Copyrighted Material introduction in october 1580, the Urbinate ambassador simone fortuna reported to his em- ployer on a meeting he had had with Giambologna, the star artist of Grand duke francesco de’ Medici’s florentine court. the flemish sculptor, he wrote, was “the best person you could ever meet, not greedy in the least, as his absolute pen- nilessness shows. everything he does is in the pursuit of glory, and he has ambi- tion in the extreme to match Michelangelo. in the judgment of many, he has already done this, and they say that if he lives much longer he will overtake him. the duke, too, is of this opinion.”1 from fortuna’s day to ours, no cliché would dominate accounts of Giambologna more tenaciously than this: that his art, like that of every other major late sixteenth-century sculptor, essentially amounted to the emulation of his great predecessor. as the letter demonstrates, the artist himself promoted this perception. yet to take Michelangelo as a primary point of comparison is to miss everything distinctive about Giambologna’s sculpture. Giambologna, by contrast to Michelangelo, had no background in painting. He rarely drew, and he seems to have set his hand to marble sculptures with some re- luctance. He was, on the other hand, a skilled caster, producing as many works in metal as in stone. He eschewed the non-finito, favoring a refined polish. He con- tentedly turned out as many small figures as large ones, and he gained fame for his representation of the female form. He commanded a large studio, and he appears to have been sociable, collaborating frequently and extensively with others. if one were to look, in sum, for an early modern antithesis to everything Michelangelo represented, this would be it. Copyrighted Material i.1. Giambologna, Samson and a Philistine. Marble. victoria and albert Museum, London. i.2. anonymous artist, after lost Michelangelo model, Samson Slaying Two Philistines. Bronze. Museo nazionale del Bargello, florence. 2 introdUCtion Copyrighted Material in the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Michelangelo had ac- quired the status almost of an “ancient,” and the study of his works formed part of the curriculum for anyone learning the trade. still, for an artist like Giambologna to tell others that he wished to “equal” Michelangelo—long dead at the time the fleming spoke with the ambassador—was to distract them from the contemporary scene the sculptor was in fact trying to negotiate. to illustrate his case, Giam- bologna might well have pointed to his marble Samson and a Philistine (fig. i.1), then on display in a Medici garden. everyone in florence would have identi- fied that subject with a Michelangelo invention (fig. i.2), a copy of which Giam- bologna even holds in a contemporary portrait (see fig. 1.14). theSamson , though, was a work Michelangelo had never actually executed in a permanent material; in truth, there was no autograph Michelangelo Samson against which anyone could have measured Giambologna’s marble.2 What his viewers might immediately have compared with the sculpture were the two-figure marble groups that contempo- raries like vincenzo danti were producing (fig. i.3), even as they whispered that Giambologna relied entirely on assistants to do his carving. noticing where the Samson stood, they might have remembered that Giambologna had lost the com- petition to make the city’s only public fountain—a massive installation with a co- lossal neptune at its center—shortly before. and they might have remarked that Bartolomeo ammanati, the winner of that commission, had anticipated Giambo- logna by two years in using a battle between nude men in a fountain context (fig. i.4). Comparing Giambologna to Michelangelo deracinated Giambologna and apotheosized him. it disguised the interests of the potentates who enabled him to work, the rivalries, serious or petty, in which he found himself, the “period eye” with which audiences measured his achievements. nor is this only true for Giambologna. in the early 1570s, danti carved a por- trait usually referred to with the title “Cosimo i as augustus” for the “testata,” or connecting wing, of the recently built Uffizi (fig. i.5). Pose aside, its closest models are two Michelangelo statues, the Medici capitani from the new sacristy in san Lorenzo: the three portraits all sport leather breastplates and pteruges, as well as boots with a draping tongue at the shin; from the Lorenzo portrait danti further took the squared neckline with its ornamental border and mask (fig. i.6), from the Giuliano a Leonine helmet (fig. i.7). the original positioning of danti’s figure between the recumbent marbles personifying rigor and equity (see fig. 5.4), imitations of Michelangelo’s Times of Day, would have made the allusions all the more unmistakable. yet if this is danti’s primary point of reference, his statue undoes Michelangelo’s chapel as much as it repeats it. Michelangelo’s sepul- chral space expressed grief over the end of a Medici line, the end of a golden age. introdUCtion 3 Copyrighted Material i.3. danti, Honor and Deceit. Marble. Museo nazionale del Bargello, florence. 4 introdUCtion Copyrighted Material i.4. ammanati, Hercules and Antaeus (in situ, atop the fountain designed by niccolò tribolo). Bronze. villa Medici at Castello. introdUCtion 5 Copyrighted Material i.5. danti, “Cosimo i as augustus.” Marble. Museo nazionale del Bargello, florence danti’s triumphantly risen figure could only have come to occupy the place it does at the height of Medici power; it marks a return from the dead. and once seen this way, the statue looks less like a variation on Michelangelo’s original figures than on a relief (fig. i.8) that Giambologna had produced in the early 1560s, probably just after the death of Cosimo’s sons Garzia and Giovanni in 1562.3 the left-hand side of the sculpture is crowded with figures of demise: an old man tries to warm himself by a fire, a river god exhausts his waters, saturn eats his children, the Parks weave the thread of fate. the primary narrative, however, is that of Mercury leading an armored figure away from this realm, out of a space of ruins and into a modern loggia. Most scholars have identified the figure as Cosimo’s 6 introdUCtion Copyrighted Material i.6. Michelangelo, tomb of Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici, i.7. Michelangelo, Giuliano di Lorenzo de’ Medici, duke of Urbino. Marble. new sacristy, san Lorenzo, duke of nemours. Marble. new sacristy, san Lorenzo, florence. florence. surviving son francesco, but the most certain thing we can say is that it is a Medici portrait: in hairstyle, physique, and costume, it resembles Michelangelo’s Lorenzo and Giuliano (whom Michelangelo famously denied to be likenesses) more than any living person. the relief not only resurrects a Michelangleo character but also guides him to a new home, joining a recumbent nude who already replays the role that the Times did. Cupid, flying above, suggests that this is venus, origin of the augustan line to which the Medici compared themselves.4 the container of fruit on which she leans, however, identifies her equally with springtime, and thus with a new cycle of family life. Both Giambologna and danti took up Michelangelo’s principle of abstraction, a move that lends all four protagonists a certain interchangeability. the later por- traits are not so much depictions of francesco or Cosimo as they are embodiments introdUCtion 7 Copyrighted Material i.8. Giambologna, Allegory. alabaster. Museo del Prado, Madrid. of the Medici line in general. to be sure, Giambologna and danti take up Michel- angelo inventions; they do so, however, only to remove these from the narrative Michelangelo himself had created, writing new parts that were appropriate to the ducal regime. regarding the late sixteenth-century sculptors as mere formalists, generating successive variations on Michelangelo’s inventions, yields little; we understand Giambologna and danti better, and we see the politics connecting both, when we place them in dialogue with one another—or when we use one to make sense of the other. We need a more embedded history of sculpture in the period, all the more so since the standard comparative account of the period between Michelangelo and Bernini remains John Pope-Hennessy’s Italian High Renaissance and Baroque Sculpture, first published almost half a century ago.5 that book’s very title should already have raised questions about the author’s commitment to making sense 8 introdUCtion Copyrighted Material of a sculpture that did not support the label “renaissance” or “Baroque,” and in- deed, Pope-Hennessy’s distaste for what happened between roughly 1550 and 1620 surfaces on nearly every page that treats those years. Baccio Bandinelli, Pope- Hennessy writes, “was an artist from whose composition the element of craftsman- ship had been left out.”6 tribolo and Pierino da vinci were “less aspiring sculptors whose minds operated on a smaller scale.” Leone Leoni “was almost totally devoid of . disinterested artistic aspirations.”7 vincenzo de’ rossi was “a coarse, un- gainly sculptor,” who “attempted vainly to reconcile a zest for violent action with a perverted brand of formal ingenuity.”8 the best thing a sculptor could achieve, to follow Pope-Hennessy’s account, was admission to the “school of Michelangelo.” danti escapes disparagement only because he “applied himself to the problems of the statue with the same seriousness as Pierino, and from a standpoint that was not entirely dissimilar, since his main article of faith was belief in Michelangelo.”9 Giovanni angelo Montorsoli gets sympathetic words because “he was influenced, to the depth of his creative being, by Michelangelo.”10 at times, Pope-Hennessy seemed to value progressive thinking: he despairs, for example, of florence’s accademia del disegno, which he regarded as “a restrictive body” whose “unifying bond was a determination to evade the challenge of living art.”11 on the whole, though, he did not see the modern.