Two Michelangelo Sculptures

Compare and Contrast the more subtle “Risen Christ” by Michelangelo in Santa Maria Sopra Minerva to his “Moses” in San Pietro in Voncoli.

Michelangelo was a master of marble, and while each of his statues are distinctly his own, the way in which he changes the sculpture in order to reflect the desires of the commissioner as well as his own agenda is remarkable. The “Risen Christ” depicts a nude Christ, entwined with a cross, holding the elements of the Passion. Michelangelo’s “Moses” is a harsh piece that depicts an enraged Moses seated precariously on a chair. While these two pieces are both religious statues the depiction of the two religious characters is very different. Christ is long, lean and elegant while Moses is hostile, large and muscular. Both of these pieces have been given much attention, not only for their beauty, but also because there are many interpretations of Michelangelo’s intent in the two pieces.

Michelangelo’s “Risen Christ” in Santa Maria Sopra Minerva has received much attention since the day it was erected, first because Christ is nude and second because when staring into the eyes of Christ the statue is stocky and ungraceful. Christ stands nude with his left foot wrapping around the cross he clutches in his hands. He is holding the symbols of the passion: a bamboo pole, sponge and coil of rope. His left foot appears to be lifting off the ground; the heel of his foot has already left, as though he is springing up to the sky. When viewed from the left the statue is slim, the marks of crucifixion can be seen on his hands and feet, and the sweet serenity of his face is more prevelant. The sculpture of Christ is beautiful and depicts Christ as he is ascends from this earthly plane.

When first looking at the “Risen Christ” one approaches looking into the face of Christ. From this angle Christ is disproportionate, dwarfing his cross, and the only beauty is depicted in his face. Only when one walks to the left side does Christ suddenly become graceful, the cross melds with his body and the beauty of the statue is truly apparent. Wallace argues that when the “Risen Christ” was first commissioned he was meant to rest in a niche in the chapel, this would have meant that one could not walk around the whole statue and the best viewing would have been from the left side. Wallace also argues that to view Christ by staring directly in his eyes would have never been expected and that the viewer was never meant to directly look into the eyes of Christ. The argument Wallace makes is trying to disprove the assertions by other scholars that the “Risen Christ” is one of Michelangelo’s worst works because of the disproportion of the piece. Wallace states that not only did the commissioners ask for a nude Christ, they also loved the piece when it arrived. The interpretation by Wallace seems valid because the moment one moves to the left of Christ, Christ is the embodiment of perfection and innocence.

Michelangelo’s “Moses” in San Pietro in Vincoli is a statue of a brooding, angry Moses who is either in the act of calming himself or rising to action. The body of this piece is muscular and well defined, the veins in the hands bulge and there is tenseness is every muscle. His hands are clenched, one around his beard and the other clutching at his stomach. His robes are disheveled, one half pulled above his knee, as though he has been fidgeting with the cloth. There is a sense of movement in this piece. Moses’ left foot is pushing off the ground while the other remains flat against the floor. His gaze is off to the left and his face is stern. When one views this piece there is an immediate sense that Moses is displeased, not simply angry, but enraged.

The details in Michelangelo’s “Moses” are stunning. The muscles in the arms and the protruding veins in his hands all give a sense of strain. The flowing beard is tangled in his grip as though he is holding it simply to keep himself at bay. The Tablets rest next to his right arm and at the same time there is a sense he is clutching them close to himself. When Freud describes this piece he concludes that Michelangelo has changed the story of Moses and that this work is actually of Moses after his fit of rage choosing not to break the Tablets. Freud’s conclusion could be plausible, but there is a sense of movement and action in this piece that does not appear to denote a calming, but more the possibility of action.
The statue of the “Risen Christ” and of “Moses” are immediately recognized as Michelangelo’s pieces although the works are sculpted differently. The “Risen Christ” is a softer, more subtle piece of work. Christ is slim and graceful, his limbs are elegant and while his muscles are defined there is no sense of tenseness or anger. Moses is larger and stockier, his arms and legs tense and the veins protrude from his hands. Michelangelo has depicted Moses in a rage, every part of his body tense, his face glaring off into the distance. The interpretation of these two pieces is also different. Wallace argues that the “Risen Christ” is not one of Michelangelo’s worst works, but that is has been viewed for centuries incorrectly. Freud argues that “Moses” is actually Michelangelo changing the story of Moses, as well as a piece about his relationship with Julius II. The interpretation of the “Risen Christ” is much subtler than the assertion by Freud that Michelangelo has reinterpreted the story of Moses. These two statues differ greatly not only because of their form, but also because of the interpretation of these two pieces.