Bernini as the Seicento Michelangelo: Imitation and Identity in Art, Architecture and Biography by Carolina Mangone A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Art University of Toronto © Copyright by Carolina Mangone 2012 Bernini as the Seicento Michelangelo: Imitation and Identity in Art, Architecture and Biography Carolina Mangone Doctor of Philosophy, History of Art Department of Art University of Toronto 2012 Abstract This dissertation examines how Gianlorenzo Bernini (1598-1680), acclaimed the “Michelangelo of his age,” constructed his identity by imitating the art, practices and persona of Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564). Buonarroti’s “inimitability,” a disputed sixteenth-century notion that became ever more contentious as newly critical seventeenth-century perspectives of his work and practice questioned his worth as a model for imitation, furnishes the point of departure for investigating how Bernini became Bernini through and against his predecessor. By analysing Gianlorenzo’s formal, stylistic, theoretical and conceptual references to Buonarroti in his early narrative sculpture (ch.1), his sculpted self-portraits (ch.2), his work at St. Peter’s (ch.3), his architectural ornament (ch.4) as well as the intertextual strategies attending the literary uses of the association between the two artists (ch.5), I shed light on various imitative modes –ranging from emulation, allusion and paraphrase, to repetition, quotation and bricolage – that Bernini and his biographers employed to shape the artist into Michelangelo’s worthy “son” rather than his burdened epigone. In positing a filial model as a flexible framework for understanding Bernini’s life-long relationship to Michelangelo, I take a cue from early modern art writers who suggested that the way to ii overcome Buonarroti’s inimitability was to resemble him faintly, the way a son resembles a father. Yet while the latter saw filial likeness as fixed, I show that the son’s (Bernini’s) resemblance to his chosen father (Michelangelo) changed by degree and in demeanor over time, according to discipline and, sometimes, from subject to subject. And by reconstituting the respective prisms through which Bernini and his biographers regarded the work and life of Buonarroti, I show that each perceived Michelangelo differently based on the manifold representations of him, his work and his practice that existed in critical, biographical, theoretical and pictorial sources. In turn, multiple constructions of Bernini’s identity as the seicento Michelangelo emerge. This dissertation ultimately suggests that to imitate Michelangelo successfully was not only to inscribe oneself into history but to rewrite the past by altering the perception of Buonarroti from an inimitable vanguard to a fecund “father” of a new generation. iii Acknowledgements Those to whom I owe gratitude are many. Foremost among them is Evonne Levy, who first proposed that I examine Bernini’s imitation of Michelangelo for a graduate seminar paper. Subsequently, as my supervisor, she keenly and patiently fostered my development of the topic over the long course of this dissertation. The best of the following pages reflects her incisive commentary, stimulating questions and intellectual rigor. The wisdom of my thesis committee has also significantly shaped my work. Philip Sohm’s generosity with his profound knowledge of Italian art writing sent this dissertation in unforeseen directions that proved vital to my argument. Alexander Nagel’s perceptive criticism and provocative suggestions challenged me to deepen and refine my ideas. The insightful commentary of my external reader, Michael Cole, will contribute substantially to the further development of my material. At various stages of this project I benefited from thoughtful conversations with the following scholars: Laura Camille Agoston, Christy Anderson, Malcolm Baker, Faya Causey, Christina Corsiglia, Maarten Delbeke, Paul Duro, Meg Grasselli, Estelle Lingo, Alison Luchs, Lorenzo Pericolo, Giancarla Periti, Rudolf Preimesberger and Steven F. Ostrow. From the moment I began my graduate studies, Michael Koortbojian’s mentorship has been an invaluable constant; his faith in my ability encouraged me to persevere on the innumerable occasions this dissertation seemed a Sisyphean endeavour. None of the above expressions of thanks would be possible without David Bershad, whose animated undergraduate lectures inspired me to pursue art history in the first place. My research abroad, primarily in Rome, Florence and Paris, was made possible by the generous support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and of the Chancellor Jackman Graduate Fellowship. Additional travel funding was provided by a University of Toronto Graduate Fellowship and a bursary from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Italian Embassy in Ottawa. A Graduate Scholarship at the Canadian Centre for Architecture in Montreal furnished a crucial immersion into the study of early modern architecture, which had long been the terra incognita of my academic training. A year as the Joseph F. McCrindle Foundation Graduate Curatorial Fellow at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., offered a new lens through which to view my ideas near the completion of my dissertation. I would also like to acknowledge the accommodating staff of the Richelieu Library of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, of the drawings collection at Windsor Castle, of the Bibliotheca Hertziana, of the library of the American Academy in Rome, of the Casa Buonarroti as well as the good humoured employees of the tax firm that now occupies the Casa Bernini. The friendship of gifted and mostly coffee-loving individuals fueled me at every turn. Alma Mikulinsky, enthusiastic interlocutor and kindred spirit, accompanied me through my daily highs and lows. Margo Beggs, flexible thinker and sound counsel, showed me that any valuable story can be told innumerable ways. Alex Hoare, patient listener and sharp intellect, delivered her searing wit at the most trying moments of this process. Dan Sopher, moral support, babysitter and unstinting editor, transformed my prose from laboured to lucid. Countless stimulating discussions with Susan Elliot-Beatty, Rose Logie, Betsy Purvis, Elena Napolitano, Rebekah Carson, Christine Kralik, Emre Gonlugur, Tara iv Bissett, Karine Tsoumis, Betsy Moss, Nicole Blackwood, Christina Ferando, John Christopoulos, have contributed to my work in ways I can no longer trace. I remain in their debt. I reserve my deepest thanks for my family. My mother, Donna Kelly, and my stepfather, David Kelly, took great pleasure in my pursuit and listened tirelessly to reports about its ebbs and flows. My father, Luigi Mangone, and my stepmother, Caterina Greco Mangone, encouraged and delighted in my progress without hesitation even though my career choice troubled them. Without the collective support (emotional, financial and beyond) of my parents, this dissertation could not have reached its end. No one has shared in the triumphs and trials of this project as intimately as Richard Unterthiner, my husband. His love and his boundless confidence in me were perpetual motivators. Elettra, my exuberant daughter, provided bliss during the most demanding period of this project. It is to my family that I dedicate this work. v Table of Contents Abstract ii-iii Acknowledgements iv-v Table of Contents vi List of Figures vii-xv Introduction to Bernini as the New Michelangelo 1 Michelangelo the Inimitable 10 Fathers and Sons, Imitation and Identity 28 Why Bernini and Michelangelo? 35 Chapter One Becoming Bernini 43 Son (and Father) in the Making 49 Revisiting the Father in Self-Defence 93 Chapter Two Bernini’s Furia 106 The Damned Soul as ‘True’ Likeness 113 Bernini in Michelangelo’s ‘Fury ’? 124 Bernini as David: Choleric Furor and the Practice of Sculpture 156 Chapter Three Bernini the Sculptor-Architect at New St. Peter’s 172 Measuring up to Michelangelo: Bernini’s Baldacchino in Practice and in Text 182 Mitigating Maderno, Reclaiming Michelangelo: Bernini’s Bell Towers, Façade and Colonnade 209 Chapter Four Bernini’s Ornament and Michelangelo’s Modern Order 249 Vignola’s Regola and the Reception of Michelangelo’s License 257 Bernini’s Bricolage 279 Imitators as Exemplars 310 Chapter Five Parallel Lives : Bernini’s Biographies and Textual Imitatio Buonarroti 315 Baldinucci’s Selective Bernini 323 Shades of Michelangelo in Domenico’s Bernini 343 Bernini and Michelangelo as Artists of the Papal Court 360 Bernini, the “grand’Huomo” as Prince 385 Conclusions on Bernini’s Identities as the Seicento Michelangelo 411 Bibliography 420 vi List of Figures Figure 1: Strozzi Chapel with Gregorio Rossi’s bronze reproductions of Michelangelo’s Leah , Vatican Pietà and Rachel (1616-12) Sant’Andrea della Valle, Rome Figure 2: Engraving of Strozzi Chapel, from De Rossi’s Studio d’architettura civile (1721) Figure 3: Gianlorenzo Bernini, St. Lawrence (1616) Contini-Bonacossi Collection, Palazzo Pitti, Florence Figure 4: Michelangelo Buonarroti, detail of Adam, Creation of Adam (1508-12) Sistine Chapel, Rome Figure 5: Gianlorenzo Bernini, detail of chains of St. Lawrence (1616) Contini Bonacossi Collection, Palazzo Pitti, Florence Figure 6: Gianlorenzo Bernini, detail of face of St. Lawrence (1616) Contini-Bonacossi Collection, Palazzo Pitti, Florence Figure 7: Michelangelo Buonarroti, detail of Christ from the Vatican Pietà (1498-99) St. Peter’s,