Kim 1
Jimin Kim
HS 120 Renaissance Culture
Re Evitt and Rebecca Tucker
24 September 2010
Michelangelo’s Rome Pietà: How the Physical “Lies” Reveal Philosophical “Truths”
In describing Michelangelo’s Rome Pietà, Giorgio Vasari claimed it a miracle “that a
formless block of stone could ever have been reduced to a perfection that nature is scarcely able
to create in the flesh” (Paolucci 9). Just as Vasari said, it truly is impossible for Mary in
Michelangelo’s Pietà to exist in nature. In Michelangelo’s Rome Pietà, Mary defies three
generalizations in the world: she looks younger than her son, she does not grieve over her son’s
death and she is proportionally bigger than Christ. Mary’s characteristics are physically
unnatural. Yet, she represents the real “truth” based on Neo-Platonism where the soul and ideas
of the higher power dominate over the natural world. In his Rome Pietà, Michelangelo
incorporates physical “lies” in his sculpture in order to highlight the philosophical meaning or
“truth” of the higher realm. Instead of just obeying the interests of the patron and the
expectations of the audience, Michelangelo added his own Neo-Platonic thoughts and philosophy
to a piece of art. By reflecting his philosophical beliefs on his Pietà, Michelangelo strengthened
the role of an artist and respect for an artist in the Renaissance period. Art was no longer a simple
object that displayed a patron’s devotion or a story from a bible that the audience of the
Renaissance period expected. Instead, Michelangelo illustrated how art can be an expression of
the artist’s thoughts, not just the commissioner’s or society’s values.
Michelangelo’s Rome Pietà is a marble sculpture of seated Mary holding the dead body
of Christ after the crucifixion. Beautiful wavy lines of the veil frame Mary’s delicate face
looking downward toward Christ. There are intricate details on the lines and folds of Mary’s
Kim 2
cloak, especially across her bosom. All the lines are graceful, smooth and natural. There are no
rigid horizontal or vertical lines that flatten the three-dimensional view of the sculpture. Every
muscle, vein and bone in Christ’s body is meticulously detailed. The entire group is highly
polished (De Tolnay 11). Mary’s right hand firmly supports and slightly raises Christ’s upper
torso and his head rests peacefully on Mary’s arm. The rest of his body up to his waist falls in a
round curve into the space between Mary’s legs. From his waist, Christ’s thighs are raised on one
of Mary’s legs and the rest of his legs fall “limply” (Finn, and Hartt 47) down. The curvature of
Christ’s body across Mary with the position of the Virgin’s arms and hands create a triangular
silhouette (De Tolnay 148). The triangular frame of the piece radiates an atmosphere of harmony,
peace and grace.
Before exploring Michelangelo’s physical “lies” and philosophical “truths,” it is essential
to briefly describe the concept and history of Neo-Platonism. Plato, the philosopher, sought after
all the possibilities beyond the natural world. Plato aspired to transcend above the natural world
into a higher realm or an “ideal” world. Plato’s philosophy died after the antiquity. However,
when Lorenzo Medici (Lorenzo the Magnificent) rose to power, he revived Plato’s ideas and
started a philosophy called Neo-Platonism. As a pupil at the Medici Academy, Neo-Platonism
greatly influenced Michelangelo’s thoughts and ideas on art (Paolucci 14).
In Michelangelo’s Rome Pietà, one of the “lies” that represent Plato’s idea of spiritual
beauty is Mary’s youthfulness. At the time of Christ’s crucifixion, Mary was in her forties
(Adam 124). Yet, in Michelangelo’s St. Peter’s Pietà, Mary is depicted as a young woman. In
fact, Mary looks younger than Christ, who is her son. When critics pointed out the youthfulness
of Mary, Michelangelo responded, “Do you know that chaste women maintain their freshness
longer than those who are not?” (Coughlan 74). In Neo-Platonism, external beauty is a reflection
Kim 3
of internal beauty. Michelangelo sought to portray Mary’s pure and chaste inner soul. Thus,
Mary is depicted young and beautiful (Finn, and Hartt 29). Michelangelo once said that by
carving, he is releasing the soul imprisoned within the block of stone (Urton). Thus, when he
sculpted the Pietà, he was creating the timeless and divine soul of Mary, not her natural physical
image. In Michelangelo’s Three Pietàs, Finn and Hartt claim that Michelangelo was sculpting
the “virgin mother, mystic bride, [and] mortal vessel” (Finn, and Hartt 29) and that these “truths”
have nothing to do with “wrinkles.” In fact, the soul of a person is the true representation of the
person rather than his or her outward appearance. Although it is physically unrealistic, a young
Mary is the true representation of the virgin philosophically.
In addition to looking too young, Michelangelo’s Mary received criticism for expressing
acceptance of a higher realm instead of grieving. Instead of Mary outwardly weeping in pain at
Christ’s death, Michelangelo depicts Mary as accepting and resigned. Looking closely at Mary,
one can see a mixture of internal pain, peace and acceptance (Finn, and Hartt 58). Mary’s left
hand is positioned as if she is gesturing up. She looks as if she is presenting Christ’s body to the
sky. Mary knew that it was fate, determined by a higher power, for Christ to be crucified. Thus,
he focused on “Not maternal grief but grateful reverence in the presence of an unspeakable
mystery” (Finn, and Hartt 30). Mary does not despair at the loss of her son but she accepts the
destiny for Christ. Michelangelo once said, “If life pleases us, death, being made by the hands of
the same creator, should not displease us” (Coughlan 76). According to Michelangelo, death
should not make people afraid, sad or angry. Based on this philosophy of death, it is more
“truthful” that Mary is accepting instead of grieving.
Michelangelo’s philosophy on death is not the only reason why Mary is depicted
accepting rather than grieving. The Pietà’s commissioner, Cardinal Jean Bilheres de Lagraulas,
Kim 4
played an important role in Mary’s depiction as well. Many evidences show that the French
cardinal intended to place the Pietà on his tomb. In a letter to Anziani of Lucca, the Cardinal
wrote that he wanted the Pietà placed in Santa Petronilla, the chapel where the cardinal was
planned on being buried (Wallace 244). Giorgio Vasari also wrote that the cardinal wanted an
honorable memorial (Wallace 244). Since the piece was created to decorate a memorial,
Michelangelo focused on the inevitable fate and peace of death instead of pain or grief. On the
other hand, if the sculpture was commissioned as an altarpiece to decorate the church instead of a
grave, Michelangelo’s Pietà would have looked much different. The popular fourteenth-century
depiction of the Pietà in northern Europe, especially in Belgium and Germany, was a sorrowful
Mary grieving over the dead body of Christ (Ziegler 28). The sculptures were often gruesome
and striking because the purpose of these Pietàs was to “shock worshipers into awareness of
Christ’s sacrifice” (Coughlan 76). If the Pietà was commissioned as an altarpiece,
Michelangelo’s sculpture could have been more gruesome in order to display a devotional
message. In part, Michelangelo represented Mary as accepting because the work was
commissioned to mark the cardinal’s tomb, not to be displayed as a holy altarpiece.
It is also important to mention the audience (society of Michelangelo’s time) of the Rome
Pietà. In Italy, the concepts of classicism and idealism were common after the reign of Lorenzo
the Magnificent. Contrastingly, northern Europe focused on Byzantine art which highlighted the
religious and devotional components of the art (Ziegler 29). Since Michelangelo is from Florence
and he sculpted the Pietà in Rome, it seems normal that his Pietà reflects classical and NeoPlatonic views. However, the Pietà was commissioned by a French cardinal and the idea of Pietà
originated in Northern Europe. Since the concept of Pietà started and was widely popular in
northern Europe, Michelangelo had to depend on “northern medieval Pietàs, and quite likely the
Kim 5
Flemish ones…as models for his sculpture” (Ziegler 28). Although Michelangelo only had
Byzantine depictions of the Pietà as his predecessors, he created his Pietà in a Neo-platonic
manner. Michelangelo’s decision to create a classical Pietà emphasizes Michelangelo’s values
on idealism.
During the Renaissance period, artists did not have much authority or freedom on the
work they were commissioned. Artists had to stay within the limits of what was acceptable by
the society and what the patron wanted. There was not much opportunity for artists to freely
create a piece of work that reflected their creativity or originality. However, Michelangelo had
relatively substantial control over his Pietà. Instead of the prevailing medieval depictions of the
Pietà, Michelangelo’s statue radiates a graceful and peaceful Mary and Christ. Thus,
Michelangelo incorporated his own philosophical thoughts into the piece. It is true that the
patron and the audience influenced his Pietà to some degree. However, Michelangelo
undoubtedly raised the status and authority of an artist.
Another “lie” in Michelangelo’s St. Peter’s Pietà is Mary’s huge size in proportion to
Christ. Michelangelo had to create Mary bigger in order for viewers to focus on the harmonious
and divine relationship between Christ and his mother. The contract between the French cardinal
and Michelangelo says that Michelangelo has to sculpt Christ “as large as a man” (Finn, and
Hartt 27). As a result, Michelangelo had an “exceedingly difficult task [of placing] the body of a
full grown man on the lap of a seated woman” (Ziegler 34). Generally, in other forms of Pietàs,
Christ was reduced or St. John and Mary Magdalene were present to support Christ’s head and
feet (De Tolnay148). In order to fulfill his task without making the sculpture look unstable, Mary
had to be sculpted proportionally bigger than Christ. Mary’s head is the same size as the lifesized Christ’s head, yet if Mary were to stand up, she would be seven feet tall (Coughlan 74).
Kim 6
Michelangelo mitigated Mary’s oversized proportions by covering up her lower torso with heavy
draperies of her cloak. If Mary had not been enlarged, more attention would have been drawn to
the awkwardness of a women trying to hold a dead, full-grown man’s body on her lap. As a
result, viewers would be distracted from focusing on the actual significance or beauty of the
piece. Moreover, by increasing the size of Mary, Michelangelo creates an image of Mary holding
Christ as if he was a baby (De Tolnay 148). In contrast to a stiff, tortured Christ lying rigidly
across Mary, Michelangelo’s Christ “hangs limply in the Virgin’s arms, so that the head falls
back as in sleep” (Finn, and Hartt 47). Michelangelo’s depiction of Mary and Christ alludes to
the idea of the Virgin and Child. Mary also looks as if she is reminiscent of the times when she
held Jesus as an infant (De Tolnay 91). Michelangelo wanted to illustrate the timeless, divine and
ideal relationship between Mary and Christ rather than the present situation of Mary holding
Christ in eternal sleep. As Finn and Hartt comments in their book, Michelangelo wanted to
illustrate “the beauty of the Blessed Mother and the incalculably precious, infinitely repeated,
eternally present Eucharistic sacrifice of her Son” (Finn, and Hartt 29). As stated previously, the
ideal relationship is valued over the situation in the real world in Neo-Platonism. Once again,
Michelangelo disregarded the physical “lie” of Mary’s size in order to express the Neo-Platonic
“true” view of Mary and Christ.
It is important to note that Michelangelo studied and was aware of human proportions but
that he opted to neglect human anatomy in order to accentuate the meaning and grace of the
piece. Some people may believe that Michelangelo was ignorant of human proportions since
Mary is disproportioned in his Pietà. However, according to Vincenzo Danti, Michelangelo
studied human anatomy for twelve years (Summers 398). Vasari also wrote, “…in order to be
entirely perfect, [Michelangelo] did anatomies infinite times, flaying men to see the origin and
Kim 7
ligatures of the bones, muscles, nerves, veins and diverse movements and all the postures of the
human body” (Summers 398). Yet, he regarded proportions as unimportant if correct proportions
ruined the grace of a work. His value on harmony of a work continued even later when more
studies on human proportions were published. After the Pietà was completed, Albrecht Durer’s
Four Books on Human Proportion became broadly respected. Michelangelo harshly criticized
Durer’s ideas. Michelangelo said that “Albrecht treats only of the measure and kinds of
bodies…forming the figures stiff as stakes” (Summers 380). Michelangelo preferred to be
proportionally incorrect rather than create a piece of work that was “stiff as stakes.” Thus, he
even discussed to his companion, Ascanio Condivi, about writing a treatise on human anatomy
which emphasized grace (Summers 381). In his Pietà, Michelangelo amplified Mary in order to
save the gracefulness of his work. In fact, Mary’s disproportion did not receive harsh criticism
since the overall piece appears harmonious. In The World of Michelangelo, Coughlan comments
“aberrant proportions like these in no way disturb the viewer” (74). Adams also writes in Key
Monuments of the Italian Renaissance that the disproportion is “not [sufficient] to disturb the
idealization of the forms or disrupt the compositional unity of the work” (124). In terms of
aesthetic philosophy, Michelangelo’s representation of the enlarged Mary dominates as the
visual truth over the proportional lie.
In Michelangelo’s Rome Pietà, Mary’s physical “lies” are not the only components that
reflect Michelangelo’s Neo-Platonic ideas. Michelangelo’s signature engraved across Mary’s
chest also reveals Michelangelo’s desire to transcend above the restrictions of time and physical
limitations in life. On Mary’s chest, Michelangelo wrote “Michelangelus Buonarrotus
Fiorentinus Faciebat” which means Michelangelo Buonarroti the Florentine made this (Hughes
57). “Faciebat” is the part which signifies “made.” If one looks closely, the letter t in faciebat is
Kim 8
unwritten or hidden behind Mary’s cloak. The literal definition of faciebat is “was making”
instead of “made” (Hughes 58). In other words, Michelangelo was playing with the word to
imply that his statue is incomplete because he will never be able to bring the statue to the
absolute perfection he envisioned (Hughes 58). In Michelangelo, Anthony Hughes remarked that
“leaving the word itself incomplete reinforced the sense of an unfinishable process” (Hughes 58).
By inscribing “facieba” instead of faciebat, Michelangelo added a timeless quality to his
sculpture. Michelangelo’s Pietà is not something that applies to the limitations of time. Instead,
it is an art work that will always continue to be. Every detail of his sculpture, even his signature
strived to transcend above the physical limitations of his world.
Furthermore, the timeless quality is not the only meaning Michelangelo’s signature
implies. By inscribing faciebat or “was making,” Michelangelo acknowledged that his Mary and
Christ will never be the actual ideal figures in the higher realm. Michelangelo understands that
he can only create a really close reflection or “copy” of the ideal figures. Thus, his sculpture will
never be finished because he cannot create the actual Mary or Christ. Physically, the sculpture
was finished and “made.” In fact, most critics regard the Rome Pietà as Michelangelo’s most
“complete” and polished work (De Tolnay 11). Michelangelo had no intention of physically
continuing to work on his Rome Pietà. Physically, it is a lie that Michelangelo “was making” the
Pietà but Neo-platonically, it is true Michelangelo never could complete the statue.
Beyond the physical lies apparent to the eyes, Michelangelo’s Rome Pietà conveys a
philosophical “truth.” In the end, age, sorrow and proportion are all qualities that apply only to
the mortal world. In the higher realm, the notion of time, sorrow and size is insignificant.
Philosophically, Mary should be young and beautiful if her soul is pure. If death is an inevitable
decision made from above, Mary should be peaceful and resigned rather than sorrowful. If Mary
Kim 9
has to be enlarged to highlight the graceful and divine relationship between Mary and Christ,
disproportions are not important. In order to truly appreciate Michelangelo’s work, one has to
look beyond the physical unrealistic qualities of the Pietà and understand the meaning of the
“lies.” By understanding the true meaning behind his work, another truth is revealed: artists are
not just tools to represent patrons’ and the audience’s ideas but art itself can be a tool for
expression of artists. Inevitably, commissioners and the public will always play some role in the
work of art. However, Michelangelo elevated the authority of an artist in the Renaissance period
by demonstrating that an artist can add his or her own personality and thoughts into an artwork.
Even more than 500 years after its creation, we still admire, study, and analyze Michelangelo’s
Rome Pietà. To what do we credit the lasting popularity? I believe the Rome Pietà’s fame stems
from its timeless qualities based on Neo-Platonic philosophy that Michelangelo himself added,
not the patron or the society.
On my honor I have neither given nor accepted unauthorized aid on this examination
Kim 10
Michelangelo, Pietà, 1498-1500. Marble. Saint Peter’s, Rome.
Kim 11
Works Cited
Adams, Laurie Schneider. Key Monuments of the Italian Renaissance. Boulder: Westview Press,
2000. Print.
Coughlan, Robert. The World of Michelangelo, 1475-1564. New York: Time Inc., 1966. Print.
De Tolnay, Charles. Michelangelo: Sculptor, Painter, Architect. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1975. Print.
Finn, David, and Frederick Hartt. Michelangelo's Three Pietas: Photographic Study.
New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1975. Print.
Hughes, Anthony. Michelangelo. London: Phaidon Press, 1997. Print.
Paolucci, Antonio. Michelangelo: The Pietàs. Milan: Skira, 1997. Print.
Plato. Symposium. Trans. Robin Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Summers, David. Michelangelo and the Language of Art. New jersey: Princeton University Press,
1981.
Urton, Robin. “Michelangelo Buonarroti1475-1564.” Eyeconart. n.d. Web. 26 September 2010.
Wallace, William E. “Michelangelo’s Rome Pieta: Altarpiece or Grave Memorial?”
Michelangelo: Selected Scholarship in English. Hamden: Garland,
1995. Print.
Ziegler, Joanna E. “Michelangelo and the Medieval Pietà: The Sculpture of Devotion or the Art
of Sculpture?” Gesta 34.1 (1995): 28-36. Print.