Pope, Power, Rope: Why Julius II Wore a Symbol of Poverty

An iconographic detail between asceticism, symbolic politics, and staging

a liturgical vestment, one can see a simple, multi-stranded rope around the waist of a sculpture that represents Pope Julius II.
But precisely this inconspicuous detail gave rise to criticism:
“That can’t be Julius II, the belt is reminiscent of Franciscans.”

So, is this an iconographic contradiction or a deliberate contrast?
The following article shows: This rope is no mistake. It is a cipher of power in religious language.

The Rope: Form, Context, Meaning

The figure wears a clearly visible rope around its waist, wound in multiple strands, without a metal buckle, without brocade. In its materiality, it is strongly reminiscent of the cingula of the mendicant orders, especially the Franciscan Order, where it represents poverty, obedience, and chastity. Franciscans traditionally wear three knots in their belt, a symbol of their vows.

The sculpture, however, depicts neither the simple habit of the Franciscans nor a tonsure-like head or order symbols. Quite the opposite: The figure displays a blessing gesture, wears a festive chape, and is polychrome – an official, not a beggar.

Criticism: “This doesn’t fit Julius II”

The obvious, but overly narrow, criticism is:
Julius II was not a Franciscan. So why a Franciscan belt?

That is factually correct. Giuliano della Rovere, later Julius II, was a secular cleric, cardinal nephew of his uncle Pope Sixtus IV, and himself Pope from 1503 to 1513. He was a power politician, a war leader, and the builder of St. Peter’s Basilica, not a member of the order. The symbol of Franciscan poverty seems contradictory to his personality, almost inappropriate.

But precisely in this contradiction lies its strategic significance.

The rope as a quotation, not as a confession

In Renaissance imagery, it was not uncommon to adopt symbols from other contexts, not for self-description, but to enact a controlled attitude.

The rope here represents:

• Humility, discipline, asceticism
• Self-commitment to a higher order
• Spiritual moderation in the face of world power

And precisely for this reason, it is so clearly visible in an image that otherwise reveals no trace of penitence or modesty.

Family Contexts: Sixtus IV and the Franciscans

Pope Sixtus IV, the uncle of Julius II, was himself a Franciscan. Julius was his nephew and rose to cardinal under his protection. He positioned himself in continuity with Sixtus IV, whose power and cultural policies he continued and surpassed. He built on Sixtus’s legacy (e.g., the Sistine Chapel), among other things by commissioning Michelangelo to create the chapel’s ceiling.
Julius did not become a Franciscan, but he was aware of the political appeal of the Franciscan ideal, especially at a time when the papacy was increasingly criticized for corruption and worldliness following the luxurious excesses of Alexander VI (Borgia), from whom he sought to distance himself ideologically.

The rope is thus not a declaration of affiliation but a conscious reference to a spiritual origin intended to lend legitimacy to the papacy.

He does not carry poverty – he carries its language.

Artistic Perspective: A Controlled Disruption

If the sculpture originated from Michelangelo’s workshop, the rope would also be a form of artistic subversion:

It disrupts the perfect symmetry of the garments. It contradicts the splendor of the clasp.
It draws the eye and allows the fragility of power to shine through.

Michelangelo understood like few others how to make the tensions of his time visible in the smallest details. The rope could be such a coded reflection:
A pope who waged war, but whose hips are reminiscent of Francis of Assisi.

Conclusion: Symbolism as Strategy

The rope does not contradict Julius II, it completes him as an expression of a pope who knew that power is conceived in images – and that sometimes a piece of rope speaks louder than a crown.