement, having double agents and ambassadors throughout Europe reporting back to Florence.62 The movement now came under the leadership of Piero Strozzi, who was backed up by his brothers Leone, Lorenzo and Roberto. Notably the Republic of Venice and papal Rome became centres of refuge, accommodating groups of Florentine exiles. These groups consisted of the original surviving exiles and rebels, as well as
61
Costamagna 2003, p. 334.
23 merchants and bankers sponsoring the republican cause. This last group largely controlled the local Florentine Nations.63 For Cosimo this was a precarious development, for this last group supplied the fuorusciti with financial backing, making them a potential threat.
At the end of the 1540s, succeeding events gave rise to a renewed political upheaval that made the aspirations of the fuorusciti bob up again.64 First, Lorenzino de’ Medici was murdered in 1548 in Venice by Medici agents. This must have rubbed the exiles the wrong way. Furthermore, the death of pope Paul III in November 1549 proved a catalyst for the following political events. The papal protection under which the fuorusciti lived fell out, since the succeeding pope Julius III was chosen with Medici support. In the beginning of the 1550s the exiles started gathering actively, forging political alliances and gaining funds to undertake another attack against Cosimo I de’ Medici. In 1551 war broke out between Henry II of France and Charles V, known as the Habsburg-Valois war. This war affected the whole of Europe, and also found its reverberation in Italy. The
fuorusciti seized this war to confront Cosimo. Their battle culminated around Siena. Up until that
time, this city had been in the grip of Charles V. The Sienese, however, repelled and joined the side of the French. Charles V urged Cosimo to punish Siena and retake the city. The fuorusciti cleverly sided with the French and together occupied the city in order to protect it from Cosimo’s violence. They were taken by surprise, however, when Cosimo launched an attack on the city in June 1554. Again, the fuorusciti were tragically defeated in the Battle of Marciano (August 2, 1554), a set back from which they were unable to recover.
1.4.2. The Florentine Exiled Community in Rome
The fuorusciti movement counted some influential art patrons and collectors. Particularly the Florentine exiled community in Rome proved to be a thriving cultural and intellectual community, attracting artists such as Michelangelo Buonarroti and Giorgio Vasari. The exiled community was a mixed group of on the one hand political thinkers and on the other hand influential Florentine merchants and bankers who sided with the republican movement. However, not all members were necessarily exiled. Especially members belonging to the last group often chose a life in voluntary exile, because they disagreed with the way their city was ruled. In many cases, they did not publicly reveal their political preference. For the cause of the success of their businesses they stayed politically neutral. However, behind the scenes they supported and financed the undertakings of the exiles.
63 Simoncelli 2003, p. 301.
64 This change is indicated by a bando by Cosimo I in 1547 against the exiles, issued to prevent all
24 In the context of the subject of this thesis, it is worth briefly pondering on the concept of exile and its meaning in sixteenth century Italy. Exile was a political punishment, already employed in ancient Greece and Rome.65 An exile is a person who is punished by the banishment of his homeland or home-town. As such, a distinction is created between ‘insiders’ (intrinsici) and ‘outsiders’ (estrinsici or fuorusciti).66
By being excluded from the normative group, the exiled is confined to solitude. This sanction appeals to the urge of people to belong. Moreover, the comforts of home were absent: all possessions were confiscated and contact with friends and family was prohibited. Indeed, all forms of contact with exiles was prosecutable, on the penalty of being exiled.67 The consequences of exile could thus be traumatizing, the impending danger made it a forceful penalty. In Italy, the punishment remained effective throughout the Middle Ages. One of the most famous exiles was the Italian poet Dante Alghieri.
Alison Brown argues that the punishment of exile had lost its effectiveness by the fifteenth century: “Exile was an effective weapon because it operated in this intimate and integrated system of values, but by the fifteenth century both the spiritual and the political maps of Italy had
changed.”68
Exile was most effective when it affected the direct living circumstance of the punished. As such, exile was a lesser punishment to merchants and bankers, who quickly could restart a new business in a different city. Brown calls it “the problem of the exiled merchant” and illustrates her argument with a quote from Richard Goldthwaite: “When Cosimo de’ Medici himself went into exile late in 1433 [...] he simply opened up shop elsewhere (at Venice) and continued to do business.”69
According to Goldthwaite, the solidarity of the business community made them relatively invulnerable to government authority.70 Since the businesses of the merchants were unaffected by the sanction, exile had become a failing system. This might explain the success of the Florentine political exiles residing in Rome. Due to the high number of bankers and
merchants active within the community, the exiles managed to survive. Rome even provided them a stable and fruitful environment to rebuild an opposition to the Medici.
It should be noted that the Florentine colony in Rome did not only consist of anti-Medicean exiles. From the fifteenth century onwards, Florentine merchants’ families had been drawn to Rome. Especially during the pontificates of the Florentine popes Leo X (Giovanni de’ Medici, 1513 - 1521) and Clement VII (Giulio de’ Medici, 1523 - 1534) the Florentine community in Rome grew
65 Starn 1982, p. 1. On the theme of ‘exile, see also Shaw 2000, Ricciardelli 2004 & Ricciardelli 2007. 66
Brown 2011, p. 179.
67 Cosimo I de’ Medici issued different bandi to prevent any contact with the fuorsuciti – in 1537, 1539, 1540 and
1547. Ramsden 1963, I, p. 279.
68 Brown 2011, p. 179. 69
Brown 2011, p. 182.
25 explosively.71 Thus, the Florentine community in Rome was multi-faceted. Not all shared the hatred of the fuorusciti against the Medici regime. In fact, Medici agents and ambassadors were part of the community as well. This makes it a difficult subject to address, for it is not a coherent group.
Then, how can the members of the exiled community be recognized? The fuorusciti families were often interrelated. Bonds were forced by allying families through political marriages, by taking up residence in the same gonfalone or parrish, and thirdly through acts of patronage.72 These marriages bound the great Florentine republican families financially, socially and culturally.73 This, of course, was not an uncommon practice in sixteenth century Italy. In the words of Hupe:
“Familial relations were the glue that held together Florentine society. Alliances forged through marriages and patronage created a closely-knit social fabric that fostered support among allies and severe enmity between rivals” as may be illustrated by the family trees of the protagonists of the upcoming case-studies.74 Filippo Strozzi and Bindo Altoviti for instance were related by marriage: the nephew of Filippo Strozzi was married to Bindo Altoviti’s daughter.75
In 1551 another marriage strengthened the union further: Clarice Ridolfi (daughter of Lorenzo Ridolfi and Maria di Filippo Strozzi) and Giovan Battista di Bindo Altoviti joined in matrimony.
Although the before mentioned criteria offer a tool to map the fluctuating group of dissidents, it is no foolproof method. The story of the fuorusciti is not a black and white one. During the period under discussion, political alliances shifted rapidly. Therefore it is important to keep a sharp eye on political change and time and again check the context in which the person or the object under discussion is evaluated.
1.5. Methodology and Added Value
The thesis consists of two elaborate object-based case-studies, in which the main question is examined. Each case-study begins with a visual analysis, followed by an extensive analysis of the so-called ‘present state of research’. This analysis of primarily secondary literature is used to detect the difficulties that arise in the study of these objects and to determine the lacunae or errors in our understanding of the subject. Although the question dealt with remains the same in both cases, the elaboration of the specific subjects is not identical. Each object is discussed within the framework
71 Bruscoli 2007, pp. 1 – 23.
72 The heart of the Florentine colony in Rome was in the rione Ponte. In this district the Florentines felt the
necessity to create a national church: the San Giovanni dei Fiorentini. This was an important enterprise uniting the Florentine community. The extent to which the Medicean and anti-Medicean faction were working together to build this church has not yet been examined.
73 Boström 1995, p. 126. 74
Hupe 2011, p. 14.
26 of its own historical context. As a consequence, the sub-questions differ. Therefore the following chapters do not follow the same strata, as can be seen from the table of contents. Topics embarked on concern issues of style, medium, subject matter and choice of the artist. Furthermore,
documentary evidence is used (personal correspondence, inventories etcetera) in order to place the objects in a broader historical, cultural and political context. Even though the emphasis of the chapters differ, its goal remains the same: to get a better understanding of the nature and intentions of the art commissioned by members of the fuorusciti movement established in sixteenth century Rome.
The director of the Medici Archive Project, Alessio Assonitis, has called the topic of the
fuorusciti ‘a land for missionary work’.76 Although the fuorusciti have been the subject of numerous historical studies, only a few scholars have attempted to study and interpret the art patronage of this group of political exiles.77 Therefore, still a lot remains to be uncovered. This thesis aims to complement the efforts of these scholars by setting out further research. It tries to shed light on a small area of interest which is entangled in a complex web of patronage outside the immediate circle of the Medici family.78 This is an area of research which only recently has gained interest after having been overshadowed by the research on Grand-Ducal patronage for decades. Can the fuorusciti be considered a group with regard to their patronage? What image did they establish of themselves and can we compare their self-representation to that of the Medici? What role did their Florentine origins play with regard to their patronage and with whom did they try to communicate? Should their art be understood as political propaganda? A clear answer to these questions is not expected. This thesis merely intents to analyze and comment on the research to date and to identify further lacunae in this particular field of study.
By focusing on past events, the study also reflects on current issues of identity and migration.79 In an age dominated by Social Media platforms such as Facebook, it comments on practices of self-representation from an art historical perspective: how can a visual identity be constructed? Moreover, it will provide new insights into themes such as the formation of civic identity through images during a period of social unrest. It will do so in a passive way, for there will be no efforts made addressing these current issues within the treatment of the following case-studies.
76 Personal correspondence (05/02/2013).
77 Notably Boström, Byatt and Pegazzano: Boström 1995 ; Boström 1998 ; Boström 2003 ; Boström 2012 ; Byatt
1983; Pegazzano 2003.
78 Boström 2003, p. 155.
79 Similar issues are addressed in the NKJ edition of 2014, which shows the relevance of these topics today: Art
and Migration: Netherlandish artists on the move, 1400 – 1750, Scholten F., Woodall J. & Meijers D. (eds),
27
CASE-STUDY 1
On Tyranny ?!
Michelangelo, Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi and
the (his)story of the infamous Brutus
“In its sheer bulk, the literature on Michelangelo is michelangelesque. It bulges, like the muscles of his Ignudi and Slaves, from the overcrowded shelves of art libraries everywhere. What more is there to say about Michelangelo that has not been said already, that might justify adding to these already overstocked shelves?”
Paul Barolsky –
28
2.
Case-Study 1
2.1. Introduction
In the “Sala di Michelangelo e della scultura del Cinquecento” on the ground floor of the National Museum of Bargello in Florence an intriguing portrait bust is on display (figure 1). Raised on a pedestal, this larger than life-size bust represents a vigorous young man set in white marble. Dressed in a Roman-like toga, the bust resembles ancient prototypes (figure 2). The head of the sculpture is turned sharply to its left side, visibly showing tense muscles in the thick neck of the figure. Moreover, the dynamic gesture causes the appearance of the face in profile and seems to incite a contraposto. A closer look reveals specific facial features, all contributing to the powerful appearance of the image: a tight jaw line, prominent, high cheekbones, a straight nose, frowning eyebrows, deep-set eyes and firmly pressed lips (figure 3). Furthermore, a gaze is directed to infinity, looking straight ahead without seeking any engagement with the public. The unfinished state of the cropped hair and the not yet defined ear contrast with the smoothness displayed by the other parts of the face and the drapery. The lower part of the sculpture, the so-called ‘bust’, is rounded and hollowed out at the back. This part is characterized by a static play of drapery. The cloth is fastened on the right shoulder by a large brooch (fibula) (figure 5). This brooch is
ornamented with a figure head in profile, and in its pose echo’s the figure it ornaments. However, due to its high placement the brooch is barely visible from the viewer’s perspective. The two parts of the sculpture – the head and the bust – are set on a base. This base, in turn, features a bronze plaque containing a Latin epigram: DUM BRUTI EFFIGIEM / SCULPTOR DE MARMORE DUCIT / IN MENTEM SCELERIS VENIT /ET ABSTINUIT (figure 5). Additionally, the corners of the bronze plaque are inscribed with four initials - M. A. B. F. - which can be read as a reference to the presumed sculptor of the bust, Michelangelo Buonarroti (MICHAEL - ANGELVS -
BVONARROTI – FECIT).80
Despite a lack of iconographic indications, this portrait bust has been identified since at least the late sixteenth century as a representation of Marcus Junius Brutus, one of the assassins of the illustrious Julius Caesar. Today the sculpture is one of the highlights of the Bargello Museum. In this museum, the statue is accompanied by a short explanatory text, which reads as follows:
“This work was commissioned for Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi by his secretary Donato Giannotti,
a Florentine historian in exile in Rome, and friend of Michelangelo. Inspired by the imperial Roman portraits, this sculpture alludes to Lorenzino de' Medici, assassin of the despotic duke Alessandro (1537). The figure of Brutus, which
29
remained unfinished, except for the bust completed by Tiberio Calcagni, was purchased in 1590 by Grand Duke Ferdinand I and exhibited in the Uffizi, where a bronze nameplate was attached interpreting Michelangelo's inability to
finish the homicidal gesture.”
The main purpose of this text is to inform visitors of the museum in a nutshell about the most important information on the bust. The story presented here seems simple and clear. The marble bust, dated by the museum around 1539, is made by one of Renaissance's most important icons, Michelangelo. The statue, which is inspired by Roman portraits, is intended as a gift for a Cardinal named Niccolò Ridolfi. Initially, it was commissioned by Ridolfi's secretary, Donato Giannotti, who was “a Florentine historian in exile in Rome, and a friend of Michelangelo”. The text suggests that the bust was made in order to commemorate Lorenzino de’ Medici (nicknamed Lorenzaccio – the 'Bad Lorenzo'), who murdered duke Alessandro de’ Medici in 1537. The statue later enters the Grand-Ducal Collections after Ferdinand I de’ Medici acquired the piece around 1590. A text was added, which is still attached to the bust and which among others communicates that Michelangelo was unable to finish the Brutus. Finally, the text suggests that the lower part of the statue, the so-called 'bust', is finished by a student of Michelangelo, Tiberio Calcagni.
However, far less is actually assured about this specific object than the museum text
suggests. In reality, the history of the bust is much more complex. The text in the Bargello Museum therefore merely serves here as an introduction to the topic of this chapter. In a peculiar way, the text highlights the debated fields of controversy in the present state of research concerning the bust. The main controversies concern the provenance of the bust, the problems of dating and of
authenticity, the issue of style, and last but not least, the interpretation of the bust.
This chapter challenges the accepted interpretation of the Brutus as a republican or anti-Medicean statement. By focusing on the reception history of the statue, it seeks to retell the 'story of Michelangelo's Brutus' more accurately and to discover more about the initial meaning and intention of the bust. It entails a further exploration of the main controversies mentioned above. First, the chapter starts with an overview and a critical evaluation of the literature concerning the
Brutus to date.
2.2. Literature regarding the Brutus (Present State of Research)
Although attributed to one of history's greatest artists of all time, the Brutus has not received as much attention as other works of Michelangelo. Compared to the abundant literature about the
30 passing.81 Since the bust was worked on by both Michelangelo as well as his pupil Calcagni, the
Brutus has not been fully acknowledged as an authentic work by the master.82 This has influenced the appreciation of the bust in later centuries and might explain the apparent lack of interest in the
Brutus by art historians.83
2.2.1. The Early Sources
The earliest traceable source on the Brutus is Giorgio Vasari's second edition of Le vite de' pìù
eccellenti architetti, pittori et scultori italiani da Cimabue insino a tempi nostri (1568).84
“Aveva seco Michelagnolo a questo parlamento Tiberio Calcagni, scultore fiorentino, giovane molto volonteroso di imparare l'arte, il quale, essendo andato a Roma, s'era vòlto alle cose d'architettura. Amandolo Michelagnolo, gli aveva dato a finire, come s'è detto, la Pietà di marmo ch'e' roppe, et inoltre una testa di Bruto di marmo, col petto, maggiore assai del naturale, perché la finisse, quale era condotta la testa sola con certe minutissime gradine. Questa
l'aveva cavata da un ritratto di esso Bruto, intagliato in una corgnola antica che era apresso al signor Giuliano Ceserino, antichissima, che a' preghi di messer Donato Giannotti suo amicissimo la faceva Michelagnolo per il
cardinale Ridolfi, che è cosa rara.”85
In his elaborate account of Michelangelo's life, Vasari names Donato Giannotti (1492 – 1573) and Niccolò Ridolfi (1501 – 1550) as patrons of the work. Furthermore, he tells that Michelangelo had left the bust unfinished, and had given the head of Brutus to his apprentice Tiberio Calcagni (1532 – 1565) to finish it. Interestingly, he writes that the Brutus was made after “a portrait of Brutus cut
81 General works on Renaissance Sculpture or on Michelangelo's works, which comment on the Brutus: Einem
1959, p. 134; Tolnay 1964, pp. 22 – 30; Weinberger 1967, p. 398; Hartt 1969, pp. 276 – 279; Keutner 1969, p. 28; Baldini 1973, p. 107; Hibbard 1974, pp. 263 – 265; Hirst & Shearman 1978, p. 9; Barocchi 1982, pp. 22 – 32; Bull 1995, pp. 309 – 311; Hughes 1997, pp. 264 – 266; Scigliano 2005, pp. 288 – 291; Keizer 2008, pp. 265 – 266.
Special studies, see: Tolnay 1935, pp. 22 – 25, 29; Tolnay 1954, pp. 76 – 78, 131 – 134; Gordon 1957, pp. 291 – 296; Tolnay 1960, pp. 3 – 5; Martin 1993, pp. 67 – 83, Sojka 2011, pp. 1 – 11.
Other works: Byatt 1983, pp. 312 – 316; Boström 2012, pp. 98 – 100.
82 See Case-Study 1 – 2.6. (pp. 57 – 61) about the questioned attribution of the bust to Michelangelo.
83 As Anthony Hughes strikingly articulated: “In our culture, works of art are often especially valued as unique
objects issuing from the hand of a single, gifted author.” (Hughes 1997, p. 29). The Brutus is not the work of a single sculptor, therefore its authorship is considered controversial nowadays.
84
Vasari did not know of the bust for the 1550 Vite, although he had been in Rome in 1546. The bust was only mentioned in the second edition. Condivi 1998, pp. XIV – XV.
85 Barocchi 1966, IV, p. 104.
“Michelagnolo had with him at this conference the Florentine sculptor Tiberio Calcagni, a young man very ardent to learn art, who, after going to Rome, had turned his mind to the study of architecture. Loving him, Michelagnolo had given him to finish, as has been related, the Pietà in marble that he had broken, and, in addition, a head of Brutus in marble with the breast, considerably larger than life, to the end that he might finish it. Of this the head alone was carved, with certain most minute gradines, and he had taken it from a portrait of Brutus cut in a very ancient cornelian that was in the possession of Signor Giuliano Cesarino; which
