Sacred Space and Architecture
in the Patronage of the
First Grand Duke of Tuscany
Cosimo I, San Lorenzo, and the Consolidation of the Medici Dynasty
Emanuela Ferretti
C
osimo I’s architectural patronage is thesubject of a considerable number of general works, mono-graphic studies, and complex critical essays. Together, they provide us with a clear, comprehensive image of the works commissioned by the first grand duke of Tuscany and the significant contributions he made both on an urban scale and at individual sites.1 Within this broad corpus of
writ-ings, Cosimo I’s commission of religious architecture seems, in more recent studies in particular, less clearly defined.2
Such works include the basilica of San Lorenzo. While the painted decorations of the choir by Pontormo and Bronzino are among the most widely studied in sixteenth-century Florentine art, the contributions of Cosimo I and his sons to the San Lorenzo complex have yet to be subjected to a broad analysis, as neither the individual features nor the incomplete projects have been studied in any organic manner. The pres-ent essay aims to reconstruct evpres-ents in two main directions. First, the nature of the grand dukes’ patronage rights over the basilica, a consequence of the desire to establish continuity from the line of Cosimo the Elder to that of Pier Francesco il Popolano, also within the San Lorenzo complex. Second, the exemplary nature of the Medici contributions to San Lorenzo in relation to the early acceptance and implemen-tation of the recommendations laid down by the Council of Trent (1545–63), as seen in the renovation of the churches of Santa Maria Novella and Santa Croce. The picture that emerges is one of two main themes: Cosimo I de’ Medici’s
lack of any objective, comprehensive patronage rights over San Lorenzo, as Vincenzo Borghini was to point out, and the almost “spontaneous” adherence of the San Lorenzo complex to the canons of the Council of Trent, a sort of postconciliar architectural palimpsest that must have played a guiding role during the course of later developments concerning the rela-tionship between the Counter-Reformation and architecture in Florence.
COSIMO I’S ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAN LORENZO COMPLEX:
The State of Knowledge
Cosimo I’s commission of work at San Lorenzo involved var-ious projects, including the continuation and completion of the building work, begun by Leo X and Clement VII, on the New Sacristy3 and the Library (1548–72);4 the decoration
of the choir (1546–58), which had already been scheduled, albeit in a different format, by Clement VII;5 the frescoes at
the entrance to the nave and aisles6 (1564–69); promotion of
the project for the tomb of his father, Giovanni dalle Bande Nere;7 the arrangement of Donatello’s pulpits (1559, 1565);8
and the project for a chapel behind the choir, to be used as a mausoleum for the new dynasty (1567–68), which was only completed later by Ferdinando I (from 1604).9 These works,
some of which were left unfinished, followed a far from lin-ear path. With hindsight, we cllin-early recognize the continuity
505 Sacred Space and Architecture in the Patronage of the First Grand Duke of Tuscany
established the public curatorship of the Collegiata and all its related property and rights. This was a highly significant pre-rogative, albeit not comparable to a real ius patronatus.14 The
aforesaid provision can be found next to the transcriptions of several papal bulls in the “Bollario Laurenziano,” drawn up by Cosimo III (1642–1732) (Fig. 22.1).15 In light of these
observations, the fact that during the years in which the fres-coes in the San Lorenzo choir16 were being commissioned the
payments to Pontormo were included in the public fabbrice-ria of the “Castello” can be interpreted not only as a conve-nient solution—a way of transferring the account from one sector to another, a frequent maneuver during the early years of Cosimo’s government17—but also as a decision associated
with (and encouraged by) the nature of the artist’s pictorial commission. The appointment of Tribolo (from 1542), and subsequently of Vasari, as church architects18 highlights the
church as part of the architectural heritage managed by the state, and therefore by the duke, according to the usual iden-tification and mixture that characterized the societies of the ancien régime.
This complex situation more clearly accounts for Cosimo I’s approach to San Lorenzo: at times, the duke be haved as if he held real patronage rights over the basilica, even if those rights had no legal standing. At the same time, he was wary and careful of how he moved in the invisible but solid network of patronage and beneficial rights—above all those that were considered the prerogative of the “main” branch of the Medici, whose last descendant was Catherine de’ Medici, queen of France,19 and more generally, with regard
to the delicate matter of canon law and ecclesiastical law, also in light of the council’s reflections and subsequent decrees.20
If we now analyze the second duke of Florence’s actions, we see a clear shift in his attitude during the course of his long reign. Cosimo and his sons developed a strategy for controlling the chapter, the prior of which was a figure of pri-mary importance in Florence’s ecclesiastical hierarchy, sec-ond only to the archbishop of Florence. This involved quick, stringent actions of which no mention was made, of course, in the celebratory, encomiastic words of their biographers and historians, but which clearly emerge from the resolutions and documents of that time. In fact, the chapter’s documents enable us to reconstruct the evolution of the duke’s surveil-lance policy. The operai were established within the chap-ter. These officers, present, albeit not constantly, between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and reintroduced on a standing basis by Alessandro de’ Medici, controlled and audited the chapter’s accounts.21 In 1538, this role was held
by Francesco Inghirami and Ottaviano de’ Medici. While there is no need to stress the importance of Ottaviano,22
the role of Inghirami as “commissioner and superintendent of Cosimo I’s modus operandi in the basilica of San Lorenzo,
known locally as “the Medici’s Church,” compared to that of his predecessors. The project, however, was complex, involv-ing considerable effort and a series of strategies cleverly con-cealed in the final work and duly celebrated by the Medici family’s own propaganda.
COSIMO THE ELDER , COSIMO I, AND THE BASILICA OF SAN LORENZO
Cosimo I’s involvement in reforming the state and consolidat-ing his power, from his succession to Duke Alessandro (1537) to his rise to the rank of grand duke (1569), were designed to place the Republican bureaucratic structures under abso-lute control and assert strict control over the city’s ancient institutions,10 as was the case with the Opera of Santa Maria
del Fiore, or with the Santa Maria Nuova and Innocenti hos-pitals. San Lorenzo was no exception, and its identification with the Medici was felt even more strongly than elsewhere. However, control over the church and the chapter of San Lorenzo was not easily achieved (particularly during the early years of the Principato), given the objective discontinuity between the elder (“Cosmiadi”) and younger (“Popolani”) branches of the Medici family and the very nature of the rights that the line of Cosimo (pater patriae) had over the church. Cosimo the Elder and his son Piero, in assuming responsibility, respectively, for the completion of the pres-bytery area through the construction of the main chapel and for establishing the assignment of the chapels (and thus the chapel rights) in the nave to finance the construction, played a very important role in the basilica vis-à-vis the chapter and the city, comparable to the position usually associated with the holders of general, real patronage.11 This situation was
considerably consolidated by the endowments and actions of Leo X and Clement VII on behalf of the church;12 however,
no known document certifies to any total ius patronatus of the Medici over the entire basilica, that is, to a privilege granted by a title, deed, or special papal bull. Given the problematic nature of this issue, it should be said that both Cosimo I and Alessandro de’ Medici before him were in a position to partly overcome the strict patronage rights of the elder branch of the Medici (over the Old Sacristy, the chapel of Sts. Cosmas and Damian, the greater chapel, the area beneath the cross-ing, the New Sacristy, and the Tribuna delle Reliquie), while at the same time circumventing domestic hereditary ques-tions and overcoming the formalisms of canon law. In fact, as “heads of the Republic,”13 thanks to an order promulgated
in 1532, the dukes, and subsequently the grand dukes, were given the role of “preservers”/protectors of the basilica, by virtue of the 1417 provision with which the priors had
surrounding the frescoes by Pontormo in the basilica of San Lorenzo.26 In 1547 Riccio ordered that the canons accept the
appointment of two figures chosen by Cosimo, who were to be “in charge of the service and decoration of the church”;27
moreover, Pier Francesco personally intervened in archi-tectural questions, such as the arrangement of the dome in the Old Sacristy.28 Cosimo imposed a further form of
con-trol on the canons. From 1549 onward, the Spedalingo degli Innocenti, Luca Alamanni, who was succeeded by Vincenzo of the poor beggars” from 154023 merits mention. When
Ottaviano died in 1546, Cosimo I entrusted this position to Giovan Battista Ginori, another important figure within the Medici’s senior bureaucracy.24 Cosimo could also rely on a
sort of lieutenant within the chapter: from 1530 onward, Pier Francesco Riccio—childhood tutor and then first secretary of Cosimo I25—sat in the choir of San Lorenzo as chaplain
and then canon. He played a prominent role as overseer of the duke’s artistic commissions, particularly in the events
Archivio del Capitolo di San Lorenzo, frontispiece to Bollario Laurenziano, ca. 1680. (Photo: Opera Medicea Laurenziana.)
507 Sacred Space and Architecture in the Patronage of the First Grand Duke of Tuscany
autorità a quelli operai o provveditori o che altro nome parrà a V.E.I. di intervenire nel governo tem-porale, in modo piano et senza scrupolo alcuno di coscienza per questo: Che dovendosi debitamente e per ogni ragione a V.E.I. il padronato di detta chiesa, si faccia da Sua Santità chiarire e specificare et (salve le ragione de padroni particulari a quali V.E. non intende derogare).36
These documents reveal a situation that should not be under-estimated when analyzing and retracing the artistic and archi-tectural projects of the Medici to the early decades of the principate. This situation was to gradually change as the Medici proceeded to consolidate their power, in this case as a result of the resolution of certain property questions in relation first to Margherita of Austria and then to Catherine de’ Medici.37
Borghini in 1552,29 was entrusted with the periodic auditing
of the accounts. However, the relationship between the chap-ter and the duke was not one of simple submission. On the occasion of the new prior’s election in 1546, for example, the canons availed themselves of Sixtus IV’s bull reaffirming their independent rule in this matter. During that same period, numerous internal questions arose and the prior called on the authority of the archbishop’s vicar with regard to the examination of these questions, in the face of interference from Cosimo,30 who for a long time had been planning the
reform of the chapter’s Constitution. This objective, defined in 1547,31 would only be achieved almost twenty years later,
in 156632 (Fig. 22.2), thanks to the patient, determined work
of Vincenzo Borghini, an important figure in the history of San Lorenzo from the sixth decade of the sixteenth century onward. Appointed operaio in 1561,33 Borghini has been
recog-nized among the crowd of characters depicted by Bronzino in the fresco dedicated to Saint Lawrence’s martyrdom34 at the
entrance to the nave (Fig. 22.3).
The relationship that emerges between Cosimo and the chapter is thus complex and reflects the ways in which he governed his sons. The degree to which the surveillance and management of the basilica followed a legally “narrow” path, one that is nevertheless open to diverse interpretations, is tes-tified by Borghini’s report to Cosimo I, from about 1561. In 1552 the chapter of San Lorenzo had asked its own camarlengo for a detailed Medici family tree, in all likelihood to clarify ques-tions of benefits and patronage rights.35 In the 1561 letter,
howe-ver, the Spedalingo degli Innocenti claimed that the duke’s general right of patronage over San Lorenzo did not exist:
Per le bolle che hoggi sono in quella chiesa non appare che il patronato di essa sia in V.E.I. o ne’ sua passati né sia mai stato assolutamente; et se bene il Magnifico Cosimo edificò et dotò, non appare che e’ si riservassi il patronato [. . .] et quando il patro-nato non è riservato anchor che vi sia la fondazione et dotazione, non penso che rimanga. Credo bene che il patronato de’ canonicati e cappelle della casa Medici siano con le debite riserve e ragioni [. . .] Nelle bolle di Leone e di Clemente non è fatta menzione alcuna di patronato. Talché come Vostra Eccellenza può vedere il padronato della chiesa o non v’è o gli è molto dubbio et debole. Et penso che solo per virtù del padronato delle cappelle et cano-nicati propri si intervenga per la vostra Illustrissima Casa alla eletione del priore et come parrocchiani principali. Onde parendo che per bene essere di quella Casa et per levare via tante confusioni quante vi sono, che con autorità apostolica si avessi a dare
22.2. Archivio del Capitolo di San Lorenzo, frontispiece to the new Constitution, 1566. (Photo: Opera Medicea Laurenziana.)
project was never realized. In December 1539, the first pay-ments had already been made for some of the marble for the tomb of Giovanni delle Bande Nere, a work initially commis-sioned, albeit briefly, from Tribolo, though soon taken over by Bandinelli, with initial involvement of Baccio d’Agnolo.38
The Neroni chapel, next to the New Sacristy and positioned symmetrically in relation to the chapels of Sts. Cosmas and Damian (both built under the direct patronage of the main branch of the Medici family), was the chosen location for his father’s monument. The Neroni family, when asked by Pier Francesco Riccio whether they would consider granting use of the chapel in 1543, agreed on condition that their emblems
THE MONUMENTAL TOMB FOR GIOVANNI DALLE BANDE NERE, THE COMPLETION OF THE NEW SACRISTY, AND THE
PROJECT FOR A DYNASTIC MAUSOLEUM
During the first decades of his reign, Cosimo’s projects devel-oped in two directions. On the one hand, they recreated the link with the patronage of the two Medici popes, while on the other they were designed to lend greater visibility to the new dynasty. To achieve the latter goal, Cosimo decided to com-memorate his father by building a magnificent monumental tomb in the basilica’s transept and then attempt the more challenging construction of a “royal” chapel; this second
Agnolo Bronzino, Martyrdom of St. Lawrence. Under the emperor’s arm we can see the portrait of Vincenzio Borghini, San Lorenzo, Florence. (Photo: Nicolò Orsi Battaglini.)
509 Sacred Space and Architecture in the Patronage of the First Grand Duke of Tuscany
condottiero’s monument would have been placed, however, in a position closely linked to the New Sacristy, where the other two Medici “captains”—Giuliano, duke of Nemours, and Lorenzo, duke of Urbino—were celebrated. To empha-size this and the military value of the Medici, Ferdinando I used to hold the investitures of leaders of the Order of Santo Stefano,48 a military body founded in 1562 by Cosimo I, in
Michelangelo’s chapel. Scipione Ammirato also recalls that “si come in quello [anno] Cosimo ebbe due magnifiche vit-torie, l’una di Filippo e l’altra di Piero Strozzi, per le quali non solo ordinò l’allegrezza de fuochi ogni anno, ma le ban-diere e spoglie de’ nemici dedicò nel tempio di San Lorenzo a Dio ottimo Massimo,”49 as Augustus Caesar had done in
the Temple of Mars Ultor in the Roman Forum. After all, for the Habsburgs and their allies, the cult of St. Lawrence was invested with renewed value from the sixth decade of the sixteenth century onward, following the crucial vic-tory over the French at Saint Quentin on the saint’s feast day, 10 August 1557. Around 1563, Philip II fulfilled his vow to the martyr saint by dedicating to him the impressive Escorial complex. This complex was subsequently cop-ied by Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy, who renovated the Romanesque chapel annexed to his own Turin residence, dedicated to the same patron, converting it into the court chapel and, shortly after, transforming it into the mother- church of the Order of Saint Maurice.50
Another significant project, launched in 1567 but with-out any real progress being made thereafter, was the funer-ary chapel commissioned by Cosimo I, who had temporarily placed his wife and children’s remains in the Old Sacristy. In commissioning his father’s monument and in choosing the sacristy founded by Giovanni di Bicci as the location for his family burials, Cosimo clearly did not take Michelangelo’s New Sacristy into consideration. That building, from the early 1530s onward, became a sort of sanctuary for the art of the great sculptor, where artists and noblemen paid vis-its and admired Michelangelo’s works.51 Cosimo undertook
completion of the New Sacristy in two separate phases: in the second half of the 1540s under Tribolo and Riccio’s supervision;52 and, from 1556 to 1564, with Vasari as
superin-tendent.53 During the latter phase of the work, the tomb for
Lorenzo il Magnifico and his brother Giuliano was built on the wall opposite the apse, with the three statues of the Virgin Mary and Sts. Cosmas and Damian positioned on an austere marble coffin (put there in 1559)54 (Fig. 22.6) but the stucco
decorations of Giovanni da Udine’s dome were not removed in those years (Fig. 22.7).55 At the same time, the wooden
fur-nishings for the canons were added: prie-dieux and stalls fea-turing delightful inlay work were created for the New Sacristy by the same master carpenters who worked on Palazzo be preserved (“conservazione dell’arme loro”).39 Vasari, in
describing the Neroni chapel as a “narrow, breathless, mean place,”40 strongly criticized Cosimo’s choice. Cosimo,
how-ever, had shown a clear understanding of the balances and the presence of the Medici in the presbytery at San Lorenzo (Fig. 22.4). The duke was not to be influenced in his choice of site, not even by the presence of a canonical choir in the Neroni chapel, which he ordered dismantled when construc-tion got under way under Nanni Ungaro, who at that time was already an assistant to Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and was employed by Duke Cosimo among the “tecnici” of the Capitani di Parte.41 The monument would have had
partic-ular significance in a church in which numerous tombs were normally located in the crypt that extended underneath the entire basilica (Fig. 22.5). In fact, with regard to Donatello’s commission for the Martelli, Vasari recalls: “fece anco per la famiglia Martelli una cassa a uso di zana fatta di vimini, perché servisse per sepoltura; ma è sotto la chiesa, perché di sopra non appariscono sepolture di nessuna sorte, se non l’epitaffio di quella di Cosimo de’ Medici, che non di meno ha la sua apritura di sotto come le altre.”42 The same observation was to
be made in the seventeenth century by Del Migliore, who jus-tified the lack of monumental sepulchers in the chapels as in keeping with the ancient council decrees governing churches dedicated to sacred martyrs.43 Only the base of the monument
to Giovanni delle Bande Nere was completed in 1554, and it was (probably)44 placed in the Neroni chapel without the
fig-ure of the condottiero. It remained there until 1620, when it was transferred to the corner of Piazza San Lorenzo and quickly reassembled, again without the statue, which was only added in 1851. A document dated to the mid-sixteenth century cer-tifies the appointment of Benedetto Varchi to compose an oration in celebration of Giovanni’s life, at the time the body was to be transferred from Mantua to Florence, although this only came about much later in 1685. Giovan Battista Tedaldi, Giovanni de Medici’s secretary from 1522 until his death, wrote to Antonio Petrei, canon of San Lorenzo, recalling that Varchi “si prepara a far orazione per le esequie per la illustris-sima memoria del signor Giovanni de Medici” and requesting information available only to the prelate.45
Where the statue was to be placed remains an unsolved question. It may have been intended for the center of the northwest part of the chapel, as the shape of the base and Cosimo’s order to build a huge pier46 under the floor would
seem to suggest, or perhaps on the west wall, to mirror that of Verrocchio on the north side, with its head facing Cosimo the Elder’s tomb. It has been suggested that in his initial plans to complete the basilica, Lorenzo the Magnificent had already planned to build a structure symmetrical to the Old Sacristy, including another sepulcher similar to Verrocchio’s.47 The
Other works were undertaken in 1563, when Vasari and Borghini were authorized to use the Laurentian Library and the New Sacristy for meetings of the Accademia del Disegno, while at the same time proposing plans for a collective proj-ect in the chapel.58 Borghini joined Vasari in protesting to the
duke about the canons’ lack of respect for Michelangelo’s art. He also contributed, as he was able,59 to the newly planned
completion of the New Sacristy, which once again remained incomplete.60 One explanation for this different use of the
sacristy by Michelangelo—which continued well into the Vecchio during the latter half of 1559.56 The sketched plan
featured in Scholz’s notebook seems to date from just before this series of works. This sketch still shows Michelangelo’s architectural proposal for the wall that Vasari had earmarked for the abovementioned tomb of Lorenzo the Magnificent. The anonymous note records the incomplete nature of that part of the structure (“non è fornita”) and its temporarily inaccessibile state (“non ci si po’ [‘andare,’ the latter has been erased] ire ché tengono serato per rispetto della chapella del Pontormo che dipigneva”).57
View of the transept of San Lorenzo, Florence. (Photo: Villa I Tatti.)
511 Sacred Space and Architecture in the Patronage of the First Grand Duke of Tuscany
between the heirs of the main branch of the Medici and the first grand duke of Tuscany.62 Earlier, in 1556, when Vasari
had asked the duke if the new windows in the New Sacristy should be decorated with his own coat of arms, those of the House of Medici, or those of Pope Clement VII, Cosimo wrote: “L’arme solo di Papa Clemente.”63 The need to
pro-mote his own dynastic line, as well as real questions of ben-efits and hereditary rights, led Cosimo to design a separate mausoleum for himself and his descendants, a project that was temporarily interrupted before being carried out by period of Ferdinando I’s reign—may be that the rights to
the complex and its liturgical administration belonged to Clement VII’s heir, and thus to Catherine de’ Medici. In 1569 Vasari wrote to Pietro Gondi asking him to convey to the queen of France a request to allocate four hundred scudi per year to pay for masses and other religious offices in the Old and New Sacristies. On another occasion, the Capitani di Parte were ordered by Cosimo I to have Margherita of Austria pay for the restoration of the pavement in front of Palazzo Medici.61 Both cases attest to the difficult relationship
22.5.
View of the Neroni chapel. (Photo: Villa I Tatti.)
century onward, when Cosimo’s project for San Lorenzo regained importance. Located at the head of the church, the chapel designed by Cosimo I and Vasari had typological prec-edents in some fifteenth-century structures, such as the tri-bunes of Santissima Annunziata in Florence and Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan.68 The latter had been built according to
the wishes of Ludovico il Moro (Giovanni delle Bande Nere’s uncle, from whom he had taken his first name Ludovico, changed after the father’s death),69 and was the burial place
for the relatives of his paternal grandmother Caterina Sforza, ruler of Imola, who together with other female figures from the Medici’s history was celebrated in the wedding apparati of 1565.70 It should also be pointed out that in 1564 Primaticcio
was instructed by Catherine de’ Medici to build a central-plan mausoleum, which was to house the remains of her husband and sons in Saint Denis, a work known to Vasari, the con-struction of which got under way in 1567.71 Two years before
Ferdinando I, having been “kept alive” during the reign of Francesco I.64
In his autobiography, Vasari recalls Cosimo’s decision to build a funerary chapel for the new dynasty. Vasari’s testi-mony is confirmed by some real estate acquisitions made by Cosimo between 1567 and 1568.65 The location of the planned
chapel, in fact, was outside the church, in a position of consid-erable significance: behind the choir, where the Cappella dei Prinicipi was to be subsequently built. It is interesting to note that at that time such a project was virtually unprecedented among Italy’s other ruling families,66 with the important
exception of the Palatine Church of Santa Barbara in Mantua, built between 1562 and 1572.67 A plethora of similar operations,
designed to reunite various generations of one family in a sin-gle burial place, as princes and sovereigns such as the Valois, the Habsburgs, and the Tudors had done, were witnessed in various part of Italy from the final decade of the sixteenth
513 Sacred Space and Architecture in the Patronage of the First Grand Duke of Tuscany
di riconoscere Dio di tante felicità vostre; e perché sarebbe necessario che la scala della libreria si finisse di metter su, così quel ricetto col palco di sopra [. . .] così i banchi della libreria [. . .] Tanto le finestre di vetro si seguiteranno che finito una di questa parti si potrà far poi il palco di legname e i banchi che mancano.”77
Prior to completion of the works, which would be cele-brated in Galeotti’s medallion, the library continued to be used for special purposes. In addition to being chosen by Vasari as a meeting place for the Accademia del Disegno, as mentioned above (1563), it was also used in 1565 as the artistic workshop of Bronzino who, like many other artists, was involved in creating the decorations for Prince Francesco’s wedding.78
THE BASILICA OF SAN LORENZO IN THE CONTEXT OF VASARI’S RENOVATION OF THE FLORENTINE CHURCHES
Cosimo’s project in the Neroni chapel must have served as a model for the other families who owned chapels in the basilica and who were part of the duke’s new establishment. being anointed grand duke and given the quasi-royal honor
of creating a chivalric order, Cosimo I found an essential out-let for his royal aspirations within this religious context,72 in
which the Medici chapel played an essential part.
Cosimo also made significant efforts to get the library built in order to “onorare tutti i libri rari latini e greci,” an initia-tive which in Vasari’s Ragionamenti gets compared to the epi-sode of the preservation of the “libri” by Numa Pompilio in the Janiculum.73 A partial account of the works carried out between
1553 and 1572 at several Medici sites mentions the figure of more than 2,700 scudi74 having been spent on the library.
The final works under the supervision of Vasari (from 1555 onward) included the completion of the ceramic floor-ing designed by Tribolo and the wooden ceilfloor-ing and readfloor-ing desks made by Giovanni Battista del Tasso and other carpen-ters.75 Finally, mention should be made of the construction of
the vestibule staircase by Ammannati, begun in 1559 and char-acterized by the comparison from afar with Michelangelo.76
In early 1561, the aforesaid works were still ongoing, as Vasari informed Cosimo I: “Con questa medesima spesa si è sempre fatto qualcosa a San Lorenzo per non mancare
Early Christian architecture is one of the main themes of the Counter-Reformation,87 such is even truer in the case of
San Lorenzo, whose consecration by St. Ambrose began to be recuperated and celebrated in official Catholic culture in Florence, starting from the sixth decade of the sixteenth century.88 Carlo Borromeo spent a brief period in Florence
(7 to 9 September 1565), during which he consolidated his friendship with the Medici, which had originally seen the light of day under the auspices of his uncle Pius IV.89 The
rela-tionship between the Milan archdiocese and the basilica of San Lorenzo is further confirmed by a wooden relief found in the choir of Milan cathedral representing St. Ambrose conse-crating a church in Florence, that is, San Lorenzo (Fig. 22.8).90
Further to these observations, we should point out that Vincenzo Borghini had suggested a similar, albeit more visi-ble, subject for the fresco that Bronzino was to paint as a mirror image of the work entitled The Martyrdom of Saint Lawrence. Although this episode is well known, it is primarily mentio-ned in studies on Borghini. The Spedalingo degli Innocenti, in a letter to Francesco I dated 1578, pointed out that in retro-spect Cosimo I intended “in quel quadro che resta a dipin-gersi di rimpetto alla passione di S. Lorenzo del Bronzino si dipingesse la historia di questa consacrazione, come cosa antica e rara e segnalata per la città e propria di quella chiesa.”91
San Lorenzo, in fact, is a central theme in the reflections of Borghini, who as we have mentioned was actively involved in the basilica project from 1552 onward as works auditor and then from 1562 on as operaio-superintendent to Cosimo in the chapter.92 In particular, Borghini’s reflections on San Lorenzo
repeatedly appear in his correspondence during the 1560s and 1570s. Borghini’s antiquarian historicism focused on the basil-ica between 1564 and 1565, within the context of his research and reflections on the origins of Florence,93 which in 1566 led
to his disputing the matter with Girolamo Mei. To counter Mei’s claims that Florence had been founded by Desiderius, king of the Lombards, Borghini cited various documents, including passages from Paulinus of Milan’s biography of Saint Ambrose (422).94 The proof of the consecration of the
basilica of San Lorenzo by St. Ambrose thus became an essen-tial factor in demonstrating the antiquity and permanence of the Florentine site, an idea particularly dear to Cosimo I as is clear from the dialogues between the duke and the historian regarding the definition of the iconographic themes for the Salone dei Cinquecento.95 However, as early as 1561, in
rela-tion to his elecrela-tion as operaio at San Lorenzo, Borghini wrote to the duke:
Ho trovato un’opera di S. Ambrosio che per molti centi di anni è stata fuora per errore sotto il titolo altarpiece, which has since disappeared, for their own chapel
in the nave.79 Cosimo Bartoli, an intermediary between
the artist and the Martelli, was involved in the commis-sion. Vasari’s account of the episode contains an interesting remark about Brunelleschi in San Lorenzo: “mi ricordai avere inteso che Filippo di ser Brunellesco avea data quella forma a tutte le cappelle acciò in ciascuna fusse fatta non una pic-cola tavola ma una storia o pittura grande che empisse tutto quel vano.” Vasari, “[. . .] disposto a volere in questa parte seguire la volontà e l’ordine del Brunellesco,” decided to paint “una tavola larga braccia dieci e alta tredici,”80 that is,
about 5.8 meters wide and 7.5 meters high. This statement emphasizes Vasari’s perception that the basilica boasted a unified, rational appearance with a series of uniform chapels, as the well-known document dated 1434 meant it to be.81 The
Laurentian basilica, with the canon’s choir behind the high altar and the vast interior space in full view, offered a fine precedent for those changes carried out from 1565 onward by Vasari and Cosimo I at Santa Maria Novella and Santa Croce, and represented crucial paradigms for Italian architecture as a whole during the Counter-Reformation.82 The serial
arrange-ment of the new altars transformed the ostentation of individ-ual family prestige, which for at least two centuries had found significant expression in the building of private chapels, into a form of collective devotion, as witnessed by the concept of decoro based on the principles of rationality and homoge-neity. The prominence and form given to the monumental ciborium in the two Florentine convent churches became a point of reference for the high altar codified in Borromeo’s Instructiones. This element had been precociously reformu-lated in Florence precisely at San Lorenzo in the work, which remained on paper, that Clement VII commissioned from Michelangelo on the new feature of the high altar, even if that was not intended to house the sacrament but serve as a reliquary.83
In the end, the two pulpits by Donatello were attached to the front piers of the main crossing, in 1559 and 1565, years which were to prove of crucial importance both for the basil-ica and for the history of Florence. On 23 July 1558, the fres-coes in the choir were unveiled, and the following year many works were begun, including perhaps an attempt to again recoup Michelangelo’s planned façade.84 On 16 December
1565, Giovanna of Austria came to Florence to join her hus-band Prince Francesco in triumphal entry. The exemplary value of the position of the pulpits in San Lorenzo has been interpreted in relation both to the observations subsequently codified in Borromeo’s Instructiones fabricae and to the arrangement of the twin structures in Milan cathedral,85 while
515 Sacred Space and Architecture in the Patronage of the First Grand Duke of Tuscany
such as San Pier Scheraggio, the shape of which is com-pared to that of the Vitruvian basilica as described in Daniele Barbaro’s reconstruction, a volume present in Borghini’s well-stocked library from 1556,101 the year in which it was
first published. Borghini extended his complex analysis of the conformation of Early Christian and medieval churches with considerations on the function and structure of the hall divided by partitions and columnar screens. He specifically mentioned the changes made to Santa Maria Novella and Santa Croce by Vasari,102 and in doing so highlighted his full
di Exortatio de Virginis che è errore perché fu una exortatione fatta da lui in Firenze il dì che consacrò la chiesa di S. Lorenzo dove si vede il nome della chiesa essere di S. Lorenzo e fu consacrata in quel tempo che Teodosio imperatore combatté con Eugenio che li haveva usurpato l’imperio che fu intorno al 393 anno dall’incarnatione et da oggi anni 1168. Questa notizia mi è stata molto cara [cancellato “il ritrovarla e fuggire quello errore”] haverlo scoperto per noti-tia di questa . . . [parola illeggibile] e honore della chiesa e della città che della cosa di questi tempi è molto al buio et V.E. mi scusi, se dico in si piccola [lettera] e gli do notitia, che per essere l’origine della chiesa propria della Vostra Illustrissima Casa, penso non gli sarà discaro haver saputo questo.96
Borghini’s research on documents and materials led the Spedalingo to discover a particularly interesting drawing related to the layout of the Roman colony Florentia in late antiquity (Figs. 22.9–22.10). There the main building was the baptistery, but the Ambrosian basilica of San Lorenzo, together with the other Early Christian churches identified by Borghini (San Pier Scheraggio, Sant’ Apollinare, Santa Reparata, Sant’ Ambrogio, Santi Apostoli) constitute fur-ther key points in his historical reconstruction.97 This plan,
besides being of value to the cultural and iconographic history of Florence, helps us understand how Borghini’s discourse on church types—characterizing the post-Council period and encouraged by the discussions about the completion of Michelangelo’s St. Peter’s98—consisted of several themes.
On the one hand were the erudite studies of Florentine history, and on the other, the belief that Early Christian churches were directly descended from Roman churches.99
The volumes written by antiquarians during the age after the Council of Trent contain extensive reflections on the choice between the longitudinal church and the central-plan church. Borghini and the Roman antiquarian and ecclesias-tic Pompeo Ugonio were the principal representatives of the debate concerning the origins of the ecclesiastical buildings, a debate that evolved at the same time as those included in contemporary architectural treatises (e.g., those of Cataneo, Palladio, Borromeo, Tibaldi), although it resulted in differ-ent findings than those of the latter works.100 Various authors,
mainly clerics, considered the longitudinal church—and, in particular, the basilica—to be the most appropriate build-ing for Christian worship. These conclusions were backed up by ideological considerations and, above all, by historical reconstructions. Borghini put forward his theory regarding the transformation of the Latin basilica into a Early Christian church by speculating on the plan of Florentine buildings
22.8. Pellegrino Tibaldi and assistants, wooden bas-relief representing the consecration of a church in Florence by St. Ambrose, ca. 1575. The Choir Cathedral, Milan. (Photo: Reverenda Fabbrica del Duomo di Milano.)
Brunelleschi’s; similarly, one is also included in the plan sketched by Giuliano da Sangallo in his Taccuino Senese.104
Unfortunately, the appearance of the planned façade of San Lorenzo during Michelozzo’s tenure as chief architect, with regard to which Filarete requested information from Milan around 1451,105 is unknown.
Thus, according to Borghini, San Lorenzo in its fifteenth-century form, but also in the transforma-tions which never got past the planning stage—such as Michelangelo’s façade that don Vincenzo interpreted as a narthex106—preserved elements of the Early Christian
basilica and so was of considerable value in itself, and thus required no modification. Moreover, Vasari had pointed out in his introduction to the Vite that the architecture of Santi Apostoli in Florence—“che fu edificata da Carlo Magno”— had been a model for the two churches of San Lorenzo and Santo Spirito by Brunelleschi, thus suggesting that the two fifteenth-century basilicas may be considered the awareness of the theme of visibility, which was very
import-ant for the architectural theory of the Counter-Reformation. The erudite Florentine focused in particular on the presence of the atrium in front of Early Christian churches (a subject mentioned in the Instructiones), saying that he had seen such structures in “Rome . . . and elsewhere.” In his opinion, the single portico or loggia built onto the façade of churches was designed to shelter those who were not allowed to participate in the celebration of all the sacred mysteries and were com-parable in function and origin to the atrium, being in essence simplified or smaller versions of the latter: “Di questo antico costume n’abbiamo l’esempio ma è moderno nella chiesa de Servi, simile se n’è principio in quella di Cestello . . . et nel disegno fatto da Michelangelo per la facciata di san Lorenzo mostra che vi dovesse venire una loggia.”103 This final
observa-tion is of great importance but is missing from the numerous studies of Michelangelo’s project for San Lorenzo’s façade. An attached loggia is documented in the church that preceded
517 Sacred Space and Architecture in the Patronage of the First Grand Duke of Tuscany
bureaucracy, as well as one of the operaio of the chapter of San Lorenzo,108 commissioned Girolamo Macchietti, Vasari’s
coworker, to create the new altarpiece and see to the complete decoration of the three walls of the chapel. When the Florentine senator died (in 1568), work was interrupted and was never completed by his heirs.109 A commissioned work of this kind
in the chapel adjacent to Pontormo’s choir would certainly have changed the appearance of the presbytery; only further research can clarify the possible link between this decoration and Bronzino’s frescoes in the nave. Moreover, given Pandolfo’s social position and his function in San Lorenzo’s secular hier-archy, such research could also ascertain whether these works would have encouraged other similar commissions, which “midpoint” between Early Christian architecture and that of
the Counter-Reformation.107
It may be argued that the interruption of the two import-ant interior remodeling projects begun between 1565 and 1568 was in some way associated with this new guideline—that is, with the conservation and valorization of the image of the fifteenth-century church. The unfulfilled commissions are the previously mentioned mirror-image frescoes by Bronzino at the head of the nave and the complete decoration of the Stufa chapel. Regarding the latter, it is a well-known fact that in 1566 a project was launched for the complete redecoration of this chapel on the right of the high altar. Pandolfo della Stufa, an important figure in the senior ranks of the Medicean
22.10. Vincenzo Borghini, map of Florence, with ancient and Early Christian buildings. Detail representing the Early Christian San Lorenzo, Florence. Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Magl., XXV, 551, cc. 26v–27r. (Photo: GAP, Florence—Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale.)
tinuity, which is even more evident when compared with the considerable amount of building work undertaken in other Florentine churches during those same years.
The monumental setting of the presbytery area, with the high altar as the visual and symbolic focal point of the church, the exaltation of “normal” preaching from the great pulpits, and the inherent rationality and sobriety of the basilica’s structure—key concepts in Carlo Borromeo’s Instructiones as found in San Lorenzo—lend the church a prototypical char-acter that was valorized by Cosimo I, Borghini, and Vasari in a fruitful dialectic between past and present.
bytery in a radical way. Fixing our image of the Brunelleschian church in the sixth decade of the sixteenth century thus means highlighting specific elements, which in other religious build-ings would have involved substantial operations in order to conform to the recommendations of Council of Trent. The connection with St. Ambrose was first a key point of con-tact between Milan and Florence—of considerable impor-tance to Cosimo I’s strategic alliance with Pius IV Medici of Milan110—and subsequently of importance to Florence’s role in
the broader plan to renew the teachings of the Church Fathers as promoted by Popes Gregory XIII and Sixtus V. This is a
NOTES
S
I wish to thank the following individuals for their much-appreciated help and suggestions: Gustavo Bertoli, Caroline Elam, Robert W. Gaston, Mauro Mussolin, Riccardo Pacciani, Sonia Puccetti Caruso, Louis A. Waldman, and Dimitrios Zikos. Special thanks, also, to Claudia Conforti, Bruce Edelstein, and Christa Gardner von Teuffel.1 Spini 1976, 7–77; Borsi 1980; and Conforti 2001, 130–165.
2 Hall 1979 and Jobst 1997b. On Cosimo’s ecclesiastical patronage and “defense of the sacred,” see Murry 2014, chaps. 4–6.
3 Waźbiński 1987, 1:76–90; Morrogh 1992, 591–593; Catalano 1992, 38 n. 38.
4 Ibid., 11–13; Gronegger 2007, 105–124, with previous bibliography.
5 Vasari 1878–81, 6:147; Davidson 1961, 1–6. Regarding the frescoes of Pontormo and Bronzino in the choir, see Alessandro Cecchi’s essay in this volume with the numerous bibliographical references. Initially, Clement VII commissioned Michelangelo to do the frescoes: Barocchi and Ristori 1965–83, 3:207 n. DCCXXXIX.
6 Campbell 2004.
7 Vossilla 2001; Waldman 2004, 230–269.
8 Ingendaay 1991, 290, regarding the temporary arrangement at the time of Leo X, and the following arrangements. Also see here, note 83.
9 Morrogh 1985, 316–317; Rinaldi 1992, 319–355; Marandola 2002; Przy-boroski 1982, 1:413 and following. In Ferdinando I’s 1591 will, a fund of 40,000 scudi was created in the Monte di Pietà for the construction of the new Medici chapel: Parigino 1999, 180.
10 Anzilotti 1910, 26–40.
11 Elam 1992, 175: this study suggests that there was a relationship between Cosimo the Elder’s financial responsibility for completing the transept (and Piero’s role in managing the construction of the nave and aisles) and the existence of a genuine ius patronatus over the church; this opinion is
shared by Francis W. Kent (1994, 206–207). For an examination of the pres-ence of the Medici chapels in the nave and aisles, see Christa Gardner von Teuffel’s essay in this volume.
12 Moreni 1816, 183, 284.
13 Diaz 1987, 51.
14 Pacciani 1995, 85.
15 Florence, Archivio del Capitolo di San Lorenzo (hereafter ASL), 3895 (Bollario Laurenziano), c. 104ff.
16 Ferretti 2008, 108; Pilliod 2001, 31–32.
17 Di Noto 1984, LXX–LXXI.
18 Regarding Tribolo as architect of San Lorenzo (from 1542), see Butterfield and Elam 1999, 353 n. 68; regarding Vasari’s role, see Frey 1930, 2:459–462.
19 See note 60.
20 It is significant that in November 1564 Cosimo ordered observance of the Council’s decrees: see D’Addario 1980, 86. With regard to benefits and patronage rights, the duke was quick to offer guidelines in 1539, by establish-ing rules to be followed if patronage rights became vacant: ivi, 58.
21 Drigani 1995, 3:971. Regarding the presence of the operai in the
fifteenth-century organization of the church, see Elam 1992, 177–188. The same officers were present during work on the unfinished façade by Miche-langelo. See Wallace 1994, 52.
22 On Ottaviano, see Bracciante 1984 and Strozzi 2000.
23 Terpstra 2005, 215–216.
24 ASL 2129, c. 15: “adì 4 di giugno 1548, Reverendi amici Carissimi avendo noi electo in luogho di messer Ottaviano di buona memoria uno dei nostri operai Giovan Battista Ginori, persona grataci per le sue buone qualità et accompagnatolo a Francesco a esso simile ci è parso darvi che sempre inten-deremo vi esibirete pronti inexeguire tutto quello vi sarà da loro ordinato et per la pace et benessere, et sancto governo spirituale et temporale vostro di quella nostra chiesa et popolo et renderete la debita reverentia, obbe-dentia, et presterete piena fede alli ottimi documenti et salutare consiglio al Reverendo Vescovo di Assisi datovi per priore, a quanto effecto nostra devota fattura tanto da noi amato come vi è noto . . . dal Poggio 12 di luglio 1546 [sic] Il Duca di Fiorenza.” With regard to Ginori, also see “Cinque
con-servatori del contado e del distretto fiorentino”: http://www.archiviodistato .firenze.it (accessed 21 Feb. 2009).
25 Fragnito 1986.
26 Cecchi 1997, 163–165.
27 ASL 2299, c. 12v: “Adì 7 aprile 1547 che fu la mattina del giovedì santo dopo la messa Giovan Battista Ginori e Francesco Inghiramo nostri Operai, feciono chiamare i canonici in camera del reverendo priore et perché il nostro Capitolo aveva deliberato di mettere due sostituti per servizio e ornamento della chiesa; dissero che si mettessi Ser Domenico di Mattio Lanfranchi in luogho di Ser Michelagnolo dall’Improneta e ser Zanobi
519 Sacred Space and Architecture in the Patronage of the First Grand Duke of Tuscany
44 Vasari 1964, 55. For this question, see Del Migliore 1642, 186. For the history of Bandinelli’s sculpture outside the church, see Waldman 2004, 865, doc. 1586; Guida di Firenze 1862, 36.
45 The undated letter precedes Giovanni delle Bande Nere’s biography written by Tedaldi, a trusted officer of Cosimo I: BNCF, Magliabechiano XIII, 89 fol. 25ff. This manuscript, attributed to Antonio Petrei, is quoted and dated in de’ Rossi 1996. With regard to this letter, also see Ciampi 1833, 18. The same manuscript also contains notizie di vite d’artisti, as Marco Ruffini has pointed
out to me, published in http: //fonti-sa.signum.sns.it/ TOC PetreiAntonio
Codice MagliabechianoXIII89.php (accessed Apr. 2009).
46 Waldman 2004, 248, doc. 1543.
47 Ruschi 1993a, 120; Caglioti 1996, 132.
48 Descriptions of investiture ceremonies of the Order of Santo Stefano in the New Sacristy may be found in Diario di Cesare Tinghi: BNCF, Capponi
261, volume one; see for instance: ivi, c. 13v.: 5 Aug. 1602; ivi, c. 36, 15 Aug. 1602. Also see Angeli 1608.
49 Ammirato 1642, 23. See Lapini 1900, 113.
50 Cozzo 2006, 54–55.
51 Waźbiński 1987, 1:81–82; Rosenberg 2003.
52 Aschoff 1966, doc. 9; Waźbiński 1987, 1:81–82; Catalano 1992, 36 n. 38.
53 Vasari to Cosimo I, 26 Dec. 1556; he mentions the plastering of the walls, the cleaning of the marble and stone framework, and the mounting of the window frames; in this way, the canons could carry out their religious duties established by Pope Clement VII’s Bull: Frey 1930, 1:464–465. With regard to these liturgical aspects, see Ettingler 1978.
54 The transport took place on the 3 June 1559: Lapini 1900, 124.
55 Contrary to what is currently claimed by other studies [see, e.g., Joannides 2000, 141–143], Alessandro Cecchi (1983, 40 n. 46) has convinc-ingly demonstrated that the total removal of the stucco dome is not to be attributed to Vasari, but should be dated to the mid-eighteenth century.
56 ASF, Scrittoio delle Fortezze e Fabbriche, Fabbriche Medicee 21, c. 53. Shortly before the inauguration of the frescoes in the choir, Cosimo I ordered the choir ceiling to be covered in gold and the windows to be mounted: ivi 20, c. 116v, c. 153v.
57 This sketch—reported first by Charles de Tolnay (1948)—has been briefly commented on in relation to Vasari’s works in Morrogh 1985, 593 n. 63.
58 Waźbiński 1987, 1:736 and ff. The meetings of the academics had already changed location in 1564: first to the Ospedale degli Innocenti and then to San Luca’s chapel at Santissima Annunziata. See Pacini 2001, 8.
59 Vasari to Cosimo I, 1 Feb. 1563 sc: “Le lettere delle sepolture di San Lorenzo son molto piaciute allo Spedalingo, e io ne ho fatto un cartone grande come hanno a stare, e di corto le farò intagliare nel luogo dove da Michelangelo Buonarroti le furono destinate”: Vasari 1878–81, 8:358.
60 Borghini to Cosimo I, 3 Feb. 1563 sc: Gaye 1840, 3:92.
61 On the letter to Pietro Gondi, see Frey 1930, 2:462. On payment for the pavement in front of the Medici Palace, see ASF, Capitani di Parte Guelfa, Numeri Neri 1463, cc. 163–164: Benedetto Uguccioni to Prince Francesco de Medici, 4 Mar. 1568 sc. On the problematic relationship between Cosimo and Catherine, see also the malicious records kept by Sebastiano Arditi—a famous anti-Medicean diarist—who wrote on the matter as fol-lows: “Et in questo primo giorno di novembre 1574 venne in Firenze l’abate de Guadagni, uomo fiorentino nutrito in Francia, mandato dal re Enrico III di Francia con grande quantità di gioie al granduca Francesco Maria de Medici a ricercare che lui dovesse pigliare in sicurtà dette gioie e sicurassi alcune ragioni di mercanti [. . .] E così dette gioie un’altra volta la regina di Francia l’anno 1561 le mandò al duca Cosimo de Medici a impegnarle e poi le riebbe, perché la regina Caterina detta era erede delle sustanze e beni de Medici. Il duca Cosimo fece suntare e istimare detti beni. E così gli prese per Carli in luogho di Giovan Battista Ricasoli, et così dissero essere di volere
del reverendo Maggiordomo di Sua Eccellenza. Il che udito il Capitolo nostro prefato senza altra replica o considerazione gli messe per partito legittimamente vinto secondo gli ordini nostri tutti e dua insieme a comin-ciare addì primo di maggio proximo 1547.”
28 ASL, Debitori e creditori, 1495, c. 215 sn [1550]: “Spese d’aconcimi deono dare adì 11 di novembre lire 6 soldi 4 ispesi a muratori e manovali per acconciare la cupola di nostra sagrestia vecchia per commessione del Maiordomo come disse . . . a uscita 62 a c. 214.”
29 ASL 2299 [ deliberationi of the chapter], 1 Feb. 1548 [unpaginated].
30 Gavitt 1997, 237 n. 30.
31 ASL 2229, c. 16.
32 Drigani 1995.
33 Gavitt 1997, 237. In an undated letter to the grand duke, Borghini recalls: “Piacque a V.E.I. eleggermi per suo sostituto particulare alla cura dell’Opera di San Lorenzo,” Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale (here-after BNCF), Filze Rinuccini 23, c. 112.
34 Campbell 2004, 109 n. 30, with previous bibliography. The presence of Borghini in the fresco is not only related to his role in the Accademia del Disegno (a fact mentioned in the literature), but also to his appointment as duke’s agent in the chapter (see note 32, above). Robert Gaston (1983, 68) also recognizes Prince Francesco and Pope Pius IV in the fresco.
35 ASL 2500, c. 59 v. “Lunedì 15 febbraio 1551 [sf] A spese ordinarie lire 32 piccioli a messer Nerone Neroni et messer Francesco di Dino [Pucci] per l’albero della casa de Medici commesse el Capitolo si facesse a c. 203.”
36 ASF, Miscellanea Medicea 348, fasc. 3. The unpublished document is in a fascicle quoted by Gaston 1987, 111 n. 1. The letter is an undated, unsigned draft, but calligraphic analysis conducted with the kind help of Gustavo Bertoli has revealed that the handwriting is Borghini’s.
37 San Lorenzo thus became a further piece of the complex process of absorbing and dissimulating the discontinuity between Cosimo the Elder’s branch of the family and that of Pier Francesco il Popolano: this question has only recently been the subject of study. With regard to the property question, see Parigino (1999, 55–57), who conducts a detailed analysis both of the relationship between Cosimo I and Margherita of Austria first of all, and then between Cosimo and Catherine de’ Medici. Cosimo and his circle of artists and scholars made great efforts to assert this continuity, as clearly emerges from the decorative cycle in the ducal apartments in Palazzo Vecchio. Here the Medici’s reunited pantheon is present in its entirety in the frescoes present in Duke Cosimo’s apartment and in the planned sculp-tures for Bandinelli’s Udienza: see Heikamp 1980. At the time of Cosimo the Elder, during the construction of San Lorenzo, Pier Francesco’s branch of the family was left out “dalle determinanti risoluzioni edilizie prese negli anni quaranta, e fuori dunque rimase già dalle prime ricadute onorifiche di tali scelte ”: Caglioti 1996, 131. With regard to Cosimo the Elder’s impor-tance to Cosimo I’s commissioned work, see Cox-Rearick 1984.
38 Vasari 1964, 54 n. 3. For the significant presence of Baccio d’Agnolo, to whom perhaps we owe the design of the Doric order of the basement, see Waldman 2004, 202–203, doc. 322: Giovan Battista Ricasoli to Baccio Bandinelli, 6 Oct. 1540.
39 Ibid., 250, doc. 411: Pier Francesco Riccio to Cosimo I, 14 Feb. 1543.
40 Vasari 1878–81, 6:168.
41 Letter from Pier Francesco Riccio to Cosimo I, 14 Feb. 1543: in Wald-man 2004, 250, doc. 411. Nanni Ungaro, as architect of the chapel, is also mentioned in ibid., 248, doc. 408. With regard to Ungaro’s work, see Pagnini 2005, 29–39 with previous bibliography.
42 Vasari 1878–81, 2:419.
tioned porphyry columns for the pulpit begun in 1559, whereas we now see that marble piers sustain the structure. Between 1616 and 1634, the real-ization of a frame on top of the parapets (by workshop of Pietro Tacca) is attested: Morolli in Morolli and Ruschi 1993, 182–183. The presence of a wooden model of the “San Lorenzo pergamo, with stairs” in the inventory of Giambologna’s workshop in Borgo Pinti at his death (1609) has yet to be studied: Corti 1976, 632. On the transport of Lorenzo il Magnifico’s corpse to the New Sacristy in 1559, and on the wooden furnishings for the canons, see note 56 above. On the façade project, see the letter from Bartolomeo Ammannati to Cosimo I (1559), in Gaye 1840 3:11: “circa il palco del Ricetto [della Libreria] e del modelo della facciata, che non saria fuori di propo-sito cavare dal Buonarroti quel che si può.” Cosimo I took a new interest in Michelangelo’s project in 1555, when he went to see the two models kept in Leonardo Buonarroti’s house: Barocchi and Ristori 1965–83, 5:4.
85 Stabenow 2006, 258– 259.
86 The Early Christian revival as a leading theme in the creation of the presbytery in San Lorenzo at the time of Cosimo the Elder has been interpreted as an example of the precocious restoration of Early Christian architecture, one of several examples dated between the sixth and eighth decades of the fifteenth century: Clearfield 1981, 26–27; Lavin 1994, 3–43. The dating of this final arrangement to the time of Cosimo I leads to the rec-ognition of the particularly important role of Medici work at San Lorenzo in the subsequent implementation of the Council of Trent’s recommenda-tions. Another significant step toward this Early Christian revival by the two Cosimos was taken during Clement VII’s papacy (in particular, with the Laurentian project for the high altar reliquary): see Mussolin 2007, 187, with preceding bibliography.
87 For the most recent study, see Turco 2009, 88–89.
88 St. Zenobius’s fame, which eclipsed that of St. Ambrose in medieval Florence, is a theme explored by Benvenuti 1994, 118; see also Nardi 1994, 78–116.
89 Pastor 1950, 543.
90 Stabenow 2006.
91 Lorenzoni 1912, 124–125; Francalanci 2002, 376–379.
92 See here, note 32.
93 Gaye 1840, 3:149 (Vincenzo Borghini to Cosimo I, 4 Jan. 1564). Carrara 2002, 29.
94 Carrara 2007, 195.
95 I refer to the iconographical theme of the painted panel “restaurazione et amplificazione di Firenze” (restoration and enlarging of Florence): Van Veen 1993, 478. The decisive role of St. Ambrose in the Florentines’ victory over Radagasius (this event is thoroughly analyzed in Van Veen 1984) is not expressed in the corresponding painting but is mentioned in detail in Borghini’s letters: see Frey 1930, 2:116–117.
96 BNCF, MS Magliabechiano XXV, 551, c. 75r. The date (1561) is taken from the notes inside the document.
97 The plan is mentioned, but not reproduced, in Carrara 2002, 26.
98 Jobst 1997a, 243–246. 99 Ibid., 703. 100 Ibid., 707. 101 Matteini 1983, 2:619, 636. 102 Hall 1974, 339. 103 Borghini 1755, 436.
104 The dating of the sketch with the plan is controversial: Canali 1993, 80.
105 Fabriczy 1904, 189. perché [oltre] la detta Caterina, non c’è altre del ceppo de’ Medici che lei,
però le vendè al detto duca Cosimo de Medici, quali era 9 gradi discosto all’albero di Cosimo Vecchio de’ Medici”: Arditi 1970, 29–30.
62 Parigino 1999, 55.
63 Document cited in note 53.
64 In the oration for Francesco’s death, there is an explicit reference to the grand duke’s project, inherited from his father Cosimo; Malaspini 1751, 1.4:44.
65 ASF, Ospedale di Santa Maria Nuova 231, c.n.n.: 21 Nov. 1567; ibid., 230, c.n.n.: 8 Nov. 1568, quoted in Przyboroski 1982.
66 The Savoys built the family mausoleum in the sanctuary of Santa Maria at Mondovì in the ninth decade of the sixteenth century: Cozzo 2002. The history of the Della Rovere family’s burials is complex: there was, for example, the attempt to have the tombs of all the family members brought together in the cathedral in 1587; there was also a similar project for the Cappuccini church in Casteldurante (1593): Leonardi 1964–65, 99–119.
67 Belluzzi 2001, 188–189.
68 Frommel 2005a, 80–83.
69 Giordano 2005.
70 BNCF, MS Magliabechiano, Classe VIII 1393, c. 218v.
71 Frommel 2005b, 214.
72 Fantoni 2004, 1:22–23.
73 McGrath 1981, 121. This subject was not represented.
74 ASF, Scrittoio delle Fortezze e Fabbriche, Fabbriche Medicee 2, c. 185.
75 On the lengthy completion of the wooden ceiling and reading desks, see Davis 1981b.
76 Gronneger 2007.
77 Vasari to Cosimo, from Florence, 16 Feb. 1562 sc., transcribed in Vasari 1878–81, 8:345–346.
78 Letter from Giovan Battista Caccini to Vincenzo Borghini, 17 June 1565, in Lorenzoni 1912, 26. On the medal by Galeotti, see Scorza 2002, 376–379.
79 Davis 1981a.
80 Vasari 1878–81, 7:691. In the same year, Cosimo I ordered—with the participation of Tanai de Medici—an altarpiece by Giovannantonio Sogliani to be placed in a chapel of the Medici family in the nave of San Lorenzo, originally commissioned in 1521 by Alfonsina Orsini for the church of San Salvatore at Camaldoli in Florence, complete with a new Bacchiacca predella (see the recent observations regarding this commission in Christa Gardner von Teuffel’s essay, this volume, with previous bibliography).
81 Saalman 1978, 361–364; Morolli 1993, 53–57. Important observations regarding this subject can be found in Gardner von Teuffel 1982, 22–25; see also her chapter in this volume.
82 Hall 1979, 1–16. From 1566 on Carlo Borromeo promoted similar works in the church of Sant’Ambrogio in Milan and in the city’s cathedral: on these projects, which predated the guidelines contained in the Instructiones,
see Scotti 1972, 56–57. Pius IV, from 1561 on, promoted works in the Roman churches designed to rationalize ecclesiastical space: Turco 2009, 92.
83 Mussolin 2006, 101. This type of tabernacle reliquary, present in medi-eval times and reformulated along classical lines during the latter half of the fifteenth century, had also been employed by Michelangelo in his pro-ject for the high altar in the church of San Silvestro in Capite in Rome: cf. Wallace 1999.
84 Regarding the temporary arrangement of the pulpits during the early sixteenth century, see Ingendaay 1991; Saalman 1993, 167–175; Butterfield 1994; and Moreni 1816, 179 n. 1, who quotes Lapini. This historian adopts
521 Sacred Space and Architecture in the Patronage of the First Grand Duke of Tuscany
108 Pandolfo della Stufa’s letter to Vincenzo Borghini, 10 May 1563: Biblioteca Riccardiana, cod. 2133, c. 247. Pandolfo’s biography is strictly con-nected to Cosimo I, after the many years spent at the court of Catherine de Medici: Berner 1971.
109 Guasti 1890, 517.
110 Cantagalli 1985, 238.
106 A wooden model of the façade, identifiable with the one currently to be found in Casa Buonarroti, was sent to Cosimo I by Leonardo Buonarroti, upon Michelangelo’s request. See the letter of 28 September 1555: Barocchi and Ristori 1965–83, 5:45, MCCXIV.
107 Vasari 1878–81, 1:235.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ammirato, Scipione. Opuscoli. Vol. 3. Florence, 1642.
Angeli, Iacopo. Sermone nel capitolo generale della Illustrissima et Sacra Religione di S. Stefano, l’anno MDCVIII fatto in Fiorenza in San Lorenzo. . . . Pisa, 1608.
Anzilotti, Antonio. La costituzione interna dello stato fiorentino sotto il duca Cosimo I. Florence, 1910.
Arditi, Bastiano. Diario di Firenze e di altre parti della cristianità (1574 – 1579). Edited by Roberto Cantagalli. Florence, 1970. Aschoff, Wiebke. “Studien zu Niccolò Tribolo.” PhD diss., Johann
Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, 1966. Barocchi, Paola, and Enzo Ristori, ed. Il Carteggio di
Michelangelo. 5 vols. Florence, 1965–83.
Belluzzi, Amedeo. “Architettura a Mantova nell’età di Ercole e Guglielmo Gonzaga.” In Storia dell’architettura italiana: Il secondo Cinquecento, edited by Claudia Conforti and Richard J. Tuttle, 184–201. Milan, 2001.
Benvenuti, Anna. In “San Lorenzo: La cattedrale negata.” In Le radici cristiane di Firenze, edited by Anna Benvenuti, Franco Cardini, and Elena Giannarelli, 117–133. Florence, 1994. Berner, Samuel. “Florentine Society in the Late Sixteenth and
Early Seventeenth Centuries.” Studies in the Renaissance 18 (1971): 203 –246.
Borghini, Vincenzo. Discorsi. Vol. 2. Florence, 1755. Borsi, Franco. L’architettura del Principe. Florence, 1980. Bracciante, Anna Maria. Ottaviano de’ Medici e gli artisti.
Florence, 1984.
Butterfield, Andrew. “Documents for the Pulpits of San Lorenzo.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 38 (1994): 147–153.
———, and Caroline Elam. “Desiderio’s da Settignano’s Tabernacle of the Sacrament.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 43 (1999): 333–357.
Caglioti, Francesco. “La tomba verrocchiesca dei ‘Cosmiadi’ e la Basilica di San Lorenzo: Antefatti e primi successi.” Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa: Classe di Lettere e Filosofia; Quaderni, 4th series, 1–2 (1996): 127–154.
Campbell, Stephen John. “Counter Reformation Polemic and Mannerist Counter-Aesthetics: Bronzino’s ‘Martyrdom of St. Lawrence’ in San Lorenzo.” Res 46 (2004): 98–119.
Canali, Ferruccio: “8.2. Giuliano da San Gallo, Sketch with the Plan of San Lorenzo: Taccuino Senese, f. 21 v.” In Morolli and Ruschi 1993, 80.
Cantagalli, Roberto. Cosimo I, granduca di Toscana. Milan, 1985. Carrara, Eliana. “2.4. Borghini: Memorie e notizie d’antichità
diverse.” In Vincenzo Borghini: Filologia e invenzione nella Firenze di Cosimo I, edited by Gino Belloni and Riccardo Drusi, 25–34. Exhibition catalogue, Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale. Florence, 2002.
———. “Tra fonti e immagini: La polemica sul Batti stero fiorentino negli scritti di don Vincenzo Borghini.” In Storia per parole e per immagini, edited by Ugo Rozzo and Mino Gabriele, 193–211. Udine, 2007.
Catalano, Maria Ida. Il pavimento della Biblioteca Mediceo Laurenziana. Florence, 1992.
Cecchi, Alessandro. “Il maggiordomo ducale Pierfrancesco Riccio e gli artisti della corte medicea.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 42 (1998 [1999]): 115–143. ———. “Le perdute decorazioni fiorentine di Giovanni da Udine.”
Paragone 34 (1983): 20–44.
Ciampi, Sebastiano. Notizie dei secoli XV e XVI sull’Italia, Polonia e Russia. . . . Florence, 1833.
Clearfield, Janis. “The Tomb of Cosimo de’ Medici in San Lorenzo.” The Rutgers Art Review 2 (1981): 13–30.
Conforti, Claudia. “Firenze di Cosimo I.” In Storia dell’archi-tettura italiana: Il secondo Cinquecento, edited by Claudia Conforti and Richard J. Tuttle, 130–165. Milan, 2001. Corti, Gino. “Two Early Seventeenth-Century Inventories
Involving Giambologna.” The Burlington Magazine 118 (1976): 629–634.
Cox-Rearick, Janet. Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art: Pontormo, Leo X, and the Two Cosimos. Princeton, 1984.
Cozzo, Paolo. Regina montis regalis: Il santuario di Mondovì da devo-zione locale a tempio sabaudo, con edidevo-zione delle memorie intorno alla SS. Vergine di Vico. 1595–1601. Rome, 2002.
———. La geografia celeste dei Duchi di Savoia. Bologna, 2006. D’Addario, Arnaldo. “Testimonianze archivistiche,
cronachisti-che e bibliograficronachisti-che.” In La comunità cristiana fiorentina e toscana nella dialettica religiosa del Cinquecento, 120–129 Florence, 1980.
