J R Soc Med 2002;95:514-515 doi:10.1258/jrsm.95.10.514
Michelangelo and medicine Roland M Strauss MRCP DTM&H Helena Marzo-Ortega MRCP 1
Department of Dermatology, Leeds General Infirmary, Great George Street, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK 1 Department of Rheumatology, Leeds General Infirmary, Great George Street, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK
Depictions of pathological conditions in painting and sculpture, and their interpretation, have long fascinated doctors and numerous reviews and observations have been published over the years. The work of the Italian painter, sculptor and poet Michelangelo (1475-1564) has attracted particular attention from physicians. We conducted a Medline search for articles that contained the keyword Michelangelo.
In an early article from 1971, an American urologist raised the subject of circumcision, when commenting on the famous David (Figure 1). David represents an uncircumcised young man, and the discussion elaborates on whether Michelangelo's decision to portray his subject in all his intact nature may have been influenced by local church leaders at the time; that is, a circumcised David might have been politically incorrect1. Other urologists promptly joined in the discussion, suggesting alternative explanations—such as a joke by the artist2, or an alleged lack of interest in precise anatomical detail. Support for this latter argument came from a different commentary, pointing to the presence of blood-filled arm veins in the crucified Christ in the statue Pieta; seemingly Michelangelo was unaware of the existence of venous valves3.
With regard to circumcision, however, the true explanation is probably much simpler: although circumcision was widely practised, in renaissance art it was customary not to admit to the effects of the operation. This is most obvious in the numerous contemporary representations of the Christ Child, who is never shown as circumcised4 although circumcision was mandatory in Judaism. Further discussion about the anatomical accuracy of Michelangelo's sculptures has arisen also with regard to his statues Notte and Aurora, two of the four Phases of the day in the Medici family tombs in Florence. In the statue Notte (Figure 2) the shape of the breasts is perceived to be unnatural5, and possible explanations are that Michelangelo was unfamiliar with the female body6 or that he based the sculpture on a male model with subsequent addition of female-sized breasts7; others have remarked that the figure's thighs, neck and shoulders are more male than female. Ensuing commentaries included the adventurous explanation that Michelangelo, reputed to have been homosexual, resented female features and deliberately created a male with added breasts8. However, a more recent interpretation offers a morbid explanation—namely, that the left breast has features of locally advanced cancer.
Figure 2. Notte, partial view of the tomb of Giuliano de' Medici, 1526-1531, Florence
The notion that Michelangelo was ignorant of female anatomy is not convincing. He started dissecting human bodies when aged 18, and many of these dissections took place in the Monastery of Santo Spirito in Florence where the corpses often originated from associated hospitals10. It is therefore likely that Michelangelo was familiar not only with the anatomy of the female body but also with its pathology. Of interest is also the fact that an almost identical appearance of the breast to the one discussed in the statue Notte can be seen in The Flood, a scene in the frescos of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, painted around 20 years before creation of the statue Notte.
А вот еще обзорная статья на ту же тему
doi:10.1258/jrsm.95.10.514
Michelangelo and medicine
Roland M Strauss MRCP DTM&H Helena Marzo-Ortega MRCP 1
Department of Dermatology, Leeds General Infirmary, Great George Street, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK
1 Department of Rheumatology, Leeds General Infirmary, Great George Street, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK
Depictions of pathological conditions in painting and sculpture, and their interpretation, have long fascinated doctors and numerous reviews and observations have been published over the years. The work of the Italian painter, sculptor and poet Michelangelo (1475-1564) has attracted particular attention from physicians. We conducted a Medline search for articles that contained the keyword Michelangelo.
In an early article from 1971, an American urologist raised the subject of circumcision, when commenting on the famous David (Figure 1). David represents an uncircumcised young man, and the discussion elaborates on whether Michelangelo's decision to portray his subject in all his intact nature may have been influenced by local church leaders at the time; that is, a circumcised David might have been politically incorrect1. Other urologists promptly joined in the discussion, suggesting alternative explanations—such as a joke by the artist2, or an alleged lack of interest in precise anatomical detail. Support for this latter argument came from a different commentary, pointing to the presence of blood-filled arm veins in the crucified Christ in the statue Pieta; seemingly Michelangelo was unaware of the existence of venous valves3.
Figure 1. David, 1501-1504, Galleria dell'Academia, Florence
With regard to circumcision, however, the true explanation is probably much simpler: although circumcision was widely practised, in renaissance art it was customary not to admit to the effects of the operation. This is most obvious in the numerous contemporary representations of the Christ Child, who is never shown as circumcised4 although circumcision was mandatory in Judaism. Further discussion about the anatomical accuracy of Michelangelo's sculptures has arisen also with regard to his statues Notte and Aurora, two of the four Phases of the day in the Medici family tombs in Florence. In the statue Notte (Figure 2) the shape of the breasts is perceived to be unnatural5, and possible explanations are that Michelangelo was unfamiliar with the female body6 or that he based the sculpture on a male model with subsequent addition of female-sized breasts7; others have remarked that the figure's thighs, neck and shoulders are more male than female. Ensuing commentaries included the adventurous explanation that Michelangelo, reputed to have been homosexual, resented female features and deliberately created a male with added breasts8. However, a more recent interpretation offers a morbid explanation—namely, that the left breast has features of locally advanced cancer.
Figure 2. Notte, partial view of the tomb of Giuliano de' Medici, 1526-1531, Florence
The notion that Michelangelo was ignorant of female anatomy is not convincing. He started dissecting human bodies when aged 18, and many of these dissections took place in the Monastery of Santo Spirito in Florence where the corpses often originated from associated hospitals10. It is therefore likely that Michelangelo was familiar not only with the anatomy of the female body but also with its pathology. Of interest is also the fact that an almost identical appearance of the breast to the one discussed in the statue Notte can be seen in The Flood, a scene in the frescos of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, painted around 20 years before creation of the statue Notte.