CRISTO RAUL.ORG |
POPE LEO X
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.
|
---|