Patronage and Dynasty: The Rise of the della Rovere in Renaissance Italy 9780271091105

Citation preview

PATRONAGE AND DYNASTY

Habent sua fata libelli

SIXTEENTH CENTURY ESSAYS & STUDIES SERIES General Editor MICHAEL WOLFE Pennsylvania State University–Altoona EDITORIAL BOARD OF SIXTEENTH CENTURY ESSAYS & STUDIES ELAINE BEILIN Framingham State College MIRIAM U. CHRISMAN University of Massachusetts, Emerita BARBARA B. DIEFENDORF Boston University PAULA FINDLEN Stanford University SCOTT H. HENDRIX Princeton Theological Seminary

HELEN NADER University of Arizona CHARLES G. NAUERT University of Missouri, Emeritus MAX REINHART University of Georgia SHERYL E. REISS Cornell University ROBERT V. SCHNUCKER Truman State University, Emeritus

JANE CAMPBELL HUTCHISON University of Wisconsin–Madison

NICHOLAS TERPSTRA University of Toronto

ROBERT M. KINGDON University of Wisconsin, Emeritus

MARGO TODD University of Pennsylvania

MARY B. MCKINLEY University of Virginia

MERRY WIESNER-HANKS University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

Copyright 2007 by Truman State University Press, Kirksville, Missouri All rights reserved. Published 2007. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies Series, volume 77 tsup.truman.edu

Cover illustration: Melozzo

da Forlì, The Founding of the Vatican Library: Sixtus IV and Members of His Family with Bartolomeo Platina, 1477–78. Formerly in the Vatican Library, now Vatican City, Pinacoteca Vaticana. Photo courtesy of the Pinacoteca Vaticana. Cover and title page design: Shaun Hoffeditz Type: Perpetua, Adobe Systems Inc, The Monotype Corp. Printed by Thomson-Shore, Dexter, Michigan USA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

    Patronage and dynasty : the rise of the della Rovere in Renaissance Italy / edited by Ian F. Verstegen. p. cm. — (Sixteenth century essays & studies ; v. 77)     Includes bibliographical references and index.     ISBN-13: 978-1-931112-60-4 (alk. paper)     ISBN-10: 1-931112-60-6 (alk. paper) 1. Della Rovere family. 2. Nobility—Italy—History—15th century. 3. Nobility— Italy—History—16th century. 4. Della Rovere family—Art patronage. 5. Art, Renaissance—Italy. 6. Papacy—History—1447–1565. I. Verstegen, Ian. II. Title.  III. Series.   DG463.8.D45P38 2007   945'.060922—dc22 2007002818

No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any format by any means without written permission from the publisher.

∞ The paper in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.

CONTENTS Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Ian Verstegen

PART I THE BEGINNING—SIXTUS IV The Sistine Chapel, Dynastic Ambition, and the Cultural Patronage of Sixtus IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Andrew C. Blume Pope Sixtus IV at Assisi: The Promotion of Papal Power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Jill Elizabeth Blondin

PART II ECCLESIASTICS Piety and Public Consumption: Domenico, Girolamo, and Julius II della Rovere at Santa Maria del Popolo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Lisa Passaglia Bauman Avignon to Rome: The Making of Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere as a Patron of Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Henry Dietrich Fernández Reform and Renewed Ambition: Cardinal Giulio Feltrio della Rovere . . . . . . . . . .89 Ian Verstegen

PART III SIGNORE Felice della Rovere and the Castello at Palo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Caroline P. Murphy The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Isabella Feltria della Rovere: Bricks, Bones, and Brocades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Maria Ann Conelli

PART IV THE DUCAL EXPERIENCE Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice . . . . . . . . 141 Ian Verstegen Duke Guidobaldo II della Rovere, Federico Barocci, and the Taste for Titian at the Court of Urbino. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Jeffrey Fontana Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci: Some Notes on Distinctive Strategies in Patronage and the Position of the Artist at Court . . . . . . 179 Stuart Lingo

Appendix—della Rovere Family Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

ILLUSTRATIONS The Sistine Chapel, Dynastic Ambition, and the Cultural Patronage of Sixtus IV Figure 1. Unknown artist, Sixtus IV and Platina in the Vatican Library, 1477–78. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Figure 2. Melozzo da Forlì, The Founding of the Vatican Library: Sixtus IV and Members of His Family with Bartolomeo Platina, 1477–78 . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Figure 3. Sandro Botticelli, Temptation of Christ (Temptatio Iesu Christi latoris evangelice legis), 1481–82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Figure 4. Sandro Botticelli, Temptation of Moses (Temptatio Moisi legis scripte latoris), 1481–82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Pope Sixtus IV at Assisi Figure 1. Statue of Sixtus IV, Sacro Convento della Basilica di San Francesco, Assisi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Figure 2. Cloister of Sixtus IV, Sacro Convento della Basilica di San Francesco, Assisi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Figure 3. Paliotto of Sixtus IV, 1473–78. Tapestry, Museo-Tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco, Assisi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Figure 4. Duns Scotus, Detail of Commentarius in librum Sententiarum, 1471–84. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Piety and Public Consumption Figure 1. Chapel of Domenico della Rovere, 1478–80. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Figure 2. Pinturicchio, Nativity, 1478–80. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Figure 3. Detail of marble frames. Chapel of Domenico della Rovere, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Figure 4. Tomb of Cristoforo della Rovere. Chapel of Domenico della Rovere, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Figure 5. Chapel of Girolamo Basso della Rovere, 1483–84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

vii

ILLUSTRATIONS

viii

Avignon to Rome Figure 1. Melozzo da Forlì, detail of Platina Appointed Vatican Librarian, 1475 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure 2A. Plan of the Petit Palais. Avignon; B. Façade of the Petit Palais. Avignon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 3. Piero di Cosimo, Giuliano da Sangallo, ca. 1480 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Figure 4. Foppa Vincenzo Foppa and Ludovico Brea, detail of Della Rovere Polyptych, 1490. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Figure 5. Plan of the City of Savona and Palazzo Rovere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Figure 6. Nineteenth-century view of harbor front of Savona, view towards south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Figure 7. Plan and façade of Palazzo Rovere on Via Pia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Figure 8. Façade of Palazzo Rovere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Figure 9. Façade of Palazzo Rovere, view towards north, and detail of entrance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Figure 10. Entrance to Palazzo Rovere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Figure 11. Colosseum, viewed from Via San Giovanni in Laterano, Rome; and Leonardo Bufalini, Pianta di Roma, Rome, 1551, detail with Colosseum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Figure 12. View of Palazzo Rovere from harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Figure 13. View of Palazzo Rovere from harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Reform and Renewed Ambition Figure 1. Medal of Giulio Feltrio della Rovere, 1570–73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Figure 2. Reconstruction of the Palazzo della Rovere in Via Lata . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Figure 3. Federico Barocci, Head Study for St. Jude, c. 1566, Doria-Pamphilj, Rome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Felice della Rovere and the Castello at Palo Figure 1. View of Castello of Palo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Isabella Feltria della Rovere Figure 1. Largo S. Trinità Maggiore with Gesù Nuovo. Naples . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Figure 2. Interior, San Vitale. Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Figure 3. Catafalque for Isabella Feltria della Rovere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Illustrations Figure 4. Chapel of Saint Anne (now S. Francesco Geronimo) Gesù Nuovo, Naples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Figure 5. Chapel of Saint Anne (now S. Francesco Geronimo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Figure 6. Interior, Gesù Nuovo, Naples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice Figure 1. Carpaccio, Portrait of aYoung Knight (Francesco Maria della Rovere), ca. 1510. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Figure 2. Titian, Portrait of Francesco Maria della Rovere, Duke of Urbino, 1536–68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Figure 3. Girolamo Genga, Villa Imperiale, Pesaro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Duke Guidobaldo II della Rovere, Federico Barocci, and the Taste for Titian at the Court of Urbino Figure 1. Federico Barocci, St. Cecilia with Four Other Saints, ca. 1555–56 . . . . . . . 167 Figure 2. Federico Barocci, Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, ca. 1557–58 . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Figure 3. Titian, Madonna and Child with Saints Francis and Blaise, and Alvise Gozzi as Donor, 1520 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Figure 4. Federico Barocci, Antonio Galli, ca. 1557–60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Figure 5. Federico Barocci, Crucifixion with Mourners, ca. 1566–67 . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Figure 6. Titian, Crucifixion with Mourners, 1558 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci Figure 1. Federico Barocci, Portrait of Duke Francesco Maria II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

ix

BLANK

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following volume found its beginning in two sessions held at the April 2003 Renaissance Society of America meeting in Toronto. The original authors, in addition to Lisa Passaglia Bauman and Stuart Lingo, who joined the project later, began by presenting research on their respective della Rovere family members. The interaction provoked by the conference panel and continued by the publication project has produced a very cohesive group of essays that look at the della Rovere family as a whole, facing distinct but not uncommon issues at any given time. In the way that the book offers a perspective on the identity of various ecclesiastics, dukes, and signore of the della Rovere, we believe it will be complementary to the two recent publications: I della Rovere nell’Italia delle corti, 3 volumes, by Bonita Cleri, Sabine Eiche, John Law and Feliciano and I della Rovere: Piero della Francesca, Raffaello, Tiziano by Paolo Dal Poggetto. From the very beginning Raymond Mentzer was very encouraging about the project, and two anonymous referees helped sharpen the focus of the book. For all the authors, I would like to thank them for their help, patience, and professionalism. We would have liked to include in this volume a work by the dean of della Rovere studies, Sabine Eiche, who could not take time away from other long-standing projects to provide a contribution. However, the bibliography shows that her work was everywhere a point of departure for almost all the authors. For the model of scholarship she has provided and the personal encouragement and help she has given us, we gratefully dedicate this book to her. Ian Verstegen Cortona, Italy

BLANK

INTRODUCTION IAN VERSTEGEN

The della Rovere family, from the ambitious Pope Sixtus IV, Francesco della Rovere (1414–84), to the solitary Francesco Maria II, last Duke of Urbino (1549–1631), present a varied and disparate group. Spanning two centuries, the family includes bootstrap ecclesiastics like Sixtus IV, wildly nepotistic and scandalous creati like Cardinal Raffaelle Riario, to established Dukes of Urbino like Francesco Maria and Guidobaldo II, leading into the Counter-Reformation and Francesco Maria II’s final act of piety in the devolution of his duchy to the Holy See. To be a della Rovere meant different things at different times. Yet, due to certain constants like fairly recent ennoblement and ecclesiastical origins, the various family members shared something in common: different family members had to observe a similar strategy of self-fashioning that complemented their realities and maximized their success. Since the publication of Stephen Greenblatt’s Renaissance Self-Fashioning, the notion that early moderns improvised their identities has become commonplace. 1 But the specific implication of Greenblatt’s views that selves were mere cultural artifacts, imposed by society as a fiction, has been more controversial. If identity was provisional and sincerity dissembled, individual agendas provided the anchor against which skillful manipulation of intentions and desires could be measured.2 So what was the agenda of the della Rovere? How did they negotiate the economy of nobility in the Renaissance? 3 As Richard Goldthwaite has argued, concepts of nobility were extremely fluid in Italy, especially when compared to the land-based aristocracy of northern Europe. 4 With no sense of divine right, nobility oftentimes equaled power. Dynasties came and went, and with the nonhereditary papacy as the model of statehood, there was a resignation to vast political hiccups. Nevertheless, the northern model and the memory of feudal times in the medieval Italian past provided a powerful and resilient model. 1Greenblatt, Renaissance

Self-Fashioning.

2Martin, “Inventing Sincerity, Refashioning Prudence.” 3For

an expansive discussion of nobility in the Italian Renaissance, see Donati, L’idea di nobiltà in Italia: Posner, Performance of Nobility. 4Goldthwaite,Wealth and the Demand for Art, 150–76.

xiii

IAN VERSTEGEN

xiv

The various essays collected here together chart the ways these realities found their individual instantiation in different historical moments with different historical agents. What each shares in different proportions is a unique recognition of ScholasticFranciscan origins as providing a more authoritative claim to sacramental nobility than an ancient family; in the Sistine and Julian era, a sort of cultural capital competed with noble capital, and later in the sixteenth century, an enlightened nobility competed with a more ancient nobility.5 In fact, the notion of sprezzatura that surfaced in Urbino was precisely useful for the della Rovere in demonstrating a mode of behavior that made bloodline superfluous.6 This issue of identity and its maintenance, of carving a unique niche for a family name in a rapidly changing atmosphere, is the central issue. By taking a synoptic view, this collection attempts to produce different conclusions than can be reached by examining isolated patrons. There are many mature studies of individuals from the della Rovere family. Although studies of the papacies of Sixtus IV and Julius II abound, rarely do familial considerations surface, or when they do, because they are examined through papal monuments, the result can be forced. Furthermore, both Sixtus and Julius had an unusual respect for the autonomy of the pope, which means they are least amenable to a family-inspired model of patronage. This book may be considered an interpretive addendum to recent work by Italian scholars on the della Rovere.7 It is less concerned with exhaustive coverage of the monuments of patronage than with the role of patronage in negotiating identity.

THE BEGINNING—SIXTUS IV There would be no della Rovere popes, cardinals, or dukes without Francesco della Rovere (1414–84), who rose up through the ranks of the Conventual Franciscans to become pope.8 He was minister general of the Franciscans in 1464, became a cardinal with the titular church of San Pietro in Vincoli, was made cardinal protector of the Franciscans, and finally, in 1471, became pope. Although Sixtus quickly fabricated a family origin in the noble house of the della Rovere counts of Vinovo near Turin, making two of its sons cardinals (Cristoforo della Rovere, d. 1478, and Domenico della Rovere, d. 1501), the harsh reality for Sixtus was that his family were humble merchants.9 His theological training became his most important distinguishing feature, for he could lay great claim to Peter’s throne not through ancient privilege but through individual study, sacrifice, and devotion. Understanding his background puts a new spin on Sixtus’s various projects, for many scholars have debated whether his papal projects can be traced to his beginnings as an Observant Friar. Indeed, Franciscanism was always close to his heart and actions. 5The phrase, “cultural capital,” is derived from the work of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. For

its use in the early modern period, see MacHardy, “Cultural Capital, Family Strategies and Noble Identity.” 6On sprezzatura, see Saccone, “Grazia, Sprezzatura, and Affettazione.” 7Cleri, Eiche, Law, and Paoli, I della Rovere nell’Italia delle corti; and Dal Poggetto, I Della Rovere. 8For full references on the life of Francesco della Rovere, Sixtus IV, see the chapters by Blume and Blondin. 9See Blume’s discussion of della Rovere family origins.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Introduction In 1472, he made St. Francis’s feast day into a double feast and in 1477, he raised the Immaculate Conception to a feast, where it remained until becoming dogma in the nineteenth century. In 1482, he canonized Bonaventure. In 1483, he pulled the Franciscans from Venice to protest their war with Ferrara. But as Andrew Blume shows, it is difficult to discern dynastic ambitions in the works of Sixtus IV, for the simple reason that he was raised in the church and took its universalistic aims quite seriously and more often acted as pope than as della Rovere. The resolution to this quandary may be that, in spite of his success as pope, Sixtus’s Franciscan affiliations served not to monopolize the content of the various programs, but as a feature of the pope’s identity as theologian and thinker. This is certainly the case in the most important papal portrait, Melozzo da Forlì’s fresco from the Vatican Library, featuring the Appointment of Platina as Papal Librarian, where dynasty and theology are indissolubly linked. Jill Blondin’s essay shows how Sixtus’s Franciscan commitments continue into his reign in his patronage of the ancient site of Assisi. This nonpapal locale indicates the way the pope could divide his commitments between personal patronage and his own papal projects. Sixtus’s nepotism was notorious and he elevated no less than six nephews to the college of cardinals. He elevated Pietro Riario (1445–74) and Giuliano della Rovere (1443–1513) in 1471, Raffaelle Riario (1460–1521) and Girolamo Basso della Rovere (1434–1507) in 1477, and the two Piedmont della Rovere previously mentioned. The older view was certainly that Sixtus was not a very holy man, and his nepotism is proof of this. Furthermore, Sixtus’s nepotism led to conflict when nephews like Pietro Riario and Giuliano della Rovere openly quarreled. On the other hand, as a Roman outsider with none of the connections available to him to effectively administer the papacy, nepotism helped a difficult situation.10 Blume goes further to suggest that Sixtus effectively expanded his “church family” through these elevations. An important fact is that many of these nephews raised to the cardinalate had also received training with the Franciscans, especially Pietro Riario, Giuliano (later Julius II), his brother Bartolomeo (1447–94), and Clemente Grosso (d. 1504). 11 Numerous della Rovere daughters were sent to the Poor Clares.12 As early as 1471, Sixtus IV made his nephew Pietro Riario cardinal protector of the Franciscans. When Riario died in 1474, Giuliano della Rovere, the future Julius II, took on this honor. Franciscan commitments most importantly included Marian devotion and this extended to the Holy House of Loreto, which was under the jurisdiction of Girolamo Basso della Rovere’s bishopric of Recanati. This was furthermore located near Sixtus’s most important strategic placement: his nephew Giovanni della Rovere’s (1457–1501) lordship of Senigallia. Sixtus IV had made Loreto a parish in 1482, placed it under 10Stinger, Renaissance

in Rome, 95–96. is significant that the Franciscan Marco Vigerio of Savona (1446–18 July 1516) was allowed to use the della Rovere name and was, like Sixtus IV, a famous theologian. Confusingly, Vigerio had already abdicated his post as bishop of Senigallia in 1513 in favor of his nephew of the same name. He served as bishop until his death in 1560. His family intermarried with the Cibo of Genoa and continued to live in the Marche. 12Deodata della Rovere, sister to Duke Francesco Maria, was a Poor Clare. 11It

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

xv

IAN VERSTEGEN

xvi

papal protection in 1484, and begun the church for the Holy House, completed by Girolamo Basso in 1500.13 Sixtus was the greatest papal patron of the fifteenth century and single-handedly responsible for making Rome the papal capital it became; in the words of Raffaello Maffei (1451–1537) he “made Rome from a city of brick into stone just as Augustus of old had turned the stone city into marble.”14 He built several churches, many devoted to the Virgin, Sant’Agostino, Santa Maria della Pace, San Pietro in Montorio, and Santa Maria del Popolo. He built the Ponte Sistina leading to his Genoese district in Trastevere and cleared the Via Pellegrini, the processional route from St. Peter’s to St. John the Lateran during the possesso.

ECCLESIASTICS After Sixtus’s death in 1484, his family continued to have unprecedented influence under the friendly and pliable papacy of Innocent VIII. Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere is known to have been an antiquarian and collected many statues in the courtyard of his palace at SS. Apostoli, some of which he would transport to the Belvedere when he became pope.15 He not only decorated his palace, but also had Baccio Pontelli build the fort of Ostia, his suburbicarian see.16 Cardinal Giuliano’s influence on the weak Pope Innocent VIII may have also resulted in the building of the Belvedere, again with Pontelli.17 Things changed with the 1492 election of Alexander VI, Rodrigo Borgia, testing the newly ennobled family. As Dietrich Fernández points out, Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere retreated to Savona and showed himself to be already a great patron even while he was estranged from Rome after his uncle’s death. Embellishing the family stronghold in Savona, he built on a massive scale with the intention of fortifying family strength that might outlive the finite terms of the papacy. Ironically, the native line of della Rovere in Savona would turn out to be the least powerful.18 However, the noble della Rovere, counts of Vinovo (in Torino), with whom Sixtus had ingratiated himself 13On

Sixtus in Loreto, see Goffen, “Friar Sixtus IV and the Sistine Chapel,” esp. 229. On Girolamo Basso in Loreto, see Frapiccini, “Il Cardinale Girolamo Basso della Rovere”; and Partridge and Starn, A Renaissance Likeness, 99–101. 14Partridge, Art of Renaissance Rome, 21; Maffei is echoing Seutonius on Augustus. 15Frank, “Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere”; and Brown, “The Apollo Belvedere.” 16On Ostia, see Danesi-Squarzina and Borghini, Il Borgo di Ostia. 17On the Belvedere and Pontelli’s possible authorship (rather than Pollaiuolo, as Vasari indicated), see Fiore and Tafuri, Francesco di Giorgio, 272. 18The main later inhabitants of Savona were the family of Julius’s sister, Luchina, who married Gabriele Gara (d. 1479) and then Giovanni Francesco Franciotti, a member of Sixtus IV’s court. They maintained the della Rovere name; however, none of Luchina’s children remained in Savona. The dates of death are not known for either Luchina or her husband, Gabriele Gara, but it is probable that they lived in the della Rovere palace in Savona until their deaths. The della Rovere did maintain a presence in Liguria, however, through the line known as the Grosso della Rovere. They were descended from Simone, who was the son of another Luchina, the sister of Sixtus IV. Simone died fighting in the Sack of Rome, but established a line resident in Genoa, of whom the last, who died in the eighteenth century, was the doge of Genoa, Francesco Maria di Clemente. I am grateful to Henry Dietrich-Fernández for supplying this information.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Introduction with the nomination to cardinal of the brothers Cristoforo and Domenico della Rovere had a real foothold. Domenico paid for the building of Turin Cathedral, the family Castello della Rovere, and also owned the Palazzo della Rovere in Rome in the Borgo (now Palazzo dei Penitenzieri), the palace in the style of the apostolic palace he hopefully emulated.19 The Vinovo-Turin della Rovere continued to hold power well into the sixteenth century, producing several archbishops beyond Domenico (Giovanni Francesco della Rovere, 1509–15 and Girolamo della Rovere, 1564–92). 20 Clearly, Julius II (1443–1513) had one of the most spectacular papacies of the Renaissance. His patronage is a small library in itself.21 His projects include the Belvedere (Bramante) connecting the Vatican to the papal villa, new apartments by Raphael, the vault decoration of the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo, a monumental tomb (Michelangelo), numerous civic works including the Via Giulia, a projected prison, improved Roman churches (most notably the new choir for Santa Maria del Popolo by Bramante, and ex novo churches like Santa Maria di Loreto), and finally additions to the Holy House and apostolic palace of Loreto itself.22 Similarly, Marian churches, like Santa Maria del Popolo, which housed the remains of his relatives Cristoforo and Domenico della Rovere (of the Torino branch) and Girolamo Basso of the Savona branch, received attention from Julius II. Lisa Passaglia Bauman shows how this della Rovere mausoleum greeted visitors to the city at the northern gate of the city (Porta del Popolo) and, through its conservative monumental tombs and decoration (Pinturicchio frescoes), announced the della Rovere as already established even as they were erected. The prototypical papal portrait by Raphael (National Gallery, London), for instance, debuted in Santa Maria del Popolo.23 As noted, Bramante’s new choir for the Popolo made the church a frequent stop on Julius’s itinerary. For that matter, Raphael’s work for Agostini Chigi, the adopted son of Julius II, who permitted him to incorporate the oak into his arms, can be related to della Rovere Franciscan themes. Chigi’s chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo (again, Sixtus’s and Julius’s church) included a change of dedication to the Virgin of Loreto,24 of course a direct reference to Sixtus’s and Julius’s various works on behalf of its cult. In this way, Marian themes were underscored in this Augustinian church. Julius in turn continued to populate the college of cardinals with relations. Julius elevated Clemente Grosso (1503; d. 1504), Galeotto Franciotto della Rovere (1504, d. 1507), Leonardo Grosso della Rovere (1505, d. 1520), and Sisto Gara della Rovere 19On Domenico and Cristoforo della Rovere, see Tuninetti and D’Antino, Il Cardinal Domenico della Rovere.” On the Palazzo della Rovere in Borgo, see Aurigemma and Cavallaro, Il Palazzo di Domenico della Rovere in Borgo. 20See the genealogical table in Grosso and Mellano, La controriforma nella arcidiocesi di Torino. 21For a useful overview of Julius II’s patronage, see Shaw, Julius II: Warrior Pope; and Bottaro, Dagnino, and Terminiello, Sisto IV e Giulio II: Mecenati e promotori di cultura. 22The year of Girolamo Basso’s death (1507), Julius transferred the authority for the Holy House of Loreto from the bishop of Recanati to the church. 23Partridge and Starn, A Renaissance Likeness, 75–80. 24Rowland, “Render unto Caesar the Things Which are Caesar’s,” 694.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

xvii

xviii

IAN VERSTEGEN (1507, d. 1517) to cardinals (see appendix). Importantly, he only nominated the latter two once their brothers had died. Domenico’s palace was carried on by his heirs, Lucrezia della Rovere received Julius’s old palace at SS. Apostoli,25 Duke Francesco Maria was given the Palazzo Santori in Via Lata,26 Girolamo Riario held the Palazzo Riario (Altemps), and Raffaelle Riario continued to inhabit the Palazzo Riario (Cancelleria) and Villa Riario in Trastevere (Corsini)—meaning the della Rovere possessed some of the most choice properties in Rome.27 The later experience of family ecclesiastics was set against the backdrop of the Dukes of Urbino. Part of Duke Guidobaldo II’s ill will during his long rule was eased by his younger brother, Giulio Feltrio, who was the first to restore papal ambitions in the family since the demise of so many of Sixtus’s and Julius’s nephews. While Giulia Varana, Guidobaldo’s first wife, lived and Guidobaldo continued to serve the Venetians, chances for favoritism of a cardinal’s hat were limited. But things changed when Giulia died and Guidobaldo arranged to marry Vittoria Farnese, the reigning pope’s granddaughter. The marriage negotiations included the fourteen-year-old Giulio Feltrio della Rovere’s cardinalate and titulary church of San Pietro in Vincoli. Partly a “wordly” cardinal at the dawn of the Counter-Reformation, Giulio Feltrio also slowly embraced reform and became one of the most important reforming cardinals. He became cardinal protector of the Holy House of Loreto and the Franciscans, clearly signs of self-fashioning in the model of his forebears, but also the assumption of a role that others now expected a della Rovere to adopt. Verstegen’s essay shows that Giulio Feltrio’s patronage was not great, but this is precisely why it must not be overlooked. Like a good reforming bishop and cardinal, he devoted energy to his churches, at which he scrupulously observed residence. His true passion was for music, but his reforming interests spilled over into his other interests in the visual arts and poetry. One of the wealthiest cardinals of the curia, Giulio downplayed ostentation and familial celebration and thereby gained respect and promotion through the college of cardinals, even disclosing papabilità. Girolamo della Rovere (1530–92) was a contemporary of Giulio Feltrio from the Torino branch of the family. He was related to the brothers Cristoforo and Domenico della Rovere, both of whom Sixtus IV had made cardinal.28 He advanced his career under French patronage and was made archbishop of Torino by Pius IV during the same years that Giulio Feltrio was given Ravenna and a della Rovere married a Borromeo near the ruling Medici line. In Torino, Girolamo continued the pastoral work of Giulio Feltrio della Rovere and his friend Carlo Borromeo. 25Lucrezia married Marcantonio Colonna (d. 1522) and commissioned works in Sta Trinità dei Monti.

She took over Julius II’s palace in Santi Apostoli (since the family palace had effectively moved to via Lata). See Gatti, “Il palazzo della Rovere ed il convento dei Santi Apostoli in Roma attraverso i secoli”; and Magnuson, Studies in Roman Quattrocento Architecture, 312–27. 26On the Palazzo della Rovere in Via Lata, see Frommel, Der Römische Palastbau der Hochrenaissance; and Carandente, Il Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj. 27On the Palazzo Riario (Cancelleria), see Frommel, “Il Cardinal Raffaele Riario ed il Palazzo della Cancelleria.” It is worth pointing out that Pontelli’s name is often mentioned as the author of this palace. 28Grosso and Mellano, Il Cardinale Girolamo della Rovere e il suo tempo.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Introduction Connections between the Dukes of Urbino and Savoy may actually have been fostered by Girolamo della Rovere. Even though the two branches were not really related, the bond forged by Sixtus IV was real enough and the various branches perceived themselves as family—in this case the remnants of the Genoa line in Urbino gave prestige to the modest counts of Vinovo. When Leonardo della Rovere, the brother of Girolamo and future governor of Torino, came to Florence to announce the birth of Carlo Emanuele to the Duke of Savoy, Emanuele Filiberto, he was described as “parente di Duca di Urbino.”29 Leonardo, in fact, seems to have been a lieutenant of Duke Guidobaldo II when the latter served as captain general of the papal forces and the Piemontese even took a wife from the duchy of Urbino, a Giovanna Giraldi of Senigallia, and Girolamo was a visitor to Urbino on more than one occasion.30 When Sixtus V made Girolamo della Rovere cardinal in 1586, Giulio della Rovere had been dead for eight years. Not surprisingly, Girolamo was given the titulus of S. Pietro in Vincoli again, perhaps with some wrangling. It was the church of Cardinal Marco Antonio Colonna (1580–86) who subsequently was promoted to the suburbican diocese of Palestrina.31 Like Giulio Feltrio, Girolamo was made protector of the Conventual Minors although he seems to have had no connection with the House of Loreto.32 With Giulio’s death and then Girolamo’s own election to the college of cardinals, Girolamo, already a formidable reformer and churchman, inherited all the focus of della Rovere papal aspiration. His greatest opportunity came at the conclave that eventually elected his friend Ippolito Aldobrandini. According to a famous story, the popular della Rovere was dying. Aldobrandini, seeing that his friend’s misfortune meant his own succession, aided his death and emerged as the next pope, Clement VIII (1592–1605). Significantly, Girolamo left his library to the Duke of Urbino; the library eventually made its way to the Vatican. In 1594, Anastasio Germanio, former secretary of Cardinal della Rovere, became one of Duke Francesco Maria’s ministers.

SIGNORE The economy of nobility played out for women essentially as strategic pawns. The della Rovere benefited from intermarriage into illustrious families at important points—the Montefeltro, the Gonzaga, Varano, and Farnese—and the same was true for their 29“Hiersera

qui comparse il s.r Lionardo della Rovere piemontese, parente del Duca di Urbino [Guidobaldo II della Rovere] et gentilhuomo della camera del s.r Duca di Savoia [Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia], mandato da S. Ex.za all’Ill.mo S.r Duca [Cosimo I] nostro sig.re a rallegrarsi del figliolo maschio [Carlo Emanuele I di Savoia].” ASF, Mediceo del Principuto, vol. 1212, fol. 37, entry no. 4184, letter of Iacopo Guidi to Antonio Serguidi, 28 January 1562. 30Girolamo was in Urbino for the wedding of Prince Francesco Maria II della Rovere and Lucrezia d’Este. ASMo, Carteggio between Estensi princes, b. 159, fasc. 1571, letter of Alfonso d’Este to Alfonso II d’Este, Pesaro, 12 January 1571, as cited in Piperno, L’immagine del Duca, 303. See also Rossi, Storie ravennati, which mentions the “Cardinal di Torino.” 31Girolamo della Rovere held S. Pietro in Vincoli from 14 January 1587 until his death on 7 February 1592; Marco Antonio Colonna had held the church from 5 December 1580 to 3 October 1586. Cristofori, Cronotassi dei Cardinali di Santa Romana Chiesa nelle loro Sedi Sibirbicarie titoli presbiterali e diaconie, 100. 32Cardella, Cardinali della Santa Romana Chiesa, 5:248.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

xix

IAN VERSTEGEN

xx

daughters. The Renaissance gave less value to a natural daughter than to a trueborn daughter, but both served their purpose.33 The Dukes of Urbino married each generation of daughters to successively more illustrious families, the Varano, Cibo, and d’Aragona, then Borromeo, d’Avalos, and Sanseverino. While some natural daughters went to local nobles, one—Felice della Rovere—issued from no less than Julius II himself. Each daughter faced unique issues: Felice could never be too public and risked losing her livelihood; others, like Isabella, were shipped to far-off and unhappy places. In each case, nevertheless, they had a chance to express themselves through their patronage and unusual privilege. Caroline Murphy notes the interesting fact that Julius’s daughter, Felice della Rovere, chose a seaside residence in the castello of Palo because of its affinities to her native Savona near Genoa. Such a connection is equally irresistible to draw for the Marche, where a small duchy provided a mirroring situation of hereditary land in the shadow of a great republican sea force (Venice, instead of Genoa). Julius’s Rome was full of della Rovere. Felice had married Gian Giordano Orsini in 1506 as a part of Julius’s scheme of intermarriage to old Roman families that included the marriage of his niece Lucrezia (1485–1552) to Marcantonio Colonna in the same year, and of his nephew Niccolò Franciotti della Rovere to Laura Orsini the year before. Felice’s castle was intended to befit her position as Julius’s daughter and, due to its proximity to Rome, became an important itinerary in Roman circles, even among Julius’s successor, Leo X. Later sixteenth century della Rovere cardinals Giulio Feltrio (1533–78) and Girolamo (1530–92) were both cardinal protectors of the Franciscan Order. The ducal line of Urbino continued to stress Franciscan themes in their lives, supporting shrines like La Verna and eventually inviting the Capuchins into Urbino in 1565 and Ravenna in 1566. The Marian focus of the Capuchins also extended to Minims, Oratorians, and Jesuits. Lucrezia Gara della Rovere (1485–1552) founded a della Rovere chapel in the Minim church of Santa Trinità dei Monti.34 Lavinia Franciotti della Rovere (1521– 1601) donated large sums to the Oratorians, in addition to a house adjoining their Chiesa Nuova.35 Most spectacular, however, is the patronage of Duke Guidobaldo II’s daughter, Isabella della Rovere (1554–1619), of the Jesuits. As Maria Ann Conelli outlines, however, this devotion to the Jesuits is only nominally related to any older Franciscan commitments of the family. Her interest in the Passion of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the sorrows of Christ were instead deeply personal. Guidobaldo II had several children, the most important, of course, his son, Francesco Maria II, who would inherit the duchy. All of his daughters were married off to illustrious potentates. His daughter from his first marriage, Virginia, married into 33See

Ettlinger, “Visibilis et Invisibilis.” Lucrezia, see Valone, “The Art of Hearing.” Interestingly, Lingo mentions the last Duke of Urbino, Francesco Maria II, and his devotion to the Minims in “The Capuchins and the Art of History,” 256–58. 35On Lavinia, see Ponnelle and Bordet, St. Philip Neri and the Roman Society of His Times; and Cistellini, San Filippo Neri, 1:32. Incidentally, the home became the cardinal residence of the great Oratorian Cesare Baronio. 34On

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Introduction

xxi

the Borromeo family and aided Giulio Feltrio’s entry into the Medici papacy. Lavinia Feltria (1558–1632) married the marquis of Vasto in 1575, and Isabella (1554–1619) married the prince of Bisignano, Niccolò Bernardino di Sanseverino. As noted by Conelli, Isabella had an unhappy marriage in Calabria and withdrew into pious seclusion from her husband. Preferring to reside in Naples, she became close to the local Jesuits and funded them and Roman Jesuits with the unprecedented sum of 90,000 scudi that has been misinterpreted in studies of patronage. Neapolitan laws allowed Isabella to keep her large dowry, and she enjoyed a great deal of independence. Her patronage was enacted in a vacuum, as it were. Like her father, Guidobaldo II, she enjoyed her status as old nobility and did what she wished.

THE DUCAL EXPERIENCE The della Rovere needed a hereditary fief and its maintenance meant arms. The ability to bear arms and the ability to rule went hand in hand with the family’s ambitions to have a secure temporal foothold. Sixtus IV named his nephew Girolamo Riario captain general of papal forces; not coincidentally, Girolamo also obtained a land grant of Imola and Forlì. Military posts were common awards to family members and quite often were awarded regardless of experience and skill. All the important Renaissance families produced great soldiers, but this is especially pronounced with the della Rovere. The exigencies of a small court and its limited resources made the soldier’s profession the ideal solution to achieving wide influence. No better example of a warrior ruling over a small state could be found than Federico da Montefeltro (1422–1482). Alliances during Sixtus’s reign (1471–84) put the Montefeltro and della Rovere on a collision course; Sixtus raised Federico from a count to a duke and in the same ceremony made him commander of papal forces. 36 The next day Sixtus’s nephew, Giovanni, who had been empowered in nearby Senigallia, was married to Federico da Montefeltro’s daughter. This ultimately resulted in the adoption—under pressure from another della Rovere, Pope Julius II—of the young Francesco Maria della Rovere into the Montefeltro ducal line in 1508. Both the della Rovere dynasty itself and its intellectual character were formed by two allied men, Sixtus IV della Rovere and Federico da Montefeltro, one the source of the fortunes of a family and the other the model of that family as its ecclesiastical fortune found more permanent root in a ducal line. While Federico da Montefeltro was simply the greatest commander of his day, the pairing with Sixtus was fortuitous. If Sixtus has the distinction of being the only theologian-pope of the fifteenth century, Federico was distinguished in his learning and eagerly sought out knowledge; if fact, he more than anyone else provided the stamp of the warrior-humanist that would be adopted by all his della Rovere followers. When Giuliano was elected pope in 1503, the family’s fortune was cemented. In symbolic succession of Sixtus and Federico Montefeltro, the next pair of complementary figures became Julius II and Federico’s son Guidobaldo, the two men who actually 36Clough, “Duchy

of Urbino and England,” 210.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

IAN VERSTEGEN

xxii

established the Urbino della Rovere dynasty.37 This was accomplished after Guidobaldo provided no heir and his sister had been wed to Giovanni della Rovere, a brother of the reigning pope, who had been installed in nearby Senigallia. There had been numerous insertions of della Rovere in the Marche region, including Franciscan-inspired devotion to the Holy House of Loreto through protectorship, and bishops’ posts (such as Girolamo Basso’s in Recanati).38 The new cardinals were able to help the family continue its activities as patrons when Julius died in 1513. Leonardo Grosso, for example, negotiated with Michelangelo for the continuation and expansion of Julius’s tomb project.39 Nonecclesiastics also continued to hold power and prestige. Girolamo Riario, through abuse and mistrust, lost his fief of Imola and Forlì. Giovanni, the son of Sixtus’s brother Raffaelle, however, was well placed in Senigallia. Married to the Duke of Urbino’s sister, Giovanna Montefeltro, the prefect of Rome and his wife (the “Prefetessa”) were constant visitors at the court of Urbino. While Giovanni della Rovere lived in Senigallia, he and his brother, the pope, shared artists like Melozzo da Forlì and architects like Baccio Pontelli, who both shuttled back and forth from Rome to the Marche. Pontelli helped fortify Ostia for Julius and Jesi and Senigallia for Giovanni, and worked on numerous churches in and around Rome. Piero della Francesca’s Senigallia Madonna was probably painted for Giovanni and Giovanna’s wedding, and the call of Raphael to Rome cannot be separated from a della Rovere connection where the intimacy of his father, Giovanni Santi, with the prefect, Giovanni della Rovere, and the young artist’s own early service had given him notice. 40 Francesco Maria became Duke of Urbino in 1508, still during Julius’s reign; he took over the ducal palace in Urbino and was given the splendid Santori palace in Rome by Julius II. He carried on his uncle’s position as standard bearer (gonfaloniere) and captain general of the papal forces after Julius died. Relations were good with the new Medici pope Leo X, who reconfirmed his command; however, things were about to change. The Medici began their first papal experience in emulation of the della Rovere, hoping to establish themselves for a similar run of success. But within a couple years they were already restless and looked to the duchy of Urbino as a landholding that could support their own dynastic aims. First, Giuliano de’ Medici—one of the guests of Castiglione’s Courtier—was made gonfaloniere and captain general of papal troops. The next year, Giuliano died and Lorenzo di Piero (1492–1519) became the pope’s favorite and de facto ruler of Florence. Leo ordered Francesco Maria to come before him in Rome, and when the latter refused, he excommunicated him and stripped him of his state. Urbino fell to the papal 37Dennistoun, Memoirs

of the Dukes of Urbino. and Starn, A Renaissance Likeness, 99–101; and Clark, Melozzo da Forlì. 39de Tolnay, The Tomb of Julius II, 32–48. 40“While Vasari tells us that Raphael was asked to Rome through the intervention of Bramante, a distant kinsman—it is just as likely, I think, that Julius (who would have seen the Oddi Coronation during a visit to Perugia in 1506), relied on the advice of his own Della Rovere parenti at the court of Urbino when inviting the 25-year-old artist to Rome and the Curia.” Reiss, “From the Court of Urbino to the Curia and Rome,” 48. 38Partridge

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Introduction army on 30 May 1516. By August, Lorenzo was named the Duke of Urbino. The symbolic end of della Rovere influence came with the acceptance of the reduced version of Michelangelo’s Julius tomb in July 1516.41 Leo’s war for Urbino, however, was extremely unpopular. Raffaelle Riario, still the most important cardinal in the curia, participated in a desperate plot to kill Leo X in May 1517. He was unsuccessful and briefly disgraced; however, Leo owed him so much money,they were soon on good terms again. What did not help matters was the fact that most of the della Rovere cardinals in the curia were now old and dying off. Sisto Franciotti died in 1517 and Leonardo Grosso died in 1520. The war was another test for the family, and Francesco Maria managed to hold the loyalty of his subjects, being as popular with them as had been Duke Guidobaldo Montefeltro when Cesare Borgia briefly ousted him in 1502. As Francesco Maria and his wife, Eleonora Gonzaga, lived in Mantua and plotted their return, the prospects for the newly landed dynasty were bleak. The time near the Veneto, however, established the connections for a military role for the displaced duke, which was officially confirmed in 1523 just after his lands had been reinstated by Pope Hadrian VI. Venice, which Francesco Maria had attacked along with his warring uncle Julius II, ironically became the leverage point from which he sustained power while his family was not in favor in Rome. It also established, or perhaps reconfirmed, connections between the della Rovere court and the Venetian cultural sphere as he settled down to court life in Urbino and Pesaro. Francesco Maria was more soldier than scholar and was known for his short temper. Especially in the post-Julian era, he could not build on an unlimited scale, but he continued modest princely activities. The most important was fortifying the city, renovating Pesaro to make it a suitable new capital, and building the Villa Imperiale, the summer residence of the court outside of Pesaro. Building with some knowledge of the Medici’s Villa Madama, its architect Girolamo Genga provided advanced architectural forms and painted decoration that compare favorably to anything in Rome, and indeed went on to inspire the Villa Giulia. In addition, Francesco Maria ordered paintings from Titian, then the most important painter in the duke’s adopted city of Venice. From this period come the portraits of the duke and his consort, Eleonora Gonzaga (both Uffizi), the Venus of Urbino (Uffizi) for his son’s marriage, and other works. The ducal portraits reflected a nonchalance that symbolically reflected the consensus backing their rule. Contributing to that popularity was the accomplishments they announced and the revenues they brought in, not to mention the steady employ that military service brought those subjects of the duchy. The portraits always show the dukes in military dress with signs of humanistic learning, highlighting their identity as nobility who have won their approval as popular and enlightened soldiers. A comparison with the Medici, by far the greatest object of patronage studies, is instructive.42 Far wealthier than the della Rovere in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth 41de Tolnay, The Tomb

of Julius II, 44–48. Medici patronage, see Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art; Ames-Lewis, Cosimo ’il Vecchio de’ Medici; Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici and the Florentine Renaissance; and Eisenbichler, The Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici. 42For

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

xxiii

IAN VERSTEGEN

xxiv

centuries, the Medici nevertheless never obtained their ducal title except by force. Even though the della Rovere duchy of Urbino was obtained through adoption, as the young Francesco Maria della Rovere—the nephew of Julius II—was anointed to take over his childless uncle’s place as Duke of Urbino, it was nevertheless a real bloodline. To be sure, in the mid-sixteenth century, the Medici family would surpass the Dukes of Urbino when they attained the more elevated title of archdukes. Yet throughout this period, the easy nobility of the della Rovere contrasts with the anxious Medici, as a comparison of the nearly identical rules of Cosimo (ruled 1537–74)—who continually bolstered his position through relentless propaganda—and Guidobaldo II (ruled 1538– 74) shows. Francesco Maria died under mysterious circumstances in 1538 and the duchy passed on to his young son, Guidobaldo II. Guidobaldo della Rovere was military commander for the Republic of Venice, the Papal States, and then Philip II. He carried on in service for Venice after his father’s death, and with the ascension of Julius III began service with the Papal States. Finally, after retiring from service during Paul IV’s militarism, he began a proxy service to Philip II in the spring of 1558, sending troops to battles in Malta and Lepanto. An early episode of Guidobaldo II’s patronage, rarely discussed, is the completion of the tomb of his great-uncle, Julius II. As the de facto heir (and after his own father’s negotiations), Guidobaldo II was the individual to see the project through to completion.43 As Jeffrey Fontana points out, Guidobaldo II was, like his father, a consistent patron of Venetian works. He collected a dozen paintings from Titian and his workshop. As commander of Venetian forces from 1538 until 1553, Guidobaldo was close indeed to Venetian artists; his man-at-arms, Montino del Monte, had Titian, Jacopo Sansovino, and Pietro Aretino stand in for the baptism of his son, Francesco Maria del Monte, the future patron of Caravaggio. The complexion of this patronage could later look like emulation of Charles V and the Spanish monarchs, whom he grew closer to, but the early patronage need not and was probably closer to that of the other rules of small states, the Este and Gonzaga. Francesco Maria’s weakness was his temper, and Guidobaldo II’s was his favoritism for friends. This partiality to cronies, like Count Pietro Bonarelli, weakened the duchy financially and the duke in turn harshly raised taxes. An uprising of nobles in 1572 was the culmination, and Guidobaldo II had all nine beheaded. Perhaps Guidobaldo II’s excesses mark the point of consolidation of the duchy. Never having lived through violence and displacement like his father, Guidobaldo II instead lived like the comfortable hereditary duke he was. Perhaps fortunately for his subjects, he died soon thereafter and his son, Francesco Maria II, pardoned some offenders and restored goodwill with the ducal house. This situation had affected Guidobaldo II’s patronage, however, because he spent most of his money supporting retainers rather than building. As Fontana points out, although Federico Barocci emulated Titian and his style, Guidobaldo II made relatively little use of his duchy’s most talented painter and there are few important commissions from his hand.

43de Tolnay, The Tomb

of Julius II, 65–68.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Introduction Francesco Maria II began life under his controlling father and took up arms, as was the custom. He fought in the Battle of Lepanto and was seriously considered in the 1570s as a potential commander by the Republic of Venice.44 However, a forced pairing with the older Lucrezia d’Este that was machinated by his father left Francesco Maria II with little taste for dynastic ambitions. By this time, the duke’s uncle had died and so had his cousin Cardinal Girolamo. He sold off the family palace in Rome and made a space for himself in the old palace of Castel Durante (Urbania). The sensitive duke was more positively inclined toward Barocci. As Stuart Lingo points out, however, the duke saw the growing demand for the artist as an interesting diplomatic pawn, which kept him indirectly sought after in political circles even as his own temporal power and ambition declined. The duke was very popular with the people of his duchy and when his wife died in 1598 he was popularly urged to remarry. He married his cousin Livia, the daughter of his cousin, Ippolito, natural son of his uncle, Giulio Feltrio. The choice of the daughter of his bastard cousin with whom he was periodically in conflict perhaps reflects his distance from dynastic ambition. In spite of the improbability of the match, they produced a son, Federico Ubaldo della Rovere (1605–23), who succeeded his father as duke to the satisfaction of the aging Francesco Maria II, who retired to the seclusion of his quiet life under the care of the Minim brothers of Castel Durante. Like his sister, Isabella, Francesco Maria II did not devote his spiritual guidance to Conventuals or even Capuchins, but to the Minims, who were related to, but not of, the Franciscan family. Federico Ubaldo married Claudia de’ Medici, daughter of Grand Duke Ferdinando de’ Medici, and had a child, Vittoria Feltria della Rovere. He died, however, under suspicious circumstances and without producing a male heir. Francesco Maria II could have sought another heir, but decided on the devolution of his state to the church, a final act of piety. His granddaughter married another Medici, her cousin Grand Duke Ferdinand II de’ Medici of Tuscany (2 August 1634) at twelve years of age. So ended the della Rovere duchy of Urbino. The only tangible evidence of its greatness was the passing of all the mobili, including the great paintings from the ducal collection, to the Florentine dynasty. So, indeed, ended almost all the della Rovere. At this point, there were the minor nobles of Giulio Feltrio’s illegitimate offspring and the della Rovere of Vinovo in Piedmont. The Grosso della Rovere of Genoa lived on but were not landed, nor were the Riario of Bologna.

A synoptic and dynastic view of the della Rovere yields interesting relationships that might not otherwise be evident. Each important member of the family, whether cardinal, count, matron, pope, or duke, has an individualistic physiognomy to their patronage, and this is especially true in regard to the popes with their universalistic missions. However, under the accumulated weight of tradition, certain beliefs, especially Franciscan and Marian, were held dear to the della Rovere, constituting their very identity. 44Mallett

and Hale, The Military Organization of a Renaissance State, 320.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

xxv

xxvi

IAN VERSTEGEN This view can yield interesting results beyond the family as well. The symbolic end of the duchy of Urbino, for example, resonated powerfully to other families, who could be said to emulate them. Examples of fruitful dynastic emulation might be the Aldobrandini, the Peretti, and the del Monte families. These three families produced two popes (Clement VIII and Sixtus V) and several cardinals. What unites them is an origin in the Marche and, in the case of the Aldobrandini and del Monte, intimate relations with the ducal line. As Duke Francesco Maria II was sinking into isolation, these families were making names for themselves and the della Rovere family provided a local model of success, most tangibly in the Franciscan Felice Peretti’s choice of the name Sixtus V.45 A remarkable case of symbolic transference occurred with the Aldobrandini, who inherited the estate of the duchess of Urbino, Lucrezia d’Este, and then purchased the Palazzo della Rovere in Rome, becoming instant royalty. Agostino Chigi was already mentioned and his successor, Innocent X (who still proudly bore the oak on his stemma), was the one to transport the ducal library from Urbino to the Vatican, where it now forms the famous Urbinus Latinus fund. The process would culminate in the eighteenth century when minor nobles from Urbino proper, the Albani, would attain the papal tiara and come to occupy many of the very Urbino foundations of the former dukes, symbolically displacing them for good.

45I discussed this briefly in Verstegen, “Federico Barocci, the Art of Painting and the Rhetoric of Persuasion,” 8–9.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Introduction

BIBLIOGRAPHY Archives ASMo ASF

Archivio di Stato, Modena Archivio di Stato de Firenze

Printed Primary Sources Cardella, Lorenzo. Memorie Storiche de’ Cardinali della Santa Romana Chiesa. 9 vols. Rome: Pagliarini, 1792–97. Cristofori, Francesco. Cronotassi dei Cardinali di Santa Romana Chiesa nelle loro Sedi Sibirbicarie titoli presbiterali e diaconie. Rome: Tipografia de Propaganda Fide, 1888. Dennistoun, James. Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino: Illustrating the Arms, Arts, and Literature of Italy from 1440–1630. 3 vols. London: J. Lane, 1909.

Secondary Sources Ames-Lewis, Frances, ed. Cosimo ‘ilVecchio de’ Medici, 1389–1464. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Aurigemma, Maria Giulia, and Anna Cavallaro. Il Palazzo di Domenico della Rovere in Borgo. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1999. Bottaro, Silvia, Anna Dagnino, and Giovanna Rotondi Terminiello, eds. Sisto IV e Giulio II: Mecenati e promotori di cultura. Savona: Coop Tipografica, 1989. Brown, Deborah Taynter. “The Apollo Belvedere and the Garden of Giuliano della Rovere at SS. Apostoli.” Journal of theWarburg and Courtauld Institutes 44 (1986): 235–38. Carandente, Giovanni. Il Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj. Milan: Electa, 1975. Cistellini, Antonio. San Filippo Neri. L’Oratorio e la Congregazione oratoriana. Storia e Spiritualità, 3 vols. Brescia: Morcelliana, 1989. Clark, Nicholas. Melozzo da Forlì, Pictor Papalis. London: Sotheby’s Publications, 1990. Cleri, Bonita, Sabine Eiche, John E. Law, and Feliciano Paoli, eds. I della Rovere nell’Italia delle corti, 3 vols. Urbino: Quattro Venti, 2002. Clough, Cecil. The Duchy of Urbino in the Renaissance. London: Variorum Reprints, 1981. Cox-Rearick, Janet. Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Dal Poggetto, Paolo, ed. I Della Rovere: Piero della Francesca, Raffaello,Tiziano. exh. cat., Milan: Electa, 2004. Danesi-Squarzina, Silvia, and Gabriele Borghini. Il Borgo di Ostia da Sisto IV a Giulio II. Rome: De Luca, 1980. de Tolnay, Charles. Michelangelo. 5 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. Donati, Claudio. L’idea di nobiltà in Italia: Secoli XIV–XVIII. Roma: Laterza, 1988. Eisenbichler, Konrad, ed. The Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. Ettlinger, Helen. “Visibilis et Invisibilis: The Mistress in Italian Renaissance Court Society.” Renaissance Quarterly 47 (1994): 770–792. Fiore, Francesco Paulo, and Manfredo Tafuri, eds. Francesco di Giorgio Arcitetto. Milan: Electa, 1993. Frank, Isabelle. “Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere and Melozzo da Forlì at SS. Apostoli.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 59 (1996): 97–122.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

xxvii

xxviii

IAN VERSTEGEN Frapiccini, David. “Il Cardinale Girolamo Basso della Rovere e la sua cerchia tra contesti marchigiani e romani,” in I Cardinali di Santa Romana Chiesa: Collezionisti e mecenati, edited by Marco Gallo, 1:9–23. Rome: Shakespeare and Company, 2001. Frommel, Christof Luitpold. Der Römische Palastbau der Hochrenaissance. 3 vols. Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1973. ———.“Il Cardinal Raffaele Riario ed il Palazzo della Cancelleria.” In Sisto IV e Giulio II, edited by Bottaro et al. Gatti, Isidoro Liberale. “Il palazzo della Rovere ed il convento dei Santi Apostoli in Roma attraverso i secoli.” Miscellanea franciscana 34 (1979): 392–440. Goffen, Rona. “Friar Sixtus and the Sistine Chapel,” Renaissance Quarterly 39 (1986): 218–62. Goldthwaite, Richard.Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy, 1300–1600. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Grosso, Michele, and M. F. Mellano. La controriforma nella arcidiocesi di Torino (1558–1610). Vol. 1, Il Cardinale Girolamo della Rovere e il suo tempo. Vatican City: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1957. Kent, Dale. Cosimo de’ Medici and the Florentine Renaissance:The Patron’s Oeuvre. New Haven:Yale University Press, 2000. MacHardy, Karin J. “Cultural Capital, Family Strategies and Noble Identity in Early Modern Habsburg Austria (1579–1620).” Past and Present 163 (May 1999), 36–75. Magnuson, Torgil. Studies in Roman Quattrocento Architecture. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1958. Mallett, M. E., and J. R. Hale. The Military Organization of a Renaissance State: Venice c. 1400– 1617. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Martin, John. “Inventing Sincerity, Refashioning Prudence: The Discovery of the Individual in Renaissance Europe.” American Historical Review 102 (1997): 1309–42. Partridge, Loren. The Art of Renaissance Rome, 1400–1600. New York: Prentice Hall, 1996. ———, and Randolph Starn. A Renaissance Likeness: Art and Culture in Raphael’s Julius II. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. Ponnelle, Louis, and Louis Bordet. St. Philip Neri and the Roman Society of His Times: 1515–1595. London: Sheed and Ward, 1932. Reiss, Sheryl. “From the Court of Urbino to the Curia and Rome: Raphael and His Patrons, 1500–1508.” In The Cambridge Companion to Raphael, edited by Marcia Hall. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Rowland, Ingrid. “Render unto Caesar the Things Which are Caesar’s: Humanism and the Arts in the Patronage of Agostino Chigi.” Renaissance Quarterly 39 (1986): 673–730. Saccone, Eduardo. “Grazia, Sprezzatura, and Affettazione in Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier.” Glyph 5 (1979): 34–54. Shaw, Christine. Julius II: Warrior Pope. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993. Stinger, Charles.The Renaissance in Rome. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. Tuninetti, Giuseppe, and Gianluca D’Antino. Il Cardinal Domenico della Rovere, costruttore della Cattedrale, e gli Arcivescovi di Torino dal 1515 al 2000, stemmi, alberi genealogici e profili biografici. Turin: Effatà, 2000. Valone, Carolyn. “The Art of Hearing: Sermons and Images in the Chapel of Lucrezia della Rovere.” Sixteenth Century Journal 31 (2000): 753–77.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

PART I

THE BEGINNING Sixtus IV

BLANK

The Sistine Chapel, Dynastic Ambition, and the Cultural Patronage of Sixtus IV ANDREW C. BLUME

In piam memoriam J. S. A volume devoted to the cultural patronage of the della Rovere family owes its existence to Francesco della Rovere who, in 1471, became Pope Sixtus IV. It was he who raised this Savonese family from an obscure clan onto the international stage. As pope, Sixtus has a reputation for outrageous nepotism.1 Indeed, this is probably not far from the truth. He was liberal in his support of his cousins and nephews and did much to enrich himself and his relations, setting the groundwork for the family’s future wealth and power that is so well illustrated in this book. It is, therefore, all the more important to understand that in significant ways his cultural patronage was not, or at least not obviously, self-aggrandizing or carried out to advance his family reputation. Instead, Sixtus’s nepotism and cultural patronage were tools of a larger campaign—to gather power and influence for what might be considered his real family, the Catholic church. In this respect, it is important to consider what role Sixtus’s commitment to the church and to his faith played in the way he treated his family of origin. Francesco was born near or in the Ligurian town of Celle (near Savona) in the summer of 1414. The history of his family is not well documented, but the family seems to have been minor merchants and petty landowners.2 Sixtus’s biographer, Platina, provides little information about Sixtus’s background save the name of his father, Leonardo, and that the family name derives from a word for “oak,” which 1One

has only to read Pastor’s biography: Pastor, History of the Popes 4:197–471. IV and Men of Letters, 12. Lee provides a good, concise account of what is known of Sixtus family history. 2Lee, Sixtus

3

ANDREW C. BLUME

4

explains the design of the family stemma.3 After becoming pope, Sixtus claimed to be related to a Piedmontese family of the same name who were lords of Vinovo. Even the papal hagiographer Ludwig von Pastor, doubts the veracity of this claim. 4 Platina also tells that when Francesco was ill as a child his parents prayed to Saint Francis. After his recovery, his parents dedicated him to the church, specifically to the Franciscans. He joined the Friars Minor before the age of ten and eventually earned his doctorate in theology from the University of Padua, where he subsequently lectured. He also lectured at Bologna, Siena, and Florence and, as Egmont Lee has pointed out, attracted attention of his superiors in the Franciscan order.5 He was given administrative roles of increasing responsibility and eventually became confessor to the Greek cardinal Bessarion, in whose circles his interest in the classics of Christian antiquity most likely grew.6 His reputation as a theologian and his position as procurator general of the Franciscan order led, in 1462, to his arguing before Pius II the Franciscan case in the dispute with the Dominicans over the nature of Christ’s blood.7 Interestingly, Lee has also pointed out that Francesco was not overly greedy in his pursuit of benefices during these years, which gave him a reputation for integrity.8 His rise to the college of cardinals and eventually the papacy were apparently on the basis of his work as a theologian and leading figure both in the Franciscan order and at the papal court. Educated and formed from an early age within the structures of the church, and specifically within the Franciscan order, Francesco della Rovere was literally raised by the church. To a significant degree, therefore, we can say that the church was Sixtus’s real family. During all this time, however, he seems not to have forgotten about his family of origin, as can be seen from his patronage once he ascended to the throne of St. Peter. Indeed, the fresco he commissioned for the Vatican Library demonstrates this in no uncertain terms as do his nepotism and claim to a connection with noble della Rovere. This complex set of circumstances goes a long way to understanding how distinctions between family and church are blurred in his patronage. Sixtus’s relatively hands-off attitude towards his most capable nephew, Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, who would later become Pope Julius II, is an interesting case in point, one that could be the subject of a study unto itself. Cardinal Giuliano, while given important posts, seems to have been kept at arms length and allowed to gain the respect of the church on his own merits, a pattern Julius II seems to have followed later with his illegitimate daughter, Felice.9 Giuliano’s distance from Sixtus, especially in comparison with Sixtus’s closeness to the disastrous Cardinal Pietro Riario, may have been what allowed Giuliano to become his own man and to gain the respect within the college of cardinals, paving the way for his election to the see of Peter. In this way, Sixtus fostered

3Lee, Sixtus

IV and Men of Letters, 12–13. of the Popes, 4:204–5; and see Lee, Sixtus IV and Men of Letters, 26–27. 5Lee, Sixtus IV and Men of Letters, 17. 6For Sixtus’s participation in the Academy of Bessarion, see Lee, Sixtus IV and Men of Letters, 24–25. 7For the disputation over the holy blood see Lee, Sixtus IV and Men of Letters, 19, and his references. 8Lee, Sixtus IV and Men of Letters, 23–24. 9See Caroline P. Murphy’s essay later in this volume. 4Pastor, History

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Sistine Chapel, Dynastic Ambition, and the Cultural Patronage of Sixtus IV support for Giuliano and his future leadership of the whole church, assuring the best for both his biological and spiritual families. Similarly, Sixtus’s cultural patronage in and around the city of Rome, which did not begin in earnest until he became pope, blurred distinctions between the church and his own family. Indeed the frescoes depicting scenes from Sixtus’s life in the Hospital of Santo Spirito in Sassia certainly tell his life story and are truly self-aggrandizing in their encomiastic treatment of the patron’s life (see fig. 1, the founding of the Vatican Library).10 Nevertheless, they are in the ward of a charity hospital, where distinguished visitors—princes, prelates, ambassadors, and the like—would not have had daily access to them. Indeed, it was the patients and staff who were to contemplate the achievements of their patron—an interesting consideration. The frescoes are also by a second-rate painter, about whose identity scholars continue to argue. While the availability of talent in Rome in those years before the split between Sixtus and the Medici might account for such mediocrity, it must be admitted that the frescoes of his life in Santo Spirito are an odd piece of cultural patronage. Sixtus dedicated this monument to himself, but deliberately chose not to place it in the Vatican Palace and did not commission work of the highest quality. His tomb by the Pollaiuoli is indeed a beautifully wrought piece of sculpture produced by major artists, and worthy of an important patron. But again, it does not really express the single-minded ambition of someone anxious to make his family name live forever. While he intended it to be prominently placed in the new, though never completed, Rossellino choir of Old Saint Peter’s Basilica, it was neither huge nor nearly as grandiose as other projects, such as those proposed for a tomb by his nephew Julius II, which incidentally is also a project that seems to have little to do with the della Rovere family per se. In her essay in this volume, Lisa Passaglia Bauman suggests that Sixtus did indeed leave a public, dynastic monument, the church of santa Maria del Popolo. Here, she argues, Sixtus and members of his family, through their presence and patronage promoted their family’s self-interest. Interestingly, much of the work was executed for various members of the family after Sixtus’s death and Sixtus’s own contribution to the church, the restoration project of 1472 through 1477 and his subsequent personal patronage, seem to center on corporate and public acts of piety: the transfer of the site to effective and powerful Augustian observants, the establishment of a chapel with an annual celebration of the Mass by Sixtus himself on a feast day of his and the church’s patron, the Virgin Mary, and weekly visits for public, personal prayer.11 Sixtus was also a great patron of written culture. Lee has lamented that Sixtus was no patron of belles lettres or humanism, in the sense of classical literature, and points out that “among the more than sixty volumes found in the pope’s study after his death, not one transcends, in subject matter or approach, the fields of church history, canon law, or scholastic philosophy or theology.”12 This view, while accurate in its details, 10Eunice

Howe’s studies of this subject remain the best; most recently see Howe, Art and Culture at the Sistine Court. 11Bauman, “Piety and Public Consumption,” in this volume, 39–43. 12Lee, Sixtus IV and Men of Letters, 201.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

5

For this image, see printed book

Figure 1. Unknown artist, Sixtus IV and Platina in the Vatican Library, 1477–78. Scene from the cycle depicting the life of Sixtus IV, Rome, Ospedale di Santo Spirito. Reproduced by permission from Scala/Art Resource, New York.

6

ANDREW C. BLUME

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Sistine Chapel, Dynastic Ambition, and the Cultural Patronage of Sixtus IV does not account for Sixtus’s significant patronage of editions of the classics of Christian antiquity and natural science. Indeed, if one believes his visual rhetoric in the decorative scheme of the Biblioteca Latina of the Vatican Library where portraits of ancient Greek philosophers are set up alongside those of the church fathers,13 Sixtus seems to have seen himself as a patron of both pagan and Christian antiquity. Beautiful editions and translations of Aristotle (one of the portraits), Philo (an honorary father of the church), Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nyssa, among others, also appeared in these years. These works’ dedicatory prefaces praise Sixtus but do not make anything of his family or background. These addresses do, however, often make theological points about the nature of the papacy, which was the very theme of the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel. The most significant statement that Sixtus has left concerning his founding of the Vatican Library, and by extension his patronage of literary culture in Rome, is the group portrait (dated to 1477–78) originally on the north wall of the Biblioteca Latina and now in the Vatican Pinacoteca. This portrait shows Sixtus with his librarian, Bartolomeo Platina, and several of his nephews (fig. 2).14 Visually it is reminiscent of Fra Angelico’s Ordination of St. Lawrence in the Chapel of Nicholas V in the Vatican, demonstrating that the painter and patron have an awareness of its participation in the visual culture of the palace. Sixtus is seated with Platina kneeling before him. Opposite Sixtus is Giuliano della Rovere, the future Julius II, and opposite him and behind Sixtus is the late Cardinal Pietro Riario (who had died in 1474). Behind Platina stand two men who have been identified as Girolamo Riario and Giovanni della Rovere.15 After the painting’s restoration in the late 1980s, it was discovered that there had been a seventh portrait that was subsequently erased. Evidence from a poem written between 1478 and 1480 suggests that the lost portrait was that of Antonio Basso della Rovere. 16 José Ruysschaert, citing a notice in Jacopo da Volterra’s diary, suggests that Antonio was deleted because “Antonio attaquait violemment, la veille de sa mort, Girolamo Riario qui le vivitati pour certains de ses méfaist et pour sa conduit immorale.”17 If this is true, Sixtus is showing some concern for the reputation of his family, or at least for which family members would be remembered and how they would be remembered. Interestingly enough, Cardinal Pietro Riario, who himself had a reputation for extravagance and high living, was included in the painting with a postmortem likeness. In Melozzo’s fresco, Sixtus is shown surrounded by his family of origin. These men, along with Platina, seem to be his inner circle. So, despite the fact that the only narrative connection in the painting among any of the figures is that between Sixtus and Platina, the family together, and not simply Sixtus, can be seen as patron of the library. The inscription below the fresco needs to be taken into consideration before drawing any further conclusions. The poem, painted as a fictive inscription in stone, praises Sixtus for his magnificence to the city of Rome in the restoration of her neighbor13Ruysschaert, “Sixte

IV fondateur de la Bibliothèque Vaticane,” 30. an excellent discussion of this painting, see Ruysschaert, “Sixte IV fondateur de la Bibliothèque Vaticane,” 33–37. 15Ruysschaert, “Sixte IV fondateur de la Bibliothèque Vaticane,” 33. 16Ruysschaert, “Sixte IV fondateur de la Bibliothèque Vaticane,” 33–36, 41 (where the poem is transcribed). 17Ruysschaert, “Sixte IV fondateur de la Bibliothèque Vaticane,” 35. 14For

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

7

ANDREW C. BLUME

8

For this image, see printed book

Figure 2. Melozzo da Forlì, The Founding of the Vatican Library: Sixtus IV and Members of His Family with Bartolomeo Platina, 1477–78. Formerly in the Vatican Library, now Vatican City, Pinacoteca Vaticana. Photo courtesy of the Pinacoteca Vaticana.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Sistine Chapel, Dynastic Ambition, and the Cultural Patronage of Sixtus IV hoods, walls, bridges, walls, and the Aqua Virgina, stating that this can be discerned in the famous library he founded.18 The evidence of the monuments themselves, such as the Ponte Sisto, appears to reflect a genuine interest in the renovation of the city. The epigraphic inscription on the bridge, for example, does not mention his family name and states that it was built for the ease of movement about the city of the multitude of Roman citizens.19 This seems to be what the anonymous painter of the Santo Spirito frescoes stresses in his depiction of Sixtus’s patronage of the bridge. The inscription on the fresco in the library, however, ties the restoration of the city to the library and the image ties the library to Sixtus and his family. The great mass of the Roman population would not have access to the fresco of the pope and his family in the Biblioteca Latina of the Vatican Library. Yet, although there were no regular gatherings of the papal court in the space, as there were in the Sistine Chapel, all members of the papal court and the diplomatic corps would have had access to the image. As noted above, the painting was recorded with the identification of its portraits in a contemporary poem. At the same time, the library was celebrated in other literary projects of the period and none mention any connection with the della Rovere family and refer to the honor the library brought to the papacy. 20 The evidence is, indeed, contradictory. The library painting seems to be a more or less private, or at least in-house, statement about Sixtus and his family designed for the consumption not of the Roman populace, but of the papal court. It is the clearest visual statement Sixtus makes about his family at the Vatican and shows Cardinal Giuliano at the center. Giuliano’s prominence could certainly be a recognition of his importance to Sixtus and his wishes for the future of both the church and his family. Sixtus’s patronage of artistic and literary culture in and around the city of Rome, then, seems to reflect an uneasy and complex mixture of interests. He promoted members of his family and increased the prominence of his and their names, but he also focused on projects for the good of the Roman populace and ones that were integral to the practice of his faith and the stature of the Catholic Church. In his grandest project, however, the renovation and redecoration of the papal palatine chapel at the Vatican— then known as the Cappella Magna or Maius sacrarium and now as the Sistine Chapel—this issue becomes much less ambiguous. In this case, patronage is clearly about the aggrandizement of the Latin church, not the della Rovere clan. The scheme also reveals a sophisticated theology that Sixtus himself must have taken seriously. The message of the Sistine Chapel is the aggrandizement of the church, Sixtus’s adopted family. This would certainly have been appropriate in the first chapel of Christendom, where any project that featured Sixtus and his deeds as its subject would have 18The

inscription reads: Tempia domum expositis: vicos fora moena pontes: Virgineam trivii quod reparis aquam. Prisca licet nautis statuas dare commoda portus: Et Vaticanum cingere Sixte iugum: Pius tamen urbs debent: Nam quae squalore latebat: Cernitur in celebri Biblioteca loco. 19See Benzi, Sisto IV, 174–75. 20See Ruysschaert, “Sixte IV fondateur de la Bibliothèque Vaticane,” 36–37, 41.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

9

10

ANDREW C. BLUME been inconceivable.21 The corporate body of the papal chapel—which included papal officials and senior churchmen, the college of cardinals, and the resident diplomatic corps, among others—gathered together to celebrate matins, vespers, or mass over forty times each year.22 Eight of those services, such as the main celebrations of Christmas and Easter, would have been held in Old Saint Peter’s. The remainder would have been celebrated in this primary chapel of the papal palace.23 The people who gathered to worship there were among the most educated in Europe, and Sixtus was probably the most learned of the Renaissance popes. If any artistic program has license to convey a complicated meaning, the Sistine narratives most certainly do. The subjects of the frescoes were chosen, possibly by the pope himself,24 to create images that affirm the legitimacy and primacy of the papacy as an institution, ordained and sanctioned by God to function in the world, and to tell the story of the redemption of humankind in sacred history through the illustration of the deeds of two of its heroes. These purposes were achieved by selecting scenes from the lives of Moses and Christ to show how God has acted in history. These scenes are paired in a way that suggests a particular historical continuity between the two men and their functions—functions carried on by the papacy—as well as the historical linkages between the Old and New Testaments. Through narratives of praise for the earthly ministry and deeds of these two figures, the story of the redemption is told as beginning in Christ’s birth and being fulfilled in his ascension,25 finding its precise historical antecedent in the life of Moses and showing the historical nature of the Christian mysteries. So, as Moses and Christ were each priest and minister, giving a rule of law to their communities, the pope continues to perform these functions in the world today.26 This story is played out on Earth, a 21For an opposing view, see Goffen, “Friar Sixtus and the Sistine Chapel,” 218–62. Goffen believes that Sixtus was explicitly promoting his own Franciscan agenda in his decoration and dedication of the chapel. She argues allegory over history and believes that Sixtus was engaged in personal aggrandizement. This argument is untenable. It is possible, however, that we might find a Franciscan connection in Sixtus’s academic interest in Bonaventure, whose views of history may have influenced Sixtus’s own understanding of the subject. History, rather than allegory, is particularly important in understanding the Sistine Chapel program (see below). This subject is worthy of further investigation. For Bonaventure and history see, Ratzinger, Die Geschichtstheologie des heiligen Bonaventura. 22Shearman, “Chapel of Sixtus IV,” 23–25; and Shearman, “La storia della cappella Sistina,” 19–21. 23Shearman “Chapel of Sixtus IV,” 23–25. For a list of all the services that required the presence of the full papal chapel—five matins, ten vespers, and thirty-five masses—and for which an official would have been the celebrant, see Sherr, “The Singers of the Papal Chapel and the Liturgical Ceremonies,” 253. 24Ettlinger, Sistine Chapel before Michelangelo, 104. There are many other people who could have been credited with the concetto for the program. One possible choice certainly could have been Sixtus’s Master of the Sacred Palace, the Dominican papal theologian. Another intriguing possibility could be found in the list of “judges for the evaluation of the said paintings” listed in the January 1482 document, among whom were a Franciscan theologian, a canon of Saint Peter’s. 25This is actually the theme of Ambrogio Massari’s sermon on the Ascension, preached in the papal chapel before Sixtus; see O’Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome, 103–4. 26This concept was recognized by Ettlinger, Sistine Chapel Before Michelangelo, 116; and by Stinger, “Greek Patristics and Christian Antiquity in Renaissance Rome,” 160; and Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 214. The principal textual source is Francesco Filelfo, De sacerdoto Christi, BAV, Ms., Vat. Lat. 3657, fol. 2v.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Sistine Chapel, Dynastic Ambition, and the Cultural Patronage of Sixtus IV place validated by the very action of Christ’s becoming human,27 and proof is offered in the presentation of these historical narratives. The entire program is predicated on the ability of history, and the value of artistic representation, to present the past so that it is relevant and understandable to its intended spectators. A historical understanding of the world lay at the heart of Sistine Rome. This is especially true in terms of the preaching to the papal court, which was heavily colored by a literal, or historical, interpretation of scripture, rather than allegorical or mystical exegesis.28 More specifically, Christ’s life is presented by these preachers as a series of exempla for the listeners’ admiration and imitation. History through biography was the primary means whereby preachers explained Christianity. With reference to why the church celebrates the saints and other famous men, an orator preached that this “is done so that their memory, which has begun like a beautiful painting to fade with the lapse of time, might be renewed each year through praise as if with new colors.” 29 Memory is kept alive through the recovery of historical narratives of the deeds of famous men. History, in all its details, affirms the Christian story. In this regard, Platina’s Lives of the Popes is really a history of the church told by means of papal biography.30 The deeds of men were what was important to Platina, just as they were to the sacred orators of the papal court. This is the intellectual and theological context for the choice of a pictorial cycle that depicts the lives of two men and illustrates their earthly ministries in order to tell the story of salvation history in a way that affirms both the historical nature of the papacy and the incarnational center of Christian thought. It is in the pairing of the scenes that this idea is most clearly expressed. In theology, typology is the search for an understanding of God’s redemptive work in history through the repetition and reevaluation of types and antitypes in both testaments.31 Kenneth Woollcombe has noted that “typological exegesis is the search for linkages between events, persons or things within the historical framework of revelation, whereas allegorism is the search for a secondary hidden meaning” (italics in original).32 The historical nature of the cycle is incompatible with an allegorical understanding of the subjects.33 The frescoes in the Sistine Chapel illustrate “the search for linkages between events … within the framework of revelation” to the ends of asserting papal authority and telling salvation history. This kind of Pauline, or historical, typology would certainly

27O’Malley, Praise

and Blame in Renaissance Rome, 181. and Blame in Renaissance Rome, 115. 29Panegyricus in memoriam divi Thomae Aquinatis (Rome: Silber, ca. 1495), fol. [2r]: this work is translated and paraphrased by John O’Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome, 64–65. 30Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 190. 31Lampe and Woollcombe, Essays on Typology. 32Lampe and Woollcombe, Essays on Typology, 40. Indeed there is such a thing as allegorical, or Alexandrine, typology. Pauline, or Antiochine, historical typology, however, is an important form of exegesis and one that, through the recovery of patristic texts in the fifteenth century, would have been familiar in Sixtus’s Rome. See ibid., 50–75, for the distinction between Antiochine and Alexandrine typology. 33Ettlinger (The Sistine Chapel before Michelangelo, 94–99) reached this conclusion in the end, although he did not share this understanding of typology. 28O’Malley, Praise

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

11

ANDREW C. BLUME

12

have been known to the theologians in Rome and was used by them in their writings. 34 The choice of Moses as the center of this typological construction requires some explanation. Again, history is the guiding principle. Charles Stinger has shown how in the fifteenth century, the papacy’s growing need to establish, once and for all, its legitimacy, led to the search for an historical grounding of the institution.35 In this search they turned to Moses, a leader who, like the pope, had “priestly, legislative, and governing roles.”36 Several authors, including Pietro da Monte and Gianozzo Manetti, stressed the historical antecedents of the papacy and showed, through the demonstration of patterns of divine activity in history, how God treated those who followed and those who disobeyed God’s ordained leader of the faith community.37 These texts and others, giving discrete value to the events of the Old Testament and not treating them as allegorical prefigurings of moments in the New Testament, discussed stories such as the rebellion of the sons of Korah against Moses—the subject of a Sistine fresco—as examples of God’s reaction to such disobedience.38 In the dedicatory preface of George of Trebizond’s Latin translation of Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses, a typological understanding of history and the connections among Moses, Christ, and the papacy come together.39 George, who translated this text in 1446 and dedicated it to Cardinal Trevisan,40 saw that the deeds and actions of great and famous men were at the heart of sacred history. He compares Moses’s position to that of the papacy and extols the deeds of men as the reason for the present great state of the church, most notably its expansion to the east to the ends of making it truly catholic, that is, universal. The correspondence between history and the legitimacy of the papacy was also something upon which other writers, including Flavio Biondo and Ambrogio Traversari, comment.41 These kinds of linkages are also found in Francesco Filelfo’s introduction to De sacerdotio Christi, dedicated to Sixtus. This text contains the philosophical and theological underpinnings of the cycle. Filelfo writes, I found in the history a most noble thing that was related among the other things, namely a certain detail by which the priesthood of Christ Jesus is upheld, because it is clearly established from the truth of the Gospel that Christ stood out as king and bearer of the laws; that fact indeed pertains to his priesthood. From this detail that I have mentioned, we are taught that as Moses 34Stinger, Renaissance

in Rome, 210. See also marginal notations in Lilius Tifernate’s late 1470s edition of Philo’s writings, BAV, Ms., Barb. Lat. 662, fols. 90v, 99r, where he cites passages from Paul in which the apostle discusses the continuity of the Old and New Testaments in this way. 35Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 203–10. 36Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 203. 37Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 202–3; Pietro da Monte, Contra impugnantes sedis apostolicae auctoritatem, 210; and Gianozzo Manetti, Contra iudeos et gentes. 38Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 205. 39Gregory of Nyssa, De vita Moysis, trans. into Latin and ed. by George of Trebizond, BAV, Ms., Vat. Lat. 255, fol. 2r–v. 40Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 212. 41Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 170.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Sistine Chapel, Dynastic Ambition, and the Cultural Patronage of Sixtus IV offered himself, according to Philo, to the people as king and priest and bearer of the law as if he were some kind of harbinger of Christ, so Jesus showed to the universal human race for their safety that he must be considered and cultivated as both priest and bearer of the laws and as true and highest king.42 In fact, the author of the Sistine fresco titles uses the same language as Filelfo in his typological comparison of Christ and Moses. The pairing of the Temptation of Christ (Tentatio Iesu Christi latoris evangelice legis) (fig. 3) with the Temptation of Moses—better known as theYouth of Moses — (Tentatio Moysi legis scripte latoris) (fig. 4) refers to both men as “bearers of the law” (legis latoris). For Filelfo, as “Christ stood out as the bearer of the law (legum latorem) of the kingdom ... Moses offered himself ... to the people as king and priest and bearer of the law (legum latorem).” As Moses acted in history as bearer of the law of the covenant, Christ brought the new law and became the leader of the Christian community. This is the principle that governs the way history is seen in this program and informs the frescoes’ meanings. It would not be surprising, therefore, if Filelfo himself were the author of the Sistine fresco titles—at the least, he should be on the list of suspects. The juxtapositions have been set up to give historical significance to each event. At the same time, they show the connection between the Old and New Testaments, making it clear that God acts in certain patterns of redemptive activity. This activity is focused upon the lives and deeds of men in the world. Grace, for this community, is attained through Christ’s life and actions—by his becoming human.43 Through the telling of the life stories of these particular men and by stressing their deeds—temptation, preaching, leadership, putting down rebellion—the historical foundations and function of the papacy are expressed for the contemporary audience. In the sermon Bernard Carvajal preached in the chapel on All Saints’ Day 1483, the message of the gospel’s (and the sacraments’) universality hinges on how and where they were given, comparing it with how and where the law of Moses was given.44 More than this, it is a worldview in which events and physical objects demonstrate in concrete terms (and not allegorically) God’s purpose and presence, and should properly be called sacramental. This theory of interpretation—this sacramental, historical way 42Francesco Filelfo, De sacerdotio Christi, 1476, BAV, Ms., Vat. Lat. 3657, fol. 2v: “Reperi in historia quod inter caetera est memoratum dignissimum: particulam quandam: qua Christum Ihesum sacerdotium continetur: nam et regem et legum latorem Ihesum extitisse aperte constat ex evangelica veritate. Quod vero ad sacerdotium eius attinet: ex hanc, quam dixi particula edocemur: ut enim Moses populo indaeorum et regem sese et sacerdotem et legum latorem secundum Philonem Iudaeum praestitit quam si Christum praenuncius quidam ita Ihesus universo humano generi ad salutem et pro sacerdote, et pro legum latore et pro vero atque summo rege se habendum cloendumque demonstravit” (author’s translation). This text is cited by Ettlinger, The Sistine Chapel before Michelangelo, 85–86, 116, as proof of the currency of these ideas in Sistine Rome and that the subject must “have been an interesting topic of discussion [between] Sixtus and his friends” (116). Ettlinger (ibid., 86) uses it as specific evidence for the interpretation of a single figure, the acolyte, in the Temptation fresco as Christ. It was Stinger (The Renaissance in Rome, 160) who recognized that this text “underlies the program of the wall painting of the Sistine Chapel.” 43O’Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome, 137–38. 44I will discuss these issues at greater length in my forthcoming article, “Painting and Preaching at the Court of Sixtus IV.”

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

13

For this image, see printed book

Figure 3. Sandro Botticelli, Temptation of Christ (Temptatio Iesu Christi latoris evangelicae legis), 1481–82. Vatican City, Sistine Chapel. Reproduced by permission from Scala/Art Resource, New York.

14

ANDREW C. BLUME

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

For this image, see printed book

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

Figure 4. Sandro Botticelli, Temptation of Moses (Temptatio Moisi legis scriptae latoris), 1481–82. Vatican City, Sistine Chapel. Reproduced by permission from Scala/Art Resource, New York.

The Sistine Chapel, Dynastic Ambition, and the Cultural Patronage of Sixtus IV 15

ANDREW C. BLUME

16

of reading scripture—is ideally suited for depiction in visual terms, where details, colors, events, actions, and people are so prominent and important as the means of representation. Just as the preacher uses examples of real people, he asks his hearers to consider Christ’s real human emotions, painting with his words vivid pictures of biblical events. Even to the seemingly anachronistic extent of transferring them into the world of Renaissance Rome to help the viewer imagine them better, the painter too uses a certain rhetoric to make these connections, these relationships, work. For the painter this is the use of realistic, specific representations of people, even including portraits of known individuals, naturalistic settings, and recognizable (or at least plausible) architectural settings. This is seen again and again in the Sistine frescoes.

The decorative scheme, in both its style and content, and in conjunction with style and substance of the sermons preached in the chapel and the theological texts dedicated to Sixtus, affirms that papacy is the instrument of all authority and leadership—priestly, judicial, and legislative—in the church. Indeed this would have been crucial in an age of growing interest in conciliarism.45 The succession of God’s giving authority to Moses and then to Christ, who handed it over to Peter, proves how God has affirmed this in history. The portraits of the first popes that also adorn the walls suggest the continuity stretching down the centuries from the time of Peter. This historical perspective of the fresco program makes any complex allegories connecting these narratives to Sixtus’s life more than unlikely and shows in no uncertain terms that this major cultural project is about the church and not Sixtus or his family. Given all this, it cannot be forgotten that Sixtus remains omnipresent in this chapel. His stemme are all over the decorative details and fictive tapestries below the frescoes and in the architecture between them. This should not, however, be taken as unusual. Putting his mark as the pope who made the chapel—for it would be he and not the artists who would be said to have made the room46—is to be expected regardless of the nature and content of the program. He also appeared in the frescoed altarpiece that Perugino painted on the end wall, which is now covered by Julius II’s Last Judgment, the design of which is recorded by a drawing from Perugino’s shop, now in the Albertina.47 Here, Sixtus is depicted as the client and supplicant of the Blessed Virgin of the Assumption, to whom the chapel was dedicated. Again, this is not anything out of the ordinary and is much simpler as a concept than, for example, Julius II’s including himself as San Sisto in Raphael’s Sistine Madonna. In Sixtus’s chapel there is nothing to compare with Leo X depicted as Leo the Great in the Repulse of Atilla in the Stanze d’Eleodoro. There are also certainly portraits in the chapel that must represent members of the pope’s family, as well as those who might be considered his clients and 45For

papal attitudes towards conciliarism, see Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, 158–66. example, in Vasari’s life of Cosimo Rosselli, the author writes of “ l’opera che fece Sisto IV pontifice nella cappella del palazzo”; see Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori scultori ed architettori, 3:187–88. 47See Ettlinger, The Sistine Chapel before Michelangelo, plate 34c. 46For

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Sistine Chapel, Dynastic Ambition, and the Cultural Patronage of Sixtus IV even patrons. Their presence, however, makes little if any impact upon the overall ideology, for want of a better term, of the fresco program.48 In this case, portraits provide reliable witnesses and evidence for the truth of what the paintings are saying. Some have argued that the dedication of the chapel and Sixtus’s promotion of the cults of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of the Virgin were political matters, promoting Franciscan and personal interest.49 This does not, however, have to be a partisan matter, but is more likely one of theological conviction—something often underestimated by modern interpreters. If, however, suspicions about Sixtus’s motives are true, from a visual standpoint, the dedication of the chapel was only really prominent in the altarpiece, which, if one believes Johannes Wilde’s reconstruction of the chapel,50 would have been relatively small. It would not, therefore, have had a major visual impact compared to the fresco program as a whole. It is the overall program that would have struck the viewer. What is seen in the Sistine is a fresco cycle about the very nature of the papacy and the place and role of the Latin church at the center of Christendom. Here Sixtus is presenting himself not as della Rovere prince, but as pope, patron of this chapel, and client of the Virgin. Indeed, Sixtus had dynastic ambition. He certainly enriched his family and paved the way for other of its members to enter into the upper reaches of Italian society. Yet it remains that this major work of cultural patronage functioned in a different way for him. For in his most public cultural project, Sixtus seems to have primarily represented the interests of the church, and perhaps this was the best way to advance his family. This strategy, if it were a strategy, may very well have ultimately benefited Cardinal Giuliano when it came time to elect him to the papacy in that he was not tarred by the brush of nepotism in such a way as to alienate his brother cardinals.

48Simonetta’s

recent work on the Pazzi Conspiracy (for example, “Sixtus IV, Dukes and Murderers: The Pazzi Conspiracy Revisited II”) has shed new light on some aspects of the patronage of portraiture in the chapel. Nevertheless, the discovery of influence peddling on the part of Raffaele Riario with regard to who was included among the portraits, does not change the program’s overall meaning. In fact, it seems an easy way for the family to mete out favors without making an impact upon the more important theological issues relating to the power and influence of the church. 49See for example Goffin, Friar Sixtus and the Sistine Chapel. 50Wilde, “The Decoration of the Sistine Chapel,” 61–81.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

17

ANDREW C. BLUME

18

BIBLIOGRAPHY Archives BAV

Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana

Printed Primary Sources Benzi, Fabio. “Arte a Roma sotto il pontificato di Sisto IV.” In La Storia dei giubilei. Vol 2. 1450– 1575, edited by Marcello Fagiolo and Maria Luisa Madonna. Rome: BNL Edizioni–Giunti Gruppo Editoriale, 1998. Vasari, Giorgio. LeVite de’ pij eccelenti pittori, scultori ed architettori. Edited by G. Milanesi. 7 vols. Florence: Sansoni, 1878–85.

Secondary Sources Ettlinger, Leopold S. The Sistine Chapel before Michelangelo. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Goffen, Rona. “Friar Sixtus and the Sistine Chapel,” Renaissance Quarterly 39 (1986): 218–62. Howe, Eunice D. Art and Culture at the Sistine Court: Matina’s “Life of Sixtus IV” and the Frescoes of the Hospital of Santo Spirito. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2005. Lampe, G.W.H, and K.J. Woolcombe. Essays on Typology. Studies in Biblical Theology. London: S.C.M. Press, 1957. Lee, Egmont. Sixtus IV and Men of Letters. Temi e Testi 26. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1978. O’Malley, John W. Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, c. 1450–1521. Duke Monographs in Medieval and Renaissance Studies 3. Durham: Duke University Press, 1979. Pastor, Ludwig von. The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages. 40 vols. London: Kegan Paul, 1923–1953. Ratzinger, Joseph. Die Geschichtstheologie des heiligen Bonaventura. Munich: Schnell and Steiner, 1959. Ruysschaert, José. “Sixte IV fondateur de la Bibliothèque Vatican et la fresque restaurée de Melozzo da Forlì (1471–1481).” In Sisto IV e Giulio II: Mecenati e promotori di cultura, edited by Silvia Bottaro et al. Savona: Commune, 1989. Shearman, John. “La storia della cappella Sistina.” In Michelangelo: Michelangelo e la Sistina: La tecnica, il restauro, il mito, 19–21. Rome: Fratelli Palombi Editori, 1990. _____. “The Chapel of Sixtus IV.” In The Sistine Chapel: The Art, the History, and the Restoration, 23–25. New York: Harmony Books, 1986. Sherr, Richard. “The Singers of the Papal Chapel and the Liturgical Ceremonies in the Early Sixteenth Century: Some Documentary Evidence.” In Rome in the Renaissance: The City and the Myth, edited by P. A. Ramsey. Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval & Early Renaissance Studies, the State University, 1982. Simonetta, Marcello. “Sixtus IV, Dukes and Murderers: The Pazzi Conspiracy Revisited II.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Renaissance Society of America, Toronto, March 27, 2003. Stinger, Charles. “Greek Patristics and Christian Antiquity in Renaissance Rome,” In Rome in the Renaissance: The City and the Myth, edited by P.A. Ramsey. Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval & Early Renaissance Studies, the State University, 1982. ———. The Renaissance in Rome. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. Wilde, Johannes. “The Decoration of the Sistine Chapel.” Proceedings of the British Academy 44 (1958): 61–81.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Pope Sixtus IV at Assisi THE PROMOTION OF PAPAL POWER JILL ELIZABETH BLONDIN

Many of Pope Sixtus IV’s (1471–84) art and architectural commissions reflected his loyalty to the Franciscan order he had joined as a young boy.1 After he became pope, Sixtus devoted substantial attention to restoring and embellishing the church most sacred to the Franciscans, the Basilica of San Francesco, located in the hill town of Assisi in Umbria. Sixtus used these art and architectural projects, particularly a large statue of himself (fig. 1) located on the exterior of the Sacro Convento, or monastery, at San Francesco, to construct a favorable historical image, display his own temporal power, and convey the divine authority of the papacy to the pilgrims visiting the complex and the Franciscan friars living there. The statue of Sixtus IV will be examined in depth, since the use of a genre typically reserved for commemorating the deceased allowed Sixtus to present himself as a great historical figure while still alive. Unlike many Renaissance popes, Sixtus ascended the papacy not through noble birth and family connections, but through his monastic career.2 Born into a littleknown family in the small town of Celle in Liguria, Francesco della Rovere joined the Conventual Franciscans at the age of nine.3 Eventually he studied in Chieri (near Turin) 1Sixtus

even wished to be buried in the Franciscan robe he wore under his elaborate cope. Johannes Burchardus, the diarist, wrote, “dust to dust, he’s returned to his mortal status once dead, and so should be buried with reminders of his mortality.” Sixtus, however, was not buried with the Franciscan robe, despite tradition and whatever he may have requested. Nobody could find a habit in all the turmoil that ensued at the time of Sixtus’s death. On the details of Sixtus’s burial, see Meyer, “The Papal Series in the Sistine Chapel,” 321–23; and Burchardus, Diarium sive Rerum Urbanarum Commentarii, 11. 2Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, 83–91; and Frank, “Melozzo da Forlì and the Rome of Pope Sixtus IV,” 16. 3Sixtus was born on 21 July 1414. Although differing accounts of the pope’s childhood exist, it is clear that the young Francesco della Rovere entered the Riario household in neighboring Savona at an early age, which enabled him to receive an education. He then joined the monastery of San Francesco in Savona and began his novitiate by fourteen. A good source on Sixtus’s background is Lee, Sixtus IV and Men of Letters, XXXX

19

20

JILL ELIZABETH BLONDIN

Figure 1. Statue of Sixtus IV, Sacro Convento della Basilica di San Francesco, Assisi. Photo by Misty Roberts.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Pope Sixtus IV at Assisi and later at the University of Padua. After he received his doctorate in theology from Padua in 1444, Sixtus lectured in Padua, Perugia, Bologna, Siena, Pavia, and Florence.4 Between 1462 and 1471 he wrote De sanguine Christi, De futuris contingentibus, and De potentia Dei, treatises that displayed his fluency with complex theological issues. The treatises were based on debates in which Sixtus passionately advocated the Franciscan position on the sanctity of Christ’s blood before the Resurrection, God’s will, and divine power.5 Earning wide acclaim for his intellect and integrity, Sixtus rose quickly in the ranks of the Franciscan order. First he served as dean of the Franciscan house at Padua in 1449. In 1460 Sixtus was elected minister of the Franciscan order in Genoa and was appointed vicar to the minister general of the Franciscans and procurator general of the Franciscans in Rome. Sixtus was appointed to the office of minister of the Roman province in 1462.6 Two years later, in 1464, he attained the highest rank in the Franciscan order, minister general, where he received praise as a reformer.7 Sixtus’s distinguished career led Pope Paul II to elevate him to the cardinalate in September of 1467. Only four years later, Sixtus was elected pope. Sixtus had expressed no interest in art and architectural patronage when he served as minister general or as cardinal.8 However, upon ascending the papacy he changed course and ultimately commissioned more paintings and architectural monuments than any other pontiff in the fifteenth century. His pontificate began with his selection 4

13–15. Also see Squarzina, “Pauperismo francescano e magnificenza antiquaria nel programma architettonico di Sisto IV,” in Le arti a Roma da Sisto IV a Giulio II, ed. Anna Cavallaro (Rome: Il Bagatto, 1985), 105-6; Lucio Pusci, “Profilo di Francesco della Rovere poi Sisto IV,” 280; and Gatti, “Singularis eius inaudita doctrina, 21–25. On the Conventual Franciscans, see Moorman, History of the Franciscan Order, 441–53; and Piana, “Scritti Polemici fra Conventuali e Osservanti.” On the split between Observant and Conventual Franciscans and its relation to Sixtus’s patronage, see Goffen, “Friar Sixtus and the Sistine Chapel.” 4Pusci, Profilo di Francesco della Rovere poi Sisto IV, 279–87. Sixtus received his doctorate in the cathedral of Padua on 14 April 1444. The respect Sixtus received as a lecturer is indicated by the fact that he taught a class on philosophy with Gaetano da Thiene, the most respected philosopher at the University of Padua. 5On Sixtus’s theological writings, see Matanic, “Xystus Pp. IV scripsitne librum ‘de conceptione beate virginis Marie’?” 573–74; Ettlinger, Sistine Chapel before Michelangelo, 83–84; and Howe, The Hospital of Santo Spirito and Pope Sixtus IV, 264–75. On De sanguine christi, see Bianca, “Francesco della Rovere,” 27–41, 53–54. On De futuris contingentibus, see ibid., 41–45, 55. On De potentia Dei, ibid., 43–45. 6Pusci, Profilo di Francesco della Rovere poi Sisto IV, 279–87; Pastor, History of the Popes, 202–10; and Lee, Sixtus IV and Men of Letters, 19. 7Pou y Marti, Bullarium Franciscanum, II, 900. Sixtus was elected minister general of the Franciscan order in 1464 and maintained that post until 1469, despite ascending to the cardinalate in 1467. On Sixtus’s position as minister general, see Bianca, Francesco della Rovere, 19–55; Bughetti, “Francesco della Rovere da Savona,” 200–26; Pusci, Profilo di Francesco della Rovere poi Sisto IV, 279–87; and Sevesi, “Lettere autografe di Francesco della Rovere da Savona, 198–234, 477–99. 8As minister general, Sixtus devoted his energies to defending the Franciscan position on theological issues. After he became cardinal, Sixtus made some necessary repairs to the palace and the roof of his titular church, San Pietro in Vincoli. On Sixtus’s repairs at San Pietro in Vincoli, see Müntz, Les arts à la cour des papes, 3:164–65; Krautheimer, “S. Pietro in Vincoli and the Tripartite Transept in the Early Christian Basilica,” 365–66; Ippoliti, Il complesso di San Pietro inVincoli e la committenza della Rovere, 10, 45–48; Pastor, History of the Popes, 4:208.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

21

JILL ELIZABETH BLONDIN

22

of the name Sixtus IV, symbolically equating himself with a great religious leader, Sixtus III (432–40), who was acknowledged as an important civic renovator in early Christian Rome.9 Although influenced by previous popes and contemporary princes, Sixtus’s numerous commissions in Rome went beyond any standard of patronage in their glorification of both the office of the papacy and the pope himself.10 His commissions at Assisi were part of this pattern.

SIXTUS IV’S COMMISSIONS AT SAN FRANCESCO IN ASSISI Sixtus, from the beginning of his reign, showed favor to the Franciscans and even credited the order and its major saints, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Anthony of Padua, for his elevation as pope. The reverse of Sixtus IV’s 1471 coronation medal features Francis and Anthony placing the papal tiara on the enthroned pontiff’s head. The presence of these two Franciscan saints on the coin implies divine justification for Sixtus’s succession.11 The medal was important enough to the della Rovere family that a bronze copy of it was placed in the pope’s tomb after his death.12 Francis and Anthony thus formed part of a Sistine iconography that emphasized the pope’s holiness and spiritual authority. Frescoes in the pope’s extensive biographical cycle at the Hospital of Santo Spirito, the pontiff’s burial chapel at St. Peter’s known as the Cappella de canonici (nowdestroyed), and the tomb of Pietro Riario (commissioned by Sixtus), also confirm this, since all of these commissions prominently featured both Francis and Anthony. 13 Sixtus also promoted the order and its saints through proclamations and bulls. On 3 October 1472, only a year after assuming office, Sixtus elevated the feast of St. Francis to a holy day of obligation.14 The pope also encouraged pilgrims to visit San Francesco in Assisi, the birthplace of the order, by granting a plenary indulgence for those worshiping at the 9San

Pietro in Vincoli, Sixtus’s titular church as cardinal, was associated with Sixtus III, who consecrated the church. On Sixtus’s choice of name, see Pastor, History of the Popes, 4:201; Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 91; and Bauman, “Power and Image,” 18. Sixtus also chose his name after the martyr-saint Pope Sixtus II (257–58), whose feast day coincided with his election. See Pacifici, Un carme biografico di Sisto IV, 12, who quotes Robert Flemmyng’s poem, Lucubraciunculae Tiburtinae, in which the poet finds in Sixtus all of the virtues of the popes with the same name. 10Partridge, The Art of Renaissance Rome, 21; Baldwin, “Triumph and the Rhetoric of Power,” 8; and Cole,Virtue and Magnificence, 17–43, 71–73. 11On the medal designed by Lysippus the Younger, see Weiss, Medals of Pope Sixtus IV; Goffen, “Friar Sixtus and the Sistine Chapel,” 220–21; Squarzina, Pauperismo francescano, 109; and Müntz, Les arts à la cour des papes, 3:88–89. The inscription on the reverse of the medal reads, “HEC DAMUS IN TERRIS. AETERNA DABUNTUR OLIMPO.” The obverse reads, “SIXTVS IIII PONT MAX SACRI CVLT.” 12Weiss, Medals of Pope Sixtus IV, 16–17. When Sixtus’s tomb was opened on 10 February 1610, a bronze coronation medal was found inside. This event is recorded in Grimaldi, Descrizione della Basilica Antica di San Pietro inVaticano, 262. 13On the fresco cycle, see Howe, Hospital of Santo Spirito and Pope Sixtus IV. On the tomb of Pietro Riario at SS. Apostoli, see Zuraw, “The Sculpture of Mino da Fiesole,” 908. On the Cappella dei canonici, see Ettlinger, “Pollaiuolo’s Tomb of Pope Sixtus IV,” 239–74. 14On this bull, Praeclara sanctorum merita, see Huber, Documented History of the Franciscan Order, 423; Walter, “Der Traum der Schwangeren vor der Geburt,” 128; Cortese, “Sisto Quarto Papa Antoniano,” 233–37; and Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 87.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Pope Sixtus IV at Assisi church on the saint’s feast day.15 In August of 1476, Sixtus visited the basilica and stayed in the papal residence. During his stay, the pope prayed at the tomb of St. Francis and issued three bulls in support of the institution.16 As another sign of his favor to the Franciscans, Sixtus lavished attention on the basilica and the Sacro Convento of San Francesco in Assisi.17 The unique double church is a Latin-cross plan comprised of an upper and a lower basilica, with St. Francis buried in a crypt beneath the lower church. Sixtus began his interventions at San Francesco just a few months after his election as pope. He issued a bull on 12 November 1471 that allowed the friars to accept and sell legacies and testaments to raise money for building projects and repairs at the complex.18 This extraordinary change allowed the Franciscans, who had taken vows that prohibited them from owning property, to inherit and benefit from the sale of such assets. The renovations that Sixtus ordered at San Francesco served as visual manifestations of his Franciscan devotion, yet the restorations and embellishments that he ordered also displayed his important role as the temporal ruler of the Papal States to the visitors and residents of the complex. The Papal States consisted of a large geographical area that included Assisi and much of central Italy, including Bologna, Rome, Orvieto, Rimini, Ancona, and Perugia. The papacy relied on the taxes collected from these territories for more than half of its income during Sixtus’s pontificate.19 Additionally, San Francesco was a church officially “owned” by the papacy and enjoyed special privileges as one of the most important basilicas in Christendom. The significance of the church and the presence of the papacy are made further visible by the elaborate thirteenth-century papal throne, prominently located in the apse of the upper church, as well as the adjacent papal residence, which Sixtus moved to the southwestern part of the monastery and had restored between 1472 and 1476.20 Sixtus took a keen interest in displaying his own temporal supremacy and the spiritual power of the papacy at San Francesco by carefully placing his image and papal crest in conspicuous locations throughout the complex.21 Perhaps the most apparent interior embellishments were the stained glass windows Sixtus IV commissioned for the upper church. The pope ordered the restoration 15See Goffen, “Friar Sixtus and the Sistine Chapel,” 226; and Huber, Documented History of the Franciscan Order, 422–23, 427. 16Sixtus visited Assisi on 24 and 25 August 1476. Magro, La Basilica Sepolcrale di San Francesco in Assisi, 24; and Varoli-Piazza, Paliotto di Sisto IV ad Assisi, 12. 17Goffen, “Friar Sixtus and the Sistine Chapel,” 226. 18See Huber, Documented History of the Franciscan Order, 423; Goffen, “Friar Sixtus and the Sistine Chapel,” 222; and Fratini, Storia della Basilica e del convento di S. Francesco in Assisi, 260–62. For the text of this controversial bull, Dum fructus uberes, see Wadding, Annales, XIV, 619–23. 19On the importance of the Papal States to the papacy, see Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 99–100. Papal revenues had fallen sharply as a result of the Great Schism. This explains in part, why Assisi, as part of the Papal States, was exceedingly important. 20An anonymous sculptor created the thirteenth-century throne. On the papal apartment, see Magro, “A Collection in the Image of the Franciscan Sanctuary,” 18. 21Magro, “A Collection in the Image of the Franciscan Sanctuary,” 19. Numerous papal crests are located on the outer walls of the complex.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

23

JILL ELIZABETH BLONDIN

24

of the stained glass windows and the addition of new panels.22 These windows were prominently located in the center of the apse and were placed directly above the ornate papal throne. The glass panels, attributed to Francesco da Terranova and most likely completed in 1477, were crowned by a quatrefoil containing the della Rovere coat of arms, an oak tree with entwining branches surmounted by the papal keys and tiara. 23 A window below the quatrefoil featured Sixtus and St. Francis kneeling before the Virgin Mary and Child. The infant Christ hands the pontifical mitre to Sixtus. The window attempts to establish that Sixtus’s religious authority was given to him by Christ, and this message of divine power is strengthened by the juxtaposition of this scene with the papal throne below.24 The presence of St. Francis next to Sixtus in the window further emphasizes the pope’s holiness, as it did in other Sistine commissions. Sixtus also commissioned a monumental cloister in the space behind the apse of the basilica (fig. 2). Adjacent to the west wall of the sanctuary, the spacious, two-story cloister, begun in 1474 and completed in 1476, does more than connect the church with the rest of the complex. The cloister, attributed to Antonio da Como and Ambrogio Lombardo, provides a magnificent transition between the basilica and the Sacro Convento.25 Sixtus’s papal crests are featured in relief on several of the spandrels and above some of the rounded arches throughout the cloister. Many of the intricately carved capitals display the della Rovere coat of arms, while others include the papal tiara and crossed keys. An inscription, located against the wall of the loggia on the second story of the cloister, is placed beneath the pope’s coat of arms and celebrates his patronage: Inclita sum quercus quondam lustrata triumfis, Quam Lelli Cesar dederat tibi maxibus olim Et licet obscuro fuerit labentibus Nunc summo quartus decoravit Sixtus honore 147426 Like the coat of arms above the windows in the upper church, these crests remind the friars and visitors of della Rovere supremacy. 22See Hueck, “Le vetrate di Assisi,” 82–83; and Martin, Die Glasmalereien von San Francesco in Assisi, 197–225. In order to provide space for the new glass in the apse, Sixtus probably had some of the older windows moved into the nave. All the glass that dates to Sixtus’s pontificate is now lost, except for the quatrefoil containing the pope’s coat of arms. However, see Hueck (“Le vetrate di Assisi,” 89n34) for the possible survival of some of the panels. 23Hueck, “Le vetrate de Assisi,” 79; Scarpellini, Fra Ludovico da Pietralunga, 69; Magro, La Basilica Sepolcrale di San Francesco in Assisi, 56, 71; and Venturi, La Basilica di Assisi, 144. Friar Francesco da Terranova is mentioned in a payment record dated May of 1477. 24The panel featuring Sixtus and Saint Francis kneeling before the Virgin and Child made the pope’s Marian devotion clear. 25Fratini, Storia della Basilica e del Convento di San Francesco in Assisi, 264–65; and Magro, La Basilica, 31, 68. Magro also believes that Baccio Pontelli collaborated on the cloister with Antonio da Como and Ambrogio Lombardo. 26Scarpellini, Fra Ludovico da Pietralunga, 90; and Fratini, Storia della Basilica e del Convento di San Francesco in Assisi, 265.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Figure 2. Cloister of Sixtus IV, Sacro Convento della Basilica di San Francesco, Assisi. Photo by Jill Blondin.

Pope Sixtus IV at Assisi

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

25

26

JILL ELIZABETH BLONDIN Sixtus’s patronage at San Francesco included embellishments in the lower church as well. As a sign of his Marian piety, the pope commissioned an altar to the Immaculate Conception below Cimabue’s fourteenth-century fresco of the Virgin Mary.27 A plaque located near the altar celebrated the pope: “Hec est capella bone memorie Sixti pape quarti, immaculate Conceptionis gloriose Virginis Marie dicata.”28 One of Sixtus’s most visible commissions for the lower church was the sumptuous Paliotto of Sixtus IV (fig. 3), 1473, an elaborate cloth designed for the high altar, perhaps by Antonio Pollaiuolo.29 The Paliotto was first recorded in an inventory in 1473, although the years 1476 and 1478 have been suggested as dates of completion. It is likely that the Paliotto was donated in 1476 to commemorate the two-hundred-fiftieth anniversary of the death of Saint Francis or in 1478 to celebrate the two-hundred-fiftieth anniversary of his canonization.30 The subject of the embroidery may relate to a vision Sixtus had of Saint Francis or it may commemorate his visit to the saint’s tomb. The tapestry features the figure of Sixtus kneeling in profile with his hands clasped in prayer before Saint Francis, who wears the humble Franciscan garment and bears the stigmata on his right hand while holding a cross in his left.31 The two figures, surrounded by a decorative pattern of acorn and oak leaves, are flanked by ornate garlands that include the distinctive della Rovere oak tree, along with the three-line inscription, “SISTVS IIII / PONT. / MAXIMVS.” In the tapestry, Sixtus and Saint Francis are rendered in the same size, which equates the pope’s importance to the saint’s. This concept is further underlined by an elaborate gilt-embroidered frieze featuring fifteen saints that accompanied the Paliotto.32

27The altar no longer survives; see Nessi, La Basilica di S. Francesco in Assisi e la sua documentazione storica, 340. This inscription was recorded by Fra Ludovico da Pietralunga. On the Immaculate Conception and Sixtus’s Marian piety, see Aubenas and Ricard, L’Église et la Renaissance, 339–41; Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, 283–98; Blackburn “The Virgin in the Sun,” 180; Huber, Documented History of the Franciscan Order, 438–39; Goffen “Friar Sixtus and the Sistine Chapel,” 229; and Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 149. Sixtus promoted the cult of the Madonna by establishing the Feast of the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple, encouraging devotion to the Rosary, and, most importantly, promoting the controversial doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and recognizing it as a feast day. The pope celebrated the December Feast of the Immaculate Conception publicly and gave special indulgences to those who attended services on that day. Sixtus’s patronage outside Assisi demonstrated this devotion. For example, he dedicated his own funerary chapel, the Cappella dei canonici, to the Immaculate Conception. Two of his churches dedicated to the Madonna, S. Maria del Popolo and S. Maria della Pace, were considered achievements worthy of being celebrated individually in the frescoes at the Hospital of Santo Spirito. Sixtus also issued plenary indulgences to those who visited those two churches during the important feasts of the Madonna. 28Nessi, La Basilica, 340; and Scarpellini, Fra Ludovico da Pietralunga, 71. 29See Morello and Kanter, Treasury of Saint Francis of Assisi, 154–56; and Venturi, La Basilica de Assisi, 147–48. The restoration and history of the tapestry is documented fully in Varoli-Piazza. The Paliotto was accompanied by a frieze of gold-embroidered cloth featuring saints flanking the Virgin and Child, which was placed above it. 30See Fanelli, Il tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco di Assisi, 84. 31The design of the Paliotto has been attributed to Antonio del Pollaiuolo, first by Venturi, “Il paliotto di Sisto IV nella Basilica d’Assisi,” 218–22. See Fanelli et al., Il tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco di Assisi, 81– 84; Salomone, “Ricostruzione delle vicende del paliotto attraverso la ricerca d’archivio,” 12: 9–10; and Papini, Notizie secure sulla morte, 77–78. 32Fifteen figures are represented in the frieze: St. Catherine of Alexandria, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Gregory the Great (although Marinangeli has identified this figure as Sixtus II), St. Francis, St. John the XXXXX

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Pope Sixtus IV at Assisi

27

Figure 3. Paliotto of Sixtus IV, 1473–78. Tapestry, Museo-Tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco, Assisi. Reproduced by permission from Basilica di San Francesco.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

JILL ELIZABETH BLONDIN

28

Material gifts given by the pope also testified to the pope’s interest in the basilica. Sixtus had a set of pontifical vestments, an altar cloth, an embroidered cloth emblazoned with the pope’s name, and a gold-embroidered cope made for San Francesco. He also commissioned a silver cup, a case for holding corporal cloths, a gold-enameled ewer, and a silver tabernacle for the basilica.33 A large Flemish tapestry featuring the tree of Saint Francis (completed between 1471 and 1482) was woven for the vestibule of the papal apartment.34 The intricate work, which includes the Virgin and Child, Saint Francis receiving the stigmata from Christ, and Franciscan saints and popes, including Sixtus, celebrates the Franciscan order and its beliefs.35 Sixtus also ordered many improvements throughout the complex, including restoration of the friars’ cells, repairs to the refectory, enlargement and relocation of the papal residence, and construction of new storerooms in the cellar as well as the installation of lead plumbing. 36 To remind the Franciscan residents of the pope’s benevolence, the words “SIXTVS QVARTVS PONTIFEX MAXIMVS DEDIT 1480” were carved over a large window near the cells of the friars.37 Sixtus’s most expensive and ambitious commission at San Francesco, however, was an enormous buttress, begun in 1472 and completed in 1474, supporting the entire west wall of the Sacro Convento, which includes the infirmary and the pontifical apartment.38 In order to stabilize the infirmary, which had become unstable and was badly in need of repair in the fifteenth century, a massive, fortresslike buttress was built on the hill around it. The buttress contains an effigy of Sixtus embedded in an alcove. This ambitious undertaking, which cost more than 3,100 ducats, served as a tangible sign of the pope’s power in Assisi.39

THE EFFIGY OF SIXTUS IV To mark the enormous buttress he repaired, Sixtus IV commissioned a large limestone 33

Baptist, St. Peter, the Virgin and Child, St. Paul, St. John the Evangelist, St. Benedict, St. Louis of Anjou, St. Bernardino of Siena, and St. Clare. See Morello and Kanter, Treasury of Saint Frances, 155. 33See Varoli-Piazza, Palotto di Sisto IV ad Assisi, XI–XII; and Kleinschmidt, Die Basilika San Francesco in Assisi.The silver cup was later melted down and the gold ewer was taken by the French in 1798. The tabernacle is now owned by the Commune of Assisi. 34Fanelli et al., Il tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco di Assisi, 159–165; Magro, “A Collection,” 19; and Magro, La Basilica, 61. See also Morello and Kanter, The Treasury of Saint Francis of Assisi, 152. 35Morello and Kanter, Treasury of Saint Francis, 152. The Franciscan popes included are Alexander V and Nicholas IV. Also present on the tapestry are Saint Bonaventure (not yet canonized), Cardinal Pierre d’Auriole, St. Clare, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, St. Elzear, St. Louis of Toulouse, St. Anthony of Padua, and St. Bernardino. 36Fratini, Storia della Basilica e del Convento di San Fransesco in Assisi, 266–69. 37The inscription is now lost. See Scarpellini, Fra Ludovico da Pietralunga, 89. 38Kleinschmidt, Die Basilica San Francesco in Assisi, 44; Varoli-Piazza, Paliotto di Sisto IV ad Assisi, XI; and Scarpellini, Fra Ludovico da Pietralunga, 89. The infirmary had been built in 1337. Magro attributes the new buttress to Baccio Pontelli, La Basilica, 68. 39Fratini, Storia della Basilica e del Convento di San Francesco in Assisi, 265. The Camera Apostolica granted the money for the improvements, and the Alfani and Cavaceppi banks of Perugia paid the sums. Stinger, Renaissance in Rome, 102. This expenditure paled in comparison to the more than one hundred thousand ducats per year that Sixtus spent protecting the Papal States with mercenary armies.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Pope Sixtus IV at Assisi sculpture of himself for the exterior of the Sacro Convento. No single work better illustrates Sixtus’s awareness of self-promotion and desire to convey his new role as temporal ruler of the Papal States. Most likely completed by 1474 and placed in an unusual location at the end of the complex, this remarkable effigy has received little scholarly attention and has not been examined in detail.40 This potent, yet obscure sculpture, which is located far above the ground in an aedicula on the buttress of the southwest wall of the monastery overlooking the picturesque valley surrounding Assisi, emphasizes Sixtus’s concern with his legacy and historical image.41 The statue affixed to San Francesco seems to function as the pope’s signature, since it marks the bastion he repaired. The larger-than-life sculpture of Sixtus sits enthroned in a scallop-shell-topped niche, which protrudes slightly from the soaring buttress wall (fig. 1). The shallow aedicula features Corinthian columns that flank the statue and support a small pediment. The pope, wearing the traditional and formal papal garments, the tiara and the cope, sits rigidly on his throne and holds the papal key in his right hand, as his left arm rests at his side. The platform at the base of the structure, held up by three lion’s heads, bears a Latin inscription proclaiming, “SIXTUS IV. PONT. MAX. HOC DEDIT OPUS.” The della Rovere coat of arms is centered directly below the edifice and placed next to the date 1474 inscribed on the wall.42 Sixtus is deliberately portrayed in a rigid, antiquated manner.43 The classicizing, naturalistic modes of other contemporary sculptors who had worked for Sixtus, including Mino da Fiesole and Andrea da Bregno, contrast dramatically with the rigidity and oldfashioned manner in which the Assisi statue was carved.44 Unlike other honorific portraits of Sixtus, this expressionless sculpture bears no physical resemblance to the della Rovere pope.45 Such a departure from traditional artistic convention presents the possibility that the style was intentionally varied for reasons relating to the project, its placement, and its audience.46 It is also possible that, as Starleen Meyer has suggested, the 40The statue is mentioned briefly in Müntz, Les arts à la cour des papes, 3:208; Steinmann, Die Sixtinische Kapelle, 608; Fratini, Storia della Basilica e del Convento di San Francesco in Assisi, 264; Kleinschmidt, Die Basilica San Francesco in Assisi, 1: 37, 44, 46, 47, fig. 33; Rocchi, La Basilica di San Francesco, 16; Nessi, La Basilica…, 279; Scarpellini, Fra Ludovico da Pietralunga, 89; Hager, Die Ehrenstatuen der Päpste, 35–36; Ruschoni, Assisi, 30; and Starn and Partridge, A Renaissance Likeness, 9–10. Magro (La Basilica, 68) attributes the installation of the statue to Baccio Pontelli. Meyer (The Papal Series in the Sistine Chapel, 152, 180–81) is the most recent scholar to consider this representation, which she discusses in relation to imperial proxy imagery. 41The effigy at San Francesco in Assisi has merited little scholarly attention and is often ignored. Wiener, Bauskulptur von S. Francesco, does not even mention the statue in his book on sculpture at the complex. Perhaps the inaccessibility of the statue (it is not available to the public for close viewing) and the anonymity of the sculptor have kept the image in obscurity. 42Kleinschmidt, Die Basilica San Francesco in Assisi, 46. 43I thank Starleen Meyer for helping me with the stylistic and iconographic precedents for the Assisi statue. 44Zuraw, “Sculpture of Mino da Fiesole,” 918–29; and Benzi, “Arte a Roma sotto il pontificato di Sisto IV,” 140–43. 45Steinmann, Die Sixtinische Kapelle, 608. For portraits of Sixtus, see Weiss, Medals of Pope Sixtus IV, 26–27. 46The fresco cycle at the Hospital of Santo Spirito, one of Sixtus’s most ambitious commissions, conveys the message of Sixtus’s exemplary life through an accessible style and clear arrangement of the narrative. XXXX

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

29

JILL ELIZABETH BLONDIN

30

image was recarved from a preexisting papal statue.47 She cites a 1484 payment record in which a sculptor was paid to resculpt the image and notes the similarity between the rigidity of this figure and that of representations of Boniface VIII and Boniface IX. The sculpture itself has several sacred and royal antecedents in Rome, including Melozzo da Forlì’s contemporary processional banner of Saint Mark (1469–70), an early Christian marble statue of Saint Peter and Arnolfo di Cambio’s thirteenth-century bronze copy of it, and Arnolfo’s portrait of Charles of Anjou (1270s).48 Sixtus would have encountered the frontal, enthroned statues of Saint Peter on a regular basis in the Vatican. He also would have seen the hieratic, enthroned figure of Saint Mark, dressed in full papal regalia like the Assisi sculpture, in San Marco. The portrait of Charles of Anjou, located above the door of the senate tribunal on the Capitoline Hill, was restored during his pontificate.49 The Assisi sculpture was also modeled on trecento tomb effigies and statues of seated, enthroned popes. In the statue of Sixtus, the pontiff holds a large key similar to the key in Arnolfo’s sculpture of Pope Boniface VIII (ca. 1300) made for his tomb monument in Saint Peter’s.50 In particular, the figure in Assisi completed nearly two hundred years later shares the same stiffness and a similar pose with Arnolfo’s nearly lifesized statue of Boniface VIII, which was also originally placed in a niche outside of the cathedral in Florence.51 The niche that houses the enthroned statue of Sixtus also establishes a visual connection with the actual papal throne in the apse of the upper church of San Francesco. The marble throne in the upper church is located in an aedicula similar to the one on the buttress of the Sacro Convento. Sixtus, elaborately dressed in papal regalia, appears to have ruled eternally from the papal throne at Assisi. In style and pose, the statue also relates to other contemporary portraits of Sixtus. Lorenzo d’Arentino’s 1480 fresco, Pope Sixtus IV between Cardinals Gonzaga and Piccolomini, located in Santa Maria delle Grazie in Arezzo, presents Sixtus flanked by the two cardinals as he sits on an elaborate throne and confers an indulgence to the church. 52 47

The straightforwardness of this commission differs greatly from the complexity of the frescoes on the walls of the Sistine Chapel. 47Meyer, The Papal Series in the Sistine Chapel, 152. She supports her hypothesis by citing a 1484 payment register printed in Kleinschmidt, Die Basilica San Francesco … , 3:96, no. 617. 48Rash, “Boniface VIII and Honorific Portraiture,” 48. 49Toscano, a senator from Milan, ordered the restoration of the statue in 1481. See the inscription published in Müntz, 3:171–72. Also see Guerrini, “Un’epigrafe sistina per il re Carlo d’Angiò,” 143–45. 50According to Rash, Boniface VIII was the first pope to commission a significant number of sculptured, honorific portraits, BonifaceVII and Honorific Portraiture, 47. A possible stylistic connection also exists between the Assisi sculpture and an enthroned papal image in a niche facing the piazza of the Duomo in Verona. I thank Starleen Meyer for this information. 51The original placement of the statue of Pope Boniface VIII (now located in the Museo del Duomo at Florence) was on the façade of the church in a niche; Meyer, The Papal Series in the Sistine Chapel, 152, 181, n. 6970. 52The people of Arezzo commissioned the fresco to celebrate the indulgence conferred to the church by Sixtus in 1477. On the fresco, see Burckhardt, Il Ritratto nella Pittura Italiana del Rinascimento, 90; Rorro, Lorentino d’Arezzo: Discepolo di Piero della Francesca, 38–39; and Meyer, The Papal Series in the Sistine Chapel, 151–52. The fresco, located on the right wall of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Arezzo, is in poor condition. XXXXX

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Pope Sixtus IV at Assisi There the formally dressed pope extends his right hand to the future Pope Pius III, Cardinal Piccolomini, and raises his left palm. An illumination found in Sixtus’s personal manuscript copy of Duns Scotus’s Commentarius in librum Sententiarum, displays another frontal, enthroned image of the pope wearing the cope and the tiara (fig. 4). 53 Placed in a niche and flanked by two Corinthian columns, Sixtus gives a gesture of blessing to a kneeling Franciscan friar who has presented a book to him, which he holds in his left hand. Several silver coins minted in Avignon exhibit an archaic, enthroned portrait of Sixtus offering a benediction on the obverse.54 The lion’s heads, the scallop shell, and the papal emblems enhance the imperial connotations of this Franciscan pope in a religious domain. The Avignon coins also include lions, a key imperial motif notably featured on the Assisi sculpture. The three lion’s heads at the base of the niche at Assisi associate the statue with royalty and Rome, indicating the pope’s role as governor of the Papal States.55 The animal heads also recall the throne of Solomon and papal coronation thrones and they evoke centuries-old imagery of lions associated with magnanimity and wisdom, as well as ferocious justice.56 The scallop-shell top of the niche functions as more than a framing device. This architectural detail, associated with regeneration, honored historic and saintly figures as well as the personification of virtues and often designated a heavenly setting. 57 In the context of the Assisi statue, the scallop shell suggests the eternal and sacred power of Sixtus.58 Symbols of Sixtus’s authority as pope, including the keys, the tiara, and the della Rovere coat of arms, are prominently inscribed on the side of the throne. The large coat of arms, repeated underneath the niche, literally underlines this sculpture as one of papal and della Rovere primacy.59 All of these motifs, along with the figure’s similarity in style and pose to previous papal images, facilitate the identification of this statue as Sixtus. Located far off the ground and overlooking the valley surrounding Assisi, Sixtus rules the landscape. The statue is reminiscent of an ancient proxy sculpture of an 53

An altar covered the painting from 1593 to 1898. 53Scotus, Commentarius in librum Sententiarum, BAV, Cod. Vat. Lat. 873, 1r. This manuscript, now in the collection of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, was found in Sixtus’s study after his death. For more information, see Meyer, The Papal Series in the Sistine Chapel, 462; and Piacentini, “Ricerche sugli antichi inventari della Biblioteca Vaticana: I codici di lavoro di Sisto IV,” 138, 141–42. 54Alteri, Monete e medaglie di Sisto IV, 91–94, nos.168–171. Sixtus holds a cross with his left hand. The coins read: SIXTVS PAPA QVARTVS (obverse) & SA-NCTV-S PET-RVS (reverse). 55Rash, Boniface VIII and Honorific Portraiture, 48. The lions that appear at S. Chiara in Assisi are incorporated into the throne and flank the statue of Charles of Anjou. A lion lies at the feet of Pope Boniface VIII at Orvieto. There are two portraits of Pope Boniface VIII on the city gates of Orvieto. 56Meyer, The Papal Series in the Sistine Chapel, 337, 373. 57For the precedents of the scallop-shell motif and its frequent appearance in Renaissance art, especially on tombs, see Meyer, The Papal Series in the Sistine Chapel, 143–48. The scallop shell appears in Gentile da Fabriano and Pisanello’s early Quattrocento portrait of Pope Martin V (1417–1431) in S. Giovanni in Laterano. The scallop shell was also incorporated in other Sistine commissions, including the tomb of Pietro Riario at SS. Apostoli, and over one of the main portals in the Hospital of Santo Spirito. 58Meyer, The Papal Series in the Sistine Chapel, 150. 59One of the only published photographs of the statue is in black and white and does not include Sixtus’s coat of arms. See Kleinschmidt, Die Basilika San Francesco in Assisi I, 43, fig. 33.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

31

32

JILL ELIZABETH BLONDIN

For this image, see printed book

Figure 4. Duns Scotus, Detail of Commentarius in librum Sententiarum, 1471–84. Illuminated manuscript, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cod. Lat. 873, fol. 1r. Reproduced by permission from Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Pope Sixtus IV at Assisi emperor in a basilica, albeit in a unique location. The sculpture, an omnipresent reminder to all observers of the pope’s dominance over Assisi and the Umbrian countryside, emphasizes Sixtus’s role as the ruler of the Papal States. Furthermore, the setting of the statue is similar to the early thirteenth-century enthroned figure of Frederick II, set into a niche, above the arch of his triumphal gate at Capua. 60 Like Sixtus’s effigy at Assisi, the ruler watches over and guards the entrance to his territories in southern Italy. The Assisi figure also has roots in earlier papal statues placed in civic settings, such as honorific portraits of Boniface VIII located in Bologna, Florence, and on the gates of Orvieto. Like Arnolfo’s figure on the cathedral’s façade in Florence, the statue of Sixtus commemorates the pontiff’s role in the foundation of the edifice. 61 The message expressed by Sixtus’s effigy at Assisi must have been intended for both the Franciscans at the monastery and visiting pilgrims and the residents of Assisi, who would have seen the sculpture at a distance. Because of the statue’s location, each group perceived it differently. The figure made Sixtus’s presence tangible to the friars who would have seen it closely as they walked around the outside portico of the Sacro Convento. The sculpture would remind or attempt to persuade the Franciscans that Sixtus was a holy man and an heir to St. Francis. However, the details, including the lions, the della Rovere coat of arms, and the inscription, demonstrated that Sixtus was a successor to St. Peter and ruler of the Papal States. The pilgrims and others viewing the effigy from the ground would not see the details. To them, the rigid, expressionless statue could symbolize the absolute spiritual and temporal authority of the pope. High on the hill and even higher on the buttress, his form sat perched in the air, unreachable and unattainable. The works commissioned by Sixtus IV at San Francesco in Assisi, particularly his own sculpted effigy, demonstrated his goal of promoting the pope’s temporal and spiritual authority to a wide range of observers.62 By building a towering, impervious monument to himself at Assisi, Sixtus sought to place himself directly into history. The moment the statue of Sixtus was completed, it became a tangible, permanent monument that seemed to have always been present, a memorial to a great historical figure who happened to be still alive.63

60Rash,

Boniface VIII and Honorific Portraiture, 48–50; Guerrini, Un’epigrafe sistima per il re Carlo d’Angio,

143. 61Rash, Boniface VIII and Honorific Portraiture, 47–48. Whereas the sculpture of Pope Boniface VIII celebrated his role in supporting the foundation of the cathedral of Florence, Sixtus’s statue acknowledges his role in building the bastion at San Francesco in Assisi. 62Bauman, Power and Image, 3, discusses how the della Rovere family expressed their power and legitimized it to the people of Rome. Also see Rosenberg, The Este Monuments and Urban Development in Renaissance Ferrara, 1–5. 63An excerpt from a little-known seventeenth-century poem, “La Ghirlanda Elogio,” which was composed for the Duke of Urbino, Francesco Maria II della Rovere, describes an imaginary sculpture of Sixtus: “But he sees for himself many statues in stone. / A breathing image of the great Sixtus, / And a still-living statue of the great Julius II, / One of the heavens, and the other of the sacred earth, / The people of God pray for them so that / There will be another Golden Age under the golden oak.” See Bruno, La Ghirlanda Elogio del Bruni, 130. I thank Starleen Meyer for bringing this poem to my attention.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

33

JILL ELIZABETH BLONDIN

34

BIBLIOGRAPHY Archives BAV

Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana

Printed Primary Sources Burchardus, Johannes. Diarium sive Rerum Urbanarum Commentarii (1483–1506). Edited by L. Thusane. Paris: Ernst Leroux, Editeur, 1883. Grimaldi, Giacomo. Descrizione della Basilica antica di San Pietro inVaticano: Codice Barberiniano latino 2733. Edited by Reto Niggl. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1972.

Secondary Sources Alteri, Giancarlo. Monete e medaglie di Sisto IV. Rome: Shakespeare & Company 2, 1997. Aubenas, Roger, and Robert Ricard. L’Église et la Renaissance (1449–1517). Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1951. Baldwin, Richard. “Triumph and the Rhetoric of Power in Italian Renaissance Art.” Source 9 (1990): 7–13. Bauman, Lisa Passaglia. “Power and Image: Della Rovere Patronage in Late Quattrocento Rome.” PhD diss., Northwestern University, 1990. Benzi, Fabio. “Arte a Roma sotto il pontificato di Sisto IV.” In La Storia dei giubilei. Vol 2. 1450– 1575, edited by Marcello Fagiolo and Maria Luisa Madonna. Rome: BNL Edizioni–Giunti Gruppo Editoriale, 1998. Bianca, Concetta. “Francesco della Rovere: Un francescano tra teologia e potere.” In Un Pontificato ed una città: Sisto IV (1471–1484), edited by Massimo Miglio et al. Vatican City: Scuola vaticana di paleografia, diplomatica e archivistica, 1986. Blackburn, Bonnie J. “The Virgin in the Sun: Music and Image for a Prayer Attributed to Sixtus IV.” Journal of the Royal Musical Association 12 (1999): 157–95. Bruno, Antonio. La Ghirlanda Elogio del Bruni per L’Altezza Serenissima di Francesco Maria II della Rovere, Duca VI. D’Urbino. Rome: Bartolomeo Zanetti, 1625. Bughetti, Benvenuto. “Francesco della Rovere da Savona, ord. Min., lettore di filosofia, min. generale, cardinale, e papa Sisto IV, nelle sue relazioni con Perugia.” Archivum franciscanum historicum 36 (1943): 200–226. Burckhardt, Jacob. Il Ritratto nella Pittura Italiana del Rinascimento. Translated by Daniela Pagliai. Rome: Bulzoni, 1993. Cole, Alison.Virtue and Magnificence: Art of the Italian Renaissance Courts. New York: Prentice Hall, 1995. Cortese, Dino. “Sisto Quarto Papa Antoniano.” Il Santo 12 (1972): 211–71. Ettlinger, Leopold S. “Pollaiuolo’s Tomb of Pope Sixtus IV.” Journal of theWarburg and Courtauld Institutes 16 (1953): 239–74. ———. The Sistine Chapel before Michelangelo. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Fanelli, Rosalia Bonito et al. Il tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco di Assisi. Assisi: Casa Editrice Francescana, 1980. Frank, Isabelle. “Melozzo da Forlì and the Rome of Pope Sixtus IV, 1471–1484.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1991. Fratini, Giuseppe. Storia della Basilica e del Convento di San Francesco in Assisi. Prato: Ranieri Guasti, 1882.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Pope Sixtus IV at Assisi Gatti, Isidorio Liberale. “Singularis eius inaudita doctrina”: La formazione intellettuale efrancescana di Sisto IV e suoi rapporti con gli ambienti culturali.” In Sisto IV, le arti a Roma nel Primo Rinascimento, edited by Fabio Benzi Rome: Associazione culturale Shakespeare and Company 2, 2000. Goffen, Rona. “Friar Sixtus and the Sistine Chapel,” Renaissance Quarterly 39 (1986): 218–62. Guerrini, Paola. “Un’epigrafe sistina per il re Carlo d’Angiò.” In Sisto IV: Le Arti a Roma nel Primo Rinascimento, edited Fabio Benzi. Rome: Shakespeare and Company 2, 2000. Hager, Werner. Die Ehrenstatuen der Päpste. Leipzig: Poeschel & Trepte, 1929. Howe, Eunice D. The Hospital of Santo Spirito and Pope Sixtus IV. New York: Garland Publishing, 1978. Huber, Raphael M. A Documented History of the Franciscan Order. Milwaukee, WI: Nowiny, 1944. Hueck, Irene. “Le vetrate di Assisi nelle coie del Ramboux e notizie sul restauro di Giovanni Bertini.” Bolletino d’arte 64 (Oct.–Dec. 1979): 75–90. Ippoliti, Alessandro. Il complesso di San Pietro inVincoli e la committenza della Rovere (1467–1520). Rome: Archivio Guido Izzi, 1999. Kleinschmidt, Beda. Die Basilika San Francesco in Assisi. Berlin: Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1915–1928. Krautheimer, Richard. “S. Pietro in Vincoli and the Tripartite Transept in the Early Christian Basilica.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 84 (1941): 353–430. Lee, Egmont. Sixtus IV and Men of Letters. Temi e Testi 26. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1978. Magro, Pasquale. “A Collection in the Image of the Franciscan Sanctuary.” In The Treasury of Saint Francis of Assisi, edited by Giovanni Morello and Laurence B. Kanter. Milan: Electra, 1999. ———. La Basilica Sepolcrale di San Francesco in Assisi. Assisi: Casa Editrice Francescana, 1980. Martin, Frank. Die Glasmalereien von San Francesco in Assisi: Entstehung und Entwicklung einer Gattung in Italien. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 1997. Matanic, Atanasio. “Xystus Pp. IV scripsitne librum ‘de conceptione beate virginis Marie’?” Antonianum 29 (1954), 573–78. Meyer, Starleen Kay. “The Papal Series in the Sistine Chapel.” PhD diss., University of Southern California, 1998. Moorman, John. A History of the Franciscan Order from Its Origins to theYear 1517. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1968. Morello, Giovanni, and Laurence B. Kanter, eds. The Treasury of Saint Francis of Assisi. Milan: Electa, 1999. Müntz, Eugene. Les arts à la cour des papes pendant le XVe et le XVI Siècle. Vol. 3. Paris: Ernest Thorin, 1882. Nessi, Silvestro. La Basilica di S. Francesco in Assisi e la sua documentazione storica. Assisi: Casa Editrice Francescana, 1982. Oberman, Heiko. The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. Pacifici, Vincenzo. Un carme biografico di Sisto IV de 1477. Tivoli: Società tiburtina di storia e d’arte, 1921. Papini, Nicholas. Notizie secure sulla morte, sepoltura, canonizzazione e traslazione di San Francesco d’Assisi e del ritrovamento del di lui corpo. Foligno, 1824. Partridge, Loren. The Art of Renaissance Rome, 1400–1600. New York: Prentice Hall, 1996. Pastor, Ludwig von. History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages. 40 vols. London: Kegan Paul, 1923–1953. Piacentini, Paola Scarcia. “Ricerche sugli antichi inventari della Biblioteca Vaticana: I codici di lavoro di Sisto IV.” In Un Pontificato ed una Città: Sisto IV (1471–1484), edited by Massimo

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

35

36

JILL ELIZABETH BLONDIN Miglio et al. Vatican City: Scuola vaticana di paleografia, diplomatica e archivistica, 1986. Piana, Celestino. “Scritti Polemici fra Conventuali e Osservanti a metà del ’400 con le partecipazione dei giuristi secolari.” Archivum Franciscanum historicum 72 (1979): 37–105. Pou y Marti, Joseph, ed., Bullarium Franciscanum.Vol. 2. Florence: Ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi), 1939. Pusci, Lucio. “Profilo di Francesco della Rovere poi Sisto IV.” In Storia e cultura al Santo di Padova fra il XIII e il XX secolo, edited by Antonino Poppi. Vicenza: N. Pozza, 1976. Rash, Nancy. “Boniface VIII and Honorific Portraiture: Observations on the Half-Length Image in the Vatican.” Gesta 26 (1987): 47–58. Rocchi, Giuseppe. La Basilica di San Francesco. Florence: GC Sansoni Editore Nuova, 1982. Rorro, Angelandreina. Lorentino d’Arezzo: Discepolo di Piero della Francesca. Rome: Fratelli Palombi, 1996. Rusconi, Arturo Jahn. Assisi (Italia Artistica). Bergamo: Istituto d’arti grafiche, 1926. Salomone, Pierpaola. “Ricostruzione delle vicende del paliotto attraverso la ricerca d’archivio.” In Paliotto di Sisto IV ad Assisi: Indagini e intervento conservative, edited by Rosalia Varoli-Piazza. Assisi: Casa Editrice Francescana, 1991.Scarpellini, Pietro. Fra Ludovico da Pietralunga: Descrizione della Basilica di San Francesco e di altri santuari de Assisi. Treviso: Edizioni Canova, 1982. Scarpellini, Pietro. Fra Ludovico da Pietralunga: Descrizione della Basilica di San Francesco e di altri santvari de Assisi. Treviso: Edizioni Canova, 1982. Sevesi, Paolo. “Lettere autografe di Francesco della Rovere da Savona, ministro generale (1464– 1469) e cardinale (1469–1471) (poi Sisto IV).” Archivum franciscanum historicum 28 (1935): 198–234, 477–99. Squarzina, Silvia Danesi. “Pauperismo francescano e magnificienza antiquaria nel programma architettonico di Sisto IV.” In Le arti a Roma da Sisto IV a Giulio II, edited by Anna Cavallaro, 105-6. Rome: Il Bagatto, 1985. Starn, Randolph, and Loren Partridge. A Renaissance Likeness: Art and Culture in Raphael’s “Julius II”. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. Steinmann, Ernst. Die Sixtinische Kapelle: Bau und Schmuck unter Sixtus IV. Vol. 1. Munich: Bruckmann, 1901–06. Stinger, Charles.The Renaissance in Rome. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. Varoli-Piazza, Rosalia, ed. Paliotto di Sisto IV ad Assisi: Indagini e intervento conservative. Assisi: Casa Editrice Francescana, 1991. Venturi, Adolfo. “Il paliotto di Sisto IV nella Basilica d’Assisi disegnato da Antonio Pollajolo.” L’arte (1906): 218–22. ——. La Basilica di Assisi. Torina: Anonima Libraria Italiana, 1921. Walter, Ingeborg. “Der Traum der Schwangeren vor der Geburt: zur Vita Sixtus’ IV. auf den Fresken in Santo Spirito in Rom.” In Traume im Mittelalter: Ikonologische Studien, edited by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani and Giorgio Stabile. Stuttgart: Belser, 1989. Weiss, Roberto. The Medals of Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484). Rome: Edizione di storia e letteratura, 1961. Wiener, Jürgen. Bauskulptur von S Francesco. Werl: Dietrich-Coelde-Verl, 1991. Zuraw, Shelley Elizabeth. “The Sculpture of Mino da Fiesole.” PhD diss., Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 1993.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption DOMENICO, GIROLAMO, AND JULIUS II DELLA ROVERE AT SANTA MARIA DEL POPOLO LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN

The construction of a family dynasty as an instrument of power is one of the principal innovations of Sixtus IV’s pontificate.1 His fortuitous election to the papal throne in 1471 brought the family from provincial Savona to cosmopolitan Rome and the importance of having trusted advisors necessitated his elevation of his family, the della Rovere, to positions of great power and wealth in the city of Rome. Pope Sixtus IV was thorough and determined in the aggrandizement of his family, and rapidly promoted family members into positions in which patronage was not only a required duty but also a useful tool for political and social advancement.2 Once Sixtus had established them as a noble family, the della Rovere were concerned with building and maintaining power relations in Rome. Through the construction and presentation of images, they amplified their political and social position and reinforced their authority. One of the most significant commissions of Sixtus’s pontificate, and a telling illustration of della Rovere iconography in the late quattrocento, was the transformation of the church of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome into a personal and family monument. The elaborate rhetoric of patronage that developed there celebrated the della Rovere as authors and 1

This essay depends in part upon material in my “Power and Image: Della Rovere Patronage in Late Quattrocento Rome” (PhD diss., Northwestern University, 1990), and subsequent research completed for a paper delivered at the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference in Pittsburgh in October 2003. I am especially grateful to Cynthia Stollhans, Sheila ffolliott, and Ian Verstegen for their interest and support of this work. 1Lee, Sixtus IV and Men of Letters, 33. Pastor (The History of the Popes, 4:231–236), holds the view that Sixtus was a simple and devout friar with unfortunately unscrupulous relatives. Contemporary positive views of Sixtus can be found in Conti, Le Storie de’ suoi tempi; and Gherardi, Diario Romano. A more negative assessment can be found in Infessura, Diario della Città di Roma. 2The classic work on Renaissance nepotism is Reinhard, “Nepotismus,“ 145–85. Also useful is Hilary, “The Nepotism of Pope Pius II,” 33–35.

39

40

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN served at least three functions. By continuing certain patronage forms and artistic conventions within the church, the della Rovere ensured seigneurial or upper-class connotations. They showed themselves as visual promoters of tradition and, consequently, as examples of monumentality and permanence, virtues vitally important to a family who had only recently established themselves in the city. At the same time, the della Rovere were careful to express their magnificence in ways mindful of their changing audience. Their outward simplicity in iconography and the use of a refined but common pictorial language were attempts to show themselves as visual promoters of tradition. However, the discretely injected classical elements in both sculpture and painting that suggested a knowledge and appreciation of antiquity as well as the prominent position of their family chapels were unmistakable symbols to the elite of their elevated social and political position. Finally, in their contributions to the city’s image, the della Rovere behaved as leaders of Rome’s urban and classical renewal. Santa Maria del Popolo became a place to unite visually the universal domination of the church with the della Rovere, a totemic symbol that would associate the della Rovere with Rome and allowed them to co-opt its magnificence and glory as their own. Given his training as a Franciscan, Sixtus IV’s selection of the Augustinian church of Santa Maria del Popolo as the site of a della Rovere family monument seems rather peculiar.3 The church was not of his order, nor had it been his titular church as a cardinal. In the Middle Ages, the site was seen as a rural outpost, marking the boundary between the city and the world.4 And yet almost immediately after his elevation, Sixtus began a major reconstruction. A tantalizing likelihood for the selection of Santa Maria del Popolo as a personal and family monument for Sixtus lies in the myths and legends surrounding the church and their symbolic potential. Jacopo Alberici’s Compendio of 1600 associated the site with the tomb of Nero, a location on which an ominous nut tree had grown. According to medieval tradition, Pope Paschal II cut down the tree in 1099, scattered the ashes of the Roman emperor, and erected a church dedicated to the Virgin on the site, endowing it with indulgences and relics of the Virgin and Saint Sixtus, pope and martyr. Since the legends surrounding the church stayed alive, ultimately influencing even Bernini’s seventeenth-century organ case for it, Santa Maria del Popolo was an active symbolic link to the Roman Empire and previous popes. The choice of Santa Maria del Popolo as a della Rovere monument was also rooted in its location. The church was high in profile and weighty with power. Ninety percent of the documented entries into Rome in the Renaissance used one of two northern approaches: the Via Flaminia leading to the Porta del Popolo, and the Via Triumphalis 3For a general study of this church, the most complete source is Bentivoglio and Valtieri, Santa Maria del Popolo. 4Felini, Trattato nuove delle cose maravigliose dell’alma città di Roma, 28–29, records the foundation of the church. On its early history, see Onofrio, Roma val bene un’abiura, 125–32. Contemporary sources on the church, including the medieval legends of its sinister past, are Alberici, Devotissima chiesa de S. Maria del Popolo di Roma; Alberici, Notizie storiche della chiesa di S. Maria del Popolo di Roma; Landucci, Origine Del Tempio Dedicato in Roma allaVergine Madre di; and Titi, Studio di pittura, scoltura, et architettura nelle chiese di Roma. For later history and unraveling of some of the thickly intertwined traditions of the lignum vitae, the tree of Jesse, and the legends of the cross in the church, see Bauer, “Bernini’s Organ-Case for S. Maria del Popolo,” 115–23.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption ending at the gate to Saint Peter’s.5 The position of Santa Maria del Popolo along this path was highly significant and the church derived much of its meaning for the della Rovere from its environment. It was in a very prominent location on a major pilgrimage and supply artery, mentioned fourth in guide books immediately after the historically important Saint Peter’s, Saint John Lateran, and Santa Maria Maggiore. 6 After Sixtus’s renovation, its two lengthy façade inscriptions detailed the indulgences possible for visitors and suggested that the church had been built to “prepare the way for the kingdom of heaven.”7 Two interconnected themes are apparent from the inscriptions: they advertise for visitors, promising them special benefits and dispensations, and they claim that Sixtus, who humbly referred to himself here as Episcopus not Pontifex, built from devout fulfillment of his religious obligations. Like most Renaissance popes, however, Sixtus’s idea of pious obligation was joined to theories of papal primacy and temporal power. In 1472, immediately before beginning the reconstruction project, Sixtus transferred the church from the control of the Observant Congregation of Rome-Perugia to the Observant Congregation of Lombardy—the most important and influential Augustinians.8 With the transfer of the church from a small and ineffectual congregation, Sixtus attached the original mother house to the order’s dominant group, further increasing the prestige of the site. After rebuilding their newly acquired church, Sixtus then usurped the order’s authority, effectively wrapping up the symbol of mendicant humanism and intellectualism with the symbol of the papacy. Sixtus transferred the church to a group both powerful and learned, increased the importance of an already heavily trafficked site, and made certain his name was highly visible. In addition to the advertised indulgences, Sixtus gave the church greater religious prestige by instituting a papal chapel there, where he celebrated mass every year on September 6, the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin. 9 He himself went there to pray every Saturday, and at major political moments in his papacy he came in state to the church to give thanks. By the 1480s, the Augustinians themselves mirrored these ideas of their prominent place in Rome’s ecclesiastical life. The Augustinians introduced a new eloquent and entertaining oratorical style first practiced by the order’s prior general, Mariano da Genazzano, and continued by his successor, Egidio da Viterbo.10 Unlike the plainspoken Franciscans or the rigorous Dominicans, the Augustinians developed a dramatic humanist-inspired rhetoric that was frequently used to outline the pope’s plans in public addresses. 5Ingersoll, “The

Ritual Use of Public Space in Renaissance Rome,” 359. On the Porta del Popolo, see Ciucci, La Piazza del Popolo; and Shearman, “A Functional Interpretation of the Villa Madama,” 313–27. 6Albertini, “Opusculum de mirabilibus novae et veteris Urbis Romae.” 7The façade inscriptions were the texts of two bulls dated 8 September 1472 and 12 October 1472. The entire text of both lengthy inscriptions is recorded in Bentivoglio and Valtieri, Santa Maria del Popolo, 135n1. For the available indulgences, see Ein Indulgenzbrief Sixtus’ desVierten. 8Walsh, “Papal Policy and Local Reform,” 135n40; and Walsh, “The Observance, 63–65. 9On the papal chapel, see Bentivoglio and Valtieri, Santa Maria del Popolo, 35. On the della Rovere insinuating themselves into church politics, see ibid., 20. On Sixtus praying in the church every Saturday, see Gherardi, Diario Romano, 79. On Sixtus celebrating there after major political victories, see Pastor, History of the Popes, 4:342, 367. 10Rowland, Culture of the High Renaissance, 144–49.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

41

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN

42

Renaissance Romans hailed Sixtus IV as beginning a new golden age and certainly his plans at Santa Maria del Popolo registered to his contemporaries a change in the prevailing climate.11 Poets and scholars saw his reign as characterized by culture and achievement in the arts, all stemming from the revival of ancient Roman glory. This concept of a golden age projects a mood rather than a story because its iconography is difficult to trace and decode. However, in the choice of Santa Maria del Popolo, Sixtus IV linked the stature of the site, the tenant, and the new structure to the della Rovere name and provided his family with its own memorial. By prominently displaying his coat of arms throughout the new church, Sixtus had made a striking visual connection—the evil nut tree of Nero had been replaced by the healthy oak of the della Rovere.12 At this point he inaugurated his family into the life of the church. In 1480, his nephew, Cardinal Girolamo Riario was installed as chief warden of Santa Maria del Popolo, and, on the death of E. N. d’Estouteville in 1483, Raffaele Riario became the cardinal protector of the Augustinians. It is to Santa Maria del Popolo that Sixtus’s dutiful heirs came as high-spending patrons of art. Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, another nephew of Sixtus, commissioned a new high altar in 1473 to hold the miraculous image of the Madonna while two other cardinal-nephews quickly purchased and decorated chapels.13 Immediately after the church renovation was completed in 1477, Domenico della Rovere acquired the first chapel on the south side (fig. 1).14 A frescoed altarpiece of the Nativity is on the central wall. To the left is the tomb of Cristoforo della Rovere; on the right is the tomb of Giovanni de Castro, added in the seventeenth century. On the walls Pinturicchio created a simple fictive architectural framework in Renaissance style. Painted pilasters slip behind the marble frames of the real monuments and appear to support the real cornice, yet they rest on a painted plinth. The altarpiece (fig. 2) has a richness of detail and a use of gold highlights that is based on the elegance of artists like Benozzo Gozzoli and Perugino. This was an elegant style firmly grounded in tradition and based on the familiar principles of ornato and relievo.15 Since this style was common and familiar in the quattrocento, it suggests a 11Bauman, Power

and Image, 440n1.

12Landucci, Origine del Tempio Dedicato in Roma, 22–23, provides the interpretation of the “evil” nut tree

of Nero replaced by the “good” oak of the della Rovere: “Both the vault and its supports are beautifully decorated with the most serene arms of the della Rovere, it being just and proper that the site, which was formerly darkened by the baleful and evil walnut tree, was afterward adorned by the oak, symbol of eternal happiness and protection from lightning.” This translation is found in Bauer, “Bernini’s Organ-case for S. Maria del Popolo,” 117. 13Bentivoglio and Valtieri, Santa Maria del Popolo, 28n19, 30n27, 175–77, 198–99. Traditionally, Andrea Bregno’s high altar has been credited to Rodrigo Borgia. A pair of Borgia arms appear on the base of the altar and later documents refer to it as such. Partridge and Starn (A Renaissance Likeness, 98–99), however, believe that the documents are inconclusive and point out that Giuliano della Rovere’s arms appear at the top of the altar. 14For recent work on the chapel, see La Malfa, “The Chapel of San Girolamo in Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome,” 259–70. It should also be noted that Domenico also purchased the fourth chapel on the south side of the church at the same time. In 1488, he sold this chapel to Cardinal Giorgio Costa for two hundred ducats. See Bentivoglio and Valtieri, Santa Maria del Popolo, 76. 15On ornateness, see Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy, 114–51, esp. 131–33. XXXXXX

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption

Figure 1. Chapel of Domenico della Rovere, 1478–80. Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome. Photo by Cynthia Stollhans.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

43

44

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN

Figure 2. Pinturicchio, Nativity, 1478–80. Fresco, Chapel of Domenico della Rovere, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome. Photo by Cynthia Stollhans.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption patron with an interest in popular stylistic affiliation. The familiarity of the style of the altarpiece is matched by its equally accessible meaning. There is no complex, erudite message to be decoded here. Rather in its known and simple presentation, the chapel conveys the della Rovere theme of continuity and co-optation. This is a pious patronage for public consumption. Scholars have overwhelmingly attributed all the work to Pinturicchio and dated it around 1488.16 This would mean that the tomb monument, inscribed with the date 1479, was commissioned by Domenico almost immediately after the death of his brother Cristoforo in 1478 and sat in an undecorated chapel in a prominent, newly rebuilt church for almost ten years. However, the della Rovere blend of a familiar pictorial language with stylistic innovation hinges suggests an earlier dating. The altarpiece is closely aligned with the style of other artists working in the 1470s and possesses a strong similarity to Fiorenzo di Lorenzo’s Adoration in Perugia.17 These similarities in the marble frames around the altarpiece and tomb (fig. 3) also suggest that they were executed at the same time in 1479. The grotteschi were available for study by 1480, perhaps even as early as 1475, and the patterns on the pilasters, while ultimately antique in origin, were part of the ornamental vocabulary of quattrocento goldsmiths.18 Unlike the Bufalini Chapel, which Pinturicchio decorated between 1479 and 1483, using illusionistic architecture to frame the narrative scenes and create a greater sense of reality, the wall decorations here are surprisingly simple and unsophisticated. An architectural frame forms a strong visual and psychological barrier to the spectator. There is interplay between open and closed wall, but it is hardly the beguiling architectural effect of either the Bufalini Chapel or Melozzo da Forlì’s later chapel for Girolamo Basso della Rovere in Loreto dated 1484–1492. While there are varied levels of illusion in the chapel, one never crosses the border between real and ideal space. The combination of these facts suggests that the entire chapel, which is not distinctly unique in theme and uses a number of already available stylistic ideas, could easily 16

Wohl (The Aesthetics of Italian Renaissance Art, 115–152) reconstructs the formation and evolution of an “ornate classical style” based on the concepts of ornato and relievo. He then posits that this ornate classical style became a coherent language in Rome beginning around 1484. 16La Malfa (Chapel of San Girolamo, 262n5) provides a list of scholars and their dates for the chapel. Albright (“Pinturicchio’s frescoes in the San Bernardino Chapel”) suggests that the Nativity altarpiece was executed at the same time as the tomb in 1479, but that Pinturicchio was called away to paint the Bufalini Chapel in S. Maria in Aracoeli (1479–83) and then, in rapid progression, the palaces of Domenico and Giuliano della Rovere (1484–85) and the Belvedere for Pope Innocent VIII (1486). He did not return to the chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo until 1487, by then fully under the influence of the Domus Aurea grotteschi. 17Phillips, Pintoricchio, 201. 18On the discovery of Nero’s Golden House in the Renaissance, see Dacos, La Découverte de la Domus Aurea et la formation des grotesques à la Renaissance. For other formal influences drawn from small ancient reliefs, such as engraved gems and Arretine ware, see Yuen, “Giulio Romano, Giovanni da Udine, and Raphael”; Dacos, “Les Stucs du Colisée”; Vermeule, European Art and the Classical Past; and Gombrich, “The Style All’Antica.” For a discussion of the copybook, see Ames-Lewis, “Modelbook Drawings and the Florentine Quattrocento Artist,” 1–11.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

45

46

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN

Figure 3. Detail of marble frames. Chapel of Domenico della Rovere, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome. Photo by Cynthia Stollhans.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption have been completed in a single program between 1478 and 1480.19 The familiarity of motifs and simplicity in composition indicates that Pinturicchio may have borrowed types and patterns from a “form-book,” a common practice that enabled the artist to work rapidly. This adherence to accepted ideas also suited the della Rovere taste, which determined a work of quality to be a pastiche of acknowledged ideas and forms. If the visual language of the chapel was familiar, the use of grotteschi also hinted at a classical erudition. The dedication to Jerome is a second aspect suggestive of Domenico’s highly learned and intellectual approach.20 As Italian humanists rediscovered antiquity, they also reevaluated Christian antiquity, and Jerome appeared as the example of antique scholasticism nourished on biblical piety. By the fifteenth century, he appeared not as the penitent monk of the Middle Ages, but more frequently as the orator, teacher, and scholar of contemporary humanist taste. He became a popular figure among publishers. A printed edition of his letters and treatises appeared in Rome in 1468, and in 1470 Laudivio Zacchia published hisVita beati Hieronymi.21 The scenes of the Life of St. Jerome in the chapel of Domenico della Rovere are not unique.22 But two scenes focus on Jerome the divus litterarum princeps of Zacchia’s biography. Jerome’s Disputation is a humanist vision of Christian antiquity triumphing over pagan thought while Jerome on His Bed shows him working on scholarship being read by a figure whose bishop’s attire suggests Saint Augustine. This depiction of joint scholarship is not new, but it is rare. The event itself does not appear in any of the collections of saints’ lives widely used in the Renaissance, and their correspondence with each other is omitted from the 1468 edition of Jerome’s writings.23 Thus, the combination of the two figures is powerful. It draws its strength from the traditional associations of the two men and conflates them: divine and human combined with eloquence.

19La Malfa (Chapel of San Girolamo, 267) has recently noted that in the inscription on his brother Cristo-

foro’s tomb, Domenico della Rovere refers to himself as Cardinal of San Vitale, a title he held from Cristoforo’s death on 10 February 1478 until 13 August 1479. At that time, Domenico was endowed with the more important title of Cardinal of San Clemente, the title by which he referred to himself in the inscription above the altar. Thus, the tomb must have been carved between Cristoforo’s death in 1478 and Domenico’s promotion in 1479. The altarpiece and frame must have followed, probably after Domenico received his new and higher title. Since La Malfa earlier posits that the tomb and altarpiece overlap the painted decoration, this places the painted decoration in the chapel no later than 1479. 20The most comprehensive source on Jerome is Rice, St. Jerome in the Renaissance. 21Jerome’s letter and treatises were prepared by Giovanni Andrea de Bussi (1417–75), secretary to Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. They were published by Conrad Sweynheym and Arnold Pannartz in Rome on 13 December 1468. The letters from Augustine to Jerome were omitted from this edition. Bussi, Prefazioni alle edizioni di Sweynheym e Pannartz, prototipografi romani. 22None of the more unusual stories, such as the legend that Jerome’s soul (occasionally teamed with that of John the Baptist) appeared to Saint Augustine, are depicted. This story appeared in Pietro de’ Natali’s Catalogus sanctorum (1372), a collection of abbreviated saint’s lives for private reading. See Rice, St. Jerome in the Renaissance, 51–52. Two of the images—Jerome the ascetic monk and Jerome the miraculous lion tamer—appear commonly in medieval representations. 23 The story does not appear in Pietro de’ Natali’s Catalogus or Jacobus de Voragine’s The Golden Legend. A rare depiction of this event, however, by an unidentified artist is included in Kaftal, Iconography of the Saints, 2:595, fig. 691, col. 596.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

47

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN

48

It is this association that Domenico wanted to make. To say that Augustine is paired with Jerome as the two Christian men of letters is to fail to see Domenico’s possible intention. Augustine was the mystic and rhetorician; Jerome the scholar. In patronizing a life of Jerome that included two particularly scholastic scenes, Domenico emphasized and expressed his own learned piety. Jerome was the perfect balance between religiosity and classicism, and the perfect vehicle for a della Rovere anxious to be seen as a learned and enlightened patron. The location in Santa Maria del Popolo was public, the subject popular. Jerome was devout, yet also a man of letters, as much a prince of scholars as a pious believer, and an evocative and subtle manifestation of the patron’s identity. Here Domenico suggests a more elevated level in content and in self-image. In an abbreviated fashion, the tomb commissioned by Domenico for his brother Cristoforo della Rovere balances the two competing elements of the chapel and of the della Rovere program. There are traditional religious stylistic and iconographic elements that blend in with standard decorative schemes, but they are also combined with novel classical and humanist details that demonstrate the patron’s and select viewers’ enlightenment. The tomb (fig. 4) is set into an architectural frame of two decorated pilasters connected by an arch.24 In the lunette is a relief of the Virgin and Child between two angels. The gisant figure below lies atop a sarcophagus that bears an inscription while the base below contains the della Rovere stemma and a second inscription. The tomb displays a number of medieval elements, including a gisant figure and the presence of a sacred scene in the upper register. The classical elements are limited to small decorative motifs drawn from antique sarcophagi, the triumphal arch form of the tomb itself, and the inscriptions. These inscriptions are without the medieval opening “hic iacet” or “hic requiescit” and the final acclamation “cuiuc anima requiescat in pace.” The upper inscription on the sarcophagus sings Cristoforo’s praises while the lower inscription on the base presents his name, title, age, indication of dedicant, and date, in this case calculated as the eighth year of the reign of Pope “Xysti.” A striking feature here is the appropriation of the classical spelling of Sixtus’s name. The Cristoforo inscriptions suggest a classically inspired dynasty held in check within the framework of a medieval monument. The balance between the two is distinctive. Overtly the monument appears to keep pace with the current fashion in curial tomb styles. But in subtle ways the tomb marks the 24The

monument is attributed to Andrea Bregno with the assistance of Mino da Fiesole. See Strinati, “La Scultura”; and Sciolla, La Scultura di Mino da Fiesole. Silvia Maddalo (“Il Monumento Funebre tra Persistenze Medioevali”) asserts that at this time, the selection of one style over another in that genre was dependent on the social position of the patron. Tombs for members of the papal court were more monumental and rich and blended the Christian message with medieval elements with only an occasional and discreet reference to antiquity. Tombs for members of the laity were more overtly classical. The tomb of Cristoforo della Rovere follows the precedents of papal tombs. The inscription on the sarcophagus reads: “CONCORDES ANIMOS PIASQ. MENTES / UT DICAS LICIT UNICAM FUISSE / COMMISTI CINERES SEQUENTUR ET SE / CREDI CORPORIS UNIUS IUVABIT.” The second inscription states: “CHRISTOFORO RUVEREO. TT. S. VITA / LIS PRESBYTERO CAR./ DOCTRINA MORIBUS AC PIETATE INSIGNI / DOMINICUS XYSTI. IIII. PONT. MAXIMI / BENEFICIO MOX TITULI / SUCCESSOR AC MUNERIS FRATRI / B.M. ET. SIBI. POSUIT/ V. A. XLIII. M. VII. D. XIX. / OB. AN. VIII. PONT. XYSTI / KL. FBR.”

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption

Figure 4. Tomb of Cristoforo della Rovere. Chapel of Domenico della Rovere, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome. Photo by Cynthia Stollhans.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

49

50

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN dedicant, not the deceased, as an enlightened and classically attuned Renaissance man. The Latin inscription divided its audience. It was certainly not translatable by all viewers and necessitated an educated, preferably humanist-oriented, reader to decode its suggestive meaning and note its patron who looked more to Roman antiquity rather than to Rome’s medieval past. This choice seems motivated by the social and personal message the chapel is intended to convey and the pragmatic considerations of audience. The chapel mirrored two ideas: it symbolically joined the della Rovere to the past and offered a visual equivalent of their political and social present. Domenico della Rovere accepted the known and shared notion of patronage as a means by which Renaissance nobles announced their grandeur. His chapel provided a setting suitable to the dignified status of the patron, and the delicate and refined style of the copious decoration and the medievalized tomb—and by extension, the della Rovere themselves—maintained a link with tradition and sent a clear message of social and political affiliation with established Roman families. Even while the della Rovere invoked the past, however, the chapel also expressed the increasing weight and prestige of the cardinals in the present. Newer experiments in style are visible in the details of the grotteschi, appearing here in a sacred environment, and the early attempts at architectural illusionism, 25 while classical connotations in thought can be seen in the selection of the Jerome stories. These sophisticated stylistic subtleties, the addition of the scholastic theme, and the classical Latin inscription betray a more finely drawn message and suggest some consciously modern ideas that would have been understood by a very specific audience. The artist amplified and enriched his traditional style of painting with newly discovered decorative details. The patron, who seems to be forming a taste for neo-antique decorations and inscriptions, encouraged him. This was classicism in intention, if not in fact, and was an unmistakable symbol to the higher classes of the elevated social and political position of the family. The public consumed a visible piety, and in the socially and visually unequal terrain of the audience those viewers who possessed contact points with antiquity decoded the new artistic developments and read a growing sophistication in the antique details and in the patron himself. While scholars may never reach absolute certainty as to why certain choices were made, an attempt to identify those repeated acts, and the patterns employed to perpetuate power, remains valuable in mapping the terrain of Renaissance culture. Many of these same ideas are continued and further elaborated in the second della Rovere chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo, that of another cardinal-nephew, Girolamo Basso 25Yuen (“The Biblioteca Greca”) demonstrates that Roman mural painting of architectural illusions developed initially from Castagno’s work in the Biblioteca Greca (ca. 1454) and then steadily advanced in the hands of other non-Roman artists at the Casino of Cardinal Bessarion (1460s), the house of the Knights of Rhodes (1467), and the Biblioteca Latina at the Vatican painted by Domenico and Davide Ghirlandaio (1475–76). Clearly there was a Roman taste for decorative schemes of fictive ancient architecture long before Mantegna’s arrival in Rome in 1488. Unfortunately, Yuen passes from the parent scheme of the Biblioteca Greca to the monumental halls in the Palazzo Venezia (ca.1490) without even considering the intervening work of Pinturicchio at Santa Maria del Popolo. On Pinturicchio’s role in the development of illusionistic wall-painting, see Bergström, Revival of Antique Illusionistic Wall-Painting; and Sandström, Levels of Unreality.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption della Rovere. On 22 April 1484, Cardinal Girolamo Basso della Rovere dedicated his family funerary chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo to Saint Augustine (fig. 5). 26 His father Giovanni had died the previous year and his death may have been the catalyst for the cardinal’s patronage. The chapel is the third arched opening off the south aisle of the church. Here the blending between painting and architecture in the chapel is accomplished through some very sophisticated illusionistic tricks, including the pairing of fictive marble columns with real carved marble pilasters. The most elaborate illusion of the chapel, however, is the illusionistic bench that runs along the lower wall. Books casually placed on one of the benches heighten the illusion of reality, which is enhanced by the shadows that correspond to the light source of the real windows. The decoration presents such a rational unified space that it is difficult to distinguish between the fictive and the real elements of the chapel. The figural style and the scope of the landscape in the altarpiece, as well as the vocabulary of grotteschi, are close to Pinturicchio’s work of the 1480s.27 In choosing the style of Pinturicchio, if not the artist himself, for his chapel, Girolamo Basso not only 26Bentivoglio

and Valtieri, Santa Maria del Popolo, 87–90. For a recent discussion of Girolamo’s milieu and his patronage of art and architecture, especially the construction of the Santuario della Santa Casa in Loreto, see Frapiccini, “Il cardinale Girolamo Basso della Rovere.” 27Titi (Studio de pittura, 412) attributes the chapel to Pinturicchio, as do Steinmann (Pinturicchio, 110), Schmarsow (Melozzo da Forlì, 22), and Phillips (Pintoricchio, 60). Phillips also suggests, however, that the Virgin lunettes are by the northern Italian Morto da Feltre. The division of the chapel decoration into small bits parceled out to every secondary artist in Rome has become a major feature in Pinturicchio scholarship. Bentivoglio and Valtieri (Santa Maria del Popolo, 87) posit Antonio da Viterbo, called Pastura. Volpe (“Alcune schede per l’Aspertini”) suggests the grisailles are by Aspertini and the remainder of the chapel by other followers of Pinturicchio. Grassi (“Amico Aspertini e Iacopo Ripanda”) dates the grisailles as the last work in the chapel at 1503 and attributes them to Ripanda. Venturoli (“Aspertini a Gradara”) attributes all the decoration to Aspertini and dates the chapel to between 1489 and 1492. Recently, the Aspertini camp has been gaining strength. Lucco (“Una traccia per Jacopo Ripanda,” 18) and Sgarbi (“Due inediti dell’Aspertini,” 10) attribute the chapel decoration to Aspertini. As in the chapel of Domenico della Rovere, the grotteschi have focused the general consensus for the date of the chapel decoration to the decade of the 1490s; Lavagnino, Santa Maria del Popolo, 5; and Schultz “Pinturicchio and the Revival of Antiquity,” 44. Steinmann (Pinturicchio, 110–111) dates the chapel decoration to 1503 on the grounds that the della Rovere coat of arms in the vault belongs to the pontificate of Julius II rather than Sixtus IV. Phillips (Pintoricchio, 60) continues this assumption and suggests the frescoes were executed at the same time that Pinturicchio was working on the choir vault. Here art historians have repeated the argument applied to the chapel of Domenico della Rovere, that Girolamo acquired and dedicated his funerary chapel, placed his father’s tomb in it, and then left it devoid of furnishings and decoration for twenty years. Certainly the tomb was constructed between 1483 and 1492. Its inscription reveals that it was given by Girolamo, cardinal and bishop of Recanti, with the aid of his brothers Bartolomeo and Francesco: “IOANNI DE RUVERE. XYXTI. IIII. PONT. MAX. SORORIO / CIVI SAONEN. ORDINIS EQUESTRIS. QUI. VIX. / ANN. LXXX. M. VII. D. X. HIER. CARDINALIS / RECAN. FRANCISCUS PRIOR PISANUS. BARTHOLAMEUS / FILII SUPERSTITES PATRI BNMEREN POSUER / OBIIT. M. CCCC. LXXXIII DIE XVII AUGUSTI.” In 1492, Girolamo moved from the titulary church of San Crisogono to the suburbicarian see of Palestrina, which involved a title change that surely would have been recorded on the tomb. Since vault decoration was almost always executed first, the della Rovere stemma there could relate to the last years of Sixtus’s papacy rather than the opening years of Julius’s. See Cristofori, Cronotassi dei Cardinali di Santa Romana Chiesa, 93, 124. I am grateful to Ian Verstegen for his thoughts on this issue.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

51

52

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN

Figure 5. Chapel of Girolamo Basso della Rovere, 1483–84, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome. Photo by Cynthia Stollhans.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption placed himself within the mainstream of Roman artistic sensibilities and patronized the ornate classical style that dominated painting in Rome during the papacies of Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII,28 but he also expressed a coherence of opinion with Domenico della Rovere. And like Domenico della Rovere, his chapel did not furnish any startlingly new innovations in the realm of symbolic expression and presented its message in a decorative stylistic vocabulary. The chapel’s themes of resurrection and its survey of the living past and present of the church are appropriate for a funerary chapel and consistent with a papal family.29 In contrast to the Bufalini whose chapel in Santa Maria in Aracoeli presented a pictorial summation of the ideals of the Franciscan Observants and created a new iconographical type for the Christ in glory,30 or the chapel of Cardinal Oliviero Carafa, which served as a didactic expression of its patron’s rigorous dedication to complex Thomistic theology and eucharistic piety,31 the chapel of Girolamo Basso della Rovere presented well-known images in the proper symbolic language of Christian iconography. The iconography of the decorations combined with their style presents a dignified salute to religious virtue and traditional elegance, a respectable manifestation of della Rovere social form. They expressed devotion and reverence for the dead but also combined it with select imagery of artistic sophistication. The discreetly injected classical elements such as the grotteschi on the pilasters and the architectural illusionism reflected new trends in late quattrocento humanist Rome and suggested a patron with classical taste and, by extension, erudition. Both Domenico della Rovere and Girolamo Basso della Rovere understood the known and shared importance of chapel patronage and used the ornate classical style within it because it met one of their goals. As Helmut Wohl has discussed, it was invested with the aura and authority of classical antiquity.32 The more educated would have read the classical references in style and applied a meaning to them that redounded on the patrons. Thus, the chapels were both familiar and spectacular at the same time. They were a vehicle for religious piety, civic duty, family commemoration, and personal propaganda. The della Rovere made sure that their message was not purely rhetorical. The chapels were not simply representations of shared pride and religious devotion. They were also vehicles for publicizing the selfless actions and political influence of the patrons. On Domenico della Rovere’s death in 1501, Raffaele Brandolini read the funerary oration for the cardinal from his chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo.33 The oration was followed by the announcement that Domenico’s will left part of his palace to the church of Santa Maria del Popolo. At first glance, the meaning of this action is a self-evident example of Domenico’s devotion to the church. But this is also a selective action, one that takes Domenico’s expressed piety in the chapel and makes it visible to the public. By realizing the patron’s rhetoric, the gift legitimizes the chapel message and the man. 28Wohl, Aesthetics

of Italian Renaissance Art, 124. idea is presented more fully in Bauman, “Power and Image,” 201–5. 30On the Bufalini chapel, see Albright, “Pintoricchio’s Frescoes.” 31On the Carafa chapel, see Geiger, Filippino Lippi’s Carafa Chapel. 32Wohl, Aesthetics of Italian Renaissance Art, 128. 33Brandolini, Domini Ruvere Sancti Clementis Presbyteri, fols. 246r–247v. See also, Bentivoglio and Valtieri, Santa Maria del Popolo, 76. 29This

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

53

54

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN Girolamo Basso della Rovere’s public piety existed on an even grander scale. According to archival records, Girolamo actively acquired property beyond the Milvian Bridge on Monte Mario.34 In 1498, nine years before his death, Girolamo Basso della Rovere willed all the property inter vivos to the Lombard Congregation of the Observant Friars of Saint Augustine and Santa Maria del Popolo. There were only two requirements. Girolamo reserved the use and income of the land until his death, and in return for the gift, the friars were obligated to celebrate a mass for him every day in perpetuity at Santa Maria del Popolo.35 To acquire land, especially a prestigious site with a renowned view of the city of Rome, and then give it away was an act of great generosity; to give it to a church was an act of exceptional devotion. It was not, however, without a personal benefit for the patron. Girolamo shaped the gift so that it expressed more than piety. With the friars celebrating a mass every day in perpetuity in Santa Maria del Popolo, Girolamo ensured constant public awareness for his piety. To the city, the gift continually reasserted his position as a man of influence; to his peers, it was a magnificent gesture in the repertoire of princely actions. The della Rovere family recognized that the viewing public for the chapel commissions was socially and culturally structured into different groups—both the everyday penitent and the pilgrim prince. The images were shaped to meet this field, and through them the della Rovere presented a very selective vision. There were no complex humanist programs to be deciphered. There were no actual images of the donors. The broadest section of the public noted the ritual action of chapel patronage, the prominent location, the appropriate themes, and the familiar artist who hinted at a stylistic traditionalism. While Melozzo da Forlì was presenting works that were bold in their foreshortening, Luca Signorelli was practicing a vivid realism in human anatomy, and Perugino was developing a simple style of symmetry and order that suggested a clean new classicism in painting, Pinturicchio was still filling paintings with elegantly elongated figures, elaborately detailed motifs, and gold highlights. The general subject matter of the decoration was readily accessible to any kind of Christian audience but the classical details were meaningful only to those who perceived them as part of a princely pattern. There was no swagger to della Rovere patronage. Rather they delivered a message of selectiveness and caution, establishing in the semipublic space of a funerary chapel a judicious pattern of public appeal and political rank. And yet, their imprint and patronage were unique. Of greatest significance, the Renaissance Roman fashion for antiquity developed within their environment. The 34Verani, Notizie degli Archivi della Procura Generale degli Agostiniani in Roma di S. Maria del Popolo e degli Agostiniani in Velletri, 1200–1667. Busta 128. Conventi Soppressi, Agostiniani de Maria del Popolo, Fondo corporazioni religiose, ASR, records the property and the donation under the heading “Lib. D fol. 86. 1498. Donazione di Villa Madama al nostro publico.” The reference to the Villa Madama is curious since this is never mentioned in the early history of the building. Verani, “Roma: Montefalcone Vigna ora detta di Madama della Congregatione,” fol. 96r–102v, also records at least five purchases of land made by the cardinal from 1480 to 1505 and ranging in price from forty to four hundred ducati. 35 Verani, Notizie degli Archivi, fol. 87r–v. The quote reads in part: “… persolvera quotidie in perpetuum unam missam et quolibet anno unum anniversarium in Ecclesia S. M. de Popolo.”

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption choice of the word fashion is deliberate. The della Rovere were interested in the decorative possibilities of antiquity and its potential for suggestive political association.36 Contemporary poetry draws many parallels between the gens Iulia and ancient Rome’s renaissance in the palace of Santi Apostoli constructed by a new Iulius, Giuliano della Rovere, an imperial symbolism that uses the name Julius and his collection of antiquities to suggest the birth of a new golden age equal to Caesar’s and surpassing Augustus’s. 37 In this environment, it is Pinturicchio who stands within della Rovere patronage as the nexus that binds style to politics. He is the signifier of a set of symbolic associations for his audience. At least some of those associations were meaningful to the della Rovere whose patronage was shaped by social context and whose images then shaped the ideas possible for that culture. Extremely popular in the late quattrocento,38 Pinturicchio was among the first artists to derive grotteschi and architectural illusionism from classical sources and introduce them into the sacred and secular environments of quattrocento art. He was responsible for the formation of a taste for all’antica works in ceilings and wall decorations while della Rovere patronage was responsible for its diffusion through both their palace and chapel decorations. Della Rovere inscriptions constantly remind the viewer of their destined role as the Urbis Restaurator, the savior of antiquity, the epiphany of the glory of ancient Rome. In selecting Pinturicchio, the della Rovere hoped to attach themselves to antiquity and its connotations of elevated social and political position and leadership in Rome’s urban and classical renewal. 36 The della Rovere did not collect numerous available antique objects, such as gems, cameos, medals, and coins. In fact, after the Venetian Pietro Barbo’s death, Sixtus IV sold his collection, including the famous Felix Gem, to Lorenzo de Medici. The della Rovere were also not interested in commissioning or collecting the contemporary small-scale bronzes that, by the later quattrocento, had become the overriding medium of antique revival sculpture. And while Giuliano della Rovere certainly took a great deal of pride in owning the Apollo Belvedere, it is important to remember that the statue was discovered on his property, not as the result of active acquisition, and that it only became well known to artists after its removal to the Belvedere court in the early sixteenth century. Magister (“Arte e politica”) presents a reconstruction of Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere’s collection of antiquities in the palaces next to SS. Apostoli and their original placing inside the palaces. The cardinal’s interest in ancient Greek and Latin inscriptions is noteworthy. 37Magister (“Arte e politica,” 579, 581–82) cites two poems on this topic: an anonymous poem (fol. 20 in the BMV, Ms. Lat. X 195 (3453), Inscriptiones antiquae et recensiores, partim a Petro Sabino collectae, fols. 1–93); and one by Capodiferro (“Acta in convivio Io. Columnae S. R. E. Diaconus cardinalis,” BAV, Vat. Lat. 10377, fol. 63v). 38Agostino Chigi’s response to his father’s request for the names of eminent painters in 1500 specifically named Pinturicchio and Perugino as “il meglio Maestro d’Italia.” See BAV, Chig. RVC, fol. 12r, as quoted in Scarpellini, Pintoricchio, Libreria Piccolomini, 5. By 1497, Pinturicchio’s social position and stature warranted a commuting of the tax on a recent grant of land; Vermiglioli, Memorie e documenti di Bernardino Pinturicchio, apps. 3–10. While occasionally a prominent artist would be released from the payment of dues to a guild, Pinturicchio’s influence (or his belief in it) was such that in 1507 he requested total tax exemption from the city of Siena, an honor usually awarded only to those exclusively employed by the government; see Chambers, Patrons and Artists in the Italian Renaissance, 197–99. Chambers also notes Pinturicchio’s affectation of a writing style borrowed from humanist learning in this letter, perhaps evidence of the artist’s concern to be known as a “Renaissance” painter. Even Vasari’s slighting biography grudgingly acknowledges the extent of his fame, remarking that he “possessed a far higher reputation than his works warranted.” See Vasari, LeVite de’più eccelenti pittori, 3:493.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

55

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN

56

Pinturicchio’s evocations of luxury, familiarity, and antiquity presented the della Rovere with visual expressions of their own magnificence, tradition, and imperial renewal. The artist was the vehicle through which these suggestions were transmitted. Other patrons may have differed in motivation, but the style clearly became one of the most significant trends in late quattrocento Rome. Two other chapels in Santa Maria del Popolo are proof that while della Rovere patronage was developed to suit its context, it also affected the world that made it and clearly cast an influential shadow over curial patrons in Renaissance Rome. The Costa chapel, fourth on the south side, was decorated in 1488 by Pinturicchio,39 and the Cybo chapel, second on the second side, was also painted by Pinturicchio between 1489 and 1503.40 These suggest patrons anxious to imitate della Rovere patterns and their persuasive associations of power and prestige. In 1492, this style even influenced the pope. To paint his private apartments in the papal palace, Alexander VI selected Pinturicchio, an artist whose frescoes could establish in the papal court the same extravagance visible in the cardinals’ courts.41 Alexander wanted to create the personal and dynastic monuments appropriate to a Renaissance prince mindful of the cultural and social demands for magnificence. The artist who had forged the conservative and princely associations for the della Rovere would recreate the same style for the Borgia. Only the context had changed. The Borgia apartments were grander in conception, their symbolism richer with implications. Now it was not just a family with obscure beginnings claiming political and social legitimacy through their repeated patterns of patronage and selection of certain themes. This was a world leader creating the same impression of refined splendor and the same self-aggrandizing propaganda within the Vatican palace. Finally in 1505, Giuliano della Rovere, who had commissioned the high altar in 1473, returned to Santa Maria del Popolo. Now Pope Julius II, he hired Bramante to extend the choir, converting it into a family mortuary chapel in which Sansovino’s tomb of Cardinal Girolamo Basso della Rovere was eventually placed.42 Pinturicchio was once again commissioned to decorate the space, filling the vault with a rich and 39Giorgio

Costa purchased the chapel from Domenico della Rovere in 1488 during which time Pinturicchio was available in Rome. It is not unlikely that the patron consciously sought out the same artist. The purchase document and the chapel are discussed in Bentivoglio and Valtieri, Santa Maria del Popolo, 76–79. Cannatà (“La Pittura,” 52-60) however attributes the chapel to Antoniazzo Romano and il Maestro di Tivoli. 40Vasari (Le Vite de’ pij eccelenti pittori, 3:498) claimed the patron was Cardinal Innocenzo Cybo, but the dedication over the altar records the actual patron as Cardinal Lorenzo Cybo. Alberici (Notizie, 18) recorded the dedication; Bentivoglio and Valtieri (Santa Maria del Popolo, 78) also noted the dedication. Cybo was promoted to the cardinalate on 9 March 1489 and his chapel dates to the years between his elevation and his death in 1503. Cybo, like the della Rovere, gave part of his private library to the church of Santa Maria del Popolo. 41A full description of the Borgia apartments is found in Ehrle and Stevenson, appartamento Borgia del Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano 57–76. Only a few iconographic studies have been done, including Saxl, “The Appartamento Borgia,” 174–88; Paal, “Studien zum Appartamento Borgia im Vatikan”; and Parks, “Pinturicchio's Sala dei Santi.” 42Strinati, “La Volta del Coro.” See also Frommel, “Giulio II e il coro di Santa Maria del Popolo.”

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption copious coffered ceiling and suggesting a conscious choice on the part of the patron to remain within a familiar stylistic circle. And yet, less than two years later in 1507, Julius II abandoned the Vatican apartments painted only a little more than a decade earlier by Pinturicchio for Pope Alexander VI. Scholars have generally viewed this decision as that of an impassioned patron anxious to throw off stylistic ties to the past.43 Given the popularity and prestige of Pinturicchio and Julius’s earlier patronage patterns as a cardinal and in Santa Maria del Popolo, however, it seems pertinent to ask why Julius would have abandoned the apartments at all. The artist was well known, and the rich and luxurious style was one which Giuliano and Domenico della Rovere had commissioned for their own private residences.44 Julius’s preference seems to have been a deliberate choice and not the result of a parochialism in taste rooted in a narrow experience of the world. Julius’s decision to abandon the rooms was almost certainly more a political choice than a personal one. By 1507, strong pressure was being exerted on the pope to inaugurate curial reforms, and the demand for a church council was growing. 45 In deserting the Borgia apartments, Julius symbolically severed any connection between the dissolute reign of Alexander VI and his own noble and enlightened papacy. With that decision, Pinturicchio became inextricably bound to the notorious symbol of Alexander VI. Suddenly, the artist who had created images to represent the della Rovere to the people of Rome for over twenty years was inappropriate for a pope compelled to visualize a new reign. Pinturicchio suggested a decadent way of life; instantly he became the decorator of a luxurious environment that surrounded a rapacious patron. Julius’s abandonment of the Borgia apartments demonstrates that the artist who was the family standard in the 1480s suggested completely different things to a viewing public by 1507. In many ways, the situation at Santa Maria del Popolo was tailor-made for Sixtus the Urbis Restaurator and the della Rovere dynasty. Sixtus was able to borrow all of the prestige of the place, its associations with antiquity, its relics of his sainted namesake, without the physical encumbrance of a beautiful existing structure. He transferred the church to a powerful group with a vigorous style, increased the status of an already popular site, and placed his name firmly in view. Then he advertised for visitors and pleaded piety as his sole motivation. Within Santa Maria del Popolo, the della Rovere— directly and indirectly—encouraged a dynastic vision of family power and formulated 43The

general trend in Raphael and Julius literature has been to see few or no similarities between the Borgia Apartments and the Vatican Stanze. See Jones and Penny, Raphael; and Klaczko, Rome and the Renaissance. Jonathan Reiss (“Raphael’s Stanze and Pinturicchio’s Borgia Apartments”) and Ursula Paal (“Apartemento Borgia im Vati Ran”) have begun to tackle the issue of a stylistic and iconographic relationship between the suites. 44For recent scholarship on the palace of Giuliano della Rovere at SS. Apostoli, see Magister’s “Arte e politica”; and Frank, “Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere.” For recent scholarship on Domenico della Rovere’s palace in the Borgo, see Cavallaro, “Decorazione perdute del Pinturicchio.” 45See Reiss, “Raphael’s Stanze and Pinturicchio’s Borgia Apartments,” 58–59. On church reform in the sixteenth century, see Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 92–93; and O’Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome, 216, 230–31.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

57

58

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN new concepts of taste. Ambitious, interested in self-commemoration, but essentially cautious, the della Rovere assimilated the antique into a contemporary decorative style and displayed a stylistic language reflective of a family requiring an elegant cast. Over the space of two decades, however, their consistency of purpose became a codified standard that would influence and shape later Renaissance notions of patronage and propaganda.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption

BIBLIOGRAPHY Archives ASR BAV BMV

Archivio de Stato, Rome Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Biblioteca Marciana, Venice

Printed Primary Sources Alberici, J. Compendio della grandezze dell’ illustre e devotissima chiesa de S. Maria del Popolo di Roma. Rome, 1600. ———. Notizie storiche della chiesa di S. Maria del Popolo di Roma. Rome, 1610. Albertini, Francesco. “Opusculum de mirabilibus novae et veteris Urbis Romae.” In Five Early Guides to Rome and Florence, edited by Peter Murray. Farnborough, England: Gregg, 1972. Brandolini, Raffaele Lippi. Parentaelis oratio de obitu Domini Ruvere Sancti Clementis Presbyteri cardinalis Romae in templo S. Maria de Popolo ad patres et populum habita. Rome, 1501. Bussi, Giovanni Andrea de. Prefazioni alle edizioni di Sweynheym e Pannartz, prototipografi romani. Edited by M. Miglio. Documenti sulle arte del Libero 12. Milan: Il Polifilo, 1978. Conti, Sigismundo dei. Le Storie de’ suoi tempi dal 1475 al 1510. Edited by D. Zanelli. Rome: G. Barbera, 1883. Cristofori, Francesco. Cronotassi dei Cardinali di Santa Romana Chiesa nelle loro Sedi Sibirbicarie titoli presbiterali e diaconie. Rome: Tipografia de Propaganda Fide, 1888. Felini, Pietro Martire. Trattato nuove delle cose maravigliose dell’alma città di Roma...1610. Berlin: Hessling, 1969. Gherardi, Jacopo. Diario Romano. Edited by E. Carusi. Vol. 23 of Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, edited by G. Carducci and V. Fiorini. Città di Castello: Tipi dell’ editore S. Lapi, 1904. Infessura, Stefano. Diario della Città di Roma. Edited by O. Tommasini. Fonti per la storia d’Italia 5. Rome: Forzani, 1890. Landucci, Ambrogio. Origine Del Tempio Dedicato in Roma alla Vergine Madre di Dio Maria Presso alla Porta Flaminia, detto hoggi del Popolo. Rome, 1646. Natali, Pietro de. Catalogus sanctorum. 1372. Titi, Filippo. Studio di pittura, scoltura, et architettura nelle chiese di Roma. Rome: G. Piccini, 1675. Verani, Tommaso. Notizie degli Archivi della Procura Generale degli Agostiniani in Roma di S. Maria del Popolo e degli Agostiniani inVelletri, 1200–1667. Busta 128. Conventi Soppressi, Agostiniani de Maria del Popolo. Fondo corporazioni religiose, Archivio di Stato. Rome. Vermiglioli, G. B. Memorie e documenti de Bernardino Pinturicchio. Perugia: Tip. Baduel-Dav. Bartelli, 1837.

Secondary Sources Albright, Priscilla Seabury. “Pintoricchio’s Frescoes in the San Bernardino Chapel in Santa Maria in Aracoeli.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1980. Ames-Lewis, Frances. “Modelbook Drawings and the Florentine Quattrocento Artist.” Art History 10 (1987): 1–11. Bauer, George, and Linda Bauer. “Bernini’s Organ-Case for S. Maria del Popolo.” Art Bulletin 62 (1980): 115–23. Bauman, Lisa Passaglia. “Power and Image: Della Rovere Patronage in Late Quattrocento Rome.” PhD diss., Northwestern University, 1990.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

59

60

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN Baxandall, Michael. Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Bentivoglio, Enzo, and Simonetta Valtieri. Santa Maria del Popolo. Rome: Bardi, 1976. Bergström, Ingvar. Revival of Antique Illusionistic Wall-Painting in Renaissance Art. Acta universitatis gothoburgensis 63. Gothenburg: ACTA Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1957. Cannatà, Roberto. “La Pittura.” In Umanesimo e Primo Rinascimento in Santa Maria del Popolo, edited by Roberto Cannatà, Anna Cavallaro, and Claudio Strinati. Rome: De Luca, 1981. Cavallaro, Anna. “Le decorazione perdute del Pinturicchio in alcuni palazzi romani della seconda metà del Quattrocento.” Roma, moderna e contemporanea 6, no.12 (Jan.-Aug. 1998): 103–25. Chambers, D. S. Patrons and Artists in the Italian Renaissance. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1971. Ciucci, Giorgio. La Piazza del Popolo. Storia, architettura, urbanistica. Rome: Officina, 1974. Dacos, Nicole. “Les Stucs du Colisée: Vestiges archéologiques et dessins de la Renaissance.” Latomus 21 (1962): 334–55. Ehrle, Francesco, and Henry Stevenson. Gli affreschi del Pinturicchio nell’appartamento Borgia del Palazzo ApostolicoVaticano. Rome: Danesi, 1897. Frank, Isabelle. “Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere and Melozzo da Forlì at SS. Apostoli.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 59 (1996): 97–122. Frapiccini, David. “Il Cardinale Girolamo Basso della Rovere e la sua cerchia tra contesti marchigiani e romani,” in I Cardinali di Santa Romana Chiesa: Collezionisti e mecenati, edited by Marco Gallo, 1:9–23. Rome: Shakespeare and Company, 2001. Frommel, Christof Luitpold. “Giulio II e il coro di Santa Maria del Popolo.” Bollettino d’ Arte 85, no.112 (April/June 2000): 1–34. Geiger, Gail L. Filippino Lippi’s Carafa Chapel: Renaissance Art in Rome. Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 5. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1986. Gombrich, E. H. “The Style All’Antica: Imitation and Assimilation.” In Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance. London: Phaidon, 1966. Grassi, Luigi. “Considerazioni e novità su Amico Aspertini e Iacopo Ripanda.” Arte antica e moderna 25 (1964): 47–65. Hilary, Richard B. “The Nepotism of Pope Pius II, 1458–1464.” Catholic Historical Review 64 (1978): 33–35. Ingersoll, Richard. “The Ritual Use of Public Space in Renaissance Rome.” PhD diss., University of California–Berkeley, 1985. Jedin, Hubert. History of the Council of Trent, 2 vols. Edited by Ernest Graf. London: T. Nelson, 1957–1961. Jones, Roger, and Nicholas Penny. Raphael. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1983. Kaftal, George. Iconography of the Saints in Central and South Italian Schools of Painting. Florence: Sansoni, 1965. Klaczko, Julian. Rome and the Renaissance:The Pontificate of Julius II. Translated by John Dennie. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903. La Malfa, Claudia. “The Chapel of San Girolamo in Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome. New Evidence for the Discovery of the Domus Aurea.” Journal of theWarburg and Courtauld Institutes 63 (2000): 257–70. Lavagnino, E. Santa Maria del Popolo. Rome, 1925. Lee, Egmont. Sixtus IV and Men of Letters. Temi e Testi 26. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1978. Lucco, M. “Una traccia per Jacopo Ripanda.” Paragone (1976): 18.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Piety and Public Consumption Maddalo, Silvia. “Il Monumento Funebre tra Persistenze Medioevali e Recupero dell’antico.” In Un pontificato ed una città: Sisto IV (1471–1484), edited by M. Miglio, 429–52. Vatican City: Scuola Vaticana di paleografia, diplomatica e archivistica, 1986. Magister, Sara. “Arte e politica: La collezione de antichità del Cardinale Giuliano della Rovere nei Palazzi ai Santi Apostoli.” Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, series 9, vol. 14, fasc. 4. (2002). O’Malley, John W. Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, c. 1450–1521. Duke Monographs in Medieval and Renaissance Studies 3. Durham: Duke University Press, 1979. Onofrio, Cesare d’. Roma val bene un’abiura. Rome: Fratelli Palombi, 1976. Paal, Ursula. “Studien zum Appartamento Borgia im Vatikan.” PhD diss., Eberhard-KarlsUniversität-Tübingen, 1979. Parks, N. Randolph. “On the Meaning of Pinturicchio’s Sala dei Santi.” Art History 23 (Sept. 1979): 292–317. Partridge, Loren, and Randolph Starn. A Renaissance Likeness: Art and Culture in Raphael's Julius II. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. Pastor, Ludwig von. History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages. 40 vols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1923–1953. Phillips, Evelyn March. Pintoricchio. London: G. Bell & Sons, 1901. Reinhard, Wolfgang. “Nepotismus: Der Funktionswandel einer päpstgeschichtlichen Konstanten.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 86, no. 2 (1975): 145–85. Reiss, Jonathan B. “Raphael’s Stanze and Pinturicchio’s Borgia Apartments.” Source: Notes in the History of Art 34 (Summer 1984): 57–67. Rice, Eugene F., Jr. St. Jerome in the Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985. Rowland, Ingrid D. The Culture of the High Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Sandström, Sven. Levels of Unreality: Studies in Structure and Construction in Italian Mural Painting during the Renaissance. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiskell, 1963. Saxl, Fritz. “The Appartamento Borgia.” In Lectures, edited by G. Bing, 174–88. London: Warburg Institute, 1957. Scarpellini, Pietro. Pintoricchio, Libreria Piccolomini. Milan: Fabbri, 1968. Schmarsow, August. Melozzo da Forlì. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1886. Schultz, J. “Pinturicchio and the Revival of Antiquity.” Journal of theWarburg and Courtauld Institutes 25 (1962): 35–55. Sciolla, G. C. La Scultura di Mino da Fiesole. Turin: G. Giappichelli, 1970. Sgarbi, Vittorio. “Due inediti dell’Aspertini.” Paragone (1980): 10. Shearman, John. “A Functional Interpretation of the Villa Madama.” Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 20 (1983): 313–27. Steinmann, Ernst. Pinturicchio. Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1898. Strinati, Claudio. “La Scultura.” In Umanesimo e Primo Rinascimento in Santa Maria del Popolo, edited by Roberto Cannatà, Anna Cavallaro, and Claudio Strinati, 29–51. Rome: De Luca, 1981. Vasari, Giorgio. LeVite de’ più eccelenti pittori, scultori ed architettori. Edited by G. Milanesi. 7 vols. Florence: Sansoni, 1878–85. Venturoli, Ripanda P. “Aspertini a Gradara.” Storia dell’Arte 4 (1969): 425–27. Vermeule, C. European Art and the Classical Past. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964. Volpe, Carlo. “Alcune schede per l’Aspertini.” Arte antica e moderna 21 (1960): 165–69.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

61

62

LISA PASSAGLIA BAUMAN Voragine, Jacobus de. The Golden Legend. Translated by Granger Ryan and Helmut Rippergar. New York: Arno Press, 1969. Walsh, Katherine. “The Observance: Sources for a History of the Observant Reform Movement in the Order of Augustinian Friars in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries.” Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 31, no. 1 (1977): 40–67. ———. “Papal Policy and Local Reform. b) Congregatio Ilicetana: the Augustinian Observant Movement in Tuscany and the Humanist Ideal.” Römische Historische Mitteilungen 22 (1980): 105–45. Wohl, Helmut. The Aesthetics of Italian Renaissance Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Yuen, Toby. “The Biblioteca Greca: Castagno, Alberti, and Ancient Sources.” Burlington Magazine 112 (1970): 725–36. ———. “Giulio Romano, Giovanni da Udine, and Raphael: Some Influences from the Minor Arts of Antiquity.” Journal of theWarburg and Courtauld Institutes 42 (1979): 263–72.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome THE MAKING OF CARDINAL GIULIANO DELLA ROVERE AS A PATRON OF ARCHITECTURE HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

for Eduard F. Sekler Within his decade-long reign, from 1503 to 1513, Pope Julius II initiated an unprecedented array of architectural projects at the Vatican Palace complex and within the wider framework of Rome. Spanning both sides of the Tiber, they included the foundation for the new Saint Peter’s Basilica, an expansion of the Vatican Palace, new streets such as the Via Giulia that included a scheme for the Palazzo Tribunali, and other building projects. The artists who worked for him, including Donato Bramante, Raphael, Michelangelo, or Giuliano da Sangallo, arrived in Rome fully formed, had honed and refined their skills on the commissions granted them by their papal sponsor. Pope Julius, as Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, had undergone a significant degree of training as a patron of architecture. In Rome, Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere commissioned building additions and repairs to three of his cardinalate palaces.1 Work on his titular church, San Pietro in Vincoli, included construction of the arcaded portico that enhanced the façade, which was completed circa 1481. Cardinal Giuliano commissioned the building of a façade of one of his palaces at Santi Apostoli, circa 1482, and a two-tiered logge for the same complex a few years later. The architect for these additions may have been Baccio Pontelli.2 Additionally, the cardinal commissioned work on a palace (ca. 1492) outside the Porta Sant’Agnese, possibly associated with the Basilica Sant’Agnese. Moreover, as the chief advisor to his fellow Ligurian, Pope Innoncent VIII, Giuliano della Rovere was undoubtedly involved with the supervision of such projects 1Shaw, Julius 2See

II: Warrior Pope, 190–91. Brown, “Cardinal Giuliano Della Rovere”; and Fiore, Baccio Pontelli architetto fiorentino.

63

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

64

as the Villa Belvedere on the Mons Sancti Aegidii (1485–87), a site he exploited and enjoyed during his own papacy.3 However, the loci that arguably most heavily influenced and affected the formulation of Pope Julius as an architectural patron, are those beyond Rome, the first of which are the renovations Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere made at the bishop’s palace at Avignon. Then, between holding the position of papal legate to Avignon and ascendancy to the papacy as Julius II, Cardinal Archbishop Giuliano della Rovere turned his attention to creating a new residence in his hometown of Savona. This story concerns two late fifteenth-century men, each named Giuliano; one an ambitious cardinal with aspirations to the papacy, the other a distinguished architect of his period.4 Their paths crossed in 1495 when the forty-two-year-old Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere (1453–1513) asked the fifty-year-old architect Giuliano da Sangallo (1445–1516) to design a palace in the Ligurian port city of Savona. Cardinal Giuliano’s palace in Savona provided a significant bridge between his activity in Avignon and Rome, one that would further prepare him for his role as papal patron of the arts in Rome and, in particular, as a patron of architecture.

AVIGNON On 21 February 1476, Giuliano della Rovere (fig. 1, left, standing, facing seated pope), known as Ad Vincula, was elevated to archbishop of Avignon by his uncle Sixtus IV.5 A month later on 17 March, Cardinal Archbishop Giuliano della Rovere arrived in Avignon.6 As archbishop of Avignon, Cardinal Giuliano had lived in the archbishop’s palace, known as the Petit Palais, where he directed several renovations to the interiors of his apartments in 1481 and 1496.7 In addition, Cardinal Giuliano, a devotee of the Virgin Mary, as was his uncle, Pope Sixtus IV, sponsored the renovation of a chapel dedicated to the Virgin Mary in Notre Dame de S. Doms at Avignon.8 Cardinal Giuliano’s renovations of the Bishop’s Palace, located across the square from the Palais des Papes on a precarious cliff edge, rectified and improved an earlier quattrocento renovation directed by Bishop Alain de Coëtivy. The result of Giuliano’s renovations was a crenelated façade punctuated by Guelf windows, on the second and third levels, designed in the latest Renaissance 3Coffin, “Pope

Innocent VIII and the Villa Belvedere.” a likeness of Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere circa 1475, see Platina Appointed Vatican Librarian (fig. 1), which depicts the cardinal standing near his seated uncle, Pope Sixtus IV. For a likeness of Giuliano da Sangallo (Giamberti), see the portrait painted circa 1480 (Tempesti and Capretti, L’opera completa di Piero di Cosimo) as a pendant to a portrait of his father, Francesco Giamberti, by Piero di Cosimo (ca. 1462– 1521?). It portrays the architect with instruments of his profession: dividers, compasses, rules, etc. 5Giuliano della Rovere was known as Ad Vincula because of his cardinalate affiliation to his titular church, San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome. See Shaw, Julius II: The Warrior Pope, 30; Labande, Le Palais des Papes et les monuments d’Avignon, 83–84; Pastor, History of the Popes, 6:61; and Shearman, “The Vatican Stanze,” 424n4. 6Shaw, Julius II: Warrior Pope, 30. 7See Girard, Evocation du Vieil Avignon, 70–72; and Labande, “Les Débuts du Cardinal Julien de la Rovère.” 8See Duhamel, Une Visite à Notre Dame de Doms d’Avignon, 49. 4For

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome

Figure 1: Melozzo da Forlì, detail of Platina Appointed Vatican Librarian, 1475. Fresco, Vatican Museums. Vatican City. Photo by Henry Dietrich Fernández.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

65

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

66

fashion. It is likely that the Guelf window, a trabeated cross-mullioned design, an early quattrocento Roman invention, only becomes associated with Avignon during these late fifteenth-century renovations of the papal palace at Avignon directed by Cardinal Giuliano.9 The earliest surviving example in Rome of a Guelf window is from 1435, at the Palazzo Diaconale at the church of Santa Maria in Cosmedin. It is possible that the cross-mullioned design of the Guelf window may have been inspired by the cross design featured on the Order of the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem’s coat of arms. More importantly, the Guelf window type is visible at the Vatican Palace and other quattrocento buildings occupied by members of the papal court or Roman families who supported the papacy, hence the name Guelf. Among the stylistic precedents for Cardinal Giuliano delle Rovere’s windows at Avignon, employed on public buildings known to the cardinal, one can include the Palazzo Venezia in Rome, built from 1455 to 1465 and the Bishop’s Palace at Pienza by Bernardo Rossellino built in 1459 and 1460.10 Other examples are the entrance façade of the Palazzo Ducale at Urbino by Luciano Laurana (built from 1464 to 1466) and the windows on the second level of the Palazzo Comunale in Pesaro, attributed to Giorgio da Sebenico (built circa 1470). 11 All of these examples can be traced back to Rome, and in particular to related papal establishments.12 Therefore, the visual connection to these examples and others would 9See

Magnuson, Studies in Roman Quattrocento Architecture; Redig de Campos, I Palazzi Vaticani; Marta, L’Architettura del Rinascimento a Roma, 124, fig. 206; and Gargiani, Princìpi e costruzione nell’architettura italiana del Quattrocento. 10For a photograph of Guelf windows at the Palazzo Venezia, see Heydenreich, Architecture in Italy, 68, fig. 83. For illustrations of Rossellino’s Guelf windows for the Palazzo Vescovile, the bishop’s palace, at Pienza, see Tönnesmann, Pienza, Städtebau und Humanismus, plate 5; and Pieper, Pienza, 446, figs. 1346 and 1347. Similar Guelf windows are also employed in the courtyard elevations of the Palazzo Piccolomini, Pius II’s residence in Pienza; see Mack, Pienza, the Creation of a Renaissance City, 67, fig. 14. 11For photographs of the Palazzo Ducale taken of the east and north elevations from the piazza side of the palace, see Papini, Francesco di Giorgio, vol. 2, pls. 140–41. It can be surmised that Cardinal Giuliano visited Pesaro. Under Sixtus IV, Giuliano’s younger brother Giovanni della Rovere was the lord of several fiefs in the surrounding terrain of the Marche. In 1474, Giovanni married Federigo da Montefeltro’s daughter Giovanna and was subsequently given lordship of Senigallia, Mondavio (where Francesco di Giorgio built the Rocca Roveresca for Giovanni), Barchi, and Orciano, all within a few miles of the port city of Pesaro. For a view of the façade of the Palazzo Comunale in Pesaro, see Heydenreich, Architecture in Italy, 80. 12Several more mid-fifteenth-century Roman examples related to the papacy that include Guelf windows are the renovated attic story of the Theater of Marcellus, which had been occupied by Cardinal Cencio Savelli (later Pope Honorius III, 1216–27) and his family since the early thirteenth century, and two remodeled buildings for the Order of the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem: the Casa dei Cavalieri di Rodi, which overlooks the Forum of Augustus, and their palace on Via Alessandrina (called Palazzo dei Cavalieri del Priorata di Rodi prior to 1464, thereafter the Palazzetto di San Martinello) on the east edge of Saint Peter’s Square. Between 1467 and 1470, the Casa dei Cavalieri di Rodi was restored by Cardinal Marco Barbo, nephew of Pietro Barbo of Venice, Pope Paul II (1464–71). For an illustration of the Theater of Marcellus, see Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City, 250, fig. 195. For a view of Guelf windows at the Casa dei Cavalieri di Rodi at the Forum of Augustus, see Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City, 300, fig. 236; and Fiorini, La Casa dei Cavalieri di Rodi al Foro di Augusto, 11, fig. 2; 35, fig. 16; and 62, fig. 41. On the Palazzo dei Cavalieri del Priorata di Rodi on Saint Peter’s Square, see D’Onofrio, Visitiamo Roma mille anni fa, 81, fig. 43; and Marta, L’ Architettura del Rinascimento a Roma, 128, fig. 214.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome have, by direct association with them, upgraded the status of Cardinal Archbishop della Rovere’s remaking of the Petit Palais. While this renovation of the Petit Palais did not significantly add to the building’s floor area, it did enhance the presence of the façade that faced the square. An examination of the ground level plan clearly shows how the plan has been rectified through a squaring of the plan (fig. 2A).13 The exterior of the building (fig. 2B), possesses a marshaled uniformity and, by association, one assumes that its occupant must possess an equivalent authority. Notable precedents for this ingenious and economical architectural device include Leon Battista Alberti’s renovation of Giovanni Rucellai’s palace façade on Via della Vigna, in Florence, which was under construction between 1453 and 1458. Alberti designed a façade that spanned a collection of medieval buildings whose plans and elevations, like the medieval Petit Palais, were uneven in relation to each other. Alberti employed a veneer of stone, defined by an evenly spaced series of bays, which collectively masked the earlier buildings.14 This clever architectural maneuver would be employed again by the future Pope Julius II and his architect, Bramante, at the Vatican Palace in Rome. Moreover, while living in the Palais des Papes in Avignon, Cardinal Archbishop della Rovere directed renovations of his rooms there. While his contributions to the architecture of Benedict XII’s Palais Vieux (as the Palais des Papes is now known) are important for understanding the future Julius II’s vision for his palace at Savona and ultimately the princely court architecture, for the Vatican Palace, it is perhaps more important to recall what the ambitious cardinal archbishop would have seen and experienced in the Palais des Papes at Avignon. Throughout his residence at Avignon, Giuliano’s elevated position within the church hierarchy ensured an intimate knowledge of the architectural additions made to the Palais des Papes by Benedict XII and his successor Clement VI, for the palace was the cardinal’s home. A brief look at the Avignon Palais des Papes allows one to understand what the future builder of the Palazzo della Rovere and the Vatican Palace saw, and to recognize that this experience must have had an impact upon his own architectural vision, which he would share with his architects, Giuliano da Sangallo and Donato Bramante. As mentioned, Clement VI (1343–52) launched the construction of several spectacular architectural embellishments, including his Grand Tinel (Grand Dining Hall), and the spacious Consistory Hall. The Consistory Hall also functioned as an audience hall; it measures sixteen by fifty meters, larger than Nicholas III’s late medieval Sala Regia at the Vatican Palace. Clement’s palace also contained a luxurious Grande Promenade, the celebrated Grand Audience Hall, as well as the majestic Grand Staircases and several other dignified audience halls. All of these architectural embellishments would serve as princely precedents for Pope Julius II and Bramante’s schemes at the Vatican Palace. The Grande Promenade would serve as one of the models for Bramante and Raphael’s Logge, the 13See

Ghersi, “Il palazzo Riario-della Rovere ai SS. Apostoli,” 450; and Magretti, Fêtes et Décors pour l’Archevêque d’Avignon. 14See Preyer, “The Rucellai Palace,” 155–207; Goldthwaite, Wealth and the Demand for Art; and Burns, “Palazzo Rucellai.”

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

67

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

68

B

Figure 2A. Plan of Petit Palais, Avignon, new additions from 1481 to 1496. Photo by Henry Dietrich Fernández; 2B. Façade of Petit Palais, Avignon. Photo by Henry Dietrich Fernández.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome regal decor of the Grand Audience Hall would contribute to Bramante and Julius II’s ideas for the renovation of the Sala Regia and other audience halls, and the Grand Staircases would be models for Bramante’s design of the Via Giulia Nova. Furthermore, living in the Palais des Papes, Cardinal Archbishop Giuliano would have recognized that it was Clement VI who introduced the character and splendor of the Burgundian court to the Palais des Papes at Avignon. His interventions instilled a royal Gothic elegance distinguished by the latest sculpture, wall frescoes, and other luxurious furnishings. Clement VI’s Avignon palace had been designed to impress on visiting dignitaries the ongoing, undiminished status of the papacy, even while it was in exile. This early practical experience of contributing towards the fabric of important ecclesiastical sites must have enhanced Cardinal Archbishop Giuliano’s authority within the church as a patron of architectural works. In conjunction with his early Avignon legacy, his experience as a military figure, obliged to confront and resolve issues regarding battle field strategy, deepened his understanding of dealing with difficult problems on precarious terrains.15 This singular combination of expertise, that of cardinal archbishop and legate desirous of rendering his stay in an already sumptuous palace more commodious, and field marshal negotiating troop movements, would contribute to the future pope’s skills and abilities in Savona.

EXILE FROM ROME AND HOME TO SAVONA In November 1494, France invaded Italy a year and a half after the death of Lorenzo the Magnificent on 8 April 1492, and the Medici were exiled from Florence. Along with other Medici followers, Giuliano da Sangallo left Florence and traveled to Naples, Savona, and France.16 A few months later, in February 1495, Cardinal Giuliano would seize upon this opportunity to enlist Giuliano da Sangallo (fig. 3), who was among the distinguished architects of the late quattrocento. Sangallo had established his reputation through his association with the Medici, directing building projects such as the villa at Poggio a Caiano (early 1480s), Santa Maria delle Carceri in Prato (begun 1484), the Sacristy at Santo Spirito (1492–94), and the Palazzo Gondi (1490–94). After his Medici patrons were expelled in the autumn of 1494, Cardinal Guiliano invited him to Savona to design a palace, an invitation facilitated by his acquaintance with the cardinal when they were both in Rome between 1471 and 1472.17 Both Guilianos were in effect “in exile”: the architect because of his affiliation with the Medici, and the cardinal archbishop who needed to keep a safe distance from Pope Alexander VI.18 The cardinal’s ongoing political differences with Alexander worsened after Alexander’s election to the papacy on 11 August 1492, steadily eroding until on 6 January 1493, Giuliano left Rome for Ostia where his fortified seaside castle provided a safe haven. On 15 January, Giuliano cautiously agreed to return to Rome, but 15For

his military experience in the field, see Shaw, Julius II: Warrior Pope, 19–25; and Chambers, Popes, Cardinals, andWar, 79–93, 120–33. 16See Marchini, Giuliano da Sangallo. 17Giuliano da Sangallo was in Rome from 1465 to 1472; Onians, Bearers of Meaning, 190. 18Shaw, Julius II: Warrior Pope, 81–115.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

69

70

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

Figure 3: Piero di Cosimo, Giuliano da Sangallo, ca. 1480. Oil on panel, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Photo by Henry Dietrich Fernández.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome changed his mind when he was alerted by friends that Alexander had troops waiting for him at Santi Apostoli, one of the cardinal’s residences in Rome. Later, on 23 April 1494, Giuliano, fearing assassination by his enemy, finally left Ostia by ship for Savona in Liguria. A few days later he landed in Savona and after some hasty preparations over the next four weeks, eventually traveled to France accompanied by two hundred Savonese infantry. On 1 June 1494, Giuliano arrived at Lyons where he was warmly greeted by Charles VIII’s court. Surrounded by family members such as Clemente della Rovere Grosso, bishop of Mende since 1483, Giuliano must have felt safer in France. Thus, Giuliano della Rovere, cardinal archbishop of Avignon, encouraged Charles VIII (1483–98) to launch a campaign against Naples. During the campaign against Italy, Giuliano requested the king’s support for a church council to depose Alexander VI for simony, a strategy that failed and left the cardinal in a very precarious position. Following the French defeat at the battle of Fornovo on 6 July 1495, Charles VIII was forced to leave Italy. The French retreat left Cardinal Archbishop Giuliano in an increasingly dangerous political position. Nonetheless, Giuliano returned to Avignon on 21 October 1495 where he was welcomed as a hero by the town and his nephew, Bishop Clemente della Rovere.19 Mark Wilchusky has speculated that, to reward Bishop Clemente for watching Giuliano’s interests while he was away, Giuliano commissioned the medalist Giovanni Candida to create a double portrait medal featuring Giuliano and Clemente in October 1495.20 The bronze medal is sixty-one millimeters in diameter. The obverse portrays Cardinal Giuliano, Archbishop of Avignon, in profile with the inscription: . IVLIANVS . EPS . OSTIEN . CAR . S . P . AD . VINCVLA ., identifying him as Giuliano, Bishop of Ostia and Cardinal of San Pietro in Vincoli, in Rome.21 The reverse side of the medal features Clemente, Bishop of Mende, also in profile with tonsured head, dressed in a collarless shirt and rochet, with the inscription: . CLEMENS . DE . RVVERE . EP . S . MIMATEN ., Clemente della Rovere, Bishop of Mende.22 While this medal is not the earliest portrait medal depicting Cardinal Giuliano, the minting of this bronze medal records Giuliano’s continued interest in promoting his name, origins, and fame, a practice that would be developed at a grand scale eight years later when he became pope. 23 19Clemente della Rovere assumed the title of cardinal bishop in 1503 during the first two months of Julius II’s papacy and died the following year in 1504. 20Wilchusky, “Candida, 38, 38a,” 125–26. 21This bronze medal also depicts Cardinal Giuliano in tonsured profile, wearing a collarless shirt and rochet. 22For Clemente della Rovere Grosso, see Cottier, Comté-Venaissin, 158–59. 23Roberto Weiss cites two earlier bronze medals commissioned by Cardinal Giuliano including one connected with the building of the fortress at Ostia in 1483. The obverse shows Giuliano’s portrait bust and an inscription, IVL . EPISC . OSTIEN (Giuliano Bishop of Ostia). On the reverse side there is view of the fortress at Osia with the inscription, CARD : S : P : ADVINC (cardinalis sancti Petri ad Vincula). The other medal was probably designed by Sperandio circa 1487/88. The obverse of this medal shows a bust of Cardinal Giuliano with an inscription, IVLIANVS . RVVERE . S . PETRI . AD . VINCVLA . CARDINALIS . LIBERTATIS . ECCLESIASTICE . TVTOR . (Cardinal Giuliano Rovere of San Pietro in Vincoli champion of the rights of the church). For a detailed interpretation of these two medals, see Weiss, “The Medals of Julius II.”

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

71

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

72

Cardinal Archbishop Giuliano was able to spend the winter in his diocese in Avignon and was probably still there in July 1496, with occasional trips to Lyons and Savona.24 Against this political background, it is understandable why the peripatetic cardinal must have felt that a safer home base in Savona, rather than in France or certainly Rome, was advantageous.25 While he may have been the cardinal archbishop of Avignon, in Savona he was among even more family members, longtime friends, and his commercial compatriots. Unsure of his future in Rome, Cardinal Giuliano chose to strengthen his identity through the construction of a family palace. This project was not Cardinal Giuliano’s first artistic commission in Savona. In 1490, he had commissioned Vincenzo Foppa (1427/30–1515/16) and Ludovico Brea (died 1523) to create the Della Rovere Polyptych, a maestà depicting the Madonna enthroned with saints, for the Oratorio di Nostra Signora di Castello at Savona. 26 The commission, like the chapel at Notre Dame de Doms in Avignon, was in keeping with Giuliano’s veneration of Mary, and the painting shows the kneeling, tonsured profile of Cardinal Giuliano as patron of the work (fig. 4) in the lower left-hand corner of the central panel. However, neither he nor his uncle, Pope Sixtus IV, nor any of the other della Rovere relatives had yet made any substantial contribution to the architectural topography of their native city. Now, however, Cardinal Giuliano could reap the benefits of his experience as a patron of architecture of the past decade and seek the design expertise of the Medici’s architect, Giuliano da Sangallo, to embellish Savona, and his family name. It is very likely that the meetings with Sangallo regarding the design of the palace took place in Savona when the cardinal visited his hometown. Together they realized the plans and execution of the Palazzo della Rovere, built between 4 February 1495 and 17 May 1496 under the supervision of Urbano Vegerio.27

THE DESIGN OF THE PALAZZO DELLA ROVERE As might be expected, design considerations for Cardinal Giuliano’s new palace must have taken into account a number of precedents, some of which were well known and currently held by family members, such as Cardinal Giuliano’s own palace at Santi Apostoli in Rome from the 1470s, his residence at San Pietro in Vincoli (Ad Vincula), and his fortress residence at Ostia. Among these buildings, the most spectacular of the family residences was one in Rome owned by his cousin Cardinal Raffaelle Riario, a grand edifice that would later be known as the Palazzo della Cancelleria. While construction of the Cancelleria had begun six years earlier in 1489, it would be another 24For Archbishop

Giuliano della Rovere’s travels during this winter 1495/96 period, see Shaw, Julius II: Warrior Pope, 101–2. 25For a description of Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere’s travels between 1496 and 1503, see Sanuto, I diarii di Marino Sanuto, cited in Pastor, History of the Popes, 2:564, 3:384; and Frommel, “St. Peter’s: The Early History,” 401n17. 26For an illustration of Foppa’s altarpiece, see Folco and Lava, Oratorio di Nostra Signora di Castello, 16. 27Malandra, “Documenti sulla cappella Sistina e sul palazzo a Savona”; and Convegno storico savonese: L’età dei Della Rovere: V Convegno storico savonese, al Savona, 7–10 November 1985.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome

Figure 4. Foppa Vincenzo Foppa and Ludovico Brea, detail of Della Rovere Polyptych, 1490. Oil on panel, Oratorio di Nostra Signora di Castello, Savona.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

73

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

74

decade before it was finished.28 Nonetheless, the massive scale of Cardinal Raffaelle Riario’s great building enterprise, begun after the death of their uncle Sixtus IV and during the papacy of another Ligurian pope, Innocent VIII (1484–92), promised to be an architectural spectacle, surpassed only by the Palazzo Venezia, begun in 1455 and enlarged in 1465 after its patron Pietro Barbo, became Pope Paul II (1464–71). Like his uncle Pietro Riario and cousin Giuliano della Rovere, both of whom had been made cardinals by Sixtus IV (1471–84) on 15 December 1471, Raffaelle received the cardinal’s hat from Sixtus six years later in 1477, following Pietro’s untimely death. Rivalry between Giuliano and Raffaelle, undoubtedly encouraged by Sixtus, fed their ambitions.29 With this rivalry in mind, Cardinal Giuliano, with Giuliano da Sangallo’s professional expertise, set on an architectural course that may not have been as large or splendid as the Cancelleria in Rome, but would at least ensure that his family palace in Savona was the largest the seaport city had ever seen. The nucleus of the della Rovere property, positioned at the apex of the Via Pia, overlooked the harbor (figs. 5, 6). It was originally owned by Cardinal Francesco della Rovere, who would later become Pope Sixtus IV. This core piece of real estate, facing the Via Pia, was amplified through the acquisition of several surrounding parcels of land that were originally the sites of medieval buildings, not unlike the way the Rucellai and Gondi families had assembled an array of properties for their palaces in Florence (fig. 7).30 Giuliano da Sangallo designed a façade, three stories (about twenty-four meters) high and five bays wide, on the prestigious Via Pia side of the property (fig. 8).31 Measured from center point to center point of their respective flanking pilasters, the middle bay measures five meters, and each of the two bays on either side of the portal measures four meters (figs. 7, 8).32 This twenty-three-meter-wide street front was three times wider than any of the other substantial palace fronts on the Via Pia in Savona. The Casa Mullasana, located to the left and contiguous to the Palazzo della Rovere, is approximately one-third the width of Cardinal Giuliano’s new palace.33 Sangallo’s economical design for this elevation would consolidate several of the older medieval housefronts into one continuous monolithic façade. This design strategy not only recalls Alberti’s 28For

a recent date, 1489, for the start of construction of the Cancelleria, see Frommel, “Il Palazzo della Cancelleria.” 29For a discussion of the relationship between Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere and his uncle, Sixtus IV, see Shaw, “A Pope and His Nipote.” For a broader discussion of papal nepotism, see Reinhard, “Nepotismus.” 30Originally the Via Pia was named Via Nattoni and at times Via della Maddalena. For comments on the identification of Via Pia and a plan of the della Rovere property set within the context of the urban fabric of Savona in 1530, see Varaldo, La Topografia Urbanai, table 8. For a plan showing the sequence in which properties were purchased for the formation of the Palazzo Rucellai, see Kent, Giovanni Rucellai, ed il suo Zibaldone, plate 7. For a plan of the Palazzo Gondi, begun 1490 by Sangallo and Cronaca, which demonstrates the same aggregate assembly of properties, see Tönnesmann, Der Palazzo Gondi in Florenz, fig. 2. 31As late as 1530, the della Rovere palace property was among the most valued real estate sites in Savona. See Varaldo, La Topografìa Urbana, 129, table 1. 32These dimensions were measured by the author as part of an on-site survey conducted in July 2001 and are very close to the dimensions recorded by Francesco Paolo Fiore in the “Introduction” to Storia dell’architettura italiana, 32–34. 33For an elevation of the della Rovere property, which includes the Casa Mullasana, on the Via Pia set within the context of its neighborhood in Savona in 1530, see Varaldo, La Topografìa Urbana, 69, fig. 23.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome

75

Figure 5. Plan of the City of Savona and Palazzo Rovere. After Varaldo, drawing by Henry Dietrich Fernández.

unifying façade for the Rucellai family in Florence, but more importantly establishes an architectural connection with Cardinal Archbishop Giuliano’s renovation of the Petit Palais at Avignon. In both instances, at Avignon and Savona, Giuliano della Rovere demonstrated his understanding of design issues and organizational skills needed to oversee the execution of the construction of large-scale buildings. Furthermore, as renovations of older structures, both buildings employ an interpretation of the latest all’antica architectural language that resulted in a balanced symmetrical façade. The Palazzo della Rovere’s large L-shaped courtyard follows an analogous design strategy, positioning a space at the core of the palazzo’s plan, which establishes the perception from the interior of the courtyard of a balanced design (figs. 5,7). This design device, an example of which is recorded in Giuliano da Sangallo’s Taccuino Senese, a

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

76

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

For this image, see printed book

Figure 6. Nineteenth-century view of harbor front of Savona, view towards south. Reproduced with permission from Marco Ricchebono and Carlo Varaldo, Savona (Savona: SAGEP, 1982).

small sketchbook of architectural designs, formed an integral part of Sangallo’s design repertoire.34 Cardinal Giuliano would have been familiar with the Palazzo Gondi, begun 1490, which Sangallo and Cronaca designed in Florence. In the Palazzo Gondi, the designers employed the same regularizing courtyard device inscribed within an irregularly shaped parcel of property.35 Sangallo’s design of the della Rovere palace façade employed the latest fashion in the all’antica style.36 About fifteen years earlier, in a detail of a sheet in his Codex Barberiniano 34Sangallo, Il taccuino senese di Giuliano da Sangallo, plate 21. This detail is also cited by Fiore, “Fabbrica quattrocentesca del Palazzo.” 35For a plan of the Palazzo Gondi, see Tönnesmann, Der Palazzo Gondi in Florenz, fig. 6; and Marchini, Giuliano da Sangallo, fig. 4. 36For a discussion of fifteenth-century architecture and its relationship to the ancient world, see Burns, “Some Problems.”

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome

77

Figure 7. Plan and façade of Palazzo della Rovere on Via Pia. After Varaldo, drawing by Henry Dietrich Fernández.

from the 1480s, Sangallo had depicted a palace that, in using a hierarchical arrangement of the so-called Orders, not only references Alberti’s earlier Palazzo Rucellai, but also prefigures the design of the future Palazzo della Rovere in Savona.37 At the same time, as 37For

an explanation of the use and understanding of the archivectural term Order (Ordine) in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, see Thoenes and Günther, “Gli ordini architettonici: Rinascita o invenzione?” 261–310. For Sangallo’s drawing, see Huelsen, Il Libro di Giuliano da Sangallo, plate fol. 4v. Located beyond the lower left-hand arch, a portion of a three-story palace façade is depicted.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

78

For this image, see printed book

Figure 8. Façade of Palazzo Rovere, 2007. Photo by Dario Ferro.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome Ludwig Heydenreich has suggested, Sangallo’s use of colored stone in the façade’s facing places the building in the Ligurian-Genoese tradition, a detail that was altered by a nineteenth-century renovation of the lower story.38 Yet, it also coincides with Sangallo’s use of multicolored stone facing in his earlier designs, as can be seen in the 1485 church of Santa Marie delle Carceri in Prato.39 Overall, Sangallo skillfully employed the all’antica language in a reasonable and sober manner. At street level, the central bay was punctuated by a trabeated entrance portal, which led through a tunnel vault into the palazzo’s courtyard. The oak leaf and acorn motifs, emblems of the della Rovere stemma, on the portal’s flanking Corinthian capitals, complement the oak leaf relief design that graces the surface of the vaulted ceiling of the entrance, marking the palace threshold as della Rovere domain (fig. 9). 40 As pope, Giuliano would employ similar motifs in the decorations of door and window casings in the Vatican Palace. Across the street from the Palazzo della Rovere’s entrance portal, Giuliano da Sangallo demolished parts of the corners of the properties located at the top of the narrow street that led up to the palace façade on the via Pia, creating the effect of a private piazzetta. Giuliano della Rovere remembered this concept when, as pope, he employed Bramante to design a piazza fronting the Palazzo Tribunali on the Via Giulia in Rome, a scheme that was never fully realized.41 To approach the Via Pia from the parallel street below, one would pass through the narrow vaulted tunnel opposite the Palazzo della Rovere. Seen from this angle, the central bay’s wider dimension would endow it with special emphasis, and the contrast between the width of the central bay relative to the narrower flanking side bays would create the illusion that the central bay was projecting forward (figs. 5, 10). The resulting perception of a curved surface, may, for some, have recalled the approach to the bayed curvature of the Colosseum in Rome, as viewed from Via San Giovanni in Laterano, a narrow street from the direction of the church of San Clemente (fig. 11). Indeed, Giuliano della Rovere would have experienced this view of the Colosseum when he was a part of Innocent VIII’s entourage in 1484 on their return journey from the Lateran to the Vatican during Innocent’s possesso. Such a reference to the topography of the ancient world would have appealed to both Sangallo’s and Cardinal Giuliano’s appreciation of the antique.42 The Palazzo della Rovere may not have been on the cutting edge of the architectural scene when compared to works by other quattrocento designers, especially since 38See

Fiore, Fabbrica quattrocentesca del Palazzo, 265; and Heydenreich, Architecture in Italy, 146. For a reconstruction of the original design scheme, see Marchini, Giuliano da Sangallo, 47, fig. 5. 39For a description of Sangallo’s use of colored stones, see Morselli and Corti, La Chiesa di Santa Maria. 40See Pellecchia, Observations on the Scala Palace, 237–40; and Di Dio, “Appunti sulle volte di Giuliano da San Gallo.” 41For an illustration of a drawing, UA136v, from Bramante’s workshop that shows his scheme for a new piazza positioned directly across the Via Giulia from his Palazzo Tribunali, which was never completed, see Tafuri, “‘Roma instaurata,’” 68. 42Several drawings in Giuliano da Sangallo's sketchbook from the 1480 Il Libro di Giuliano da Sangallo: Codice Vaticano Barberiniano demonstrate his interest in displaying buildings through framed views; Huelson, Il Libro di Giuliano da Sangallo, plate folios 4v, 5, 26; and Borsi, Giuliano da Sangallo, 54, 58, 60, 61, 145.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

79

80

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

Figure 9. Façade of Palazzo Rovere, left, view towards north, and right, detail of entrance, 2002. Photo by Henry Dietrich Fernández.

it might not have been completed according to Sangallo’s design.43 Moreover, Cardinal Giuliano did not commission great works of art to grace his palace in Savona, as his cousin Raffaelle Riario did in 1496 with Michelangelo’s Bacchus for the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome. Despite this, Cardinal Giuliano’s new family palace without a doubt exhibited the most sophisticated use of the classical language Savona had ever witnessed. It was admired by the local citizenry and emulated by subsequent Savonese designers. Because of its splendor and size, the Palazzo della Rovere became the site of special events. In June 1507, Germana di Foix, queen of Spain and wife of 43It is possible that his “nephew” Bernardo completed the work after 1497; Fiore, Fabbrica quattrocentesca del Palazzo, 265.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome

Figure 10. Entrance to Palazzo Rovere. Drawing by Henry Dietrich Fernández.

King Ferdinand V, lodged in the Castello Nuovo (the Palazzo della Rovere) for a “European meeting.”44 Five years later, on 13 January 1500, the Council of Seniors of Savona declared, in acknowledgment of their contribution to the beauty of the city, that “de Seingallo [Giuliano da Sangallo], magister petrarum et picator,” and his relative Bernardo had become citizens of Savona.45 Perhaps the most compelling aspect of Sangallo’s design was its sitting within the 44See Varaldo, La Topografia

Urbana. Fiore, Fabbrica quattrocentesca del Palazzo, 261, 272n8. For a “Sangallo” family tree, see Frommel and Adams, Drawings of Antonio da Sangallo theYounger. 45See

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

81

82

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

Figure 11. left, Colosseum, viewed from Via San Giovanni in Laterano, Rome, 2002. Photomontage by Henry Dietrich Fernández; right, Leonardo Bufalini, Pianta di Roma, 1551, detail with Colosseum. Photo by Henry Dietrich Fernández.

urban fabric of Savona.46 The palace was situated at the highest part of the hill, overlooking the harbor. The elevation of the ridge, which was defined by the Via Pia, rose about ten meters above the elevation of the harbor shore. This location, combined with Sangallo’s three-story façade, was among the tallest structures on the street and could be seen from many parts of the city. The harbor’s curved shoreline also offered greater and more varied views to ships entering the harbor from different directions (figs. 12, 13), and the unusually wide façade, along with the even cadence of its five bays, gave the top story of the palace an optical legibility that would have been the dominant feature to all arriving at Savona from the sea, indelibly inscribing Cardinal Giuliano’s identity on the harbor front’s skyline. This design idea prefigures Bramante’s design scheme for the Vatican Palace Logge. While Sangallo’s della Rovere palace, at twenty-four meters high, was about half as tall as Bramante’s future four-story Vatican Palace Logge, it functioned in a similar manner. The palace with a viewing platform from which the cardinal could survey his port city was replicated at the Vatican in the form of Bramante’s Logge from which Pope Julius II (formerly Cardinal 46For a descriptive history of Savona, see Abate, Cronache Savonesi. For view of Savona and its harbor in the last decade of the quattrocento, see Cerisola, Storia di Savona, 168.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome Giuliano) could view his new domain, the city of Rome. The pope was certainly conscious of the parallel and may well have encouraged Bramante in the development of this element of the design for the Vatican Logge. Cardinal Giuliano’s precarious political situation might have suggested to some that Savona, secure and comfortable as his hometown would have been, would be the place where he would live out the rest of his clerical career. But to those that knew him and his tenacious character, it was no surprise that he would outlive both his nemesis, Alexander VI, and Pius III’s short-lived twenty-six-day papacy, and would emerge as the next pope after a conclave that lasted a single day. When Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere became Pope Julius II on 1 November 1503, he found a papal palace at the Vatican that must have been, to his mind, lacking in the courtly amenities that he had appreciated during his tenure as cardinal archbishop and papal legate at Avignon, and the visual unity of the family palace he had created with Sangallo in Savona. Although Sangallo continued to serve the new pope, it was Bramante who became Julius II’s head architect at the Vatican.47 With the help of Bramante’s architectural genius, the sixty-four-year-old pope quickly launched a massive building campaign at the Mons Vaticanus. It included a dramatic transformation of the Vatican Palace into a papal residence that would equal and surpass his memories of both Avignon and his palace at Savona. The Savona palace gave the future pope valuable design experience, and provided the della Rovere family with an architectural identity they had previously lacked in Savona. It also served as Julius II’s personal reference point as he aggressively redefined the identity of the della Rovere popes as purveyors of architectural taste in Rome.

47It is likely that Julius II not only knew Bramante prior to his election in 1503, but may have commissioned Bramante for work at San Giovanni in Laterano; Nesselrath and Nesselrath, “Die Wappen der Erzpriester.”

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

83

Figure 12. View of Palazzo Rovere from harbor. Digital reconstruction by Henry Dietrich Fernández.

84

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Figure 13. View of Palazzo Rovere from harbor. Digital reconstruction by Henry Dietrich Fernández.

Avignon to Rome

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

85

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ

86

BIBLIOGRAPHY Printed Primary Sources Abate, Agostino. Cronache Savonesi dal 1500 al 1570. Edited by G. Assereto. Savona, 1897. Cerisola, Nello. Storia di Savona. Savona: Editrice Liguria, 1983. Convegno storico savonese: L’età dei Della Rovere: V Convegno storico savonese. Savona, November 7–10, 1985. Cottier, C. Notes historiques concernant les recteurs du ci-devant Comté-Venaissin. 158–59. Carpentras: 1806. Huelsen, Christian. Il Libro di Giuliano da Sangallo. CodiceVaticano Barberiniano latino 4424, 2 vols. Leipzig: 1910. Revised with 17 additional plates in text volume. Modena: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1984. Sanuto, Marino. I Diarii di Marino Sanuto. Edited by Renato Fulin et al. 58 vols. Venice: Visentini, 1879–1902.

Secondary Sources Borsi, Stefano. Giuliano da Sangallo: I disegni di architettura e dell’antico. Rome: Officina Edizioni, 1985. Brown, Deborah Taynter. “Cardinal Giuliano Della Rovere, Patron of Architecture, 1471– 1503.” PhD diss. University of London, Courtauld Institute of Art, 1988. Burns, Howard. “Palazzo Rucellai.” In Storia dell’architettura Italian: Il Quattrocento, edited by Francesco Paolo Fiore. 134–37. Milan: Electa, 1998. ———. “Quattrocento Architecture and the Antique: Some Problems.” In Clasical Influences on European Culture, A.D. 500–1500. Edited by R. R. Bolgar, 269–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Chambers, D. S. Popes, Cardinals, and War: The Military Church in Renaissance and Early Modern Europe. London: I. B. Tauris, 2006. Clark, Nicholas. Melozzo da Forlì, Pictor Papalis. London: Sotheby’s Publications, 1990. Coffin, David R. “Pope Innocent VIII and the Villa Belvedere.” In Studies in Late Medieval and Renaissance Painting in Honor of Millard Meiss, edited by Irving Lavin and John Plummer, 88– 97. New York: New York University Press, 1977. Di Dio, Mario. “Appunti sulle volte di Giuliano da San Gallo: Le due realizzazioni Savonesi.” In Scritti per l’Istituto Germanico di Storia dell’ Arte di Firenze. Edited by Cristina Acidini Luchinat et al., 175–82. Florence: Le Lettere: 1997. D’Onofrio, Cesare. Visitiamo Roma mille anni fa: La città dei Mirabilia. Rome: Roma Società Editrice, 1988. Duhamel, Leopold. UneVisite à Notre Dame de Doms d’Avignon: Guide de l'étranger dans ce Monument. Avignon, 1896. Fiore, Francesco Paolo. “La fabbrica quattrocentesca del Palazzo della Rovere in Savona.” In Sisto IV e Giulio II, mecenati e promotori di cultura, edited by Silvia Bottaro, Anna Dagnino, and Giovanna Rotondi Terminiello. 261–76. Savona: Coop Typograf, 1989. ———, ed. Storia dell’architettura italiana: Il Quattrocento. Milan: Electa, 1998. Fiorini, Guido. La Casa dei Cavalieri di Rodi al Foro di Augusto. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato, 1951. Folco, Flavia, and Pierfederico Lava. Oratorio di Nostra Signora di Castello. Savona: Marco Sabatelli, 1991.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Avignon to Rome Frommel. “Il Palazzo della Cancelleria.” In Il Palazzo dal Rinascimento ad Oggi, in Italia nel regno di Napoli in Calabria: Storia e attualità, edited by Simonetta Valtieri, 29–54. Rome: Gangemi, 1990. ———. “St. Peter’s: The Early History.” In The Renaissance from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo: The Representation of Architecture, edited by Henry A. Millon and Magnago Lampugnani, 398– 423. Milan: Bompiani, 1994. ———, and Nicholas Adams. The Architectural Drawings of Antonio da Sangallo theYounger and His Circle. Vol. 1, Fortifications, Machines, and Festival Architecture. Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 1994. Gargiani, Roberto. Princìpi e costruzione nell’architettura italiana del Quattrocento. Rome: Editori Laterza, 2003. Ghersi, Lorenzo Finocchi. “Il palazzo Riario-della Rovere ai SS. Apostoli.” In Sisto IV. Le Arti a Roma nel Primo Rinascimento: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, edited by Fabio Benzi. Rome: Associazione culturale Shakespeare and company, 2000. Girard, Joseph. Evocation duVieil Avignon. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1958. Goldthwaite, Richard.Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy, 1300–1600. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Heydenreich, Ludwig H. Architecture in Italy, 1400–1500. Revised by Paul Davies. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. Kent, Francis William, et al. Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone: A Florentine Patrician and His Palace, vol. 2. London: Warburg Institute, 1981. Krautheimer, Richard. Rome: Profile of a City, 312–1308. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. Labande, Léon-Honoré. Le Palais des Papes et les monuments d’Avignon au XIVe, 2 vols. Aix/ Marseilles, 1925. ———. “Les Débuts du Cardinal Julien de la Rovère.” In Annuaire de la Société des Amis du Palais des Papes et des Monuments d’Avignon. Avignon: 1926. Mack, Charles. Pienza, the Creation of a Renaissance City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987. Magnuson, Torgil. Studies in Roman Quattrocento Architecture. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1958. Magretti, E. Fêtes et Décors pour l’Archevêque d’Avignon. Le Petit Palais et la place du Palais au 18e siècle. Avignon, 1986. Malandra, Guido. Convegno storico savonese. 5th ed. Savona, 1985. ———. “Documenti sulla cappella Sistina e sul palazzo della Rovere a Savona.” In Atti e Memorie della Società Savonese di Storia Patria, 8:135–41. Savona, 1974. Marchini, Giuseppe. Giuliano da Sangallo. Florence: Sansoni, 1942. Marta, Roberto. L’Architettura del Rinascimento a Roma (1417–1503), tecniche e Tipologi. Rome: Edizioni Kappa, 1995. Morselli, Piero, and Gino Corti. La Chiesa di Santa Maria delle Carceri in Prato. Prato: Società pratese di storia patria, 1982. Nesselrath, Christiane, and Arnold Nesselrath. “Die Wappen der Erzpriester an der Lateranbasilika oder wie Bramante nach Rom kam.” In Italia et Germania: Liber amicorum Arnold Esch, edited by Keller von Hagen and Werner Paravicini, 291–317. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2001. Onians, John. Bearers of Meaning: The Classical Orders in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. Papini, Roberto, Francesco di Giorgio, Architetto. 3 vols. Florence: Electa, 1946.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

87

88

HENRY DIETRICH FERNÁNDEZ Pastor, Ludwig von. History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages. 40 vols. London: Kegan Paul, 1923–1953. Pellecchia, Linda. “Observations on the Scala Palace: Giuliano da Sangallo and Antiquity.” PhD diss., Harvard University,1983. Pieper, Jan. Pienza: Der Entwurf einer humanistischenWeltsicht. Stuttgart: Axel Menges, 1997. Preyer, Brenda. “The Rucellai Palace.” In Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone, A Florentine Patrician and His Palace, vol. 2, edited by Francis William Kent et al. London: The Warburg Institute, 1981. Redig de Campos, Deoclecio. I PalazziVaticani. Bologna: Cappelli Editore, 1967. Reinhard, Wolfgang. “Nepotismus: Der Funktionswandel einer päpstgeschichtlichen Konstanten.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 86, no. 2 (1975): 145–85. Sangallo, Giuliano da. Il taccuino senese di Giuliano da Sangallo. Edited by Rodolfo Falb. Siena, 1902. Shaw, Christine. Julius II: Warrior Pope. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993. ———. “A Pope and His Nipote: Sixtus IV and Giuliano della Rovere.” In L’età dei della Rovere: V Convego storico savonese: Savona, 7–10 novembre 1985, 233–50. Atti e memorie della società savonese di storia patria, n.s. 24. Savona: Società savonese di storia patria, 1988–89. Shearman, John. “The Vatican Stanze: Functions and Decoration.” Proceedings of the British Academy (1971): 369–424. Tafuri, Manfredo. “‘Roma instaurata’: Strategie urbane e politiche pontificie nella Roma del primo ’500.” In Raffaello Architetto, edited by Christoff Luitpold Frommel et al., 59–106. Milan: Electa 1984. Tempesti, Anna Forlani, and Elena Capretti. L’opera completa di Piero di Cosimo. Florence: Octavo, 1996. Tönnesmann, Andreas. Der Palazzo Gondi in Florenz. Worms: Werner’sche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1983. ———. Pienza, Städtebau und Humanismus. Munich: Hirmer, 1996. Varaldo, Carlo. La Topografia Urbana di Savona nel tardo Medioevo, Savona. Bordighera: Istituto internazionale di studi liguri, 1975. Weiss, Roberto. “The Medals of Julius II (1503–1513).” Journal of theWarburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965): 163–82. Wilchusky, Mark. “Candida, 38, 38a.” In The Currency of Fame, Portrait Medals of the Renaissance, edited by Stephen K. Scher, 125–26. New York: Harry Abrams, 1994. Acknowledgments This research would not have been possible without the generous help of Brian Murphy, Prof. Deborah Howard, and Dr. Caroline P. Murphy. The digital reconstructions of the Savona port and a view of the façade of the Palazzo della Rovere were made possible by the technical assistance of Jason John Roan.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Reform and Renewed Ambition CARDINAL GIULIO FELTRIO DELLA ROVERE IAN VERSTEGEN

Il Cardinal d’Urbino…ornato di belle lettere, e di buoni e santi costumi, et di grandissima speranza di poter pervenire alla suprema grandezza del Pontificato, se al Signore Iddio fusse piacciuto di darle più lunga vita, che non ha fatto. POMPEO PELLINI, DELLA HISTORIA DI PERUGIA, 1590

In 1548, when Giulio Feltrio della Rovere was made a cardinal, he was the first della Rovere in two decades to be a member of the sacred college of cardinals. After decades of nepotistic dominance that began with Sixtus IV della Rovere (1471–1484), the family’s influence had declined under years of hostile Medici occupation of the papacy, which included the expulsion of the della Rovere from Urbino by Leo X de’ Medici. In 1548, finally, the young second son of the celebrated military commander and Duke of Urbino, Francesco Maria, attained the cardinal’s hat. Cardinal Giulio Feltrio della Rovere would go on to a celebrated career as a church reformer before his untimely death in 1578.1 Cardinal Giulio, or the Cardinal d’Urbino, as he was called, was an important figure in Renaissance life as a patron of art and science and an advocate of the CounterReformation (fig. 1).2 Giulio was relatively young when he died, but in his short 1

Epigraph from Pellini, Della Historia di Perugia, 760. The third part of this history, written circa 1590, was suppressed and published only recently. 1For the basic sources of Giulio’s life, see Chacon, Pontificium Romanorum, 3:730; Cardella, Cardinali della Santa Romana Chiesa, 4:287–89; Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, 3:81–82; Vernarecci, Fossombrone; Rossi Parisi,Vittoria Farnese; and Ligi, Ecclesiastiche di Urbino, 34–39. The most important archival sources for Giulio are his files in the Archivio di Stato, Florence (hereafter ASF), and the Biblioteca Oliveriana, Pesaro. 2There is no known painted portrait of Cardinal Giulio. This medal (BM 1217a) supplements that XXXXX

89

IAN VERSTEGEN

90

Figure 1. Medal of Giulio Feltrio della Rovere, 1570–73, British Museum, A12179, L449. Reproduced by permission of Trustees of the British Museum, London.

career, he was an important figure. It was he with his ecclesiastical duties at the various papal conclaves, rather than his brother, who occupied the Roman Palazzo della Rovere in the Via Lata, the ancestor of the Palazzo Doria Pamphilj (fig. 2).3 And it is he who had in his retinue the painters Federico Barocci (1535–1612) and Palma Giovane (1548– 1625), the great anatomist Bartolomeo Eustachio (1520–74), the litterato Bernardino Pino da Cagli (ca. 1530–1601), and the philosopher Federico Bonaventura (1555– 1602). The marriage of his niece to Federico Borromeo brought Giulio close to Cardinal Carlo Borromeo (Federico’s brother), Borromeo’s uncle Pope Pius IV, and issues of church reform. Giulio became archbishop of Ravenna in 1566, shortly after Borromeo became archbishop of Milan (in 1560). Giulio instituted numerous visitations and synods there in accordance with Tridentine principles. Not unlike the Cardinal of Milan’s reforming efforts with architecture, Giulio regulated the use of sacred music at the chapel in Ravenna and also at the Holy House of Loreto. Giulio’s manual for the liturgical music of Loreto, the Constitutiones almae Domus (1576), is not unlike Borromeo’s own Instructiones fabricae et supellectilis ecclesiasticae (1577) for church architecture or Gabriele Paleotti’s Discorso Intorno alle imagini (1582).4 In spite of these credentials, little is known of Giulio. Because he died relatively young and was not an extravagant patron, perhaps his career does not seem impressive. However, to pass him over too quickly would be to underestimate both Giulio and the culture in which he lived. In the years surrounding the Council of Trent, his family name—with its notorious legacy of papal nepotism—was actually a liability. 5 Giulio’s activities as patron were almost exclusively pastoral and, when they were princely and directed to himself, were always modest. As a result, Giulio is not appreciated as the reformer he was, as are his fellow cardinal-bishops Borromeo, Gabriele Paleotti, and Agostino Valier.

3

published by Sabine Eiche (BM 1181a). I am grateful to Philip Atwood of the British Museum for this information. 3On the palazzo, see Frommel, Der Römische Palastbau der Hochrenaissance; and Carandente, Il Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj. 4Borromeo, Instructiones fabricae et supellectilis ecclesiasticae (1577); and Gabriele Paleotti, “Discorso Intorno alle Imagini” (1582). 5Tony Antonovics (“Counter-Reformations Cardinals,” 323) estimates that in the later sixteenth century, only 5 percent of the college of cardinals was comprised of nobles.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Reform and Renewed Ambition

Figure 2. Reconstruction of the Palazzo della Rovere in Via Lata, after Lieven Cruyl. Drawing by Ian Verstegen.

A review of Giulio’s career and his activities as a patron reveals a man very carefully managing his identity. Given the Renaissance’s willingness to symbolically invest nobles with the qualities of their predecessors, it is tempting to see Giulio’s eventual path in that of his distant cousin, Girolamo della Rovere, who was of the same age and nearly attained the papal tiara in 1592. Girolamo, in fact, filled a vacuum created by Giulio’s death and followed the same pious course of self-abnegation in his ecclesiastical career. Giulio therefore deserves a second look as a cardinal who actually pioneered the office of the Counter-Reformation cardinal, not in the sense of Borromeo, whose modest piety would have led him away from the papacy, but as a political vehicle toward the papacy. Giulio’s posture of reform was calculated to make him papabile (electable, literally ‘popeable’), steering a middle course between piety and worldliness.

THE CARDINAL’S SHORT LIFE Giulio Feltrio della Rovere was born in 1533 to the great military commander and Duke of Urbino, Francesco Maria della Rovere, and his wife, Leonora Gonzaga. Giulio’s much older brother Guidobaldo II della Rovere (1514–74) would rule over the duchy while Giulio, as the second son, was destined for a life in the church. No ecclesiastic had issued from the della Rovere family since the death of Julius II (Giuliano della Rovere) in 1513 and other of Sixtus IV’s (Francesco della Rovere’s) cardinal nipoti around the same time. A generation was lost but the young Giulio was thrust into the role of churchman in the mold of Sixtus IV and Julius II. Like these illustrious forebears, he was given S. Pietro in Vincoli as his titulus and became protector of the Franciscans and the Holy House of Loreto.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

91

IAN VERSTEGEN

92

When Giulio was born, Duke Francesco Maria was serving his two-year term of rispetto as captain general of the Venetian forces after his three-year term as fermo had ended in 1529.6 Giulio’s brother, Guidobaldo II, succeeded Duke Francesco Maria in 1538, when Giulio was but a child. Guidobaldo began immediately with his governance and even carried on a reduced command of Venetian troops. He usually lived in the ducal palaces of Pesaro and Urbino, while Giulio continued to be cared for in Fossombrone at the Corte Bassa, where their mother, Leonora, continued to reside. Even after her death in 1550, Giulio continued to occupy this as his de facto home.7 Similarly, Guidobaldo’s duties away from Rome would leave the family palace in Via Lata to the younger brother. The marquisate of San Lorenzo in Campo and the duchy of Sora were reserved as Giulio’s birthright, with his mother overseeing both until he was of age. 8 After Guidobaldo’s first wife died, he married Vittoria Farnese, the niece of the reigning pope, Paul III. The marriage immediately set into motion machinations for his younger brother’s ecclesiastical career. In fact, Giulio’s elevation to cardinal on 9 January 1548 was part of the marriage negotiations.9 The church of S. Pietro in Vincoli, the ancient titulus of Giulio’s ancestors Sixtus IV and Julius II, was apparently vacated for the young cardinal.10 After Julius’s elevation in 1503, still more della Rovere had been given S. Pietro in Vincoli, including Galeotto Franciotto della Rovere (11 March 1504?–11 September 1508), Sisto Franciotti della Rovere (1508–17), and Leonardo Grosso della Rovere (September 1517–17 September 1520), adding up to a remarkable fifty-three-year occupation of the position by the della Rovere.11 Giulio’s attachment to the church, then, was wholly appropriate and also disclosed further ambitions. In June of the same year, Paul III also made Giulio papal legate to Perugia and Umbria, an honor he held three times.12 This appointment was obviously useful for friendly relations between Urbino and its neighbor, the Papal States. 13 Finally, 6Francesco

Maria began a second term of fermo in 1534 and had not quite finished his term of rispetto when he died in October 1538; Mallett and Hale, Military Organization of a Renaissance State. 7Giulio occupied the Corte Bassa (sometimes mistakenly called the Porta Rossa), designed by Girolamo Genga. See Eiche, “Fossombrone, Pt. 1: Unknown drawings and documents for the corte”; and Eiche, “Fossombrone, Pt. 2: Il giardino and la piantata outside Porta Fano.” The last resident was Lavinia della Rovere, the sister of Francesco Maria II, who lived there from 1594 to May 1598. 8Sora was another ancient della Rovere holding, promised to Giulio by his father Francesco Maria I. Sora was first ruled by Sixtus IV’s nephew, Leonardo della Rovere (d. 1475), then by Giovanni della Rovere (1475–1501), who married into the Dukes of Urbino, and then passed to Francesco Maria I. Giulio took possession of the duchy on 17 September 1554, and donated the honor to his nephew, Francesco Maria II della Rovere, on 29 September 1569. Francesco Maria II eventually sold the duchy to the Boncompagni family. 9Giulio held San Pietro in Vincoli from 22 March 1548 to 12 April 1570, first as cardinal deacon, then as cardinal priest (from 9 February 1569 to 12 April 1570); Cristofori, Cronotassi dei Cardinali di Santa Romana Chiesa, 100. As noted below, in 1570 Giulio finally became a cardinal bishop. 10The church was held previously by Cardinal Jean du Bellay. It seems likely that he was ousted by Paul III because he went on to serve at S. Crisogono next for only one year. 11Cristofori, Cronotassi dei Cardinali di Santa Romana Chiesa, 100. 12Pellini, Della historia de Perigua, 760, 973, passim. Pellini (1523–94) was the local antiquarian of Perugia and knew Giulio’s exploits intimately; see his opening quote. 13Pellini (Della historia de Perigua, 760) pertinently remarks of “la commodità de gli stati di suo fratello.”

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Reform and Renewed Ambition Giulio was made administrative bishop of Urbino in1548, an honor he renounced in 1551 in favor of the more experienced Felice Tiranni.14 Ludwig von Pastor records Giulio’s early activities at the conclaves of the elections of Julius III (1550), Marcellus II (1555), Paul IV (1555), and Pius IV (1559) and calls him a member of the “worldly” cardinals, who were more interested in political alliances than in reform candidates. Foremost among these worldly cardinals was Ippolito II d’Este, who was Giulio’s favored candidate in many conclaves and was tied to Giulio’s family through marriage.15 Both Cardinal d’Este and Cardinal Farnese, brother-in-law to Giulio’s brother, provided models of highborn ecclesiastics who had not bent to the tenor of the Counter-Reformation and were known for their extravagance. Giulio is heard from nowhere at the Council of Trent (understandably in the early sessions due to his age), where he was overshadowed by his familiar, the bishop of Senigallia, Marco Vigerio della Rovere.16 Perhaps the most tangible proof of Giulio’s worldliness was his fathering of two illegitimate children, Giuliano (1556) and Ippolito (1560). He hosted Lenten spectacles that would later be famous for their extravagance.17 And Pius IV, otherwise a strong supporter of Giulio, grudgingly noted how the cardinal held two bishoprics, evidence of pluralism.18 Giulio’s career was aided by marriage again when his niece Virginia married into the house of the reigning Pope Pius IV. Virginia della Rovere (1545–71, Guidobaldo’s daughter by his first wife, Giulia Varano) was married in December 1560 to Duke Federico Borromeo (brother of Cardinal Carlo Borromeo and nephew of Pius IV). 19 Cardinal Giulio rode into Rome beside Cardinal Borromeo for the wedding and the two became closely associated.20 The marriage improved Giulio’s position at the curia and his friendship with Borromeo introduced Giulio to issues of church reform. It is here that one may begin to speak of a spiritual posturing. Scholars cannot know whether Giulio turned away from worldly matters to become a dedicated cardinal and archbishop because of a change of heart or because he saw it as a path to ecclesiastical success. But it is clear that, as a worldly cardinal, Giulio’s career path, while quite lucrative and enjoyable, would not lead to the papal tiara. Giulio’s two relatives, the wealthy and worldly Cardinals d’Este and Farnese, were routinely passed over in 14Giulio

renounced Urbino on 18 November 1551 and on the same day took up the bishopric of Novara, which he in turn renounced on 9 December 1552; Van Gulik and Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica, 4:30. It is hard to know if Giulio was not interested in these pursuits or if the increasing pressure on the bishop’s presence in his diocese caused him to give them up. 15Giulio lobbied for Cardinal d’Este in 1549. Giulia della Rovere, Giulio’s sister, married Don Alfonso d’Este in Ferrara, the brother of the reigning Duke Ercole II d’Este, in the same year. Later, Giulio opposed the nomination of the reformer Marcello Cervini (Marcellus II); Pastor, History of the Popes, 18:7. Giulio’s support of d’Este followed the philo-French politics he shared with his brother that ended in 1558 with Guidobaldo II’s alliance with Spain. 16Jedin, History of the Council of Trent; and Alberigo, I vescovi italiani al concilio di Trento. The Vigeri, old allies to the della Rovere in Savona, were allowed to carry “della Rovere” in their name. 17The most famous Lenten season was 1559; Vernarecci, Fossombrone, 352–55. 18Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, Actorum, Epistolarum, Tractatuum: Nova Collectio; 13:320–21, cited in Hallman, Church as Property, 35. 19Federico Borromeo died in 1562 and Virginia married Ferdinando Orsini in 1564. 20Pastor, History of the Popes, 15:101.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

93

94

IAN VERSTEGEN the conclaves, while pious, dedicated churchmen with more modest careers like Marcello Cervini (Marcellus IV), Michele Ghislieri (Pius V) and Ugo Boncompagni (Gregory XIII) were elected pope. As one author stated, “wishing to reform the clerics and people, Giulio first had to reform himself.”21 In any case, once Giulio took reform seriously and adopted, if not a reformed orientation, then at least a reformist posture, his career began to skyrocket. In the same year, Giulio had also been given the bishopric of Vicenza (13 September 1560). Giulio’s influence (or Pius’s favor) may have extended to his native Urbino when Pius IV, in a bull of 4 June 1563, made Urbino a metropolitan see with jurisdiction over Senigallia, Pesaro, Fossombrone, Cagli, Gubbio, and Montefeltro. Significantly, Pius IV made Giulio protector of the Holy House of Loreto on 5 December 1564.22 This shows the fashioning of Giulio in the image of a great della Rovere ecclesiastic, because Loreto was closely associated with the della Rovere, having been substantially improved by Sixtus IV and Julius II. Under its earlier protector, Girolamo Basso della Rovere, the papal site provided a convenient alliance to Giovanni della Rovere’s lordship of Senigallia (and Girolamo Basso’s bishopric of Recanati and Marco Vigerio’s bishopric of Senigallia) and all these decades later, it did the same to Giulio’s brother’s nearby duchy.23 Under the patronage of Pius V (Michele Ghislieri), Giulio continued to thrive, perhaps because he and Borromeo had helped Ghislieri’s candidacy; in fact, Giulio and Cardinal Del Monte physically crowned Pius at his coronation.24 Giulio was already abbot in commendam of the Hermits of Fonte Avellana. With the support of Cardinal Borromeo, Cardinal Giulio urged a canonical review by Pius V, who sent his representative, Giambattista Barba, to visit in early 1569. Barba confirmed what Giulio had seen, that the hermits were not observing the lifestyle of their order. In a bull of 10 December 1569, Pius suppressed the order, and the Camaldolese congregation absorbed the Congregazione Avellanita.25 When Carlo Borromeo relinquished his post as cardinal protector of the Franciscans in order to devote more time to his Milanese see, Giulio was elected protector of the Conventuals and later, by order of Gregory XIII, of the Observants. 26 This rounded out Giulio’s fashioning as a great della Rovere ecclesiastic. Sixtus IV had been a general of the Franciscan order and, as pope, had made his nephews, first Pietro Riario and then Giuliano della Rovere (later Julius II), cardinal protectors. Immediately upon becoming archbishop of Ravenna, Cardinal Giulio introduced the Capuchins into the city, an act his brother had performed the year before in Urbino. He also reformed the Poor Claires, another Franciscan institution.27 21“Intendendo a riformare i chierici e il popolo, Giulio riformò prima sé stesso.” Vernarecci, Fossombrone, 357. 22Grimaldi, Guida degli Archivi Lauretani, 83. Giulio received the honor after Cardinal Giovanni Moroni relinquished the post after holding it a few months, perhaps from pressure from Pius IV. 23On the earlier della Rovere connection to Loreto, see the introduction in this volume. 24Pastor, History of the Popes, 17:28. 25Bull of 10 December 1569, cited in Pastor, History of the Popes, 17:240–47. 26At the end of 1572, Giulio became protector of the Minor Conventuals and in January 1573, he became protector of the Minor Observants. See Sevesi, “S. Carlo Borromeo,” 393. 27Archive of Briefs, Rome, cited in Pastor, History of the Popes, 17:261.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Reform and Renewed Ambition Meanwhile, Giulio’s pastoral career improved when he was given the archbishopric of Ravenna in 1566.28 His career progressed alongside that of Borromeo and other della Rovere. Carlo Borromeo had been made archbishop of Milan in 1560 and Giulio’s cousin, Girolamo della Rovere, was made archbishop of Turin in 1564. Giulio’s effect on Ravenna was important, but scholars simply pass over his involvement there without considering the metropolitan see of Ravenna itself. The ancient see of Ravenna was extremely prestigious and its metropolitan authority was extensive, stretching westward to Bologna and Parma.29 As archbishop of Ravenna, Giulio’s influence extended into areas not normally associated with him, in at least one instance, his influence was very tangible. His ecclesiastical position precisely forged further alliances with the temporal rulers of Parma and Piacenza, the family of his sister-in-law Vittoria, the Farnese. As archbishop of Ravenna, Cardinal Giulio conducted a substantial visitation of the city in 1566, the diocese in 1567, and both in 1571.30 During the diocesan synod, the various bishops under Giulio’s jurisdiction were assembled, including Gabriele Paleotti of Bologna and Alessandro Sforza of Parma. The various churches around Giulio’s native Urbino were all assembled too. As the Ravenna antiquarian Girolamo Rossi noted, all came before Giulio “come Primate di tutta la Flaminia, dell’Emilia e del Piceno.”31 Giulio founded a seminary in Ravenna in 1567.32 In 1573 he welcomed an apostolic visitor, Girolamo Ragazzoni.33 The cardinal may have had some influence on the archbishop of Urbino, Felice Tiranni (1551–78), who convoked a provincial synod in 1569 and founded a seminary in 1574.34 When the respected Tiranni died in 1578, a sickened Giulio requested the post and was installed as the new archbishop. However, he only served in the post for a few months before he died. Giulio’s meteoric rise to archbishop was also confirmed in his elevation in the college of cardinals. He forsook his position as titulary cardinal priest of San Pietro in Vincoli in favor of the elite position of cardinal bishop of the suburbicarian sees. 35 His first 28On

Giulio in Ravenna, see Rubeus, Historiarum Ravennatum libri decim. This work has been translated and edited by Mario Pierpaoli as Rossi, Storie ravennati. 29Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Ravenna,” 12:667. It was only in 1582 that the Bolognese pope Gregory XIII made Bologna a metropolitan see and it took over jurisdiction of Imola, Cervia, Modena, Reggio, Parma, Piacenza, and Crema. 30Archiepiscopal Archives, Ravenna, cited in Pastor, History of the Popes, 17:218n1, 19:623–24; Rossi, Storie ravennati, 755; and Duranti, “Il seminario di Ravenna.” Antonio Gianotti, the bishop of Forlì, passed along a message of Giulio’s satisfaction with Borromeo’s Milanese synod to Borromeo himself. See Cattaneo, “Il primo concilio provinciale milanese,” 1:254. 31Rossi, Storie ravennati, 756. 32Seminary Archives, Ravenna, cited in Pastor, History of the Popes, 17:212–13. 33Girolamo Ragazzoni, the bishop of Famagosta, visited Ravenna from 5 May to 4 June 1573; Raponi, “Visite apostoliche post-Tridentine.” 34Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Urbino,” 15:221–22. 35Cristofori, Cronotassi dei Cardinali di Santa Romana Chiesa, 22, 36, 44. The cardinal bishops or “cardinalitial dioceses” never numbered more than seven as there were seven ancient sees (Ostia, Porto, Santa Rufina, which was eventually added to Porto, Albano, Sabina, Frascati, and Palestrina). Unlike his predecessors like Julius II, and due to pressure of the Counter-Reformation, Giulio did not have the luxury of XXXX

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

95

IAN VERSTEGEN

96

appointment was Albano (12 April 1570–3 July 1570), which he followed in ascending order to Sabina (3 July 1570–8 April 1573) and finally Palestrina (8 April 1573–5 September 1578).36 Because of his early ascendancy to cardinal, Giulio was finally quite senior in the college of cardinals and was on an upward march to the ultimate position, cardinal bishop of Ostia (which had been held by ancestors Giuliano della Rovere, later Pope Julius II, and Raffaele Riario) when he died.37 During his life, Giulio provided a counterpoint to his brother’s sometimes harsh rule. Most infamous of Guidobaldo II’s decisions was the 1 July 1573 public execution of twelve Urbinate nobles who had resisted his excessive taxes.38 Many supposed that Guidobaldo II’s favor for his man-in-arms, Count Pietro Bonarelli della Rovere of Ancona, was directly responsible for the economic crisis. Cardinal Giulio, for that matter, had his own reason for disappointment, as Guidobaldo II had willfully switched Giulio’s hereditary feud of Massa Trabaria for Bonarelli’s San Lorenzo in Campo. 39 When Giulio was at the height of his power as cardinal and archbishop, a favorite of Pope Gregory XIII, and uncle to the new Duke of Urbino Francesco Maria II (then being considered for a command with king Philip II of Spain), he died. A June 1578 letter of the Duchess of Urbino, Vittoria Farnese, mentions “the speech problem” (l’impedimento della lingua)” he had, suggesting perhaps a stroke.40 By 3 September, the cardinal was dead. His funeral oration was spoken in Urbino by Bernardino Pino da Cagli and memorials were held in Ravenna. Girolamo della Rovere took Giulio’s place in the della Rovere hope to gain the papal tiara, entering the conclave of 1592 as the favorite, but being cut down himself by death (Clement VIII Aldobrandini was elected instead). But Giulio did have a legacy. Pius V had already legitimized Giulio’s children, Ippolito (1554–1620) and Giuliano (1560–1621). Ippolito became the hereditary marquis of San Lorenzo in Campo and Giuliano became a cleric. A relazione from the ambassador of the Republic of Venice paints a vivid picture of the brothers at court, noting that Ippolito could never advance ad maiora (that is, to the duchy) because of his illegitimacy.41 Ironically, however, Ippolito’s issue lasted longer than did Francesco Maria’s when his daughter Lucrezia (1589–1652) married into the noble Lante family and they adopted della Rovere into their surname. 36z

possessing both a titulary church and a suburbicarian church (not to mention other commendatory churches) at the same time. 36On Giulio in Palestrina, see Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, 335–36. According to Cecconi, Giulio convoked a diocesan synod in May 1573 and revisited again the next year. 37Paul III, Paul IV, and Cardinal Alessandro Farnese had all been cardinal bishop of Ostia (and Porto before that). Julius III had been cardinal bishop of Giulio’s see of Palestrina. Palestrina, Frascati, and sometimes Sabina were the jumping off points to the see of Porto and S. Ruffina, which almost invariably preceded the ultimate position of Ostia. 38Parisi,Vittoria Farnese: Duchessa d’Urbino, 99. 39Parisi,Vittoria Farnese: Duchessa d’Urbino, 87. 40Parisi,Vittoria Farnese: Duchessa d’Urbino, 108. 41Zane, “Relazione di messer Matteo Zane,” in Segarizzi, Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato, 2:216.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Reform and Renewed Ambition

WORKS OF A “REFORMED” CARDINAL The princely lifestyle and reviving the former della Rovere glory were not priorities for Giulio. The assignments of San Pietro in Vincoli and Loreto were great honors, but custodianship was an institutional, rather than a family priority. San Pietro in Vincoli had been held by generations of della Rovere and the palace there was begun by Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere before he became pope as Julius II.42 Giulio had very little effect on this church and immediately after he left, his successor, Cardinal Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, proudly added his name to the façade.43 Giulio occupied the church for twenty-two years from 1548 until 1570, and never saw fit to make additions. Presumably, the church was in good repair and additional decoration—frescoes for instance—would have been unnecessary. Loreto was raised to prominence by Sixtus IV and Julius II. In Loreto, as protector for Pius V and then Gregory XIII, Giulio saw to the improvements to the basilica and shrine. The present collection of majolica in the treasury is in large part due to him. Furthermore, as outlined by Kathleen Weil-Garris, Giulio was in charge of outfitting the bronze doors of the holy shrine designed by the Lombardi brothers.44 In addition to the arms of Pius V and Gregory XIII are those of Giulio.45 While Giulio certainly did more work there than at his titulary church in Rome, once again his works did not highlight a family legacy but glorified the cult. This is clear in regard to Giulio’s custodial assignments without any family connotation. Of Giulio’s suburbican dioceses of Albano, Sabina, and Palestrina, it is natural that little work would have been done, since they were constantly changing appointments (and Giulio never occupied one more than five years). Nevertheless, he took his visitations seriously and convoked a synod in Palestrina. Interesting, therefore, is the fact that in the three months of 1570 Giulio was overseer of Albano, he saw fit to improve the central altar and sacristy of the cathedral. Perhaps he was showing his gratitude for his change of fortune into the elite company of cardinal bishops. This is partly confirmed by the fact that in the Palazzo della Rovere inscriptions read “Julius Feltrius//de Ruvere//S.R.E. Cardinal Urbinas//Episcopus Albanensis.”46 Giulio’s tenure as bishop of Vicenza (1560–1566) coincided with his spiritual posturing but it is difficult to find evidence of good works there. Giulio’s work in Ravenna (1566–1578), on the other hand, was substantial. He expanded the archbishops’s palace, repaired the orthodox baptistery, and brought his architect, Giovanni Boccalini, from 42On the foundation of San Pietro in Vincoli, see Magnuson, Studies in Roman Quattrocento Architecture, 328–31; and Ippoliti, Il complesso di San Pietro inVincoli. 43Giulio della Rovere is not mentioned in Bartolozzi and Zandri, San Pietro in Vincoli. Although Ippoliti (Il complesso di San Pietro in Vincoli) examines della Rovere patronage, he does not discuss the church after 1520 in spite of Cardinal Giulio’s tenure there (and that of Girolamo della Rovere). 44Weil-Garris, Santa Casa di Loreto, 1:100, 2, nos. 1279–89, 1301–2, 1314a. This building has now been rigorously documented for the marble decoration in Grimaldi, L’ornamento marmoreo. 45Weil-Garris, Santa Casa di Loreto, 1:348. 46That Giulio was only cardinal-bishop for three months disproves Carandente’s (Il Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj, 60) presumption that the cardinal’s building program in the palazzo was begun around 1573 when he purchased a neighboring house. If the inscription was put up in 1570, then building carried on continuously.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

97

IAN VERSTEGEN

98

Loreto to Ravenna to raise the foundation of the cathedral, the Basilica Ursiana.47 In addition, he fixed or replaced the organ (which was part of his reformist elevation of organ music) and helped the Capuchins erect their church. As part of his visitation of lands, he helped provincial buildings, for instance, the church of SS. Filippo and Giacomo at Dogata near Ferrara. In all these cases, Giulio rigorously observed residency, evenly dividing time between bishop’s (Ravenna) and cardinal bishop’s sites (Palestrina). Of course, this was exactly the recommendation of Borromeo and Paleotti as the duty of the good bishop.48 Of the residences belonging to Giulio, one can see he certainly did not opt for austerity. He expanded his palace in Rome and bought a suburban villa there, and expanded his principal residence in Fossombrone. However, it is interesting to see what he did with each. The palace in Rome (fig. 2), for example, was expanded modestly to the northwest with the purchase of one house, and a new apartment was added to the southwest. However, the home bought must have been small, since it cost a mere 718 scudi, and Giulio needed a new apartment to set himself apart from his brother Guidobaldo II, the Duke of Urbino.49 While Giulio added impressive coffered ceilings bearing his arms, the palace retained its plain stuccoed façade and old-fashioned cross-mullioned windows.50 It still maintained a prestige through its sheer size and prime location along the Corso, but Giulio chose modesty in its upkeep. The villa had been owned by one of the most powerful cardinals in Rome, Cardinal Ridolfo Pio da Carpi, who had died in 1565.51 Yet when Giulio bought it, it was still called a vigna. It was in fact formerly owned by the ambassador of Giulio’s father, Giovanmaria della Porta, a mere minor nobleman.52 All of the Carpi’s impressive antiquities housed at the vigna were sold (leaving Giulio none). It was later expanded by the Sforza (and of course the Barberini) to be a proper villa, but in Giulio’s day it was not. The home in Fossombrone was also expanded. Giulio had been raised there with his widowed mother, Leonora Gonzaga, while his brother was duke. After her death in 1550 the property passed on to him.53 On 14 September 1575, he employed the architect Ludovico Carducci to work in Fossombrone. As in Rome, Giulio bought a block of houses to build another palace in addition to the Corte Bassa.54 But once again, Giulio was maintaining a court distinct from his brother’s at Pesaro and Urbino,

47Rossi,

Storie ravennati, 753, 774. On the baptistry, see Kostof, The Orthodox Baptistry of Ravenna, 21, 141. Unfortunately, the ancient basilica no longer stands. 48Alberigo, “Carlo Borromeo”; and Prodi, Il Cardinale Gabriele Paleotti, 2:7–73. 49Doria-Pamphilj-Lanci archive (Scaff. 88, busta 45, int. 1-4, 16 January 1573), cited in Carandente, Il Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj, 60. The house corresponds to the chapel of the Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj. 50Carandente, Il Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj, 60. 51Eiche, "Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere and the Vigna Carpi." 52Even so, Giulio did acquire new antiquities, as evidenced by the record of sale of some after his death; Bertolotti, Artisti urbinati in Roma prima del secolo XVIII, 40: “una testa d’Ottaviano, altra di Diogene, altra di Ottone, due putti, un’aquila, due urnette di marmo, una statuetta senza testa, sculture tutte antiche” (29 August 1578). 53ASF, Cl. II, Div. A, Fa. 56, Pt. 1, col. 256; and Eiche, “Fossombrone, Pt. 2,” 146. 54ASF, Cl. II, Div. B, Fa. 56, Pt. I, col. 131; and Eiche, “Fossombrone, Pt. 1,” 105.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Reform and Renewed Ambition and so he needed to alter what was a dowager duchess’ residence to that of a powerful cardinal’s. Nothing about it was exceptional in the scheme of grand country homes. Giulio’s restraint was not the result of poverty; he was probably one of the wealthiest cardinals in the curia.55 Rather, it was a part of his managed identity. This can be further seen in his patronage of individuals. Most interesting is his rental or donation of part of the palace to Cardinal Ugo Boncompagni, later Gregory XIII.56 Boncompagni was an influential teacher and had taught both Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, Giulio’s familiar, and Cardinal Carlo Borromeo, Giulio’s friend. A full generation older than Giulio but much junior to him in the college of cardinals (he was elevated by Pius IV), Boncompagni was an important reformer and Giulio’s choice to aid him belies a desire to support reform. Giulio seems to have extended the benefice of princely hospitality to the elder and more modest Boncompagni,57 and it seems to have helped Giulio when Boncompagni became pope and continued to load him with favors. At one point in the late 1560s, Boncompagni fell ill and St. Filippo Neri came to the palace to heal him, thus proving the holy man in Giulio’s orbit. Neri in fact was healed himself by one of Giulio’s most important members of the court, the physician Bartolomeo Eustachio, around 1562. Of all the artists and scientists Cardinal Giulio patronized, among the latter the greatest was certainly Eustachio.58 While great scientists and engineers like Federico Commandino and Francesco Paciotti gravitated to Duke Guidobaldo II, Eustachio was unmistakably a courtier of Giulio. After serving Giulio’s brother, Eustachio moved to Rome with the young cardinal in 1549, and immediately became attached with the Sapienza, teaching and conducting public autopsies while remaining Giulio’s personal doctor.59 In addition to Neri, Eustachio also treated Borromeo in 1565 and probably also the ailing artist Federico Barocci around 1563. The fact that Neri and Borromeo, both future saints, rubbed shoulders with Giulio does not make him a reformer, but it indicates his priority to surround himself with reform to enjoy the sheen it left on him. Eustachio’s greatest work published during his lifetime was the Opusculo anatomica, printed in Venice in 1564.60 His Tabulæ anatomicæ that would have established Eustachio’s name alongside Vesalius’s, however, was never published although its plates had been completed. It was discovered among the possessions of the heirs of Pier Matteo

55Giulio’s

finances can be gleaned by an audit conducted to determine individual contributions to the Turkish war of 1571; Hewitt, “An Assessment of Italian Benefices.” Alessandro Sforza’s annual benefices totaled 21,850 silver scudi; Alessandro Farnese and Giulio were second and third with 16,750 and 16,267, respectively. Cf. Hallman, Church as Property, 62–63. 56The evidence for this comes from the deposition of Vittrici at Filippo Neri’s beatification proceedings: “stava nel palazzo de Urbino.” Della Rochetta and Vian, Il Primo Processo per San Filippo Neri, 1:75. 57On subsidies to poorer cardinals, see Antonovics, “Counter-Reformation Cardinals,” 325. 58On Eustachio, see Memorie e Documenti riguardanti Bartolomeo Eustachio; and Belloni, “Documenti sul viaggio fatale di Bartolomeo Eustachi.” On his medical reputation, see Mezzogiorno and Mezzogiorno, “Bartolomeo Eustachio”; and O’Malley, “Bartolome Eustachi.” 59On Eustachio at the Sapienza, see Conte, I Maestri della Sapienza di Roma. On Eustachio’s alms to autopsees’ families, see Carlino, Books of the Body. 60Eustachius, Opuscula anatomica.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

99

IAN VERSTEGEN

100

Pini, Eustachio’s assistant, and finally published in 1714 by Pope Clement XI. 61 Giulio held Eustachio dear to him, and continued to care for his assistant after his death by providing Pini with an inheritance.62 The fact that the most visible courtier connected to Giulio was Eustachio, not a writer or artist, communicates the cardinal’s interest in science and learning. Two artists stand out definitively as recipients of Cardinal Giulio’s support: Federico Barocci and Palma Giovane. But his personal patronage of painters is difficult to separate from the patronage of the ducal line of his brother, Guidobaldo II, or nephew, Francesco Maria II. When both Guidobaldo II and Giulio were in Rome together—for Guidobaldo’s assumption of captain general of the church, for instance—the patronage of artists is difficult to assign to one brother or the other. The Urbinate sculptor Federico Brandani and the young painter Taddeo Zuccaro enjoyed great success in Rome. However, the years of their first activity at the Villa Giulia date precisely to when Guidobaldo became captain general of the church and thereafter (when Giulio’s independent motives would be easier to discern) Brandani returned to Urbino and Taddeo became quite popular with the Farnese. Of course, Giulio’s ecclesiastical (in addition to familial) ties with Cardinal Alessandro Farnese aided the artist, whose particular genius for fresco painting suited the needs of the ostentatious cardinal. According to historian Gian Pietro Bellori, the uncle of the painter Federico Barocci served Cardinal Giulio as maestro di casa, a fact passed down to him from local Urbino legend.63 The family tree of the Barocci family provided by the Urbino antiquarian Andrea Lazzari, shows that the painter’s father had two brothers.64 One brother, Antonio, may have been organist of the chapel of the SS Sacramento at Urbino cathedral.65 Another, Alberto Francesco, was the father of Barocci’s famous clock-making cousins, Giovanni Battista and Giovanni Maria. He may have been the maestro della casa. In any case, one of Barocci’s associates must have introduced him to Cardinal Giulio. Barocci and Giulio were about the same age and may have been matched by temperament as shown in their exquisite and refined sensibilities. What is interesting is that unlike Taddeo Zuccaro and the Farnese, Barocci’s talents were never employed in the della Rovere family palace. All of Barocci’s efforts, no doubt aided by Giulio’s influence, were in the Vatican. First and foremost was the Casino of Pius IV and then other frescoes painted just as Barocci fell ill and had to leave Rome, all painted between 1561 and 1563 just after that crucial marriage between the papal nephew Federico Borromeo and the della Rovere princess, Virginia.66 According to Bellori, Barocci painted Giulio’s portrait and other lost works.67 The presence today of one or two works by Barocci in the Doria-Pamphilj collection, which 61Eustachius, Tabulæ

anatomicæ. d’Urbino, Classe III, XIV, 65: “Quietanza di Pier Matteo Pini per una pensione lasciatali dal Cardinale di Urbino, 31 October 1578.” 63Bellori, Le vite de’ Pittori. 64Lazzari, Memorie d’alcuni più celebri pittori di Urbino, 34. 65Verstegen, “Federico Barocci,” 172. 66Smith, The Casino of Pius IV, 65. 67Bellori, Le vite de’ Pittori, 182. The two portraits of Giulio’s illegitimate sons do survive: Portrait of Monsignor Giuliano della Rovere (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna); and Portrait of Ippolito della Rovere (Florence, XXXXXX 62ASF, Ducato

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Reform and Renewed Ambition would have been handed down to the Aldobrandini and then Pamphilj collections, may be the product of this very early period of contact (fig. 3).68 Barocci was famous for his avoidance of secular subjects, and Giulio seems to have connected Barocci to Capuchin and Franciscan patronage back in Urbino. The ecclesiastical nature of the subjects reflects Giulio’s own priorities, for a preference for amorous mythologies was typical of the worldly cardinals. In fact, Barocci’s mature style emerges in the mid-1560s just after his sojourn in Rome and move toward purely religious patronage. Not long after Barocci’s departure from Rome, another young talent emerged: Palma Giovane. He came to the notice of Duke Guidobaldo II and Cardinal Giulio when the duke visited Venice after the birth of his son and heir, Francesco Maria II, to receive congratulations from the Compagnia della Calza. Old sources like Raffaelle Borghini and Carlo Ridolfi recorded a long eight-year period of study in Pesaro and Rome sponsored by Duke Guidobaldo II.69 The stay in Pesaro would suggest Duke Guidobaldo’s sponsorship because that was the site of the ducal court, but Pietro Zampetti has concluded that Palma must have been in Pesaro only briefly and spent less time, perhaps three and half years between 1564 and 1567, in Rome.70 Therefore, although invited by Guidobaldo, Palma was, as Ridolfi said, “hosted by his brother, the cardinal Giulio” (ospite del fratello cardinale Giulio). Thus Palma’s stay coincided almost perfectly with Barocci’s departure and the desire of the cardinal to have artists in his retinue, as befitting a prince of the church. Once again, however, there is no trace of Palma’s works in the palace; as with Barocci it was not deemed appropriate to adorn an already rich abode with fresco decoration. It is around this time that the young philosopher Federico Bonaventura (1555– 1602) was protected by Giulio in Rome. His father, the nobleman Pietro Bonaventura, died in 1564 and left his son to Giulio’s care. He seems to have remained with Giulio until the cardinal’s death in 1578, which Bonaventura commemorated with a sonnet. 71 Bonaventura’s prolific career as an orthodox, scrupulously philological Aristotelian philosopher came after Giulio’s death, but he always gratefully recorded his early patronage under the young cardinal. Numerous literati were associated with Giulio through his brother. Dionigi Atanagi gave the twenty-year-old cardinal an almost perfunctory dedication of his 1554 book of letters, De le lettere di tredici huomini illustri libri 68

Uffizi). The second attribution has been more controversial; Sangiorgi, “Precisazioni su due ritratti di Federico Barocci.” 68I am referring to the precocious Head of St. Jude; Pillsbury, "The Oil Studies of Federico Barocci." The more questionable work is the Portrait of Carlo Felice Malatesta? ca. 1577–78; Pillsbury and Richards, The Graphic Art of Federico Barocci, 57. 69Borghini, Il Riposo, 559–61; and Ridolfi, Le meraviglie dell’arte. 70On Palma in the Marche, see Zampetti, “Guidobaldo II, Francesco Maria II e Palma il Giovane,” 22– 32. Cf. Rinaldi, Palma il Giovane, 9–11. For the traditional reading of Palma’s stay in the Marche, which crucially aligns his stay to Duke Guidobaldo’s taste for Venetian painting, see the chapter by Fontana in this volume. 71Biblioteca Oliveriana, Pesaro, MS 35. Cf. Firpo, “Federico Bonaventura,” in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 2:644–46. A portrait by Barocci of Bonaventura also survives: Portrait of Federico Bonaventura, signed and dated 1602, Italian embassy, London.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

101

102

IAN VERSTEGEN

Figure 3. Federico Barocci, Head Study for St. Jude, c. 1566, Doria-Pamphilj, Rome. Photo courtesy of Instituto Centrale per il catalogo e la documentazione, Rome.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Reform and Renewed Ambition tredici.72 However, Bernardino Pino da Cagli was the primary litterato associated with the cardinal.73 He not only produced comedies and various courtly entertainments, he was also involved in Giulio’s pastoral activities, giving orations in Ravenna. 74 He also gave the funeral oration for Giulio. Giulio was undoubtedly most excited by music and it is here that his status as reforming cardinal is shown in greatest relief. In fact, he was most instrumental for providing new standards for church music in the same way that Borromeo had done for church liturgy and Paleotti for altarpieces. In 1576, Giulio wrote a guidebook, Constitutiones almae Domus, which gives instructions for the use of music in the Holy House of Loreto.75 According to Giulio, the maestro should prepare everything, give the tone to the other singers (“alios in cantu praebit”) and intervene to raise or lower (“voces depressas extollere vel alatas deprimere easque pro suo arbitrio temperare”); no profane music should be allowed (“ne, inter canendum, lascivum vel impurum aliquid misceretur”), and the words must be easily understood (“ut verba non penitus involvi aut implicari sed expresse proferri et clare intelligi ab omnibus queant”).76 The ducal court of Pesaro and the influential Chapel of the SS. Sacramento in Urbino Cathedral each boasted a prestigious maestro di cappella. The most conspicuous of these were Paolo Animuccia, maestro di cappella in Pesaro, and Leonard Meldert, maestro di cappella of the chapel of the SS. Sacramento (1582–90).77 Although Animuccia was officially composer to Giulio’s brother, he appealed directly to the cardinal about advancement in the papal choir, as recounted below. Meldert saw brief service to the cardinal after the death of Guidobaldo II and dedicated his Il Primo Libro di Madrigali a 5 voci to Giulio.78 By far, however, Cardinal Giulio had more control over his chapels in Ravenna and Loreto and he patronized his musicians to rival the duchy of Urbino’s local institutions, and there is good evidence for movement back and forth. Cardinal Giulio della Rovere recruited Costanzo Porta (1525–1601) to be maestro di cappella in Ravenna, a position he held from 1567 to 1574. He then moved to Loreto where he served as maestro di cappella from 30 September 1574 to 30 June 1580.79 In Porta’s dedication of his book of masses of 1578, the Missarum liber primus, he mentions that they were written in the “new style,” that is, the Counter-Reformation unadorned style.80 In a letter of 1577 to Cardinal Giulio, Porta specifically states that he had written the masses “according to the

72Atanagi, De

le lettere di tredici huomini illustri libri tredici. Cf. Schutte, “The Lettere Volgari, 639–83. Pino, see Temelini, “Life and Works of Bernardino Pino da Cagli.” Guidobaldo once referred to Pino in a letter to his brother Giulio, as “suo Pino”; ASF Urbino, Cl. I, Div. G, busta 111, fol. 33r–v, Guidobaldo II to Giulio Feltrio, 11 August 1560, cited in Piperno, L’immagine del Duca, 279–80. 74Rossi, Storie ravennati, 755. 75Grimaldi, La cappella musicale di Loreto nel cinquecento, 106–7. 76Alfieri, La cappella musicale di Loreto, 34, 36. 77On Meldert, see Piperno, L’immagine del Duca, 233–53. 78Meldert, Il Primo Libro di Madrigali a 5 voci dedicati al Cardinal d’Urbino. On the dedication, see Piperno, L’immagine del Duca, 235. 79Grimaldi, La cappella musicale di Loreto nel cinquecento, 50. 80Porta, Missarum liber primus; and Grimaldi, La cappella musicale di Loreto nel cinquecento, 96. 73On

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

103

IAN VERSTEGEN

104

instructions given me by Your Most Illustrious Lordship that the words be understood, that they be easy for the most part, short and, if I am not wrong, melodious.”81 Porta left Loreto after Cardinal Giulio’s death and was back at Ravenna from 1580 to 1585. Sebastiano Hay, the nephew of the great Fleming Willaert, was organist at Loreto from 21 April 1563 to 12 June 1591.82 This is really significant because of Hay’s great reputation and also the emphasis placed on the organ by Giulio and other church reformers in the new mass. The organ became the only acceptable accompaniment to voices and Giulio recorded this opinion in a brief to Piacenza in 1570 where he prohibited the use of any other instruments because “of the effect of lustfulness and impurity” (degli effetti di lascivia e impurità) that they incite.83 Presumably, this was issued in Giulio’s capacity of archbishop and would take on an authoritative status. Richard Sherr has published important letters showing that musicians regularly solicited Cardinal Giulio for favors. While Paolo Animuccia, the brother of the great Counter-Reformation composer Giovanni, was employed at Duke Guidobaldo’s court in Pesaro as maestro di cappella, he wrote to Cardinal Giulio seeking advancement in the papal choir. He wrote to Giulio’s secretary, Simone Fortuna, in January 1566 that “I consider it most certain that His Holiness will want to reform the [papal] chapel’s musical compositions and chant so that the words can be understood and be accompanied by the devout music necessary for ecclesiastical functions.”84 Thus it is clear that Giulio’s reputation extended all the way to the papal choir, which makes sense both in terms of his station as cardinal and bishop and as protector of Loreto within the Papal States.

In the late sixteenth century there were two possible roles for cardinals: the lowly reformer and the princely noble. Each was and was not papabile for the opposite reason. Reform candidates gained support because of their focus on reform and lack of substantial alliances; worldy cardinals, although powerful, were too heavily factionalist. Giulio sought a middle way through adopted piety. He was both reformer and worldly prince. Although the son of a powerful family that had produced two popes, he drew attention away from this fact by focusing instead on his good works and pursuit of Tridentine goals. Giulio has been assimilated to the category of the lesser, worldly cardinal. However, he was playing a more informed game than one may think. Through all his activities, good works for his ecclesiastical charges, moderate princely activities, and slow

81Translation

by Sherr, “A Letter from Paolo Animuccia,” 77. cappella musicale di Loreto nel cinquecento, 39–40. 83Nello Vetro, Dizionario della musica. On Piacenza at the time, with no reference to musical reforms, see Molinari, Il Card.Teatino Beato Paolo Burali. 84“io credo certissimo che Sua Santità vorrá reformare la cappella e di compositioni musicali et di canti fermi, et ridurla a un segno che le parole fossero intese et accompagnate con modulationi devote et necessarie alle cose ecclesiastiche.” ASF, Cl. I, Div. E, filza 62, 927, Paolo Animuccia [from Pesaro] to Simone Fortuna [in Rome], January 1566, translation by Sherr, “A Letter from Paolo Animuccia,” 76. 82Grimaldi, La

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Reform and Renewed Ambition accumulation of power, he was well disposed to stand as an interesting reformed candidate in papal politics. While he did not live to stand alongside the reforming generation of Baronio, Antoniano, Paleotti, and Valier, he should be counted among them. In fact, in certain respects he successfully pioneered their path.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

105

IAN VERSTEGEN

106

BIBLIOGRAPHY Archives ASF

Archivio di Stato, Florence Biblioteca Oliveriara, Pesaro

Printed Primary Sources Atanagi, Dionigi. De le lettere di tredici huomini illustri libri tredici. Venice: Vincenzo Valgrisi, 1554. Bellori, Gian Pietro. Le vite de’ Pittori, Scultori et Architetti Moderni. Edited by Evelina Borea. Turin: Einaudi, 1976. Borromeo, Carlo. Instructiones fabricae et supellectilis ecclesiasticae. Edited by Evelyn Carole Voelker. PhD diss., Syracuse University, 1977. Chacon, Alfonso.Vitae et res gestae Pontificium Romanorum et S. R. E. Cardinalium. 2 vols. Rome: Rubeis, 1677. Eustachius, Bartolomeus. Opuscula anatomica: Quorum numerum & argumenta auersa pagina indicabit. Venice: Vicentus Luchinus, 1564. _____. Tabulæ anatomicæ: Bartholomæi Eustachii quas e tenebris tandem vindicatas et Sanctissimi Domini Clermentis XI. Pont. Max. munificentia dono acceptas præfatione, notisque illustravit, ac ipso suæ bibliothecæ dedicationis dic publici juris fecit Jo. Maria Lancisius. Rome: Ex Officina Typographica Francisci Gonzagæ, 1714. Meldert, Leonard. Il Primo Libro di Madrigali a 5 voci dedicati al Cardinal d’Urbino. Venice, 1578. Memorie e Documenti riguardanti Bartolomeo Eustachio pubblicati nel quarto centenario ella nascita. Fabriano: Prem. Tipografia Sociale, 1913. Paleotti, Gabriele. “Discorso Intorno alle Imagini.” In Trattati d’Arte del Cinquecento, edited by Paola Barocchi. Bari: Gius, Laterza & Figli, 1960. Pellini, Pompeo. Della Historia di Perugia, part 3. Perugia: Fonti per la storia dell’Umbria, 1970. Rubeus, H. Historiarum Ravennatum libri decim. Ravenna, 1589.

Secondary Sources Alberigo, Giuseppe. “Carlo Borromeo come modello di un vescovo nella chiesa posttridentina.” Rivista storica italiana 79 (1979): 1031–53. _____. I vescovi italiani al concilio di Trento (1545–1547). Florence: Sansoni, 1969. Alfieri, Edera. La cappella musicale di Loreto, dalle origini a Constanzo Porta (1507–1574). Bologna: A. M. I. S., 1970. Antonovics, Tony. “Counter-Reformation Cardinals, 1545–1590.” European Studies Review 2 (1972): 301–28. Barocchi, Paola, ed. Trattati d’Arte del Cinquecento. 3 vols. Bari: Gius, Laterza & Figli, 1960. Bartolozzi, Gabriele, and Giuliana Zandri. San Pietro inVincoli. Le chiese di Roma illustrate 31. Rome: Istituto nazionale di studi romani, 1999. Belloni, Luigi. “Documenti sul viaggio fatale di Bartolomeo Eustachi (1574) e Lettere del medesimo e di altri medici (G. Capivaccio, G. Mercuriali, P. M. Pini, G. Rossi) al Cardinal d’Urbino.” Istituto Lombardo. Ren. Sc. 108 (1974): 193–206. Bertolotti, Antonino. Artisti urbinati in Roma prima del secolo XVIII. Bologna: Arnaldo Forni, 1974. Borghini, Raffaelle. Il Riposo. Hildesheim: Olms, 1969.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Reform and Renewed Ambition Carandente, Giovanni. Il Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj. Milan: Electa, 1975. Cardella, Lorenzo. Memorie Storiche de’ Cardinali della Santa Romana Chiesa. 9 vols. Rome: Pagliarini, 1792–97. Carlino, Andrea. Books of the Body: Anatomical Ritual and Renaissance Learning. Translated by John Tedeschi and Anne C. Tedeschi. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Catholic Encyclopedia. 15 vols. London: Claxton, 1907–12. Cattaneo, Enrico. “Il primo concilio provinciale milanese.” In Il Concilio di Trento e la Riforma Tridentina. Atti del Convegno Storico Internazionale, 2 vols. Rome: Herder, 1961. Cecconi, Leonardo. Storia di Palestrina, città del prisco Lazio. Ascoli: Niccola Ricci, 1756. Conte, Emanuele, ed. I Maestri della Sapienza di Roma dal 1514 al 1787: I rotuli e altre fonti. Rome: Nella sede dell’Istituto Palazzo Borromini, 1991. Cristofori, Francesco. Cronotassi dei Cardinali di Santa Romana Chiesa nelle loro Sedi Sibirbicarie titoli presbiterali e diaconie. Rome: Tipografia de Propaganda Fide, 1888. Dennistoun, James. Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino: Illustrating the Arms, Arts, and Literature of Italy from 1440–1630. 3 vols. London: J. Lane, 1909. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. 59 vols. Rome: Treccani, 1960–. Duranti, Angelo. “Il seminario di Ravenna nel sec. XVI.” Ravennatensia 3 (1969/1970): 129–68. Eiche, Sabine. “Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere and the Vigna Carpi.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 45 (1986): 115–33. _____. “Fossombrone, pt. I: Unknown drawings and documents for the corte of Leonora Gonzaga, Duchess of Urbino, and her son, Giulio della Rovere.” Studi di storia dell’arte 2 (1991): 103–128. _____. “Fossombrone, pt. II: Il giardino and la piantata outside Porta Fano.” Studi di storia dell’arte 3 (1992): 145–157. Frommel, Christof Luitpold. Der Römische Palastbau der Hochrenaissance, 3 vols. Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1973. Grimaldi, Floriano. La cappella musicale di Loreto nel cinquecento: Note d’Archivio. Loreto: Ente Rassegne Musicali, 1981. Grimaldi, Floriano, ed. Guida degli Archivi Lauretani. Rome: Pubblicazioni degli Archivi di Stato, 1985. ———, ed. L’ornamento marmoreo della Santa Cappella di Loreto. Carilo: Cassa di Risparmio di Loreto, 1999. Hallman, Barbara McClung. Italian Cardinals, Reform, and the Church as Property. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Hewitt, A. Edith. “An Assessment of Italian Benefices Held by the Cardinals for the Turkish War of 1571.” English Historical Review 30 (1915): 488–501. Ippoliti, Alessandro. Il complesso di San Pietro inVincoli e la committenza della Rovere (1467–1520). Rome: Archivio Guido Izzi, 1999. Jedin, Hubert. History of the Council of Trent, 2 vols. Translated by Ernest Graf. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1957–61. Kostof, Spiro. The Orthodox Baptistry of Ravenna. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1965. Lazzari, Andrea. Memorie d’alcuni più celebri pittori di Urbino. Urbino: Giovanni Guerrini, 1800. Ligi, Bramante. Memorie Ecclesiastiche di Urbino. Urbino: S. T. E. U., 1938. Magnuson, Torgil. Studies in Roman Quattrocento Architecture. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1958. Mallett, M. E., and J. R. Hale. The Military Organization of a Renaissance State:Venice c. 1400– 1617. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

107

108

IAN VERSTEGEN Mezzogiorno, A., and Vincenzo Mezzogiorno. “Bartolomeo Eustachio: A Pioneer in Morphological Studies of the Kidney.” American Journal of Nephrology 19 (1999): 193–198. Molinari, Franco. Il Card.Teatino Beato Paolo Burali e la riforma tridentina a Piacenza (1568–1578). Rome: Gregorian University, 1957. O’Malley, Charles Donald. “Bartolome Eustachi: An Epistle on the Organs of Hearing.” Clio Medica 6 (1971): 49–62. Pastor, Ludwig von. History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages. 40 vols. London: Kegan Paul, 1923–1953. Pillsbury, Edmund, and Louise Richards. The Graphic Art of Federico Barocci. Exhibition catalogue. Cleveland and New Haven: Cleveland Museum of Art and Yale University Art Gallery, 1978. Pillsbury, Edmund. “The Oil Studies of Federico Barocci.” Apollo 108 (1978): 170–73. Piperno, Franco. L’immagine del Duca: Musica e spettacolo alla corte di Guidubaldo II duca d’Urbino. Florence: Olschki, 2001. Porta, Costanzo. Missarum liber primus. Venice: Agenlum Gardanum, 1578. Prodi, Paolo. Il Cardinale Gabriele Paleotti, 1522–1597. 2 vols. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1959–67. Raponi, Nicola. “Visite apostoliche post-Tridentine nello stato pontificio.” Studia Picena 61 (1996): 235–84. Ridolfi, Carlo. Le meraviglie dell’arte. Edited by Detlef von Hadeln. Berlin: Grote, 1914. Rossi, Girolamo. Storie ravennati. Translated by Mario Pierpaoli. Ravenna: Longo, 1996. Rossi Parisi, Matilde.Vittoria Farnese: Duchessa d’Urbino. Modena: F. Ferraguti, 1927. Sangiorgi, Fert. “Precisazioni su due ritratti di Federico Barocci.” Notizie da Palazzo Albani: Studi in onore di Carlo Bo 20 (1991): 165–70. Schutte, Anne Jacobson. “The Lettere Volgari and the Crisis of Evangelism in Italy.” Renaissance Quarterly 28 (1975): 639–83. Segarizzi, Arnaldo. Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato. 3 vols. Bari: Gius, Laterza & Figli, 1912–16. Sevesi, Paolo. “S. Carlo Borromeo, Cardinal Protettore dell’Ordine dei Frati Minori (1564– 1572).” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 31 (1938): 73–126, 387–439. Sherr, Richard. “A Letter from Paolo Animuccia: A Composer’s Response to the Council of Trent.” Early Music 2 (1984): 75–78. Smith, Graham.The Casino of Pius IV. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. Temelini, Walter. “The Life and Works of Bernardino Pino da Cagli.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 1969. Van Gulik, William, and Conrad Eubel. Hierarchia Catholica medii et recentioris aevi. Monasterii: Sumptibus Librariae Regensburgianae, 1923. Vernarecci, Augusto. Fossombrone: Dai tempi antichissimi ai nostri. 3 vols. Fossombrone: Società Tipografica G. Staurenghi, 1914. Verstegen, Ian. “Federico Barocci, the Art of Painting and the Rhetoric of Persuasion.” PhD diss., Temple University, 2002. Weil-Garris, Kathleen.The Santa Casa di Loreto: Problems in Cinquecento Sculpture. 2 vols. New York: Garland, 1977. Zampetti, Pietro. “Guidobaldo II, Francesco Maria II e Palma il Giovane.” In Omaggio ai della Rovere, 1631–1981. Urbino: Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, 1981. Zane, Matteo. “Relazione di messer Matteo Zane.” In Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato, edited by Segarizzi, 199–216. Bari: Gius, Laterza & Figli, 1913.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Felice della Rovere and the Castello at Palo CAROLINE P. MURPHY

The modern seaside resort of Ladispoli, a few miles to the northwest of Rome, which takes its name from its late nineteenth-century signor, Ladislao Odescalchi, is not today a town with which many Renaissance scholars have reason to be familiar. It is, however, home to one of Italy’s most luxurious hotels—La Posta Vecchia—a seventeenthcentury post house, originally built to serve the adjacent medieval castle of Palo, Ladispoli’s original name. In ironic contrast to the splendors of its renovated post house, the seafront castle (fig. 1) is now crumbling and disused. In 1509, however, Palo was a prestige property, acquired by Felice della Rovere, daughter of Pope Julius II, as her own personal possession. This essay considers how the pope’s daughter used the castle of Palo to promote her identity, both familial and personal, to broker political deals and advance her own strategy for financial success. With their hometown a harbor town, the sea was a tangible part of the way of life for the della Rovere of Savona; ships were as normal a form of transport for the family as mules were for their counterparts in other cities. It is perhaps not surprising then, that the sea should manifest itself in the patronage programs of both Pope Sixtus IV and Pope Julius II. The Miracle of Savona, one part of the fresco cycle commissioned by Sixtus IV at the hospital of Santo Spirito in Sassia in Rome, depicts the Ligurian pontiff when, as young Francesco della Rovere, he fell into the sea, and was miraculously saved from drowning by Saints Francis and Anthony of Padua. As part of Sixtus’s aggressive program of Roman urban renewal, the pope sponsored the initiative to build the church of San Giovanni Battista degli Genovesi with adjacent hospital in Trastevere, in the vicinity of the port of the Ripa Grande, to which sick sailors could be taken after docking.1 Little is known of the father of Giuliano della Rovere, the future Pope Julius II, except that he may have been a sailor. The pontiff himself was mockingly called a 1Merlo, “S. Giovanni

dei Genovesi.”

111

Figure 1. View of Castello of Palo. Ladispoli, Italy. Photo by Henry Dietrich Fernández.

112

CAROLINE P. MURPHY

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Felice della Rovere and the Castello at Palo “boatman” by Erasmus in his satirical dialogue Julius Exclusus and, indeed, he had a great love of boats. He established a large fleet when he became pope and was a keen fisherman.2 As Cardinal Giuliano, Julius was bishop of the port of Ostia and sometimes resided there in the bishop’s palace.3 In the 1490s, he commissioned the Florentine Giuliano da Sangallo to build a new della Rovere family palace at Savona overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, and which in turn, could be seen from the water. As pope, Julius hired Bramante to build the fortress on the coast at Civitavecchia. Felice, Julius’s only direct descendant, chose to continue her father and great uncle’s tradition of maritime-associated patronage. For Felice della Rovere, expression of a connection with the sea took on its own kind of imperative. As an illegitimate member of the della Rovere family, her association with and acceptance by her paternal relatives was by no means automatic. She had in fact spent her earliest years in Rome, in the Piazza Navona (then Platea Agonale) palace home of Bernardino de Cupis. Felice’s mother Lucrezia had married Bernardino, maestro di casa of Giuliano’s cousin, Girolamo Basso della Rovere, after the then Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere got her pregnant with Felice in 1483.4 Felice was only taken to Savona when, at the age of eleven or twelve, it became too dangerous for her to stay in Rome, after her father’s plot to depose his bitter enemy and predecessor, the Borgia pope, Alexander VI.5 It seems she was treated with some suspicion by her aunt Luchina and cousin Lucrezia in Savona, for Felice had little to do with them in later life, turning instead to the de Cupis family members for support. Nevertheless, during her residence in her father’s native city, Felice did become integrated to some extent into Savonese life and culture. Ambassadorial dispatches from the Vatican court from the first months of Julius’s reign refer to her as Madonna Felice da Savona.6 Moreover, she was sufficiently familiar with and trusted by the commune of Savona that she was charged by her father, after he became pope, with writing to them to assure them of his eternal love, a subtext for assuring them of preferential treatment in regard to matters of business.7 In addition, Felice’s time in Savona, far from the bustle of the Piazza Navona where she had spent her earliest years, allowed Felice the opportunity to experience life by the sea, that integral part of della Rovere identity. It was only by living in, and traveling to and from Savona that Felice, a Roman by birth, could became aware of the maritime aspect of della Rovere family identity. After her father became pope in 1503, twenty-year-old Felice returned to Rome while he sought out a husband for her. Julius treated her in a decidedly circumspect manner, anxious to avoid any comparison between his hated enemy Alexander and his daughter Lucrezia. It must have been a difficult time for Felice, who had successfully fought to establish herself as a prominent member of the della Rovere family in Savona, 2Erasmus, Julius

Exclusus. Julius’s naval patronage is an important topic in need of further examination. On his love of fishing, see Shaw, Julius II. 3See the essay by Henry Dietrich Fernández in this volume. 4Felice’s early history is described in Murphy, The Pope’s Daughter. 5See the essay by Fernández in this volume. 6See references in Sanuto, I Diarii, vol. 5. 7Assereto, Cronache savonesi, 347.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

113

CAROLINE P. MURPHY

114

to be forced once again into an uncertain position, and she sought out strategies to reassert herself. In 1505, Felice met Baldessar Castiglione at the Vatican court and told him a story about her early life that would eventually appear in Il Cortegiano. In the section discussing women preparing to die to defend their chastity, Scipione Gonzaga cites her saying, “Do you not recall having heard how Signora Felice della Rovere was journeying to Savona, and fearing that some sails that were sighted might be ships of Pope Alexander in pursuit of her, made ready with some steadfast resolution to throw herself into the sea in case they should approach and there was no means of escape?” 8 One can suggest that Felice, feeling that her place in the della Rovere was somewhat marginalized, was anxious to affirm her standing within the family by linking herself with the geographical entity that distinguished the della Rovere. Metaphorically, to throw herself into the sea rather than be taken by her father’s enemies was to return to the bosom of the family. In June of 1506, Felice acquiesced to her father’s plans for her to marry Gian Giordano Orsini, head of the chief branch of the Roman baronial family. For the first two years of her married life she kept a low profile, dedicating herself to attempting to produce the son upon whom her future with the Orsini family depended. Gian Giordano already had a son, Napoleone, from his first marriage. However, a provision was set that if Felice were to have a son, he would inherit the Orsini lordship. Although in 1508 she did give birth to a son, named Giulio for his grandfather, the boy apparently lived for no more than a few months.9 Like her father, Felice della Rovere was a highly strategic individual. The vicissitudes of her life had demonstrated to her the need for self-preservation. She was aware that she needed to make some personal provisions in case her tenure with the Orsini did not outlive her husband. Although her father did not make her his erede universalis, he did give her substantial lump sums of money on several occasions. In early 1509, she decided to invest this money in her own autonomously purchased property. Felice della Rovere did not build a residence from the ground up. Such an enterprise would have been costly and unnecessary. As did many in Rome, she looked to see what existing establishments were available. Her eye fell on what might be described as the perfect property for this della Rovere daughter of mixed Roman and Ligurian blood: the castello at Palo, replete with an ancient history. Palo, whose name derives from the marshes (“palludi”) surrounding it, was built upon the site of Alsium, one of the oldest harbors in the history of Italian civilization. Alsium had been the principal port for the Etruscan town of Cerveteri. In the imperial age, it was the site of a villa built by Marcus Aurelius.10 The first century AD poet Silius Italicus speculated that the name Alsium derived from that of Argive Halesus, the son of Agamemnon. In Etruscan times, Alsium had been a major harbor and in the days of ancient Rome, it was a popular holiday resort for the wealthy. Pompey had a villa there, as did Pliny the Younger’s mother-in-law, which she had bought from Rufus Verginius, who 8Castiglione, Book

of the Courtier, 253. Diarii, 6:616. No further mention is made of this child. 10Dennis, Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria, chap. 34. 9Sanuto, I

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Felice della Rovere and the Castello at Palo called it “the nesting place of his old age.” Several emperors also vacationed here, including Antoninus, whose villa was praised for its location, “surrounded by hills, and looking out onto the sea.”11 Destroyed in the Gothic invasions, the site was resettled in the early Middle Ages and called Palo. In 1367, the Anguillara Orsini, who were the lords of Cerveteri, built a fortified castle. By the 1480s, the castle was in the hands of Giulio Orsini of the Pitigliano branch of the Orsini.12 Giulio had been a highly successful condottieiro and Medici ally in the 1480s and had done well under the Borgia pope, but he had not fared so well during the reign of Julius. Wanting both cash and an opportunity to ingratiate himself with the papal family, he sold Palo to Felice in January 1509 for 8,600 ducats; the transaction involved a series of notarial acts that took place “in Rome, at Monte Giordano, in the Camera Magna of the palace.” This location, the most important room in Monte Giordano, the principal Roman palace of the Orsini family, underscores the significance of the transaction. Giulio Orsini was present, as was the Orsini lawyer, Prospero d’Acquasparta. On 16 January the first meeting was to confirm the “sale of the castle situated at Palo with its landholding, done by Prospero d’Acquasparta, in the name of Giulio Orsini, in favor of Donna Felice Orsini della Rovere for the price of 9,000 golden ducats, of which 8,060 is payable now, and the remaining 940 ducats she promises to pay by the end of sixteen months.”13 Three days later, a “receipt and quittance” was made up between Giulio and Felice in which Giulio “confirms that he has received in hand, and in cash, 8,600 ducats for the sale of Palo made by Prospero D’Acquasparta, my procurator, to the Illustrious Madonna Felice Rovere Ursino.” 14 One can perceive a number of reasons why Palo would appeal to Felice. A daughter of Savona undoubtedly appreciated a property situated on the site of an ancient harbor. And an individual who had taken some pains to fashion herself as a “woman dedicated to letters and antiquities,” as Felice had been described in 1505 by the goldsmith Gian Christoforo Romano to Isabella d’Este, might find the site’s ancient roots particularly appealing.15 Moreover, Felice della Rovere might have been aware of an ancient seafront property belonging to a namesake, Pollio Felice, famous for his first century AD villa, which was built onto a promontory at Sorrento, a site that had also attracted the attention of Gioanna, the Aragonese queen of Naples, in the first half of the fifteenth century. In a Renaissance world that delighted in wordplay, Pollio Felice and Palo Felice must have provided amusement. Felice enjoyed making connections with namesakes—later she would build a house on the Pincian hill utilizing the site and what remained of the early medieval church of San Felice.16 Possession of Palo also allowed Felice to assert her identity as a member of the della Rovere family. The castello lay halfway between Ostia and Civitavecchia, two port 11Dennis, Cities

and Cemeteries of Etruria. Coffin, TheVilla in the Life of Renaissance Rome; Coppi, “Alsio, Palo e Palidoro”; and Perogalli, Castelli del Lazio, 129–30. 13ASC, Archivio Orsini, II, A, XX, 56. 14Orsini Archive, Box 154, Special Collections, University of California, Los Angeles (hereafter UCLA) 15Venturi, “Gian Cristoforo Romano,” 149–50. 16See Murphy, The Pope’s Daughter, 136–43. 12See

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

115

CAROLINE P. MURPHY

116

towns with which Felice's father was closely involved. Julius had been bishop of Ostia, where he had built the fortified bishop's palace, and Bramante designed the fortress at Civitavecchia under Julius's direction. Felice may have intended Palo as a kind of nautical staging post between these two ports frequented by her father. But as important as the sea was both as a visual emblem and for transportation, the land that came with the purchase was no less important. Palo was also famous for its dense forests. The Lazio, according to the ancient writer Strabo, was renowned for its trees and was known as the land of the oak. In other words, it was the land of the Rovere (meaning “oak”). 17 Roverian iconography, wordplay, and ancient history all undoubtedly contributed to the prestige of Felice’s purchase. But one must not forget that for Felice, Palo was not a pleasure palace, it was an investment in a potentially uncertain future. She may have planned to live in it herself should she be obliged to leave the Orsini family following the death of her husband. This never actually came to pass, because Felice gave birth to two boys in 1512 and 1513, and she served as governor of the Orsini during their lengthy minority. But she would have no idea of her destiny in 1509 and having Palo as her personal property undoubtedly gave her a reassuring sense of security. Furthermore, the terrain surrounding Palo was particularly fertile and produced abundant crops of wheat that substantially augmented her personal income over the next decades. A separate account book for Palo’s grain production contains such entries from Felice’s servants as “20 March 1511: We notify Felix Ruveris d’Ursini, our patron, that we have sold on her behalf to Gian Rinaldo Marcciano of Elba fifty twenty-five rubbios [13, 608 dry liters] worth of grain from Palo for the price of fourteen carlini for every 5 rubbios. Signed, Maestro Biasso, Captain of the galley of His Holiness and Maestro Gian Paolo, governor of the Castle of Bracciano.”18 Ironically, much of this income would ultimately go towards subvention of the Orsini estates in the crises (both political and personal) that beset Felice and her family in the late 1520s and ’30s. But it was Palo’s forest—its land of the oak—that was to prove the most politically lucrative part of Felice’s purchase. A forest populated by deer and boar provided superb opportunities for hunting, the favored pastime of Pope Leo X.19 Felice had known Leo, whose mother was Clarice Orsini, for several years before he was elected pope. Moreover, she had close business ties with Giuliano Leno, the Vatican contractor responsible for, among other things, the acquisition of building materials for the Vatican Palace and new Saint Peter’s.20 It was Leno who brokered Leo’s rental of Palo as a hunting lodge. The official papal hunting lodge was La Magliana, located on the river not far from present-day Fiummicino. La Magliana was initially built by Innocent VIII, but Julius II and Leo enlarged it, Julius with larger banqueting halls, and Leo with a decorated chapel.21 However, Leo’s love of hunting was such he wanted an auxiliary lodge in order not to run short of quarry, and Palo proved ideal. There was a large forest, 17Strabo, Geography, trans. Jones, 2:375. 18Orsini Archive, Box 19Among

154, Special Collections, UCLA. the various sources for Leo’s enthusiasm for the hunt see Rodocanachi, La première renais-

sance, 61–71. 20For Leno’s activities, see Ait and Piñeiro, Dai casali alla fabbrica di San Pietro. 21Bianchi, La villa papale della Magliana.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Felice della Rovere and the Castello at Palo complete with residence, half a day’s journey from Rome. Palo became a regular feature in the papal calendar, the subject of Adriano Castellesi’s poem, “The Hunt at Palo,” admired by Jacob Burckhardt as one of the epic poems dedicated to this chivalric aspect of papal life.22 Perhaps not surprisingly, it does not appear that Leo straightforwardly paid actual rent to Felice, but she received several payments in kind that had a substantial cash value. Giuliano Leno supervised a renovation program at Palo and, even though he was not an architect by training, became known as Felice’s architect. Palo benefited from his easy access to building supplies, the very same ones that were going towards the construction of Saint Peter’s. Leno’s vast notarial archive contains such details as the shipment of twenty thousand bricks in July 1519 to Palo. By September 1520, Leno was hiring maestri muratori Pietro Paqualino of Treviso and Bucchino di Caravaggio for plaster work on the courtyard, pavers, and masons to finish the vaulting, the window sills, and passageways.23 Given the plentiful array of projects Leno was supervising at the time, work at Palo was carried out quite speedily. Leno had a personal motivation for not wanting an established architectural figure to be involved with the Palo renovations. Although he was a hugely powerful figure in Rome, he was still only a contractor. His associates might have been artists, nobles, and elite clerics, but he himself was not. If poems were composed about him, they were satirical in spirit. And Leno apparently desired the kinds of panegyrics written in praise of those he served—Leo or Felice herself. He contrived to have himself immortalized in Latin verse as the architect of Palo, in a poem that was actually written in praise of Felice by the scholar Paolo Nomentano. Nomentano had composed verses in praise of Felice a few years previously, along with poems to her eldest daughter, Julia, and her stepdaughter, Carlotta. In the earlier poem, Nomentano had extolled Felice’s maternal virtues: “Such a mother you are, the best and the greatest.” His later poem was about Felice, Leo, Leno, and Palo. “Our Palo, that is so lush, with its woods, and the sea, and the earth. / What it is to live in such a place. How pleasing is this place. / And equally so the building that is a great felicitous palace, and you have made a house for Leo with Giuliano Leno. / And so they come to your castle where they can hunt stags and deer.…”24 Nomentano’s verses are apparently the only instance of a poem from this time dedicated to a woman’s ownership of a palace, underscoring how unusual Felice’s possession of Palo really was. For a pope, then, to borrow her residence made the situation all the more special. And Leno’s place in her poem, as the creator of a house fit for a pope, provided him with one of very few opportunities in his life to achieve a literary equality with the cultural elite whom he ordinarily served. It is worth noting that relatively few changes were made to Palo’s original appearance. It was built as a fortified medieval stronghold and it largely remained that way. Clearly there was a practicality to this approach. Palo was right on the coast and could 22Burckhardt, Civilization

of the Renaissance in Italy, 133. and Piñeiro, Dai casali alla fabbrica di San Pietro, 147. 24Nomentano, Sylvicolae. Biblioteca Angelica, Rome, MS 1349, Ode XXIII. 23Ait

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

117

CAROLINE P. MURPHY

118

well be in need of defense. At the same time, however (and here one might definitely see a Leonine influence), the approach to the renovation of Palo is analogous to those Medici villas built in the style of (admittedly rather extensive) Tuscan farmhouses, to allow the family to appear as if they had always been country lords, rather than mercantile arrivistes.25 Despite her apparent interest in antiquity, Felice maintained a consistent approach in building programs in which she participated, to provide an antiquated, rather than antique look. In that sense, one of relatively few in fact, Felice della Rovere acted as an Orsini, committed to underscoring the notion of solid baronial, medieval roots. Aside from substantial financial contributions to the renovation of Palo, Leo gave Felice other rewards. On 21 October 1516, Leo issued a remarkable license on behalf of Felice, a proclamation indicating that were she ever to commit “any grave or serious crime,” she was to be absolved.26 The document was intended to prove that Leo would protect and support Felice whatever the circumstances. Then in 1517, Cardinal Alfonso Petrucci of Siena attempted to poison the pontiff. His motivation lay in the fact that the previous year Leo had expelled his brother, Borghese, head of the Sienese signoria, from his hometown. Leo intended to place the Tuscan town, an old rival to Florence, under Medici rule. Four other cardinals admitted either their complicity or their knowledge of the plot. None of the cardinals was condemned to death, although Petrucci was strangled while he was in prison and his chief conspirator, Cardinal Sauli, died in prison a year later. Leo’s response to the assassination plot was to combat the power of the members of the college of cardinals by diluting it. He appointed thirtyone new cardinals whose loyalty to him would be assured through their gratitude. On this list was Felice’s twenty-four-year-old half brother, Gian Domenico de Cupis, 27 who received, as his titular diocese, the southern town of Trani. In so doing, Leo allowed Felice to fulfill a long-term ambition her father had refused her, ensuring she had a personal representative at the Vatican Palace. In addition, Felice was involved with the appointment of another cardinal. In 1521, Felice received sixteen thousand ducats for assisting in the election as cardinal of Pier Antonio Sanseverino, the uncle of the Prince of Bisignano, newly engaged to Felice’s daughter Julia.28 Thus, to say that by 1521 Felice had recouped on her original investment of 8,600 ducats for Palo would be something of an understatement. That Palo had become a papal residence endowed the property with considerable prestige. After Leo’s death, Felice had various requests from cardinals asking her to rent to them. In August 1523, Felice’s maestro di casa, Bernardino da San Miniato, wrote to inform her that the cardinal of Ermellino had sent for him to inform him “That his Holiness (Adrian VI) wishes to rent Palo in the same way that the holy memory of Pope Leo had held it. But I replied that your Ladyship could do nothing as the cardinal of Trani (Gian Domenico de Cupis) had already taken possession.”29 25See

Lillie, “Lorenzo de’Medici’s Rural Investments and Territorial Expansion.” Orsini, II, A, XXI, 27. 27Pastor, History of the Popes, 7:170–80, 204. 28Sanuto, I Diarii, 30:8. 29ASC, Archivio Orsini, I, 95, 16. 26ASC, Archivio

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Felice della Rovere and the Castello at Palo Other than Palo’s already being occupied, Felice had another reason why she would not want to let Adrian occupy the castle. Unlike Leo, Adrian had made no efforts to protect her against her stepson, Napoleone, who was enraged by the fact that Felice’s son had displaced him from inheriting the Orsini estate. Adrian had no ties to Felice and for the austere northern pope, this former pope’s daughter was a symbol of papal corruption, a reminder of the carnality of one predecessor and the greed of another who conspired with her to sell offices. Consequently, Adrian had no interest in supporting her as Leo had done. Conscious that Felice was without a papal protector, Napoleone, supported by his greatest ally in the Orsini family, his cousin and brotherin-law Renzo da Ceri, wasted no time in flexing his muscles, trying to frighten Felice into granting him concessions. Renzo da Ceri had been Leo’s military commander and he advised Napoleone on how to attack Felice. It was a delicate matter, as they could not do anything that would hurt her sons, who were Orsini heirs, and to damage Orsini property would only be a kind of self-harm. But they saw a point of contestable vulnerability at Palo, unoccupied following Leo’s demise. As Orsini men, they saw it as an outrage that the castle, once Orsini property, was now Felice’s personal possession. For them, it was a point of honor to reclaim it on the grounds that it was not Felice’s by right. On 13 January 1522, the Urbino ambassador in Rome, Gian Maria della Porta, wrote to his master, Felice’s cousin, Francesco Maria della Rovere, to tell him: “Madonna Felice has received news that the abbot has gone to take Palo with the complicity of Signor Renzo. She is very unhappy and afflicted more than ever…she bought Palo with money given to her by Pope Julius.”30 But Felice only confided her fears to Gian Maria as a friend. She mentioned nothing of what had occurred in letters she wrote simultaneously to Francesco Maria herself, cognizant that she could not appear to have lost control in any way. Rather, she discussed with him some of the final details of the restitution of his estates, for if Leo had been a good friend to her, he had not to Francesco Maria. As general of the papal troops, Renzo da Ceri had led an attack on Urbino to oust Francesco Maria and place Leo’s nephew Lorenzo in his place, and Francesco Maria had only just returned to the duchy of Urbino. Felice was aware that Napoleone had neither the manpower nor the experience to prolong such an offensive. And she was proved right—Palo was returned to her. Napoleone continued, however, to see Palo as a symbol of all the injustice of his life. In June 1522, he wrote a long and angry letter in which he told her, “You accuse me of absorbing all of the estate, when in fact it is to the contrary, that I have only 30 ducats a month, which reduces me to eating the snails in the valley, whereas you are assigned the usufruct of your dowry, and you hold Palo apart and with it its produce.… I have always thought there is more hate than love in you to me, and Signor Renzo concurs.…”31 Indirectly, Napoleone did actually contribute to Felice’s losing Palo. As mentioned earlier, Felice’s earnings and ultimately Palo itself would go towards buttressing the 30ASF, Ducato

di Urbino, Classe Prima, 113v. Orsini, I, 93, 673.

31ASC, Archivio

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

119

CAROLINE P. MURPHY

120

finances of the Orsini estate. Palo’s grain supplies fetched high sums in Rome, when the city was desperately short of grain in years following the sack of Rome by the troops of Charles V. The profits helped pay for the restoration of the Orsini palaces at Monte Giordano and Campo de Fiore, both badly damaged in the attack. But despite its profitability, in 1535 Felice was obliged to sacrifice Palo entirely. The previous year her son Girolamo had murdered his half brother Napoleone. As punishment, the papacy confiscated the Orsini estates, returnable only after long negotiations and the payment of a 10,000 ducat fine. Although Palo, as Felice’s personal property, was not included in the confiscation, she was obliged to sell her estate to pay back the 4,000 ducats she had borrowed for the fine from the Prince of Stigliano, the husband of her younger daughter, Clarice. Anxious for a fast sale in an economically depressed market, she sold it for the very sum she had borrowed—4,000 ducats—to a Florentine, Philippo dal Bene. She explained the situation to a younger Orsini cousin, the Duke of Anguillara, Gentile Virginio, whose estate at Cerveteri bordered the terrain of Palo: “I have sold Palo to Maestro Phylippo dal Bene in order to pay the 4000 scudi that I owe to the Prince of Stigliano, and the aforementioned Maestro Phylippo desires to have a letter from you that informs him that it pleases you that he takes the holding of Paolo and that you will be a good neighbor. So I ask that you are content to write a letter in the appropriate form to his satisfaction, and it would give me singular pleasure, and so I ask that you send this letter to me.”32 Over the past decades, Felice had fought hard to maintain Palo, her prized possession, the dazzling purchase of her youth. On more than one occasion, the castle had aroused Napoleone’s jealously and ire and he had tried (unsuccessfully) to take it from her. Now in death, he had succeeded in doing what he could not in life. He had removed the castle from Felice’s ownership. Yet if she felt the sting of parting with the estate that had, in its time, given her both revenue and prestige, and had secured her the affection of Leo X, her letters do not reveal it. Palo was, however, recovered by the Orsini family in the 1550s and subsumed back into the estate. It remained in Orsini possession until the decline of the family in the eighteenth century, when it was bought by the Odescalchi family. Today the property is disused and Felice della Rovere’s ownership and development of the castle have largely been forgotten. Felice and her relationship to Palo as an edifice is not a traditional tale of artistic patronage. She did not begin a specific program of restoration and renewal and she never embarked upon, as far as one can tell, any kind of pictorial decorative program for the castle. In discussing Felice and Palo, the phrase “opportunistic patronage” comes to mind; her use and relationship to the castle evolved as did the circumstances and opportunities in her own life. In 1509, Felice wanted and needed Palo as a financial investment. However, she was certainly not immune to the opportunities for the more poetic expression of familial identity that the castle presented. In her choice of purchase, Felice was able to exploit her Savonese seafaring inheritance in the Lazian land of the oak. But the acquisition went beyond symbolic and metaphorical meaning. In possessing Palo, Felice della Rovere did something few women of her era achieved— 32ASC, Archivio

Orsini, I, 400, 289.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Felice della Rovere and the Castello at Palo she owned a substantial building in her own right. The castle’s terrain also allowed Felice to become one of Rome’s most successful grain moguls, and her ability to use the property for political purposes contributed to her status as the most consistently powerful woman throughout the high Renaissance at the Vatican court. Such achievements undoubtedly make her one of Renaissance Italy’s more successful maeceni, regardless of gender.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

121

CAROLINE P. MURPHY

122

BIBLIOGRAPHY Archives ASC ASF

Archivio di Stato Capitolino di Roma Archivio di Stato di Firenze

Printed Primary Sources Assereto, G., ed. Cronache savonesi dal 1500–1570. Savona, 1887. Castiglione, Baldassare. The Book of the Courtier. Translated by Charles S. Singleton. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1959. Erasmus, Desiderius. Julius Exclusus. Edited by J. Kelley Sowards. Translated by Paul Pascal. Bloomington, IN: Bloomington University Press, 1968. Nomentano, Paolo. Sylvicolae. MS T.4.14. Biblioteca Angelica, Rome. Sanuto, Marino. I Diarii di Marino Sanuto. Edited by Renato Fulin et al. 58 vols. Venice: Visentini, 1879–1902. Strabo. Geography. Vol 2. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948.

Secondary Sources Ait, Ivana, and Manuel Vaquero Pineiro. Dai casali alla fabbrica di San Pietro, I Leni: Uomini d’affari del Rinascimento. Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2000. Bianchi, Lidia. La villa papale della Magliana. Rome: Palombi, 1942. Burckhardt, Jacob. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. Translated by S.G.C. Middlemore. London: Phaidon Press, 1945. Coffin, David R. TheVilla in the Life of Renaissance Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979. Coppi, A. “Alsio, Palo e Palidoro,”Dissertazioni della pontificia academia romana di archeologia 7 (1836): 377–86. Dennis, George. The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. London: J. Murray, 1848. Lillie, Amanda. “Lorenzo de’Medici’s Rural Investments and Territorial Expansio.”’ Rinascimento 33 (993): 53–67. Merlo, Luciana. “La chiesa dei marinai a Trastevere; S. Giovanni dei Genovesi.” Strenna dei Romanisti 61 (2000): 347–52. Murphy, Caroline P. The Pope’s Daughter. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Pastor, Ludwig von. History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages. 40 vols. London: Kegan Paul, 1923–1953. Perogalli, C. Castelli del Lazio. Milan: Bramante, 1968. Rodocanachi, Emmanuel. La première renaissance: Rome au temps de Jules II et Léon X; la cour pontificale, les artistes et les gens, les lettres, la ville et le people, le sac de Rome en 1527. Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1912. Shaw, Christine. Julius II: Warrior Pope. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993. Venturi, Aldo. “Gian Cristoforo Romano.” Archivio storico dell’arte 1 (1888): 148–58.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Isabella Feltria della Rovere BRICKS, BONES, AND BROCADES MARIA ANN CONELLI

In 1598, Isabella Feltria della Rovere, princess of Bisignano, offered her financial support to construct the Neapolitan Gesù Nuovo in exchange for a sepulcher for her only child and heir, Francesco Teodoro (fig. 1).1 Concurrent with her gift to the Gesù Nuovo, Isabella endowed the Jesuit novitiate of San Vitale in Rome with the extraordinary sum of 90,000 Roman scudi offered in her name and that of her deceased son (fig. 2). These were not the first of her significant gifts; a longtime supporter of the Jesuits, her name is evident in archival records from 1577 on.2 Isabella offered the Jesuits 4000 ducats in 1580, and again in 1585, together with gifts of pearls, jewels, and other fine things.3 Her generosity was boundless: throughout the 1590s, she gave thousands of ducats and yards of silks and other fineries to the Jesuits.4 In addition to founding the church of the Gesù Nuovo and the Jesuit novitiate in Rome, she financed construction of the Casa del Carmine in Naples.Yet little is known about this extraordinary patron. She is treated only briefly in the literature, in the accounts of the Jesuit historians Schinosi and Santagata, and in a few letters and accounts in the Society’s archives. 5 There is, however, an unpublished biography dated 1637, written by Isabella’s Jesuit confessor, Father Vincenzo Maggio,6 that reveals the life of a lonely, physically deformed, and 1For

an expanded discussion of this commission, see Conelli, “A Typical Patron.”

2ARSI, Neap. 184, fols. 3r–18v, 19r–23v. 3ARSI, Neap. 184, fols. 38r–50v, 51r–54v, 55r–58v. 4ARSI, Neap. 184, fols. 59r–65v, 66r–77v. 5Schinosi

and Santagata, Istoria della Compagnia di Giesù. This work, dated 1637, has 117 pages and is filled with marginal notations, corrections, and inserted chapter headings. A second version (Ms. XI. B. 52) is undated, has 76 pages, and is written in a smaller, more legible script. All the notes and corrections found in the first work are incorporated into the body of this revised text. 6BNN, Ms. XI. A. 52.

123

MARIA ANN CONELLI

124

For this image, see printed book

Figure 1. Largo S. Trinità Maggiore with Gesù Nuovo. Naples. Reproduced by permission from Alinari/ Art Resource, New York.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Isabella Feltria della Rovere

Figure 2. Interior, San Vitale. Rome. Photo courtesy of Gabinetto Fotografico Nationale, Rome.

125

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY



MARIA ANN CONELLI

126

fervently religious noblewoman. This valuable document, conserved in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples, chronicles the princess’s life. Divided into three parts, the first focuses on Isabella’s birth, education, and marriage; the second part details her spiritual conversion, the trials of her marriage, the birth and death of her only child, and the demise of her husband; the third outlines her acts of charity and selflessness, her architectural patronage, and finally her death and glory. In many ways the story is not an exceptional one because many women of her generation, suffering the similar indignities of arranged marriages, loveless and often violent, sought refuge in convents or a religious life. Although Maggio’s writing follows a tradition of works by the confessors of female saints, Isabella’s aristocratic lineage, her marriage into the most prestigious Neapolitan noble family, the Sanseverini, and her extraordinary patronage make this an exceptional biographical work. It also provides a context in which to compare other Neapolitan women who supported the Jesuits in their early mission. There is another useful manuscript by the Jesuit G. F. Araldo, titled Cronica della Compagnia di Giesù di Napoli dal 1552–1596, which is conserved in the Archivio della Provincia di Napoli della Compagnia di Gesù.7 This is a remarkable fifty-year chronicle that begins with the arrival in Naples of twelve Jesuits who founded a college in 1552 and concludes with Araldo’s death almost a half century later. The work is part historical fact, part social gossip, and part tally sheet for all donations; most importantly, it is an invaluable text outlining the lives of the Jesuits’ most significant female patrons. While Araldo’s account gives a less flattering picture of Isabella, it provides a foil to Maggio’s biography and an opportunity to explore the larger issues surrounding women who supported the Jesuits’ Neapolitan initiatives. This essay will first outline the salient issues of Isabella’s life as told by her biographer and then turn to Araldo’s work and other women who, like Isabella, were motivated in their patronage by their devotion to the Society of Jesus. It will examine both large and small gifts and, using the Gesù Nuovo as an example, explore how gifts of money and treasures affected the austere interior of the early Jesuit church.

Isabella was born in 1552 to Guidobaldo II, Duke of Urbino, and Vittoria Farnese. At age ten she was promised in marriage to the prince of Bisignano, Niccolò Bernardino di Sanseverino—the Sanseverini being one of the first families of Naples.8 At this time, Duke Guidobaldo II was military commander for the king of Spain with authority over Campania, and must have found a union with a Neapolitan family desirable. 9 Isabella was married at fourteen to a man ten years her senior; the union proved to be a disaster from the start. The young bride was isolated and ostracized by the court at Bisignano in Calabria. Educated and well schooled in Latin and Italian, she found the 7Araldo, Cronica. 8Ugolini,

Storia dei Conti e Duchi d’Urbino, 2:279–80. See also, Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, 3:123. 9Rodríguez-Salgado, Changing Face of Empire, 163–64.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Isabella Feltria della Rovere courtiers, infamous for their gambling and womanizing, crass and vulgar. When she endeavored to reform their habits and dress, the prince sided with his compatriots, further separating Isabella from himself and the court. The prince often abandoned his young wife for long periods of time to go hunting while she remained at home. Her situation, though, was hardly unique, as Olwen Hufton notes: “The aristocracies and patriciates kept close control of their daughters…they betrothed them when they were young…secluded and with no experience.… Some of the young brides had a very limited knowledge of the man they married…[entering] their new households as virtual strangers to the situation over which they had little control.”10 Similarly, Isabella’s sister Lavinia married Alfonso Felice d’Avalos d’Aquino, Marquis del Vasto, another southern Italian noble. The nuptials were lavish, the gifts sublime, but as Dennistoun writes, “The sun that rose brightly was soon clouded by his wretched and tyrannical temper, which embittered his consort’s life.”11 Only years later at the convent of Santa Chiara in Urbino would Lavinia and her two daughters find the peace and repose they sought. At age twenty, Isabella suffered a dramatic physical ailment that would alter her life. It began with a sore in her nose; various doctors irritated the tumor that developed, causing it to become ulcerated. Eventually the cartilage in her nose was lost, leaving only the fleshy exterior. A large hole formed in the cavity between the nose and palette, resulting in intense pain that caused her to spasm continuously. Isabella referred to this incurable condition as her most constant companion throughout her life.12 Over the next ten years, Isabella, now infirm, continued to separate and to reconcile with her husband. Then at age thirty, Isabella became pregnant with her only child. In April 1584, she gave birth to Francesco Teodoro, Duke of San Marco and San Pietro in Galatina, an heir to continue the Sanseverino dynasty. Recognizing that even the birth of a child could not salvage this hopeless marriage, Isabella soon decided to return to her brother in Urbino. During the journey, she became gravely ill and was forced to return to Calabria, but she used the excuse of seeking a cure in Naples to move there with her son. Separated from her husband and now living in Naples, Isabella entered into a life with God and chose Father Maggio as her confessor and counselor. Maggio’s biography of Isabella emphasizes her charitable acts and spiritual development. Isabella gave away her precious clothing, reformed the costume at the Neapolitan court, and spoke out against immodest dress. A generous patron, she offered gifts of silk, brocade, and jewels to various churches. After being led through the Spiritual Exercises, which had a profound influence on her life, she became particularly devoted to the Passion of Christ, 13

10Hufton, Prospect

Before Her, 101, 140. of the Dukes of Urbino, 3:157. 12It has been suggested that Isabella suffered from syphilis, probably contracted from her husband whose extramarital affairs are well documented. I will explore this theory further in my upcoming study on Isabella. 13My thanks to Olwen Hufton for bringing Gabriella Zarri’s work to my attention. The Passion of Christ was recommended to unhappy wives as their marriage was to be considered their Calvary; hence every woman constrained by an unhappy union became a martyr. 11Dennistoun, Memoirs

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

127

MARIA ANN CONELLI

128

developed a special reverence for the Crucifixion, and meditated daily on the sorrows of Christ.14 Attempting to emulate a more Christlike life, Isabella would often go to the Ospedale Grande degli Incurabili and attend to the ulcerated sores of the afflicted. She disciplined herself severely, often eating only bread and water for several days, her body growing thinner and more deformed. This physical malady is significant because Maggio refers to it throughout the biography and it most likely underscores his intent in writing the work. When discussing female saints, an infirm body was almost obligatory and is usually closely associated with the development of their spiritual lives.15 Similarly, opposition and persecution in one’s personal life, overcome with patience, charity, and perseverance, is a leitmotif in the biographies of female holy women.16 Maggio’s discussion of Isabella’s infirmity and the trials she faced in her marriage follows in the tradition of biographical works written by the confessors of female saints or women they found worthy of veneration. Maggio defines Isabella as a woman who transcends her pathetic existence to become a blessed exemplar of womanhood, where sexuality is sublimated, bodies mortified, and rewards sought in the hereafter.17 Her son too was a model of Christian piety, having received his religious education from the Society of Jesus. As a child of four he offered himself to Christ, at age seven he renewed this vow, and by age nine his religious passion was an inspiration to others. Then suddenly, at age fourteen, Francesco Teodoro died. The biographer offers no explanation of the circumstances of his death, except that it was his final wish to be buried in the Jesuits’ church in Naples. Isabella approached the order with this request and her donation. With the loss of her only son, Isabella now had a significant amount of money available to her. By the sixteenth century, in the kingdom of Naples, aristocratic marriage contracts adopted a private pact known as the Patto di Capuana e Nido that separated the wife’s estate from her husband’s. In the absence of children, the dowry was returned.18 This document had a profound impact on the lives of women in Naples, giving some of them an extraordinary financial freedom. Women did not need a guardian and were able to capitalize upon this financial independence to further their own interests. As a result some became major benefactors of large-scale religious architectural projects, such as Roberta Carafa, who supported construction of the Jesuit college, or Maria Lorenza Longho, who founded the Ospedale Grande degli Incurabili, 14Isabella’s

devotion to the Crucifixion is significant as it breaks with della Rovere spirituality, which had earlier focused on the Immaculate Conception. Carolyn Valone suggested that Isabella’s support of the Roman church of San Vitale was the result of family pride since her ancestor, Pope Sixtus IV della Rovere, had rebuilt the church for the jubilee year of 1475 and was particularly devoted to this doctrine. However, Isabella’s own spiritual devotions and her independence as a patron seem to counter this viewpoint. See Conelli, “A Typical Patron,” 422–423. For further discussion on della Rovere devotion to the Immaculate Conception, see the introduction and the chapter by Blondin in this volume. 15Matter, “The Personal and the Paradigm.” 16De Maio, Donna e Rinascimento, 164. 17Schutte, “‘Saints’ and ‘Witches’ in Early Modern Italy,” 158–59. 18Astarita, Continuity of Feudal Power, 192.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Isabella Feltria della Rovere and the church of Santa Maria del Popolo,19 or Costanza del Carretto, who was the patron of the church of S. Maria degli Angeli. With her only son dead, Isabella was free to borrow against her dowry, knowing that upon the death of her husband, it would be returned to her. She negotiated a settlement from her estranged husband in which she was granted an annual income of 10,000 ducats from the properties of San Pietro in Galatina, of Palinuro, and the territory of Corigiano. Her husband also gave 40,000 ducats for the construction of a chapel in memory of their son with the provision that any funds remaining would be used to benefit the church.20 Although the financial settlement seems generous and amicable, the relationship between Isabella and her husband was strained. Maggio writes about a brief reconciliation that resulted from the prince hearing about Isabella’s growing fame as a reformer in Naples. She began with a reform of the courtiers’ costume, giving away her bright colored garments to various churches and wearing only black. She then focused on introducing the spiritual exercises into her work. Leading by example, she tended to the ulcerated and the incurables, practicing humility and devotions. The prince, who favored hunting, gambling, and women, did not remain in Naples to pursue a spiritual life, and ultimately requested a divorce. Following this separation, Maggio speaks little about the prince until his death and even then, few details are offred. Other writers, like Litta, offer further insights. For years, the prince had surrounded himself with numerous courtiers—odious gamblers who led the prince further into debt and corruption. Finally he ws arrested for a gambling debt that exceeded 1.7 million ducats, imprisoned at the fortress in Gaeta, and was later transferred to the Castel Nuovo in Naples, where he died in 1606.21 What is exceptional about this ending is the fact that the prince was arrested and left to languish in prison. As Astarita notes, the legal system in Naples was designed to favor aristocratic debtors. They could not be arrested and, especially if they were members of the titled nobility, they could count on royal munificence and support.22 Certainly Isabella could have used her influence to free her husband, but was talk of divorce and its damaging implications enough to color her judgment and limit her actions? Isabella seemed anxious to salvage the marriage. Even in Maggio’s unflattering remarks of the prince, Isabella is portrayed as desperate for her husband to remain with her in Naples, even playing various tricks to dissuade him from leaving.Yet, inexplicably, Isabella took no action to free her husband from prison. Part 3 of Maggio’s work focuses on the widowed state of the princess, her virtues, and her death. He describes her meditations on the Crucifixion, the blessed sacrament, her “ordinary” and “extraordinary” devotions, her fastings, her charity and alms for the poor, and her prayers for the souls in purgatory. Her benevolence extended to the foundation of the Casa di Probatione di Roma, which was in “memoria de la vocazione del Duca figlio alla nostra religione.” Maggio speaks to her generous support of the 19Toppi, Maria

Lorenza Longo. Famiglie Nobili Napoletane, 2.32. 21Litta, Famiglie celebri d’Italia, della Rovere, table 6. 22Astarita, Continuity of Feudal Power, 215. 20Ammirato, Delle

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

129

MARIA ANN CONELLI

130

foundation of the Gesù Nuovo. The last section discusses the “sainted conversations of the princess,” “her humility, patience, and obedience,” and how she prepared for death. The manuscript concludes with the glory of the princess in heaven. Isabella was sixty-seven when she died on 6 July 1619 and, although she wanted to be buried without pomp, the Jesuits planned a great funeral for their most constant supporter. A book was produced for the occasion, describing the apparati, the catafalque, and inscriptions that spoke to her magnificent qualities (fig. 3).23 Likewise, Maggio’s biography, written eighteen years after her death, is more than a simple chronicle of her life. The manuscript bears witness to her sanctity and would have been an invaluable document had Isabella been recommended for beatification. Maggio was most likely sincere in his fidelity to Isabella, for he spiritually guided other noble women, such as Beatrice di Guevara, Principessa della Rocca; Isabella Gesualdo, Contessa di Saponara; La Duchessa di Ferrandina, Alvina di Mendoza; Isabella Alacone di Mendoza, Marchesa della Valle, and Giovanna Pignatelli, but only Isabella received his devotion and loyalty.24 Araldo was obviously less supportive of Isabella and even her significant sponsorship of the Jesuits did not sway his opinion. Her donations, although often the most substantial, are listed among the others, but are never highlighted. He does recognize her charitable works, but overlooks Isabella to single out the wife of the viceroy, Giovanni di Zuñiga, count of Miranda, for setting a good example not only for the Neapolitan gentlewomen, virgins, widows, and married, but also for the grand, illustrious, and titled men. The viceroy was a particular favorite as he had already founded the Jesuit colleges of Barletta, Cosenza, and Aquila and had selected P. Spagnuolo as his Jesuit confessor. It is curious that Isabella and Araldo did not have a closer relationship since they shared several common crusades, one being the reform of women’s dress. Isabella’s attempts at costume reform have been noted, but Araldo’s actions were so disruptive, alienating many of the Jesuits’ female supporters, that he had to be directly admonished by Ignatius Loyola, who took a slightly more moderate view. 25 Araldo did have his preferences and was particularly devoted to the Carafa sisters, who built a chapel within the Gesù Nuovo. Dedicated to the Madonna and the Seven Angels (one of the original altars consecrated in 1601) and today known as the Chapel of the Sacred Heart, it was erected at the expense of Marzia and Silvia Carafa to serve as their mortuary site.26 They were twin daughters of Isabella Caracciolo and Giovantommaso Carafa—one of the first Neapolitan patrons of the Jesuits from whom the order purchased an old and unfinished fifteenth-century palace that became the site of the Collegio Napoletano. Marzia died in 1592 and left 5,000 ducats in her will, stipulating that her sister use the money to build the chapel. By May, Silvia had approached the Jesuits about the donation.27

23Schinosi

and Santagata, Istoria della Compagnia, 4:111–17. and Santagata, Istoria della Compagnia, 2:27. 25Rossi, “S. Ignazio e la moda delle donne napoletane.” 26Iappelli, “Catechesi scritturistica e iconografia gesuitica,” 138. 27Araldo, Cronica, fol. 329v. 24Schinosi

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Isabella Feltria della Rovere

Figure 3. Catafalque for Isabella Feltria della Rovere. Neap. 73, fol. 127, Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu. Photo courtesy of Gabinetto Fotografico Nazionale, Rome.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

131

MARIA ANN CONELLI

132

Much of what is known about the sisters derives from Araldo, who was the Jesuit confessor of both women and the author of Marzia’s biography.28 As in Maggio’s biography of Isabella, these women are celebrated for their piety, devotion, and generosity to the order. Araldo, who was quite interested in the size and quality of the donations, praises the offerings made by the Carafa sisters, often quoting the prices and details of their gifts. “On 31 May, the Feast of the Ascension of Christ, mass was said on the high altar of the church of the casa professa, and the silver candelabrum was donated by Marzia and Silvia Carafa, that cost 266 ducats and was made by [the silversmith] Virgilio Maffei.”29 For Christmas, he notes, they gave two candelabra costing 280 scudi, bringing their gifts for 1590 to a total of 1,000 ducats. Araldo’s inventory shows that by Christmas 1591, Marzia and Silvia had given a third pair of candelabra. By the following February, they outfitted the altar at a cost of 100 ducats. Although after the death of Marzia in 1592, funding was concentrated on construction of the chapel, small silver gifts and textiles continue to be listed in the Cronica. By March 1593, silver candelabra made by Battista Maffei at a cost of 400 ducats, were offered in Marzia’s memory. This inventory of silver, of which this is a small sampling, is significant because there is little documentary evidence for the production of silver objects in Naples at this time. It also indicates the growing importance of silver for church furnishings. The documents, specifically those in Araldo’s Cronica, reveal a second tier of patronage that is often overlooked in favor of the larger cash donations. Over the decades, Araldo made many such entries, detailing the numerous gifts of silver, silks, brocades, and precious objects offered for the decoration of the church by Isabella, the Carafa sisters, and others. Such extravagant offerings make clear that the assumption of austere, whitewashed interiors for these early Jesuit churches must be reexamined. The Gesù Nuovo, like many other Jesuit churches, received its marble polychrome revetment beginning in the 1620s.30 Prior to this, Jesuit church interiors had reflected a more sober, less costly decoration. Were these plain walls an aesthetic choice as the backdrop for the rich textiles and gold and silver pieces that sparkled by candlelight? Valeriano, the architect of the Gesù Nuovo, unquestionably intended a simple interior, and instructed that piperno be used only for the bases of the pilasters, for the cornices, doors, and windows, “o altro necessario”; the remainder of the walls were presumably plastered and painted white. The instructions further state that no marble, inlay, stucco, color, or gilding be used “senza particolare licenza.” Writers like Francis Haskell and Rudolf Wittkower31 assumed that the relative austerity of the early Jesuit church was the result of inadequate funds or suitable patrons, which was obviously not the case in Naples. Goldthwaite notes that wealth alone might seem to be the most important cause of the proliferation and elaboration of objects of religious art, but this premise does not seem to fit the situation in Naples.32 Gauvin Bailey has observed reasonably that from the beginning, the Jesuits 28Araldo, Cronica, fol. 266v. See

also, Schinosi and Santagata, Istoria della Compagnia di Giesù, 1:73.

29Araldo, Cronica, fol. 245v. 30Cantone, Napoli

Barocca e Cosimo Fanzago. and Painters, 64–65; and Wittkower, “Introduction,” 8. 32Goldthwaite,Wealth and the Demand for Art, 82. 31Haskell, Patrons

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Isabella Feltria della Rovere desired sumptuous interiors as reflections of the heavenly Jerusalem.33 The Gesù Nuovo was inaugurated on 15 August 1597 and, while the decoration of the vault and tribune would only begin in the early seventeenth century, the church interior would have been resplendent in rich brocades, silver candelabra, and precious furnishings. Although the canonization of the first Jesuit saints would create a new impetus and direction for decoration, polychrome marble and painting would not totally substitute for silver and silks. By the early seventeenth century, the church interior would reach a new level of opulence. In addition to the gifts of silver and other precious materials, there was another kind of donation with which Isabella’s name is often associated. She was instrumental in acquiring relics for the Jesuits, including the head of S. Cornelio Papa. By the late sixteenth century, the cult of relics had assumed an enormous importance in Naples, and the Jesuits became avid collectors of these prized items. In 1594, the princess of Bisignano gave numerous relics to her Jesuit confessor, Vincenzo Maggio, for the church of the Gesù Nuovo. A few years later, she asked her cousin Odoardo Farnese to retrieve others from Roman catacombs. At the same time, the princess Porzia Cigala di Satriano requested that relics be obtained from Rome. This obsessive attitude is evident in Araldo’s Cronica, where he lists various types of relics, such as pieces of the true cross or thorns from the crown and explains where they could be found. He created special categories for the heads of saints and the blood of others, proudly citing where the blood of eight saints was housed in Naples. The bodies (and body parts) of saints were particularly prized and Araldo notes their locations in both Naples and the kingdom.34 The Jesuits acquired the bodily remains of the venerated doctor and hermit, Saint Ciro, who was martyred in Alexandria under Diocletian. His remains had been transferred to Naples between the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth century and finally came to rest in the chapel of the Crucifix in the Gesù Nuovo. When the Jesuits were expelled from Naples in the eighteenth century, the Franciscans, who had come into possession of the building, immediately removed the remains of the saint for themselves (?), demonstrating that the enthusiasm for these relics had not diminished. Relics, described as “more valuable than precious stones and finer than gold,” were important elements of the religious life of Naples and had to be housed accordingly. 35 The chapel of Saint Anne (now S. Francesco Geronimo), left of the high altar, presents a curious arrangement of polychrome busts covering the lateral walls of the chapel, each one containing a saint’s relic or remains; many of these were gifts from Isabella (figs. 4 & 5). These brightly painted forms stood in contrast with the church’s simple white interior. By the early 1620s, there was a noticeable shift in the approach to decoration. Polychrome marble dominated and Cosimo Fanzago established himself as the innovative, architectural decorator of baroque Naples, defining the ornamental forms and the color scheme of stone inlay that would remain the standard throughout the eighteenth century. The canonization of both Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier by 33Bailey, Between

Renaissance and the Baroque, 270. Sacra del XVI Secolo, 96–102. 35Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v. “Relics.” 34Divenuto, Napoli

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

133

134

MARIA ANN CONELLI Pope Gregory XV in 1622 fostered this new impetus in decoration. The Gesù Nuovo’s limited palette of the inlaid marbles—white, rose, and creamy yellow with black and gray for definition—created a golden and jewel-like interior that both invoked the idea of a reliquary and functioned as one.36 This richly embellished setting reflected the cherished items housed here. Beneath the high altar lies what the Jesuits hoped would be the most valuable relic in the Gesù Nuovo, the earthly remains of the order’s great benefactor, Isabella Feltria della Rovere, princess of Bisignano, enshrined in a place reserved for saints (fig. 6). While the ultimate image of reliquary could not be achieved without Isabella’s beatification, both building and manuscript are testaments to this extraordinary woman and her selfless life. Maggio concludes his work with a description of Isabella in heaven joined by a golden choir of angels—her celestial setting luminous and resplendent, much like the brilliant church she built for the Jesuits in Naples.

36Alexandra Herz similarly likens the Sistine Chapel at S. Maria Maggiore to a reliquary; “Sistine and Pauline Tombs,” 242.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Figure 4. Chapel of Saint Anne (now S. Francesco Geronimo). Gesù Nuovo, Naples. Photo courtesy of Gabinetto Fotografico Nationale, Rome.

Figure 5. Chapel of Saint Anne (now S. Francesco Geronimo). Gesù Nuovo, Naples. Photo courtesy of Gabinetto Fotografico Nationale, Rome.

The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Isabella Feltria della Rovere

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

135

For this image, see printed book

Figure 6. Interior, Gesù Nuovo. Naples. Photo reproduced by permission from Alinari/Art Resource, New York.

136

MARIA ANN CONELLI

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Isabella Feltria della Rovere

BIBLIOGRAPHY Archives Archivio della Provincia di Napoli della Compagnia di Gesù ARSI Neap. BNN

Biblioteca Nazionale, Naples

Printed Primary Sources Ammirato, Scipione. Delle Famiglie Nobili Napoletane. Florence: G. Mariscotti, 1580. Araldo, Giovan Francesco. Cronica della Compagnia di Giesù di Napoli dal 1552–1596. Naples, 1596. Archivio della Provincia di Napoli della Compagnia di Gesù.

Secondary Sources Astarita, Tommaso. The Continuity of Feudal Power: The Caracciolo di Brienza in Spanish Naples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Bailey, Gauvin A. Between Renaissance and Baroque: Jesuit Art in Rome 1565–1610. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Cantone, Gaetana. Napoli Barocca e Cosimo Fanzago. Naples: Banco di Napoli, 1984. Conelli, Maria A. “A Typical Patron of Extraordinary Means: Isabella Feltria della Rovere and the Society of Jesus.” Renaissance Studies 18 (2004): 412–36 De Maio, Romeo. Donna e Rinascimento. Milan: Il Saggiatore, 1987. Dennistoun, James. Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino: Illustrating the Arms, Arts, and Literature of Italy from 1440–1630. 3 vols. London: J. Lane, 1909. Divenuto, Francesco. Napoli Sacra del XVI Secolo, Repertorio delle fabriche religiose Napoletane nella Cronaca del Gesuita Giovan Francesco Araldo. Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1990. Goldthwaite, Richard.Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy, 1300–1600. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Haskell, Francis. Patrons and Painters, Art and Society in Baroque Italy. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1980. Herz, Alexandra, “The Sistine and Pauline Tombs: Documents of the Counter-Reformation.” Storia dell’arte 43 (1981): 241–63. Hufton, Olwen. The Prospect before Her: A History ofWomen inWestern Europe. London: Harper Collins, 1995. Iappelli, Filippo. “Catechesi scritturistica e iconografia gesuitica, La Cappella degli Angeli al Gesù Nuovo.” Societas 37 (1988): 138. Litta, Pompeo. Famiglie celebri d’Italia. Milan: G. Farrario, 1839. Matter, E. Ann. “The Personal and the Paradigm: The Book of Maria Domitilla Galluzzi.” In The Crannied Wall: Women Religion and the Arts of Early Modern Europe, edited by Craig A. Monson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross. London: Oxford University Press, 1957. Rodríguez-Salgado, M. J. The Changing Face of Empire: Charles V, Philip II and Hapsburg Authority, 1551–1559. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Rossi, L. “S. Ignazio e la moda delle donne napoletane.” Societas 3 (1989): 52–62. Schinosi, Francesco, and Saverio Santagata. Istoria della Compagnia di Giesù appartenente al Regno di Napoli. Naples, 1706–57.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

137

138

MARIA ANN CONELLI Schutte, Anne Jacobson. “‘Saints’ and ‘Witches’ in Early Modern Italy.” In Time, Space and Women’s Lives in Early Modern Europe, edited by Anne. J. Schutte, Thomas Kuehn , and Silvana S. Menchi, 153–64. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2001. Toppi, Francesco Saverio. Maria Lorenza Longo, Donna della Napoli del ’500. Pompei: Pontificio Santuario di Pompei, 1997. Ugolini, Filippo. Storia dei conti e duchi di Urbino. Florence: Grazzini Giannini, 1859. Wittkower, Rudolf. “Introduction,” Baroque Art: The Jesuit Contribution. Edited by R. Wittkower and I. B. Jaffe. New York: Fordham University Press, 1972.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice IAN VERSTEGEN

Francesco Maria (1490–1538) was the first della Rovere Duke of Urbino, and he carried the position well as a rakish commander in the field and a patron of the arts. 1 He emulated the ideal of an enlightened prince modeled by his great uncle Federico da Montefeltro and set the pattern for the remaining Dukes of Urbino, his son, Guidobaldo II, his grandson, Francesco Maria II, and his great grandson, Federico Ubaldo. Francesco Maria was born into privilege as the son of the lord of Senigallia, Giovanni della Rovere (1457–1501), and as a member of a family whose ever-increasing intimacy with the neighboring Montefeltro rulers eventually led to him being adopted into their ducal line.2 Francesco Maria suffered greatly over the loss of his duchy to papal forces in 1516, but the Duke retained the loyalty of his subjects and regained his lands in 1523. By the middle of the sixteenth century, international politics had made dynastic squabbles in Italy a thing of the past. But thanks to Francesco Maria’s perseverance early in the century, the della Rovere would enjoy their position well into the seventeenth century. Francesco Maria’s military career provided him with the accouterments of a feudal prince. By the fifteenth century, the condottieri, mercenary military leaders employed by Italian city-states, had spelled the end of the aristocracy’s raising of private armies, so the soldier-Duke of Urbino skillfully recreated the aristocratic ideal based on the model of northern European states, complete with the trappings of armor, weapons, and horses. The Italian contribution to the feudal model, however, was humanistic 1

I am grateful to Nicholas Adams, Robert Finlay and the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on this chapter. 1On Francesco Maria’s life, see Leoni, Della Vita di Francesco Maria di Montefeltro della Rovere; Promis, “Biografie di Ingegneri Militari”; Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino; and Ugolini, Storia dei conti e duchi di Urbino. 2On Giovanni, see Mazzanti, Giovanni della Rovere; and Shaw, Julius II: Warrior Pope.

141

IAN VERSTEGEN

142

accomplishment and no prince could claim nobility without competence in both. As Pamela Long has pointed out, new condottieri-lords like Federico da Montefeltro achieved success by aligning the old aristocratic political and military action (praxis) with the newest technology (techne).3 Federico da Montefeltro had already shown the perfect balance of the active and contemplative lives, as shown in Pedro Berruguete’s famous portrait of him with his young son, Guidobaldo (1481–82, oil on panel, Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino). The warrior sits, dressed in armor and fine ermine, with his helmet at his side, but stilled by books he holds in his hands.4 Carpaccio (fig. 1) depicted Francesco Maria in a somewhat similar way. With the papal rocca of Ancona in the background, he is dressed in armor but with subtle hints at humanistic learning. The armor is worn, yet without spurs, and the red hose, soft cap, and note inserted into his belt suggest an alternative understanding of this young prince.5 On the other hand, Titian’s famous portrait (fig. 2) is all about the warrior, as the worried duke looks out, dressed in battle armor and holding the baton of command. The aristocratic portrait of his wife, Eleonora Gonzaga (1536/37, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence), however, served to balance Francesco Maria’s attributes of terribilità, as the small exquisite clock and dog serve as emblems of civilization and domesiticity.6 A commander for the Papal States (1508–15) and later for the Republic of Venice (1523–38), Francesco Maria’s identity was divided (as his son’s would be later) between these two centers of power. One, the nonhereditary papal court that thrust his family to prominence under Sixtus IV and himself to power under Julius II, and the other, an Adriatic neighbor and oligarchic republic that gave him employment and a model of aristocratic republican rule. This molded Francesco Maria’s thought in complex ways as he sought to maintain the singular dynastic claim that a principality afforded him, while maintaining the approval of his subjects as the unanimity of Venice’s constitution promised. This further colored his spending and patronage as he built the princely retreat, the Villa Imperiale, while moving his court from Federico da Montefeltro’s Urbino to the seaside Pesaro. Like the Montefeltro, Francesco Maria and his ducal heirs were raised with split loyalties as they shuttled back and forth from Rome to Venice, and elsewhere. This provides a model for understanding the divided political and cultural identity adopted by the dukes. But as a papal creato, these tensions show particularly clearly in Francesco Maria’s case and the result is all the more compelling. It is therefore the purpose of this 3Long, “Power, Patronage

and the Authorship of Ars.” Double Portrait of Federico and Guidobaldo da Montefeltro.” The painting is sometimes attributed to Joos van Ghent. 5Hale, The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance, 152–57; and Goffen, “Carpaccio’s Portrait of a Young Knight.” On the identification of the fort as Ancona’s rocca, see Massa, “Vittore Carpaccio e la ‘sua’ Ancona”; and Zampetti, “Carpaccio, Bellini e Ancona,” 76–85. On the practice of Venetian artists coming to the Marche to sign contracts, see Humfrey, “The Venetian Altarpiece,” 79. The portrait of the duke is too summary in the face to be much use in identification, but the early portrait by Raphael (Man with an Apple, 1503–4, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence) does bear a strong resemblance to the portrait by Titian discussed below. 6Titian: Prince of Painters, 221–28; and Freedman, Titian’s Portraits through Aretino’s Lens. 4Rosenberg, “The

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY



Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice

143

For this image, see printed book

Figure 1. Carpaccio, Portrait of a Young Knight (Francesco Maria della Rovere), ca. 1510. Oil on Canvas, Thyssen-Bornemisza Coleccion, Madrid. Photo reproduced by permission from Erich Lessing/ Art Resource, New York.

chapter to investigate the discourse of power and enlightenment created along the Roman-Venetian axis—especially as it is manifested in the language of fortifications— and the way Duke Francesco Maria negotiated it, creating not only the conditions for his own rule, but for that of his successors.7

When Francesco Maria was born in 1490, the great Sixtus IV had only been dead for six years. Sixtus’s nephew and Francesco Maria’s father, Giovanni della Rovere (1457– 7For a pioneering article on the political valence of fortifications, see Woods-Marsden, “Images of Castles in the Renaissance.”

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

IAN VERSTEGEN

144

For this image, see printed book

Figure 2. Titian, Portrait of Francesco Maria della Rovere, Duke of Urbino, 1536–68. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence. Photo reproduced by permission from Scala/Art Resource, New York.

1501), was lord of Senigallia. Several of Francesco Maria’s uncles and cousins were cardinals in the college of cardinals; one uncle, Giuliano della Rovere, was probably the most powerful cardinal in the Curia, although he lived in exile. His mother was sister to the reigning Duke of Urbino, Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, and Francesco Maria grew up a frequent guest. In spite of Giuliano’s troubles with the reigning pope, Alexander VI Borgia, Francesco Maria was confirmed as prefect of Rome (1501) as his recently deceased father had been. Having as father and uncle two of the most celebrated commanders of the day and a great uncle—Federico da Montefeltro—whose military prowess was legendary,

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice Francesco Maria was born for war. He grew up surrounded by captains and lieutenants, all vassals of local petty counties. Given that Urbino and Senigallia were home to generations of experienced soldiers, the della Rovere were ready when, in 1502, the aggressions of Cesare Borgia displaced them, along with Guidobaldo da Montefeltro in neighboring Urbino, from their principality. Escaping with Guidobaldo, Francesco Maria passed through Florence to Asti and reached the French court where he was protected by his uncle, Cardinal Giuliano. Guidobaldo made plans to recapture the duchy of Urbino (and with it Senigallia); he, his sister, and her son, the young Francesco Maria passed to Venice and remained there as exiles. Guidobaldo’s success in regaining his duchy of Urbino in 1503 meant that Francesco Maria regained his title as lord of Senigallia. A first harsh lesson in exile was followed by a powerful and symbolic act. Guidobaldo voluntarily tore down several important fortifications from his duchy, including those built ex novo by Francesco di Giorgio (Sassofeltrio, Serra Sant’Abbondio, Mondolfo, and Cagli) and those rebuilt by him (Pergola and Fossombrone).8 As the lord of Senigallia, Francesco Maria consented to the destruction of Mondolfo in his signory. Admitting that fortifications were as useful to defenders as to conquerors, Machiavelli and Guicciardini praised these acts as prudent statesmanship.9 Urbino continued its golden age as represented in The Book of the Courtier. Upon his succession to the papal throne in 1503, Giuliano, now Julius II, immediately reconfirmed Francesco Maria prefect of Rome. Guidobaldo da Montefeltro was the natural choice for captain general when Julius II became pope, in conformity with the alliance between his uncle Sixtus IV and Guidobaldo’s father, Federico da Montefeltro. However, even when Guidobaldo was ill with gout, Julius may have thought of his nephew, Francesco Maria, for the pope was already pressuring the childless Guidobaldo to adopt the young prince as his heir. When Guidobaldo died, Francesco Maria became the next Duke of Urbino and captain general of the church, and was thrust into Roman politics. In October 1508, he accepted the gonfalone of the church at San Petronio in Bologna.10 More the man of action than his enfeebled uncle, Guidobaldo, Francesco Maria showed his temper when he murdered his sister’s lover in 1507.11 Julius II was a hands-on military leader and had to tolerate his inexperienced and impetuous nephew. While the two were frequently on difficult terms, there was never any question that the pope had the highest expectations of his nephew. In 1509, Julius gave the young duke the Palazzo Santori, prominently located along the Via del Corso and featuring two enclosed courtyards with a fine colonnade and a great sala recently painted by Jacopo Ripanda. Francesco Maria was married in 1509 to Eleonora Gonzaga, the niece of Elisabetta Gonzaga, the 8Martini, Trattati

d’architettura militare e civile, 2:459–65; Maltese, “L’attività di Francesco di Giorgio Martini,” 281–328; Dezzi-Bardeschi, “Le rocche di Francesco di Giorgio nel ducati di Urbino”; and Volpe, Rocche e fortificazioni del ducato di Urbino. 9Machiavelli, Il principe, ch. 20, fol. 29r; Machiavelli, Discorsi sopra la Prima deca a Tito Livio, 2:286; and Guicciardini, La Storia d’Italia, 1:508. 10Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, 2:323. 11The lover of his sister Maria was Giovanni Andrea Bravo of Sassocorvaro.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

145

IAN VERSTEGEN

146

widow of Guidobaldo Montefeltro. This marriage strengthened the Urbino-Mantua alliance, with some sympathy for Ferrara as well, and molded Francesco Maria seamlessly into the Montefeltro family. The young duke’s first military experience came with the war against Venice and the Papal State’s part in the League of Cambrai (1509, comprising the Papal States, the Holy Roman Empire, and France) against Venice. The League was intended to expel the Venetians from Ravenna, Rimini, and Faenza, which had recently been taken by Venice. The campaign was successful, with the Venetians being defeated at the Battle of Agnadello; however, the French entrenched themselves in northern Italy, and Julius next turned his energies against them, enlisting the Venitians as allies and beginning a war against Ferrara, a long-term ally of France. The Papal States lost Bologna in this war, and Julius’s ambassador, Cardinal Bishop Francesco Alidosi, blamed the loss on Francesco Maria. By 1512, a new showdown between the French and the combined forces of the Papal States, the Holy Roman Empire, and Venice resulted at Ravenna, when the French won but sustained losses so great that they withdrew from Italy, to Julius’s pleasure. It was in Ravenna that the duke finally met his rival Alidosi and in a fit of rage pulled him from his horse and murdered him.12 Francesco Maria’s crime—the murder of a cardinal—was shocking, and Julius was crushed. He briefly considered replacing Francesco Maria as captain general, but the pope and his nephew were eventually reconciled and Francesco Maria had learned his lesson. However, Julius became ill and as a last act of goodwill granted Pesaro to him, which had just been left without an heir by the Sforza. Julius was frequently unhappy with Francesco Maria. But the young duke faced a unique challenge. Julius and his family had seen to it that the young man was ingratiated and intermarried into the small states of Mantua and Ferrara, and Francesco Maria’s loyalties now tugged at him. Furthermore, he knew that Julius’s ambitions did not leave his state untouched, as various trades and flip-flops were proposed by the wily pope as political leverage. Therefore, they did the best they could with one another. Julius II died in 1513, ending a spectacular papacy that had seen the solid integration of the duchy of Urbino into the Signory of Senigallia and Pesaro, determining the extent of the duchy for the rest of its history. True to his newfound position, the duke was ceremonially reconfirmed as captain general by the new pope, Leo X.13 When he lost his command in June 1515 to the pope’s brother, Giuliano de’ Medici, Francesco Maria was understandably upset and King François I of France even argued on his behalf in Bologna when he met with the pope.14 Francesco Maria was well acquainted with Giuliano, who had been exiled at the Urbino court, and understood that the same nepotism that had catapulted him to prominence could, under a different pope, raise others to prominence before him. He was unprepared, however, for the last gasps of fifteenth-century power politics that would attempt to dislodge him from his lands, in the manner that his ancestor, Six12Sanuto, I diarii, 12: 198–99; Guicciardini, La storia d’Italia, 2:937; and Shaw, Julius II: Warrior Pope, 277. 13Dennistoun, Memoirs 14Guicciardini, La

of the Dukes of Urbino, 3:354. storia d’Italia, 2:1262; and Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, 3:360.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice tus IV, had vacated Senigallia. Just after Giuliano de’ Medici died in March 1516, and Lorenzo de’ Medici took prominence in the pontiff’s plans and he pronounced the duchy defunct, wishing to reserve it now for Lorenzo. Francesco Maria refused to come before the pope, and was excommunicated and stripped of his state (April 17). At the end of May, Urbino fell to Lorenzo riding with the full strength of the papal army. Francesco Maria sent his wife to Mantua, and fell back fighting with loyal soldiers. The della Rovere court took refuge with the Gonzagas in Mantua, and from there, Francesco Maria attempted to recover the duchy. The scene was later made famous in the Villa Imperiale as The Oath of Allegiance to Francesco Maria of 1517. Briefly reconquering Urbino, he nevertheless had to fall back to Perugia where he restored the Baglioni, but without decisive strength, reached an agreement with the pope and left Urbino on 16 September. In this brave act, Francesco Maria had exactly paralleled the exploits of his uncle, Guidobaldo, who fifteen years earlier had retaken his duchy from from Cesare Borgia before being decisively restored. Things remained at a standstill until Lorenzo de’ Medici died in 1519 without a legitimate heir and the duchy devolved to the Papal States. The pope, in order to ensure the loyalty of the subjects in the absence of a Medici ruler, tore down the walls of all the cities of the duchy except Gubbio, which had been the only city compliant to Florence.15 Things continued to look bleak for Francesco Maria. Several potential della Rovere allies in the college of cardinals had recently died—Marco Vigerio in 1516, Sisto Franciotti in 1517, Leonardo Grosso in 1520, leaving Francesco Maria with no supporters in the Papal States. When Leo X died in 1521, Francesco Maria immediately marched on the duchy and retook it. The new pope, Hadrian VI, reconfirmed Francesco Maria’s right to the duchy of Urbino. With this second, successful act, Francesco Maria closed the circle; as with Guidobaldo, his first attempt to retake his duchy was unsuccessful, but he succeeded the second time. Most of the local residents had remained loyal to Francesco Maria throughout this conflict, and these decisive actions left no doubt that he was the legitimate ruler. The next year, Francesco Maria briefly accepted a condotta for Florence, temporarily a republic, but resigned in 1523 when Doge Gritti offered him positions first as governor and then as captain general of the Venetian land forces. In spite of his support of Julius’s aggressions against Venice, the choice of Francesco Maria was not without precedent. Both his father, Giovanni, and his uncle, Guidobaldo, had served the Venetians when favorable commands were not available with the church, and both he and Guidobaldo had fled to Venice to escape the menace of Cesare Borgia.16 This connection 15Most of the letters between Roberto Boschetti and Giovanni de’ Medici in Urbino and Castel Durante and Giovanni delle Bande Nere and Francesco degli Albizzi in Florence, from 1519 to 1520, are in the ASF, MAP, filza 119, 120. 16Giovanni della Rovere served the Venetians briefly in 1485, and from 1487 to November 1494, when he famously stumbled on a 40,000 ducat ransom and against the orders of Venice kept it. Guidobaldo da Montefeltro served the Venetians from April 1497 to November 1503, when he assumed the captain-generalship for the church under Julius II. In June 1502, Cesare Borgia drove Guidobaldo out of Urbino. Guidobaldo briefly recaptured it in November, only to be driven back. With the death of Alexander VI, XXXXX

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

147

IAN VERSTEGEN

148

is commemorated to this day by a large lion of St. Mark, the symbol of Venice, that adorns the great hall of Urbino’s ducal palace. Francesco Maria served two five-year terms as captain general of the Venetian forces (1529–34, 1534–38, three years fermo and two years rispetto).17 With his duchy newly restored and a new position as condotto, Francesco Maria’s first priority was to refortify the duchy’s major cities—Urbino and Pesaro. 18 He also set about expanding the Palazzo Ducale in Pesaro,19 and moved his court there, but he was called away for several years to serve in Lombardy in Venice’s wars, first against France, and then against the emperor. When, in 1527, the duke returned home after the wars, he began to think more seriously about further projects, including building apartments in Fossombrone,20 fresco decorations at the Sforza Villa Imperiale, and a new addition to the same.21 Eleonora was the driving force behind all the projects, which she directed from the court in Pesaro.22 Francesco Maria continued to maintain a frenetic schedule, often absent from his duchy in Venetian lands as he had been during Julius II’s wars. After touring Venetian fortifications in Dalmatia and Istria, he was poisoned while being shaved, and made his way back to Pesaro to recover. He slowly deteriorated and died in October 1538, just shy of completing his condotta for Venice. On his death, the duchy passed to his twentythree-year-old son, Guidobaldo.

In the nineteenth century, art historians tended to idolize the Montefeltro, seeing a radical decline in Urbino’s culture after Guidobaldo Montefeltro’s death. Yet Castiglione and Bembo continued to live there and serve Francesco Maria,23 whose Villa Imperiale was recognized as one of the choicest villas in Italy. The Duke also commissioned works of Titian that are now canonical in the history of art (including Venus of 17

Guidobaldo definitively reclaimed Urbino at the end of August 1503. For a rich discussion of Guidobaldo’s relations with Venice, see Oettinger, The Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, chap. 1. 17Mallett and Hale, Military Organization of a Renaissance State, 297–99. 18Celli. “Le fortificazioni militari di Urbino, Pesaro e Senigallia.” On the contemporary projects to fortify Siena by Baldassare Peruzzi and the work by Antonio da Sangallo and Michele Sanmicheli to fortify Rome, see Pepper and Adams, Firearms and Fortifications, 161–62. 19Eiche, “La corte di Pesaro.” 20On the Corte Bassa, see Eiche, “Fossombrone, pt. 1” and “Fossombrone, pt. 2.” 21On the Villa Imperiale, see Patzak, “Die Villa Imperiale in Pesaro”; Eiche, “Vedetta of the Villa Imperiale at Pesaro”; Eiche, “Prologue to the Villa Imperiale Frescoes”; Eiche, “Girolamo Genga the Architect,” 317–23; Eiche, “The Duke of Urbino’s Villa Imperiale: Observations on the Façade”; and Smyth, “On Dosso Dossi at Pesaro.” 22For a vivid picture of Pesaro court life, see Eiche, Ordine et officij de casa de lo illustrissimo signor duca de Urbino. 23Bembo served Francesco Maria until 1512 (before going to Rome) and Castiglione until 1516 (whereupon he returned to Mantua). After Castiglione later accepted a job with the Medici, in which he served as envoy to Spain and in that capacity published The Book of the Courtier, Francesco Maria took back the fief he had offered him.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice Urbino and La Bella). Many sources depict Francesco Maria as merely a crude military man, noting his murder of his sister’s lover in 1507 and of Cardinal-Bishop Francesco Alidosi in 1511. In the Duke’s own lifetime, Castiglione merely suggested a soldier’s behavior in the young prince’s brusque entry into the genteel court of discussion of the The Book of the Courtier, spurs clanking.24 This flaunting of a courtier’s decorum survives in off-color anecdotes in his Discorsi Militari, which a later editor felt fit to remove.25 Other writers portrayed Francesco Maria as a failed military commander. Guicciardini blamed the duke for the Sack of Rome and the subsequent subjugation of Italy to Spain, accusation that has been long in overcoming.26 But Robert Finlay has recently reassessed Francesco Maria’s strategy as pro-Venetian.27 In tailing the imperial troops, but not attacking them, he preserved Venice’s interests by saving the army to defend Venice in case the imperial troops chose it next as a target. There was an antique precedent for this policy in the model of Fabius Maximus, the Republican Roman general who delayed Hannibal and thereby saved Rome. Forged together with Doge Gritti, the policy of delaying battle succeeded at this uncertain time when Venice felt it stood alone against both France and Spain. Francesco Maria was quick to observe ancient military precedents in his speeches before the Provedditori (Senate) of Venice; in a speech of 10 May 1532, he cited (among other examples) Caesar’s defeat of Pompey to explain how information about the terrain and an opponent’s number and arms could win a battle.28 His use of this example reinforces the suggestion of humanistic learning in Carpaccio’s portrait (fig. 1). As contemporary authors stressed about Federico and Guidobaldo da Montefeltro before him, ancient history provided the key to military success, for Francesco Maria’s enlightenment and success lay in the ability to use the latest revived technology for the safety and benefit of his subjects.29 Francesco Maria, thus, sought a true rinascità of the practical mechanics of the ancients. He did this through the practice of guerra d’ ingegno, war through ingenuity.30 Cathleen Henninger-Voss notes that Niccolò Tartaglia, in his treatise, La Nuova Scienza, casts Francesco Maria in an interesting light.31 Although he performs the role of the Aristotelian skeptic to Tartaglia’s iconoclastic thinking in their discussion of the projectile flight of a cannonball, he remarks that he “wanted to carry out experiments suggested by 24“un gran calpestare di piedi.” Castiglione, Il Cortegiano, 1.54. John D. Bernard (“‘Formiamo un cortegiano,’” 39) notes that, in this scene, Francesco Maria “adopts the manner of a benign and belated witness to the legendary conversations.” 25Adams, “Censored Anecdotes.” 26Guicciardini, La storia d’Italia, 5:38. Typical is George Bull’s assessment, and telling error, in his introduction to Castiglione’s The Book of the Courtier: “He was an incapable captain-general of the armies of the church at the time of the Sack of Rome.” The Book of the Courtier, trans. Bull, 29. 27Finlay, “Fabius Maximus in Venice.” 28Mallett and Hale, Military Organization of a Renaissance State, 297–98. 29On Federico, see da Bisticci, Le Vite, 1:379. On Guidobaldo implicitly, see the words of Ludovico Canossa in The Book of the Courtier, 1.20. 30Expecially in regard to a familiarity with Greek-language poliocoretic literature, see Concina, “‘Strathiotti Palicari.’” 31Henninger-Voss, “‘New Science’ of Cannons.”

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

149

IAN VERSTEGEN

150

Tartaglia when back in Pesaro.” Not only was the duke interested in doing experiments, he certainly was instrumental in perfecting artillery at the Venetian Arsenale.32 The duke was also at the forefront of military architecture; architects from Sanmicheli to Girolamo Maggi and Giacomo Castriotto praised his skills.33 In his military capacity as captain general of Venetian land forces and duke of his own (recently restored) duchy, Francesco Maria was able to apply his reflective knowledge to real military problems. Most interesting are his contributions to the design of defensive walls and fortifications. He was raised in the shadow of Baccio Pontelli’s (Senigallia) and Francesco di Giorgio’s (Mondavio, Mondolfo) rocche, and would have been well acquainted with Francesco di Giorgio’s numerous forts in the duchy. But Francesco Maria helped in the movement to introduce angled bastions and, immediately after regaining his state, began the rewalling of Urbino and Pesaro. Furthermore, he oversaw numerous fortifications and defense systems for both the Venetian terra firma as well as Venice’s colonial holdings.34 At the time of the duke’s tenure, Verona was the most important point in the line of defense from the west, only matched by Corfù in the Adriatic. For Verona, Francesco Maria personally designed and constructed several bastions.35 He drew up numerous plans, models, and recommendations for dozens of sites, including Legnago, Padua, Vicenza, Bergamo, and Brescia. In these endeavors, the duke consulted with Pier Francesco Fiorenzuoli da Viterbo and Michele Sanmicheli, the most important military architects of the Republic.36 It is probable that Sanmicheli earned Francesco Maria’s respect, but the duke maintained ultimate authority. The effect of such intense participation in military and defensive matters was the creation of a veritable school of military architects, which included Giovanbattista Commandino, Bartolomeo Centogatti, Pier Francesco Fiorenzuoli (1470– 1537), Girolamo Genga (1475–1551), Capitano frate da Modena (1484–1565), Giacomo Fusti Castriotti (1501–1565), and Giovanni Battista Belluzzi (1506–1554).37 Many of these men were experienced soldiers, having served in the duke’s own army, and could provide both battle and architectural expertise. In spite of the isolation of his small state, Francesco Maria was deeply embedded in the cultural life of Venice. He and his ambassador, Gian Giacomo Leonardi (1489–1562; 32Concina, L’Arsenale

della Repubblica diVenezia, 403. Sanmicheli’s comments, see Mallett and Hale, Military Organization of a Renaissance State, 415. See also Maggi and Castriotto, Della fortificazione delle città, 3:1.11, fol. 22r. 34On Bergamo, see Zanella, “La fortezza cinquecentesca di Bergamo”; and Zanella, “La fortificazione di Bergamo promossa da Francesco Maria della Rovere,” 269–300. On Padua, see Alvarez, “Gli interventi cinquecenteschi nella cinta muraria di Padova.” 35Barbetta, Le mura e le fortificazioni di Verona; Concina, “Il rinnovamento difensivo”; and Puppi, Michele Sanmicheli architetto. 36On Fiorenzuoli, see Lamberini, “Fiorenzuoli, Pier Francesco da Viterbo,” 48:316–18. He is also mentioned in Francesco Maria’s Discorsi Militari, 17; and Adams, “Censored Anecdotes,” 56. On Sanmicheli, see Puppi, Michele Sanmicheli architetto. For his correspondence with Francesco Maria, see Gronau, Documenti Artistici Urbinati, 130–31. 37For Castriotti, one of the most significant military trattatisti of the century, see Maggi and Castriotto, Della fortificazione della città. 33For

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice himself an authority on military matters), knew the dominant cultural figures in the city, among them Bembo, Aretino, Titian, and Serlio. The free-thinking religious environment allowed the duke’s wife, Eleonora Gonzaga, to indulge in the Lutheran sympathies she shared with the Mantua court. With Cardinal Federico Fregoso, the bishop of Gubbio, and Antonio Brucioli, a theologian, she seriously studied the Protestant theses of salvation by faith alone.38 With such a presence in Venice, in addition to his ambassador in Rome, Giovanmaria della Porta, it is no surprise that the latest innovations ought to appear in the architecture of his duchy. Immediately with the building of the Villa Madama in Rome by Raphael, Francesco Maria had inquired with Castiglione about its design.39 Although Raphael was now in papal employ, the duke must have felt some proprietary access to the designs of the Urbino-born artist. Indeed, the duke had his new architect fresh from Raphael’s studio, Girolamo Genga, bring him a sketchbook full of drawings of the best new foundations in Rome and of Roman antiquities.40 Members of Raphael’s workshop like Giulio Romano were being wooed by the Gonzaga court; wanting to keep up with their relatives, the della Rovere family hired Genga. His first project for the della Rovere was frescoes in the old Sforza Villa Imperiale. The choice of artists reflected Urbino’s placement between the northern Italian and central Italian schools of painting. Alongside Florentines like Bronzino were the Dossi and Camillo Mantovano. Raffaellino del Colle, along with Genga, represented the native Raphaelesque style.41 The artists painted seven rooms with classical references (e.g., Sala dei cariatidi) and Venetian-style landscapes (by the Dossi). Genga was especially responsible for the sophisticated quadratura decoration that depart directly from those of the Raphael workshop in the Loggia of Leo X.42 Next, Genga turned to architectural projects to modernize the palace at Fossombrone and to build a new Villa Imperiale behind the older one. Fossombrone was intended to create, as Pesaro had, a series of della Rovere itineraries that would supplement the older Montefeltro sites (Gubbio and Casteldurante). Indeed, after Francesco Maria’s death his widow, the dowager duchess, tended to live at Fossombrone. The relationship of the two Imperiale villas is slightly confusing and might suggest that the fresco decoration of the existing structure gave the patrons the idea to build a whole new villa. However, Sabine Eiche has shown that the west wing of the old Villa Imperiale was probably intended to be torn down, revealing Genga’s façade for the new Villa Imperiale.43 Therefore, after arriving at the Sforza Villa Imperiale, which faced Pesaro, one would work one’s way through its apartments before crossing an elevated walkway into the new Villa Imperiale, which instead faced toward Urbino. The redecoration of the Villa Imperiale was intended to put a distinctive della Rovere mark on the old Sforza foundation. Again, Eiche has ingeniously decoded the 38Caponetto, “Motivi

di riforma religiosa e inquisizione.” Golzio, Raffaello nei documenti, 147. 40Eiche, “Girolamo Genga the Architect.” 41At the time, Bronzino also painted a portrait of Francesco Maria’s son, Guidobaldo; Eisenbichler, “Bronzino’s portrait of Guidobaldo II della Rovere,” 13–20. 42Sjöström, Quadratura: Studies in Italian Ceiling Painting, plate 6. 43Eiche, “The Duke of Urbino’s Villa Imperiale.” 39See

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

151

IAN VERSTEGEN

152

painted decoration into two separate apartments for the duke and duchess. The duke’s apartment included painted walls and ceilings featuring his exploits, while the duchess’s apartment was smaller and decorated more simply. With the west wing of the old Villa Imperiale torn down, a viewer facing the new villa would see a simply articulated palace façade with a left salient that was mirrored on the right by the elevated walkway (fig. 3). The most significant feature of the new Villa Imperiale, however, was the sunken nymphaeum that visitors passed through when continuing toward the back of the villa. Serlio designed a fountain and the duke lamented to him he could only retain one architect (Genga) at a time.44 The last elements of art patronage to consider are the portable paintings purchased by the duke. Of these, the works of Titian that eventually found their way into the great Florentine collections—the portraits of Francesco Maria and his wife (fig. 2), La Bella (Palazzo Pitti, Florence), and theVenus of Urbino (Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence)—are of most interest.45 The Marche had been the destination of export paintings from Venice for decades and was the site of the sojourns of Carlo Crivelli and Lorenzo Lotto. But the works Francesco Maria bought were products of a Venetian identity, since the export trade involved altarpieces whereas Francesco Maria’s works brought the very Venetian genres of the beautiful woman and the reclining nude into the Marche. There is good reason to believe that Francesco Maria would have been especially sensitive to the Bellini school. Steeped in Franciscan identity through his uncle (Julius II) and great uncle (Sixtus IV), the duke would have gravitated to the Conventual house in Venice, Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari, with all of its famous works by Bellini and Titian. Working with Jacopo Pesaro on the defense of Venice, he would have been aware of his colleague’s great altarpiece for the church celebrating the Immaculate Conception, the doctrine Sixtus IV had done so much to support.46 Just as tangibly, Titian had been patronized both by his Gonzaga relations and the great model of Christian sovereignty, Charles V. Like Charles, Francesco Maria’s patronage of Titian subtly made him more the Alexander to the Apelles of Titian, with each dialectically gaining from the exchange. This relationship seemed to more closely follow the model of his wife’s family, the Gonzaga, than the model of Charles V. Nevertheless, Francesco Maria acquired works from Titian toward the end of his life. The earliest purchase came in 1532, of an untraced Hannibal and a Nativity; a Savior may correspond to a painting now in the Palazzo Pitti; La Bella is dated 1536 and the Venus of Urbino (both Uffizi) from the last year of his life, 1538.47 Several works have a poor provenance, so that it is unclear when they arrived in Pesaro. The Penitant Magdalen must date after 1537, and the portraits of Popes Sixtus IV and Julius II by Titian and his workshop are of unknown date.48 44On

the fountain, see Frommel, Sebastiano Serlio Architetto, 22. For the proposal that Serlio join the court, see Gronau, Documenti artistici Urbinati, 145–46. 45See Tiziano per i duchi di Urbino; and Gronau, Documenti artistici Urbinati, 85–92. 46On this web of patronage and Franciscanism, see Goffen, Piety and Patronage in Renaissance Venice. 47For full documentation of these works, see the essay by Fontana in this volume. 48A letter to the Gonzaga dates the picture and indicates Francesco Maria’s sense of competition with his relatives. The Duke of Urbino laments that “non habbiamo anchora alchuna noi”; Gronau, Documenti XXXX

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

153

Figure 3. Girolamo Genga, Villa Imperiale, Pesaro. Photo courtesy of Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence.

Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

IAN VERSTEGEN

154

As noted, most of these works are emphatically Venetian both in style and meaning. The genre of beautiful women as represented by La Bella, for example, was unknown outside Venice. The Venus of Urbino is also a genre very specific to Venice, as it was developed by Giorgione, Palma Vecchio, and Titian himself. Probably painted to celebrate or anticipate the consummation of Prince Guidobaldo II’s marriage to Giulia Varano of Camerino, the Venus offers both a model of comely amorousness and glimpses of wifely industry and loyalty in the distant figure busily putting cloths from a dowry into a marriage chest.49 Although the work was connected to the duke’s son in correspondence and patronage, Francesco Maria was the overriding personality who made this work possible. It is worth reflecting on the way the della Rovere in the duchy of Urbino adopted for themselves the easy grace of Titian’s works. The reclining nudes, for example, began to stand for a compliant femininity that was a symbol of Venice’s own consensual ease of government. This “myth of Venice” stated that Venice’s success was due to its perfect constitution, which ensured the harmonious working together of all its citizens. At just the moment Francesco Maria commissioned these works, his Medici rivals in Florence were advancing a duchy over the failed republican restoration. In that brief moment of self-government, from 1527 to 1530, Florentines and Venetians alike had reflected on Venice’s constitution. The results were the books by the Florentine Donato Gionnoti (Repubblica de’Veneziani) and the Venetian Gasparo Contarini (De magistratibus et republica Venetorum).50 Francesco Maria wishes his enlightened principality to be closer in spirit to the Venitian’s republic than to the Florentine’s tyranny and his acts of patronage bolstered this fact. Castiglione’s 1528 The Book of the Courtier describes a group of nobles discussing the virtues of a republic and a monarchy.51 Significantly, the Genoese Fregoso, a courtier of Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, is depicted arguing that a constitutional monarchy is the most perfect form of government. Both populist republicanism and ruthless monarchy could be abusive, but the most ideal form of government was a ruler subject to checks and balances or, better yet, one who superseded their necessity by his supreme judgment. Here Fregoso, who would later serve as doge of republican Genoa, represents a point of view familiar to Francesco Maria as a Venetian. The scene takes place after Duke Guidobaldo’s brief expulsion from Urbino by Cesare Borgia, when popular opinion had carried the duke back into power. In the desire to remain open to the deliberacy of constitutional monarchy, Castiglione was subtly showing how the della Rovere carried on this popular consent behind their rule.52 Nevertheless, Francesco Maria was a prince and, in spite of the consensus backing his rule, it was enlightenment that allowed him to make executive decisions for the 49

artistici Urbinati, 88; and Tiziano per i duchi di Urbino. 49There has been much debate on this image; Goffen, “Introduction.” 50Giannotti, Repubblica de’ Veneziani; and Contarini, Commonwealth and Government of Venice. 51Castiglione, Book of the Courtier, 4.19–24. 52On the political implications of Platonism, see Cody, Landscape of the Mind. For the manifestation of this civic versus narcissistic anxiety in Castiglione’s The Book of the Courtier, see Bernard, “‘Formiamo un cortegiano.’”

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice common good. Lamenting the pace of approvals for Venetian fortifications, he smugly remarked in his Discorsi Militari that he had been able to mobilize his whole duchy toward the rewalling of his principal cities. He was of course right, but this success was not solely due to his authority as prince; he also had a gifted military mind that enabled him to know the best means of defense. The singularity of purpose was expressed nowhere better than in his personal apartments in the Villa Imperiale, especially in the dramatic effect of the rooms decorated with scenes of Francesco Maria’s triumphs, culminating with his Apotheosis. The painting titled Oath of Loyalty to Francesco Maria in 1517 imitates Raphael’s Battle of the Milvian Bridge in the Sala di Costantino in the Vatican, but its relieflike presentation hints at Roman imperial associations appropriate to the duke’s absolute power in his domain, which he would certainly wish to communicate to foreign potentates (themselves princes) brought into this semipublic space. As noted, both Machiavelli and Guicciardini immortalized the story of how Guidobaldo Montefeltro tore down some fortresses in his duchy. However, they argued he had been able to do it out of the intense loyalty of his subjects; like ancient Sparta, the city did not need walls because it was protected by its subjects. 53 Francesco Maria’s expulsion in 1516 exactly paralleled Guidobaldo’s in 1502, and in his case the loyalty of the subjects was commemorated by the Oath of Loyalty to Francesco Maria in 1517 as recorded on the vault of the Villa Imperiale.54 It was repeated by Sebastiano Serlio, who had worked in Pesaro from 1508 to 1516 and later at the Villa Imperiale. He included in his unpublished treatise, Il sesto libro delle habitationi di tutti li gradi degli huomini, a discussion of the needs of building a palace for the tyrant and the good prince. In introducing the Tyrant Prince, he invokes the Machiavellian topos of the good prince without need of walls: “The noble prince who is liberally minded, just and kind to his subjects and who fears God, has no need of fortresses; the hearts and minds of his subjects will be his protection and impregnable bastion. I myself witnessed this with Francesco Maria, Duke of Urbino.”55 Francesco Maria was very familiar with the positioning between monarchy and republic, for he utilized the opposition in a pair of majolica plates he commissioned. He boldly had one show the Sack of Rome as a just punishment for its toleration of a tyrant’s court (Chastisement of Rome by Good CharlesV).56 Another, The Fall of Florence, portrayed the Medici as betrayers of Florence’s republic.57 Taking for granted that the court should 53This was a widespread topos. Oettinger points out that in the dedication to his edition of three Greek works of 1503, Aldus Manutius noted: “You aspire for nothing more than to do good deeds for your people and your city: and your people knew this when you were violently cast out two times from your possessions by the deed of your enemies—two times you endured danger—and with unanimous joy they reclaimed you as their ruler.” Manutius, “Aldo Romano to Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, Duke of Urbino,” in his edition of Xenophon, Hellenics, Gemistus Pletone, Greek History, and Herodian, History of the Roman Empire; quoted in Oettinger, Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, 25. 54Eiche, “Girolamo Genga the Architect”; and Frommel, Sebastiano Serlio Architetto, 13–14. 55Serlio, Il sesto libro delle habitationi, 2:58. 56Francesco Xanto Avelli, Chastisement of Rome by Good Charles V, 1534. Majolica plate, Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. On the comparison of Clement VII Medici’s Rome to a lascivious woman in the plate, see Talvacchia, “Professional Advancement and the Use of the Erotic.” 57Francesco Xanto Avelli, The Fall of Florence, 1534. Majolica plate, Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

155

156

IAN VERSTEGEN remain a good prince’s court and a republic should remain a republic, he indicated how each had been forsaken. The fortress became for Francesco Maria, the military engineer, the way to express a standard of rule. His walls around Urbino and Pesaro protected his subjects without need of a citadel (cittadella), which garrisoned soldiers permanently occupied to ensure the loyalty of the subjects. In Florence, the Medici had built the fortezza del basso as much to rule the citizens as to protect the city from outsiders.58 In considering the fortifications of Venice, Francesco Maria recommended that the walls remain thick and impenetrable facing the sea, but narrow toward the land so that it would not intimidate the freedom-loving Venetians.59 Francesco Maria clearly saw his strategy as going directly between the two paths offered to him, Rome and Venice. For the della Rovere, Rome was the giver of fantastic wealth, Venice its maintainer. Francesco Maria saw the Medici monopoly on the papacy end in 1534 when Alessandro Farnese was elected pope as Paul III. The Roman avenue could become an option again rather than the Venetian neutrality. Francesco Maria’s commitments to an old Roman model was not based on sentimentality. Apart from his family’s complicity in the princely system of government, complete with court, his first son, Guidobaldo II, would regain the captaincy of the papal forces through a marriage alliance with Pope Paul III only fifteen years after the Duke’s death, and his second son would become a cardinal with high hopes for the papacy. After a masterfully overseen Venetian exile, each of Francesco Maria’s sons began a new turn toward Rome.

58Hale, “The Fortezza del Basso and the End of Florentine Liberty.” Cf. Hale, Florence and the Medici, 124–25. 59Mallett and Hale, Military Organization of a Renaissance State, 420.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice

BIBLIOGRAPHY Archives ASF

Archivio di Stato, Firenze

Printed Primary Sources Castiglione, Baldassare. The Book of the Courtier. Translated by George Bull. London: Penguin, 1967. ———. Il Cortegiano. Edited by Carlo Cordié. Milan: Mondadori, 1991. Contarini, Gasparo.The Commonwealth and Government ofVenice. Translated by Lewis Lewkenor. New York: Da Capo, 1969. della Rovere, Francesco Maria. Discorsi Militari . . . ne i quali si discorrono molti avantaggi & disvantaggi, della guerra, utilissimi a ogni soldato. Ferrera: Mammarelli, 1583. Giannotti, Donato. Repubblica de’Veneziani. Edited by Giovanni Silvano. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1990. Guicciardini, Francesco. La Storia d’Italia. Edited by Silvana Seidel Menchi. 3 vols. Turin: Einaudi, 1971. Leoni, Giovanni Battisti. DellaVita di Francesco Maria di Montefeltro della Rovere, Duca D’Urbino. Venice: Ciotti, 1605. Machiavelli, Niccolo. Discorsi sopra la Prima deca a Tito Livio. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Maggi, Girolamo, and Giacomo Castriotto. Della fortificazione della città, di M. Girolamo Maggi, e del Capitan Iacomo Castriotto Ingegniero del Christianiß. Re di Francia, 3 vols. Venice: Camillo Borgominiero, al Segno di S. Giorgio, 1583. Martini, Francesco di Giorgio. Trattati d’architettura militare e civile. Edited by Corrado Maltese, 2 vols. Milan: Edizione di Polifilo, 1967. Sanuto, Marino. I Diarii di Marino Sanuto. Edited by Renato Fulin et al. 58 vols. Venice: Visentini, 1879–1902. Serlio, Sebastiano. Il sesto libro delle habitationi di tutti li gradi degli huomini. Chapter 2 in Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, vol. 2. Edited by Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks. New Haven:Yale University Press, 2001.

Secondary Sources Adams, Nicholas. “Censored Anecdotes from Francesco Maria I della Rovere’s Discorsi Militari.” Renaissance Studies 13 (1999): 55–62. Alvarez, G. Bresciani. “Gli interventi cinquecenteschi nella cinta muraria di Padova.” In L’architettura militare veneta del Cinquecento, 100–109. Milan: Electa, 1988. Barbetta, Guido. Le mura e le fortificazioni diVerona. Verona: Edizioni di vita veronese, 1970. Bernard, John D. “‘Formiamo un cortegiano’: Castiglione and the Aims of Writing.” Modern Language Notes 115 (2000): 34–63. Bisticci, Vespasiano da. LeVite, 2 vols. Edited by A. Grieco. Florence: Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, 1970–76. Caponetto, Salvatore. “Motivi di riforma religiosa e inquisizione nel ducato di Urbino nella prima meta del cinquecento.“ Annuario dell’ Istituto Storico Italiano per l’Età Moderna e Contemporanea 37–38 (1985–86): 77–93.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

157

158

IAN VERSTEGEN Celli, L. “Le fortificazioni militari di Urbino, Pesaro e Senigallia del secolo XVI costruite dai Rovereschi.” Nuova Rivista Misena: Periodico marchigiano d’erudizione storico-artistica, di letteratura e d’interessi locali 8 (1895): 67–83, 101–121, 138–158. Cody, Richard John.The Landscape of the Mind: Pastoralism and Platonic Theory in Tasso’s Aminta and Shakespeare’s Early Comedies. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969. Concina, Ennio. L’Arsenale della Repubblica diVenezia:Tecniche e istituzioni dal medioevo all’età moderna. Milan: Electa, 1988. ———. “Il rinnovamento difensivo nei territori della Repubblica di Venezia nella prima metà del Cinquecento: Modelli, dibattiti, scelte.” In Architettura militare nell’Europa del XVI secolo, edited by Carlo Cresti, Amelio Fara, and Daniela Lamberini. Siena: Periccioli, 1988. ———. “‘Strathiotti Palicari:’ Venezia, la difesa del dominio d la tradizione militare bizantina.” In La commedia dell’arte nella sua dimensions europea, 9–20. Venice: Instituto Ellenico di Study Bizantini e Postbizantini, 2004. Dennistoun, James. Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino: Illustrating the Arms, Arts, and Literature of Italy from 1440–1630. 3 vols. London: J. Lane, 1909. Dezzi-Bardeschi, Marco. “Le rocche di Francesco di Giorgio nel ducati di Urbino.” Castellum 8 (1968): 97–140. Eiche, Sabine. “La corte di Pesaro dalle case malatestane alla residenza roveresca.” In La corte di Pesaro, edited by Maria Rosaria Valazzi. Modena: Edizioni Panini, 1986. 13–55. ———. “The Duke of Urbino’s Villa Imperiale: Observations on the Façade.” Apollo 151 (2000): 28–35. ———. “Fossombrone, pt. I, Unknown Drawings and Documents for the Corte of Leonora Gonzaga, Duchess of Urbino, and Her Son, Giulio della Rovere.” Studi di storia dell’arte 2 (1991): 103–28. ———. “Fossombrone, pt. II: Il giardino and la piantata outside Porta Fano.” Studi di storia dell’arte 3 (1992): 145–57. ———. “Girolamo Genga the Architect: An Inquiry into His Background.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Instituts in Florenz 35 (1991): 317–23. ———. “Prologue to the Villa Imperiale Frescoes.” Notizie da Palazzo Albani 20 (1991): 91–119. ———. “The Vedetta of the Villa Imperiale at Pesaro.” Architettura 8 (1978): 150–65. ———, ed. Ordine et officij de casa de lo illustrissimo signor duca de Urbino. Urbino: Accademia Raffaello, 2002. Eisenbichler, Konrad. “Bronzino’s Portrait of Guidobaldo della Rovere.” Renaissance and Reformation 24, no. 1 (1988): 21–33. Finlay, Robert. “Fabius Maximus in Venice: Doge Andrea Gritti, the War of Cambrai, and the Rise of Hapsburg Hegemony, 1509–1530.” Renaissance Quarterly 53 (2000): 988–1031. Freedman, Luba.Titian’s Portraits through Aretino’s Lens. College Station: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. Frommel, Sabine. Sebastiano Serlio Architetto. Milan: Electa, 1998. Goffen, Rona. “Carpaccio’s Portrait of a Young Knight: Identity and Meaning.” Arte veneta 37 (1983): 37–48. Golzio, Vincenzo. Raffaello nei documenti, nelle testimonianze dei contemporanei e nella letteratura del suo secolo. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice vaticana, 1936. Gronau, Georg. Documenti artistici Urbinati. Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1936. Hale, J.R. The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance. London: Harper Collins, 1992. ———. Florence and the Medici:The Pattern of Control. London: Thames and Hudson, 1977. ———. “The Fortezza del Basso and the End of Florentine Liberty.” In RenaissanceWar Studies, 121–53. London: Hambledon Press, 1983.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria and the Duchy of Urbino, between Rome and Venice Henninger-Voss, Mary. “How the ‘New Science’ of Cannons Shook up the Aristotelian Cosmos.” Journal of the History of Ideas 63 (2002): 371–97. Humfrey, Peter. “The Venetian Altarpiece of the Early Renaissance in the Light of Contemporary Business Practice.” Saggi e memorie di storia dell’arte 15 (1986): 65–82. Lamberini, Daniele. “Florenzuoli, Pier Francesco da Viterbo.” Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Rome: Treccani, 1997. Long, Pamela. “Power, Patronage and the Authorship of Ars: From Mechanical Know-How to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age.” Isis 88 (1997): 1–41. Mallett, M. E., and J. R. Hale. The Military Organization of a Renaissance State:Venice c. 1400– 1617. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Maltese, Corrado. “L’attività di Francesco di Giorgio Martini, architetto militare nella Marche attraverso il suo Trattato.” In Atti dell’XI Congresso di Storia dell’Architettura, Marche, 6–13 Settembre 1959. Rome: Centro Studi per la Storia dell’Architettura, 1965. Massa, Marina. “Vittore Carpaccio e la ‘sua’ Ancona.” Notizie da Palazzo Albani 20 (1991): 81–88. Mazzanti, Marinella Bonvini. Giovanni della Rovere: Un principe nuovo nelle vicende italiane degli ultimi decenni del XV secolo. Pesaro: 2G Senigallia, 1983. Oettinger, April. “The Hypnerotomachia Poliphili: Image and Text in a Renaissance Romance.” Phd diss., University of Virginia, 2000. Patzak, Bernhard. DieVilla Imperiale in Pesaro: Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der italienischen Renaissancevilla und ihrer Innendekoration. Leipzig: Klinkhardt and Biermann, 1908. Pepper, Simon, and Nicholas Adams. Firearms and Fortifications: Military Architecture and Siege Warfare in Sixteenth-Century Siena. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1986. Promis, Carlo. “Biografie di Ingegneri Militari dal Secolo XIV alla Metà del XVIII.” Miscellanea di Storia Italiana della Regia Deputazione di Storia Patria 14 (1874): 103–26. Puppi, Lionello. Michele Sanmicheli architetto diVerona. Padua: Marsilio, 1971. Rosenberg, Charles. “The Double Portrait of Federico and Guidobaldo da Montefeltro: Power, Wisdom and Dynasty.” In Federico di Montefeltro: Lo stato, le arti, la cultura, edited by Giorgio Cerboni Baiardi, Giorgio Chittolini, and Piero Floriani, 2:213–22. Rome: Bulzoni, 1986. Shaw, Christine. Julius II: Warrior Pope. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993. Sjöström, Ingrid. Quadratura: Studies in Italian Ceiling Painting. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1978. Smyth, Craig Hugh. “On Dosso Dossi at Pesaro.” In Dosso’s Fate: Painting and Court Culture in Renaissance Italy, 241–62. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1998. Talvacchia, Bette. “Professional Advancement and the Use of the Erotic.” Sixteenth Century Studies 25 (1994): 121–53. Titian: Prince of Painters. Exhibition catalogue. Venice: Prestel, 1990. Tiziano per i duchi di Urbino. Exhibition catalogue. Urbino: AGE, 1976. Ugolini, Filippo. Storia dei conti e duchi di Urbino. Florence: Grazzini Giannini, 1859. Volpe, Gianni. Rocche e fortificazioni del ducato di Urbino (1441–1502). Urbino: Comitato per le celebrazioni fredericiane, 1982. Woods-Marsden, Joanna. “Images of Castles in the Renaissance: Symbols of ‘Signoria’/Symbols of Tyranny.” Art Journal (1989): 130–37. Zampetti, Pietro. “Carpaccio, Bellini e Ancona. Arte documento 11 (1997): 76–85. Zanella, Graziella Columuto. “La fortezza cinquecentesca di Bergamo.” In L’architettura militare veneta del cinquecento. Vicenza: Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura ‘Andrea Palladio’ di Vicenza, 1988.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

159

160

IAN VERSTEGEN ———. “La fortificazione di Bergamo promossa da Francesco Maria della Rovere: Il Ruolo di Pietro Isabello.” Atti dell’Ateneo di Scienze Lettere ed Arte di Bergamo 49 (1988–89): 269–300.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Duke Guidobaldo II della Rovere, Federico Barocci, and the Taste for Titian at the Court of Urbino JEFFREY FONTANA

Guidobaldo II della Rovere (1514–74), the fourth Duke of Urbino, began his reign in 1538. Like his predecessors, he actively patronized the arts and sought to enhance the prestige of his court by supporting creative talents, commissioning new works, and augmenting his family’s art collection. He acted as patron to authors Bernardo Tasso and Pietro Aretino, and to the renowned Sienese singer Virginia Vagnoli.1 He commissioned designs for majolica services and paintings from Battista Franco and Taddeo Zuccaro, as well as his portrait, at age eighteen, from Agnolo Bronzino.2 He ordered his architects Girolamo and Bartolomeo Genga to build the church of S. Giovanni Battista in Pesaro and additions to the ducal palace in Urbino. He acquired two paintings by Michelangelo (now untraced) and attempted to obtain Raphael’s Marriage of the Virgin, then in the church of S. Francesco in Città di Castello.3 Duke Guidobaldo II sought works from Titian, arguably his favorite painter, from the first year of his reign to his last.4 1On Guidobaldo as a patron of music and theater, see Piperno, L’Immagine del Duca. For his patronage of Virginia Vagnoli, see Piperno, “Diplomacy and Musical Patronage.” 2Two important studies of majolica designs are Clifford and Mallet, “Battista Franco as a Designer for Maiolica”; and Gere, “Taddeo Zuccaro as a Designer for Maiolica.” For considerations of the paintings by Franco and Zuccaro for the duke, see Rearick, “Battista Franco and the Grimani Chapel,” 111; Salomoni, “Battista Franco nelle Marche,” 238; and Gere, Taddeo Zuccaro, 30–31, 45–49. On Bronzino’s 1532 portrait in the Palazzo Pitti, Florence, see Baccheschi, L’opera completa del Bronzino, 88, plates 7–8; and Eisenbichler, “Bronzino’s Portrait of Guidobaldo della Rovere.” 3The duke acquired Michelangelo’s paintings of Christ and the Annunciation in 1557. For a discussion of his acquisition and transcribed correspondence, see Leonardi, Michelangelo, l’Urbino il Taruga, 13–15, 46. He had to be satisfied with a copy of Raphael’s altarpiece; Gronau, Documenti artistici urbinati, 49, 80–81. 4For an excellent overview of Guidobaldo’s patronage of Titian, see Bernini, “Tiziano per i Duchi di XXXXX

161

JEFFREY FONTANA

162

The painter Federico Barocci (ca. 1535–1612), who added great lustre to the court of Urbino from the last quarter of the sixteenth century until his death early in the seventeenth, began his career during Guidobaldo II’s reign. The duke gave the painter few commissions, however, and appears to have been less nurturing than his brother, Cardinal Giulio della Rovere (1533–78), and later his son, Duke Francesco Maria II della Rovere (1549–1631), as discussed by Verstegen and Lingo in the present volume. Yet it was into Guidobaldo’s court that the young Barocci presumably sought entry during his formative years, from the 1540s through 1560s; therefore, it is the expectation of patronage, more than the actual work commissioned, that is of present interest. This essay considers Guidobaldo’s attraction to Venice and his great admiration for the paintings of Titian, and the weighty effect this had on Barocci. Partially in response to Guidobaldo’s preferences, the young artist commenced an extended absorption of the Venetian’s style, in order to serve the duke as a homegrown substitute. As will ultimately be seen, Guidobaldo was indeed interested in an alternative or successor to Titian, and supported the young Venetian Jacopo Palma il Giovane. Guidobaldo II took up leadership responsibilities that tied him to Venice early in life, perpetuating the connections of his father, Duke Francesco Maria I (1490–1538). Francesco Maria served Venice as commander-in-chief from 1523 until his death in 1538, first as governor general and then as the slightly higher ranking captain general (1524). In 1529, when Guidobaldo was but fifteen, Venice gave him command of a company of men. He assumed the title Duke of Camerino in 1534 at age twenty, through his marriage to Giulia Varana, but he had already acted as regent of the duchy of Urbino in 1532 during the absence of his father in Lombardy. He ascended to the title Duke of Urbino upon his father’s death in 1538, and the next year contracted with Venice again to command a company of men. Venice appointed him commander-inchief with the rank of governor general in 1546. Service to the Venetian Republic continued uninterrupted for thirteen years. It came to an end in 1553 when Guidobaldo entered service first to Pope Julius III as captain general of the church, and then to King Philip II of Spain in 1558. Franco Piperno has argued that Guidobaldo’s concern for maintaining good ties with Venice in 1559, subsequent to entering Spanish service and being awarded the Golden Fleece, underlay the composition of a madrigal by the court musician Costanzo Porta in which allusion was made to Francesco Maria I and the family’s loyalty to the Republic.5 In 1564 the duke attempted to return to the Republic’s service, which he professed to prefer to Spanish employment, but the Signoria decided not to renew his command.6 Guidobaldo II’s attachment to Venice extended beyond his professional and political ties to social and cultural ones as well. He maintained a palazzo there, where he often resided. There he hosted the city’s élite, with some of whom he came to be on close 5

Urbino,” 20–25. The most recent review of della Rovere patronage and Titian is Pezzini Bernini, “I Della Rovere e Tiziano.” 5Piperno, “Cultura e usi della musica.” 6For the life and career of Duke Guidobaldo II, see Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, vol. 3, chaps.42–43, esp. 88–89, 112. For details of Francesco Maria’s and Guidobaldo’s military service to Venice, see Mallett and Hale, Military Organization of a Renaissance State, 289–302, 319–20.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Duke Guidobaldo II, Federico Barocci, and the Taste for Titian at the Court of Urbino terms, such as authors Pietro Aretino and Sperone Speroni. The duke’s choice of Speroni for his first wife’s funeral oration in 1547 suggests the degree of their friendship.7 Speroni’s dialogue on fortune gives a literary portrait of the duke holding court, surrounded by luminaries. In his dialogue on love, Speroni records a circle of Venetian intellects praising Titian’s painting as “miraculous,” a sentiment Guidobaldo undoubtedly shared.8 Just as Guidobaldo II inherited his father’s professional military ties to Venice, he also inherited his elder’s predilection for the works by its greatest living painter. This covetousness was probably motivated by competition with the Dukes of Mantua and Ferrara, as well as aesthetic taste. Francesco Maria I commenced his patronage of Titian in 1532, receiving during the next two years paintings of Hannibal, the Nativity, and the Savior.9 From 1536 to 1538 Titian painted portraits of Francesco Maria (see p. 144, fig. 2) and his wife, Eleonora Gonzaga, and sent a picture of an unidentified woman dressed in blue now called La Bella.10 Vasari saw a Penitent Magdalen in the ducal collection, thought to be from the first half of the 1530s, and this may have been acquired by Francesco Maria too.11 He also ordered portraits of Emperor Charles V, King Francis I, and Sultan Suleyman, but by the time they were sent to the duchy of Urbino in 1539, the duke had died and they were received by his son Guidobaldo.12 Guidobaldo had already begun ordering his own works from Titian the year before: a portrait of himself, now untraced, and the so-called Venus of Urbino.13 It was some time between 1536 and 1538 that Guidobaldo lent Titian his black steel armor made by Filippo Negroli to use for Claudius in a series of paintings of Roman emperors for Federico II Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua.14 So began Guidobaldo’s continuous patronage of Titian for the next thirtyfive years. During the 1540s, he commissioned portraits of himself and Giulia Varana, and portraits seen by Vasari of Popes Sixtus IV, Julius II, and Paul III, and the Cardinal of Lorraine, thought also to be from this period.15 The number of commissions slowed 7Dennistoun, Memoirs

of the Dukes of Urbino, 99. Dialoghi, fols. 25v–26. See the discussion of Speroni’s dialogues in Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Titian, 2:105–7. 9The Hannibal is untraced, but Harold E. Wethey tentatively identified with it a painting in a New York private collection; Paintings of Titian, 3:160–61, plate 67. Gronau (Documenti artistici urbinati, 63) identified a painting in the Palazzo Pitti with the Nativity. See Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 1:117–19; and Pedrocco, Tiziano, 155. The Savior is commonly identified with a painting in the Palazzo Pitti; Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 1:78–79, plate 92; and Pedrocco, Tiziano, 155. For an extensive bibliography on all paintings by Titian referred to in this essay at the Palazzo Pitti and at the Galleria degli Uffizi, see Tiziano nelle gallerie fiorentine, nos. 24–37. 10The portraits are in the Galleria degli Uffizi, and La Bella hangs in the Palazzo Pitti; Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 2:81–82, 134–36, plates 67, 70–71; and Pedrocco, Tiziano, 160–61, 168. 11Vasari, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, 2:789. The painting is in the Palazzo Pitti; Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 1:143–44, plate 182; and Pedrocco, Tiziano, 156. 12Bernini, “Tiziano per i Duchi di Urbino,” 19–21. The three paintings are untraced, though some have identified the Francis I in the Coppet collection in Lausanne as the one painted for the duke; Valcanover, L’Opera completa di Tiziano, no. 198. 13Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 3:203–4, plate 73; and Pedrocco, Tiziano, 166–67. 14Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 3:235–40, figs. 38–39. The armor has been dated circa 1532–35. See, most recently, Pyhrr and Godoy, Heroic Armor of the Italian Renaissance, nos. 23–26. 15Vasari, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, 2:789–90. Although the extent of Titian’s actual execution is XXXXX 8Speroni,

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

163

JEFFREY FONTANA

164

during the 1550s and 1560s, however; documents from 1552 refer to another portrait of Guidobaldo, now in a private collection,16 and a 1559 portrait of King Philip II, both untraced. From the mid-1560s, there are references to a Madonna and an Ecce Homo, again untraced.17 He owned a Madonna and Child with Two Angels by 1567, but this work’s present location is unknown, as is when and from whom it was acquired.18 Finally, in 1573, Guidobaldo commissioned a Madonna della Misericordia, and recognizing the painter’s advanced age, offered to accept a work by his shop if Titian was no longer able to paint.19 Guidobaldo II’s sustained patronage of Titian clearly indicated his high esteem for the painter’s work and other actions confirmed his affection. In 1545 Titian responded to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese’s request to come to Rome, and the duke took upon himself the painter’s care for most of the journey. Guidobaldo personally accompanied the painter from Ferrara to Pesaro, where he entertained Titian at his villa. He then provided a mounted escort to safeguard the painter from Pesaro to Rome. The duke commenced a letter to Cardinal Farnese in 1548: “I greatly love … Titian, because of his rare qualities, as well as because he has particular claims on my friendship.” 20 In 1545, the year of Titian’s Rome trip, Barocci was about eleven years old and was probably just entering the world of the professional painter through an apprenticeship to Battista Franco.21 During Barocci’s roughly five-year apprenticeship, his familiarity with contemporary masters must have increased apace with the practice of his 16

debated, the Giulia Varana, Pope Sixtus IV, Pope Paul III, and Pope Julius II (after Raphael) in the Palazzo Pitti came from the della Rovere collection; Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 2:136, plate 148; Tiziano nelle gallerie fiorentine, no. 36; and Valcanover, L’Opera completa di Tiziano, nos. 213, 269, 595. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to associate portraits at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the Yale University Art Gallery with the lost portrait of the duke from the 1540s; Gronau, “Un ritratto del Duca Guido Baldo di Urbino”; and Edgell, “A Recently Acquired Portrait by Titian.” The portrait of the cardinal of Lorraine is untraced. 16The duke is portrayed with his son Francesco Maria II; Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 2:137, plate 165. Following the transcription by Gronau (Documenti artistici, 99) of a postscript in the ASF referring to a Christ by Titian, which he associated with a letter by Guidobaldo of 10 May 1552, many scholars have thought that Guidobaldo commissioned a picture of Christ from Titian at that time. Upon examination of this document—unsigned and undated—Charles Hope has concluded that it was misfiled and argues convincingly that it probably belonged to a letter written by Eleonora Gonzaga, wife of Francesco Maria I della Rovere, in March 1533, based on the handwriting and details in part of the postscript that Gronau did not transcribe (correspondence with the author, December 2006). The reference to a Christ, then, is to the Pitti Savior of 1532–34, and there is no other indication that Titian painted a version of the subject for the duke in 1552. The author is grateful to Charles Hope for generously sharing his unpublished research on the documents. 17On the Ecce Homo, see Tiziano nelle gallerie fiorentine, no. 35. 18A painting at the Palazzo Pitti attributed to Francesco Vecellio may be a copy of this composition; Tiziano nelle gallerie fiorentine, nos. 37–37 bis. 19For lists of Titian’s works in della Rovere inventories with citations of supporting documents, see Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, 3:479–82; and Gronau, Documenti artistici urbinati, 62–70. The Madonna della Misericordia, at least in part by Titian’s shop, is now at the Palazzo Pitti; Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 1:114–15, plate 200. 20Crowe and Cavalcaselle, Titian, 166. 21For an extensive discussion of Barocci’s early career, see Fontana, “Federico Barocci.” The two principal monographs on Barocci are Olsen, Federico Barocci; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Duke Guidobaldo II, Federico Barocci, and the Taste for Titian at the Court of Urbino art. Barocci probably was aware that the famous painter being hosted by his duke in 1545 was the creator of the two-sided processional banner of the Resurrection of Christ and the Last Supper the Company of Corpus Domini carried, and with which it would adorn its church that same year.22 He also would have had his first brush with court patronage under Franco, assisting him with the fresco for the choir vault of the cathedral, as well as the decorations to celebrate the duke’s second marriage in 1548. 23 En route to maturity in the 1550s, Barocci came into increased contact with the circle of Duke Guidobaldo II, even if he did not enter into his service. Subsequent to his apprenticeship, probably from 1551 to 1553, Barocci studied the paintings in the duke’s collection in Pesaro, having gained access through his uncle Bartolomeo Genga, the court architect. Barocci followed his stay in Pesaro with a journey to Rome, where he seems to have remained from about 1553 to 1555. While there, his uncle introduced him to the duke’s brother, Cardinal Giulio della Rovere, who became his patron and protector.24 The association between the cardinal and the painter continued into the next decade. Barocci returned to Urbino and resided there from about 1555 to 1560, and toward the end of this period he portrayed the poet Antonio Galli (fig. 4). Galli was a courtier who assumed responsibility for the education of Guidobaldo’s son Francesco Maria and whose work was read publicly multiple times for the duke between 1556 and 1560.25 Through his contacts, as well as his study of paintings in Pesaro, Barocci was well positioned to appreciate the duke’s taste for Titian, and to climb to a higher rung of patronage in his service. He probably also recognized that from 1548 Titian’s efforts were focused on serving the Hapsburg family, which relegated other patrons to a second tier and made the acquisition of his work a challenge. During the 1550s and 1560s, Barocci tenaciously studied the Venetian’s paintings in the Marche. The author of Federico’s funeral oration wrote that the artist, while staying in Pesaro with his uncle, “had the opportunity to study and to copy with great diligence some of Titian’s works, which, since they were of the greatest use to Federico, likewise made the painter more famous.”26 Though this study did not have a significant 22Both the Last Supper and its pendant, the Resurrection of Christ, are conserved in the Galleria Nazionale in Urbino. See Scatassa, “Chiesa del Corpus Domini in Urbino,” 443–44n8; Dal Poggetto and Zampetti, Lorenzo Lotto nelle Marche, 380–81; Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 1:95–96, plates 94–95; and Pedrocco, Tiziano, 178. 23Salomoni, “Battista Franco nella Marche,” 238. Franco’s fresco in the cathedral was long thought entirely lost, but fragments were recently discovered during restoration of the building; Dal Poggetto, I Della Rovere, 324, 326–27. 24Verstegen and I disagree on the role of Bartolomeo Genga as intermediary; it seems plausible, given Genga’s protection of Barocci in Pesaro and his accompaniment of Guidobaldo to Rome from April to June 1553 for the duke’s appointment by Pope Julius III as captain-general of the church; Fontana, “Federico Barocci,” 26–30. 25Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, 130. On the performance dates of La pentola, see Piperno, L’immagine del Duca, 196–97. 26Author’s translation. “Ricoverandosi in casa del Genga suo Parente..., [ebbe commodità di studiare, e di copiare con somma diligenza alcune opere di Tiziano, le quali siccome furono d’utile grandissimo a Federico, cosi parimenti fecero più celebre il Pittore.].” Venturelli continues, “A tale scuola adunque assiduamente usando apparò tutte le particolarità dell’arte, e con questi fondamenti potè poscia innalzare un XXXXX

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

165

JEFFREY FONTANA

166

immediate effect, it set the stage for Barocci’s sustained efforts over the subsequent fifteen years. Barocci’s earliest extant painting, the St. Cecilia altarpiece (ca. 1555–56), shows the artist to have continued studying Titian’s work after his stays in Pesaro and Rome, but only hints at an inclination toward the Venetian’s painterly approach (fig. 1). The altarpiece presents emphatic edges, heavy forms and little differentiation in textures, resembling the manner of Battista Franco. But the head of St. Paul, an exact reversal of the disciple to Christ’s right in Titian’s Last Supper, testifies to continued attention to the Venetian’s work.27 Though Barocci’s interest in Titian is manifested in the appropriation of a motif, the less polished rendering of the clouds and angels, and the slight softening of the shadowed forms of SS. John and Paul in the rear, may reflect a tentative effort to imitate his technique as well.28 Barocci’s study of Titian’s Last Supper and Resurrection in Urbino, and the Venetian’s other paintings elsewhere in the Marches, was responsible for the extraordinary shift in his style between the St. Cecilia and the Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, commissioned at the end of 1557 (fig. 2). In the latter altarpiece, Barocci applied the paint more loosely, which together with a heightened sensitivity to the interplay of light and color creates a world of varied textures and breathable atmosphere.29 Federico derived the crepuscular sky from Titian’s Resurrection and blended his colors on St. Sebastian’s torso to depict a soft physique devoid of accents, similar in treatment to Titian’s Christ in the same painting. The Virgin and Child, with surrounding playful infant angels, are based on the upper portion of Titian’s Madonna and Child with SS. Francis and Blaise, and Alvise Gozzi as Donor, known as the Pala Gozzi, painted for the church of S. Francesco ad Alto in Ancona, a coastal city in the Marches (fig. 3).30 Barocci maintained the uneven positioning of the Virgin’s legs, and even the view from below of her toes projecting over the cloud.31

27

maraviglioso Tempio di gloria inesplicabile all’Eternità.” Venturelli, “Orazione Funebre,” fol. 206r. Giovanni Pietro Bellori (Le vite de’ pittori, 181) also mentioned the Pesaro anecdote in his biography of Barocci—perhaps having borrowed it from Venturelli’s funeral oration—but said nothing further. 27Emiliani (Federico Barocci, 1:11) does not indicate a specific source, but he too notes a Titianesque quality in the head of St. Paul. 28A Venetian flavor in the St. Cecilia is noted by Emiliani (Federico Barocci, 1:5), especially in the heads, and in the catalogue entry on the painting in L’Estasi di Santa Cecilia di Raffaello da Urbino, 341. 29The effect of Barocci’s study of Titian’s technique visible in St. Sebastian has often been perceived. See Krommes; Studien zu Federigo Barocci, 20, 22; Pillsbury and Richards, Graphic Art of Federico Barocci, 30; Walters, Federico Barocci, 7, 57; Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 8; and Freedberg, Italian Painting 1500-1600, 633. 30Now in the Pinacoteca Civica; Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 1:109–10, plate 24. Pillsbury (Pillsbury and Richards, Graphic Art of Federico Barocci, 30) noted the similarity between the two paintings, as did Walters (Federico Barocci, 18). Pillsbury (ibid., 41, 42) also mentioned Titian’s painting in connection with Barocci’s British Museum drawing of the Madonna and Child with Sts. John the Baptist and Francis. 31Barocci altered the inclinations of the bodies to better maintain the central axis established by the tree trunk below. The sketch of the Madonna and Child in Hamburg (Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:9 fig. 6), based in part on Raphael’s Madonna Mackintosh, presents an early idea for the group. Barocci synthesized ideas from both Raphael and Titian to arrive at the final figure.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Duke Guidobaldo II, Federico Barocci, and the Taste for Titian at the Court of Urbino

167

Figure 1. Federico Barocci, St. Cecilia with Four Other Saints, ca. 1555–56, Oil on canvas, Cathedral, Urbino. Reproduced by permission from the Diocese of Urbino.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

168

JEFFREY FONTANA

Figure 2. Federico Barocci, Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, ca. 1557–58, Oil on canvas, Cathedral, Urbino. Reproduced by permission from the Diocese of Urbino.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Duke Guidobaldo II, Federico Barocci, and the Taste for Titian at the Court of Urbino

Figure 3. Titian, Madonna and Child with Saints Francis and Blaise, and Alvise Gozzi as Donor, 1520, Oil on panel, Pinacoteca Civica, Ancona. Reproduced by permission from the Diocese of Urbino.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

169

JEFFREY FONTANA

170

Barocci created Sebastian’s extreme softness not only through the blending of the paint and the suppression of strong accents, but also through a slightly blurry effect. He achieved this by scumbling pigment over an adjacent dark hue at the edges of fleshy forms, as can be observed on Sebastian’s right shoulder and inner left calf. He obtained a similar effect by dissipating the edges on shadowed forms, such as the right arm of the man pulling the arrow out of his quiver. These techniques can be found in works by Titian known to Barocci. Titian obtained the latter effect on the angels at the right of the Pala Gozzi. The contours on the belly and legs of the right-hand angel are left undefined, and because the color in the shadows is so similar in hue and value to the surrounding forms he almost seems to merge with them. In the Venus of Urbino, shadows and highlights are minimized for even, impossibly soft surfaces, and outer contours are blurred so that the flesh seems virtually to glow. Here Barocci renounces Franco’s manner and replaces it by Titian’s. The abrupt change signals a conscious redirection of energy. He had reached his midtwenties by this point and had matured sufficiently through experience, study, and travel to be able to recognize Titian’s supremacy as a universal painter. He must have especially admired Titian’s facility in rendering the softness of flesh, which was, according to the contemporary opinion of Lodovico Dolce, a painter’s most difficult challenge. To render flesh naturalistically, one had to blend and unify the color mixture properly to achieve the effect of softness.32 Dolce held up Titian as the most excellent in his ability to paint and commended him especially in this most difficult area for his “flesh that palpitates.” He stated a preference for a delicato body over a hard, muscular one, and believed it the more difficult of the two to portray: “I think myself that a delicate body ought to take precedence over a muscular one. And the reason is that, in art, the flesh areas impose a more strenuous task of imitation than the bones do.… The man who works in the delicate manner...gives an indication of the bones where he needs to do so; but he covers them smoothly with flesh and charges the nude figure with grace. And if you tell me at this point that the ways in which the painter elaborates his nudes enable one to recognize whether or not he has a good grasp of anatomy … I will reply that the suggestive indications and the fleshy passages give one the same insight.”33 No doubt Barocci also appreciated the potential benefits in court patronage of working in a Titianesque style. From the change in handling between the St. Cecilia and the St. Sebastian it is clear that Barocci devoted himself to the study of Titian’s manner in the intervening years. Could this have been missed by contemporaries? The two paintings did not originally hang on adjacent altars in the cathedral of Urbino as they do now, but were only separated by two chapels,34 and any knowledgeable viewer from around Urbino must have appreciated Barocci’s change. His ability to capture the textures of skin, leaves, animal fur, textiles, metal, and the lacquered wood of the archer’s bow is masterful and must have seemed Venetian, and more specifically Titianesque, when judged against the elder painter’s works in the region. 32Roskill, Dolce’s “Aretino,” 152, 154. 33Roskill, Dolce’s “Aretino,” 143. 34The St. Cecilia was situated in the first chapel on the right upon entering, and the St. Sebastian in the fourth; Negroni, Il Duomo di Urbino, 76, 77.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Duke Guidobaldo II, Federico Barocci, and the Taste for Titian at the Court of Urbino

171

For this image, see printed book

Figure 4. Federico Barocci, Antonio Galli, 1557–60. Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Copenhagen. Photo courtesy of Royal Museum of Fine Arts and Hans Petersen.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

172

JEFFREY FONTANA

A further example of Barocci’s early absorption of Titian’s pictorial technique can be observed in the portrait of Antonio Galli, dated to the same period as the St. Sebastian (fig. 4). It was clearly cast in the mold of Titian’s portraits that hung in the Duke of Urbino’s collection. The inclusion of the table clock was probably suggested by the Portrait of Eleonora Gonzaga35 and the dark shape of the half-length figure, offset against a shadowy background, resembles La Bella. The pattern of highlights and shadows across Galli’s face and the undifferentiated darkness of the hair and beard were handled similarly by Titian in the Portrait of Francesco Maria della Rovere (see p.144, fig. 3). His portrait could pass as an original by Titian, as it did for many years until its reattribution by Harald Olsen.36 From his return to Urbino in 1563 after a three-year stay in Rome until his departure in 1567 for Perugia, Barocci must have reapplied himself to a close examination of Titian’s work. In the circa 1566 Madonna of St. Simon especially, his ability to portray different textures and to unify figures and landscape in a consistent atmosphere continued to grow.37 Barocci’s visit to Ancona is virtually certain to have been circa 1566, in connection with his Urbino Crucifixion with Mourners (fig. 5).38 As it has been noted often, Barocci’s painting strongly depended for its conception upon Titian’s high altarpiece for the church of S. Domenico in Ancona, sent to be installed in 1558 (fig. 6).39 Beyond formal resemblances, however, Barocci shared with Titian a similar technique. Titian’s painting exemplifies his late style, with its rough, open brushwork and impasto. Taking Titian’s figure as his model, Barocci painted his Christ with patchy strokes, especially the head and torso. The technique was also employed on his aureole and on the angel at the left, and all the faces but Christ’s were painted more thickly than usual. The contrasting light of Christ with the dark of the sky and the open brushwork convey a bold 35On the appearance of clocks in Titian’s portraits and their similarity to the type produced in Barocci family shops, see Panicali, Orologi e orologiai del Rinascimento italiano, 102–5. 36Olsen, Federico Barocci, 140–42. The reattribution was accepted by Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 2:165– 66. Rodolfo Pallucchini (Tiziano, 1:172–73, 311–12, 2: plate 458) upheld the Galli portrait’s traditional nineteenth- and twentieth-century attribution to Titian, and rejected Olsen’s correct reattribution to Barocci. He paired it with another portrait that he dated contemporaneously (ca. 1561–62), the Man with a Flute (Detroit Institute of Arts), noting that there are evident formal parallels; Pallucchini, Tiziano, 1:172, 312, 2: plate 459). This pairing has been recently repeated in Valcanover, Tiziano: I suoi pennelli, 121n176. Though the latter painting should not be used to make the case that the Galli portrait is by Titian, nevertheless its similarities need to be discussed. The oblique angle of the sitter’s body, the position of his arms, the gloves in one hand, and the view of the tabletop in Barocci’s portrait mirror Titian’s. There is no record of a painting fitting the description of the Man with a Flute in the ducal collection and its early provenance is unknown, but given the combination of features shared by the portraits, it is likely that Barocci had seen it. The recollected traits from Titian’s several portraits are sufficiently evident that their sources are traceable, yet the overall effect is not one of pastiche, but rather of synthesis. Through diligent imitation Barocci internalized the Venetian’s style, and the evidence of the painting itself and the history of misattribution testify to his success. 37See Olsen, Federico Barocci, plate 22; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:44. 38Painted for the church of the Miraculous Crucifix in Urbino, for the courtier Pietro Bonarelli della Rovere; Olsen, Federico Barocci, 147–48; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:35–36. 39Pillsbury and Richards, Graphic Art of Federico Barocci, 45; Walters, Federico Barocci, 46; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:36. On Titian’s altarpiece, see Wethey, Paintings of Titian, 1:85–86, plate 114; and Pedrocco, Tiziano, 242.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Duke Guidobaldo II, Federico Barocci, and the Taste for Titian at the Court of Urbino

For this image, see printed book

Figure 5. Federico Barocci, Crucifixion with Mourners, ca. 1566–67, Oil on canvas. Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino. Reproduced by permission from Soprintendenza per il Patrimonio Storico Artistico ed Etnoantropologico delle Marche, Urbino.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

173

174

JEFFREY FONTANA

Figure 6. Titian, Crucifixion with Mourners, 1558. Church of S. Domenico, Urbino. Reproduced by permission of the Diocese of Urbino.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Duke Guidobaldo II, Federico Barocci, and the Taste for Titian at the Court of Urbino effect that is heretofore unseen in Barocci’s work, and are attributable to his approximation of Titian’s manner. By retaining the compositional similarities to Titian’s painting, Barocci alluded to it and thus called attention to his adaptability and proficiency in matching the Venetian’s accomplished brushwork. Though there is no record of the reception of Barocci’s Crucifixion, other contemporary observations note a similarity to Titian was perceptible in his style.40 The painting was most likely the last one Barocci executed before traveling to Perugia in November 1567 to paint the Deposition altarpiece for the cathedral.41 It is telling that in a contemporary’s description of the Perugia painting and its commission, Barocci was called a “grandissimo imitatore” of Titian.42 This was by no means a term of disapproval, for the chronicler further noted that in the work one sees “a truly new manner, which is artful, full of grace and virtue in all parts.”43 There is only evidence that Guidobaldo II commissioned two paintings from Barocci, both unfortunately untraced, though there may have been others. He ordered a Rest on the Flight into Egypt for his daughter-in-law, Lucrezia d’Este, presumably as a wedding gift, thus around 1570–71.44 The second painting, the Madonna and Child with Two Angels, is known from inventories of the ducal collection and from a letter Barocci sent to Duke Guidobaldo’s secretary in 1567.45 In this letter, Barocci referred to a copy of a painting by Titian that he had made, which he was sending back to the duke with the original.46 In the eighteenth century, a writer noted the existence of a portrait of Guidobaldo II by Barocci, but this has not been corroborated.47 Barocci did portray Guidobaldo’s son Francesco Maria in about 1572, however, and it may just as easily have been commissioned by the duke as by his son. In any event, the painting was clearly meant to resemble Titian’s portrait of the eponymous ancestor. Both in the case of this painting and the Madonna one can safely infer that Barocci’s ability to paint like Titian had some bearing upon his obtaining the commission from the court. It is unclear why Barocci did not receive more work from the duke, since he read Guidobaldo II’s aesthetic predilections correctly. He also would have been right in 40As

discussed above (note 26), Venturelli appreciated the effect of Barocci’s study of Titian.

41The recent discovery of drawings for the Deposition on the versos of two sheets of studies for the Cru-

cifixion at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (inv. nos. PD117-1961, 1978), led David Scrase (“Recent Discoveries,” 86) to propose that “the Urbino painting should be dated a little later than has been customary. It is likely that Barocci was still at work on it at the end of 1567.” It should be added that on Louvre inv. no. 2851 are studies for the Deposition (Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:62 fig. 92) and the Crucifixion on the recto and verso, respectively; Olsen, Federico Barocci, 148. 42Rafaellosozi, Annali manuscripts, quoted in Bombe, Federico Barocci, 5. 43Author’s translation. “...vera maniera nuova, arteficiosa, et piena di gratia, et di bontà in tutte suoe [sic] parti.” Sozi, Annali, as quoted in Bombe, Federico Barocci, 5. 44The composition is known through an engraving by Raffaello Schiaminossi (Olsen, Federico Barocci, fig. 122b and two similar versions in S. Stefano, Piobbico, and the Vaticana Pinacoteca). 45Gronau, Documenti artistici urbinati, 110. The letter is addressed to Giulio Veterani and is dated 25 October 1567. The copied painting was probably a Madonna and Child with Two Angels (not presently identified), which was later inventoried along with Barocci’s copy (Gronau, Documenti artistici, 67, 71); see note 18 above. 46See Olsen, Federico Barocci, plate 32; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:86. 47Lazzari, Memorie di Federico Barocci di Urbino, 30n1.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

175

JEFFREY FONTANA

176

imagining the duke’s frustration due to the difficulty in obtaining new paintings from Titian. Guidobaldo must have felt a void in his patronage of painters and filled it in the mid-1560s with a young Venetian who might have served as an alternative, or successor, to the elderly Titian. In 1564 Guidobaldo II began his support of Jacopo Palma il Giovane. The duke is supposed to have met Palma in the Gesuiti in Venice while the youth was copying Titian’s Martyrdom of St. Lawrence. Guidobaldo was impressed by his talent, but may also have felt that the painter’s ties to one of the masters of the early cinquecento, his greatuncle Palma Vecchio, would add weight to any reputation he might build. Guidobaldo invited Palma to Pesaro, where he supported him for three years, during which time the youth copied works by Raphael and, of course, Titian. The duke then sent Palma to Rome to develop his draftsmanship. He financed the artist’s study there until 1570, that is, for four years.48 From the extent of his support for Palma, it seems clear that he did not assume the role of patron in 1564 on a whim, but he was most likely ready to find an artist who could fulfill his desire for Venetian painting with undivided loyalty and youthful energy. In light of the present argument, Duke Guidobaldo II della Rovere takes on new significance in the history of painting and patronage. Barocci’s desire to serve the duke as a homegrown substitute for Titian was partial motivation for an extended absorption of the Venetian’s style. It would be simplistic to suggest that this was the sole cause behind his choice. The author has argued elsewhere that Barocci was concerned with fame and was quite self-conscious in making choices that would lead to a heightened reputation, and the present argument nests within the broader one comfortably. 49 Apelles had Alexander the Great, Titian had Charles V; on those models, Barocci sought court patronage as a measuring stick for his own accomplishment, beyond simply a way to meet the needs of subsistence. Though Guidobaldo commissioned few works from Barocci, the promise that he might dangled before Federico’s eyes at a formative stage in his career and served as an important stimulus to the development of a style that would ultimately be so consequential for younger generations—the first generations of the Baroque.

48Rosand,

“Palma Giovane and Venetian Mannerism,” 138–42. On Palma’s activity in Rome, see Rosand, “Palma il Giovane as Draughtsman,” 149–52. Pietro Zampetti has argued that Palma most likely stayed briefly in Pesaro, and that Guidobaldo only supported him in Rome, from 1567to ’70; “Guidubaldo II, Francesco Maria II e Palma il Giovane,” 23–28. 49See Fontana, “Federico Barocci,” esp. ch. 5.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Duke Guidobaldo II, Federico Barocci, and the Taste for Titian at the Court of Urbino

BIBLIOGRAPHY Printed Primary Sources Bellori, Giovanni Pietro. Le vite de’ pittori, Scultori et architetti moderni. Edited by Evelina Borea. Turin: Einaudi, 1976. Speroni, Sperone. Dialoghi. Venice, 1543. Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects. Translated by Gaston de Vere. Introduction and notes by David Ekserdjian. 2 vols. New York: Everyman’s Library, 1996. Venturelli, Vittorio. “Orazione Funebre.” In Memorie d’alcuni insigni uomini d’Urbino nella pietà nelle scienze ed arti raccolte dal Dottore Antonio Rosa Patrizio di detta città, 1800. Urbino, Biblioteca Universitaria, Archivio Storico del Comune, Ms. Urbino 73.

Secondary Sources Baccheschi, Edi. L’opera completa del Bronzino. Milan: Rizzoli, 1973. Bernini, Dante. “Tiziano per i Duchi di Urbino.” In Tiziano per i Duchi di Urbino, 17–26. Urbino: Arti Grafiche, 1976. Bombe, Walter. Federico Barocci e un suo scolaro a Perugia. Perugia: Vincenzo Bartelli, 1909. Clifford, Timothy, and J. V. G. Mallet. “Battista Franco as a Designer for Maiolica.” Burlington Magazine 118 (1976): 387–410. Crowe, J. A., and G. B. Cavalcaselle. Titian: His Life and Times. 2 vols. 1877. Reprint, New York: Garland, 1978. Dal Poggetto, Paolo, ed. I Della Rovere: Piero della Francesca, Raffaello, Tiziano. Exhibition catalogue. Milan: Electa, 2004. Dal Poggetto, Paolo, and Pietro Zampetti, eds. Lorenzo Lotto nelle Marche: Il suo tempo, il suo influsso. Florence: Centro Di, 1981. Dennistoun, James. Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino: Illustrating the Arms, Arts, and Literature of Italy, 1440–1630. 3 vols. London: J. Lane, 1909. Edgell, G. H. “A Recently Acquired Portrait by Titian.” Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts 41, no. 245 (1943): 40–42. Eisenbichler, Konrad. “Bronzino’s Portrait of Guidobaldo della Rovere.” Renaissance and Reformation 24, no. 1 (1988): 21–33. Emiliani, Andrea. Federico Barocci (Urbino 1535–1612). 2 vols. Bologna: Nuova Alfa, 1985. L’Estasi di Santa Cecilia di Raffaello da Urbino nella Pinacoteca Nazionale di Bologna. Bologna: Alfa, 1983. Fontana, Jeffrey M. “Federico Barocci: Imitation and the Formation of Artistic Identity.” PhD diss., Boston University, 1998. Freedberg, Sydney J. Italian Painting 1500–1600, 3rd ed. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1993. Gere, J. A. “Taddeo Zuccaro as a Designer for Maiolica.” Burlington Magazine 105 (1963): 306– 15. ———. Taddeo Zuccaro: His Development Studied in His Drawings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Gronau, Georg. Documenti artistici urbinati. Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1936. ———. “Un ritratto del Duca Guido Baldo di Urbino, dipinto da Tiziano.” In Miscellanea di storia dell’arte in onore di Igino Benvenuto Supino, 487–95. Florence: Olschki, 1933. Krommes, Heinrich R. Studien zu Federigo Barocci. Leipzig: E. A. Seemann, 1912.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

177

178

JEFFREY FONTANA Lazzari, Andrea. Memorie di Federico Barocci di Urbino. Urbino: Giovanni Guerrini, 1800. Leonardi, Corrado. Michelangelo, l’Urbino il Taruga. Città di Castello: Petruzzi, 1995. Mallett, M. E., and J. R. Hale. The Military Organization of a Renaissance State: Venice, c. 1400 to 1617. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Negroni, Franco. Il Duomo di Urbino. Urbino: Accademia Raffaello, 1993. Olsen, Harald. Federico Barocci. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1962. Pallucchini, Rodolfo.Tiziano. 2 vols. Florence: G.C. Sansoni, 1969. Panicali, Roberto. Orologi e orologiai del Rinascimento italiano: La scuola urbinate. Urbino: Quattro Venti, 1988. Pedrocco, Filippo. Tiziano. Milan: Rizzoli, 2000. Pezzini Bernini, Grazia. “I Della Rovere e Tiziano.” In I Della Rovere: Piero della Francesca, Raffaello, Tiziano, edited by Paolo dal Poggetto, 149–54. Milan: Electa, 2004. Pillsbury, Edmund P., and Louise Richards. The Graphic Art of Federico Barocci. Exhibition catalogue. Cleveland and New Haven: Cleveland Museum of Art and Yale University Art Gallery, 1978. Piperno, Franco. “Cultura e usi della musica alla corte di Guidubaldo II della Rovere.” In I della Rovere nell’Italia delle corti. Vol. 3, Cultura e letteratura, edited by Bonita Cleri, Sabine Eiche, John E. Law, and Feliciano Paoli, 25–36. Urbino: Quattro Venti, 2002. ———. “Diplomacy and Musical Patronage: Virginia, Guidobaldo II, Massimiliano II, ‘lo Streggino’ and Others.” Early Music History 18 (1999): 259–85. ———. L’immagine del Duca: Musica e spettacolo alla corte di Guidubaldo II duca d’Urbino. Florence: Olschki, 2001. Pyhrr, Stuart W., and José-A. Godoy. Heroic Armor of the Italian Renaissance: Filippo Negroli and His Contemporaries. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998. Rearick, W. R. “Battista Franco and the Grimani Chapel.” Saggi e memorie di storia dell’arte 2 (1958–59): 107–39. Rosand, David. “Palma il Giovane as Draughtsman: The Early Career and Related Observations.” Master Drawings 8 (1970): 148–61. ———. “Palma Giovane and Venetian Mannerism.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1965. Roskill, Mark. Dolce’s “Aretino” andVenetian Art Theory of the Cinquecento. New York: New York University Press, 1968. Salamoni, Lidia Grumiero. “Battista Franco nelle Marche.” Arte veneta 26 (1972): 237–45. Scatassa, Ercole. “Chiesa del Corpus Domini in Urbino.” Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 25 (1902): 438–46. Scrase, David. “Recent Discoveries at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.” In Dal disegno all’opera compiuta: Atti del convegno internazionale,Torgiano. 1987, edited by Mario di Giampaolo, 85–87. Perugia: Volumnia, 1992. Tiziano nelle gallerie fiorentine. Florence: Centro Di, 1978. Valcanover, Francesco. L’opera completa di Tiziano. Milan: Rizzoli, 1969. ———.Tiziano: i suoi pennelli sempre partorirono espressioni di vita. Florence: Il fiorino, 1999. Walters, Gary R. Federico Barocci: Anima Naturaliter. New York: Garland, 1978. Wethey, Harold E. The Paintings of Titian. 3 vols. London: Phaidon, 1969–75. Zampetti, Pietro. “Guidubaldo II, Francesco Maria II e Palma il Giovane.” In Omaggio ai della Rovere, 1631–1981, 22–32. Urbino: Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, 1981.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci SOME NOTES ON DISTINCTIVE STRATEGIES IN PATRONAGE AND THE POSITION OF THE ARTIST AT COURT STUART LINGO

The close relationship between Francesco Maria II della Rovere, the last Duke of Urbino, and Federico Barocci has often been noted. There is a good deal of evidence that the duke, known for his reserve, was actually quite fond of the painter and not only supported him, but showed him remarkable affection: “cosa ch’egli non soleva usare con alcuno,” to quote Barocci’s well-informed seicento biographer Giovanni Pietro Bellori.1 The duke also capitalized upon the fact that one of Italy’s greatest living painters had chosen to remain in the relative isolation of Urbino and kept Barocci gainfully employed for decades, commissioning a number of important works from him. The copious primary sources that document Francesco Maria II’s patronage have been utilized repeatedly and effectively to chronicle the personal relationship between the two men and to reveal the duke’s magnanimity towards the brilliant, difficult artist 1Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, 202. While Bellori published his biography some sixty years after Barocci’s death, he claimed to have written “seguitando le memorie della sua vita raccolte dal signor Pompilio Bruni, che humanissimamente ce ne hà fatto dono, e il quale essendo artefice di strumenti matematici, mantiene ancora la scuola, e’l nome de’ Barocci in Urbino.” Ibid., 180. Despite the obvious ideological motivation of much in Le vite de’ pittori, Bellori’s text does reveal a number of indications that he was exceptionally well informed in terms of documents and anecdotes concerning Barocci. One of several examples is the impressive letter Bellori inserts into his discussion of Barocci’s great Crucifixion with Saints for the Genoa cathedral. This text, full of ekphrases of elements of Barocci’s painting, is said by Bellori to have been written by Matteo Senarega, doge of Genoa, upon receipt of the picture for his family chapel. The letter seems just the sort of “document” that a theoretically inclined writer of artists’ biographies in the later seicento would invent. Yet an autograph version has recently come to light in the Senarega archives; it is virtually identical to the text Bellori transcribes. See Bury, “Senerega Chapel in San Lorenzo, Genoa,” letter transcribed on 355–56.

179

STUART LINGO

180

who seems to have become, in some loose sense, his principal court painter.2 But there are two interrelated interpretive issues—or questions—that have been less discussed and may provide fertile ground for reflection. First, in what way can one speak of Barocci’s distinctive career as that of an artist employed at court? And, critically, how did the particular relationship forged between duke and painter further both the aims of the court and the ambitions of the artist? Reviewing the relevant period sources with these questions in mind, one immediately confronts a striking aspect of this relationship: while Francesco Maria II often paid Barocci to paint pictures, the pictures were rarely destined for the ducal court. Indeed, none of Barocci’s principal works were intended to embellish the court palaces and villas at Urbino, Pesaro, or Casteldurante (the present Urbania), at least not directly. Virtually the only important works by Barocci in leading cities of the della Rovere duchy were altarpieces executed for important confraternities or ecclesiastical institutions. Often, the commissions for these works came directly from the relevant institutions. Occasionally, as in the case of the Calling of St. Andrew for the Oratorio of the Confraternity of Sant’Andrea in Pesaro, large public altarpieces were executed at the specific instance of the ducal family (according to Bellori, Lucrezia d’Este, the wife of Francesco Maria II, in this case). Finally, in some cases commissions for religious paintings that embellished institutions within the duchy resulted from joint initiatives on the part of civic or ecclesiastical patrons and the ducal family. Barocci’s most important later work for his beloved Urbino, the Last Supper in the cathedral, provides an exemplary case of such shared patronage; the painting was commissioned by the Consiglieri della Cappella del Santissimo Sacramento of the Duomo, but the chapel project was initiated by the archbishop, who solicited the collaboration of the duke and received from him substantial support.3 In such exchanges, the ducal family clearly sought to employ Barocci’s talents to beautify the duchy, but he was employed to embellish religious and civic centers in the public and urban sphere rather than the princely court itself. One of the only instances in which this sort of local or regional patronage directly enhanced the image and prestige of the court was—predictably perhaps, given the well-known religiosity of both painter and patron—the chapel of the Dukes of Urbino at the Basilica of Loreto, a site of devotion as well as political power. For the decoration of this critical chapel, located in the Papal States but immediately adjacent to the duchy of Urbino, Francesco Maria II insisted upon displaying the talents of his state’s two most 2See

most recently Olsen, “Relazioni tra Francesco Maria II della Rovere e Federico Barocci”; and Valazzi, “Le arti ‘roveresche’ e il tramonto del ducato di Urbino,” with further bibliography. Luke Syson (“Ercole de’Roberti”) notes that the term “court artist” has been used somewhat indiscriminately in much of the art historical literature—a just admonition I attempt to respect in what follows. While remaining sensitive to the variety and fluidity of artistic employment at courts, however, I nonetheless attempt to identify a distinctive manipulation of the topos of the significant artist-designer resident at court in Francesco Maria II’s relations with Barocci. For important reconsiderations of the nature of the “court artit” in the period, see also the important collection of studies contained in Campbell, Artists at Court. 3On the issues surrounding the cathedral commission, in particular the fear of losing Barocci to another city or court if he were not kept gainfully employed at home, see Eiche, “Federico Zuccari and Federico Barocci.” For further discussion of the Calling of St. Andrew and of strategies for ensuring that Barocci remained in Urbino, see below.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci famous living artistic sons, Barocci and Federico Zuccari.4 But this event is unique and the other instances of the court’s commissioning major works from Barocci for sites within the duchy or the wider Marche are, at first glance, surprisingly limited, given the number of paintings Barocci was able to produce despite his apparent chronic ill health and painstaking manner of work.5 While these facts are well known, their implications have not been probed for what they may reveal about relations between the duke and Barocci, the duke’s patronage strategies, and Barocci’s strategies as an ambitious painter working from a remote location. Rather than adding numerous works by Barocci to his courtly collections, Francesco Maria II employed the extraordinary talents of the painter in quite another way. Over and over, the duke paid Barocci to create impressive paintings as gifts for patrons of European stature: the pope, the king of Spain, the Holy Roman Emperor. In addition to his patronage of this genre of diplomatic gift, Francesco Maria II also acted as a facilitator for external commissions to Barocci, from patrons as diverse as the Oratorians in Rome and Matteo Senarega, senator of Genoa (and from 1595, doge). In such cases, while the duke might not pay for the painting, he acted as intercessor. Barocci was known to be difficult, so would-be patrons often approached the duke, who actively encouraged the painter to accept important projects rather than strictly limit the work he could produce for those beyond the della Rovere court, as was more typical in relations between princes and their resident court artists.6 A brief consideration of the cultural and political situation in which Francesco Maria II found himself, and of what can be known of Barocci’s situation and predilections, may help to clarify both the intent and import of the duke’s distinctive patronage strategy and the painter’s response, and shows their relationship not only as one of growing personal understanding and friendship, but also as one with important artistic and political ramifications. As the two men came to know one another, they seem to have perceived ways in which they could work together beyond the usual parameters of relations between princes and artists resident at court. In forging their distinctive collaboration, Francesco Maria II and Barocci ultimately formulated a creative and effective response to the particularly difficult circumstances they both faced. It seems to have become increasingly difficult during the sixteenth century for the smaller Italian princely courts to attract and retain artists of great stature. While in the fifteenth century the Gonzaga could maintain Mantegna, one of the most famous paint4Eiche, “Federico

Zuccari and Federico Barocci.” (Le vite de’ pittori, 185) makes much of Barocci’s slowness, asserting that his illness prevented him from painting more than two hours per day. The theme runs through Barocci’s own correspondence and that of the duke as well; see below for further discussion. 6A local case in point from the reign of Francesco Maria II’s father, Guidobaldo II, involves the court architect Bartolomeo Genga, who served as Guidobaldo’s principal military architect and as chief ducal architect after the death of his father, Girolamo Genga, in 1551. Numerous patrons—including the Genoese and Ferdinand I of Austria, king of Bohemia—attempted to engage his services without success, as the duke had too many domestic projects afoot to part with his architect. See Eiche, “Girolamo and Bartolomeo Genga.” It was in part perhaps because so much building, decoration, and collecting had been accomplished by the previous della Rovere dukes that Francesco Maria II was able to pursue a different relation with his resident painter; see further below. 5Bellori

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

181

182

STUART LINGO ers of Europe, as their principal court artist, and Federico da Montefeltro could lure talent from Italy, Spain, and Flanders to remote Urbino, the situation was quite altered after 1500. The courts were in various states of crisis (Milan fallen to the French, for instance) and the ascendant papacy under Julius II and Leo X was emerging as the court of Italy and luring most of the best talent to Rome. The diaspora of artists from Rome during the difficult decade of the 1520s provided a few renewed opportunites for the smaller Italian princely courts; Giulio Romano’s recruitment to Mantua to serve as a sort of new Mantegna is perhaps the salient example. But a number of the artists who left Rome were lured to more powerful national courts, such as that of France, or to large, wealthy cities offering potentials for major projects (as exemplified by Sansovino’s decision to settle in Venice).7 While the rise of Rome and Venice as artistic epicenters and the recruitment of Italian artists to powerful national courts abroad created significant new challenges for the cultural ambitions of the smaller Italian courts, a third issue also became critical in the early cinquecento: the emergence of a few artists of extraordinary international renown, who tended to reside in major centers but whose services were sought by many rulers. These developments necessitated the emergence of new strategies of patronage at most Italian courts. As early as the 1490s, aspects of a creative response to the changing culture appear evident in Isabella d’Este’s determination to secure the services of all the most famous painters in Italy for the decoration of her studiolo in Mantua, despite the fact that she could still command Mantegna as her resident court painter. Her difficulties in convincing famous and busy artists employed outside the Gonzaga state to produce work on her terms pointed up the challenges of such a strategy.8 Nevertheless, when Isabella’s brother Alfonso initiated the decoration of his own camerino in the ducal palace of Ferrara in 1511, he sought the services of Raphael, Bellini, and Titian (among other leading artists), and continued to commission paintings from Titian even after he secured an artist of the rank of Dosso Dossi as a resident court painter.9 By this date, painting in Rome and Venice was increasingly considered to be without peer, and a few extraordinary masters were held to exemplify the powerful new styles of these centers. Thus, princes from the courts of Italy vied with princes on the European stage to obtain precious pictures from a handful of powerful artists whose services they could no longer hope to monopolize. The fact that Alfonso succeeded in acquiring several paintings from Titian but none from Raphael (or Michelangelo) says something about the unique advantages that Titian enjoyed in Venice. In the Rome of the early cinquecento, Raphael and Michelangelo 7For discussion of the particular impact of the Sack, which is often considered the ultimate cause of the emigration of a number of artists and intellectuals, see Chastel, Sack of Rome. Recently, historians such as Kenneth Gouwens (Remembering the Renaissance, 1–6) have questioned the focus upon the Sack as the single determining event in the erosion of Rome’s cultural primacy during the 1520s; indeed, in considering the visual arts alone, Rome in the 1520s had felt the effects of the death of Raphael, the recruitment of Giulio to Mantua, and the austere papacy of Adrian VI before the Sack itself. 8The literature on Isabella is vast. For an overview, see Béguin and Adelson, Le studiolo d’Isabelle d’Este. More recently, see Brown, “A Ferrarese Lady and a Mantuan Marchesa.” 9On Alfonso, see particularly Ballarin, Il camerino delle pitture di Alfonso I. See also Shearman, “Alfonso d’Este’s Camerino.”

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci operated as supreme examples of what one might term “traditional” court artists; they enjoyed remarkable privileges and prestige when compared with most artist-designers employed at courts, but they were nonetheless still generally bound to work for the popes and their intimates, who only occasionally allowed them freedom to produce works for others. Michelangelo, in particular, would come to lament the shackles that could constrain an artist compelled to follow the orders of eminent princes.10 Titian’s situation in Venice, however, was distinctive. He had established himself as one of the leading artists on the European stage, but as a resident of a powerful republic, he remained free from direct domination by a princely patron. Rulers from Alfonso d’Este to the Holy Roman Emperor cultivated Titian, some of them surely hoping to lure him to their courts; he appeared accessible in a way that Michelangelo, with his commitments to the papacy and the curia in Rome, did not. But Titian, by ultimately refusing all offers to commit to one court and accepting commissions from a number of important courts, maintained a certain freedom while projecting his fame and his city’s reputation for artistic excellence onto the Italian and European stage. Titian exemplifies a distinctive artistic type of the cinquecento that Martin Warnke has identified as the “purveyor to the courts.”11 This new style of artistic enterprise was advantageous to all parties concerned, up to a point. A number of princes could embellish their courts with Titians and thus appear to be keeping up with the richest courts in Europe. Titian, meanwhile, could see his paintings and his reputation spread far more widely than would have been likely had he been a painter to a single prince and employed most of his energies for images that would only be displayed at that one court.12 By 1574, when Francesco Maria II inherited the duchy of Urbino, the della Rovere Dukes of Urbino had for some time looked to the more splendid nearby court of 10See, for instance, the letter of October 1542 in which Michelangelo, lamenting aspects of the “tragedy” of the tomb of Julius II, writes: “Basta che, per la fede di trentasei anni e per essersi donato volontariamente a altri, io non merito altro: la pictura e la scultura, la fatica e la fede m’àn rovinata e va tuttavia di male in peggio. Meglio m’era ne’ primi anni che io mi fussi messo a fare zolfanegli, ch’i’ non sarei in tanta passione!” Poggi, Il Carteggio di Michelangelo, 4:148–49. In constructing arguments concerning the relation between art, gift giving, and religious reform in the circle of Vittoria Colonna, Alexander Nagel offers important comments on Michelangelo’s attempts to move beyond the constraints of traditional patronage; “Gifts for Michelangelo and Vittoria Colonna.” See also, Nagel, Michelangelo and the Reform of Art, esp. 169–87 and, most recently, the more general treatment of the question of gift-giving and “liberal” art in a reform context in Nagel, “Art as Gift.” 11Warnke, Court Artist, 70–74. Warnke points out the increasing ascendancy of this model during the sixteenth century, and even associates Michelangelo with it by citing his skillful letter of refusal to the invitation of Francis I to become an artist at the French court. Titian’s degree of success in leading the double life of an artist seeking court commissions while avoiding court entanglements is acknowledged to be exceptional, however. It was fairly late in Titian’s career (from 1548) that he cemented his special relationship with the Hapsburgs, a relationship that culminated in the sensitive patronage of his work by Philip II. But even in this case, Titian maintained himself in Venice, though he operated in a real sense as the leading painter of the Spanish king. On Titian’s strategies in seeking patronage, see Hope, “Titian and His Patrons,” 77–84. 12For period complaints from Vasari and others concerning the relative obscurity of works produced for a single court setting, see Warnke, Court Artist, 240. While Titian’s cultivation of relations with multiple courts did not resolve this issue entirely, maximizing the number of court collections in which one’s paintings hung was surely one approach to the problem.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

183

184

STUART LINGO Ferrara as one of their cultural touchstones. The desire to emulate Ferrara, as well as the traditional relations between the duchy of Urbino and Venice, encouraged both Francesco Maria I and Guidobaldo II to build an important collection of Titian’s paintings. Indeed, a desire to appeal to this aspect of ducal taste may have contributed to the eagerness with which the young Barocci studied the works of the great Venetian master, internalizing aspects of Titian’s style to the point that contemporaries recognized Barocci by the later 1560s as a “grandissimo imitatore di Tiziano.” 13 But Barocci, like many other ambitious young artists of midcentury, was also attracted to Rome and to the difficult competition for papal and curial patronage. His early success, beginning with the friendship and aid of Guidobaldo II’s younger brother, Cardinal Giulio della Rovere, and culminating with commissions for frescoes in the Casino of Pope Pius IV in the Vatican, augured well for a long career at the heart of court life and power in the Eternal City.14 But the sudden onset of a desperate illness sometime between 1563 and 1565—whether occasioned through poisoning at the hands of jealous rivals, as Bellori would claim, or not—apparently led Cardinal Giulio’s physicians to the conclusion that Barocci’s only hope lay in a return to his native air. 15 To have withdrawn from papal Rome to the relative isolation of Urbino could have proved disastrous for Barocci’s artistic ambitions, particularly if he convalesced for nearly four years without being able to paint, as Bellori maintains.16 Indeed, despite his evident promise, the young artist did not immediately find significant patronage upon his recovery. His first post-convalescent painting, probably the Madonna di San Giovanni, may have been offered as a gift to the Capuchins of Crocicchia outside Urbino.17 The lost Madonna and Child with Saints for the Capuchins of Fossombrone dates to approximately this period as well, and these paintings were followed by the Madonna di San Simone, commissioned by unknown private donors—albeit apparently prominent citizens, as the painting hung over an altar in the important church of San

13Raffaello Sozi, as quoted in Bombe, Federico Barocci, 5. Sozi, in praising Barocci’s Deposition (completed in 1569) in the Duomo of Perugia, offers a particularly articulate and telling assessment, pairing an appreciation of Barocci’s emulation of Titian with an understanding that the younger painter was creating his own signature style, one that Sozi hailed as a “vera maniera nuova.” In terms of Barocci’s strategies for attracting the attention of the court, it is notable that the first documented relation between the painter and Guidobaldo II is recorded in a letter of 25 October 1567, in which Barocci speaks of a painting by Titian and “la copia cavata da quello di mia mano.” See Gronau, Documenti artistici urbinati, 110, cited in Olsen, “Relazioni tra Francesco Maria II,” 195. For Barocci’s study of the Titians in the della Rovere collections, see Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, 181. For the della Rovere taste for Venetian painting, see Zampetti, Bernini, and Bernini Pezzini,Tiziano per i Duchi di Urbino. For further discussion of Guidobaldo’s taste and relations with Barocci, see Fontana, “Duke Guidobaldo II della Rovere,” in this volume. 14See Verstegen, “Reform and Renewed Ambition,” in this volume; Smith, Casino of Pius IV; and Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, 181–84. 15Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, 184. For the dating of the illness, see Olsen, Federico Barocci, 25. For the common period perception that one’s native air held healing properties, see Le Mollé, GiorgioVasari, 180–85. 16Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, 184. 17This is the assertion of Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, 184–85. The friars may have provided Barocci spiritual comfort during his convalescence. For further discussion of Barocci’s relations with the Capuchins, see Lingo, “Capuchins and the Art of History,” 245–389.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci Francesco in Urbino.18 It was only at this point that Barocci received his first commission since leaving Rome that could offer him some exposure outside the confines of Urbino and its territory: the Deposition for the Cathedral of Perugia, which he completed in 1569.19 While Cardinal Giulio della Rovere had provided critical early support to Barocci and members of the ducal court had shown interest in obtaining the painter’s services upon his reestablishment in patria (one may think of the Crucifixion for Pietro Bonarelli, one of Guidobaldo II’s trusted advisors, which is approximately contemporary with the Madonna di San Simone), the duke himself apparently did not engage Barocci until the beginning of the 1570s, after the success of the Deposition, when he commissioned a lost Rest on the Return from Egypt (surviving versions exist in the Vatican and in Piobbico, near Urbino). Tellingly, this painting seems to have functioned as the sort of diplomatic gift that Barocci would so often produce for Francesco Maria II in the future; it was apparently destined for Lucrezia d’Este, who was betrothed to the young Francesco Maria.20 Shortly thereafter, Barocci painted his famed portrait of the future duke, splendid in his armor after his return from service at Lepanto (fig. 1). It remains unclear whether this important picture is a first commission from Francesco Maria or another sign of patronage and favor from Duke Guidobaldo II himself.21 The apparent slowness with which Guidobaldo had begun to favor Barocci perhaps arose in part from the fact that neither Guidobaldo II nor his father, Francesco Maria I, had retained permanent, important court painters. Their principal resident artists were the painter-designer-architect Girolamo Genga and his son, the architect Bartolomeo Genga, who were treated as traditional court artists, not least in that they were rarely released to work on nonducal commissions. Both dukes spent significantly upon architectural commissions, particularly in and around Pesaro, which was supplanting Urbino as the principal residence of the court.22 When it came to painting, the dukes

18For the Madonna di Fossombrone, see most recently Fontana, “Federico Barocci’s Emulation of Raphael,” 183–90. Fontana notes the possible relation of the commission to Barocci’s ties to Cardinal Giulio. For the Madonna di San Simone, see Olsen, Federico Barocci, 149–50, cat. 16; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:44–57. 19See Olsen, Federico Barocci, 152–53, cat. 21; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:60–75. 20For the Crucifixion, Olsen, Federico Barocci, 147–49, cat. 14; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:34–43. For the Rest on the Return from Egypt and Duke Guidobaldo, see Olsen, Federico Barocci, 154–56, cat. 22; Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:78–85; and Olsen, “Relazioni tra Francesco Maria II,” 195. Olsen and Emiliani simply refer to the painting as a Rest on the Flight into Egypt, but Raffaelle Borghini, in his 1584 Il Riposo (1:569), describes it as “la Vergine gloriosa, che torna d’Egitto.” Edmund Pillsbury and Louise Richards (Graphic Art of Federico Barocci, 50–51) clarify the iconography in their discussion of drawings, and David Ekserdjian (Correggio, 223–24) argues that Correggio’s related Madonna della Scodella represents the return from Egypt, rather than the flight. Concerning the question of ducal patronage of the young Barocci, Olsen (Federico Barocci, 242) points out that Barocci may also have been asked to paint a portrait of Guidobaldo II (according to Andrea Lazzari, ca. 1800). 21Olsen (“Relazioni tra Francesco Maria II,” 195) argues for the latter view. For further discussion of Guidobaldo II’s relations with Barocci, see Fontana, “Duke Guidobaldo II della Rovere” in this volume. 22Eiche, “Girolamo and Bartolomeo Genga”; and Eiche, “I della Rovere mecenati dell’architettura.” See note 6 above for further discussion.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

185

STUART LINGO

186

For this image, see printed book

Figure 1. Federico Barocci, Portrait of Duke Francesco Maria II. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence. Photo reproduced by permission from Art Resource, New York.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci employed the best talent they could obtain for specific commissions (the fresco decoration of the Villa Imperiale, for instance) and expanded their princely collection of easel paintings. Guidobaldo continued to build upon the close relations his father had established with Titian and other Venetian painters (he went so far as to underwrite a threeor four-year period of study in Rome for Palma Giovane during the later 1560s), but he also looked to Florence and commissioned paintings from Bronzino.23 He became particularly famous as a patron of music, investing deeply in musical performance and spectacle.24 In this respect, too, he seems to have wished to emulate the Dukes of Ferrara and their sparkling court. Unfortunately, his penchant for lavish court life and culture, combined with the comparatively limited financial resources of his duchy, meant that Guidobaldo left the state considerably in debt when he died in 1574, and this despite raising taxes to a level that incited a serious revolt in Urbino.25 As Guidobaldo II had tended to patronize established painters from outside the duchy for important commissions, he only seems to have recognized late in his rule that Vasari’s “giovane di grande aspetazione” was not only living in the old ducal capital, but was emerging as a significant figure in Italian painting.26 This recognition might well have encouraged the duke to follow the commissions for the Rest on the Return from Egypt and the Portrait of Francesco Maria II with more extensive patronage—had he lived, and not completely drained the economic resources of the duchy. But after Guidobaldo died, Barocci’s hopes for a richer relationship with the della Rovere court were temporarily dashed; when the young Francesco Maria II inherited the title of Duke of Urbino, he found himself in shaky control of a small state in financial crisis and suspicious of della Rovere rule after the rebellion against Guidobaldo. Francesco Maria took immediate action to cut taxes and impose austerity measures upon court expenditure, even eliminating his own personal honor guard. While the new duke’s “buon governo” seems to have quickly won him the loyalty of his subjects, it took the remainder of the decade to see the finances of the duchy restored to order.27 These were not years in which Francesco Maria II spent liberally on painting. Thus, just as Barocci was reaching full artistic maturity and emerging as a highly successful artist, he found himself working for the better part of a decade in a remote location and without ducal patronage. Virtually all of his major paintings from 1574 23For the frescoes of the Villa Imperiale outside Pesaro, see Smyth, “On Dosso Dossi at Pesaro.” For the most recent analysis of Guidobaldo’s patronage, with particular reference to Barocci, Palma Giovane, and the taste for Venetian painting, see Fontana, “Duke Guidobaldo II della Rovere.” Guidobaldo’s relations with Palma Giovane are further discussed in Zampetti, “Guidobaldo II, Francesco Maria II e Palma il Giovane.” For Guidobaldo and Bronzino, see Eisenbichler, “Bronzino’s Portrait of Guidobaldo II della Rovere.” 24The definitive study of Guidobaldo as a patron of culture, and particularly of music, is Piperno, L’immagine del Duca. See also, Piperno, “Cultura e usi della musica.” 25Guidobaldo’s policies and their consequences are discussed extensively in Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, 3:81–117. 26Vasari (Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, 3:694) was praising Barocci in connection with the decorations of the Casino of Pius IV. 27For a recent discussion, see, Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, s.v. “Francesco Maria II della Rovere” (by G. Benzoni), 50:55–60. The longest analysis remains Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, 3:121– 236. For Francesco Maria II’s political strategies, see Bonvini Mazzanti, “Aspetti della politica interna.”

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

187

STUART LINGO

188

into the early 1580s were the fruit of commissions from local or regional patrons: the Madonna del gatto for Count Antonio Brancaleoni di Piobbico; the Perdono for the Conventual Franciscans of Urbino; the Stigmatization of St. Francis now in Fossombrone, apparently for unknown Franciscan patrons in that area; the Immaculate Conception, probably for the Compagnia della Concezione in Urbino; the Madonna del Popolo for the Confraternità di Santa Maria della Misericordia in Arezzo (finally another site outside the duchy, though still a provincial center); and the Entombment for the Confraternità della Croce of Senigallia.28 This record of accomplishment belies the common notion that Barocci could only work at a snail’s pace. But it does seem to have been difficult and uncongenial for him to be pressured by importunate patrons, and he may have been frustrated that his best efforts were going largely to individuals and institutions of only local or regional importance.29 The high proportion of confraternities among the early patrons is indicative of the kind of patronage Barocci could expect in his geographical situation. It seems no coincidence that it was precisely in these years that Barocci began to practice engraving, perhaps to disseminate knowledge of his artistic inventions, much as Mantegna had succeeded in doing from the relative isolation of Mantua many years before.30 Given the economic and political crisis of the initial years of Francesco Maria II’s rule, it does not seem coincidental that the first significant investment in Barocci by the new ducal family appears to date to the early 1580s. Even at this point, the critical commission apparently came not from the duke himself, but from Duchess Lucrezia d’Este, accustomed to the richer and grander court of Ferrara. Tellingly, the commission was for an altarpiece for a regional confraternity, Sant’Andrea in Pesaro. What seems new and important is not the venue, but the fact that the request now emanated from the court rather than the confratelli.31 At the same moment, the duke began his first major 28To

simplify citation, I will refer to Emiliani’s entries in Federico Barocci on these works: Madonna del gatto, 1:92–103; Perdono, 1:104–15; the Stigmatization, 1:120–21; Immaculate Conception, 1:122–27; Madonna del Popolo, 1:128–49; and Entombment, 1:150–67. They are also discussed, of course, in Olsen, Federico Barocci. 29The letters that document the genesis of the Madonna del Popolo offer much evidence of the frustrations of both painter and patrons at the slow progress of work, and the pressures the confratelli applied in the hope of pushing Barocci to deliver the altarpiece. For a summary, with documentary excerpts, see Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:128–49. For further discussion of Barocci’s reputation as a slow painter, see below. 30For a discussion of Barocci’s prints, see Pillsbury and Richards, Graphic Art of Federico Barocci, 93–109. Richards notes that Barocci began to explore printmaking just following the death of Cornelis Cort in 1578; Cort had issued highly successful prints of Barocci’s Rest on the Return from Egypt in 1575 and of the Madonna del gatto in 1577. For these engravings, see Pillsbury and Richards, Graphic Art of Federico Barocci, 106–7, cats. 76–77. On Mantegna as printmaker, see Oberhuber, “Mantegna and the Role of Prints.” 31According to Bellori (Le vite de’ pittori, 191), Barocci created the altarpiece “ad istanza della Duchessa d’Urbino, che a lui ne scrisse l’anno 1580.” For the painting, see Olsen, Federico Barocci, 175–76, cat. 35; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:188–97. Bellori’s statement is so categorical that it inspires confidence; however, it should be remembered that the duchess, unhappy with Francesco Maria II, had returned definitively to her native Ferrara in 1576 (see below, note 35). Emiliani (Federico Barocci, 1:189) hypothesizes that she may have developed a particular affinity for the Pesaro confraternity during her years at the della Rovere court.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci artistic endeavor beyond the immediate confines of Pesaro or Casteldurante, the decoration of the chapel of the Dukes of Urbino at the Basilica of Santa Maria di Loreto. This site, as already noted, was critical for Francesco Maria II’s projection of the piety and importance of the della Rovere duchy. Loreto was located in the relative isolation of the Marche, but had become a pilgrimage site of Italian and even European importance, privileged by the papacy and visited by all ranks of pilgrims. Many of these pilgrims traversed the duchy of Urbino and frequently lodged for a time at Pesaro. The existence of Loreto thus ensured not only a symbolic importance to this part of the Italian peninsula, but guaranteed a flow of important visitors through the new de facto capital of the duchy. The support of the basilica had long been part of della Rovere strategy and thus the new duke’s decision to embellish a chapel there was the obvious culmination of an established family association.32 When the duke entrusted the altarpiece of the Annunciation to Barocci in 1582, he cemented a relationship with the painter that would continue uninterrupted for thirty years. Such a prestigious court commission was a new level of opportunity for Barocci, and Loreto a notable and visible site for the display of his talents. Nonetheless, Barocci may have worried about the relative geographical isolation of his altarpiece; the Annunciation is the last painting he chose to reproduce in an autograph engraving.33 Both this altarpiece and the Calling of St. Andrew were completed in 1584. It seems to be at approximately this point that the duke’s patronage began to take an intriguing new path. The Calling of St. Andrew and the Annunciation were commissions for religious institutions in the duchy or the wider Marche, and the Calling of St. Andrew relates closely to the type of work Barocci had been producing as an independent master during the 1570s. According to Bellori, however, when it was completed, “piacque in modo al Duca, che la domandò alli Confrati di quella scuola, e la mandò in dono a Filippo Re di Spagna, per essere Santo Andrea il Protettore de’ Cavalieri dell’Ordine del Tosone.” In the end, the original remained in Pesaro and an autograph copy was commissioned from Barocci; it arrived in Madrid in July of 1588.34 The decision to send a large Barocci altarpiece to the king of Spain—and one with a subject particularly appropriate to one of Philip’s chivalric orders—is telling. Francesco Maria II had spent nearly three years at the Spanish court in his youth in the 1560s and worked hard to maintain strong ties with this critical power for both political and economic reasons. Politically, the Spanish alliance provided a counterbalance to the papacy’s claims of overlordship of the duchy of Urbino. The Duke of Urbino was officially a vicar 32See Eiche, “Federico Zuccari and Federico Barocci.” Eiche points out that plans to embellish the Chapel of the Holy Sacrament in the Duomo of Urbino, though not realized until the 1590s, were conceptualized in tandem with the project for Loreto. It is telling that Francesco Maria II’s first major decorative projects were for principal religious sites within the Marche. For the long della Rovere associations with Loreto, see Verstegen, “Introduction,” and Verstegen, “Reform and Renewed Ambition,” both in this volume. 33For the painting, see Olsen, Federico Barocci, 177–79, cat. 37; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:198– 207. For the engraving, see Pillsbury and Richards, Graphic Art of Federico Barocci, 105–6; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:208–9. 34Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, 191. For the copy sent to Spain, see Olsen, Federico Barocci, 175; and Gronau, Documenti artistici, 160–61.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

189

190

STUART LINGO of the church, and the demands of Rome were becoming slowly more insistent as it became clear, by the later 1570s, that Francesco Maria and the much older Lucrezia d’Este would not have an heir.35 Economically, Francesco Maria’s military condotta with Spain, just finalized in 1582, guaranteed 12,000 scudi per annum, a considerable aid to the recovering economy of the duchy. The papacy, predictably, opposed this arrangement, with its links to the dominant foreign power in Italian affairs; but Francesco Maria, despite his vaunted piety, refused to renounce his service to the Spanish court. And in 1585 he accepted with pride membership in the Order of the Golden Fleece which, as Bellori shrewdly notes, claimed Saint Andrew as its protector.36 It was very probably in gratitude for his condotta and in anticipation (or hope) of the Golden Fleece that Francesco Maria II pushed Barocci to re-create an altarpiece featuring St. Andrew as a grand diplomatic gift to a Spanish king known to desire Italian paintings and to be a great admirer of Titian.37 Beyond the obvious qualities visible in Barocci’s paintings by the beginning of the 1580s, the interest of another powerful court may have spurred the duke to conclude that he had in Urbino a painter with whom to impress the European stage—a painter whose services he could ill afford to lose. According to Bellori, when in 1579 Barocci traveled to Arezzo to install the Madonna del Popolo, he asked to visit the collections of the Medici in Florence. Grand Duke Francesco I, “avvertito del valore di questo Pittore, e del quadro portato in Arezzo,” decided to get a better look at Barocci by appearing incognito to guide the painter through the grand ducal galleries. If Bellori is to be believed, the day concluded with Francesco I offering Barocci “liberalissime conditioni” to enter the service of the Medici. Barocci refused politely, citing “le sue indispositioni, e la necessità di riposare nella patria….”38 Whatever the exact truth of Bellori’s narrative, a letter of April 1583 from Simone Fortuna to Francesco Maria II does indicate that Francesco I, having “som[mamen]te sentito celebrar per raro pittor Federico Barocci,” desired a portrait of the Duke of Urbino by Barocci for the Medici gallery.

35For discussion of the delicate political situation of Francesco Maria II, see Bonvini Mazzanti, “Aspetti della politica interna,” 77–87. The marriage between the new duke and Lucrezia d’Este, arranged by Guidobaldo II against Francesco Maria II’s will in an effort to bind the two houses ever more closely together (and to raise money through the liberal d’Este dowry), was never happy and the couple agreed to live separately (with the duchess returning to the more vibrant court of Ferrara) in an agreement negotiated with a committee of cardinals; Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, 3:145, and Dizionario biorafico degli Italiani, s.v.“Francesco Maria II della Rovere,” 56. 36On the tensions with the papacy, see Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, s.v. “Francesco Maria II della Rovere,” 55. On the condotta and the award of the Golden Fleece, see Bonvini Mazzanti, “Aspetti della politica interna,” 87. Upon securing the condotta, Francesco Maria II noted in his diary that, in addition to paying him 12,000 scudi per year, the Spanish agreed to protect “me e delle cose mie” (Sangiorgi, Diario di Francesco Maria II, 1, cited in Bonvini Mazzanti, “Aspetti della politica interna,” 87. 37For Philip II and Titian, see Hope, “Titian and His Patrons,” esp. 82–84. While Philip relished the sensuous poesie of Titian, he also, like Francesco Maria II, particularly valued devotional art. Indeed, as Francesco Maria was contemplating the gift of Barocci’s Calling of St. Andrew, he was reassured by his agent at the Spanish court that “la Pittura essendo di devotione e in un quadro grande e in assai eccellenza non credo che potessi se non piacere.” Gronau, Documenti artistici, 159. 38Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, 188–89.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci Fortuna added, “La fama di Federico è venuta per la tavola che mandò in Arezzo, giudicata tanto bella che quà hoggi gli è dato il primo luogo fra i pittori.”39 Thus Barocci’s fame was finally on the rise beyond the confines of the duchy. Already in June 1582, the duke’s minister in Rome, Baldo Falcucci, had written to say that the newly powerful Oratorians, desiring a painting by Barocci and understanding that he was difficult, “sono venuti a pregarmi, che voglia in nome loro supplicar V.A., ch’interponendo la suprema autorità sua” to convince the painter to produce an altarpiece for the Chiesa Nuova there; during the course of negotiations, Cardinal Pierdonato Cesi would write the duke himself on behalf of the Oratorian fathers. 40 In this sudden whirl of activity, Francesco Maria II seems to have perceived a danger and an opportunity. The danger was obvious: a painter of Barocci’s current reputation could eventually be lured away from Urbino and the duke’s ability to maintain an important artist in residence at his capital would disappear forever. Francesco Maria was surely under no illusions concerning the likelihood of attracting a major figure to live and work in Urbino.41 The contours of opportunity were more complex and subtle, but they were reducible to one critical element: Francesco Maria entered the competition for Barocci’s services with a fundamental advantage. For whatever reason, Barocci— however ambitious—seemed ill disposed to leave Urbino. One aspect of this state of mind was surely his preoccupation with his fragile health. But there may have been additional concerns that encouraged Barocci to play this card repeatedly. One of these seems likely to have been a deep desire to avoid the pressures forced upon the impresario court artist, required to design ad infinitum and to produce rapidly on demand. Barocci’s homeland did not afford him the possibilities Venice had afforded Titian, however, and its isolation may have brought the painter some frustrations in the first long decade after his return in patria. But with the critical success of the Madonna del Popolo among painters and cognoscenti around the Florentine court and the beginnings of ducal patronage and support, both painter and patron probably could perceive the outlines of a unique possibility. Barocci needed exposure. Francesco Maria II, meanwhile, wished to invest wisely in the stability and prestige of his state. While his careful management and control of expenditure could produce positive economic results, the duke must have realized that Barocci’s presence made possible another sort of investment— 39Gronau, Documenti artistici, 153–54, cited in Olsen, “Relazioni tra Francesco Maria II,” 196–97. It seems significant in this context that Borghini’s Il Riposo, which offers the first significant assessment of Barocci’s career (1:568–70), was published in Florence in 1584. 40The series of letters are transcribed in Gronau (Documenti artistici, 156–57) and indicate the spread of Barocci’s fama. That the Oratorians desired to employ the best painters in Italy to create a kind of sacred gallery—a holy version of the princely galleries of the d’Este, the Medici (see note 45 below), or other noble families—seems to have been understood. Falcucci alludes to this specifically when he writes “La Congregatione dei preti di pozzobianco luogo di molta nobiltà et divotione hanno molti quadri et di bonissima mano nella lor fabrica nuova, ne vorebbono anco uno di ms. Federigo Barozzi … et non può riportar’ se non honore che si veda un’opera sua tra tante altre et tutte di huomini principalissimi.” Ibid., 156. Fallucci’s stress on the “honor” the project could bring refers to, of course, not only Barocci’s reputation, but also that of the duchy itself. 41Eiche (“Federico Zuccari and Federico Barocci”) notes the preoccupations of Archbishop Antonio Giannotti concerning Urbino’s ability to retain Barocci.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

191

192

STUART LINGO symbolic but critical—towards reestablishing the importance of the duchy of Urbino. Barocci’s decision to return to his native city offered Francesco Maria II the opportunity to maintain as “his” painter one of the great artists of Europe. At the same moment, Francesco Maria II did not have a pressing need to decorate large spaces within the duchy or the Marche. The critical projection of power in Loreto was accomplished, the ducal palace and the Villa Imperiale at Pesaro were impressive, the ducal collection had enough Titians to be of note, and the duke did not like to spend too heavily on courtly festival and spectacle. Thus, there was little requirement for Barocci to function as a traditional court artist-designer, planning and supervising a vast range of projects for permanent and ephemeral arts, and he could feel relatively protected from the sorts of production pressures he would probably have encountered at most courts (including that of the Medici, whatever the “liberalissime” promises of Francesco I).42 Francesco Maria did not even require Barocci to attend the peripatetic ducal court, but rather allowed him to remain in his native Urbino, important as the symbolic capital but no longer the principal residence of the court and little visited compared to Pesaro. At Urbino, the duke did attempt to invest Barocci with some of the traditional trappings of a court artist, encouraging him for instance to occupy a suite of rooms “nella sua corte,” presumably in the venerable Ducal Palace. But Francesco Maria seems to have accepted with good grace Barocci’s decision, after a brief experiment with this arrangement, to retire to a private home and studio.43 Of course, the duke’s distinctive treatment of Barocci should not lead one to infer that Francesco Maria II was not a significant patron of the arts within his duchy. He continued to enlarge and modernize the Palazzo Ducale at Pesaro and that at Casteldurante— increasingly his preferred residence—and openly asserted his retiring and contemplative temperament by building retreat villas above the Villa Imperiale outside Pesaro and above Casteldurante at Monte Berticchio. He also laid out an important garden at Urbino, and constructed botteghe at the Palazzo Ducale at Pesaro to house goldsmiths, painters and illuminators, and other artisans.44 42Warnke, Court Artist, 209–11, discusses the increased production pressure on court artists, and even relates the new demands to the cinquecento theoretical shift from the praise of the qualities of “studio e lavoro” to those of “prestezza e facilità.” Significantly, however, Borghini and other early commentators praise Barocci for “diligenza,” one of the terms employed in the period as an antonym of “prestezza.” The Entombment in Senigallia is “lavorata con tanta diligenza”; Borghini, Il riposa, 1:569. 43“Fu grandissima la stima che di lui fece il suo principe il duca Francesco Maria, che gli assegnò nella sua corte un appartamento in vita; egli vi dimorò alcun tempo, ma dopo accommodatosi a suo gusto una casa, si ritirò ad abitarvi e rese grazie al duca.” Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, 201–2. Bellori proceeds to claim, however, that Barocci’s studio became something of an attraction for foreign visitors: “Aveva il Barocci ordinata una sala grande, dove erano disposti i suoi quadri e cartoni; né venne personaggio alla corte che non volesse vederlo, portandosi a posta molti forestieri in Urbino alla sua fama, desideriosi di conoscerlo e di ammirare le belle operazioni del suo pennello.” Ibid., 202. 44For Francesco Maria II as a patron of architecture, see Sabine Eiche’s important series of articles and books: Barco di Casteldurante; “The Vedetta of the Villa Imperiale at Pesaro”; “La corte di Pesaro dalle case malatestiane alla residenza roveresca”; La villa di Monteberticchio di Francesco Maria II della Rovere a Casteldurante; “I della Rovere mecenati dell’architettura”; Il giardino di Santa Lucia; and “Il palazzo ducale di Urbania.” For the botteghe in Pesaro, see, most recently, Valazzi, “Le arti ‘roveresche,’” esp. 94–96; and XXXXXX

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci But the duke perceived other purposes for Barocci’s particular talents than the design of villa decorations or the planning of gardens. And despite Barocci’s recalcitrance concerning any overt institutional relation with the court, he seems generally to have responded to what the duke most wished of him: to produce paintings, not for the local court, but for the Medici, for the king of Spain, for important religious institutions in Rome, and eventually for the pope and the emperor. Such paintings gained the duke far more cultural capital than anything he could have asked Barocci to produce at the della Rovere court. And Barocci seems to have been willing to labor for his prince in this way—however slowly—for pictures in Florence, Rome, Madrid, and Prague could only increase his exposure and fame upon the Italian and European stage. Meanwhile, his continued residence in remote Urbino made it impossible for outside patrons to pressure him unduly. The duke, too, seems to have played a critical role in protecting his painter’s time and peace. He surely cajoled and pushed Barocci to produce a number of impressive works for important foreign patrons. But Francesco Maria II understood that he should not push his painter too far—and indeed, on the contrary, that he should make excuses for Barocci when outside patrons became too insistent. Thus, when in 1583 the Grand Duke of Tuscany requested a significant portrait of Francesco Maria II from Barocci’s hand, Francesco Maria II wrote to Simone Fortuna, his intermediary in Florence, that he would urge Barocci to “attender a questo ritratto,” but that “come voi sapete, il Barr[occi]o è lentissimo nel lavorare, onde fra questo et altri lavori ch’io so cha [che ha] per le mani, bisognerà che ci accommodiamo al voler suo circa ’l tempo d’haverlo, essendo anco di natura tale, che non se gli può dar sollecitudine, ma starsen’ in tutto alla volontà et commodità sua.”45 This is a remarkable piece of strategy on the duke’s part. He not only protects Barocci’s time, but heightens the painter’s reputation by representing his slowness, not as a result of the chronic illness Barocci often used as an excuse, but as part of the period concept of the “great artist”: Barocci was not merely “lentissimo nel lavorare,” but was a difficult and obdurate personality, not bending even to the solicitations of his prince. Despite the best efforts of the duke, everything would have to proceed “alla volontà et commodità” of the painter. Francesco Maria even goes so far as to say in a later letter “mi risolvei … di fargli tralasciar ogni cosa per attender a questo ritratto, sottoponendomi ancor io volontieri a questo disagio, qual vi prometto non esser stato poco….” 46 He thus in effect promises to get the picture from his difficult genius, but lets his Medici 45

Montevecchi, “‘Arti rare’ alla corte di Francesco Maria II.” See also, Meloni Trkulja, “I miniatori di Francesco Maria II della Rovere.” 45Gronau, Documenti artistici, 154, cited in Olsen, “Relazioni tra Francesco Maria II,” 197. The painting is lost; Olsen, Federoci Barocci, 177, cat. 36. The grand duke had come to desire a painting by Barocci because, having “quadri di tutti i più famosi pittori che sono stati moderni, cosi desiderava grandemente haver qualcosa di esso Federico.” Letter from Simone Fortuna in Gronau, Documenti artistici, 153–54. The parallel to the Oratorians’ request for an altarpiece for the Vallicelliana is striking; see note 40 above. 46Gronau, Documenti artistici, 154–55. In this letter, Francesco Maria adds the excuse of Barocci’s illness (a strategy he too used from time to time) and itemizes the “altri lavori” that the painter has to complete. The duke is very concerned that Barocci finish the altarpiece for Loreto and adds (interposing his own hand for that of his secretary), “et uno che fo fare per la M.tà del Re Catt.co il quale ha mostrato di XXXXXXX

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

193

STUART LINGO

194

neighbors understand the difficulty of the feat and the extent of the favor he has done them.47 On another occasion, the duke lays out Barocci’s character in even more direct terms: “questo non è un di quelli huomini che ’l padrone possi farli fare quel che vorrebbe, anzi niente che si volesse alterar la natura et humor suo, saria persona da lasciar piu tosto il mestiero.…”48 In advancing such excuses and assertions, Francesco Maria II placed himself into a distinguished genealogy of sensitive courtly patrons and Barocci into the category of the difficult but brilliant court artist of the sort exemplified by a painter such as Mantegna, whose fame had positioned the court of the Gonzaga near the center of European culture. Indeed, in the 1480s Federico Gonzaga had employed precisely analogous language to excuse Mantegna when the painter refused to produce paintings requested by the Duke and Duchess of Milan. The tactful marquis, eager to maintain his relation with his powerful overlords and to build the growing reputation of his difficult painter, wrote to Milan that he had essayed “ogni instantia” with Mantegna, but that “questi magistri excelenti hanno del fantasticho e da loro convien tuore quello che se po havere.”49 The commissions for the copy of the Calling of St. Andrew, the ducal portrait, and the Oratorian altarpiece (the Visitation), while they all fell within a few years of each 47

desiderarlo assai per la sua chiesa dell’Escuriale,” obviously a reference to the Calling of St. Andrew, which the duke was urging Barocci to complete. For Francesco Maria II’s exasperation concerning Barocci’s painfully slow progress on this carefully calculated gift, see note 49. For a further example of Barocci’s own frequent recourse to his health as the reason for his slow pace of work or his inability to travel, see Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 1:129. Emiliano quotes a letter to the Confraternity of the Laici in Arezzo of 19 November 1574: “Mi rincrescie grandemente non poter contentare le S.e vre in venir io fin là per causa della mia indispositione, che non è rimedio alcuno che io possi cavalcar dua miglia bisogna haver patientia.” Again, Barocci writes to the rectors on 7 June 1577, excusing his slow progress in painting the Madonna del Popolo: “et in questo tempo non ho mancato secondo il mio potere condurla a buon termine…, et se più tardi che non vorebbono serà finita, ne potrano dar colpa alla mea indispositione tanto contraria a i nostri desiderij.” Ibid. 47That this strategy was explicitly acknowledged by the Medici is revealed in a letter from Fortuna to Duke Francesco Maria II after delivery of the painting. Barocci’s portrait “fu sommamente grato” to the grand duke, “stendendosi nella fama grandissima, ch’egli portava di raro, et molto più nell’obligo che le teneva, imaginandosi il disagio che harà patito V.A. nel lasciarsi ritrarre da persona che lavori sì lentamente”; Gronau, Documenti artistici, 155. The particular acknowledgment that Barocci must be frustrating as he works “si lentamente” suggests that Francesco Maria’s rhetorical stress upon Barocci’s slow pace may have been intended to dull the desire of powerful rulers like the Medici who might seek to lure the painter into their permanent service. 48Letter of 15 January 1589 from Francesco Maria II to Grazioso Graziosi, in Gronau, Documenti artistici, 197. 49Marquis Federico to the Duchess of Milan, 20 June 1480, transcribed in Kristeller, Andrea Mantegna, 480. While the duke usually engaged in precisely such strategies, playing the sensitive Maecenas and casting Barocci as his eccentric genius, the difficulties that arose because of Barocci’s slowness were very real, and Francesco Maria occasionally let his exasperation show in correspondence with his agents. In a despairing letter of 1586 to his agent in Madrid regarding the commission for Barocci to copy the Pesaro Calling of St. Andrew, the duke laments “È ben vero che da doi anni in qua noi ordinammo un quadro grande a Feder.o Barocci per mandarlo al Re et insieme con esso dui belli et buoni portanti ch’avevamo in stalla, ma il Barocci ha mandato tanto in lungo quest’opera sua che i cavalli son morti.” Gronau, Documenti artistici, 158.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci other in the early 1580s, set the pattern for the collaboration between the duke and Barocci for the next several decades. Even the nature of these commissions is instructive; the first two contributed to developing alliances with the king of Spain and with a more powerful Italian noble family, while the third showed the duke to be a supporter of ecclesiastical reform and important religious building projects in papal Rome. Such commissions enhanced both the standing of the duke and his painter and it was not long before Francesco Maria’s investment in culture was paying further dividends. By 1586, Emperor Rudolf II had asked for a painting, according to Bellori because report of Barocci’s fama had reached Prague.50 To please such a patron, Barocci was even convinced to make a rare foray into mythological history in the Flight of Aeneas from Troy; the duke observed wryly that this emperor would not desire the sort of “opere di devotione” that both Francesco Maria and Barocci preferred.51 This commission was followed by at least two for Pope Clement VIII: the lost vase with the blessing Infant Christ presented to the pope in 1597, and the pope’s own commission for the Institution of the Eucharist for the Aldobrandini Chapel in Rome, which Clement did not live to see finished by the ever-slower, aging Barocci despite the urgings of the duke in this delicate political situation. While Clement commissioned the altarpiece for his family chapel in Rome, Francesco Maria II insisted on paying for the work, writing in 1603, “noi desideriamo che S[ua] S[anti]tà habbia in tutto da noi questo picciol servitio, per il quale già habbiamo sborsciato l’intiero prezzo a esso Baroccio, come siamo soliti di far seco.…” It is notable, given the pattern traced here, that the duke stresses that it has been his usual practice to pay Barocci to work for others.52 While such diplomatic gifts and arranged contracts were fundamental to Francesco Maria’s strategy, the duke also encouraged Barocci to work for selected other patrons on an independent basis. These patrons ranged from important confraternities in the duchy, where the master’s paintings would enhance the churches of such cities as Pesaro and Senigallia while costing the duke nothing, to individuals such as the senator (and from 1595, doge) of Genoa, Matteo Senarega, who commissioned from Barocci the Crucifixion for Genoa cathedral and rewarded him handsomely. Finally, as noted above, in the case of the archbishop of Urbino’s desire to decorate an important religious shrine in the duchy—the Chapel of the Sacrament in Urbino 50Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, 202. Intriguingly, Bellori claims that the emperor was so impressed by the painting that he attempted to lure Barocci to his court, and that Barocci would have transferred to Prague “se il mal suo non l’avesse impedito.” Ibid., 202–3. If the emperor’s soliticitation occurred, Barocci probably relied upon his illness as an excuse. Olsen (“Relazioni tra Francesco Maria II,” 198) has noted, however, that Francesco Maria II was dismayed to receive no correspondence from the emperor regarding his appreciation of the painting. In the letter in question, the duke stresses the exceptional quality of the pictorial gift: it is “il più bello che habbia fatto o sia forse anco per far mai più il Baroccio.” Gronau, Documenti artistici, 164. 51See Olsen, Federico Barocci, 180–82, cat. 39. The duke’s remark is registered in his letter to Grazioso Graziosi; Gronau, Documenti artistici, 163–64. 52For the lost Infant Christ, see Olsen, Federico Barocci, 199, cat. 53. For the Institution of the Eucharist, see Olsen, Federico Barocci, 209–11, cat. 65; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 2:376–85. Gronau (Documenti artistici, 31–32, 176–86) discusses and documents the commission. For Francesco Maria II’s insistence upon paying for the altarpiece, see Gronau, Documenti artistici, 182.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

195

STUART LINGO

196

cathedral—the duke served as a mediator, helping to convince the old painter to produce a major painting, fixing the price, and significantly subsidizing the decoration of a site that would enhance the civic and ecclesiastical splendor of the old capital.53 Despite all his negotiations with the painter, however, Francesco Maria II rarely employed Barocci to paint directly for him. In fact, the duke lamented in the 1590s that he had “little by his hand”—and this was in the context of giving up Barocci’s Nativity, one of the duke’s favorite devotional paintings, as yet another diplomatic gift to help advance the critical alliance with Spain.54 Given Barocci’s slowness and difficulty, Francesco Maria II had to resign himself to the fact that his patronal strategy left him with little for his own delectation or for the embellishment of his court or capital. Indeed, Sabine Eiche has called attention to an important letter in which Archbishop Giannotti, in urging the duke to ensure that Zuccari and Barocci would produce works for the Chapel of the Sacrament, laments “ … questa non è occasione da perdere, et per eccitargli non ho potuto far di non deplorare sul saldo la negligenza di questa città, che havendo havuto sempre i primi Pittori del mondo, tanti altri luoghi si ornino delle op[e]re loro, et qua, per modo di dire, non si veda pur una linea.”55 In this case Francesco Maria II did intervene to ensure that a major Barocci adorned Urbino cathedral; but in general, he seems to have concluded that the advantages of his distinctive patronage strategy were worth the price. In decades when the future importance and independence of the venerable duchy of Urbino were in serious doubt (Francesco Maria did not have a son until 1605) and in which the small Italian courts in general were in decline, the duke had something that not even the great Federigo da Montefeltro had possessed.56 At the court of Urbino there resided one of the greatest living painters in Europe and the dissemination of his fame and that of his patria across the continent placed the little duchy one last time near the epicenter of culture, reclaiming some of its former glories.

53For

the Crucifixion, see Olsen, Federico Barocci, 194–96, cat. 49; and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 2:306– 15. Bellori (Le vite de’ pittori, 193–94) reproduces Senarega’s remarkable letter of thanks to the painter. For a transcription of the original letter, see Bury, Senerega Chapel in San Lorenzo, Genoa, 355–56. On the Last Supper for the Urbino cathedral, see note 3 above. 54For the Nativity see Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 2:318–29. The painting, apparently executed for the duke, was offered as a gift to Margaret of Austria, queen of Spain, in 1604, after Francesco Maria II’s minister noted that the queen was asking after Barocci in the apparent hope of obtaining “qualche sua pittura devota.” Gronau, Documenti artistici, 172. The duke seems to have reluctantly decided to send his own painting as Barocci was elderly and working ever more slowly. Letters between the duke and his agent reveal that the work was very well received (ibid., 175–76), which at least gave the duke some comfort: he noted in a letter early in the course of negotiations that the painting “solo ci resta di cose fatte di sua mano…,” and that he would part with it “mal volentieri” (ibid., 173). For the devotional paintings the duke commissioned for his own collection from Barocci, see Olsen, Federico Barocci, 28. 55Gronau, Documenti artistici, 165–66, discussed in Eiche, “Federico Zuccari and Federco Barocci,” 398. 56For the vicissitudes of the duchy in Francesco Maria II’s later years, the death of his son, and the final devolution of the state to the church, see Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, 3:144–236.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci

BIBLIOGRAPHY Printed Primary Sources Bellori, Giovanni Pietro. Le vite de’ pittori, scultori et architetti moderni. Edited by Evelina Borea. Turin: Einaudi, 1976. Borghini, Raffaelle. Il Riposo. 1584. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1969. Gronau, Georg. Documenti artistici Urbinati. Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1936. Vasari, Giorgio. LeVite de’ più eccelenti pittori, scultori ed architettori. Edited by G. Milanesi. 7 vols. Florence: Sansoni, 1878–85.

Secondary Sources Ballarin, Alessandro, ed. Il camerino delle pitture di Alfonso I. 2 vols. Padua: Bertoncello, 2002. Béguin, Sylvie, and Candace Adelson, eds. Le studiolo d’Isabelle d’Este. Paris: Éditions des musées nationaux, 1975. Bombe, Walter. Federico Barocci e un suo scolaro a Perugia. Perugia: Vincenzo Bartelli, 1909. Bonvini Mazzanti, Marinella. “Aspetti della politica interna ed estera di Francesco Maria II della Rovere.” In I della Rovere nell’Italia delle corti. Vol. 1, Storia del ducato, edited by Bonita Cleri, Sabine Eiche, and John E. Law, 77–91. Urbino: Quattro Venti, 2002. Brown, Clifford. “A Ferrarese Lady and a Mantuan Marchesa: The Art and Antiquities Collections of Isabella d’Este Gonzaga (1474–1539).” InWomen and Art in Early Modern Europe. Patrons, Collectors, and Connoisseurs, edited by Cynthia Lawrence, 53–71. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997. Bury, Michael. “The Senerega Chapel in San Lorenzo, Genoa: New Documents about Barocci and Francavilla.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Instituts in Florenz 31/2–3 (1987): 327– 56. Campbell, Stephen J., ed. Artists at Court: Image-Making and Identity, 1300–1550. Boston: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 2004. Chastel, André. The Sack of Rome, 1527. Translated by Beth Archer. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. Dennistoun, James. Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino: Illustrating the Arms, Arts, and Literature of Italy from 1440–1630. 3 vols. London: J. Lane, 1909. Dizionario biografico degli Italiani. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1998. Eiche, Sabine. Il Barco di Casteldurante all’epoca dell’ultimo duco di Urbino. Urbino: Quattroventi, 2003. ———. “La corte di Pesaro dalle case malatestane alla residenza roveresca.” In La corte di Pesaro, edited by Maria Rosaria Valazzi, 13–55. Modena: Edizioni Panini, 1986. ———. “I della Rovere mecenati dell’architettura.” In Pesaro nell’età dei della Rovere, edited by Guido Arbizzoni et al., 1:231–63. Venice: Marsilio, 1998. ———. “Federico Zuccari and Federico Barocci at Loreto and Urbino.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Instituts in Florenz 26 (1982): 398–400. ———. Il giardino di Santa Lucia: Delizia di Francesco Maria II della Rovere in Urbino. Urbino: Accademia Raffaello, 1998. ———. “Girolamo and Bartolomeo Genga.” The Grove Dictionary of Art, edited by Jane Turner, 12:277–79. London: MacMillan, 1996. ———. “Il palazzo ducale di Urbania.” In Urbania Casteldurante: Museo Civico, edited by Bonita Cleri and Feliciano Paoli, vii–xvi. Bologna: Calderini, 1998. ———. “The Vedetta of the Villa Imperiale at Pesaro.” Architettura 8 (1978): 150–65.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

197

198

STUART LINGO ———. La villa di Monteberticchio di Francesco Maria II della Rovere a Casteldurante. Urbania: Edizioni Biblioteca e Civico Museo di Urbania, 1995. Eisenbichler, Konrad. “Bronzino’s Portrait of Guidobaldo della Rovere.” Renaissance and Reformation 24, no. 1 (1988): 21–33. Ekserdjian, David. Correggio. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1997. Emiliani, Andrea. Federico Barocci (Urbino 1535–1612). 2 vols. Bologna: Nuova Alfa, 1985. Fontana, Jeffrey M. “Federico Barocci’s Emulation of Raphael in the Fossombrone Madonna and Child with Saints.” In Coming About: A Festschrift for John Shearman, edited by Lars Jones and Louisa Matthews, 183–90. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Art Museums, 2001. Gouwens, Kenneth. Remembering the Renaissance: Humanist Narrations of the Sack of Rome. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Hope, Charles. “Titian and His Patrons.” In Titian: Prince of Painters. Exhibition catalogue edited by Susanna Biadene, 77–84. Munich: Prestel, 1990. Kristeller, Paul. Andrea Mantegna. Translated by S. Arthur Strong. London: Longmans, Green, 1901. Le Mollé, Robert. GiorgioVasari: L’homme des Médicis. Paris: Grasset, 1995. Lingo, Stuart. “The Capuchins and the Art of History: Retrospection and Reform in the Arts in Late Renaissance Italy.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1998. Meloni Trkulja, S. “I miniatori di Francesco Maria II della Rovere.” In 1631–1981: Un omaggio ai della Rovere, 33–38. Urbino: Quattro Venti, 1981. Montevecchi, B. “‘Arti rare’ alla corte di Francesco Maria II.” In Pesaro nell’età roveresca, edited by Guido Arbizzoni et al., 2:323–34. Venice: Marsilio, 1998. Nagel, Alexander. “Art as Gift: Liberal Art and Religious Reform in the Renaissance.” In Negotiating the Gift: Pre-Modern Figurations of Exchange. Edited by Gadi Algazi, Valentin Groebner, and Bernhard Jussen, 319–60. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 2003. ———. “Gifts for Michelangelo and Vittoria Colonna.” The Art Bulletin 79 (1997): 647–68. ———. Michelangelo and the Reform of Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Oberhuber, Konrad. “Mantegna and the Role of Prints: A Prototype for Artistic Innovation in the North and the South.” In RenaissanceVenice and the North: Crosscurrents in the Time of Bellini, Dürer and Titian, edited by Bernard Aikema and Beverly Louise Brown, 144–49. New York: Rizzoli, 2000. Olsen, Harald. Federico Barocci. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1962. ———. “Relazioni tra Francesco Maria II della Rovere e Federico Barocci.” In I della Rovere nell’Italia delle corti. Vol. 2, Luoghi e opere d’arte, edited by Bonita Cleri, Sabine Eiche, John E. Law, and Feliciano Paoli, 195–204. Urbino: Quattro Venti, 2002. Pillsbury, Edmund, and Louise Richards. The Graphic Art of Federico Barocci. Exhibition catalogue. Cleveland and New Haven: Cleveland Museum of Art and Yale University Art Gallery, 1978. Piperno, Franco. “Cultura e usi della musica alla corte di Guidubaldo II.” In I della Rovere nell’Italia delle Corti. Vol. 3, Cultura e letteratura, edited by Bonita Cleri, Sabine Eiche, John E. Law, and Feliciano Paoli, 25–36. Urbino: Quattro Venti, 2002.³³³³ ³³³. L’immagine del Duca: Musica e spettacolo alla corte di Guidubaldo II duca d’Urbino. Florence: Olschki, 2001. Poggi, Giovanni. Il Carteggio di Michelangelo. Edited by Paola Barocchi and Renzo Ristori. Florence: Sansoni, 1979. Shearman, John. “Alfonso d’Este’s Camerino.” In “Il se rendit en Italie”: Etudes offertes à André Chastel, 209–30. Rome: Edizioni dell’Elefante, 1987. ———. “Barocci at Bologna and Florence.” Burlington Magazine 118 (1976): 49–54.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Francesco Maria della Rovere and Federico Barocci Smith, Graham.The Casino of Pius IV. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. Smyth, Craig Hugh. “On Dosso Dossi at Pesaro.” In Dosso’s Fate: Painting and Court Culture in Renaissance Italy, 241–62. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1998. Syson, Luke. “Ercole de’Roberti: The Making of a Court Artist.” In Ercole de’ Roberti:The Renaissance in Ferrara, edited by Denise Allen and Luke Syson, v–xiv. London: Burlington Magazine, 1999. Valazzi, Maria Rosaria. “Le arti ‘roveresche’ e il tramonto del ducato di Urbino: Federico Barocci e Francesco Maria della Rovere.” In Federico Barocci: Il miracolo della Madonna della gatta, edited by Antonio Natali, 85–104. Milan: Silvana, 2003. Warnke, Martin. The Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist. Translated by David McLintock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Zampetti, Pietro. “Guidobaldo II, Francesco Maria II e Palma il Giovane.” In Omaggio ai della Rovere, 1631–1981, 22–32. Urbino: Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, 1981. Zampetti, Pietro, Dante Bernini, and Grazia Bernini Pezzini. Tiziano per i Duchi di Urbino. Urbino: AGE, 1976.

Acknowledgments This essay was conceived and written at Villa I Tatti, the Harvard Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. I remain deeply grateful for the rich opportunities provided by a year in that remarkable institute, and wish to thank the Director, Joseph Connors, and also the wonderful staff and the other fellows of 2003/4, all of whom helped create an environment that was at once stimulating and nurturing. I had the good fortune that Sabine Eiche was frequently at the Villa that year; I profited greatly from her remarkable knowledge of the patronage of Francesco Maria II, and she generously read the entire text.

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

199

APPENDIX

201

202

APPENDIX

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

CONTRIBUTORS Lisa Passaglia Bauman received her PhD in art history from Northwestern University with a dissertation on the artistic patronage of the della Rovere in Rome. She currently teaches at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

Jill Elizabeth Blondin received her doctorate in art history from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research focuses on the art and architectural patronage of Pope Sixtus IV. She is assistant professor of art history at the University of Texas at Tyler.

Andrew Charles Blume, an Episcopal priest and independent scholar, received his PhD in history of art and architecture from Harvard University. He has published on aspects of art, religion, and culture in fifteenth-century Florence and Rome.

Maria Ann Conelli received her doctorate in art history from Columbia University and has written on architecture and patronage in Renaissance Naples. At present, she is the director of the American Folk Art Museum in New York City.

Henry Dietrich Fernández received his PhD in history of art from University of Cambridge. He has published on aspects of architecture and politics of the Vatican during the Renaissance. He is currently senior lecturer in architecture and architectural history at the Rhode Island School of Design. Jeffrey Fontana received his PhD in art history from Boston University, and has written on the career of Federico Barocci and on sixteenth-century painting and drawing. He teaches at Austin College in Sherman, Texas.

Stuart Lingo obtained his doctorate in art history from Harvard University and recently completed a book on the altarpieces of Federico Barocci. He is assistant professor of Renaissance art at University of Washington–Seattle.

Caroline P. Murphy received her doctorate in art history from University College London. She has written books on Lavinia Fontana and Felice della Rovere, 203

204

CONTRIBUTORS two prominent women of the Italian Renaissance. Currently she is associate professor of art history at University of California, Riverside.

Ian Verstegen received his PhD in art history from Temple University. He has previously published articles on Federico Barocci and linear perspective in the Renaissance. He is an independant scholar living in Philadelphia.

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

INDEX Notes: d. = died r. - reigned m. = married to bold numerals = illustrations Adrian VI, and Orsini properties, 119 Alberici, Jacopo, Compendio (1600), 40 Alberti, Leon Battista, 67 Aldobrandini, Ippolito, xix Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia; 1431–1503), xvi decoration of papal apartments, 56–57 self-aggrandizement of, 55 Alidosi, Francesco, 146 altarpieces. See also artworks Albano diocese, 97 Annunciation (Barocci), 188–89 Deposition (Barocci), 175, 184–85 Perugino’s fresco, 16 at San Francesco Basilica, 26 Animuccia, Paolo, 103 Araldo, G. F., Cronica della Compagnia …, 126, 130, 132– 33 architecture. See also artworks all’antica, 74–77 Colosseum (Rome), 82 fictive and real, 16, 45, 50n, 51 Gesù Nuovo, 135–36 Guelf windows, 65–66 Julius II/Giuliano’s commission of, 63–64, 66–67 Largo S. Trinità Maggiore with Gesù Nova, 124 of Leon Battista Alberti, 67 Ligurian-Genoese tradition, 77–78 military fortifications, 150 oak leaf, acorn motif, 78–79 Palazzo della Rovere, 72 Palazzo Rovere, 84–85 at Palo, 117 of Petit Palais, Avignon, 67, 68 Pianta di Roma (Bufalini), 82 by Sangallo, 74–83 Santa Marie delle Carceri (Prato), 78 San Vitale interior, 125 Urbino (Barocci), 192–93 Villa Imperiale, 151–52 Villa Madama (Rome), 151

205

Aretino, Pietro, 161, 163 artworks. See also altarpieces; architecture Annunciation altarpiece (Barocci), 188–89 Antonio Galli (Barocci), 171 chapel of Domenico della Rovere, 42–50 chapel of Girolamo Basso della Rovere, 52 chapel of Saint Anne, Gesù Nuovo, 135 Chastisement of Rome by Good CharlesV, 155 Crucifixion with Mourners (Barocci), 173 Crucifixion with Mourners (Titian), 174 Della Rovere Polyptych (Foppa/Brea), 73 The Fall of Florence, 155 frescoes: Casino of Pius IV (Barocci), 100–101; Santo Spirito Hospital, 5, 6, 22; Miracle of Savona, 111; Sistine Chapel, 10–17 Giuliano da Sangalli (Cosimo), 70 Head Study for St. Jude (Barocci), 102 Madonna and Child with Saints … (Titian), 169 Martyrdom of St. Sebastian (Barocci), 168 medals: Candida portrait, 71; Giulio Feltrio, 90; Sixtus IV’s coronation, 22 Paliotto of Sixtus IV tapestry, 26, 27 plans for Isabella Feltria’s catafalque, 131 Portrait of aYoung Knight (Carpaccio), 143 Portrait of Duke Francesco Maria II (Barocci), 186 Portrait of Francesco Maria della Rovere (Titian), 144 Sixtus IV and Platina in theVatican Library (anon.), 5, 6, 9 statue of Sixtus IV, Sacro Convento, 20 tapestries: Flemish, in San Francesco Basilica, 28; Paliotto of Sixtus IV, 26, 27 Temptation of Christ (Botticelli), 13, 14 Temptation of Moses (Botticelli), 13, 15 tombs: of Cristoforo della Rovere, 42–50; of Domenico della Rovere, 50–58; of Giovanni de Castro, 42; of Girolamo Basso della Rovere, 56; of Pietro Riario, 22 Assisi, 19ff. Astarita, Tommaso, 129 Atanagi, Dionigi, 101 Augustinians, 41 Avialos d’Aquino, Alfonso Felice, 127 Avignon renovations, 64–69, 68 Bailey, Gauvin, 133 Barocci family Alberto Francesco, 100

206

Andrea Lazzari, 100 Federico: Annunciation altarpiece, 188–89; Antonio Galli, 171; Calling of St. Andrew, 189; Crucifixion with Mourners, 173; Deposition altarpiece, 175, 184–85; engravings of, 188–89; frescoes of, 90, 100–101; Head Study for St. Jude, 102; illness and recovery, 181n, 184, 193; loyalty to Francesco Maria II, 181, 190–91, 193–96; Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, 168; patronage: of Francesco Maria II, 179–96; of Giulio della Rovere, 184–85; of Guidobaldo II, 162–76; of others, 187–88, 195–96; Portrait of Duke Francesco Maria II, 186; St. Cecilia with Four Other Saints, 167; Titianesque style of, 170, 183–84 Giovanni Battista (clock maker), 100 Barocci family, continued Giovanni Maria, 100 Bellini, Giovanni, 152 Bellori, Gian Pietro, 179, 181n, 184, 189–90, 195 Benedict XII, 67 Berruguete, Pedro, 142 Biondo, Flavio, 12 Bonaventura, Federico, 90, 101 Borgia, Rodrigo. See Alexander VI Borromeo family Carlo, 94–95 Federico, 90 Botticelli, Sandro Temptation of Christ, 13, 14 Temptation of Moses, 13, 15 Bramante, Donato, 81–83 decoration of Santa Maria del Popolo, 56 stone veneer masking, 67 Brandani, Federico, 100 Bravo, Giovanni Andrea, 145n, 149 Brea, Ludovico, Della Rovere Polyptych, 72, 73 Bregno, Andrea, 48n Bronzino, Agnolo, 161, 187 Brucioli, Antonio, 151 Burckhardt, Jacob, 117 Cagli, Bernardino Pino da, 90, 96, 103 Candida, Giovanni, 71 Cappella Magna. See Sistine Chapel Caracciolo, Isabella, 130 Carafa family Giovantommaso and Isabella, 130 Marzia, 130, 132 Roberta, 128 Silvia, 130, 132 Carvajal, Bernard, 13 Casa del Carmine, Naples 123 Castiglione, Baldessare Discorsi Militari, 149 Il Cortegiano, 114, 149, 154 Castriotto, Giacomo, 150 Castro, Giovanni de, 42 Ceri, Renzo da, 119

INDEX Christ. See Jesus Christ Christianity, salvation history in biographical narrative, 11–12 Clemente, Francesco Maria di, xvi n Clement VI (1343–52), 67–69 Clement VIII (1536–1605), xix Colonna, Marcantonio (d. 1522), xvin, xix, xx Como, Antonio da, 24 Cosimo, Piero di, 70 Counter-Reformation, 89–91, 103–4 Cupis, Bernardino de, 113 della Rovere characteristics architectural tastes of, 72–83 artistic tastes of, 55–56 coat of arms, 20, 24, 31 compared with Medici, xxiv ecclesiastical, 89–91, 144–45 emblems, 26, 78–79 end of influence of, xxiii, xxv, xxvi marriage alliances, xx, 92–96, 114, 126–27, 129, 162 military service, 92, 141–49; of Francesco Maria, 148– 51; of Giuliano (Pope Julius II), 45; of Guidobaldo II, 162–63 patronage (See patronage) political/cultural identity of, 142–43, 150–56, 192–96 as powerful and enlightened, 143–56 refined sensibilities, 100–105 as reformers, 89–105, 129 sea iconography of, 113, 115–16 self-aggrandizement by: Francesco Maria, 141–43; Francesco Maria II, 188–96; Girolamo Basso, 53– 55; Giuliano/Julius II, 39–40, 42, 72–83, 145–46; Sixtus IV, 39–40, 42 self-preservation, 114, 129–32 della Rovere family. See also Lante, Orsini, Riario, Sanseverino, and Vigerio families family tree, 201–2 Antonio Basso, 7 Bartolomeo (1447–94), xv Carlo Emanuele, xix Clemente, 71 Clemente Grosso (1462–1504), xv, xvii Cristoforo, xvii, xviii, 42, 45, 48, 49 Domenico, xvii, xviii; commissioned works, 42–50, 49 Emanuele Filiberto, xix Federico Ubaldo (1605–23), xxv Felice (daughter of Julius II), xx, 4, 113–21 Francesco (See Sixtus IV) Francesco Maria (1490–1538), xviii, xxi–xxiv, 89, 91; art patronage of, 148–56; Carpaccio portrait of, 143; correspondence with Felice, 119; Discorsi Militari, 155; as Duke of Urbino, 96, 119, 141–56; literary/musical depictions of, 149, 162; military service, 92, 141–45; murderer of: Alidosi, 146, 149; Bravo, 145, 149; reconfirmed by Leo X and Hadrian VI, 146–47

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Index Francesco Maria II (son of Guidobaldo II), xiii, xxi, xxv, 101, 141; friendship with Barocci, 181, 190– 91, 193–96; patronage strategy of, 179–96; relationship with Spain, 189–90 Francesco Teodoro [Bisignano] (son of Isabella Feltria), 123 Galeotto Franciotto (1504?–8), xvii–xviii, 92 Giovanni, 7, 8 Giovanni Francesco (1509–15), xvii Giovanni (1457–1501), xv–xvi, xxii, 141, 143–44 Girolamo Basso (1434–1507), xv, xvi, xvii, 50–58 Girolamo (1533–92), xvii, xviii–xx Giulia (m. Don Alfonso d’Este), 93n Giuliano (1443–1513) (See Julius II) Giuliano (1560-1621), 93, 96 Giulio Feltrio (1533–78), xviii, xx; aka Cardinal d’Urbino, 89, 92–93; birthright property of, 92; career of, 94–96; children legitimized, 96; Constitutiones almae Domus, 90; as pioneer reformer, 89–91; residences of, 98–99; works/patronage of, 97–105; as "worldly" cardinal, 93 Grosso della Rovere line, xvi n Guidobaldo II (1514–74): allied with Spain, 93n; civil and military service, 92, 162–63; father of Isabella Feltria, 126; as harsh ruler, 96; m.: Giulia Varana, 162; Vittoria Farnese, 92; patronage, 101; of Titian, 161, 163–76; ties to Venice, 162–63 Ippolito (1554-1620), 93, 96 Isabella Feltria (1552/4–1619), xx, xxi; marriage and family, 126–29; as saintly patron, 127–36 Lavinia Feltria (1558–1632), xx, xxi, 127 Leonardo (brother of Girolamo), m. Giovanna Giraldi, xix Leonardo (father of Sixtus IV), 3–4 Leonardo Grosso (1464–1520), xviii, xxii, xxiii, 92 Luchina [1] (sister of Pope Sixtus IV), xvi n Luchina [2] (sister of Pope Julius II), xvi n Lucrezia, xviii, xx Lucrezia (1533–92), m. Marcantonio Colonna, xx Lucrezia (1589-1652), m. Lante family, 96 Niccolò Franciotti, m. Laura Orsini, xx Pietro Bonarelli, 96 Simone (nephew of Sixtus IV), xvi n Sisto Gara (Franciotti; d. 1517), xviii, xxiii, 92 Virginia (daughter of Guidobaldo II), m. Federico Borromeo, xix, 93 Vittoria Feltria (daughter of Federico Ubaldo), m. Ferdinand II de’ Medici, xxv, 95–96 del Monte family Francesco Maria, xxiv Montino, xxiv Duns Scotus, John, Commentarius in librum Sententiarum, illuminated manuscript, 32 Eiche, Sabine, 151, 196 Este family Alfonso (m. Giulia della Rovere), 93n

207

Ippolito II, 93 Isabella, as art patron, 182 Lucrezia, xxv, 185, 188 Eustachio, Bartolomeo, 90 Opusculo anatomica and Tabulae anatomicae, 99–100 Fanzago, Cosimo, 134 Farnese family Odoardo, 133 Vittoria: m. Guidobaldo II, xviii, 92–93; mother of Isabella Feltria, 126 Feltrio family Ippolito, xxv Livia (m. Francesco Maria II), xxv Fernández, Dietrich, xvi Fiesole, Mino da, 48n Filelfo, Francesco, De sacerdotio Christi, 12–13 Finlay, Robert, 149 Foppa, Vincenzo, Della Rovere Polyptych, 72, 73 Fossombrone, architecture at, 151–52, 184, 187 Franciotti, Giovanni Francesco, m. Luchina della Rovere, xvi n Franciscanism of Giulio Feltrio, 91, 94–95 as seen in Sistine Chapel frescoes, 16–17 of Sixtus IV, xv, 4, 19–23, 19n Franciscans patronage of Barocci, 187–88 patronage of Giulio Feltrio, 94 sale of legacies/testaments, 23 Franco, Battista, 161 Fregoso, Federico, 151 Gara family Gabriele (d. 1479), xvi n Luchina, m. Gabriele Gara (See under della Rovere family) Genga family Bartolomeo, 161, 165n, 185 Girolamo, 150–51, 161, 185 George of Trebizond, 12 Germanio, Anastasio, xix Gesù Nuovoa, 123–38, 135–36 Giorgio, Francesco di, 145 Giovane, Palma. See Palma il Giovane (Jacopo Negreti) Giraldi, Giovanna, xix Giuicciardini, Francesco, 149 Goldthwaite, Richard, xiii, 133 Gonzaga family Eleonora (1493–1550), xxiii Maria, 91, 98, 142, 145, 151 Elisabetta, 145–46 Federico, 194 as protectors of della Rovere, 147 Greenblatt, Stephen, xiii Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses, 12

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

INDEX

208

Gregory XIII (Ugo Boncompagni), friend of Giulio Feltrio, 99 grotteschi, 47, 50–51, 55 Hadrian VI, 147 Haskell, Francis, 132 Hay, Sebastiano, 104 Henninger-Voss, Cathleen, 149 Hermits of Fonte Avellana, 94 Heydenreich, Ludwig, 77 historical narrative, in sacred biography, 10–12 Holy Roman Empire, and war against Venice, 146 Hufton, Olwen, 127 humanism, in chapel of Domenico della Rovere, 42–50 iconography, of classical antiquity, in Santa Maria del Popolo, 39–58 passim illness/disease, of Isabella Feltria, 127–28, 127n Jesuits, 123, 132–34 Jesus Christ in Franciscan theology, 21 in San Francesco windows, 24 in Sistine Chapel frescoes, 10 typified by Moses, 10–15 Julius II (Giuliano della Rovere, 1443–1513), xv, xvi, xvii as cardinal archbishop, 42; architectural projects of, 113, 116; Avignon architectural projects, 64–69; campaign against Naples, 71; design of Palazzo della Rovere, 72–83; distancing from Alexander VI, 57, 69; exile from Rome, 69, 71–72; painting of, 65; patronage of Barocci, 184; personal characteristics, 69; protection of family soldiers, 145; trained patron of architecture, 63, 74–76 family background, 111–12 Last Judgment, 16 as pope: architectural projects, 113; confirmation of Montefeltro and della Rovere, 145; distanced from Sixtus IV, 4; and Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, xxii; as military leader, 145; painting of, 7, 8; Santi Apostoli palace, 55; Vatican Palace architecture, 81–83 Lante family, adopted della Rovere name, 96 League of Cambrai, 146 Lee, Egmont, 4–5 Leno, Giuliano, 116–17 Lenten spectacles, of Giulio Feltrio, 93 Leonardi, Gian Giacomo, 150–51 Leo X, xxii–xxiii, 116–‘8 literature, poem inscription in Founding of theVatican Library, 8, 9 Litta, Pompeo, 129 Lombardo, Ambrogio, 24 Long, Pamela, 142 Loreto Basilica of, 180, 188–89 Holy House of, xv, xvi, xviii, xxii, 90–91, 94, 97

Machiavelli, 155 Maggi, Girolamo, 150 Maggio, Vincenzo, 123, 126–30 Maius Sacrarium. See Sistine Chapel Manetti, Gianozzo, 11 marriage contracts, 128 Mary (blessed virgin), depicted in San Francesco windows, 24 Medici family Claudia de’ (m. Federico Ubaldo), xxv Cosimo de (r. 1537–74), xxiv and della Rovere family, xxiv, 89 exiled from Florence, 69 Ferdinand II de’ (m. Vittoria Feltria), xxv Giuliano de’ (d. 1516), xxiii, 146 Lorenzo the Magnificent (d. 1492), 69 Lorenzo (1492–1519), xxiii, 147 papal relations of, 146–47 Meldert, Leonard, 103 Melozzo da Forlì chapel of, 45 Founding of theVatican Library (1477), 7, 8 Platina AppointedVatican Librarian detail, 65 Michelangelo, xvii, 11, 182–83 Monte, Pietro da, 11 Montefeltro family Federico da, xxi, xxii, 141–42, 144–45 Giovanna (m. Giovanni della Rovere), xxii Guidobaldo (son of Federico), xxii, 142, 145, 155 relationship with della Rovere, 141, 145–46 Moses, in Sistine Chapel frescoes, 10–17 murals, 50n music, regulated by Cardinal Giulio Feltrio, 90, 98, 103– 4 Negreti, Jacopo. See Palma il Giovane (Jacopo Negreti) Neri, Saint Filippo, 99 nobility, Italian concepts of, xiii Nomentano, Paolo, 117 Oratorian order, 191, 193n Orsini family Clarice, 120 Gian Giordano, xx, 114 Napoleone, 119–20 sale of Palo castello, 115 self-presentation of, 118 Palazzo della Rovere 72–83, 91 Palma il Giovane (Jacopo Negreti), 90, 100–101, 162, 175–76, 185 Palo castle, Ladispoli, 111–21, 112 papacy affirmation of: in chapel of Domenico della Rovere, 42–50; in San Francesco in Assisi, 22–33; in Santo Spirito frescoes, 5, 6, 22; in Sistine Chapel frescoes, 10–12, 16–17

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY

Index depicted in sculpture, 20, 28–33 hunting lodges of, 117 Papal States, 23, 146,147 Paschal II (pope), 40 Pastor, Ludwig von, 4, 93 patronage of art and science, 89, 97–105, 161–76, 179–96 of culture, 7, 150–56 decline of, in Italy, 181–82 of Francesco Maria, 141–56 of Francesco Maria II, 179–96 of Giulio Feltrio, 99–105 of Guidobaldo II, 101, 161–76 of Isabella Feltria, 128–36 material gifts, 132–33 opportunistic, 120–21, 188–96 relics, 133 by religious groups, 180 socioreligious motives, 48n; of Domenico della Rovere, 42–50; of Girolamo Basso della Rovere, 50–58; of Giulio Feltrio della Rovere, 89–91; of Sixtus IV, 5– 7, 9–10, 17, 23, 42, 53 Paul II, 92 Paul III, 92 Perugino, Pietro, frescoed altarpiece, 16 Pesaro, 146, 148 Petrucci, Alfonso, 118 Pini, Pier Matteo, 100 Pinturicchio, Bernardino di Betto abandonment of, by Julius II, 57 architectural illusionism, 45, 55 Costa and Cybo chapels of, 56 della Rovere chapel, 51n Nativity at Santa Maria del Popolo, 42, 44, 45, 46 papal apartments, 56–57 sociocultural influence, 55–58 various commissions, 45n Piperno, Franco, 162 Pius V (Michele Ghislieri), 94 Platina, Bartolomeo biographer of Sixtus IV, 3–4 depiction of, 6, 7, 8 Lives of the Popes, 11 poetry, in praise of Orsini, 117 Pollaiuolo, Antonio, 26 Pontelli, Baccio, xvi, 63 Popes. See under individual names Porta, Costanzo , Missarum liber primus, 103 Protestantism, of Eleonora Gonzaga, 151 Raphael, xvii, 151, 182–83 Ravenna, under patronage of Giulio Feltrio, 97–98 relics, cult of, 133–34 rhetoric, 13, 39–47 Riario family. Girolamo, xviii, xxi, xxii, 7, 8, 42 Pietro (1445–74), xv, 4, 7, 8, 22, 74

209

Raffaelle (1460–1521), xiii, 42, 72, 74 Rome. See also Santa Maria del Popolo church and pictorial language of della Rovere, 39–40 renovation of, by Sixtus IV, 7, 9, 40, 111 Rossi, Girolamo, 95 Ruysschaert, José, 7 S. Francesco Geronimo, Naples, 135 S. Pietro in Vinvoli, 92 Saint Anthony of Padua, 22, 111 Saint Augustine, 47–48, 51 Saint Francis of Assisi, 22, 24, 111 Saint Jerome, 47–48 Saint Peter’s Basilica, Cappella de Canonici frescoes, 22 San Francesco Basilica buttress effigy of Sixtus IV, 28–31, 33 renovations under Sixtus IV, 19–28 Sangallo, Giuliano da painting of, 70 Palazzo della Rovere (Savona), 64, 72, 74–83 reputation of, 69 Sanmicheli, Michele, 150 Sanseverino family, 126–29 Sansovino (Jacopo d’Antonio Tatti), tomb of Girolamo Basso della Rovere, 56 Santagata (Jesuit historian), 123 Santa Maria del Popolo church chapel of Domenico della Rovere, 42, 43–44, 45, 46, 47–50 chapel of Girolamo Basso della Rovere, 50–51, 52, 53– 58 as della Rovere family monument, 39–40, 42–50, 57–58 myths/legends surrounding, 40 Santo Spirito Hospital, frescoes of Sixtus IV, 5, 6, 22 San Vitale, endowed by Isabella Feltria, 123 Satriano, Porzia Cigala di, 133 Sauli, Cardinal, 118 Savona architecture commissioned by Giuliano, 72 city plan and Palazzo della Rovere, 75 Giuliano’s exile there, 69, 71–72 harbor front, 76 as harbor town, 111 plan of Palazzo della Rovere, 77 Schinosi (Jesuit historian), 123 sculpture, 20, 28–33, 100 self-fashioning defined by Greenblatt, xiii effigy of Sixtus IV, 29 by Felice della Rovere, 111–21 and patronage, 53 as self-aggrandizement, 39–40, 42, 53–55, 72–83, 114, 129–32, 141–46, 188–96 Senigallia, 145 Sherr, Richard, 104 Sistine Chapel, patronage of Sixtus IV, 9–10, 9n

THE RISE OF THE DELLA ROVERE IN RENAISSANCE ITALY

INDEX

210

Sixtus IV (Francesco della Rovere; 1414–84) background, xiv–xvi, 3–4, 19–20 bull (Franciscan sale of legacies/testaments), 13 cultural patronage, 5–7, 57–58 De futuris contingentibus, 21 De potentia Dei, 21 De sanguine Christi, 21 effigy of, at San Francesco Sacro Convento, 28–31, 33 family aggrandizement of, 39–40 and Federico da Montefeltro, xxi–xxii frescoes of, in Santo Spirito Hospital, 5, 6 and Julius II, 4–5 nepotism and cultural patronage of, 3 Savona property of, 74 tomb of, 5 Society of Jesus. See Jesuits Speroni, Sperone, 163 Stinger, Charles, 11 tapestries. See under artworks Tasso, Bernardo, 161 Terranova, Francesco da, 24 Titian, 152 artworks collected by della Rovere, 148–49 152, 163 Crucifixion with Mourners, 174 fame and prestige of, 183 Madonna and Child with Saints …, 169 patrons: Alfonso d’Este, 182–83; Guidobaldo II, 161– 76 of Sixtus IV, 5 Traversari, Ambrogio, 12

Vagnoli, Virginia, 161 Varana, Giulia ( m. Guidobaldo II), 162 Vatican Library, Sixtus IV’s patronage of, 5, 6, 7 Vatican Palace, precedents for architecture of, 65–69, 79– 83 Venice della Rovere relations with, 162 "myth" of, 152 war against, 146, 149 Vigerio, Marco (the elder), xv n, 93, 93n warfare fortifications, 150 Whol, Helmut, 53 Wilde, Johannes, 17 Wittkower, Rudolf, 132 women of della Rovere family, xx–xxi as depicted by Titian, 154 Felice della Rovere, as independent maeceni, 111–21 Isabella Feltria della Rovere, 123–36 marriage contracts, 128 martyrdom of unhappy wives, 127n as patrons of Jesuits, 126 religious guidance of, 130 as religious patrons: Costanza del Carretto, 129; Maria Lorenza Longho, 128; Roberta Carafa, 128 stereotype of holiness, 128 Woollcombe, Kenneth, 11 Zampeti, Pietro, 101 Zuccari, Federico, patronage of della Rovere, 180 Zuccaro, Taddeo, 100, 161

Ubaldo, Federico, 141 Urbino connection with Venice, 147–48 della Rovere vs. Borgia rule of, 145 under Francesco Maria II, 191–92, 196 Francesco Maria’s duchy, 143–48 as metropolitan see, 94

PATRONAGE & DYNASTY