The Source of the Sistine Ceiling Program: Michelangelo or Theologian?
Michelangelo’s vault of the Sistine Chapel has long been the subject of critical and scholarly study. The focus of this attention, for the most part, has endeavored to interpret the ceiling’s spiritual content. But while these analyses have produced volumes of interpretation ranging from the Platonic theme of man’s return to his divine origins to the straightforward theological explication of man’s Creation, Sin, and Redemption, few scholars have attempted to accurately identify the source of the complex program inherent in the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Recent study, however, has cast new light on this subject; and among the differing opinions that abound, several scholars offer interesting insights concerning this often-unexplored piece of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel project. The intent of this essay is not to establish a conclusion — that would be impossible — but only to compare and contrast each scholar’s point of view. While late-twentieth-century study leans toward Michelangelo executing a clearly understood scriptural message created by a trained theologian or member of the clergy, it is just as possible that Michelangelo exercised creative control over the entire Sistine project from start to finish. The scholars chosen for discussion here express different points of view concerning Michelangelo’s involvement with the design and program of the Sistine ceiling. Dividing these scholars into two groups, those who believe Michelangelo created the entire ceiling on his own and those who speculate that he was assisted in some way, makes a more focused examination possible.
Of the scholars who feel that Michelangelo created the thematic content of the ceiling on his own, Charles de Tolnay is perhaps the most familiar. De Tolnay believes Michelangelo had “no detailed iconographic program . . . given to [him] in advance” and developed the theme of the ceiling as his work progressed. [1] This thesis rests on Michelangelo’s letter to Fattucci in 1523, in which the artist says, “Then he [Pope Julius II] gave me a new commission to make what I wanted, whatever would please me,” [2] and on de Tolnay’s interpretation of the scenes from Genesis as “man’s ascension to his divine origins.” [3] This idea, “one of the favorite themes of Platonic literature” during the Renaissance, leads de Tolnay to assert this was Michelangelo’s intended message. [4] Further, de Tolnay’s belief that Michelangelo worked out his own program as he went along emanates in part from this conjectured Platonic interpretation: Because Platonic thought “does not derive from the teaching of the church” and because Michelangelo did, supposedly, hold Neoplatonic beliefs at one time, de Tolnay rules out the possibility that Michelangelo received instruction or assistance from church personnel. [5] Doing “whatever would please me,” then, in de Tolnay’s opinion, equates to Michelangelo, without any guidance whatsoever, developing a Platonic or Neoplatonic program while working from the entrance toward the altar.
The lack of additional evidence to help de Tolnay support his position has made him the target of several scholars who disagree with portions of his assertions. Herbert von Einem feels that Michelangelo’s statement “whatever would please me” in the letter to Fattucci refers “not to the substance but to the form”; in other words, Michelangelo did not create the content of the ceiling but was allowed to carry it out his own way. [6] Also in disagreement is John A. Symonds, who rejects de Tolnay’s notion that Michelangelo invented the theme of the ceiling as he went along “because it implies a total change in all the working Cartoons [sic] as well as a remarkable want of foresight.” [7]
Symonds, another scholar who feels Michelangelo was left to execute the entire ceiling as he wished, draws a theological interpretation from the ceiling, concluding that Michelangelo “unrolled the history of the creation of the world and man, the entrance of sin into the human heart, the punishment of sin by water, and the reappearance of sin in Noah’s family.” [8] Symonds speculates that Julius left the “execution of the whole” to Michelangelo based on the artist’s “profound knowledge of the Bible” and his “intense feeling for religious symbolism.” [9] The theological knowledge and religious devotion of Michelangelo cannot be underestimated or disputed, and it is not impossible that Michelangelo was indeed given command of the entire project.
Roberto Salvini, former Director of the Uffizi and now Professor of Art and Literature at the University of Florence, offers a changing critical view of Michelangelo’s role in the Sistine ceiling repainting. In 1966, Salvini, in his contribution to The Complete Work of Michelangelo, authoritatively stated: “The fact that the Pope gave Michelangelo the fullest liberty with respect to choosing the subject is of great importance . . . . It is out of the question that the artist resorted to theological texts for guidance or to the voice of some learned cleric or other. The invention of the general scheme and the decisive choices were however all left to him.” [10] Salvini adds that among the many hypotheses developed over the centuries that attempt to explain the spiritual content and intended message of the ceiling, the Neoplatonic interpretation appears the most plausible. [11] Ten years later, however, in his solely authored Michelangelo of 1976, Salvini reveals his changed position: “The great freedom the Pope allowed the painter . . . was undoubtedly due to the esteem Michelangelo had earned for himself . . . . However, this does not rule out the possibility that Michelangelo may have turned for guidance to theological texts . . . or even to some learned churchmen.” [12] This curious change of thought — from “out of the question” to “does not rule out the possibility” — does not necessarily lessen Salvini’s credibility; it may, instead, simply document a move toward a “popular” point of view and, perhaps, a reconsideration of the all-knowing, self-sufficient Renaissance artist by an active scholar always in search of historical truth.
The hypotheses and views of de Tolnay, Symonds, and Salvini all assume Michelangelo’s creative control of the entire Sistine Ceiling repainting; each scholar, however, has his own interpretation of the ceiling’s content and the events surrounding its creation. The following group of scholars — Charles Seymour, Jr., Herbert von Einem, and Frederick Hartt — all suspect that an individual other than Michelangelo — a theologian or clergyman — devised the Sistine ceiling program. But unlike the ideas of de Tolnay, Symonds, and Salvini, which are often at odds, the ideas and theories of Seymour, von Einem, and Hartt often overlap and agree.
Seymour, Professor of the History of Art at Yale University, suspects that the major source of direction for the Sistine ceiling came from Pope Julius II; he does not rule out, however, the possible contribution of other theologians. Seymour also introduces the interesting possibility that Giuliano da San Gallo may have substantially aided Michelangelo during the painting of the Sistine ceiling. [13] San Gallo, a Florentine and close friend of Michelangelo’s, worked in Rome, Ostia, and Loreto in the service of the church as an architect and sculptor. [14] He designed the fortress at Ostia when Julius served as Bishop of Ostia and later, after Julius became Pope, designed Julius’ cardinal’s palace in Rome. [15] Seymour also mentions that “buried in the Vasarian Lives the remainder of an oral tradition . . . maintains that it was . . . Giuliano da San Gallo who recommended Michelangelo as the best candidate for repainting the ceiling of the Sistine.” [16] San Gallo also supported and defended Michelangelo when Bramante, in 1506, attempted to convince Pope Julius that Michelangelo’s lack of experience with fresco and the painting of foreshortened figures would result in a poorly finished product. Furthermore, it was San Gallo, sent by Pope Julius himself, who consulted with and assisted Michelangelo in repairing the mould that appeared on the first ceiling frescos. [17] This evidence and the relationship between Pope Julius and San Gallo lend Seymour’s theory an air of credibility, yet nothing indicates that San Gallo possessed a theological understanding any more advanced than Michelangelo’s. If Michelangelo required a theological advisor, San Gallo, in all probability, would have required one as well.
Seymour and von Einem, the latter briefly mentioned earlier, both connect Julius with the Church of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome. When completed in 1508, the choir vault of the Santa Maria del Popolo depicted four strongly emphasized enthroned figures. Because the family of Pope Julius II, the della Rovere, were patrons of Santa Maria del Popolo, Seymour suggests that Julius introduced the idea of enthroned figures, as seen in the original plan for the ceiling of the Sistine, to Michelangelo. [18] Von Einem points out that the Santa Maria del Popolo was commissioned by Pope Julius and calls attention to the “figures within the ornamental framework” and the coronation of Mary “portrayed together with evangelists and sibyls.” [19] The Santa Maria del Popolo ceiling and the original plan for the Sistine bear undeniable similarities, making it possible, as Seymour and von Einem suspect, that Julius was the major source of direction behind the Sistine ceiling.
Another scholar who believes Pope Julius played a large part in the creation of the Sistine ceiling program is respected Michelangelo authority Frederick Hartt. Taking issue with de Tolnay’s view of Michelangelo’s free rein with the ceiling’s spiritual content, Hartt says: “It is hard to accept the idea that so determined a pope would, in violation of more than a thousand years of custom, have entrusted a complex theological program at the nerve center of Western Christendom to a layman who in all probability could not read Latin.” [20] “In the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Baroque period,” adds Hartt, “such programs were, as they are still today, decided by ecclesiastical authority . . . . the basic idea of the program for the ceiling must have sprung from the Pope’s mind.” [21] Beyond this involvement, however, Julius’ direct influence was not a “hands-on” affair. Believing that the Pope’s ongoing battle during this period for the liberty of Italy and the Church prevented him from undertaking the “theological delving” required by his complex program, Hartt reasons that the theological responsibilities of the Sistine ceiling were given to Marco Vigerio della Rovere, Julius’ close and trusted counselor, fellow Franciscan, and first cousin once removed. [22] Not only would Vigerio have possessed a “mind of unusual theological subtlety,” an attribute quite necessary in creating the theology of the Sistine ceiling, but his influence would also account for the ceiling’s spiritual interpretation from scripture: the Creation, Fall of Man, and Redemption as read from the altar to the entrance. [23] Additionally, Hartt calls attention to the Christian Decachord, published by Vigerio in Rome in 1507, which contains many indications that “Vigerio was called to advise Michelangelo in the preparation of the subjects for the second program, infinitely more ambitious than the first.” [24] “In the presence of such evidence,” says Hartt, “I do not think it presumptuous to claim for Vigerio the authorship of . . . the [program] presented to Michelangelo.” [25]
The different hypotheses of the six scholars presented and discussed above document two sides of an issue that, nearly 500 years old, will surely be discussed and examined well into the future. Attributing the theological content of the ceiling to a learned cleric or theologian, as has recent scholarship, in no way reduces or diminishes Michelangelo’s achievement. A monumental work of art was created, one the world has enjoyed for five centuries. But it is quite possible that Michelangelo himself was this “learned cleric or theologian,” exercising control over the entire Sistine ceiling project while bringing together a thorough understanding of Scripture and seemingly limitless creative powers. It is therefore quite reasonable, as the writer of this essay believes, to attribute the Sistine ceiling’s design, program, and message — the Creation, Fall, and Redemption of Man — to the remarkably gifted, knowledgeable, and resourceful Michelangelo.
[1] Charles de Tolnay, The Sistine Ceiling, 3rd ed. (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969), 20.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 24.
[4] Ibid., 41.
[5] Ibid., 24.
[6] Herbert von Einem, Michelangelo, trans. Ronald Taylor (London: Methuen, 1973), 56.
[7] John A. Symonds, The Life of Michelangelo (New York: Random House, 1899), 133.
[8] Ibid., 154.
[9] Ibid., 136, 154.
[10] Roberto Salvini, “Painting” in The Complete Work of Michelangelo, ed. Mario Salmi (New York: Reynal, 1966), 200.
[11] Ibid., 200.
[12] Roberto Salvini, Michelangelo, 1976, trans. Catherine Atthill (Danbury: MasterWorks Press, 1984), 67.
[13] Charles Seymour , Jr., ed., Michelangelo: The Sistine Chapel Ceiling (New York: W.W. Norton, 1972), 76.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., 77.
[16] Ibid., 79.
[17] Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists, 1965, rpt. as Lives of the Artists: Volume 1 (London: Penguin, 1987), 352.
[18] Seymour, Michelangelo, 75.
[19] Von Einem, Michelangelo, 55.
[20] Frederick Hartt, History of Italian Renaissance Art, 3rd ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1987), 492.
[21] Frederick Hartt, “Lignum Vitae in Medio Paradisi: The Stanza D’Eliodoro and the Sistine Ceiling” in The Art Bulletin 32 (1950), 214.
[22] Hartt, History, 492.
[23] Hartt, “Lignum,” 214.
[24] Hartt, History, 492.
[25] Hartt, “Lignum,” 214.
