What Is Expressed in Michelangelo's "Non-Finito" Author(s): Creighton E. Gilbert Source: Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 24, No. 48 (2003), pp.

57-64 Published by: IRSA s.c. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1483730 Accessed: 24/01/2010 19:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=irsa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

IRSA s.c. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Artibus et Historiae.

http://www.jstor.org

CREIGHTON E. GILBERT

Whatis Expressed in Michelangelo'sNon-Finito

A great many people have published their views about Michelangelo's unfinished works1.Theirideas evidently differ, if chiefly on specifics, while general ideas are relativelyfew. It may be worth noticing that there is no similar body of comment on any other artist's unfinished works. The most conspicuous apparent exception is found in some famous works of music, such as Schubert's Unfinished Symphony and Puccini's Turandot.In these, however, the portion we have is internallyfinished, and the commentary is about it. As with other artists who have left unfinished works, the part actually unfinished tends simply to be noted brieflyas being so, with an explanation, sometimes only implicit,that death or some other circumstance intervened.No special analyticaltreatment seems possible. Michelangelo's unfinished works manifest their incompleteness in a way that one cannot help noticing, no matterat what point one gazes, even if it does not always extend over the entire surfaces. One also becomes aware that the unfinished works are numerous, and one learns that they belong to all parts of his life. The phenomenon of many unfinished works is surely not unique. An interestingcase is that of Benedetto da Maiano,who was the most prominentsculptor in Florence up to his death in 1497 and thus might be comparable. His inventory after death, preserved by chance but little noted, lists among the sculptures eleven as roughly sketched

(bozze), another "not finished" and three "almost finished", along with nine finished and many more not specified. Recent study has identified one of the bozze, which had previously passed as a product of the trecento because of its presumed area of enquiry. crudity2.This might be a fruitful Just one literaryremarkabout unfinished sculpture from classical antiquityis well known, from Plinythe Eider'ssurvey of sculptors. He writes that we are sad when we see an unfinished work, inferringthat the sculptor has died, and are then stimulatedto imagine it completed in a perfect way as a masterpiece3. The motifs of a poetic feeling, the observer's role, and the presumption of quality, will all recur in the writing about Michelangelo. Vasari,needless to say, is the earliest speaker. His various passages, about different works, tend to have in common a defensive quality, to assure us that the unfinished factor should not make us view the works as without value, as we otherwise might be likelyto do. Of the Saint Matthewand the MediciMadonnahe finds that in the imperfezione of the rough workwe can see - presumably if we are qualifiedjudges - the perfezione of the complete form. (We probably must combine the two overtones of the word perfezione, as "completeness" and "perfection").This is a case of praise for Michelangelo that other sculptors would not receive, as often withthis writer.
57

E. CREIGHTON GILBERT

detail of head, Florence, Medici Chapel, San Lorenzo. 1) Michelangelo, <<Day>,,

The Matthew again and the prisoners in their present state have pedagogical value, showing the correct way to extract a block withoutdamaging it. Anotherlesson is provided by the story of the artist smashing the Florence Pieta. Unlike other artists, Michelangelo was able to note a very slight error,and instead of tryingto patch it preferredto discard the labor done and begin on another block4.The idea of this reason for a discarded and thus unfinished work was often repeated later. It 58

seemed to help explain the quantityof unfinished works, perhaps, even though it would not be applicable in many cases, such as the sculptures of the Medicichapel5. All these approaches imply that the desired norm was a complete work. Michelangelo too certainlywished to complete each work he began, and was unhappywhen this did not happen, as we can learnfrom his vast correspondence. Itcommonly was linked to money problems, competition among

IN WHAT EXPRESSED MICHELANGELO'S NON-FINITO IS promises, non-deliveryof materials,or similarexternalities,at least according to his testimony.Thatthis happened to him and not others no doubt is in good partrelatedto the gigantic ambition of the projects. A text in the biography by Condivi, commonly and reasonably believed to be the artist's mouthpiece, extends this view by expressing disapprovalof unfinishedwork. The fact that this is a reaction to the work of Donatello,whom Michelangelocertainlyadmiredvery much, suggests that it was to strongly held and important him. The only fault in Donatello, we are told, was that he did not polish his works enough, with the result that they look fine from afar but when checked up close "lose theirreputation"6. Todayan opposite view about the surfaces of Donatello,expressed by Vasari,is much betrough ter known;he praises them for this very point, of looking right from a distance, in a way not unlikethe popularformulaabout impressionistpainting7.Itmay well be that we have here one of the cases of Condiviseeking to correct Vasariin error,and of Michelangelo doing so through him. But it should also be underlinedthat the contradictionis only partial.Bothjudgments are about complete works;Vasari'spraise for roughness is not for work left withoutbeing completed. Thatthe two approaches to Donatelloare not so very differentis easy to confirmby looking at the surfaces in the two cases: in Michelangelo's rough surfaces of actually unfinishedworks, letting us see where the tooth chisel has passed, we have an effect much strongerthan the milder graininess in the works by Donatello involved. Indeed, that they are rough at all hardly emerges until one makes a special effortto check, guided by this text. There is one precedent for Vasari's defensiveness mentioned, in a quite similarrhetoric.Benedetto Varchi,giving the funeral oration for Michelangelo in 1564, said his profundity and skill were so great that they showed in his unfinished works more than in others' finished ones8. Yet even here the furtherimplicationis clear that it would be best of all to have Michelangelo's completed. Still the formula about the prizing of the unfinished ones, though only when they are by Michelangelo, is to be registered. Whetheras works of artthat are "perfect" despite everything,or simply as the divine man's relics, they immediately attained a status that led them to be tenaciously preserved, and thus remain with us today unlike those of others. The pedagogical value of Michelangelo's work was also suggested by another contemporary, Benvenuto Cellini, in connection with the preferredmain view of a work:one should firstmake a drawingon one side of a block, and then cut back into it. He does not cite unfinished work, but the Matthew would easily be taken to illustratethis procedure, and recent writershave offered to connect Cellini'sformulawith the unfinished works9,but others have objected to this approach.

2) Michelangelo, <Prisoner,,,Florence, Accademia.

As the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw the admiration for Michelangelo lessen, so there are few new ideas in this specific area. One finds repetitions of the earlier 59

E. CREIGHTON GILBERT

;_~~~~~~~~~~?
'Z-x- -'r. f

- iS ?_ .

',

',

, t ---1'.. ~;~~ .,~

..

,.o

-/'

e,- ,,

of 3) <cTomb Count and Countess of Nassau,,, Breda, Onze Lieve Vrouw Kerk.

topoi, notably the one about the small error leading to abandonment. New approaches naturallyare found in the romantic period, when the artist again became a great idol. From Delacroix,who is often tagged as the most criticallyarticulate of major artists, we are lucky to have several comments, recorded in 1852-1854 in his Journals10.One of these mentions the concept of the sublime, the somewhat earlierpopular formula which may be thought to have influenced him more generally. Michelangelo is among the geniuses who are sublime even while being "incorrect",eternal while "informes". Even when they think of themselves as correct they may be undisciplined, the initiatorswith instincts that can be wrong. Here we have a more stressed variationon the earlierparadox 60

about imperfectionwhich can be perfect. We can even say that the work does wrong things, parts of his works may be completely bad (completement mauvaises); here there is a factor of historicaldistance, when there is no longer an investment in one's own direct artistic ancestor as before, But the greater extension of the stretch, from the bad to the genius, is part of the romanticsensibility. Inthe longest of these passages, with the most visual specificity, the non finito is the theme. When the works show finished and unfinished areas adjacent to each other, disproportionis the effect, but the contrast heightens the effectiveness of the finished parts. When we read of "partsleft in a sketched state, feet embedded in the base", we recognize a reference to the Louvre slaves. There may have

WHAT EXPRESSED MICHELANGELO'S IN IS NON-FINITO been insufficientmaterial,and the blemish results not fromthe genius' too great demands to reach the heights, but his technique of execution. His conception was probably vague, and he counted on the inspirationof the moment. Inthis mix of technical shop talk and eternal sublimitywe can evidently see the artist of a generation that exalted the sketch as its expression; if there is a surprise, it may be the conservative stipulation that there may be mistakes. We admire the areas that have not been finished, at least for their contributionto the entire work.Yet it needs to be remembered that as before we are in no way being asked to think these effects were what the artist had in mind for his figures to communicate. In the same years the powerfulEnglish criticJohn Ruskin justified Michelangelo's and other unfinished works with a somewhat differentversion of praise of its effect. The rough chisel marksare admired because they set up lightand shade, a pictorial effect. Certainlyto our surprise, he finds the best example of this effect in the "soft,ineffable"sculptures of Mino da Fiesole, which are in fact finished. The effect of being only half-finishedappears only when the works are seen close even more than in the case of Donatello. It is equalled in the "sterner"sculptures of the New Sacristy [Fig. 1], again by incompletion, but represents intention and the attainment of what is purposed11. On reflection, it is not hard to see how praise for the artistcould take this form in a writerwhose hero was Turner, with his sketchy luminosity. Ruskin's idea of chiaroscuro in sculpture, bringing it close to painting and indeed to drawing,has had echoes up to the present12. National differences in critical attitudes are noticeable at this period not only between France and England. The development of art history certainly was most richly pursued in Germany.Its debt to the aesthetic scheme of Hegel is a given, even mentioned in Barocchi's survey of our topic13.However, Hegel's specific approach to Michelangelo has been almost so ignored untilvery recently14, that the largest bibliographies of Michelangelodo not even include his name. An excursus to the present essay calls attentionto the visual bases of Hegel's awareness of the artist.Here his effect on laterGermanviews is of concern. It will be recalled that Hegel organized the history of the arts in the three stages, which evolve from the most materialthrough the classical to the spiritual;the first stage is most realized in architecture,the second in sculpture, and the third,labelled romantic,and includingthe entire Christianera, belongs to painting, along with poetry and music. The sculpture of Michelangelo is thus in a difficultposition, since he is involvedwiththe spiritualin a way suitable to his era, but operates in a medium not most appropriateto it. Hegel stops to discuss Michelangelobrieflyand accounts for him simply by saying that very good sculptors can after all function in these unlikelyconditions15.It was the art historianThode, the most outstanding Michelangelo specialist in the Hegelian tradition, who went into more detail. Forhim, discomfortwith sculpture's less spiritualcharacter led Michelangelo increasinglythrough his career to abandon works in that medium unfinished,while he did complete paintings, in which no such difficultywas involved. In this way the Hegelian superstructurebecame an explanationfor the fact that the sculptures were unfinished16. There are obvious difficultieswiththe thesis when we consider Michelangelo's activities in his later life. He was indeed more and more concerned with spiritual expression, and he produced works for himself without commission as he had not before, but he chose to do this in sculpture, consistent with his assertion all his life that sculpture was betterthan painting. A later view, by Herbertvon Einem, offers a comparable reference to idealistic principles to explain the unfinished sculpture. The stone block must be understood not simply as the materialof the sculpture, but as its determining law, from which the figure is never free. The dependent character of the figure signifies that it is bound by God, and an effortto free it is a sin. When Michelangelo faced this, he left the work incomplete17. In both these approaches, the sculpture does indeed diverge from the artist's original plan when he began it, but it does so for reasons that are called for by spiritual requirements, to which the artistacquiesces. It is a good thing to do, and this it has in common with the very different Ruskinian ideas about chiaroscuro, where the interveningof factors during the work that involve lack of finish give the work its most trulypositive affirmation. More modest and direct explanations finding positive values in the unfinished take various forms. Symonds, with his reminds exceptionallystrong base in biographicalinformation, us that all the cases of work interruptedunfinished resulted from some contingent practical reason, and that the artist recorded his wish to returnto them. Yet he also asserts that one would not wish these unfinished works to be other than they are. He resolves the paradox by saying that Michelangelo stopped working in each case when he no longer felt passion for what he was doing18. Ifthe latter remarkis comparable to Rodin's remarkthat Michelangelo's carved figures all show such anguish that they seem to want to breakthemselves, and that in the end he broke them - alluding to the Florence Pieta19-Symonds' former remarkis comparable to the more flamboyant claim of Gabriele D'Annunzio,about the Accademia Prisoners, that the perfection of their pain could not have been added to with a thousand more chisel blows20. In more recent comment we do not encounter great figures of our culture like these, but the work of scholars. These
61

E. CREIGHTON GILBERT indeed make suggestive detailed points, but the issue of concern here seems already evoked fully in what has been quoted. More and more, the writers come to assert that these unfinishedworks are masterpieces as they are21.They clearly knowthat they are what they are for reasons not dependent on the artist'sarticulation his plan, and offer a series of ways to of resolve this difficulty.But it seems to need underliningthat a basic difficulty remains. How can we call an artistthe creator of masterpieces when the works we offer are the result of having stopped at some point before the work was realized? I would rejectthe answer of saying that these critics are wrong in their admiration;we must accept that this great praise is itself a major relevant phenomenon. We must take note that admirationand praise of art and other things often take place on grounds unlikeany originalfunction, but I thinkin this case we would not care to do that, considering that the other focus of our admiration is this particular artist. Our admiration includes our belief, withoutquestion, that along with his other qualities he had the greatest kind of skill in his art. We surely stipulate that such a person, when he wishes to articulate something in his own medium, has a very good chance of doing so. The period culture in which Michelangelo lived called for works of artto communicate expressive qualities. As he continued to work on particularprojects, they underwent change, all the more implicatingpurposiveness in the projected completion. If this was interruptedhalf way through, it is questionable that the goal is perceptiblypresent. What nevertheless seems to be asserted in the cited texts is that either it nevertheless is present, or that some different goal is expressed which, even if not the one originally planned, is conveyed with great power because the artistis a genius. HerewithI would like to offer a suggestion that willseek to cut this Gordian knot, based on the artist's own statements about finished and unfinished sculpture. Some of these have been mentioned by various writers cited above, but without pausing long. Certainlyit is rightto take seriously the warning, offered by Cohen in a recent study, that we should not adopt literallyremarks of his that seem to assert a theory of art22. The citations from the poetry that follow offer Michelangelo's theories on various matters, but not on sculpture; he brings in sculpture as a handy and comfortable analogy for another point he is making. It was noted above in connection with Donatello that Michelangelowished sculpture to be finished and objected to otherwise excellent work when it was not. In a number of letters, also brieflymentioned above, he shows acute distress at not being able to finish some of his own sculptures. In connection with his famous flight from Rome in 1506, induced by desperation at being prevented from continuingwith the tomb 62 of the pope, he makes clear that his whole wish is to get it done and installed23.In 1531, when it was still on his hands, he remarkedthat there were two possible ways "toget free of it",either for him to do it or to providethe money for others to do it24.In 1545 he reminisced about the latest recent provision of "money to finish the work",to be divided between himself and others, because, pressed by the pope to do other work, he was "unable to finish the tomb"25.He had in fact, as he the remarks, by then "finished" two statues for it assigned to the Active and Contemplative Life. The status of these him, works in the Michelangelo canon is a curiosity. Despite this statement, and the approval of Tolnayand some others, they tend to be simply tuned out of most lists of the artist's works. They do not look at all like what we expect from his hand, especially from his late years, evidently because he did finish them. Finallyone may mentionthat in 1555 he was postponing his move to Florence because he had to continue his work at St Peters in Rome "untilit is completed"26,and indeed he did keep working toward that goal, only ceasing for the simple reason of his death. A number of Michelangelo's poems involve the making of sculpture, not as the central theme - which indeed would make us rightlycautious - but as a metaphorfor or incident in life experience. If our mind has well imagined a face (Girardi 236) it can "give life to stone"; it is a pleasure to "assemble a face" from stone or other materials, and if this is later destroyed it is remembered with pleasure (Girardi237). It is remarkablehow the "image in hard stone outlives its maker", which in the future will show the speaker's love for the lady (Girardi 239); art makes a face live "ina mere stone" (Girardi 240); we can only late in life attainthe true image of a live figure "inhard stone" (Girardi 241); the image may resemble the maker, pale and dull, rather than the beloved (Girardi242). The motif in a much earliermadrigalhad appeared in a different context (Girardi152). The placing of the stone figure is achieved by cutting away the extra stone, and this is compared to the way the flesh hides our good deeds, flesh which only the lady can cut away. In the writerthe power and will to do this are both lacking. Here the work of cutting away acquires the value of virtue,in a religious context, and besides we learn that the writerfinds himself incapable of the necessary action. This incapacityis the theme of the most famous of Michelangelo's sonnets that refers to the making of sculpture 151). The firststanza is often quoted alone: (Girardi The best of artists never has a concept A single marble block does not contain Inside its husk, but to it may attain Only if hand follows the intellect.

WHAT EXPRESSED MICHELANGELO'S IS IN NON-FINITO Such quotation is misleading in two ways. By itself the lines do seem to be an announcement of a theory of art-making as a primarytopic, just what Cohen has warned us about, ratherthan being an opening simile for a topic fromthe artist's life experience, like those quoted above, which it is. Further, the lines are triumphant,suggesting that the procedure will bring fine success; only one phrase qualifies that, evoking a condition that may not be present, that could bring failure. That failure turns out to be indeed the theme of the sonnet. The lady, we learn, offers the writergood or ill fate which he can draw forth as from the block of stone, like the hero of a romance offered a choice of destinies. By his own lack of skill, we learn, he attains the ill fate. To the extent that that the poem is about sculpture-making,it is about failure, presented as actual death. This is also the theme of an earlier sonnet (Giraridi 46) almost as well known. The sculptor-author'srough hammer produces human images, guided by him as agent. The origin of all hammers is one in heaven, which makes itself and other hammers beautiful.The strongest hammerblow is the one that has swung highest, and the hammer that guided mine has flown off to heaven. (This evidently expresses grief for the death of an inspiring person, perhaps Michelangelo's brother)27.Therefore my work will fail, unfinished, unless assisted by the divine workshop, for that was the only one on earth.The death that stops the writer's effective work, in the case the it carving with the hammer,is the centraltheme. Naturally is of special interest that the work is then labelled with our very phrase, non finito The motif of the effort brought to a stop half way through also occurs in a madrigal, Girardi156, closely related to 152 cited above on the theme of the woman who alone can virtuously strip away the sinful husk. Inthis new case the metaphor of the sculpture work is replaced by that of a climbing road. The writercannot reach the top, the woman's high crown, his breath has given way half way up, a mezza via, and he begs her to come down where he was able to get, la dov'aggiungo. What may be pointed out in the present context is that, referringor not to carving, there is a reference to the point at which the work is not finished. It is a motif in the sculptorwriter'sself analysis. The process of work, a continuum, also has here a quantum,a point along the way. Itis not something that he wished for or liked, quite the contrary.At the same time it is among the recognizable factors of the work, a distinct form. Elsewhere in anecdotal art theory there is a familiar notion - evoked in Vasari'sapprovalof Donatello's rough surfaces - that tells the artistwhen he should call his work done, and that this may be before it is polished. This is not that, but a variant. The work is neither done nor polished, but is at a point that perforce engages the artist. It is here proposed to correlate that observation with the previous one, the admiration for Michelangelo's unfinishedworkeven when it could not show what had been planned. It does not do that, but it does show something graphic that the artistrecognized. Excursus: What Hegel Saw A link between two such tremendous icons of our culture as Michelangelo and Hegel cannot but excite attention, the more so since it is generally unknown. As mentioned above, Hegel appears nowhere in the indexes of the bibliographiesof Michelangelo. Yet his influence on the way art has been approached calls upon us to take into account what he said on the subject. Followingthe remarksof Bockemuhl in 1986 that seem first to have opened up this theme (see note 14 above) here I would proceed a littlefurtherin one respect, concerning the sculptures that Hegel reports seeing. An avid cultural tourist, even if his travels were not wide ranging, he recorded much of what he saw in his letters home to his wife. We cannot do much with a general reference to drawings in Vienna or an altarpiece in Aachen claimed for the master28,but more with the three sculptures that he discusses in his lectures on aesthetics:29 One cannot sufficiently admire his dead Christ, of which a cast is available here [in Berlin] in the royal collection. Some consider not genuine the Maryin the church of the Virginin Bruges. It is above all the tomb of the count of Nassau at Breda that has attracted me. The Count lies with his wife, lifesize, in white alabaster,on a black marble slab. At the corners of the stone in a kneeling position are placed Regulus, Hannibal,Caesar and a Roman warrior, and bear a black slab similarto the one below. Nothing is more interestingthan to see a character such as Caesar's presented by Michelangelo. He then affirmsthat religious works show how that artist can connect the plastic principle of antiquitywith the animation of the romantic.ForHegel images of maternallove are the only way to represent the unity of the individualand God30. This may explain why he gives a place to the Bruges and Berlin works (and the Aachen painting) despite their problems, when it is the tomb in Bruges alone that impresses him. It is a curiosity that each of these three works has a distinct advantage that could get it on the list, but also a distinct disadvantage.The Bruges Madonnais the only one of them that is a true Michelangelo original, but Hegel noted that it was 63

CREIGHTONE. GILBERT doubtful. (It has been so labelled by others, of whom Reynolds is the only one prior to Hegel recorded in the literature). The copy of the Pieta compensated for being a copy by being available for Hegel to see in his own city. The tomb in Breda is the one that alone excited him, yet of course does not belong to the Michelangelo canon in any way. It has had many attributions to Italianizing or Italian sculptors from Tommaso Vincidor (not known as a sculptor, but prominent in Breda) to Jean Mone (best remembered as Giovanni Bologna's teacher) to Colijn de Nole (more recently proposed, but not associated with this work in the standard monograph of 1961). Hegel's enthusiasm was surely appropriate, and one may hope that this mention with a reproduction [Fig. 3] can assist in bringing it to attention.

1 The literaturehas even produced its own surveys. Of exceptional value is the contribution by P. Barocchi, in the notes to her edition of Vasari's Life of Michelangelo (G. Vasari,La vita di Michelangelo nelle redazioni del 1550 e del 1568, Milan,1962, 4, pp. 16451670). It provides not a bibliography but an account of the varied opinions, most importantlydirect quotations of main paragraphs. I have depended on this for many references here, following up the citations to the various writersonly in problematiccases. Ifit might be felt that I should have double-checked Barocchi's choice of quotations in each case, the present process has the value, among others, of eliminatingany parti pris of my own. For writings too late to be cited by Barocchi, L. Dussler,Michelangelo-Bibliographie 1927-1970, Wiesbaden, 1974, offers a key through its index entry "Das Unvollendete". For writings since 1970 I am obligated to WilliamWallace for a list. 2 C. Gilbert,Lartedel quattrocento nelle testimonianze coeve, Florence-Vienna 1968, pp. 71-78. As noted there, the two chief monographs on the artist did not mention it nor the local publications in which it was printed. 3 The Elder Pliny's Chapters on the Historyof Art, ed. K. JexBlake and E. Sellers, London,1896, xxxv:145. 4 Barocchi,pp. 1645-1646, assembles these passages of Vasari.
5

writeron Michelangeloof any kind, as well as the firston his non-finito, to take account of Hegel. 15 G. W. F. 1970, 14, Vorlesungenuber Hegel, Werke,Frankfurt, die Asthetik,p. 460. This appears in PartIII(the single arts), Section 2 (Sculpture), Chapter 3, subpart 3 (Historical Stages), c (Christian Sculpture). 16 Barocchi, pp.1660-61. 17 Barocchi,pp. 1664-65. 18 Barocchi,pp. 320, 1659. Barocchi,p. 1661. It is notable that these writersoften base their responses on fact a single workor a few, and differgreatlyin theirchoices. A striking is one thatit is rarely of the Prisonersof the Accademia,whichfortwentieth centuryobservers are probablythe primeexample of the artist'sunfinished sculpturebecause furthest awayfromcompletion[Fig.2]. Theyare the certainly primesource forthe sculpturesin which Rodinleaves large of to unworked cubes. Prior 1908, however,the installation the Prisoners had in the Boboli gardens paradoxically the effect of makingthem not Thiscalls fora separatediscussion;a good presentaappearunfinished. viva in tion is offeredby D. Heikamp, Antichita IV:4, 1965, pp. 27-43. 22 S. Cohen, "Some Aspects of Michelangelo's Creative Process", Artibuset Historiae,37, 1998, cited Arnheim. 23 Michelangelo, Complete Poems and Selected Letters, trans. Gilbert,192, letterof May2, 1506. 24 Michelangelo as in the preceding note, 251, letter of November,1531. 25 Michelangeloas in the preceding note, 266, letterof February 3,1545. 26 Michelangeloas in the preceding note, 303, letter of June 22, 1555. 27 See the discussion in the note to this sonnet by E. Girardi, in Rime, Bari,1960, p. 199. MichelangioloBuonarroti, 28 G. W.F. Hegel, Briefe, Hamburg,1969, 3:58, 356. 29 As cited above in note 15. 30 A. Besan(on, The ForbiddenImage, Chicago, 2000, p. 215. Post scriptum: a new book which, no doubt, presents full materialon the tomb in Breda here discussed, unluckilywas too late to be considered in the above discussion: G. van Wezel, De Onzeen Lieve-Vrouwkerk de grafkapelvoor Oranje-Nassaute Breda. Zeist, Zwolle, Waanders, 2003, 484 Rijksdienstvoor de Monumentenzorg; pages, ca. 500 illustrations.
20 21

19 Barocchi, p. 1661.

57:1975, pp. 366-373, collects a series of these comments. 6 Barocchi,p. 1650. 7 Barocchi, pp. 1646-1648. 8 Barocchi, p. 229; his example is also the Matthew.The oration of 1564 antedates the publication by Vasari in 1568. However, the remarkis typically Vasarianand isolated in Varchi.As they were in personal contact, one might consider that the idea came from the former. 9 Barocchi,pp. 231, 1668. 10 Barocchi,pp. 1654-1656. 11 Barocchi,pp. 1656-1657. 12 Barocchi, pp. 1657-1658 (Guillaume), 1663 (Mariani);1667 (D'Ancona,Gengaro); 1669 (De Benedetti); Chastel (Artet Humanisme au temps de Laurentle Magnifique,Paris, 1959, p. 330). 13 Barocchi, p. 1660, quite accurately labels Thode's debt to "Hegeliancategories", but only in passing as a truism,and her index indicates no mentionof Hegel. 14 M. Bockemuhl, "Vomunvollendeten zum offenen Kunstwerk: zur Diskussion des non-finito in der Plastik von Michelangelo", Studien zu Renaissance und Barock: Manfred Wundramzum 60. 1986, pp. 111-33, seems to have been the first Geburtstag,Frankfurt, 64

J. Schulz, "Michelangelo's

Unfinished Works", Art Bulletin,