On the surface appearance of the missing monkeys, these words written some years ago by a specialist in corrosion, Phoebe Dent Weil, Washington University, Missouri, might be applicable. (NACE see bibliography.) "Prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 19^th century outdoor bronzes develop natural patinas described as attractive, thin, compact, translucent, generally red brown and more or less tinged with green depending upon the accessibility of moisture. This stands in contrast to the mottled green and black appearance of modern urban bronzes whose surfaces have been attacked by various components of urban air, particularly sulphur compounds."

These two monkeys are brown, and red brown in appearance, and the shiny less weathered monkey certainly does have a green tint. They do not have a black or intense green appearance.

To qualify as candidates it is essential the monkeys fit the niche and an identical model of the niche that has been made confirms that they do and general opinion is that they look impressive in the niche. As a reminder – height of niche 18 ½ inches (47 cm), height of monkeys 12 inches (30.5 cm); width of niche 10 ¾ inches (27.5 cm), width of monkeys 8 ½ inches (21.5 cm); full depth of niche 7 inches (18 cm), depth of monkeys 9 inches (23 cm). It will be remembered a pedestal would lift up the monkey in the niche to the preferred height.

As the niches on the fountain at Aranjuez are below eye level, the ideal position for the heads of those missing monkeys might be to look up to enable an onlooker to look into their faces and eyes. By accident or design these two monkeys look up. Great care has been lavished on the eyes which many people find rather disconcerting, even sad.

Is it enough that they just fit the niche or can we expect more, that they should fit the niche to be seen well from different positions as we have just seen? Might we also expect that they can be shown to belong to this particular fountain by being given suitable poses appropriate to the fountain?

The preceding fountain, the Neptune fountain in Bologna 1564-66, is a harmonious arrangement calculated to please the eye. In this fountain there is an intentional unity, the figures are all linked together around the common theme of water. Even the jets of water are all integrated with the figures. Everything flows.

For the monkeys there is a distinction surely between merely fitting and belonging. What could be more appropriate than the left hand being cupped to catch the sprays and drips of the water falling down from above, just in front of the monkeys, and the raised right arm directing the eyes of the viewer to the Samson and a Philistine above. Could we really expect to see such a combination of the artificial arm and hand positions in a real monkey, even though it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. The right hand is rather graceful. The sculptor intends the viewer to play a part, not to be a passive observer.

The Samson and a Philistine was carved in 1562 and the fountain was not installed in Florence until 1569. Sir John Pope-Hennessy suggested "The decision to place the statue on a fountain was in some sense an afterthought." If it was a free-standing sculpture never intended as a fountain figure the sculptor was faced with the tricky task of making monkeys to relate to the statue and water. Has he not successfully resolved this intellectual problem even managing in the impressive profiles to fulfil some of the multiple viewpoint theories of mid-16^th century Florence? These theories, inspired by the debate between Florentine painters and sculptors all insisting their craft was superior, proposed that sculpture ought to be seen from all positions. This is known as the Paragone debate. (Paragone = comparison) Although the position of these monkeys is basically frontal, the primary view, they can still be admired from all angles moving round the fountain, giving satisfactory subsidiary views. A knowledge of the artistic theories of mid 16^th century Florence gives us a deeper insight into the skill of the sculptor.

Even the direction of the arms as they come out of the niche follow the general lines of the bulbous lobes at the corners and the angle at the back of the niche, a subtle touch. These monkeys take some understanding.

In 1570 the great Benvenuto Cellini died and it is said four academicians carried the catafalque into the overcrowded church of the Annunziata and the funeral was attended by all the academicians to hear a tribute to his great qualities. Vasari tells us Giambologna was one of our academicians. Was he one of the carriers of the catafalque? Had he not already paid the greatest tribute to Cellini in his own work?

As we know the fountain of Samson and a Philistine was completed in 1569, and first dismantled in 1584, a total of only 15 years, and no evidence in the bill of loading July/August 1601 the monkeys were sent to Spain and no evidence they were ever loaded for transportation from Spain to England in 1624, perhaps this 15 years is all the time they were ever in the open. It would be interesting to discover why the fountain was dismantled in 1584. Was the Samson too high to be appreciated? Had the monkeys been stolen? Being small and easily concealed this might have happened. As scholarship never stands still perhaps new information will be unearthed. Even if they were sent to Spain in 1601, initially to Valladolid, it would be unwise to set them back on a fountain in a public place. Aranjuez is a public place and as we see in the 17^th century engraving by Louis Meusnier (1665) there are figures walking around.

Recent research in the Medici archives has unearthed a tiny sketch of the Samson fountain by the Florentine painter Bartolomeo Carducci (1560-1608). This shows no monkey in the niche of the fountain then installed in the Lerma Gardens, Valladolid, in 1604, giving some support to the view that they never went on the fountain again (20).

The monkeys are in a state (despite their proven age) which is consistent with being in the open for 15 years 1569-84 according to the history of the fountain. We should not compare the condition of the monkeys with the badly corroded figures of the Neptune fountain in Bologna out in the open for over 400 years (21). Indeed the monkeys would receive partial protection from the niches and overhanging basin and the climate in Florence even in winter is mild. The water does not seem to have been directly aimed at the monkeys but undoubtedly it was a damp environment.

One monkey has a matt surface finish, the other a shiny surface finish. This is in visual terms but in scientific terms Dr Northover, Oxford University, confirms the corrosion attack on the matt monkey is more marked than the shiny one which is important in as much as it seems to confirm they are in different weathered states consistent with being in different positions around the fountain. And a fountain, it must be remembered, that we can show is weathered more on one side than the other. It is more than likely that all the four missing monkeys could well be in different states and wherever it was situated, Florence, Valladolid or Aranjuez, the fountain is going to weather more to one side than the other due to the prevailing winds.

Vasari put it very well when he said "Distance swallows up all refinement of work". If Giambologna experts insist the missing monkeys must be fully worked-up, chased and polished like Giambologna’s small "indoor" bronzes made for courtly inspection then they are not taking this into account. The monkeys were not created to be seen close up. Even the nearest onlooker sitting on the outer wall would be 6 ½ feet (198.2 cm) away, and most people would be just walking past. Anyone inspecting them close-up in their setting in the niche would have to be standing in the fountain. Giambologna was not a man to waste time on unnecessary work. He did not work up the head of Neptune from the Bologna fountain, there was no need, it was too high and likewise the finish given to these monkeys was all that was needed.

The artificial patina would help to disguise metal accretions, seam marks, evidence of core pins and plugs and give the monkeys their natural brown colour. It is an interesting fact that little is known of the composition of artificial patinas in the Renaissance. Normally one would not expect to see the original artificial patination on a bronze left outside for over 400 years, it would have corroded away (22).

Giambologna once emphasised he had attended to the finish of a bronze himself and had not handed it over to a chaser (who might have removed some of his personal qualities). It follows that the finish to the monkeys of the Samson fountain would be his own work, he would hardly hand the monkeys over to someone else to work up. The missing monkeys should exhibit some of Giambologna’s known mannerisms in the surface treatment. Examination of Giambologna’s autograph bronzes in situ in Florence and elsewhere can show a lack of finish, for example the Bacchus already mentioned, near the Ponte Vecchio, whereas sometimes there is an over-emphasis by scholars on the precise and refined finish of his bronzes which can be misleading. Most of the small highly finished Giambologna bronzes are in fact workshop bronzes cast from his models and worked up by assistants such as Susini. The chasing and polishing took much time and was to a very high standard.

Michelangelo had advised the young Giambologna never to put a fine finish on a work before getting the construction right. He did this in a rather brutal way by squashing a model in front of Giambologna, reforming it with the words "Now go off and learn to model first before trying to finish anything" (23). Giambologna often told this story against himself, the perfect answer to the patron who wanted his commission to be fully worked up.

We know the Uffizi drawing shows the head of the monkeys not going into the top arched part of the niche. They are both below the horizontal bar at the back of the niche, which gives us the key to the height of the missing monkeys. Height of this bar from the niche floor we may recall is 13 ¾ inches (35 cm) (height of monkey 12 inches (30.5 cm)) and we can see in the niche we have made that the two bronze monkeys do not extend up into this part. We also see in the drawing the monkeys are seated partly outside the niche and these bronze monkeys are also partly outside the niche. Reminder – full depth of niche 7 inches (18cm), depth of monkeys 9 inches (23 cm).

It must be significant that the two bronze monkeys match exactly the arm and hand positions of the left monkey in the Uffizi drawing. Both have right arm raised, index finger pointing up, left arm held out horizontally, hand cupped. The right hand monkey in the drawing which is not at all easy to see, shares the same leg positions as our two bronze monkeys, right leg raised, left leg lowered, and it does seem that the arm positions could well be the same as the left hand monkey in the drawing. Therefore this monkey could well represent one of these two monkeys. The head does look up. The idea that the arm positions and finger positions of the monkey can be accepted as the pose that a monkey in the wild might adopt does rather stretch coincidence to the limit. The Uffizi drawing shows the limbs of the monkeys all go forward out of the niche, the monkeys are seated, and the faces are visible, not turned sideways, and these two bronze monkeys follow likewise, their poses strictly controlled.

We do not see the tail of the monkey in the Uffizi drawing, obviously at the back. Any discussion of the tails of the missing monkeys whether they are long, short or missing, (a missing tail was said to be symbolic of evil) should take this into account. They are not going to be seen.

An obvious link between these two monkeys is with Giambologna’s famous and popular model of Mercury, one of the most widely reproduced bronzes of all time, the first model of which seems to have been created in Bologna in 1563/4. This model in the Museo Civico, Bologna, is stocky and heavy with a lack of finish and shows evidence of the use of square core pins and there is an almost immediate difference in style of the later more graceful Mercury models. The monkey’s raised right arm is the same as Mercury, winged messenger of the Gods about to take flight but with a role more practical and down to earth in pointing to the marble statue of Samson above. The monkeys have a role in the fountain. Reminder, first model of Mercury 1563/4, missing monkeys being made circa 1569. Models of Mercury remained a recurring theme of Giambologna. There is a large Mercury in the Bargello Museum, Florence, circa 1580. It is perfectly feasible that Giambologna saw the opportunity to cleverly adapt the Mercury pose and make use of it for the monkeys of the fountain. The right hand monkey in the Uffizi drawing which is not easy to see may also follow the Mercury pose in the position of the right arm.

The monkeys have traits of Giambologna, such as impassive expressions, manicured finger nails and articulated fingers and toes. The curve of the left leg of the monkey could find a parallel in the curvature of the leg of various bronze models by Giambologna of Morgante, Court Dwarf of Cosimo de Medici, which seem to guide the eye around the figure in a turning movement making the figure less static. And hammering is also a trait of Giambologna as we have noted.

It has been suggested the fur of these two monkeys must resemble the texture of the feathers of the birds in the Bargello. This must be for debate. For example the feathers of each different bird in the Bargello are all handled in a different way. Giambologna would surely respond to the challenge of differentiating fur and feathers so we see the texture. We could compare the fur of these monkeys with feathers if we wish but a more valid comparison would surely be with the fur of a real monkey. Indeed the fur is treated with great delicacy and subtlety and can withstand the closest possible examination.

Nevertheless the surface of the birds is rougher and grittier in some cases than the monkeys and this may be due to the birds being made initially in clay, with the monkeys being made initially in wax. Giambologna made both wax and clay models and to make the model of the monkeys, wax would be the ideal material for there would be a continuous process of adjustment making them, fixing the pose, seeing they fitted the niche. "Wax always waits" goes the saying. If the sculptor is not satisfied he can always remelt the wax and amend. Wax would be a better material to record the detail of the monkeys over a period of time. Clay is not easy to amend and adjust once it starts to dry out. The metal of the monkeys does appear to have the character of wax rather than clay.

There is no evidence the missing monkeys were made at precisely the same time as the Bargello birds and comparisons may be invalid if scholars have doubts on the authorship of the birds which are rather unusual with their rough finish and free handling. The missing monkeys would surely not have been made before the fountain and niches had been completed, circa 1569.

The fountain is made of yellow sandstone and the monkeys have yellow deposits and stains to the front and sides, not the back, which seems to be of the same egg yolk colour. Dr John Esson of Manchester University Geology Department said the yellow stains could come from the fountain but was unable to prove it. He warned at the outset that some sandstones weather badly and after over 400 years it would be unlikely particles of sandstone would remain fixed to the monkeys. Anyone familiar with buildings made of sandstone would know how badly some of them can weather. Dr Esson’s tests on the yellow deposits revealed high lead levels which he alternatively suggested might be the lead oxide massicot which is however a rare mineral of secondary origin. Dr Esson and his colleague Dr Pamela Champness thought it reasonable that there could be yellow deposits to the front of the monkeys fixed there by the water dripping down from the outside of the basin with the niche giving protection to the backs of the monkeys. We may recall there are no yellow deposits here. Dr Esson said the yellow deposits and stains could come from the fountain but this matter will have to be left open.

These two monkeys with their most unusual deep curved bases are designed to sit onto a pedestal and from the earlier description of the fountain at Aranjuez revealing there are no holes or attachment points at the base of the niche we know that some kind of pedestal or plinth would be the only way of attaching the missing monkeys to the niches. This design of the curved base of the monkeys is clever, an ingenious design by a fine craftsman. An adaptation of the way a real monkey sits in a tree with the branch pressing into or indenting into the legs while the monkey balances precariously, revealing powers of observation not given to many.

These two monkeys were designed to be attached securely and the missing monkeys from the fountain would surely be fashioned with this in mind. It would be no easy matter to wrench or twist the monkeys off a pedestal with rounded top. The large square hole for a thick spike supports this contention for a thin fixing rod would be of little use if it could be easily bent or broken. A square tapering spike of iron or bronze would be fixed into the monkeys by mortar after the casting core had all been scraped out and if given a ragged end made difficult to pull out. They would try to remove the casting core which absorbs water. Water is the essential ingredient to corrosion. Is it any coincidence there are holes on the leg of one monkey?

The missing pedestals might well have been of the same material as the fountain, a yellow sandstone, with a curved top onto which the monkeys could sit comfortably. The spike could be fixed down into the pedestal perhaps by molten lead or mortar. The Uffizi drawing does seem to show both monkeys raised up a little from the base of the niche but this is not easy to see. Perhaps paintings or tapestries may shed further light on the appearance of the missing monkeys, but we can at least see the pose of one of the monkeys quite clearly in the drawing. The fact the monkeys are old and the pedestals are modern suggests the intriguing possibilities that the missing pedestals came to England? They had to sit on something.

For the source of the monkeys we may not have far to look as naturalistic representations of animals have always been made. The Medici family had their own zoo in Florence and monkeys would have been available. Do these monkeys symbolise evil. Are they pointing out the follies of man?

Is there a link between the marble Samson and a Philistine and the famous classical marble Laocoon, for example the raised right arm of the Samson figure following the arm position of the Laocoon? Do the undersized supporting figures on either side of Laocoon have any resemblance in the pose of the monkeys? Raised arms, legs? There is a puzzling woodcut by Niccolo Boldrini after Titian, the Monkey Laocoon, which seems to mimic the love of the antique. The date is interesting, 1566. Are there clues to the source of the monkeys for this fountain locked into this woodcut? (26).

The fountain of Samson and a Philistine was set up in the courtyard of the Casino Medicio (Giardino de Semplici) on the Via Cavour which was built for Francesco de Medici by the architect Bernardo Buontalenti and stood opposite the Convent of San Marco in Florence. The entrance to the Casino was built in 1574 and just below the shell-like lunette over the portal are the head and hands of a monkey. The shell and head of the monkey are beautifully carved in stone and the head is life-like and seems to be a macaque. The monkey over the door gives a first indication of the monkeys on the fountain to be seen in a courtyard within. Further evidence that the monkeys were in all probability made. We may wonder who carved this monkey in stone. The fountain, we may recall, installed here 1569 was dismantled in 1584, monkey on portal carved 1574.

Monkeys can also be seen on the painted façade of the house of Bianca Cappello, famous mistress and later wife of Grand Duke Francesco, on the Via Maggio, Florence. Does this have significance? (27). Giambologna knew Bianca Cappello, he complained of his old age to her in a letter of the 5^th March 1584.