Michelangelo's Risen Christ

Michelangelo's Risen ChristAuthor(s): William E. WallaceSource: The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Winter, 1997), pp. 1251-1280Published by: The Sixteenth Century JournalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2543577 .

Accessed: 18/05/2014 14:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Sixteenth Century Journal is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheSixteenth Century Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Sun, 18 May 2014 14:28:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=scj

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2543577?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Sixteenth CenturyJournal XXVIII/4 (1997)

Michelangelo's Risen Christ

William E. Wallace Washington University, Saint Loutis

The Risen Christ by Michelangelo in the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome is one of the artist's least admired works.While modern observers frequently have found fault with the statue, it satisfied its patrons enormously and was widely admired by contemporaries. Not least, the sculpture has suffered from the manner in which it is presently displayed and from biased photographic reproduction that emphasizes unfavorable and inappropriate views of Christ. In this paper, I examine the Risen Christ afresh by restoring it to its original context-and discussing its unusual and moving iconography. Thus, it is possible to comprehend the effect of the Christ as a devotional object, to appreciate its success as a work of art, and to account for some of the modern distaste.

IN ONE OF THE MOST CURIOUS PRAISES ever sung about a work of art, Sebastiano del Piombo remarked of Michelangelo's Risen Christ in Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome (fig. 1): "The knees of that figure are worth all of Rome."l Few modern viewers of the sculpture share Sebastiano's laudatory judgment about the knees or any other aspect of this work. For many, the Risen Christ is their least admired sculpture by Michelangelo. Indeed, although the figure is well documented and securely dated, it is sometimes omitted from books on the artist.2

Modern critical judgment of the Risen Christ has been singularly cruel. Stendhal considered the figure an athlete of remarkable physical power;John Addington Symonds described it as "a fine life-guardsman, stripped and posing for

1"Perch6 val pia e' zenochii de quella figura cha non val tutta Roma"; II Carteggio di Michelangelo, ed. Paolo Barocchi and Renzo Ristori, 5 vols. (Florence: Sansoni, 1965-1983), 2:314. On the history and interpretation of the figure, see Henry Thode, Michelangelo: Kritische Untersuchungen fiber seine Werke, 3 vols. (Berlin: G. Grote, 1908-1913), 2:257-72; Charles de Tolnay, Michelangelo: The Aiedici Chapel (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1948; reprinted, 1970), 89-95, 177-82; Herbert von Einem, Michelangelo, trans. Ronald Taylor (London: Methuen, 1959), 127-29; Wolfgang Lotz, "Zu Michelangelos Christus in S. Maria sopra Minerva," in FestschriftfJr Herbert von Eieiem (Berlin: Gebriider Mann, 1965), 143-50; Martin Weinberger, iVlichelangelo the Sculptor, 2 vols. (New York: Columbia UP, 1967), 1:198-209; All- essandro Parronchi, "Il primo 'Cristo Risorto' per Metello Vari," Opere giovanili di Michelangelo (Flor- ence: Olschki, 1975), 2:157-90; Gerda Panofsky, Michelangelos "Christus" und sein rimischer Auftraggeber, Rbmische Studien der Bibliotheca Hertziana, vol. 5 (Worms:WernerscheVerlagsgesellschaft, 1991); and William E.Wallace, "Miscellanae Curiositae Michelangelae: A Steep Tariff, a Half-Dozen Horses, and Yards of Taffeta," Renaissance Quarterly 47 (1994): 330-50. The fullest recent treatment of the Risen Christ is by Laura Agoston, "Michelangelo's Christ: The Dialectics of Sculpture" (Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1993).

2Omission is most common from books geared to the tourist trade; however, even some general surveys of the artist that purport to be more scholarly omit or barely mention the work. Two examples are John Furse, Michelangelo and His Art (London: Hamlyn Publishing, 1975); and Bernard Lamarch- Vadel, Michelangelo (Secaucus, N.J.: Chartvell Books, 1986).

1251



1252 Sixteenth Century joumal XXVIII /4 (1997)

.. ~~~ ...< l .. .... E1L_

7 1. !1 ,i

Y | L : | w N ~~-

0l

Fig.9 1.MceaglRsnCrsSna Mri sopr Miera kon

(poo:kl ibrmn sedb emsin



Wallace /,Michelangelo's "Risen Christ" 1253

Fig. 2. Michelangeo, risen Christ, Sta. Maria sopra MinervaRome (photo, collection of author)



1254 Sixteenth CenturyJournal XXVIII /4 (1997)

Fig. 3. Michelangelo, Risen Christ, Sma Maria sopra Minerva (photo: author)



WiLce / MichelanXelo's "Risen Chnst" 1255

. !

. : | . ,;_

.::g {^- '* ''s _ _ S : _

f .

*-6_ES-!=- ' 't I YP _=_

# S

R . :

_ }t _Yf t t Flt 7_

_ 7 oW 4-^.

_ w _ .. }, ':-: _ t. ..i _ _

'- i

X: -.:^t S . _ A _

:

_ q , . ,.

. ...<

; 1 ^ 1 a

e'S _=. z \ I' bw s = , = _ s _ r w_

| - -zt w * .-s s. .

^0 w .fiXP = \ - tJ ' :.-

>, _-s_ ....

. . s

Fig. 4. Michelangelo, Risen Chnst, Sw Mana sopra N1inerxra, Rome (photo: audor)




'ST1NO IN CA1MPJDOt L(rO .

11 Chriffo di fanta Maria fopra Mincrua.

v eftael a incomparbiftat del NSGiefu Chri. fto,del non maijodazo a baftbza & immortal Mi-

chele Angelo Bonarota. E ndlla fopadeta chicfa di S. Naria fopra MinuaaAell'ordinc di S.Domenico, con le fotto fcritte lerwre nela Bli.

METELLVS YARVS ETP.PAVLCASTELLANVS

ROMANI MARTTAE PORCLE TESTAMENTO

HOC ALTARE EREXERVNT CVM TERTIA PARTE IMPENS ARVM ET DOTIS

QAiE METELLVS DE SVO SVPPLENS

pEO OPT. MAX. DICAVIT. ii 4 La

Fig. 5. Michelangelo, Risen Christ, Sta. Maria sopra Minerva, Rome (photo: author)



Wallace /Michelangelo's"Risen Christ" 1257

I' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.-i- --"-tl

\ L, ,; t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S

Fi.6 adoLnii oyo ihlnel' ie hi4So prtFoec ~~~~~~~~(hto Lauthor)'



1258 Sixteenth CenturyJournal XXVIII /4(1997)

r :: 8 (X/ . ..:.4t. , .. i_ .............................. ;.0

. t % *fX - ^ 3 W : _ .@ .. '4ha

FN ; ; }e' si =# j N f r - D

.:e X Su

. ..F " *w ||t

rX X t .,,, .= #- As * **> i ia

t -. S.i s .................... Ss

, :?_ } j _iN ;i=!

iMl

vv E i &z_ .. x.x._ s_ _.

.S_ t_ 9_

:: 3_s ,_ :_

's ^ ez

S_ __ :<._.^ _L ax _

... 2v .u s < w

_^ ...... .. w, . 4.

_ _W -- . . ,:

Fig. 7. Taddeo Landini, copfly of Michelangelo's Risen Chriz-t, Sto. Spirito, Forence (photo: author)



Wa-11ce /Michelangelo's "'Risen Christ" 1259

... : .~~~~~~~~.

- b . . ,. i: Z.~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----

Fi. . Miheageo Rise Chitt.Mraso ievR m

(phot:RalphLieeran usdbemsin



1260 Sixteenth Centuryjoumnal XXVIII /4 (1997)

- ; r > 0 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

r ACES - X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5.

vi.9 oanKebce h Asamo,15/,olo od(h :Ntioa alr of Axt Wahntn ac;ue ype1USln



Wallace / Michelangelo's "Risen Christ" 1261

Ngfi

Fig. 10. Albrecht Diirer, woodcut of the Ascension (photo, after Complete Woodcuts ofAlbrecht Darer, ed.Willi Kurth; London:W & G. Foyle, 1927)



1262 S=teenth Century Joui II /4 (137)

_f v W -

..

_P _ ........... =

....... .............................................................. w

- | _E_;; E | _ _

1 ; r .N.N._ _E FF t -i,..- L

we tit :: .. = XE _E < 1 __ L

F:X^si.. . Xt. ,.. s....z. . -.._ .._ F0it 5 . :SA.

_ffi t= s 2 E e _

_:- ..;s fi l a I | - 11 _r | * I |- i

;% .rY- i | | I - _.''.W..9=.,. . . I - _: i I * I

_a-a__ l- * BV ?!|_ w ifii = *E-S71 e S_ B

Fig. 1 l.Vla Appu Aniica widl Church of Domine QuoVadis on left, Rome (photo: audlor)



Wallace /Michelangelo's "Risen Christ" 1263

04~

Ow~~~~~

I7~ A

44t

icOs

Fi.1.Curho oin u ais oe(hoo uhr



1264 Sixteenth Century joumaul XXVIII /4 (1997

AS okra Be vq _w? as - ,,

,,'S-4_S rFin=

=PM. . . :

2_2

He- -s~~~~~~~~~~~_'w'~~~~~~~I

,rig ,. >~s

V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i.: 13. Chpe oReiadPl, Vi pi ni om poo uhr




e *; rS

-- ' t5s;

1> l __ _ __

| ..

E --x; _*,.W..; S .f

__ E_

6s .... , . i e | s ............. _ ws n _ ,_1 LS n X <1 i l l 1 w - 1 = ^

v

:. . ::: W _: ..

; .. . . .... .... w S. j . .; v.

i .. + .. _.. FE . t

.... t . ..

_E l [ .i

_ * a r=_ _l _ _l _S _l _l _*

.

._ I | lE ||

I

Fig 14. Gesso copy of Michelangelo's Risen Christ, inside Church of Domine Quohdisw Rome bhoto: audor)



1266 Sixeenth CenturyJournal XXVIII /4 (1997)

\ ;+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~.4

Fig. 15. The Resurreaon and Ascensin, ivory, ca A.D. 400, Bayerisches Museum, Munich (photo: author)



Wallace /Michelangelo's "Risen Christ" 1267

4. ....

.

Fig. 16. Michelangelo, drawing of the Risen Christ, Windsor Castle, Royal Library no. 12768 (photo: The Royal Collection, C, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II;

used by permission)



1268 Sixteenth Centuryjoumnal XXVIII /4 (1997)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. . .... ......

* ,> Z_ ... ... _~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. .

) _ r w ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I.... y -F ~ ~ eS

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ... .....~ |

Fig. 17. Michelangelo, drawin of the Risen Christ, British MuseurmXilde no. 52 (photo: British Museum; used by permission)



W-i~ce I.Michelangelo's"Risen Christ" 1269

*as

* h S- #s

Fjg. ~18 Miheageo Rse Cfst, Sta Mani 'or M.ea Roe(hto uhr




some classic battle-piece."3 In a widely read early biography of the artist, Romain Rolland could scarcely bring himself to accept that the sculpture was by Michelan- gelo."It is," Rolland wrote, "the coldest and dullest thing he ever did ... commonplace and uninspiring."4 More recent writers, less overtly judgmental but no less put off by the work, have often found fault with it, claiming, for example, that it is "the least satisfying sculpture of his mature years"5 or stating more flatly, as Linda Murray did: "It is Michelangelo's chief and perhaps only total failure.",6

The modern denigration ofthe Risen Christ is in sharp contrast to the contemporary admiration for the sculpture.The work greatly pleased its Roman patrons, it was widely praised by contemporaries, and a bronze copy was ordered by King Francis wi7 I hope to demonstrate that distaste for the statue is due, in part, to a selective reading ofe theemaysore than dstosthe egregis pue of photographic reproduction. I would like to present and to interpret a different view of the Risen Christ, to consider certain narrative implications of the image, and to assess its success as a work of devotional art.

* * *

Many reservations regarding the Risen Christ originate in the tortuous history of the sculpture's gestation and with some piquant comments made by Michelangelo's friend Sebastiano del Piombo. The commission was plagued by difficulties, from a marble flaw that necessitated carving a second version to numerous problems in transporting the finished sculpture. Not until more than six years after it had been commissioned in 1514 was the statue finally installed in Santa Maria sopra Minerva.8 In September 1521, towards the end of this drawn-out history, Sebas- tiano del Piombo wrote an alarming missive to Michelangelo in Florence.The gos- sipy Venetian, claiming that "it's not my profession to speak ill of anyone, proceeded to do just that at considerable length. He informed his friend that Mich- elangelo's assistant Pietro Urbano, who had been sent to Rome to add finishing touches to the sculpture, had bungled the job:

3Stendhal, quoted in Agoston, "Michelangelo's Christ," 23; and John Addington Symonds, The Life of Michelangelo Buonarroti, 2 vols. (London:J. C. Nimmo, 1893),1:363.

4Romain Rolland, Michelangelo, trans. Frederick Street (NewYork: A. and C. Boni, 1935), 58. 5Robert S. Liebert, Michelangelo: A Psychoanalytic Study of His Life and Images (New Haven:Yale

UP, 1983), 214; and Howard Hibbard, Michelangelo (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), 168. Herman Grimm, Life of Michael Angelo, trans. Fanny Elizabeth Bunnett, 2 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1876), 1:492, considered the work "full of mannerism" such that "the spiritual idea it contains is made subor- dinate."

6Linda Murray, Michelangelo, World of Art Series (NewYork: Oxford UP, 1980), 104. 71n the first edition of his Lives, Michelangelo's biographer, Giorgio Vasari, praised the figure as

"una figura miracolossima"; in the 1568 edition, he wrote that it was "una figura mirabilissima"; Gior- gioVasari, La vita di Michelangelo nelle redazioni del 1500 e del 1568, ed. Paolo Barocchi, 5 vols. (Milan: R. Ricciardi, 1962), 1:59. On the fortuna of the sculpture, seeVasari, Vita di Michelangelo, 3:901-14; and Janet Cox-Rearick, The Collection of Francis I: Royal Treasures (Antwerp: Fonds Mercator, 1995), 295, 313.The Florentine Accademia del Disegno owned a copy of the figure, a gesso that was purchased in 1583; Karin-edis Barzman, "The Florentine Accademia del Disegno" (Ph.D. diss.,Johns Hopkins Uni- versity, 1986), 416-18. Barzman notes that just four years previously, the marble copy by Taddeo Lan- dini was installed in Santo Spirito, attesting the fame of Michelangelo's work.

80n this, see especiallyWallace, "Miscellanae Curiositae," 330-36.



Wallace / Michelangelo ' "Risen Christ" 1271

I'm sure you're fed up hearing the news of your Pietro Urbano ... but since he has acted shamefully and without consideration towards you, for love of you I am forced to let you know about his behaviour.

Originally you sent him to Rome with the figure, to finish it and set it up.... But I must tell you that in all he has done he has ruined every- thing, above all the right foot ... and he has also ruined the fingers of the hands, chiefly the one that holds the cross; ... and they don't look as if they were made of marble, but made by someone who makes pasta....9

This damning evidence has prompted scholars to find all sorts of faults with the Risen Christ. 10 Especially if one is already inclined to dislike the sculpture, the seemingly irrefutable contemporary witness offers ready justification for a negative judgment, Sebastiano's letter being the crack in the dam of opprobrium. Not sur- prisingly, therefore, the letter is frequently cited, not only for its colorful criticism but also for the glimpse it affords of the world of petty concerns that surround the creation of a work of art. Many who resort to Sebastiano as witness, however, fail to quote the very next line, in which he assures Michelangelo that these faults "can easily be remedied." 11 And although the letter evidently prompted Michelangelo's offer to recarve the sculpture yet again, the patrons refused, for they were perfectly satisfied. Indeed, Metello Vari expressed his gratitude to Michelangelo and presented him with a horse: exceptional recompense for an artistic commission.12 Further, he wished to commission an additional work from Michelangelo. Despite the patron's complete satisfaction with the sculpture, his positive reaction has not been universally shared.

Whether acknowledged or not, many ambivalent feelings about the Risen Christ arise from the figure's stark and not fully explained nudity. The audacious nudity, all the more striking given that this is a life-size, three-dimensional figure, may seem more appropriate to a pagan statue than to a representation of Christ.13

9Carteggio, ed. Barocchi and Ristori, 2:313-15; Linda Murray, Michelangelo: His Life, Work, and Times (NewYork:Thames & Hudson, 1984),104.

10Thus, for example, Murray, Michelangelo, 105, has written: "The rather unsatisfactory quality of the figure may be due to the unfortunate tamperings of Urbano"; or Roberto Salvini, The Hidden Michelangelo (Danbury, Conn.: MasterWorks Press, 1984), 92, has written that "the statue is partly the work of Pietro Urbano."These comments imply that much more of the work is attributable to Urbano than is the case. See also Weinberger, Michelangelo the Sculptor, 205-6.

"ma facilmente se 1i potra remediar"; Carteggio, ed. Barocchi and Ristori, 2:313. 12Wallace, "Miscellanae Curiositae," esp. 335-36. 13James Jackson Jarves, Art Thoughts (1869; reprint, New York: Garland, 1976), 89, described the

figure as "decidedly pagan in style"; Tolnay, Michelangelo, 91: "an Apollonian nude figure"; von Einem, Michelangelo, 127: a "naked hero of antiquity"; and John Shearman, Mannerism (Baltimore: Penguin, 1969), 57: "a heroic and neo-Hellenistic ideal of grace." On the classical character of the nude figure, see Friedrich Kriegbaum, "Michelangelo und die Antike," ManchnerJahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 3/4 (1952-1953): 10-36; Carl Justi, Michelangelo: Neue Beitrdge zur Erkldrung seiner Werke (Berlin: G. Grote'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1909), 425-35; Herbert von Einem, "Michelangelo und die Antike," in Antike und Abendland (Hamburg: M. von Schroder, 1945), 1:55-77; and similar issues regarding Christ of the LastJudgment, for which see V. Shrimplin-Evangelidis, "Sun-Symbolism and Cosmology in Michelangelo's Lastjudgment," Sixteenth CenturyJournal 21 (1990): 607-43. In an extremely interest- ing discussion, Agoston, "Michelangelo's Christ," 34-43, examined the Minerva Christ in light of the Laocobn. On the other hand, Panofsky, Michelangelos "Christus," 180-89, explicated the nude Christ as a




Rather than represent an ancient god in Renaissance guise, Michelangelo, more boldly, has represented Christianity's godhead in the language of pagan antiquity. Radical and unprecedented is the creation of a life-size, nude, sacral image in marble, especially one with a potent and potentially disturbing physicality.14 Michelan- gelo's real or perceived transgression of decorum has been variously "explained" by reference to Michelangelo's Neoplatonism, to his emulation of antiquity, or to artistic license. Although the original contract stipulated "a marble Christ, large as life, nude,"15 the sculpture, nonetheless, has often elicited strongly contradictory responses. For the custodians of the statue, the Dominican friars of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, a common response to the potentially offending nudity has been to cover it. There have been a variety of interventions including, for example, the addition of a gilt loincloth and slipper and the more baroque raiment, complete with halo seen in old photographs (e.g., fig. 2).

The gilt slipper was placed on Christ's foot to protect it from the zealous devotion of the faithfuil; the figure is constantly stroked and kissed.The desire for physical contact is a clear sign of the statue's success as a popular devotional object. I think we ought to heed the devout, and I will return to the foot below.We might note in passing that the foot presently is uncovered since, in our age of "scientific" restoration, we wish to experience the unadulterated work of the master.Yet, at the same time, Christ retains an anachronistic swatch of gilt drapery (fig. 1), since the completely naked figure might still prove discomfiting.

Many critics of the Risen Christ direct attention to the alarming proportions of the figure; a weighty torso and excessively broad hips rise above a pair of peculiarly

"new Adam." Kevin Newman (private communication) also emphasized the Hellenistic character of the figure and related it to nude types such as the Demetrios I Soter ("Savior") in the Museo delle Terme, Rome. He suggested that there might be a link between Hellenistic political vocabulary, which employed the word "savior," and Michelangelo's Christ, the new savior.

14The Risen Christ is a prominent example in the discussion of the sexuality of Christ in Leo Steinberg, The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion (NewYork: Pantheon, 1983), esp. 17-21, 140-41. See also Alastair Smart, "Letter to the Editor," Art Bulletin 52 (1970): 360; Caroline Walker Bynum, "The Body of Christ in the Later Middle Ages: A Reply to Leo Steinberg," Renaissance Quarterly 39 (1986): 399-439; Panofsky, Michelangelos "Christus," 146-47; and Agoston, "Michelangelo's Christ," passim. Also relevant are Richard C.Trexler, "Gendering Christ Crucified,," in Iconography at the Crossroads, ed. Brendan Cassidy (Princeton: Index of Christian Art, Dept. of Art and Archaeology, Princeton Univ., 1993), 107-20; and Craig Harbison, "The Sexuality of Christ in the Early Sixteenth Century in Germany," in A Tribute to Robert A. Koch (Princeton: Dept. of Art and Archaeology, Prince- ton Univ., 1994), 69-76. On the possibility that Michelangelo transgressed decorum and expectation in creating a sacral image of a nude Christ in marble, see John T. Paoletti, "Wooden Sculpture in Italy as Sacral Presence,"Artibus et Historiae 26 (1992): 85-100; on 96 Paoletti remarks that Renaissance audi- ences "understood the relationship between medium and message very clearly." Also pertinent are G. Weber, "Bemerkungen zu Michelangelos Christus in S. Maria sopra Minerva," WienerJahrbuchfir Kun- stgeschichte 22 (1969): 201-3; Philipp P. Fehil, "The Naked Christ in Santa Maria Novella in Florence: Reflections on an Exhibition and the Consequences," Storia dell'arte 45 (1982): 161-64; and Joanna E. Ziegler, "Michelangelo and the Medieval PietA: The Sculpture of Devotion or the Art of Sculpture?" Gesta 24 (1995): 28-36.

15"una figura di marmo d'un Cristo grande quanto el naturale, ignudo." For the contract, see Gaetano Milanesi, Le lettere di Michelangelo coi ricordi ed contratti artistici (Florence: Le Monnier, 1875), 641.




tapered and spindly legs. Particularly displeasing is the side view of figure 3, and worse is a view from behind, which is frequently illustrated and no less frequently used to criticize the anatomy and proportions of the figure (fig. 4).16 But to judge Christ by his posterior is a serious infraction of decorum. This is not a proper view of Christ; moreover, it is fairly easy to demonstrate that the figure was never meant to be seen in such a manner.

The Risen Christ was made to stand in or before a niche, the execution of which Michelangelo entrusted to his friend, Federigo Frizzi.17 Some idea of the figure in its original location is gained from a woodcut illustration in a guidebook to Rome published in 1600 (fig. 5).18 The character of the original setting is further suggested by the copy of Michelangelo's figure that still stands in a niche above a side altar in Santo Spirito in Florence (fig. 6).19 The niche is essential to the iconography of the figure as it suggests the realm of shades from which the figure emerges triumphantly.

The figure has been moved within the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome, but until the nineteenth century, it always was seen in conjunction with a niche.This means that our view of the figure necessarily must have been limited, with the niche concealing part of the body (e.g., fig. 7). In a recent study of the Risen Christ, Laura Agoston emphasized the multiplicity of satisfying views of the figure.20 Even so, we were never meant to see the figure's posterior and imperfect proportions. Indeed, there are areas at the rear, notably the right shoulder, that the artist left unfinished. The awkward rear view was not only inappropriate; it simply was not available.

Another reason for the poor estimation of the Risen Christ stems from a pre- vailing bias in photographing the sculpture. Probably because Christ faces to our right, photographers have favored views taken from this side. This bias is so preva- lent that it is difficult to find other viewpoints, especially ones from a vantage point farther to the left. To illustrate such a view it was necessary to have photographs specially made (e.g., fig. 8). One immediately realizes that the appearance of the

16See, for exampleTolnay, Michelangelo, figs. 69,70. 17Lotz, "Michelangelos Christus," 143-50; Charles de Tolnay, "Il tabernacolo per ii Cristo della

Minerva," Commentari 18 (1967): 43-47; and Wallace, "Miscellanae Curiositae," 334-35. 18From Girolamo Francini, Le cose maravigliose dell'alma citta di Roma (Rome: Giacomo Mascardi,

1600); see Ludwig Schudt, Le guide di Roma (Vienna: B. Filser, 1930; reprint, Farnborough: Gregg, 1971), no. 92, pp. 207-8.The print reverses the orientation of the sculpture.

19Carved by Taddeo Landini and installed in 1579.Tolnay, Michelangelo, 180, lists other copies. 20FollowingTolnay,Agoston,"Michelangelo's Christ," 12, has argued that the figure stood in front

of a shallow niche and that it is "likely that several views of the figure were possible." Nonetheless, the figure was clearly not intended to be seen fully in the round and never from the rear. Michelangelo pro- vides clues to the primary view of a figure in his working method (carving from the front face of the block) and from his bases, which are oriented to the primary view. For the most part, the principal view is either along the narrow or broad side of the block, never between. Photographers frequently prefer diagonal views of Michelangelo's sculptures because they "maximize" the information available in one image and tend to highlight the marked contrapposto that characterizes Michelangelo's figures. However, contemporary evidence suggests that the narrow edge of the Risen Christ block faced forward, as shown in the guidebook illustration mentioned above and in Nicolas Beatrizet's engraving; Suzanne Boorsch, The Illustrated Bartsch, vol. 29, Italian Masters of the Sixteenth Century (New York: Abaris Books, 1982), no.266.




sculpture subtly but significantly changes, depending on the angle from which it is seen (compare figs. 3 and 8). This is a self-evident point but one rarely made in connection with this figure.21

If we view the sculpture from the left, as we see in figure 8, then Christ is no longer an unpleasantly thickset figure with monumental buttocks. Rather, his proportions are more slender, and his body merges with the cross in a harmonious and graceful composition. Michelangelo constantly distorted human anatomy for artistic effect; one only need think of the Moses and David or the LastJudgment and Pauline Chapel. It would be wrong, therefore, to hold the Risen Christ to a standard of"natural" proportions when these scarcely pertain to Michelangelo's other work, either sculpted and painted.22 I suggest that Michelangelo, fully cognizant of the figure's intended location, took advantage of the setting to create a figure that appeared correct within a limited viewing arc. It seems that he sacrificed the back view in order to render convincingly the slender proportions and refined, dance- like pose seen in figure 8.

And what of Christ's gaze? Although frontal views of Christ's face are commonly reproduced, it probably was impossible to see it in such a manner, given the elevation of the figure. Moreover, one must ask whether it is appropriate to look directly into the face of the Savior, any more than it is to touch him after the Res- urrection.The turn of the body and averted face suggest something like the shun- ning of physical contact that is central to another post-Resurrection subject, the Noli me tangere. The turned head is an eloquent and poignant means of rendering Christ inaccessible even as his corporeal reality is made manifest.

Christ's gaze probably is directed not to the spectator but more likely and more appropriately towards the altar or the tabernacle of the Host.23 His gestures gain in eloquence when viewed from the vantage presented in figure 8.We are encouraged not to stare into Christ's face but to regard the instruments of his Passion. Our attention is directed to the cross by the extreme but effortless cross-body gesture of the left arm and the entwining movement of the right leg. And it is only from this angle that one can see the small nail holes in Christ's hands.With his powerful but graceful hands, Christ cradles the cross, and the separated index fingers of each hand actually point to it. The directional movement suggested by the arms, hands, and extended fingers direct us first to the cross and then heavenwards. Christ pre- sents us with the symbols of his Passion: the tangible recollection of his earthly life

21Except for Weinberger, Michelangelo the Sculptor, 202-4; and Agoston, "Michelangelo's Christ," esp. 8-13.Viewing angle is a point central to my discussion of the Rome Pieta; see William E.Wallace, "Michelangelo's Rome PietA: Altarpiece or Grave Memorial?" in Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, ed. Steven BuleAlan Phipps Darr, and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi (Florence: Le Lettere, 1992), 117-41.

22Concerning proportional, compositional, and optical adjustments, see Earl E. Rosenthal, "Michelangelo's Moses, dal di sotto in su,"Art Bulletin 46 (1964): 544-50; William E.Wallace, "Narrative and Religious Expression in Michelangelo's Pauline Chapel,"Artibus et Historiae 19 (1989): 107-21; and the extensive discussion with regard to the work of Donatello by Robert Munman, "Optical Correc- tions in the Sculpture of Donatello," Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 75/2 (1985): 1-96.

23This suggestion, of course, depends on the location of the figure, which was determined only after its arrival in Rome; see Lotz, "Michelangelos Christus," 143-50.




and suffering. In placing these relics before us, Christ encourages us to reflect on his sacrifice and the means of our redemption.

The resurrected Christ is commonly portrayed wrapped in his burial shroud and holding the banner of the Resurrection.The instruments of the Passion are not usual attributes of the subject. Indeed, for Michelangelo such accouterments seem uncharacteristic clutter; yet they are so masterfully integrated into the overall composition that many spectators scarcely notice that, in addition to the cross, Christ holds a long bamboo pole, a sponge, and coils of rope.24 The differentiated hard and soft textures of these various materials are a tour. de force of illusionistic marble carving.The inclusion of these symbolic attributes and the manner of their presen- tation relate Michelangelo's figure to well-recognized types of devotional images, particularly the Man of Sorrows andArma Christi.25 Giovanni Bellini's well-known painting, The Blood of the Redeemer, in the National Gallery of London is a good example of this popular type.26 The cross is a prominent part of this iconography, but rarely is it in proper proportion to the figure. Michelangelo's Risen Christ also bears a small cross, the diminutive size of which has been frequently criticized. But the cross is a symbol intended to inspire devotion, to evoke rather than to relate the Passion narrative. It is an object of our contemplation and the reassuring sign of our salvation, especially as we approach the altar to partake of the Sacrament.

In the many derivations from Michelangelo's figure, the importance of the cross is subtly or exaggeratedly emphasized. One example, a sculpture of the early eighteenth century now in Prague, translates Michelangelo's invention into a florid, baroque idiom.27 Christ directs our attention to the cross, and his undraped

24The unusual inclusion of the instruments of the Passion in an image of; the Risen Christ has been noted and discussed in John Gabriel Haddad, "The Sabbatarian Struggle of Michelangelo,"Athenor 12 (1994): 45.

250n the iconography of the Imago Pietatis and Arma Christi, see Gertrud Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, trans. Janet Seligman, 2 vols. (Greenwich, Conn.: New York Graphic Society, 197 1- 1972), 2:184ff.; Erwin Panofsky, "'Imago Pietatis': Ein Beitrag zur Typengeschichte des 'Schmerzens- manns' und der 'Maria Mediatrix,"' in Festschrfftfur Maxj. Friedlander zum 60. Geburtstag (Leipzig: E. A. Seemann, 1927), 261-308; R. Berliner, "Arma Christi," Munchnerjahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 6 (1955): 35-152; R. Berliner, "Bemerkungen zu einigen Darstellungen des Erlbsers als Schmerzensmann," Das Mfinster 9 (1956): 97-117; Robert Suckale, "Arma Christi: Uberegungen zur Zeichenhaftigkeit mittel- alterlicher Andachtsbilder'" Stddel-Jahrbuch 6 (1977): 177-208; K.Van Ausdall, "The Corpus Verum and Verrocchio's Incredulity of Christ," in Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, ed. Bule, Darr, and Gioffredi, 33-49; and Timothy Verdon, "Imago Pietatis and Good Friday Liturgy," World Art: Themes of Unity and Diversity, ed. Irving Lavin, 3 vols. (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State UP, 1989), 629- 34. On Michelangelo's figure specifically, see Gerda Panofsky, "Die Ikonographie von Michelangelos Christus in Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rom," MunchnerJahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 39 (1988): 89- 112; Panofsky, Michelangelos "Christus," esp. chap. 6; Agoston, "Michelangelo's Christ," passim; and Colin T. Eisler, "The Golden Christ of Cortona and the Man of Sorrows in Italy: Part Two," Art Bulletin 51 (1969): 233-46. Eisler specifically notes in reference to Michelangelo's sculpture that by the sixteenth century, "the division between the Man of Sorrows and the Christ of the Resurrection had blurred, and there is no need to view these types as mutually exclusive."

26Martin Davies, The Earlier Italian Schools, National Gallery Catalogues, 2d rev. ed. (London: Publications Dept., National Gallery, 1961), 60-61. See a color reproduction in Rona Goffen, Giovanni Bellini (New Haven:Yale UP, 1989), fig. 57. Eisler, "Golden Christ," 235, has noted that the precise subject of Bellini's picture has been much debated.

27Illustrated and discussed in Panofsky, Michelangelos "Christus," fig. 56; and Panofsky, "Ikonogra- phie von Michelangelos Christus," fig. 3.




left leg encircles its base. The exaggerated rhetoric of this figure permits us to appreciate what Michelangelo has achieved through infinitely more subtle means. Michelangelo has carved a leg that gently entwines the cross and visually is united to it (fig. 8).28 The identification of Christ with the cross is made explicit, both for- mally and iconographically. Flesh and cross are joined, two manifestations, material and symbolic, of the same reality. To the spectator, Christ's leg is advanced and accessible, even to touch; as the eye rises to heaven, the cross becomes the domi- nant element of the composition, a via crucis to salvation.29

The entwining leg of the Risen Christ has similar connotations and may stir some of the same ambivalent emotions as the more famous "slung leg" of the Flor- entine Pieta.30 There is an implicit sexuality in the pose of Michelangelo's nude Christ. Sebastiano del Piombo's obscure remark about Christ's knees, with which I began, may be read as tacit acknowledgment of the unexpected nakedness of Christ's lower limbs. He may have been startled, as we are, by a nude Christ. But before defending the propriety of the figure, I would like to consider what might be called the "narrative" dimension of his leg gesture.

Christ's left leg is engaged and carries the full weight of his body.The advanced right leg is in the act of pressing the front part of the foot into the ground; the heel is raised and the toes curl downward as if making an impression in the soft earth (see especially figs. 1, 3, 8). The approximately four inches of differently colored stone just below the toes is not part of Michelangelo's original sculpture. At some uncertain date, a separate base was added, since Michelangelo's figure must have

28The angel bearing the cross in the upper left lunette of the LastJudgment similarly twines a leg around the cross.

29The prominence of the cross in Michelangelo's sculpture suggests that he may have been influ- enced by Girolamo Savonarola's preaching and writing; see, for example, Girolamo Savonarola, Frate Hieronymi de Ferraria Triumphus Crucis de veritate Fidei (Venice: Lazarus Soardus, 1508). Savonarola's ideas became even more widespread after his death through the writings of his numerous followers such as Girolamo Benivieni's De morte Christi et propria cogitando. Alessandro Parronchi, Opere giovanili di Miche- langelo (Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1992), 4:23-38, has suggested the importance of Savonarola's Triumphus Crucis in the program for the monument of Pope Julius II. On Benivieni and the Savonarolans, see Lorenzo Polizzotto, The Elect Nation: The Savonarolan Movement in Florence, 1494-1545 (Oxford: Clar- endon, 1994), esp. 145-49, 154. For Savonarola and Benivieni, the cross was the guide to spiritual improvement. Thus, for example, Savonarola wrote: "Contemplating, therefore, this cross, we will acquire wisdom, and by fervently offering our prayers, we will acquire virtue and strength...." ("Con- templando, dunque, questa croce, acquisteremo sapienza e, faccendo divotamente le orazione ordinate, acquisteremo virtui e fortezza...."); Girolamo Savonarola, Operette spirituali, ed. Mario Ferrara (Rome: A. Belardetti, 1976), 2:161.The ideas rather than any individual textual "source" were probably familiar to Michelangelo. For discussions of religious culture and the manner in which it permeated Renaissance life, see Richard Trexler, Public Life in Renaissance Florence (NewYork: Academic Press, 1980); Timothy Verdon, "Christianity, the Renaissance, and the Study of History: Environments of Experience and Imagination," in Christianity and the Renaissance, ed. Timothy Verdon and John Henderson (Syracuse, N.y.: Syracuse UP, 1990), 1-37; see also Marcia Hall, "Savonarola's Preaching and the Patronage ofArt," in Christianity, ed.Verdon and Henderson, 493-22.

30Leo Steinberg, "Michelangelo's Florentine Pietd:The Missing Leg," Art Bulletin 50 (1968): 343- 53; and Leo Steinberg, "Animadversions: Michelangelo's Florentine Pietd: The Missing Leg Twenty Years After," Art Bulletin 71 (1989): 480-505. In addition, see the essays in a volume devoted to this sculpture edited by Jack Wasserman (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton UP, forthcoming).




appeared unconventional standing, as it were, directly on the ground.31 Moreover, the few inches of stone might have been added to protect the sculpture, since the advanced foot might easily have been damaged. But, precisely because the foot no longer extends to the front and bottom edge of the block, this well-intentioned protective measure tends to vitiate a proper appreciation of the subtle but signifi- cant foot gesture.

The action of the foot brings to mind a curious iconographic tradition for rep- resenting the Ascension of Christ, an example of which we find in a small painting by Johann Koerbecke in the National Gallery ofArt in Washington, D.C. (fig. 9).32 Koerbecke represents the footprints of Christ impressed on the mountaintop from which he has ascended. They are physical remnants of Christ's presence on earth; in a sense, his last human act before ascending to heaven. Albrecht Durer also represented footprints on the mountaintop in his Ascension of Christ from the small Pas- sion series: a woodcut that may even have been known to Michelangelo (fig. 10).33 Is it possible that Michelangelo wished to suggest a similar iconography in marble?

The footprints of Christ have particular significance to a Roman audience. On the Via Appia Antica stands the small church of Domine Quo Vadis, popularly known as Santa Maria delle Piante or Our Lady of the Footprints (figs. 11, 12). It is said that at this fork in the road just outside the walls of Rome, Peter, after escap- ing the Mamertine prison, encountered the resurrected Christ. Astonished, Peter inquired: "Domine quo vadis?" ("Lord, whither goest thou?"), to which Christ responded: "I go to Rome to be crucified anew." Christ then ascended, leaving the deep imprint of his feet in the stone upon which he stood.34 In the sixteenth century, Michelangelo's friend, the English cardinal Reginald Pole, had a small, round chapel built nearby (fig. 13). According to popular tradition, the chapel is con- structed over the very spot where Christ first appeared to Peter and from where he accompanied the apostle a short distance along the Appian Way. A copy of Christ's footprints and a full-size gesso copy of Michelangelo's Risen Christ (fig. 14), are found in the church, marking the venerated spot where he appeared and van- ished.35 The nineteenth-century cicerone of Rome, Augustus Hare, explicitly linked the well-known pilgrimage site and statue when, in describing Domine Quo Vadis, he wrote: "Michelangelo's famous statue, now in the church of S. Maria

31The base was an issue at the time the work was installed in Santa Maria sopra Minerva; see Car- teggio, ed. Barocchi and Ristori, 2:222, 314, 324. Weinberger, Michelangelo the Sculptor, 205 n. 32, thought the rough rock decoration was added when the statue was placed on a modern pedestal, probably in 1858. He also assumed that the sharp downward slope of the ground and position of the foot were due to Pietro Urbano's bungling and Federigo Frizzi's corrections; Weinberger, Michelangelo the Sculptor, 206 n. 35. On the issue of bases for Renaissance sculpture, see W P. Tuckerman, "Die Sockel- bildung statuarischer Werke," Zeitschriftjitr bildende Kunst 6 (1895): 269-301; Herbert Keutner, "Uber die Enstehung und die Formen des Standbildes im Cinquecento," ManchnerJahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 7 (1956): 138-68; Kathleen Weil-Garris, "On Pedestals: Michelangelo's David, Bandinelli's Hercules and Cacus, and the Sculpture of the Piazza della Signoria," RdmischesJahrbuchfur Kunstgeschichte 20 (1983): 379-415; and Wallace, "Michelangelo's Rome Pietd," esp. 253-55.

32See John Oliver Hand, German Paintings of the Fifteenth through Seventeenth Centuries, National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue (Washington, D. C.: National Gallery of Art, 1993), 103-14.

33Wilhi Kurth, The Complete Woodcuts ofAlbrecht Durer (NewYork: [Arden, 1936]), fig. 256. 34SeeJ. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 424.




sopra Minerva, is supposed to represent Christ as he appeared to St. Peter on this occasion."36

Peter Brown has emphasized the importance of relics for ensuring praesentia, the physical presence of the holy.37 Christ's footprints at Domine Quo Vadis are more full of his praesentia than any other relic in Rome, allowing pilgrims to be close to the Lord or, at least, to tangible evidence of his physical body. Dual aspects of praesentia are manifest in Michelangelo's sculpture; we see Christ in the flesh, and we are assured of an enduring relic of his presence, even after his Ascension to heaven.38

Thus, the action of the foot brings to mind a specific event of Christian history, a much venerated pilgrimage shrine, and a particular iconographic tradition that conflates the risen and ascending Christ. Of course, the Ascension took place forty days after Easter, but in early Christian thought it was widely accepted that Christ ascended to heaven directly from the tomb, and in art the two subjects were often represented as one (e.g., fig. 15).39 Michelangelo similarly has compressed sacred history; the single devotional image joins two widespread events and works on two levels, as both icon and narrative.

35The original stone with the footprints is now in the nearby church of S. Sebastiano. Originally the church of Domine Quo Vadis was known as "ubi Dominus apparuit" and subsequently, "S. Maria delle Palme," or "del passo," "S. Maria in Palmis," "de palma," "ad passus," "plantarum," and "ad transi- tum," the various appellations referring to the apparition of Christ to Peter. On the church and Cardinal Reginald Pole's edicola, see The Marvels of Rome, ed. Francis Morgan Nichols (New York: Italica Press, 1986), 67-68; Filippo Titi, Nuovo studio di pittura, scoltura ed architettura nelle chiese di Roma (1721; reprint, Bologna: A. Forni, 1974), 171; Mariano Armellini, Le chiese di Roma dal secolo IV al XIX, 2d ed. (1891; reprint, Rome: Edizioni del Pasquino, 1982), 891-92; Roberto Valentini and Giuseppe Zucchetti, Codice topografico della cittd di Roma, 4 vols. (Rome: Tipografia del Senato, 1940-1953), 3:23-24; and Livio lannattoni, Roma egli inglesi (Rome:Atlantica, 1945), 154.

36Augustus J. C. Hare, Walks in Rome, 12th ed. rev. (London: G. Allen, [1887])., 1:413-14; see also Anna Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art, 2 vols. (Boston: Hougton Mifflin, 1899-1900), 1:200-1.

37Patrick Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: U Chi- cago P, 1981), esp. chap. 5.

38The attention accorded the foot by the faithful recalls the other most venerated foot in Rome, that of the statue of Apostle Peter in the Basilica of Saint Peter. The prominent, advanced foot of Michelangelo's figure might also evoke the topos, originating in classical antiquity, in which footsteps are generative and possess animating power. Petrarch employed the topos of the "bel piede," as did Poli- ziano in his Giostra, after which it became a Renaissance commonplace. For this conceit, see James V. Mirollo, "'Where'erYou Walk': My Lady's Beautiful Foot and Generative Footsteps: The Literary Con- text of Parmigianino's Madonna del Bel Piede," in Reconsidering the Renaissance, ed. Mario A. Di Cesare (Binghamton, N.y.: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1992), 177-89; and J.Villa, "The Petrarchan Topos 'Bel Piede': Generative Footsteps," Romance Notes 11 (1969): 167-73.

39Sophie Helena Gutberlet, Die Himmeffahrt Christi in der bildenden Kunst von den Anfdngen bis ins hohe Mittelalter (Strasbourg: Heitz and Co., 1934), esp. 243-57; Ernest T. Dewald, "The Iconography of the Ascension," American Journal ofArchaeology 19 (1915): 277-319; Lyder Brun, Die Auferstehung Christi in der urchristlichen Uberlieferung (Oslo: H. Aschehoug, 1925); and Patrick Reutersward, "The Resur- rected Christ: Problems in Representation," in The Visible and Invisible in Art: Essays in the History of Art (Vienna: IRSA, 1991), 157-69.



Wallace / Michelangelo' "Risen Christ" 1279

A number of deeply moving drawings reveal Michelangelo's conflation of the Resurrection and Ascension. In an example in Windsor Castle (fig. 16), Christ's heavenward gaze and forceful upward movement suggest his subsequent Ascension. In a further drawing in the British Museum, the two subjects are even more sug- gestively elided (fig. 17).40 The scene represented is clearly the Resurrection; sol- diers flee the apparition of the rising Christ. However, this is not a conventional representation of Christ climbing from the tomb. Rather, he is drawn upwards with his gaze directed towards heaven, as if yearning to be reunited with his father. Rising flamelike and effortlessly, his elongated body is more ethereal than substan- tial. The shroud unwinds and is about to slip back to earth, the last vestige of Christ's earthly mission. In both drawings, the suggestion of Christ's Ascension to heaven is powerfully evoked even in the midst of his bodily Resurrection, two widely separated narrative moments represented as if they were consecutive.

Behind Michelangelo's Risen Christ, we see the cloth in which Christ was wrapped when he was laid in the tomb (see fig. 3). He has just shed the earthly shroud; it is in the midst of slipping to earth. In this suspended instant just prior to his Ascension, Christ is completely and properly nude. Michelangelo has carved a symbolic, devotional image that also contains a narrative dimension or what John Shearman might characterize as a "slow fuse."41

Let us imagine how the Risen Christ might have appeared in its original instal- lation, probably not as high as the figure is displayed today. Christ steps forth from a shadowed niche, as though from the tomb and the shadow of death. Foremost are the instruments of his Passion, the relics that Christ will leave behind when he ascends to heaven. Closest to the spectator is the advanced foot depressing the earth. For centuries the faithful have caressed and kissed the foot, for they are struck by the miracle of seeing the Risen Christ. Like the Magdalen and Thomas, they impulsively wish to verify the apparition before it disappears. If we look with the eyes of the faithful, then it is possible to see marble transformed into flesh, a statue into action, the Risen Christ just prior to rising.42 Perhaps the sculpture war- rants an additional title: the Ascending Christ, for, as Albrecht Durer suggested

400n these and other Michelangelo drawings of the Resurrection, see Charles de Tolnay, "Morte e resurrezione in Michelangelo," Commentari 15 (:1964): 3-20.

4lJohn Shearman, Only Connect-: Art and the Spectator in the Italian Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1992), esp. chap. 6. Agoston, "Michelangelo's Christ," 14, writes that "Michelangelo deliberately eschews establishing a mimetic relationship to a fixed moment in the Passion narrative. Because this work is neither illustrating nor embodying a moment or passage from the text of the Gos- pels the subject matter of the sculpture can best be understood as mediating the Passion narrative."

42Scholars have devoted much attention to the function and response to sacred images.Among the extensive recent literature are Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, "Holy Dolls: Play and Piety in Florence in the Quattrocento," in Women, Family, and Ritual in Renaissance Italy (Chicago: U Chicago P, 1985), 310-29; David Freedberg, The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response (Chicago: U Chicago P. 1989); Hans Belting, The Image and Its Public in the Middle Ages (NewYork:A. D. Caratzas, 1990); Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, trans. Edmund Jephcott (Chi- cago: U Chicago P, 1994); Henk van Os, The Art of Devotion in the Late Middle Ages in Europe, 1300- 1500, trans. Michael Hoyle (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994); Shearman, Only Connect; Paoletti, "Wooden Sculpture," 85-100; and Gridley McKim-Smith, "Spanish Polychrome Sculpture and Its Critical Misfortunes," in Spanish Polychrome Sculpture, 1500-1800 in United States Collections, ed. Susan




rather more literally (fig. 10), in the next moment he will be gone. From a rough block of cold, white marble, Michelangelo has carved an apparition.

The skewed angle of figure 18 captures the sense of Christ's imminent movement more faithfully than most views reproduced in books, where the figure has been photographed from an elevated vantage and under supposedly ideal but entirely artificial light conditions. In a different place, I have discussed how changes in light and viewing angle significantly affect our response to the Rome Pieta.43 I am just as certain that the same is true of the Risen Christ although it is even more difficult to replicate in photographs. In Santa Maria sopra Minerva, the sculpture would have been lit by a muted natural light falling from windows high in the nave of the dark church. Such a light would have cast the face in shadow while high- lighting the instruments of Christ's Passion and his demonstrative gesture. It is even possible, thanks to the position of Christ's arm, that a shadow would have fallen across his groin, thereby helping to disguise while simultaneously revealing his nakedness (partly evident in figs. 1, 8, and 18).

To carve a life-size marble statue of a naked Christ for the mother church of the Dominican order in Rome certainly was audacious, but it was also theologi- cally appropriate.The physical beauty of Christ's body is a powerfuil visual meta- phor of his spiritual perfection. Raised from the dead, Christ has cast off the mortal coil of imperfection. Michelangelo's great achievement is to have suggested such spiritual perfection by means of material beauty and to have suggested an appari- tional moment in a marble statue. As Michelangelo's contemporaries recognized more readily than we do, it is a moving and profoundly beautiful sculpture that is truthful to nature, to sacred history, and to decorum.

Suzanne L. Stratton ([NewYork: Spanish Institute], 1994). For a later period, see Karin-edis Barzman, "Devotion and Desire: The Reliquary Chapel of Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi," Art History 15 (1992): 171-96, and Karin-edis Barzman, "Immagini sacre e vita religiosa delle donne, 1650-1850," in Donne efede: Santita e vita religiosa in Italia (Rome: Laterza, 1994), 419-40. Still valuable are Joseph Braun, Der christliche Altar in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 2 vols. (Munich: Alte Meister Guenther Koch, 1924); andY Hirn, The Sacred Shrine:A Study in the Art and Poetry of the Catholic Church (1909; reprint, Boston: Beacon Press, 1957).

43Wallace, "Michelangelo's Rome Pieta," esp. 249-55.



Documents

Michelangelo's Risen Christ