A scholar has suggested that ''Laocoon,'' a fabled sculpture whose unearthing in 1506 has deeply influenced thinking about the ancient Greeks and the nature of the visual arts, may well be a Renaissance forgery -- possibly by Michelangelo himself.
Her contention has stirred some excitement and considerable exasperation among art historians in the Classical and Renaissance fields. Many other challenges to accepted attributions have faded quickly into oblivion.
The scholar advancing the theory, Lynn Catterson, a summer lecturer in art history at Columbia University, presented her argument in a talk at the university's Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America on April 6. Maneuvering through a wealth of material -- including Michelangelo's drawings, records of his banking activity and his acknowledged reputation as an avid seeker of renown and wealth -- she said, ''He had the motives and the means.''
The strikingly naturalistic sculpture, 951/2 inches tall, depicts a deadly attack on the Trojan priest Laocoon and his two sons by writhing sea snakes dispatched by Athena -- or, some say, Poseidon -- after Laocoon warned against admitting the Trojan horse during the siege of Troy. It resides in the Vatican Museums in Rome.
In a telephone interview, Dr. Catterson cited a pen study by Michelangelo dating from 1501 depicting the rear of a male torso that resembles the back of the ''Laocoon'' -- and Michelangelo's documented finesse at copying.
''That the Laocoon was carved by Michelangelo explains why then, and why now, its effect is mesmerizing,'' she said.
Richard Brilliant, Anna S. Garbedian emeritus professor of the humanities at Columbia and an authority on classical antiquities -- his works include ''My Laocoon: Alternative Claims in the Interpretation of Artworks'' (University of California Press, 2000) -- said that Dr. Catterson's contention was ''noncredible on any count.''
For one thing, he said, ''she made absolutely no reference to ancient sculptures that could be related to the 'Laocoon,''' including a large body of ancient fragments found just before World War II at Sperlonga, a site near Rome where Tiberius had a luxurious villa, that refer specifically to episodes of the Trojan war.
Some scholars have also found fault in relating the ''Laocoon'' to the Michelangelo drawing of a torso, now at the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford.
''To my eye, the Michelangelo drawing does not bear a close resemblance to the torso of the Vatican Laocoon,'' said Katherine E. Welch, an associate professor at New York University's Institute of Fine Arts and an expert in Hellenistic and Roman imperial antiquities, in an e-mail message. ''The latter is distinguished by a vigorous torsion or twist, which is lacking in the drawing.''
The ''Laocoon'' was placed at the Vatican Museums by Pope Julius II not long after it was discovered on Jan. 14, 1506, on the Esquiline Hill. Upon hearing the news, the pope immediately dispatched the architect Giuliano da Sangallo to view it; Sangallo brought along his colleague Michelangelo Buonarroti. The men identified the statue as that described by the first-century Roman encyclopedist Pliny the Elder in his ''Natural History,'' who called it ''a work superior to any painting and any bronze,'' one ''carved from a single block in accordance with an agreed plan by those eminent craftsmen Hagesander, Polydorus and Athenodorus, all of Rhodes.''
Dr. Catterson, 48, said she did not set out to debunk scholarship on the ''Laocoon'' when she settled on a dissertation topic seven years ago: ''How come Michelangelo was a sculptor? Who trained him?''
Her curiosity was soon aroused. As a young artist under the patronage of Lorenzo the Magnificent, Michelangelo had witnessed the Medici family's willingness to spend considerable sums on ancient Greek or Roman objects, which he would have had ample opportunity to study and perhaps try to recreate, she said.
He was an astute forger who earned his Bacchus commission after a carved sleeping Cupid that he had buried in the ground to ''age'' had been sold to a wealthy cardinal in 1495.
Then there was recent scholarship on bank withdrawals and deposits between 1498 and 1501 that suggests that the sculptor was buying chunks of marble while accumulating substantial income that could not be accounted for, Dr. Catterson said, and several letters from Michelangelo to his father that spoke of some marbles but failed to explain how he was using the others.
Dr. Catterson suggests that Michelangelo, a manic worker who carved on as few as three hours of sleep a night, would have had the time to create the ''Laocoon'' while working simultaneously on the ''Pietà,'' for which he signed a contract in 1498 and which he completed by July 1500.
He had his own house, which included ample work space, and a trusted assistant, Piero d'Argenta, she said. He also had access to Greek marble, found in excavations around Rome.
That the ''Laocoon'' is made of seven pieces of marble may suggest that Michelangelo needed to transport the finished work unnoticed to its point of discovery, where it could have been assembled and joined on the spot, Dr. Catterson added.
William E. Wallace, a professor of art history at Washington University in St. Louis and the author of several books on Michelangelo, was not as quick as other art historians to dismiss Dr. Catterson's claims.
''Until I read the full argument in a reputable academic publication, I'm going to reserve a final judgment,'' he said, noting that since 1996, 17 discoveries of or attributions to Michelangelo have made national news -- and then been discredited or forgotten. ''My first reaction was: 'Oh, come on. Not another.' However, the more I thought about it, the more intrigued I became. I think this one has the greatest lasting power.''
| • | An ancient masterpiece or a master's forgery?
The New York Times, Monday, April 18, 2005 Byline: Kathryn Shattuck |
|---|
| Story also ran in 1 others: Hamilton Spectator (Canada) |
|---|
|
Contact Information Subject Matter Experts:
Related Information Related Groups:
|