SEBASTIANO DEL PIOMBO AND HIS COLLABORATION WITH MICHELANGELO: DISTANCE AND PROXIMITY TO THE DIVINE IN CATHOLIC REFORMATION ROME by Marsha Libina A dissertation submitted to the Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland April, 2015 © 2015 Marsha Libina All Rights Reserved Abstract This dissertation is structured around seven paintings that mark decisive moments in Sebastiano del Piombo’s Roman career (1511-47) and his collaboration with Michelangelo. Scholarship on Sebastiano’s collaborative works with Michelangelo typically concentrates on the artists’ division of labor and explains the works as a reconciliation of Venetian colorito (coloring) and Tuscan disegno (design). Consequently, discourses of interregional rivalry, center and periphery, and the normativity of the Roman High Renaissance become the overriding terms in which Sebastiano’s work is discussed. What has been overlooked is Sebastiano’s own visual intelligence, his active rather than passive use of Michelangelo’s skills, and the novelty of his works, made in response to reform currents of the early sixteenth century. This study investigates the significance behind Sebastiano’s repeating, slowing down, and narrowing in on the figure of Christ in his Roman works. The dissertation begins by addressing Sebastiano’s use of Michelangelo’s drawings as catalysts for his own inventions, demonstrating his investment in collaboration and strategies of citation as tools for artistic image-making. Focusing on Sebastiano’s reinvention of his partner’s drawings, it then looks at the ways in which the artist engaged with the central debates of the Catholic Reformation – debates on the Church’s mediation of the divine, the role of the individual in the path to personal salvation, and the increasingly problematic distance between the layperson and God. I show that his works reveal a rethinking of how to depict Christ’s body and its accessibility to the viewer; an exploration of effects of distance and proximity to the divine lies at the heart of Sebastiano’s project. One key outcome of this research is a reevaluation and deconstruction of the current terms in which Renaissance ii artistic collaboration is typically understood, that is, through such binary oppositions as drawing/color, Rome/Venice, center/periphery, and giver/receiver. Additionally, by examining the problematics of image-based devotion, as they play out in Sebastiano’s work, this study contributes to a more precise, historically-grounded understanding of the artist’s response to pressing questions of his day regarding reform of the Church and personal devotion. Advisor: Stephen J. Campbell Second Reader: Felipe Pereda iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the many individuals who made this dissertation possible. First, I am grateful to my advisor, Stephen J. Campbell, whose guidance, rigor, and critical engagement with my work taught me responsible scholarship. His commitment to this project and attentive reading of my work helped me shape my ideas, all the while giving me the freedom to explore the problems that interested me most. My second reader, Felipe Pereda, saw this project evolve from the start; he offered invaluable advice and posed challenging questions that pushed me to think and rethink the issues. My minor advisor, Michael Fried, had a tremendous impact on my development as a scholar of art history. From him I learned how to talk about pictures and develop my own voice in writing. The support of numerous other mentors saw me through this project; I would like to thank Rebecca Brown, Lisa DeLeonardis, and Nino Zchomelidse for their feedback, conversations, and sharing of expertise on many occasions. I took my first theory class at Hopkins with Peter Jelavich; those inspiring conversations in class, now almost eight years ago, helped me to articulate the theoretical framework of this project. Leonard Barkan, who came to Hopkins for a semester as a visiting professor, shared with me his expertise on Michelangelo’s letters and offered advice on the early stages of this project. Fredrika Jacobs also kindly offered to read portions of the draft; I thank her for her enthusiastic support and interest in the ideas presented here. I would not be here if it were not for my undergraduate mentors at University of Toronto. Giancarlo Fiorenza, Elizabeth Legge, and the late Jens Wollesen were my first foray into the field of art history. Their way of thinking about art, as well as their passion and sense of humor, were contagious and I am grateful to have studied with them. iv In addition, I would like to thank the departments and institutions that funded this project. The support of the Department of the History of Art, the Charles Singleton Center for the Study of Premodern Europe, and the Department of German and Romance Languages and Literatures made it possible for me to travel abroad for my research on multiple occasions and for extended periods of time. Funding from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation allowed me to spend one of two memorable summers at Middlebury College, advancing my knowledge of Italian language and culture, as a Kress Language Study Fellow in Art History. The opportunity to teach in The Program in Expository Writing, as well as the support of Pat Kain and Will Evans, have been invaluable over the past three years. To them I owe my pedagogical training and a sense of being part of a community of teachers committed to working closely with students. I am also grateful to the present and former staff of the Sheridan Libraries and the Department of the History of Art – Don Juedes, Sally Hauf, Ann Woodward, Leslie Bean, and Ashley Kliefoth – for their continuous help in all matters that I brought to them. Along the way, I met countless friends and colleagues whose encouragement and critical feedback on my work got me through difficult moments and kept me going forward with renewed energy. I would like to thank Julie Reiser, Meredith Raucher, Jen Watson, Nathan Dennis, Amy Sheeran, and the other members of the dissertation writing workshop group, whose willingness to read my work and offer their insights were invaluable sources of support. My fellow graduate students in the History of Art Department and ABD group were wonderful colleagues to have; thank you to Sang Woo, Hannah Friedman, Laura Blom, Rachel Danford, Katie Johnson, and those mentioned v above for their attentive readings and constructive advice. I must also thank Danilo Piana and Chiara Valle for their kindness and patient help with translations, and Shira Brisman, who temporarily joined our ABD group, and offered thoughtful observations that sparked the themes of this project in its early stages. I could not have done this without the friendship of Shana O’Connell, Meredith Fraser, Chris Brinker, Marion Schmidt, Seth LeJacq, Hanna Roman, and Alla and Ben Mehl. Their constant encouragement through tough times and the happiness they brought to my life are unparalleled. I consider myself very lucky to have such great friends. My parents taught me much about learning that got me here. To my mom I owe my work ethic and persistence in the face of challenges; to my dad, I owe my first exposure to art and my continued love of the subject. Their support over the years has meant a lot to me, and I hope that they see this work as the outcome of the values they instilled in me. Finally, I must thank my friend and partner in life, Mike Sherling. His enthusiasm for impassioned conversation and his curiosity about the unknown have been an inspiration to me. Mike’s unwavering support and confidence sustained me in my labors; he always let me know that I was not alone in my struggles. His kindness and patience never faltered, and I hope that I can give him as much strength in his endeavors as he has given me. I could not have done this without him. vi Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. vii List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One. A New Model of Collaboration by Sebastiano and Michelangelo ............. 22 1.1 The Existing Tradition of Shared Drawings ........................................................... 24 1.2 Collaboration in Venice .......................................................................................... 49 1.3 Michelangelo’s Collaborators after Sebastiano....................................................... 55 1.4 The Letters Exchanged by Sebastiano and Michelangelo ....................................... 67 1.5 Patronal Demand and Expectations......................................................................... 72 1.6 Vasari, Dolce, and the Critical Reception of Collaboration .................................... 80 1.7 Defining Dual Authorship ....................................................................................... 93 Chapter Two. The Viterbo Pietà: Meditation on Motion and Stillness ...........................