|
|
Additional reasons why the great majority
of the models in the von Praun Collection are
original models by the hand of Michelangelo
If all the models in the von Praun Collection are copies of lost original models by Michelangelo and are not therefore directly from the Master's hand, it is very surprising that not one of these supposed original models by Michelangelo exists today to substantiate this theory, which was first compounded by Burger and Steinmann in 1907.The theory was completely discounted by Thode in 1913, by Meier- Graefe in 1924 and by Goldscheider in 1962. According to Thode, the majority of the terracotta models are of such perfection that they could only have been created by one of the greatest of artists Michelangelo himself and not by a copyist of his original models. It is also surprising that so few of Michelangelo's small models have survived to this day (only those shown in Figs. 7 and 10, according to de Tolnay's opinion not too long before his appointment as Director of the Casa Buonarroti), especially in view of the esteem in which they were held in Michelangelo's own day and subsequently. With the exception of the terracotta model in the British Museum (Fig. 171), it is indeed significant that outside of the von Praun Collection no other similar models of terracotta have ever changed hands in any art dealings of the past. It is not unreasonable to suppose that more than two models have survived, and that to those few that are today generally considered as genuine, should be added all, or at least a large percentage, of the forty models originally in the von Praun Collection, a collection formed shortly after the death of Michelangelo and kept intact for the most part until the Christie's sale of 1938. Can as much be said with respect to the history and the authenticity of other models by Michelangelo? Sir Eric Maclagan in his Burlington Magazine article of 1924 (Vol. XLIV) states on p. 15: "The models in the Casa Buonarroti are not very easy to study, and so far as I know no catalogue of them, except the list by Dr. Thode, has ever been published." A number of the models in the von Praun Collection have a small hole in them in order that they could be hung by a string and studied by Michelangelo from all angles. If these models were copies of the original statues or even of lost original models, it is very doubtful that the copyist would have placed these holes in them. The clay models from the von Praun Collection show distinct differences in tone and colour which varies from a light yellow, to ochre and to a reddish dark brown. The reason for the colour variation is that the models were created at different times and at different places. If the owner of an original Michelangelo model had wished to pro- duce copies in order to sell them to art dealers, he would have produced the copies at the same time and in the same clay material, and the then fired objects would all have been of the same colour. Such is not the case, however, with the models from the von Praun Collection. It should not be forgotten that Paul von Praun was a contemporary of Michelangelo (he was sixteen when Michelangelo died) and that he started his collection in Bologna, which was one of the principal centres of art in Italy at that time. Praun, being wealthy and well educated, was in a favourable position to be advised by the best artists of the day, such as his close friend the sculptor Giovanni da Bologna (a former student of Michelangelo's), and undoubtedly would have known the difference between a copy and an original model by Michelangelo. Von Praun was one of the greatest art collectors of his day and he was, in fact, an advisor in art to kings and to many of the nobility of his time. If anybody had been desirous of faking a model by Michelangelo, it is almost certain that he would have faked a complete model, such as one of the "Phases of the Day". It is most unlikely that anyone would have faked a study of an individual part of the proposed complete statue, as for example, "the right hand of'Dawn" (Fig. 17). Studies in wax and clay of individual parts of the human body not only fit into the normal pattern of Michelangelo's work method, but there also exists a similar pattern or trend in drawings by the Great Master. Professor Lehnert speaks of deviations between the models and the final finished statuary. In this category he includes the "Mask" and the "Owl" of the "Night" in the von Praun Collection which, he points out, differ substantially in the finished marble. He remarks on the fact that the left hand of "Giuliano" in clay holds an article other than the rod of the statue, and that the clay arm of "Christ" is resting on a support other than that shown in the marble statue of the "Pieta". The model of the "Day" wins Lehnert's support primarily because its face and head are perfectly executed, whereas the face and head of the marble statue were left unfinished. The same circumstance applies in the case of the model of the "Night", as its left hand and lower arm are perfectly executed, but left only as a stump of roughhewn marble in the Medici Chapel figure. Contemporary sources state that the Master chipped away and completely ruined the left arm of the marble "Night" in his attempt to alter it. The painting "Sight", by Jan Brueghel the "Elder" now in the Prado Museum dated ca. 1617, shows four small models by Michelangelo (Fig. 144). Two of these models are for the "Night" and for the "Dawn", while the other two are models for the two slaves for the "Julius Monument", namely the "Dying Captive" and the "Heroic Captive". It is only in the Paul von Praun Col- lection that these four models are recorded (Murr's Catalogue, p. 241) as having existed together in one collection, and therefore there is every reason to believe that these four models are the original inspiration for the inclusion of four Michelangelo models in the Brueghel painting. It is very possible that the four models in the painting were taken from drawings of the four models in the von Praun Collection, which were done during the course of Brueghel's short visit to Italy in 1596—after moving early in his life to Antwerp, he never left there except for that trip to Italy. The painting is one of a series of five panels depicting imaginary landscapes, architecture, and interiors with collections of paintings by Rubens and other artists, and with sculptures and busts, in addition to numerous other man-made objects which Brueghel was fond of portraying so as to display his skill and virtuosity in a single painting or series of paintings. There is every indication that Rubens' three sketches (Fig. 62) after Michelangelo's "Night", presently in The Hague, were not drawings of the marble figure in the Medici Chapel and that the model for the "Night" from the von Praun Collection and now in the Victoria and Albert Museum was the actual model from which Rubens made the sketches. There also exists the possibility that von Praun, who lived at the time of Michelangelo and Tintoretto and who also possessed drawings and paintings by Michelangelo and by Tintoretto, may have purchased some of his Michelangelo models directly from Tintoretto, as the latter is known to have possessed a number of small original Michelangelo models, among them a clay sketch of "Hercules and Cacus". The story of Antonio Mini and his possession of two large boxes full of terracotta models by Michelangelo is also well-known. When Mini died in France, all his Michelangelo treasures disappeared except for a few models which Leonardo da Vinci's friend. Rustic!, brought back to Florence. Perhaps these few models found their way into the von Praun Collection which was formed about this time (see reference to the Canadian Collection, p. 223 of the 4th edition of the volume, Michelangelo: Paintings, Sculptures, Architecture, by Goldscheider). As has already been pointed out, both the Murr Catalogue of the von Praun Collection and Henry Thode state that Paul von Praun bought in Bologna (directly from the heir and nephew ofVasari) the balance of the Vasari Collection of drawings which the heir had brought from Rome to Bologna at the end of the sixteenth century. Vasari, who was a contemporary of von Praun, owned small models by Michelangelo (clay sketches for the head and the arms of "Cosmas") and as reported by Murr and Thode many drawings, and very possibly a number of paintings by the great masters in the Vasari Collection, found their way into the von Praun Collection. It is therefore conceivable that one or more of the clay models by Michelangelo in the von Praun Collection were originally in the Vasari Collection. Michelangelo left Florence before he completed the Medici Chapel monuments. The fact that the face of the figure in the model of the "Day" (now in the Houston Museum) is complete, as is its head of the antique Herculean-type, proves that the small clay model is older than the marble figure in the Chapel. According to Henry Thode, the stupendous head of the "Day" by itself is sufficient to prove the genuineness of the von Praun model, as well as of all the others which are so very similar in their execution. Thode further states that: "...none of Michelangelo's imitators, even the most endowed, would have been able to create anything like it; one has only to compare statues ofRaffaele da Montelupo or ofMontorsoli, or even ofGiovanni da Bologna." Additional proof of authenticity is the fact that the left hand of the marble figure of the "Night" in the Medici Chapel is partially shortened and has been left incomplete by Michelangelo, whereas the lovely terracotta model of the "Night", now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, shows a left hand which is complete in all respects. On April 20th, 1562, Allessandro Vittorio, the sculptor and former student of Michelangelo, is reported to have bought the small clay model for "The Left Foot of Day" by Michelangelo. It is very unlikely that this famous sculptor would have bought a falsification. Herman Grimm (Leben Michelangelos, 1879, Vol. 2, pp. 552 and 553) was of the strong opinion that the terracotta model for the left foot of "Day" in the Haehnel-von Praun Collection was the same model that Vittorio had previously pur- chased from the Bologna art dealer, Nicolo Zolfino, for three Venetian skudi. In his 1924 publication on the terracottas from the Haehnel Collection, Professor Julius Meier-Graefe says: "Today it would be difficult for anyone with a well-founded veneration for Michelangelo to ima- gine that the Titan who created the collossi of the Medici Tombs being contented with diminutive versions of his vision. Yet even the work of a Michelangelo probably begins with modest dimensions. Just as there were drawings for the sublime works of San Lorenzo—drawings which spell out in detail what is to our imagination an insoluble complex—there were small-scale models, auxiliary studies, fragile details. It may be painful for the veneration, which has expanded into the mythical, to be reminded of these paths of creation to the finished work." Perhaps one of the reasons why certain art historians have rejected some or all of the Michelangelo models from the von Praun Collection and many or all of them in the Casa Buonarroti Collection (see Addendum) is that they are still overawed by the sublimity and energy of Michelangelo—a genius above all other geniuses. In his own day he was considered divine. Vasari wrote in his Lives of the Artists: "This master, as I said in the beginning, was certainly sent by God as an example of what an artist could be. I, who can thank God for unusual happiness, count it among the greatest of my blessings that I was born while Michelangelo still lived, was found worthy to have him for my Master, and was accepted as his trusted friend." The hero worship expressed by Vasari has been continued over the centuries. To conceive of Michelangelo working on difficult details of his monumental marble statues, like a virtuoso practising scales on the piano, disturbs the image. Nevertheless, his genius is in no way diminished by the admission that he also used his ingenuity. |