Michelangelo's letters

Debra Parker recently published a book, Michelangelo and His Letters. Though the title might suggest that it is for students of literature or history, it is actually intended for art historians.

Her study is intentionally cross-disciplinary, with each chapter offering an understanding of Michelangelo that could then be applied to his art. Michelangelo letters contain info about his life, business affairs, family trials, problems of his projects, materials; they provide information about his work, contractual obligations, relationships with patrons, friends, etc. As such they have largely been used to reveal the historical Michelangelo which privileges the realism of the letters as an archive rather than their literary source as an exploration of his artistic sense. He was a consummate artist and a skilled rhetorician, "wielded his pen boldly" in his poems and the letters as well, and yet they have never been studied for their literary quality.

Biographers bring different vested interests to their own projects and as such letters are usually read in that light. Vasari, for example, aggrandizes his relationship, even altering the letters to underscore his closeness to Michelangelo. Condivi, who had been Michelangelo's friend, tried to correct Vasari and dispel rumours of Michelangelo's arrogance and worse. In the 19th cnetury, Aurelio Gotti tried to redce the semblance of any anger in his letters by focusing the story of his biography on pleasant family matters. More letters came to light and were slowly incorporated although Michelangelo's heirs did not want the letters to be widely available. 

Each chapter has a focus on an aspect of his letters that art historians can use for their own research. Chapter 2 focuses on his use of aphorism, repetitions, oppositions, comparatives, intentional. The intensification of his language is, apparently, analog to the expressive use of gesture in his visual art. Though much has been made of the topic of enslavement in his poetry, Parker examines his regular discussion of such feelings in his letters as well, how he is enslaved by project, using words such as bondage, captivity-though I must say this sounds like any artist working on commission.

She concludes having demonstrated that he truly excelled at communicating what he wished to communicate. To take Michelangelo at his words is problematic because it provides a simplistic reading of a complicated man. He was not just angry, or arrogant, or desperate. Reading the letters purely for their narrative assumes a desire to provide a single unit man at the end. Looking at his language, however, does not privilege one characteristic or style of discourse. Looking at a cluster of words and their affiliate connotations keeps this from happening, by offering multiple ways of meaning, deeper patterns. It offers a model of reading, a cautious approach to his letters, that is common among literary scholars but may not be so in art history.

This is what interdisciplinary work provides ideally, that is the tools of one field in a manner that can be incorporated in another field with discrimination. It reveals a potential tie to both worlds rather than overwhelming one or subduing another. Whether the book proves useful to art historians, only time will tell but I can certainly hope that her respectful effort is considered by any who are embracing cross-disciplinary work.