Household and Lineage in Renaissance Florence: The Family Life of the Capponi, Ginori and Rucellai 9781400869756

Citation preview

HOUSEHOLD AND LINEAGE IN RENAISSANCE FLORENCE

A lively desire of knowing and of recording our ancestors so generally prevails that it must depend on the influence of some common prin­ ciple in the minds of men. We seem to have lived in the persons of our forefathers; it is the labor and reward of vanity to extend the term of this ideal longevity. Our imagination is always active to enlarge the narrow circle in which nature has confined us. Fifty or a hundred years may be al­ lotted to an individual; but we stretch forward beyond death with such hopes as religion and philosophy will suggest, and we fill up the silent vacancy that precedes our birth by associating ourselves to the authors of our existence. Edward Gibbon, Autobiography, chap, ι

HOUSEHOLD AND LINEAGE IN RENAISSANCE FLORENCE T h e Family Life of the Capponi, Ginori, and Rucellai

FRANCIS WILLIAM KENT

PRINCETON

UNIVERSITY PRESS

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY

Copyright © 1977 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, Guildford, Surrey A I

J

I

J

R I C H T S

r e s e r v e d

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data will be found on the last printed page of this book Publication of this book has been aided by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Printed in the United States of America by Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

CONTENTS

Preface

vii

List of Manuscript Collections Citecl

xi

Two Explanatory Notes

xiii

Introduction

3 PART ONE

THE HOUSEHOLD AND THE "NEAREST KINSMEN" C H A P T E R O N E : Household Structure and the

Developmental Cycle

21

C H A P T E R T W O : "Under the Shadow of a Common

Will": the Nearest Kinsmen in Florentine Life

63

PART TWO

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS C H A P T E R T H R E E : The Lineage as an Economic

Community

121

C H A P T E R F O U R : The Lineage and Politics

164

C H A P T E R F I V E : Neighborhood, Patronage, and the

Ancestors

227

Conclusion

2

Genealogical Charts

305

Index

309

ν

93

PREFACE

T

H ι s book was conceived and begun as a contribution to the study of the nature of Renaissance Florentine society, a subject which I first encountered, under the care­ ful guidance of Marian Gibbs and Ian Robertson at the University of Melbourne, in the works of a fertile genera­ tion of English and American historians—above all, in the books and articles of Nicolai Rubinstein, Philip Jones, Gene Brucker, Marvin Becker, David Herlihy, and then Lauro Martines and Richard Goldthwaite. In the course of my own research on just one of the problems thrown up by the archival industry of these indefatigable scholars —the structure and history of the upper-class Florentine family—I soon realized that historians of other medieval, Renaissance, and early modern societies were similarly engaged in asking new and often fundamental questions about domestic organization and kinship patterns. It has seemed impossible, and perhaps undesirable, even to try to absorb and discuss here all of the general information, ideas, and speculation which have appeared on these subjects while I have been working on this book: never­ theless, I hope that it will be seen as a contribution not only to Florentine history, its original area of concern, but also to that burgeoning and fascinating field on which we have very recently received a very useful interim report in J. Heers' Le clan familial au moyen age (Paris, 1974)· Even so, the present study only begins to tap the rich reserves available in the archives of Florence for the study of family history. Here I have been necessarily concerned to concen­ trate on the vexed issues so far raised, and have done so by exploiting a wide range of the available evidence on three lineages over a period of approximately one hundred years. I hope such an approach has helped to clarify the nature of the basic family institutions of the city, but I am painfully aware of the incompleteness of the picture. Vll

PREFACE

It is not a misogynist's disdain that has led me to neglect, for example, women and children: a splendid study could and must be written on the subject, but it will have to range more widely for evidence, and perhaps for theoretical guidance, than has been possible in this monograph. Other dimensions of family history positively cry out for attention: the role of the old magnate lineages in Renaissance society (one suspects their fourteenth century "disintegration" was often a legal fiction), the relationship of family structures to other institutions such as the guild and the gonfalone, the significance of the tendency, ubiquitous in medieval society, to see other areas of feeling and experience through kinship-colored glasses.

It is my pleasure to acknowledge the many and various debts incurred in the writing of this book. Nicolai Rubin­ stein of Westfield College, University of London, has given me help and encouragement at every stage. During his pains­ taking supervision of the doctoral thesis on which it is based, I had the benefit of his unparalleled expertise and kindness: now, some years later, he has scrutinized the final, and very different, product with all the zeal of one of his own accoppiatori. If I have still not achieved a two-thirds majority, the fault can hardly be his. I am very grateful to Gene Brucker of the University of California at Berkeley, not only for his example, but for his advice and encourage­ ment (most of it epistolary) over the last eight years. His careful reading of the manuscript has put me still further in his debt. Randolph Starn's friendly criticisms have, I think, im­ proved the final version, which has also been read, to my profit, by my friends and fellow teachers at Monash Uni­ versity, Louis Green and Heather Gregory. I have much appreciated Eve Hanle's tactful editing of the manuscript. The first chapter has been helpfully commented upon, in an earlier draft, by John Legge of Monash University and by

PREFACE

Robert Wheaton: the editors of Speculum made useful criti­ cisms of the version of this chapter which they accepted as an article two years ago and then kindly consented to my withdrawing it, somewhat improved, for inclusion in this book. Both Chapter One and the Introduction have had the benefit of David Herlihy's disinterested criticism. One of the central figures of this book is the merchantprince Giovanni Rucellai. My thanks go to Brenda Preyer for the generous sharing of information on this our mutual friend. Alessandro Perosa of the University of Florence kindly made available several microfilms of the manuscript of Giovanni's ZibaIdone Qiiaresimale and has given me other help and information. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the book could not have been completed with­ out Gino Corti's help in shortening the distance between Melbourne and Florence: he has quickly and expertly sup­ plied information that was lacking at many points, and I am most grateful to him for these and many other kind­ nesses. For permission to quote from manuscripts in their private archives I should like to thank Count Neri Capponi, Count Bernardo Rucellai, and Marquis Leonardo Ginori Lisci. Isabelle Hyman and Samuel Berner have kindly allowed me to see and use their unpublished doctoral dis­ sertations. I am grateful to the Editors of the Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes for allowing me to reprint material which originally appeared in my article, "The Rucellai Family and its Loggia," (vol. xxxv [1972], 397-401)· My postgraduate studies were wholly supported by the generous terms of a Commonwealth Scholarship and Fel­ lowship Plan award: the Central Research Fund of the University of London provided money for microfilm. I am also grateful for financial, and much other, help given me since 1971 by the Department of History at Monash Uni­ versity. Successive drafts of this book have been typed there, with great efficiency and (one must add) palaeographical

PREFACE

skill, by a team so large that it seems almost invidious to single out for thanks only three of its members—Betty Bradly, Bess Brudenell, and Jean Thompson. I am grateful to the librarians and archivists of the fol­ lowing institutions for their patient assistance: the Archivio di Stato and Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence; the Warburg Institute, London: the Inter-library Loan Service of the Monash University Main Library. The remaining acknowledgments cannot be very specific. Alison and Julian Brown have helped me, in London and in Florence, in important ways of which even they may not be aware. Dale Kent's influence is everywhere in and around this book: it has few footnotes to her studies, and no precise acknowledgment of her help, only because one cannot so easily pin down the mysterious osmosis of ideas and emotions which takes place between the members of a nuclear-conjugal household. Like some of the family chroniclers mentioned in this book, I was young when my father died: I am content to record my last and oldest debt in the words of one of them: "puossi dire che noi non chonoscessimo nostra padre: e pero [lei] ci fu madre e ppadre." Melbourne September IpJf

χ

L I S T OF M A N U S C R I P T COLLECTIONS CITED Archivio Capponi, Florence Archivio Ginori Lisci, Florence Archivio di Stato, Florence Acquis ti e Doni Archivio Capponi Archivio di Monte, Catasto-Duplicati Arte del Cambio Balie Carte Strozziane (C.S.) Catasto (Cat.) Consulte e Pratiche Conventi Soppressi (Con. Sopp.) Decima Granducale (Dec. Gran.) Decima Repubblicana (Dec. Rep.) Deliberazioni dei Signori e Collegi (speciale autorita) Diplomatico Manoscritti Mediceo avanti il Principato (M.P.) Miscellanea Medicea Notarile Antecosimiano (N.A.) Otto di Guardia e Balia (periodo repubblicano) Prestanze Provvisioni, Registri Pupilli (Repubblica), Deliberazioni Signori Responsive Spedale di San Matteo Tratte Archivio Rucellai, Florence Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich Biblioteca Comunale, Forli Autograft Piancastelli Biblioteca Laurenziana, Florence Acquisti e Doni Fondo Ashburnham XI

MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS

Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence (B.N.F.) (Manuscripts in this collection cited without provenance are from the Fondo Principale.) Archivio Capponi Collezione Genealogica Passerini Fondo Magliabechiana Manoscritti Passerini Poligrafo Gargani Raceolta Ginori Conti Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence (B.R.F.) Manoscritti Moreniani Library of the late Comm. Tammaro de Marinis, Florence Other Abbreviations Archivio Stonco Italiano (ASI)

Xll

TWO EXPLANATORY NOTES

A NOTE ON THE CITATION AND TRANSLATION OF PRIMARY SOURCES

Almost all quotations from primary sources in the text are given in English translation: unpublished passages can be found in the original language in the footnotes. The English translations are mine unkss otherwise stated. When, as in quotations from tax reports or informal letters, it seemed appropriate to use colloquial English forms I have done so: perhaps inconsistently, but I hope not jarringly, I have also kept the (to us archaic) distinction between "thou" and "you" which so often needs to be preserved if the flavor of the original passage is not to be lost. Because most of my versions can be easily checked in the notes, or in stand­ ard printed works, I have sometimes translated rather freely when it seemed necessary. All dates are in modern style.

A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

It has seemed unnecessary to supply a bibliography. The list of books and articles directly relevant to my theme is very short indeed: to have compiled a bibliography of every item referred to in passing in the notes would have produced a very long and ill-assorted list.

Xlll

HOUSEHOLD AND LINEAGE IN RENAISSANCE FLORENCE

INTRODUCTION

T

word famiglia can be found very frequently in all sorts of Florentine documents, and it must have been constantly on Florentine lips. For generations, historians have agreed that the "family" was a vital institution in medieval and Renaissance Florence, "the real unit of im­ portance" as Edward Armstrong put it, 1 but usually they have neglected to define the word or, becoming specific, have given more or less contradictory accounts. The most detailed recent study of the Florentine family, Richard Goldthwaite's elegant book, Private Wealth in Renais­ sance Florence, has concluded that by the fifteenth century it was usually "the smallest possible group," and that Renaissance man was "left exposed and isolated, unencum­ bered with the old social obligations and loyalties;" 2 five years earlier another American historian had talked con­ fidently of the Florentine Renaissance family which "stands between the individual and society." 3 "The data pulls in two polar directions," yet another writer has even more recently concluded after meticulously reviewing the evidence for both views. 4 This deep division of opinion about the nature of the Italian family is in fact much older h ε

ι Italian Studies, ed. C. M. Ady (London, 1934), p. 126. Similar asser­ tions abound; see, for example, K. D. Ewart, Cosimo de' Medici (Lon­ don, 1899), p. 5; C. Guzzoni degli Ancarani, La Cronica Domestica Toscana dei Secoli XIV e XV (Lucca, 1920), p. 150. 2 Princeton, 1968, pp. 258, 261. 3 L. Martines, The Social World of the Florentine Humanists, 13901460 (Princeton, 1963), p. 50. See now Martines' "A Way o£ Looking at Women in Renaissance Florence," The Journal of Medieval and Renais­ sance Studies, 4 (1974), pp. 15-28. 4 S. J. Berner, "The Florentine Patriciate in the Transition from Republic to Principato: 1530-1610," unpublished doctoral dissertation (University of California, Berkeley, 1969), p. 387. Cf. too the very sensible summary remarks of P. Burke, Culture and Society in Renais­ sance Italy, 1420-1540 (London, 1972), pp. 248-251, and S. Chojnacki, "In Search of the Venetian Patriciate: Families and Factions in the Fourteenth Century," Renaissance Venice, ed. J. R. Hale (London, '973). PP- 5 8 "7°·

INTRODUCTION

—since the nineteenth century there have been some scholars who have argued that the "Renaissance family" was a smaller and more intimate group than the "medieval clan," 5 while others have stressed the long-lived solidarity of family institutions. 6 If these contradictions disturb historians, they would positively baffle social scientists accustomed to find in a society's kinship system a vital key to its nature and func­ tioning. But one does not need to be a social anthropologist to see that many of the problems in Florentine history which are currently being studied with such energy and ability —the nature of Medici government and control, the mean­ ing of faction and political patronage, demographic pat­ terns, the changing social character of the oligarchy, the social history of art patronage—cannot be satisfactorily tackled unless, among other things, historians are reason­ ably sure that they know what sort of family relationships mattered to Florentines, or have decided to address them­ selves to the resolution of the present conflict in the course of their work on related questions. At the moment, some accounts of Florentine society and institutions are so utterly contradictory that one can be forgiven for sometimes won­ dering whether historians are talking about the same rather small city. While, to take one example, Goldthwaite's "detached and autonomous" Florentine businessmen in­ habit an uneasy world where "the encrustations of a 5 See, for example, G. Scipione Scipioni, "Affetti di FamigIia nel Quat­ trocento," Preludio, 5 (1881), pp. 121-126; V. Lugli, I Trattatisti della jamiglia nel Quattrocento (Bologna-Modena, 1909); N. Tamassia, La jamiglia italiana nei secoli XV e XVI (Milan, 1910). e P. Santini, "Societa delle Torri in Firenze," A S I , ser. iv, xx (1887), 25-58, 178-204; N. Ottokar, Il Comune di Firenze alia fine del Dugento, 2nd ed. (Turin, 1962); F. Niccolai, I Consorzi Nobiliari ed il Comune nell'Alta e Media Italia (Bologna, 1940); C. Bee, Les marchands ecrivains a Florence, 13^5-1434 (Paris, 1967); G. A. Brucker, Florentine Politics and Society, 1343-1378 (Princeton, 1962). More recently, how­ ever, Brucker has found considerable "fragmentation" of the family in the Quattrocento (Renaissance Florence [New York, 1969], pp. 98, 113114, 264-265).

INTRODUCTION

corporate society had fallen away,"7 Nicolai Rubinstein's politicians belong to an almost cosy Medicean oligarchy of big families which manipulated traditional institutions that assumed the existence, at the very heart of the political system, of lineages (consorterie) whose members had many common interests. 8 An appeal to Florentine kinship terminology at first further obscures, but ultimately clarifies, this difficult issue. In the fifteenth century the word famiglia was used to refer to several family institutions. Alberti's book, Delia Fa­ miglia, most of which was written in the early 1430s, dis­ cusses two distinct sorts of family—a small domestic group (the "children, wife and servants") 9 and the casa or house, 10 which included all men with the writer's proud surname. The first two books of the treatise are principally con­ cerned with this larger family, the third is devoted to household economy and management. Florentine usage confirms that Alberti's double definition of famiglia was not eccentric. In tax reports and many other records, a household was usually referred to as a famiglia or a brigata (company), and the Republic's legislation also recognized the existence of small family groups. 11 It is however simply not true to say that the "legal definition of the family . . . [was] essentially a man's immediate family." 12 The family was defined more or less widely as particular legislation required; the largest familial institution mentioned in 7 Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, p. 261. 8 The Government of Florence under the Medici, 1434-1494 (Oxford, 1966). ® Opere Volgari, ed. C. Grayson (Bari, i960), 1, 186. Alberti's phrase "E figliuoli, la moglie, e gli altri domestic!, famigli, servi" is translated too freely as "children, wife and other members of the household, both relatives and servants" in R. N. Watkins, The Family in Renaissance Florence (Columbia, South Carolina, 1969), p. 180. 10 Grayson, Opere Volgari, p. 10. 11 There is a good discussion of Florentine kinship terminology in Berner, "Florentine Patriciate," Appendix 1. 12 Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, p. 258; his source for the statement (E. Besta's La famiglia nella storia del diritto italiano [Padua, 1933], p. 32) does not in fact say this.

INTRODUCTION

statutes was the consorteria or domus (house)—in Italian it was called variously the casa, schiatta, stirpe, nazione, casato, progenia, and, of course, the famiglia itself. 13 English-speaking writers often call it the "clan," though clans precisely defined are usually larger and more fluid in character than were the Florentine houses. The word consorteria, commonly found in Florentine documents from the eleventh century onward, has been much misunderstood, especially by non-Italian historians. It had several senses but its primary meaning is clear; a consorteria was a group of kinsmen tracing descent in the male line from a common ancestor. A statute of 1415 defined the men of a consorteria (the consortes) as those who "sint de eadem stirpe per lineam masculinam, etiam spurios, usque in infinitum." 14 Donato Velluti, writing in the 1360s, described his own and another branch of the Velluti as "consorti and of the same house." 15 In technical language the Florentine consorteria was therefore a patri­ lineal lineage—Florentines themselves sometimes used the words Iignaggio le (lineage) and agnatio 17 (agnatic kin 13 Very occasionally, words such as casa and stirpe describe only part of a patrilineage. For casa used in this sense, see Giovanni RucelIai ed il suo Zibaldone, I, "II Zibaldone Quaresimale," ed. A. Perosa (London, i960), p. 145. Stirpe is used ambiguously (or at least with a dual meaning) in the following sentence: "Richordo a tutti quegli che ucjranno della stirpe di Piero di Bancho di Fruoxino di Cjecje da Verazano e di tutta la stirpe gieneralmente da Verazano. . . " (in R. Ridolfi, Gli Archivi delle Famiglie Florentine [Florence, 1934], 1, 51)· Statuta Populi et Communis Florentiae (Friburgi, 1778-83), 1, 162; cf. the earlier definition of coniunctos as those who "sint de eadem stirpe per lineam masculinam" in Statute del Podesta dell'anno /525, ed. R. Caggese (Florence, 1921), p. 167. For consorto meaning "neighbor with a common wall," see chap. 3 below. 15 La Cronica Domestica, ed. I. del Lungo and G. Volpi (Florence, igi4), p. 5. By the late fifteenth century, consorte for "spouse" had also made its appearance (see letters published by P. Gauthiez, "Nuovi Documenti intorno a Giovanni de' Medici detto Delle Bande Nere," ASI, ser. v, xxx [1902], 105, 335). 16 R. Malispini, Storia Fiorentina dall'edificazione di Firenze fino al 1282 (Leghorn, 1830), 1, 139. 17 See a document of 1361 printed in H. Wills, Florentine Heraldry

INTRODUCTION

group) to describe it. Unlike the Genoese alberghi which often were quasi-familial associations, Florentine consorterie almost always claimed to be patrilineal descent groups and in most cases were. 18 A few lineages of the fifteenth century were perhaps not originally of one stock (their ancestors having joined together in earlier days by treaty), but in 1452 it was still considered reasonable to dissolve such a union on the grounds that the two families were not of the same blood. 19 Very infrequently one reads of outsiders being admitted formally to a Florentine consorteria, as when two men and their descendants were received into the Borromei family in 1457.20 It was natural that the primary meanings of consorteria and consorti should sometimes spill over into others. Dante uses the word consorto to mean both kinsman and com­ panion, 21 and clearly the second sense takes its power and symbolism from the first. Similarly, the word consorteria was occasionally used for a political alliance, 22 presumably (London, 1900), p. 201. One of the few well-informed discussions of Florentine consorterie is M. Tabarrini, "Le Consorterie nella storia fiorentina del Medio Evo," La Vita Italiana nel Trecento (Milan, 1892), i, 145-187. On lineages in general, see M. Fortes, "The Structure of Unilineal Descent Groups," American Anthropologist, 55 (1953), pp. 17-41. isTo ensure its survival in the third quarter of the fourteenth century, the Martelli family traced descent through the sister of its founder: L. Martines, "La Famiglia Martelli e un documento sulla vigilia del ritorno tlall'esilio di Cosimo de' Medici (1434)," /4S/, cxviii (1959), 32. On the alberghi of Genoa, see J. Heers, Genes au XV Siecle (Paris, 1961), pp. 564-576. 19 See chap. 4 below; cf. R. Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, trans. E. Dupre-Theseider (Florence, 1962), v, 393, 400. 20 Ν. A., L 189 (Ser Ludovico di Ser Angiolo da Terra Nuova, 1451-66), fol. i42r v: I owe this reference to Dr. Robert Black. 21 The precise references may be found in A Concordance to the Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, ed. E. H. Wilkins and J. G. Bergin (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), p. 120; Concordanza delle Opere Italiane in Prosa e del Canzoniere di Dante Alighieri, ed. E. S. Sheldon and A. C. White (Oxford, 1905), p. 134. 22 Brucker notes two examples in 1378: Florentine Politics and Society, p. 372; "The Ciompi Revolution," Florentine Studies, ed. N. Rubinstein (London, 1968), p. 346.

INTRODUCTION

because the language of kinship was an almost instinctive shorthand with which to describe other close relationships: from this fact much of the confusion about its meaning has come. To equate the consorteria with a "cabal" or with a "tower society" 23 is a basic and common misunderstanding of this sort. Tower societies were sworn associations for mutual protection made by some members of the magnate class in medieval Florence; sometimes they consisted of only one family, but most frequently they were a combina­ tion of individuals and families. Although imbued with a familial spirit, they were not patrilineages and no surviv­ ing Florentine society pact uses the word consors of an associate or consorteria of itself. 24 To be sure, one midfourteenth century agreement between several families (similar to a tower pact though the society had no tower!) uses the language of consortial kinship metaphorically to explain how united the associates should be: this wellknown document, which also reminds one of the pacts sworn by secret pressure groups (intelligenze) in the Medicean period, suggests the possibility that intelligenze should be seen as the direct descendants of the ancient tower societies. 25 Both institutions were groups of men who elected officials and swore fraternal friendship for political purposes: 2(5 they served a similar function in a changed 23 See, respectively, Martines, Social World, pp. 219, 229, and Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, p. 252. 24 See the statutes published by P. Santini, Documenti dell'antica costituzione del Comune di Firenze ("Documenti di Storia Italiana") (Florence, 1895), x, parte 1, 517-539; cf. Santini's "Societa delle Torri in Firenze." Notably, Davidsohn distinguished between consorterie and tower societies in his Storia di Firenze, v, 393-402. Elsewhere in Italy, of course, quasi-familial societies were called consorterie. 25 This undated constitution, published by C. Guasti, Le Carte Strozziane del R. Archivio di Stato di Firenze—Inventario (Florence, 1884), i, g8-ioo, has now been translated by G. Brucker, The Society of Renaissance Florence: A Documentary Study (New York, 1971), pp. 84-86. 26 On intelligenze and sottoscrizioni, see Rubinstein, Government of Florence, pp. 27, 100, 118-119, 135, 150, 156-158, 163, 165, 173, 217-218, 226; "Politics and Constitution in Florence at the end of the Fifteenth

INTRODUCTION

society. If this hypothesis is correct, then it is all the more certain that in Florence the tower societies and consorterie were distinct (if often overlapping) institutions with dif­ ferent histories. For the one erroneous equation can lead to another. The tower societies (and most towers) were swept away by puni­ tive communal legislation during the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, and their eclipse has often been seen as synonymous with the decline of the consorteria itself. 27 A closely related confusion is that which assumes that only magnate families were consorterie, that the popular com­ munal legislation which systematically sought, from the late thirteenth century onward, to break down the great noble families and tower societies also destroyed the con­ sorteria itself and quelled all but vestiges of its fiery "medieval" ethos. 28 But as a generation of research has shown, the anti-magnate laws in Florence and elsewhere were designed to divide and to crush a particular group of powerful families: many of the men who framed that legislation, and assumed the magnates' places in govern­ ment and society, were also organized into consorterie, those family blocks which Ottokar described in his classic Il Comune di Firenze alia fine del Dugento. Indeed, as this study will show, the word consorteria and its many synonyms con­ tinued to be used as much in the fifteenth century as earlier, not just in conservative legal documents but in letters, Century," Italian Renaissance Studies, ed. E. F. Jacob (London, i960), pp. 168-169, '7 2 · For the text of a fifteenth century pact, see A. Sapori, "Cosimo de' Medici e un 'Patto Giurato' a Firenze nel 1449," Eventail de I'histoire vivante—Hommage a Lucien Febvre (Paris, 1953), 2, pp. 115-13¾: the signatories swore caritativa fraternita and elected "alchuni uficiali ο ricordatori ο ordinatori" (p. 125). 2 7 Μ. Β. Becker in effect makes this equation in much of his work. Among his many important studies, see "A Study in Political Failure: The Florentine Magnates (1280-1343)," Medieval Studies, xxvir (1965), 265, 270-271, 307; "Economic Change and the Emerging Florentine State," Studies in the Renaissance, X H i (1966), 21-23; Florence in Transi­ tion (Baltimore, 1967), 1, 205-213, 224-225, 231. 28 Lugli, Trattatisti della famiglia, pp. 4, 7. 8, 23, 90.

INTRODUCTION

chronicles, wills, tax reports, and notarial acts. Unless these ubiquitous words meaning lineage were "fossils" of past social history, they must be presumed still to have had some concrete institutional meaning. Historians who argue that the Florentine "clan" was in decline in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries have largely ignored or misinterpreted the coexistence in that period of words which refer, in precise contexts, to both large and small family groups. They have done so, one suspects, not just because of the confusions above referred to, but also because in their view the "clan" and the small domestic unit were inevitably antagonistic family institu­ tions, representing distinct historical eras, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. (Historians of this persuasion have sometimes contrasted the "feudal" clan with the smaller Renaissance "bourgeois" family.) 29 With his usual suc­ cinctness, Goldthwaite has written of the Florentine clan as undergoing a "process of fission, which at the same time reduced the size of individual units." 30 Behind this account of late medieval family structure and change lies a socio­ logical assumption, commonly held by nineteenth century historians, that historically smaller families have always evolved from ancient collective groups. This influential theory, which was central to Marc Bloch's conception of medieval kinship in Feudal Society, has recently come under criticism by students of family structure: the social anthro­ pologist Jack Goody has called it "the myth of the extended 'family' as some sort of undifferentiated commune," and has reminded us that "all societies with more inclusive pat­ terns of kinship also have, at the turning centre of their world, smaller domestic groups. . "the fact that the 'family' or 'household' is always small does not say any29 I b i d . , pp. iff.; Tamassia, La famiglia italiana, pp. iogff. This idea is central to Philippe Aries' very influential Centuries of Childhood (Penguin ed., Harmondsworth, 1973) and to J. Gaudemet, Les communautes jamiliales (Paris, 1963). 30 Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, p. 34.

INTRODUCTION

thing about the importance attached to kinship ties in a more general sense." 31 Certainly some historians of Florence have seen the city's medieval clans as "undifferentiated communes," as huge and monolithic collections of men enjoying an ex­ tensive "sociability." It has been said, for example, that all kinsmen "lived under one roof," 32 though it would seem to have been literally impossible for the big lineages, con­ sisting of scores of men, mentioned by contemporary chroniclers to crowd into one of the narrow houses of the day, most of which had only a few rooms. 33 There is here a common failure to distinguish between a domestic group and a larger family institution. Only once does Goldthwaite give a concrete example of a medieval Florentine "extended family" of the sort which, in his view, was about to undergo pulverization, and his reference is in fact not to a clan • u J . Goody, "The Evolution of the Family," Household and Family in Past Time, ed. P. Laslett and R. Wall (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 104, 119. An important essay by a sociologist on the inadequacy of the traditional evolutionary approach to the complex problems of describ­ ing and measuring change in family structures is W. J. Goode's "The Theory and Measurement of Family Change," Indicators of Social Change, ed. Ε. H. Sheldon and W. E. Moore (New York, 1968), pp. 295-348. Full credit should go to R. Starn for his pertinent remarks on this theme in "Francesco Guicciardini and his Brothers," Renais­ sance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron, ed. A. Molho and J. A. Tedeschi (De Kalb, Illinois, 1971), p. 418. See now the very interest­ ing comparative study by R. Wheaton, "Family and Kinship in West­ ern Europe: The Problem of the Joint Family Household," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 5 (1975), pp. 601-628. 32 Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, p. 252, but cf. p. 258, and his "The Florentine Palace as Domestic Architecture," American Historical Re­ view, 77 (1972), pp. 977-1,012. See too Becker's statement that "With the break-up of the consorteria separate households were estab­ lished. . ." in "An essay on the quest for identity in the early Italian Renaissance," Florilegium Historiale: Essays presented to Wallace K. Ferguson, ed. J. G. Rowe and W. H. Stockdale (Toronto, 1971), p. 307. 33 A. Schiaparelli, La casa fiorentina e i suoi arredi net secoli XIV e XV (Florence, 1908), 1, 5. On the size of medieval Florentine houses see too the excellent unpublished doctoral dissertation of I. Hyman, "Fifteenth Century Florentine Studies: The Palazzo Medici: and a Ledger for the Church of San Lorenzo (New York University, 1968), pp. r,ff

11

INTRODUCTION

but to a very large fraternal joint-family (several brothers living together with their wives and children) of the Peruzzi lineage. 34 It seems, therefore, that that kin group was even then divided into separate households, for all that its medieval dwellings were larger and more compact than those of most other families: and fraternal joint-families were not by any means unknown in the fifteenth century, as this study will show. An incident in Velluti family history has also been cited by Goldthwaite as a late thirteenth century example of "the unity of a mercantile family in a matter of a vendetta"; 35 yet Donato Velluti's chronicle also reveals that even in this period of admitted clan solidarity, the ancestral fraternal household of the Velluti had broken up for the very prac­ tical reason that the brothers found their "possessions and families increasing." 36 For some historians, however, the very existence of separate households and branches, of laws governing the division of family property or of political disputes between kinsmen, provides evidence of the actual or impending dissolution of large families. They ask, one suspects, more clannishness of clans than many social anthropologists would dare. 37 And it must also be remem­ bered that not much is known about the Florentine family in the early communal era, and such documentation as exists, though it could be more systematically exploited, will probably always be inadequate for a complete study of its structure; since this is the case, it seems unwise to put too much faith in a description of family change, the start­ ing point of which has not been (and perhaps cannot be) precisely defined. However, in his short essay on "Family 34 Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, p. 253, n. 34: the structure of this family is made clear in Goldthwaite's source, S. L. Peruzzi, Storia del Commercio e dei Banchieri di Firenze (Florence, 1868), p. 366. 35 Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, p. 253, n. 34. '•i!< Cronica Domestica, pp. 5-7. »" Other societies in which lineages are central to the kinship system accept as inevitable segmentation within the corporate group: Fortes, "Structure of Unilineal Descent Groups," p. 31.

12

INTRODUCTION

Solidarity in Medieval Italian History," David HerIihy has begun the task of critically reexamining what he has called the "theory of progressive nuclearization": his latest studies (and those of his French collaborators) based on fifteenth century Tuscan tax records, have impressively demonstrated the multiplicity and elasticity of household structures in both town and country. 38 Recent studies of kinship struc­ ture in medieval France and Germany similarly reveal a complex and changing situation which increasingly cannot be described in the terms used by Marc Bloch; and Jacques Heers' very recent summary of this rapidly growing field of research indeed suggests the persistence into the Renais­ sance period of powerful agnatic clans familiaux. 39 However the Florentine aristocratic family had devel­ oped, it was not, this book will argue, during the fifteenth century the isolated nuclear-conjugal unit (newly seceded from a completely corporate clan) which a long line of historians has described. Historians do not have to resort to Goody's theoretical essay, "The Evolution of the Family," 40 however salutory it may be to do so, to recognize that it was possible for Renaissance Florentines, like many other peo­ ples, to see household and lineage not as opposite ends in a tug of war to the death, but as two complementary family 38 Explorations in Economic History, 7 (1969), pp. 173-184. See too the discussion in chap. 1 below. 39 There is a summary in Heers, L'occident aux XlV e et XV siecles: aspects economiques et sociaux (Paris, 1970), pp. 326-333; but see now above all his Le clan familial au moyen dge (Paris, 1974), which with insight and imagination puts together much recent research, and sug­ gests new lines of investigation. It is rather ironical, since the present study independently confirms so many of his hypotheses, that Heers sees Florence as a partial exception to his central thesis that late medieval and Renaissance European cities knew "de groupes sociaux de caractere familial" which "font davantage penser a une tribu qu'a une simple famille, meme a une famille etendue" (p. 261). The same might be said of the recent and very valuable article by D. O. Hughes ("Urban Growth and Family Structure in Medieval Genoa," Past and Present, 66 [1975], pp. 3-28) whose conclusions are in many respects similar to my own, despite the obvious differences between the two cities. * 0 See n. 31 above. 1S

INTRODUCTION

institutions, each with its own function, each owed an ap­ propriate loyalty. The death of his distant cousin Benedetto Strozzi, wrote Alessandra Strozzi to her son Matteo in September 1458, "is a very grievous blow, firstly to his house­ hold, then to us and to all the House; for everybody had recourse to him and the death of no one else in the House could be so great a loss." 41 In his Delia vita civile, Matteo Palmieri gave essentially the same account of the relation­ ship between the parts of a family. He believed that sons should be loved, and then "grandsons, and anyone else born of our blood; among these 1 include first of all every­ body in the household [casa] and then the stocks, lineages, and huge families [le schiatte, Ie consorterie, e copiose famiglie] which must develop as its numbers overflow." J2 Both statements define the consorteria or house from the inside, as it were, by starting with the household, but both then go on to recognize several wider family groups. Bene­ detto Strozzi's death will affect his immediate family most of all, but Alessandra's branch (and all of the Strozzi) will also feel the shock. Palmieri's words treat the relationship between the household and the consorteria historically, they show how it is that a whole "clan" develops from one family as time passes, but also why at any one point in time a man's household must be the first focus of his energies. If we take the hints contained in these passages, we should ask other questions about family structure, and changes in family institutions, than those that have been traditionally raised. Accordingly, this study begins with the household: it attempts, principally from the splendid taxation records produced by the Florentine Republic in the fifteenth century, to describe the types of domestic unit in which some Florentines lived, and to trace the 41 Alessandra Macinghi negli Strozzi, Lettere di una Gentildonna Fiorentina del secolo XV, ed. C. Guasti (Florence, 1877), p. 137; cf. Messer Lapo da Castiglionchio, Epistola ο sia ragionamento, ed. L. Mehus (Bologna, 1753), where Messer Francesco da Castiglionchio wrote in 1381 that his uncle's death "sia gran mia dissoluzione, e dello stato mio, e di tutti quanti quelli di Casa nostra. . ." (p. 158). 12 Ed. F. Battaglia (Bologna, 1944), p. 136; cf. p. 122.

INTRODUCTION

inevitable development of one form into another. A larger variety of evidence is available—letters, electoral records, wills, and other private papers—from which one can go on to draw a picture of the household as a functioning institution. The last half of the book is devoted to estab­ lishing what ties held paternally related households together, and to determining under what circumstances these bonds were weakened or snapped. It is only this sort of investigation which will enable us even to begin to say whether the consorteria in Renaissance Florence was alive, ailing, or dead. Peter Laslett has written recently that "the evidence for the study of kin relationships outside co­ resident domestic groups in past time does not yet exist for England, nor in any complete form for any other coun­ try known to me," 43 but in fact the archives of Florence do contain precious and varied (if in no way "complete") evidence with which to begin to confront this central prob­ lem of the study of family structure. The private papers of the period, and the public records concerning taxation and politics, are numerous enough to provide specific information on the economic, political, and ritual rela­ tionships enjoyed (or ignored) by paternal kinsmen for several successive generations. This time span permits an enviably long perspective on family history.

The upper class of Medicean Florence numbered several hundred lineages 44 of which we shall become acquainted with only three—the Capponi, Rucellai, and Ginori. Clearly this fact must make the conclusions reached here tentative. All the same, scores of prominent households, and literally hundreds of men, make up this tiny "sample," and there is no reason to believe that the three consorterie were -ts Household and Family in Past Time, p. i. See now D. O. Hughes, "Toward Historical Ethnography: Notarial Records and Family History in the Middle Ages," Historical Methods Newsletter, η (1974), pp. 6171, which is a splendid corrective to Laslett's pessimism. 44 Cf. D. V. Kent's study "The Florentine 'Reggimento' in the Fif­ teenth Century," Renaissance Quarterly, xxvm (1975), 575-638.

INTRODUCTION

atypical of their class and time, save perhaps in the profu­ sion of evidence, particularly of a private kind, which they have left to us. Like the majority of Florentine ottimati, most of their men came to terms with the successive Medicean regimes, though in diverse spirits and with some notable lapses; none of the three families went through the testing experience of exile or dispersal. 45 All three were popular families (popolani) which combined, in the charac­ teristic Florentine manner, economic interests in land with mercantile and banking activities; within their ranks were the usual disparities of wealth and prestige to which recent research has drawn attention. There is, however, a spicy variety even within this tiny selection. Each family came from a distinct part of Florence, a social, political, and psychological fact which would have seemed important to Florentines and ought not to be lost on us. The Rucellai lived in the district of the Red Lion in the quarter of Santa Maria Novella, the Ginori came from the Golden Lion district of San Giovanni, and the Capponi were resident in several districts of Santo Spirito, the quarter which lay south of the Arno. The Rucellai and Capponi were of com­ parable antiquity, each being a thirteenth century family of the sort that was active—along with the Medici, Guicciardini, and scores of others with equally celebrated names —in the popular movement against the magnates at the end of that century; these popolani grassi went on to be­ come the established oligarchy of later times. By com­ parison, the first Ginori were parvenu notaries in the midfourteenth century and provide us with the welcome opportunity to study the structure and behavior of a typical family of successful new men (gente nuova). ie This -|5 Miss Heather Gregory, a postgraduate student at Monash Uni­ versity, is currently working on a study of the family relationships and values of the exiled Strozzi as revealed in their many letters preserved in Ferrara and Florence. 4 6 P. Ginori Conti's La Basilica di S. Lorenzo di Firenze e la famiglia Ginori (Florence, 1940), is an informed but not very critical history of the Ginori; the fundamental genealogy is L. Passerini, Genealogia e

INTRODUCTION

group has figured so prominently in recent discussions of fourteenth century history, only to be neglected or dis­ missed in the next, that a follow-up study is called for, especially as it has been suggested that newer families may have had looser structures than older ones.47 The three lineages varied considerably in size, despite a roughly uniform increase in numbers as the fifteenth century went on: the Ginori had six households in 1427, the Capponi twelve, and the Rucellai no less than twenty-six. To Floren­ tine eyes each would have seemed, in this and other ways, distinct enough, and indeed each had its own traditions, problems, and histories. Thus, to concentrate on the Rucellai, Capponi, and Ginori may not mislead us seriously about the nature of the tangled webs of kinship which were spun by Renaissance Florentines of their class. Storia della Famiglia Ginori (Florence, 1876). For the Rucellai there is the same writer's Genealogia e Storia della Famiglia Rucellai (Florence, 1861). A Capponi genealogy is available in P. Litta, Famiglie celebri italiane (Milan, 1870-71), x. A. Pieraccini gives a much shorter version in "La famiglia Capponi di Firenze," Giornale Araldico— Genealogieo—Diplomatieo, ix (1882), 249-259. Chapter 6 of Goldthwaite's Private Wealth is a careful study of the most famous of the many Capponi branches. A manuscript recently acquired by the Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence, Monumenti della Nobile Famiglia Capponi esistenti in Roma ed in Firenze (1823), is attractively illus­ trated and contains a brief history of the family. Otherwise, there are no accounts of the three families, save very brief ones available in such works as the Enciclopedia Italiana, V. Spreti, Enciclopedia Storico—Nobiliare Italiana (Milan, 1928-32), and E. Gamurrini, Istoria Genealogica delle famiglie nobili Toscane et Umbre (Florence, 166885)4 7 I . Origo, The Merchant of Prato (London, 1959), p. 179. On the gente nuova of the fourteenth century, see Brucker, Florentine Politics and Society, espec. pp. 40-48; also two papers by Μ. B. Becker, "An Essay on the 'Novi Cives' and Florentine Politics, 1343-1382," Medieval Studies, XXiv (1962), 35-82, and "Florentine 'Libertas': Political In­ dependents and 'Novi Cives,' 1372-1378," Traditio, xvm (1962), 393407. Rubinstein's Government of Florence contains much information on the continuing political role of gente nuova in the Quattrocento, as does Dale V. Kent's forthcoming book on the rise of Cosimo de' Medici and his party.

1V

PART ONE

THE HOUSEHOLD AND THE "NEAREST KINSMEN''

CHAPTER ONE

HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE AND THE DEVELOPMENTAL CYCLE

U

N T I L quite recently, historians of Renaissance Flor­

ence have known little about the structure and history of the upper-class household of that society, and what was known has been the subject of serious disagreement—while for the Marchesa Origo a Renaissance household might in­ clude "aunts and uncles and cousins and cousins' children, down to the most remote ties of blood," 1 for Richard Goldthwaite it was usually "the smallest possible group." 2 Such a contradiction is possible, in part, because it is extremely difficult to distinguish households (and to describe their structure in detail) before the introduction of the tax known as the catasto in 1427, and as a result there is no agreed way of defining and measuring changes in the nature of households between the two periods. The computerized studies of the Tuscan catasti by a team of American and French demographic historians, notably David Herlihy and Christiane Klapisch, have now shown that both of these accounts are misleadingly oversimplified: these historians have demonstrated convincingly that if average household size was everywhere small (a fact which might seem to support the "theory of progressive nucleariza­ tion"), 3 extended families of various sorts were common in the Tuscan countryside, and not unknown in the towns

1 The Merchant of Prato (London, 1959), p. 178. Other writers, more moderately, have suggested that fraternal families were quite typical in this period: cf., e.g., C. Fumagalli, Il diritto di jraterno nella giurisprudenza da Accursio alia eodifieazione (Turin, 1912), pp. 43, 112. 2 Private Wealth in Renaissance Florence: A Study of Four Families (Princeton, 1968), p. 258. 3 Herlihy's phrase in "Family Solidarity in Medieval Italian His­ tory," Explorations in Economic History, η (1969), p. 175. 21

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

and in Florence itself. 4 Moreover, they have ingeniously questioned their material to produce a clear account of the development of the domestic cycle: they have pointed out for late medieval Tuscany what social anthropologists have emphasized for some years, that the extended family and the simple family often represent not irreconcilable types of household, but different stages in the life cycle of a particular group of relatives. In the countryside, Klapisch and Demonet have ably demonstrated, agnatic extended families and fraternal households were central and ap­ proved peasant institutions, often the culmination of the domestic cycle. 5 If Herlihy's most recent work suggests that in Florence the situation was "strikingly different" because urban society was highly unstable and "strewn with truncated or incomplete families," he has been careful to observe that "within the richer strata of urban society, the household tended to be larger, more stable, and less variant in size during its developmental cycle." 6 i See, among other studies: D. Herlihy, "The Tuscan Town in the Quattrocento: A Demographic Profile," Medievalia et Humanistica, n.s., ι (1970), 81-109; D. Herlihy, "Mapping Households in Medieval Italy," The Catholic Historical Review, LVIII (1972), 1-24; C. Klapisch, "Fiscalite et demographie en Toscane (1427-1430)," Annates—Econ­ omies—Societes—Civilisations, xxiv (1969), 1,313-1,337; C. Klapisch, "Household and Family in Tuscany in 1427," Household and Family in Past Time, ed. P. Laslett and R. Wall (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 267281.

5 " Ά uno pane e uno vino': La famille rurale toscane au debut du XVe siecle," Annates—Economies—Societes—Civilisations, XXVH (1972), 873-901. In my "Ottimati Families in Florentine Politics and Society, 1427-1530: The Rucellai, Ginori and Capponi," unpublished doctoral thesis (University of London, 1971), pp. 68-85, 285-292, 391-404, I showed the existence of a domestic cycle in Florence. In general, see J. Goody, "The Evolution of the Family," in Laslett and Wall, House­ hold and Family in Past Time, pp. 103-124; W. J. Goode, "The Theory and Measurement of Family Change," Indicators of Social Change, ed. Ε. H. Sheldon and W. E. Moore (New York, 1968), pp. 328-329; R. Wheaton, "Family and Kinship in Western Europe: The Problem of the Joint Family Household," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 5 (!975). PP- 601-628. ""Mapping Households," pp. 12, 15. 22

STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

The present chapter, a study of the structure of the many households of the Rucellai, Capponi, and Ginori, is in substantial agreement with many of these recent conclu­ sions of the demographic historians. During the Quat­ trocento, the men and women of the three lineages typically lived in several types of household, some of which were extended, though most were not: there is unmistakable evidence that these varieties of household merged into one another as part of a natural developmental cycle. Domestic life was, however, more stable and more dominated by patriarchs than Herlihy has suggested: elders explicitly and often successfully encouraged the young to live in the extended households which were usually maintained by the wealthiest and more politically prominent of each lineage's branches. Such modifications and supplementations of the demo­ graphic conclusions are largely drawn from evidence not easily susceptible of quantitative analysis—from wills, com­ mon-place books, and other private papers. However, initially it is to the financial records that any historian must go for the detailed information with which to define households, and to analyze their structures. In order to be assessed for the catasto, family heads had to submit to the Commune periodic returns (portate) which included a list of all members of the household; the usefulness of this evidence, and its many ambiguities, have been carefully dis­ cussed for the first catasto of 1427 by Klapisch and need not be rehearsed here. 7 As she has shown, most problems of interpretation and definition can be overcome, even for studies of the sort which she has undertaken: one can be more confident still when dealing with only several 7 See the articles cited above in n. 5, which also provide important bibliography on the catasto as an historical source. See too D. Herlihy, "Problems of record linkages in Tuscan fiscal records of the fifteenth century," Identifying People in the Pasty ed. E. A. Wriglev (London, !973). PP- 41-56·

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN"

hundred tax reports, the contents of which, because they cover a fifty-year period, can be constantly checked against each other and against much other evidence. For our purposes, the central problem is to distinguish real households among the many tax reports, for each portata does not in fact always represent one domestic group. Occasionally, for example, two brothers might sub­ mit separate reports, but also (as careful reading shows) maintain a common household;8 more frequently, one portata disguises two (or even three) separate households which were still financially united.9 But about such anomalies the reports, and the official digests (campioni), are almost always precise and even forthcoming, if one has the patience to read and compare them thoroughly. The widow Caterina Rucellai did not constitute a separate household in 1427, though she submitted an account of her own patrimony, for her sons made it clear that Caterina "stays at home with us,"10 a statement with which she her­ self agreed, adding that "because we are cramped in the house I am about to buy a house beside ours."11 In 1480, when the sons of Vanni Rucellai, including Paolo the eldest of them, submitted a fraternal report, the others explained carefully that "he used to work for the Baroncelli in Rome: now he is unemployed in Rome."12 At the same time, their distant cousins, Carlo and Giovanni di Giuletto, disarmingly informed the tax officials that though Francesco their brother was included in their joint-report "we don't know where he is."13 Here a household is understood to be a group of kins8

See the example cited below, p. 31. 9 See the examples cited elsewhere in the chapter. A few portate simply report separate patrimonies. 10 Cat., 43, fol. 87o r : "Monna Chaterina nostra madre si sta in chasa con noi. . . ." 1 1 Ibid., 42, fol. 462 v : "ma per chagione che siamo stretti in chasa, sono per chonp[r]are una chasa allato alia nostra. . . ." 1 2 I b i d . , 1012, fol. 215': "istava a Roma cho' Baroncelli: [o]ra si sta a Roma sanza aviamento." i s I b i d . , 1011, fol. 260': "non sapiamo ove si sta."

STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

men living in the same house or in several houses which, in the manner of the time, were joined together to form in effect one dwelling: when the brothers Uguccione and Giovanni di Mico Capponi report in 1427 that they, their wives, and children owned "a house with a smaller one to one side, where they live with their families," 14 it is assumed that the two brothers constituted one household, even though their portata does not make clear what the precise domestic arrangements within might have been. It is quite possible that some extended families, whether they owned one or two houses, so organized living space that the dif­ ferent groups within the household lived relatively separate lives. But even if this was the case (and extended families living "communally" in other societies often provide separate quarters within a house for their component parts), 15 it is apparent that the members of a household who said that they were "living together" enjoyed a special sort of intimacy, although its precise nature defies definition —the care with which other domestic arrangements, such as a father setting up an adult but dependent son in a separate house, are usually described in the sources also points to this conclusion. 16 In what follows, therefore, we consider only the 194 domestic groups whose existence can be reconstructed from all the tax reports submitted by the Capponi, Ginori, and Rucellai in the years 1427, 1458, 1469, and 1480.17 The 1* Ibid.., 17, fol. 716': "una chasa con casetta dallato dove habitano con Ie Ioro famiglie. . . ." Since the brothers had five children each, it is unlikely that each nuclear family was able to live separately in two houses of different size: in 1451 (ibid., 688, fol. 3151), Uguccione also implied that the two houses could be used as one—he re­ ported "una chasa chon chasolare dalato per mia abitazione." is Goody, "The Evolution of the Family," espec. pp. io6ff.; F.L.K. Hsu, Under the Ancestors' Shadow, 2nd ed. (Stanford, 1971), pp. 54ft., 3178:. R. A. Goldthwaite, "The Florentine Palace as Domestic Architec­ ture," American Historical Review, 77 (1972), pp. 1,000-1,002, gives several Florentine examples of this practice. is See the several examples cited later in this chapter. i t The volumes examined are: Cat., 42-46, 76, 816-818, 919, 920, 1011-1013 (Rucellai); 50, 51, 78, 7g, 8ao, 822, 825, 826, 923, 924, 926,

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

three lineages varied greatly in size: in 1427 the Rucellai numbered twenty-six separate households, the Capponi twelve, and the Ginori, a "new" family of very modest antiquity, had only six. By any standards, the Rucellai were a huge house whose fertility was matched by a mere handful of great families, such as the Bardi, Strozzi, Altoviti, Medici, and the Albizzi, but all three grew as the century passed. In 1494, according to the chronicler Giovanni Cambi, 18 the Rucellai numbered sixty men and the Capponi thirty-five, and there is every reason to regard these figures as conservative. Fourteen years earlier the Rucellai had had twenty-eight separate households, the Capponi eighteen, and the Ginori ten. A good majority of these households had one or more men as their formal heads: the three families were patrilineages for whom descent traced through the male line had not only a ritual or emotional significance, but practical importance as the principle of domestic organization. When a woman filed a catasto report in her own name, it was usually because she was a widow: even so, a widow's household was often styled in such a way—for example "the heirs of Bartolo di Giovanni Rucellai" 19 —as to make its connections with a patrilineage quite clear. There were several types of household among the three lineages. Over the entire fifty-year period, slightly under one-half of the 194 households were nuclear or simple families, and another sixth consisted of persons living alone. The remaining one-third were households whose various io15-1019 (Ginori: some Ginori reports are published in P. Ginori Conti, La Basilica di San Lorenzo di Firenze e la famiglia Ginori [Florence, 1940], pp. 249-263); 17, 18, 24-26, 65, 67, 788-790, 795, 796, 834, 906, 908-910, 994-996, 998-1001: Archivio di Monte, CatastoDuplicati, 25, fol. Sr/ (Capponi). The years 1427, 1458, 1469, and 1480 have been chosen because the tax records of other years provide neither full lists of "mouths" nor a firm context in which to interpret them. mlstorie, in Delizie degli eruditi toscani, ed. Ildefonso di San Luigi, XXi (Florence, 1785), 28-29. 19 Cat., 817, fol. io64r v. Mona Cilia, aged thirty, was in fact the head of the house: her children were aged ten and seven.

STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

structures may be best described as complex or extended (see Table i).29 Ricordi, p. 36, contains Gino's command; Cat., 789, fol. 97', describes the house as "oggi per suo uso incorporato in tutto per una habitatione." ioo Ibid., 994, £ol. 3801". The present Capponi palace at this spot was built in the later sixteenth century: L. Ginori Lisci, I Palaizi di Firenze nella storia e nell'arte (Florence, 1972), 11, 743-747; the drawing of the "Dfomus) de Caponis" of circa 1470 is reproduced as Fig. 18 in i, 31. ι 0 1 M. P., LXXXIX, 35: this is headed, in a fifteenth century hand, "Copia. Nota di ricordi fatti per Gino di Neri Chapponi et scriti per Neri di Gino Chapponi e ora per Gino di Neri Chapponi suo figliuolo. . . ."

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

arose—in 1498 it was lived in by two separate households descended from Gino. 102 Later it was shared by the com­ munal household of Giuliano and Niccolo di Piero di Gino 1 and then Giuliano and his nephews, that huge menage which won Bernardo Segni's admiration. NiccoIo and Giuliano stayed together "always in one house and in a communal way" until the end of their lives, observed Segni (who was Niccolo's maternal nephew), even though his uncle had "a large family" and Giuliano "a wife and many children." 103 The two brothers were more than usually fond of each other, it is true, but their fraternal way of life does not require explanation in such terms. 104 It was the continuation of a long tradition of communal living which had been reinforced by ancestral injunction. In 1522 another Capponi descended from Gino followed his honored example. Cappone di Iacopo, whose grand­ father and father had lived communally, commanded in his will that his sons "should alienate nothing, nor should they divide, until their sisters have been married off," and the five brothers stayed together as requested. 105 So too in 1538 did three of Lodovico di Gino's four sons, who after his death kept with them in their father's mansion in Via de' Bardi "all their books and papers of their father and of their ancestors," a collection which might well have included Gino's maxims. 106 Two decades earlier, a Capponi of another branch, Lorenzo di Recco, had made a similar will, and again his commands were obeyed. ProbIO2 Dec. Rep., 4, fols. 2ogr, g8or. 103 "Vita di Niccolo Capponi," ed. C. Guasti, Le vite di uomini d'arme e d'affari (Florence, 1866), p. 219; cf. Dec. Gran., 3564, fol. g2 T . 104 See Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, p. 219, for this explanation. 10 5 Cappone's will is summarized in a contemporary hand in Con. Sopp., 83, 130, fol. io6 r : "non si possino alienare, ne si possino. . . dividere insino che non saranno allogate Ie sorella." For his sons in 1534, see Dec. Gran., 3569, fols. 4ooTff. 106 Archivio Capponi, Florence, "III: Acquisti di Beni da Lodovico e figli Capponi," fol. 65: "in detta casa debbino istare tutti e Ioro libri e scritture di Ioro padre et de' Ioro antichi." There are certainly several later copies of Gino's maxims in the private archive of the Capponi.

STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

ably Lorenzo's children did not get on well together (his will was designed "to do away with dissension among his sons and daughters and descendants"), 107

but

this was

perhaps not the case with their distant cousins and con­ temporaries Nicola and Bartolomeo d'Andrea: in April 1510 Nicola wrote to inform his uncle, Guglielmo Capponi, Bishop of Cortona, that "we are in agreement, Bartolomeo and I, over the matter of the house. . .that is to live and spend in common, each putting in half. . . . I am content, for the honor of the house and believing that I have com­ plied with Your Lordship's wish." 108 Some of these passages imply that young men at times had to be persuaded or even commanded to live together, especially when their father had died. It was partly owing to such pressure from elders that we find

fraternal families

prominent among the three lineages, but other sources reveal how willingly and painstakingly many men strove to keep families together. One of the most frequent causes of complete division of households was the lack of space in the narrow houses of the period (typically, Lorenzo di Gino Capponi reported to the tax officials in 1469 that his son Francesco lived apart from the grand-family to which he nominally belonged because "we are short of room owing to the large family [sic\ which my other sons have"), 109 but energetic adaptation of resources could put off the necessity if the will and means to do so were there. Three Rucellai brothers told the tax officials in 1480 107 Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 163 (7), fol. ir: "di levare quistione fra suoi figlioli e figliole e discendenti. . . ." It is evident from ibid., 155, fol. 72' and 163 (359), that Lorenzo's testament was honored. i d s B.R.F., Manoscritti Moreniani, 51. The letter itself is undated, but a note on the back shows that it was received in April 1510: "dell'essere uniti Bartolomeo et io nel caso della casa. . .c[i]oe, di vivere et spendere a chomune, participando ciasquno per meta. . . sono stato contento per l'onore della casa et per credere sattisfare alia voglia di Vostra S[ignoria]." i°9 Cat., 908, fol. 84': "tiene Francesco. . .per essere stretti d[i] chasa per la famiglia ghrande che anno gli altri mie figlioli una chasa a pigione posta in Via Maggio. . . ."

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

that they used for their communal dwelling a house "with another small house and a shop attached"; the last two buildings used to be rented out, but now they lived there "because we have to take wives."110 Niccolo di Giovanni Capponi reported in 1469 that he had improved his house by acquiring "a rinsing tank behind [it]; because of family necessity I have had most of it knocked down and built on for me to live in."111 "I took over the small house as a dwelling in 1466," wrote Mariotto Rucellai in 1480, when he was head of a grand-family of fourteen persons, "because my principal house wasn't big enough for the many chil­ dren I've had."112 If money was available, it was normal to buy more houses in order to keep a household together. Two of the wealthy sons of Cardinale Rucellai built up small complexes of houses at the point where Via della Vigna Nuova meets Via Tornabuoni. In 1458 Piero di Cardinale and his son Bernardo, who lived for decades in extended households, owned a house, various parts of which had been assembled by careful purchases,113 and Guglielmo di Cardinale, who had bought much property there between 1448 and 1455, lived in part of his new complex and rented out the rest.114 Each brother seems to have built up a palace from this jumble of houses and shops, because by 1498 their descendants implied that there were only two sub­ stantial houses at the spot.115 A similar but much more expensive strategy was to build another house: two men of the three lineages, Giovanni 110 I b i d . , 1012, fol. 362': "oggi l'abitiamo perche abiamo torrej?] donna." m I b i d . , 906, fol. 549': "[un] purgho dietro alia chasa. . .per nicista di chasa Γό gittato in buona parte in terra e murato per mia abitatione." u-tlbid., 1012, fol. 126': "la quale chasetta ttolsi per mio abitare l'anno 1466, perche non mi serviva la mia chasa principale per Ii asai figluoli ho auti." iis/feid., 817, fol. 305'. m I b i d . , fol. 56'. 115 Dec. Rep., 23, fols. 215', 498'. The present palace there, which still bears the Rucellai arms, was apparently built in the later six­ teenth century: Ginori Lisci, Palazzi, n, 207-209.

STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

Rucellai and Carlo di Lionardo Ginori, built entirely new palaces, both in the Renaissance style. Contemporary motives for palace building were mixed and complex— and Giovanni Rucellai at least would have been most driven by a desire to bring honor to himself and to his descendants by magnificent liberality116—but prominent among them was the desire to provide for the large families idealized by men like Rucellai (in his Zibaldone Quaresimale) and Ginori (in his will of 1523).117 (One of Luca Pitti's stated aims for pursuing his elaborate palace-building program was "necessity, because of the big family which by God's grace I abound in.")118 Since Giovanni's ancestral house had been too small for his brothers and him as early as 1433, naturally he needed a bigger one for his long-lived grand-family.119 Carlo's palace was not finished by the time of his death in 1527, but some years later it was lived in by a communal household consisting of three of his nephews (two brothers and their young first cousin).120 Alberti, more realistic than he is sometimes said to be, had foreseen that under some circumstances the numbers in a household might grow so large that one house would not hold them: in such cases, he wrote in Delia Famiglia, "let them at least arrange themselves under the shadow of a common will [assettinsi almeno sotto una ombra tutti d'un volere]."121 Interestingly, this advice precisely reflected On this subject, see below, pp. 284ff. Cf. below, pp. 144, 157. U 8Quoted in F. Morandini, "Palazzo Pitti: la sua costruzione e i successivi ingrandimenti," Commentari, xvi (1965), 44. 119 Cat., 460, fol. 493r". "e perche a noi era picholla chasa togliemo a pigione. . .una chasa alato ala nostra. . . ." 1S0See n. 52 above. 121 Grayson, Opere Volgari, p. 192. Watkins, The Family in Renais­ sance Florence, p. 186, translates this difficult passage as "let them all repose in the shadow of a single will," but perhaps better is G. A. Guarino's "let them at least be united in one will" (on p. 194 of The Albertis of Florence: Leon Battista Alberti's Delia Famiglia [Lewisburg, 1971]). The pseudo-Pandolfini recast the original as "let them at least divide in full agreement [partansi almanco d'un 117

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

a current if unusual Florentine practice. The aged Cardi­ nale RucelIai and his son Piero, for example, submitted a common tax report in 1437 and regarded themselves as one economic unit; yet father and son lived in separate houses, Cardinale with his wife and younger sons and Piero nearby with his wife and children. 122 Piero himself and his married son Bernardo continued this arrangement at least until 1451,123 but during that decade they appear quite literally to have moved closer together, because by 1458 Bernardo's house was described as "jumbled up [accozata]" with his father's, and both dwellings then had, exactly as Alberti and the pseudo-Pandolfini ideally prescribed, "a doorway in between [usicho in mezo]." 124 The descendants of Agnolo di Recco Capponi did not have a common door (their households lived in distinct though almost adjacent houses), but for two generations they maintained a similar pattern of domestic life because of cramped conditions in the ancestral house. 125 Lack of space cannot have been the only motive for some Florentines living "under the shadow of a common will" but in different houses. Communal liv­ ing in small houses must have created, in some individuals at least, a sense of emotional claustrophobia, even if overt quarrels and disputes, which are mentioned frequently enough in the sources, did not break out. Tension might be avoided, or relieved, if an elder son and his family were established next door; though Alberti had been averse to the duplication of basic household equipment, to set up separate medesimo volere]"—T r a t t a t o , p. 102—which resolved the ambiguity in Alberti's passage. 122 Cat., 42, fols. 465^469". 123/feifi., 707, fols. i22r_i25v. 124 I b i d . , 816, fol. 291r: "una chasa. . .nella quale chasa abita Piero di Cardinanale [sic] e Bernardo suo figluolo. . .e una chasetta accozata con detta, con usicho in mezo, dove abita Bernardo, che fu nel primo catasto acatestata al detto Piero overo Cardinale, Ie quale oggi tutte s'abitano e per Bernardo e per Piero con usichi in mezo, come si vede." 125 I b i d . , 795, fols. 448^4501'; 910, fol. 243r_v; Dec. Rep., 9, fol. 1137'.

STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

kitchens (as the sons of Paolo di Vanni Rucellai seem to have done in the 1450s), might also help to eliminate con­ flict.126 In several parts of his Zibaldone Quaresimale of 1457, Giovanni Rucellai shows himself keenly interested in rival Florentine theories about how fathers should treat adult sons. For him, and for the other Florentine men who read about household management and discipline in the pseudoPandolfini and similar works, these were not academic questions, and Rucellai did not write about them in any but an intensely practical spirit. Very significantly, Giovanni began his common-place book one year after his eldest son married: by 1458 he was at the head of the grand-family he was to rule until 1481, and the Zibaldone reflects both its author's preoccupation with the task of running an extended family, and with transmitting wisdom and family traditions to its members. Like some other family memorial­ ists, Giovanni had not known his own father:127 he wrote down his reflections so that no abyss of ignorance (such as he himself had perhaps had to face), should dismay and disadvantage his descendants were he suddenly to die. Giovanni Rucellai certainly believed in parental firmness, but on the whole he preferred the sweeter of the two cur­ rent doctrines on the father-son relationship; like his con­ temporaries Piero Guicciardini and Piero Vettori, whose treatment of their sons has been analyzed very sensitively by Randolph Starn128 and Rosemary Devonshire Jones,129 126 Cat., 816, fol. 279r: the brothers lived together in the same house but informed the tax officials in 1458 that "nel primo chatasto s'apigionava uno palcho di detta chasa, il quale έ piii di 6 anni che Vanni l'a ridotta a suo uso per chucina." On friction in a thoroughly extended family system, see E. Le Roy Ladurie, Les Paysans de Languedoc, short ed. (Paris, 1969), p. 58. 127 Herlihy's nice point in "Mapping Households," pp. 16-17, though X do not think his conclusion from it necessarily follows. 128 "Francesco Guicciardini and his Brothers," Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron, ed. A. Molho and J. A. Tedeschi (De Kalb, Illinois, 1971), pp. 412-416. 129 Francesco Vettori: Florentine Citizen and Medici Servant (Lon­ don, 1972), pp. 5-8.

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

his was a conception which emphasized the mutual love, not the majesty and awe, at the center of the bond. Giovanni summed up his attitude in the aphorism: "it is said that the greatest love there is is that of the father for his son."180 (Perhaps he had in mind a passage from Dante or Alberti, perhaps he had even read Ficino's very recent "Letter to his brothers," and was remembering some of its gentler passages.)131 Rucellai went on to tell how it had been known for a man to endure severe torture rather than disclose a secret, only to reveal it at once when his son was put to similar torment.132 In the chroniclers and letter writers of the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, there is an almost formalized father's lament for his dead son, which expresses this tender view of the relationship. We find it in Donato Velluti133 and in extenso in Giovanni Morelli,134 for example, and in Guido del Palagio's letters, where he writes of my "blessed, sole, and only-begotten son": there was in Florence no child "so reverent, nor more obedient, pure, and prudent; no one was more pleas­ ing to all who saw him."135 Conventional these statements were, but no less typical or sincere for that reason. To his private diary Cappone Capponi confided in 1476 that his recently dead son Agnolo "in intellect and manners sur­ passed everybody of his age":136 there is real pain in his first cousin's lament, four years later, that because one of 130 "Zibaldone," fol. 82v: "Diciesi che il maggiore amore che ssia e quello del padre verso il figliuolo." 131 Le Opere di Dante Alighieri, ed. E. Moore and revised by P. Toynbee, 5th ed. (Oxford, 1963), p. 218; Grayson, Opere Volgari, pp. 27-28; Kristeller, "Epistola," 1, 113. 132 "Zibaldone." fol. 82v. 133 La Cronica Domestica, ed. I. del Lungo and G. Volpi (Florence, l 9>4). PP- 3 10_ 3 1 3134 Ricordi, ed. V. Branca (Florence, 1956), pp. 475ff. 13^Lettere del Beato Don Giovanni dalle Celle monaco vallombrosano e d'altri, ed. B. Sorio (Rome, 1845), p. 40. 136 χ have not been able to find the original diary, but extensive extracts in a later hand may be found in B.N.F., Collezione Genealogica Passerini, 186 (81), fols. 28οΓ-287Γ: "et d'intelletto et costumi passava tutti quelli di sua eta" (fol. 28or).

STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

his sons had been for some time in a French prison the young man had "lost the bloom of his youth. . .many times in the last few years I have wished to have him back, even in his shirt-tails."137 The Zibaldone vividly described an ideal timetable for the development of the father-son relationship. Until eighteen a son should be "obedient and reverent" to his father: between eighteen and thirty he and his father should be in effect brothers, and the older should seek the younger's advice. After that, the father having become old, "he should want to become the son, and the son should take his father's place and should run everything while the father relaxes and doesn't put himself out."138 With his usual good sense, Giovanni Rucellai added that to be suc­ cessful this arrangement required that the sons were good men "with administrative ability and sound judgment,"139 but that this was a workable domestic timetable he and his sons themselves showed. They lived together until the old man's death in 1481, by which time Bernardo and Pandolfo were very important citizens in their own right: Bernardo's abundant correspondence with his brother-in-law Lorenzo de' Medici reveals that by the 1470s he was quite as dominant a household figure as his father.140 But the sons' love and reverence for the father were still strong. In 1481 they added a respectful ricordo about him to Giovanni's 137 Cat., 1001, fol. 45r: "a rimesso il fiore della sua eta. . .da piii anni in qua ό disiderato piii volte di poterlo ravere libero in chamicia." 138 "Zibaldone," fol. 36': "Io senti dire una volta da uno savio huomo che uno padre debba mettere ogni ingegno e diligentia che il figluolo per insino nell'eta d'anni diciotto gli sia ubidiente e riverente. E dipoi da anni diciotto per insino in anni trenta, debba volere il padre che il figluolo gli sia come fratello, e cosi trattarlo in qualunque cosa e consigliarsi con Iui delle sue faccende. E da anni trenta in su, perche ragionevolamente il padre sia vechio, debba volere diventar figluolo, e che il figluolo sia in luogo di padre e abbi il governo di tutto, e il padre si riposi e diesi pocha brigha." 13s Ibid., "Ma qui bisogna fare una chiosa, che questo s'intende de' buoni figluoli di buono ghoverno e di buona discretione." 140 For an analysis of these letters, see Kent, "Ottimati Families," pp. 201-215.

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

own Zibaldone: they had heard from many of the family elders that "none of their house had ever merited so much worthy praise and commendation,"141 and in 1484 we find Bernardo recommending an old friend of Giovanni's to Lorenzo the Magnificent on the grounds that "I wouldn't seem to be my father's son if I didn't do everything for him."142 A book of ricordanze kept by several generations of Capponi allows one to reconstruct the internal life of another extended household which followed Rucellai's model. Uguccione di Mico began his register in 1433. Until 4 October 1442 he wrote all the entries himself, duly recording his brother's death in 1436, his daughters' mar­ riages, and various patrimonial details; on that day his son Recco, who lived with his father, wrote his first entry, an announcement of his own marriage, and henceforth he continued to contribute, especially when his own children were born. Father and son were in domestic harness together. In 1445 the younger man acted as "agent for Uguccione my father" in the renting of a farm, and slowly his own entries began to outnumber his aged parent's: however, the old man's notes end only with his death (on 6 February 1455).143 This pattern of domestic authority, suggestive of Rucel­ lai's ideal timetable, shows that grand-families could be quite democratic, but no doubt each had to find its own modus vivendi. It is possible, for example, that Recco Capponi was himself a firmer patriarch than his father had been, for he continued the household register until 1488, by which time he had a flourishing grand-family, but kept the 141 "Zibaldone," fol. 66r: "faciano fede d'aver inteso da piu uomini antichi della famigla nostra de' Rucellai, che Ila chasa nostra non n'ebbe mai niuno che meritasse tante dengne lode e chommendazioni." 142 M. P., XLVIII, 257, 19 August 1484: "Io ancora non mi parebbe essere figluolo di mio padre se non facessi sempre per Iui ogni cosa, e pero te Io raccomando come me medesimo. . . ." Other letters in this ftlza (258, 261, 262) also concern Bernardo's patronage of his father's friend. 143 Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 153.

STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

book entirely in his own increasingly shaky hand, recording the births of his grandchildren quite as if they were his own. Very probably he was putting into practice the more austere theory on the father-son relationship to which Giovanni Rucellai refers in his Zibaldone. One Florentine he knew, explained Giovanni, believed that a father must keep his sons under his heel, and above all should never let them enjoy rights over property, because then sons forgot all obedient reverence.144 This stern doctrine was perhaps the more traditional one; it echoes statements made by the fourteenth century writers Paolo da Certaldo and Antonio Pucci145 and reflects the realities of a harsher period of Florentine history. But clearly it was still a currently ac­ ceptable view of the subject, for all that Giovanni himself thought that a man had no right to withhold property from sons.146 The fourteenth century law which empowered a father or grandfather, after consultation with the ap­ propriate authorities, to have an erring son or grandson im­ prisoned was still included in the statutes of 1415, and was not a dead letter;147 contemporary legists, such as Bartolus, argued that if a father's authority in the home, unlike a king's in the public sphere, was not political, judicial, or coercive in nature, it was still real enough in a moral sense that one might say under certain circumstances that tyranny 144

"Zibaldone," fol. 36'. Libro di buoni costumi, ed. A, Schiaffini (Florence, 1945), p. 242; K. McKenzie1 "Antonio Pucci on Old Age," Speculum, xv (1940), 164, 180-181, 184-185. Giovanni Cavalcanti much later admiringly quoted ancient and modern examples of paternal severity: The "Trattato Politico-Morale" oj Giovanni Cavalcanti, ed. M. T. Grendler (Geneva, 1 9 7 3 ) . pp· 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 · 146 "Zibaldone," fol. 82 r . Matteo Palmieri was so "modern" in the 1430s as to say that sons should only obey their fathers' more moderate requests: Delia vita civile, ed. F. Battaglia (Bologna, 1944), p. 47. I 4 T Statute del Capitano del Popolo degli anni 1322-1325, ed. R. Caggese (Florence, 1910), pp. 313-314; Statuta Populi et Communis Florentiae. . . (Friburgi, 1778-83), 1, 191. Cf. Brucker, Society of Renais­ sance Florence, p. 167, for an example of this law being invoked in 1463. 145

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN"

existed in a household.148 In Florentine documents there are frequent references to the formal paternal benediction given to good sons, and, occasionally, to the almost ritual indictment bitterly directed at reprobates.149 None of the Capponi fathers was tyrannical, so far as we know, but another group of them subscribed, like Recco, to the more traditional version of how father and son should behave together. Gino's Ricordi of 1421 were a solemn affirmation of the necessity and majesty of paternal authority, and elsewhere, in an undated poem addressed to "my sweet dear sons," the old statesman denounced them for fleeing from the city to the country because of an out­ break of plague. The country is for beasts not men, he wrote, and to this traditional Florentine prejudice added a weightier argument—his sons had gone without him, but "Where I am, there should you stay. And when it's time to flee, my sons, I will come with you."150 Paternal discipline was perhaps always very firm among these Capponi. Well over a century later Filippo di Niccolo Capponi, one of Gino's direct descendants, suggested that strife between fathers and sons was caused by differences in temperament and "humors." He recalled his own hot youthful nature, which had brought him into conflict with his father, and 1^8 G. Post, "Patria potestas, Regia Potestas and Rex Imperator," Explorations in Economic History, 7 (1969), pp. 187-192; E. Emerton, Humanism and Tyranny: Studies in the Italian Trecento, 2nd ed. (Gloucester, Mass., 1964), pp. 131-132. "9S. Morpurgo, "La Guerra degli Otto Santi e il Tumulto de' Ciompi nelle Ricordanze di Simone di Rinieri Peruzzi," Miscellanea Fiorentina di Erudizione e Storia, ed. I. del Badia, n, 13 (1887), 6-7; G. Niccolini di Camugliano, The Chronicles of a Florentine Family, 12001470 (London, 1933), pp. 81, 121. 150 Published and ascribed to Gino by J. Lami in Catalogus Codicum Manuscriptorum qui in Bibliotheca Riccardiana Florentiae adservantur. . . (Leghorn, 1756), p. 101, this poem has been accepted as genuine by I. Masetti Bencini, "Neri Capponi: note biografiche tratte da documenti," Rivista delle biblioteche e degli archivi, xvi (1905), "37. "· ··

STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT CYCLE

decided that Niccolo's suspicion and annoyance had been reasonable, his strong paternal discipline justifiable. 151 Florentine legislation took account of the fact that many citizens not only praised extended families, but were likely to spend at least one phase of their lives in them. In the Republic's statutes and provisions one often comes across references to a family group (sometimes called the "nearest kinsmen [proximi consorti]"), 152 which is notably as often synonymous with the outer circumference of the domestic circle as with its nuclear core. Fathers and adult sons, brothers, first cousins, uncles, grandfathers, and nephews (sometimes great-uncles, grandnephews, and first cousins once-removed), these were the paternal kinsmen assumed in Florentine legislation 153 to have almost identical in­ terests, presumably because their close relationships had, or might have, been forged in a shared and highly valued domestic life. A man's consorteria began outside this domestic (or what we might usefully if clumsily call "quasidomestic") group. When making peace in May 1406 with a family they had offended, two Rucellai brothers were said to be representing "themselves, their brothers, and their kinsmen [consortibus]." 154 Pandolfo di Giovanni Rucellai had probably never actually lived with his first cousin Ridolfo di Filippo (it is almost certain, however, that when the latter was orphaned, his uncle Giovanni had cared for him by settling him in a house next to his own), 155 but in 151 Libro intitolato Facile est inventis addere. . . (Venice, 1556), pp. 113^115 1 . 152 F. Morandini, "Statuti e Ordinamenti deH'Ufficio dei pupilli et adulti nel periodo della Repubblica fiorentina ( 1 3 8 8 - 1 5 3 4 ) , " ASI, CXIII (1955), 544.

153 For a few examples see ibid., pp. 529, 535; Statuto del Podesta dell'anno 13 2 5 , ed. R. Caggese (Florence, 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 5 9 ; Statuto del Capitano del Popolo, p. 1 1 5 ; L. Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft in Renaissance Florence (Princeton, 1968), pp. 32, 46. 154 Ν. A., C 187 (Ser Tommaso Carondini, 1406-08), fol. 44'. 1551 infer this from a close comparison of the following tax re­ ports: Cat., 920, fol. 8oor"v; 1012, fol. 272r"v; Dec. Rep., 23, fols. 334', 377'. However, see chap. 4, n. 59 below. 6l

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

his tax report of 1498 Pandolfo distinguished carefully be­ tween Ridolfo mio chugino and Adovardo di Carlo nostra chonsorto, who was a fourth cousin.156 A Strozzi in 1459 found it appropriate to describe his first cousin onceremoved as "our brother."157 Not only in law but in popular sentiment brothers, uncles, and first cousins shared in the same closed circle of consanguinity which some con­ temporaries thought had a distinct odor: Morelli mentions the "fragrance and highest love of the flesh."158 Sons were named not only after their grandfathers, but for uncles and brothers as well.159 Brothers should be "naturally" united, Ficino said, because they had the same source: the most precious gift sons can give their father is "fraternal harmony."160 His son's death, wrote Guido del Palagio to a friend in December 1388, had been closely followed by "two others, after him the closest and dearest that I have in the world: one was the brother of my father, the other my cousin—he and I were born of two brothers german."161 Such pietas, an active force in promoting communal liv­ ing in extended families, must also have reflected a more down-to-earth awareness of the advantages which a large, long-lived, and united household could command. The next chapter will show that the richest families of each of the three lineages were almost always to be found among those households with complex structures, though the converse was not always true. Fraternal families and grand-families not only pooled their wealth, but their political experience and resources as well—succession to high office very often lay through an apprenticeship in a long-lived and welldisciplined household. 156 Dec. Rep., 23, fols. 334% 335 r . 157 Alessandra Macinghi negli Strozzi, Lettere di una Genlildonna Fiorentina del secolo XV, ed. C. Guasti (Florence, 1 8 7 7 ) , p. 1 8 5 . 158 Ricordi, p. 2 8 5 ; cf. p. 1 8 2 and η. i, in which the editor gives other contemporary examples. 159 For one convenient example, ibid., p. 1 9 5 . 10° Kristeller, "Epistola," 1, 120. i 379. 382. I shall describe the two men's relationship in detail in my contribution to the second volume of Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone, to be published by the Warburg Institute. 162 Commento a una canzone di Francesco Petrarcha, ed. C. Gargiolli (Bologna, 1863), p. 36. 163 Donato Velluti, La Cronica Domestica, ed. I. del Lungo and G. Volpi (Florence, 1914), p. 64. ίο* See chap. 5 below.

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN"

holds or relatives. But because the domestic or quasidomestic group was an important (and in many respects primary) unit of a lineage, it was the first focus of family self-awareness, and its dead attracted from the living the most intense solicitude accorded kinsmen. Most of the sepulchral slabs, tombs, and chapels belong­ ing to the three lineages began as the commissions of one or two men: in the nature of things, however, a larger group of relations came to own (and use) them as genera­ tions passed. One can usually tell by its inscription whether one of the humbler memorials was intended to mark one man's body or the remains of a line: Guglielmo di Cardinale Rucellai inscribed his floor-tomb under the Rucellai pulpit in the church of Santa Maria Novella "The sepulcher of Guglielmo di Cardinale RuceIIai and his," while his distant ancestor Bartolo d'Ugolino simply had his own name and the date, July 1340, put upon his sepulchral slab in San Pancrazio, the second of his lineage's two favorite churches. Sometimes a man had constructed a memorial to his father, as did Gabriello di Piero Ginori in 1471 in the family church of San Lorenzo.165 Private chapels were very expensive to build and to endow, and those wealthy house­ holds who commissioned them almost always intended them to proclaim their present power and unity and to serve and unite their descendants. It was to be expected that a man so successful and enter­ prising as Giovanni Rucellai would build a chapel reflect­ ing "partly the honor of God and the honor of the city and the memory of me."166 It now seems extremely unlikely that Giovanni in fact sent an expedition to Jerusalem to discover the precise dimensions of the Holy Sepulcher as a model for his own tomb built in San Pancrazio some time between about 1457 and 1467,167 but that the project was very dear ies All three memorials (and many others) can still be seen. 166 perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, p. 121. 167 The only evidence for this story, which if not true may still strike connoisseurs of the Zibaldone as ben trovato, is a letter supposedly

'UNDER THE SHADOW

to him any reader of the Zibaldone will know. He had con­ ceived the idea as early as 1448,168 and when the chapel was finally finished he went to some pains to acquire a papal bull of indulgence and lovingly to detail the Masses which were to be said there.169 It was this austere chapel, with its ornate central sepulcher, which Benedetto Dei included among the many wonders that made of Laurentian Florence a "new Rome."170 Beside Giovanni's chapel in San Pancrazio the several sons of Filippo di Vanni Rucellai began, about 1465, to build another which they dedicated to St. Jerome and St. Dominic, who were presumably the name-saints of two of them. These two saints appear prominently with the Virgin and Child in a handsome altarpiece which was executed for the chapel by Filippino Lippi about 1485, the written by Giovanni (published in Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, p. 136); for doubts about its authenticity see my "The Letters Genuine and Spurious of Giovanni Rucellai," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXXVII (1974), 342-349. The most recent studies on the chapel are two by M. Dezzi Bardeschi, "Nuove ricerche sul S. Sepolcro nella Cappella Rucellai a Firenze," Marmo, 11 (1963), 135-161, and "II Complesso Monumentale di S. Pancrazio a Firenze ed il suo restauro (nuovi documenti)," Quaderni dell'lstituto di Storia dell' Architettura, ser. xm, 73-78 (1966), espec. 19-25: Dezzi Bardeschi believes that the "spedizione per Terra santa" probably took place. 168 M. Dezzi Bardeschi, La Facciata di Santa Maria Novella a Firenze (Collana di Rilievi Architettonici a cura dell'lstituto di Restauro dei Monumenti dell'Universita di Firenze) (Pisa, 1970), has published an entry dated 1440 from a book of the bankers' guild, which shows Giovanni's determination to build "una cappella con un sepolcro simile a quello di Chtisto Signor nostro che e in Hierusalem," though he had not decided whether it was to be in S. M. Novella or San Pancrazio (p. 21; cf. p. 10). The donation described in Arte del Cambio, 104, fol. i3v, is indeed dated 15 November 1440. But at fol. 17' of ibid., 105 (also a register of bequests to that guild), the date is clearly given as "MCCC quaranta et otto," as it is by Giovanni himself (Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, p. 25). I am very grateful to Miss Brenda Preyer for telling me about this confusion. 169 Ibid., pp. 24-26. Ι Ό Quoted in M. Pisani, Un avventuriero del Quattrocento: la vita e Ie opere di Benedetto Dei (Genoa, 1923), p. 91.

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN"

year of its consecration.171 By that date the chapel's patrons were the richest of all the Rucellai (Giovanni's fortunes having slumped dramatically in the previous decade), and until 1480 at least they had still lived in a big jointfamily.172 The successful completion of the brothers' chapel (on the floor of which, before the altar, was an inscription that placed the patrons first as Rucellai, then as a distinct subgroup), proclaimed not only their fraternal unity and prosperity, but also their intention of remaining together literally in the grave, and (hopefully) beyond it. The small Ginori family had three separate chapels in the new church of San Lorenzo. Probably the first to be completed was that of Zanobi di Ser Gino, the richest Ginori; in 1406 he made a will which instituted a choral chaplainship to celebrate divine service, and ordered his heirs to construct within ten years a chapel worth 700 gold florins.173 His sons had to report to the tax officials in 1427 that because of "expenses and their big tax burden they cannot do it yet,"174 but ten years later certain prop­ erties were allocated by the ward officials from the estate of Zanobi di Tommaso di Zanobi to provide money for his grandfather's chapel, which was probably finished by the 1450s, at which time Zanobi mentioned in several tax reports two houses previously assigned to pay the chaplain of the chapel of Zanobi Ginori.175 In 1437 another very prosperous Ginori left a similar 171 The most recent account is Dezzi Bardeschi, "II Complesso Monumentale di S. Pancrazio," pp. 25-26. 172 Cat., 1012, fols. 364^368*. The books of San Pancrazio have many entries which show the branch's continuing devotion to its chapel: in March 1505, for example, there is a note recording that Ubertino di Filippo's will of the year before provided for "tre messe all'altare di San Girolamo, chappella di decto Ubertino e degli altri sue frategli" (Con. Sopp., 88, 68, fol. 45'). 173 Ginori Conti, La Basilica, pp. 86-88. 174 Cat., 50, fol. 6iov: "per Ie spese e graveze Ioro grandi non possono ancora fare." 175 Ibid., 713, fol. 734v; 820, fol. 299'. Ginori Conti, La Basilica, pp. 86-87, gives a different account of the progress of this chapel, but he ignores the evidence of Cat., 713, fol. 734".

"UNDER THE SHADOW . . . "

bequest, for a chapel "now begun" and a chaplainship in San Lorenzo; but what became of Piero di Francesco's "chapel of St. Nicholas"176 is not clear in the available sources. Though in his will Piero several times calls it "the chapel of the Ginori," probably he intended it to belong in the first instance to his sons and descendants,177 and certainly a little later we find his only child, Francesco, committed to a chapel project which was to commemorate himself and his lineage's largest and longest surviving grand-family. Francesco bought an unfinished site in the new church of San Lorenzo from Piero de' Medici and in his will of 1488 assured the chapel's completion by naming his big townhouse as a guarantee, though the actual money was to come from land at San Stefano a Sommaia, and from the rent of a shop. The chapel, dedicated to St. Francis and St. Jerome, was perhaps completed by 1498. Under the terms of Francesco's will, it could never be alienated and "always should be and should remain under the name of the said Francesco di Ser Gino de' Ginori and of his descendants."178 Francesco's chapel commemorated forever the big household which he had ruled, but his richest grandson, Carlo di Lionardo, was not satisfied to be remem­ bered only as one of his grandfather's descendants. As his last testament shows, Carlo was in no sense lacking in grandfilial piety, but he, like many other Florentines, seems to have been unable to resist the impulse to try permanently to capture his own achievement, to commemorate his own fraternal household, by founding a chapel of his own. In 1520 he and his brother acquired a separate chapel in These phrases come from my only source for this chapel, Piero's will: Ν. A., C 475 (Ser Bartolomeo del Bambo Ciai1 1437-42), fols. 22 r -23 v .

"τ I infer this from the general terms of the will: probably, how­ ever, Piero wanted the chapel to belong to his lineage as a whole should his line die out, since he directed (ibid., fol. asy) that his kins­ men ("consortes masculos. . .per lineam masculinam") were to elect the chaplain when he had no direct descendants. 178 Published in Ginori Conti, La Basilica, pp. 274-275; cf. pp. 83-86. Dec. Rep., 26, fol. 417V, implies that the chapel existed in 1498.

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

San Lorenzo from Cardinal Giulio de' Medici, who ceded him the patronage of one which had belonged to the Masi family.179 In his will three years later, Carlo endowed the still uncompleted chapel with a chaplain, and with an income to provide for many Masses.180 Capponi private chapels, in all but one case, were also the special preserve of particularly successful households of that lineage. One of the best known of them is the chapel of Neri di Gino (in the church of Santo Spirito), which was constructed on the spot where Gino's body lay. In his will in 1450 Neri had commanded that there "should be made and built. . .a sepulcher under the name of the said Gino. . . and of his descendants," and asked his two brothers to collaborate with his son in arranging the details.181 The chapel had been begun by 1469, by which time Gino di Neri had spent half of the 500 florins which the heirs had voted for its execution.182 In his own will of 19 August 1485, Gino wished to be buried in the new sepulcher and com­ manded that his heirs put back there those "bones of his ancestors which can be found."183 Bernardo Rossellino had sculpted a fine marble sarcophagus bearing Neri's portrait in 1458, and it was understandable that in 1488 Neri's grandsons should ask the officials in charge of the rebuilding of Santo Spirito for permission "to break down the wall of their chapel, and to put on one side a bronze (or brass) grate so that one can see the arch of Neri's sepulcher."184 Presumably the chapel was essentially as we 179

Ginori Conti, La Basilica, pp. 88-90, 275-277. ATchivio Ginori Lisci, Florence, 11, 28, fol. 2*. Dec. Gran., 3631, fol. Iiy r , implies that this chapel existed by 1534. 1 Si Ed. Polidori in Cavalcanti, Istorie Florentine, 11, 435. 182 Cat., 906, fol. 382'. !83 Archivio Capponi, 67 (2), fol. 13'': "ossa suorum predecessorum que reperiri poterunt." j84 Con. Sopp., 128, 122, fol. g6 r : "ronpere il muro della Ioro chapella, e mettervi uno graticho Iato di bro[n]zzo overo d'ottone che si vedesse l'archa della sepoltura di Neri." It would appear that these Capponi were at this time putting the finishing touches on the chapel,

'UNDER THE SHADOW

know it now by 1496, when Piero was buried "in the same sepulcher which Gino his father and Neri his great-grand­ father [MC] had had constructed from marble many years before."185 It is not possible to reconstruct with any preci­ sion the history of the two other Capponi chapels in Santo Spirito, both of which belonged to prominent men of the Capponi lineage. One of them was under the patronage of Messer Guglielmo di Nicola, who bought it in the last decade of the Quattrocento,186 and the other of Niccolo di Giovanni; the second, called "the chapel of. . .Niccolo Capponi and his descendants," was dedicated to St. Augustine.187 Guglielmo's father Nicola had himself patronized a family chapel in the church of San Bartolomeo, which was at Monte Oliveto, overlooking the lineage's traditional quarter of Santo Spirito. 188 The most beautiful Capponi chapel was made for Lodovico di Gino di Lodovico in the church of Santa Felicita, near the Ponte Vecchio. Lodovico bought it in May 1525 (it had been built by Brunelleschi), and for the next three years employed Pontormo to decorate it, adding a stained glass window by the French master Guillaume de Marcillac. The total cost was 1300 gold ducats, an outlay which rewarded the patron well, for the chapel, gently dominated by its unforgettable if misnamed "Deposition," has been called "the major monument of Pontormo's since its altarpiece may now be dated ca. 1490; see S. J. Craven, "Three dates for Piero di Cosimo," The Burlington Magazine, cxvn (1975), 572·

185 Aiazzi, "Vita di Piero di Gino Capponi scritta da Vincenzio Acciaioli," p. 40. 1861 owe this information to Mrs. A. Fuller; cf. several unfoliated notes of uncertain provenance in B.N.F., Manoscritti Palatini, Ser. V. Capponi, 199. 187 The only certain reference I have to this chapel is in a will of the widow of Niccolo's son Giovanni: Ν. A., G 432 (Ser Giovanni di Marco da Romena, 1484-1516), fol. 298'. 188 G. Poggi, "La chiesa di San Bartolomeo a Monte Oliveto presso Firenze," Miscellanea d'Arte, 1 (1903), 57-63.

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

mature style."189 There Lodovico was buried with great pomp and expense in 1534. It was unusual for a private chapel such as this one to be built in a church not other­ wise patronized by a man's kinsmen: by building a separate tomb within a family church, a household was not mak­ ing a declaration of independence from the lineage but simply drawing attention to its own identity and importance in the wider family context. Perhaps Lodovico bought the chapel in Santa Felicita because it was so near to his newly purchased house, perhaps because he had spent much of his life in Rome he did not identify very strongly with some Capponi traditions.190 It was in family chapels and churches that the scores of Masses for the dead were performed. In wills, bequests, and other endowments, many Ginori, Rucellai, and Capponi obliged themselves and their heirs to provide a certain sum, or to use a carefully specified part of their estate, to pay for requiem and commemorative Masses for them­ selves and for relations already dead. Some Masses for the dead were to be performed only for a fixed time, others I g -' J. Cox, "Pontormo's Drawings for the Destroyed Vault of the Capponi Chapel," The Burlington Magazine, xcvm (1956), 17. My ac­ count is drawn from: F. M. Clapp, Jacopo Carucci da Pontormo, his Life and Work (New Haven, 1916), pp. 47, 120-121, 279; J. Cox Rearick, The Drawings of Pontormo (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), pp. 252-253; Massai, Nozze Capponi-Arbuthnot, p. 7; C. Milanesi, "Testamento di Guglielmo de Marcillat, francese, maestro di vetri colorati," Giornale Storico degli Archivi toscani, 111 (1859), 151-155; B.N.F., Manoscritti Palatini, Ser. V. Capponi, 199, anonymous ricordo con­ cerning Lodovico, dated 1534, fol. 3'. See now for different accounts of the program J. Shearman, Pontormo's Altarpiece in S. Felieita (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1971); L. Steinberg, "Pontormo's Capponi Chapel," The Art Bulletin, LVI (1974), 385-399. 100 Β.Ν.Γ., Manoscritti Palatini, Ser. V. Capponi, 199, anonymous ricordo, fol. 5': "compere uno sito di cappella da Paganegli posta nella chiesa di Santa Felicita per esser la casa sua nel popolo. . . ." Lodovico's act of endowment of 1 June 1525 claims that the chapel was "pro remedio anime sue et suorum parentum": later provisions imply that by this phrase he meant his own descendants (Ν. A., B 955 [Ser Bastiano di Carlo da Firenzuola, 1523-27], fols. 332^334*).

'UNDER THE SHADOW

forever. The money set aside for these pious purposes was tax deductible, and no doubt a few bequests claimed as "burdens" in tax records were spurious, although the officials not infrequently checked the accuracy of a claim, both in the original notarial act and with the religious foundation which was supposed to have benefited from it.191 But a comparison of evidence drawn from these several sources leaves the reader with a brilliant impression of the strength and sincerity of the desire to commemorate ancestors, to save one's own soul, and to pray for those of others, even though the conventional pious donations which almost all wills contained can seem to betray a lack of conviction—few clauses were so individual as that which Cappone di Gino Capponi inserted into his testament of 1512, ordering that the novices (but definitely not the novice-master!) of the church of Santo Spirito should for ten years after his death have a feast of veal, capons, bread, and Parmesan cheese, washed down with wine, "on the day of idle talk which is named Berlingaccio [the last Thursday of Carnival]," in return for saying on the next day the Office of the Dead for his soul.192 Almost all obligations to provide Masses for the dead specified relations drawn from the household group—in death as in life, the intensest devotion was to close paternal kin (both male and female), and to very near maternal rela­ tions. The vast majority of bequests of the many which have come to light were made for oneself, for a father, brother and sister, paternal grandfather, or grandmother, paternal uncle or aunt, or great-uncle; mothers were almost universally mentioned, and occasionally other maternal relations or relations-in-law. Men concentrated their energies on paternal relations, but, predictably, women who isi See, e.g., Cat., 707, fol. 247'; 1001, fol. 2i8v. Many entries in several volumes in the archive of the church of San Pancrazio (Con. Sopp., 88) also show that Rucellai bequests were almost always honored. 192 Archivio Capponi, 67 (46), dated 8 February.

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

had married into a family usually divided their attention between it and their family of origin.193 Heirs often went to some trouble to honor testamentary obligations, some of which could be expensive. Zanobi di Tommaso Ginori was spending twenty-six florins a year in 1480 in providing Masses for his long-dead grandfather, his father, sister, and brother-in-law.194 At the same time, two other Ginori had to allocate the yearly rent of a barber's shop to pay for a perpetual Mass for their father.195 A little earlier, another Ginori claimed to have alienated property worth seventy florins to endow a "perpetual commemoration for his dead brother."196 Occasionally a poor man had to give up the struggle; Antonio di Sandro Rucellai lamented in 1480 that though instructed by his mother's will to give an annual sum to the church of Santa Croce for twenty-five years, "I have not paid it, because unable, more than about 4 years."197 But most bequests were not allowed to lapse. In 1427 three RucelIai brothers, though formally divided and living apart, shared the expenses imposed by "Lapo di Vanni our grandfather [who] bequeathed that there should be held every year in perpetuity a rinovala in Santa Maria Novella"198—obligations to pay for Masses were frequently a shared responsibility of brothers, uncles, and nephews, and occasionally first cousins. Often the fulfillment of this duty must have been the last formal tie between close relatives !03 This generalization is based principally upon the evidence of the tax records between 1427 and 1534, and of some scores of wills made by men and women of the three families. J. F. Rosenthal has come to similar conclusions in his analysis of the bequests of the later medieval English aristocracy: The Purchase of Paradise (Lon­ don, 1972), pp. 14-17. 19^ Ginori Conti, La Basilica, p. 262. ιββ Cat., 820, fol. 515'. lse Ibid., 714, fol. 452r. 1 ST Ibid., 1013, fol. 8ov: "el quale tempo e sutto passato che non 11 ο paghato per inpotenza piu che cercha 4 anni." 1 ^ s Ibid., 76, fol. 131': "Lapo di Vanni nostro avolo lascio che in perpetuo facessino ongni anno uno rinovala in Santa Maria Novella"; cf. ibid., fol. 424' and 43, fol. 696'.

'UNDER THE SHADOW

otherwise divided, men and women who were commemorat­ ing a kinsman who had been to them and to their fathers essentially of domestic rather than family importance. As time passed, descendants were paying for Masses for dead relatives of whom they had only the haziest memory, or knowledge picked up secondhand from older kinsmen. The details of these shared obligations are too complex to expound at any length, but one splendidly intricate ex­ ample is provided by the descendants of Brancazio di Domenico Rucellai, who throughout the fifteenth century, and for long afterwards, were responsible for providing a bewildering set of Masses for several paternal and maternal ancestors; in 1480 three distinct groups of first cousins were responsible for an obligation left his heirs at the beginning of the century by their great-uncle Tommaso, whom they could not possibly have known.199 The elder sons of Lorenzo di Recco Capponi would have remem­ bered their great-uncle Mico, who died in 1504, and they may just conceivably have once lived with him; in their account book for 1508 we find a payment to the church of Santo Spirito for Masses to be said in Mico's name, and it is not without symbolic significance that the entry occurs under "household expenses [Spese di chasa]."2"" The brothers' grandfather, with whom they had once lived, had himself earlier maintained a joint-family with his brother Mico, and the continued payment of Masses for this greatuncle may have helped Lorenzo's sons to bridge the inevitable gap which passing time had created between those related households, may have seemed to have made of them one—an illusion that would have been all the easier to accept since the young men lived in Mico's houses, which had been in his line for generations.201 199 I b i d . , 1011, fol. 154'; 1012, fols. 127', 362'. The men were Brancazio di Niccolo, Mariotto di Piero, and Vanozzo di Filippo and brothers. In general see Con. Sopp., 88, 134, 145, unfoliated; Acquisti e Doni, 275, XXII, unfoliated. 200 Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 155, fol. 2r. 201 See above, pp. 25, 58, and below, pp. 138-139.

HOUSEHOLD AND "NEAREST KINSMEN'

Increasingly, moreover, there were means available to jog failing domestic memories or to inspire interest in direct ancestors who had never been known. From about the midfifteenth century onward, Florentines were able to com­ memorate and revere their dead in a new and vivid way— by preserving realistic portraits of them, either in paintings or busts—-and it was above all members of the domestic group, or other very close kinsmen, whose likenesses and memory were kept alive in these often rather pedestrian and fugitive art forms.202 "Through painting," Alberti observed, "the faces of the dead go on living for a very long time."203 Inspired by recent northern European examples in the case of domestic portraits, and by the ancient Roman precedent for sculpted ancestral busts,204 men commissioned these works in very large numbers probably, Sir John PopeHennessy has written, "as a complement to the family tree."205 Their commemorative function is clear in the frequent practice of painting pictures, and series of portraits, in which dead men and their surviving relatives stand side by side as if their family unit had vanquished death itself.206 It seems likely that the rough terracotta or 202

For this phenomenon, well known to art historians but neglected

by others, see the references given in the following footnotes. In most cases where portraits of family groups are identified in these, and other authorities such as Vasari, they seem to be of close relatives: Gfiirlandaio's

portrait

of

Francesco Sassetti,

Francesco's four sons, three of

for example,

includes

them adult, and his elder brother

(A. Warburg, La Rinascita del Paganesimo Antico, ed. G. Bing [Flor­ ence, 1966], p. 116); wider group portraits are not, however, unknown (see below, p. 251). 203 On Painting and On Sculpture, ed. and trans. C. Grayson (Lon­ don, 1972), p. 61. 2-), but a note at the end reads: "Chancellasi perch'e posta nel gonfalone di L[ion] Biancho"; see also ibid., 1013, fol. 8or, and Dec. Rep., 25, fol. 355 r , for the permanence of this move. It is just possible that Antonio in fact "changed" gonfaloni because of a very minor adjustment of boundaries by the Commune (see Balle, 25, fol. 41', 18 October 1434, for an example). 66 M. P., xxxiii, 705, 24 August 1476: "e perche in chasa altri sia che el medesimo desideri, non pero vi piaccia me interlasciare." β? Ibid., 694: "maggiore aquisto in chasa nostra far non possete che di me, vostro volontario servo. . . senon che la singularita di questi nostri anulla in tutto la giustitia e charita, chredo che sanza alchun rispetto doverebbe non solo per Ioro parlare, ma a me prestare ongni favore, per molti ragioni e massime per la mia eta." Antonio's first letter suggests that he was perhaps seeking some office; it begins "La

1 84

AND POLITICS

extended favor to this Rucellai branch, which had no less than eighteen majorities in the scrutiny of 1524. 68 But notably Raffaello d'Antonio and his brother were given theirs in the traditional gonfalone, despite their father's move in 1469: they had reversed his decision on 28 Decem­ ber 1524 by presenting a petition to the accoppiatori that "in the future they want to go and to be in the district of Lion Rosso." 69 Even in the changed political environment of the 1520s, it was still important to belong to a gonfalone in which one's family could expect a good share of the majorities voted. Poverty did not always rule out political participation, nor wealth discrimination. A few of the relatively humble men descended from Andrea di Bernardo continued to enjoy eligibility throughout the fifteenth century. Perhaps one line of their closest cousins was dropped because its men lacked distinction and means, but it is just as likely that the criminal behavior of GueJfo and Messer Andrea di Francesco, who were denounced by the city's leading citizens in December 1433 for damage they had done Flor­ ence's reputation abroad, explains the permanent exclu­ sion of their nearest kinsmen from fifteenth century poli­ tics. 70 One cannot discover why the one surviving household of the Rucellai branch descended from Ugolino di Bernardo became politically obscure after 1434: perhaps it had been too closely associated with the anti-Mediceans, perhaps kins­ men and outsiders alike agreed that there was no need to waste precious majorities on a tiny line obviously doomed eta e e divieti e'l disiderio degli altri nostri e la inpresa fatta mi fanno, piii che la volonta, sollicito all'opera di che con la Μ. V. ragionay." «β Tratte, 53, fols. 324r"357v> 362r-392v. Ibid,., 22, fol. 63·": "in futurum volle[nt] ire et esse in gonfalone leonis rubei"; cf. ibid., 53, fols. 366^367". 70 For this incident, see Passerini, Rucellai, pp. 28-29, and Consulte e Pratiche, 50, fol. ioo v (6 December), 1oi v (8 December). Guelfo ap­ pears to have been a violent man; in 1406 he had attacked a neighbor. See Ν. A., C 187 (Ser Tommaso Carondini, 1406-08), fol. 44 ~ . r

T

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

to extinction. 71 It was spent when Ugolino di Francesco died at an advanced age in 1457. As Francesco Guicciardini later commented, it was inevitable that in an oligarchy the obscure men of good family who had "kinsmen [consorti] of more authority and ability. . .should be neglected." 72 Under certain circum­ stances this fact must have bred hostility within a consorteria, but among the Rucellai there are few traces of such tension—Antonio d'Alessandro's frustrated letter pro­ vides one of them, several outbursts against Giovanni di Paolo others. 73 It must have helped that some rather un­ distinguished men continued to enjoy eligibility and office, and that political neglect very often followed a natural decline in wealth, ability, or numbers. Notably, two of the firmest promoters of the cult-life of the Rucellai, Fra Andrea and Ugolino di Francesco, 74 came from politically deprived lines; these men can have felt no deep antagonism as a result of their exclusion from one vital part of family activities. As for the flourishing branches, each of them received a good share of majorities throughout our period, and many of their men took part in political life. It is a mistake, if an understandable one, to equate Rucellai political participation with the activities of the family's most famous and articulate branch: there survives in the Medici archive an early sixteenth century list (clearly some sort of a political aide-memoire) of twenty-four "men of the house of Rucellai," which includes prominent repre­ sentatives of every surviving branch of the family save Ugolino di Giunta's. 75 The Capponi houses were all concentrated in one locality of the quarter of Santo Spirito in 1427, but divided them711 have no firm evidence on this point. 72 Storie fiorentine, ed. R. Palmarocchi (Bari, 1931), p. 241. 73 See above, p. 184, and below, pp. 242, 297. 71 See chap. 5 below. 75 M. P., Lxxx viii, 70, fol. 7o r . If the men mentioned were living at the time of its compilation, this list of "Homini di tutta la Casa de' Rucellai" may be dated between ca. 1514 and ca. 1520.

18 6

AND POLITICS

selves between the neighboring gonfaloni of Nicchio and Drago; according to the tax reports of that year, seven of the lineage's twelve households definitely lived in the ancestral district (Nicchio), three others belonged to Drago, and the remaining two were imprecise but declared them­ selves to be residents of the former. 76 Some Capponi had lived in Drago for several generations: in 1381 the descendants of Cappone di Recco were all to be found there, 77 and over the next few decades they were to be joined by others of their kin. Giovanni di Sandro di Berto di Micozzo, and the brothers Filippo and Zanobi di Niccolo, appeared in a scrutiny list of the Drago district in 1411, and though Giovanni had been reclaimed by Nicchio in 1433, 78 the process of "migration" from there to Drago was even by then under way. Still more drastic changes were to follow: there were contingents of the Capponi family officially resident in every district of Santo Spirito by about 1480, even in the gonfalone of Scala which was quite a distance from the lineage's original neighborhood. Cappone di Recco's branch had been politically eligible in Drago during the later fourteenth century, and almost all of the other Capponi who moved there (or to other districts) found preferment sooner or later; unlike the Ginori or Rucellai who changed gonfaloni, these Capponi were usually not obscure men straying into a deeper obscurity, but vigorous members of the family community who enjoyed political rights in their native gonfalone. This movement of Capponi fell into several fairly distinct phases, each of which requires its own explanation. The push into Drago from Nicchio was finished by midcentury. Between 1440 and 1442, Giovanni di Piero of the small line descended from Agnolo di Recco had rented a house in Drago, 79 and in the scrutiny of 1444 both he and one of his sons were successful there, though an 70 This information is from Cat, 17, 18, 24-26. τι Delizie, xvi, 136-145. "s Manoscritti, 555, unfoliated. "'•> Cat., 612, fol. 718'.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

official noted that on this occasion their name-tickets were to be put in the Nicchio bags because the men had received majorities in that gonfalone in 1440. 80 From then on, how­ ever, the men of this branch were enrolled on the electoral records of Drago, and Piero di Giovanni quite clinched the move in 1453 by buying a house in his new district. 81 From 1442 onward, another Capponi, Agostino di Gino di Neri of the family's most famous line, was also officially taxed in Drago, where two years later he and his sons received majorities in a scrutiny for the Priorate. 82 It was in this scrutiny that the new and old Capponi first captured a decisive lead in Drago—the family won fifteen majorities, its nearest rival only ten—though eleven years earlier the Capponi had only three men scrutinied successfully there. 83 The family had acquired two solid electoral bases: indeed, in 1444 Drago had almost twice as many Capponi men eligible to hold office as Nicchio itself. It was competition within the family, and with their neighbors and consorti the Vettori, which must have prompted many Capponi to leave Nicchio for Drago (and Ferza) at this time. One of the two justifications advanced by both families on 26 August 1452 in their petition to be divided was that between themselves "scandals and big dis­ sensions and discords" existed and were likely to arise in the future, "especially at the time of scrutinies concerning the lists which have to be made, and similar things." 84 Be­ cause the two houses were regarded as one consorteria (and therefore for generations had given each other the divieto), it was logical for the authorities to treat them as one during the scrutiny process. This practice would not have caused arguments while both families remained small (indeed, 80 Tratte, 49, fols. 8 v -g v . 8 1 Cat., 795, fol. 448 r_v ; Tratte, 53, fols. ιο3 Γ -ΐ2ΐ Γ . 82 Cat., 612, fol. 177'"*'; Tratte, 49, fols. 8*-9 v . 83 Ibid .; cf. Manoscritti, 555, unfoliated. 84 Balie, 27, fol. 34': "scandala et magne dissensiones et discordie. . . et in futurum magis oriri possent maxime tempore scructineorum propter portatas que fieri habent et similia."

AND POLITICS

according to Cavalcanti they had originally joined together in order better to confront their mighty magnate neighbors the Frescobaldi), 85 but each had grown larger, as the peti­ tion explicitly pointed out, and so friction had followed. We may presume that discord not only broke out at the time of the nominations (when too many likely candidates from each family would have been in direct competition), but also at the voting stage. A letter written by a Capponi in 1472 confirms, as one would expect, that Scrutiny Councils had traditionally taken "one from each branch" (one for the Capponi "and another they took for the Vettori"), 86 and it must have proved impossible, as time passed, to satisfy all demands. A very big family was always at a disadvantage in scrutinies, because to please even a reasonable number of its men made other families jealous; as Piero Guicciardini wrote of Altoviti fortunes in the scrutiny of 1484, "of the 120 of them who went to the vote, I don't believe a quar­ ter remain in the Priorate." 87 In Nicchio, where all the Vettori lived and most of the Capponi, the problem of competition was especially acute, for it was the home of many other large and powerful families who had strong claims to many majorities at the scrutinies, even though Nicchio and Ferza usually had many more majorities allowed them than did the two other districts of Santo Spiri to. In 1444, for example, the Capponi-Vettori corisorteria had no less than seventeen men voted eligible for the Tre Maggiori, though by that time many Capponi were also to be found in Drago; the 85 The "Trattato Politico-Morale" of Giovanni Cavalcanti, ed. Μ. T. Grendler (Geneva, 1973), p. 204. se M. P., xxviii, 393, 10 August, Piero di Giovanni Capponi to Lorenzo de' Medici. This rather obscure passage reads in full "vi priegho che vogliate operare per me. . .ch'io sia del numero degl'in borsati [in the scrutiny which had begun the day before]. . .e richordovi che Giovanni d'Angniolo Chapponi [his great-uncle] fu il primo nele chose grande onorato in chasa nostra, e quando si pigliava uno per lato, Iui per Chaponi era il primo, e un altro si toglieva per Vettori." 87 Ed. Rubinstein, Government of Florence, p. 319.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

Corbinelli had twenty-three majorities, the Biliotti and Machiavelli fourteen each, and other successful men came from such prominent families as the Guicciardini, Ridolfi, Pitti, and Velluti.88 Among the Capponi themselves there must also have been strong competition, for almost every line of the family was long accustomed to holding high political office. To move to Drago was the most obvious way of relieving the pressure within Nicchio at scrutiny times, while allowing the migratory Capponi to maintain an established political position, or to find new opportu­ nities to be voted majorities. Because of the successes of Cappone di Recco's branch, Drago was not terra incognita and its social character, a poor district89 with only a hand­ ful of smallish optimate families, made it the ideal object of Capponi expansion. (Indeed, one small branch actually improved its electoral fortunes there by winning majorities for the first time for decades in the scrutiny of 1444.)90 Capponi friendship with the Lanfredini, one of Drago's principal families, must also have made that gonfalone more welcoming, and the Capponi takeover more accept­ able. No doubt Giovanni di Piero Capponi moved to Drago in 1440 without too many qualms, for his sister was married to a prominent Lanfredini; in the next generation Piero di Giovanni was on intimate terms with his cousin Giovanni Lanfredini, to whom he wrote in 1484-85 with family and political news.91 There were another three marriages be­ tween the two houses in this period, and other evidence reveals the warm regard which existed between them.92 Very possibly, the fierce proverbial enmity between the 88 Tratte, 49, fols. 3r-5r. 89 Brucker, Renaissance Florence, pp. 24-25. 90 The brothers Filippo and Zanobi di Niccold (Tratte, 49, fols. 8T-9V). 91 For this marriage, see Litta, Famiglie celebri, x, tav. 11: the letters are in B.N.F., 11, v, 12, fols. i6ir, i68T, 201", 2231, 257*; 19, fol. 49*. 92 Cf. the many letters between Giovanni Lanfredini and Piero di Gino Capponi in ibid., 11, v, 12, 15, 19. On the Lanfredini (and their ties with the Capponi), see also M. Mansfield, A Family of Decent Folk, 1200 -IJ41: A Study in the Centuries Growth of the Lanfredini (Florence, 1922), pp. 5, 53, 65, 228, 251.

AND POLITICS

Soderini and the Capponi dates from this time; the former, an ancient but smallish Drago family, may have resented Capponi encroachment.93 The one household of the Capponi (Lorenzo di Gino di Neri and sons) which between 1430 and 1433 moved to Ferza from Nicchio may also have left because of electoral overcrowding, but its early successes in the scrutinies of 1433 and 144484 cannot be explained by reference to Ferza's special social character; though full of poor wool workers,95 it had several very big families, such as the Ridolfi, Pitti, Corsini, del Benino, and Cicciaporci, competing for majorities in scrutinies. The pressure from competition within the Vettori-Capponi consorteria probably was only slightly relieved by these moves; the Scrutiny Councils presumably would have kept a careful watch on a family's total representation (whether in one gonfalone or not), and only the clean break with the Vettori in 1452 substantially assured the position of the Capponi in Nicchio and elsewhere. Even so, the marked political successes enjoyed by almost all of the lineage's branches continued to generate tension and competitive­ ness among Capponi. His father had moved to Drago to avoid this problem, but in 1472 Piero di Giovanni was still concerned about his electoral chances, given the prestige of his kinsmen. In writing on 10 August to request Lorenzo de' Medici to include him "in the number of those put in the scrutiny" which the accoppiatori had begun work on the previous day, Piero recalled that in the previous century his great-uncle "Giovanni d'Agnolo Capponi was the first of our house. . he himself did not seek Lorenzo's 93 I am guessing here; Tommaso di Gino Capponi believed in the early sixteenth century that the rift between the two was only very recent (see below, p. 210). 94Cat., 489, fol. 329·"; Manoscritti, 555, unfoliated; Tratte, 49, fols. 5v-8r. However, Lorenzo himself (aged forty-two) was not successful in the scrutiny of 1433, though his young sons were (Manoscritti, 555). 95 R. de Roover, "Labour Conditions in Florence around 1400: Theory, Policy and Reality," Florentine Studies, ed. Rubinstein, p. 304.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

help "except out of grace—but I mention it because you can justify yourself to whom might speak against [me]: and by writing I do not mean to interfere with any kins­ man already eligible but, should you have to add any names, that I might be recommended to you on the grounds that nobody of our branch is represented, and from the other branches there are two and three." 96 In fact, as the electoral records show, Piero's section of the family was not at all so neglected as he thought. 97 Only two small and obscure Capponi lines, the collateral branch descended from Caponcino di Buonamico and the poor descendants of Filippo di Recco, had no part to play in fifteenth century political life, and they represented only a tiny minority of Capponi men. 98 Even Sebastiano di Sebastiano, of Caponcino's branch, won a majority in 1433, 99 ^ ut t ^ e rebellious actions of his close relative Caponcino di Sebastiano in the next year put his line forever beyond the pale. Almost no other Capponi could have reasonably made the complaint which Cavalcanti puts into Caponcino's mouth; he had told the Bishop of Novara that he was one of those citizens "who are neglected, out of jealousy and by not being given For the reference and part o£ the Italian text, see n. 86 above; the letter continues: "questo non voglio per niuna chagone senon per grazia, ma ve n'aviso perche possiate giustificharvi chon chi incontro parlassi, e per'l mio schrivere non intendo dare noia a niuno inborsato di chasa, ma avendovi a mettere di n[uov]o vi sia rachomandato, conciosiachosache de' Iato nostro non n'e persona, e degli altri Iati chi 2 e chi 3 v'e." Piero did not, perhaps, expect his letter to receive care­ ful scrutiny, since at the top left-hand corner he scrawled pazienza a legere. 07 The line had won four majorities in the scrutiny of 1 4 4 9 (Tratte, 61, fols. 78 r -8o v ), but it is true that of its members only Piero himself had held major office tor some decades—he was Gonfalonier of Com­ pany in 1 4 6 3 (Manoscritti, 2 6 5 , fols. 3 7 , 4 0 ) . 98 Filippo di Recco and his line in the past had had five Priors (ibid.., 2 4 8 , tol. i72 r ), but perhaps the illegitimacy of Simone d'Andrea ( 1 4 1 2 90) explains his and his immediate family's political obscurity; cf. Litta, Famiglie celebri, x, tav. 11. On illegitimacy and political eligibility, see L. Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft in Renaissance Florence (Prince­ ton, 1 9 6 8 ) , pp. 9 9 - 1 0 0 , and Busini, Lettere, p. 6 2 . 09 Manoscritti, 5 5 5 , unfoliated.

AND POLITICS

a fair slice of the communal cake." 100 For by moving care­ fully from Nicchio into Drago, and then by breaking with the Vettori, the Capponi had by midcentury secured more than one firm electoral base, had kept almost all of its many branches politically eligible, and had contained any divisive tendencies within its ranks. This had been a novel strategy devised to achieve traditional family ends, and it had worked only because of the particular circumstances obtaining. When in the last half of the century several Capponi inherited very desirable palaces in the gonjalone of Scala, they moved there with some caution, aware no doubt of the possibility of their finding no firm electoral footing in what was prac­ tically an alien district. In the 1450s Sebastiano d'Uguccione di Mico lost his share in his ancestral houses in Nicchio, and by 1458 he was renting a house in Scala; seven years later he bought a palace in Via de' Bardi for 1,900 florins, but remained in other respects a nominal resident of Nicchio. 101 When Sebastiano died in 1473, his brother Recco took over the house, which was formally given to him in an agreement with another brother made by their kinsman Luca d'Agostino in April 1480; it was only at that time that Recco officially became a resident of Scala, where, until the end of the Republic, many of his descendants were to remain enrolled. 102 It was also during the 1450s that the three sons of Piero di Bartolomeo 100 Istorie Florentine, ed. G. di Pino (Milan, 1944), p. 328. Perhaps Cavalcanti's details are wrong here; Passerini, in Litta Famiglie celebri, x, tav. i, claims correctly (cf. S. Orlandi, Beato Angelico [Florence, 1964], pp. 18, 170) that Caponcino was a friar, and that it was Sebastiano who was executed, 1 O 1 Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 153, fol. i6 T ; Cat., 788, fol. 269'; 906, fol. 148'. In the imborsazione for the Gonfaloniership of Justice in 1472, Sebastiano was described as a Nicchio resident (M. P., LXXXVI, fols. 321 v "323 r ). 102 Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 153, fol. 3i r ; Cat., 995, fol. 234'. This tax report is bound in with those of Nicchio, but Recco stated clearly that he was a resident of Scala: in a list of veduti and seduti Gonfaloniers of Justice alive in 1480, Recco's name is crossed out in the Nicchio list and given to Scala (Tratte, 61, fols. i20 r -isi r ).

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

Capponi came to possess the handsome chasa nuova of their maternal grandfather Niccolo da Uzzano; a landmark in Via de' Bardi, it was a sufficiently attractive bait to draw these Capponi away from Drago to Scala. 103 In 1458 Messer Giovanni, the Master of Altopascio, was living there, and by 1469 his brother Nicola and his huge family were permanently established. 104 However, Nicola did not break his formal ties with his ancestral gonfalone. His tax returns for 1469 and 1480 were both included in the registers of Drago, and there is no evidence that he changed his elec­ toral address. 105 It was his sons who took this decisive step, presumably some time after they sold their old house in Drago in 1489. From 1498 onward, the branch's tax records all appear in the Scala volumes, and slowly the men be­ came politically enrolled there; in 1508 Bartolomeo d'Andrea di Nicola was declared one of the abili to the Great Council from Scala, and several years later there appears among the electoral records a formal declaration that Niccolo di Nicola Capponi "elected Scala and re­ nounced Drago." 106 By the early sixteenth century even Scala had become a secure base for the Capponi. When Lodovico di Gino returned permanently from Rome in 1522, he chose to set up house in Scala; on 13 December 1524, the day a new scrutiny for the Tre Maggiori began, he put in a successful application that he be no longer considered a resident of Drago (his ancestral district) but "in future for 103 This "new house" (da Uzzano's own description in Cat., 64, fol. 71'), appears in a fifteenth century map of Florence which largely neglects private buildings—see L. D. Ettlinger, "A Fifteenth Century View of Florence," The Burlington Magazine, xciv (1952), 160-167, fig. 13; cf. L. Ginori Lisci, I Patazzi di Firenze nella storia e nell'arte (Florence, 1972), 11, 665-671. 104 Cat., 795, fol. 39r; 910, fol. 228'. 1 0 SIbid., 1001, fol. 42': in 1472 Nicola and his son Bernardo were still formally residents of their ancestral district for political purposes (M. P., Lxxxvx, fols. 321^323'). losTratte, 1071, unfoliated; ibid., 52, unfoliated: "elesse Scala et refnunzk'i] Drago."

AND POLITICS

himself and his sons and descendants he wants to go into and be of the district of Scala in the same quarter."107 From their letters in the first two decades of the century, it is clear that Nicola di Piero Capponi's descendants were in touch with Lodovico,108 and perhaps it was they who encouraged him to settle near them on the same street in Scala. In other respects, Scala was no longer unknown territory. The Gapponi had married four times into the Bardi and Canigiani of Scala, and twice (in the first part of the fifteenth century) into the Mannelli, with whom they shared various important business interests.109 Perhaps Sebastiano Capponi, for all his caution, had first ventured into Scala under Mannelli patronage—lie had bought his house there from Raimondo Mannelli's widow, and Raimondo had had firm ties with other Capponi.110 The Capponi in effect had managed by the sixteenth century to make the entire quarter of Santo Spirito as secure a political base as most Florentine families, including the Rucellai and Ginori, found one gonfalone to be. It had probably always been easier in that self-contained quarter to disregard, or to minimize, the significance in politics and social life of the distinctions between districts. (Notably, there was more tendency in Santo Spirito than elsewhere for large families to belong to more than one gonfalone.) 111 ίο?

Ibid.,

22, fol. 6o v : "in futurum pro se et eius filiis

et descenden-

tibus vult ire et esse de eodem Quarterio et vexillo Schale"; on the same day Lodovico's brother Bongianni did the same. The tax officials also officially noted the brothers' move (Dec. Rep., 2, fol. 74 r ). ίο» There are references to Lodovico di Gino in letters by the Altopascio Capponi dated 13 October 1506. 29 October 1507, and 31 July 1512 in B.R.F., Manoscritti Moreniani, 51. 109 Here and elsewhere, information about Capponi

marriages is

from Litta, Famiglie celebri, x. I take into account men and women active between 1420 and 1530. no Cat., go6, fol. 148': Sebastiano had rented a house there from Raimondo Mannelli in 1458 ( ibid ., 788, fol. 2691'). For details of the Capponi-Mannelli connection, see my "Ottimati Families," pp. 471-472. 1111 owe this observation to Dale V. Kent, "The Florentine 'Reggimento' in the Fifteenth century," Renaissance Quarterly , xxvm (1975),

593J

9 5

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

For Oltr'arno lay south of the river and had always been a separate world. Donato Velluti describes how in 1343 the area's citizens, in pursuit of a fair share of the Republic's offices and more equitable taxation, had threatened "to cut the bridges and make a city of our own." 112 Over a century later, in 1465-66, Santo Spirito was a center of opposition to the Medici. 113 In this distinctive community the Capponi had long enjoyed a special position. In 1424 Neri di Gino was, in a contemporary's judgment, so highly esteemed that "except for [Niccolo da] Uzzano there isn't a more prom­ inent man in Oltr'arno." 114 There the Capponi could com­ mand the allegiance of lesser men, such as Benedetto Dei, a fervent local patriot who regarded his quarter as "worthier and better endowed than any of the others," and numbered several Capponi among his "proven friends." 115 The Capponi made a conscious effort to cultivate this special garden; in 1421 the dying Gino di Neri had instructed his sons to maintain ties "with your neighbors, and with your relations above all," and to help "your friends within and without the city." 116 This conventional wisdom was acted upon by most branches of the family, who married more 112 La Cronica Domestica, ed. I. del Lungo and G. Volpi (Florence, 1914), p. 165. 113 A. Municchi, La fazione antimedicea detta del Poggio (Florence, 1911). 114 Forese Sacchetti to Rinaldo degli Albizzi, 18 October, in C. Guasti, Commissioni di Rinaldo degli Albizzi (Florence, 1867-73), 2, p. 263. iis B.N.F., 11, π, 3 3 3 , fol. 37 r . Dei's list of friends is printed in M. Pisani 1 Un avventuriero del Quattrocento: la vita e Ie opere di Bene­ detto Dei (Genoa, 1923), pp. 100-101; there was, however, one Capponi among his nimici cordiali (p. 101). On 19 December 1484, Dei signed himself in a letter to Gino Capponi "vostro intimo amicho e partigano di vostra casa" (C. S., ser. 1, cxxxvi, fol. 66); there is copious evidence of his close attachment to all of the Capponi in P. Orvieto, "Un esperto orientalista del' 400: Benedetto Dei," Rinascimento, ser. 2, 9 (!969). PP- 205-275. ϋβ Ricordi, ed. G. Folena in Miscellanea di studi offerta a A. Balduino e B. Bianchi (Padua, 1962), p. 37. The very full early sixteenth century correspondence of the Segni family shows its intimacy with several of its Capponi relations and neighbors: Acquisti e Doni, 25, passim.

AND POLITICS

frequently into other families from Santo Spirito than did the Rucellai or Ginori into houses in their respective quarters. The Capponi married into twenty-five families three or more times, and nine of these were from Santo Spirito.

From the lists of eligibles voted by the Scrutiny Councils were chosen, by different methods according to periodic decisions, the members of the Tre Maggiori (the Priors, Gonfaloniers of Company, and Twelve Goodmen): all three families translated their success in scrutinies into impressive records of officeholders. (This was also true during the nonMedicean periods in 1494-1512 and 1527-30, when these offices were filled by election by and within the Great Coun­ cil.) All politically eligible branches of the Ginori and Cappom had some share in holding the Republic's principal magistracies. The bigger groups usually had a larger share, though one can infer that political calculations also deter­ mined how many offices a branch might hold. Among the Ginori, the fairly numerous descendants of Simone di Francesco won fewer high offices than there were eligible men entitled to them, while Zanobi di Ser Gino's line had rather more than its fair share. Even the smallest Capponi branch eligible to hold office achieved an enviable record: between 1434 and 1530 the descendants of Agnolo di Recco produced three Gonfaloniers of Company, one member of the Dodici, and two Priors. Because the Rucellai voted eligible at scrutinies came from only some lines of the family, so too did its members of the Tre Maggiori. The many and able descendants of Bingeri di Bernardo and Vanni di Bernardo (who split naturally into three and two subbranches respectively) completely dominated the Priorate, but more humble kinsmen occasionally took office in the Signoria's two colleges—men of Andrea di Bernardo's small line twice sat as members of the Twelve and once as a Gonfalonier of Company; this last office was also held

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

once in our period by one of Bencivenni di Bernardo's few descendants.117 Eligibility for the many lucrative posts in the state's territorial and internal administration was also decided by periodic scrutinies; many men of the three families, representative of most lines, were successful in them and went on to take office.118 In interstate diplomacy, and at the very top communal level, politics was, as the chroniclers and modern historians imply, carried on by a few distinguished individuals: but it is also true that at a less rarefied height participation in politics and administra­ tion was usually family-wide. It is not misleading to calculate family "scores" in the game of officehunting since the Florentines themselves did so. In Giovanni Rucellai's Zibaldone, for example, there is an active interest in the political past of his whole lineage, and in its present achievements. Like so many other family memorialists, Giovanni was eager to tell his descendants about the earliest distinguished Rucellai, Bernardo di Giunta, the first "who, as they say, began to win honor for our family. . . he was a Prior in 1302 and Gonfalonier of Justice in 1308." Bernardo's son Cenni had been "so powerful," Giovanni went on, "with a great following and reputation in our city," that the popolani whose rights he fiercely protected used to say proverbially "May God and Cenni di Nardo help thee."119 Rucellai's interest in the Priorate was shared by his contemporaries who largely measured a family's political standing by the number of its Priors and the date of its first tenure of that magistracy: a list of Priors (priorista), a political who's who, must have 117 Details tor the Priorate are in Manoscritti, 248, fols. i7iT-i74r (Capponi); 249, fols. 373^374' (Rucellai); 250, fol. 6401, (Ginori); for the two colleges, ibid., 265, fols. 37, 40 (Capponi); 266, fols. 10 (Ginori), 50-52 (Rucellai). us Passerini's Rucellai and Ginori, and Litta's Famiglie celebri, x, give detailed if not always accurate or complete lists of the many minor offices held by men of the three families. Cf. the widespread success of the three in the scrutiny for the so-called uffici of 1453-54 (B.N.F., π, IV, 346, fols. 86r-i32r). us Ed. Marcotti, Un mercante fiorentino, pp. 54-55.

AND POLITICS

been owned by most upper-class Florentines, judging by the number of them which still survive. In the first few folios of the Zibaldone, there is an accurate list of "all those who have been Priors and Gonfaloniers of Justice in our family of the Rucellai in times past, starting in 1302 down to this year of 1457": thereafterward Giovanni kept his priorista up to date, in his own rough mercantile hand, until his death twenty-four years later. 120 The list was an honor roll, but it was also documentation in support of Rucellai claims to be among the city's traditional leaders. The Capponi, too, believed that honor and position earned in high office was shared among them, a belief encouraged by the Florentine Republic itself: when Gino di Neri was rewarded by the Commune in 1406 for his services in the Pisan war, the authorities hoped (pro­ phetically) that he and his family would enjoy "honor and perpetual fame"—a year later the Signoria asked Marcello Strozzi to help Messer Cappone Capponi in a certain mat­ ter, not for his own sake alone but "out of respect and for the honor of his family, the status of which in our city we are certain will be known to you." 121 Not himself a prominent politician, Piero di Giovanni Capponi was delighted in i486 by the success his younger third cousin and namesake had achieved in the service of the Republic: "I shall not ask about the other things done by thee in the field," he wrote on 29 November, "because when I was there I heard with keen pleasure that thou didst merit praise." 122 120 Archivio Rucellai, Florence, "Zibaldone Quaresimale," fol. 6r"v: "tucti quelli che sono stati dello ufficio de' S[ignori] Priori et Gonfaloniere di Giustitia della nostra famiglia de' Rucellai, e ne' tempi che sono stati, cominciando nel 1302 insino a questo anno 1457." The two quotations can be found, respectively, in G. Salvemini, La dignita cavalleresca nel Comune di Firenze, new ed. with Magnati e Popolani in Firenze dal 1280 al 7295 (Florence, i960), p. 457; I. Masetti-Bencini, "Neri Capponi: note biografiche tratte da documenti," Rivista delle biblioteche e degli archivi, xvi (1905), 93. lizB.N.F., Raccolta Ginori Conti, 75, r. "del'altre opere per te operate in chanpo non domando, perch£ quand'ero chosti senti meritavi chomendazione, che assai piacere n'ebbi."

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

Similarly, Piero di Gino's grandfather had won much honor at the battle of Anghiari in 1440, and in his will of 1450 Neri was determined that his lineage should be bathed in his reflected glory. He ordered that the silver helmet given him by the Commune for his services, and another presented by the Guelf Captains, should be bequeathed to his son Gino and then to the eldest of Gino's descendants; when his line, and those descended from his two brothers, were extinct, the trophies should become the property of "the oldest member of the house and lineage of the Capponi, for the honor of all the house. . .and in memory of the deeds done by the said Neri." Furthermore, this ancient should give the helmets to any Capponi "who has to go. . . as a podesta, captain, or vicar to the country, for the taking up of the said office," after which ceremony they should be returned. 123 This bequest was of considerable ritual importance, for it seems that a family's collective reputa­ tion was at stake on such ceremonial occasions. Franco Sacchetti made a mockery of these ceremonies in his story of the inept knight of the Bardi family who, upon being made podesta of Padua, consulted earnestly and disastrously "with his kinsmen about what sort of helmet to wear." 124 But the lack of suitable equipment when he was made Captain of Borgo San Sepolcro in 1445 had caused Neri Capponi's kinsman, Bartolomeo di Piero, to write urgently to a friend to ask for some money he was owed, since the hat and sword he had borrowed from Niccolo Giugni— "on the understanding that if he [Niccolo] or his kinsmen should be drawn [for office], he was not obliged to let him have them"—had to be returned. 123 It is even conceivable 123 Ed. Polidori, in his edition of Cavalcanti's Istorie Florentine, n, 438-439. Despite Nen's wish that the helmets should never go out of the family (p. 439), their present whereabouts is not known. On this presentation to Neri, see also Salvemini, La dignita cavalleresca, pp. 460-461. 1 2 4 Il Trecentonovelle, ed. V. Pernicone (Florence, 2946), p. 347. 125 C. S., ser. HI, CL, fol. 98', 19 June: "avendo io achattato uno chappello e spada da Niccholo Giugni con patto che se Iui ο suoi consorti fussino tratti non fussi hobrighato, perche e schaduto che gli e tratto Giovanni a Chastello San Giovanni, e pero non Io posso avere. . . ."

AND POLITICS

that Neri had this rather embarrassing incident in mind when he made his will five years later, for "honor" was as much a collective as a personal attribute: for one prom­ inent Florentine, a dishonorable Capponi was almost a con­ tradiction in terms. 126 Guglielmo di Nicola Capponi risked Medici displeasure in 1475 because he believed that to withdraw favor from a client of his own at their request would bring "burdens and shame on the house." 127 Much later, when his branch of the Capponi was engaged in a dispute concerning its patronage of the Order of Altopascio, Cappone Capponi assured a cousin that he believed that he was able "to act in such a way in this business that all the house will be able to win honor and satisfaction from it." 128 "Life without honor is a living death," another Capponi once assured his Medici patron. 129 Offices could be, in contemporary language, not only "honorable" but also "profitable," 130 and the desire to help kinsmen as well as to honor them explains why the quest for office, more usually the concern of a household or group of close relatives, was occasionally prosecuted on behalf of distant paternal kin. Bernardo Rucellai wrote to his brother-in-law on 9 April 1473 recommending that Mariotto Rucellai, a fourth cousin, be included in the office of the Eight in order to improve his daughter's marriage prospects. "Inasmuch as he is thine and ours, may it please thee to satisfy his desire," Bernardo finished, and surely it was no 126 Filippo de' Medici, Archbishop o£ Pisa, wrote to his kinsman Lorenzo on 15 March 1473 that, reluctantly, he had decided to favor Messer Baldassare Capponi "per rispecto maxime della Μ. V. et ancor della casa sua, alia quale Iui assai pocho honore a facto": earlier Filippo had used the telling phrase "[la] casa de' Capponi, della quale Iui non fa gia dimostratione d'essere" (M. P., xxix, 213). 1 2 7 Ibid., L x x x v , 99, 4 January, Guglielmo to Lucrezia Tornabuoni: "graveza et vergogna alia chasa." 128 Con. Sopp., 100, 83, 1 December 1563, Cappone Capponi to Piero Capponi: "credo che sapro et potro operar tanto in questo negotio che tutta la casa ne potra trarre satisfatione et honore." 129 M. P., xxviii, 393, 10 August 1472, Piero di Giovanni to Lorenzo de' Medici: "la vita sanz'onore e un vivermorto." 130 Rubinstein, Government of Florence, p. 57. 20 1

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

coincidence that Mariotto took office three weeks later. 131 Such recommendations were normally and desirably made through personal contact, and men apologized for having to write, or rather uneasily declared their confidence that "letters should count as much as words." 132 Very probably, if more personal letters survived, and if it were possible to discover what patrons and clients actually said to one an­ other in private meetings, one would find that influential men often went to some pains to further the careers of distant consorti, as well as those of the friends, relativesin-law, and near kinsmen who also sought patronage. Before Bernardo left Florence for Milan late in 1484, he had evidently mentioned to Lorenzo the Magnificent the names of the men for whom he wanted majorities in the approaching scrutiny; as likely as not there were some Rucellai among them, for on other occasions Bernardo had a keen sense of "family duty [debito della casa]'' learned from his punctilious father. 133 So too did Neri Capponi, as obvious a leader for a Capponi to look to as Bernardo was for his kinsmen. Neri's feeling that the Capponi had a collective political identity went beyond mere ritual, for in June 1455, when he was one of the accoppiatori, he was given special permission to nominate up to five of the familia Caponum for inclusion in the special purse from which the name of the Gonfalonier of Justice was drawn, and he named himself, his brothers, Lorenzo and Agostino, Nicola di Piero di BartoIomeo Capponi, and Recco d' Uguccione di Mico Capponi. 134 Neri's choice was carefully designed to satisfy his wider family. He had been instructed 131 M. P., xxix, 310: "Quanto e' sia tuo e nostra [sic], piacciati volere conpiacerlo di quanto desidera"; cf. Manoscritti, 272, fol. 110. 132 M. P., xlix, 43, 14 November 1484, Bernardo Rucellai to Lorenzo de' Medici: "avendo fede che Ie lettere vaglino quanto Ie parole." Typically, Guglielmo di Cardinale Rucellai only wrote to Lorenzo the Magnificent on 12 December 1474 because "io venni iermatina per essere techo e tu eri uscito fuori. . .e poi non sono tomato chit non mi sono sentito bene" (ibid., xxxii, 561). 133 See above, pp. 154-155. 134 Tratte, 16, fol. 14'; cf. fols. i 6v-i 7'-'. See too Rubinstein, Govern­ ment of Florence, p. 48.

AND POLITICS

to include himself, and it was inevitable that out of fraternal regard he should choose Lorenzo and Agostino who were themselves able men. His other nominations neatly included leaders of the family's other two principal branches. Nicola, Neri's second cousin once-removed, was the undisputed head of his line and Recco, a second cousin, was an important man in his o w n right, and a warm Medicean. Only Niccolo di Giovanni was excluded of all the lineage's great men, and his line had been catered to by the inclusion of his first cousin Recco. Neri's patronage made it more likely than ever that a Capponi would hold the Republic's supreme office. The Capponi family's desire to win more offices was behind its petition, three years earlier, to be separated from the Vettori. Even under normal circumstances, the divieto legislation could impose a considerable strain upon a family's sense of collective identity and loyalty. It had always been remarked that it hit hardest the big families, because, as Matteo Villani pointed out, "new men" and other citizens without ties did not, by definition, have a large consorteria and so "frequently won offices. . . [while] the magnates and powerful citizens of the great families rarely did so."135 Inevitably, the Capponi family was especially burdened by the divieto—almost all of its many branches were accustomed to expect political preferment, and until 1452 its men were in competition with the Vettori every time an office was drawn. One of the major in­ tentions of the petition presented by the two families in that year was to point out to the authorities that the dis­ sension between them was (and would be) partly created by the "divieti and prohibitions that interchangeably they are accustomed to give and to receive among themselves," es­ pecially as each family was growing larger.136 For genera135 Cronica, ed. F. G. Dragomanni (Florence, 1846), 11, 108; cf. Brucker, Florentine Politics and Society, pp. 67-68, 163, 167, 209-210, 212-sis, 216, 217, 220. 1 Balie, 27, fol. 34 r : "deveta et prohibitiones que ad invicem usi sunt dare et recipere inter se."

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

tions the Vettori had been very successful in elections to offices, and the point was a valid one: 137 almost certainly, too, there existed bitterness between individual Capponi. It was no doubt out of sensitivity to public opinion that the Florentine Signoria insisted that the Capponi and Vettori were not to sit together on the Tre Maggiori, but its decision otherwise to separate the families helped to relieve the strain and apprehension felt by the Capponi. 138 Agnolo di Cappone Capponi, describing in detail the progress of the petition in his diary, made it clear to his descendants that 28 August 1452 was a red-letter day for "us Capponi"; 139 his kinsmen had cooperated boldly and imaginatively to assure that offices circulated freely, and contention was restrained, within their ranks. Tension was not, however, completely defused. On 16 October 1490 Piero Capponi asked Lorenzo de' Medici to make "Neri my brother [one] of the Priors this time, be13? Between 1320 and May 1449, the Vettori had twenty Priors and Gonfaloniers of Justice: there had been Vettori in the Signoria in 1420, 1443, 1445, and 1449, but after the separation in 1452, the family's representation went up quickly (Manoscritti, 250, fols. 517 V 520'). 138 On 26 August the Balla directed that the Signoria was to add this proviso, should it decree the separation of the two families, on the grounds

that

they

were

not

of

the same

blood and

"dissensiones

scandala et differentiae inter eas oriri vel esse" (Balie, 27, fol. 34 r ~ T ). Oddly, there appears to be no such provision in Provvisioni, 143, 144 (1452-53), nor

in

autorita, 1447-54);

the Deliberazioni dei Signori e Collegi (speciale yet a

contemporary

copy of

the law, dated

28

August, is preserved among the private notarial acts concerning the Vettori-Capponi division: see Ν. A., F 304 (Ser Filippo di Cristofano di Lionardo, 1449-53), fol- 3 2 9 r " v - The division is also mentioned, in a rather garbled way, by the chronicler Giovanni Cambi ( Istorie Floren­

tine, in Delizie, xx, 302). Cf. a late fifteenth

century chancery list of

"casati che si danno divieto," which states that the Vettori and Capponi "solo hanno divieto a sedere insieme a 3 maggiori ufici" (Tratte, 1075, fol. i5 T ). 139 B.N.F., Manoscritti

Palatini, Ser. V. Capponi, 199, unfoliated.

This is an extract, in a later copy, from the book of "Ricordanze d'interessi e di suoi fatti di Angolo"; I have not been able to find the original diary, but on internal evidence there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of

this copy.

AND POLITICS

cause one cannot promise it in the future because of the divieti," and though on that occasion the problem was overcome, it was perennial. 140 For that reason, when four years later he was reflecting on the city's constitution, Piero was in favor of a minor relaxation of the laws of divieto, for all that he believed in their importance. "These big families cause a fuss," he commented ingenuously, "and it does not seem to them that they are fairly treated in the divieti, especially those concerning the territorial administration. . . . It is bad that a podesta of a hick town should give the divieto to the Captain of Pisa and Pistoia." 141 At least one Capponi saw himself in open competition with his family because of the divieto laws. Writing to Lorenzo de' Medici from Siena on 12 December 1472, Bernardo di Nicola began: "I don't know if the drawing of the Twelve [Goodmen] has made us subject to the divieto; if not, I beg you to be content to satisfy me in the way I requested you. . .; [since] I know that others of the house have asked (and if the divieto does not apply will ask) it of you, all the more will I appreciate it if you satisfy me." 142 Competitiveness between members of their lineage was a fact of Capponi life; born of the Vettori connection and nourished by the family's political abilities and high ex­ pectations at times of scrutinies and elections to office, there were manifestations of it from time to time. According to a letter written by Niccolo di Nicola on 1 September 1512, his distant cousin Tommaso di Gino went so far as to remonstrate with the Medici that his own brother Neri 1 4 0 M. P., X L i f 544: "facciate Neri mio fratello d e ' Signori questa volta, che a noi non si puo prometere in tutunim rispecto a divieti." Neri became a Prior on 1 November (Manoscritti, 248, fol. 1721'). "I Published by BerleIl i, "Constitutional Reforms," p. 164. "2 M. P., xxiv, 259: "Non so se la tratta de' XII c'a messi in divieto: quando non fussi vi priego siate contento conpiacermi di quanto vi richiesi. . .; in casa so che dallx altri ve 1'anno domandato, e dimandiranno non sendo in divieto, tanto piu aro da stimarlo se me ne conpiacerete."

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

"had been preferred to him" in their newly instituted regime, whereupon Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici grew dark with anger, and among other things pointed out to Tommaso (who was by any standards a malcontent), that Neri was Gino's first son. 143 In a letter of the same day, Bartolomeo Capponi mentioned that Nicola Capponi was being criticized, apparently by his kinsmen, for "showing himself too desirous of belonging to the regime." 144 Some years later, Lodovico di Gino, of yet another Capponi branch, displayed fear of competition from his kin; he told the Medicean Messer Iacopo Salviati, to whom he had written some time in May 1526 about his wish to be "seen" as Gonfalonier of Justice: "Since I returned here [from Rome] I have not been constantly bothersome in asking this or that favor; and if anyone from my house should oppose, and himself ask for it, Your Magnificence is most discreet, and will not think of replying that it is Messer Iacopo or I who ought to be satisfied." 145 There was no way to escape the burden imposed by the divieto and family competition, save to renounce the consorteria and to take a new family name and coat of arms. It is some indication of how advantageous it was to belong to a big consorteria, and how precious a possession the family name and political traditions remained, that no Capponi ever did so. The Capponi expected one of its number to be regularly represented in key offices, and its men cooperated to achieve what they obviously saw as a common end. "This is to 143

lii

B.R.F., Manoscritti Moreniani, 51.

Ibid.: "e Nichola. . .e stato biasimato perche a mostro essere

troppo voglioloso dello stato." 145 Archivio Capponi, Florence, "Registro di eopialettere scritte da Lodovico di Gino Capponi. . .dal di 2 Aprile 1524 al 10 Maggio 1527," fol. 701'; this slim volume is in a file entitled "I: Lodovieo di Gino di Lodovico Capponi": "Dapoi ch'io tornai qui ogni giorno non sono molesto in domandare quella cosa ο quel'altra, et se qualcuno della casa mia mi fussi contrario, et domandassi lui, V. M. e discretissima et ad quella non accade replicare che debbe essere compiaduto Messer Iacopo ο io."

AND POLITICS

remind you," wrote Piero di Gino to Piero de' Medici on 2i May 1494, that "when I left you said you would at my request make Lorenzo di Recco Capponi [one] of the Otto della Balia. . . . Nobody else in the house desires the post; it must be five years or more since one of our house had it, and therefore you will give me great pleasure if you are able to arrange it."146 The promise to Piero Capponi, third cousin once-removed to Lorenzo di Recco, was not kept (Medicean neglect of such essential matters turned many aristocrats, including Piero, against the regime several months later), but the letter is an interesting one, illuminat­ ing uncommonly clearly the private processes and assump­ tions which shaped Florentine politics. The Capponi had obviously conferred about this appointment, perhaps after someone had casually mentioned (quite accurately it is important to note) that for some time none of their number had been on the prestigious and powerful committee which was in charge of the city's internal security. Clearly there was a question of family honor involved, but also a more practical issue. Capponi concern, here and elsewhere, with assuring that many of its men held high political posts can only mean that when in office kinsmen looked after each other's interests, not inevitably and exclusively (for many of the Capponi were ardent patriots), but as one of several very important responsibilities. When, in September 1512, Niccolo di Nicola Capponi reported in detail to his uncle in Rome the course and outcome of events just after the return to power of the Medici, he did so from the perspec­ tive of his entire lineage: he realized that Bishop Guglielmo Capponi would want to know about the composition of the "new regime." "And we of the house [in it]," he wrote ΐ4β M. P., xiv, 414: "Questo vi fo per ricordarvi quando mi dicesti di fare a mia stanza Lorenzo di Reccho Capponi delli della Balia. . .non e altri in casa che Io cerchi; debba essere cinque ο piu che in casa nostra ηon ne havemo alchuno, et possendone compiacere me ne farete piacere grandissimo."

parti Otto anni per6

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

"are Giovanni di Niccolo del Grasso, Piero di Recco. . .Neri di Gino. . .Niccolo di Piero." 147 From Niccolo's list we can infer that the Capponi family was represented in the regime by a group which would be active on its behalf. Very occasionally there survives a run of evidence which actually shows the lineage collectively in action, and not just in pursuit of communal office. One such incident occurred in July of that very year, when Niccolo di Piero di Gino was taken prisoner abroad while in the Commune's service. There followed an impressive mobilization of Capponi energies and influence. The process began when Niccolo's brother came to the Florentine house of Bishop Guglielmo Capponi's nephews, Niccolo and Bartolomeo d'Andrea, to break the news. At once the two wrote to their uncle in Rome, asking him to use his posi­ tion there on their distant cousin's behalf: thereby, they assured him, he would give consolation not only "to them [the prisoner's immediate family], and to the others of the house," but also to the Florentine people. 148 On the same day, three of the prisoner's uncles combined to write to Guglielmo "as to [the] father and protector of all the house," pointing out to him that other Roman friends, including Lodovico di Gino Capponi of yet another branch, would cooperate with the bishop in his attempts to catch the Pope's ear. 149 Only twelve days later the three wrote again to their kinsman, thanking him very much "for the 147 B.R.F., Manoscritti Moreniani, 51, 11 September: "E di questo numero [i.e., in the nuovo reggimento] siamo noi qui d[i] casa. . . Giovanni di Nicholo del Grasso, Piero d[i] Reccho, Neri d[i] Gino. . . Nicholo d[i] Piero." There survives a letter of the same month, writ­ ten by one Segni to another, deploring that family's weak position in the new regime and suggesting steps to be taken "che la chasa non rimangha adrieto": Acquisti e Doni, 25, fol. 43'. 148 B.R.F., Manoscritti Moreniani, 51, 19 July: "vi preghiamo quanto piix possiamo che oltre e al Ioro e agli altri della chasa, sendo puplico non potresti fare choxa piu grata a questo popolo." 1 ^Ibid.: this letter was signed by Tommaso, Cappone, and Neri di Gino Capponi: "richorriamo a V.R.S. chome a padre e protectore di tutta la chosafsic]. . . ."

AND POLITICS

diligent and quick work" he had done for their nephew.150 A prelate could indeed be an invaluable "protector and father of all the house," especially at a time when Medicean influence at Rome was increasing. Five years earlier, the Capponi as a whole had combined to support Guglielmo, Bishop of Cortona, in his bid to become, with Medici help, Archbishop of Florence: in this traditionally influential position, he and his house would have wielded much in­ direct political power at a time when the Republic was in disorder, and would have been in control of considerable ecclesiastical patronage. Guglielmo's machinations began in December 1507. On 5 January 1508 his distant cousin, the priest Messer Mico Capponi, wrote to tell him that on the day before "we went on behalf of the others of our house to speak to the Magnificent [Gonfalonier of Justice], and then spoke privately to each of the Priors." "The reply of the Gonfalonier was general, as you will have gathered at more length from a letter written by Niccolo [the Bishop's nephew]," he continued, but "the other lords each promised to favor us as much as possible." Messer Mico was able to assure his kinsman that "everybody in the house is most eager, and they do not neglect to do anything, nor can they desire anything more than they do this."151 Guicciardini noted that when Piero Soderini, the Gonfalonier, opposed Guglielmo's scheme, "some of the Capponi and Giovanbatista Ridolfi their relation" were resentful.152 Its final defeat prompted an extraordinary outburst from 15 0 Ibid., 31 July: "Ringratiamo assai V. S. della diligente et subita opera facta cholla S[antita] di Nostro Signore, di che ne siamo stati oblighato a quella." 1 51 Ibid.: "andamo per commessione degli altri di casa a parlare al Magnifico et cosi a caschuno in privato parlamo a Signiori. La risposta del Gonfalonieri fu generale, come piu distesamente per una di Nicholo arete inteso—gli altri Signori cascheduno promesse favorirci quanto fussi possibile. . .hogniuno di casa e dispostissimo, e non lascono a fare nulla ne possono piu desiderare questa cosa." Un­ fortunately, Niccolo's letter (referred to here) does not seem to have survived. 15 Zlstorie fiorentine, p. 306; cf. pp. 268, 305, 319-320.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

Tommaso di Gino Capponi, who sent to his distant cousin the bishop a long denunciation of Soderini and his ances­ tors, whom he and his forefathers had always helped, only now to have proved the proverb "a very great favor is repaid by a very great ingratitude, who cuts down the hanged man is hanged by him." "You must be patient with me for letting myself go with the above chatter," Tommaso concluded, "because I am bursting with anger."153 It was no doubt partly in retaliation that the Capponi wel­ comed Soderini's overthrow in 1512, when one of the family was among the hotheads who forcibly removed the Gon­ falonier from the Palazzo della Signoria.154 In 1521 Messer Giovanni di Bernardo Rucellai was in pursuit of a cardinal's hat, and hardly surprisingly we find him advised and supported by a distant cousin, Buonaccorso Rucellai. On 10 September Buonaccorso, who was a businessman in Rome, informed Giovanni, away on a Papal mission in France, that he had that day success­ fully requested from the Pope a benefice which the priest had sought: with an eye to a far greater prize he also announced that "they are talking of making cardinals though it is not yet certain."155 Five weeks later the banker sent further details and assured Giovanni that "I have fully informed Palla [Giovanni's brother] so that he may do what is necessary you know where." "May God concede this grace we all desire," Buonaccorso ended, and it is 153 B.R.F., Manoscritti Moreniani, 51, undated, but indubitably relating to this incident. The letter actually begins with these violent words: "Proverbium est probatum verbum veramente, R.1"0 Mons. mio: uno grandissimo benefitio si pagha con una grandissima ingratitudine, chi spicha Io 'mpichato, Io 'mpichato impicha lui." It ends: "Et abbiate patienta se mi sfogo con la soprascritta chiachierata. . .che io trabocho di stizza." 154 Devonshire Jones, Francesco Vettori, pp. 61-63; c^- P- 59155 Con. Sopp., 78, 322, fol. 106: "Ragionasi di fare Cardinali, pure non e ancora cosa certa." This whole incident is discussed in G. Mazzoni, Le opere di Giovanni Rucellai (Bologna, 1887), pp. xxxii, xxxvixxxvii; Mazzoni uses the letter signed "B. R." referred to in the next note, but does not cite the present one which makes it quite certain that we are here dealing with Buonaccorso Rucellai. 2 10

AND POLITICS

obvious that his reference is to the Rucellai lineage.156 At this time Messer Giovanni and his brother were family leaders, able (according to a late sixteenth century family chronicle) to offer to Cardinal Giulio de' Medici the devo­ tion of themselves "and furthermore of all the numerous and powerful family of the Rucellai." The project was not successful: had it been, the anonymous chronicler con­ tinued, Giovanni "would have greatly raised up his house."157

From such acts of family cooperation, and a lively sense of past and present collective honor and identity, came political histories which were for generations coherent and distinctive. We are often told that during the Renaissance paternal kinsmen in Florence frequently and increasingly found themselves on different political sides: however, a close scrutiny of the positions taken by the Ginori, Rucel­ lai, and Capponi on the key political question of the fif­ teenth and early sixteenth centuries—whether to accept Medici leadership of the oligarchy and, more crucially, on what terms—reveals a very high and consistent level of unanimity among each of the three lineages and their scores of men. In different ways all three were Medicean for most of the century under review. Many of their men received prolific political patronage from the Medici, as scrutiny and elec­ toral results show. In return, they gave support and loyalty —the dozens of surviving letters to the Medici, written by individuals from many distinct lines and covering the whole period, are full of references to favors received and ΐ5β Printed in ibid., pp. xxxvi-xxxvii. This would also be the Buonaccorso mentioned in other of Giovanni di Bernardo's correspondence in Con. Sopp., 78, 322, passim. 157 "Zibaldone," fol. 2511: "e di piu la famigla tutta de' Rucellai numerosa e potente." For the last quotation and its context, see F. W. Kent, "Due lettere inedite di Giovanni di Bernardo Rucellai," Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana, cxlix (1972), 568. 211

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

services offered. The Medici were asked, above all, for offices, tax concessions, and vigorous and very various use of their social influence; their clients repaid the patronage often extended them with political support, gifts, and devo­ tion. Usually a man committed only his immediate family to the Medici patron, but there was often an implicit un­ derstanding that behind the individual were his paternal kinsmen, a proposition spelled out by Messer Guglielmo Capponi, who asked Lorenzo the Magnificent on 10 May 1487 to entertain "that feeling toward our house that our love and fidelity for you merits."158 Some years earlier, Guglielmo's uncle had written to commiserate with Lorenzo on the death of his brother Giuliano de' Medici: the Medicean reputation for munificence, Messer Giovanni Capponi wrote, "has been the reason why, in my and our house's needs, we have with assurance had recourse to you and to your ancestors, by whom graciously we have been exalted."159 These Capponi, of the Altopascio branch, were more wholehearted supporters of the Medici than some of their cousins, especially the men descended from Neri di Gino, who were allies of the dominant family rather than partisans. In general, traditions of attachment to the Medici varied from line to line in each family: several generations of men might, like some members of Domenico di Vanni Rucellai's branch, write to their patrons with compliant humility;160 others followed the course taken by Piero di Bingeri Rucellai's descendants, firm Medici partisans who corresponded intimately but rarely servilely with their 158 M. P., XL, 38: "quello animo verso la casa nostra quale merita Io amore et fede nostra verso di voi." In my "Ottimati Families," pp. 180-223, 331 "34®' 507-538, I have analyzed exhaustively almost all surviving letters of and to members of the three families; what follows is a digest, with examples, of these sections. 159 M. P., xxxvi, 787, 18 June 1478: "e suto cagione che con sicurta ne' miei bisogni e di casa nostra, siamo ricorsi a vostri passati et a voi, de' quali gratiosamente siamo suti exauditi." 160 See, e.g., Brancazio di Niccolo's letter to Lorenzo in ibid., xxix, 643, 20 August 1475.

2 12

AND POLITICS

patrons. 161 As one would expect, the richer and more powerful men were usually able to take up a more inde­ pendent stance than their weaker and more vulnerable relatives: the most passionately obsequious letters addressed to the Medici by any of the Ginori came from two unim­ portant and eccentric men, one of whom, Gabriello di Piero, shared little in common with his kinsmen save his love affair with Florence's leading family. In the 1480s and 'gos Gabriello was podesta of several northern towns, whence he sent back to Florence a stream of diplomatic and political news for which the Medici were grateful. It was his duty, Gabriello once told Lorenzo in one of his ful­ some letters, to preach abroad the "nobility and family achievements" of the Medici. 162 Open and violent dissension with this pro-Medicean consensus came from a mere handful of men, except on the two occasions (in 1494 and 1527) when there was a general Florentine reaction to Medici hegemony. 183 Even late in 1434, when it might seem to have been inevitable that the shake-up brought about by Cosimo's victory would find family lines in disarray, there was almost complete unanimity. Of the Capponi, only the unfortunate Caponcino sympathized deeply with the "ruined citizens," 104 and all the Ginori were violently for the Medici. Giovanni di Paolo RuceIlai was the only member of his family who is known to have had firm ties with Cosimo's enemies. 165 A lei Oil 25 January 1473, Bernardo di Piero complained to Lorenzo that a certain Ser Piero had menaced him, and sharply reminded his patron that "tu abi l'occhio che gli amici tua sieno conservati": Biblioteca Comunale, Forli, Autograft Piancastelli, 1902. 162 M. P., xxxvm, 63, 18 December 1480: "nobilita e portamenti di caxa." For details of Gabriello's career, see Kent, "Ottimati Families," PP- 338"342163 For defectors, see chap. 2 above. 164 See above, p. 198. 165 I have not been able to discover any evidence that Giovanni was an active or well-known anti-Medicean, though it may have counted against him that he was on the Otto di Guardia from 15 May 1434 (Manoscritti, 372, unfoliated). There is no warrant for the assertion of Leader Scott, The Orti Oricellari (Florence, 1893), that Giovanni was

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

few men of the three families took part in the widely sup­ ported "republican reaction" to growing Medicean author­ ity in 1465-66, but almost all of them went unpunished, unlike other leading republicans and many of those who signed the anti-Medicean pact of 27 May 1466.166 There were one or two Rucellai and Capponi among the rebels who opposed the Medici dukes after 1530, but the vast majority of their kin reconciled themselves to the new state which they and their descendants went on to serve as en­ nobled bureaucrats.167 As for the Ginori, their fidelity to the Medici was always remarkable. Only once, in August 1458, was one of their number punished by a Medici regime for political reasons ( pello stato). 1 6 S This man, Domenico Ginori, fell out permanently with his kinsmen, but this was the exception and not the rule. Distant kinsmen, and distinct lines within a lineage, might have different political tastes, and even take opposing lines of public action at a particular time, without the essen­ tially private or family bond between them necessarily being broken. Much more attention needs to be given to "one o£ the most violent of the party which exiled Cosimo" (p. 6). Neri Capponi in his Commentari, distinguishing carefully between houses and individuals, named the Ginori, Rucellai, and Capponi as among the active heads of the Mediceans on 26 September 1434: ed. L. A. Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Seriptores (Milan, 1731), xvm, col. 1,182. 1( i f; On this subject, see Rubinstein, Government of Florence, Part 11. The signatories are listed in G. Pampaloni, "II Giuramento Pubblico in Palazzo Vecchio a Firenze e un patto giurata degli antimedicei (Maggio, 1466)," Bulletino Senese di Storia Patria, LXXI, ser. 3, xxm (1964), 213-238. 167 The transformation of the Quattrocento Florentine patrician families into the bureaucracy and nobility of the later autocratic state is well described by R. B. Litchfield, "Office-Holding in Florence after the Republic," Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron, ed. A. Molho and J. A. Tedeschi (De Kalb1 Illinois, 1971), pp. 531-555. 168 Benedetto Dei's phrase in his chronicle (Manoscritti, 119, fol. 2iv). Margherita Dietisalvi nee Ginori was exiled for ten years on 10 November 1467 (Otto di Guardia e Balia, 824, fol. i4gv), presumably on account of her adopted family's anti-Medicean activities (ibid., fols. i26T-i33r, and Municchi, La fazione antimedicea, p. 99).

AND POLITICS

the whole subject of the nature of political allegiance in Renaissance Florence, but one gets the impression that in­ sofar as Florentines had political "principles," these had to survive as best they could in a very competitive market of social and political forces. A Giovanni Rucellai could be ostracized by the stato for almost a generation while remaining on reasonable terms with his kinsmen who were part of that regime: Bernardo his son had a grandchild with very different political beliefs from his own, yet the archrepublican Cosimo di Cosimo remembered Bernardo with affectionate if shrewd understanding.169 Indeed, Bernardo and his immediate family, who remained an intimate and united domestic group, sponsored the two very dissimilar phases—the one Medicean, the other ultra-republican—of the political discussions in the celebrated Rucellai Gar­ dens.170 The Altopascio Capponi and their cousins descended from Neri di Gino were very different in political style, yet there is unambiguous evidence of their mutual cooperation in the name of the casa Capponi. 171 There were very different ways of being "Medicean," and each family had its own traditions and problems which shaped its reactions to Florentine politics, both when the Medici were in power and in the republican periods. The Ginori, small and rather new, were always henchmen and followers, not allies, of their Medici neighbors; despite their friendship with the Medici and their electoral success, very few of them held really key offices, or were judged by con­ temporaries to be privy to the most precious secrets of the iea See the sensitive word portrait of Bernardo which Machiavelli gives to his close friend Cosimo Rucellai at the beginning of L'Arte delta Guerra (A. Gilbert, Machiavelli—the Chief Works and Others [Durham, 1965], 11, 569-571). 170 F. Gilbert, "Bernardo Rucellai and the Orti Oricellari," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xn (1949), 101-131. There is evidence of Cosimo's good relations with his conservative uncles Messer Giovanni and Palla di Bernardo in Giovanni's letters to Giangiorgio Trissino (Opere, pp. 244-245, 247, 250, 251). 171 See, e.g., above, pp. 208-210; cf. below, p. 272.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

successive regimes. 172 Their letters to the Medici show them to be, from the start, both more intimate and more syco­ phantic supporters than were most men of their class. There was also a dash of violent fanaticism in Ginori attachment to the family which had perhaps befriended their obscure ancestor as early as the 1350s. 173 In May 1432, at a time of rising party feeling, Giuliano di Francesco Ginori assured Averardo de' Medici that "thy friends have the wind fresh behind them, and go where they will": 174 it was Piero, this man's brother, who on hearing in September 1433 °f Cosimo's confinement "fearlessly went shouting through the city, almost showing himself to be more a madman than a prudent one." 175 Precisely a year later, when the leaders of the oligarchy decided to burn the arch-Medicean Ugolino Martelli's house around him, "he was rescued," one of the Medici reported to another, "by Antonio di Ser Tommaso [Masi], and by those Ginori, and by the della Stufa. . . ." 17e Giorgio di Giuliano Ginori kept up this brave spirit in the next generation, and to the same end. A violent man and well practiced in arms (in 1454 he had carried the day in a joust held in Piazza Santa Croce), 177 Giorgio passed 172 No Ginori was ever an accoppiatore; for thirty years after 1 4 5 7 ,

no

Ginori was of the Otto (Manoscritti, 272, unfoliated).

i t s The family's founder, Ser Gino da Calenzano, worked as a notary for

the

Medici

in

1350:

I. Hyman, "Fifteenth

Century

Florentine

Studies: The Palazzo Medici: and a Ledger for the Church of San Lorenzo,"

unpublished

doctoral

dissertation

(New

York

University,

1968), p. 236. Was Ser Gino among "il popolo del quartiere di San

Giovanni, onde si faceano capo i Medici e' Rondinelli e Messer Ugo della Stufa giudice, e' popolani di borgo San Lorenzo co' beccai e altri the grandi in the 1340s (Giovanni Villani, Cronica, ed. F. G. Dragomanni [Florence, 1845], I v . 45)? iTi M. P., v, 201, 12 May: "Ben anno gli amici tuoi il vento in popa artefici" who opposed

e navichano per ongnni paese."

i t s Cavalcanti, Istorie Florentine, ed. di Pino, pp. 279-280. 176 M. P., iv, 332, 27 September 1434: "E senon che fu sochorso d'Antonio di Ser Tomaxo e da que' Ginori e dala Stufa, l'arebono fatto." The letter, to Francesco di Giuliano de' Medici, is unsigned, but Dale Kent believes it was probably written by Piero de' Medici. 177

Giovanni Cambi, Istorie Florentine, in Delizie, xx, 322.

2 16

AND POLITICS

much of his life in and near Prato, where he had a benefice after becoming a Hospitaler Knight of St. John of Jerusalem. It was at Prato in April 1470 that he suppressed an armed plot against the Medici regime and hanged, with his own hands and without trial, one of the culprits. Ac­ cording to one account, when his victim pleaded, " 'Pray let me say one avemaria'—Messer Giorgio, stringing him up, replied: 'Go straight to hell, then say it.' " 17S Two years later, Giorgio Ginori was Castellan of the Keep in Prato, a command he had obtained by favor of Lorenzo de' Medici, and which he almost lost because of his tactlessness and his obsessive desire to protect the honor of his Medici patrons. The podesta of Prato was Lorenzo's enemy, Giorgio re­ ported on 29 April, because on one occasion "My lads and I all shouted 'palle'—for this reason he has let me know. . . that he does not desire that my footsoldiers should bear arms." 179 True to form, much later Giorgio Ginori was said to have made an unsuccessful nocturnal attempt on Savona­ rola's life.180 His letters to the Medici, like those of many of his kin, were warmly servile: Giorgio was Lorenzo the Magnificent's "slave," his "property [chosa]."181 In political style the Ginori had remained "new men" in the tradition of the parvenu Giovanni Morelli's advice, eager to attach themselves to a greater power. 182 When their Medici patrons were removed in 1494, we find them quick to establish another intricate and complex relationship with i t s This much repeated novella presumably started with Poliziano (Wesselski, Angela Polizianos Tagebuch, p. 35); cf. an almost identical anonymous version in B.N.F., Con. Sopp., B VII, 2889, fol. 58'. I have dated the incident from Alessandra Strozzi's account in Lettere, pp. 605-606.

179 Al. P., xxiv, S 2 2 : "io e mia gharzoni tutti gridammo 'palle'; per quessto chagione Iui m'a fatto dire. . .che non vole che mia provigionati portino l'arme"; ibid., xxvm, 168, 26 May 1472, to Lorenzo, states that "io fu[i] eletto per vosstro mezo nel chasero." !so La Vita del Beato Ieronimo Savonarola gia attribuita a Fra Pacifico Burlamacchi, ed. P. Ginori Conti (Florence, 1937), p. 244. 181 M. P., xxvm, 167, ι May 1472; 271, 5 July 1472. iszRieordi, p p . 196, 274.

2 17

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

a family powerful enough to offer protection—as it hap­ pens, the Capponi. Until the very end of the fifteenth century, there had been no significant bond between the Capponi and Ginori. Then in the 1490s two of the most important Ginori men married Capponi women, each the daughter of a very prominent man. In the next generation this tie was reinforced—the daughter of one of the earlier Ginori-Capponi matches married another Capponi, and Tommaso di Tommaso Ginori took as his wife a daughter of the statesman Niccolo di Piero Capponi.183 Clearly the result of policy, this creation of an intricate set of relation­ ships between several branches of the two families was presumably intended to place the Ginori under the shadow of the Capponi in a period in which the Medicean position in Florence was either threatened or destroyed. At least three Ginori who were related to the Capponi were sup­ porters of Niccolo Capponi when he was Gonfalonier of Justice in 1527-28,184 and they expected help and protec­ tion in return. As Tommaso Ginori's wife wrote to her mother on 16 September 1527, Tommaso would do nothing without the advice of Niccolo.185 The Ginori had a sound instinct for self-preservation, but they never became actively anti-Medicean. They moved themselves into the Capponi sphere of influence in the early sixteenth century not so much to find a new patron as to secure a backstop neither too closely identified with, nor implacably opposed to, the Medici. The men of the small San Lorenzo family would have agreed with one of the more colorful aphorisms of Benedetto Dei, another parvenu and a friendly corre­ spondent of their kinsman Gabriello: "he who doesn't 183 Passerini, Ginori, tav. iv, VIII; several of the dates given in Litta, Famiglie celebri, x, tav. 111. v, xx, differ slightly. 184 Passerini, Ginori, pp. 41, 45-51; G. Rondoni, "I giustiziati a Firenze dal secolo XV al secolo XVIII," ASI, ser. v, xvm (1901), 227. 185 Signori Responsive, 43, fol. 113'. There are letters of Tommaso and other Ginori clients to Niccold Capponi on fols. 66r, 8or, 107', 153',

»92'·

AND POLITICS

support the Medici [Palle] will in the end have his shoulders broken."186 Rucellai loyalty to the Medici was in a cooler spirit. In their letters, which were slower to become obsequious than those of the Ginori, the Rucellai more often called them­ selves amici1S7 of Florence's leading family, "colleagues" or "allies," as we might say. Two Rucellai, Paolo di Vanni and Piero di Cardinale, had been active Medici backers in September 1434: Paolo, then the family's greatest man, had gone to Piazza Sant'Apollinare on 26 September to try to reason with the Albizzi partisans who were massing there,188 and, according to a priorista, on the next day "Piero di Cardinale Rucellai and his kinsmen [consorti]" were among the citizens who offered to help the pro-Medici Signoria against the militant Albizzeans.189 These men, and others of their family, were to hold very politically sensitive posts for the Medici, whose successive regimes always had one or more Rucellai among their inner number.190 As time passed, however, and the Medici became Italian princes, the Rucellai sense of being independent colleagues of the Medici slowly faded away. "Events within the city con­ tribute to the reputation and honor of the regime and of Piero [de' Medici], which I do everything to increase," wrote Mariotto Rucellai, a conscientious Medici caretaker, while Gonfalonier of Justice in November 1492,191 and in the 186 Ed. pisani, Un avventuriero, p. 105. e.g., n. 161 above and M. P., xxxv, 144, 31 January 1478, where Giovanni di Cardinale calls himself one of Lorenzo's "buon parenti e fedeli amici." iss Giovanni Cambi, Istorie Florentine, in Delizie, xx, 194. 1S9 Quoted in D. Moreni, Delia Carcere dell'ingiusto esilio e del Trionfal Ritorno di Cosimo Padre della Patria (Florence, 1821), p. 116. 1^0 Rubinstein, Government of Florence, p. 250, and passim', see also chap. 2 above. Bernardo Rucellai, e.g., was one of those "primarii e congiunti di affinita e stretta amicizia" who surrounded Lorenzo the Magnificent—quoted in A. Rochon, La Jeunesse de Laurent de Medicis (I449~I47&) (Paris, 1963). P- ia»· iei M. P., Lxxil, 45, 17 November, to Ser Piero Dovizi da Bibbiena: "le cose della citta vanno chon riputatione et onore dello stato et della persona di Piero, che ogni cosa fo di achrescerla." 1S7 See,

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

early sixteenth century others of his kinsmen served the Medici as soldiers and personal retainers. 192 The Rucellai descended from Giovanni di Paolo did not, however, stand in the same relationship to the Medici as did their kinsmen. Quite as committed, they were both more intimate with their relatives-in-law and more likely, through temperament and because they had inside knowl­ edge, to find fault with their actions. Throughout the com­ plex events of the first decades of the sixteenth century, Palla and Messer Giovanni di Bernardo were convinced and even violent supporters of their Medici cousins ("worthy Palla Rucellai," an anonymous populist wrote in the 1520s, "whose name corresponds with his actions"), 193 just as their father had been for much of his early and middle life one of Lorenzo de' Medici's closest friends and advisers. Bernardo and his brother-in-law had been estranged by about 1490, however, and Bernardo played a decisive role in ousting Piero late in 1494. Bernardo Rucel­ lai was above all an aristocratic republican who wanted a constitution neither completely dominated by the Medici nor wholly in the hands of the popolo; like others of his class, in later life he tended to be pro-Medicean during republican periods, an exclusive republican when the Medici were in control. 194 The same political ambivalence even surfaced in his sons, though late in their lives. Messer Giovanni died in 1525 rather disillusioned with the Medici because they had not elevated his house by further honor­ ing him, 195 while his brother Palla, who had worked as hard 1 9 2 p or details, 193 R. Ridolfi,

see my "Ottimati Families," pp. 187-189, 194-195. "Tamburazione fatta contro Palla Rucellai," Rivista Storica degli Archivi Toscani, 1 (1929), 131-132. The reference is of course to the balls (palle) on the Medici coat of arms. On the brothers' pro-Medicean activities, see Gilbert, "Bernardo Rucellai," pp. 112-113; Giovanni Rucellai, Opere, pp. vii-lxxii; Kent, "Due lettere inedite di Giovanni di Bernardo Rucellai," pp. 565-569; C. Roth, The Last Floren­ tine Republic (London, 1925), pp. 28, 205, 264; Devonshire-Jones, Francesco Vettori, chap. 4. 131 Gilbert's account in "Bernardo Rucellai" is a masterly one. W5 Opere, pp. lviii-lix; Kent, "Due lettere inedite di Giovanni di Bernardo Rucellai," pp. 568-569.

AND POLITICS

as any man to establish the Medici dukedom in 1532, courageously remembered his family's traditional attach­ ment to an exclusive aristocratic republicanism when four years later he voted against Cosimo de' Medici's election to the arch-ducal throne.196 It had been easier for these proud, wilful, and ambitious Rucellai to be Medicean when their relatives were simply leaders of an oligarchic regime, but even when, between 1494 and 1532, that family's position was ambiguous, other Rucellai doubters almost never be­ came defectors. In the long view, it was a pardonable exag­ geration of the truth for Palla Rucellai's grandson and namesake to remind Prince Francesco de' Medici in 1565 that "always all my ancestors had been Mediceans": he had no other wish, this other Palla assured Francesco, than to live honorably "under the shadow of your illustrious and magnificent house, as all my ancestors and forebears have done down to this time."197 Long before the Medici period, the Capponi had possessed a distinctive political tradition compounded of intense family ambition, patriotism, and a sense of public service. During a time of crisis in April 1382, Simone Capponi had taken the unusual step of publicly offering "himself and all able-bodied men of the house of Capponi, and one hundred retainers and five hundred florins"198 for Florence's defense. The names of the celebrated descendants of Gino (died 1421) became bywords for patriotic courage (neither con­ temporaries nor modern historians can resist quoting Piero Capponi's brave retort to the King of France late in 1494), but others of the family had the same characteristics. It was Giovanni di Mico of another branch who dramatically offered "all my substance, as far as possible" to the Floren­ tine state in April 1431.199 The Capponi had had their first 196 A. Rossi, "La elezione di Cosimo I Medici," Atti del R. Istituto Veneto di Lettere, Scienze ed Arti, ser. νπ, 1 (1889-90), 437-430. 197 Benedetto Varchi, Opere, 11, 829. The letter is not dated, but must belong to ca. 1565, the year in which Palla's father died. 198 Quoted by A. Gherardi, Cronache dei seeoli XIII e XIV (Florence, 1876), p. 441. 199 Quoted by Molho, Florentine Public Finances, p. 171, n. 34.

221

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

Prior as early as 1287, and for centuries they were successful men of public affairs. Gino and his son Neri were not the only "professional politicians";200 other members of the family expected to win honor and profit from officeholding, and it was with surprise that several fifteenth century Capponi informed the tax officials that they had "neither office, shops, nor business."201 This political tradition, reinforced as it was by the family's deep roots in the almost self-sufficient quarter of Santo Spirito, gave to Capponi relations with the Medici a notably independent (and at times rebellious) air. Many lines became favored Mediceans after 1434, but though allies, Capponi men were not usually intimates of the Medici. Significantly, the family's role in the Medici vic­ tory of September 1434 is not without a certain ambiguity. While the part played by Giovanni di Mico was obviously decisive (he was one of the new Priors whose election in September was the turning point for the Medici, as several contemporaries, including Cosimo himself, remarked),202 the strategy of Neri di Gino, Giovanni's first cousin onceremoved, cannot be so easily reconstructed. In January 1430 Rinaldo degli Albizzi regarded Neri as the leader of a pos­ sible third party,203 and in 1432 Capponi was briefly exiled for negotiating independently for the Pope's intervention in the disastrous Lucchese war;204 he may have been com­ mitted to the Medici as early as September 1433,205 the time of their banishment, but it was not until May of the 2 OOGoldthwaite,

Private Wealth, p. 190. The domestic agreement

made between Gino's sons in 1421 included this rubric: "che qualunche avessi alchuno uficio. . . l'utile sia di quel tale l'avessi"

(C. S., ser.

11, CXXVIII[4]). 201 Cat., 688, fol. 284"; cf. fol. 382 T . The usual formula in other tax reports is "neither shop nor business." 202 Cavalcanti, Istorie Florentine, ed. di Pino, pp. 297-298; xvi, 3;

Cosimo de'

Medici, "Ricordi," in

W.

Roscoe,

M. P.,

The Life of

Lorenzo de' Medici, 10th ed. (London, 1902), p. 411. 2OS Commissioni, s, p. saq. 204 Ibid., p. 646. 205 This seems a reasonable inference from his letter of 9 September, probably to Averardo de' Medici though the surviving copy does not say so—ed. by Masetti-Bencini, "Neri Capponi," p. 159.

AND POLITICS

next year that one of the Strozzi considered Neri Cosimo's man.206 Neri became the second most powerful Florentine after 1434, but his personal relations with Cosimo seem never to have been warm;207 probably their alliance was a mariage de convenance, as much for the Medici, who may have feared Neri and his talented kinsmen, as for the Santo Spirito family. Lorenzo de' Medici's relationship with Piero di Gino Capponi several generations later strikes one as very similar,208 and still later, when the Medici became rulers of Florence after August 1530, they had to take careful ac­ count of the Capponi of that huge branch, immensely rich men one of whom, Niccolo di Piero, had recently been in charge of the city and had opposed them. Francesco Guicciardini advised Pope Clement VII in 1531 that to govern Florence successfully it was necessary to win over Giuliano di Piero, who had been a twin-soul to his brother Niccolo, "in order to get on your side all those well-endowed young men of Gino's branch."209 It is true that other Capponi were warmer and more subservient to their patrons than was Neri's direct line. "Your wishes are my commands. . .your friends are mine," Francesco di Lorenzo Capponi assured Lorenzo the Magnif­ icent in 1469,210 and one could quote similar professions. And certainly as time passed, the tone, even of most Capponi letters, changes to one more courtly: Lodovico di Gino (1482-1534) received his political education in the 20«C. S., sei. 111, cxii, fol. 176', 24 May, Giovanni Strozzi to Matteo Strozzi. 207 Rubinstein, Cosimo, ed.

by

Government of Florence, Masetti-Bencini, "Neri

Cosimo's to Neri in M. P., 208 Piero

CXLVIII,

always addressed

p. 134; cf. Neri's letters to

Capponi," pp.

170-171,

and

£ol. 2 r_v .

Lorenzo

as

voi

in

letters

and,

unlike

Bernardo Rucellai, had not been a member of the Magnificent's youth­ ful

brigata·.

see the detailed analysis in

Kent,

"Ottimati

Families,"

PP- 526-53 1 · 209 "Discorso Settimo,"

Opere inedite di Francesco Guicciardini illus­ trate da Giuseppe Canestrini, ed. P. and L. Guicciardini (Florence, 1858), 11, 359. 210 M. P., xx, 556, 28 November: "e prieghi vostri mi sono comanda-

menti. . .gli amici vostri sono mia. . .10 ho grande disiderio di fare cosa vi sia grata."

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

Medici circle at Rome, and his social philosophy, his eager­ ness to satisfy his "superiors," was not that of his repub­ lican ancestor Gino. 211 Yet there are other Capponi letters in the Quattrocento which breathe a spirit of self-respect and of independence of Florence's leaders. When Vicar of Poppi in May 1471, Recco d'Uguccione did not feel able to help a Medici client unless the man was in the right, "because it is not in my nature to do otherwise"; 212 in the same year, his distant cousin Luca d'Agostino, who always wrote to the Medici as to equals, similarly promised to favor some prisoners at Firenzuola "in every way that I can, saving my honor." 213 It was not surprising then that the leading men of the Capponi twice moved against the Medici at those times when many of their peers felt that the city was suffering misrule, and their contribution to the "repub­ lican interludes" was, if cautiously conservative, a genuine one. Few Capponi were ever among those deeply commit­ ted Mediceans whom contemporaries called palleschi (even the submissive Lodovico di Gino briefly flirted with "liberty" if only "because of injuries received"), 214 and be­ tween 1527 and 1529 Niccol0 di Piero was supported not only by Lodovico, but by "all the Capponi, who are numerous, and then all their friends and relatives"; Busini's statement is firmly buttressed by other evidence. 215 No 2ii One of his relatives wrote of Lodovico after his death that he had been "alii superiori obedientissimo, colli equali benignissimo e facile, e colli inferiori humanissimo liberale e grato": B.N.F., Manoscritti Palatini, Ser. V. Capponi, 199, unfoliated. Lodovico himself assured Messer Iacopo Salviati on 4 May 1526 that "io non ho manchato di obedire ad mia superiori": Archivio Capponi, Florence, "Registro di copialettere," fol. ηον. As early as 1472, Piero di Giovanni Capponi had ended a letter to Lorenzo de' Medici "Conperasi uno schiavo in questi chasi chon una parola" (M. P., xxvm, 393). 2 Izlbid., xxiii, 341, 13 May: "perche altramente non fu mai mia natura." 2 i3 Ibid., xxi, 233, 30 August: "in tutto quello potro chon mio honore." 2 4 I Busini, Lettere, pp. 150-151. 215 Ibid., pp. 14-15; cf. pp. 16, 25, 27, 60, 111. Signori Responsive, 43, contains a number of letters written at this time from various Cap­ poni to Niccold (fols. 72', g2 r , 2451, 28or, 330').

AND POLITICS

doubt this was partly a matter of family loyalty and ambi­ tion, but it was also yet another example of the collective and undoctrinaire commitment of almost all the Capponi to political activity, public service, and Florence. "I am not a Spaniard, I am not a Frenchman," the moderate Niccolo di Piero di Gino Capponi told his most violent republican critic on 24 March 1529: "all I want is the well-being of this city."216

To say that it is "perfectly clear" that by the early six­ teenth century "family ties no longer defined a man's politics"217 in Florence is exaggerated, indeed inaccurate. Even if there was less political individualism, and more corporate family action, in the early communal period than later—and one often suspects that the medieval clan is seen to operate so monolithically in politics partly because the deliriously bland generalizations of the few chroniclers are rarely corrected and complicated by the many private and public documents which delight where most they bemuse the Renaissance historian—it is clear that the Rucellai, Capponi, and Ginori had distinctive political personalities (at once both single and collective), and frequently operated in public affairs as corporate groups. These "corporations" were not monolithic; within each there was a number of smaller groups with specific (and sometimes diverging) in­ terests of their own, and their members had profound loyalties outside the lineage and its segments—above all, and traditionally, to the Commune, and increasingly to the Medici. How that family's growing influence in Florence, 21 Niccolo to Baldassare Carducci, in G. Canestrini and A. Desjardins, Negociations diplomatiques de la France avec la Toseane (Paris, 1861), 11, 1,027. general, see C. Roth, The Last Florentine Republic, chaps. 3-5; G. Sanesi, "La Politica del gonfaloniere Niccold Capponi desunta da quattro sue lettere inedite," ASI, ser. v, xxi (1898), 142-152. 217 R. Starn, "Francesco Guicciardini and his Brothers," Renais­ sance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron, p. 427. I must add that this statement does appear to be true of the Guicciardini brothers and their kinsmen, as brilliantly discussed by Starn.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

its increasing control of politics and of patronage, affected the city's kinship structure is an important question, but one that cannot be answered here. I believe that it could be shown that in the very long run the rise of the Medici stripped the lineages of at least one of their traditional func­ tions—principally by so cornering political patronage that individual men and households increasingly looked to them for office, advancement, and leadership rather than to family elders and influential friends. However, the Medici of the early sixteenth century still knew very well that they were dealing with a political sys­ tem in which lineages were powerful and self-aware; when in 1513 Pope Leo X (Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici) sent his kinsman Lorenzo to manage the affairs of Florence, he pointed out to the younger man, who had not been brought up as a Florentine, that the office of Gonfalonier of Justice was of very great significance and reputation, and that in giving that dignity he "should look after the houses which are accustomed to being in the regime, and the branches within those houses [the balance of] which should not be changed without very good reason."218 If lineages were no longer para-military corporations as they had been in the medieval period, the numbers of their men were still re­ marked upon by Renaissance observers. In his chronicle, Giovanni Cambi named "the large houses, those with most repute and men, which existed in the year 1494. . .especially those with more men per family," and his list included the Rucellai and Capponi.219 "The house of Capponi is richer in abilities and men than ever,"220 Tommaso Capponi reminded a distant cousin a few years later. 218 "Instructione al Magnifico Lorenzo," ed. T. Gar, A S I , I (1842), 301. The next passage shows how clearly the Medici had grasped the possibility of manipulating these impressive but delicate family mechanisms: "cioe se alcuno ti andassi torto et non bene al proposito tuo, in questo caso puoi bastonar quelli tali, con dar Io stato a qualcuno altro di casa sua, ο ai sui fratelli minori." 219 D e l i z i e , xx, 28-29. 220 R.R.F., Manoscritti Moreniani, 51, to Bishop Guglielmo Capponi (for the date, see p. 210, above): ". . . la casa de' Chapponi e piu richa di faculta et d'huomini che mai." 226

CHAPTER FIVE

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, AND THE ANCESTORS

W

H E N the early chroniclers described the political and social geography of medieval Florence, they drew a colorful picture of a series of family blocks which dominated particular parts of the city. "The houses" of a family (a common phrase) were close together, perhaps grouped around a tower, piazza, or loggia. Probably, as in Neri Strinati's early fourteenth century description of his ancestral houses, the family's founder had settled in one spot, and his descendants, as they multiplied, acquired more houses and weightier influence in the district.1 It has been forcibly suggested in recent years that by the fifteenth century Florence's social geography was very different. Even if related men continued to live near one another, which was not always the case, the "extensive sociability of the older family association," the clan in its gathered houses, was in decline, and the nuclear family, with its "more in­ tensive social cohesion within the immediate family," be­ came the fundamental kinship unit. In this pioneering view the novel domestic architecture of Michelozzi and Alberti, which created a palace with clear, distinct—indeed inde­ pendent—lines and an internal loggia cut off from the world, embodied this more inward looking domestic ideal.2 Yet despite these ingenious suggestions, there is ample ι Storia della Guerra di Semifonte scritta da Messere Pace da Certaldo e Cronichetta di Neri degli Strinati (Florence, 1753), pp. 100-108. Cf. C. Lupi, "La casa pisana e i suoi annessi nel medio evo," Λ Si, ser. ν, χχνιιι (1901), 78-79. 2 R. A. Goldthwaite, Private Wealth in Renaissance Florence (Prince­ ton, 1968), p. 26a; cf. pp. 259, 261, and passim; "The Florentine Palace as Domestic Architecture," American Historical Review, 77 (1972), pp. 977-1,012. Goldthwaite's use of "sociability" evidently owes much to P. Aries, Centuries of Childhood (Penguin ed., Harmondsworth, 1973), espec. pp. 353-399· G. A. Brucker's Renaissance Florence (New York, 1969), suggests that physically fifteenth century Florence was still "a complex of hundreds of family nuclei" (p. 23).

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

evidence that in the fifteenth century some Florentine lineages were communities, associations of related men and women most of whom traditionally lived close to one an­ other. "Sociability" is a difficult word to define, and a more difficult quality to prove the existence of (one wonders how much of it there really was in the collections of houses of the para-military medieval consorterie), but certainly Renaissance kinsmen enjoyed social and ritual bonds within a local setting. This is not to say that all relatives got on well together, or that the ties that bound distantly related individuals and households to each other were stronger than those which existed within domestic groups—one can­ not show that, and it is not necessary to do so to see that the lineage existed as a fact, and as a potent ideal, for many Renaissance Florentines. The physical environment of family life had not in fact changed very drastically between the thirteenth and the fif­ teenth centuries; aesthetically Florence had become the "new Rome," as Dei put it, but the building of palaces and churches in the Renaissance style had hardly transformed the facts of family life for the vast majority of people.3 If Renaissance domestic architecture did embody a new ideal of family life, it was still the taste of a tiny minority of very wealthy men who could afford to build grandly. Ap­ parently only two men of our families built modern palaces in the period, though many others made substantial altera­ tions and improvements. So far as one can tell, both Carlo Ginori and Giovanni Rucellai were innocent of any desire to cut themselves off from their families, and there is very little evidence that this was an unintended consequence of 3 As Richard Krautheimer has bluntly observed: "for a city such as Rome or Florence or Mantua an individual building, a church, a palace, perhaps a single house, could be set up to represent revived antiquity. It would stand out from the medieval surroundings, but it would stand out like a sore thumb": "The Tragic and Comic Scene of the Renaissance: The Baltimore and Urbino Panels," Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art (New York and London, 1969), p. 355.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

their building programs. 4 Both men were notable family leaders and benefactors, both built in the very heart of their families' traditional districts, just as Filippo Strozzi put his new palace "in the midst of his other Strozzi [relatives]." 5 Both palaces housed extended families soon after their completion; Giovanni's grand-family lived in his new house until his death in 1481 (in the early sixteenth century two related households of his descendants were separately in­ stalled there), 6 and in 1534 Carlo's was owned, and lived in, by three of his nephews, two brothers and their young first cousin. 7 Rucellai probably built for both intensely per­ sonal and for family reasons. He seems to have had a fierce desire to make his mark by patronage on a grand scale, but his resolve was encouraged and made respectable by new doctrines, abroad in the 1430s, which pronounced wise liberality to be ennobling to a man, his family, and his descendants. 8 Notably, Giovanni wanted the palace to re­ main within his consorteria forever: Carlo Ginori was just as insistent upon this point in his will. It was, we have observed, this kind of attitude to family property, whether old or new, which kept many houses within the possession of a line or lineage; 9 the ancestral clusters of dwellings were often preserved by this means, and because men had sound political motives for wanting 4 For one Rucellai's jealousy of Giovanni's palace, see below, p. 242. Carlo noted in 1517 that Agostino Ginori would not barter a house he needed to build his palace (Dec. Rep., 64, fol. 107conceivably, Agostino was envious of his first cousin. Perhaps one should add to the number of new palaces the garden resort built by Bernardo Rucellai: L. Ginori Lisci 1 I Palatzi di Firenze nella storia e nell'arte (Florence, 1972), i, 301-308; 11, 801. One reads occasionally of other new houses being built, in what style one cannot tell: for Adovardo Rucellai's new house, see Diplomatico, S. M. Nuova, 28 December 1485. 5 Lorenzo Strom, Le Vite degli Uomini Illustri della Casa Strozzi, ed. P. Stromboli (Florence, 1892), p. 73. On Carlo Ginori, see L. Ginori Lisci, Baroncoli—La Dimora Rurale di Carlo il Vecchio de' Ginori (Florence, 1950). 6 Dec. Gran., 3618, fols. 197', 20i T . 7 Ibid., 3631, fol. iii T . β See below, pp. 284ff. 9 See chaps. 2 and 3 above.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

to remain within a traditional district. As one reads and rereads the tax records of the period, it becomes clear that most fifteenth century men still lived in houses they had inherited from their ancestors or had bought (or perhaps rented) from neighbors, friends, and kinsmen. By 1534 some family houses were at least a century old. How much more ancient they really were the tax records cannot tell us, but clearly most men lived still in "medieval" not "Renais­ sance" houses. These were often remodeled and reorgan­ ized, but it is difficult to see in this continuous minor build­ ing activity anything but a desire to adapt to changes in family circumstances, and to improve property. To take one example from the Capponi, who were busy improvers: some time in the 1520s and '30s, Bernardo di Lorenzo built a solid brick wall "between ourselves and Giuliano Capponi" and a pavement "beside [the house] of the heirs of Niccolo Capponi"; it is unnecessary to interpret these actions as Bernardo's desire for a new sort of domestic privacy, for we know that his ancestral property was in so bad a way that he also bought new furniture and redesigned his garden as part of a general cleanup. Besides, the enclave of old family houses to which Bernardo's belonged was still a veritable "medieval" complex in 1534, when he wrote in his diary that he owed money to Niccolo Capponi's heirs be­ cause they had complained that "the water in my court­ yard had ruined one of their cellars."10 It is true that there is not much "sociability" between kinsmen here, but there is also precious little privacy. Like Bernardo Capponi, many men and women of the three families always had paternal relatives as neighbors, in 10 Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 163 (insert dated 21 March 1541 within the file "Capponi: Conti e Ricevute"); cf. 165 (42, 43): "perche m'avevano [Niccolo's heirs] mosso una Iita all'atore che I'acqua della mia chortte guastava una Ioro volta; fecono l'atore ch'io la facessi aconc[i]are a mia ispesse" (ibid., 157, fol. 116). In his "Imagina­ tion et realite dans !'architecture civile du Quattrocento," Homage a Lucien Febvre (Paris, 1953), n, 195-206, P. Francastel has pointed out how few houses were built in the new style.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

the country as well as in Florence. As a result, even the large percentage of families which were nuclear or singleperson households cannot have been "isolated" in the mod­ ern sociological sense, especially as it was quite common for two or even more separate households to share a house— almost certainly each had its own floor or section,11 but we may as readily assume that intimacy or sociability existed between them as we can the opposite. It needs now to be demonstrated in more detail how loyal, in their different ways and degrees, the three lineages were to ancestral urban and country districts, despite some comings and goings and the pressures for mobility exerted by natural increase and (in the case of the Capponi) electoral circumstances. In a strictly physical way, at least, the three were still family communities;12 one can be sure that consorti must have been meeting each other constantly and casually on staircases, and in the streets, churches, piazzas, and narrow alleys of their native parishes and quarters. The Ginori, encouraged to stick together in their ances­ tral parish by their association with the Medici, were almost as tight a community in 1534 as in 1427, though their num­ bers had more than doubled. Five out of six Ginori house­ holds lived in Borgo San Lorenzo at the time of the first catasto, and a century later eight of the lineage's fifteen 11 See e.g., Vasari's description of Cosimo de' Medici's palace: "E sopra ciascun piano sono abitazioni e appartamenti per una famiglia. . ." {Vite de' Piu Eccellenti Arehitetti, Pittori, et Scultori Italiani, ed. R. Bettaiini and P. Barocchi [Florence, 1966}, in, 231). Cf. for several examples, Goldthwaite, "The Florentine Palace," pp. 1,0001,002. 12 For

very full documentation from tax and electoral records of residence patterns, see F. W. Kent, "Ottimati Families in Florentine Politics and Society, 1427-1530: the Rucellai, Ginori and Capponi," unpublished doctoral thesis (University of London, 1971), pp. 85138, 293-308, 405-458; see also chap. 4 above. In what follows I give references only to direct quotations and certain other important points. Goldthwaite notes that "men with the same name often lived side by side in the same parish of their common ancestor" (Private Wealth, p. 259), but he does not think this fact of very great significance.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

households were to be found in the same street; three others belonged to the parish of San Lorenzo. The Rucellai family also maintained itself a solid block in the ancestral area in and around the parish of San Pancrazio, where a RucelIai had lived when Dante was a young man.13 Never again, however, was the lineage as physically compact as in 1427, when almost every one of its twenty-three households lived in the district of Lion Rosso of which San Pancrazio was the center. Most Rucellai houses were along the Via della Vigna Nuova, or in adjoining streets, and there were smaller enclaves where a branch's households clustered together. Two small piazzas were central to this Rucellai world—the area ringed by Rucellai houses in front of Giovanni's palace and the piazza of San Pancrazio, described by Dei in 1470 as belonging to "the Scarfi, Federighi [and] Rucellai."14 There were thirty-seven Rucellai families a century later, and naturally there had been some dispersal, most of it not as damaging to the lineage's physical solidarity as it might seem; the ancestral district and houses were still in family hands, and two-thirds of the numerous Rucellai households still lived in Lion Rosso, sixteen of them in the traditional parish, the rest in the neighboring parishes of Santa Maria Novella, Santa Trinita, San Paolo, and Santa Lucia.15 Despite the important Capponi "migrations" from their ancestral gonfalone (Nicchio) and parish (San Iacopo sopr'Arno) into other parts of the quarter of Santo Spirito, that family remained more physically united than one might think. The area between Piazza Frescobaldi and the church of San Frediano, very much their homeland in 1427, 13 F. J. Carmody, "Florence: Project for a Map, 1850-1296," Speculum, xix (1944), 45; cf. B.N.F., Collezione Genealogica Passerini, 226 (35), fol. 2 T . 1-4 Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, "Memorie Storiche," Cod. Ital., 160, fol. 127'. 15 In 1492, according to a list compiled by the Abbot of San Pancrazio, twelve of the hundred-odd houses in the parish were owned by Rucellai: Con. Sopp., 88, 65, fols. 5o T -5i r .

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

still contained about one-half of their houses a century later. Almost certainly the Capponi had fought to keep this ances­ tral area as it was. When Brunelleschi had suggested that the church of Santo Spirito be "reversed" during the re­ building, in order that it might have a fine piazza stretching down to the Arno, his imaginative plan was vetoed by the "influential men of that time,"" or, as Vasari later put it, "because certain men did not want it so as not to have their houses destroyed."17 Neri Capponi, though a powerful backer of the rebuilding, can hardly have approved a scheme which would have cut a swathe right through his own and his lineage's houses. The branch of the Capponi resident after 1430 in and around Piazza San Felice, in the district of Ferza, lived no more than several hundred yards away from the main family enclave, but even this small gulf was partly bridged from about 1500 onward, when several Capponi households lived in Via Maggio, which directly links Piazza Frescobaldi with Piazza San Felice. The Capponi of the Scala district were rather a long way from this part of the quarter, but their two palaces were close to one another in the same street. Rather than preserv­ ing one nucleus of houses, the Capponi were developing several nuclei in their native quarter which was, as we have seen, a separate world in which divisions between dis­ tricts may have counted far less than in the quarters north of the river. Almost no Capponi left Santo Spirito for good.18 For two of the three lineages their ancestral country dis­ tricts also remained residential centers. Because of patterns ie Antonio Manetti, The Life of Brunelleschi, ed. H. Saalman (Phila­ delphia, 1970), p. 125; cf. pp. 12a, 152, n. 179. 1 7 Vite , HI, 194. is Bongianni di Gino, officially a resident in Scala, in fact lived in Santa Maria Novella in 1534 (Dec. Gran., 3557, fol. 242r); in the same year, his first cousin once-removed, Simone di Luca, appears to have lived in Santa Croce (ibid., 3578, fol. 323'). Very occasionally one finds Capponi living more or less permanently in the country: e.g., Cat., 999, fol. 53 r .

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

of inheritance and the laws governing land sales, the Rucel­ lai and Ginori kept the bulk of their rural properties in and around the towns whence their ancestors had come to the city. "At Campi [our ancestors] maintained many and large properties which, with palatial houses and ancient dwellings, still belong to the men of the said family,"19 wrote a Rucellai in the 1590s, and any of his forefathers could have claimed the same; read "Calenzano" for "Campi" and the statement might also have been made by a Ginori. It was, above all, to Campi and to Calenzano, and the surrounding districts, that most Rucellai and Ginori went for the long summer season of country retreat (villeggiatura); there, in effect, the lineage reassembled in houses which quite frequently bordered on one another just as in Florence. Earlier in the fifteenth century most Ginori villas were at Calenzano itself (especially in the castello and in the parish of San Niccolo), but later there were others at nearby Sommaia, San Martino a Gonfiente, and San Stefano in Pane. The Rucellai had most of their houses in the Campi and Brozzi districts. When a rich man bought a second villa, it was normally in these areas or perhaps further away from Florence. The castello at Campi, where there were Rucellai granaries as well as finer houses, had been built in the 1380s, and we may guess that the family had much to do with the project—a contemporary diarist goes so far as to call it the "castle of Vanni di Lapo Rucellai."20 It was at Osmannoro, 19 Archivio Rucellai, Florence, "Zibaldone Quaresimale" of Giovanni Rucellai, fol. 241 r~v: "a Campi mantennero molte possession! e grandi, Ie quali ancora ne' nostri tempi, con habitation! di palagi e case antiche, sono dagl'huomini di detta famigla possedute." On the Rucellai and Campi, see I. Tempestini, Campi—Bisenzio— Documenti, Note, Ricordi e Appunti Storici (Sesto Fiorentino, 1890). 20 C. S., ser. π, iv, Ricordi of Paolo Sassetti, fol. go', mentions "l'a[l]bergho posto nel borgho di Campi dentro nel castello di Vanni di Lapo Orciellai." Vanni was a prominent Rucellai (see L. Passerini, Genealogia e Storia delta Famiglia Rucellai [Florence, 1861], p. 50) at the time of the castle's completion in the 1380s. See also G. Gaye, Carteggio inedito d'artisti dei seeoli XIV, XV, XVI,

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

very near Campi, that the Rucellai collectively maintained what Cosimo di Palla Rucellai described as "a certain hos­ pital or oratory or church of St. Bernard," and others called "lo spedale del Maccione" or "St. Bernard's hospital of the Rucellai."21 Founded by Bencivenni di Bernardo in the middle of the fourteenth century, and further endowed in 1356 by his brother Ugolino, it was situated amidst land belonging to several branches of the family.22 A chance reference shows the hospital at work in December 1413, when a child of the Petrucci family and his wet nurse were sent to stay there at a cost fixed by Filippo di Vanni RucelIai.23 A much later document of 20 February 1460 reveals that the buildings then badly needed repair, whereupon Piero di Cardinale, on behalf of "all his kinsmen and agnates of the house and family of Rucellai" and with the help of Giovanni di Paolo, appointed a friar to set things in order. This "hospital or oratory," which still stands— much disguised by alterations and old car bodies—on the main road to Campi was not just a charitable institution: it had a family shrine "sub titulo sancti Bernardo," in which the spedalingho was obliged to celebrate the feast day of that Rucellai patron saint.24 Giovanni di Paolo took a further interest in this institution in the late 1460s, when he was eager to prove conclusively that because Ugolino's line was extinct, and Bencivenni's failing, "it belongs to all the sons of Nardo di Giunta Rucellai, so that in effect reprint ed. (Turin, 1968), 1, 533. However, Lorenzo Strozzi claimed that Carlo di Strozzo Strozzi built the castle: see his Vite, p. 12. 21 "Zibaldone," unnumbered first folio; Ν. Α., B 385 and B 397 (Ser Baldovino Baldovini, 1450-59 and 1465-68), fols. 327' and 2i5v, respectively. 22 "Zibaldone," fol. 95'; cf. Cat., 76, fol. 396'; 709, fol. 277''; 816, fols. 655^6561"; 817, fol. 6aiv; 818, fol. 764'. 23 C. S., ser. 11, x, Ricordi of Cambio Petrucci, fol. 25v. 24 Ν. Α., B 385 (Ser Baldovino Baldovini, 1450-59), fols. 327^328': "nobilis vir Pierus olim Cardinalis de Rucellariis de Florentia, suo nomine proprio ac vice et nomine omnium suorum consortium et agnatorum de domo et familia de Rucellariis" (fol. 327*)·

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

it belongs to all Nardo's descendants." 25 On 28 May 1505 Adovardo di Carlo, the direct and last descendant of the original founder, and the man considered in a document of 1470 to have a special position among the numerous Rucellai patrons of the hospital, formally ceded his rights of patronage to his distant cousin Bernardo di Giovanni di Paolo and his direct line, after whose extinction the spedale was to belong to "our family of the Rucellai." 26 The two families' major builders were also active in the country. Carlo Ginori's villa at Baroncoli near Sommaia was an old casa da signore which, though modified in the mod­ ern fashion, still was capped by a tall, almost "feudal," tower. 27 (The castle at Campi is a rudely rustic building, and these architectural references to the past perhaps ex­ pressed the two families' claims to be as much the masters of their areas as the original feudal overlords had been.) Quaracchi, Giovanni Rucellai's prized villa a few kilo­ meters from Campi near the road to Pistoia, was also built on an estate which had been his grandfather's in the four­ teenth century. To judge by his diary, Giovanni was quite as proud of the villa as of his urban building projects 28 — for him it was as appropriate to build extravagantly in this familiar area as in his ancestral city parish. "Owing to the possessions we have on this road [to Pistoia], we have many friendships in the Pistoian countryside," wrote Bernardo 25 "Zibaldone," fol. 70': "s'apartiene a tutti e figliuoli di Nardo di Giunta Rucellai siche in effetto s'apartiene a tutti e descendenti di Nardo." zelbid., unnumbered first folio: "Memoria per me Cosimo di Palla. . . . Adovardo di Carlo d'Antonio di Carlo Rucellai fece donazione inter vivos a Bernardo di Giovanni Rucellai sopradetto, mio avolo, e a suoi figliuoli e discendenti per linea masculina, e finita detta linea alia nostra famiglia de' Rucellai, di tutte Ie ragioni di patronato. . .[over St. Catherine's Chapel] e in oltre sopra a un certo hospitale. . .di S. Bernardo. . . ." Cf. Γ. W. Kent, "The Rucellai Family and its Loggia," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xxxv (1972), 399. 27 There is a very good account in Ginori Lisci, Baroncoli. 2 8 Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone, I, "11 Zibaldone Quaresimale," ed. A. Perosa (London, i960), pp. 21-27, 118, 121.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

Rucellai to his brother-in-law Giuliano de' Medici in 1474:29 his father was a popular figure in the Brozzi district.30 The Capponi had diverse rural bases by the sixteenth century and built and bought villas in different parts of Florence's countryside. By then several branches had their principal farms and houses well to the south of the city, others at Arezzo, Uzzano (in the Val di Pesa), and Fucecchio (near Lucca): from the early sixteenth century correspond­ ence of the Altopascio Capponi, who were established at this last place, it emerges that they were deeply committed there as patrons and landowners.31 However, Legnaia and its district, the family's home town and its rural center still in 1427, continued to exert a hold on many Capponi. All branches of the family save Nicola di Piero's kept some land there; indeed, Gino di Neri and his sons had their largest estates in this district as late as 1480, and he and others maintained villas there as well. Almost all branches of the lineage continued to hold collective rights of patronage over a family hospital at Legnaia ("called in the vernacular 'the Hospital of the Capponi' ") which at different times in the sixteenth century was still managed by Capponi priests.32 Several lines remained interested in the nearby church of San Bartolomeo at Monte Oliveto, founded in the 2» M. P., v, 807, 6 May: "rispecto alle possessioni abbiamo su questa strada tegnano molte amicitie nel contado di Pistoia." so Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, p. 23. 31 B.R.F., Manoscritti Moreniani, 51, passim. 32 The quotation is from the will of Piero di Bartolomeo Cap­ poni in Ν. A., S 1197 (Ser Stefano di Paolo di Stefano da Firenze, 1417-18), fol. 17', and concerns a bequest of two beds to the hospital; cf. fol. 19V. A note in the diary of Cappone Capponi (B.N.F., Collezione Genealogica Passerini, 186 [81], fol. 283') shows that in 1488 men of all lines of the family, save those lesser ones descended from Filippo di Recco and Sebastiano di Caponcino, were copatrons of the hospital. For the sixteenth century Capponi spedalinghi, see Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 163 (313), 165 (86). There is a brief note on the hospital's history in D. Moreni, Notizie Istoriche dei Contorni di Firenze (Florence, 1793: reprinted 1972), iv, 188-189.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

mid-fourteenth century by Bartolo di Caponcino Capponi.33 Thus, two hundred years later, the Capponi still remem­ bered that they had once been natives of Legnaia. Many of the meetings between kinsmen in these ances­ tral districts must have been casual and unplanned, con­ cerned with Florentine and family gossip; something of the flavor and range of family sociability can be found in collections of private letters, hard to come by as they are for this relatively early period. Some letters that passed be­ tween several related Ginori and Rucellai in the 1540s afford a glimpse into a confined family world; there are letters of a husband to his wife,34 of nephews to an aunt,35 and two between Ginori cousins: one of these complains about an­ other Ginori's dishonesty,36 the other recommends the writer to "all our relatives, and in particular to our elder Giovanni [the first cousin of the two men's fathers]."37 As one would expect, similar domestic or quasi-domestic networks are revealed in a few Rucellai letters of 1520-21. On 8 October 1520, for example, Palla Rucellai received a note full of family business from his paternal first cousin's wife. She agreed to go and help Palla's godmother in child­ birth and referred in passing to a distant cousin, Messer Niccolo di Brancazio.38 Others of these letters passed be33 In general, see G. Poggi, "La Chiesa di San Bartolomeo a Monte Oliveto presso Firenze," Miscellanea d'Arte, 1 (1903), 57-63. For three Capponi bequests to the church, see the wills of Cappone di Gino, Ginevra di Nicola (Archivio Capponi, 67 [46, 59]), and Neri di Gino (F. Polidori's ed. of Giovanni Cavalcanti's Istorie Florentine [Florence, 1838], 11, 436; cf. pp. 441-442). 34 Miscellanea Medicea, 306, 1, 28 July 1542. i i I b i d . , 29 July 1542; 28 September 1542. 36Zfeid.; for details see chap. 3, n. 132 above. 37 Miscellanea Medicea, 306, 1, 22 May 1546, Giovanni di Bernardo Ginori to Lionardo di Bartolomeo Ginori: "a tutti Ii nostri parenti e in partichulare al nostro maggiore Giovanni." 38 Con. Sopp., 78, 322, fol. 102. Signed "Lorenza de' R1," its author was probably Lorenza the wife of Paolo di Pandolfo Rucellai; a reference to "mess. Nicholo R1" (the lawyer Messer Niccolb di Brancazio), also suggests that the abbreviation must read "Rucellai" not "Ridolfi."

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

tween two other Rucellai, evidently from yet another distant branch of the family; one mentioned the birth of Palla Rucellai's son. 39 Family talk must often have been of this sort, and clearly it was between distant cousins as well as about them. When in France in late 1521, Giovanni di Bernardo Rucellai received two letters from his distant cousin Buonaccorso in Rome, 40 and two others from Zanobi Rucellai, who lived in Rouen and was probably a fourth cousin. 41 The correspondence between 1505 and 1513 of the Bishop of Cortona, Guglielmo di Nicola Capponi, similarly in­ cludes letters from both close and distant kinsmen. Guglielmo's major family correspondents in that time were, predictably, members of his own branch, especially his nephews Bartolomeo and Nicola d'Andrea, and his own brother Niccolo di Nicola. Other letters came from the bishop's first cousins Cappone and Niccolo di Bartolomeo, from his sister-in-law Maria, and from two men, Andrea and Alfonso Capponi, who were probably his nephews. From further afield in the big Capponi consorteria came letters from the priest Messer Mico di Piero di Giovanni, from Tommaso di Gino di Neri, Lorenzo di Recco, and from Giovanbatista and Antonio Capponi. All of these let­ ters teem with references to dozens of Capponi. "I forgot to tell Your Lordship," wrote Nicola to his uncle on 10 March 1511, "that Niccolo di Piero Capponi requested 39 Ibid., fol. 103: the top part of the letter is cut off, but the post­ script concerning the birth is dated 8 November. The recipient of all three letters (see fols. 104-105) is Mariotto Rucellai in Rome, the writer is one "P. R' in Firenze." It is not possible to identify these men precisely; clearly, Mariotto must have belonged to the branch descended from Domenico di Vanni (Passerini, Rucellai, tav. vm). 40 For details, see above, p. 210. « Con. Sopp., 78, 322, fols. 89, 145. In C. S., ser. 1, CCXLI, fol. i27r~v, there is a letter of Giovanbatista Rucellai to Paolo Vettori, dated 10 November 1519, which reveals the writer's familiarity with his very remote cousin, Messer Giovanni, for whom Giovanbatista included a J accommandazione of la chosa sua for one RafFaello Rucellai.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

[leave] to stay in Your Lordship's house in Lucca."42 Letters and recommendations flowed between these kinsmen. "I wrote to Your Lordship yesterday," began Niccolo Capponi on 29 October 1507, "with letters of Messer Mico [Capponi] and by the hand of Lodovico d[i] Gino Capponi. . . ."43 When young Giovanbatista Capponi returned to Florence from Rome in January 1513, he wrote back to his fourth cousin that he had done his duty concerning "the letters and the visits entrusted me by Your Lord­ ship,"44 and one can be sure that much of his work was with Capponi kinsmen, for whom Guglielmo was then a focus of influence and patronage. At times the bishop felt that his wide circle of friends and relations did not return his efforts on their behalf (Francesco Guicciardini twice calls Guglielmo a beastly man), but his nephew Nicola was, with justice, quick to correct his older kinsman: "you grumble that you have neither relations nor friends. . . . I say to you that you are mistaken."45 This wide and almost casual Capponi "sociability" was accompanied by more formal contact and cooperation, as Messer Mico Capponi's letter of 5 January 1508 to Bishop Guglielmo shows. Its reference to a deputation of Capponi visiting the Gonfalonier of Justice reminds one that behind Guglielmo's attempt to become Archbishop of Florence there must have been much discussion, and probably a formal family meeting, at least to appoint the group which went "on behalf of the others of our house."46 Indeed, much 42 R.R.F., Manoscritti Moreniani, 51: "Erami scordato dire a V. S. chome Nicholo di Piero Capponi mi richiese di loggiare in casa di V. S. ha Luccha. . .," and passim; see also the many references to the letters in this book. is [bid.: "Scrissi a V. S. ieri sotto lettere di Messer Micho e per Ie mani di Lodovico d[i] Gino Capponi. . . ." «Ibid.: "ale lettere et ale vicitationi da V. S. inpostomi." 4 5 Ibid., 4 January 1507: "io vegho che per Ie vostre ultime vi ramarichate che non avete ne parenti ne amici. . .io vi dicho che voi avete il torto. . cf. Guicciardini's Storie Florentine, ed. R. Palmarocchi (Bari, 1931), pp. 305, 320. 16 See above, p. 209.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

other family activity is unimaginable without meetings of the lineage; perhaps casual talk suggested family "policies," but only formal meetings could have formulated and launched them. Behind the Capponi decision to split from the Vettori in 1452 there would have been weeks, perhaps months, of careful discussion; when the final compromise was made, four influential men of each lineage solemnly signed the document. 47 At times of scrutinies, paternal kins­ men presumably met to decide their interests, just as other pressure groups (intelligenze) so frequently did. 48 When in i486 Piero Capponi asked Lorenzo de' Medici to make Lorenzo di Recco one of the Eight, and assured him that "nobody else in the house wants it," Piero had obviously asked around after Lorenzo, or other kinsmen, had sug­ gested that he make the recommendation to the Medici. 49 Shared rights of patronage over hospitals and chapels, and the broad participation by many kinsmen in frequent meet­ ings of their gonfalone, also imply formal family-wide discussion and consultation. On such occasions, the men of the Ginori lineage presumably met in one of their clustered houses, or perhaps in the Piazza San Lorenzo, or in the ancestral street which by 1517 had become known by their name. In 1498 the Ginori themselves called it "Borgo San Lorenzo," but only a little later a chronicler mentions "the street of Borgo Santo Lorenzo," that is "roundabout where the Ginori are." 50 The Piazza of Santo Spirito, or that of the Frescobaldi, 47 Ν. A., F 304 (Ser Filippo di Cristofano di Lionardo, 1449-53), fol. 332 r . The Capponi were Gino di Neri, Luca d'Agostino, Niccolo di Zanobi, and Mieo d'Uguccione. The original compromise had been negotiated by TJguccione di Mieo, Neri di Gino, Nicola di Piero, and Niccolo di Giovanni (fol. 328 1 ). 4 8 N. Rubinstein, The Government of Florence under the Medici 1434-1494 (Oxford, 1966), pp. 217, 226. 4 e See above, p. 207. so Ricordanze di Bartolomeo Masi y ed. G. O. Corazzini (Florence, 1906), p. 183. The first reference I have found to "Via de' Ginori" is in Dec. Rep., 64, fol. ιογ (1517); cf. ibid., 26, fol. 417', and Dec. Gran., 3631, fol. ui v . Cf. Ginori Lisci, Palazzi, 1, 353.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

would have been the natural meeting places of the Capponi; for more private business they might perhaps have adjourned to one of their numerous nearby palaces. Be­ fore the mid-fifteenth century, it seems likely that the RucelIai would have congregated in front of the church of San Pancrazio, or in the small open area ringed by their houses where Giovanni's palace stands, and where, in 1456, he seems to have held an old-fashioned wedding feast al fresco for his elder son Pandolfo. 51 From the early 1460s onward, however, the Rucellai lineage could meet in the graceful loggia and piazza built by Giovanni di Paolo after a co­ operative effort by his wider family. The original site of the loggia was provided in 1456 by Ugolino di Francesco Rucellai, Giovanni's aged second cousin once-removed; it now seems likely that the two men together conceived the idea, with the advice and support of "others of our house." 52 Its actual construction necessitated the pulling down of Ugolino's house, and all but one of his heirs, who were of several Rucellai branches, donated their portions so that the scheme might go ahead. The dissident cousin, Niccolo di Vanni, bitterly attacked his powerful kinsman in, of all places, his taxation report for 1469. "I used to have the sixth part of Ugolino di Francesco Rucellai's Florentine house," he reported, "which house Giovanni di Paolo di Messer Paolo Rucellai had knocked to the ground without my permission, and he has made of it a piazza and a com­ mon loggia: I don't know how I will ever be able to get 01 B.N.F., 11, iv, 374, fol. 131. This ricordo on Pandolfo's wedding is in a later copy of a draft version of Giovanni's Zibaldone, on which see F. W. Kent, "The Letters Genuine and Spurious of Giovanni Rucellai," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xxxvn (1974). 34352 Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, p. 20. The following account is sum­ marized from Kent, "The Rucellai Family and its Loggia," pp. 397-401. In an unpublished study, Miss Brenda Preyer has been able to use this evidence to reconstruct the architectural history of the loggia. D. Taddei's "Piazza Rucellai in Firenze," Studi e documenti di architettura, 3 (!973), PP- 13-49- does not contribute new material on this subject.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

any return from it." Niccolo's last comment literally wished away Giovanni's splendid new Renaissance palace: "I should remain satisfied if the same were to happen to his house." 53 This outburst represented a distinctly minority opinion among the Rucellai. In his original donation, Ugolino had wanted the loggia, which was to belong to the whole family and to bear its name, to be the setting for formal family ceremonies. The marriage feast of Bernardo di Giovanni was held in this "piaza e logia chomune" in 1466: several Rucellai of different lines gave presents, and there would perhaps have been other kinsmen among the many guests who were feasted so generously for several days.54 Earlier in the same year, Giovanni assumed the leadership of an­ other family project which made ceremonial use of the new loggia. In December and January 1465-66, no less than eight Rucellai men, representative of almost all the family's branches, made him their agent in negotiating the handing over of the Rucellai spedale at Osmannoro into the care of the Augustinian friars. The hospital was ceded by him on 12 March 1470, acting "as agent for all my kinsmen of our family." To acknowledge his family's patronage, Giovanni wrote in his Zibaldone, the friars promised: "To give us every year a tribute of forty pounds of little fishes from the Arno, on the first fast day after the feast of St. Bernard, and that they should be consigned to us in the loggia of the Rucellai; which [fish] they ought to divide and distribute to all the house of the said family that live in Florence, so punctiliously that the first portion, and the largest, should be that of Adovardo di Carlo d'Antonio Rucellai as a reminder that the first founder of the said place [the hospital] was Cenni di Nardo Rucellai his ances­ tor, and that the most aged of the said family at the time, or whomsoever he should depute, should have to distribute the said little fishes as seems to him appropriate, to this 53 Quoted in Kent, "The Rucellai Family and its Loggia," p. 399. 54 Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, pp. 28-34.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

one more, to that one less, at his discretion." 55 There is no direct evidence to prove that this RucelIai ceremony was held from 1470 onward, but it seems very likely that it was. The loggia presumably also became a natural setting for other family ceremonies, and for more casual meetings and talk: Alberti intended a portico or loggia to be a convenient place "under which the old Men may spend the Heat of the Day or be mutually serviceable to each other," 50 and a wellinformed early sixteenth century observer could still write of a political crisis in 1528 that "one was expecting each side to insult the other, in the piazzas, in the loggias, and in the courtyards." 57 55

Quoted in Kent, "The RucelIai Family and its Loggia," p. 399. Battista Alberti, Ten Books on Architecture, trans. J. Leoni and ed. J. Rykwert (London, 1965), p. 173. I should add that Miss Brenda Prefer has now produced cogent reasons for rejecting Alberti's authorship of the loggia (see n. 52 above). " Lettere di Giovanbattista Busini, ed. G. MiIanesi (Florence, i860), p. 15. It is true that almost no other loggias were built from the fifteenth century onward (on which see the perceptive remarks by the architectural historian I. Hyman in "Fifteenth Century Florentine Studies: The Palazzo Medici: and a Ledger for the Church of San Lorenzo," unpublished doctoral dissertation [New York University, 1968], pp. 14-15, 164-171), and that later in the next century many were being closed up (see A. Schiaparelli 1 La casa fiorentina e i suoi arredi nei secoli XIV e XV [Florence, 1908], I, 67-72). But until their use is more fully investigated, it is premature to say that existing log­ gias were already falling into disuse in preducal Florence because changes in family structure made them redundant. The main text for this familiar claim—see, e.g., Goldthwaite, "The Florentine Palace," p. 989—is one passage from the early sixteenth century chronicler Filippo Nerli, whose statement in fact refers to a particular episode during the political conflicts of the 1420s (see Commentari [Trieste, 1859], I, 62). In a letter to Machiavelli of 1520, Nerli himself uses the word "loggia" to mean "happy company," which suggests that the loggias were still remembered (at the very least) as pleasant social resorts: Lettere, ed. F. Gaeta (Milan, 1961), p. 397. In the fifteenth century men still gambled in loggias: see G. Brucker, The Society of Renaissance Florence: A Documentary Study (New York, 1971), pp. 184-186; R. Mor^ay, Saint Antonin, 1)89-1459 (Tours-Paris, 1914), pp. 166, 429. The loggia of the Spini consorteria was to be the setting of a family ritual, according to a document of 1458 in N. A,, C 407 (Ser Pierozzo Cerbini, 1456-65), fols. 68 r -70 r . I owe this reference to Miss Brenda Preyer. 56 Leon

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

Perhaps, like the Rucellai, other lineages occasionally assembled "all the house. . .that live in Florence," but it would appear that formal family meetings were usually at­ tended only by the heads of households or by influential leaders of each line. The four Capponi who signed the com­ promise with the Vettori in 1452 represented branches rather than households; so too did the four Rucellai called before the Signoria in April 1418, and their eight kinsmen who in 1465-66 made Giovanni di Paolo their procuratore. 58 Benedetto Dei several times refers to "heads of the house,"59 and a similar phrase occurs in a document of i486 in which Niccolo Ridolfi assured the convent of Santo Spirito that in order to arrange payment for a chapel "there will be gathered together all the heads of the houses of the [Ridolfi] consorteria."60 Families do not appear to have had a formally instituted chieftain or head, though on ceremonial occasions, and sometimes in matters of inheritance, the old­ est man of the lineage was frequently given special respon­ sibilities or rights.61 It is obvious, too, that a very able man often had wide influence within his lineage. To give two examples, Cavalcanti went so far as to describe Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici, in an unusual phrase, as "head of all the 58 For the names o£ the four, see below, p. 248; details of the eight are printed in Kent, "The Rucellai Family and its Loggia," p. 399. 59 B.N.F., n, 11, 330, "Memorie curiosissime" of 1480, fol. 2iv: "O visto del chasato de' Peruzzi chacciare fuori di Firenze Ridolfo e iiii0 suo figluoli e ott'altri chapi di chasa. . . ." so Con. Sopp., 128, 122, fol. 82': "seranno raghunati insieme tutti e chapi delle chase della chonsorteria loro." I owe this reference to Mrs. A. Fuller. Several years earlier, in 1478, many Ridolfi had gathered together as copatrons of a hospital: Ν. A., F 239 (Ser Niccolo Ferrini, 1478-89), fols. 5'ff. 6i There are examples above, pp. 132, 143, 200; see too Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, p. 26. Citing only a late fourteenth century story of Sacchetti, Davidsohn says in his Storia di Firenze (trans. E. DupreTheseider [Florence, 1962], v, 397) that the eldest man ran the consorteria. But his very example shows the leading man (maggiore) of the Medici acting in concert with "quattro i maggiori della casa": Il Trecentonovelle, ed. V. Pernicone (Florence, 1946), pp. 203-205.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

family,"62 and, according to his son, Filippo Strozzi was later in the fifteenth century so outstanding a family figure that "if between his kinsmen or relatives or friends any quarrel arose. . .everyone had recourse to him as to a leader."63 Giovanni Rucellai, who was isolated politically from his family for many years after 1434, came to assume political and ceremonial leadership over it by the 1460s; Bishop Guglielmo Capponi, and later Niccolo di Piero, played similar roles among their consorti. But there was no recognized system of succession to this de facto family leader­ ship; it is more proper to say that a consorteria was led, and represented, by a group of elders or heads of households. As Alberti put it, a lineage was "a republic,"64 a federation of related men and households. From time to time a few men or households, usually of the same lines, left their family federation by going away permanently from the physical centers of family activity. The men and women of a family who did so were almost without exception poor and otherwise underprivileged; in a sense their poverty or, say, their collateral descent or political powerlessness, had already put them outside the mainstream of family experience (in some instances, men who left Florence had already been isolated from their kin within the city), and their physical departure simply con­ firmed their alienation. Even so, only a minority of the poor and undistinguished took such drastic action. The handful of men of the collateral branch of the Ginori descended from Piero di Ser Giovanni da Calenzano was one such group. Always out on a genealogical limb, by 1427 Ser Giovanni's grandson lived in part of the present Via Ricasoli (in Drago, San Giovanni), and isolated in that district the line remained until Gabriello di Piero left Flor­ ence permanently later in the century. Physical isolation was 62 Quoted in R. de Roover, The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank, 139J-1494 (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), p. 52. 63 Lorenzo Strozzi, Le Vite, p. 74. "Cena Familiaris," Oiiere Volgari, ed. C. Grayson (Bari, ig6o),

i. 347·

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

here associated with political and commercial obscurity.65 Among the Capponi, only one branch, a tiny collateral line without influence, left Santo Spirito;66 some members of two other small and undistinguished Capponi lines drifted from the district of Nicchio to Drago, and then to the coun­ try, in the course of the fifteenth century.67 More Rucellai moved away from their Florentine district, but there was no general disintegration of the family. Many of the Rucellai strays went to country districts frequented by their family; a good proportion of them were women whose departure did not much affect the patrilineage's solidarity.68 If, as Dante and contemporary genealogists thought, a family was a multi-branched and thickly leafed tree, then the Rucellai neither suffered indiscriminate pruning nor an autumnal fall; rather, two branches were removed, leaving the others as strong and as compact as before. All Rucellai lines had from time to time a household or two among the strays, but only the descendants of Ugolino di Giunta and Andrea di Bernardo consistently appeared among their number. Among the descendants of Andrea, the trend toward dis­ integration had already begun in 1427, when of five house­ holds who reported to the tax officials only one was unambiguous about where it lived in the district of Lion Rosso; one hundred years later, the line's five families were similarly vague about their whereabouts.69 The descendants of Ugolino di Giunta, whom we have met before as oddmen-out, were similarly poor and obscure but much more 65 See chaps. 3 and 4 above. In 1362 the sons of this line's founder had lived in Lion d'Oro (Prestanze, 16, fols. 5 r , 14··). 66 Caponcino's line, on which see Kent, "Ottimati Families," p. 453. 67 For details of these branches (from Filippo and Zanobi di Niccolo di Mico di Recco and Filippo di Recco), see ibid., pp. 449-452. 68 See ibid., pp. 127-129. Of four Rucellai households living in the country in 1480, three were at Prato and the other at San Martino a Campi (Cat., 1012, fols. 28", 149^, 341r, 347')· Three of the nine Rucellai who gave the country as their permanent "address" in 1534 were the daughters of Bartolomeo di Luca, who all lived in Prato (Dec. Gran., 3617, fol. 2V; 3618, fols. 6V, 41411). 69 Kent, "Ottimati Families," pp. iog, 131-132.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

numerous. Though compactly settled in San Pancrazio in 1427, their solidarity was quickly dissolving, and they were quite dispersed a century later; only one man lived in his ancestral district, and the others were to be found elsewhere in Florence and in the countryside south of the city where, especially at Impruneta, they had had land and a burial place since at least 1427.70 A curious incident of April 1418 throws much light upon the ambiguous position within the Rucellai family of Ugolino di Giunta's descendants. Iri that month Cardinale di Piero and Paolo di Vanni Rucellai reported to the Signoria that they almost despaired of being able to compel three men of that collateral line to make peace with two of the Barbadori. "And although they are kinsmen," the two Rucellai elders argued, "they are not so close that we can use anything but words to press and persuade them, because of all our kinsmen they are just about the most distantly related to us."71 Only a small minority of permanent "defectors" from a family came from its vigorous heart. Personal failure and bad luck, hard for some men to bear in an intimate com­ munity of successful kinsmen, forced a few individuals (for example Domenico di Giuliano Ginori) out of their ances­ tral district. By the 1450s he and his family lived in Santo Spirito in a house provided by his father-in-law; earlier Domenico had quarreled with his elder brothers, and by the end of the decade he had managed both to fail in business and to become implicated in an anti-Medicean plot.72 His leaving the parish of San Lorenzo was both a result of his growing isolation (and perhaps exclusion) from 'οIbid., pp. 132-135; Passerini, Rucellai, p. 9; Cat., 1012, fol. 115'. See also chaps. 3 and 4 above. "E bench'essi ci sieno congiunti, nondimeno non sono si strecti che noi glie ne possiamo per altro modo che per parole gravare et pregare, pero che a noi sono quasi de' piu di lungi che noi abiamo degli altri nostri congiunti" (Consulte e Pratiche, 43, £ol. i86 r ). One day later, on 30 April, Francesco d'Ugolino and Ugolino di Messer Albizzo Rucellai expressed agreement with this statement. I owe this reference to Professor Gene Brucker. 72 See above, pp. 40, 95, 214.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

his Ginori kinsmen's tidy and prosperous world, and then, no doubt, a reinforcement of that very alienation. Of similar family "failures" one finds a plausible psychological description in Virginia Woolf's The Years: "the cadets of [distinguished] houses," she observed, "go more rapidly to the bad than the children of ordinary fathers and mothers, as if it were somehow a relief to them." For the fact that most consorti lived near one another in the city was not just a reflection but a vital ingredient of the lineage's unity. Men sought to stay within the physical family circle, both for its own sake and for the advantages they derived from intercourse with kinsmen. In his Discorsi Machiavelli speculated on why it is "that in a city a family retains for a long time the same customs," and his explanation was not so much heredity as "the distinct way in which this family or that educates its children." 73 One obscure but once famous branch of the Rucellai, who had lived away from the mass of family houses at the end of the fourteenth century, found political preferment and a secure place in family life by moving permanently to Lion Rosso in the 1420s: 74 another group, whom two family leaders could neither discipline nor convince in 1418, was soon to drift away from the parish of San Pancrazio. 75 Men who had been forced to retire to the country were almost always anxious to return to the city and to their ancestral district; this was even true of poor people who retreated to a rural area which must have been a home away from home. "I have no trade, and I stay in the country with all my family because I am not able to live in Florence," 73 πι, 46, trans. L. J. Walker (London, 1950), 1, 580. It is clear from his Roman examples that by famiglia Machiavelli means gens or consorteria. 7* See above, pp. 180-181. 75 In 1418 Cardinale and Paolo Rucellai argued before the Signoria that the sons of Giovanni di Bartolo Rucellai were difficult to deal with over the Barbadori conflict not only because "non siamo strecti," but because "non siamo creduti da chi l'a a fare" (Consulte e Pratiche, 43, fol. i86r).

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

a Ginori reported succinctly and typically in 1480.76 In asking for tax relief, a Rucellai of very moderate means assured his Medici patron in 1437 that by helping "thou art the reason I can stay in Florence," evidently a state of grace that required no justification.77 Several documents suggest that contemporaries may have thought that it was those kinsmen who lived in Florence who somehow constituted the "real" family;78 perhaps Giovanni Botero was right in observing that, by comparison with the French, the Italian nobility of the sixteenth century was still an urban aristocracy which enjoyed long stays in the country.79 Cer­ tainly our three families were almost as thoroughly urban in 1530 as their ancestors had been: there had been no literal retreat to the land (such as some historians have seen), no general dispersal into the country.80 Early in the fifteenth century, Gino Capponi quoted to his sons the Florentine proverb which said that "honor does not dwell Cat., 1017, fol. 294 T : "Non fo arte nessuno e stomi in villa chon tutta la mia famiglia per non potere habitare in Firenze." Cf. Domenico di Giuliano Ginori's lament in 1480 that if he cannot find a house "mi nicirra abitare in villa e ffuori di Firenze, e in Firenze non si ne truova a meno di pigione 1'anno di f. 18 a 27" (ibid., 1015, fol. 525 r_v ). π Μ. P., xvii, 12, 27 July, Carlo Rucellai to Piero de' Medici: "che tu se' cagione che io stia a Firenze. . . ." ? 8 See the Rucellai document quoted above, p. 243; cf. the will of Iacopo di Lorenzo Capponi in Con. Sopp., 98, 322, unfoliated, 10 June 1572, which substituted as heirs if his own line failed "i piii prossimi al testatore di quella famiglia che habitassero Firenze." Some of this man's branch had moved permanently, and very successfully, to Lyons: P. Litta, Famiglie celebri italiane (Milan, 1870-71), x, tav. xvi; Tristan l'Hermite, La Toscane Francoise (Aries, 1658), pp. 63*-68 v . 79 The Reason of State and the Greatness of Cities, introd. D. P. Waley (London, 1956), pp. 259-260. so For some sound general statements (and bibliography) on this theme, see Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, pp. 246-247. The sources at my disposal do not enable me to say whether actual investment went increasingly into land after the economic recession of the 1460s: but as many men of the three families were in business (whatever its scale) in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries as before, and there were, as Goldthwaite has also clearly shown, some very notable early Cinquecento fortunes; see also my "Ottimati Families," pp. 48-53, 275280, 379-380.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

in the woods. . .worthy men are made in cities."81 and as late as 1502 Cardinale di Guglielmo Rucellai's automatic response to the Pistoian social scene was supercilious in the same urbane and civic tradition. As Captain of the Pistoian Mountains, Cardinale found himself in the middle of a savage and arcane feud, waged by "men [who] follow their nature, being born in these places and conversing with beasts."82 This Dantesque denunciation he made several times in his angry and distressed letters to the Florentine authorities. "For my part," Cardinale wrote on 22 July, "I can see no remedy, because they are all of evil nature and, having neither reverence nor fear, wish to go their own way."83 Good customs, Cardinale might have added, and a sense of lineage are best learned in the city. There kinsmen could easily meet casually or if need be solemnly; there young men could more conveniently learn from their elders. Many surviving Florentine paintings depict groups of family portraits, but apparently only one, Ghirlandaio's frescoes for Giovanni Tornabuoni, contains a genuine clan portrait; there some twenty-two men, all of whom belong to the ancient magnate family of the Tornaquinci or to three popular families descended from it,84 meet together, just as 8i J. Lami, Catalogus Codicum Manuscriptorum qui in Bibliotheea Riecardiana Florentiae adservantur. . . (Leghorn, 1756), p. ιοί. 82 Signori Responsive, 25, fol. 59, 22 June: "et gli huomini seguono la natura Ioro dello esser nati in questi luoghi et conversar chon bestie. ..." ssibid., fol. ιοί: "et per me non si vede rimedio nessuno per esser tucti di mala natura, et voglion fare a lor modo et non hanno ne reverentia ne tementia. . ." This volume has many other letters by CardinaIe Rucellai. These Pistoian incidents are discussed by L. Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft in Renaissance Florence (Princeton, 1968), pp. 234-237. M The mid-sixteenth century identification of the portraits published in Milanesi's edition of Vasari (Florence, 1878, in, 266-267) is usually accepted as substantially accurate; cf. J. Pope-Hennessy, The Portrait in the Renaissance (London, 1966), p. 18; E. H. Gombrich, Aby War­ burg: An Intellectual Biography (London, 1970), pp. uoff. Vasari often mentions other family groups whose precise membership one cannot

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

they must often have done in their loggia and in their tight network of ancestral houses which contemporaries called da Tornaquinci. Legally separated in the later fourteenth century in order to become popolani, these ci-devant Tornaquinci still observed the divieto85 and shared less burdensome responsibilities—Giovanni Tornabuoni ded­ icated his chapel "to the exaltation of his house and family."86 There is clan sociability galore in these crowded Renaissance frescoes, and much else of importance to anyone who seeks to understand Florentine families.

Ghirlandaio's paintings for Giovanni Tornabuoni have been called "a pictorial thank-offering for family blessings and a prayer in effigy for intercession in favour of con­ tinued prosperous fertility."87 They bring us indeed very close to the heart of the self-conscious sense of lineage of our three families and of other Florentine houses. It was a vision which defined the family both as a living com­ munity and as a timeless continuum "of ancestors, and of the living, and of those who by grace are to come."88 "Men desire sons, grandsons, and descendants," wrote Matteo now determine (e.g., "Folco Portinari ed altri di quella famiglia," quoted in Pope-Hennessy, Portrait, p. 304). There are also surviving paintings which refer in a much more antiquarian spirit to ancestors and to a family's past: see, e.g., Francesco Bocchi's description of the sixteenth century frescoes by Poccetti in Lodovico Capponi's palace in Le Bellezze della Citta di Fiorenza (Florence, 1591), pp. 84(!. 85 Tratte, 1075, fol. 15', lists those "casati che si danno divieto" in the later fifteenth century, including the Popoleschi, Tornabuoni, Tornaquinci, and Giacchinotti. But see the families' successful peti­ tion against sharing the divieto, save for the Tre Maggiori, on ao December 1487 (Diplomatico, Strozzi-Uguccione). Nuovi Documenti per la Storia dell'Arte Toscana del XII al XV secolo, ed. G. Milanesi (Florence, 1901), p. 134. 87 Gombrich, Aby Warburg, p. 120. «β Giovanni MoreIli1 Ricordi, ed. V. Branca (Florence, 1956), p. 82; cf. Cappone Capponi's phrase "Ma Ie buone operation! de' passati, e di chi e in vita. . ." cited in chap. 3, n. 139 above.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

Palmieri in the 1430s, "to attain immortality in their seed." 89 Four centuries later, Bettino Ricasoli expressed the same conception of the family, from the perspective of the seed not its sower, when he said "I have lived twelve centuries of existence." 90 This family cult was in some respects a private one, concerned with ancestral souls and tombs and with transmitting knowledge of the ancestors and their achievements to the living and to their descendants. But not in a merely antiquarian or backward-looking spirit— active commemoration of ancestors helped to make descendants conscious of their common origin and interests, and created yet another field for cooperative effort among kinsmen, one indeed which may have served as a model for others more practical. The cult of the clan was public too, just as the Tornabuoni frescoes, devotional as they are, had a message for outsiders. The proud use of a surname, the profuse display by distant cousins of common arms, and the often ostentatious patronage of the arts, served to mark kinsmen off from others, to remind outsiders of past family achievements and of present strength and unity. Some of this was window-dressing to be sure, but it also truthfully described a family's collective success story, became, indeed, in a society which increasingly prized the arts and valued symbols as concrete things, part of that very story. The Rucellai were considered by Benedetto Dei to be a "rich and powerful house" 91 in 1470 as much, one suspects, be­ cause they built a loggia as because many of them were indeed wealthy merchants and influential oligarchs. The context of this ritual family cult was almost always a local and ancestral one, the same busy world in which most of the lineages' households lived and worked together. Each family district was a tangible link between the past and the 8sDella vita civile, ed. F. Battaglia (Bologna, 1944), p. 132. Quoted in W. K. Hancock, Ricasoli and the Risorgimento in Tuscany, 2nd ed. (New York, 1969), pp. 4-5. 91 Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, "Memorie Storiche," Cod. Xtal., 160, fol. 127 T . 90

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

present, the dead and the living; in Florentine eyes the lineage should be a community of the living and, it is not too farfetched to add, a community of the living and the dead. To adapt Sir Henry Maine's classic phrase, the Renaissance Florentine family "had the distinctive charac­ teristic of a corporation—that it never died." 92 The public and formal badges of membership of a consorteria were its surname and its coat of arms: by their use men linked themselves to the past and established them­ selves as part of the family continuum and community. The surnames "Capponi" and "Rucellai" (or "Oricellari") were old by the fifteenth century. The Santo Spirito family's surname evolved, as was so often the case, from an ancestral first name which was probably a nickname (cappone , the capon); 93 the wool dye oricello (orchil), brought to Florence by a Rucellai, gave that industrious lineage its distinctive family label. 94 Possession of an estab­ lished surname was a sign of antiquity, of honorable ancestry. It established a man's right to share in his family's political patrimony (hence Piero Capponi's anger at families who took the adulterated names of the great houses)95 and social position. A surname also reminded kinsmen themselves of their common ancestry— noi Cap­ poni, noi di casa, noi consorti, and similar phrases which we have so often met, were perhaps more potently emotive than we can easily imagine, more effectively suggestive of private and untouchable experiences. Certain Christian names also evoked ancestral figures, and their use by several lines 92 Ancient Law (London, 1959 ed.), p. 153. Nicolai Rubinstein has kindly reminded me of Dati's strikingly similar phrase "il comune non puo morire": L'Istoria di Firenze, ed. L. Pratesi (Norcia, 1902), p. 74. 93 In documents of the 1260s and '70s, two men of the family are simply called "del Cappone": Delizie degli eruditi toscani, ed. Ildefonso di San Luigi (Florence, 1770-89), vn, 208; Testi Fiorentini del Dugento e dei Primi del Trecento, ed. A. Schiaffini (Florence, 1926), p. 20; see also p. 17. '•>' Giovanni Rucellai's account, ed. G. Marcotti in Un mercante fiorentino e la sua famiglia nel secolo XV (Florence, 1881), p. 54. 95 See above, p. 168.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

reinforced a sense of lineage: a number of men in all three families were named for a lineage's founders, and patron saints' names (Niccolo or Nicola for the Capponi, Bernardo for the Rucellai) were even more popular. Upstarts and new men usually did not have a family name; only when a prosperous group of gente nuova emerged as a political force, with claims to a place in society, did it begin to be known by a distinctive name, perhaps self-assumed, perhaps given it by outsiders. We can trace in detail the process by which the Ginori won their name, and their case should remind us that in the fifteenth century there were still lineages on the point of being born. The two brothers from whom all Ginori were descended were both named "da Calenzano" in fourteenth century documents.96 The patronymic "di Ser Gino" was only adopted as a family name toward the end of that century, when Ser Gino's sons and grandsons began to flourish.97 The descendants of Piero di Ser Giovanni, Gino's brother, continued to call themselves "di Piero di Ser Giovanni da Calenzano" until the early fifteenth century, when one of them called himself "di Ser Gino": this tac­ tic, good sense but bad genealogy, was presumably an at­ tempt to share in his cousins' new prominence and sense of identity.98 If "di Ser Gino" was becoming a surname, it was still a humble one, and by about 1430 the more durable and aristocratic forms "Ginori" and "Ginoli" were beginning to make their appearance—a Medici gave his neighbors that genuine surname in 1427." The quite sudden general use of "Ginori" from the 1430s onward coincided precisely with the family's firm acceptance, as ^Delhie, xvi, 257;

Prestanze, 16, fols. 5 1 , 14'. In Tratte, 397, fols. 13¾¾. Ser Gino's descendants are all surnamed "di Ser Gino." ssln the register of the scrutiny of 1411 (Manoscritti, 555, under Drago, San Giovanni), appears "Piero di Giovanni di Piero di Ser Gino," whose name should have been "di Ser Giovanni." 0 SCat., 49, fol. ii40 r ; cf. 51, fol. 1169'. The form "di Ser Gino" was still common ( ibid ., 17, fol. 24'; 51, fols. io6o r , 1063', 1482'). s"

2 55

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

allies and neighbors of the Medici, into the Florentine upper class. Benedetto Dei, whose standards were admittedly catholic enough to include his own house, regarded the Ginori as gentlemen in 1458: 100 a century later Michelangelo described them as one of "these aristocratic houses [queste case di famiglia]" whose "ostentation" and "madnesses" were to be feared. 101 Arms were just as important a concrete statement of a lineage's identity as its surname. If heraldry sometimes seems to modern observers to be of merely antiquarian interest, it was given urgent and practical attention by many Renaissance Florentines. The private document of division between the Capponi and Vettori, after briefly telling the legal story, at once went on: and since the said two families until now have borne the same arms, that is, made in this manner φ and there is no record as to which family of the two had them originally. . .and being separated by law, it appears just that in arms too they should be separated, so that it is quite clear that they are distinct in everything. 1 0 2 There follows a description of the arms which were (and are) to be found in several places in the church of San Iacopo sopr'Arno: since neither family could show that these were attached to tombs or chapels that were exclu­ sively theirs, Messer Giannozzo Pitti their "mutual friend" 1 0 0 M. Pisani, Un avventuriero del Quattrocento: la vita e Ie opere di Benedetto Dei (Genoa, 1923), pp. 102-104. By the 1450s the Ginori gen­ erally call themselves by that name in tax reports (Cat., 820, fols. 491r494 v ); so too did contemporaries (Alessandra Strozzi, Lettere di una Gentildonna Fiorentina del secolo XV, ed. C. Gausti [Florence, 1877], p. 248). 10 ILe Lettere, ed. G. Milanesi (Florence, 1875), p. 249; cf. p. 230. 102 Ν. A., F. 304 (Ser Filippo di Cristofano di Lionardo, 1449-53), fol. 328r: "e conciosiachosache lie dette due famiglie insino a qui abino portato una medesima arme cioe fatta a quessto modo (J e non si truovi ne sia ricordo da quale famiglia d'esse due s'abbia origine. . . ed esendo separati per legie pare cosa giussta che ancora nel'arme sieno separati accioche in tutto si vegha che sieno in ogni atto separati. . . ."

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

ruled that the present arms "should stay and remain and be of the family and consorteria of the Capponi." 103 The Vettori were to choose new ones, and neatly acknowledged the past while facing the future by adding a fleur-de-lis to their ancestral escutcheon. Ancient arms were, as Francesco Sassetti told his sons in 1488, a matter of "honor and a sign of our antiquity." 104 Giovanni RucelIai was most disturbed in 1445 to find that because the old family arms on the chapel of St. Catharine in Santa Maria Novella were not the modern ones, it was rumored that the Rucellai had not built it. On inquiring into the matter, Giovanni found that a lion rampant had been added to the lineage's original arms to commemorate the honor done to an ancestor by the popolo of Siena: to convince the world that the chapel was his lineage's, Giovanni arranged that "we should change the zig-zag arms that were in the said chapel of Santa Maria Novella to the present ones." 105 The men of the three families put their arms in almost every place imaginable—not only on tombs, chapels, church facades, and other fine buildings, but on farmhouses, 106 church furnishings, 107 and paintings. 108 Giovanni Rucellai distributed the Rucellai arms with both solemnity and whimsy—not only his buildings bore them, but an 103 Ibid., fol. 328 v : "s'appartengha e rimangha e sia della famiglia e consorteria de' Capponi." 104 Quoted in A. Warburg, La Rinascita del Paganesimo Antico (Florence, ig66), p. 228. 105 "Zibaldone," fols. 4 T -5 r : "et io fui operatore perche questa confusione si levassi via die 1'anno 1445 l'arme che era nella decta cappella di Sancta Maria Novella tutta a spinapescie si riducessino come sono al presente" (fol. 5 r ). 106 In his Florentine Heraldry (London, 1900), pp. 170-171, H. Wills observed that the Rucellai arms "are visible to this day painted on farmhouses between Campi and Peretola." lor For a Capponi example, see Neri di Gino's will (in Polidori's ed. of Cavalcanti, Istorie Florentine, 11, 435). 108 See below, pp. 262, 290. One cannot resist mentioning that Lorenzo the Magnificent's children had an arithmetic book decorated with the famous palle: see the illustration in G. Martinelli, The World of Renaissance Florence (New York, 1968), p. ιοί.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

espaliered box-row at his villa and the canopy which covered the guests at his son Bernardo's wedding feast.109 For sev­ eral generations the della Robbia family turned out coats of arms in glazed terracotta by the score, and inevitably we find Ginori, Rucellai, and Capponi prominent among its clients; when Cappone Capponi visited the della Robbia workshop in December 1524, he reported seeing there "some very dignified arms." Some of these bright escutcheons were left on the facades of communal palaces in the country towns where men of the family had served as officials.110 Such mementos usually named the official and the year of his appointment, but the main visual impact of the arms was to emphasize his lineage: even on quite personal com­ missions such as these, the family arms placed, as it were, the individual visibly and quickly in a lineage and a tradi­ tion. They were used by great and humble kinsmen alike. In traditional China, it has been said, men lived "under the ancestors' shadow";111 the Florentine attitude to ances­ tors was less passive (perhaps because there the forefathers were not, so far as I can tell, considered to be able actively to influence family affairs from the grave), but their memory was always alive. As ubiquitous references to predecessors suggest, Florentines were always conscious, in Osbert Sitwell's memorable autobiographical phrase, that "Ancestors stretch behind a man and his nature like a fan, or the spread tail of a peacock." In Florence, piety required that the men and women of the three lineages devote much energy and expense to their dead, and this sense of family duty we may reasonably call ancestor reverence. In part it was required because relatives and ancestors had solemnly provided Masses for their souls or distinctive tombs for Io 9 Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, pp. 21, 28. no Acquisti e Doni, 25, fol. 130"·, to Alessandro Segni: "qualche forma d'arme assai civile"; A. Marquand, Robbia Heraldry (PrincetonLondon, 1919), pp. 18-19, 45-φ· 7°"72, 78, 152, 166. 192-193, 246, 277, 281. 111 F.L.K. Hsu, Under the Ancestors' Shadow, 2nd ed. (Stanford,

197O·

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

their corpses; but other commemorative activities were spontaneous, springing from reverence for forebears and a sense of lineage. "Care ought to be taken of the Dead Body, for the Sake of the Living," thought Alberti, who designed Giovanni Rucellai's tomb in San Pancrazio: "and for the Preservation of the name to Posterity, there can be no Means more effectual than Sepulchres."112 Wills usually specified where the testator's corpse was to be placed, and most persons strongly desired to be buried with close rela­ tives and lineal ancestors. In a typical clause, Bernardo di Piero Rucellai asked in i486 to be buried in the church of San Pancrazio "in the ancient tomb of his predecessors or ancestors";113 eleven years later, Mico d'Uguccione Capponi used the more vivid phrase "the tomb where lie the bones of his ancestors."114 The point of these prescriptions is quite clear; men wished to be as physically united to their relatives in death as in life. For the same reason, most people were buried in familiar churches which were in or near ancestral districts. Though customarily buried in separate chapels and tombs, the dead of the lineage were kept together, just as the living members of the house congregated nearby. It is worthwhile going into more detail about this custom, which must have resulted from conscious family policy. Most Capponi of all branches, including some men who had moved away from its shadow, were buried in the major church of Santo Spirito.115 Corpses were transported some distance to be 112 Ten Books, p. 164. 113 Ν. A., F 499 (Ser Francesco di Ser Dino di Cola, 1474-gi), 18 November, fol. 4331: "in sepultura anticha suorum premortuorum seu antecessorum." 114 Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 163 (34), 11 July 1497: "al quale sepulcho dove jacono l'osse de' sua passati." 115 This generalization is drawn from B.N.F., Poligrafo Gargani, 483-487; Manoscritti, 624, passim, and from numerous references in the Capponi private papers I have seen. Two men of Lorenzo di Gino's line (which had lived in the parish of San Felice in Piazza from about 1430) wished a hundred years later to be buried in Santo Spirit» (Con. Sopp., 83, 130, fols. g5T, io6r). 2 59

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

reunited with other Capponi dead. When Piero di Gino was killed fighting for the Republic in 1496, the city paid for his body to be carried from Pisa to the church of Santo Spirito,116 but the family itself did so at other times, even for little Raffaello di Cappone who died at Pescia in June 1479.117 The body of Carlo his brother lay at that place for over a year in 1530 before a priest had it brought to Santo Spirito and buried "with the usual ceremonies and offices, by permission of our Maddalena [his widow] and others of our elders."118 A few of the Capponi who lived else­ where in the quarter of Santo Spirito were buried in other local churches. Lodovico di Gino and his descendants had a tomb in their new chapel in Santa Felicita,119 and Santa Lucia de' Magnoli, in nearby Via de' Bardi, also became a Capponi burial place because a big family palace stood one door up from it.120 Several of the Altopascio Capponi were buried in the last part of the fifteenth century in a family vault in the church of San Bartolomeo at Monte Oliveto; near the family's home town of Legnaia, this church had been founded by a Capponi.121 Ser Gino da Calenzano had been buried in the church of Santa Maria Novella,122 but 116 "Vita di Piero di Gino Capponi scritta da Vincenzio Acciaioli i l l u s t r a t a c o n N o t e e D o c u m e n t ! , " e d . G . Aiazzi i n

ASI, iv, p a r t e 2

(1853)· 4°· 117 B.N.F., Collezione Genealogiea Passerini, 186

(81), fol. 280'; cf.

fol. 284'. u s B.N.F.,

Manoseritti

Palatini, Ser.

V.

Capponi,

igg,

unfoliated

(copy of an anonymous ricordo, probably by a son of Cappone): "cholle cirimonie et

ufizi solite, di chonsentimento della nostra Maddalena et

altri nostri maggiori." For another example, see Con. Sopp., San Piero a Mont i c el l i , 153, fol. 25*. 1 1 9 See

above, pp. 105-106.

120 Cappone di Bartolomeo's diary shows that the Altopascio Capponi had

the right to elect the rector of

this church (B.N.F., Collezione

Genealogica Passerini, 186 [81], fols. 283', 284 1 -"). O n 13 M a r c h 1515 Ginevra of this line left money for a Mass to be said there at the great altar of the da Uzzano family (Archivio Capponi, 67 [59]), from whom these Capponi were descended in the female line. 121

See above, p. 105.

122 Manoscritti, 625, fol. 733. Ser Gino's son Giovanni (died

1416)

was a p r o m i n e n t D o m i n i c a n of t h i s c o n v e n t : S. O r l a n d i , "Necrologio"

di S. Maria Novella (Florence, 1955), 1, 146; cf. 11, 69.

a 60

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

most of his Ginori descendants chose their parish church of San Lorenzo, just across from their houses; even some of Piero di Ser Giovanni da Calenzano's line, which had not lived near the church since 1400 or so, were buried there.123 The Rucellai had two ancestral churches, San Pancrazio in the midst of their houses and Santa Maria Novella some distance away. The founder of all the family's major lines, Bernardo di Giunta, had been buried in the subterranean cloisters of San Pancrazio in 1324,124 and scores of his descendants followed him there; a new under­ ground family tomb, begun in 1452, was in use by the Rucellai four years later. 125 One of the characteristic avelli (external sepulchral arches) of Santa Maria Novella belonged to the Rucellai family,126 but when it became acceptable to bury laymen within the church, dozens of Rucellai were interred there from the fourteenth century onward. Men of several Rucellai lines elected to be buried in Santa Maria Novella, and later there seems to have been little preference for one church or other of the two traditional ones. In 1453, Ugolino di Francesco wanted to be buried either in Santo Stefano at Campi or Santa Maria Novella: his will mentioned both churches, and San Pancrazio as well.127 Giovanni di Paolo was buried in San Pancrazio, Bernardo his son was not; Cardinale di Piero's remains lay in San Pancrazio, but his son Guglielmo made a tomb for himself and his descendants in the bigger church. However, the descendants of Bencivenni di Bernardo, who once had houses very near Santa Maria Novella, remained faithful to that church, and the numerous descendants of 123

See B.N.F., Poligrafo Gargani, 960-962. "Zibaldone," fol. 4". !25 M. Dezzi Bardeschi, "II Complesso Monumentale di S. Pancrazio a Fixenze ed i] suo restauro (nuovi documenti)," Quaderni dell'Istituto di Storia dell'Architettura, ser. xin, 73-78 (1966), 15, 40; cf. Con. Sopp., 88, 23, fols. 32"·, 46', g4r, 56'. S. Orlandi, S. Maria Novella and the Monumental Cloisters (Florence, 1966), p. 6. 127 Kent, "The Rucellai Family and its Loggia," p. 398. 124

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

Vanni di Bernardo had a strong preference for San Pancrazio.128 Women were the family members most often not buried in an ancestral tomb or church. Usually their bodies lay beside their husbands', but sometimes (a woman's position between her paternal and her adopted lineage remaining in some respects ambiguous) they went to an ancestral tomb. Occasionally even a man was not buried in a family church;129 perhaps he had a private devotion to a particular saint, perhaps he was consciously rejecting his family. (One imagines that the ancestral presence might have become un­ bearably oppressive for some people.) Girolamo di Piero Rucellai's tomb, for example, is in the church of San Girolamo at Fiesole; before his death, Girolamo had lived away from his kin (within the orbit of his Baroncelli relations-in-law),130 and it is perhaps tempting to find here a man implacably at odds with his family. Such an interpreta­ tion would be unwise. Girolamo's two commissions for the Fiesolan church, a painting by Francesco Botticini and an imposing marble tabernacle by Andrea Ferrucci, both dis­ play the Rucellai arms:131 on the pilasters of the frame of the painting one finds the Medici device of several feathers within a ring, perhaps a proud allusion to his distant cousin 128 See B.N.F., Poligrafo Gargani, 1751-55; Manoscritti, 625, fols. 683684, 779-857; Delizie, ix, 123-217; Dezzi Bardeschi, "II Complesso Monumentale di S. Pancrazio," passim. 129 For example, on 1 September 1507 Alessandro di Guglielmo Rucellai elected to be buried in the Duomo: Ν. A., G 432 (Ser Giovanni di Marco da Romena, 1484-1516), fol. igi p . His kinsman Buonaccorso di Luca, though remaining faithful to Santa Maria Novella, chose in May 1456 the tomb of a lay confraternity, the Company of Gesii Pellegrino: ibid., S 16 (Ser Antonio Salamone, 1434-47), ^ 0 '· 2i3 r ; he and four other Rucellai had been members two years before (Β.Ν.Γ., Fondo Magliabechiana, vm, 1282, 18, fols. 85 r -86 T ). 130 Cat., gig, fol. 36g bis r_v ; 1011, fol. 36o v . 13 I D. Brunori, L'Eremo di San Girolamo di Fiesole (Fiesole, 1920), pp. 31-32; M. Davies, The Earlier Italian Schools (National Gallery Catalogues), 2nd ed. (London, 1961), pp. 118-122; J. Pope-Hennessy, Catalogue of Italian Sculpture in the Victoria and Albert Museum (London, 1964), 1, 182; hi , 151.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

Bernardo's connection by marriage with Florence's ruling house.132 His manifest devotion to his name-saint probably explains Girolamo's choice of a burial place: Botticini's painting portrays St. Jerome in penitence, with St. Eusebius and others, and Girolamo's library contained a manuscript life of his patron and St. Eusebius' "Letter on the death of St. Jerome."133 If most tombs and chapels belonged to particular house­ holds, or lines within a lineage, some were held in common. Men of several branches shared the expenses of building and maintaining these chapels of the consorteria and buried some of their dead there; Masses for ancestors, for the souls of the entire lineage, were celebrated there and perhaps (for one cannot be sure) many consorti gathered together on these occasions. Both the Capponi and Rucellai had chapels of the lineage: perhaps the Ginori planned one in San Lorenzo, but nothing apparently came of the project.134 132 Davies, Earlier Italian Schools, pp. 119, 121, 293-295, suggests that Girolamo's use of

the device, even more popular with Giovanni di

Paolo, is probably not explicable by the Medici-Rucellai marriage since Bernardo di Giovanni and Girolamo were "only fourth cousins" (in fact they were third cousins). This small but fascinating problem needs thorough investigation, but Davies is perhaps wrong. Girolamo's uncle, Giovanni di Cardinale, once described himself in a letter to Lorenzo de' Medici as "del numero de' vostri buon parenti e fedeli amici" (M. P., xxxv, 144, 31 January 1477). The only basis for this admittedly surprising claim seems to have been the Medici connections of his kins­ men.

133 s.

Morpurgo, I

Manoscritti d e l t a R . B i b l i o t e c a R i c c ar di an a d i

Firenze ( R o m e , 1900), i , 399-400. 134 For other

Ginori

tombs there, see chap. 2 above. There is a

reference in a document of November 1457, printed by Gaye (Carteggio, i, 563), to "Gino ed altri de' Ginori che facevano murare la cappella de' Ginori nella chiesa di S. Lorenzo. . ." (cf. the Latin version in P. G i n o r i C o n t i , L a Basilica d i S. L o r e n z o d i Firenze e la famiglia G i n o r i [Florence, 1940], pp. 82-83). In the same year (conceivably for work on this project?), Gino was in debt to the Rossellino sculptural workshop for 100 florins,

and to Bernardo Rossellino for 40—see Γ. Hartt, G.

C o r t i , a n d C . K e n n e d y , T h e C h a p e l of t h e C a r d i n a l of P o r t u g a l , 14341459 (Philadelphia, 1964), pp. i75ff. Yet what became of this project I

do not know: Ginori Conti suggests, without evidence, that this may

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

St. Nicholas is the "protector of our house," Cappone Capponi noted in his diary in 1461, 135 and, fittingly, the communal Capponi chapel, which stands with three others belonging to men of the lineage in the right transept of Santo Spirito, was dedicated to him. Even before the church was rebuilt, there had been a Capponi chapel there of that name: on 13 June 1417 Piero di Bartolomeo Capponi had elected to be buried in the chapel of St. Nicholas where "his ancestors are buried," and another clause in his will also suggests that this was indeed a tomb of the consorteria. 136 From the 1460s onward, other Capponi were engaged in furnishing the chapel which presumably replaced this one in the new church. Gino di Neri wrote in 1469 that he still had "to pay seventy florins for the chapel of the house and of the consorteria," 1 * 7 and his private account book notes several payments to another Capponi in the early 1480s for his family's share "of the glass window made in the chapel of St. Nicholas in Santo Spirito belonging to the house." 138 A little later we have evidence of another Capponi have been the chapel taken over by Francesco Ginori (see above, p. 103). Perhaps Gino settled for a more modest memorial, for his daugh­ ter wished in 1482 to be buried "in the tomb the said Gino had made" (Ν. Α., P 339 [Ser Piero da Campi, 1457-1518], fol. 26i r ), and ten years later Gino himself wanted burial "in his tomb [sepulcro]" (ibid., fol. 34θΓ). !35 B.N.F., CoIlezione Genealogica Passerini, 186 (81), fol. 28o\ 136 Ν. A., S 1197 (Ser Stefano di Paolo di Stefano da Firenze, 1417-18), fol. 15': "apud et penes capellam Sancti Niceolai sitam in dicta eclesia, ubi et in quo loco sepulti sunt sui predecessores"; cf. fol. i6 v , where additions to the chapel must be approved by the testator's consortes. !37 Cat., 906, fol. 382*·: "per la chappella della chasa della consorteria resto a paghare fiorini settanta." This item appears among "Incarichi s'anno a satisfare pel testamento di Neri," but Neri's will, though instituting perpetual Masses for "la festa di Sancto Nicolaio," does not mention any chapel other than his own (see Polidori's ed. of Cavalcanti's Istorie Florentine, 11, 436). Indeed, in his tax report of 1469, Gino specifically associates this bequest with this latter "domestic" chapel (fol. 382r). 138 B.N.F., Archivio Capponi, 140, 24 July 1483, fol. 150: "per la rrata nostra ci toccha della finestra del vetro fatta alia cappella di Santo Nicholo a Santo Spirito a quella della chasa." Cf. other refer­ ences on this folio, at least one of which is to the chapel of the con-

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

taking a hand: in 1497 Mico d'Uguccione, Gino's second cousin once-removed, requested in his will that "by reason of a legacy, and for the good of his soul," certain of his prospective assets should go "to the chapel of St. Nicholas of the Capponi" to pay for "completing or rather painting the picture on the chapel's altar." 139 Much later, a man of Mico's line paid for "the glass window made in Santo Spirito for the common chapel of the Capponi." 140 Capponi of other lines must have helped with this project; two wills requested burials there, and each testator came from a distinct branch of the family. One of them, Piero di Giovanni, electing to be buried in what he called "the tomb of the chapel of the consorteria of the Capponi," wanted "above all. . .[that] there be sung for me St. Gregory's Masses and no others, because I do not want worldly glory even when it is appropriate to have it, let alone in this case." Piero's apparent dislike of the poly­ phonic church music of Heinrich Isaac and other con­ temporaries was sincere (his taste in reading was similarly devout and old-fashioned) 141 if somewhat ingenuous. A sorteria. Those others to nostra cappella concern Gino's "domestic" chapel; see now S. J. Craven, "Three dates for Piero di Cosimo," The Burlington Magazine, cxvn (1975), 572. 1.19 Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 163 (34): "per ragione di legato et per rimedio della anima sua Iascio et lego alia chappella di San Niccolo de' Chapponi. . .tucto quello et quanto si riceverebbe della parte tochate al detto Micho d'un certo cred[i]to. . .la quale certa somma. . .voile doversi spendere et chomando in finire overo dipignere la tavola dello altare della cappella. . . ." Some years earlier, in 1477, Mico's brother Recco had provided in his will for an inscribed marble floor tomb for himself, his brothers, and their descendants "coram vel prope novam chappellam de Chapponibus" (Ν. Α., V 297 [Ser Anastagio Vespucci, 1446-81], insert 4, fol. 158'). i4o Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 163, document within file entitled "Capponi: Conti e Ricevute": "per la finestra di vetro fatta in Santo Spirito alia capella commune de' Capponi." The man was Messer Uguccione and the year 1574. "iN. Α., P 339 (Ser Piero da Campi, 1457-1518), 29 August 1499, unfoliated: "Racchomando l'anima a dDio e'l chorpo voglio sia supellito in Sancto Ispirito nella sepultura della chappella della clionsorteria de' Chapponi. . . e sopratutto voglio mi si faccia Ie messe di San Ghirighoro e non altro, perche non voglio gloria di mondo quando

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

family chapel was a private center of the ancestral cult of the consorteria, but it also publicly advertised a lineage's wealth and solidarity—like the other chapels in Santo Spirito, that of the Capponi consorteria prominently dis­ plays the family arms near the outside window which the kinsmen had banded together to pay for. The ancient tomb which can still be seen in the portico of San Iacopo sopr'Arno remained the Capponi family's common property after the division with the Vettori in 1452. "For whereas other Things are destroyed," Alberti believed, "Tombs grow more sacred by Age," 142 and certainly the Capponi of several lines remembered their old ties to their original parish church, though apparently they buried few of their dead there by the fifteenth century. When Giovanbatista di Lorenzo buried his newborn child in September 1529, the priest of San Iacopo took part in the ceremony in Santo Spirito; 143 in the same year, a Capponi corpse was brought from the Val d'Arno and was laid for a while in the church of San Iacopo before being buried in Santo Spirito. 144 Even Francesco di Donato, whose branch had lived for a century in the parish of San Felice in Piazza, commanded in his will of 1548 that the friars of the oldest family church should say certain Masses for his soul, though he was to be buried in Santo Spirito. 145 bene ce fusi da farlo che non c'e da ffare

pur questo." (I offer the

translation of this last passage very tentatively.) One also knows about Piero's taste in reading from the will: his

libri di gramaticha

he left

to his son Messer Mico, "tutti gli altri libri volghari e cresiastichi" to his wife. On 22 October 1564 Piero di Bartolomeo Capponi elected to

be buried, should

he die in Florence, in

Santo Spirito "nellfa]

chapella che ssi dicie della chasa de' Chapponi" (Con. Sopp., 100, 83, unfoliated). 142

Ten Books,

p. 164; Ν. A., F. 304 (Ser Filippo di Cristofano di

Lionardo, 1449-53), fol.

332';

the

Vettori

were

awarded

the

major

chapel. «3 Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 158, fol. io v . 144 Archivio Capponi,

54, "Minuti

d'alberi

della

Casa

Capponi,"

fol. 7. us Con. Sopp., 83, 130, fol. ioi r ; cf. fol. 97 v . In 1480 Gherardo di Giovanni Capponi was obliged by his mother's will to give five a year to the priests of San Iacopo (Cat., 1000, fol. 88 r ).

florins

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

Save for the "chapel of St. Bernard" in the family hospital near Campi, no one Rucellai chapel was so uncomplicatedly the possession of the entire lineage. The precise rights of patronage of several family tombs and chapels in San Pancrazio are not known,146 and the family's claim to be the patrons of the church's main chapel and altar was long and busily denied by the monks themselves.147 It is a fact, how­ ever, that several Rucellai of different branches donated money for this part of the church, and that Giovanni di Paolo, whose grandfather in his will had set aside a con­ siderable sum for the chapel, won the right to put the Rucellai arms there because he had given the abbot his "help and favor" in putting in the windows.148 His sons followed up their father's interest: Pandolfo was concerned with a commission to decorate the main altar,149 and in 1514 his brother, Bernardo, according to the monks, "placed an epitaph in the major chapel without permission."150 The line of the Rucellai which founded the chapel of St. Catharine the Martyr, in the family's other ancestral church 146 These chapels are mentioned in Dezzi Bardeschi, "II Complesso Monumentale di S. Pancrazio," pp. 11, go, 28, 40, 42. One of them was named "St. Bernard's chapel" after the patron saint of the Rucellai (Con. Sopp., 88, 23, foJ. 33r). 147 Ibid., 145, unfoliated, contains a later copy of a memorandum of 1507, summarizing: the monastery's case. A notarial document of 5 December 1463 refers to "the chapel o£ the Rucellai," implying that there was at least one chapel of the consorteria: Ν. A., S 20 (Ser Antonio Salamone, 1462-70), fol. 194V. 148 Dezzi Bardeschi, "II Complesso Monumentale di S. Pancrazio," pp. 10, 19. Cf. Con. Sopp., 88, 145, unfoliated, which contains a note dated 1732 listing Rucellai donations, the largest by far of which was from Giovanni Rucellai's grandfather (cf. ibid., 62, fols. 14V-15', 25', 27'). The ricordo of 1507 in ibid., 145, refers to Giovanni's small vic­ tory. His first testament of 1437 also mentioned his grandfather's bequest and noted that the chapel was not completed: Ν. A., C 190 (Ser Tommaso Carondini, 1435-38), fol. 122*. Cardinale di Piero Rucellai's will of 18 August 1428 had left 200 florins and detailed instructions "pro ornando cappellam maiorem. . .pro pingendo dictam capellam. . ." (ibid., C 189, Ser Tommaso Carondini, 1428-31), fol. 33r. 14S See the document of 10 April 1499 printed in Milanesi, Nuovi Documenti per la Storia dell'Arte Toscana, pp. 174-175. «ο Con. Sopp., 88, 68, fol. 931': "pose uno pitaffio nella cappella maggiore senza licentia."

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

of Santa Maria Novella, kept special rights of patronage over it until the early sixteenth century. These were, how­ ever, in no sense exclusive, for men of several branches were buried there, and others continued to contribute to its maintenance. This chapel was built about 1355-56 by Bencivenni di Nardo, who was devoted to St. Catharine; his brothers and sons quarreled about whose it was, which suggests that at the beginning there was some confusion as to whether it was to be a chapel of the consorteria. It was perhaps as a result of this conflict that some people began to believe, as Giovanni di Paolo agitatedly reported much later, that "we did not build it."151 However, the family's rights of patronage were firmly reestablished in 1464, through the intervention of Fra Andrea Rucellai (and, we may guess, Giovanni di Paolo).152 Then began, it ap­ pears, a drive to redecorate the old Gothic chapel. We know that Fra Andrea, the last of a collateral Rucellai line, "had had glass windows made" in the chapel:153 the will of Carlo d'Antonio, a direct descendant of the founder, also be­ queathed money for an uncompleted window in 1465, requiring that on every St. Catharine's Day the friars of Santa Maria Novella bring a communal dish full of cooked fish to the oldest man of his direct line or, on its extinction, to the oldest of all the Rucellai.154 When Adovardo his son made a will in 1488, he left money to maintain this window, 151 "Zibaldone," fol. 4 V : "egli e stato openione di cierti che la no[n] si murassi per noi." See too the earlier passage from this source pub­ lished in Marcotti, Un mercante, pp. 58-59. In general, see J. Wood Brown, The Dominican Church of S. Maria Novella at Florence (Edin­ burgh, 1902), p. 126, and Orlandi, "Necrologio" di S. Maria Novella, h 3351 5 2 Ibid.,

11, 2 6 2 (the source of this tradition is Borghigiani, a later chronicler of the order): cf. p. 101 above, for Giovanni's interest in founding a chapel in Santa Maria Novella as early as 1 4 4 8 , and p. 2 5 7 for his concern three years earlier to bring up to date the arms in St. Catherine's chapel.

153 Ibid.,

I, 168.

15^ Ν. Α., P

339

(Ser Piero da Campi,

1457-1518), 9

February, no.

28.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

requested burial in the rather eerie tomb "of his father and ancestors," and ordered elaborate Masses for the ances­ tral dead.155 Despite the interest of other Rucellai, Adovardo still considered himself the chapel's special patron: when he decided to give up this position he did so formally, donating on 26 May 1505 "all the rights of patronage, and every other [right] that he might have," to his very distant cousin Bernardo di Giovanni and to the "sons and descend­ ants of the said Bernardo in the paternal line."156 It was several years later that Bernardo placed at the front of the chapel the marble sepulcher of his great-grandfather which dominates it to this day.157 Bernardo was proclaiming what Adovardo's donation had recognized, that Giovanni di Paolo's branch had become the most powerful of all the Rucellai; Adovardo, the last of his line, was giving the chapel into safe hands. Bernardo and his descendants were intended to be custodians of a family possession, for Adovardo's donation laid down that after their extinction the chapel should be under the patronage of "our family of the Rucellai,"158 and he himself remained vitally in­ terested in it. Just before he died in 1508, he confirmed his earlier bequests, leaving the very large sum of three hundred 155/6¾., P 357 (Ser Piero da Vinci, 1454-1505), 30 November, fols. 232r-234r. ΐ5β "Zibaldone," first unnumbered folio: Cosimo di Palla wrote that Adovardo "fece donazione inter vivos a Bernardo di Giovanni Rucellai sopradetto, mio avolo, e a suoi figliuoli e discendenti per linea masculina, e finita detta linea alia nostra famiglia de' Rucellai, di tutte Ie ragioni di patronato, et ogni altfra] cosa ch'egli havesse sopra la capella nostra di Santa Caterina. . . ." Ν. Α., P 33 (Ser Giovanbatista di Pierantonio Paganucci, 1504-06), 18 June 1505, fols. 133^134', contains the notarial document in which the Archbishop of Florence confirmed the donation. According to both of these sources, Ser Antonio Ferrini drew up the original act, but it no longer appears to be among his protocols in the Archivio di Stato, Florence. 157 The tomb is inscribed "Paulo Oricellario equiti Bernardus pronepos posuit": cf. E. and W. Paatz, Die Kirchen von Florenz (Frank­ furt am Main, 1952), 3, p. 706. 158 See n. 156 above.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

florins for Masses to be held there, and for any maintenance work on "the windows and the rose window in the said chapel."159 It seems likely that what Giovanni Rucellai called "our chapel at the bell tower" in Santa Maria Novella was also in the entire Rucellai family's possession.160 In April 1335 Albizzo di Bernardo provided, in an addition to his will, for the building and decoration of a tomb outside the chapel of All Saints, which was in the campanile; perhaps the Trecento painting which is still at that spot, with the RucelIai arms, was part of this commission.161 Albizzo's nephew Francesco d'Andrea placed there a crown given him by the Commune of Perugia;162 his father was buried at that spot in 1369, another Rucellai five years later.163 Fra Andrea of a collateral branch is reputed to have restored this tomb;164 the handsome holy water stoup in white marble which still stands there bears the Rucellai arms and the legend "Hoc opus fieri fecit Fr. Andreas Oricellarius."165 A Rucellai of yet another line had the painting mentioned above restored in the early sixteenth century.166 Most commemorative Masses had their origin in a particular household or line; as time passed, however, it often happened that Masses for the domestic dead became, in effect, Masses for ancestors. In 1451, for example, Ugolino 159 Acquisti e Doni, 275, 1, has a copy, dated 1572, of Adovardo's bequests. (Passerini, Rucellai, p. 48, mentions a will of 1508 which I have not found.) The friars were obliged "a mantenere Ie finestre e occhio di detta capella. . . ." 160 "Zibaldone," fol. 4'. Cf. Ν. A., S 20 (Ser Antonio Salamone, 146270), fol. i04 v . 1 Si Orlandi, "Necrologio" di S. Maria Novella, 1, 434. Albizzo also ordered that the chapel itself "debeat nobiliter ornari et decorari picturis et aliis ornamentis." Cf. ibid., 11, 399-400. 162 "Zibaldone," fol. 4'. 163 Manoscritti, 625, fols. 810, 835; cf. Delizie, ix, 155, 181. 164 Wood Brown, The Dominican Church of S. Maria Novella, p. 136. 16 5 Orlandi, "Necrologio" di S. Maria Novella, 11, 263. ice Wood Brown, The Dominican Church of S. Maria Novella, p. 136.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

Rucellai was still fulfilling an obligation left by his grand­ father who had died a century before;167 several of his kins­ men were later paying for Masses ordered by their great­ grandfather.168 When, in 1534, two Ginori brothers still commemorated their great-great-grandfather, they were reaching back into the very beginnings of Ginori history.169 This attention to ancestral souls was kept up beyond our period; it was, as it happens, a Capponi prioress of Santa FeIicita who recorded on 9 October 1657 that "this morn­ ing there has been celebrated the Office of the Dead, with a sung Mass and twelve plain Masses, for the soul of Signor Lodovico Capponi [died 1534]."170 A few Masses were ex­ plicitly intended to commemorate the ancestors as a whole, the collective dead of the lineage. Adovardo Rucellai ordered many Masses from the friars of Santa Maria Novella in 1508, all of them to be celebrated in the chapel of the consorteria, and most dedicated to his "ancestors"; on the day after his name-saint's day, for example, Adovardo wanted performed "the Mass of the Dead for his soul and [for those] of his ancestors, with all the Masses of the Dead."171 Mico Capponi's will of 1497 also provided a Mass to be celebrated in the chapel of his consorteria for "the said testator and his ancestors."172 ιβτ Kent, "The Rucellai Family and its Loggia," p. 398. i68 Cat., 1012, fol. 366 t ; Dec. Rep., 23, fol. 517^. 16» Dec. Gran., 3632, fol. 495v. 170 Acquisti e Doni, 274, insert entitled "Capponi": "questa mattina s'e celebrato 1'offizzio de' morti con messa cantata e 12 messe piane, per l'anima del Signor Lodovico Capponi secondo il solito. . . ." For similar seventeenth century Rucellai examples, see ibid., insert entitled "filza i, 17," and ibid., 275, xxn, unioliated. 171 Ibid., 275, i: "la messa di morti per l'anima sua e di sua passati con tutte Ie messe di morti." See also Antonio di Simone Rucellai's will of 14 January 1412 in Ν. A., C 187 (Ser Tommaso Carondini, 1411-12), fol. iooT and Sandra di Messer Giovanni Rucellai's dona­ tion of 28 May 1411: Manoscritti, Carte Dei, 44, insert 16, unfoliated. 172 Con. Sopp., San Piero a Monticelli, 163 (34). For another Capponi example of 1417, see Ν. A., S 1197 (Ser Stefano di Paolo di Stefano da Firenze, 1417-18), fol. igv. Examples are not lacking for other Florentine lineages: in December 1403 Michele Ardinghelli left a bequest obliging the Abbot of Santa Trinita to arrange in the chapel

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

At least three quite distinct branches of the Capponi combined during part of the fifteenth century to pay for Masses and a feast in honor of the lineage's patron saint. In 1427 Lorenzo di Gino reported to the tax officials that some Masses in Santo Spirito were "for old bequests of our ancestors": although divided from his brothers Neri and Agostino, he and they nevertheless shared the ex­ pense.173 Giovanni and Uguccione di Mico explained in more detail that they were paying for "a feast for the Blessed St. Nicholas, which costs forty florins a year, left by our ancestors."174 "Many of our house share the expense—our share costs us four florins a year," confirmed three other Capponi brothers.175 The last certain reference to this family-wide commemoration is in the tax report for 1451 of Niccolo di Giovanni Capponi, but later family bequests were probably associated with it.176 This modest under­ taking, and the much more expensive maintenance of chapels of the lineage, served several family purposes: men fulfilled their pious obligation to ancestors by remember­ ing them and their wishes, and in doing so distant cousins worked together and were reminded of their common ancestry; by honoring a patron saint the lineage gave thanks for past blessings and sought protection for its collective future. The vigorous and punctilious concern for ancestors' souls and tombs must have bred, yet left unsatisfied, a sharp hunger for details about them, for personal anecdotes, and for concrete evidence of their activities. Many family diaries of his consorteria "un bello annuale et ufficio de' morti, per l'anima di tucti i morti della chasa delli Ardinghelli. . ." (Arte del Cambio, 105, fol. 3 r ). 17 S Cat., 25, fol. io4 v : "per lasci vechi di nostri antichi." ιn Ibid., 17, fol. 722 v : "una piatanza per Beato San Nicholo che n[e] chosta I'anno fiorini quaranta, lascato per nostri passati." 175 Ibid., 24, fol. 1324': "chonchorono [l]e spesa piti di casa nostra: tochane per la parte nostra fiorini quatro I'anno." ΐ7β Ibid., 688, fol. 382·".

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

(ricordi) were written, many indifferent busts commis­ sioned, to fulfill this need. Even the more down-to-earth diaries often provide genealogical information and family facts about tombs and churches; a few become fascinating histories, full of human interest and more revealing about their families than even their jealous and secretive authors could have known. This latter variety, of which the domes­ tic chronicles of Donato Velluti, Giovanni Morelli, and Buonaccorso Pitti are the best known examples, was always in a minority amidst the masses of account books and lists of maxims and jottings that are generically called ricordi. Of our three families, only the Rucellai produced a genuine family chronicle that has survived, Giovanni's Zibaldone Quaresimale. All ricordi known to me were written by one man or, in some cases, by two or three generations of the same line— apparently no lineage kept collective records. Though some later antiquarians wrote more general histories of their houses (Lorenzo Strozzi dedicated his early sixteenth century account of his huge family to "our kinsmen"),177 the vast majority of Florentine ricordanze, whether self-conscious histories or account books, began their lives as domestic books; their main concern, and their family starting point, was the writer's household. This had always been the case and should cause no surprise. Even the fourteenth century diarists show more interest in their immediate family line than in collateral branches: the household had probably always been the focus of men's devotions, which then fan­ ned out (when they did so at all) to embrace related groups and lines.178 The early fourteenth century writer Neri Strinati divided his lineage into two basic groups, each descended from the two sons of Ramingo, discussing in detail the one "which was our side and the more senior," and most precisely of all the subbranch which sprang from 177 Le Vite, p. 3; cf. Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, p. 270. "s See chaps. 1 and 2 above.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

his own grandfather, of whom he clearly had some direct personal knowledge. 179 Some decades later, Donato Velluti sketched in his family's outline in the Cronica Domestica and then wrote, "I mean to speak and write more specifically of our line" (by which he meant the group of Velluti descended from his great-grandfather). 180 Most later family chroniclers analyzed the structures of their families in rather the same way.181 The Zibaldone, written for Giovanni Rucellai's sons, and continued until the end of the sixteenth century by several generations of his descendants, reveals a family consciousness of precisely this sort. Giovanni's point of emotional departure is his own domestic group, but one of the common-place book's major functions is to tell his sons about their lineage and to show them their place in it. The very first pages of the Zibaldone, a "notice of the descent [history] of our family of the Rucellai," constitute one of the most extensive and accurate genealogical ac­ counts of a Florentine lineage which has come down to us from the pen of a family memorialist. 182 In many similar descriptions the writers are vague, either by design or ignorance, about distant and long-dead patrikin, 183 but Giovanni gives us a complete genealogy, past and present, of almost all the surviving lines of the Rucellai: painstak­ ingly he kept it up to date between 1457 and his death in 1481. His "salad of many herbs" was offering his sons, be17» Storia delta Guerra di Semifonte. . .e Cronichetta di Neri degli Strinati, p. 99. 180 Ed. I. del Lungo and G. Volpi (Florence, 1914), pp. 9-10. 181 Buonaccorso Pitti, for example (Cronica. ed. A. Bacchi della Lega [Bologna, 1905]), divided his famiglia into three basic parts (parti), only one of them named Pitti (pp. 9-10); his analysis of this group began with his great-great-great-grandfather (p. 10), but he was most concerned with his grandfather and his descendants (p. nff.), especially as he disapproved of the behavior of a collateral branch (pp. 3536). 182 "Zibaldone," fols. i r -2 T : "notizia della discendenzia della nostra famiglia de' Rucellai" (fol. i r ). 1 83 Cf. the remarks of Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, pp. 265-272, though I regard his case as overstated and in some respects misleading.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

fore anything else, the names and genealogical history of almost every male Rucellai alive in their time; he had only neglected, because of lack of oral information, those RucelIai who had no living descendants. 184 Giovanni Rucellai's exposition of family structure is both instructive and fascinating. He saw Bernardo di Giunta (died 1324) as the founder of all the important lines, includ­ ing his own; the bulk of the genealogy is a branch by branch list of all the men descended from Bernardo's many sons. In his own day two other lines survived and Giovanni carefully mentioned each, while making it clear that they were in a sense peripheral. He gave the names of the men descended from Bernardo's brother Ugolino (whom he significantly described as "not very rich"), but did not even know the precise genealogy of the men of Bernardo d'Alamanno's line who were, he wrote, "descended from kinsmen of Nardo [Bernardo] and Nino [Ugolino] di Giunta." He did, however, name his contemporary Fra Andrea of this failing line (the two of course shared a passionate interest in the Rucellai patronage of Santa Maria Novella), and mentioned in a later note that "they are all spent." 185 This analysis of Rucellai's elaborate and largely unknown genealogy suggests that Goldthwaite's claim that the genealogical range of ricordi was shrinking as time passed (a change he associates with "the transformation from the extended to the nuclear family") 186 must remain an interesting hypothesis until the masses of other unpub­ lished diaries and genealogies are systematically examined. 184 "Zibaldone," fol. i r : "seguitero la discendentia di ciascuno di Ioro [Bernardo di Giunta's sons], et masimamente di quelli che al di d'oggi. . . n'e discendentia, perche degli autri non ό vera notitia chi: sono spenti, benche di Ioro sono stati discendenti assai." 1 8 5 Ibid,., iol. 2 V : "Frate Andrea Rucellai dell'ordine de' predicatori in Saneta Maria Novella e Lionardo suo fratello figluoli di Donato di Bernardo sono discesi di consorti di Nardo et Nino di Giunta sopradecto. . . [and a little later] Sono tutti spenti." For evidence that Giovanni's genealogical distinctions precisely reflected earlier Rucellai traditions, see n. 71 above. 18 6 Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, p. 266.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

About the same time as Francesco Guicciardini concen­ trated on linea nostra in his Memorie di Famiglia, a mem­ ber of the Tedaldi family was compiling from "our writ­ ings" a short account of his lineage stuffed with informa­ tion about a wide range of ancestors and breathing an almost palpable love for "our house." 187 The Florentines had long been keen if not always honest genealogists (Charles Davis has recently suggested that the Malispini chronicle is a late-fourteenth century forgery motivated by "a very precise kind of genealogical solicitude"), 188 and this mania was not merely antiquarian in a society where collec­ tive family rights still mattered, where political eligibility and claims to patronage of chapels and churches often depended upon the keeping of accurate family records. Giovanni Rucellai also gave his sons a short "general history" of the Rucellai family, of some individual fore­ fathers, "and of other things pertinent to the honor of the house and worthy of memory." 189 His choice of pen portraits was a catholic one; he did not dwell upon his own direct ancestors, but mentioned anyone he considered important, especially some descendants of Bencivenni and Andrea di Bernardo, though both branches were insignifi­ cant in his own day and had been so for at least a genera­ tion. Several times, in the didactic spirit of most ricordi, is? For Guicciardini, ibid., p. 269. The very interesting Tedaldi ricordanze is in C. S., ser. n, cxxxv (2), unfoliated. In a typical passage, very reminiscent of Velluti's fourteenth century chronicle, the author writes of an ancestor that because "fu uno Iume in detto tenpo della casa nostra, faro menzione de' capi del suo testamento a gloria sua et a informatione et examplo de' posteri." A contemporary Frescobaldi memorialist noted in his diary: "memoria chome l'anno del Signore 1509 e adi 25 di marzo si trovorono Ii infrascritti settanta vivi de' Frescobaldi": quoted by M. Bori, L"Annunziazione' di Piero del Donzello. . .," Rivista d'Arte, in (1906), 120. Two earlier ricordi writers with a catholic genealogical sense are Doffo Spini (C. S., ser. 11, XHi, fols. ι6 Γ -ι8 Γ ) and Paolo Sassetti (ibid., iv, passim). 188 "The Malispini Question," A Giuseppe Ermini (Spoleto, 1970), p. 244; see also pp. 243-245. 189 "Zibaldone," fol. i r : "e d'altre cose appartenenti all'onore della casa degne di memoria."

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

he stressed the family's past unity in politics and ceremonial life. 190 His general advice to his two sons on how to con­ duct their lives also included their relations with paternal kinsmen (congiunti di casa).ial If Giovanni's conception of the family began with his own household, it traveled horizontally and vertically to embrace a consorteria of ancestors and living kinsmen. It is not unlikely that members of that wider group of Rucellai were familiar with Giovanni's Zibaldone. Most family memorialists emphasized that their books were not to be seen by outsiders, 192 but very occasionally one learns that trusted friends knew private ricordi, and certainly the ban did not include paternal kin—Lapo da Castiglionchio's Epistola was to be kept from all "except thy brothers and kinsmen [consorti]."133 There is even evidence to prove that diaries were in fact formally loaned to consorti: in 1476 a Corsini allowed some cousins to copy "for their use" his family ricordi, begun by his great-grandfather over a century before and full of genealogical and patrimonial facts,194 and almost a century later Filippo di Carlo Capponi made a note that he had just received back his grand­ father's common-place book from "Alessandro d'Agnolo Capponi my cousin and on behalf of Piero di Bartolomeo 190 Ibid., fols. 3T"5T: published in part, and not always accurately, by Marcotti, Un mercante, pp. 53-58. 191 Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, p. 11; cf. pp. 3-17, and "Zibaldone," fols. 22T-24T. 192 E.g., Francesco Guicciardini, "Memorie di Famiglia," Scritti Autobiografici e Rari, ed. R. Palmarocchi (Bari, 1936), p. 3. 193 Ed. L. Mehus (Bologna, 1753), p. 3; cf. Guicciardini's "Memorie di Famiglia," where his proscription applies only to "alcuno fuora di casa" (p. 3). Francesco himself had seen a copy of Gino Capponi's ricordi of 1421 (see R. Sereno, "The 'Ricordi' of Gino di Neri Capponi," American Political Science Review, lii [1958], 1,119), but his own descendants were very distressed in 1561 when one of their num­ ber loaned Francesco's "Memorie di Famiglia" to an outsider: cf. M. Domandi's preface, Francesco Guicciardini, Maxims and Reflections of a Renaissance Statesman (New York, 1965), p. 37. if ill Libro di Ricordanze dei Corsini (ι^62-1^ ^η), ed. A. Petrucci (Rome, 1965), p. liii; cf. p. Ivii.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

Capponi, to whom I Filippo had given it in order to oblige Messer Giovanozzo Capponi, who at this time had need of it." 1 9 5 If this custom was at all widespread, ricordi must not only have helped a domestic group to identify with the wider family, but would have contributed to the creation of a shared tradition among related households. However, their often conversational tone reminds us once again that ricordanze were only an alternative to a far older (and probably more personally satisfying) way of com­ municating family history and experience.196 We can infer from his genealogical notes what an earlier draft of the Zibaldone now confirms, that Giovanni Rucellai gathered much of his information by conversation with kinsmen, "from the oldest men of our house,"197 among whom the octogenarian Ugolino, donor of the loggia site, must have been prominent. Perhaps the idea of building the clan meeting place occurred to both men during one of their talks about long-dead Rucellai (they lived opposite each other); perhaps they hoped that a loggia would encourage similar conversation and family sociability. Oral tradition must have been very strong among some families, especially those whose households were gathered together, and would have served to consolidate and shape the sense of lineage of the kinsmen, and their knowledge of their common past.

From the Trecento onward, collective family pride and the sense of lineage were sharpened as they found in 195 Con. Sopp., 100, 83, loose ricordo dated 10 December 1564: "da Alexandre d'Agnolo Capponi mio cugino e per conto di Piero di Bartolomeo Capponi al quale io Filippo sopradetto l'havevo dato perche d'accomoda[r]ssi M. Giovannozo Capponi che all'hora n'haveva di bisogno. . . ." is® See chap. 2 above. 1 S^ B.N.F., π, iv, 374, fol. iz6: "secondo che io ho ritratto da piii antichi huomini di casa nostra" (for this draft see n. 51 above); cf. n. 184 above. There are other references to Giovanni's consulting aged relations and other persons in "Zibaldone," fol. 4V; Marcotti, Un mercante, p. 58.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

patronage of the arts, especially architecture and sculpture, more license to commemorate and proclaim family piety, wealth, and achievements—these impulses were not artifi­ cially cut off from the facts of family life (not merely evoca­ tive of some dream-time of kin solidarity), nor did they develop so late as the early sixteenth century.198 The growth of secular patronage throughout Western Europe in the thirteenth century is one of the most important develop­ ments in the art history of the period. A manifestation of what J. R. Strayer has called the "laicization" of society,199 lay patronage often expressed, above all else, the dynastic pride of the magnates of the second feudal age and of the city states of northern Italy.200 By the fifteenth century, Wittkower has suggested, there was "a decline in civic patronage and an increase in family patronage. . .when Florence's visual unity was broken into by private monu­ ments."201 One central theme of the history of the growth of secular patronage is the emergence of the feudal and 198 Goldthwaite, "Renaissance

Private

Florence.

.

Wealth, .the

pp.

concept

267®., of

the

has

argued

family

as

that

a

in

cognate

group, now that it was disembodied from any kind of social reality, was not abandoned altogether but was recast in a different and more nebulous form by which it came to represent an ideal rather than a fact of social life. The concept acquired a broad historical dimension and

came

more

and

more

to

mean

a

lineage, or

a

dynasty. . ."

(p. 267). By "lineage" Goldthwaite seems to mean what I call "line" ( s e e , e . g . , p . 269). 199 "The Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth C e n t u r y , " S p e c u l u m , x v (1940), 7 6 - 8 6 . 200 For classic descriptions of the rise of the feudal agnatic lineage, see G. Duby, "Structures familiales aristocratiques en France du siecle e n r a p p o r t avec Ies s t r u c t u r e s d e l ' e t a t , " L ' E u r o p e a u x

IX'

Xe e

XI" Siecles aux origines des £tats nationaux, ed. T. Manteuffel and A.

Gieysztor

(Warsaw,

1968),

pp. 57-62;

"Structures

de

parente

et

noblesse, F r a n c e d u n o r d X I 0 - X I I e siecles," Miscellanea J . F . N i e r m e y e r (Groningen, Art

in

1967),

Medieval

pp.

149-165.

On

France 987-1498:

patronage,

A

Study

in

see,

e.g.,

Patronage

J.

Evans,

(London,

1948), espec. p p . isgff.; J . L a r n e r , C u l t u r e a n d Society i n I t a l y , 12901420 ( L o n d o n , 1971); Italy, 1420-1540

P. Burke, Culture and

Society

in

Renaissance

(London, 1072), espec. chap. 4.

«οι As reported in the account of

the

i 9 6 0 conference on "Cities,

C o u r t s a n d A r t i s t s , " p u b l i s h e d i n P a s t a n d P r e s e n t , i g (1961), p p . 20-21.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS FARTS

urban lineage, and its right to express its proud sense of itself, in the present and for future generations, by com­ missioning buildings and works of art. The summary story of the patronage of the three families, which we have touched many times so far, will illustrate and perhaps further illuminate the enduring importance of dynastic motives in lay patronage, and the vitality of collective family sentiment. After 1221 the Church permitted the burial of laymen within churches, and by the late thirteenth century the series of celebrated mendicant churches going up in Italy included private chapels and tombs which lay patrons often decorated extravagantly.202 The cult of the clan and the Catholic cult of the dead here met as one.203 The first phase of Rucellai chapel-building, in the Dominican church of Santa Maria Novella, belongs to the 1330s to 1350s, and corresponds with the family's emergence as a major force within Florence; the newer Ginori became interested in chapels about a century later, at an identical point in its history and when the rebuilding of a local church, San Lorenzo, offered convenient chapel sites. Once the custom became established, family competitiveness must have urged men on to acquire chapels. In the fifteenth century, RucelIai and Capponi chapel-building corresponded always to high points in personal and family fortunes; two Rucellai households erected new chapels in San Pancrazio in the third quarter of the century (and reestablished rights over another), and all of the Capponi, and several individual households, were concerned to acquire or further adorn chapels in Santo Spirito and elsewhere from midcentury onward. 202 Cf. E. Borsook, The Mural Painters of Tuscany from Cimabue to Andrea del Sarto (London, i960), pp. 9-10, 131. The whole subject of the "rise" of private chapels requires thorough and sophisticated study, as I have been made aware by talking with Dr. Alison Luchs, who is working on aspects of the problem. 203 See in general the very suggestive article by R. C. Trexler, "Ritual Behavior in Renaissance Florence: The Setting," Medievalia et Humanistica, n.s. iv (1973), 125-144.

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

Families naturally became closely associated with the remodeling and furnishing of the neighborhood churches which contained their ancestral tombs. Family patronage flowed to these churches, and to hospitals, as much from family pride as from piety (or rather, one should say, from a curious mixture of the two). Conservative ecclesias­ tical opinion around 1400 permitted, indeed encouraged, prominent laymen to help in work of this kind—so long as they did so unostentatiously,204 for well before the end of the Quattrocento there existed men who fitted Savona­ rola's deft description of the patron as one who "seeks to appear religious, and dedicated to divine worship, but who is concerned only with external appearances, such as church-going, alms-giving, building churches and chapels, donating church hangings, and similar things, out of ostentation."205 Acts of minor patronage by our three families (the donation of a missal206 or a supply of oil to keep alight a devotional lamp,207 the provision of expensive tapestries)208 mingle with much more substantial aid. Marco Dezzi Bardeschi's recent monograph on the church of San Pancrazio is, for example, almost as important a contribu­ tion to Rucellai family history as to architectural studies, 204 A. D. Fraser Jenkins, "Cosimo de' Medici's Patronage of Architecture and the Theory of Magnificence," Journal of the War­ burg and Courtauld Institutes, xxxm (ig7o), 162-170. 205 Trattato circa il Reggimento e Governo della Citta di Firenie, ed. L. Firpo (Turin, 1963), p. 26: Savonarola is describing one aspect of a "tyrant's" behavior, but his description might apply to a number of Lorenzo the Magnificent's prominent contemporaries. 206 E.g., by Dianora Ginori to San Lorenzo in 1477: F. Baldasseroni and P. d'Ancona, "La Biblioteca della Basilica Fiorentina di San Lorenzo," Rivista delle biblioteche e degli archivi, xvi (1905), 194· 207 The obscure Lorenzo d'Antonio di Sandro Rucellai's bequest to San Pancrazio in July 1506: B.N.F., Fondo Magliabechiana, xxvi, 83, unfoliated. As a result, Lorenzo had rights of patronage over a wall painting of "la figura del nostro Signore che ha la Croce in collo. . .che vi facesse intorno un poco di ornamento e tenessevi una lampana" (Con. Sopp., 88, 145, unfoliated). 208 See, e.g., Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, p. 118; for a Capponi ex­ ample of 1417, see Ν. A., S 1197 (^ er Stefano di Paolo di Stefano da Firenze, 1417-18), fol. i6y.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

for he has shown that in the reconstruction of the church in the course of the fifteenth century, Rucellai money and support, from many men but above all from Giovanni di Paolo, who was the monastery's banker as well as its greatest patron, was quite decisive.209 At any point in the history of the church of Santa Maria Novella, Rucellai names are prominent: a number of men of the lineage were friars there, and others participated in lay confraternities associated with the Dominican con­ vent.210 Their other commissions aside, the Rucellai con­ tributed one of the more striking things belonging to the church—the white marble pulpit, prominently displaying the family's arms, which stands against a pillar between the fourth and fifth arches facing the nave. It was commis­ sioned between 1443 and 1448, probably from a design by Brunelleschi, by three men, Filippo di Vanni, Niccolo di Brancazio, and Bernardo di Piero, who represented some of the most active Rucellai lines. Though the Minerbetti consorteria claimed rights of patronage over the column to which the pulpit was attached, these three, pleading on behalf of all the Rucellai, were permitted to prevail, be­ cause the Minerbetti pretensions were judged to be weak and the addition so useful and so decorative; indeed, the arbiters in the dispute ruled that even were the Minerbetti subsequently proved right, they should have to replace the Rucellai pulpit with one similar or more beautiful. This prestigious project was a true consorterial commission, for 209 "χι

Complesso

many volumes of

Monumentale

di

S.

Pancrazio,"

passim.

The

the convent's archive (Con. Sopp., 88) are full of

references to scores of Rucellai. 210 See n. 129 above. There is much more evidence linking the Rucel­ lai and the Company of St. Peter the Martyr. Fra Andrea Rucellai was at one stage its gubernator (Orlandi, "Necrologio" di

Novella, 1, 168), and other Rucellai had financial

S. Maria

transactions with it,

in several cases for Masses for the dead (Cat., 76, fol. 5''; 1011, fol. 151 r ;

1012, fol. 127'; Ν. Α., P 357 [Ser Piero da Vinci, 1454-1505],

fol. 2321"). There are numerous detailed references to Rucellai of many branches i n both volumes of Orlandi's "Necrologio" Novella; see too Con. Sopp., 102, 46, passim.

di S. Maria

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

Filippo and Niccolo were second cousins, Bernardo their third cousin once-removed; when part of the decorating work had been allocated to Andrea Cavalcanti, the agree­ ment had been made by yet another kinsman, "Fra Andrea Rucellai. . .middleman for the family and men of the house of Rucellai."211 The detailed building history of the new church of Santo Spirito has not yet been written, but it is well known that Neri di Gino Capponi was one of the most influential local backers of the project:212 in the 1480s his kinsman Niccolo di Giovanni was an operaio, and then camarlingo, of the church.213 According to Vasari, the Ginori were among the seven local "houses or lineages" who originally supported the rebuilding of San Lorenzo: at a meeting held in November 1440 to discuss the church's progress, four Ginori, representative of all but one of the family's small lines, were present, and several of them served as operai.214 If San Lorenzo became in effect a Medici project, the Ginori's minor role in its reconstruction faithfully reflected the new family's satellite relationship with their mighty neighbors. There is scrappy but interesting evidence of family interest in rural churches which contained ances­ tral tombs—Simone Ginori paid one hundred florins "to set in order [achonciare] San Niccolo at Calenzano,"215 and 211 See G. Poggi, "Andrea di Lazzaro Cavalcante e il pulpito di S. Maria Novella," Miscellanea d'Arte, in (1905), 77-85. The three Rucellai patrons are named in a document of 1448 (pp. 80-81): that concerning Fra Andrea is dated 1452 (pp. 81-82). The original notarial act of 30 December 1448 is in Ν. A., I 10 (Ser Iacopo d'Antonio, 144348), fols. 926^927*. According to the convent's necrology, Fra Andrea "fecit fieri. . .marmoreum purpitum [sic] et pulcrum valde pro predicatione" (Orlandi, "Necrologio" di S. Maria Novella, 1, 168; cf. 11, 258259)·

212 C. Botto, "L'edificazione della Chiesa di Santo Spirito in Firenze," Rivista d'Arte, xm (1931), 477-493; xiv (193 2 ). 2 3"53213 Con. Sopp., 128, iS2, fols. 72'', 76", and passim; Gaye, Carteggio, ", 450-451· 214 Ginori Conti, La Basilica, pp. 46-52, 236-240. 215 Cat., 1017, fol. 2g2v. Piero di Simone was in 1480 obliged by his father's will to give grain to the priest every year "per farre uf-

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

many Rucellai did not forget Santo Stefano at Campi and the "chapel of the Rucellai" there.218 Some men were, however, becoming impatient with this relatively anonymous and in most cases rather modest sort of patronage; it may have been in accordance with con­ servative theory to provide a church facade as Giovanni Rucellai did for Santa Maria Novella in the 1460s and '70s, but it was in an almost revolutionary spirit that he had placed there, as unmistakable evidence of his part in the splendid project, a boldly lettered "signature" and, very prominently displayed, the graceful Rucellai arms and other more personal devices.217 Giovanni was one of the very first Florentines to put into practice, here and else­ where, the new doctrine of magnificence which several theorists associated with the Medici had evolved in the 1430s. "The generous use of wealth," to use Alberti's words, magnificent liberality in the service of architecture, were now considered signs of nobility: a rich patron was justified in conceiving and executing grand and unified architectural projects, as did Cosimo de' Medici in his own district, and ficcante una chappela" (ibid., 1017, fol. 2g2 T ; cf. Dec. Rep., 28, fol. i6g r ). Carlo Ginori became patron o£ the church of San Stefano at Baroncoli in 1514 and seems to have lavished attention on it: Ginori Lisci, Baroncoli, pp. 19-20. 216 Several Rucellai were priests there (Passerini, Rucellai, pp. 55-56 and tav. vi). In mid-century Ugolino di Francesco bequeathed land and a house at Campi "alia chapella de' Ruciellai" and grain to the priest "che uficio la chapella Ioro di Chanpi" (Cat., 816, fols. 8g5 T -8g6 r ). For a distant kinsman's provision, see ibid., 1012, fol. 347 v ; cf. ibid., 816, fol. 284 1 . It was to this "chapel or altar," or another in the family's possession, that Mona Cecca, widow of Vanni di Paolo Rucellai, assigned certain property on 6 June 1485, at which time her son was "capellano dicte capelle": Ν. A., G 591 (Ser Paolo Grassi !485-89). fol S- 23 v -24 v · 217 See the splendidly illustrated monograph by M. Dezzi Bardeschi, La Facciata di Santa Maria Novella a Firenze (Collana di Rilievi Architettonici a cura dell'Istituto di Restauro dei Monumenti dell' Universita di Firenze) (Pisa, ig7o). For a model analysis of a com­ parable patron, see now R. A. Goldthwaite, "The Building of the Strozzi Palace: The Construction Industry in Renaissance Florence," Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 10 (1973), pp. 97-ig4·

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

in associating himself openly with his creation by placing his arms there, even on a church. The commissioning of spectacular secular buildings, distrusted as vainglorious by earlier theorists, was made a positive virtue by Alberti, Palmieri, and others.218 You have achieved honor when you have built "a fine Wall or Portico," Alberti told his imaginary patron in his Ten Books on Architecture, be­ cause, besides serving yourself and men of public spirit, you have "by this generous Use of your Wealth gained an Addition of great Honor to yourself, your Family, your Descendants and your City."219 Alberti was Giovanni RuceIlai's architect, and the great patron had read Palmieri's book on civil life—these writers' ideas, and Cosimo de' Medici's example, would have provided Giovanni with the justification for his own elaborate building program, which he had begun to conceive by 1448.220 Some years later, he was noting in his Zibaldone that Cicero in his De Officiis (a basic source for Alberti's treatise on architecture, as Onians has now shown)221 had mentioned that Cneius Octavius had earned "very great honor. . .by building a very beautiful palace at Rome on the Palatine hill";222 this is perhaps the very first reference by a patron to the new justifications of magnificent building that were in the air. Fraser Jenkins, "Cosimo de' Medici's Patronage of Architecture." Cf. J. Onians, "Alberti and ΦιΧαρετη'· a Study in their Sources," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xxxiv (19,71), 96-114; E. H. Gombrich, "The Early Medici as Patrons of Art," Norm and Form (London, 1966), pp. 35-37; H. Baron, "Franciscan Poverty and Civic Wealth as Factors in the Rise of Humanistic Thought," Speculum, xm (1938), 1-37. 219 Ten Books, p. χ (cf. p. 187). See too Fraser Jenkins, "Cosimo de' Medici's Patronage of Architecture," p. 169. 220 Cf. the documents in Dezzi Bardeschi, La Facciata, p. 21. 221 "Alberti," pp. ggff. 222 "Zibaldone," fol. 63v: "Tulio nel primo chiamato de offitiis dice Iui avere inteso essere stato honore grandissimo a Gneo Ottavio cittadino romano per la edificazione d'uno bellissimo palazzo edificato a Roma nel Monte Palatino" (cf. Cicero's Offices, ed. J. Warrington [London, 1955], p. 61). Significantly, Giovanni added that this was one of the "esempli de' magnanimi e virtuosissimi huomini" Cicero held up to his son.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

When several years later Rucellai made his celebrated con­ fession about having enjoyed spending more than earn­ ing,223 he showed himself a thorough convert to the new Renaissance conception of "civic wealth." Using Giovanni Rucellai as an exemplar, Michael Baxandall has recently summarized the mixture of motives which prompted fifteenth century art patrons—"the pleasure of possession, an active piety, civic consciousness of one or another kind, self-commemoration and perhaps self-advertisement, the rich man's necessary virtue and pleasure of reparation, a taste for pictures."224 In 1473, near the end of his life, Giovanni had given a shorter version of this interesting catalogue when he wrote that his build­ ings reflected "partly the honor of God, the honor of the city, and the memory of me."225 Alberti would not have approved the omission of family pride (in its several senses) from either list, and we may assume that Giovanni was not in fact doing so; as Alberti implied, the patron's "memory" was intended to be preserved for both his own family and for outsiders.226 Indeed, much of Giovanni Rucellai's patronage must be understood as an expression of his in­ tense identification, which grew stronger as he became older and allied to the Medici, with his wider family. The building of the loggia, a project which required the co­ operation of several Rucellai in the name of them all, was perhaps as much inspired by Ugolino Rucellai's con­ servative and family-minded temperament as by the public assurances of Alberti and Palmieri that to erect a portico was to be of service both to one's family and city.227 2 23

Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, p. 1 1 8 ; cf. p. 1 2 1 (written in 1 4 7 3 ) . 224 Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy (Oxford, !972). P- 3· 225 Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, p. 1 2 1 . 2 2 6 Twice in his will of 1 3 December 1 4 6 5 , Giovanni emphasized that his descendants and kinsmen were to live in his palace so that his "memory" might be preserved: Ν. A., L 130 (Ser Lionardo da Colle, M41-95). no- 3 1 . 227 Kent, "The Rucellai Family and its Loggia," p. 3 9 8 ; Alberti, T e n Books, pp. x, 1 7 3 ; Palmieri, Delia vita civile, pp. 1 2 3 , 1 6 4 .

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

Giovanni's other commissions were in inspiration quite personal, but they were always placed in a traditional RucelIai context: the chapel of the Holy Sepulcher stood beside another Rucellai chapel (into its floor were carefully in­ corporated much older funeral slabs of the lineage)228 in a Rucellai-dominated church: his palace, just behind San Pancrazio, stood opposite the loggia in a family compound and was never to leave his lineage's possession. The Rucellai had been associated with Santa Maria Novella for genera­ tions when Giovanni put the finishing touches to that church. "The buildings he commissioned," Gertrude Bing has written of Giovanni, "all situated within the narrow confines of the Rucellai parish, were in his eyes family con­ cerns."229 It is hard to resist the conclusion that this must have been Carlo Ginori's attitude to his major building projects executed half a century later. Carlo's inalienable new palace and villa were built on ancestral Ginori land in traditional districts, his chapel in the family church of San Lorenzo; his will, like Francesco Sassetti's, at once breathes "the medieval conception of loyalty to the clan and to the family escutcheon"230 and the hugely sober pride of a businessman so successful as to find it necessary, "time and time again [to] examine carefully his conscience concern­ ing his business affairs, companies, and trade."231 As War­ burg realized two generations ago, in Quattrocento Floren­ tines like Francesco Sassetti, Giovanni Rucellai (and we might add Carlo Ginori), the "medieval" characteristics of 228 Dezzi Bardeschi, "II Complesso Monumentale di S. Pancrazio," pp. 20, 28, 42. 229 In her "Introductory Note" to Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, p. ix. 23t> Gombrich, Aby Warburg, p. 172. 23i Archivio Ginori Lisci, Florence, 11, 28, 6 April 1523, fol. 3r: "piu et piii volte ha bene examinato la conscientia sua circa Ie sue faccende, ragioni, et traffichi." However, this process, and his long discussions with "buoni et pratichi et dotti religiosi huomini," had convinced Carlo that "non gli pare havere i carichi di conscientia lie di restituto. . . ." On Carlo's building activities see Ginori Lisci, Baroncoli and also his Palazzi, 1, 347-354.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

faith in God and loyalty to kindred coexisted and combined with "bourgeois" "Renaissance" individualism and selfreliance. 232 This is not to deny the intensity of Giovanni Rucellai's individualism: a close examination of his biography sug­ gests that a basic motive for his patronage and his other activities was a fierce desire, bred of early setbacks and isola­ tion, to assert himself. He certainly had a clear headed sense of his own worth and good fortune: he beautifully summed up his own version of his virtuoso career by adopt­ ing as his personal emblem a ship in full sail navigated by Fortuna, 233 and pointedly referred to his personal connec­ tion with Florence's leading family by several times em­ ploying a well-known heraldic device of the Medici, a ring containing several feathers. 234 But Giovanni's penchant for personal devices, like his egotism and "individualism," ran parallel to his devotion to the Rucellai arms and to his whole lineage. It was he who had the Rucellai arms anachronistically thrust into a panel painting with a classical theme which decorated the expensive cassone made for a daughter's wedding in 1463,235 he who two years later ordered himself a simple funeral ceremony, with none of the customary and expensive drappelloni, "save twenty-four of his devices, namely the badge of the house of Rucellai, around his funeral bed as is the custom." 236 A heightened 232 La Rinascita del Paganesimo Antico, pp. 230, 238. On Floren­ tine "individualism," see the penetrating analysis of Brucker, Renais­ sance Florence, pp. 100-101. 233 See above all, Warburg, La Rinascita del Paganesimo Antico, pp. 232-238; cf. F. Gilbert, "Bernardo Rucellai and the Orti Oricellari," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xn (1949), 103-104. 234 M. Davies, "Fra Filippo Lippi's Annunciation and Seven Saints," Critica d'Arte, viii (1949-50), 356; E. Callmann, Apollonio di Giovanni (Oxford, 1974), p. 56. See n. 132 above. 235 E. h . Gombrich, "Apollonio di Giovanni: A Florentine Cassone workshop seen through the eyes of a humanist poet," Norm and Form, pp. 11-12, 23; Callmann, Apollonio di Giovanni, p. 56. 236 ν . A., L 130 (Ser Lionardo da Colle, 1441-95), no. 31, 13 Decem­ ber 1465: "preterquam xxim sui signi videlicet insignium domus de Oricelleriis circa lectulum ipsum ut moris est."

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

and assertive sense of personal capacity and achievement could live quite comfortably with a sense of lineage, which anyway had probably never converted individual kinsmen's successes into an impersonal clan property: the Zibaldone's preoccupation with casa nostra confirms this, if its author's life and building program did not. 237 It has recently been suggested that the Florentine preoc­ cupation in painting with the tender humanity of the Virgin and Child reflects the victory of another aspect of Renaissance individualism, the emergence of the nuclearconjugal family. 238 This attractive theory, which, however, forgets medieval Europe's long devotion to a more human Mary and the ultimately Byzantine origins of "the seem­ ingly new and realistic motives of the terracotta and stucco virgins of the early fifteenth century," 239 needs testing in the no man's land between art history and social history. If, to take one example which is to hand, we look at the history of the Virgin and Child with Two Saints painted by Filippino Lippi for a Rucellai altar in 1485, this suggested con­ nection between nuclear families and a taste for more domestic painting disappears. Here in this sweet painting, 237 But note Panofsky's distinction, made about tombs and tomb sculpture, between what he calls the "gentilitial" Middle Ages and the more individualistic Italian Renaissance: Tomb Sculpture (New York, 1964). PP- 63, 72. 238 Goldthwaite, "The Florentine Palace," pp. 1,009-1,011; cf. M. B. Becker, "Individualism in the Early Italian Renaissance: Burden and Blessing," Studies in the Renaissance, xix (1972), espec. 293-296; "An essay on the quest for identity in the early Italian Renaissance," Florilegium Historiale: Essays presented, to Wallace K. Ferguson, ed. J. G. Rowe and W. H. StockdaIe (Toronto, 1971), pp. 294-312. Starting from a very different and much more convincing account of Florentine domestic structure, David Herlihy has suggested that demographic conditions may have "freed the young man to cultivate that individualistic style of life, and that intellectual freedom and originality, traditionally associated with the culture of the Renais­ sance city": "Mapping Households in Medieval Italy," Catholic His­ torical Review, LVIII (1972), 18. But cf. chaps. 1 and 2 above, and Larner's interesting general discussion in Culture and Society, pp.

350ff· 239

R. Krautheimer, "Terracotta Madonnas," Studies, p. 321.

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

if anywhere we should expect to find it, is the statement of new family virtues. Tender the picture is, but its patrons at least (one cannot speak for Lippi) were not commemorat­ ing a nuclear family's domesticity by commissioning it. The painting was done for the chapel constructed by the two middle-aged brothers Domenico and Girolamo di Filippo Rucellai; at that time they lived with two other brothers in a huge fraternal family. Near the painting is a tomb slab, in memory of this large family and of its father, which insists upon their membership of the Rucellai lineage, and the contemporary predella of the painting bears the Rucel­ lai arms, yet another direct and concrete statement of the brothers' wider kinship ties.240 There may be others more oblique. The appearance of St. Joseph, who also apparently figures in the recently rediscovered frescoes in Giovanni's palace, may suggest a family devotion to that saint: 241 a building, probably a hospital, which can be seen in the background, may refer to a spedale run by the monks of San Pancrazio, but just as possibly, we might think, to the Rucellai hospital near Campi of which the brothers were then copatrons with the rest of the family. 242 The quite sensational rise of portraiture in Florence around the middle of the fifteenth century might also be regarded as part of a developing Renaissance individualism which cut clean through older collective family values. Fine sculpted portraits were placed upon tombs, and rougher terracotta commemorative figures became so popular that, according to Vasari, by his day there was almost no house in Florence without a collection of them. In painting, 2*«ο See above, p. 101. Davies, The Earlier Italian Schools, p. 285, identifies St. Joseph; cf. J. A. Crowe and G. B. Cavalcaselle, A New History of Painting in Italy (London, 1864), 11, 362, for the frescoes depicting scenes from the lives of St. Joseph and St. Benedict. Professor Roberto Salvini will publish an account of these frescoes in the second volume of Giovan­ ni Rucellai ed il suo Ztbaldone. 212 Davies, The Earlier Italian Schools, pp. 285-286, tentatively identifies a spedale and suggests the San Pancrazio connection; for the Rucellai hospital at Campi, see above, pp. 234-236. 241

NEIGHBORHOOD, PATRONAGE, ANCESTORS

portraits became more and more common, their subjects more identifiable. 243 But this passionate concern to know and to preserve the portraits of close relatives was just as much part of the cult of ancestors as of the cult of individ­ ualism—even when self-glorification was its immediate aim, its justification was almost always a wider family end. Cer­ tainly Neri di Gino Capponi's sculpted profile by Bernardo Rossellino in Santo Spirito is a statement of Neri's selfesteem. But he intended it as well to be a reminder to his fellow citizens and descendants of his achievements, for he belonged to a tiny self-conscious elite that, according to Sir John Pope-Hennessy, justified Rossellino's radically worldly portraiture in civic and dynastic terms. 244 In the same way, Palmieri, who belonged to Capponi's circle, had sanctioned the erection of fine buildings. 245 Besides, the chapel which preserves Neri Capponi's tomb and profile was dedicated to all of the Capponi family descended from his father Gino, and was decorated by Piero di Cosimo's Visitation with Two Saints, one of whom was the entire lineage's patron, St. Nicholas: 246 these facts put the profile by Rossellino in its family place, even if the presence of the three neighboring Capponi chapels in the right transept of Santo Spirito was not sufficient to remind Renaissance Florentines (and us) that Neri was not only a distinguished man, but a distinguished Capponi. Acts of artistic patronage, whether individual or collec­ tive, rich or humble, radical or conservative, were very often family acts, just as their objects were frequently placed in a local and traditional family context: Benedetto Dei See chap. 2 above. Pope-Hennessy, Portrait, pp. 74-77. For a rather different inter­ pretation of the significance of "independent portrait sculpture," see I. Lavin, "On the Sources and Meaning of the Renaissance Portrait Bust," Art Quarterly, xxxm (1970), 207-226. 245 See above, p. 285. 246 Le opere di Giorgio Vasari, ed. G. Milanesi (Florence, 1906; 1973 reprint), iv, 133. See now Craven, "Three dates for Piero di Cosimo," 244

P- 572·

THE LINEAGE AND ITS PARTS

once mentions "the famous building activity of the great house of Rucellai,"247 a reminder that, if of all the RucelIai Giovanni di Paolo poured by far the most money into his various projects, several others of his lineage were as consistently concerned as he, in a necessarily more modest spirit, with family prestige and solidarity. Ugolino di Fran­ cesco, Adovardo di Carlo, and Fra Andrea Rucellai were all family-minded men who put their ideals into practice. It is fascinating to recall that all three of these relatively obscure individuals were the last, or almost the last, of their lines, and that they joined, each in his different way, with the family's greatest man to preserve and increase Rucellai self-knowledge and public fame, thereby, we may guess, making their own last bid for a modest share in Rucellai immortality. 247 Manoscritti, 119, fol. g4 T : "la famosa muraglia che anno fatto la gran chasa de' Ruciellai." The use of the plural verb is perhaps not without significance.

CONCLUSION

D

E S P I T E the several and important differences be­

tween the Rucellai, Capponi, and Ginori—and these were real enough, though gaps in the evidence, or some­ times a lucky windfall, may exaggerate the dissimilarities —the three lineages shared a common structure and had many almost identical patterns of behavior. The typical member of each inhabited several family worlds. The first of these worlds was the household. At any one time, one in three households was extended laterally or horizontally; the remainder were nuclear families, or con­ sisted of persons living alone. There is no evidence that households became progressively smaller in our period; rather, there was a developmental cycle which gave a good number of a lineage's members some experience of life in an extended household. There was some insistence by elders that men live in such large households, and the more suc­ cessful and prominent groups within a lineage frequently did so. The household, whatever its structure at a particular time, was the principal property-owning family group, though often a father and his adult son, or brothers who had "divided," kept up close economic ties. Business partners and employees, when they were not friends or relations-in-law, came usually from the domestic or quasidomestic circle. It followed that men almost always named as their heirs their sons, brothers, uncles, nephews, greatnephews or grandsons. Very close paternal relatives were those most "recommended" in surviving letters to the Medici. Florentine laws recognized the separate identity of the kinsmen who formed the domestic group, or who had recently done so: these were the "closest paternal kins­ men [proximi consorti]." The strongest family feelings were aroused by these very near kinsmen. As in other patrilineal societies, the fatherson relationship was central, the ties between brothers and

CONCLUSION

other close relatives taking their meaning and intensity from that passionate and ambiguous bond. Ideally, and often in fact, fathers and sons cooperated lovingly, but the relationship could also be one of distrust and confrontation: love and hate were different sides of the same coin. It was for oneself or for close paternal kinsmen that most perpetual Masses, tombs, and chapels were endowed, and the same small group or its descendants kept up any required payments. Beyond the household, and more difficult to define, was the paternal line or branch. How a man divided up his entire lineage depended upon particular facts of family history: his grandfather or great-grandfather was very likely to be a landmark, but there would be others more distant as well, perhaps the sons or brothers of the founder of the whole descent group. The line was not, strictly speaking, a landowning corporation, but an elaborate ftdeicommissurn often tied important houses or estates to a man's descendants: its city houses were often gathered together in the same small part of the family district, and wills some­ times stipulated that if the testator's immediate kinsmen were dead, an estate should go, in a typical phrase, "to the other kinsmen closest by degree." 1 In politics, a line often had a life of its own, and a family's scrutiny results, and its lists of officeholders, usually fall naturally into tradi­ tionally successful or underprivileged branches. When men peeled away from the family core they did so, very often, in lines or branches. Among the Rucellai, for example, the descendants of Ugolino di Giunta had increasingly a history of their own, and the other two lineages had weak and often collateral lines which were never quite in step with the others. The lineage existed in fact and as a self-conscious and potent ideal. Most of its households clustered together ι Il Libro di Ricordanze dei Corsini (1362-1457), ed. A. Petrucci (Rome, 1965), p. 121; cf. Bernardo Machiavelli, Libro di Ricordi, ed. C. Oischki (Florence, 1954), p. 214.

CONCLUSION

throughout our period, if not always in the same ancestral parish or district, then within the one quarter. Many Capponi moved around within their quarter of Santo Spirito, but not with immediate or drastic effects upon family cohesiveness. The ancestral parishes and districts where the three lineages had close friends and relatives, and whence they drew political position and influence, remained centers of family life. There kinsmen met by chance or design to talk; there, modestly or magnificently, as the case might be, they endowed and built and decorated for their own and for the family's glory. Two of the three lineages were similarly faithful to their country districts, and even the Capponi did not quite forget that their ancestors had once come from Legnaia. In both town and country all three families bought and sold valuable property within the lineage, and wills not infrequently acknowledged the claims of distant consorti, especially if a man's closest relatives had died without issue. If entire lineages had ever held all their property in consorteria, this was no longer the case, yet there was still an active sense that the lineage was an economic community of a sort. Each family had big variations in wealth within its ranks, but unless their poverty was permanent and extreme, the less fortunate households or branches did not drop out of the family circle; when men did so, poverty was always associated with other disabilities or oddities. There is evidence of the poor being helped by the rich, as tradition demanded. Besides, the ephemeral nature of most great fortunes in that period tended to level differences over several generations. Traditions of attachment to the Medici varied markedly from family to family (and within each house), but the degree of political unanimity displayed over a century, on this issue and in general, by lineages number­ ing scores of men, was remarkable; it sprang from the facts of the Florentine constitution itself, which gave lineages a sort of political patrimony to preserve or squander as they would. Some evidence survives to show that powerful

CONCLUSION

individuals acted as spokesmen for the political interests of others of their lineage, but one effect of the gradual gathering up into Medicean hands of political patronage and control may have been to strip family leaders of one of their more important traditional functions. Still, if this process were at work, it was a very slow one; politically, and in other ways, the three lineages remained genuine federations of households. The more intimate and immediate family pieties and emotions which grew up within each household were not exclusive of larger family loyalties. All the men of a lineage used the same ancestral arms and surname, most of them built their tombs and chapels in one or two family churches: the Rucellai and Capponi maintained chapels of the consorteria in which, as part of an organized ancestor reverence, Masses were held for forebears. The public and private "cult of the clan" fed on more down-to-earth co­ operative efforts, and, by reminding kinsmen of their com­ mon past and achievements, served to encourage present and future unity. The lineage was (and was conceived to be) a continuum of "ancestors, and of the living, and of those who by grace are to come."2 There is much change and movement in the family stories here described. Households changed shape as circumstances dictated, the stars of individuals and lines shot upward and downward. There were comings and goings in the ancestral districts, and a few men and households in effect left their lineage forever. There was also friction between kinsmen—tension created by the burden of the divieto and disputes over debts, property, and political allegiance. We can guess that at times there must have existed a more irrational jealousy, or at least a certain ambivalence of feeling, among some of the prominent men of a lineage. There are hints of it in a joke Bernardo Rucellai made to 2 Giovanni Morelli, Ricordi, ed. V. Branca (Florence, 1956), p. 82.

CONCLUSION

Lorenzo de' Medici in a letter of 27 July 1484—"as I told you on another occasion, I am a kinsman of Piero di Cardinale when it's necessary";3 in an obscure remark of Piero Capponi's to Benedetto Dei some two years later;4 and in the signature Giovanni di Cardinale Rucellai gave to a letter on 12 December 1475—"the poorest Giovanni Rucellai."5 Such references would be very difficult to inter­ pret even if their contexts were clearer: probably they reflect the hothouse atmosphere of a lineage's corporate life, the ironic exasperation with a kinsman one did not particularly like or admire but from whom one could not, for practical and emotional reasons, dissociate oneself. Certainly such passages are not in themselves evidence of the "decline of the consorteria." If family history was dynamic, full of movement, and sometimes shot through with tension, there is no indication that the three lineages were suffering a general disintegration or "fission" during the fifteenth century. While the Capponi were in some respects less united in and after 1530 than a century be­ fore,6 the Ginori, who had only come of age in the early 3 M. P., XLviii, 254: "che come ti dissi altra volta, sono consorto di Piero di Cardinale quando pure bisogni." Bernardo, writing from Vicopisano, had just asked Lorenzo's advice about a feud which was breaking out there: there may be here an oblique and perhaps sneering reference to Piero Rucellai's notorious laziness in reading and writing administrative letters (see A. Wesselski, Angelo Polizianos Tagebuch [1477-1479] [Jena, 1929], p. 200), or a more charitable allusion to Piero's father, who appears in Giovanni Cavalcanti's treatise on politics as a witty dispenser of justice to an impertinent country priest (M. T. Grendler, The "Trattato Politico-Morale" of Giovanni Cavalcanti [Geneva, 1973], pp. 167-168). ^Biblioteca Laurenziana, Florence, Fondo Ashburnham, 1841, cassetta I, 69, 25 January 1487. 5 M. P., vii, 368, to Lorenzo de' Medici: "Govanni Rucellai el piii povero." Giovanni di Cardinale was indeed very much poorer than Giovanni di Paolo, but much less so since the latter's dramatic crash in 1474: Giovanni Rueellai ed il suo Zibaldone, I, "II Zibaldone Quaresimale," ed. A. Perosa (London, i960), p. 122. Did Giovanni di Cardinale sign his letter thus out of ironic fellow feeling or vindictive pleasure? β For a violent internecine quarrel in the 1560s, see P. Litta, Famiglie celebri italiane (Milan, 1870-71), x, tav. xvn; B.N.F., 11, 1,

CONCLUSION

fifteenth century, were more than ever a tight community; as for the Rucellai, their men and households became more unified in some ways, less in others. Despite these inevitable differences in family biographies, all three houses remained more or less cohesive federations of households; the typical Capponi, Rucellai, or Ginori was not a man' freed (or isolated) from a wider web of kinship, but one who easily inhabited several family worlds. Of course, his universe was not synonymous with his patrilineage—he would belong to several family networks (parentadi) by marriage, to a group of friends and business acquaintances, to religious confraternities and perhaps intellectual coteries, and to a network of political amici. Even in these areas of experience, however, his choice of friends and allies would often be influenced, whether consciously or not, by family history and family considerations. Only further studies will establish whether this conclu­ sion is true of the entire social class to which the three families belonged, though an acquaintance with printed evidence concerning other families (some of which has been referred to in this book) suggests that it may furnish a work­ ing hypothesis with which to approach the history of the aristocratic lineage in Renaissance Florence and Italy as a whole. Nor can this book be other than suggestive on the long-term changes which the family structure may have been undergoing: it has, however, sought firmly to estab­ lish that "clans" were not disintegrating into nuclear families. It is certain that Renaissance consorterie were rather different from medieval lineages, but in what ways, and with what effects upon Florentine society, remains to be seen. Future work may well show that while some of the functions of the big lineages changed, their essential nature was much more slowly transformed. If fifteenth 505 (74); cf. Gino Capponi's letter of 21 June 1553 to Duke Cosimo (C. S., ser. i, cxxxvii. fols. 35v-36r), which complains bitterly about a fraud allegedly committed against him by his powerful cousins.

CONCLUSION

century families were rarely called upon to become para­ military forces in savage street fights, they still acted in the changed climate of Medicean Florence (if the Rucellai, Capponi, and Ginori are at all typical) as corporations with common political interests. Where a twelfth century family might have owned a defensive tower, its Renais­ sance descendant was more likely to hold common rights of patronage over a chapel of the consorteria or a hospital. The vendetta was out of fashion, but family enmities lived on and manifested themselves less violently, more secretively.7 Family solidarity expressed itself in new ways as Florence and the world changed. Even so, there were strong elements of continuity—the cult of ancestors and the lineage, the adherence to ancestral neighborhoods and churches, the sense of economic com­ munity—between the behavior of our three lineages and that of the great houses whom Dante commemorated in the Divine Comedy. Renaissance men went on using the same words for "lineage" and "kinsmen" as the poet had done, chroniclers still wrote of individuals as if it mattered what house they belonged to, whom they had as "relatives and friends." It is true that Florentines of the Medici period often mention quarrels between close and distant kins­ men, but so too had their ancestors: men reported such friction, as inevitable as it is in human societies, precisely because it offended current standards of behavior. But if there are outbursts against kinsmen in Florentine literature, there is, so far as I know, no condemnation of the family or lineage as such, little comment which suggests that lineages were no longer of vital importance to most individuals and to society.8 Since Florentines commented, to the historian's 7 Cf. Giovanni Morelli's comment in the early Quattrocento on the Black-White struggles of a century before: "s'usava allora di nimicarsi piii colla spada in mano che colle fave, come si fa al di d' oggi" (Ricordi, pp. 130-131). 8 Some "new men" commented proudly on their lack of family ties: see Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, "Memorie Storiche" of Bene­ detto Dei, Cod. Ital., 160, fol. 117'. One version of the pseudo-

CONCLUSION

delight, on everything else under their brilliant sun, these omissions are important. Families, their characters and vicissitudes, were as constantly on the lips of Varchi and Busini8 as on Dante's or Villani's: what they all remarked (not in so many words) was that families were living organ­ isms which had a life of their own. The Florentines knew that families had their ups and downs and their times of unity and discord, that they were mortal. They had long realized with Dante that it is no surprising thing "udir come Ie schiatte si disfanno";10 for centuries some great families had split into distinct branches, or had been forced to do so by punitive legislation—others had dispersed or become powerless or even extinct. We read here of a "great humiliation of the house"11 or a "destruction of the house,"12 there that "all the other lines are spent."13 Such references are common in medieval and Renaissance Italian Bernardine letter on the government of the family advises: "Non ti accompagnare nella consorteria con compagno piu forte di te" (Lettere del Beato Don Giovanni dalle Celle, ed. B. Sorio [Rome, 1845], p. 66), but in a standard edition the line goes "Non comperare cavalle in compagnia di piu potente di te" (Prosatori Minori del Tre­ cento: I Scrittori di religione, ed. G. de Luca [Milan and Naples, 1954], p. 82a). Goro Gheri's striking sentence "Et nelle cose di stato non e securta per dire Έ' sono parenti'; perche, et in Firenze et per tutta Italia, nelle cose di stato la minor securta che si veda e quella de' parenti," is in context clearly a warning against relatives-in-law: the passage is printed in R. von Albertini, Das Florentinische Staatsbewusstsein im XJbergang von der Republik zum Prinzipat (Bern, 1955),

Ρ· 351· 9 See, e.g., Varchi's observation that the Rucellai were one of the few Florentine families "le quali mettono tavola e vivono splendidamente da gentiluomini": Opere, ed. C. M. Carlieri (Florence, 1707), I, 193; cf. Busini's judgments that "Gherardo Corsini e tutta la casa sua turno sempre onorati e popolani dal XII indietro," and "la casa de' Gherardi son tutte creature de' Medici": Lettere, ed. G. Milanesi (Florence, i860), pp. 97-98, 111, respectively. 10 Paradiso, xvi, 76. 11 Luca di Matteo da Panzano, quoted by C. Carnesecchi, "Un Fiorentino del Secolo XV e Ie sue ricordanze domestiche," A Si, ser. V, IV (1889), 170. !2 Ricordanze of Doffo Spini, C. S., ser. 11, xm, fol. 15V: "disfacimento della casa." 1-3 Paolo Velluti, in Donato Velluti, La Cronica Domestica, ed. I. del Lungo and G. Volpi (Florence, 1914), p. 417.

CONCLUSION

(and European) literature: sometimes they were expanded to become splendid roll calls of dead and decaying dynas­ ties.11 If it is tempting to find in these romantic passages evidence for the destruction of the entire medieval kin­ ship system and its "tribal" ethos, this is to forget what contemporaries knew, that as some old houses disintegrated or dispersed, others, such as the Ginori, rose to take their place—the denunciations of upstarts and their progeny is almost as common a thing in Renaissance Florence and elsewhere as lamentations for the passing of the ancient and the mighty.15 Families like cities might have their term, but there was no inevitable and irreversible progression from health and unity to death and dissolution. The same lineage might be badly fragmented in one century only to be triumphantly reunited in the next; the Medici, who had divided themselves into sad impotence in the Trecento, cooperated half a century later to make Cosimo the leading citizen of Florence.16 Alberti believed that a family need not bow down to misfortune but could regenerate itself by adherence to ancestral ways, by wisdom and self-educa­ tion.17 His patron and disciple, Giovanni Rucellai, was similarly fascinated by fortune's role in men's affairs and also argued, with expert help from Marsilio Ficino, that prudence and wisdom could win out in a troubled world— men and families were educable, Giovanni firmly believed, i* For some Italian examples and references, see Leon Battista Alberti, Opere Volgari, ed. C. Grayson (Bari, i960), 1, 3; Franco Sacchetti, Il Trecentonovelie, ed. E. Faccioli (Turin, 1970), p. 3; J. K. Hyde, "Italian Social Chronicles in the Middle Ages," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 49 (1966-67), pp. 112, 125, 131-132; D. Waley, The Italian City Republics (London, 1 9 6 9 ) , pp. 4 3 8 . is For two fifteenth century Florentine examples, see G. Canestrini, "Versi fatti da Niccolo da Uzzano, predieando la mutazione dello stato," ASI, ser. i, iv (1843), 297; "Piero Guiceiardini on the Scrutiny of 1 4 8 4 , " in N. Rubinstein, The Government of Florence under the Medici, 1434-1494 (Oxford, 1966), pp. 3 1 8 - 3 2 5 . 16 G. A. Brucker, "The Medici in the Fourteenth Century," Speculum, xxxn (1957), 1-26; D. V. Kent, "I Medici in esilio: una vittoria di famiglia ed una disfatta personale," ASI, cxxxi (1973). 17 Cf. C. Grayson, "The Humanism of Alberti," Italian Studies, x " (1957). 44-45·

CONCLUSION

and so compiled his Zibaldone for his sons and took a decisive and successful role in advancing Rucellai prestige and cohesion.18 But Florentine families, if they had lives of their own, did not operate in a vacuum; not all change they experi­ enced can be accounted for by the natural rhythms of birth, decay, and death. This study suggests that family behavior may also have been permanently and uniformly modified by general historical pressures. In the uncertain economic climate of the later Middle Ages, business companies were rarely founded by men representing several distant lines in a family—perhaps this change loosened the ties between a lineage's households, though there were compensating factors.19 Perhaps, too, there was some tendency after the middle of the Quattrocento for the development of a stronger executive, and a tightening Medicean grip on patronage and Florentine institutions, to weaken the need for related households to cooperate in politics: historians have sometimes remarked that vigorous dynasties emerge when central political institutions are weak.20 However, the correlation is not always a precise one, nor does the converse follow necessarily, that centralized states always destroy wider family loyalties.21 Even if this were the case in Florence, it was a tendency that can hardly have manifested itself strongly until the time of the Principate. The three families here studied certainly remained conis Perosa, Giovanni Rucellai, pp. 103-116. See chap. 3 above. 20 See, e.g., G. Duby. "Structures familiales aristocratiques en France du X e Siecle en rapport avec Ies structures de l'etat," L'Europe aux IX' et XI" siecles aux origines des Etats nationaux, ed. T. Manteuffel and A. Gieysztor (Warsaw, 1968), pp. 57-62; cf. J. Thirsk, "The Family," Past and Present, 27 (1964), pp. 116-122. Among historians of Florence, Marvin Becker has persuasively and influentially argued that the wider family and other medieval corporate institutions declined as the Renaissance state grew in power and authority: for some references see Introduction, n. 27 above. 21 As B. S. Phillpotts concluded in her still useful survey of northern Europe: Kindred and Clan in the Middle Ages and After (Cambridge, 1913), P- 258. See now S. Chojnacki, "Patrician Women in Early Renais­ sance Venice," Studies in the Renaissance, xxi (1974), 201.

CONCLUSION

scious of a community of political interest well into the six­ teenth century: it is also doubtful whether the Florentine Republic, under the not uninterrupted pressure slowly exerted by the Medici, became quite so streamlined and almost "modern" a centralized state as some recent studies have implied. These last lines suggest that Sir Ernst Gombrich's remark of some years ago—that the Florentine Renaissance flourished "in a social context of which we know too little"22 —is still true today. There are interesting hypotheses abroad—on the development of client-patron relationships, on the social effects of economic difficulties, on the morale and composition of the oligarchy, and so on—but hypoth­ eses they largely remain. The present foray into this halfcharted and magical land has sought to give substance, detail, and color to indistinct social shapes which have seemed mountains to some observers, molehills or even mirages to others. We have seen there neither monolithic clans nor isolated nuclear families; we have not met thrust­ ing individuals free of medieval "tribalism," nor, as a rule, men completely alienated from comfortingly traditional corporate structures. For the Capponi, Ginori, and Rucellai, at least, family geography was more complex, the rela­ tionship between self, household, and lineage more subtle. Most of these Renaissance men were proud and able individuals for whom dual membership of what Giovanni Tornabuoni called his "house and family" was a central fact in their lives, actions, and (perhaps we might add) dreams. Rinaldo degli Albizzi was surely not the only Florentine to be guided, in a moment of crisis, by the wise counsel of a dead father whose "cara e buona imagine paterna" appeared to him as he slept.23 22 Symbolic Images (London, 1972), p. 30, with reference to the problem o£ interpreting the theme of Tobias and the Angel in Quattrocento Florentine painting. 23 Commissioni di Rinaldo degli Albizzi, ed. C. Guasti (Florence, 1873), 3, p. 76. Rinaldo's note about his dream may have been inspired by Cicero's Somnium Scipionis, in his day available in Florence in Italian translation.

GENEALOGICAL CHARTS IT is not possible to provide here full genealogies of the Capponi, Ginori, and Rucellai: there are available almost complete, if not always accurate, published works on all three. To enable the reader to grasp the basic genealogical shape of each big family, there follow charts showing all of their branches or lines. I have also included certain individuals, some of them quite obscure, who are men­ tioned many times in the book. It is essential to keep in mind, however, that these charts are very selective and are no substitute for the elaborate published accounts. In the text I only place an individual in his branch when it is important to do so. Behind many of my points there has been very laborious genealogical detective work, which it seemed unnecessary and indeed almost impossible to document. In identifying individuals, and in working out relationships, I have been at every point as precise and careful as possible, and when in doubt have always erred on the side of caution. Readers unfamiliar with medieval Italian usage will wish to know that a name such as "Uguccione di Mico di Recco" means "Uguccione the son of Mico the son of Recco."

3°5

i Selective Genealogy of the Capponi: a f t e r L Passerini, " C a p p o n i di Firenze," in P L i t t a , Famighe celebri itahane ( M i l a n , 1870-71), x .

2 Selective Genealogy of the Ginorv after L Passerim, Genealogia e Stona della Famigha Gmon (Florence, 1876)

3. Selective Genealogy of the Rucellai: after L. Passerini, Genealogia e Stona della Famiglia Rucellai (Florence, 1861)

INDEX accoppiatori, nearest kinsmen as, 88-89 Agli, family, 140 agnatio (patrilineage), 6, 2g5n. See also lineage alberghi, Genoese, 7, 149n Alberti: family, 122 Antonio, 44 Giannozzo, 44-45, 69-70 Leon Battista, 35, 48, 56, 67, 77, 91, 94, 110, 112, 227, 244, 246, 259, 266. 284-86, 301; Delia Famiglia, 5, 44-45, 5354, 69-70, 154; Ten Books on Architecture, 285 Lionardo, 69 Albizzi: family, 26, 219 Rinaldo, ig6n, 222, 303 Aldobrandini del Nero, family, 178 Alighieri, Dante, see Dante Altopascio, order of, 64-65, 201. See also Capponi, family Altoviti: family, 26, 189 Antonio, 68 amici (friends, allies), 125n, 172, i73n, 219, 298. See also consorti; vicini; gonfalone ancestors, reverence for, 99ff, 285ff; Florentine attitude to, 258 Anghiari, battle of, 200 Ardinghelli: family, 272n Michele, 27 m Arezzo, 136, 237 arms, coats of, 206, 254, 256-58

Barbadori, family, 248, 24gn Bardi, family, 26, 195, 200 Baroncelli, family, 24, 95, 262 Bartoli, families, 179(1 Bartolus, 59 beneficiati, kinsmen favored as, 80, 168 del Benino, family, 191 Biliotti, family, 190 Bocchi, Francesco, 252n Bologna, i74n Bonsi, Messer Domenico, i7on Bonventura, Iacopo di Piero, 17172 Borghigiani, Vincenzo, 268n Borghini, Vincenzo, 1670 Borgo S. Lorenzo, see Via de' Ginori Borgo S. Sepolcro, 200 Borgo S. Spirito (Fondaccio), i2gn, 136 Borromei, family, 7 Botero, Giovanni, 250 Botticini, Francesco, 262-63 branch, family, see lineage brigata (household, company), 5. See also household Brozzi, Rucellai ties with, 234, 237 Brunelleschi, Filippo, 105, 233, 282 burials, family, 258-70 business companies, structure of, 65-68 Busini, Giovanbatista, 167, 224, 300 Calenzano, 129; castello at, 234; Ginori ties with, 234, 236. See also S. Niccolo a Calenzano Cambi: family, i6gn Giovanni, 26, 168-69, 20411. 226 Campi, 145, 284n; castello at, 130, 234, 236; Rucellai ties with, 130, 234-37, 257n; S.

Baldovinetti, Francesco, 143 balla, 204n; of 1480, 91 Banchi, Andrea, 95 Bankers, Guild of, 10m, 146 309

INDEX C a m p i (cont.) Giusto a, 130; S. M a r t i n o a, 24711 campioni, 24. See also taxation records Canigiani, family, 195 Capponi: family, Altopascio b r a n c h (descendants of Piero di Bartolomeo), 64-65, 112, 1950, 212, 215, 237, 260. See also Piero di Bartolomeo; association and division w i t h Vettori family, 167, 168n, 188-91, 203-204, 241, 256-57, 266; c o m m u n a l chapels of, 264-66, 271; description of, 15-17; diverse rural bases of, 237-38; economic activities of, 63-72; hospital at Legnaia, 237; letters of, 80-84, 21 iff, 239-40; m e m b e r s h i p of T r e Maggiori, 197-98; m o v e m e n t between gonfaloni, 187ft; origins of surname, 254; palace, 1 4 m , 193-94; physical cohesion of, 2 32-33; political competitiveness w i t h i n , 191-93, 204-206; political history of, 221-25; poverty within, 161-63; relations w i t h G i n o r i family, 217-18; relations w i t h Medici family, 89-90, 211, 221-25; size of, 17, 26; strength in quarter of S. Spirito, 195-97; success in scrutinies of, i86ff; wealth of, 150, 152-54 A g n i o l i n o di Lorenzo, 33 A g n o l o di C a p p o n e , 56, 204 A g n o l o di Recco, descendants of, 54, 187-88, 197 Agostino di G i n o , 188, 202-203, 272 Alessandra d'Uguccione, 134n Alessandro d ' A g n o l o , 37n, 277, 278n Alessandro di Mico, 14on Alfonso, 239 310

A n d r e a , 239 A n n a l e n a di Mico, 32 A n t o n i o , 239 Messer Baldassare, 20m Bartolo di C a p o n c i n o , 238 Bartolomeo, 172 B a r t o l o m e o d ' A n d r e a , 51, 17576, 194, 206, 208, 239-40 B a r t o l o m e o di Piero di Bartolom e o di C a p p o n e , 30, 64, 66, 111, 200; sons of, 65, 193-94 B a r t o l o m e o di Piero di Bartolomeo di Piero, 137, 138n Bernardo di Lorenzo, 6 9 n , 138n, »39> 2 3 ° Bernardo di Nicola, 82-83, i 9 4 n , 205 Bongianni di G i n o , i 9 5 n , 233n Buonaccorso, 136 C a p o n c i n o di B u o n a m i c o , descendants of, 43, 161, 192, 247n C a p o n c i n o di Sebastiano, 19293- 213 C a p p o n e , 93, 201, 258 Messer C a p p o n e , 199 C a p p o n e di Bartolomeo, 32, 56, 89-90, 127, 136, 137-38, i58n, i59n, 160, 237n, 239, 252n, 26on, 264; descendants of, 115 C a p p o n e di Gino, 107, 128, 147, 2o8n, 238n C a p p o n e d i Iacopo, 50, 148, 159 C a p p o n e di Recco, line of, i 3 6 . '5 2 "53> l 8 7> >9° C a r l o di C a p p o n e , 260 Caterina, w i d o w of Mico, 74n Costanza (Ghostanza) di Piero, 3 0 n ' 75 D o n a to di Francesco, 17611 F i l i p p o di C a p p o n e , i76n F i l i p p o d i C a r l o , 277-78 F i l i p p o di Niccolo di Mico, descendants of, 161, 187, igon, 247n F i l i p p o di Niccolo di Piero, 60-61, 69

INDEX F i l i p p o di Recco, descendants of, 43, 128, 161, 192, 237n Francesco di D o n a t o , 142, 148, 266 Francesco di Lorenzo, 51, 223 Francesco di Nicola, 82, 176n Francesco d i Niccolo, 140, 160, 175 G h e r a r d o di Giovanni, 266n Messer Giannozzo di C a p p o n e , 90, 111, i i 2 n , 278 Ginevra di Nicola, 238n, 26on G i n o , 2g8n G i n o di Neri di G i n o di Neri, 96. 175 G i n o di Neri di G i n o di N e r i di Recco, 37n, 42, 49-50, 65, 66, 70, 71, 73, 85-86, 91, 104, 137, 146-47, 153, ig6n, 200, 206, 237, 2 4 m , 264-65; descendants of, 153, 223; sons of, 237 G i n o di Neri di Recco, 70, 7111, 79, 85-86, 147, 196, 199, 222, 224, 250; chapel in S. Spirito, 104-105, 26511, 291; descendants of, 116, 153, 221; palace of, 49-50, 136, 137, 140; Ricordi, 48-50, 60, 86-87, 11415, 2 7 7 ^ Giovanbatista di Lorenzo, 37, 68n, 69, 139, 239, 240, 266 G i o v a n n i d ' A g n o l o , 37n, 18gn,

G i o v a n n i di Sandro, 187 G i r o l a m o di Niccolo, 42, 89, 134, 140, 160 G i u l i a n o di Piero, 50, 69, 223, 230; and nephews, 153 Messer G u g l i e l m o di Nicola, Master of Altopascio and Bishop of Cortona, 51, 65, 68n, 82-83, i54n, 158-59, 160, 175, 201, 207, 208-10, 212, 226n, 239-40, 246; chapel in S. Spirito, 105 l a c o p o di Lorenzo, 75n, 25on Iacopo di Lorenzo di Recco, 139 Lisa, w i d o w of Bartolomeo, 30 Lodovico, 252n Lodovico di Gino, 74, 94-95, 115, i37n, 153, 194-95, 206, 208, 223-24, 240, 271; chapel in S. Felicita, 105-106, 260; palace of, 50, 140-42; sons of, 50 Lorenzo di G i n o , 51, y m , 191, 202-203, 272; descendants of, 259" Lorenzo di Recco, 50-51, 68, 138-39, »47> 2°7. 239, 241; heirs of, 133-34, 141; sons of, 78, 109 L u c a d'Agostino, 65, 128, 154, 174, 193, 224, 2 4 m L u i g i di Gino, 70 Maddalena, widow of Carlo di C a p p o n e , 260 Maria, wife of Niccolo di

191 G i o v a n n i d ' A n d r e a , 128-29, 158 G i o v a n n i di Bartolomeo, 152 Giovanni di Lorenzo, 69 G i o v a n n i di Mico, 25, 147, 152-53, 221, 222, 272 G i o v a n n i di Niccolo, 208; widow of, i05n Messer G i o v a n n i di Piero, Master of Altopascio, 30, 64, 82, 194, 212 G i o v a n n i di Piero d ' A g n o l o ,

Nicola, i59n, 239 Marietta, widow of Lorenzo di Recco, 78 Mico di Piero, sons o f , 147 Messer Mico di Piero di Giovanni, 75, 115, 158-59, 209, 239-40, 266n Mico di Recco, line of, 136, 138.

152-53

Mico d'Uguccione, 32, 42, 74,

147, 172, 187-88, 190

109, 138-39, 140, 2 4 m , 259,

G i o v a n n i di Piero di Giovanni,

265, 271

75 3

1 1

INDEX C a p p o n i , family, Altopascio branch Piero di G i n o , 42, 70, 71, 80, 86-87, 91, g8n, 105, 150-51, 168, 190n, 200, 204, 207, 221, 223, 241, 254, 260, 2g7; constitutional d r a f t of I4g4, 8687, 170, 205 Piero di G i o v a n n i , 2gn, 75, 115, 150-51, 175, 188, 18911, igo, igi-92, lgg, 20m, 224n, 265 Piero di Recco, 32, 208 Raffaello di C a p p o n e , 260 Recco di Lorenzo, 37 Recco d'Uguccione, 2gn, 32, 42, 58-59, 60, 89, 97, 135". 138, 140-41, 193, 202-203, 224, 265n Sebastiano di C a p o n c i n o , line of, 237n Sebastiano di Piero, 141 Sebastiano di Sebastiano, 192, 193n Sebastiano d'Uguccione, 138,

C a p p o n i (cont.) N a n n a , widow of G i o v a n n i di Piero, 27-28 Neri di G i n o di Neri di G i n o , 204-206, 208, 24 m Neri di G i n o di Neri di G i n o di Neri di G i n o di Neri, 46 Neri di G i n o di Neri di Recco, 48-49, 65, 7 m , 73, 85n, 8889, 104-105, 128-29, i34n, 137, 158, ig6, 200-201, 202-203, 2i4n, 222-23, 233, 238n, 257n, 26411, 272, 283, 291; descendants of, 104, 212, 215 Neri di Lodovico, 47 Neri di Recco, line of, 152-53 Niccolo, 240 N i c o l a (or Niccolo) d ' A n d r e a , 51, i6on, 171, 172, 175, 176n, 206, 208, 209, 239-40 Nicola di Piero, 30, 42, 64, 66, 112,

129,

158,

194-95.

202-

203, 2 4 m ; chapel in San Bartolomeo, 105; line of, 237; sons of, 126-27 Niccolo d ' A n t o n i o , 14on Niccolo di Bartolomeo, 159-60, 2 39 Niccolo di G i o v a n n i , 42, 52, 89, 112n, 140, 153, 203, 2 4 m , 272, 283; chapel in S. Spirito, 105 Niccolo di Nicola, 171, 194, 205, 207-208, 239 Niccolo di Piero, 50, 61, 86-87, 96, 175, 208, 218, 223, 224-25, 239, 24on, 246; heirs of, 230 Niccolo di Zanobi, 2 4 m Piero di Bartolomeo di Piero di Bartolomeo di C a p p o n e , sons of, 127 Piero di B a r t o l o m e o di Piero di B a r t o l o m e o di Piero, 93, i38n, 2 0 m , 266n, 277-78 Piero di Bartolomeo di Recco, 32, 147, 237n, 264; descendants, 116, sons, 64-65. See also 312

140, 193. ' 9 5 Simone, 221 Simone d ' A n d r e a , 128-29, 158, ig2n Simone di L u c a , 233n T o m m a s o di G i n o , 153-54, 1 9 1 1 , 205-206, 2o8n, 210, 226, 239 Messer Uguccione, 265n Uguccione di Mico, 25, 58, 7576, 138, 147, 153, 2 4 m , 272; descendants of, 115 Zanobi di Niccolo, 187, igon, 247n; descendants of, 158, 161 Carducci, Baldassare, 225n Carnesecchi, family, 8on C a r o n d i n i , Ser T o m m a s o , 13411 casa, domus (house, lineage), 5-6, and passim; as household, 6n, 14. See also lineage casato (house, lineage), 6. See also lineage Castello S. G i o v a n n i , 200n da Castiglionchio:

INDEX

Messer Francesco, 14η Lapo, 126; Epistola, 277 catasto, see taxation records Cavalcanti (Cavalcante), Andrea, 283 Cavalcanti; Francesco, 37η Giovanni, 46, 59η, 85, i8g, 193η,

245. 297n da Certaldo, Paolo, 59 chapel building, motives for, iooif, 263¾, 280 chapels, family, 100-106, 263-70 Cicciaporci, family, 191 Cicero, De officiis, 285; Somnium Stipionis, 303η clan, 6ff, and passim; historical theories concerning, 9-13. See also lineage congiunti di casa (paternal kinsmen), 277 consanguinity, odor of, 62 consorte (spouse), 6n consorteria (patrilineage), 5-7, and passim; as political alli­ ance, 7-8; determination of membership of, 167-69; 15th century definitions of, 6-7, 14, 61-62, 166-69. See also lineage consorti per carta (kinsmen by pact), 168η consorti, proximi (nearest kins­ men), 61-62, 63f£, 293; political privileges of, 79-80, 168 consorto, consors, as companion, 7; as neighbor with a common wall, 6n, 125-27; origin of, 121; as paternal kinsman, 6-7, and passim Constantinople, 68 contracts, for coresidence, 37 Copponi, family, 168η Corbinelli, family, 190 Corsini: family, 76, 144η, 191, ζηη Messer Filippo, 75 Gherardo, 300η Giovanni, 75, 124

Niccolo di Piero, 144η Councils of the People and Commune, 78 Covoni, family, 67η Dante, 7, 56, 247, 251, 300; Divine Comedy, 299 Dati, Gregorio, 173η, 254η death masks, 111. See also por­ traits, family decima, see taxation records Dei, Benedetto, 89, 101, 153, 214η, 218-19, 231, 232, 245, 253, 256, 291-92, 297; an d Capponi, 196 developmental cycle, domestic, see household devices, personal, 262-63, 284, 288. See also arms, coats of Dietisalvi, Dietisalvi, 92-93 divieto legislation, 77-78, 165, 16970, 252; effects on family unity, 203-206. See also legislation concerning family Dolce di Prato, hospital of, 155« Dovizi da Bibbiena, Ser Piero, 219η dowries, 72, 92-93 Duomo, 262η jamiglia (family), as household, 5; as lineage, 6, 249η, and passim; 15th century definitions of, 5-6; recent definitions of, 3-4. See also household; lineage father-son relationship, 45-48, 293-94; 15th century views of, 55-61; in politics, 83-85 Federighi: family, 232 Federigho, 173η Ferrara, 16η Ferrucci, Andrea, 262 Ficino, Marsilio, 46, 47, 48, 56, 62, 301 fideicommissum, 73, 136-40, 294. See also property, family Firenzuola, 224

313

INDEX

Florence, Archbishop of, 124, 20910, 269η; as "new Rome," 101, 228; constitution of, i64ff; social geography of, 227ft France, King of, 86, 221 Frescobaldi, family, 189, 276η Fucecchio, 237 Gaddi, Francesco, 1 sin genealogies, 110, 168, 274-76 gente nuova (new men), 16-17, 86, 179, 217-19, 254-56, 299η, 300η, 301 Gesii Pellegrino, company of, 262η della Gherardesca, family, 121 Gherardi, family, 300η Gheri, Goro, 300η Ghiberti, Lorenzo, 11 in Ghirlandaio, Domenico, 110η, 111; frescoes in S. Maria Novella, 251-53; "St. Francis Resurrects a Child," 49 Giachinotti, family, 121η, 252η Ginoli, 255. See also Ginori Ginori: family, as gente nuova, 179, 21719, 255-56; communal chapel in S. Lorenzo, 263, 264η; description of, 15-17; eco­ nomic activities of, 63-72; letters of, 80-84, 21 iff; mem­ bership of Tre Maggiori, 19798; origins of surname, 25556; physical cohesion of, 231-32; political history of, 215-19; poverty within, 16163; relations with Capponi family, 217-18; relations with Medici family, 178-79, 21119, 283; size of, 17, 26; success in scrutinies of, 176-79; wealth of, 149-50 Agostino, 129, 229η Antonio di Gino, 84 Antonio di Giuliano, 40, 179η Bartolomeo di Lionardo, 52η, 88, 144η

Bernardo, 236 Carlo di Lionardo, 52η, 73-74, 88, 157, 284η; building pro­ gram of, 287-88; chapel in S. Lorenzo, 103-104; palace of, 52"- 53. 129-3°. 228-29, 287; Baroncoli, villa of, 144, 236, 287 Caterina, wife of Domenico di Giuliano, 41η Domenico di Giuliano, 40-41, 84-85. 95. 214, 250η, 248-49; sons of, 84-85 Filippo di Lionardo, 52η Francesco di Piero, 30, 34, 74η, 88, 9i, 92, 139-40; chapel in S. Lorenzo, 103, 264η; de­ scendants of, 34η Gabriello di Piero, 100, 162, 177, 213, 218, 246 Ser Gino da Calenzano, 176-77, 216η, 260-61; descendants of, 255 Gino di Francesco, 34 Gino di Giuliano, 27, 40-41, 72, 75η, 84, 263η, 264η; sons of, 72 Giorgio di Giuliano, 40η, 8o-8i, 216-17 Giovanni, 157η, 238 Giovanni di Bernardo, 238η Giovanni di Ser Gino, 260η Giovanni di Piero, 162, 177 Giuliano di Francesco, 40, 92, 216; line of, 178 Giuliano di Simone, 150, 162 Lionardo di Bartolomeo, 157η, 238η Maddalena, 157 Margherita di Benvenuto, 36η, 92, 214η Margherita di Gino, 74η Piero di Filippo, 96 Piero di Francesco, 7411. 129, 216; chapel in S. Lorenzo, 102-103; descendants of, 149, 150-51, 178 Piero di Ser Giovanni da

INDEX

Calenzano, 177; descendants of, 163, 246-47, 255, 261 Piero di Giovanni di Piero, 162, 177, 255η Piero di Simone, 150, 283η Simone di Francesco, 92, 283; descendants of, 178, 197 Simonetta, 157η Tommaso di Tommaso, 218 Tommaso di Zanobi di Ser Gino, 149, 178η Tommaso di Zanobi di Tommaso, 130 Zanobi di Ser Gino, 149; chapel in S, Lorenzo, 102; line of, 178, 197 Zanobi di Tommaso, 72, 102, 108 Giovanni: Francesco, 172 Niccolo, 172η Giugni: family, 76η Giovanni, 200η Niccolo, 200 gonfalone, gonjaloni (administra­ tive district), and scrutiny process, 171ft; as social unit, !24-25. 155-56. !72-73; as unit of taxation, 155-56, 172-73; diverse characters of, 176; for­ mal meetings of, 173, 241; names of: Drago (S. Giovanni), and the Ginori, 177, 246; Drago (S. Spirito), and the Capponi, 187ft, 247; Ferza, and the Cap­ poni, 188, 189, 191, 233; Lion Bianco, and the Rucellai, 18085; Lion d'Oro, and the Ginori, 16, 176-79, 247η; Lion Rosso, and the Rucellai, 16, 128, 156, 173η, 179-85, 232, 247, 249; Nicchio, and the Capponi, 172, 187ΙΪ, 232, 247; Scala, and the Capponi, 187, 193-95, 233 Gonfalonier of Company, 17172, and passim

Great Council, 168, 170, 177, 194, 197 Guelf Party, captains, 200; provveditore, 82 Guicciardini: family, 16, 76η, 172η, igo, 22511 Francesco, 64, 84η, 92, 113, ιι6, 149, 186, 209, 223, 240; Memorie di famiglia, 276, 277η Luigi, 98η Niccolo, 172η Piero di Iacopo, 55, i8g Piero di Luigi, 46η Messer Rinieri, 98η, 149 Guiducci, family, 94 honor, family, 199-201, 207 household, households, as focus of family cult, 99-115; as polit­ ical entity, 77-91; as property owning group, 63-77; authority in, 55-61; changes in proportion of complex to simple, 38, 42; defintion of, 5, 24-25; develop­ mental cycle of, 22-23, 39'4 2 > 77, 293; division of, 44-45, 6465; economic identity of, 63ft; limits to extension of, 35-38; of four generations, 30; of first cousins, 36; patrilineal nature of, 26, 29, 36-37; proportion of simple to complex, 26-27; his­ torians' estimates of size of, 21-22; structure of, 21-43; tension within, 54-55 households, complex or extended, g6ff, Table One; economic au­ thority in, 71-72; idealization of, 44-47, 69-70; paternal en­ couragement of, 48ff; political prominence of, 90-91; political traditions in, 85-91; proportion of a lineage's numbers living in, 43 types of: avuncular, 29, 33; fraternal, 29-31; fraternal joint-family, 29-30, 31-32;

INDEX

households (cont.) patriarchal, 29, 33; patrilineal grand-family, 29-30, 33-35; wealth of, 67-71 households, simple, 25ff, Table One; Marian cult and, 289-90 types of; nuclear, nuclear conjugal, 27-28; single person, 26-28 houses, family, attitudes to, 7677, 142-44; character of, 229-230; improvements to and adapta­ tions of, 52ff, 228-30; inherit­ ance of, 75-77, 137-44; size of, 11. See also palace building Impruneta, 248 individualism, Renaissance, 288-92 intelligenze (pressure groups), 8, 241 Isaac, Heinrich, 265 Jerusalem, 100, 101η; Knights of St. John of, 217 Lanfredini: family, 190 Giovanni, 70, 151, 175, 190 Lanfredino, 48 Remigio, 48 Iato (branch of a lineage), 116. See also lineage laudatio parentum, 126. See also property, family Lawyers and Notaries, Guild of, 78 legislation concerning family, 5-7, 9-10, 61, 77-80, 124-27, i66ff. See also divieto legislation Legnaia, 260, 295; Capponi ties with, 136, 237-38; San Quirico a, 128 lignaggio (lineage), 6. See also lineage Linari, 136 line, family, see lineage linea (line of a lineage), 116, See also lineage

lineage, as descent group, 7, 123η; as economic community, 124ft; as "republic," 245-46; diversity of fortunes within, 149-54; economic cooperation within, 154-60; in politics, i64ff; leadership of, 245-46; lines and branches within, 115-17, 245ft, 294, and passim; dispersal of, 246-52; political cooperation within, 201-203, 206-211; reasons for defection from, 162-63, 246-49; relationship with household, 13-14, and passim; segmentation of, 12; sense of, 252ff; surnames of, 254-56; tension within, 296-97, 299; urban nature of, 249-52 Lippi, Filippino, "Virgin and Child," 101, 289-90 loggias, family, 121η, 227, 244, 252. See also Rucellai, family, loggia of Lucca, 237, 240 Lucchese war, 222 Luigi d'Agostino di Ser Piero, 173η della Luna, Pierozzo, 95η Lyons, 250η Machiavelli: family, 8on, 127, 190, 249η Bernardo, 35, 127 Messer Girolamo, 84 Lorenzo, 159 Niccolo, 8on, 93, 127, 215η, 244η; Clizia, 35; Discorsi, 249 Magistracy of the Four Councilors, 169 Magnate lineages, viii, g, 117η, 251-52 magnificence, doctrine of, 284(1. See also patronage, artistic Malispini chronicle, 276 Mannelli: family, 95, 96, 195 Raimondo, 195

INDEX M a n t u a , 228n de Marcillac, G u i l l a u m e , 105 marriage, attitudes to, 91ft; kinsmen as m i d d l e m e n in, 134, 135n; motives for, 217-18 Marsili, L u i g i , 99 Martelli: family, 7n Alessandro, 97 Giovanfrancesco, 95 Ugolino, 216 Masi: family, 104 A n t o n i o di Ser T o m m a s o , 216 Masses, for the domestic dead, 106-109; of the lineage, 270-72 Medici, Medici regimes: family, 16, 26, 66n, 74n, 8ofE, 124, 126, 128, 164, 173, 178-79, 196, 216n, 231, 245n, 255-5 6 . 262-63, 288, 301, and passim Averardo, 46n, 216, 22211 D u k e Cosimo, 221, 2g8n Cosimo di G i o v a n n i , 17n, 67, 134n, 213, 216, 222-23, 284-85, 301; palace of, 178-79, 2 3 m Filippo, A r c h b i s h o p of Pisa, 20m Prince Francesco, 221 Francesco di G i u l i a n o , 21611 G i o v a n n i di Bicci, 245-46 G i o v a n n i di Cosimo, 65n Giovanni di Lorenzo, cardinal, 206; Pope L e o X , 226 G i u l i a n o d'Averardo, 46n G i u l i a n o di Piero, 81, 82, 96, 97n, 174, 212, 237 G i u l i o , cardinal, 104, 211; Pope C l e m e n t V I I , 223 Lorenzo di Piero di Cosimo (the Magnificent), 57-58, 70-71, 72n, 80-83, 87-88, 94, 9 6 . 97-99. ' 5 i n . 154-55. 1 73 n > 174, 183, 184, i8gn, 191, 201-202, 204, 212, 213, 217, 2 i g n , 220, 22411, 241, 257n, 263n, 2g7; Simposio, i62n

Lorenzo di Piero di Lorenzo, 84, 226 N a n n i n a di Piero, see N a n n i n a Rucellai Piero di Cosimo, 96, g7, 103, 174, 2i6n, 25on Piero di Lorenzo, 82, 83-84, 86, 90, 94, 170, 207, 219 meetings, family, 231, 238-46 Michelangelo, 256 Michelozzi, Michelozzo, 227 Milan, 71, 80, 202 Minerbetti, family, 282-83 Monte Comnne, 87-88 M o n t e m u r l o , battle of, go Morelli, Giovanni, 40, 56, 62, 171, 172, 173, 179, 217, 273, 299" mothers, maternal relations, 30, 36-37, 938; Masses for, 107-108 Mugello, 126 names, Christian, 254-55; domestic significance of, 46-47, 62 Naples, 70, 94, 155; K i n g of, g8n nazione (house, stock), 6. See also lineage Nerli, Filippo, 244n Niccolini: family, 76 L a p o , 144 Novara, Bishop of, 192 nuclearization, progressive, 13, 21. See also household Octavius, Cneius, 285 oral tradition, 112-14, 275, 278 Oricellari, 254. See also Rucellai oricello (orchil), 254 Osmannoro, 130, 234-35. See also R u c e l l a i , family, hospital at ottimati (aristocrats), 16, and passim O t t o di G u a r d i a e Balia (Eight), soi, 207, 2i3n, 241 Padua, 200

3!7

INDEX

Paganelli, family, 106η palace building, motives for, 53, 228-29 del Palagio, Guido, 56, 62 Palazzo della Signoria, 210 Palmieri, Matteo, 59η, 252-53, 285-86, 291; Delia vita civile, 14 Pandolfini, Pseudo Agnolo, Trattato del 'Governo della Famiglia; 45, 53η, 54, 55, 154, !55" parentado (relations by marriage), 298; as agnatic relationship, 93η; definition of, 93-94. 9 6 ; functions of, 95-99 parenti, as business partners, 94-95; definition of, 93$! Parenti, Marco, 93, 127η parte (part of a lineage), 116. See also lineage patrilineage, patrilineal, 6-7, and passim. See also household; lineage patronage, artistic, family motivation for, 279-92, and passim patronage, political, Medici control of, 211-12, 225-26, 296, 302-303. See also Medici, Medici regimes Pazzi, Guglielmo, 45 Peretola, 257η Perugia, 270 Peruzzi: family, 12, 121, 245η Ridolfo, 245η Pescia, 260 Petrarch, Italia mia, 9g Petrucci, family, 235 Piazza S. Apollinare, a 19 Piazza S. Croce, 216 Piazza S. Felice, 142, 233 Piazza Frescobaldi, 232, 233, 241-42 Piazza S. Lorenzo, 241 Piazza S. Pancrazio, and the Rucellai, 232, 242

Piazza Rucellai, and the Rucellai, 242-43 Piazza S. Spirito, 241-42 Piero di Cosimo, "Visitation with Two Saints," 291 Pilli (Pigli); family, 12111 Michele, 121η Pisa, 65, 79η, 129, l 7 2 > 20 5> 2 6 0 Pisan war, 199 Pistoia, 205, 236, 251; Rucellai ties with, 236-37 Pitti: family, 148, 190, 191, 274η Buonaccorso, 113-14, 273, 274η Messer Giannozzo, 89, 256-57 Luca, 53, 95-96 Neri, 113 plagues, 66, 113-114, 147 Poccetti (Bernardino Barbatelli), 252η policies, family, 176, 241, 259, and passim political allegiance, nature of, 214-15 Poliziano, Angelo, 47, 217η Ponte Vecchio, 140-41 Pontormo, "Deposition," 105-106 Popoleschi: family, 121η, 25211 Niccolo, 126 Poppi, 224 popular (popolani) lineages, 9, 16 portata, 2$fi. See also taxation records Portinari: Folco, 252η Pigello, 64η portraits, family, 110-12, 251-52, 290-91 Prato, 7g, 80, 217, 247η Priorate, Priors, see Tre Maggiori Uffici priorista, 198-99 progenia (house, lineage), 6, See also lineage property, family, changes in

3 8

INDEX nature of ownership of, 121-24; corporate ownership of, 12 iff; division and alienation of, 124-27; kinsmen as arbiters and executors of, 132-34; preservation w i t h i n lineage of, 127-32, 135ft Pseudo Bernardine Epistola de Gubernatione rei familiaris, 63-64, i22n, 29911, 3oon Pucci: family, 159 A n t o n i o , 59 Quaratesi, family, 124 Q u a r e n t o l a , 128 quasi-domestic g r o u p , 61, 100. See also household; consorti, proximi retrait lignager, 126. See also property, family Ricasoli: family, 121 Bettino, 253 Ricci, S. Caterina, 46n ricordi, ricordanze (family diaries), 75-76, 133, and passim,; domestic focus of, 113-15; sense of lineage in, 272-78 Ridolfi: family, i6gn, 238n, 245; di Ferza, 191; di Nicchio, 190 Messer A n t o n i o , 175 Giovanbatista, 172, 209 Niccolo, 245 R i n i e r i , Bernardo, i27n, i 6 7 n R i n u c c i n i , family, 113 della R o b b i a , family, 258 R o m e , 24, 68, 94, 106, 134, 141, 194, 206, 207, 208, 2og, 210, 224, 228n, 239, 240; Palatine hill, 285 R o n d i n e l l i , family, av6n Rossellino, Bernardo, 104, 263n; portrait of Neri C a p p o n i , 291 R o u e n , 239 Rucellai: 319

family, avello in S. Maria Novella, 261; c o m m u n a l chapels of, 235, 236n, 257, 261, 267-70, 284; description of, 15-17; economic activities of, 63-72; gardens of, 215; hospital at Osmannoro, 234-36, 243-44, 290; letters of, 80-84, 21 iff, 238-39; loggia of, 145, 242-44, 253, 278, 286-87; m e m b e r s h i p of T r e Maggiori, 197-98; origins of surname, 254; physical cohesion of, 232; political history of, 219-21; poverty w i t h i n , 161-63; p u l p i t in S. Maria Novella, 282-83; relations w i t h Medici f a m i l y , 89-90, 211-14, 219-21; sense of u n i t y of, 145, 291-92; size of, 17, 26; success in scrutinies, 179-86; wealth of, 150-52 A d o v a r d o di Carlo, 42-43, 62, 74, i3gn, 146, 181, i82n, 22gn, 236, 243, 268-70, 271, 292 Albizzo di Bernardo, 270 Albizzo d'Ugolino, 46, i32n, 145 Alessandro di G u g l i e l m o , 262n A m e r i g o di Messer Francesco, 121 A n d r e a di Bernardo, descendants of, 182, 185, 197, 247, 276 Fra A n d r e a di Dona to, 146, 156, 1 6 m , 186, 268, 275, 282n, 283, 292; holy water stoup of, 270 Messer A n d r e a di Messer Francesco, 185; descendants of, 161 A n t o n i o d'Agnolo, 76 A n t o n i o d'Alessandro, 33, 108, 184, 186 A n t o n i o d ' A n t o n i o , 31, 130 A n t o n i o di G i o v a n n i , 133 A n t o n i o di Simone, 156, 2 7 m A r r i g o di F i l i p p o , 181

INDEX Carlo d ' A n t o n i o , 31, i3gn, 155, i56n, 181, i82n, 25on, 268 Carlo di Giulietto, 24 Caterina, widow of Paolo di Messer Paolo, 24 Cilia, wife of Bartolo di G i o v a n n i , 26n C i p r i a n o di Iacopantonio, 131 Clemente, 133 Cosimo, 46 Cosimo di Bernardo, 47 Cosimo di Cosimo, 47, 215 Cosimo di Palla, 133, 235, 236n, 26gn Domenico, 68 Domenico di Filippo, 290 Domenico di G i o v a n n i , 1 6 m Domenico di V a n n i ,

Rucellai (cont.) Bartolo di G i o v a n n i , heirs of, 26 Bartolo di Strozza, 36 Bartolo d'UgoIino, 100 Bartolomeo di Luca, daughters of, 24711 Bencivenni di Bernardo (Cenni di Nardo), 18011, 198, 235, 243, 268; descendants of, 180-81, 198, 261, 276 Benedetto di Filippo, 7gn Bernardo d ' A l a m a n n o , 161; descendants of, 146, 162-63, 182, 275 Bernardo di Giovanni, 46, 47, 57-58, 71, 80, 81, 83, 84, 89, 9 1 . 94 97"9 8 - " 4 . H3, •54-55. ' 7 3 " . J 74. 201-202, 215, 2 i g n , 220, 223n, 229n, 243, 258, 261, 263, 267, 275, 2; '-g7; m a r b l e sepulcher of, 26-

descendants of, 182-83, 212, 239" D o n a t o di Paolo, 126, i32n,

B e r n d i d o di G i u n t a , 162, ig8; descendants of, 235-36 B e r n a r d o di Palla, 133 B e r n a r d o di Piero, 52, 54, 72n, 79, g8n, 134, 2i3n, 259, 282-83 Bingeri di Bernardo, descendants of, 197 Bingevi di Iacopantonio, 131 Bingeri di Iacopo, heirs of, 130 Brancazio di Domenico, descendants of, 109 Brancazio di Niccolo, 10gn, 222n Brancazio di Messer Niccolo, 112n Buonaccorso di Iacopo, 69, 134, 210-11, 239 Buonaccorso di Luca, 131, 262n C a m m i l l a , wife of R i d o l f o di Filippo, 112 Cardinale di Cardinale, 90 Cardinale di Guglielmo, 251 Cardinale di Piero, 54, 66, 72, 133, 137n, 248, 24gn, 2 6 1 , 2 6 7 ^ 2g7n; sons of, 52 320

152", 155 Elizabetta, w i d o w of G i r o l a m o di Piero, 73n Filippa (Pippa) d ' A d o v a r d o di Carlo, 74 F i l i p p o d ' A m e r i g o , 68 F i l i p p o di Brancazio, 35, 130, 147 F i l i p p o di Paolo (Long Pip), 40, 47, 130, 134, 15211 F i l i p p o di V a n n i , 37, 130, 235, 282-83; sons of, 134, 151; chapel in S. Pancrazio of sons of, 101-102, 289-90 Francesca (Cecca), widow of V a n n i di Paolo, 284n Francesco, 68 Francesco d ' A n d r e a , 270 Francesco di G i r o l a m o , 74n, 157 Francesco di Giulietto, 24 Francesco di Paolo, 33, 134, 155 Francesco di Simone, i32n, 156 Francesco d'Ugolino, 248n Franco di Guglielmo, 32 Giovanbatista, 23gn Giovanbatista d ' A n t o n i o , d a u g h t e r of, 157

INDEX Giovanbatista di Mariotto, 7311 Giovanfrancesco, i i 2 n Giovanni d'Antonio, 1 3 m G i o v a n n i di Bartolo, sons of, 24911 Giovanni di Bernardo, 33 Messer G i o v a n n i di Bernardo, 84, 210-11, 215n, 220, 239 Giovanni di Bingeri, line of, 183 Giovanni di Cardinale, 27, 81, 132, 151, 21gn, 263n, 297 G i o v a n n i di Messer G i o v a n n i , sons of, 152 Giovanni di Giulietto, 24 Giovanni di Lorenzo, 147 G i o v a n n i di Paolo di Pandolfo, 157n Giovanni di Paolo di Messer Paolo, 39-40, 47n, 55-59, 61, 66, 67-68, 72, 88, 89, 91, 93-94, 95"9 6 ' 97-99. 102, 133, 151-52, 154-56, i8on, 181, 182, 183, 186, 213, 2i4n, 215, 235-36, 245, 246, 257-58, 261, 263n, 267, 268-70, 282, 292, 297n, 301-302; b u i l d i n g p r o g r a m of, 284-87; t o m b of the Holy Sepulcher in S. Pancrazio of, 100-101, 259, 287; descendants of, 115, 220-21; palace of, 52-53, 112, 131, 133, 142-43, 228-29, 232, 240-43, 287, 290; Poggio a Caiano, villa of, 97; Quaracchi, villa of, 236-37, 258; Zibaldone Quaresimale of, 55, 114, 198-99, 273, 274-78, and passim G i o v a n n i di Piero, 31, 82 G i r o l a m o di Filippo, 290 G i r o l a m o di Piero, 262-63 G u e l f o di Francesco, 185 G u g l i e l m o di Cardinale, 52, go, 100, 202n; descendants of, 90, 261 G u g l i e l m o di Giovanni, 32 l a c o p a n t o n i o di Bingeri, 76n; sons of, 132, 134 321

Iacopo di Giovanni, 32 L a p o di V a n n i , 108; descendants of, 183 L i o n a r d o di Donato, 33, 74n, 142, 146, 182, 275n L i o n a r d o di G i o v a n n i , 38, 156 Lodovico di G i o v a n n i , 81 Lodovico di G u g l i e l m o , go Lorenza, wife of Paolo di Pandolfo, 238n Lorenzo d ' A n t o n i o , 2 8 m Lorenzo di Giovanni, 68, 81 Lorenzo di V a n n i , 27, 37 L u c a di Paolo, 33 Mariotto, 23gn Mariotto di Piero, 31, 34, 52, 81-82, 83, 88, 89, 9811, iogn, 201-202, 2 i g Matteo di Giovanni, 32 Michele di Giovanni, 32 N a n n a di Bandino, 146, 156 Nannina, wife of Bernardo di G i o v a n n i , 46, g6 Nente, widow of B a n d i n o d ' A n d r e a , 38, 156 Niccolo di Brancazio, 130, 131, 282-83 Messer Niccolo di Brancazio, 238 Niccolo di Paolo, 31, 145 Niccolo di V a n n i , 242-43 Palla di Bernardo di Giovanni, 46, 6811, 84, 88, 8g, 133, 'a?11. 143> 210-11, 2i5n, 220-21, 238-3g Palla di B e r n a r d o di Palla, 221 P a n d o l f o di Giovanni, 40, 57-58, 61-62, 71, 81, 91, 95, 98, 114, 181, 242, 267 Paolo, 35n Messer Paolo di Bingeri, 267, 26gn; descendants of, 152, 183 Paolo di Filippo, 66 Paolo di G i o v a n n i , 181 Paolo di Iacopo, 68-6g Paolo di Pandolfo, 181 Paolo di Paolo, 152, 155 Paolo di Messer Paolo, 40, 152

INDEX

Rucellai (cont.) Paolo di Vanni di Lapo, 132η, '33. 21 9. 248, 249η; sons of,

55

Paolo di Vanni di Paolo, 24, 134 Piero di Bernardo, 46 Piero di Bingeri, 155, 156η; descendants of, 182-83, 212-13 Piero di Brancazio, 89 Piero di Cardinale, 52, 54, 72, •33' 134. 145. 219. 235, 297 Piero di Giovanni, 75η Piero di Mariotto, 82 RafEaello, 239η Raffaello d'Antonio, 185 Ridolfo di Filippo, 61-62, 8m, 112 Sandra di Messer Giovanni, 27m Simone di Giovanni, 32 Tommaso, 109 Ubertino di Filippo, 66, 102η, 145 Ugolino di Messer Albizzo, 248η Ugolino di Bernardo, 235; descendants of, 182, 185-86 Ugolino di Francesco, 145, 146η, i86, 242-43, 261, 270-71, 278, 284η, 286, 292 Ugolino (Nino) di Giunta, 275; descendants of, 152, 161, 162-63, 182, 183-84, 186, 247-48, 294 Messer Vanni d'Antonio, 133 Vanni di Bernardo, descendants of, 152, 197, 262-63 Vanni di Brancazio, 35, 137η Vanni di Lapo, 234 Vanni di Paolo, 31, 55η, 145; sons of, 24 Vanozzo di Filippo, 109η Zanobi, 239 Sacchetti: family, 98 Forese, 196η Franco, 200, 245η

St. Benedict, 290η St. Bernard (S. Bernardo), patron saint of the Rucellai, 235, 243, 255, 267 St. Eusebius, Letter on the death of St. Jerome, 263 St. Jerome, 263 St. Joseph, 290 St. Nicholas (S. NiccoΙό), patron saint of the Capponi, 255, 264-65, 272, 291 St. Peter the Martyr, company of, 282η Salviati: family, 74η Messer Iacopo, 206, 224η S. Bartolomeo a Monte Oliveto, church of, and the Capponi, 105, 237-38, 260 S. Croce: church of, 108 quarter of, 233η S. Felice in Piazza, parish of, 259η, 266 S. Felirita, church of, and the Capponi, 105-106, 271 S. Frediano: church of, 232 parish of, 112 S. Gimignano, 114 S. Giovanni, quarter of, 16, 177, 216η S. Girolamo a Fiesole, church of, 262 S. Iacopo sopr'Arno: church of, and the Capponi, 256, 266 parish of, 232 S. Ilario a Colombaia, church of, 158 S. Lorenzo: church of, and the Ginori, 100-104, 178, 179η, 26 i , 280, 283 parish of, and the Ginori, 231-32, 248 S. Lucia, parish of, 832 S. Lucia de' Magnoli, church of, and the Capponi, 260

INDEX S. Maria degli Innocenti, hospital of, 141, 148 S. Maria Novella: church and convent of, and the Rucellai, 100, 101n, 108, 145, 156, 260-62, 267-70, 271, 275, 280, 282-84 parish of, 232 quarter of, 16, 233n S. Maria N u o v a , hospital of, 73 S. M a r t i n o a Gonfiente, 234 S. Niccolo a Calenzano, church of, and the Ginori, 234, 283 S. Pancrazio: a b b o t o f , 232n, 267 church and monastery of, and the Rucellai, 100-102, i07n, 173n, 180, 259, 261-62, 267, 280-82 parish of, a n d the R u c e l l a i , 130-3'> 232. 248, 249 hospital of, 290 S. Paolo, parish o f , 232 S. Spirito: church of, and the C a p p o n i , 101, 104-105, 109, 151, 233, 245, 259-60, 280, 283 quarter of (Oltr'arno), and the C a p p o n i , 16, i72n, 186, 195-97. 222, 232-33, 247, 248, 295; distinctive character of, 195-97

S. Stefano a Baroncoli, church of, and the G i n o r i , 284n S. Stefano a C a m p i , c h u r c h of, and the Rucellai, 261, 284 S. Stefano i n Pane, 234 S. T r i n i t a : a b b o t of, 27 m bridge of, 136 c h u r c h of, 49 parish of, 232 Sassetti: family, chapel of, 49 Francesco, l i o n , 257, 287 Paolo, i25n, 276n Savonarola, Girolamo, 217, 281 dello Scarfo (Scarfi): family, 232

Francesco, i73n schiatta (race, lineage), 6. See also lineage scrutinies, for the T r e Maggiori, 171ft, and passim; for territorial and internal offices, 198 Scrutiny Councils, 79, 171-72, 174-75, 182, 189, 191 Segni: f a m i l y , i72n, ig6n, 2o8n Alessandro, 25&n Bernardo, 50 Lorenzo, i72n Serristori, Giovanni, i34n Siena, 205, 257 Signoria, see T r e Maggiori Uffici sociability, f a m i l y , 227-31, 238ft, 252 Soderini: family, 190-91 L u i g i , 158 P i e r o , 209-10 Sommaia, 129, 140, 234; S. Stefano a, 103 sottoscrizioni (sworn pacts), 8n, gn. See also intelligenze specchio (list of tax defaulters), 78 Spini: family, i24n; loggia, 244n Doffo, i24n, 276n stem family, 2 9 n stirpe (stock, lineage), 6. See also lineage Strinati: Neri, 125-26, 227, 273 R a m i n g o , 273 Strozzi: family, 14, i6n, 26, 62, 66n, g3,

323

98-99.

J28. '59.

l6

7.

173'

180, 229 Alessandra, widow of Lorenzo di Messer Palla, i82n Alessandra, w i d o w of Matteo, 14. 7 6 - 7 7 . 93. 94. 1 2 6 ,

159,

2i7n Alessandra di F i l i p p o , 96 A n d r e a di Carlo, i74n Benedetto, 14

INDEX Strozzi (corat.) Carlo, sons of, 174η Carlo di Strozzo, 235η Caterina di Filippo, 96 Filippo di Matteo, 126, 229, 246 Giovanni, 223η Iacopa di Messer Palla, wife of Giovanni di Paolo Rucellai,

94

Iacopo, 148 Lorenzo di Filippo, 96, 235η, 873 Lorenzo di Matteo, 148, 174 Marcello, 199 Matteo, 14, 96, 223η Messer Palla di Nofri, 95η, 98-99della Stufa: family, 216 Messer Ugo, 216η taxation records (catasto, decima), 13, 14-15, 21-24, 107, 108η, and passim; catasto as evidence for household structure, 23-26, 37η Tedaldi, family, 276 testaments, see wills Tornabuoni: family, 12m, 170, 252η Giovanni, 251-52, 303 Lucrezia, 201η Tornaquinci, family, 121, 251-52 towers, tower societies, 8-9 Tre Maggiori UfKci (three highest offices, i.e. the Priorate, or Signoria, Twelve Goodmen, and Gonfaloniers of Company), 7g-8o, 197ft, and passim; veduti and seduti to, 79-80 Trissino, Giangiorgio, 215η Twelve Goodmen, see Tre Maggiori Uffici udita (hearsay), 113. See also oral tradition Uzzano (Val di Pesa), 237

da Uzzano: family, 260η Niccolo, 194, 196 Val d'Arno, 266 Varchi, Benedetto, 133, 300 Vasari, Giorgio, 110η, 111, 231η, 233, 25 l n ' 2 8 3' 2 90 Velluti: family, 6, 12, 99, 116η, 126, 190, 274 Donato, 6, 12, 56, 113, 116η, 12511, 126, 196, 273, 276η; Cronica domestiea, 274 Venice, 68 Venturi, Iacopo, 83, 98 da Verrazzano: family, 6n, 124η Piero di Banco, 6n Verrochio, Andrea, 111 Vettori: family, see Capponi, family Francesco, 97 Paolo, 239η Piero, 55, 97-98 Via de' Bardi, 50, 141, 193-94, 260 Via de' Ginori (or Borgo S. Lorenzo), 36η, 129, 158η, 2i6n; and the Ginori, 231-32, 241 Via Maggio, 51η, 233 Via della Vigna Nuova, 32η, 52; and the Rucellai, 232 Via Ricasoli, 246 Via Tornabuoni, 52 vicinanza (neighborhood), 173η. See also gonfalone vicini (near neighbors), 125-27, 172, 173η. See also consorti; amici; gonfalone Vicopisano, 297η Villani: Giovanni, 300 Matteo, 203 Villas, family, 233-38; building of, 236-37 Visdomini, family, 121 votive images, 111. See also portraits, family

INDEX

Ward Officials (Uffici dei Pupilli), 91-92, 102, 132η wills, testaments, distant kinsmen in, 141-48; nearest kinsmen in, 72-76; Venetian, 136η

women, 29; position in lineage of, 74, 107-108, 247, 262, and passim Zibaldone Quaresimale, see Rucellai, Giovanni di Paolo di Messer Paolo

Library of Congress Cataloging

in Publication

Data

Kent, Francis William, 1942Household and lineage in Renaissance Florence. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. U p p e r classes—Italy—Florence. 2. F a m i l y — Florence—History. 3. Florence—Social life and customs. 4. Capponi family. 5. Ginori family. 6. Rucellai family. I. Title. HT653.I8K45 76-3260 3oi.44'2'og455i ISBN 0-691-05237-9