Donatello's bronze David and the Palazzo Medici courtyard

Author(s): Francis Ames-Lewis

Source: Renaissance Studies , SEPTEMBER 1989, Vol. 3, No. 3 (SEPTEMBER 1989), pp. 235-
251
Published by: Wiley

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24409868

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.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Renaissance
Studies

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Renaissance Studies Vol. 3 No. 3

Donatello's bronze David and

the Palazzo Medici courtyard
Francis Ames-Lewis

During the past ten years or so, students of Donatello have put for
almost bewildering number of interpretations of the bronze David
1).' These hypotheses range widely in their proposals for the datin
purpose and the meaning of the figure. The suggestions I shall
this article, in response to this wide-ranging debate, start from t
position that what is needed in the present state of studies is a com
sive hypothesis which can embrace, and indeed can even enco
many different readings of the David. Further thought on this qu
has been stimulated in recent years in particular by Sir John
Hennessy's article in the 1984 Festschrift for Federigo Zeri. He th
posed that Donatello designed and cast the David while he was
working on the High Altarpiece for the Basilica di Sanf Antonio b
1446 and 1450; when completed it was dispatched to Florence to be
in the courtyard of the new Palazzo Medici (plate 2) on the ped
plied for it, according to Vasari a century later, by the young Des
da Settignano. Furthermore, Pope-Hennessy argued that the
represents Mercury rather than David, accepting the identifica
forward by Alessandro Parronchi several years ago.2 This
lematical interpretation raises a good many questions, but I ho
plore the possibility that a general framework of interpretatio
established which could allow Pope-Hennessy's to coexist with o
cent hypotheses, and which may ultimately stimulate further
tions of the intriguing problems which continue to surround the
David.
By drawing analogies in the style and handling of bronze between the
David and the figures of the Santo High Altarpiece, Pope-Hennessy
argued forcefully for a date in the late 1440s for the commission and
execution of the David.3 Those parts of his discussion which deal with
1 For full bibliographies of recent studies on Donatello's bronze David, see V.Herzner, 'David
Florentinus II: der Bronze-David Donatellos im Bargello', Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, 24 (1982),
63-142; J. Pope-Hennessy, 'Donatello's bronze David', Scritti di storia de Warte in onore di Federigo
Zeri (Milan, 1984), 122-7; and Omaggio a Donatello (Florence, 1985), 195-223 (catalogue entry by
Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi). The present article is a revision of a paper read at the 'Donatello
1386-1986' symposium organized by the Society for Renaissance Studies at the Warburg Institute,
London, on 9 May 1986; that paper was itself a revised version of the paper given at the symposium
on 'Donatello, His Work and His Influences' held in Detroit, 18-19 October 1985.
2 A. Parronchi, 'Mercurio e non David', in Donatello e il potere (Bologna, 1980), 101-15.
3 Pope-Hennessy, Zeri scritti, 124.

© 1989 The Society for Renaissance Studies, Oxford University Press

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
236 Francis Ames-Lewis

Wtf

f >

Plate 1 Donatello, David. Florence, Bargello

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 237

Plate2Florenc,PalzoMedic, ourtyard

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
238 Francis Ames-Lewis

imagery and meaning are, howeve

ther interpretation of these aspec
dating of c. 1460 is still (in my vi
more, Pope-Hennessy now subscr
deed commissioned to stand in the
made earlier for some other purp
agreement should exist on this p
figure with this setting at least as
for interpretative analysis of its im
proposals for other original location
based on different considerations, w
ward below, but only with great di
on the close relationship, both v
David and the Palazzo Medici cou
This paper has two principal aim
would have been seen in the pala
some aspects of the imagery of
patron and his intellectual peers
observer's mind. It is now generally
exclusively the Old Testament hero
meanings that can be deduced ha
within the context of the overall im
Just as observers of the bronze Dav
ambiguities which have prompted
earlier, so also in later quattrocen
ability able to stimulate a variet
perhaps from the outset intended
4 See F. Ames-Lewis, 'Art history or stilkritik
(1979), 139-55. The tone of that article was int
absolutely on a late date for the bronze David,
bable. I do, however, still insist on the essentia
David depends at least as much, and probably m
on the stage in Donatello's career at which the
most parsimonious explanation for the close ass
139-55, and upon which I expand here) between
Palazzo Medici courtyard frieze is that they wer
of Neoplatonic imagery which links them them
5 Pope-Hennessy, Zeri scritti, 124. The David w
the celebration of Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici a
were no pantry tables for the silverware, only ta
courtyard around the beautiful column on whic
four bronze basins . . .' (see H. W. Janson, The
original, published in 'Delle nozze di Lorenzo
di Piero Parenti fiorentino', Per le nozze di Flor
11, reads: 'Niuna credenziera v'era ordinata per
a quella bella colonna dov'è quel Davit di bronz
d'ottone grandi per bicchieri; e dentro a questi
chi mesceva alle tavole. II simile era nell'orto in
possible to reach any useful deductions from t
which the David was placed, a question which i

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 239

However, it is worth reasserting, because it h

by Parronchi and Pope-Hennessy, that what
image' of the bronze is, and always was, 'David
as David in all early references (from Piero
1568) not least because of the visual analogy w
of the Victorious David, a potent image in
certainly, however, an unusual treatmen
narrative David shown in (for example) Tad
Baroncelli Chapel of Sta Croce. But this ver
drama may alert us to the possibility that the
David but for other images as well. We should,
seek further, 'secondary' meanings which are
of mid-quattrocento Medicean imagery. It mig
ample, to deduce the 'secondary image' 'Mercur
ing Parronchi's identification: there are eno
the petasus-like hat, the figure's nudity, or th
encourage one to imagine that both patron and
to stimulate this reading. Removed from th
however, the bronze cannot represent Mercu
David and lacks those which distinguish M
episode from the Metamorphoses of Ovid whic
source.7 For such a 'secondary' reading to b
tion will have to be given of the symbolic a
and Medicean imagery as represented in th
decoration; this may not prove to be an im
come within the scope of this article.
Before any 'secondary image' for the David
first seek to reconstruct the appearance of
the third quarter of the quattrocento. This rec
some consideration of the pedestal of the br
ticular to assess the height at which the figure
and the suggestions offered here on this quest
should be seen merely as indicating how the D
been seen. The pedestal was ambiguously de
wrote about Baccio Bandinelli's Orpheus an

6 See the series of references in early sources published in

'Victorious David' image in Republican Florence, see F. Ame
nn. 11-17, to which should be added F. Hartt, 'Art and freedo
in Memory of Karl Lehmann, Marsyas Supplement I (New Y
Rubinstein, 'Libertas Florentina', Il Rinascimento, 26 (1986)
7 Ovid, Metamorphoses, I, 668-723. The figure lacks the pipe
lulled Argos to sleep before decapitating him, and holds wha
Parronchi believed, a purse (which in any case is not mention
his feet has only two eyes, not the one hundred with which A
8 Vasari, Le Vite . . ed. G. Milanesi, vi (Florence 1881), 1
mai dell'arte dell'architettura, non considerando lui l'ingegno
vera prima, aveva fatto una semplice colonna su la quale po

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
240 Francis Ames-Lewis

the David in the centre of the Pa

'Baccio never gave a thought to a
genius of Donatello who for the Dav
a single column on which he placed
split open so that through the ope
could see from the entrance the oth
opposite.' It might appear unlikely
unusual structure merely to provid
courtyard, and one might reasona
been to provide a view of the Judit
ably cast in about 1455 for the fo
wrote that the pedestal of the David
pies and vine-tendrils of bronze':9 a
seem appropriate to both David an
on the Judith socle the vine-tendri
the decapitated figure. It must be
filled basin in the garden courtyard
courtyards; and although this basi
bowl for the Judith, there is no ev
plumbing has ever been altered

aperto, a fine che chi passava di fuora vedesse d

tile al dirimpetto . . The ambiguities in this d
(here translated as 'single' rather than 'simple')
Professor Conor Fahy for his help in translatin
9 Vasari-Milanesi, m (Florence, 1878), 108 (L
giovanezza, il basamento del David di Donato
bellissime, et alcune viticci di bronzo molto gra
10 I am very grateful to Charles Avery and An
and especially to the latter for allowing me to s
Fitzwilliam Museum catalogue on Giovanni Fran
doubtless correctly believed, was commissioned
fountain in the second courtyard of the Palazzo
until 1495. Radcliffe demonstrates that the Judi
in his life of Donatello (see Vasari-Milanesi, I
tello] fece di granito un bellissimo vaso che gett
simile ne lavorô, che medesimamente getta acqu
fountain was placed on the main axis from the
Ginori, or in the position now occupied by a
Hyman, Fifteenth Century Florentine Studies:
San Lorenzo, PhD thesis, 1968 (New York, 1977)
been aligned with the fountain which, we know
the centre of the second court, beyond which, o
unfortunately, Piero Parenti's account is not as
The garden courtyard was extensively reconst
tury, but it is not clear whether or not this in
changes could equally have been made by Card
he sought to replace the courtyards' sculptures
1495. In the Life of Giovanni Francesco Rust
records that Cardinal Giulio commissioned a bro
first courtyard; Rustici's clay model was howev
which now stands in the west arcade, was com
to Vasari (Vasari-Milanesi, vi, 143), howeve

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 241

therefore accept Vasari's statement that th

to provide a view of the garden courtyard
the via de' Ginori - in other words, an unin
east-west axis of the palace.
But what are the implications of Vasari'
tion of the proportions and character of
east-west cross-sectional diagram throu
sightlines of an observer looking throug
Larga, and from the opening to the eastern
This cannot be exact, because we do not k
courtyard the observer could originally see
these purposes, it is assumed (as implied
almost the whole of the port one at the en
yards; and that his eye was 5 feet (1.54 me
diagram provides a good indication of th
must have reached if the back door was to
and if this axial view from the via Larga w
David itself.
Plate 4 shows two suggested reconstructions of the appearance of the
pedestal. In the first (plate 4, A)11 the open section includes the 'very
beautiful marble harpies' of Vasari's description: Janson suggested that a
faint echo of the pedestal might be seen in the base of Cellini's Perseus;12
and an earlier parallel, reflected in this drawing, is an engraving of the
early 1460s by Maso Finiguerra in which a Judith-like figure is framed by

Donatello's], fece porre la sua statua sopra una basa grossa e tutta massiccia, di maniera che ella in
gombra la vista di chi passa e cuopre il vano della porta di dentro; si che passando, e' non si vede se'l
palazzo va più in dietro o se finisce nel primo cortile', which suggests that the new policy was
deliberately to block the original axial view from the via Larga through the courtyards to the back
door. If the Judith had originally been on this main axis, this would have been a suitable time to
move the granite bowl and to set up Rustici's Mercury fountain perhaps where the sandstone bowl
now is, replacing it with the simple Medici stemma now interred on the main axis. In conclusion,
however, it should be noted that the ground-floor plan of the palace in 1650, before the Riccardi
alterations, shows a wall of indeterminate height which, bisecting the garden courtyard, runs
parallel to the main axis through the courtyards only a few metres to the east (for this, see W. Bülst,
'Die ursprungliche innere Aufteilung des Palazzo Medici', Mitteilungen des Kunst historischen In
stitutes in Florenz, 14, 1969, 369-93, especially plate 3). Since no evidence exists to suggest other
wise, we should assume that this wall is original; in which case there would scarcely have been space
for the granite bowl on the main axis. I am very grateful to Dr Susan McKillop for discussing with me
this issue, and many other ideas and problems relating to the Palazzo Medici and its imagery.
11 This drawing has been criticized on the grounds that the column is improbably thin: I accept
this criticism entirely, and would indeed take advantage of it to stress again that both these recon
structions are merely notational and indicative, not in any way definitive. Insufficient evidence is
provided by the early references to enable a precise reconstruction to be drawn up: the intention here
is to suggest the height at which the bronze David was set up, and the angles at which it was viewed in
its original context.
12 Janson, Donatello, 80. This is an attractive analogy which if correct to any extent suggests a
design for the David pedestal along the lines of my first drawing, which may be compared with, for
example, J. Pope-Hennessy, Benvenuto Cellini (London, 1985), pi. 86: note also the similarity in
pose between the arms of the Judith and Holofernes (as it might have been seen through the putative
base for the David) and of the figure of Jupiter set into the Perseus base.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
242
if

~ii

0 tAl
VI
€E 0

€E
lv

Plate3Fornce,PalzoMedic.E-Wrosectinaldgrmthougpalcendourtyad,wihobserv'ightlnes

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 243

Gi::e5"

J 3L.

A B

Plate 4 Donatello

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 244 Francis Ames-Lewis

the harpies of vengeance much as

seen through the pedestal opening
depends to some degree on the ques
and the Judith were originally to be
and thus the second hypothetical r
preferable, since it conforms better
around 1460. Here the 'single colum
general terms, on the pedestal of
criticized as (by implication) a mis
tions.14 Such an arrangement as this
the arches of the Piero and Giovanni
was used in numerous representati
Love in engravings, manuscripts a
onwards.15
Set above this complex pedestal, the David would have been placed
fairly high above the observer in the courtyard, as has by now often been
observed and as can be seen from the cross-section diagram (plate 3).
Plate 5 is a view of the courtyard, seen from the east arcade, in which the
David has been set up on his reconstructed base: the wreath on which he
stands would have been at least 210 cm, or probably just over 7 feet,
above ground level. As Bennett and Wilkins have pointed out,16 the relief
on Goliath's helmet, which shows a triumphal chariot pulled by amorini,
would have been invisible from ground level close to the figure; and
although just visible from the arcade it would have been too small to be
legible. It cannot therefore have been intended to be associated with the
'primary image' seen from the via Larga: there is, in other words, no

13 Finiguerra's engraving is generally entitled The Beheading of a Captive; but it may reasonably
be proposed that it originally had a more precise meaning than this title implies, and indeed that it
may represent Judith and Holofernes; see further, A. M. Hind, Early Italian Engraving, I (London,
1938), 67-8, no. A.n.11, and J. G. Phillips, Early Florentine Designers and Engravers (Cambridge,
Mass., 1955), 55, pi. 65.
14 See above, n. 10. The base of Bandinelli's Orpheus is decorated with eagles and lions' heads
rather than with harpies; but the relationship between animal forms and the structure of the pedestal
is similar in general to the design here suggested for the base of Donatello's David. Further parallels
are drawn between Bandinelli's Orpheus and Donatello's David, and in general between David and
Orpheus in Medicean imagery early in the sixteenth century, by E. Langedijk, 'Baccio Bandinelli's
Orpheus', a political message', Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 20 (1978),
33-52. For a general consideration of the pedestals for Florentine Renaissance figure-sculpture, with
occasional comments relevant to the present discussion, see K. Weil-Garris, 'On pedestals: Michel
angelo's David, Bandinelli's Hercules and Cacus, and the sculpture of the Piazza della Signoria',
Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 20 (1983), 377-415.
15 A good illustration of this motif on the Medici tomb in S. Lorenzo is in C. Seymour, The
Sculpture of Verrocchio (London, 1971), pi. 42. For possible reflections of this design in minor works
of the 1460s, see for example Phillips, Early Florentine Designers and Engravers, pis. 71C and 82
(engravings), and E. Callmann, Apollonio di Giovanni (Oxford, 1974), pis. 81 and 94 (manuscripts),
103-6 (deschi da parto) and 111 (cassone). I am grateful to Caroline Elam for bringing to my notice
the vase-shaped pedestal on which a Victorious David, not unlike Donatello's bronze, stands in a
(cassone?) panel of Antiochus and Stratonice by the eponymous Stratonice Master (now San Marino,
Calif., Huntington Art Gallery), which may be relevant in this context.
16 B. Bennett and D. Wilkins, Donatello (Oxford, 1984), 89.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 245

■■M

Plate5Fornce,PalzoMedic,ourtyad,withreconstuionfDatelo'sDvid,fromE.acde

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 246 Francis A mes- Lewis

'Triumph of David' allusion here. For

relief must have had some other signific
emphasizes the presence of 'seconda
stimulate secondary readings, in the b
Parronchi believed that he could see
riding the triumphal chariot in the helm
Mercury, whose ancient Egyptian equivalent was the dog-headed
Anubis.17 But even if this improbable identification is right, such fine
details of the relief would not have been visible to the observer who, as
Bennett and Wilkins ingeniously proposed, looked down on the figure
from the windows of the piano nobile. As the cross-section (plate 3) in
dicates, the observer on the piano nobile saw the David at an angle of
about 60°, which helps to explain the diagonal plane in which the relief is
set; but he was over 25 feet (7.7 metres) from the figure. However, it may
well be that he was being encouraged to elaborate erudite interpretations
of the David based on broad readings of the helmet relief which, from
that distance, could at least be recognized as a scene of triumph. One of
these might have been a reading of the figure as Mercury, for the similarity
of David's hat to Mercury's petasus would have been particularly notice
able from above; and another might have been a Neoplatonic reading of
David as Amor caelestis which may explain the visual parallels between
the helmet relief and the Triumph of Virtue roundel in the courtyard
frieze.18 However, the most important views of the bronze David were
from the courtyard at ground level, and these could not have taken into
consideration possible interpretations of the triumphal relief.
To recapitulate: the principal sightline for the 'primary image' of
David was from the via Larga, and the sightlines for interpretations based
on broad readings of the helmet relief were probably from the piano
nobile windows running along the corridor outside the sala grande on the
eastern side of the courtyard. From the plans drawn up in 1650 before the
Riccardi alterations to the palace, it is clear that access to the piano
nobile and the sala grande was by the main staircase leading off the
south-east corner of the courtyard.19 The principal views on to the court
yard and its sculptural decoration were, therefore, from the stretch of
arcade between the barrel-vaulted entrance and the south-east corner.
Viewing the David from close to this corner, as in the reconstruction o
plate 6, an observer who was inclined towards making visual associat
might be expected to link it with the frieze roundels in the corner
posite, representing Daedalus and Icarus on the left, and the Trium
of Virtue on the right. These roundels may have belonged to the p
of decoration recorded by a payment in 1452 for the sgraffito festoons

17 Parronchi, Donatello e ilpotere, 111.

18 This is the interpretation advanced in F. Ames-Lewis, Art Hist, 2 (1979), 139-55.
19 For these plans, see Bülst, Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 14 (1
pis. 3-4.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 247
HHI'%, w- /

■I
K"
%

I I

Plate 6 Florence, Palazzo Medici, courtyard, with re

S.E. corner

the frieze, but several of them are significant variants of the designs
antique gems first recorded in the Barbo collection in 145 7.20 Ur
Wester's interpretation of their meaning in terms of a blend of Lucr
and Neoplatonic thought suggests that they were probably desig
20 For the sgraffito decoration, see Hyman, Fifteenth Century Florentine Studies, 208-9; f
design sources and imagery of the marble roundels, see U. Wester and E. Simo
Reliefmedallions im Hofe des Palazzo Medici zu Florenz', Jarhbuch der Berliner Museen, 7 (1
15-91.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
248 Francis Ames-Lewis

around 1460, shortly after the grea

the Medici circle. But whatever the
that they were designed to a prog
images' around elements contained
the courtyard.
The major visual analogy which w
ween David and the figure of Icarus,
(plate 7) appears above David's head
south-east corner of the courtyard o
again plate 6). The poses of the nud

- ."V<

1T iî ir~^ I ii -id - - s .. •. .. ^
Plate 7 Workshop of Michelozzo(P)

set on high pedestals, are similar

and the observer may also have
associations between the DavicL's
foot of the Icarus base. For Ursul
the emergence of Man in the L

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 249

civilization, representing through Daedalu

creative arts. In general, however, quattr
Daedalus story from Ovid.21 Thus Daedalu
moderate, consciously controlled achievem
mediocritas espoused by Petrarch, Leon B
Erasmus. Icarus, on the other hand, symboliz
to any great undertaking, and hence later fo
furor of divine frenzy or artistic creativity. B
Platonica both Daedalus and Icarus symboli
striving of Man: 'Man', he wrote22 'treads th
waves and rises into the air on high towers,
Daedalus and Icarus . . . with celestial power M
and take their measure; with a super-celestia
the heavens themselves'. This reference to Daedalus and Icarus must
prompt us to search for a Neoplatonic, Ficinian interpretation of th
Daedalus roundel. To harmonize with the suggested date of c. 1460 f
the decoration of the courtyard, however, this interpretation should be
developed in association not with the relatively late Theologia Platon
written in 1475, but rather with Ficino's first major work after he join
the Medici circle, the De voluptate, which was completed at the very en
of 1457.23
Almost everyone who has commented on the bronze David has rec
nized that the wings which sprout from Goliath's helmet present a p
ticularly difficult problem of interpretation, but that they need to
explained if only because they appear to be a gratuitous detail in t
context of the 'primary image' of David. These wings are crucial to an i
terpretation of the visual association, from the south-east corner of th
courtyard, of David with Icarus; and it is possible to connect them with
Ficino's early exposition of the so-called 'Phaedran myth'. For the
Bargello Bust of a Youth, Donatello adapted an antique cameo of N
riding a Biga into an image of the winged horses and charioteer wi
whom Socrates compared the human soul in the Phaedrus.24 Andr

21 This part of the discussion is based on the article by Z. Wazbinski, 'Dedal i Ikar - d
humanistyczene idealy moraine', Etyka, 3 (1968), 97-114. I am very grateful to Katarzyna Roche
her help in translating this for me.
22 Marsilio Ficino, Theologia platonica, xm, 3 (see Opera omnia, I, Basle, 1576, 296): 'Terr
calcat, fulcat aquam, altissimis turribus conscendit in aerem, ut pennas Daedali vel Icari praeterm
tam. Accendit ignem, & foco familiariter utitur & delectatur praecipue ipse solus. Merito coele
elemento solum coeleste animal delectatur. Coelesti virtute ascendit coelum, atque metitur. Sup
coelesti manente transcendit coelum.' This passage is referred to by A. Chastel, Marsil Ficin e l
(Geneva, 1954), 60.
23 The analysis which follows is informed principally by the critical work of M. Allen,
Platonism of Marsilio Ficino (Berkeley, Calif, and Los Angeles, 1984), and especially his Mar
Ficino and the Phaedran Charioteer (Berkeley, Calif, and Los Angeles, 1981), 218-21. Ficino c
pleted his De voluptate (for the text of which, see Ficino, Opera omnia, I, 986-1012) on 29
December 1457.
24 See R. Wittkower, 'A symbol of Platonic love in a portrait bust by Donatello',/ Warburg In
stitute, 1 (1938), 260-1.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 250 Francis A mes-Lewis

Chastel associated this image with Ficino's mature analysis of the

'Phaedran myth' in 1475, thus incidentally denying Donatello's author
ship of the bust;25 but an earlier discussion of this allegory serves as the in
troduction to the philosophical principles expounded in the De voluptate.
Like Icarus, the charioteer of the Bargello Bust medallion is winged: the
meaning of these wings is fundamental to Socrates and also to Ficino in
his discussion of the 'Phaedran myth'.
In this introductory chapter of the De voluptate, Ficino interprets the
'charioteer myth' as an allegory of the risen soul. The soul is in what Plato
called its 'divine' state; in, for Ficino, 'the first, true life enjoyed by the
soul in its heavenly home; Plato says, "The soul is nourished by and re
joices in truth's contemplation."'26 The image in its totality, as on the
Bargello Bust of a Youth medallion, therefore signifies the soul con
templating truth; and the wings represent what Ficino27 described as
'those powers by which the soul flies back to the heights whence it
descended, its thoughts set on earthly things. But the soul can fly back
with two powers, the contemplative and the moral. As I interpret him,
Plato means those two powers to be the soul's wings.' Man's soul loses its
'wings' by desiring earthly delights rather than the truth; but they can be
regained by feeding on the meadow of truth, or (in other words) by con
templation. Ficino quotes directly from Plato,28 who wrote in the
Phaedrus: 'There is a great struggle to see the Plain of Truth, where it
may be; for the food proper to the soul grows tall from this meadow, and
the nature of the wings, by which the soul may be raised, is nourished by
that food.' Thus, in the imagery of the Palazzo Medici courtyard, the
winged Icarus signifies the soul which has been lifted heavenwards by
contemplation of the truth. But by desiring earthly delights, Icarus lost
his wings and fell back to the terrestrial level. Positioned as he is on that
terrestrial level, the bronze David may be seen to represent the soul
without its wings, which are growing again, however, fed by the nourish
ment provided by the palace courtyard, the meadow of truth. The
sightline of the David, and the Daedalus and Icarus roundel beyond,

25 A. Chastel, 'Le jeune homme au camée platonicien du Bargello', Proporzioni, 3 (1950), 73-4;
and see further on this question Janson, Donatello, 141-3; Ames-Lewis, Art Hist, 2 (1979), 145; and
now M. Collareta in Omaggio a Donatello (Florence, 1985), 336-42.
26 See Allen, Ficino and the Phaedran Charioteer, 218-9: 'prima ilia, ac vera vita, qua in
caelorum sedibus animus fruitur loqueretur, ait, veritatis contemplatione nutritur & gaudet' (cf.
Ficino, Opera omnia, I, 987).
27 'quibus animus ad supera, unde ob terrenarum rerum cogitationem descenderat revolat, id
autem cum duabus virtutibus, contemplativa videlicet atque morali consequi possit. Easdem Plato,
ut ego interpretor, virtutes animae ipsius alas intelligit . . .' (Ficino, Opera omnia, I, 987). In my text
I quote again from Michael Allen's translation.
28 Ficino, Opera omnia, I, 987, in Allen's translation; quoting from Plato, Phaedrus, 248 (in Ben
jamin Jowett's translation: 'The reason why the souls exhibit this exceeding eagerness to behold the
Plain of Truth is that pasturage is found there, which is suited to the highest part of the soul; and the
wing on which the soul soars is nourished in this . . .'; see The Dialogues of Plato, trans. B. Jowitt, ed.
R. M. Hare and D. A. Russell (London, 1970), 265.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 251

from the south-east arcade of the court

strates actively the results of the contem
from the terrestrial level to the 'divin
message communicated through this inter
appropriate to the philosophical preoccu
the later 1450s, for during these years
in philosophical contemplation. Indeed,
Neoplatonic ideas in mind that he estab
under Ficino's intellectual guidance in 1
Thus yet another interpretation of D
posed here; but by no means in the beli
solution to the problem of the figure's
purpose this new suggestion is set forth w
Neoplatonic, Phaedran reading should not
one further indicator of the ambiguity, a
potential, of the bronze. It was, I suspect,
patron that this complex work should
and elaboration as the intellectual temp
Florence rapidly changed. The range of
may have existed for the bronze, above an
David, within the context of the Palazzo M
warn us against attempting to ascribe to t
meaning. Viewing the David from differe
conjunction with different images in t
observer was encouraged to read the br
deduce a range of moral and philosophic
to his individual intellectual temperam
susceptible of so many possible interpr
believe) intended from its inception to s
yet one further tribute to Donatello's ap
tive powers.

Birkbeck College,

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms