Franciabigio

By Susan Regan McKillop

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1974.

• Language: English
• Publisher: University of California Press
• Release date: Dec 22, 2023
• ISBN: 9780520322448

Susan Regan McKillop

Enter the Author Bio(s) here.

Book preview

FRANCIABIGIO

CALIFORNIA STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF ART

Walter Horn, General Editor

Advisory Board: H. W. Janson, Donald Posner, Wolfgang Stechow,John R. Martin

I The Birth of Landscape Painting in China, by Michael Sullivan

II Portraits by Degas, by Jean Sutherland Boggs

III Leonardo da Vinci on Painting: A Lost Book (Libro A) by Carlo Pedretti

IV Images in the Margins of Gothic Manuscripts, by Lilian M. C. Randall

V The Dynastic Arts of the Kushans, by John M. Rosenfield

VI A Century of Dutch Manuscript Illumination, by L. M.J. Delaisse

VII George Caleb Bingham: The Evolution of an Artist, and A Catalogue Raisonne (two volumes), by E. Maurice Bloch

VIII Claude Lorrain: The Drawings—Catalog and Illustrations (two volumes), by Marcel Roethlisberger

IX Venetian Painted Ceilings of the Renaissance, by Juergen Schulz

X The Drawings of Edouard Manet, by Alain de Leiris

XI Theories of Modern Art, by Herschel B. Chipp with contributions by Peter Selz and Joshua C. Taylor

XII After the Hunt: William Harnett and other American Still Life Painters, 1870-1900, by Alfred Frankenstein

XIII Early Netherlandish Triptychs: A Study in Patronage, by Shirley Neilsen Blum

XIV The Homed Moses in Medieval Art and Thought, by Ruth Mellinkojf

XV Metamorphosis of a Death Symbol: The Transi Tomb in 15th- and 16th-century Europe, by Kathleen Cohen

XVI Franciabigio, by Susan R. McKillop

FRANCIABIGIO

Susan Regan McKillop

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

Berkeley Los Angeles London

FRANCIABIGIO

is a volume in the

California Studies in the History of Art

sponsored in part by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation

University of California Press

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California

University of California Press, Ltd.

London, England

Copyright ©1974, by

The Regents of the University of California

ISBN: 0-320-01688-2

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 76-107661

Printed in the United States of America

Designed by Jim Mennick

For my family

CONTENTS 1

List of Illustrations 1

CONTENTS 1 List of Illustrations 1

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PREFACE

I. Biography and Character

II. Beginnings: 1505-1512

III. The Middle Years: 1513-1519

IV Poggio a Caiano and After: 1520-1525

V Drawings and Portraits

VI. Conclusions

Introduction

I. Authentic Paintings

II. Authentic Drawings

III. Lost Works

IV Attributed Paintings

V. Untraceable Paintings

VI. Attributed Drawings

Documents

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED

INDICES

I. GENERAL INDEX

II. INDEX OF ATTRIBUTIONS

III. INDEX OF COLLECTIONS, LOCATIONS, AND PROVENIENCES

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

UNLESS otherwise indicated, all works illustrated here are attributed to Franciabigio and are located in Florence. If no support is described, wood panel is to be understood.

1. Church of San Pancrazio, at no. 125; detail, engraved map of Florence by Stefano Buonsignori, 1584.

2. The piazza del Grano, center right; detail, engraved map of Florence by Stefano Buonsignori, 1584.

3. The Sapienza, no. 154; detail, engraved map of Florence by Stefano Buonsignori, 1584.

4. Mariotto Albertinelli, fresco, Crucifixion) Certosa, Galluzzo, Val d’Ema.

5. Detail of 4; left-hand attendant Angel (Cat. 1).

6. Detail of 4; right-hand attendant Angel (Cat. 1).

7. Mariotto Albertinelli, Madonna and Child with Saints Jerome and Zenobius) Musee des Augustins, Toulouse.

8. Detail of 7; bishop’s mitre (Cat. 2).

9. Raffaelino del Garbo, Dead Christ Attended by Angels) Sto. Spirito.

10. Madonna and Child with Infant Saint John) Florence, Deposit of the Galleries (Cat. 3).

11. Madonna and Child with Infant Saint John) Ranieri Collection, Perugia (Cat. 4).

12. Holy Family with Sleeping Infant Saint John) Accademia (Cat. 5).

13. Andrea del Sarto, Madonna of the Goldfinch) Galleria Nazionale, Rome.

14. Portrait of a Young Man) Louvre (Cat. 6).

15. Engraving after Portrait of a Young Man (Cat. 6) showing original format.

16. Ridolfo Ghirlandaio, Portrait of a Man) Viscount Gage Collection, Firle Place.

17. Black chalk study of a head of a young girl; Uffizi, no. 623E.

18. Madonna and Child) Galleria Nazionale, no. 580, Rome (Cat. 7).

19. Detached fresco, Adoration of the Shepherds) Florence, Deposit of the Galleries (Cat. 8).

20. Temple oj Hercules) Palazzo Davanzati (Cat. 10).

21. Detached fresco, Last Supper, formerly Convent of Sta. Maria dei Candeli (Cat. 9).

22. Detail of 21; left-hand lunette.

23. Detail of 21; central lunette.

24. Detail of 21; right-hand lunette.

25. Fresco, Crucifixion with Four Saints; tabernacle in the Piazzetta Benedetto da Rovezzano, Rovezzano (Cat. 11).

26. Left-hand side panel of 25; Saint Catherine.

27. Right-hand side panel of 25; the Magdalene.

28. Detail of 25; The Crucified Christ.

29. Detail of 25; the Virgin.

30. Detail of 25; Saint John.

31. Portrait of a Young Man; Institute of Fine Arts, Detroit (Cat. 12).

32. Detail of 31; Franciabigio’s monogram signature.

3. 3. Verso of (detail); unidentified Coat of Arms.

34. Calumny of Apelles; Palazzo Pitti (Cat. 13).

35. Detail of 36; figures in background.

36. Fresco, Marriage of the Virgin; Chiostricino dei Voti, SS. Annunziata (Cat. 14).

37. Detail of 36; left-hand foreground.

38. Detail of 37; right-hand foreground, showing destruction wrought by Franciabigio.

39. Portrait of a Young Man; Uffizi (Cat. 15).

40. Portrait of a Knight of Saint John, Giulio de’ Medici?; National Gallery, London (Cat. 16; by courtesy of the Trustees).

41. Detail of 44; pitcher bearing the cross of the Knights of Saint John.

42. Detail of 44; the city walls through the open window, probably Bellosguardo.

43. The Convent of San Giovanni della Calza, at no. 77 by the city walls; detail, engraved map of Florence by Stefano Buonsignori, 1584.

44. Fresco Last Supper; refectory, San Giovanni della Calza (Cat. 17).

45. Detail of 44; left-hand lunette.

46. Detail of 44; central lunette.

47. Detail of 44; right-hand lunette.

48. Red and black chalk study of Saint James for 44; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, no. 232.

49. Raphael, black chalk study for a Last Supper; Albertina, Vienna, Sc.R. 229.

50. Andrea del Sarto, Holy Family; Alte Pinakothek, Munich.

51. Red chalk drawings of hands holding a flute; Uffizi, no. 6428F.

52. Red chalk drawing of hands holding a flute; hand pointing; Uffizi, no. 6441F.

53. Agostino Veneziano, engraving after lost Franciabigio, Madonna and Child with Infant Saint John and Two Angels (Cat. 18).

54. Red and black chalk study for Saint Job of 55; Uffizi, no. 3 12F.

55. Madonna Enthroned with SaintJohn the Baptist and SaintJob; Florence, Deposit of the galleries (Cat.19).

56. Detail of 5 5; John the Baptist (self portrait).

57. Detail of 55; flower vase bearing date, now largely obliterated.

58. Chapel of the Compagnia di San Giobbe on the corner of the via San Bastiano and the via della Crocetta; engraved map of Florence by G. Zocchi, 1783.

59. Black chalk study of the head of a young man; Graphische Sammlungen, Munich, no. 12867 recto.

60. Black chalk study of hands; Graphische Sammlungen, Munich, no. 12867 verso.

61. Portrait of aJeweler; Collection of Mrs.Trude Rosenberg, formerly Stoneroyd, Simonstone (Cat. 20).

62. Angel; Saint Nicholas of Tolentino altar, Sto. Spirito (Cat. 21).

63. Black chalk study for the angel of 62; Farnesina, Rome, inv. no. 124941.

64. Angel; Saint Nicholas of Tolentino altar, Sto. Spirito (Cat. 21).

65. Red chalk studies for hands of 62 and 64; Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, no. 5194 recto.

66. Red chalk study of an arm and a leg (Saint Jerome?); Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, no. 5194 verso.

67. Jacopo (?) Sansovino, black chalk and wash drawing for the altar of Saint Nicholas of Tolentino, Sto. Spirito; Louvre, inv. no. 1202.

68. Andrea Sansovino, sculptured marble altar, Corbinelli Chapel, Sto. Spirito (after reconstruction by G. H. Huntley).

69. Saint Nicholas of Tolentino Healing the Sick, predella; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Cat. 22).

70. Canonization of Saint Nicholas of Tolentino by Eugenius IV, predella; National Gallery, Dublin (Cat. 23).

71. Saint Nicholas of Tolentino Performing Miracles, predella; Pinacoteca Communale, Arezzo, Donazione Salmi (Cat. 24).

72. Annunciation; Galleria Sabauda, Turin (Cat. 25).

73. Madonna del Pozzo; Accademia (Cat. 26).

74. Holy Family; Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Cat. 27).

75. The Chiostro dello Scalzo at the right of no. 20; detail, engraved map of Florence by Stefano Buonsignori, 1584.

76. Fresco, Blessing of the Baptist by Saint Zacharias; Chiostro dello Scalzo (Cat. 28).

77. Fresco, Meeting of Christ and Saint John the Baptist; Chiostro dello Scalzo (Cat. 28).

78. Black chalk study of the head of a young man for Saint John of 77; Biblioteca Reale, Turin, no. 415.

79. Madonna and Child with Infant SaintJohn; untraced, formerly Titta Ruffo Collection (Cat. 29, reproduced by permission of the late Roberto Longhi).

80. Marriage of Saint Catherine; Galleria Borghese, Rome (Cat. 30).

81. Black chalk study for a Pieta; Biblioteca Reale, Turin, no. 413 (Cat. 41).

82. Salone, Villa Medici, Poggio a Caiano; view of southeast wall and Pontormo’s fresco of Vertumnus and Pomona with Franciabigio’s Triumph of Cicero fresco on the left wall and Alessandro Allori’s Titus Flaminius at the Council of the Achceans on the right. The sopraportas are by Allori.

83. Ceiling of the Salone, Villa Medici, Poggia a Caiano; Medici imprese with Arms of Leo X, painted stucco decoration, Andrea di Cosimo Feltrini and Franciabigio.

84. Alessandro Allori, detail of 92 showing project for alterations to the Triumph of Cicero.

85. Triumph of Cicero; Villa Medici, Poggio a Caiano (Cat. 31).

86. Detail of 85; Cicero arrived in Triumph.

87. Red chalk study of a head of a man for 85; Uffizi, no. 6463F.

88. Black chalk study of male nude seen from rear for 85; Palais des Beaux-Arts (Musee Wicar), Lille, Pl. no. 411.

89. Salone, Villa Medici, Poggio a Caiano; view of northwest wall and Allori’s lunette of The Fruit of the Hesperides Guarded by Hercules and Fortune with Sarto’s Tribute to Caesar on the left wall.

90. Original divisions of the Salone, Villa Medici, Poggio a Caiano (reconstruction by J. Shearman).

91. Antesacristy, Sto. Spirito, designed by Giuliano da Sangallo.

92. Alessandro Allori, design for alterations and completion of the Salone, Villa Medici, Poggio a Caiano; Uffizi, 10. Orn.

93. Portrait of a Steward of the Medici; Hampton Court (Cat. 32; reproduced by gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen).

94. Madonna and Child with Infant Saint John; Liechtenstein Collection, Vaduz (Cat. 33).

95. Black chalk study of the head of a young woman (for 94?); Albertina, Vienna, inv. no. 27472.

96. Sebastiano del Piombo, Holy Family with Donor (Borgherini?); National Gallery, London (by courtesy of the Trustees).

97. Andrea del Sarto, Madonna di Porta Pinti (copy); formerly Hearst Collection, New York.

98. Jacopo Pontormo, Holy Family with Saint John; Hermitage, Leningrad.

99. Sebastiano del Piombo, Cardinal Bandinello Sauli and Suite; National Gallery Washington, Kress Collection.

100. Portrait of a Man Writing; Staatliche Museen, Berlin-Dahlem (Cat. 34).

101. Jacopo Pontormo, Portrait of Two Men; Conte Cini Collection, Venice.

102. Attributed to Sebastiano del Piombo, Portrait of Verdelotti and Ubretto; destroyed, Berlin Museums.

103. Story of Bathsheba; Gemaldegalerie, Dresden (Cat. 35).

104. Black chalk study of bathers for 103; Uffizi, no. 14065F.

105. Madonna and Child; Museum of Art, Birmingham, Kress gift (Cat. 36).

106. Madonna and Child; Pinacoteca, Bologna (Cat. 37).

107. Engraving after lost Infant Christ Seated on Clouds; untraced, formerly Collection Marchese Vincenzo Giustiniani; from Landon 1812 (Cat. 38).

108. Madonna and Child with Infant Saint John; Galleria Borghese, Rome (Cat. 39).

109. Detached fresco, Noli me tangere; Museo Home (Cat. 40).

no. Red chalk study of the dead Christ; Uffizi, no. 6427F (Cat. 41).

111. Red chalk study for a Pieta; Biblioteca Reale, Turin, no. 412 (Cat. 41).

112. Giorgio Vasari, woodcut engraving, Portrait of Franciabigio; from his frame for 67.

PREFACE

HAD Franciabigio lived in Rome I might not have written this book. It is unlikely that his fragile talent could have survived the greatness assembled by the Vatican. But in the gentler artistic climate of Florence, where he labored with distinction, he unwillingly contributed to the attenuation of classical values—even while he sought to forward them—and facilitated the shifts realized by the next generation. Unlike his colleague Andrea del Sarto, a less watchful but more sublime artist, Franciabigio was aware of history as it occurred. His pictures offer penetrating commentary on the artistic issues of his day. He was audacious at times and splendidly uneven—in many ways a Florentine counterpart of Baldassare Peruzzi and Sebastiano del Piombo, who operated just below the highest level and were at their best when sustained by it. Yet as a maker of portraits, Franciabigio was often singular; this genre fitted his powers of observation and his offerings convey a reserved harmony of mood and truth. In a number of these modest but memorable paintings, Franciabigio’s sensibility carried him beyond skill to eminence.

Although Franciabigio and his works are the subject of this study, its underlying theme is the second level personality, how it functions in the transmission and transformation of knowledge. If Franciabigio may be considered a single instance of a type, it is evident that the secondary artist depends less upon intuitive reservoirs with periodic plunderings of external resources and more upon a critical sense involving the persistent and conscious recognition of current artistic events. He is less self-directed, but his stubborn, wilful independence elevates him above the tertiary artist who contends more easily with a narrowed range of visual models. Stress patterns likely to result from the secondary individual’s faulted ability to make coherent his ambitions and capacities are suggested by the difficulties Franciabigio encountered and endured.

One of the pleasures accompanying a first book on a subject is the discovery, if one is fortunate, that the subject is in fact worth all the trouble. When I began work on Franciabigio I was not prepared for the circumstance that of every four paintings and five drawings assigned to him onlv one is genuinely his; of the lot he is responsible only for the best. After the inaccuracies were eliminated I respected Franciabigio much more. I did not anticipate the wealth of documentation in the Florentine State Archives. Extensive San Pancrazio records, for example, reveal day-to-day activities of his working-class family and let us ponder the effects of this lifestyle on his art. Nor did I expect Franciabigio’s picture to disclose so much about the interests of his colleagues. As I worked I became aware that Franciabigio was more than a phenomenon in the continuity of the Florentine style; he was also an honest person, sentimental, intense, sometimes truculent, always human.

I suppose that the discovery most astonishing to me, however, was the one that should have been most obvious—a realization that mankind has changed so little over time. The range of personalities forming Franciabigio’s circle of acquaintances resembles considerably the variety one finds among one’s colleagues today. Although conclusions of this sort may be influenced in part by the historian’s own perceptions, it seems likely that it is dispositions and options which change, not human character.

As of this writing the book is up to date. The catalog contains entries on all authentic and attributed works known to me except for Alessandro Parronchi’s recent suggestions for the Sto. Spirito altar (considered briefly in the catalog, however, page 150 note 9) and Burton Fredericksen’s new assignment to Franciabigio of St. Julian and his Wife, no. 2954 in the Johnson Collection, Philadelphia, Pa. Luisa Vertova’s 1972 article in the Burlington Magazine reaffirming her attribution of the Sta. Maria dei Candeli Last Supper to Sogliani also came late to my attention.

Research for this sort of study requires the help of others and I am happy to acknowledge the librarians, curators, scholars and friends who made contributions during the period of the preparation and writing of the book. One sensibly and gratefully begins in the abundant resources of the photographic archives: The Frick Art Reference Library, New York; the Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, Mass.; the Witt Library, London, where Dr. Peter Murray responded efficiently to requests; the Fototeca Berenson, I Tatti, where I remember the cheerful assistance of Dottoressa Fiorella Gioffredi-Superbi; the Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence, where Dr. Ulrich Middeldorf shared freely his vast knowledge of Florentine material. For hospitality extended in London by Prof. Ernst Gombrich and the Warburg Institute and for the kind aid there of Mr. John Perkins I express sincere thanks. I remember with pleasure that Msgr. Romeo de Maio was especially helpful at the Biblioteca Apostolica, the Vatican. I am genuinely grateful also for an extended period of reading made possible by the staff of the British Museum.

Work in Florence was facilitated on several occasions by Professoressa Luisa Becherucci and I am particularly indebted to her, but also to Dottore Luciano Berti, Professoressa Anna Maria Ciaranfi, Dottoressa Maria Fossi-Todorow, Dottoressa Giulia Sinibaldi, Dottoressa Emma Micheletti , Dottoressa Anna Forlani Tempesti, Sig.na. Fausta Pucci Lenchantin. The helpful staffs of the Gabinetto Fotografico of the Soprintendenza alle Gallerie and the Archivio dello Stato in Florence earned my gratitude.

On several occasions I received suggestions and gracious assistance from curators of drawing collections elsewhere: Mlle. Roseline Bacou, the Louvre, not only provided expertise but paved my way for study in other French collections; Dr. Bernard Degenhart, Munich, contributed information on the Credi shop; Dr. Konrad Oberhuber, the Albertina, offered constructive suggestions on Roman matters. Of the museum curators and directors who extended courtesies I recall especially Dr. Irene Khnel in Berlin; Mr. M. Cormack in Cambridge; Dottore Nolfo di Carpegna in Rome; Dottoressa Noemi Gabrielli in Turin; Dr. Werner Schmidt in Dresden. As well, I thank Dr. Loevinson-Lessing, the Hermitage; Dr. P. I. Lebedev, Moscow; Mme. Helene Adhemar, the Louvre; Mr. Burton Fredericksen, Malibu; Mr. David Carter, Montreal; Dr. Matthias Winner, Berlin.

I am similarly indebted to Viscount Gage, to Lord Methuen, and to Mr. Benedict Nicolson. Without cooperation such as theirs and the gracious assistance of the many owners of paintings this study could not have been made. I thank each of them.

With warm gratitude I acknowledge friends and colleagues who have confided information, given judgments or a helping hand: Miss Agnes Mongan, Professors Fritz Grossman, Janet C. Hitchcock, Eugene Carroll, Barbara Debs, W. R. Rearick, Jonathan Butler, Sherwood A. Fehm, Jr.; Dr. Carroll Brentano, Dr. Catherine Dumont, Mme. Francoise Coulanges-Viatte, Dr. Werner Grohn, Miss Nelda Cantarella, Miss Lucie Bauer, Sig.ra Luisella Artini, Mr. and Mrs. Fielding Marshall.

My task would not be complete without other acknowledgments. I appreciate the trouble taken by scholars who read the typescript after the work was essentially complete: Professor Frederick Hartt, Professor Mark Roskill, Professor Creighton Gilbert, who returned a careful set of notes; and by those who generously agreed to review an early version of material later incorporated into chapter IV: Professor Ernst Gombrich, Professor Nicolai Rubinstein, Professor James Ackerman. Professor Paul Heist, Department of Higher Education, Berkeley, kindly read the manuscript with attention to personality aspects.

The documents section has been made more reliable by the labors of Dottore Gino Corti, who transcribed the records including the almost illegible San Pancrazio accounts. He went out of his way to explain passages I did not fully understand and shared new findings. I am much in his debt.

It was my rare good fortune also that Sig. Luigi Artini agreed to make the beautiful photographs of Franciabigio’s works in Tuscany. Time and again I returned for more material and at last we decided to undertake a campaign which would include all of Franciabigio’s works in or around the city. In addition, Artini completed for me a sensitive pictorial record of the whole of the decoration in the Great Hall at Poggio a Caiano; some of these photographs are included in the book.

More than to any others, however, this study is indebted to the advice, wisdom, and steadfast encouragement of Professor Sydney Freedberg and Dr. John Shearman. Both of them read the manuscript in its entirety and generously shared what they knew about Franciabigio and his colleagues. Dr. Shearman has contributed many facts and insights noted in the text, but he also gave valuable criticism. At his prodding I began to think about the overall program at Poggio a Caiano and to consider seriously other matters of content.

My debt to Sydney Freedberg is fundamental. He inspired my approach to art history and confirmed my interest in Renaissance studies. I began work on the Sarto circle in his Pontormo seminar at Harvard University and I continue to be deeply interested in the problems of artistic interrelationships and of connoisseurship. To him I express my gratitude specifically for the helpful personal interest he has taken in the book and generally for the stimulating example he has given of what teaching ought to be.

Material on Franciabigio first appeared as my doctoral dissertation for Harvard University in 1966. Graduate study in Europe was aided by a grant from Radcliffe College and early photographic expenses were met in part through aid from the Department of Fine Arts.

After 1966 I received support for additional investigations from the Research Fund of the University of California; this aid helped to provide photographs, travel, and clerical assistance. Work in Europe in 1968-1969 was supported through an appointment as a Fellow in the University of California Humanities Institute.

Without help and the interests of Miss Mary Davis and the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, the book could not have been issued in its present form. I gratefully join other scholars in sincere appreciation to the Kress Foundation.

The University of California Press graciously permitted all the space and illustrations I felt I needed and was patient at delays caused by photographic requirements. Professor Walter Horn, General Editor of the Series, invariably insisted on the highest standards whenever a decision was to be made. He has encouraged the work in every possible way. Lorna Price, editor of the book, equally has been patient and exacting; I could not have asked for better-reasoned judgments. Her criticisms and care have eased the reader’s task. Both of these colleagues have earned my deep gratitude and respect.

Thanks also are due to Mrs. Pat Forseth, who expertly produced several drafts of the typescript; Miss Diane Johnson, who checked bibliographical material; Mrs. Marjorie Riddle, who provided editorial assistance; and Mr. Jim Mennick, who designed the book. In checking references, reading the proofs, and in preparing the index, I had the intelligent, conscientious and much appreciated assistance of my student Miss Michele Leslie Stone. Her labors helped substantially to complete the publication of the book.

Lastly, I express my loving appreciation to my family: to my children, Mary and Allan, who gave up their new ping-pong table to stacks of papers and books, and to Allan, my husband, who unselfishly made it possible for me to find a concordant relationship between domestic and scholarly life.

S.R.M.

Davis, California

November 1973

CRITICAL ESSAY

I. Biography and Character

FRANCIABIGIO’S student years in Florence coincide with an impressive artistic occur- rence: after the abrupt break that followed the exile of the Medici and the subsequent death of Savonarola, the first years of the new century saw the extraordinary fact of the

combined presence in Florence of Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael. This convergence not only opened new horizons to the older painters who had remained at work after the crisis of 1498, but it also profoundly inspired the generation too young to have participated in the remarkable artistic environment provided by Lorenzo the Magnificent. The autumn of 1504 and the spring of 1505 saw the three at work in the city, participating in energetic discussions with other artists,1 their presence creating a vigorous climate that began to moderate with their departures one by one after 1505—Michelangelo leaving for Rome in March of that year, Leonardo for Milan by the end of 1506, and Raphael for Rome in the late summer of 1508. By the time that Franciabigio’s name was registered in the Lihro Rosso of the Compagnia de’ pittori di San Luca in 1504,2 signifying the end of his apprenticeship, a number of the major Florentine monuments of the new style were at hand—the Saint Anne cartoon, the Battle of Anghiari, already in a ruinous state, the cartoon for the Battle of Cascina, recently placed on public view, the Mona Lisa, and the first of Raphael’s Madonna series, the Madonna del Prato. The implications of these works were little understood, however, by any of Franciabigio’s colleagues, old or young.

The third quarter of the first decade was dominated by Raphael, innovator of the new style and its translator. From foundations fully laid by 1505 (but extended and secured by Raphael be-

friendship with Ridolfo Ghirlandaio, Aristotile da Sangallo, and other young painters. Shearman 1965,1, i8f, considers the artistic environment at SS. Annunziata, which, during the first decade, included Perugino, Leonardo, and Baccio, among others.

2. Docs. 4-7.

fore his departure), a decisive break with the Quattrocento style became possible to Franciabigio’s generation (including the slightly older Fra Bartolommeo, who had just returned to painting). The implications of the first decade, fortified by certain subsequent events in Rome, were barely played out by the end of Franciabigio’s life.

Franciabigio thus worked in the shadow of greatness, but a shadow cast and then gone. We shall see that Franciabigio rarely measured himself against these founders, but instead against others influenced by them: first, the older artists, Franciabigio choosing specifically from their productions the works which contended, however imperfectly, with the problems of the new style; then, by 1510, his own generation—especially Fra Bartolommeo and Andrea del Sarto, both shortly after arriving at slow-moving personal versions of the phenomenon Wolfflin has defined as the classical style3 ; and, by 1521, the later artistic generation—Pontormo, Sebastiano del Piombo, and Peruzzi—who saw the new style as history, accepting only those premises meaningful to them.

Thus Franciabigio approached the goals of his age cautiously, through a kind of screening process provided by other artists. There is only one moment, in 1513-1514, when Franciabigio’s ambition exceeded his carefully drawn modest limits. In his somewhat smaller world, however, his desire to excel was a driving force, an ambition—fortified by a rigorous will—which became his misfortune. Diligence and impeccable honesty are characteristic of all his artistic activities and personal relationships. Vasari discerningly credits Franciabigio with hard work and berates him for the restrictive effect it had on his art;4 Vasari speaks also of the very close feeling Franciabigio had for his pupils.5 Incapable of ease either in art or in life, Franciabigio relegated himself to a role destined to be fascinating but secondary, combining remarkable perceptive powers with a limited ability to convert his observations into first-rate pictures. Possessive of his students, he turned out no important disciples.

While an artist’s personal life does not necessarily shape his attitudes toward his work,6 it seems in Franciabigio’s case that biographical information fortifies our understanding of the art of this loyal but structured man. In many ways our view coincides with that of Vasari, who recognized at once the importance of Franciabigio’s family in the formulation of an outlook that affected not only his relationship with others, but ultimately, his approach to his painting. Evidence of strong family ties emerges from the documents. We find that the two sets of data—biographical and artistic—yield compatible information about his personality.

Franciabigio was born Francesco di Christofano, January 30, 1484, in Santa Maria in Verzaia,7

5. Vasari 1550, 842: Et a’ suoi discepoli fu molto amore- vole. In the 1568 edition, Vasari 1568 [1880], V, 198, merely says, e molto servente.

6. This point is discussed by Shearman 1965,1, uf.

7. Doc. 1.

a parish located in the Oltrarno, the left river bank next to San Frediano parish and close to the walls of the city. There many wool, linen, and silk weavers used to live, and Franciabigio’s father was a linen weaver, identified in the documents as Christofano di Francesco da Milano, texitore di panni lini.8 The family name known from Franciabigio’s matriculation entry of the Arte de Medici e Speziali, verifies the ultimate Milanese origin of the family, for it is a Milanese name, Giudicis (misunderstood by the indexer of the matriculation list, who listed it in the familiar, but erroneous, form of an eminent Florentine family, Guiducci.)8 9

What we know of the father, Christofano, comes mostly from Vasari’s description of Franciabigio’s difficult rise into the middle class. He mentions Franciabigio as being born of very humble artisans and observes that Franciabigio for good and just reason took up the art of painting not so much for fame as to be able to aid the needs of his parents.10 Apparently there is considerable truth in Vasari’s sympathetic remarks, for the documents show Franciabigio and his natural brother Raffaello at work from 1506 on at San Pancrazio, their remuneration taking the form of credit against the rent of the family house.11 This building, which belonged to the brotherhood of the local church—the Compagnia di San Pancrazio—was located on the piazza San Pancrazio opposite the church entrance, near the intersection of the via Federighi and the via della Spada.12 It was allocated to the family for the first time in 149713 and remained the family home until after Franciabigio’s death.

The record books of San Pancrazio yield rich documentation of the day-to-day activities of the family: they include many routine entries for minor repairs to the premises, but they also document artistic activity.¹⁴ They further identify the family members: Raffaello, who gives his occupation as a weaver,¹⁵ and Agnolo, Franciabigio’s younger brother. Because Agnolo’s name does quanto per porgere aiuto nel bisogno a’ parenti suoi."

11. See Documents,Part 3, where the rent documents are published in full.

12. The location is given in several documents. In doc. 2 it is identified as una chasa posta in sulla piazza del mona- stero, a primo via. In doc. 13 it is further described as in su la piazza a dirimpetto della nostra chiesa (see fig. 1).

13. The allocation to Christofano in 1497 (doc. 2) makes clear that the family received the lease because the previous tenant had died.

14. They are contained in three separate San Pancrazio record books: the Giornale, segnato B, 1493-1527 (A.S.F., Conv. soppr. 88, No. 2); the Ricordanze Bt 1493-1527 (A.S.F., Conv. soppr. 88, No. 68); and the Libro Rosso, segnato B, di debitori e creditori, 1492-1527 (A.S.F., Conv. soppr. 88, No. 39). The latter contains the running accounts of the property. The Ricordanze contain most of the contracts and allocations, while the Giornale records events of more than routine interest (and one allocation contract).

15. In doc. 59.

not appear in the rent records until 1526, when he is identified as dipintore, we may assume that he was much younger than Franciabigio but that he was at least seventeen by that time.13 Agnolo is mentioned briefly by Vasari, who observes that he studied with Franciabigio and died young.14 Franciabigio’s father’s death date is given as September 13, 1508 in the new accounts, after the lease was transferred on October 30,1508, as a result of Christofano’s death, to Franciabigio and Raffaello.15

The books also contain another running account for a house at the side of the church occupied by Giovanni Antonio di Francesco d’Antonio da Milano, also a weaver and presumably Franciabigio’s uncle.16 The son (who would be Franciabigio’s cousin) was named Mariotto,²⁰ and the wife (Franciabigio’s aunt) was Elisabetta.The records show that Elisabetta took over the business affairs of her family in 1524.21 A comparison of the rent accounts of the two households shows that Giovanni often paid for the rent through weaving of sheets, etc., for San Pancrazio,²² but that Cristo- fano (although likewise identified as a weaver) contributed directly to the rent most often through tasks as a handy man; at one point he even constructed a loom for another of San Pancrazio’s creditors. Neither Franciabigio nor Raffaello are recorded in the documents as receiving credits for weaving; the itemized payments they received seem mostly to be for repairs to the property, painting of pictures or candles for the brotherhood, or for lending the family horse.²³

On March 28, 1500, Franciabigio’s name first appears in the San Pancrazio record books as bringing one gold largho for the rent payment.²⁴ Nothing more is heard of him there until November 1506, when he is identified as a painter and is credited with 28 lire for painting a Pieta beneath the high altar of San Pancrazio and coats of arms of San Pancrazio and the Vallombrosans on

19. The allocation of this house commenced 1 November 1503. Documents, Part 4, A.S.F., Conv. soppr. 88, No. 39, c. 107 sinistra.

20. His name is given, Part 4, A.S.F., Conv. soppr. 88, No. 2, c. 166 recto (18 May 1509).

21. October 14, 1524 et seq., Part 4, A.S.F., Conv. soppr. 88, No. 39, c. 224 destra.

22. For example, see Part 4, A.S.F., Conv. soppr. 88, No. 2, c. 166 recto. The full rent accounts for this house are listed in Documents, Part 4.

23. The payment for constructing the loom is in an undated entry of 1499, Part 3, A.S.F., Conv. soppr. 88, No. 39, c. 69 destra. For examples of other types of specified payments, see A.S.F., Conv. soppr. 88, No. 39, c. 140 destra, entry of 18 July 1509 (repairs); c. 194 destra, entry of 13 March 1518 [1519] (painting of candles); entry of 24 October 1519 (lending of their horse).

24. Part 3, A.S.F., Conv. soppr. 88, No. 39, c. 69 destra, undated entry.

the predella and the balustrade.17 After that time Franciabigio’s name appears with some regularity as a contributor to the account.

Vasari tells us that Franciabigio studied with Mariotto Albertinelli: Imp ard il Francia nella sua giovanezza, dimorando alcuni mesi con Mariotto Albertinelli.18 Vasari’s use of the word dimo- rando may be taken literally as place of residence, or figuratively as staying, for Florence was not so large that Franciabigio would have found it difficult to walk each day to Albertinelli’s studio. Certainly the artistic relationship Vasari describes is confirmed by visual evidence in Franciabigio’s works. He must have begun studying with Albertinelli in 1503 or 1504, because the word dipin- tore used for him in the matriculation account books of the Compagnia de’ pittori di San Luca in October 1504, meant that he was already able to receive minor artistic tasks.

He seems to have remained with Albertinelli until the fall of 1506 and it is hkely that he began on his own shortly after. In the Life of Andrea del Sarto, Vasari observes that Franciabigio joined Sarto when he was forced to find a room of his own because his master, Albertinelli, had given up painting.19 This phase of Albertinelli’s career is discussed (in the Life of Albertinelli) just after Vasari’s description of the Crucifixion at the Certosa di Galluzzo,20 a fresco dated September 1506, although payments continue through December.21 22 Visual evidence places Franciabigio there as well, for he seems to have executed the angels flying above the crucified Christ, a proposal, if correct, that would fix his continued association into the fall of 1506.30 He seems also to have assisted his master in another work of 1506, the Madonna and Child with SS. Jerome and Zenobius.

Mariotto’s retirement from painting probably took place sometime before the end of 1506. By November of that year Franciabigio was receiving payments on his own as Francesco … dipintore.³¹ By then it must be assumed that he had attained a degree of competence and had gained some seniority in Albertinelli’s shop.

There is no agreement among scholars as to the date of Albertinelli’s retirement from painting, but a crucial factor seems to be the date of Franciabigio’s departure from the Albertinelli shop. Franciabigio’s first independent commissions in November of 1506 and visual evidence of some association between Franciabigio and Sarto by early 1507 suggests the break before this time. Sarto himself gives the piazza del Grano as his address by December 1508. On this basis, Shearman’s suggestion of Albertinelli’s retirement around 1506 seems entirely accurate.³²

establishes the interval for this activity as 1506-1509, the 1506 date being the crucial one for Franciabigio’s career. See also Ch. II, p. 22f and note 12.

29. Documents, Part 2.

30. This proposal was suggested by Shearman (verbal communication, 1962).

31. Doc. 8. 32. See arguments in Ch. II, note 12.

It has been suggested that Franciabigio spent part of his apprenticeship with Piero di Cosimo and Francesco Granacci;23 there is no evidence to support this apprenticeship to the latter, but traces of Piero’s influence can be seen in Franciabigio’s paintings around 1506 to 1508, and in another of about 1512-1513.24 All these, however, are subsequent to the entry of his name in the Libro Rosso; those of 1506-1507 are more likely products of Franciabigio’s need to attach his artistic vision to someone else after Albertinelli’s retirement. In 1505 or so, Piero was working on exactly the problem Franciabigio took up—the assimilation of Leonardo and Raphael.25 The vast differences in the personalities of Piero and Franciabigio would explain why he could not pattern himself after Piero for long. Franciabigio’s second, brief flirtation with Piero’s art in 1511-1512 can be accounted for in Andrea del Sarto’s activities: Sarto was involved actively with Piero’s ideas around 1509-1510 and seems to have served as an intermediary between Piero and Franciabigio.26 The relationship with Piero thus seems to be the result of a temporary confluence of interests rather than a period of apprenticeship. Certainly there is no evidence of joint production by the two men. As a matter of record, visual evidence supports a similar rapprochement between Franciabigio and Raffaelino del Garbo around 1506-1508—the exact moment that his interests in Piero are strongest.

The well-known association of Franciabigio and Andrea del Sarto was centered in a bottega at the piazza del Grano,27 an open area behind the Palazzo Vecchio.28 The beginning of their association can be established only within broad limits—between the fall of 1506 and the year 1509, the earlier limit based on the date inscribed in Albertinelli’s Certosa Crucifixion, which serves as the last sure document before Albertinelli’s retirement, and the latter based on the indisputable visual evidence of the two Madonnas now in the Galleria Nazionale, Rome—one by Sarto, no. 570, and the other by Franciabigio, no. 580, dated 1509 (cat. 7).

Their relationship apparently began as early as the fall of 1505, however, for Vasari remarks on their growing friendship in the Pope’s Hall at Sta. Maria Novella while they studied Michelangelo’s Battle of Cascina cartoon, placed there on public view about September first of that year.29

36. For further discussion of this matter, see Ch. II, p. 33f.

37. Vasari 1550, 735. Both Freedberg 1963, II, 266, and Shearman 1965, II, 388, doc. 3, publish a record which authenticates Vasari’s remark.

38. Located at the present intersection of the via dei Castellani and the via dei Neri, just down the via della Ninna at the back of the Uffizi; see fig. 2.

39. Vasari 1568 [1880], V, 8; [1881], VI, 137; [1882], VII, 161. Gaye 1839, II, 93, publishes a payment of 30 August 1505 which states that the cartoon was then finished. The date of emplacement (given by Venturi 1925, IX/I, 632, as Aug. 31) would serve as a terminus for Jacopo Sansovino’s re-

Thus their friendship may have ripened for at least a year before they moved to the piazza del Grano. On the other hand, there seems to be no visual evidence of a relationship until sometime around mid-1507, and this occurs in the form of a parallelism rather than a direct interchange. Evidence that they were sharing the bottega by 1508 is stronger;30 31 the probably date for their newly formed partnership is the winter of 1506-1 507.41 The interest in Raffaelino del Garbo32 seems to coincide with the time of their casual friendship, as if Franciabigio’s acquaintance with Raffaelino were the result of visits between the two apprenticed artists. The first close visual connection with Sarto is marked by the general similarities between Sarto’s Madonna of the Goldfinch (fig. 13) and Franciabigio’s Holy Family with Sleeping Infant St.John in the Accademia (fig. 12), which probably belongs to the summer or fall of 1507.33

On December 29, 1508, Franciabigio’s name was entered in the matriculation books of the Arte de’ Medici e Speziali,34 an act signifying his readiness to receive more important commissions. Curiously, this record was made some two-and-one-half weeks after Sarto’s,35 although Franciabigio at the time was about twenty-five, while Sarto was only twenty-three. It is possible that the two applications were related. A survey of the commissions of each during the preceding year shows that Sarto was much busier than Franciabigio; this circumstance may account for his earlier acceptance into the Physician’s Guild. Perhaps the delay was due to the death of Franciabigio’s father, which required his attending to family matters during the latter half of the year. Or, one may conjecture that as early as 1508 Sarto was recognized as an artist preferred over his colleague. Certainly by the end of 1509 this was true, for Sarto gained the commission for the frescoes in the forecourt of SS. Annunziata despite Franciabigio’s earnest attempt to garner it for himself.36

A year or so later, Franciabigio and Sarto moved from the piazza del Grano to a location next to the Annunziata cloister, a group of buildings called the Sapienza,37 originally built as the public

identifies him as one of those men who labor levarsi da terra, e’l ripararsi da la poverta, soccorrendo non pur s, ma i prossimi suoi. At his father’s death in 1508, Franciabigio carried the responsibility for a family that included his mother, Raffaello, Agnolo, who then must have been a baby, and probably other members not identified.

42. Discussed in Ch. II, p. 24f.

43. Unfortunately, neither painting can be dated with absolute accuracy.

44. Doc. 15.

45. 12 December 1508, published Freedberg 1963,11,266; Shearman 1965, II, 388, doc. 3.

46. See Ch. II, p. 3of.

47. Vasari 1568 [1880], V, 10: partendosi Andrea ed il Francia dalla piazza del Grano, presono nuove stanze vicino al convento della Nunziata nella Sapienza.

university but later taken over by Savonarola for a school connected with San Marco.38 After Savonarola’s death the buildings seem to have been taken over by artists, but in July of 1515 work was begun in the area immediately behind to construct stables for the Medici horses; the roofing of these subsidiary buildings was completed on January 17, 1516,39 and the artists seem to have moved out shortly after.40 The studios were in the old building on the via della Sapienza (now the via Cesare Battisti) and a vigorous sculptors’ community worked there: Gianfrancesco Rustici41 and Andrea Sansovino’s pupils, Nanni Unghero42 and Jacopo Sansovino, and during the second decade their pupils, including Niccold Tribolo and Solesmeo.43 By the time Andrea del Sarto and Franciabigio moved in—presumably in 1511—the group included at least two of Sarto’s close friends—Nanni, with whom he had worked at SS. Annunziata, and Jacopo Sansovino, recently returned from Rome. Vasari is exphcit in placing Jacopo Sansovino there at the time of the move,⁵⁴ and it is clear that Sarto and Jacopo had been close friends before the young sculptor’s departure in 1506.55 It is probable that Franciabigio went along to the Sapienza, but that it was Sarto who had been urged by his friends to join them there.

Franciabigio’s role at the Sapienza soon became secondary. Vasari tells us that Sarto and Jacopo Sansovino became inseparable;⁵⁶ we find no such information about Franciabigio’s relationship there. This situation, fortified by a previous strain on their friendship at the time when Sarto took over the SS. Annunziata commission, may have contributed to Franciabigio’s decision, around 1512, to go to Rome.⁵⁷

• Whatever the reason, Franciabigio does seem to have visited the papal city at about that time, parture from Nanni’s workshop and his subsequent apprenticeship to Jacopo Sansovino. He further mentions as being in Jacopo’s shop Solosmeo and Pippo di Fabbro. Solosmeo is also listed in the Life of Sarto [1881], VI, 58, as the latter’s pupil, but in the Life of Jacopo Sansovino [1882], VII, 513, as his student. Solosmeo apparently studied both painting and sculpture. Pippo was Jacopo’s garzone c. 1512 and posed for Jacopo’s Bacchus, Vasari 1568 [1881], VI, 58. The Bacchus can be dated after Jacopo’s arrival in 1511; a payment exists for the statue in 1512, see Pope-Hennessy 1963, III, 52f. The document is cited by L. Ginori Lisci, Gualfonda: un antico palazzo ed ungiardino scomparso, Florence 1953.

54. Vasari 1568 [1880], V, 10. The payment for the Bacchus establishes Jacopo’s presence in Florence before midyear.

55. Vasari 1568 [1882], VII, 487f, describes their early relationship and mentions that Jacopo Sansovino made models for Sarto to work from. This information is given before the discussion of his departure for Rome in 1506.

56. Vasari 1568 [1880], V, 10. See also Ch. II, p. 37.

57. Freedberg 1961, 237, also suggests a trip to Rome c. 1512-1513.

a hypothesis based on visual evidence. This suggestion is made despite Vasari’s remark that Franciabigio had no desire, and never took the opportunity, to leave Florence,44 for I am unable to explain the changes in his style about 1513 except on the basis of a Roman trip.

The termini for Franciabigio’s trip are established by the documents that fix his presence in Florence as late as May 5,1511, and again by March 14,1513.45 On his return he received the commission for the Marriage of the Virgin, an assignment presumably for more than the single scene; the unexecuted remainder of the commission was returned to Sarto’s shop in June 1515, when the Compagnia de'Servi accused Franciabigio of acting in bad faith when he vandalized his own fresco in a fit of anger or violent frustration and then refused to repair it.46 47

It seems likely that Franciabigio maintained his friendship with Sarto throughout the second decade, and he may have kept his studio at the Sapienza as well, even though the records of the Compagnia di San Pancrazio show that Franciabigio paid rent for the family house from 1508 on, renewing the lease periodically, until just before his death on January 14,1525.61 The Sapienza group then included the sculptors, their students, Sarto, his brother Francesco d’Agnolo, Pontormo, and probably Rosso.48 Franciabigio’s shop during the period apparently included his brothers, Agnolo, still a boy, and Raffaello. By at least the end of the decade Antonio di DonninoMazziere joined Franciabigio, but whether this event took place early enough for him to participate in the Sapienza group is not known.49

Vasari tells us that Franciabigio drew nude studies daily and kept young male models about for that purpose.50 51 Mute evidence of the interrelationships of Franciabigio’s and Sarto’s shops during the second decade is found in the drawings of Sarto, Pontormo, and Franciabigio, for they show that all three apparently used the same model between 1514 and 1517.65 This interrelationship is not indicated by drawings surviving from the period 1519-1524, although it should be [1853], IX, 104n2 (Milanesi in Vasari 1568 [1880], V. 199n3). Raffaello is known only from the documents.

64. Vasari 1568 [1880], V, 196.

65. Drawings from the middle of the second decade, as against the later ones, demonstrate a greater reliance on a living model; that the three artists used the same young man for their drawings is shown by a comparison between Franciabigio’s study for the St. Job altar (Uffizi, no. 312F, see fig. 54 and Authentic Drawings) and Pontormo’s studies for the Visdomini altar (e.g. Uffizi, nos. 6744F recto, 92201F verso) or earlier drawings (e.g. 669oF recto). Sarto seems to have used the same model for the Madonna of Sant’ Ambrogio (e.g. Berlin, no. 5133 and Louvre, inv. no. 1726), and the young man apparently posed for the Disputation on the Trinity as well (Uffizi, no. 669E). It seems probable that the three artists drew in the same bottega, perhaps sharing the expenses of the model, or perhaps all three drew at Franciabigio’s studio and at his expense.

noted that only six or seven of Franciabigio’s drawings from that time are known. These late drawings are derived, for the most part, from sources in other works of art.

The choice of Franciabigio as Sarto’s substitute at the Scalzo in 1518, when Sarto departed for France, may be further evidence of continuing good relations between the two men, if we can assume that Andrea had a part in choosing his successor.

Franciabigio, like Pontormo, does not seem to have taken part in either of the rollicking social organizations that centered around Rustici’s studio, although Sarto was eventually involved in both. The first of them, Compagnia del Cazzuola,52 founded in 1512 and including members from the great families of Florence—the Rucellai, the Serristori, later even Giuliano de’ Medici, and merchants, musicians, and others—seems to have taken its charter artist members from the veterans of the school at the Medici giardino: Giuliano Bugiardini,53 Rustici, and Granacci belonged. When the group was enlarged, Sarto was added. The second, smaller group, the Compagnia del Paiuolo, was limited to twelve, most of them frequenters for one reason or other of the Sapienza, more than half intimately so: Rustici and two of his pupils, Sarto and his brother Francesco, Domenico Puligo, and Solesmeo.54 It may be that Franciabigio could not afford the frivolity and lavishness of the meals on which their meetings centered, but it is as likely that such gaiety did not suit his nature. The report is suspect that Franciabigio was head, or arcipaiuolo, of this latter group in 1519 when Sarto read a poem, The Frogs and the Mice, for the part about the poem is now discounted by scholars, and the information about Franciabigio may also be wrong.55 It should be noted, however, that if Franciabigio ever took up with this group, 1519 would be the most likely date for his success and possible interest in social affairs.

That is not to say that Franciabigio avoided all organizations: he apparently did belong to at least two religious or charitable groups: The Compagnia di San Giobbe, for whose chapel on the via della Crocetta56 Franciabigio did several works c. 1516-1517; and Vasari observed that the brotherhood buried him at San Pancrazio,57 his family parish church. There is reason to believe that he belonged to the confraternity of this church as well, for the Compagnia di San Pancrazio

Reumont 1835, xix, and was shown to be false by Mazzoni 1930, 2.

70. For the exact location of the chapel and for other religious buildings on the street, see cat. 19, note 1. Perhaps it should be observed here that Sarto’s house, which is given in Shearman 1965, 1, 5 and passim, as on the via della Crocetta, was, in fact, on the comer of the via San Bastiano and the via del Mandorlo (now the via Gino Capponi and the via Giuseppe Giusti). It is shown with its separate studio in Don Stefano Buonsignori’s 1584 map at this location, see upper right, fig. 75. The streets are labeled in Zocchi’s map of 1783, fig. 58. Freedberg 1963, II, 271, also places Sarto’s house here. 71. Vasari 1568 [1880], V, 200.

provided shelter for his family and that of his uncle, and he performed services for it throughout his lifetime. While these took the form of credits against the rent, the tasks were often of a menial nature; his performance of them must have been as much an act of piety as a business arrangement.

In the fall of 1518, Franciabigio gained the favor of Duke Lorenzo de’ Medici because of his work at Lorenzo’s wedding celebration at the beginning of September. Soon he was at the Medici villa of Poggio a Caiano with Andrea di Cosimo Feltrini decorating the vault of the ceiling of the great hall. Vasari says he was placed in charge of the decorative scheme for the whole room, the job being divided with Sarto and Pontormo, each being paid an equal amount.58 59 Recent scholarship has suggested that all three men went to Rome around 1519;73 apparently to consult with Leo X about the project. Assuming that they