The Tomb of Julius II; A Discussion of Changing Attitudes Towards the Dead and the Symbolism of High-Status Funerary Monuments
The
Tomb of Julius II; A Discussion of Changing Attitudes Towards the
Dead and the Symbolism of High-Status Funerary Monuments
by Angel-Celeste Drinkwater
Angel Celeste is currently in my second year of an undergraduate degree in English Literature & History at the University of Winchester. My main academic focus revolves around Medieval England & France, as well as Early Modern France (specifically the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, and the lives of Maximilien de Robespierre and Louis Antoine de Saint-Just), however, other areas that I’m interested in include Renaissance Italy, Victorian Crime & Punishment, and general Queer History.
The tomb of Pope Julius II is perhaps one of the most influential funerary monuments of the Renaissance period, having been planned, and later constructed, by Michelangelo between 1505 and 1545. The tomb and its sculptures act as a monument to the life and legacy of Julius II. However, the main focus of this discussion will be the overall design and plans for the tomb, rather than the finalised mausoleum, as the vagaries of politics both before, and after, the death of Julius compromised the execution of the project in its originally designed form. Michelangelo’s plans and experiments feature several key aspects of Renaissance artwork, most notably that of ‘all-antica1’, or a return to classical Greek and Roman inspirations, influenced by the ruins surrounding the city of Rome.
While the full ambition for the design was unable to be realised, the tomb in its entirety is an impressive piece of Renaissance marble sculpture. An argument can be made that it is perhaps one of Michelangelo’s greatest works. The grand sculpture of Moses2, for example, has been a key focus of art historiographical study, with historians such as Erwin Panofsky and Mary Bergstein3 commenting on not only the inspirations behind the sculpture, but also its lasting influence on other artists and sculptures of the Renaissance period and beyond.
Therefore, this article will discuss not only Michelangelo’s plans, projects and inspirations for the tomb, but also the symbolism and iconography at each stage of the design. A comment will also be made upon the continuingly developing beliefs surrounding death, burial, and leaving a lasting legacy in high status Renaissance society; as well as how this influenced not only Julius II’s desires for his own funerary monument, but also aspects of Michelangelo’s plans for the tomb.
Before discussing the overall plans for Julius II’s tomb, it is important to understand the multiple factors affecting the wealthy’s views and beliefs surrounding death and burials. The most influential of these being the Black Death, and subsequent bouts of plague following it, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
In the period preceding the Black Death, it was largely uncommon for any member of society, wealthy or lesser, to have a grand tomb or monument constructed in their honour after death. This does not mean that there were none at all in the Trecento or Quattrocento. For example, in Florence, between 1326 and 1425, there were 134 specified burials4, with 725 of those being in ancestral grave sites. This creates the suggestion that there was already the growing belief in a familial legacy, which would develop further in the sixteenth century, following the influence of the de Medici family. 266 of these specified burial sites also featured a monument of some kind.
Whilst this may create the inference that some families were already focused on creating a lasting legacy several years before the trend began to develop, looking singularly at the statistics fails to show other reasoning behind the gradually increasing number of monumental tombs and individual burial sites of the early Renaissance.
The increased number of deaths across Italy, caused by the Black Death, came with the threat of mass burials, due to not only the need to bury plague victims quickly, but also because of the lack of space for individual graves at an exacerbated number. These plague pits caused a decline in individuality; there was no way to demarcate who was buried where. To combat this, the wealthy would increasingly buy grave monuments or internal chapel plots to avoid the risk of being buried in a large mass burial plot.
An increase in grave monuments can also be linked to the ‘fear of abandonment7’ that grew within the rich, surrounding annual church sermons and prayers for the souls of the deceased. Before the popularity of burial monuments, there was a trend across high status families to pay for the continued prayer in their remembrance after their passing. However, in requesting a continual service, that often was required to last for months at a time, there was great risk. Family members could refuse to pay the hefty price that accompanied such a grand service, or the testator simply did not pay enough to support their wish, which was more often the case.
Due to this, it could be suggested that a more permanent memorial, such as the papal tombs popular in the sixteenth century, would be more beneficial for the souls of the wealthy dead in the long-term.
The increased popularity of burial monuments can also be attributed to the growth in patronage, accompanied by the desire to leave behind a physical representation of a family legacy. As the Renaissance period progressed, many high-status families invested large sums into the arts, but, arguably, none were as influential in the case of patronage as the de Medici.
Patrons of multiple artists, including Michelangelo, and an influence for the tomb design of Julius II, the de Medici are a key factor for the growth and spread of ‘universally prized8’ Florentine artists. The idea of ‘all-antica9’ originated in Florence, and the continued investment from wealthy families, such as the de Medici, allowed for Florentine design to set the standard, developing a series of ‘rules for tomb design10’ across Italy. These gradually became synonymous with rich, high quality works, sought after by those of high-status across the Italian city states.
By the early 1500s Florentine influence had made its way to Rome, through artists like Mino da Fiesole and Andrea Bregno11. It is highly likely that their continued work on the papal tombs, most significantly those of Pope Paul II12 and Pope Alexander VI13, influenced Julius II’s desires for his own monument, whilst also influencing the various plans Michelangelo illustrated.
Michelangelo’s illustrations for the tomb of Julius II show a range of influences from both Roman and Florentine artists. He brings together key aspects from each, culminating in plans for a monumental structure, similar to those seen in ancient Roman funerary art, such as on consecration coins, and ruins around Rome.
In contextual terms, Julius II became Pope at the beginning of the Italian Wars, in 1503, colouring his reign as one of intense warfare. This, alongside his personal identification with the principals and ambitions of Julius Caesar, led to Julius earning the epithet of ‘the Warrior Pope14’. As such, it was only fitting for Julius to have a tomb worthy of a Roman emperor.
As stated by Giorgio Vasari, Michelangelo’s original plans for the tomb ‘surpassed every ancient and imperial tomb.15” Measuring 7.2m by 10.8m, the tomb was to have four sides, making one ‘square and a half.16’ The measurements were so vast, Julius II planned to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in order to create enough room for his burial monument.
The overall structure of the tomb was to be a tiered staircase17, with each platform lessening in size as it reached the top. The outer shape of the tomb directly mimics that of the funeral pyre seen on the consecration coin of Antoninus Pius18, mistaken for an imperial mausoleum at the time of planning. Thus, showing Julius II’s desire to be represented in death in the same manner he believed the emperors were before him. In his eyes, this would help to solidify his legacy as a ‘Christian Caesar19’.
The bottom-most tier featured ten niches: four in the front and back panels, and six in each side. These niches were divided by bound figures, supporting the corner pieces. Each of the bound ‘prisoners20’ represented the many Italian provinces conquered by Julius, showing the power of the papacy.
The remaining statues presented in the niches were also bound, portraying key features of Renaissance education, Virtues, Liberal Arts, and the Sciences. By including these on his tomb, Julius was showing that even they would one day die and be replaced, just as he had.
The last feature of the lowest tier, visible in each iteration of Michelangelo’s designs, are the four, large corner figures; Active and Contemplative Life, Saint Paul, and Moses. Moses21 is, arguably, the most imposing sculpture, and also holds the most meaning in terms of Julius’s interpretation of himself.
Measuring at almost eight feet in height, and sitting twelve feet above the ground22, Michelangelo’s Moses is a formidable figure, commanding attention even from a lower cornice of the monument.
Through the inclusion of Moses, an argument can be made that Julius saw himself in the biblical figure, as he did with Caesar. However, it could also be interpreted as being a visual representation of Julius bringing the word of God back to the people of Italy.
Julius II became Pope after Alexander VI, the highly controversial Borgia Pope. Julius had a ‘deep hatred23’ for the Borgias, believing Alexander to have ruined the reputation of the papal seat; his reign as Pope being marred by scandal and contention.
As such, parallels can be drawn between Moses freeing the Israelites, and Julius freeing Christianity from the metaphorical chains of the Borgia papacy. The strength of Julius and his ruthless suppression of the powers of the Borgias is seen through the dynamic, energetic figure of Moses.
The inclusion of Della Rovere symbolism throughout the tomb’s plans further separates Julius from his predecessors. Linking back to the ideology of a family legacy, the funerary monument represents not only Pope Julius II, but also Giuliano della Rovere.
In Michelangelo’s plans there are several instances of the Della Rovere family’s iconography, most notably that of the Rovere oak and acorns.
In one of his illustrations, Michelangelo continues the biblical narrative linking Moses and Julius II together. One example of this, seen on the tomb, is the portrayal of the Fall of Manna, from the Book of Exodus.
Within the illustration24, two angels carry an oak tree (the Rovere oak), whilst acorns fall from the branches to the Earth and outstretched arms of the people below. In the original Bible story, the Manna (bread and quail) is sent by God to save the starving Israelites.
In his plans, Michelangelo’s inclusions of acorns and the Rovere oak in place of the Manna creates an allegorical image, further linking Julius’s papal supremacy to the power of God. The use of biblical stories alongside Della Rovere family imagery pushes the idea of Julius being close to God. As Pope he gained power from heaven itself, and left behind a legacy of being God’s image on Earth.
One final trend seen in the plans for Julius’s tomb is that of ‘memento vivere25’. Whilst the monument serves as a tomb, its symbolism acts as a ‘celebration of a life lived26.’ It commemorates all that Julius achieved during his reign as Pope.
The top of the monument seats two figures bearing an effigy of Julius II27. These figures are a personification of Heaven, seen smiling, and the earth goddess, Cybele, whose head is bowed in sadness.
Michelangelo has portrayed the two figures in juxtaposition to show that mourning and celebration occur side-by-side. Earth mourns the loss of the Pope, ‘deprived of every virtue28’ after his passing, whereas Heaven rejoices that ‘his soul passed to celestial glory.29’
Arguably, the main goal of a burial monument was to aid in the journey of the deceased’s soul to heaven. By presenting the rejoicing of Heaven, Michelangelo shows that this has been achieved.
Overall, the tomb of Julius II is an incredibly influential monument, not only in high-status tomb design, but also in patronage. It highlights key trends in the funeral practices of the wealthy, such as the inclusion of family symbology and iconography, as well as funerary monuments being used as a celebration of the life of the deceased. This practice was first seen during the period of the Black Death, but it was slowly popularised by its inclusion in the plans for Julius II’s tomb.
The work of Michelangelo throughout the development stages and construction of the tomb shows the importance of the role played by artistic patronage. The wealthy populations had the funds to afford grand tombs and funerary monuments, and this helped to change the ways in which the deceased were remembered, aiding in the development of the ideology of a family legacy.
Julius II’s desires for his own tomb, and immense plans by Michelangelo, as well as the influence of other artists and patrons, such as Mino da Fiesole, and the de Medici family, continued to have a lasting legacy of their own throughout the Renaissance. Not only did numerous high-status families request grand burial monuments for their own memorials, Pope Julius II, feasibly began a trend of Popes also requesting large monuments to celebrate their own legacies.
To conclude, Julius II’s aspirations for such an extensive tomb were the catalyst for significant change in high-status perceptions of death during the Renaissance. Despite the grand plans for the finalised construction of Julius’s tomb, no such monument was ever completed to the grandeur witnessed in Michelangelo’s illustrations, suggesting that the ambitions of the high-status usually did not take into account what was practical to be constructed.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Buonarroti, Michelangelo, Tomb of Giuliano de' Medici, 1526-1533, Marble, Sagrestia Nuova, San Lorenzo, Florence.
Buonarroti, Michelangelo, Tomb of Lorenzo de' Medici, 1524-1531, Marble, Sagrestia Nuova, San Lorenzo, Florence.
Buonarroti, Michelangelo, Tomb of Julius II, 1545, Marble, San Pietro, Vincoli, Rome.
Buonarroti, Michelangelo, Design for the Tomb of Pope Julius II della Rovere, 1505-1506, Pen and brown ink, brush and brown wash, over stylus ruling and leadpoint, The Met Museum, New York City, New York, Drawings.
Buonarroti, Michelangelo, Moses for the Tomb of Pope Julius II, 1513-1515, Marble, 235 cm, San Pietro, Vincoli, Rome.
Da Fiesole, Mino, Figures and Bas-Reliefs for the Tomb of Pope Paul II, 1473-1479, Marble, Grotte Vaticane, St Peter’s Basilica, Vatican.
Friedenthal, Richard. Letters of the Great Artists, 1425-1951. London: Thames and Hudson, 1963.
Moratilla, Filippio, Tomb of Pope Alexander VI, 1503-1513, Marble, Santa Maria, Monserrato, Rome.
Vasari, Giorgio, Tomb of Michelangelo, 1564-1574, Marble, Basilica di Santa Croce, Florence.
Vasari, Giorgio. The Lives of the Artists. Translated by Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Secondary Sources
Ben-Aryeh, Nirit Debby. "Pulpits and Tombs in Renaissance Florence." In On Old Age: Approaching Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, edited by Chris Krotzl and Katherina Mustakallio, 341-355. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011.
Bergstein, Mary. “Freud’s “Moses of Michelangelo:” Vasari, Photography, and Art Historical Practice.” The Art Bulletin 88, no. 1 (March 2006): 158-176. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25067230
Butterfield, Andrew. "Social Structure and the Typology of Funerary Monuments in Early Renaissance Florence." RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 26, (Autumn 1994): 47-67. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20166904
Cohen, Thomas V. Love and Death in Renaissance Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Cohn, Samuel K. The Cult of Remembrance and the Black Death: Six Renaissance Cities in Central Italy. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Fenichel, Emily A. "Michelangelo's Pieta as Tomb Monument: Patronage, Liturgy, and Mourning." Renaissance Quarterly 70, no. 3 (2017): 862-896. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26560468
Frazer, Alfred. "A Numismatic Source for Michelangelo's First Design for the Tomb of Julius II." The Art Bulletin 57, no. 1 (March 1975): 53-57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3049337
Gates, Jillian. "Sculpting in Marble and Fresco: Michelangelo's Julius II Tomb as Template for the Sistine Chapel Ceiling." Senior Theses, Trinity College, 2019. https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses/754
Hamling, Tara. “Visual and Material Sources.” In Understanding Early Modern Primary Sources, edited by Laura Sangha and Jonathan Willis, 129-141. London; Routledge, 2016.
Hibbert, Christopher. The Borgias and their Enemies, 1431-1519. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008.
Hickson, Sally. "Gian Cristoforo Romano in Rome: With Some Thoughts on the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus and the Tomb of Julius II." Renaissance and Reformation 33, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 3-30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43446174
Hirst, Michael. "A Project of Michelangelo's for the Tomb of Julius II." Master Drawings 14, no. 4 (Winter, 1976): 375-382+427-430. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1553386
Hollingsworth, Mary. The Borgias; History’s Most Notorious Dynasty. London: Quecus Editions Ltd, 2014.
Ito, Takuma. "A Private Chapel as Burial Space: Filippo Strozzi with Filippino Lippi and Benedetto da Maiano in Santa Maria Novella, Florence." Bulletin of Death and Life Studies 7, no. 3 (2011): 215-242. https://www.academia.edu/18052242/A_Private_Chapel_as_Burial_Space_Filippo_Strozzi_with_Filippino_Lippi_and_Benedetto_da_Maiano_in_Santa_Maria_Novella_Florence
Joannides, Paul. "Michelangelo's Medici Chapel: Some New Suggestions." The Burlington Magazine 114, no. 833 (August 1972): 541-549+551. https://www.jstor.org/stable/877066
Lytle, Guy Fitch, and Stephen Orgel. Patronage in the Renaissance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.
Morrogh, Andrew. "The Medici Chapel: The Designs for the Central Tomb." Studies in the History of Art 33, no. 8 (1992): 142-161. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42620316
Panofsky, Erwin. “The First Two Projects of Michelangelo’s Tomb of Julius II.” The Art Bulletin 19, no. 4 (December 1937): 561-579. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3045700
Perkinson, Stephen. The Ivory Mirror, The Art of Mortality in Renaissance Europe. Brunswick, Maine: Yale University Press, 2017.
Ricasoli, Corinna. “’Memento Mori’ in Baroque Rome.” An Irish Quarterly Review 104, no. 416 (Winter 2015/2016): 456-467. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24640795
Shaw, Christine. “The Motivation for the Patronage of Pope Julius II.” Princes and Princely Culture, 1450-1650 2, no. 118 (1 January 2005): 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047404859_004
Smart History. “Michelangelo, Moses.” Accessed March 12, 2021. https://smarthistory.org/michelangelo-moses/
Strathern, Paul. Death in Florence: The Medici, Savonarola, and the Battle for the Soul of a Renaissance City. New York: Pegasus Books, 2016.
Zuraw, Shelley E. "An Axis for Quattrocento Tomb Design: From Florence to Venice, Naples, and Rome." Artibus et Historiae 38, no. 76 (2017): 129-143. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44973096
1 Shelley E. Zuraw, “An Axis for Quattrocentro Tomb Design: From Florence to Venice, Naples, and Rome.” Artibus et Historiae 38, no. 76 (2017): 132.
2 Michelangelo Buonarroti, Moses for the Tomb of Julius II. Sculpture. San Pietro, 1513-1515.
3 Mary Bergstein, “Freud’s “Moses of Michelangelo:” Vasari, Photography, and Art Historical Practice.” The Art Bulletin 88, no.1 (March 2006): 158.
4 Samuel K. Cohn, Jr, The Cult of Remembrance and the Black Death (London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1992), 138.
5 Cohn, Jr, Remembrance, 138.
6 Cohn, Jr, Remembrance, 138.
7 Cohn, Jr, Remembrance, 140.
8 Zuraw “Quattrocento,” 132.
9 Zuraw “Quattrocento,” 132.
10 Zuraw “Quattrocento,” 132.
11 Zuraw “Quattrocento,” 139.
12 Mino da Fiesole, Figures and Bas-Reliefs for the Tomb of Pope Paul II. Sculpture. St. Peter’s Basilica, 1473-1479.
13 Filippio Moratilla, Tomb of Pope Alexander VI. Sculpture. Monserrato, 1503-1513.
14 Christine Shaw, “The Motivation for the Patronage of Pope Julius II.” Princes and Princely Culture 2, no. 118 (1 January 2005): 43.
15 Giorgio Vasari, The Lives of the Artists, trans. Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 432.
16 Vasari, Artists, 433.
17 “Tomb of Julius II: Side Elevation, Reconstruction of the Project of 1505” in Erwin Panofsky “The First Two Projects of Michelangelo’s Tomb of Julius II.” The Art Bulletin 19, no. 4 (December 1937): 575.
18 “Consecration coin of Antoninus Pius” in Alfred Frazer “A Numismatic Source for Michelangelo’s First Design for the Tomb of Julius II.” The Art Bulletin 57, no.1 (March 1975): 54.
19 Frazer “First Design”, 57.
20 Vasari, Artists, 433.
21 Michelangelo Buonarroti, Moses for the Tomb of Julius II. Sculpture. San Pietro, 1513-1515.
22 “Michelangelo, Moses,” Smart History, accessed March 12, 2021, https://smarthistory.org/michelangelo-moses/
23 Christopher Hibbert, The Borgias and Their Enemies (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008), 266.
24 “Detail of Plate 1” in Michael Hirst “A Project of Michelangelo’s for the Tomb of Julius II.” Master Drawings 14, no.4 (Winter 1976): 385.
25 Corinna Ricasoli, “’Memento Mori’ in Baroque Rome.” An Irish Quarterly Review 104, no. 416 (Winter 2015/2016): 459.
26 Ricasoli, “Memento,” 459.
27 “Tomb of Julius II: Side Elevation,” in Panofsky, “First Two,” 575.
28 Vasari, Artists, 433.
29 Vasari, Artists, 433.
Comments
Post a Comment