A new self-portrait of Michelangelo? The statue of Pan at the Casino dell’Aurora in Rome. Part I: Correspondences

By Hatice Köroglu Çam (Rutgers ’22)

A statue of Pan, for centuries located in the garden of Rome’s Villa Ludovisi, since 1901 has stood unprotected outside the southeast wing of the Casino dell’Aurora. Traditionally attributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475- 1564), and once deemed of great monetary value (4000 scudi in a 1749 Boncompagni Ludovisi inventory), it undoubtedly exhibits characteristic features of the master’s sculptural language.

Yet most surprisingly there is no detailed study focusing on this statue. The most recent treatments, that of Maria Elisa Micheli (Museo Nazionale Romane: Le Sculture I.6 I marmi Ludovisi dispersi [1986]) and Fernando Loffredo (in a 2018 essay “Pirro Ligorio’s Sculpture”) each fills not quite a page and a half. Micheli dismisses seventeenth and eighteenth century attributions of the Pan to Michelangelo, considering it instead “a modern work of the late sixteenth century”. Loffredo, following a suggestion of Francesco Caglioti, pronounces it confidently as a work of Michelangelo’s assistant Giovann’Angelo da Montorsoli (1507-1563), on the basis of the personal relationship between the two.

These verdicts strike me as too hasty. After comparing the stylistic language of the Pan to that of Michelangelo in a wide range of his sculptures, paintings, and drawings, I have come to the conclusion that even if the sculpture is not by Michelangelo, it highlights many features of his style to a remarkable extent. And those attributes are recognizable even given the fact that the Pan today shows an unfortunate loss of details, especially the face—clear when comparing historic photos of the statue (from 1885) with its present state.

My first point is a basic one. This Pan is consistent with the sculptor’s particular interest in antiquity, from Greek mythology to Hellenistic sculpture. Michelangelo’s works of art affirm these interpretations; for instance, the Belvedere Torso and the Laocoön were influential for his artistic style and creations. As Vasari describes it in his second edition of the Lives, Michelangelo’s relationship with antiquity, especially Hellenistic art, was rooted in his experience as a teenager in the Medici archaeological garden. According to his authorized biographer Ascanio Condivi, Michelangelo studied the head of an old faun in the Medici Garden when he was a child. 

Though the faun in question is lost, Ludwig Goldscheider argues that Ottavio Vannini’s seventeenth-century fresco painting in the Palazzo Pitti, Michelangelo Showing Lorenzo il Magnifico the Head of a Faun, shows the missing piece. When comparing the head of the Ludovisi Pan and Vannini’s reproduction of the head, the pointed ears, open mouth without teeth, and noses show similarities. As Eugenio Battisti noted, the missing faun, which Condivi and Vasari mentioned, did not display the characteristic features of the classical period but showed the features of Hellenistic art. Studying this ancient faun, Michelangelo associated himself with the expression of intense emotion in Hellenistic art. 

Indeed, Michelangelo’s keenness for ancient sculptural forms not only reflects his comprehension of antiquity but also his individual expressiveness. In this way, in order to reveal individual expression, he depicted his self-portraits in his paintings, drawings, and sculptures to eliminate the subject’s importance and to reveal his creation and his approach to the theme.

As it happens, we have an obvious ancient influence on the Ludovisi sculpture. This Pan, with his erect phallus,  goat-like legs, pointed ears, and short horns, seems to take direct inspiration from the Satyrs or Pair of Pan famously exhibited (by 1490) in the courtyards of the Della Valle family. Indeed Micheli notes this in her short discussion. Specifically, like the Ludovisi Pan, both the Della Valle statues display heavily nude muscled figures with goat legs and curly and forked beards and animal pelts, which cover the upper body diagonally. Two differences are easily explained. Although the paired Satyrs stand with an anatomical absence—their phalluses were presumably broken—Amico Aspertini’s Sketch-book (c. 1535) depicts these Satyrs with erect phalluses. Also the arms of the Satyrs were missing during the Renaissance (until 18th century). However, our sculptor used his own style by depicting the arms of this particular statue.  More generally, Luba Freedman has argued for the visual influence of Della Valle Satyrs on Michelangelo’s satyr in his Bacchus, a double-figure marble sculpture in the round.

There is more, indeed much more. The depiction of each hand of the statue of Pan prompted me to turn my gaze to the very similar accentuated hand gestures in Michelangelo’s sculptures of the Moses, the Bacchus, the David and his other works of art. But most important for my study is a chalk on paper piece by Michelangelo, privately gifted to a friend (presumably Tommaso de’ Cavalieri) in ca. 1533. In the artist’s Dream of Human Life drawing, the central figure reclines on a box, in which a mask is depicted at its center. The face of the statue of Pan and the appearance of this mask are almost identical, to the point that they seem created and executed by the same artist.

Scholars largely agree that the mask in the Dream of Human Life is evocative of Michelangelo’s self-portraits, because of the depiction of a forked beard, also characteristic of the artist. However scholars have not remarked on the correspondences between this mask and the statue of Pan. It is this close similarity that prompted my inquiry whether the Pan figure displays the artistic depiction of Michelangelo, in a satirical or self-deprecatory sense.

The statue of Pan is a natural size white marble statue (h. m. 1,70 approx.), resting on a low rocky pedestal. It is attested as one of the sculptures in the collection of Cardinal Ludovico Ludovisi (1595-1621-1632), showing up in a 1633 inventory of his Villa Ludovisi. This heavily muscled, ithyphallic figure, rendered with short horns and pointy ears, exhibits a forked beard, reminiscent of Michelangelo’s own beard style. It gazes at someone or something with a laughing, toothless mouth displaying a noticeable tongue.

This male figure is not utterly nude. An animal pelt (presumably a deerskin) is depicted hanging over his right shoulder, then diagonally across his back, to extend against his left thigh. Another piece of this animal pelt goes from his back to the armpit of his right arm. As such, it covers half of the back of the statue, but emphasizes the figure’s musculature. The figure holds the animal pelt with both hands on both sides of his body. Below his right shoulder, we clearly recognize the hoof of this pelt. Between the two legs of this Pan, we see an animal head with extremely pointed ears. The rear of the statue’s right leg rests against a large gnarled tree trunk, which (when seen from behind) touches the right hipline of the figure.

Furthermore, the depiction of Pan’s legs is reminiscent of the contrapposto stance. The right goat-like leg is rendered slightly in front of the other and carries the weight of the torso and the raised left leg over the animal pelt is shown free to move. Even though admittedly there is not enough consistency between the posture of the upper body with the stance of the legs of the Pan, we can recognize the asymmetrical anatomical position around his waist. We know also from Michelangelo’s free standing sculptures that he used contrapposto. While the front of the Pan figure seems finished, the lower part of the back of this statue is shown unfinished.

The sculpture was obviously highly valued. Historic photos of the Villa Ludovisi from 1885 capture the Statue of Pan housed in its own temple-like structure, on a garden path that ran west to east along the Aurelian Wall. A predecessor to the temple (which dates to the late 18th century) was built already for Cardinal Ludovico Ludovisi in the 17th century, and can be seen in Giuseppe Falda’s views of the Villa Ludovisi published in 1670 (to be discussed in Part III of this article). The 19th century photographic images also show that an enormous fig leaf covered the genitalia of this Pan figure. When the Villa Ludovisi was handed over to developers in the latter half of the 1880s, the statue was presumably moved, eventually (in 1901) to the Casino dell’Aurora, which remained (and still remains) a family possession. A photo of July 2008 suggests that at some point in the 20th century a tree was planted in front of the sculpture, presumably out of embarrassment at its ithyphallism. In 2009 the tree was removed, and in 2011 the statue thoroughly cleaned.

Through his work of art, especially his sculpture, Michelangelo accentuated his style when he depicted hand gestures. The very close similarity of hand gestures between the Ludovisi Pan and Michelangelo’s Moses for the tomb of Pope Julius II suggests Michelangelo’s own artistic style. In the depiction of Moses, the figure holds a book—which seems to be tucked under the armpit, which in turn shows the buttress function of the right hand for the book. William E. Wallace points out that with this particular hand gesture of Moses, “the thick ropes of the weighty beard are pulled to one side by the exaggerated long fingers of the right hand. This is the most animated of those unconscious hand gestures that characterized many of Michelangelo’s sculptures.”

The depiction of Moses’ right-hand gesture that hides his fingertips in his tangled beard and the anatomical details of that hand are very similar—indeed, virtually identical—to the right hand gesture in the statue of Pan, where the sculptor depicted Pan’s right-hand’s fingers as hiding in the animal pelt. In addition, their closely related hand gestures show the same place between the index finger and the middle finger. Also similar are the prominent wrist for the right hand of each, and the shape of the pronounced diamond shaped veins.

The left-hand gestures of the statue of Pan and Moses also show the same styling, with diamond-shaped veins and fingers hiding in cloth or a cloth-like animal pelt. Interestingly, the animal pelt’s cloth-like depiction on the right shoulder of the Pan figure is very similar to the depiction of Moses’s cloth on his right shoulder. 

Furthermore, we can notice the same hand gesture in the depiction of the hand of the Jeremiah figure in the Sistine Ceiling. The right-hand fingers are hidden in the long and wooly beard of the prophet, and the space between the index and middle fingers seem almost the same as the hand gesture of Moses and the Ludovisi Pan.

Michelangelo’s Bacchus also has great correspondences with the Statue of Pan. When focusing on the left hand of the Ludovisi Pan and the principal motives of the left-hand depiction of Bacchus, we see almost the same hand gesture—except for the depiction of the index finger which is not curved. Both figures hold animal pelts derived from Greek and Roman art. The Pan figure’s resemblance to the Bacchus group also shows itself in the depiction of the satyr figure. The significant resemblances go beyond the (expected) pointed ears to include the carving of animal heads leaning against the left legs of both the satyr and Pan, as well as the rendering of the hoofs of the satyr and the Pan.

We can see the Pan’s right hand gesture in Michelangelo’s other works of art, particularly his sculpture. For instance, the right hand of the Child (Christ) in Michelangelo’s Taddei Tondo (1504) is similar to the right hand gesture of the Statue of Pan, where we clearly see the fingertips hiding in both statues. The hiding fingers of the left hand of Risen Christ (1519-1520) also evokes the Pan’s right-hand gesture. Michelangelo’s early (ca. 1489-1492) Madonna of the Stairs exhibits the similar hand gesture with the depiction of the right hand of Mary, as does the right hand of Michelangelo’s Leah (1542-55) for the tomb of Julius II in S Pietro in Vincoli.

We can also see the dialogue between the hiding fingers of Christ in the Florentine Pietà and the left-hand gesture of Pan figure. Particularly, the geometrical shape of veins (diamond-shaped) of Christ’s right hand which touches Mary Magdalene’s torso (Florentine Pietà) is similar to the veins of the hand of the Pan. 

Furthermore, the resemblance between the hand gestures of Michelangelo’s David and that of the statue of Pan emphasizes the artist’s sculptural style, but here it is the right hand of David that is evocative of the depiction of the left hand gesture of Pan. The depiction of bending index fingers of both figures is very close, in that each seems relaxed.

Plus Michelangelo’s paintings show the same hand gesture. For example, the Cumaean Sibyl’s left-hand fingers, especially the gesture of the index finger, are reminiscent of the left-hand gesture of the Statue of Pan.

Seen from this perspective, it is appropriate to state that Michelangelo’s sculptural language very closely matches the depiction of hand gestures of the statue of Pan. Thus, both sculptures’ stylistic language suggests that they were made by the same artist. 

There are additional resemblances noticeable between the depiction of the Pan figure and the David. The Pan has a bent right arm, a relaxed left arm, and the space between David’s body and arms seems very much the same. It is appropriate to surmise that if we take the pelt away—which we can digitally—we see the same shape and space.

Moreover, the left toe of David does not touch its pedestal, because of the stance of the figure. We can see a similar depiction on the same leg of the Pan; the left hoof of the Pan is depicted slightly raised, because it is planted on the animal pelt. Another similarity is the gnarled tree trunk. Both figures’ right legs are supported by these trunks, with the obvious dissimilarity that the one accompanying the Pan is much larger than that of the David. Yet the pronounced depiction of the ribcage in both sculptures displays anatomical similarities.

Even given all these parallels, the closest resemblance to the statue of Pan comes from Michelangelo’s private presentation drawing, The Dream of Human Life. The mask at the center of the box in this drawing, which has been claimed as Michelangelo’s self-portrait, is almost identical to the facial depiction of the statue of Pan. In the scene of the Dream, a muscular nude man is reclining on a globe over a large box which was filled with masks. When turning our focus to this bearded mask in the middle of the box, we can recognize the great resemblance between the facial expression of this particular mask and the facial depiction of the statue of Pan: the long, broken, and wide-shaped nose (with a swelling part due to fracture in the nose), pronounced nostril,  open mouth (mostly laughing) prominent eyebrow and the forked beard (except the curving up mustache of the mask). This very close resemblance between the two faces shows the juncture between Michelangelo’s mask and the sculptor of the Pan figure.

It is important to stress, as James M. Saslow and John T. Paoletti observed, that this mask represents Michelangelo’s self-portrait. Saslow saw the correspondence between the mask and a scene in the Last Judgment in which St. Bartholomew holds a flayed skin, the face of which has widely been accepted as Michelangelo’s self-portrait. Moreover, in a specialized study of Michelangelo’s masks, Paoletti considers this mask as “some form of self-portrait” by emphasizing that the forked beard of the mask reflects Michelangelo’s own beard.  There are two dissimilarities between the two faces. First, Paoletti remarks that the mask has noticeable teeth, whereas we can observe that the Pan figure does not have teeth. The second dissimilarity between the mask and the Pan is the direction of the mustache. In his other portraits, Michelangelo’s mustache seems curving down over the side of his mouth, but the mask shows the mustache as curving up.

For Michelangelo’s later appearance, we can turn to Leone Leoni‘s profile medal of 1561 (Florence, Casa Buonarroti). According to Costanza Barbieri, this medal earned the master’s approval. It clearly shows Michelangelo’s curly, curving-down mustache and forked beard. Michelangelo accentuated his forked beard in all of his self-portraits. In addition, in Michelangelo’s portrait (probably ca. 1544) attributed to Daniele da Volterra, Michelangelo had a forked beard—as Paoletti points out. The forked beard is also the most prominent feature of the Pan statue. Taking all this into consideration, I suggest that Michelangelo executed this Pan statue and he depicted his self-portrait on it.

To comprehend the correspondences between the facial depiction of the Pan figure and Michelangelo’s self-portraits, especially the mask in the Dream drawing, Condivi’s description gives important points. Condivi wrote:

“The form of that part of the head, which is seen in full face, is of a rounded figure, in such a manner that above the ears it makes a sixth part more than a half round: and thus the temples project somewhat more than the ears, and the ears more than the cheeks, and these more than the rest; so that the head in proportion to the face must be called large. The forehead in this view is square, the nose a little flattened, though not by nature; for when he was a child, one Torrigiano de ‘Torrigiani, a bestial man and proud, almost crushed with a blow the cartilage of his nose; so that he was carried home for dead. This Torrigiano, therefore, had been banished from Florence.”

“Michelangelo’s nose”, continues Condivi, “thus as it is, is proportionate to the forehead and the rest of the face.The lips are thin, but the lower one somewhat fuller; so that seen in profile, it projects a little. The chin agrees well with the parts aforesaid. The forehead when seen in profile almost projects beyond the nose; and this would appear little less than broken, were it not for a little lump in the middle. The eyebrows have few hairs; the eyes might be called small, rather than otherwise, and of the color of horn, but varied and marked with yellow and blue specks. The ears are well proportioned; the hair is black and so is the beard; except that in this seventy-ninth year of his age the hairs are copiously streaked with white: the beard, moreover, is forked from four to five fingers in length, and not very thick, as may partially be seen from his portraits.”

Condivi’s description of Michelangelo’s face matches the depiction of the statue of Pan. Particularly, the depiction of a forked beard, which scholars mention as Michelangelo’s own beard style, is the most important sign. Moreover, when seeing the Pan figure in profile we can notice that the lower lip is fuller. Most importantly, the depiction of a flattened and broken nose  is a persuasive sign to assume that this is Michelangelo’s self-portrait.

To sum up. The largely unstudied statue of Pan that stands in the garden of the Casino dell’Aurora displays not only a reverence towards antiquity, especially the ancient motives and content of Greek mythology, but also specifically Michelangelo’s artistic style. The half-human, half-goat muscular (not exaggerated) phallic statue, with pointed ears and horns, is inspired by the myth of the god Pan. When comparing the content and appearance of Della Valle Satyrs with the Ludovisi Pan, it does seem that the Pair of Pan was influential in the creation of our Pan figure.

There is good reason to think that Michelangelo may have been the sculptor of this particular Pan figure. All of the correspondences I presented above between the Ludovisi Pan and Michelangelo’s works of art, especially the accentuated hand gestures which the master employed so many times in his works of art, and the strong similarity between the mask at the center of the box in in the Dream and the face of our Pan, count as powerful visual evidence. I propose that if Michelangelo indeed carved this work, this statue explicitly displays the sculptor’s distinctive creativity and expressiveness. Here he combines his own self-portrait with his accentuated and habitual hand gesture in order to declare himself as the god Pan.

SECONDARY SOURCES CITED IN TEXT ABOVE

Barbieri, Costanza. “‘Chompare e Amicho Karissimo’: A ‘Portrait of Michelangelo’ by his Friend Sebastiano.” Artibus et Historiae 28, no. 56 (2007): 107–20 https://doi.org/10.2307/20067163

Freedman, Luba. “Michelangelo’s Reflections on Bacchus.” Artibus et Historiae 24, no. 47 (2003): 121–35 https://doi.org/10.2307/1483763

Goldscheider, Ludwig. Michelangelo: paintings, sculpture, architecture. New York: Phaidon Press, 1953 (6th ed. 1996)

Loffredo, Fernando. “Pirro Ligorio and Sculpture, or, on the Reproducibility of Antiquity”. In F. Loffredo and G. Vagenheim (eds.), Pirro Ligorio’s Worlds: Antiquarianism, Classical Erudition and the Visual Arts in the Late Renaissance, Boston: Brill, 2018, pp. 324-359.

Micheli, Maria Elisa, “C. D. Pan di Michelangelo”, in B. Palma, L. de Lachenal and M.E. Micheli (eds.), Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture. I Marmi Ludovisi dispersi. I.6. Milan: De Luca Editore, 1986: 239-40

Paoletti, John T. “Michelangelo’s Masks”, The Art Bulletin 74 no. 3 (1993): 223-40 https://doi.org/10.2307/3045891

Saslow, James M. Ganymede in the Renaissance, Homosexuality in Art and Society, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986

Saslow, James M. The Poetry of Michelangelo, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1991

Wallace, William E. Michelangelo: The Complete Sculpture, Painting, Architecture, Beaux Art Editions, 1998

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Professor T. Corey Brennan who introduced me to the Statue of Pan and encouraged me throughout the process of this research. His suggestions gave direction and color to my article. I want to extend a special thanks to HSH Princess Rita Boncompagni Ludovisi for her wonderful encouragement and inspiration for this project. Part II of this article will explore the history of the Pan in the Ludovisi collection of sculptures.

Hatice Köroğlu Çam is a senior majoring in Art History in the School of Arts and Sciences of Rutgers University-New Brunswick, and a spring 2022 intern at the Archivio Digitale Boncompagni Ludovisi project. She is also a student in the Honors Program at the Art History Department and has been writing her Honors thesis on Michelangelo’s presentation drawing, the Punishment of Tityus.