Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Michelangelo: Art, anatomy, and the kidney

2000; Elsevier BV; Volume: 57; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1046/j.1523-1755.2000.00947.x

1523-1755

Garabed Eknoyan,

Medicine and Dermatology Studies History

Michelangelo: Art, anatomy, and the kidney. Michelangelo (1475–1564) had a life-long interest in anatomy that began with his participation in public dissections in his early teens, when he joined the court of Lorenzo de' Medici and was exposed to its physician-philosopher members. By the age of 18, he began to perform his own dissections. His early anatomic interests were revived later in life when he aspired to publish a book on anatomy for artists and to collaborate in the illustration of a medical anatomy text that was being prepared by the Paduan anatomist Realdo Colombo (1516–1559). His relationship with Colombo likely began when Colombo diagnosed and treated him for nephrolithiasis in 1549. He seems to have developed gouty arthritis in 1555, making the possibility of uric acid stones a distinct probability. Recurrent urinary stones until the end of his life are well documented in his correspondence, and available documents imply that he may have suffered from nephrolithiasis earlier in life. His terminal illness with symptoms of fluid overload suggests that he may have sustained obstructive nephropathy. That this may account for his interest in kidney function is evident in his poetry and drawings. Most impressive in this regard is the mantle of the Creator in his painting of the Separation of Land and Water in the Sistine Ceiling, which is in the shape of a bisected right kidney. His use of the renal outline in a scene representing the separation of solids (Land) from liquid (Water) suggests that Michelangelo was likely familiar with the anatomy and function of the kidney as it was understood at the time. Michelangelo: Art, anatomy, and the kidney. Michelangelo (1475–1564) had a life-long interest in anatomy that began with his participation in public dissections in his early teens, when he joined the court of Lorenzo de' Medici and was exposed to its physician-philosopher members. By the age of 18, he began to perform his own dissections. His early anatomic interests were revived later in life when he aspired to publish a book on anatomy for artists and to collaborate in the illustration of a medical anatomy text that was being prepared by the Paduan anatomist Realdo Colombo (1516–1559). His relationship with Colombo likely began when Colombo diagnosed and treated him for nephrolithiasis in 1549. He seems to have developed gouty arthritis in 1555, making the possibility of uric acid stones a distinct probability. Recurrent urinary stones until the end of his life are well documented in his correspondence, and available documents imply that he may have suffered from nephrolithiasis earlier in life. His terminal illness with symptoms of fluid overload suggests that he may have sustained obstructive nephropathy. That this may account for his interest in kidney function is evident in his poetry and drawings. Most impressive in this regard is the mantle of the Creator in his painting of the Separation of Land and Water in the Sistine Ceiling, which is in the shape of a bisected right kidney. His use of the renal outline in a scene representing the separation of solids (Land) from liquid (Water) suggests that Michelangelo was likely familiar with the anatomy and function of the kidney as it was understood at the time. Where do we come from? How did it all get started? These two difficult questions constitute the basis of much current scientific research, but have preoccupied humans from time immemorial. While the final scientific solutions may well remain elusive, the human mind has provided answers that are generally accepted. Explanations begun as fireside stories of ancient shamans have evolved over time into recorded mythology, provided for the budding of early philosophy, and ultimately become dogmatized into firm religious beliefs. The latter are probably most succinctly summarized in the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible. Of all the visual renderings of the complex story of primordial origins told in Genesis, none equals in scale, impact, and elemental force its portrayal by Michelangelo (1475–1564) in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, which, since its completion in 1512, has become a shibboleth attracting a tribute that equals, if not surpasses, the very words that inspired it. Continuously analyzed, criticized, reproduced and parodied, its images have found a place in popular culture throughout the world[1Seymour Jr, C. Michelangelo: The Sistine Chapel Ceiling. editor. W.W. Norton & Co. Inc, New York1972Google Scholar, 2Richmond R. Michelangelo and the Creation of the Sistine Chapel. Crescent Books, New York1992Google Scholar, 3Partridge L. Michelangelo. G. Brazilier. The Sistine Chapel Ceiling, Rome, New York1996Google Scholar, 4De Vecchi P. The Sistine Chapel: A Glorious Restoration. editor. Harry N. Abrams Inc, New York1994Google Scholar]. In his art, Michelangelo changed how we see many things, but none more so than how we visualize Creation. By the time he began preparations to paint the Sistine Ceiling in May of 1508, his reputation was well established. The Sistine Ceiling was his first attempt at fresco. He began painting during the winter of 1508 and finished in October 1512. Michelangelo started near the entrance of the chapel and progressed toward the altar end. The central unit of the ceiling contains nine main scenes rendered alternatively in four large and five small panels. The story they tell unfolds chronologically in the opposite order of their painting, from the altar end of the chapel toward its entrance, and falls into three groups of three panels each[1Seymour Jr, C. Michelangelo: The Sistine Chapel Ceiling. editor. W.W. Norton & Co. Inc, New York1972Google Scholar, 2Richmond R. Michelangelo and the Creation of the Sistine Chapel. Crescent Books, New York1992Google Scholar, 3Partridge L. Michelangelo. G. Brazilier. The Sistine Chapel Ceiling, Rome, New York1996Google Scholar, 4De Vecchi P. The Sistine Chapel: A Glorious Restoration. editor. Harry N. Abrams Inc, New York1994Google Scholar, 5Hughes A. Michelangelo. Phaidon Press Limited, London1997Google Scholar]. The first group represents the creation of the world, the second the story of Adam and Eve, and the third the legend of Noah. The chronology of Michelangelo's work on the Sistine Ceiling has been the subject of much scholarly concern[4De Vecchi P. The Sistine Chapel: A Glorious Restoration. editor. Harry N. Abrams Inc, New York1994Google Scholar, 5Hughes A. Michelangelo. Phaidon Press Limited, London1997Google Scholar, 6Beck J. The Three Worlds of Michelangelo. W.W. Norton Inc, New York1999Google Scholar, 7De Tolnay C.D. Michelangelo. II. The Sistine Ceiling. Princeton University Press, Princeton1945Google Scholar, 8Wilde J. Michelangelo: Six Lectures. Clarendon Press, Oxford1978Google Scholar]. While the precise dates are debated, it is clear that between 1508 and 1512, Michelangelo worked on the ceiling in different stages, related principally to the erection of the scaffolding and reimbursement for expenses, but also included interruptions caused by illness. There is an evident change in style and technique as he progressed, even as he moved from one panel to the next. The most radical change occurs in the last four panels, resumed after a six-month pause with renewed vigor and fresh inspiration in the winter of 1511, which show a dramatic increase in the power and scale of their figures[1Seymour Jr, C. Michelangelo: The Sistine Chapel Ceiling. editor. W.W. Norton & Co. Inc, New York1972Google Scholar, 2Richmond R. Michelangelo and the Creation of the Sistine Chapel. Crescent Books, New York1992Google Scholar, 3Partridge L. Michelangelo. G. Brazilier. The Sistine Chapel Ceiling, Rome, New York1996Google Scholar, 4De Vecchi P. The Sistine Chapel: A Glorious Restoration. editor. Harry N. Abrams Inc, New York1994Google Scholar, 5Hughes A. Michelangelo. Phaidon Press Limited, London1997Google Scholar, 6Beck J. The Three Worlds of Michelangelo. W.W. Norton Inc, New York1999Google Scholar, 7De Tolnay C.D. Michelangelo. II. The Sistine Ceiling. Princeton University Press, Princeton1945Google Scholar]. The prehuman creation, represented in the last three scenes, has a single protagonist in the figure of the Creator, shown in the glory and magnificence of His creative powers. The cycle begins and ends with a small panel. In the one nearest the altar, Michelangelo painted The Separation of Light and Darkness (Genesis 1:3–5) followed by that of The Creation of the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:14–19). There is some confusion in the identification of the particular biblical events depicted in the triad's final bay. The generally used title of The Separation of Land and Waters (Genesis 1 : 9–10) is controversial. Michelangelo's first biographer, Georgio Vasari (1511–1574), describes it as "the moment when God divides the waters from the earth"[9Vasari G. The Lives of the Artists. Oxford University Press, Oxford1991Google Scholar]. On the other hand, his second biographer, Ascanio Condivi (1525–1574), describes it as when "…the great God appears in the heavens, again with angels, and gazes upon the waters, commanding them to bring forth all kinds of creatures that are nourished by that element… ," abbreviated subsequently as the Creation of Fish (Genesis 1:20–23)[10Condivi A. The Life of Michelangelo. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge1976Google Scholar]. These apparently disparate descriptions have been combined as representing two separate days of the Creation and titled Separation of Water from Firmament and Water Brings Forth Life by some and variously termed the Separation of Heaven from the Waters or more plainly, by others, the Congregation of the Waters and God Hovering Over the Waters[1Seymour Jr, C. Michelangelo: The Sistine Chapel Ceiling. editor. W.W. Norton & Co. Inc, New York1972Google Scholar, 2Richmond R. Michelangelo and the Creation of the Sistine Chapel. Crescent Books, New York1992Google Scholar, 3Partridge L. Michelangelo. G. Brazilier. The Sistine Chapel Ceiling, Rome, New York1996Google Scholar, 4De Vecchi P. The Sistine Chapel: A Glorious Restoration. editor. Harry N. Abrams Inc, New York1994Google Scholar, 5Hughes A. Michelangelo. Phaidon Press Limited, London1997Google Scholar, 6Beck J. The Three Worlds of Michelangelo. W.W. Norton Inc, New York1999Google Scholar, 7De Tolnay C.D. Michelangelo. II. The Sistine Ceiling. Princeton University Press, Princeton1945Google Scholar, 11Dotson E.G. An Augustinian Interpretation of Michelangelo's Ceiling.Art Bull. 1979; 61 (223-256, 405-429)Crossref Scopus (21) Google Scholar]. The unifying component of the various titles proposed is that of water; for in this scene, the figure of the Creator is shown coming forth above a strip of water Figure 1a. As in the other two creation scenes, God is shown in a billowing mantle with outstretched arms directing in this scene the separation of land from water, with His image taking "on a yet more concentrated shape" than that of its other representations. Comfortably tucked in the mantle are three plump cherubims watching the massive cosmic movements unfolding where the viewer stands. The shape of the mantle has been described as "a kind of synthesis of the egg and the shell, oval in outline and shell-like in its protective roof"[7De Tolnay C.D. Michelangelo. II. The Sistine Ceiling. Princeton University Press, Princeton1945Google Scholar]. Computer-assisted removal of the figure of God and the cherubims reveals the tunic to be actually in the shape of a bisected right kidney, with the renal pelvis, the site from which the figure of God was "emerging in a turbulent spiral movement," and the renal pyramids, where the cherubims were located Figure 1b. The color of the mantle, which is darker than those in the preceding two panels, is a near-real rendering of that of the normal renal parenchyma. The distinctly different lighter silvery lilac shade of the focal point where the Creator's tunic is pulled together into the rosy robe from which He emerges is less than a real-life coloring of the ureter, renal artery, and renal vein as they leave and enter the renal parenchyma. Coloring the figure more conventionally further highlights the shape of a kidney, with the vessels entering the kidney below the renal pelvis, as they would be seen in a rear view of the right kidney Figure 1c. The resemblance becomes even more evident when compared with that of a medical illustration of the kidney Figure 1d. While this similarity may be ascribed to chance alone, it likely represents a willful choice by Michelangelo in the design of the shape and color of the mantle, reflecting knowledge of the structure and function of the kidney. Could Michelangelo have used his inherent inventive powers enriched by his knowledge of anatomy and function in drawing the mantle in the scene of panel three? In the vast, almost overwhelming, scholarship on Michelangelo, art scholars ponder on his origins as painter, sculptor, architect, and even poet, but other than paying tribute to his anatomical knowledge, they have little to say about his origins as an anatomist. Neglect of this subject has been attributed to its being naturally distasteful to the Romantic temperament of most authors, and "stands in a kind of inverse relation to the evidence for its importance to Michelangelo himself"[12Summers D. Michelangelo and the Language of Art. Princeton University Press, Princeton1981Google Scholar]. Actually, Michelangelo had a lifelong anatomical interest that was just as much a reflection of the culture of his times as it was that of his inimitable genius, which made him a better student of anatomy than most. To quote Condivi, "…there is no animal whose anatomy he would not dissect, and he worked on so many human anatomies that those who have spent their lives at it and made it their profession hardly know as much as he does"[10Condivi A. The Life of Michelangelo. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge1976Google Scholar]. In their endeavor to understand the movements of the human body, 15th and 16th century artists went to great lengths for an opportunity to study its structure. The art of the Renaissance, not satisfied with copying the nudes of antiquity, encouraged its contributors into anatomical dissection to better reproduce the body in their art. With time, traditional courses of instruction for aspiring artists actually included a study of human anatomy, not only for its external features, but also for that of its supporting structures. Nowhere was this practice favored more than in Tuscany. In addition to perspective and geometry, the human proportions were studied assiduously by Florentine painters. In fact, the Florentine Academy of Art was the first to institute an obligatory course in anatomy, in which aspiring artists copied directly from cadavers and skeletons. While some of the more daring artists performed actual dissections, most participated in public anatomies conducted by physicians versed in the art of dissection and accompanied by a reading and interpretation of medical texts by the physician-anatomist[12Summers D. Michelangelo and the Language of Art. Princeton University Press, Princeton1981Google Scholar, 13Schultz B. Art and Anatomy in Renaissance Italy. Research Press, Ann Arbor1982Google Scholar, 14Mayor A.H. Artists and Anatomists. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York1984Google Scholar]. In the lengthy introductory section to the Lives of Artists, devoted to Technique, Vasari clearly describes the observational role of most artists in stating, "Again having seen human bodies dissected one knows how the bones lie, and the muscles and sinews, and all order of conditions of anatomy…"[15Vasari G. Vasari on Technique. Dover Publications Inc, New York1960Google Scholar]. As such, artists were exposed to medical knowledge imparted during public anatomies, and as interest in dissection grew, artists formed part of the Florentine Guild of Physicians and Apothecaries[16Margotta R. The History of Medicine. Smithmark Publishers, New York1996Google Scholar]. The general enthusiasm of artists to study corpses subsided in the 17th century when art academies became amply stocked with skeletons and ecorchés, and illustrated anatomical texts became readily available. Michelangelo likely participated in public dissection early in his youth, probably conducted by one Elia del Medigo, a physician-philosopher who was a member of Lorenzo de' Medici's circle, which Michelangelo joined in his midteens[5Hughes A. Michelangelo. Phaidon Press Limited, London1997Google Scholar, 12Summers D. Michelangelo and the Language of Art. Princeton University Press, Princeton1981Google Scholar, 17Kristeller P.O. Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance. Stanford University Press, Stanford1964Google Scholar]. Having become versed in the art of dissection by the age of 18, Michelangelo began to perform his own dissections and demonstrations, as recorded by his two biographers, Vasari and Condivi[3Partridge L. Michelangelo. G. Brazilier. The Sistine Chapel Ceiling, Rome, New York1996Google Scholar, 9Vasari G. The Lives of the Artists. Oxford University Press, Oxford1991Google Scholar, 10Condivi A. The Life of Michelangelo. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge1976Google Scholar]. He is said to have made molds of muscles to experiment in their shapes and forms during various body positions, which he was to render so masterfully in his subsequent sculpture and painting. This is clearly evident in the 20 nude slaves (ignudi), seated on blocks above the thrones of the Sibyls and Prophets, that decorate the small panels of the Sistine Ceiling. This subject, which fascinated him all of his life, ultimately came to dominate the more than 300 figures that he painted in the Last Judgement, which, according to Vasari, was intended to represent "the most perfect and well-proportioned composition of the human body in its most varied positions"[9Vasari G. The Lives of the Artists. Oxford University Press, Oxford1991Google Scholar, 18Steinberg L. A corner of the Last Judgement.Daedalus. 1980; 109: 207-273Google Scholar]. The obsession of artists of the period to study anatomy on their own was quite prevalent and not unique to Michelangelo[19Wittkower R. Wittkower M. Born Under Saturn. The Character and Conduct of Artists: A Documented History from Antiquity to the French Revolution. W.W. Norton, New York1963Google Scholar]. The church, of course, objected on principle to the desecration of the dead, but did allow for dissection of the cadavers of condemned criminals and even facilitated it. Permission to dissect corpses, provided the remains were buried decently, had been granted by Pope Sixtus IV (r. 1471–1484), who had been a student at the Medical School of Bologna. Still, corpses were rare, the notion resisted by the public, and cadavers were either stolen or made available through the church[13Schultz B. Art and Anatomy in Renaissance Italy. Research Press, Ann Arbor1982Google Scholar, 14Mayor A.H. Artists and Anatomists. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York1984Google Scholar, 15Vasari G. Vasari on Technique. Dover Publications Inc, New York1960Google Scholar, 16Margotta R. The History of Medicine. Smithmark Publishers, New York1996Google Scholar, 19Wittkower R. Wittkower M. Born Under Saturn. The Character and Conduct of Artists: A Documented History from Antiquity to the French Revolution. W.W. Norton, New York1963Google Scholar, 20Cunningham A. The Anatomical Renaissance: The Resurrection of the Anatomical Projects of the Ancients. Scholar Press, Hants1997Google Scholar, 21Moe H. The Art of Anatomical Illustration in the Renaissance and Baroque Periods. Rhodes, Copenhagen1995Google Scholar]. Beginning in 1492, Michelangelo did most of his dissections at the Monastery of Santo Spirito to whose prior, Fra Niccolo Bichiellini, he made the gift of a wooden crucifix. Access to bodies awaiting burial in the mortuary of churches or that of their associated hospitals was not unique to Santo Spirito. Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), while in Florence (1500–1504), dissected the body of an old man in Santa Maria Nuova[19Wittkower R. Wittkower M. Born Under Saturn. The Character and Conduct of Artists: A Documented History from Antiquity to the French Revolution. W.W. Norton, New York1963Google Scholar]. One Allessandro Allori, a late Mannerist painter of some reputation, is reported to have "had a few rooms in the cloister of the venerable basilica of San Lorenzo; being a student of anatomy, he continuously brought there human bodies which he skinned and cut up according to his needs"[19Wittkower R. Wittkower M. Born Under Saturn. The Character and Conduct of Artists: A Documented History from Antiquity to the French Revolution. W.W. Norton, New York1963Google Scholar]. The bodies were not always those of criminals. Michelangelo is said to have inadvertently dissected the corpse of a young Corsini, whose powerful family subsequently sought revenge during the chaos that followed the fall of the Republic of Florence in 1530[5Hughes A. Michelangelo. Phaidon Press Limited, London1997Google Scholar]. His realization of this digression from the accepted norm may have contributed to his having given up dissection after more than a decade of persistent work. It is in such a heady atmosphere in which the disciplines of art and science had the blurred edges so fundamental to Renaissance intellectual freedom that Michelangelo grew to maturity in Florence, where he was part of that ultimate center of Renaissance humanism—the Court of Lorenzo de' Medici[22Symmonds J.A. The Life of Michelangelo.2. John C. Nimmo, London1893Google Scholar, 23Hibbard H. Michelangelo. 2nd ed. Harper & Row Publishers, New York1974Google Scholar, 24Bull G. Michelangelo: A Biography. Penguin Books, London1996Google Scholar, 25Murray L. Michelangelo. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London1980Google Scholar]. There, in addition to his exposure to Elia del Medigo, he must have encountered Giovan Francesco Rustici (1474–1554), a Florentine of noble descent and member of the select intellectuals in the Medici circle, who is reported to have "also applied to the study of necromancy by means of which, I am told, he gave strange frights to his servants and assistants…"[19Wittkower R. Wittkower M. Born Under Saturn. The Character and Conduct of Artists: A Documented History from Antiquity to the French Revolution. W.W. Norton, New York1963Google Scholar]. In fact, one of the leading humanists in the circle of Lorenzo, Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499), was the son of a surgeon and had, himself, studied medicine[17Kristeller P.O. Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance. Stanford University Press, Stanford1964Google Scholar]. Thus, the very milieu in which Michelangelo's persona was formed allowed for dissection, exposed him to it, and brought him in contact with men familiar with medical texts[12Summers D. Michelangelo and the Language of Art. Princeton University Press, Princeton1981Google Scholar]. His early anatomical interest was revived later in life when having established himself as a divine painter, sculptor, and architect, he seems to have aspired to become a published author and scholar. He had begun writing poetry in his mid-20s. In his late 60s and early 70s, he attempted to publish some 105 of them, but abandoned the project in 1546, at the death of his principal financial advisor, literary companion, and intimate friend Luigi del Riccio[5Hughes A. Michelangelo. Phaidon Press Limited, London1997Google Scholar, 26Michelangelo B. Complete Poems and Selected Letters of Michelangelo (translated by Creighton Gilbert),. Princeton University Press, Princeton1980Google Scholar, 27Saslow J.M. The Poetry of Michelangelo: An Annotated Translation. Yale University Press, New Haven1991Google Scholar]. At about the same time, he also seems to have considered publishing an anatomical treatise for artists and to collaborate in an anatomical text for students of medicine. His plans for the former and his anatomical interest are recorded by Vasari and detailed by Condivi, "…when he gave it up (dissecting corpses) he was so learned and rich in knowledge of that science that he has often had in mind to write a treatise, as a service to those who want to work in sculpture and painting, on all manner of human movements and appearances and on the bone structure, with a brilliant theory which he arrived at through long experience. He would have done it had he not doubted his powers and whether they were adequate to treat the subject properly and in detail, as someone would who was trained in the sciences and in exposition"[10Condivi A. The Life of Michelangelo. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge1976Google Scholar]. Michelangelo's standing interest in anatomy is reflected in his painting of the Last Judgment (1536–1541). Prominently displayed to the left of Jesus is Saint Bartholomew, balancing the position of Saint Peter on the right Figure 2a. Why is there a focus on an otherwise obscure disciple who had been relegated to the shadows by other painters? The message is probably in the flayed skin Bartholomew holds in his left hand and the flaying knife in his right. That the face on the flayed skin is that of Michelangelo only reinforces the underlying meaning[28Steinberg L. Michelangelo and the doctors.Bull Hist Med. 1982; 56: 543-553PubMed Google Scholar]. For Bartholomew, having been adopted as the saint of tanners and butchers seems to have been chosen also by anatomists and artists, still scrounging for acceptance and blessing for the dissection of cadavers. It is of special interest in this regard that the Spanish pupil of the famous Professor of Anatomy and Michelangelo's physician, Realdo Colombo (1516–1559), Juan de Valverde de Amusco (c. 1525–1587), who accompanied Colombo to Pisa and Rome when he left Padua, published an illustrated text on anatomy upon his return to Spain. In the text, he refers to the importance of anatomy in the work of contemporary artists: "…the truth of this has been shown in our time by Michelangelo florentino and Pedro de Rubiales extremo who having given themselves at once to anatomy and painting, have come to be the most excellent and famous painters that have been seen for a long time"[29Szladits L.L. The influence of Michelangelo on some anatomical illustrations.J Hist Med Allied Sci. 1957; 9: 420-427Google Scholar]. The illustrations of Valverde's book on anatomy (Historia de la Composicion del Cuerpo Humano), published in 1556, were done by the Spanish artist Gaspar Becerra (1520–1570), who had trained in the studio of Michelangelo[29Szladits L.L. The influence of Michelangelo on some anatomical illustrations.J Hist Med Allied Sci. 1957; 9: 420-427Google Scholar, 30Guerra F. Juan de Valverde de Amusco: Evidence for the identification of his portrait claimed to be that of Vesalius–with a reappraisal of his work.Clio Med. 1967; 2: 339-362Google Scholar]. His rendering of the muscular man, shown as a flayed body holding its skin in one hand and a blade in the other Figure 3, was to become a pose used in the frontispiece of several subsequent texts of anatomy[29Szladits L.L. The influence of Michelangelo on some anatomical illustrations.J Hist Med Allied Sci. 1957; 9: 420-427Google Scholar, 30Guerra F. Juan de Valverde de Amusco: Evidence for the identification of his portrait claimed to be that of Vesalius–with a reappraisal of his work.Clio Med. 1967; 2: 339-362Google Scholar, 31Schmidt H. Schadewaldt H. Michelangelo and die Medizin seiner Zeit. Schattauer, Stuttgart1965Google Scholar, 32Elkins J. Michelangelo and the human form: His knowledge and use of anatomy.Art Hist. 1984; 7: 176-186Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar]. Its similarity to Michelangelo's portrait of Bartholomew is striking.Figure 3Figure of the flayed muscle man holding his skin and flaying knife by Gaspar Becerra in Historia de la Composicion del Cuerpo Humano (1556) by Juan Valverde de Amusco.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload (PPT) That flaying was more than a transient vagary displayed in the Last Judgement can be gleaned from an anecdote recounted by Benvenuto Cellini (1500–1571) in his autobiography[33Cellini B. The Life of Benvenuto Cellini. Phaidon Press Limited, London1995Google Scholar]. In 1552, when Cellini visited Michelangelo in Rome to entice him to return to Florence, he quotes a response of Michelangelo's longtime devoted housekeeper and assistant Urbino (Francesco Amadori): "I will never leave my master Michelangelo's side till I shall have flayed him or he shall have flayed me," that is, dissected after death. These words, considered stupid by Cellini, show that dissection was accepted, discussed, and possibly practiced in the house of the master well into the 1550s. Michelangelo's interest in the project of a text on medical anatomy is evident in the continuation of the previous quote from Condivi on Michelangelo's interest in anatomy: "He also began to discuss this with Master Realdo Colombo, a very superior anatomist and surgeon and a particular friend of Michelangelo's and mine, who