“The grace and charm of art were never seen more perfectly displayed in the whole and in the parts of any edifice than here.  I may refer in particular to the corbels, the recesses for statues, and the cornices.  The staircase, too, deserves attention for its convenience, with the eccentric breakage of its flights of steps; the whole construction being so altered from the common usage of other architects as to excite astonishment in all who see it.”

What emerges with distinctness from Vasari’s account of Michelangelo’s work at S. Lorenzo is that a practical Italian architect, who had been engaged on buildings of importance since this work was carried out, believed it to have infused freedom and new vigour into architecture.  That freedom and new vigour we now know to have implied the Barocco style.

IV

In estimating Michelangelo’s work at S. Lorenzo, we must not forget that at this period of his life he contemplated statuary, bronze bas-relief, and painting, as essential adjuncts to architecture.  The scheme is, therefore, not so much constructive as decorative, and a great many of its most offensive qualities may be ascribed to the fact that the purposes for which it was designed have been omitted.  We know that the facade of S. Lorenzo was intended to abound in bronze and marble carvings.  Beside the Medicean tombs, the sacristy ought to have contained a vast amount of sculpture, and its dome was actually painted in fresco by Giovanni da Udine under Michelangelo’s own eyes.  It appears that his imagination still obeyed those leading principles which he applied in the rough sketch for the first sepulchre of Julius.  The vestibule and staircase of the library cannot therefore be judged fairly now; for if they had been finished according to their maker’s plan, the faults of their construction would have been compensated by multitudes of plastic shapes.

M. Charles Gamier, in L’OEuvre et la Vie, speaking with the authority of a practical architect, says:  “Michelangelo was not, properly speaking, an architect.  He made architecture, which is quite a different thing; and most often it was the architecture of a painter and sculptor, which points to colour, breadth, imagination, but also to insufficient studies and incomplete education.  The thought may be great and strong, but the execution of it is always feeble and naive....  He had not learned the language of the art.  He has all the qualities of imagination, invention, will, which form a great composer; but he does not know the grammar, and can hardly write....  In seeking the great, he has too often found the tumid; seeking the original, he has fallen upon the strange, and also on bad taste.”