CHAPTER XVI.

LEO X AND MICHAEL ANGELO. —PROMOTION OF THE MINOR ARTS.—THE BUILDING OF NEW ST. PETER'S. —THE PRE SERVATION OF ROMAN ANTIQUITIES.

 

THE relations of Leo X with Michael Angelo have long been represented as the result of the antipathy of the refined and diplomatic Pope to the rough and independent genius whom he was anxious to keep in the shade in Florence, like some uncongenial Cato. This view is untenable in the face of facts ; although it is true that years went by before the Pope made any call on his services. This arose from no antipathy, but from the reports made to the Pope that Michael Angelo's services were unavailable. The latter was thus able to devote himself without disturbance to the monument to Pope Julius. Then arose the scheme of Leo X to build a magnificent marble facade for the family church of the Medici, S. Lorenzo, in Florence. This was given to Michael Angelo to execute. The latter, and his biographer at a later date, made it appear that Leo had compelled him to abandon the Julian monument in order to give his whole attention to this new undertaking. This has been made the ground of very adverse criticism of Leo ; but the most recent research has shown that such criticism is quite groundless. It was not Leo who dragged Michael Angelo away from his monument of Julius ; it was Michael Angelo who offered himself to the Pope. As a Florentine he could not resist the temptation to return to his beloved birthplace as Sedis apostolici archimagister et sculptor, and entrusted with a monumental task. The prospect of completing the adornment of a church which his honoured friend Brunelleschi had erected, and in which his once fatherly protector Lorenzo de’ Medici lay at rest, was too enticing. The agreement which Michael Angelo concluded with the heirs of Julius II on the 8th of July, 1516, shows clearly that he had already half renounced the earlier task in favour of a new one. From that day dates the abandonment of the great conception of the memorial of Julius.

Leo X as well as Cardinal Medici met Michael Angelo’s offers with delight, although the latter very soon assumed not only the execution of the plans, but the entire direction of the building. The whole business was to be settled by word of mouth. In the beginning of December, 1516, Michael Angelo went to Rome and showed the Pope a sketch of the façade which met with his approval. Thence he visited Carrara, in order to finish his work in connection with the monument to Julius, and arrange for the necessary quarrying of marble for the facade. The task which now confronted Michael Angelo, to carry out at the same time two enterprises of such vast scope, was one to tax the strength of Titans. Leo, who acceded to all the demands made upon him by his servant, was naturally anxious to have a plan of the façade put before him. Not until December, 1517, was one sent to Rome, and in January, 1518, cleared up the discrepancy between the traditional account and the facts; at the same time, as far as Michael Angelo is concerned, he has given a most satisfactory answer to the psychological problem. Michael Angelo himself arrived ; on the 19th of the same month an agreement was arrived at by which the latter bound himself to execute, within the term of eight years, the facade only, in accordance with the plans approved by the Pope. At the same time another agreement was made with the heirs of Julius II, who were now losing patience. In the deed of 1518 Michael Angelo was left free to choose the marbles from Carrara or from the newly-discovered quarries of Serravezza as he judged best. On the 20th of March he started for the last-named place, where he was destined to pass the most unproductive period of his life. Here the material for his work seems to have become an end in itself,  “His chief care and happiness is to procure blocks of flawless whiteness for his columns”. In vain did Leo, at the end of 1518 and the beginning of 1519, give expression to his ever-increasing longing to see the beginning of at least one figure of the façade. He got nothing; Michael Angelo, who always wished to work single-handed, with this magnificent project in his head, wasted precious time on inferior work which any other man might have done quite as well. The expectation at Rome lasted all through the year 1519, but in vain. The court poets seemed to be much more occupied with the façade than the architects who had designed it. At last, at the beginning of the year 1520, when a quarter of the stipulated time had gone by, patience was exhausted ; the arrangement, hitherto unproductive of results, was cancelled, but not exactly in an open and conciliatory way. Cardinal Medici stopped the work, “in order to relieve Michael Angelo of the burden of transporting the marble”. The latter considered that others had interfered to his prejudice with rights which had been guaranteed to him by contract, and begged to be released from his engagement. His letters, at this period, show clearly how deeply he was affected ;  notwithstanding, there was no open breach with the Pope and the Cardinal. Even after the cancelling of their contract, Michael Angelo remained in favour with the Pope. On the 27th of October, Sebastiano del Piombo tried to soothe his friend’s resentment. “I know how much His Holiness values you ; he speaks of you as tenderly as a brother, and shows love and appreciation, but it is you yourself who inspire the Pope with fear”. The soreness was entirely removed when, at the close of 1520, Leo X renewed negotiations, through Cardinal Medici, with Michael Angelo with a view to a new work of importance. A second sacristy was to be added to S. Lorenzo, in the midst of which Michael Angelo was to erect unconditionally four monuments to the father, uncle, brother, and nephew of the Pope. Into this project the sculptor entered heartily.

Cardinal Medici, who was above all the artistic rivalries and contentions of the time, thought nothing of employing, in various ways, Michael Angelo's antagonist, Baccio Bandinelli. The latter worked at Loreto under Andrea Sansovino. Sansovino, who, next to Michael Angelo, was the most celebrated sculptor of the Renaissance, and whose works for nobility and beauty of form approach those of Raphael, had already, in 1513, been entrusted with the plastic decoration of the outer shell of the Casa Santa at Loreto as planned under Julius II. On this work San­sovino was also engaged during the Pontificate of Clement VII. Besides Bandinelli, he had as assistants Tribolo, Francesco di Sangallo, Raffaello da Montelupo, Girolamo Lombardo, Mosca, and others.

Rome itself was not enriched to any great extent by works of sculpture under Leo X. The most important are Michael Angelo’s statue of Christ, which, in 1521, was placed in S. Maria sopra Minerva, Lorenzetto’s Jonas in the mortuary chapel of the Chigi, and the bronze relief of Christ and the Woman of Samaria, to be found in the same place. The last two works, which are among the most interesting creations of the Renaissance, were, however, only Lorenzetto’s in execution ; some sketch of Raphael must certainly have formed the model for the bas-relief, with its close adherence to the classic style, and perhaps for the statue of Jonas. What other master than the painter of Urbino could have conceived the living warmth of this symbol of the Resurrection, which in its modest loveliness, amenity, and strength recalls the best period of antiquity? Among the funeral monuments with which churches and chapels were now becoming filled in increasing numbers, not one reaches special pre-eminence. The colossal statue of Leo X, by Sansovino's pupil, Domenico Ami of Bologna, which was erected on the Capitol by decree of the Senate, is so coarse and clumsy that it is hardly entitled to be called a work of art. Not­withstanding these defects, a contemporary German poet was found who placed the sculptor on a level with Phidias. Among those employed by Leo X, the Florentine Francesco de Buglioni, whose gravestone may be seen in S. Onofrio, is also to be numbered as a sculptor.

While the art of sculpture fell into the background in a remarkable way during the age of Leo X that of plastic decoration, along with the minor arts, developed in almost inverse ratio. It has been truly remarked that this de­velopment was due to the influence of painting, J but it was also fostered by the patronage of the Pope himself, whose exquisite taste gave an important direction and encourage­ment to these branches of art. For this reason Raphael has depicted him in his portrait as the friend of the minor arts—a portrait which differs in essential particulars from the conventional representations of Popes.

In the first place, the decoration of the Loggie again calls for attention. Here decorative art attains a classical perfection. Yet the delicate artistic feeling which is here paramount shows itself elsewhere in every detail. The beautiful carved doors and coffers which Leo introduced into the chambers of the Vatican can be seen by every visitor at the present day. The woodwork was executed by Giovanni Barile of Siena, and the intarsia by Fra Giovanni da Verona. Of the lovely majolica pavements in the Vatican and in St. Angelo, only some fragments, however, now remain. Specimens of the splendid majolica ware once contained in the Vatican are to be seen in the Cluny Museum in Paris, products of the manufactories of Cafagioli, Pesaro, and Gubbio, marked with the armorial bearings of Leo.

It is greatly to be deplored that so little remains of the goldsmiths’ work of this period, owing to the costliness of the metal employed, for the Renaissance had now reached the highest point in the lavish use of precious stones and metals. We can obtain some notion of the treasures in workmanship of this sort which were fashioned for Leo X. from the extraordinary number of goldsmiths in his employment, a class of artificers who, next to musicians, || hold by far the most prominent place in the Papal ledgers. Among the principal were the Roman, Santi di Cola Sabba, Domenico da Sutri, Michele Nardini, Caradosso, and Antonio de' Fabbri of San Marino. The last named stood next in importance to Benvenuto Cellini. Antonio, who probably took charge of the affairs of his native town at the Papal Court, was, in 1509, one of the founders of the Guild of Goldsmiths which built, under Julius II, the charming little Church of S. Eligio in the Via Giulia. He was one of the intimate friends of Chigi and Raphael. In those days there was no distinction drawn between the craft of the goldsmith and that of the jeweller. The wealth of precious stones, rubies, sapphires, emeralds, diamonds, pearls, which Leo possessed in his tiaras, mitres, and pectorals, was worthy of a fairy tale. An accurate inventory of jewels taken after his death gives their value at 204,655 gold ducats. The greater part of them had belonged to his predecessors ; yet, despite his financial distress, Leo had added to the number by repeated purchases ; he ordered a new tiara in 1516. Besides precious stones, Leo X delighted in artistic gems, cameos, and medals. A master in the art of cutting gems, Pier Maria da Pescia, often called Tagliacarne after his master of that name, prepared the Pontifical Seal. Along with Tagliacarne, Vittore Gambello or Camelio, Caradosso, and Valerio Belli were distinguished as designers of medals. Among the coinage issued from the Papal mint, many pieces exist of rare beauty.

In the domain of architecture. Julius II bequeathed to his successor a task of the greatest importance and difficulty. At the beginning of Leo’s reign, the reconstruction of St. Peter's and of the Vatican was in the same initial stage as that of the Julian Palace in the Via Giulia. To carry out and finish these vast constructions on which the bold spirit of the Rovere Pope had set to work, demanded someone other than Leo X, whose reckless extravagance and disordered finances soon deprived him of the means indispensable to the fulfilment of such projects.

Within the States of the Church the name of Leo X.is connected with few buildings. S. Cristina at Bolsena, the harbours and fortifications at Civita Vecchia and Ancona. the restoration of the citadel at Civita Castellana, and of the Vitelleschi Palace at Corneto, some small hunting lodges at Magliana, Palo, Montalto, and Montefiascone, where Antonio and Francesco di Sangallo were employed —that is all.

In Rome Leo X soon abandoned the continuation of the works at the huge Julian Palace and the not less extensive plans of Bramante for the Vatican. On the other hand he began to rebuild the Church of S. Giovanni for his Florentine fellow-citizens. He also finished the porch of his former titular church, S. Maria in Domenica, and the Loggie of the court of St. Damasus. The completion of the latter beautiful work was all too rapid as regards the scheme of decoration employed and the practical necessities involved. In the spring of 1520, such defects in the Loggie came to light that the Pope was obliged to exchange his apartments, which abutted upon them, for those of Cardinal Cibo. The young Antonio di Sangallo was, however, soon able to obviate the danger by filling up certain spaces in the basement which had been left empty.§ Among the restorations of ancient ecclesiastical buildings in Rome, undertaken by Leo X, mention must be made of work on the church of S. Maria sopra Minerva, and the baptistery of the Lateran, in S. Maria Maggiore, and in the cloisters of S. Cosimato. Considerable additions were made to the hospital of S. Spirito. In the Castle of St. Angelo a small chapel was built which is still preserved. Of the street improvements, under the direction of Giuliano di Sangallo, we have already spoken.

The prosecution of the rebuilding of St. Peter’s was imperatively demanded by the existing condition of the old basilica. Bramante’s demolition had been carried out so heedlessly that the church was exposed to the winds on all sides, and, on the first recurrence of Easter Day (March 27, 1513), the celebration of divine worship was rendered impossible. Nor could the festivals of All Saints and Christmas be held in St. Peter’s. Service, according to the Master of the Ceremonies, Paris de Grassis, in the remaining portion of St. Peter’s would have been as unhealthy as it would have been dangerous. On the accession of Leo X, Bramante remained, of course, architect-in-chief for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s, but he was crippled with the gout in his hands, and his seventy years were drawing to an end. His state was so pre carious that already, on the 1st of November, 1513, a deputy was appointed to act with him in the person of Fra Giocondo da Verona. Yet the illustrious Veronese, who appears to have been a Franciscan and not a Dominican, was himself well stricken in years, over eighty. Consequently, yet a third architect had to be appointed on the 14th of January, 1514, namely, Giuliano di Sangallo, who was no younger than Bramante. On the 11th of March, 1514, the latter died. On his death-bed he had recommended his friend and countryman Raphael as his successor to the Pope. Leo X was all the more willing to concur with this proposal since he knew that younger and stronger powers were needed to push forward the building of the great Church.

Raphael, at this time, was no novice in the art of architecture In the early years of his residence at Rome, he had already given remarkable proofs of his knowledge. With the wonderful adaptability which was one of his most marked characteristics, he threw himself into the style of Bramante, and with surprising quickness saw how to assimilate the latter’s ideas while preserving his own independence. Evidence of this is to be found in the now unfortunately half-ruined chapel of S. Eligio degli Orefici, which is planned in the form of a Greek cross, and was crowned by a cupola copied, apparently, from a sketch of Bramante's of a corresponding cupola in the new St. Peter’s. There is strong evidence that, about this same time, he was engaged on the Farnesina for Agostino Chigi.

Raphael, who, since the 1st of April, 1 5 14, had provision ally taken Bramante’s place as architect of St. Peter's at a yearly salary of 300 gold ducats, appreciated to the full the honour and good fortune conferred on him by this new undertaking. Henceforward, so he expressed himself, he could live nowhere else but in Rome, and this from love for the building of St. Peter's”. “What place on earth”, he wrote on the 1st of July, 1514, to Simone Ciarla, “can compare with Rome in dignity? What task can be nobler than the construction of St. Peter’s? This is certainly the first church in the world, and the greatest building that man has ever yet seen ; the cost will amount to a million in gold. The Pope has ordered a payment of 60,000 ducats for the works. He thinks of nothing else ; he has associated me”, he goes on to say without reserve, “with an experienced monk who has passed his eightieth year. The Pope sees that he cannot live much longer, and His Holiness has therefore determined that I should benefit by the instructions of this distinguished craftsman and attain to greater proficiency in the art of architecture, of the beauties of which he has recondite knowledge ; his name is Fra Giocondo. The Pope gives us audience every day, and keeps us long in conversation on the subject of the building”.

On the 1st of August, 1514, Leo X issued his final instructions as to the position and relative functions of the three architects of St. Peter's. Fra Giocondo and Raphael were appointed architects-in-chief. The salary of the former, as the senior, was fixed at 400 gold ducats ; that of Raphael at 300. Giuliano di Sangallo at the same time received 300 ducats a years ; he did not, however, rank with the “master” architects, but was styled “administrator and coadjutor”, which means that he was principally responsible for the carrying out of the works. In Raphael’s Brief it is expressly stated that he had qualified for the position by the new design for St. Peter’s which he had executed at the wish of the Pope. On the death of Fra Giocondo on the 1st of July, 1515, Raphael became sole architect-in-chief of St. Peter’s. The earnestness with which he threw himself into the work is clearly shown in the letters addressed to Baldassare Castiglione soon after his appointment. “Our Sovereign”, we read, “while conferring on me an honour, has laid a heavy load upon my shoulders—the burden of anxiety for the building of St. Peter’s. I hope not to lay it down, and all the more so as the model of the edifice which I have made pleases His Holiness, and has been praised by many men of good understanding. But my desires reach further ; would that I could attain to the beauty of form of the buildings of antiquity ; yet I know not whether this may not be but the flight of Icarus. Vitruvius certainly gives me much light, still he does not give enough”.

We see that the first design, from which Giovanni Barile executed a model in wood, failed to please its author. He therefore set to work on a second design which, like the first, has been lost. Indeed, of Raphael's work as a whole as architect of St. Peter's, not a line has been preserved from his own hand. Other sources of information are but scanty ; important evidence is afforded by a coin which represents St. Peter’s, on one side, in the form of a Greek cross, as shown on the medal of Julius II, and on the other in that of a Latin cross which Leo X is offering to St. Peter. We may conclude from this that the Medici Pope had decided, probably on weighty liturgical grounds, to substitute a building, in the longitudinal basilica form, in place of the plan originally contemplated by Bramante. Thus Raphael could acquiesce in this change without disrespect to the memory of the friend to whose recommendation he owed his present position. On the other hand Bramante seems, during his last years, to have become, to all appearance, reconciled to the new design. From this point of view Panvinio was right in saying later that Raphael had followed in Bramante’s footsteps, and Sebastiano Serlio in praising him as the perfecter of Bramante’s plans. The ground-plan published as Raphael’s by Serlio in his work, which appeared in 15404 has been pronounced, as the result of modern investigation, to be so inadequate and inaccurate that, taken by itself, it is well-nigh useless. It is only by examination of the ground-plan of Giuliano di Sangallo and the memorial of his nephew Antonio that it is possible to come to any exact conclusion as to the real intentions of Raphael. The memorial, which sets forth a draft of a critical report on the building of St. Peter’s intended for the Pope, is dated the 1st of July, 1515, the day on which Fra Giocondo died and on which Giuliano di Sangallo withdrew from the work on account of ill-health. (He died October 20, 1516). From this it appears that Raphael, departing from Bramante's arrangement, had planned a longitudinal building of great length with transepts and a cupola too heavy for its supporting pillars. To rectify these faults in Raphael's original design, which were so sharply criticized in the memorial, Antonio di Sangallo, who had been appointed coadjutor on the 22nd of November, 1516, prepared a number of studies. These materials throw light on Raphael's intentions. It may be considered certain that, in succession to the plan censured by Antonio di Sangallo, Raphael constructed a second which was apparently satisfactory. From this second plan Serlio made his copy, which, on the whole, is inaccurate, but still, in the combination of nave and dome, as well as in the rich pillared vestibule, discloses a truly Raphaelesque harmony of proportions.

The project in its entirety was never, as is well known, brought to completion. There is evidence to show that, under Raphael’s direction, only the small pillars, which stand on both sides of the pillars of the dome, were built to a height of about twelve metres, and that the arcades of the south aisle were ceiled. Whether Vasari’s statement, that Raphael, along with Fra Giocondo and Giuliano di Sangallo, also strengthened the foundations of new St. Peter's, is correct or not, must remain an open question. On the other hand, the evidence of Paris de Grassis makes it certain that Raphael began his work at once, and that in April, 1514, he had completed what was required to ensure the temporary security of the remaining portion of old St. Peter’s, and to render it serviceable for divine worship. The process of demolition continued during the reign of Leo X : in November, 1519, the whole portico of the basilica lay in ruins. J Raphael's successor as architect of St. Peter's was Antonio di Sangallo. Baldassare Peruzzi was appointed his coadjutor.

The inconsiderable results attained by Raphael during his six years as architect of St. Peter’s are accounted for by the difficulties which presented themselves in procuring funds for the vast construction. The Pope had originally assigned a yearly donation of 60,000 ducats; this sum was realized principally by means of the issue of indulgences. To what momentous results this led in Germany has already been described ; and also among the Latin peoples a strong opposition had arisen. The Ambassador of the King of Portugal had certainly undertaken, on the 21st of May, 1514, to remit to the Pope 50,000 ducats from the proceeds of the Jubilee which had been authorized in his Sovereign's dominions, but in Spain no less a man than Ximenes had often protested against the Indulgence for the building fund of St. Peter’s. The Republic of Venice, in March, 1515, forbade the publication of this indulgence within its territories : at a later date this injunction was insisted on more strongly. The more meagre the returns of the indulgence money the more strenuous were Leo's exertions to raise funds in other ways. He made use of the Fabbrica di S. Pietro as already constituted by Julius II. On its officials he conferred the extraordinary privilege of watching over the scrupulous execution of testamentary dispositions to the profit of the building expenses. Besides this, Leo enjoined in very many instances that one-half of the receipts from indulgences of other kinds should be apportioned to this purpose. But even this helped little ; in almost all directions a strong reaction against the Indulgence was manifested.

On the top of all this came Leo X’s extravagance and financial disorder. It was no wonder that, like so many other undertakings, the building of St. Peter’s also came more and more to a standstill. As early as 1517 it was a jest among the Romans that Leo would never finish the work of Julius. It was a current tale in Italy that the Pope handed over the receipts from the sale of the St. Peter’s Indulgence to his sister Maddalena. In Germany the calumny was widespread that the stones intended for the Church of St. Peter found their way by night to the palaces of the Pope’s nephews. Despite Leo’s solemn assurance of his zeal for the building of the new basilica, “which takes precedence of all churches upon earth and is a guarantee for the security of the Christian religion”, he was the object of a far-reaching distrust. In May, 1519. a Venetian openly declared that the delays in the building of St. Peter’s arose from the want of the main thing—money. In November, 1521, four courts of the monastery of St. Peter were sold to defray building expenses.

How heavily the tardy progress of the work weighed upon Raphael is to be seen from a letter of the Ferrarese Envoy of the 17th of December, 1519. “The master”, it says, “has often been very strange since he took Bramante’s place”. He was also constantly employed on other architectural commissions : thus he drew designs for several private palaces in the Borgo, among which that of the Papal Chamberlain, Branconio dell' Aquila, was foremost. Unfortunately this building || was sacrificed to make way for the colonnades of the Piazza of St. Peter’s. On the other hand, the Pandolfini Palace at Florence, built after designs by Raphael, has been preserved.

An evil fortune has presided over the so-called Villa Madama, built for Cardinal Giulio de' Medici. Placed in a charming site on the eastern slope of Monte Mario, this villa, although never completed and fallen into sad decay with the lapse of time, has always attracted the attention of artists ; it has quite recently been made the subject of a thorough investigation and most pleasing description. An answer, however, has not yet been found to several questions connected with this interesting structure. Whether the plans were already drawn 1516-1517 cannot be decided. It is certain, on the evidence of Baldassare Castiglione, that the building was well advanced in June, 1519, and often visited by the Pope, but that in August, 1522, the work was not yet finished. Castiglione also vouches that Raphael drew the original plan. Its grandeur and beauty are attested to this day by two drawings exhibited in his studio. The execution of the building, however, was carried out in accordance with a third plan which has, unfortunately, been lost. The whole is in wonderful harmony with the natural character of the gentle ascent on which it stands; every advantage has been taken, by the inspiration of genius, of the beauties of the situation. The domestic offices, the dwelling and reception rooms, the loggie and terraces, the theatre and racecourse, the grottoes, fountains, and gardens, are connected by flights of steps and adjusted to the conformation of the ground. Taken all in all, it is the earliest example of the combination of garden, landscape, and architecture in the laying out of the grounds of an Italian villa. The terrace com mands a noble panorama of the city, the Campagna, the long chain of the Apennines, and sharp-pointed Soracte. When completed, this “Vigna de' Medici” must certainly have been the most beautiful villa of the Renaissance.

The decorations of the stately halls were the work of Giovanni da Udine and Giulio Romano. The central point of splendour was the triple-arched Loggia, sixteen metres high, in the middle of which were displayed the Medici arms. Further decorations consisted of reliefs in stucco and fresco; here were seen the Seasons, Jupiter, Juno, Neptune, Pluto, and Proserpine ; in the frieze which ran underneath the dome-shaped ceiling, antique divinities, satyrs, and nymphs were repeated. In the eastern dome of the exedra the love of Polyphemus for Galatea is depicted. In like manner only antique subjects are represented throughout, along with the heraldic bearings and the device of the owners of the villa.

When we take into consideration that Cardinal Giulio de' Medici was a prelate of thorough earnestness and morality, he decoration of his villa gives us a full measure of the extent to which Roman society in all its circles was penetrated by the spirit of classical antiquity. Another proof is afforded by the general awakening of reverence for the venerable relics of early Roman history, in which the Eternal City was then incomparably richer than it is today. The weightiest evidence of this is the celebrated Brief of Leo X to Raphael, of the 27th of August, 1515, in which the Pope commits “the destiny of the antiquities of Rome” to the hands of this enthusiast for ancient art. At the same time he appoints the architect of St. Peter’s to be chief overseer of all the remains in marble and stone which should be exhumed within Rome or within a radius of ten miles from it. Under the penalty of a heavy fine, each one was bound to report to him, within three days, any discovery of this kind, in order that he might decide what part of this material seemed of use for the building of St. Peter’s. But such remains were not to be utilized for this purpose without discrimination, as had hitherto been the custom ; Leo X expressly commands the preservation of all those portions on which are carved inscriptions or other representations. “Such things often contain some important memorial, and are well worth safeguarding for the advantage of science and the classic purity of the Latin language”. In these closing sentences of his letter lies its essential significance ; Leo X has hereby established a claim on the gratitude of all men of learning.

An appointment of Raphael as overseer and custodian of the collective antiquities of Rome, within the jurisdiction of the city, cannot be deduced from the Papal Brief without doing violence to the text. How much importance Leo X attached to the preservation of ancient remains is shown by his erecting, in the vestibule of the Pantheon, the wonderful porphyry cistern from the Baths of Agrippa, destined at a later date to receive the bones of Clement XII. On two large marble slabs, still to be seen in the Pantheon, he caused an inscription to be placed which relates that this was done in order that a work of such conspicuous elegance might be handed down to posterity unimpaired. An antique votive boat, found on the island in the Tiber, he had carried to the open space before his former titular church, S. Maria in Domenica, which thenceforward was called “della Navicella”. The humanists celebrated this discovery in verse, and interpreted it as a happy augury for the reign of Leo. In general the Leonine period was remarkably poor in the recovery of antiquities as compared with the previous epoch of Julius Il.

The most remarkable archaeological discovery which was made under Leo X was the result of excavations on the site of a temple of Isis near the Church of S. Stefano del Cacco; earlier attempts had shown that a statue of great size lay there. Renewed exploration was followed by brilliant results, for there came to light two colossal statues of the best Roman period, the Nile and the Tiber ; Leo X. became the owner of these statues of the two river gods and placed them in the midst of the Belvedere gardens. A further service was rendered by the Pope to the collection of antiquities begun by his predecessors when he had the tact to decline the request of Francis I that he should hand over to the latter the group of the Laocoon. Nor should the fact be omitted that Leo X, while denying access strictly to his private collection of antiques in Raphael’s Loggie, threw open without restriction the statuary courts of the Belvedere. Rome was thus put in possession of a second public museum in addition to that on the Capitol. The gratitude of after ages has exaggerated the services of Leo X, since it has ascribed to him also the acquisition of works such as the Cleopatra and the Laocoon, which undoubtedly date back to the days of Julius II.

The noteworthy fact that Leo X, in the tradition of later generations, has overshadowed his predecessor, who was undoubtedly a much more remarkable man, is in nowise limited by the interest which the former evinced in the domain of ancient plastic art. This circumstance repeats itself with more or less insistence throughout the whole range of artistic activity. The lavish generosity with which Leo supported the humanist poets and men of learning has been put down to his credit with so high a rate of interest, that for centuries the Leonine epoch has been counted as the meridian of splendour not only of the Roman but of the whole Italian Renaissance in general. To this has contributed in no small measure the glamour which clings to the name of Medici. All that his fore fathers, especially his father, Lorenzo the Magnificent, did for art, has been reflected back upon the Pope, as well as the artistic culture of his relatives, Giulio, Giuliano, and Lorenzo, and of his surroundings. Finally, the after reputation of Leo X was greatly affected by the circumstance that in him culminated that all-embracing patronage of art which had begun with Nicholas V. His successor, Adrian VI, stood quite aloof from the Renaissance ; besides, he was occupied with tasks of a different and more urgent kind. Clement VII was certainly not unwilling to follow on in the path trodden by Leo X, but the innumerable mischances of his reign left him only scanty possibilities of doing anything in this direction. Thus after Leo X came times of gloom, especially for art ; men looked back with yearning at the Leonine era, which still shone in contrast with a more brilliant light.

The picture of Leo X as the patron of art, which has been sketched by the humanists as the dispensers of posthumous fame, and which, in its exaggeration, has obscured the deserts of his predecessor, who in this very particular had a special glory of his own, has for centuries struck the key-note of current opinion. The most recent research has at length administered impartial justice. The earlier tradition, which hailed Leo X as the “appreciative patron of all artists”, and celebrated him as the glorious continuator of the work of Julius II, must now be discounted. On more sober reflection we are astonished that such a conception could have been generally formed ; for it was exactly in this particular that Leo X fell short, namely, that instead of carrying forward the work of his predecessor, he threw himself into countless new enterprises which diverted his attention from points of capital importance.

As regards taste and understanding in the matter of the imaginative arts, Julius II, who was an enthusiast in his feeling for all chefs-d'oeuvre, was incomparably greater than his successor, whose chief predilection lay in decorative art. There can be no doubt that the former “formed a more reverent conception of art, recognized more fully the grandeur of its aims, and paid it freer homage as one of the ideal institutions of life than the refined and subtle Medici, who thrust his own personality much more into the fore ground, and valued art chiefly as a means of heightening the pleasure of life”. It is in accordance with this judgment that even the creations which Julius II called into being excel in subject and beauty the works of the Leonine age, some of which are one-sided in conception and have been praised to excess ; of these only the cartoons stand on the same level as the two first Stanze. Strongly as this must be emphasized, yet the just attribution of what is due to the credit of Julius II ought not to lead to a petty disparagement of the merits of Leo X ; this has been carried to such a pitch in certain quarters that there is a danger of falling into the opposite extreme. Here, as in other matters, the truth will be found to lie midway between the two.

As regards the general development of the art of the Renaissance, it is undoubtedly true that in the time of Leo X it had reached its turning-point, and that many signs of decadence had made themselves visible. But the Pope cannot be held responsible for this natural evolution of things, which constitutes, on the contrary, his acquittal, since it explains why the principal works produced in his reign cannot bear comparison with those of the epoch of Julius II. The previous remark, that Leo X was inferior to his predecessor in artistic taste and judgment, must not be taken as implying that he was lacking in understanding in these matters. Such an opinion is contradicted by the fact that, in choosing the plans for S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini, he rejected, along with those of Peruzzi and Antonio di Sangallo, the designs of his beloved Raphael himself, and gave his decision in favour of the scheme of Jacopo San­sovino. If, notwithstanding, great architectural creations did not arise at his bidding, the chief reason is to be found in the confusion of his finances and the multiplicity of his interests.

Sculpture as well as architecture lost its due pre-eminence. It must be remembered that Leo at once took upon himself the expenses of the decoration of the Holy House at Loreto, and in this instance also he was only carrying out the undertaking of his predecessor. The most recent investigations have exonerated Leo, beyond contradiction, in his dealings with Michael Angelo. He always gave the latter a free hand in the most generous way ; if the great projects which he had prepared for Michael Angelo came to nothing, the blame does not lie with the Pope. His preference for decorative art was certainly characteristic of the aesthetic tendencies of his house and of its love of splendour; but it was also a part of the Papal tradition, handed down to him, and in and for itself is by no means to be despised.

Leo X has been heavily censured for his disregard of other eminent painters and his exclusive partiality for Raphael ; but even the most severe critics cannot deny, herein, his services to art. It is true that recently attempts have been made to belittle and set aside this, the most attractive aspect of his patronage of the fine arts. Since Leo's chief glory as the patron of art is due to the protection given to Raphael, there seems justification for taking a glance backward in order to examine this question more closely.

In the first place, it admits of no dispute that the Pope drew too often and in too many different directions upon the inexhaustible resources of the painter's genius. If, however, it is further asserted that the majority of these tasks were beneath the high level of his powers. the criticism is not less wide of the mark than that which judges Leo’s preference for Raphael to have been damaging to the interests of art. Julius II undoubtedly might have chosen loftier subjects for the walls of the third Stanza, but even Leo recognized eventually his mistake; for the fourth Stanza he suggested themes of universal historical interest and thoroughly in keeping with the place In them, “towards the end of his career, the first of historical painters was able to employ his gifts on subjects of direct historical import, yet idealized by the lapse of time”.

If the execution of the frescoes in the Stanza del' Incendio is not to be compared with that of those in the first two Stanze, compensation is to be found in the wonderful masterpieces of the Loggie. When exception has been made of the paintings on the roof of the Sixtine Chapel and on the walls of the two Stanze, what more impressive and more appropriate subjects can be thought of than the series of episodes from the lives of the Apostles represented by the tapestries? That the effect would have been doubled if the work had been carried out in fresco  is true, but another question arises, whether, under such conditions, it would have fitted into the Sixtine Chapel. Further, the Pope was bound by traditional usage to employ tapestry work in the decoration of the lower walls. Under these circumstances this was the only way in which he could gain entrance for Raphael's work into the Sixtine Chapel, thus enabling him to measure his strength with that of his great rival in this most sacred spot and with him to share the palm of victory. By commissioning the work and entrusting the design to Raphael, Leo unquestionably performed a great service to art, while the cartoons form one of the brightest ornaments in the painter’s crown of fame and reflect a lustre on the Pope, conferring upon him an honoured place by the side of Julius II in the history of the Sixtine Chapel. If in other respects Leo is rightly accused of suspending the great work of the latter, here at least it must with justice be admitted that he carried out and completed his predecessor’s plans. With the completion of the tapestries, the Sixtine Chapel presented, as no other spot on earth has ever done, the united homage of the two greatest painters to religion. As Michael Angelo embodied on its ceiling in a wonderful way the history of the Old Testament, so Raphael in the Loggie and the tapestries became a not less noble interpreter of the Old and of the New. For these two creations the pilgrims of art, who for more than four centuries have made their way to the Vatican, have to thank the fostering care of Leo X.

The question, however, is asked whether the appointment as architect of St. Peter’s was not detrimental to Raphael as a painter. The new appointment made exorbitant demands on his time, and there was imminent danger of a break being made in his career. But who can blame the Pope for having listened to the advice of a Bramante ? Leo X was justified by results. The close occupation with ancient art which the work at St. Peter's demanded, was an important factor in the further development of the painter of Urbino. Lastly, the constant participation of Raphael’s pupils in the works of their overtasked master was the direct means of bestowing on the world creations instinct with the genuine secret of Raphaelesque beauty, for as long as the master lived, his pupils worked under his inspiration ; nor should it be overlooked that the ever­-increasing elevation of Raphael’s art was conditioned by the extraordinary favour and estimation in which he was held by Leo, of whose Court he was one of the most distinguished members. Although the Madonna di S. Sisto and the Transfiguration were not painted at the Pope's own command, the latter is entitled to a certain share of credit for their composition, since it was due to Papal favour and in the Papal service that their painter made Rome his dwelling-place. In these two last pictures, each of which is, in its way, without a rival as a representation of super natural vision, Leo X. also participates, in so far as they re-echo the note of religious feeling associated with the Council of the Lateran held under his presidency.

On looking back, it is impossible to deny that the influence of Leo on art was much more remarkable and fruitful than his influence on letters ; it produced fruits worthy of the Papacy in its days of ripest culture. Before all else Raphael's cartoons are masterpieces by the side of which few things can be set of equal religious or artistic importance. Yet high as were the services rendered by Leo to art, they do not equal in value those of Julius II. The glowing enthusiasm, the great mind, belonged to Julius II. Not only as a politician, but as the friend of art, the genial Rovere far excelled the quick-witted Medici ; this truth was for long disregarded, but is now borne home convincingly. At sunset on the Alps, the mountains sometimes appear suffused with a wondrous radiance, which glows with a greater beauty and splendour than the midday sun itself. In like manner the meridian brightness of the reign of Julius II flung its rays over the world of art of Leo X., and thus it came to pass that the age has become identified with the name, not of the mighty Rovere, but of his more favoured successor.

 

CHAPTER XVI.

THE COUNCIL OF THE LATERAN.