Bibliotheca Hertziana (Max-Planck-Inscitut)

Deutsches Archaologisches Instirut Rom Musei Vaticani

Sonderdruck aus

IL CORTILE DELLE STATUE DER STATUENHOF DES BELVEDERE IM VATIKAN

Ak:ten des intemationalen Kongresses

zu Ehren von Richard Krautheimer

Rom, 21.-23. Oktober 1992

herausgegeben von Matthias Winner,

Bernard Andreae, Carlo Pietrangeli (t )

1998

VERLAG PHILIPP VON ZABERN · GEGRUNDET 1785 · MAINZ

Ex Uno Lapide: The Renaissance Sculptor's Tour de Force

IRVING LAVIN

To Matthias Winner on his sixry-fifth birthday, with admiracion and friendship.

In a paper published some fifteen years ago, in che coo­ccxc of a symposium devoted to artiru and old age, I tried to define what J thoughL was an interesting aspect of Lhc new self-consciousness of che anist that arose in Italy in the Renaissance.' ln the largest sense the phe­nomenon consisted in the visual anist providing for his own commemoration, in Lhe fonn of a tomb monument or devoLionaJ image associated with his EinaJ resring place. Although many anists' tombs and commemora­tions arc known from antiquity, and some from che middle ages, anises of the Renaissance made such self­commemorations on an unprecedented scale and with unprecedented consistency, producing grand and noble works at a time of life when one might have thought that their creative energies were exhausted, or chat they mighL have rested on their laurels. In particular, some of the most powerful works of Italian Renaissance sculp­ture were created under these circumstances: the Floren­tine Pict.a of Michelangelo, which be intended for his tomb in Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome (fig. 1); Baccio Ban<linclli's Pieta, which he intended to vie with Michelangelo's and placed on the altar of bis funerary chapel in Santissima Annunziata in Florence (fig. 2); and 1.he marble crucifix by Benvenuto Cellini, made to spite Bandinelli and surpass Michelangelo, now at the Escorial buL origim1Jly intended for the tomb he planned for himself in Sama Maria Novella in Florence (fig. 3). Each of these works was conceived as a supreme demonstra-1.ion of its crea1.or's prowess. The artists evidently regarded theiJ· se11esccnce and even death not as a motive for retirement and withdrawal but as a challenge to con­tinue - indeed, 1.0 surpass - their earlier achievements. Old age was no more, an.d no less, than an exrension of the Renaissance definition of the artist as an ambitious and innovative creator.

In pan, this way of defining the achievement of the anisL in what might be called "agonistic" terms, as a sort of professional comperiuon, was inherent in the Renais­sance revival of antiquity - Pliny, in particular, is given to describing this or that work or artist as the "firStn of a kind, with reference to technique, design or scale. The Renaissance atuc:ude differed from the classical in several imponant rcspeccs, however, wbich were indebted to medieval cradirion. Pliny appreciated "firru" primarily

Fig. 1 Micheumgelo, Pietiz. Fwre11ce, Cathedral

in evolutionary terms, as wimesses to change and progress in a given context, or a cause of wonderment at an individual achievemeac; in the Renaissance these clas­sical notes of distinction engendered a conscious and

lrviag Lavin

Fig. 1 Baccio Ba11dimdli, Pw J. Flom1ce, SS. Am11mziata

explicit spirit of competition, and not only with one's predecessors and comcmporarics, but also with one's self. The second point of difference is that chc very self­consciousncss of the .\rust reOccted not only the vast egoism, self-promotion and individualism of the Renais­sance. buc also an unc.lcrlying spirit of bumiliry and even of self-abnegation. All these works were made ultimately as acLs of extreme devotion and the sheer effort of crea­tion, inccllcctu:.tl :rnd physical, acquired a moral corollary as a testimony ro the anise's dedication and self-sacrifice.

Cellini said of his crucifix that he undertook it with the thought that even if his attempt failed, he would ac least have shown his good intention.' le sounds like a mod-

• "Questa difficile opera io l'avcvo dcst.inaia per un mio sepul­cro e meco medesimo mi scusavo che, se I' opera non mi fussi riuscira in quel bel modo ch'er:i ii mio dcsidcrio, almanco arei mostro la min buona voloma.K Cited after LAvrN 1977- 78, p. i6, n. 29.

er

Jo ol se SU

ac O!

ch di

C> 12

t'\1

er OJ

ol m c c CJ

e<

fr Sf

UI

in

at

UI

al et w

P• lS

Cl

t~

aJ

tl S<

S<

II

!v

er Ct

h

be lSt

d-

.J­ssi ret

•8,

Ex Uno Lapide: The Renaissance Sculptor's 7hm· du Poree

ern, almost tragic version of the charming medieval Story familiar from Anatole France and Massenet of the Jongleur de Notre Dame who, having no other gifts to offer the Virgin on her feast day, approached the altar secretly chat night and performed his juggling ace with ~uch fervor and devotion that his prayer was heard. The admir.uion for anriquicy may have inspired these grandi­o~ endC3vors, but they were conceived in the spirit of the medieval notion of the creative work of the anist as a divinely inspired, quasi-sacral act of humble devotion.

~tr purpose in the pre em essay is co extend the c<plor:uion of this phenomenon of competitive self-real­irnion outside the domain of funereal an, by following two interrelated but distinct lines of development that tmerged from the Renaissance sculptor's response to one of the major challenges posed by the achievements of classical antiquity. It is no accident that the auto-com­memorative sculprures of Michelangelo, Bandinelli and Cellini have one thing in common, apart from their Christological subject matter and the face that they were 're•ucJ in a spirit of compecicion with antiquity and with e3chother: they arc all monumental sculptures carved fmm one piece of marble, and in each case this repre­'en1c.~J a conceptual and technical tour de force that was unprecedented - Michelangelo's multiple figures, Band­indli's unsupported torso and legs, and Cellini's reduc­tion of the block to a slender figure with outstretched arms. It is clear from the sources that this was the meas­ure of the anise's labor, ingenuity and virtuosity.' Vasari J.lre.idy saw the point of the Florentine Pieca in the first edition of his life of Michelangelo, published in 1550, written while the work was in progress: "One can sup­pose that this work, if he should leave ic co the world fin­ished, would oumrip all his ocher works for the diffi­culcy of cxcracting from that block so many perfect things." Asc:mio Condivi, whose biography of Michel­nngdo was published in t5 s 4, c:i lls it a cosa rara, a "rare thing anJ among the most laborious works he has done su for." 'Ulrimnccly, indeed, ir was this aspect of the sculpture rhnt "sanctified" it as a work of art; so Vasari intimates in his second edition, pubLlshed in 1568, after Mid1dangclo's death: "A laborious work," he says, Mr:irc in· one block, and truly divine." We know chat ~lichcbngelo also planned, but never carried ouc two monumental marble crucifixes (fig. 4), and his failure ~crtainl)' underlies the terms of Cellini's conception of Im own achievcmcnt.4 "I h:wc begun for pleasure co

, for these sources quoted below, see LAvm 1977-78, pp. 13-6 .

• On the drawing reproduced here, :ind a sketch for a \-shaped crucifix, sec C. de Tolnay, M1chelangelD, s vols., Pnnccton 19.u-6o, IV, p. •H· fig. 17-1, V, p. 60, p. 1p ; IV, p. •JS, V, p. 113, no 20.

Fig. ) Bemmmto Cdlini, Crncifrx. Escoridl

,J11.A It• I

. ~ ;'.

I ~~ ..--

(''"t"' . if ( V 11 r~ ~s r '\ ~ j 4 I ;;-'-V"' .. J ·~!,I

·ht~n- ~ Jr t; IS

• i ( h:,_..ur ·~ n e-.J

~

! .i , I . ~• ::r I fl '"'i.' d SW-

Fig. 4 M1chrL111gelo, sltrtd1 of blocks for a crurifi..:1011 group. Flortnce, Cu11 Bmm<lmJU

194 Irving Lavin

Fig. J Michrlangtlo, Da11ui. Flortnct, A«Adtm111

make one of the most laborious works that has ever been made in this world: this is a crucifix of whitest marble, on a cross of blackest marble, large as a living man . . . no one has ever undertaken a work of such exrreme laboriousness; even l would never have agreed to do so far any patron, for fear of shaming myself." - "I made [the crucifix] of marble three and a quarter braccia high on a cross of black marble, ac my own expense and for my own S3tisfaccion, solely to see whether l could

with my an surpass all my predecessors, who never st

attempted such a work ; if they did, and as l more than d once heard, they failed; whereas 1 succeeded, wich the ill Lord's help and my extreme labor, and also at my great C expense, by the grace of God." The work was "among S)

the most difficult one can do in the an, that is, dead d bodies. This was the image of Jesus Christ our Savior u hanging on the cross, to which 1 devoted the greatest ti study, laboring on this work with the affection proper co h the subject, and the more eagerly for knowing that I was C•

the first to execute a crucifix in marble .. .. And 1 placed A the body of the Crucified on a cross of black Carrara u marble, a scone most difficult co manage becau~ it is " very bard and very prone co shatter." 1c

The feat of carving large monoliths, single statues as C•

well as multifigured groups, was in fact one of the aJ

favorite topoi of classical literature on art. Reforences to b works outstanding for their scale and seamless pcrfec- o cion, carved ex uno lapide, occur freqently in Pliny, Dio- [ dorus Siculus, Pausanius, and H erodotus, as a source of c1 admiration but witl1out reference to any underlying h matter of theory or principle. Sculptors of the early Ren- fc aissance responded to these allusions with a new passion o for monumental scale and the integrity of the block. The 1t motivation, however, was now radically different. The C•

integrity of the block became more chan a cause for ~

admiration, more even than an aesthetic ideal; it became s1 a veritable ethical imperative, a cescimony not only to la the bravura of the artist but also to his personal integrity. o For Vasari, patching a work of Stone sculpture by adding ti pieces was a "moSt vile and ugly thing and greatly to be u blamed" ("cosa villissima e brutta e di grandissimo b biasimo").' The challenge of concepruaJ foresight and v. technical mastery with which the sculptor was con n fronted by this uncompromising principle of integrity, [ a forerunner of the modernist fetish of "truth to mate- s· rials," was what gave the carver of marble his claim to c superiority over artists in other, more forgiving mate- P rials. h

The firSt evidence we have of the significance and value attached co the principle appears in Leon Battista Albeni's treatise on sculpture, composed probably around 1450. The text is mainly de,roced to a syStem of measurement from a prototype, the value of which Albeni illustrated by boasting that it would pennic unlimited reduction or enlargement from a model to any desired siz.e, and even alJow two sculptors working in separate locations to make complementary sections of a

' Sec V. B. Mockler, Colossal ScHlpaut of the Cinquttc11UJ from Michelangelo ro GU>t1am11 Bologna, Pb. D. diss., Columbia Uni\1• 1967, pp. 25 f.

n {;

n s LI

~

g h 9

c I b I (

er an he .:at

:St

to as ~d

ra IS

as le

ro c­::>­

of tg ,_ m le

ie

)r

te to y. tg >e .o .d •n '{,

d :a y >f h Lt

y n

a

Ex Uno Lapide: The Renaissance Sculptor's To11r de Force 195

Statue that would fit together perfectly .6 Alberti clearly developed his idea for a measuring device as well as his illustration about the rwo sculptors, from a passage in Diodorns SicuJus's famous account of the proportion system used by Egyptian sculptors, which permitted them to execute statues in separate sections.7 In his trea­tise on architecrure, completed in 1452, Alberti repeated the point, citing Diodorus Siculus explicitly, and added high praise for ancient works of colossal size and great complexity carved from a single block.8 I suspect that Alberti's discussion, and perhaps his method of meas­urement, may lie behind the first documentary evidence we have of an effort to give practical form to the new ideal, an effort that in fact ultimaceJy resulted in the first colossal, monolithic, freescanding sculpture of the Ren­aissance, the David of Michelangelo. This epochal story begins with the famous giant to be placed on the buttress of Florence cathedraJ commissioned from Agostino di Duccio in i464.' The statue~ which was to be nine brac­cia high, was to correspond to a model that Agostino had made in wax. It was to have been constructed of four pieces of white marble, one for the head and neck, one for each arm, and one for tbe rest of the body. Had it been carried out Agostino's would have been the first colossal free-standing marble statue since antiquity. When done deliberately to achieve spectacular results of scale or dissimulation, this premeditated composition of large and complex sculptures out of multiple blocks could icself be a praiseworthy accomplishment, and in this sense AgoStino's bold project should probably be understood in the light of the ancient precedent recorded by Diodorus Siculus, and followed by Alberti. One wonders whether Alberti may also have inspired the new, even more ambitious undertaking of Agostino di Duccio who in 1466 contracted to execute his figure in a single block, rather than four. Most remarkable in this case is chat the overseers of the cathedral agreed to pay Agostino a premium because a figure in one piece is of higher valuti et pretii than one of four pieces, requiring not only more spendio et expensa but also greater magis­terii. The fact that the overseers were willing co pay more for the monolithic figure, and especialJy the rea­sons given for doing so bear wimess to a qualitative and inrellecrual mind-set as novd as was the project itself. We bear nothing more of Agostino's monolithic gughante, but the echo of his clamorous failure mUSt have redounded to the greater glory of Michelangelo when, nearly forty years later, in 1501, he was given the commission and succeeded in carving his heroic figure of David - the first colossal, monolithic, free-standing mar­ble statue since antiquity - from the same block that A\;OStino had evidently left male abbozatum et sculptum (fig. 5 ).

The developmental Strains I wish to trace, one of which mighr be called figuracive, or sculptural, the other

spacial, or contextua~ had their origin in the subsequent rediscovery of two of the most famous of all ancient sculptures, both of which Pliny reports to have been made from a single block of stone. The fust of these was the Laocoon, whose accidental discovery in 15o6 brought to light the very work Pliny bad extolled as the supreme achievement of antiquity, and carved a uno lapide (fig. 6).10 Michelangelo was in Rome ar the rime and was among the first to be summoned to view the new wonder, which he promptly pronounced a "singu­lar miracle of art," wherein we should admire rather than try to imitate the "divine ingenuity of the artists.""

' "You will have no doubt of your ability to make something like it (the model) of the same size or smaller or a hundred cubits large, or even, I would say, as big as Mount Caucasus, provided the material we use were sufficient for such an enor­mous undemking. What is mo~ amazing is that, if you liked, you could hew out and make half the starue on the island of Paros and the other half in the Lunigia112, in such a way that the joints and connecting points of all the pans will fit together to make the complere figure and correspond to the models used.• - "Ut simillimam illius et minorem er tnn­tam et centicubitem, atque adeo ut sic audeam dicore mom.i Caucaso parem tuis posse, uti :i.iunt, auspiciis fieri non dubites, modo ad opera tam immania quibus utamur media nobis suppcditent. Et quod magis rnirere, huius dimidiam ad Paron iosulam, si libuerit, dimidinm vero partem alrcram in Lunensibus excides atque facic pcrficies ita ut iunctioncs et cohaesiones partium omnium cum torius simulacri facie eon­veniant excmplaribus et correspondeant. • C. Grayson (ed.). Leon Battisu A lbmi On Painting and on Sc:ulprme, London 1972, paragraph s, pp. 114 f.; cf. also the dedicatory letter and paragraph 11, ibid. pp. 118 f., pp. I }.2 f,

1 I, 98, s-9. I Bk. VD, ch. t 6. ' For what follows, see I. Lavin, •nozu:tci and Modelli . Notes

on Sculptural Procedure from the Early Renaissance through Bernini." in: Sn1 Hnd Oberliefenmg in der Kunst des Abend­landes. Akten des 21. internatio11alen Kongresses flir Kmm­geschichte in Berm, 1964, Berlin r967, ID, pp. 93- t 04, esp. pp. 97-9.

'0 "N ee deinde multo plurium fuma est, quonind:11n clnritnti in

opcribus eximiis obstante numero artificum, quoniam nee unus occupat gloriam nee plures pariter nuncupari possunt, sicut in Laocoonte, qui eSt in Titi imperacoris domo, opus omnibus et picturae et suruari:ae artis praefcrendum. ex uno lapide cum ae liberos draconumque mirabiles nexus de consili sententia Cecere summi artifices Hagesandcr et Polydorus ct Athenodorus Rhodi. • - "Not many celebrated artists remain to be named; in the case of ccruin ma.sterpjcces the very number of rhe collaborators is an obnacle to their individual fame, since neither can one mllll take to himself the whole glory, nor have a number so gr~t a claim to honour. This is the case with the Laokoon in the palace of the Emperor Titus, a work superior to all the pictures and bronzes in the world. Out of one block of marble did the illustrious artists Hagesander, Polydoros, and Athanadoros of Rhodes, after raking counsel rogether, ca.rve Laokoon, his children, and the wondrous coils of snakes." Pliny, Nm. hist., XXXYI, 37-38; }EX-Bl.AKE 1977, pp . .zo8-JT.

" "Hane Michael Angelus elicit esse miraculum artis singulare: in quo divinum artificum debeamus suspicc:re ingenium

Irving Lavin

Fig. 6 Laocoon. Rome, M11se1 \~uc,i111

One wonders whether Michelangelo's precisely defmed appreciation for the work might have been formulated in relaLion to the fact that he and his companion on the visit, the sculptor Giancristoforo Romano, had observed that the swlpture was not in fact carved from a single block, but was composed of some four pieces (we know today that there arc at least seven). The piecing in dus case was a source for admiration because it was so adroitly done that only "cxpens in the art" would notice. MHcncc either Plin)' was himself deceived or he wished to deceive others to render the work more

admirable, because it would be impossible 10 make secure three large figures, joined in a single block with so many and such wonderful tangles (mirabili gruppi) of

potius quam ad imiutionem nos accingerc.• J. J. Boissard, Roma1we inbis topograpln.ae et a11t1quilat11m, i vols., Frankfun 1s97-16o2, I, pp. 13 f., Cited after P. Barocchi (ed.), Giorgio \~n. L.z f.lita d1 Mu:hel.angelo 11elle ,yc/,ttio111 def 1110 e <kl 1168, 5 vols., Milan-Naples 19')2 - 72, IV, p. 1101.

S<

tl 11

0

e. b p

)

f

I, 't

0

•I

Ex Uno Lapide: The Renaissance Sculptor's Tour dt Forr:e 197

Fig. 7 Bacoo Bandintlli, Laocoon. Florenu, Uff1Zi

serpents, without any sort of devices. "12 The Laocoon thus became a touchstone, a veritable pietra di paragone, in the subsequent development of European culture, not only in the most commonly understood sense of an exemplmn of the psychological expressiveness attained by classical artists, but also as a challenge to che limits of professional ingenuity and technique.•>

" "Questa starua, chc insieme co' figliuoli, Plinio dice esscr tutta d'un pezz.o, Giovannangclo romano, c Michel CriSto-

fano fioremino, che sono i primi scultori di Roma, ncgano ch'ella sia d'un sol marmo, e mostrano circa a quattro com­metriture; ma congiume in luogo canto nascoso, c tnmo bcne saldate e ristuceate, chc non si possono conoscere facilmente se non da persone peritissimc di quest'arte. Pero dicono che Plinio s'inganno o voUe ingannare alrri, per render I' opera piu ammirabile. Poichc non si potcvano tener salde trc suruc di starura giusta, coUegata in un sol marmo, con tanri, e tamo mirabili gruppi di serpenti, con nessuna sorta di i.tromcnti. • Lener of Cesare Trivulz.io, June 1, 1fo6, G. Bottari and S. Ticozzi, Raccolta di leuere ml/a piwmt, scultura ed arr:hitet­tura, 8 vols., Milan 1!!22-5, ill, p. 475.

•1 le is noteworthy that, as L. Ertlingcr, "Exemplum Doloris. Reflections on the Laocoon G roup: in: M. Meiss (ed.), De

Fig. 8 Baccio B.mdinelli, Hercules and Cams. Florence, Piazza Signoria

Irving Lavin

Following its discovery many artists made copies of the sculpture, one of whom, Baccio Bandinclli, had the temerity to claim that he would surpass the original. His full-size copy in the Uffizi, which dates from 1520-2 5, does surpass the original in the sense that it consists of only three pieces (fig. 7). Bandinelli seems to have been the first to make the Laocoon the focal point of a medi­tation on what might be called the exemplarity of ancient art, initiating a tradition that would culminate in Lessing's famous essay. I believe, in fact, that Band­inelli's attempt to vie with the sculpture had a profound effect on Michelangelo, perhaps inspiring him later to undertake the Florentine Pieta but certainly motivating one of his most famous pronouncements on the pre­cisely the subject of the exemplarity of antiquity. In a thinly veiled reference to Bandinelli's boast, Vasari reports the anecdote as follows: "A friend asked him what he thought of one who had copied some of the most celebrated antique marble figures, boasting he had imitated them, and had far surpassed the ancients. He replied, 'One who follows others never surpasses them, and a man who cannot do good original work is unable to use that of others to advantage'.'"~ ~

The discovery of the Laocoon also raised the chal- i'

lenge of creating original multifigured standing groups ex uno lapide. This ambition must have conditioned the project initiated in 1508 by the Republican governor of

Artibtis Opmcula XL. Essays in Ho11or of Erwin Pano/sky, New York r961, pp. r21 - 6, p. 126) points out, Counterreforma­tion writers later in the century recommended the Laocoon as a model for portraying the Passion of Christ and suffering saints and martyrs: "Ma da le statue chiaro argomento cavar potiamo da la perizia degli antichi pittori e sculcori, il che ciascuno di voi puo aver veduto in Roma in molte statue e sepcialmente nel Loacoonte di Belvedere, il quale par che con suoi figliuoli dimostri, cosl annodato dai serpenti, l'an­gustia, ii dolore et il tormento che sentiva in quell'arto. Certo sarebbe cosa nova c bella veder un Cristo in croce per le piaghe per i spuci, per i scherni e per ii sangue trasformaco ... "G. A. Giglio, Due dialoghi, Camerino 1564, in: P. Baroc­chi (ed.), Trattati d'arte def Cinq11ecento. Era manierismo econ­troriforma, 3 vols., Bari 1960- 2, II, p. 42; "Sane vero quando in veterum gentilium statuis acerbitas ilia doloris exprimi potuit, quemadmodum in Vaticano Laocoonte cernitur, tan­tum non expirante, ac prae dolore se filiosque scrpentibus vinctos dirissime torqucnte, quis neget id effici posse in eo [Cristo), in quem omnium dolorurn ac diritatum genera omnia irruperunt ?" A. Possevino, Tractatio de poesi et pictura ethnica, humana et fabulosa collata cum vera, honesta et sacra, Lyons t5 95, cited :1fter Barocchi, op. cit., vol. Il, p. 5 87.

1• G. Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects,

ed. W. Gaunt, 4 vols., London and New York 1963, IV, p. 176: "Domandato da uno amico suo quel che gli paresse d'uno che aveva contrafatto di manno figure antiche delle piu celebrate, vantandosi lo immitatore che di gran lungo aveva superato gli antichi, rispose: 'Chi va dietro a altri, mai non Ii passa innanzi; e chi non sa far bene da sc, non puo servirsi bene delle cose d'altri'." Barocchi (see note II), pp. u7 f.

Fig.

Flo col to 1

ble col :me a t t

alu enc ant Mi• It n for me eve po~

deli SlOJ

mo mce cob

,f e .s ., 1f n r

,f e

d 0

g

a rl

n e d e 1,

e

I-~

1e ,f

•n 1g tr IC

c IC ,_ :o le .o c­'f­

lo ni ,_ JS

:0

ra ra

"· ts, v, SC

IU "a Ii

·si (.

Ex Uno lapide: The Renaissance Sculptor's Tour de forct 199

,,,,.

r- ;&~f;\ :~;. -::'\- -~~.

c' ~~ iv-, ,, ~ .(

:r-.fo-'\~ ... ~.,;.' \ ' ~~i

~

~~· ' ~ ,o;\. ~

/ ') "7

L~· ! ~ ~ ...... ...... "'

,'\~ ~ '· j--, .

.J .. . -

Fig. 9 Michcla11gelo, skttches for Hercules and A11rae11.s group, detail. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum

Florence, Piero Soderini, for Michelangelo to carve a colossal figure of Hercules as a counterpart and pendant to the David, for which Soderini had also been responsi­ble. Together the statues would provide Florence with colossal signs, insegna is che word Vasari uses, of ics ancient heroes, biblical and pagan.'' The project had a tumultuous history until 15 34 when, under the very altered political circumsmnces of Medici rule in Flor­ence, Baccio Bandinelli finally installed his Hercules and Cacus group, with which he sought to "outdo" Michelangelo's David (fig. 8). (ln fact Bandinelli found it necessary co add pieces at a shoulder and leg of Cacus, for which he was roundly criticized by Vasari''). Band­inelli's group is not only a risposta to the David, how­ever; its rigid poses and strictly planar composition seem positively archaic and contrast markedly, and surely deliberately, with Michelangelo's ideas for the commis­sion, which are known from various drawings and models (figs. 9, 10).'' With the sinuous morion and incercwining actions of the figures Michelangelo created coherent - one is tempted to say, intimate - groups that

revolutionized che treaunent of sculptural narr.irive. This approach co human relationships and sculptural form was inherem in Michelangelo's an from the beginning -witness the early relief of the B:mle of the Centaurs; but here in a monumental freestanding rwo-figured group it seems clear that Michelangelo had in mind another clas­sical sculptural topos which, as far as I know, has been completely overlooked by modern critics; I refer to the fonnula for groups of interwoven figures, the symp!e­gma, or interlace, the term used on more than one occa­sion by Pliny presumably to describe sculptures depict­ing couples in erocic embrace, but which mighc also apply to struggling figures like the famous pair of Hel­lenistic wrestlers discovered later in the sixteenth cen­tury (figs. n, u). 18 It is important to note chat in each case Pliny qualifies the noun symplegma with the adjec­tive nobile, a point that has been dismissed as s<·nseless by modem editors but which I think must have seemed very significant indeed for Renaissance readers

' 1 "In questo manno Michclagnolo Buonarroti a"ev;i fono pen­sicro di f.tr un gigantc in persona d' Ercole che ucidc:sse ucco, per mcncrlo in Piazza a C:ll\IO l'uno c l'ahro, e Davine ed Ercole, inscgna dcl palaz:zo.• VASARJ-Mll..ANESJ, VI, p. 148. Vasari uses the same word in describing Michelangelo's colossal ligu re of David as the protector or die city: "laondc Michel:1gnolo, fatto un modello di cera, linse in quello, per la insegna del Pala7.2o, un Davit giovane con un;i frombola in mano, accio chc, sl come cgli avcva difeso ii suo popolo e govematolo con giunil.ia. cosi chi govcmava quella cit:U dovcsse animosamen1c difendcrla c giustamcmc govemarla. • Barocchi (see note u), I, pp. 19-23.

'' "Ncl gigantc in piazza, come si vcde, rimcsse a Cacco ed appico due pczzi, cioe una spalla ed una gamba; ed in molti alcri suoi lavori fece ii mcdesimo, tenendo corali modi, i qunli sogliono grandementc dannarc gli scuhori. • VASA11.1 -Mu.A­

NES1, VI, P· '7S · •1 Tolnay (sec note 4), ill, pp. 98-1 03, pp. 183-7. •• "Praxirelis filius Cephisodorus ct :mis heres fuit. cuius lauda­

rum est Pergami symplegma nobile digitis corpori verius quam marmori inpressis." - "Kephisodotos, the son of Prax· itcles, was also the heir 10 his genius. Greatly admired is his celebrated group at Pergamon of figures interlaced, in which the fingers scc:m co press on flesh raiher than on marble.· Pliny XX.XVI, 24; •tdcm Polydes et Dionysius Timarchidi.s fili lovem qui est in proxima aede fecerunt, Pana ct Olym­pum luctantes eodem loco Heliodorus, quod est alterum in cerris symplegma no bile ... " - "The same Polykles nnd Dionysios, the sons of Timarchicles, made the Zeus in the adjoining temple, where are also the Pan and Olympos incc:r­laccd by Hcliodoros, second in renown among such groups in all che world.• Pliny XX:XVI, 3S; j£X·8LARf. 1')7], pp. 194 ff., pp. 2o6 ff. The passage about Cephisiodotus was cited in relation to the impressed fingers of Bernini's Pluto and Proserpine by R. Preimesbergcr, "Zu 13erninis Borghese· Skulpturcn", in: H. Beck and S. Schulze (eds.). A11tike11rezep­tio11 im Hochbarock, Berlin 1989, p. 12 1. On the symplegm:a sec M. Bieber, The SrulptHre of t),e Hellmut1c Age, New York t!}61, p. 147. The wrestlers had an important reception in the r57o's through the work of Pirro Ligorio, for which see D. Coffin, "Pirro Ligorio and Decoracions of the L:1ce Six­teenth Century nt Ferrara," ArtB111leti11, 37 (1955), pp. 177f.

2.00 Jrving Lavin

Fig. ro Michel.angelo, clay model for the Hercules and Cacus group.

Fig. 11 Satyr aJ/f/ Nymph. Ro~, J.1useo NUOf1o Capitolino Fig. 1.z 7he u:i-estkrs. Florence, Galleria degli Ulfizi

Fig. 1.

of the nobiL Mich mom con cc arour overc

Ex Uno Lapide: The Renaissance Sculptor's Tour de Force 201

Fig. 1 J Copy after Michelangelo, Samson and two Philistines, bronze. Flore11ce, M11seo Nazionale def Bargello

of the text. I suspect that the concept of the symplegma nobile played a critical role in the development of Michelangelo's early, two-figured projects for the monument, and that he subsequently combined this concept with the challenge of the Laocoon to produce, around 15 30, his final solution representing Samson overcoming two Philistines (fig. I 3). Here the complex

of three interlocking, struggling bodies alludes specifi­cally to the very feature of the Laocoon that had earlier seemed, even to Michelangelo himself, impossible to achieve without artificial devices. Although cl1e symple­gma groups are not directly connected in Pliny's rcxr, the reference to one of them occurs within a few sen­tences of the references to groups carved ex uno lapide, including the Laocoon. Michelangelo was never able to complete the work for the Piazza Signoria, but the prob­lems he set for himself in ilie project became a very per­sonal challenge for him - a challenge mat he finally met in the rlorcmine Pieta, which is indeed the first monu­mental, monolithic multifigured group si~ce anciquity.•9

Michelangelo's studies for the Piazza Signoria com­mission might be described as poised between the horns of the sculptor's dilemma. The early idea for a Hercuies and Antaeus suggested a double symplegma supported by one figure, while the Samson with two Philistines offered a modern solution to the challenge of a mono­lithic three-figured group represented by the Laocoon. In his entry into the great ex uno lapide competition Gio­vanni Bologna set himself the task of combining both these approaches. Giambologna's Rape of the Sabine, in many respects the culminating work in the Renaissance tradition of monumental monolithic tour de force sculp­ture, went through essentially the same cvolucion from a two-figure to a three-figure composition as bad Michelangelo's (figs. I 4, r5 ). The great difference is that Giambologna replaced Michelangelo's essentially closed and earthbound knots by venjcally oriented, gravity­defying and open-ended flames - no doubt an extrapola­tion from ilie flame-like composition that Michelangelo himself was reported to have rccommended.>0 The sources repeatedly emphasize that Giambologna's main ambition in life was to emulate and surpass the record of

'' It is interesting, and probably not coincidental, that rhc St. Peter's Pied was also appreciated as a monolith at the time Michalengelo took up the Florentine, in the inscription on the engraving of the work by Beatrizet, which bears rhe date 1547: MICHELANGELVS BONAROTVS FLO­RENT. DTVI PETRJ TN VATICANO EX VNO LAPIOE MATRE/ AC FILTVM DJVINE FECIT/ ANTONTVS SALAMANCA QYOD POTVIT IMITATVS EXCVLPSIT 1547/ NB (ll primato def disegno, Milan-Florence 1980, p. 236). This point was noted by W. Wallace, "Michelange­lo's Rome Pict~: Altarpiece or Grave Memorial," in: S. Buie, A. P. Darr, F. Superbi Gioffredi (eds.}, Verrocchio and late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, Florence 1991, pp. 14 3 - s S, P· 1s4, n. 41.

'0 As noted in this connection by C. Avery, Giambologna. The

Complete Sculpture, Oxford 1987, p. 109. The reference is to a passage in Lomazzo's treatise on painting, r5 84, concerning which sec D. Summers, "Maniera and Movement: The Fig­ura Serpentinata,n Art Quarterly, 3S (1972), pp. 269- 301; 0. Summers, Michelangelo and the umguage of Arr, Princeton 1981, pp. 81-83.

lOi Lrving Lavin

fig. 14 Giambo1Dg11a, Rapt> of a Sabmt>, brorru. V'umn,1, IVmsthisUJrisches Museum

Michelangelo, and the Rape of the Sabine, unlike the Laocoon, was indeed carved from a single block, with­out precedent; ir seemed to one observer, who echoed Michelangelo's descripLion of the Laocoon, "miracu­lous. "11 Contemporaries particularly admired the figures' "beautiful imcrbce" (belJissimo intrecciamento), which might welJ serve as a translation of symplegma

Fig. 1 J Gi.ambologna, Rapt of a Sabint. Flomia, U,ggUi tki Lanzi

nobile, and recalls the mirabiles nexus as well as the tanti e tanto mirabili gruppi of serpents admired in the Laocoon

" •Fu posto nel luogo <lov' era la Giuditta [of Donatello J in Piazza ii miracoloso gruppo di tre statue di marmo fatto ... <la Gio Bologna." Diary entry of F. Settimani, August 18, 15 82; E. Dhanens, Jean Boulogn.e, Giovanni Bologna fi1m1mingo, Brussels 1956, p. i35, n. 1.

by rwo ma! gro1

'i e on

in da ~2;

go,

f.x Uno Lapide: The Renaissance Sculptor's Tour de Force 1 03

Fig. 16 Derail of Fig1tre IJ

by Pliny, Michelangelo and Cristofano Romano.u On two specific poinrs, however, Giambologna's work makes explicit reference to one of the other classical groups to which Pliny gives special praise. This was the

Fig. 17 Giambologna, Rape of che Sabines. Florence, Loggia dei Lanzi

"noble symplegma" carved by Cephisodotus, che son and artistic heir of Praxiteles, in which "the fingers seemed to press on the flesh rather than on marble .. (fig. 16). If Michelangelo was a modem Praxiteles then Giambologna was his Cephisodorus. The second point of interest in Pliny's text is that it emphasizes the ;ircistic virrues of Cephisodotus' masterpiece but does not men­tion the subject . This point, too, seems to find an echo in the fact that, as Giambologna himself reported, be did not initially give a specific name to his sculprure, buc chose it "to give scope to the knowledge and Study of an."•} Particlarly admired was the "beautiful interlace" of the figures, as if in reference to the Laocoon's "wondrous coils of snakes" admired by Pliny and Michelangelo himseJf.1 4 A noteworthy testimony to Giambologna's ambition and subtlety of thought is pro­vided by the relief representing the Rape of the Sabines which he affixed to the pedestal when the name for lhc work was finally established (fig. 17). Taken together with the marble sculprure itSelf, it seems co illustrate m artistic progression embracing che original two-figu red group at the left, the three-figured marble sculpture at the center, and ac the right a mulcifigured, pyramidal group that clearly alludes to the Farnese Bull, the second great masterpiece of ancient sculprure to be rediscovered and intimately associated with Michelangelo!'

This famous work. mentioned by Pliny, representing the Fable of Dirce, was found in early January 1546, in excavations in the Baths of Caracalla in Rome sponsored by Pope Paul ID Farnese (figs. 18, 19).16 First identified as depicting a Labor of Hercules, the heroic ancestor of the Farnese family, the significance of the sculpture was panly a matter of scale and technique - a huge "moun­tain of marble", as it was called, with multiple figures carved, as Pliny again reported, again falsely, fro m a sin-

" "Le quali [Giambologna's figu res called the Sabincsl forono vcdute con molto piaccrc c meraviglia di ciascuno pel bellis­simo intrccc:i:uncnto loro.• ~ccimani diary, January 14, 1s82, cited by Dhanens, foe. cit.

'l "Le due predettc Figure che possooo inferire il r:i,pto d'Elcna cc forse Proserpine o, d'una dellc Sabine: cleno per dar campo alla 53gezza ct studio dell'arcc ... ft; letter to O m1vio Pamesc, June 1 3, 15 79, cited after J. Pope-Hennessy, /1alia11 High Renausanre and Baroque Smlpr11re, London-New York 1970, p. 383. According to Borghini (15 84), Giaml>ologna undertook the work "solo per moscmr l'cccellenza dt:ll':trtc, c senza proporsi alcun' iStori::i" (solely ro prove his excellence in his an, and without selecting any subjecr) : Ibid., 384.

" See notes r o and t 1 above. ' 1 Avery (sec nore 10), pp. Hf., also notes the reference to the

Farnese Bull in this relief. '' For the faces presented here see 1-lASKEt.1. I PENNY 1981, pp.

165-67, with references, and the important results of the recent restoration of the group in : II Toro Farnese. La "mon­tag11a di manno • tra Roma c Napoli, Naples 1991. The far­ncsc Bull measures cm 37oh x 19s 1 x 293w "' 31.98ml.

Irving Lavin

Fig. 18 Fanwse 811ll. Nt1ples, M1tSeo Nazionale Archcologico

gle block (ex eodem Ltpid.e).1 7 In this case we have no direct evidence that Michelangelo himself realiz.cd it was pieced wgcther, but we do know chat the overseer of papal fon.ifications, whom Michelangelo knew well, was perfectly aware of itS true narure.•• Thus, the heroic claim of antiquity to have created freescanding, mulci­figured monolithic sculpture, received another serious blow. Michelangelo mUSt also have noticed thac the sculpture served in antiquity as a fountain, a facr chat has been confirmed in cl1c recent rcstorauon when Lhe inte­rior hole for the water was fow1d. This realization may

•1 wzetbus et A.mphion ac Dircc et taurus vinculumquc ex cod cm bpide, a Rhodo ad\•ccu opera Apolloni ct Taurisci. • -wzc1hos and Amphion, with Oirkc, the bull and the cord, all carved out of one block," JEX-BU.KE 1977, pp. 204-6. "Quel marauiglioso monte di marmo," Federico Zuccaro 1584, cited after 0. Hcikamp (ed.), Soitti d'11rte di Federico Zucruro, Florence 1961, p. 259.

' 1 •circa ii Toro Farnese ... diro una cosa, cbc sicuramentc le ricsciri nuova, e mol10 nr.uu, ed c chc dctto gruppo non c altrimenti d'un pez:zo solo, come si credc, ma di piu peui, in alcuni luoghi commessi a perfaione, ctlc che difficilissima­mentc si pul> riconosccrc. Cil> io ho sicuramente leuo, non sono due anni, in una lcttera stampata di scriltorc del secolo XVI, ii quale avvisava come nuova tale scopcrta da cccellenti

have in< ture to 1

unfi.nisb with the that rim in each holding ing him and vari figures pieces. Michela second gave ge1 it careli direccec another the pru straight bridge: door in the Poi Michel~

scull se nc cui e simo mess cio , vent 10G 1.1), of Pi uonc I, Pl

., v~ quel per Ercc un'a ure • nara: scnz Mid con tare oggi ulc quel Tcv• un 1

pon occl dell ' diT giuc I, p. bilit Eco1

all uel ted rro,

! le n ~ , in na-1on olo :nti

£x Uno Lapide: The Rennissance Sculptor's Tour de Force

have induced Michelangelo to resmre the ancient sculp­rure to its ancient use, as the focal point of another great unfinished project which Vasari describes in connection with the artist's work on the Farnese palace (fig. 20): "At chat rime an ancient Hercules, of marble, seven braccia in each direction, was found in the Antonine baths, holding the bull by the horns, with another figure help­ing him, surrounded by numerous shepherds, nymphs and various animals, a work of extraordinary beauty, the figures being perfect, made from one block without pieces. le was thought it would do for a fountain, and Michelagnolo advised that it should be taken into the second court and restored for chat purpose. This advice gave general satisfaction, and the Farnese have lately had it carefully restored with this idea. Michclagnolo then directed the construction of a bridge over the Tiber co another palace and garden of the Farnese, so that from the principal door of the Campo di Fiore one looked Straight through the court, fountain, Smida Julia, the bridge and the other beautiful garden, right to the other door into the Strada di Trastevere, a rare thing worthy of the Pope, and of the genius, judgment and design of Michelagnolo. '"t

sculrori di quei tempi funa ~d un suo corrispondenre, ii quale, se non erro, si era sig. Gabrio Sorbellone; pur della persona, cui era cliretta quella leuen, non m'acccno: bensi sono certis­simo dell'assenione che deno gruppo dcl Toro fosse com­messo: onde falsa viene ad essere la commune credenza. Di cio con diligente csamc di uomo peri10 si pub scoprire la verid, sempre che si voglia. • Lener from Giacomo Carrara to Giovanni Bonari, June 19, 1768, Bom.rifficozzi (see note 11 ), VI, pp. i 3 8 f.; Ga brio Serbclloni ( 1f08-80) was a cousin of Pius JV and ovmeer of the Papal fortifications; he is men­tioned in Vasari' s life of Michelangelo, Barocchi (see note u ), I, PP· tr4 f.

'' Vasari (see note 14), N, p. 148. "E perchE s'era trovato in quell'anno alle Tcrme Antoninianc un marmo di braccia sette per ogni verso, ncl quale era stato dagli ancicbi intaglinto Ercole che sopra un monte teneva ii mro per le corna con un'altra figura in :tiuco suo, et intorno a quel mome varie fig­ure di pastori, ninfe et altri animali - opera certo di suaordi­naria bellezza per vedere si perfecte figure in un sasso sodo e scnza pez:zi, che fu giudicato servire per una fontana -, Michelaiigelo consiglio che si dovessi condurre nel secondo cortile e quivi reStaurarlo per f.ugli nel medesimo modo get­tare acque; che tuuo piacque. La quale opera ~ suro fino a oggi da que' signori Famesi fu.na restaurare con diligenza per ttle elfeuo. El allora Michelagnolo ordino che si dovessi a quella dirinura fare un ponte che attraversassi ii fiume del Tevere, accio si potessi andare da quel palazzo in Trastevere a un aluo lor giardino e palazzo, perche, per la dirittura della porta principale chc volta in Campo di Fiore, si vedessi a una occhiara il cortile, la fonte, strada Iulia ct ii ponce e la bellezza dell'altro giardino, fino all'altra porta che riusciva nella strada di Trastevere: cosn rnra e degna di quel pontefice e della virti:1, giudizio e disegno di Michelagnolo" (Barocchi [see note n] , [, p. 87). For a discussion of the project (doubcs as 10 its feasi­biliry do not affect the argument here) see Lt Palais Ftzmht. £m/e franraut dt Rome, Rome 1981 1 vol. I, pp. 119-21.

Fig. 19 Cross semon of the Fan~ Bull (after U Toro 1991)

Fig. 20 P/1111 of Michtla11gelo 's project for tht garden nde of Palazzo Famtst, Rome (aftn Le Palais Farnese 1981)

2o6 Irving Lavin

Fig. ll Giambologna, Hercul~ overcoming a Ontaur. F'Umnct, U>ggw Jti Lanzi

The significance of Michelangelo's project as a revolu­tionary exercise in axial planning and the spatial exten­sion of a building from its innermost fabric fa r out into the urban environment, has often been noted. T his is the second, spatial or contextual strain of development I defined at rhc outset. The nature of the project's influ­ence has not been fully appreciated, however, and in order Lo do so, we muse return to the theme of monu­mental, monolithic cwo-figured sculpture and pursue it into a domain with which it is not generally associated, namely the equestrian monument.J0 The equestian monument was, to be sure, a major theme of monumen­tal sculpture in the Renaissance, but always in the form of bronze. That is, until the year r6oo when Giambo­logna completed his second great work for the Loggia dei Lanzi in Florence. His Hercules overcoming a Cen­taur (fig. 21) has a specific subject, indeed it had a specific ideological mission from the outset, intended to glorify Ferdinando I and the Medici dynasty of Tuscany, which set the direction for the European monarchic style that would follow. The relevance of the work lay partly in its form and material and partly in the way the Herculean theme was interpreted - not simply as a victory buc as a labor, an obstacle overcome on the road to glory. This

Fig. ii Commcnora.ti11e meditl of Gimnbologna 's Herr:Mles overcoming a Ct1llaur. Pans, BiblilJth~qHt Naaonalt

message was spelled out on a commemorative medal, inscribed Sic itur ad astra, "thus one reaches the stars" (fig. 22). W ith a little good will the sculpture might qual­ify as the firsl monumencal, monolithic, free-standing equestrian monumenc since antiquity, and the inscrip­tion oo the medal may be said to apply to the artist no less than co the patron. To be sure, it does require a cer­tain imagination to see the Hercules overcoming a Cen­taur as an equestrian group, but this is precisely what I believe Bernini perceived in l 665 as he passed through Florence on his way co design the Louvre for Louis XIV. While in Paris, he conceived the famous equestrian por­trait of the King, which was indeed, without qualifica­tion. the first monumental equestrian group carved from

i• For what follows concerning Ginmbologna's sculpture, Bernini's Constantine and equesrrian Louis XIV, and Lhe Fa.r­ncse Bull, see I. Lavin, Past-PresenL Essays 011 Historicism in Art from Do,uiU!llo to Picasso, Berkeley. etc. 1993, pp. 171-5. On Bernini's debt to Florentine sculpture of this period see Lavin (as in note 9), p. 102, and I. Lavin, •Fife Youthful Sculptures by Gian Lorenzo Bernini and a Revised Chro­nology of his Early Works·, Art 8Hlletm, so (1968), p. ~1,

n. 126.

a un "la Re I d COi

Gi aru gn: rat

w~

th< go• tin

at ng ex1 Sir pa: ins art tar

l,

g

)

I

1

.,

n

Ex Uno lapide: The Renaissance Sculptor's Tour tie force 207

a single block (fig. 23). Indeed, the block itself was unprecedented: Bernini's biographers describe it as "larger than the Constantine", "the largest ever seen m Rome", "the largesc ever struck by chisel". However, I doubt that Bernini would have achieved his triumph, conceptually or technically, without the suggestion of Giambologna's rocky base, which serves to suppon the animal's belly. What proves the relevance of Giambolo­gna's work for Bernini's is a medal issued to commemo­rate in Rome co celebrate che Louis XIV monuments, which bears an analogous inscription carrying essentially the same meaning, Hae iter ad superos, "this way to the gods" (fig.14). This was a preeminently Herculean sen­timent, associated especially with the theme of Hercules at the Crossroads; the hero chooses the difficult path of riglueousness over the easy road to pleasure, thereby expressing the supreme Stoic vinue, conquest of the self. Since Bernini's sculpture was specifically vaunred as sur­passing even his own equestrian Constantine, the inscription on the medal may again apply to his own anistic achievement no less than to the policical and mili­tary achievement of his hero.

Fig. l) Bmimi, equtsrrian portr.nl of Louis XN. Venailles

Fig. 14 CommemoratNe medal of Bm1ini's equestnan portr.iit of loHIS XIV. RAV

The conceptual circle I wish to draw comes to a close when one considers two other :ispccts of Berninj's project for an equestrian Louis XIV. One of these is the huge craggy peak on which he intended to place the group (fig. 2 5 ). The peak represented the Mountain of Virtue to whose summit only the most vinuous, follow­ing the arduous path chosen by Hercules, may accede. Complecely uopreccdemed as an equestrian monument, the basic concept, including che mammoch sc:iJe and monolithic ideal, clearly evokes che Farnese Bull, the mountain of marble, which had been installed in the Pal­azzo Farnese and also been thought to refer to Hercules. Berniru's reference to the Farnese Bull was surely delib­erate, and no doubt reflected Louis XlV's efforts on scv~ eral occasions in che months preceding Bernini's visit to Paris co acquire the sculpture for himself)' The second aspect of Bernini's project I think significant here con­cerns the location he imagined for his equestrian monu­ment, for I am convinced ic was based on Michelangelo's project for the Palazzo Farnese. Bernini intended to place his sculpture on the mam axis of the palace of the

1• As noted by HASKEu.IPENNY 1981, p. 165. In a discussion of important antiquities during Bernini's stay at the rrench court the Farnese Bull was said to be remarkable only for its size and the number of figures carved from a single block, P. Frcan de Chaotclou, }ounial du 1.1oyage di1 Co.1.1alii!r Benim t!7I France, ed. L. Lalanne, Paris 1885, p. 16; idem, Diary of the Ca1.1alit!TI! 8en11111's Visit to France, ed. A. Blunt, annomed by G. C. Bauer, transl. M. Corbet, Pnnceton, N. J .• 1985, p. 26.

Irving Lavin

Fig . .lJ Ben1i11i, drawing for equestrian portrait of Louis XIV. Basstmo, Museo Civico

Sun King in the area between the west, or rear facade, and the Palace of the Tuileries (fig. 26). There would thus have been created one continuous line of sight, fol­lowing the path of the sun, from Place Saint-Germain before the main, east facade of the Louvre, through the entire building with its two courts, one closed the other open, anJ culminating with the vision of the mountain­ous sculpture at the west end of the axis. Michelangelo's plan to integrate the greatest sculpture from antiquity into the fabric of modern Rome on the banks of the Tiber had its most majestic and influential, but equally frustrated sequel in Paris, on the bank of the Seine.

The force of these traditions was such that the Laocoon came to be the very embodiment of classical art. In the matter of expression the development culminated in Lessing' s essay of 1766, called Laocoon, the theme of which was a comparative analysis of the nature of the arts, visual and literary, in the tradition of the Renais-

sance paragone. But the status of the work as a sculpture was perhaps best illustrated by Hubert Robert. In 1773 during his stay in Rome at the French Academy Robert painted one of his most grandiose and evocative pic­tures, depicting the discovery of the Laocoon, when the work which Pliny described as "superior to all the pic­tures and bronzes in the world" was brought forth in all its glory (fig. 17).31 Robert shows thjs momentous event in the history of European cul.cure taking place in a col­onnaded gallery, the palace of Titus, which evokes the sacral and aulic character of such monuments of Roman ceremonial architecture as Raphael's Disputa, and Bernini's Scala Regia)l The vast structure suggests not only the physical grandeur but also the great distance of time past from which the ancient masterpiece is trans­ported into the present. The brilliant light at the end of the tunnel seems to portend the birth of a new age in which the three arts defined in the Renaissance as the arts of design and in the eighteenth century as the Fine Arts - sculpture epit0mizcd by the Laocoon, architec­ture epitomized by the great gallery, and painting epito­mized by Robert's visionary incorporation of all three -would reign supreme.H The discovery of the Laocoon is a metaphor for Robert's own inventive meditation on art. Fate had it that Robert was given the opportunity to realize his vision: under the Revolution, be was in charge of trasforming the Grande Galerie of the Louvre into a museum, his depictions of which strongly recall the Discovery of the Laocoon; under Napoleon, he installed the expropriated statue itself nearby in the Salle du Laocoon.H

Not the least remarkable feature of the Discovery is the fact that the Laocoon is shown fully intact, although

'' See]. H. Fragonard e H. Robert a Roma, exhib. cat., Rome 1990, pp. 209 f., no. 146.

ll The architecture is discussed, in a differenc sense, by A. Cor­boz, Peinture militante et architecture militaire. A propos dr, theme du tunnel chez Hubert Robert, Basel anti Stuttgart 1978, p. 8.

H On the Renaissance paragone and the arti del disegno see I. Lavin, Bemi11i and the Unity of the Visual Arts, New York and London i980, pp. 6-13; on the development of a com­prehensive notion of the Fine Arts at this period in Prance, P. 0. Kristeller, "The Modern System of the Arts," in his Renaissance Thought 11. Papers on Humanism and the Arts, New York 1965, pp. 163-227. Robert' s engagement with this theme is articulated expressis verbis in his famous view of the Grnnde Galeric as a museum displaying paintings and sculp­tures, with the vault opened through a series of light wells. The faces of the wells are decorated with pairs of winged vic­tories carrying three wreaths and the inscription glorifying the three arts, Trium par artium honos. The pendant painting shows the Grande Galerie in ruins and despoiled of paintings. Sec M.·C. Sahut, Le Louvre d'H11bc'Tt Robert:, Paris 1979, pp. 28ff., no. 58, pp. 31 ff., no. 8i.

;i Sahut, op. cit.

Ex Uno lapide: The Renaissance Sculptor's 7imr de Force

Fig. l6 PLm of Bmiini's proj«t for the Lo111m (kft) with Pal.a is d~ 7i11/m~ (right), mgmving by )ea11 Maren.. Paris, Bibliothtque Nationak

Fig. ll Hubm Robm, Finding of the Laocoon. Richmond, Virginia Mu1eum of Fine Arts

Robert must have known that ic was made of several pieces and that the raised arms of Laocoon and his older son were restorations. I suspect that the iotegriry of the work served to suggest not only its formal perfection but also the technical virruosiry it incorporated by vinue of being carved tx 1mo '4pUJe.

ADDENDUM

Tommaso delb Pona•s Deposition from the Cross

1 want to call attention in this context to an important but lmle-known work that I had overlooked in my

210 lrving Lavin

Fig. ~8 Tommaso deUa PCTrta, Dq>osilion from thr Cross. Romr, S. A.mbrogw al Cono

surveys of Renaissance sculptors' tomb monuments and repercussions of the ex uno lapide topos. This is the extraordinary Deposition from the Cross by Tommaso deUa Porta that serves as the altarpiece of the chapel of S. Ambrogio adjoining S. Carlo al Corso in Rome (fig. 28).l6 Having begun the project somecime between 1586 and 1596, at bis death in 1606 Tommaso bequeathed the Deposicion, along with two accompany­ing figures representing the Old Law and the New, to S. Arnbrogio. The sculptures were to be used to deco­rate the high altar of the church, where he was co be buried. (fhe present structure, where the work was insta.Ucd only after r923, is n late sevenreenth-ccnrury replacement for the original building.) In his biography of Tommaso, Baglione notes that the work consists in "diverse figure rutte in un groppo di marmo, e sono di un pezzo." ln fact, the carving is an astonishing technical and expressive iour de force: with its five, life-size figu res forming a group it surpasses Michelangelo's feat in the Florentine Pieta ;H the daring display of perforated, interlocking fom1s and delicate limbs and draperies sus­pended "in aria" rivals the Laocoon; the cross with the

figure suspended from it ioevir.ably recalls Cellini's "Bd Cristo"; and the multi-figured, pyramidal composition emulates the Farnese Bull (f ommaso was a professional dealer in antiquities, and his namesake, Guglielmo dclla Pona, had participated in the restoration of the BullJ1).

To be sure, Tommaso originally undenook the project not for his own tomb chapel, bu t for a great pau·on. Moreover, Tommaso stipulated that the work was to be displayed in a flat niche, rather than free-standing. (The marble, which has been badly damaged and repaired at various places, is fully finished at the front; at the back the cross and mound arc flat and the figures are left rough.) But the sculptor's personal act of reverence and devotion was expressed by the inscription he prescribed bearing his name:" Ad honoree gloria di Nostro Signor Gies\i Christo Crocifisso Thomasina della Pona scultore in memoria de messer Thomaso suo zio e de messer Giovanni Battista suo fratello fece questa opera. "Jf And l have no doubt that this extravagantly idiosyncratic artist, whom Baglione, who knew him well, regarded as some­what pathetic, obtuse and unbalanced - "tennesi il mag­gior' huomo <lei mondo e cotnmincio (come si suol dire) a far caste Iii in aria"; "credo, che patisse di cervello"; "di poco cervelio"; "disgratiato" - sought deliberately to

combine and supersede in a single masterpiece the pro­fessional exploits of all fou r of ics great predecessors.

>' S. Pressouyre, Nicolas Cordit'r. Rrcherchtl SJtr la sculpum~ a Rome a11to11rch 1600, Rome 1984, p. zu, gives a fine apprec:i· ation of the work, wruch has also been the subject of an exemplary study by G. Panofsky, "Tommaso della Porta's 'Cnstlcs in tbe Air'," }\YICI, 56 (1993), pp. 119-67.

>1 As noted by Panofsky, op. cit., p. 139. >8 Jl Toro (see note z6), p. 48. >? An cxlraordinary iconographical feature of the composition

is the fifth figure, the angel lowering the body of Christ from the cross. J suspect that Tommaso sough1 to combine in this motif the traditional theme of the Angcl-Pietl, in which an angel supporu and displays the dead body of Christ, cl. Pan­ofsky (see note J6), p. 139, and that of Joseph of Arimethca, in whose tomb Christ was buried, or Nicodemus, reputedly the sculptor of the famous Volto Santo crucifu at Luca, who arc often shown in the role here performed by the angel. (fommaso's substitution of the third Mary for the male figure in Michelangelo's Piell would encourage this bivalent undemanding of the angel.) lf so, the figure might allude to the intennecl.iary role of the artist himself - a frequent aUusion io sculptors' tombs, cf. LAVIN 1977-78.

PhotoaTdits: Alinari t, 2, s-8, IZ, IJ, lj, 17, 18; Bibliothec:a Hm:ziana 10; DAl 11 ; Giraudon, 2 3; MAS 3; Pam, Bibi. Nat. 16: Soprintcndenu, Florence " ' 11: Soprintcodenz.a ai Monumcnci del Laz.io z8; Virginia Museum of Fine Aru 27.

Abkiirzungen und haufiger zitierte Literatur

AA AcKu.MAN 19s4

ALDROVANDI 1561

Al.AERTINI 1510

ANOREAll 1980

ANDRl'.AE 1991

J\Nl)~£AE 1994

AtmREAE /)UNG 1977

ASR ASTo

Archiiologischer Anzeiger James S. Ackerman, The Cortile tlel Belvedere, Citt~ Jel Vaticano 1954 Delle StatJ1e an.tiche, che per tutta Roma, in ditJem luoghi, e case si veggono, di /tfoser Ulisse Aldroa11di, in: Lucio Mauro, Le antichitii delia cittil di Roma, Venedig 1s61, 11s-31s (Repr. HjJdes­heim 1975} Francesco Albcnini, Opuscuban de mirabilibus nOfJae & veteri.s urbis Romae, Roma 1po (RiSQmpa a cura di Peter Murny, Wesnnead, Farnbo­rough 1971) Wa.lther Amelung, Die Sculpt1mm des vaticanischen Museums, Band i, Berlin 1903; Band 1, Berlin 1908 Bernard AndrC!le, Die riimischen Jagd­sarkophage, Berlin 1980 (ASR, Bd. 1, 2) B. Andreae, Odysseus, Frank.fun 1981 B. Andreae, Laokoon mid die Gr'UTJ­dung Roms, M:ainz 1988 B. Andreae, Laakoo11 und JU Kim.st von PergamoTJ, Frankfurr 1991 B. Andrcae, Pmetorium Speluncae. T~ u11d Ovid in SpeTkmga, Stun­gan 1994 B. Andreae, Praetoriltm Spebmcae. L 'antTO di Tiberio a SperlOTJga ed Ovi­dio, Cosenza 199s B. Andreae u. H . Jung, • Vorlaufige tabellarische Obersicht i.iber die Zcit­scellung und Werkscanzugehorigkeit von 250 romischen Prunksarkoplugen des 3. j ahrhundcrcs n. C hr. •, AA (1977). 432-.u6 Die amileen Sarkophagreliefs Archivio di Stato di Torino

BAV Bihliotcca ApoStolica Varicana BUNXENBERG 1917 C. Blinkenberg, •Zar Ltokoon­

gruppec, R.M, 42 {1927), 177-192 BLUM 1914 Gustave Blum, •Numismacique d' An­

tinoosc, ]01mial intern4/iorud d'archio­logie numismatique, 16 (1914), 33-70

BoeeRIRuBINSTEJN 1986 Phyllis Pray Bober u. Ruth Rubinstein, RenaissaTJce Artists and Antique Sculp-111re. A Handbook of Sources, London 1986

Msc1iENSTEIN i986 Bernhard Boschenstein, "Apoll und seine Schacten. Winckelmann in der Oichtung der beidcn Jahrhunderrwcn­den «, in : Johann Joachim Winckelmann 1717-1768, hg. v. Thomas W. Gaeht­gens, H amburg 1986, p7-341

BUODENSIEG 1si69

CANOVA 1959

CENSUS

DALTRor 197s/76

DALTROP 1982

Antonio Bosio, Roma sotteranea, Roma 1632 Deborah Drown, •The Apollo Belve­dere and che Garden of Giuliano de.Ila Rovere :at SS. Aposcoli•, j\VCI, 49 {1986), 23s-138 Hans Henrik Brum.mer, The Stallle Com m the VatU:an Belvf't!ne, Stock­holm 1970 Arnaldo Bruscru, Bramante arrhitetto, Bari 1969 Tilman Buddensicg, •Zam St:1ruen­programm im Kapitolsplan P:iuls fn .•, Zeitscbrift fUr K11nsrgeschichce, 31 (1969), 177-2.28

Antonio Canova, I Q1.eademi di Viaggio (1779-1780), n Cura di Elena Bassi, Venezia c Roma 1959 Census of A111iqlte Works of Art and Architecttm: Known in the RC11J1issa11ce. Elektronischc Oarenbank, konsultier­bar z.ZL im Warburg Institute, Lon­don, in der Bibliotheca Hcruiana, Rom, am Getty lnformarion lnsmute und am KunSt.geschichtlichen lnStitut der Humboldt-Universitiit zu Berlin Giovanni Pietro Chattard, Nuov" dc­scrizwne de/ \"1ricano o sia def palauo apostolico di San Pierro, Roma t76l-67 Corpus /11scriptio1111m Lati11an1m Marco Coll:ireta, • Mjchelangelo e le statue amichc: un probabile intcrvento di restauro«, Prospettiva, 43 (198 5), sr-ss David R. Coffin, •The 'Lex Horcorum' and Access to Gardens of L:arium During the Ren:iissance•, Jo11mal of Garden HiJtory, 2 (1982}, 20 1-232 D. R . Coffin, Gardens and Gardening in Papal Rome, Princeton t991

Georg Dahrop, •Zur Oberliderung uod ReStaurierung des Apoll vom Bel­vedere•, Ani de/la Pomificia Aectdemia Romana di l\rcheologia. Remliconti, 48 (1975/76), 117-140 G. Dah.rop, Die Laokno11grnpp1! im Vatikan. £in Kapitel aus der riimischen Muse11msgeschichte "nd der A ritiken­ErkJmd1mg, Konstanz 1982 G. Oalrrop, •Zur Aufscellung nntiker Statuen in der Villena di Belvedere des Vacikansc, Bo"as, Miinsrersche Beimige zur Archiiologie, 6 (1983), 217 - 231

472

DBI DE FRANCESCHINI 1990

DENKER NESSliLRATH r990

DmrnNP.R 1979

FARINGTON 1979

FERNOIX' 1806

!'ROMMEL 1976

VROMMEL 1984

FROMMEL 1994

PROMMliu'ltAY(f AFIJRI

1984

GDSU

GESCHE 1971

Abkiirzungen und haufiger zitierte Literarur

G. Daltrop, Antike Gotterstatuen im Vatikan. Die vatikanisch-romische Tra­dition der klassischen Archiiologie, Basel 1987 G. Daltrop, •Nascita e significato della raccolta delle statue antiche in Vati­cano•, in : Roma centro ideale de/la cul­tura dell'antico nei secoli XV e XVI, Milano 1989, in-129 Dizionario Biografico degli ltaliani Marina De Franceschini, Villa Adriana. Mosaici, pavimenti, eciific~ Roma x990 Repertorit1m der christlichen-antiken Sarkophage, hg. v. F. W. Deichmann, Ild. l, Rom und Ostia, Wiesbaden 1967 Christiane Denker N esselrath, Die Saztlenordnungen bei Bramante, Wonns 1990 0. R. Deubner, ,.Der Gott mit dem Bogen. Das Problem des Apollo im Belvedere•, ]di, 94 (1979), 223-244

Aquilcs Esta~o [Achilles Statius], Tnlustril1m virorum ut exstant in urbe expressi vultus, Roma 1569

The Diary of Joseph Farington, edited by K. Garlick and A. Macintyre, Vol. 5, August 1801 - March 1803, New Haven and London 1979 Carl L. Fernow, Ober den Bildhauer Canova und dessen Werke, Zlirich 1806 Claudio Franzoni, ,. 'Rimembranze cl' infinite cose'. Le collezioni rinasci­mentali di antichita«, in: Memoria del­l'am:ico nell'arte italiana, hg. v. S. Set­tis, Bd. 1 , l 'uso dei classic~ Torino 1982, 299-360 ' Christoph Luicpold Fromme!, ~ Die

Peterskirche unter Papst Julius II. im Licht neuer Dokumente•, Romisches j"hrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte, r6 (1976), 57-136 C. L. Fromme!, ,,IJ Palazzo Vaticano Sotto G iulio II e Leone X. Strutture e funzioni«, in: Raffaello in Vaticano, catalogo della mostra Citt3. de! Vati­cano, Milano 1984, 118-135 C. L. Fromme!, »San Pietro«, in: Rinascimento 1994, 399- 423 C. L. Fromme!, Stefano Ray, Man­Credo Tafuri, Raffaello architetto, Milano i984

Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi Uwe Geese, »Antike als Programm -Der Stacuenhof des Belvedere im Vatikan«, in: Natitr und Antike in der Renaissance, Ausstel!ungskatalog Frankfurt r985, 24-50 Peter Gerlach, • Ein 'Antinous' des Gugliehno della Porta? Zurn Datum einer Restaurierung des 'Hermes-An­dros' des Belvedere«, Stiidel jahrbuch, NP. 12 (1989), 151 - 178 Inga Gesche, Neua11fstellung antiker Staruen und ihr Einflufl auf die romische Renaissancearchitektur, Mannheim 1971

GoooUITT 1991 Virginia C. Goodlett, »Rhodian Sculp­ture Workshops«, American journal of Archaeology, 95 (1991), 669-681

GRISE.BACH 1976 Lucius Grisebach, »Baugeschichtliche Noti.7. zum Sratuenhof Julius' ll im Vatikanischen .Belvedere", Zeitschrift ftir Kunstgeschichte, 39 (1976), 209-20

GUNTHER 1988 Hubertus Gunther, Das Sotdium der antiken Architektur in de11 Zeiclmungen der Hochrenaissance, Tiibingen 1988

HAFNER i992 German Hafner, Die Laokoon-Gmp­pen. Ein gordischer Knoten, Stuttgart 1992

HASKELL i980 Francis Haskell, RedisCO'Veries in Art. Some Aspects of Taste, Fashion and Col­lecti11g in England and france, Oxford 1980

HASKELL I PENNY i981 Francis Haskell and Nicholas Penny, Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500- 1900, New Haven 1981

HEIKAMP 1990 Dctlef Hcikamp, »Die Laokoongruppe des Vincenzo de' Rossi •, Mitteibmgen des Ku11sthistorischen Instiu1tes in Flo­renz, H (1990), S. J43 - 378

I-I:n.urG 1963 Wolfgang Helbig, Fuhrer durch die o/Jentli.chen Samm/u.nge11 klassischer Altertumer in Rom, 4. Aufl., Bd. 1, Die Piipstlichen Sammlungen im Vatikan 1md Lateran, hearbeitet von B. Andreac u. a., Tiibingen 1963

HELBrG 1966 Wolfgang Helbig, Fuhrer durch die offe11tliche11 Samml1mgen klassischer Altertumer in Rom, 4. Aufl., Bd. 2, Die Stiidtischen Sammlungen ... , bearbeitet von B. Andreae u. a., Tiibingen 1966

HEui1G 1972 Wolfgang Helbig, FiJhrer durcJ, die offentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertiimer in Rom, 4. Aufl., Bd. 4, Die Staatlichen Samml1mgen. Museo Osti­ense in Ostia Antica, MttSeo der Villa Hadriana in Tivoli, Villa Alban~ bear­beitet von B. Aodreae u. a., Tiibingcn 1972

High Renaissance 1993 High Renaissance in the Vatican: The Age of Julius II and Leo X [cataloguel, The National Museum of Western Art, Tokyo 1993

High Renaissance 1994 High Renaissance in. the Vatican: 711e Age of Julius 11 a11d Leo X, English 'Jext Supplement, edited by Michiaki Koshikawa and Martha J. McClintock, Tokyo 1994

HIMMELMANN 1959 Nikolaus Himmelmann, Zur Eigenart des klassischen Gotterbildes, Miinchen 1959

HlMMEIMANN 1991 N. Himmelmann, »Laokoon«, Antike Kunst, 34 (1991), 97-us

.HtNTZEN-BOHl.EN 1990 Brigitte Hintzen-Bohlen, •Zurn Apol­lon vom Belvedere. 'Delphisches' in Pergamon?«, in: lconographia. Anlei­tung zum Lesen von Bildem (Festschrift Donat de Chapeaurouge), Miinchen 1990, 11 - 25

HoLANDc\ 1984 Francisco de Holanda, .Da Pintura Antigua., ed. d' Angel Gonzalez Garcia, Lisboa 1984

HOLSEN 1901

!CUR

}di

jENJCTNS 1992

)EX·Bun: 1977

]WO

jum 1956

KOCH 19S7

KocH/S1CJ-rraRMANN 1982

UNCJANJ 1902 - ll

LirrA.ROUILLY 1882 LTMC

MANDowsKv/Mn·ctrllLL t963

MARCONI 1933

Abkiirzungen und haufiger zitierte Liccratur

Christian H ulsen, •Die Hermeni.n­schriften beriihmter Griechen und die ikonognaphischen SammJungen des 16. jahrbunderu•, RM, 16 (1901). u3-208 C. Hiilsen, Romische Antikmgiimn da 16. jahrbmuhrts, Heidelberg 191 7 C. Hiilscn u. Hermann Egger, Die romischtn Skiru11bik1't>r fJOn Marten fJan Hetrmkm:k, Berlin 191 3-16

lnscrpti.ones Christianae Urbis Romae septimo saeculo anteriores, N .S. Tl, Roma x935

jahrbuch des D11utscben Archaologischen Tnstitutes Ian Jenkins (Ed.), Cassiano dal Pozzo's Paper M1iseum, vol. 1, 1992 (Quaderni Puteani 2) K. Jex-Blake and E. Sellers, The Elder Pliny's ChaptnJ on the Hisrmy of A rt, London 1977 ]o"'11al of che \Vmbwg and Counauld Tnstin1lll <Ari juSti, Wi11ckelma11n und sei11e uit­genossen, Koln 19s6

Hanna Koch, ]o/1am1 Joachim Winckel­mann. Sprache 1md Kumtwerk Qahres­gabe der Winckelmann-Gescllschaft Stendal 1956/7), Berlin 1957 G. Koch u. H. Sichtermann, mit einem Beitrag von F. Sinn-Henninger, Die riimischen Sarkophage, Milnchen 1982 (Handbuch der Archaologie)

Hans Ladendorf, llntikenst:udiJun imd llntikenkopie, Berlin 19s8 Rodolfo Lanciani, Sunia degli SCJWi dJ Roma e notizie inromo alle collezicni romane di a11tichitlr, 4 voll., Roma 1902-u R. Lanciani, Storia degli Scavi di Roma e 11otizje imcmo al/e collezioni romane di anticbita, 2. ed., 4 voll., Ronin r989-94 Christa Landwehr, Die antiken Gipsab­glisse aus Baiae. Griechische Bro11zesta­tuen in Abgiisst11 riimischer Zeit, Berlin r985 lrving Lavin, ,. The Sculptor's 'Last Will and Testament'•, Allen Mnnonal An J.fu.seum 8111/etin, 3S (1977- 78), s. 4-39 Paul Letarouilly, Le Vaucan, Paris 1881 Lexicon lconogmphicum Mythologiae ClassUtle, Ziirich u. Miinchen 1981 ff.

Filippo Magi, fl npristino de/ Laocoonte, Roma 1960 (A1ri dclla Pontificia Aca­demia Romana di Archeologia. Memo­rie, 9.1) Ema Mandowsky and Charles Mit­chell , Pirro Ligorio's Roman Antiquities, London r963 Pirro Marconi, • Antinoo, Saggio sul­l'1me dell'ed adriiinea•, Monume11t1 amichi. 29 (1933), col. 161-302

Mow cu...NO 1966

PARISI P!u!s1cc1-: 1994

PllITRANG'ELl 198 S

Prt-rRANCEu 1990

PRAN:n1 1954

473

F. Matz, Die dionysischen Sarkopbage, Berlin 1968 (ASR, Bd. IV, 2) Hugo Meyer, llmuroos, Miinchen 1991 Adolf Michaelis, • Geschichu~ des Sta­menhofes im vaticanischen Belvedere•, Jdl, s c 1890), s-72 Marisa Elisa Micheli, G10t11mm Colonna da T1t1oli: 1JJ4. Roma 1982 Arnaldo Mom1gliano, •Ancient H is­tory and the Antiquarian•, j\'(10, 13 (1950}, 285 -315; repr. in: A. M., Sw­dies in Historiograpl1y, London 1966, 3 ff.

Arnold Nesselrath, •The Venus Belve­dere: an Epidsode in Rcstornti<>n•, ]WCT, 50 (1987), 205-u4 A. Nesselr.ith, •Simboli dj Roma•, in: Da Pi.sane/lo a/la nascila dei M1isf!i Capi­wlini - l 'Antico a Roma al/a vigilia del RinLZScimtnto, c:atalogo dclla mostra Roma 1988, 194-1os. 210- 121, 231-238

Beatrice Palma Venewcci (a cur.i di), Uomi11i ilbmri dell'a11tich1lil, vol. l.1 , Pirro ugorio e le em1f! riburti11e, Roma 1992 Rita Paris (a cura di), Persona. la maschera 11el teatro antico (cat. mosm1 Spolero), Roma 1990 Claudio Parisi Presiccc, "Le statue sulle balaustre dei Palazzi Capitolini "• in: La facciatn de/ PalarLo Se11atori<1 i11 Campidcgbo. Momenti di sioria urbaria dJ Roma., a cura di M. E. Tinoni, Os~dalettO (Pisa) 1994, In- I 73 Arcangel:i M. Pcrtosa, Maschere <kl reperrorio uatrak ~co 11e/la. decora­zione archiuuo11ica di eta TOmanA, tcsi di laurea Urbino 198s A. M. Penosa, •Mascbcre teatr:iLi in marmo nellc collezioni romane di anti­chica c, Studi Urbmari!B 3, 60 (1987), 77-97 Carlo Pictrangeli, I Musei Vaticam~ cin­q11e secoli di .1wri11, Roma r985 C. Pietrangcli, " Le antichita Cesi dci Musei Vaticani c San Lorenzo ' in pisci­bus' •, in: Scritti in memoria di G. Mar­chetti lo11gh~ vol. 1, Anagni 1990, 23-}S Antonio Pinelli, • D Perseo del Canova•, in: Pira11esi e la 04/mra mm­q-"a. Gli amecrdenu e ii colllesto. Am del Co1Neg110 14-r7 novemfm. 1979, Roma 1983, .p 1 - 439 Inge Maria Podbrecky, Beurige 7,11

einer Bwgraftt Pirro ligonos (151; bis 118;), masch. schriftl. Diss., Wien 1983 Alexander Pons, •Greek Sculprnrc and Roman Copies. I. Anton Raphael Mengs and die t8th Century•, j\Y/Cl, 43 (1980), 1so- 173 Adriano Prandi, "La forruna del Lao­coonte dall;i sua scoperta nellc Tcrmc di Tiro•, Rnmta dell'/stiruto M121011alt

474

PRl!ISS 1!)92

QUATl~£M~RE DE

QUINCY 1834

QuoN1AM/Gu1NAMA.RD

1988

RE

llEOIG OE CAMl'OS

1967 RlCE 1986

RM

Rinascimento 1994

SHEARMAN 1977

ScHRO'rER 1980

$cttw1NN 1973

Abkiir:zungen und haufiger zitierte Literarur

di Arcbeologia e Storia dell' Arte, N .S. 3 (1954), 78-107 Bettina Preiil, Die wissenschaftliche Beschiiftigrmg mit der Laokoongruppe. Die Bedemung Christian Gottlob Hey­nes flir die Archiiologie des 18. jahrhrm­derts, Bonn 1992

A. C. Quatremere de Quincy, Canova et ses ouvrages ou Memoires historiques sur la Vie et Les Trava1tx de ce celebre Artiste, Paris 1834 Le Palais du Louvre, Paris 1988

Joachim Raeder, Die st.atuarische Aus­st.attung der Villa Adriana bei Tivoli, Frankfurt a. M. 1983 Pardys Realencyclopiidie der classischen A ltertttmswissenschaft, Stuttgart Deoclccio Redig de Campos, 1 pala?..zi Vatican~ Bologna 1967 Ellen E. Rice, "Prosopographika Rho­diaka ~. Annual of the British School at Athens, 81 (1986), 209-259 Gisela M. A. Richter, The Portraits of the Greeks, London 1965 Brunhilde Sismondo Ridgway, Roman Copies of Greek Scuplture: The Problem of the Originals, Ann Arbor 1984 Mitteibmgen des Detttschen Archaologi­schen lnstituts, Romische Abteilung Rinascimento da Bmnelleschi a Miche­langelo. La rappresentazione dell'archi­tettura, a cura di H. Millon e V. Magnago Lampugnan.i, catalogo della mostra Venezia, 2. edizione, Milano 1994

Bruno Sauer, Der Torso von Belvedere, Giessen 1894 John Shearman, The Vatican St.arize: Funcciom and Decoration, London 1972 (Proceedings of the British Academy, 57) J. Shearman, •Raphael, Rome and the Codex Escurialensis« Master Drawings, 15 (1977), S. 107-140 Bernhard Schmaltz, ,.zum Apollon im Belvedere•, Marburger Winckelmann­Programm (1982), 3-24 Annegrit Schmitt, »Romische Antiken­sammlungen im Spiegel eines Muster­buchs der Renaissance«, Miinchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kzmst, 2 l

(1970), 99-1.28 Lorenz Schrader, Monumentorum lta­liae q11ae hoc riostro saeculo & a Christi.a­nis posita sunt, libri qitatuor, Helmstedt 1592 Elisabeth Schroter, "Der Vatikan als Hugel Apollons und der Musen. Kunst und Panegyrik von Nikolaus V. bis Julius 11.•, Romische Quarta.l.schrift fii1· christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchen­geschichte, 75 (1980). 208-240 Christa Schwinn, Die Bedeutmlg des Torso vom Belvedere fur 7heorie und

STUART ]ONES 1912

STUART ]ONES r926

VASARI-Mn.ANESJ

VrscoNT1 r818

WESER 1911

WESER 1979

WEISS 1959

WtNCKlll..MANN 1968

WINNER 1974

WRJIDEIH.ARPRATH

r986

WONSCHE 1993

ZELLER 1955

Praxis der bildenden Kunst, Bern u. Frankfurt 1973 H. Stuart Jones, A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Mzmicipal Collections of Rome. The Sci~lptures in the Museo Capit.olino, Oxford 1912 H. Stuart Jones, A Calalogue of the Ancient Sac/ptures Preserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome. The Sculptures in the Pa/.azzo Con.servatorio, Oxford 1926

Agostino Taja, Descrizione de! Palazzo Apostolico Vatietmo, Rom l 750 R. Tolle, ,.zum Apollon des Leo­chares«, ]di, 81 (1966), 142-172

Giorgio Vasari, Opere, a cura di G. Milanesi, Firenze 1906 E. Q. Visconti, fl Museo Pio Clemen­tine, Milano 18 18

Wilhelm Weber, Drei Untersuchungerr zur griechisch-aegyptischen Religion, Heidelberg i9u Ekkehard Weber, • Hostilius Marcellus - Priester des Antinoos "• in: Litterae numismaticae Vindobonenses (Roberto Goebl dedicat.ae), Wien 1979, 65 -70 Roberto Weiss, »Andrea Fulvio Anti­quario Romano«, Amiali de/la Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, lettere, storia e filosofia, ser. 2, l8 (1959), 1- 44 R. Weiss, »The Medals of Pope Ju­lius If (c503-1513)«,JWCI, 28 (1965), 163-182 Johann Joachim Winckclrnann, Ge­schichte der Kumt des Altertums, Dres­den 1764 J. J . Winckelmann, Briefe, hg. v. Walter Rehm u. Hans Diepolder, Berlin 1952-1957 J. ]. Winckelmann, Kleine Schriften, Vorreden, Entwurfe, hg. v. Walther Rehm, Berlin 1968 H. Winnefeld, Die Villa des Hadrian bei Tivol~ ]di, 3. Erg. H., Berlin 1895 Matthias Winner, ,.zum Apoll vom Belvedere«, jahrbuch der Berliner M1tSee11, 10 (1968), 181-199 Matthias Winner, »Zurn Nachleben des Laokoon in der Renaissance•, Jahrbuch der Berlin.er Musee11, 16 (1974), 83-12t F. Winter, "Der Apoll von Belvedere«, ]di, 7 (1892). 164- 177

Henning Wrede u. Richard .Harprath, Der Codex Coburgensis, Ausstellungs­katalog Coburg 1986 Raimund Wunsche, "Der Torso vom Belvedere - Denk.ma! des sinnenden Aias•, Munchner jahrbuch der bilden­den Kunst, 44 (1993), 7-46

Hans Zeller, Winckelmanns Beschrei­bung des ApoUo im Belvedere, Zurich 1955

Inhalt

Vorwort vn Ex Uno Lapide: The Renaissance Sculptor's t 91 ToHT de Force

Einleiumg. • Il Cortile delle Sratue nel Belvedere" IX Irving Lavin Matthias \'finner

Apoll vom Belvedere 2 11

Il Cortile dclle Sta rue : luogo e storia Nikolaus Himmelmann Arnold Nesselrath

Paragone mit dem Belvederischen Apoll. Kleine 227 l ere progctti bramantcschi per il Cortile dd 17 Wirkungsgeschichtc voo Amico bis Canova Belvedere Matthias \Vinner Christoph L1itpold Fromme/

Begegnung mit Apollo. Zur Re-.iepcionsgeschichte 2 53 On the Julian Program of the Cortile delle 67 des Apollo vom Belvedere im 18. Jahrhundert Statue in rhe Vatican Belvedere Steffi Roettgen Hans Henrik Bntmmer

The Statue of the River God Tigris or Amo 2 75 Zurn Verscandnis der antiken Staruen in dem 77 Ruth Rubinstein Opusculum von Francesco Albertini Georg Daltrop Torso vom Belvedere 287

Raimund Wiinsche Romische Ancikenprogramme des 83 r6. Jahrhundens Der Torso im fri.ihen 16. Jahrhundert: 315 Henning \Vrede Verstiiodnis, Srudium, Aufstellung

Gunter Schweikhart La collocaz.ione degli dei fluviali nel Conile T 17 delle Statue e ii restauro del Laocoonce del Il ciclo di maschere de! Cortile delle Statue 327 Mootorsoli Carlo Gasparri Matthias Winner

Una scultura del Belvedere ritrovara, la 'Zitella' 339 Laocoonte di bronzo, Laocooote di manno f29 Alessandra Uncini Salvacor~ Settis

•Archa marmorea, che ha in se scolpita di mezzo 345 Oas Laokoon-Problem T6T rilievo la caccia di Meleagro vaghissjmamenu·• Bernard A ndreae Paolo Liverani

Montorsolis Vorzeichnung fiir seine Erganzung x65 Warum bieB der 'Hermes-Andros' des 355 des Laokoon varikanischen Belvedere 'Antinous'? A mold Nesselrath Peter Gerlach

Die Anne des Laokoon t75 Die Sarkophage im Starueohof des Belveder~ 379 Birgit laschke Bernard Andre.ae

Due nuove rappresentaZioni deJ Laocoonre 187 Francisco de Holanda er le Co11ile def Belvedere 389 Antonio Giuliano Sylvie DeS'llJarte-Rosa

Die Umwandlung <les Anlikengartens zum Statucnhof durch das architektonische Ornament Pirro Ligorios Fri~-L::ugen Keller

II Conilc delle Statue nel Scttcccnto Carlo Pietrangeli

Winckelmanns Beschreibungen der Starueo im Belvedere-Hof im Lichte des Florentioer Nachlanheftes Max Kunze

4u

421

431

Johann Joachim Winckelmanns Beschreibungco dcr Seamen im Belvedere in der Geschichte der K1mst des Altertums: Text uncl Kon text Ernst Osterkamp

•Gods without Altars«: The Belvedere ill Paris Ian Jenkins

Abkiin.ungen uod baufiger zitiene Literatur

XI, 474 Seiten mic ~8 AbbiJdungco und J Falttafeln

© x998 by Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein ISBN 3-8o53-1349-1

443

459

47 1