The Resurrection of Christ

Author: Rhoda Eitel-Porter

The drawing has long been associated with a series of at least four studies by Michelangelo of Christ Rising from the Tomb in black chalk usually dated to 1530-32.^[1] One of these is in Windsor, two are in London, but the fourth one is known only through the Rotterdam sheet and another copy in Florence.^[2] All show a largely isolated figure of a male nude (Christ) stepping onto the rim and lid of the tomb framed by the billowing drapery of the burial shroud. The emphasis is placed squarely on the muscular figure of Christ, drawn with extremely fine lines, stippling and delicate hatching, with reinforced, rippling contours, whereas background details such as the sarcophagus and drapery are more lightly and freely sketched. The Rotterdam copy is the most luminous and otherworldly of the four compositions, with the face turned heavenward and the body approximating a flickering flame, conflating the theme of the Resurrection with Christ’s Ascension in its upward motion.

The highly finished drawing by Michelangelo in the Royal Collection shows a broad, expansive pose, with the raised arms vigorously pushing away any hindrance.^[3] One of the studies in the British Museum shares with the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen version a similar only slightly wider stance, but the figure’s lower point of focus is reinforced by the downward push of Christ’s right arm.^[4] Its origins lie in another drawing by Michelangelo, of the recumbent Tityus, which was traced through on to the verso and then turned to create a Risen Christ.^[5] The second drawing in the British Museum also shows Christ gazing downward, and, unlike the other studies, includes indications of a landscape background and three sleeping soldiers.^[6]

These single figures have been associated with designs for an altarpiece to be painted by Sebastiano del Piombo (c.1485-1547) for the Chigi Chapel in the Roman church of Santa Maria della Pace, a project revived in 1530. It was a connection first proposed by Michael Hirst in 1961, which has found some favour with later art historians, including Paul Joannides.^[7] As argued by Carmen Bambach, the absence of a setting in all but the one of the drawings and the nudity of Christ would make it seem unlikely that these were preparatory studies for an altarpiece. She notes that only the London drawing would be a viable candidate for the Chigi Resurrection altarpiece.^[8] The exquisite finish, careful modelling, and erasure of pentimenti in the Windsor version, which is on especially fine paper, suggests that the single-figure sheets may have been intended as presentation drawings, to be gifted to close friends or patrons, even if the visual ideas originated as designs to assist Sebastiano in his Chigi Chapel project.^[9]

In addition to the series of studies with a single nude figure of the Risen Christ, there exist several predominantly horizontal, multifigured compositions of The Resurrection. These may well have been preparatory for a fresco above the entrance door in the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel – where Michelangelo later painted The Last Judgement – to replace a fresco of The Resurrection by Domenico Ghirlandaio (1449-1494) that had been damaged in 1522.^[10]

In comparison to the Rotterdam version, the Florence drawing is marred by extra squiggles, perhaps later attempts to cover the nudity of the figure. The Rotterdam sheet on the other hand has several losses, repairs and surface abrasions, including at the bottom in the foot of Christ, along the outstretched arm and near the chin of the figure, but delineates more clearly the banner of salvation held by Christ. The tentative attribution to Alessandro Allori (1535-1607) made for the Uffizi copy is in part based on the knowledge that Allori met Michelangelo in Rome in the 1550s and was favourably received.^[11] Likewise, there is not enough visual evidence to firmly identify the artist of the Rotterdam drawing as Giulio Clovio (1498-1578), an attribution proposed by Johannes Wilde in 1953, nor as Allori and it seems best to keep the drawing as a magnificent record of Michelangelo’s skills of invention by an anonymous master.