Michelangelo in Florence: 'David' in 1503 and 'Hercules' in 1506 Author(s): Michael Hirst Source: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 142, No. 1169 (Aug., 2000), pp. 487-492 Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/888855 Accessed: 26/05/2009 17:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Burlington Magazine.

http://www.jstor.org MICHAEL HIRST

Michelangeloin Florence: 'David' in 1503 and 'Hercules' in 1506*

AT first sight, the chronology of the works that Michelangelo 12. David,by undertook after his return from Rome to Florence in 1501 Michelangelo. Marble,ht. 513.5 might seem fairly free of problems. For the great public cm. includingbase undertakings of these first Florentine years - the marble David (Galleria for the del Duomo the second of twelve mar- dell'Academia, Opera (Fig.12), Florence). ble Apostles likewise for the Opera, and the bronze David for the republican government - contracts survive. As we should expect, each contained clear stipulations concerning the time allowed for completion. To summarise very familiar facts: in the contract of 16th August 1501, Michelangelo was allowed two years to complete the marble David;in that for the bronze David of 12th August 1502 he was allowed six months; and in that for the Apostles, dated 24th April 1503, he was bound to deliver one statue every year over the following twelve years.' Added to these projects was the obligation he had brought with him from Rome in the spring of 1501, to deliver fifteen statues destined for the Piccolomini altar in Siena Cathedral within the following three years. In the agreement signed by Michelangelo in Florence on 19thJune 1501, he undertook to accept no other work prior to the completion of Cardinal Francesco Piccolomini's assignment.2 Just over eight weeks later, he signed the contract for the marble David.3 Unsurprisingly, contractual obligations and the reality of their observance begin to diverge in these early years of the new century. But this seems not to have happened all at once. For my purpose here is to introduce a small piece of evidence which goes far to vindicate the artist's record in the case of the marble David. As already noted, he had been obliged by the terms of the contract to complete the statue by August 1503. In the majority of accounts of the commission, it seems to have become traditional to state that the Davidwas effectively finished in the early months of 1504.4 In fact, the gigantemust have been substantially completed by mid-summer 1503. Proof of this can be found in a very brief Deliberazione of the Operai of the Cathedral dated 16thJune 1503. This makes provision for a public viewing of the statue one week David was to be opened. The text reads 'Dicta die [i.e. 16th later, on 23rdJune, the eve of one of Florence's most impor- June] Item deliberaveruntper tresfabas nigras deliberaveruntetc. tant feast days, that of the Birth of St John the Baptist, the qualiterdie 23 videlicetvigilia S. Joannis Baptisteaperiatur hostium city's most important patron saint. On the day mentioned, gigantis et tota dicta die apertumsit adeo quodpossit viderigigas the door of the structure which had been built around the marmoreusab omnibusvolentibus videre etc. mandantes'.5

*This articleis dedicatedto Paola Barocchi,and is an amplifiedand illustratedver- the much discussed 'nodum'four days earlier;K. FREY:'Studien zu Michelagniolo sion of one planned for a celebratoryvolume which has remained unpublished. Buonarrotiund zur Kunst seiner Zeit',Jahrbuch der Koniglich Preussischen Kunstsamm- A few offprints,dated 1997, were printed by Riccardo Ricciardi and circulated.I lungen,XXX [1909], Beiheft,p.107, no.10. am grateful to Giovanni Agosti,Jill Burke, Brenda Preyer and Diane Zervas for 4Thisconclusion is based on the descriptionof the statue as 'quasifinita'in the pre- discussingpoints in the above text with me. A particulardebt to LucillaBardeschi amble to the praticaofJanuary 1504 (forwhich see MILANESI,op. cit. at note 1 above, Ciulichis recordedin note 35, and I am gratefulto GabriellaBattista for improving p.620). the transcriptionof the documentprinted in the Appendix. SFlorence,Archivio dell'Opera del Duomo (hereaftercited as AOD), Seconda Seria IG. MILANESI:Le letteredi MichelangeloBuonarroti pubblicate coi ricordi ed i contrattiartistici, II, 9, Deliberazione1496-1507, fol.59v.The text of this Deliberazioneis to be found Florence [1875], pp.620-23, 624, and 625-26 respectively,for the three contracts. neitherin G. POGGI: IIDuomo di Firenze,ed. M.HAINES, Florence [1988] (originaledi- For a complete transcription of that for the bronze David, see F. CAGLIOTI: 11 David tion Berlin [1909]) nor in the documentsrelating to the Davidpublished in FREY, loc. bronzeo di Michelangelo(e Benedetto da Rovezzano):il problemadei pagamenti', cit.at note 3 above in 1909. My own attentionwas drawnto it by a note in the Carte in AdAlessandroConti (1946-1994), Quadernidel Seminario di Storiadella critica d'arte, VI, Pogginow on deposit at the IstitutoNazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento.I have no Pisa [1996], pp.110-11. doubt that GiovanniPoggi returnedto study this volume of Deliberazioniat some 2A copy of the contract survivesin the Archivio Buonarroti,Codice 2-3, no.2. date followingthe appearanceof his own book and Frey'spublication of the same A dependable transcriptionhas not been published. For a very imperfect one, year.The completion of the 'turata'around the block in 1501 is documented(ibid., see H.R. MANCUSI-UNGARO,JR.: Michelangelo,the Bruges Madonna and thePiccolomini Altar, p. 107, nos.12 and 13 and other minorreferences which survivein the Opera Stanzi- New Haven and London [1971], pp.64-73. amenti).For a catalogueof the Poggi papers,see IstitutoNazionale di Studisul Rinasci- 3Michelangelo began work on the block on 13th Septemberafter having removed mento.Biblioteca dell'Istituto. Carte Poggi, ed. R. TEMPIERI,Florence [1997]. 487 MICHELANGELO IN FLORENCE

This public 'exhibition'of the gigante,eight months before However,for our present concerns, the most interestingpart the extended term agreed in 1502 for its completion, seven of the text (see the Appendix) is a reference to the possible months before the celebrated meeting of January 1504 to use by Michelangelohimself of some of the marble.We read decide on its location, and nearly a year before its laborious '... et tuttoel marmoche detto Matteo conduciessi ofaciessi condurre transportationto the Piazza della Signoria, reminds us that qui abbia a essereet sia di dettaopera tutto a dichiaratione,parere et already,in February1502, the statuehad been referredto as vogliadi dettioperai . .. exceptoche se dettoMatteo ne rechasseper 'iamsemifactum'. The 1503 showing also effectivelydisposes MichelagnoloBonarroti, che quella quantitd per lui rechatasia di detto of the notion that, because of alleged political implications, Michelagnololiberamente et per suo chontoet lavorareper se proprio Michelangelo'swork on the Davidwas shrouded in secrecy, et nonper altri.. .'. Payments to Matteo for the condottaof the the statue carriedout in an atmosphereof concealment that three hundred migliaiaare recorded in the Opera Stanzia- persisted until the meeting ofJanuary 1504.6 menti; the firstnotice seems to be of May 1503.'2 Such a display of a work of art at the time of the Feast of We cannot establishfor what purposeMichelangelo might StJohn the Baptistwas not unprecedented.But the circum- have required such marble in late 1502 without further stances in this case seem particularlystriking, and bring to evidence. The multiplicityof commissionsreferred to earlier mind the public showing of Leonardo'scartoon of the Holy makes the problem particularly difficult. In a brief note Familyand St Anne at SS. Annunziatain the springof 1501.7 on the issue, Giovanni Poggi speculated as to whether the One or two implications of the public exhibition of the materialcould have been destinedfor the group of the Virgin DavidinJune 1503 will be returnedto below.But at this point andChild undertaken for the Mouscheronor for the two mar- we may turn to another Opera document of some months ble tondi.These cannot be excluded.But a furtherpossibility, earlier,a lengthy text of a Deliberazione of 28th November which he did not mention, is that Michelangelowas expect- 1502 (see the Appendix,below).8 It recordsthe decisionof the ing marble for the Piccolominialtar commission.It is worth Operai, after consultationwith the Consoli of the Arte della noting that a potential need to order marble for the Siena Lana, to order a substantialamount of marblefrom Carrara project from Carrara had been alluded to already in the of no less than three hundred migliaiaof material, the equi- agreement drawn up in June 1501: '. . . et quandoin Firenze valent of one hundredand twentycarrate, to be deliveredover non habbiatucti marmifaccino le quindicifigure sia tenutofarlovenire the next two years,half in each year,by Matteo di Michele da da Carraraalla sopradectapefectione'.3 And if my suggestion that Carrara,the dependableconduttore Matteo Cucarello,to whom the lowest order tabernacles of the monument are also by Michelangelowas himselfto turn in futureyears.9 In addition Michelangelois accepted,we can appreciatethat his need for to the hundred and twenty carrate,the text alludes to six or marble must have been all the more insistent.l4Given that more other lapidiincluded in the order,three to be delivered the marble David had been carried nearer to completion in each of the next two years. Unfortunately,we are given no in the winter of 1502-03 than has generallybeen perceived, detailsof the weight or scale of any of the individualpieces. it would not be surprisingif Michelangelofelt some need to Stocksof marbleat the Opera had been low for some time. turn his attention to the onerous undertakingthat he had Alreadytwo years earlier,Simone del Pollaiuolo,il Cronaca, alreadybecome involvedwith even before leaving Rome. capomaestroof the cathedral, had been instructedto cut up While the 'external'facts about the Piccolomini commis- marblepieces in the storehouseof the Opera, some, interest- sion are fairly well established,the 'internal' chronology of ingly, marble that had come from the property of Lorenzo the making of the four statues that were delivered is hypo- the Magnificent.'oThe materialwas now requiredto proceed thetical. In his will of 30th April 1503, Cardinal Francesco with the tribunealtars. The need became more urgentwhen Todeschini Piccolomini had expressed his wish that his attemptsto restorethe old 'cotto'pavement of the tribunechapels projectbe completed and enjoined his heirs to take this duty was abandonedin favourof substitutingmarble." The order on themselves: ' Volumusquod heredes nostri curam et sollicitudinem of November 1502 was, clearly,a response to these needs. easdemimaginesperficiendi et locandi suscipiant'.15 The postscript to

6Forthis proposal,see s. LEVINE: 'The Location of Michelangelo'sDavid: The Meet- (See also F. CAGLIOTI:'Donatello, i Medici e Gentile de' Becchi:un po' d'ordinealla ing ofJanuary 25, 1504', ArtBulletin, LVI [1974], p.45; and for a criticalrejoinder, Guiditta(e al David) di Via Larga, III', Prospettiva,LXXVII [1995], pp.54-55, note R.N. PARKS:'The Placement of Michelangelo'sDavid: A Review of the Documents', 162.) The reference brings to mind ASCANIO CONDmVI'much later allusion (Vita ibid.,LXVII [1975], pp.560-70, esp. p.567. di MichelangeloBuonarroti, ed. F. NENCIONI, Florence [1998], p. 1) to marble held at 7Forthe descriptionof the work, see the celebratedletter of FraPietro da Novellara, the garden of S. Marco at the period of Michelangelo'sapprenticeship, destined for in L. BELTRAMI:Documenti e memorie riguardanti la Vita e le Operedi Leonardo da Vinci,Milan Lorenzo'sprojected library: 'i marmi,o voliandir conci, per ornar quella nobilissima libreria [1919], pp.65-66, no.107. He states that Leonardo'scartoon is not yet finished: ch'eglie i suoimaggiori racolta di tuttoil mondoaveano'. Condivi's remark has been recently 'etquesto schizo ancora non efinito'. We owe to Vasari,of course, the account of its pub- disparaged,but is importantand one I hope to returnto. lic display over two days; he interestinglywrites that men and women, young and "See, for example, POGGI, ed.cit. at note 5 above,p.229, no. 1154. Fora briefbut use- old, went to see it 'comesi vaa lefestesolenni'. So far as I am aware,diarists and chron- ful summaryof events, see L. ZANGHERI:Ilpavimento marmoreo di SantaMaria del Fiore, iclers refer neither to the Leonardo display nor to the showing of the David.Fra in M.DEZZI BARDESCHI, ed.:Aletheia, 5. La difficileeredita. Architettura a Firenze dalla Repub- Pietro'sletter is dated 8th April, close to Easter,which fell on 11th April in 1501. blicaall'Assedio, Florence [1994], pp.57-60. 'AOD, Deliberazioni 1496-1507, fols.51v and 52r. Again, this Deliberazione does 2AOD,Series 11, Stanziamenti1500-04, fol.63r: [5th May 1503] 'Matteodi Michele not appear in POGGI, ed.cit. at note 5 above. There is a brief referenceto it in FREY da Charraraconductore di marmi bianchi lire duecento dieci per parte di sua condottadi migliaia (loc.cit. at note 3 above, p. 111, no.35), where this marble order is wrongly relatedto 300 toltedall'opera paghato adi 5 detto.. .'. the commissionfor the cathedralmarble Apostles. As we have seen, these were com- '3Forthe contract,see note 2 above.This is my own transcription.(cf. MANCUSI UNGARO, missionedonly in April 1503, and subsequentpayments for marble for the Apostles, op.cit. at note 2 above, p.64). some of which are in FREY,are carefullyparticularised. 4For this proposal, see M. HIRST and j. DUNKERTON: Making and Meaning. The Young 9MatteoCucarello deserves a mini-biographyHis employmentby the Opera in 1502 Michelangelo,exh. cat., National Gallery,London [1994], p.81, note 58. It is pres- precedes the only referenceto him in POGGI, op.cit. at note 5 above. Michelangelo ented at greater length and with illustrations in M. HIRST and j. DUNKERTON:Michel- would turn to him for his own purposesby late 1505 (see MILANESI,op. cit. at note 1 angelogiovane, Scultore e Pittore a Roma1496-1501, Modena [1997], pp.84-85. Marble above,pp.631-32). When he began to undertakemarble suppliesfor the Florentine that must have been destinedfor the Piccoloministatues had been left in Rome when Duomo Operai has still to be established.For the blockshe suppliedfor the Apostles the artistdecided (seeminglywith little notice) to return to Florence in 1501 (HIRST project, see MICHAELAMY'S article in this issue, p.493. and DUNKERTON [1994], pp. 70-71). '"SeePOGGI, ed.cit. at note 5 above,p.228, no. 1144: Cronacais permittedto 'secareet '"Siena,Biblioteca Comunale degli Intronati,MSS. Sanesi C.VI.9, fol.627v. secarifacereomnia marmora existentia in dictaopera et que venerunt ex domoLaurentii deMedicis'. 488 MICHELANGELO IN FLORENCE

13. Head of S. Pio,by Michelangelo.Marble (CappellaPiccolomini, Siena 14. Head of the Virginin the Pitti tondo,by Michelangelo.Marble. Cathedral). (MuseoNazionale del Bargello,Florence). a Florentinere-enactment ofthe 1501contract in September finishedmarble tondo, now in the Bargello.lThe coincidence 1504,after the patron'sdeath in the previousyear, refers to is strikingand, at the least,implies that sculptor and patron the non completionof the contract:'. . . nonest sortita debztum musthave encountered one anotherin the Operawhen the effectumetnegotium ipsum ramansit infectum'.l6 However, when a g?gantewas nearingcompletion. It does not provethat the new contractwas drawnup in Florencein October1504, it work'sinception, or even a promiseto undertakeitn dates is statedthat Michelangelo has deliveredfour statues.l7 Such fromexactly this moment, but it is, nevertheless,a datum to a sequenceof eventsseems compatible with the suggestion be reckonedwith) all the moresuggestive given our total lack thatthe marbleC:ucarello was to supplyon Michelangelo's of informationto helpwith the datingof the tondo.If allfour behalf)referred to in late November150S, was destinedfor Piccoloministatues were carved at a relativelylate moment, the Sienaproject. The veryclear signs of hastein the carving closein timeto the declarationthat they had been delivered, of the statuesindicates that the artistcarried them out in a it is all the more tellingto comparethem with the marble briefperiodof time.l8 relie?Close morphological similarities between the two 'Papal' Anotherpoint of interestyielded by the Operadel Duomo statues:especially St Pius,and the headof the Virginin the documents,which has hitherto escaped attention, is relevant Pittitondo (Figs.13 and 14),have been notedin the pastand here.Less t zana monthafter the public showing of theDavid, are,indeed, compelling20 two new Operaiassumed office on lstJuly 1503. One of If theprogress the sculptorhad made with the David, suffi- them was 'BartolomeusSilvestri Roberti de Pictis',that is cient to warranta publicshowing byJune 1503,renders a BartolommeoPitti, for whom the artistundertook the un- relativelylate dating for the execution of allfour Siena statues

MILANESI, op.sit. at note 1 abovenp.618. on one statueat a time, beginningwith the St Paul in 1501. Althoughsuch a proce- '7Ibid.,p.628. The executors now declare 'dictumMichelangelum usque in huncdiem de dure might have been promptedby the terms of the contract,it seems to me much dictisfigurasiamfecisse et consignasseqllatuortiguras etstatuas marmoreas . . .'. more likelythat he workedon at least two concurrently,in the firstinstance Sts Paul i8Moretelling in this context than the unworkedback of St Paul is the lack of finish and Peter and in the second Sts Gregoryand Pius (one can recall here his concur- to the head of St Peter;see in particularE. CI: Michelangeloe Siena, Rome [1964], rent workon the two LouvreSlaves). As my text suggests,I thinkit very unlikelythat pls.XVII and XVIII. Michelangelodid anythingabout the Piccoloministatues as early as 1501. Never- '9Florence,Archivio di Stato,Arte della Lana 39, fol.44v;and, not less, AOD, Delib- theless, at present, Kriegbaum'sarticle remains the most perceptiveassessment of erazioni 1496-1507, fol.6lv. Pittiwas paid his salaryfor his firstsix months of office the four statuesin Siena Cathedral.And it was his reappraisalof them that led him on 14th December 1503 (AOD)Stanziamenti 1500-04, fol.8r). to change his mind about the dating of the Pitti tondo,which a little earlierhe had 20F. KRIEGBAUM: 'Michelangelo'sStatuen am Piccolomini-Altarim Dom zu Siena', dated as late as 1508 and which he now, without our knowledgeof Bartolommeo's jahrbuchder Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, LXIII [1942], p.70. He wrote of the head of role as Operaio, dated 1503-04. For a useful recent commentaryon the commis- the Virgin in the Pitti tondo:'Oie Ahnlichkeit is so gross, dass man die Madonna geradezu die sion, see G. BONSANTI, in Gio7)inezzadi Michelangelo, ed. K. WEIL-GARRIS BRANDT et at., Schzsesterdes Pupstes nennen mochte'. Kriegbaum concluded that Michelangeloworked exh. cat., Florence [19991,pp.308-10. 489 MICHELANGELO IN FLORENCE admissible,it makes a little less inexplicableanother event: artist's progress on the project, they report Michelangelo's the decision of the Opera del Duomo to proceed with the promise to finish his own work in modelling the figure by commissioningof twelvemarble Apostles by as earlyas April the Feast Day of StJohn, at, that is, the very moment when 1503. The speed with which the sculptorevidently worked on the marble David would be displayed by the Duomo Operai.25 the gigantemust have been reassuringto the Operai and the Observations on the later events concerning the marble Consoli of the Lana who, we shouldrecall, now specifiedthat David, including the praticaheld in January 1504 to determine an Apostle of no less than four and a quarter bracciashould where it was to go, must await another occasion. It is, how- be deliveredeach year.21The contractwas drawnup just two ever, worth noting here that the decision in favour of the months before theJune 'unveiling',when the qualitiesof the ringhierain front of the Palazzo della Signoria, instead of the Davidmust have been fully apparent.Did the decision of the Loggia dei Lanzi, seems to have been a late one. In a Deliber- Operai reflect their satisfactionwith the giganteor, perhaps, azione of the Duomo Operai dated 30th April 1504 con- some presentimentthat history might repeat itself and that cerning the moving of the statue, it appears that the intention Michelangelo'sDavid, like Donatello'smarble David of nearly was, at this point, to situate it in the Loggia, 'in lodiamdictorum a century earlier,would come to be sequesteredby the city's magnificorumDominorum.. .'.26And it is only at the end of May government? that we find, at least in the documents, the destination of the TheJune exhibitionof the Davidtook place just nine months gigantedefined as the place where Donatello's bronze Judith is afterPiero Soderini'selection as Gonfalonieredi Giustiziafor situated, 'before the door of the Palace'.27 life and seven after his subsequent move into the Palazzo A fortnight before this Deliberazione of 28th May, the statue della Signoria. His staunch support of Michelangelo is well had already left the Opera on what Luca Landucci states was known and is most clearlyexemplified in his later attemptsto a four-dayjourney to the Piazza della Signoria, arriving there pressfor a pendant to the Davidwhich are discussedbelow. It on 18th May.28Both he and Parenti refer to the nocturnal is, nevertheless,at thispoint worthrecalling Ascanio Condivi's stoning of the statue while on its way. Their accounts differ information,undoubtedly based on Michelangelo'sviva voce, in minor details. Important, however, is Parenti's statement that it had been Soderiniwho had been instrumentalin the that those involved were youthful and that they were subse- decision to award the artistthe commissionto carry out the quently arrested by the Otto di Guardia.29The records of the bronzestatue of Davidfor Pierrede Rohan, Marechalde Gie.22 Otto establish their number as four and reveal their identities. The contractfor the bronze Davidpreceded by three months They are named as Vincenzo di Cosimo Martelli, Filippo Soderini'selection to life office.However, Condivi's reference di Francesco de Spini, Gerardo Maffei de Gherardini, and deserves our serious attention in the light of Soderini's Raffaello di Agostino di Panciatichi. All four were, therefore, own profoundattachment to the Frenchalliance. We may also from branches of families who could be regarded as generi- note a further detail in this context. The first documented cally committed to the Medicean cause.30 referenceto the Frenchman'swish for a Davidis in a letter of Soderini's personal role in the decisions to deprive the the Florentineambassadors of 22ndJune 1501. Soderinihad Opera del Duomo of their statue and to situate it on the servedas Gonfalonieredi Giustiziain the springof 1501.23 ringhieracannot be quantified. Nevertheless, the presumption The bronze David was the earliest of the government that it was a significant one is strengthened by his part in commissionsgiven to Michelangelo in these crowdedyears. initiating the making of a pendant statue; here we have excel- Its drawn-outhistory has recentlybeen reviewedat length.24 lent evidence of his own involvement. His actively pursuing Referenceto it here may be limited to one curiousdetail. In the idea of a second statue is still frequently dated as late as a letter of 29th April 1503 from the Dieci di Balia about the 1508 in the bibliography. But, in point of fact, it began at the

2The conditionsof the Apostles contractare notably stringent.The term of twelve pp.85-132. years allowed for the completion of the series was to begin on the day that the 25'Lafigura del Maricial di Gie sarafornita a San Giovanni,se il maestroci terrafermo la contractwas drawnup, 24th April 1503. Michelangelohimself is obliged to go per- promessasua, la quale non e moltocerto, atteso e' cervellidi simili genti.' (CAGLIOTI,loc. cit. at sonally to Carrarato obtain the necessarymarble, a clause no doubt reflectingthe note 1 above, p.99). anxiety of Consuls and Operai to avoid the deliveryof badly hewn blocks of poor 26AOD,Deliberazioni 1496-1507, fol.78v;ASF, Deliberazionidei Signori e Collegi quality. Whether the artist observed this clause is unknown (see now MICHAELAMY'S 168, fol.38v; FREY,loc. cit. at note 3 above, p. 108, no.20 (and also p. 107, no. 19). For articlein this issue,p.493); however, his concern about the qualityof marblerequired the etymology of lodiumor lodia,see K. FREY:Die Loggiadei Lanzi zu Florenz,Berlin for the Pietd carved in Rome is well attested (see HIRST and DUNKERTON [1994], cited [1885], esp. his Excursus41, p.94. at note 12 above, p.35). 27ASF,Deliberazioni dei Signorie Collegi 168, fol.49v; FREY,loc. cit. at note 3 above, 22Condivi'spassage about the bronze Davidpresents a textual ambiguity,for which pp. 108-09, no.24. The Signoriadecides 'quodstatua marmoreagigantis adpresens in eorum see CAGLIOTI,loc. cit. at note 1 above.Nevertheless, his remarkabout Soderini'sinter- plateaexistens collocetur etponatur in eoloco, in quoadpresens est erea statua ludit, ante portam vention is unambiguous,indeed emphatic:'dopo il Gigante,ricercato da Piero Soderini suo eorumpalatii .. .'. grandeamico, gitto di bronzouna statua grande al naturale,chefi mandatain Francia'(coNDIVI, 28L. LANDUCCI: Diario Fiorentinodal 1450 al 1516, ed. I. DEL BADIA, Florence [1888], ed.cit. at note 10 above, p.22). p.268. 23Forhis two-monthterm, see G.CAMBI: Istoriefiorentine, in Delizie degli eruditi toscani, ed. 2Florence,Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale,MS 11.11.134 (P.PARENTI: Storie Fiorentine), I. DI SANLUIGI, XI-XXIII, Florence [1785-86], XXI, p.159. However, Soderini's fols.9v-10r. r6le in governmentwas already,in 1500, of an importanceenough to lead Parenti 30ASF,Otto di Guardia,Repubblica 129, fols.38r-39r.The text confirmsLanducci's to list him among the four leading figuresin the conduct of business;see R. PESMAN statementthat the attackhappened on the firstnight of the David'sjourney.The sen- COOPER:'L'elezione di Pier Soderini a gonfalonierea vita', ArchivioStorico Italiano, tences of the firstthree to imprisonmentin the Stinchewere to be lifted in the event CXXV [1967], p. 176. His authorityin dealing with the Frenchwas unrivalled;for of payment of fines. Raffaele Panciatichihad eluded arrestand was threatenedwith the tributespaid to him by the Frenchgovernor of Milan and Louis XII himselfon severerpunishment in the event of non-appearance.As LorenzoPolizotto has kindly his election in 1502, see PESMANCOOPER, ibid., p. 180. pointed out to me, none of the names suggests a piagnoneinterpretation of the 24Manyof the relevant documents were first published in G. GAYE:Carteggio inedito episode. It might be added that, as a fervid anti-Savonarolan,Parenti would prob- d'artistidei secoli XIV,XV,XVI, Florence [1840]. For recent republicationof the mat- ably have made a comment had this been the case. Nor, however,does the new erial and accompanying commentary, see L. GATTI:"'Delle cose de'pictori et sculp- evidence decisivelysubstantiate an anti-republicaninterpretation, for, as Polizotto tori si pu6 mal prometterecosa certa":la diplomaziafiorentina presso la corte del has indicated,none of the names appearson subsequentlists of Medici amiciin the Re di Franciae il "Davide"bronzeo Michelangelo Buonarroti',Melanges de l'Ecole period of the Medicean restoration.Perhaps after all, this much discussedepisode Franfaisede Rome, CVI, 2 [1994], pp.433-72, and CAGLIOTI,loc. cit. at note 1 above, was a case of youthfulvandalism without political motivation. 490 MICHELANGELO IN FLORENCE latestby 1506.3lThis is provedby the survivalof a letter thathe wroteto theMarchese di Massa,Alberico Malaspina, on 7thAugust 1506, a letterwhich, although published, has beenneglected. Referring to businessbetween the Florentine Operadel Duomo and theirmarble sllppliers at Carrara, Soderinirefers to a 'pezodi marmo moltogrande' that has already been quarried.He asksmarchese Alberico to reserveit, 'che desiderzamofarneunastatua quanto maggaore neeschi'.32 A secondletter of Soderinito Malaspinasurvives, dated 21st August 1507, written one year later. Although published in the nineteenthcentury, this too has been overlookedby most recentstudents of the subject;it confirmsthe signifi- canceofthe earlier one. Soderini here refers to Michelangelons imminentreturn to Florenceand the fact thathe has been absenton accountof the Bolognabronze statue ofJulius II. He assuresthe marchesethat, on his arrival,he willbe sent to inspectthe marbleblock.33 Three further letters of 1508 aremore familiar. The earliestof thethree is dated1 0th May 1508. Soderinirefers very clearlyto the proposedemploy- mentof the blockand againexpresses his wish to Malaspina thatit willbe keptfor the Florentineproject, now explicitly speltout: '. . . chene vorremo farefare una statua che stesse in sulla piazzadi questa citta, et per questo ne verrebbe V.S. a graticarea tucto questopopolo . . .'.34 This is followedby two furtherletters, of 4th Septemberand 16th December, which reflect the gonfalon- iere'sfrustration over Michelangelo'sremoval to Rome to workonce morefor PopeJulius II. In the laterof the two,he insiststhat only Michelangelocan superintendthe rough- hewingof the block;Soderini was clearlymindful of the wretchedstate of the blockfor the David and must have been veryanxious to avoidanother one 'maleabbozzatum'.35 Soderini'sletters to AlbericoMalaspina exhibit that com- binationof patienceand tenacitywhich has been seen as characterisinghis conductof politicalaffairs. They were qualitiesseverely tested by the unreliabilityof his chosen artist'sbehaviour.36 The dateof the earliest,August 1506, is noteworthy,for at thisjuncture, over a periodextending from Aprilto November15067 Michelangelo was once more in 15. Sketchfor a Hercules and Casus group,by Michelangelo.Pen and ink, Florence.The letterwas, therefore, written at a momentwhen 14.8 by 9 cm. (CasaBuonarroti, Florence). gonfaloniereand artist were able to discussthe second statue for thepiazza together; it wasalso a momentwhen Soderini was Julius II.37It has been plausiblyargued in the past that the makingefforts to restorepeace between the artistand Pope very decision to place the Davidon the rtnghierato the left of

3'Thedate 1508 still regularlyappears in the literatureconcerned with the Herralles referredto in EQLAPISGH-ZUBER, op.cit. above, p. 112, note 26 and has been noted in project, partly because it was retained in the influentialpublication, v. BUSH: The V. BUSH: 'Bandinelli'sHercules and Cacus and Florentine Traditions',Memoirs of ColossalSculhture of theCinquecento, New Yorkand London [1976], pp 118fE.Bush's theAmerican Academy in Rome,XXXV [1980], p. 169. The relevantpassage (following later correctionto 1507 (see note 33 below) is frequentlyoverlooked; see, to give Poggi'stranscription), reads: 'Quantoal marmonaspestiamo qui in breveM?Michelangelo two examples, B. WEIL GARRIS: 'On Pedestals:Michelangelo's David, Bandinelli's Bonarotiscultore il qualee statoa Bolognspiu mesipergittare la dNibronzo ilpontff se: e horamai Hercules and Cacus and the Sculpture of the Piazza della Signoria', Romisches alla,fi7ledella opera. Come sara q7li lo mandarenosubito costz a 7vederedecto marmo . . .'. jahrbuchfirKunstgeschichte,XX [1983], p.398, and W.E. WALLACE: 'MichelangeloIn 34Firstpublished in part in GAYE, 0p. cit.at note 24 above, II, p.97, no.XLII. Soderi- and Out of Florence Between 1500 and 1508', in Leonardo,Michelangelo, and Raphael ni's anxietyabout the safe-keepingof the blockis reflectedin his adding:' V.S.potrebbe in RenaissanceFlorence.from 1500 to 1508, Washington [1992], p.65, who notes how farlifaredinanzi una armatura di legnameun poshoforte la qualedAenderebbe de(;to marmo et li remarkableit was that a huge block was found, quarriedand made readyfor trans- altriverrebbono qui sanza pericolo di rompersi. . .'. portationin less than three months. 35Firstpublished in GAYE, Op. cit.at note 24 above, II, p.l07, no.LI. Ofthe need for 32Thetext was first published in c. KLAPISCH-ZER: LesMaztres du Marbre,Carrara Michelangelohimself to attend to the block Soderiniadds: 'nonessendo homo in Italia 1300-1600, Paris [1969], p.ll2, note 267 and is discussed,along with the other ad expedireuna opera di cote,sta qua lita e necessarioche lui solo et non a ltri la venghaet a diroz- letters consideredhere, in M.J. AMY: Michelarlgelo'sGommissionforApostle stataesfor the zarla'.The notoriousproblems provoked by the conditionof the blockfor the Drid Cathedralof Florence,unpublished doctoral dissertation,New YorkUniversity, 1997 need not be discussedhere. The descriptionof it in the I)eliberazioneof 2ndJuly pp. 148 and 155-56. I here publishPoggi's text: 'Magnf sedomine. Habbiamo operato che 1501 (AOD, Deliberazioni 1496-1507, fol.36v) has always been difficultto read. questisostri di marmihanno apunctato con li operaiqui di SanctaMaria del Fiore et lo habbiamo I owe the correcttext to the help of LucillaBardeschi Ciulich; it in fact reads:'male factovolentieri etfareno sempre per quella et cose sue dove le cede honore o commodo. Come per altre abbozzatumet supinum' (c? POGGI, ed.cit. at note 5 above, no.448, and FREY, loc.cit. at le dicemopare che cotesti maestri de marmo habbino sjbicchato unpezo di marmomolto grande il note 3 above,p.l06, no.8). qualedesideriamo che la S.riaUce lofaccisalvare che lo satisfarenoconvenientemente etce nefara 36ForSoderinis personal qualities,see R. PESMAN COOPER: 'Pier Soderini:Aspiring cosamolto grata et accepta che desideriamofarne una statua quanto maggiore ne eschi. Bene valeat Prince or Civic Leader?',Studies in Medievaland Renaissance History, I [1978], pp.69- D. Z Ex PalatioFlorentino Die VlI augusliMDVI0/Petrus Soderinis Vexillfer in perpetaum 126, esp. ppw1 l9ff. PopuliFlorentini.' 37See,for example,his letterto FrancescoAlidosi of July 1506, publishedin GAYE arld 33Theletter was published in c. FR13DIANI:Ragionamento storico di CarloFrediani su le discussedin M. HIRST: Michelangeloin 1505, THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, CXXXIlI diversegitefattea Carrara da Michelangelo Buonarroti, Massa [1837], doc.II, pp.67f3E.It is [1991], p.765. 491 MICHELANGELO IN FLORENCE

the entrance to the Palazzo della Signoria, a late one as Appendix we have seen, carried with it an implied requirement for a companion statue.38Soderini's letter of 1506, even if not as explicit about the block as we might wish, nevertheless goes Contract for the supply of marble between the Operai del Duomo and far to confirm the proposal and implies that an exceptionally Matteo Cucarello, 28th November 1502 (Florence, Archivio dell'Opera del Duomo, Seconda Seria II, 9, Deliberazioni 1496-1507, fols. 51v and 52r). large block had been ordered earlier for the purpose.39 None of the surviving letters refers to the subject of David's projected companion, but it has always been assumed, in the Antonius Paganellus Jacobus del Vigna et light of later events concerning the project, that a statue of Petrusde Pazis Hercules was planned. The choice of Hercules to accompany Davidbefore the seat of the was, it has Locatio marmorisfacta Matteo da Charrara[28th November 1502] republican government di S. del Fiore di Firenze etc. been one sanctioned Florentine Spectabilihomini operai dell'Opera Maria ragunati recently shown, by previous nella loro solita audientiadi decta Opera ragunatiet prima havuto piu volte collo- history. It has been established that, even at a date prior to the quio colla Signoriade Consoli di decta Arte di decta allocationeetc. et consentienti of Donatello's marble Davidin 1416, etc. nella visitationeper loro facta all'Opera secondo gli ordini etc. et la consuetu- Signoria's appropriation di detto anno et altrevolte an of almost a dine soto di 21 septembreet soto di 24 d'ottobre 1502 piu image Hercules, certainly painted one, already etc. et per tre fave nere etc ... allogoronoet concederonoad fare per la decta opera existed in the palace.40 The intention on the part of Gon- Matteo di Michele da Charraraalias di Chucherello presente et conducente etc. faloniere and to monumental of these migliaiatrecento di marmo biancho charraresenetto di chotti, fessureet pelati a fare Signoria place images dette 300 nel et termine d'anni dua di comin- two related heroes in front of the migliaia tempo hogi, questo presente closely republican palace ciato et da farsi ogni anno de' detti dua anni la meza et meta di decte migliaia 300 at this time, when the war to recover Pisa was still going on, cioe migliaia 150 per anno da chondursiper lui et averlocondotto ogni anno detta could not have been more meza et meta da Charraranella citta di Pisaper quelloprezo et pregio che altravolta appropriate.41 in una sua condotta di 50 si dette et ne fu cioe lire 7 et soldi what was to be to Hercules at this migliaia facto, dieci per Exactly figuration given qualunquemigliaio condotti come di sopra nella detta citta di Pisa a qualunquesue point is not mentioned in the sources. However, a brief pen spesa. Et piu lapide sei oltre a dette migliaia 300 cioe ogni anno tre et se piu ne sketch in the Casa Buonarroti has rechassi,quello piu sieno di decta Opera et da condursiet condotte come di sopra by Michelangelo (Fig.15) et l'una di decte ne sara facto da Simone del Pollaiuolo been related to the artist's concern with Soderini's per prezo lapide quanto plausibly capomaestrodi decta Opera et tutto perfectamenteabbozato et da starseneal iudi- project at this moment.42Although only a fragment, the most tio di decto Simone et da farsidetto marmo et pezi di quelle misure,quantita et qual- of the of the sketch is that ita in quello modo et forma come sarannodate le misureet qualitacon quelli modi convincing interpretation subject et modelli dati et da darsio che si dessino da detto Simone e modoni et misure it Hercules with a Cacus at his feet. quali represents vanquished o modelli date da detto Simone et soscriptedi sua mano propria detto Matteo le Hercules, arm raised, is drawn in an upright rather than a habia a rapresentarealla detta Opera ... facta detta condotta acci6 deto Simone et one, in other words, that would have been li operai possino vedere se i secondo dette misure abbozate. Com pacto che qual- stooping pose, la di Pisa tornassio venissisotto el dominio fiorentinoche alloraet for a for the David.43The choice of unque volta citta appropriate companion in tal caso detto Matteo habbia ... quello meno et mancho di prezzo quantopiu per Hercules and Cacus was, once again, a subject sanctioned by non essere nostra detta citta, si spende in gabelle, in vetture,in noli et charreggio Florentine tradition.44 altro per el non esser detta citta nostra et tutto el marmo che detto Matteo con- long-standing duciessio faciessicondurre abbia a essere et sia di detta tutto a dichiara- A review of the later of involvement qui Opera history Michelangelo's tione, parereet voglia di detti operai... excepto che se detto Matteo ne rechasseper cannot be attempted here. His failure to honour his commit- MichelagnoloBonarroti che quellaquantita per lui rechatasia di detto Michelagnolo ments to Piero Soderini - we must remember the liberamenteet per suo chonto et lavorareper se proprio et non per altri et oltre ad projected ci6 detti marmi saranno condotti nella citta di Pisa che detto Matteo sia mural in the Palazzo della in addition to the quando Signoria giant tenuto detti marmi condurliet farlicondurre da Pisa in sul nostroet in luogo sicuro Herculesto stand at its entrance - robbed Florence of two of et in luogo dove possino esserepresi da'nostrischafaiuoli sanza alcuno sospettoper the most cherished of the a Firenzesanza alcuno pericolo o danno di detti schafaiuoliinfra detto tempo come objectives gonfaloniere'spatronage. di in anno la et et achadendoal detto Matteo di on the course of events in these it seems sopra qualunque meta bisogniando Reflecting years, havereo volere salvocondottoper insin al nostroet se bisognassipiu qualchesomma appropriate to conclude by quoting Soderini's own words di spese piu da Pisa in sul nostro terreno sicuro che detta Opera habbia a pagare in a letter of 1509 to Machiavelli: 'Ricordandoviche il naturale detta spesa .... di questomondo e riceveregrande ingratitudine delle grandi e buone operationi. . ..45

3BUSH,op. cit.at note 31 above, p. 118, and eadem,loc. cit. at note 33 above, pp.163ff. 4The appropriatenessof the motive in this drawing, which so clearly shows the 39Seethe remarksin BUSH,loc. cit. at note 33 above, p. 170, note 33. Her evaluation artist'sconcern to respect the vertical limits of the block (excellentlydiscussed in of the letter of 1507 led her to conclude that the block for the pendant statue could BAROCCHI,op. cit. above), raises once more the problem of identifyingthe two-figure have been requestedthree or fouryears earlier.The letter of mid-summer1506 only clay model in the Casa Buonarrotiwith Michelangelo'srevised project of the 1520s strengthensthis conclusion.The presumptionthat the large and fine block brought for a pendant to the David.It is difficultto reconcile the model's proportionswith to Florence in 1525 was the one alreadyquarried by 1506 seems likely but at this those of the blockdescribed by CAMBI(ed. cit. at note 23 above,XXII, pp.274-75); he -- point cannot be proved;for its scale, see note 43 below. gives the measurements,prior to its raising,as 'braccia8. e ' lugho,e altobraccia 2. et 40Seethe importantarticle, M.M. DONATO: 'Hercules and David in the EarlyDecora- cheraquasi quadro'. For the argumentagainst the suitabilityof the model as a project- tion of the Palazzo Vecchio:Manuscript Evidence', Journal of theWarburg and Cour- ed pendant, see j. WIDE:Michelangelo's 'Victory', Oxford [1954], pp. 18-19. And for tauldInstitutes, LIV [1991], esp. pp.83ff; for the argument in favour of a painted a recent point in favour of the argument, E.D. SCHMDT:'Die Uberlieferungvon figure,p.89, and for remarksabout Donatello's David,pp.90ff. See, most recently, Michelangelosverlorenes Samson-Modell', Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in N. RUBINSTEIN:The Palazzo Vecchio1298-1532: Government,Architecture and Imageryin the Florenz,XL [1996], pp.79-146, particularlypp.98-103. ' CivicPalace of theFlorentine Republic, Oxford [1995], pp.54-55. 44Itis not necessary to review all the literature here: See L. ETrLINGER: Hercules 41 DONATO,loc. cit. at note 38 above, pp.97-98. She writes:'In the circumstancesof Florentinus"', Mitteilungendes KunsthistorischenInstitutes in Florenz,XVI [1972], pp. 120ff, the PisanWar - which would once more recallthe heroic climateof about a century and BUSH,loc. cit. at note 33 above,passim. For the large reliefof Hercules and Cacus earlier- it was appropriateto revertto the symbolicimages that had received their in Palazzo Guicciardini, see II Giardinodi San Marco.Maestri e compagnidel giovane consecrationin the PalazzoVecchio at that stirringtime.' Michelangelo,ed. P. BAROCCHI, exh. cat., Casa Buonarroti,Florence [1992], fig.5 and 42c. DE TOLNAY: Corpusdei disegni di Michelangelo,Novara [1975-80], I, no.65. The pp.26-27. early date for the sketch was first proposed in J. WILDE: Italian Drawings in theDepart- 45The letter is published in part in P. VILLARI:lViccolo Machiavellie i suoi tempi,II, Milan ment of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, Michelangeloand his Studio, London [1895], p.537, note 1. The present sentence is quoted in English by PESMANCOOPER, [1953], p.67, and convincingly confirmed in P. BAROCCHI:Michelangelo e la sua Scuola. loc.cit. at note 34 above,p. 125. I disegni di Casa Buonarrotie degli Uffizi, I, Florence [1962], pp. 18-19. 492