Was "Laocoön" a Renaissance forgery?

In the Vatican Museum stands a magnificent sculpture, nearly 8 feet tall, of the Trojan priest Laocoön. Flanking him are his two sons, and attacking them all are writhing sea snakes sent, it is said, as punishment for breaking his oath of celibacy as well as warning against admitting the Trojan horse into the city. The statue was discovered on the Esquiline Hill in January of 1506, whereupon Pope Julius II — a noted patron of the arts — dispatched the architect Giuliano da Sangallo to examine it.

Giuliano brought along Michelangelo.

Giuliano and Michelangelo determined that the statue was one described by Pliny the Elder in his 1st-century work, Natural History, as carved by eminent craftsmen of Rhodes. Laocoön was brought to the Vatican, and it soon took its place as a significant piece of Greek artwork and the inspiration for numerous Renaissance creations.

But did Sangallo and Michelangelo err when they identified Laocoön? Could they even have deliberately falsified their report? Was Laocoön, in fact, not a first-century Greek masterpiece, but a 16th-century Italian forgery?

Dr. Lynn Catterson, Art Historian at Columbia University, believes that Laocoön may very well be a forgery by none other than Michelangelo himself. She points to a pen study by the sculptor dating to 1501 that depicts a male torso resembling Laocoön’s back. She also cites recent scholarship on bank activity between 1498 and 1501 that suggests that Michelangelo was making money that can’t be accounted for. Letters from Michelangelo to his father refer to the acquisition of chunks of marble in the same time frame, but don’t explain how all of them were used.

There’s also Michelangelo’s well-known proficiency at copying, and his noted desire for fame and fortune.

He had the motive, means and opportunity. Did he act upon them?

Some art historians claim Dr. Catterson’s evidence doesn’t add up. Michelangelo scholar Leo Steinberg points out that too many people would have to have been involved for the forgery to remain a secret. And Michelangelo had plenty of rivals who would gladly have exposed him as a fraud. Others don’t see a strong enough resemblance to the sculpture in the pen study, or can easily discount the bank activity.

Still others, such as William E. Wallace, a professor of art history at Washington University in St. Louis, are willing to reserve judgment until more scholarship can be done. "We’ll never have the certitude a scientist gets," Wallace is reported as saying in the article by Kathryn Shattuck at the New York Times. "It can only be tested by the weight of scholarly opinion and time."

Note: This item was originally posted in April of 2005.

The text of this document is copyright ©2014 Melissa Snell. You may download or print this document for personal or school use, as long as the URL below is included. Permission is not granted to reproduce this document on another website. For publication permission, please visit About's Reprint Permissions page.