“Giuliano Salviati, Michelangelo and the ‘David’,” The Burlington Magazine 150 (October 2008): 664-68

Giuliano Salviati, Michelangelo and the 'David'Author(s): Joost KeizerSource: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 150, No. 1267, Art in Italy (Oct., 2008), pp. 664-668Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40479899 .

Accessed: 30/03/2014 20:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Burlington Magazine.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.132.173.124 on Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:53:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40479899?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Giuliano Salviati, Michelangelo and the 'David' byJOOST KEIZER, Columbia University, New York

during His lifetime Michelangelo relied heavily on influential friends and acquaintances who, through their connections and recommendations, helped to advance the artist's career. Arguably the most important in this respect was the prominent Florentine banking family the Salviati. Extensive evidence for the artist's relations with them sur- vives in his Carteggio, notably from the period he worked for the Medici at S. Lorenzo when Jacopo Salviati offered Michelangelo his friendship and assistance in managing the enormous projects of the façade, the New Sacristy and the Laurentian Library.1 A letter published by Michael Hirst in this Magazine shows that members of the family must have had dealings with him even earlier in the sixteenth century. From that letter, written by Francesco Alidosi to Alamanno Salviati, we learn that early in the spring of 1505 Alamanno had recommended Michelangelo to Pope Julius II in the most laudatory terms: Tor the testimony [Alamanno] gave of the aforesaid Michelangelo, Julius remained content and at ease'; no other guarantors were needed to convince him of Michelangelo's skills.2 Some days later we encounter the artist in papal employ, receiving a salary disbursed to him by the Salviati bank.3

Alamanno' s confidence in Michelangelo strongly suggests that connections between his family and the artist antedate the recommendation to Julius II;4 this can now be confirmed. On the basis of unpublished archival evidence, the origins of Michelangelo's relationship with the Salviati can now be retraced to the spring of 1 501, when Alamanno's cousin Giuliano Salviati was operaio of S. Maria del Fiore and one of those responsible for awarding the commission for the David (Fig. 1 8). Additional material published here shows that Giuliano was subsequently responsible for payments made to Michelangelo for the statue, and also for the setting of a higher valuation for the sculpture in 1 502 when he was camerlengo, or treasurer, to the Opera del Duomo.

Eventually installed in front of the Palazzo della Signoria in 1504, David was originally commissioned on 16th August 1 501 for one of the buttresses surrounding the tribuna of the cathedral of S. Maria del Fiore.^ It was carved from an old block of marble, quarried in Carrara in 1464, which pre- viously had been worked on by Agostino di Duccio. On 2nd July, some six weeks before Michelangelo signed the contract, it was decided to ascertain whether the block was suitable for the work. Both the decision of July and the commission in August were the responsibility of the Opera del Duomo, the Cathedral Board of Works, which also regulated the payments for the statue. The Opera was administered by the Florentine Arte della Lana, which disbursed the funds originally allocated to the guild by the city-government.6 The Opera del Duomo consisted of three operai, one capomaestro and some supporting administrative officers. Whereas the capomaestro was appointed for life, the operai were elected from the members of the Wool Guild to hold office for a year only, beginning either on ist January or ist July.

The document of 2nd July, recording the deliberation as to whether the old block was suitable, demonstrates that this decision was the sole responsibility of the operai, with no intervention from the capomaestro.7 Indeed, a survey of the documents relating to the construction and decoration of the cathedral in the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries suggests that the main duty of the capomaestro was to advise on technical and practical matters, whereas the operai were responsible for the selection of artists and the iconography and location of their works.8 After the expulsion of the Medici in 1494, the operai enjoyed more power than in th§ preceding years, when Lorenzo de' Medici had made the Opera del Duomo subordinate to the newly created office of the six provveditori of which he was himself a member.9 On 5th December 1494, a year after the Medici's expulsion, this Laurentian office was abolished and full power was once again granted to the operai.10

This article originated as a paper read at a conference devoted to Michelangelo's David organised by the Istituto Universitario Olandese di Storia dell'Arte in Florence in 2004. I owe much to the Institute and its director, Bert Meijer, for providing the ideal conditions to research in Florence. Michael Hirst, Henk van Veen, Reindert Falkenburg and Duncan Bull commented upon an earlier draft. 1 P. Barocchi and R. Ristori, eds.: // carteggio di Michelangelo, Florence 1965-83, I, pp.237-39, 290 and 337-38; II, pp.55, 84, 116, 136-37 and 143-44; III, pp.125, !58, 162, 178-79 and 355-56. Jacopo Salviati's participation in the S. Lorenzo projects has been studied by W.E. Wallace: Michelangelo at San Lorenzo: The genius as entre- preneur, Cambridge and New York 1994, pp.22- 23 and passim. 2 M. Hirst: 'Michelangelo in 1505', the burlington magazine 133 (1991), p. 763: '[I/] Nostro Signore [. . .] peril testimonio havete dato del dicto Michelangilo resta contento et riposato'. 3 For the documents, see ibid., pp.765- 66. 4 K. Frey, ed.: Sammlung ausgewählter Briefe an Michelagniolo Buonarroti, nach den

Originalen des Archivio Buonarroti, Berlin 1889, p. 11 7. Frey without knowing of the Alidosi letter, believed that Jacopo Salviati had known the artist from a very early date. I owe this reference to Michael Hirst. 5 For the documentation of the statue, see G. Poggi: U Duomo di Firenze: Documenti sulla decorazione della chiesa e del campanile tratti dall'archivio dell'opera, ed. M. Haines, Florence 1988, I, pp. 83-84, docs. 448-49; see also the documentation in G. Gaye: Carteggio inedito d'artisti dei secoli XIV, XV, XVI, Florence 1839-40, II, pp.45 5-62, supplemented and partly corrected by G. Milanesi: Le lettere di Michelangelo Buonar-

roti, Florence 1875, p. 620; K. Frey: 'Studien zu Michelagniolo Buonarroti und zur Kunst seiner Zeit, III', Jahrbuch der Königlich preussischen Kunstsammlungen 30 (1909), Beiheft, p.107, does. 14- 15; and C. Seymour, Jr: Michelangelo's David: A search for iden- tity, Pittsburgh 1967, pp. 134-55. 6 For the functioning of the Opera del Duomo in relation to the Wool Guild and city-government, see H. Saalman: Filippo Brunelleschi: The Cupola of Santa Maria del Fiore, London 1980, pp. 173-95; M. Haines: 'Brunelleschi and bureaucracy: The tradition of public patronage at the Florentine Cathedral', / Tatti Studies 3 (1989), pp. 89-125; ibid.: 'L'Arte della Lana e l'Opera del Duomo a Firenze con un accenno a Ghiberti tra due istuzione', in: idem, ed: Opera, carraterre e ruolo delle fabbriche cittadine fino ali' inizio dell' Età Moderna, Florence 1996, pp.267- 94; L. Fabbri: 'L'Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore nel quindicesimo secolo: Tra Repubblica Fiorentina e Arte della Lana', in: T. Verdón and A. Innocenti, eds.: La Cattedrale e la Città: Saggi sul Duomo di Firenze, Florence 2001, I, pp.319- 39. 7 Poggi, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 83-84, doc.448. 8 Only in minor instances do we encounter the capomaestro. When considerable expenditure was at stake, the consuls of the Wool Guild sometimes intervened. During his lifetime, Michelangelo developed a close relationship with individual operai; see Wallace, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 22-23. Thus when the operai needed advice on the design for the Cathedral's drum, they, and not the capomaestro, wrote to the artist; see R. Ristori: 'Una lettera a Michelangelo degli Operai di Santa Maria del Fiore', Rinascimento 23 (1989), pp. 167-68.

664 OCTOBER 2OO8 • CL • THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE



GIULIANO SALVIATI, MICHELANGELO AND THE 'DAVID'

The ledgers kept by the guild and the Opera del Duomo reveal that Giuliano di Francesco di Alamanno Salviati was appointed operaio for one year on ist January 1501,11 which means that he was already exercising control within the Opera del Duomo at least six months before the decision was taken to inspect the marble. His importance for Michelangelo's work on the David is supported by additional archival evidence which shows that he was appointed camerlengo (or treasurer) to the Opera del Duomo from ist January to ist July 1502,12 an appointment that directly followed his office as operaio, which ended on the day he accepted his new post; consequently he was a key figure in the Opera from January 1501 to July 1502. In its most rigid definition, the office of treasurer entailed book- keeping for the Opera del Duomo and allocating funds to those working in its employ or on the basis of a piecemeal salary.13 In consequence Giuliano Salviati was responsible for the first payments for the David. On 5 th March 1502 he disbursed thirty fiorini larghi d'oro in oro to Michelangelo, and on 28 th June he paid him another thirty.14 The camerlengo could also exercise his influence in assessing the value of works produced for the cathedral, and Giuliano probably did so for the David: it was during his term of office that the statue was revalued, its price being fixed at the large sum of four hundred/ìorim larghi d'oro in oro to be paid to the artist on its completion.15 The text of the document makes clear that, as camerlengo, Giuliano himself was partly responsible for determining the amount.16

Circumstantial evidence also suggests that Salviati played a crucial role in awarding the commission to Michelangelo. The artist had returned to Florence at least a month before the deliberation of 2nd July 1501, and on 22nd May he signed a provisional contract there to carve the statues for the Piccolomini altar in Siena Cathedral, the definitive contract being signed on 19th June.17 There is, however, some evidence to suggest that Michelangelo had left Rome a few months earlier. On 27th February he obtained a loan from his Roman patron Jacopo Gallo, which was guaranteed by the marble he was leaving behind;18 and this suggests that he was planning to leave the Papal city by the end of February 1501. He must have been back in Florence at the latest by 18th March, when he transferred the complete balance from his Roman account to his bank in Florence.19 The reason for his

18. David, by Michelangelo. 1501-04. Marble, 513.5 cm. high, including base. (Galleria dell'Accademia, Florence).

9 For this office, see F.W. Kent: 'Lorenzo de' Medici at the Duomo', in Verdón and Innocenti, op. cit. (note 6), pp.341- 68. 10 Florence, Archivio di Stato (hereafter cited as ASF), Arte della Lana, vol.54, fol.ió7r- v; Kent, op. cit. (note 9), p. 368. The office of the six provveditori was rein- stalled, although with limited powers, on 26th August 1501; see ASF, Arte della Lana, vol.55, fols.20v- 2iv. 1 ' Florence, Archivio dell'Opera di S. Maria del Fiore (hereafter cited as AOSMF), serie II, vol.2, no.9, Deliberazione, 1498-1507, fol.28r, for the official record of Salviati's election. For the documentation of his appointment in the administration of the Wool Guild, see ASF, Arte della Lana, vol.39, fol.45r. and for the record of the city-government, see ASF, Tratte, 1488- 1508, filza 905, bobina 6, carta 92. 12 AOSMF, serie Vili. 3, vol.7., Entrata e Uscita, 1499- 1502, nr.LI, un-numbered folio preceding fol. ir. For the disbursements made during his term of office, see ibid., fols. ir- 73V. 13 For the office oì camerlengo, see A. Grote: Das Dombauamt in Florenz, 1285-1370. Studien zur Geschichte der Opera di Santa Reparata, Munich 1959, pp. 43-67 and 99-104; Saalman, op. at. (note 6), p. 177. The official document outlining the tasks of this office, dated 24th December 133 1, was published in C. Guasti: Santa Maria del Fiore: La construzione della chiesa e del campanile seconde i documenti tratti dall'Archivio nell'Opera Secolare e da quello di Stato, Florence 1887, p.33, doc.37. The text of the document makes clear that the treasurer disbursed the money allocated by the commune for the building and decoration of the church, lac etiam adpetendum recipiendum et conßtendum

omnem quantitatem pecunie que deputata esset vel deputaretur seu relicta esset vel relinqueretur vel quocumque alio modo vel causa debetur vel deberetur in edificatione et pro edificatione et constructione et opera dicte ecclesie Sánete Reparate vel eius occasione'. 14 For the payments, see Frey, op. cit. (note 5), p. 107, docs. 14- 15. 15 For the documents, see Milanesi, op. cit. (note 5), p. 622. 16 Ibid.: 'Operati declarare et f ecere dictam mercedem et salarium; et audita petitione tam

Jacta per dictum Michelangelum, quam volúntate dictorum Consulum [. . .], declaraverunt dictum pretium et mercedem dicti Michelangeli pro faciendo et conficiendo piene et perfecte dictum Gigantem deu David, existentem in dieta Opera et iam semifactum per dictum

Michelangelum, fuisse et et esse florent. 400 largorum de auro in aurum, et iedem dictam summan persolvendam per camerarìum diete Opere, finito diete Gigante'. 17 For the contracts, see H. Mancusi-Ungaro, Jr: Michelangelo. The Bruges Madonna and the Piccolomini Altar, New Haven and London 1971, pp.62- 72. 18 M. Hirst: 'The artist in Rome, 1496-1501', in idem and J. Dunkerton: exh. cat. The young Michelangelo: The artist in Rome, London (National Gallery) 1994, pp.70 and 81, note 57; R. Hatfield: The Wealth of Michelangelo, Florence 2002, p. 361. Hirst believed that the marble Michelangelo left in Rome was destined for the Piccolomini altar. However, as Hatfield points out, this argument is weakened by the references in the Piccolomini contract to marble already on hand in Florence or to be shipped there from Carrara. Hatfield believes that the material Michelangelo left with Gallo was part of the shipments the artist had received in Rome in 1498. ■» Ibid., p. 14.

THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE • CL • OCTOBER 2OO8 665




return is still unclear. We might follow his first biographers in believing that he was prompted by the desire to procure the giant block of worked marble whose release the operai had been considering for some time.20 From a hitherto neglected postilla to a letter that Michelangelo's father, Lodo vico, wrote to his son on 20th December 1500, we learn that by the end ofthat year discussions about releasing the block were probably already afoot. In it Lodovico #urges his son to return to Florence, apparently because the block of marble would otherwise be given to another sculptor. 'And have trust in me', Lodovico writes, 'that if you were here, you [would] stop [them] from doing so'. He then urges Michelangelo to leave any pieces of marble he has in Rome in the care of one of his friends, and this must certainly be the material the artist left with Gallo in February.21 The sequence of events fol- lowing Lodovico's letter strongly suggests that Michelangelo left Rome in a hurry and that his father's urging him to return directly pertained to discussions about the contested piece of marble in the courtyard of the Opera del Duomo, which, according to Vasari and Condivi, would have otherwise been awarded to either Andrea Sansovino or Leonardo da Vinci.22

On his return to Florence, Michelangelo probably took the initiative; knowing of the operai' s intentions from his father, he must have approached them, hoping for the commission, sometime between early March and mid- August 1 501. As the other two operai involved with the commission of 1 6th August had been elected to their offices only on ist July,23 it seems most likely that it was Salviati whom he approached.

This conclusion is supported by the fact that Michelangelo was living near to Giuliano Salviati at this time. Although no attention has been paid to the artist's place of residence in his native city between 1501 and 1505, it seems most probable that he moved back into his father's house.24 This has been recently identified as a dwelling that Lodovico rented on via

S. Procolo, in the parish of S. Pier Maggiore, on the north border of the district of S. Croce, where the Buonarroti family had long resided.25 It must have been in the open space behind this house that Michelangelo was also at that time carving the Bruges Madonna, which he later asked his father to shelter inside.26 In addition, the contract for the Piccolomini statues for Siena states that he intended to carve the sculptures 6 in casa di Michaelangelo' , which must have been Lodovico's.27 Giuliano lived only a few streets away. From the thirteenth century onwards, the Salviati family had been acquiring property in an area between via S. Procolo and via della Vigna Vecchia which, by the fifteenth century, was already known simply as the 'canto dei Salviati'.28 As well as minor houses, the family owned three palazzi there,29 the most prominent of which was the one designed by Michelozzo (now Palazzo Borghese) in via del Palagio.30 It was substantially enlarged between 1499 and 1500 at the instigation of Giuliano's cousin Alamanno in order to accommodate more members of the Salviati consorteria, or extended family, including Giuliano.31

A further piece of evidence shows that Michelangelo was in contact with the Salviati in the year he was finishing the David. In a letter of 1 5 19 a Tommaso di Tolfo reminisced to Michelangelo that 'now some fifteen years ago ['hora fa 13 anni incircha'], I found myself frequently in discussion with you in the house of Giannozo Salviati'.32 These words can be corroborated by a document of December 1 504, in which we encounter the same Giannozzo di Bernardo Salviati, a cousin of Giuliano, as a provveditore to the Opera del Duomo inspecting some pieces of marble, among them 'a statue of an apostle'. The document continues that 'on the basis of this statue [Giannozzo] assessed the price of the other [marbles], which [marble] was received and seen by Michelangelo, sculptor of the aforesaid statue'.33 This 'apostle' consisted of a roughly hewn block of marble destined to be one of the

20 A. Condivi: Vita di Michelagnolo Buonarroti, ed. G. Nencioni, Florence 1998, p.21; G. Vasari: La vita di Michelangelo nelle redazioni del 1550 e del 1568, ed. P. Barocchi, Milan 1962, 1, pp.19- 20; this was also suggested by Hirst, op. cit. (note 18), pp. 70-71 and 81, notes 57-58. 21 Barocchi and Ristori, op. cit. (note 1), I, p. io: 'Anchora ti richordo che.ttu t'ingien- dni di tornare più presto che puoi: e prestami j'é'de che, quando fussi qui, aresti che fare. Ingiendniati chon buon modo d[t'ritarti di chostì, e se.ttu non puoi finire e' marmi, accomandagli a qualchu[n]o di chotesti tua amici; e quando sarà il tempo, non ci è tanto che tu non 'po]ssa ongni giorno ritornare chostì'. I thank Michael Hirst for drawing my attention to this reference. 22 K. Frey: Die Dichtungen Michelagniolo Buonarroti, Berlin 1897, p. 502, suspected that Lodovico's postscript referred to the discussions about the release of the marble. 23 These two operai were Jacopo Mancini and Andrea Giugni; see AOSMF, serie II, vol.2, nr.9, Deliberazione, 1498-1507, fol.3ór.; ASF, Arte della Lana, vol.39, fol.44r; ASF, Tratte, 1488-1508, Filza 905, bobina 6, carta. 92. 24 As Hatfìeld, op. cit. (note 18), pp. 65-71, has conclusively shown, the artist's first investments in property date from 1506. 25 Lodovico and his family rented this house for the modest sum of 1 2 fiorini a year; see ibid., p. 67, note 31, and for the document, ibid., p. 456. I have been unable to track down its exact location. 26 Barocchi and Ristori, op. cit. (note 1), I, p. 12: 'quella Nostra Donna di marmo: símilmente vorrei la faciessi portare chostì in casa e non la lasiassi vedere apersona'. 27 For the document, see Mancusi-Ungaro, op. cit. (note 17), p. 70. 28 G. Richa: Notizie istoriate delle chiese fiorentine divise ne'suoi quartieri, Florence 1754, I, p. 241; P. Hurtubise: Une famille témoine: Les Salviati, Vatican City 1985, pp. 72-84. 29 Ibid. 30 Some confusion surrounds the location of the palace that Jacopo was building.

H. Saalman: 'Michelozzo studies', the burlington magazine 108 (1966), pp. 249-50, published extracts from the documents but situated the palace on the corner of via Isola delle Stinche and via della Vigna Vecchia, opposite the Stinche prison. However, the payments published by him almost certainly refer to the palace that the Salviati were building on the corner of via del Palagio, close to the Bargello; see F. Querico: 'La consunzione del primo nucleo del Palazzo Salviati Borghese in via Ghibellina a Firenze (1439- 1445)', Bollettino della Società di Studi Fiorentini 1 (1997), pp-35- 53; ibid.: 'Dei Medici ai Salviati: nuovi itinerari nella commitenza private di Michelozzo', in G. Morolli, ed.: Michelozzo scultore e architetto, 1396-1472, Florence 1998, pp.45- 54 and 407-08. Because it was remodelled in the nineteenth century, when the Borghese took up residence there, almost no traces of the original palace remain; see L. Ginori Lisci: I Palazzi di Firenze, Florence 1972, II, pp.565- 71. 31 Hurtubise, op. cit. (note 28), p. 75. The close-knit nature of the Salviati consorteria was clearly recognised in the sixteenth century by Francesco Guicciardini; see E. Lugnani Scarano: Opere di Francesco Guicciardini, Turin 1970, I, p. 218. It has also been studied by Hurtubise, op. cit. (note 28), pp.59- 70 and 81-89. Social historians such as Dale and F.W. Kent have shown how a neighbourhood could form the basis of patronage networks, including artists; see most notably D. and F.W. Kent: Neighbours and neighbourhood in Renaissance Florence: The district of the Red Lion in the fifteenth century, New York 1982. For the way patrons often selected artists from their own quartiere or even gonfalone, see N. Eckstein: The district of the Green Dragon: Neighbourhood life and social change in Renaissance Florence, Florence 1994, pp.41- 60. The correspondence between Michelangelo and Jacopo Salviati shows that much of their contact relied on oral communication Ça bocca'), both directly between the artist and the Salviati and through third parties, including Michelangelo's brothers and friends. For example, in December 15 16, when Michelangelo was





twelve Apostles commissioned from Michelangelo in April 1503.34 Again, as was the case with the David, a member of the Salviati family was responsible for the evaluation of Michelangelo's sculpture.

Three members of the Salviati family were involved with Michelangelo during the first decade of the sixteenth century: Giuliano, Giannozzo and Alamanno, followed by Jacopo in the second decade. The three cousins supported Michelangelo at important moments in his career, from the David to the Julius tomb, through to the S. Lorenzo projects.35 The relationship between Michelangelo and the Salviati is closely tied-up with the Salviati family's profession as bankers.36 As we have seen, they were responsible for the payments to the artist on behalf of both Julius II and the Medici; and the origins of this history can now be securely traced to 1502, when Giuliano disbursed the money for the David. In both the Julius tomb and the various Medici projects, the Salviati operated as more than mere bankers responsible for payments: they provided the artists with recommendations, personal support and practical help. If the reconstruction offered above is correct, the family was responsible both for reintroducing Michelangelo to Florence after his return from Rome in 1501 and for recommending him to Julius II in 1505, the date that vir- tually marked the end of the artist's productive stay in his native city. Michelangelo's manoeuvring for patronage and recommendations from the powerful Salviati circle to gain increasingly prestigious commissions was typical behaviour for an artist who until then had not owned a workshop, tra- ditionally the place where business transactions between artists and buyers were arranged.37

A possible mediator between Michelangelo and the Salviati may well have been Giuliano da Sangallo.38 Sangallo was a friend of both Giuliano Salviati and Michelangelo and

appeared at critical moments in Michelangelo's career.39 While Michelangelo's contact with the architect can certainly be dated to the years in which they were both members of Lorenzo de' Medici's circle, the origins of their friendship may go as far back as 1487, when Michelangelo was apprenticed to the Ghirlandaio workshop and Giuliano da Sangallo provided the frame for the Innocenti altar piece in the very months Michelangelo's presence there is documented.40 The relationship between Giuliano Salviati and Sangallo dated back to 1491 when the architect and his brother Antonio were designing the forecourt of the Cister- cian cloister of Cestello (now S. Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi), a project paid for by Salviati and his cousins.41 In the autumn of 1502 the Salviati were again in contact with the architect when Alamanno Salviati was in charge of the fortifications in Arezzo that Giuliano da Sangallo had designed.42 Moreover, from Vasari onwards Sangallo has been credited with playing a prominent role in securing Michelangelo's services for the pope in 1505. Alamanno Salviati's securely documented part in this may indicate that Salviati and Giuliano da Sangallo operated in tandem when recommending Michelangelo* to Julius II.43

It is worth mentioning that Giuliano and Giannozzo Salviati's involvement with artistic patronage at S. Maria del Fiore had important precedents in the fifteenth century. In 1433, for instance, Giovanni di Forese Salviati and his son Lotto were personally involved in the creation of Donatello's Cantoria for the cathedral: Lotto furnished Donatello with the stone for the Cantoria and, as operaio, his father was responsible for the commission.44

The evidence offered here serves to counter a long- standing tradition - stemming ultimately from Vasari - of associating the commission for the David with Piero Soderini, who was appointed Gonfaloniere di Giustizia for life

in Carrara quarrying marble for the S. Lorenzo façade, Jacopo Salviati referred to a conversation with him shortly before the artist left for the quarries; see Barocchi and Ristori, op. cit. (note i), I, p. 237. Once, Jacopo was informed about Michelangelo's affairs by one of the artist's brothers, while somewhat later Salviati wrote to Michelangelo in the quarries of Pietrasanta that a friend of the artist Cuna tua) kept him well acquainted with the proceedings at the quarries; see ibid., I, pp.337- 38; II, p. 55. The parish church of S. Croce seems to have played a role in establishing contacts between the families: both the Salviati and the Buonarroti endowed family chapels and owned ancestral burial chapels there. For the Buonarroti chapel and burial place, see Hatfield, op. cit. (note 18), pp.222- 23; for those of the Salviati, see W. and E. Paatz: Die Kirchen von Florenz, Frankfurt am Main 1940, I, pp.535 and 578-79; Saalman, op. cit. (note 30), pp. 249-50. Buonarroto once wrote to his brother Michelangelo that on a Sunday, he and Lodo vico came across Jacopo Salviati in the church of S. Croce where 'all three of them were together for one hour'; see Barocchi and Ristori, op. cit. (note 1), I, p. 3 40. 32 Ibid., II, p. 167: 'horn ja 15 anni inarata, mi trovai chostì chon voi qualche volta in chasa d[t' Giannozo Salviati a ragionamenti'. 33 Poggi, op. cit. (note 5), I, p.146, doc.2154: 'e una statue d'uno apostolo e sopra tale statue fare el prezo del? alter se fusse recipiente e verderlo per Michelagnolo scultore di decta statua'. Giannozzo's office should not be confused with the Laurentian office of provveditore referred to above. 34 See MJ. Amy: 'The dating of Michelangelo's "St. Matthew'", the burlington MAGAZINE I42 (2OOO), p. 459. 35 Giuliano, Alamanno and Jacopo were already working together in the 1490s, when the three cousins instigated and paid for the construction of the front cloister of the church of Cestello, built and designed by Antonio and Giuliano da Sangallo; see A. Luchs: Cestello: A Cistercian church of the Florentine Renaissance,

New York and London 1977, pp.23 and 417, doc.27. In 1492 they commissioned a Virgin and Child with saints from Cosimo Rosselli; see ibid., pp.49, 163 and 41 3- 20, doc.27. 36 For the Salviati family history, see Hurtubise, op. cit. (note 28). «INo evidence exists tor Michelangelo owning a workshop in Florence betöre 1 5 1 8; see Wallace, op. cit. (note 1), pp.63- 67. Michelangelo once famously declared: 'io no fu' mai pictore né scultore come chi ne fa boctegd', see Barocchi and Ristori, op. cit. (note 1), IV, p.299. 38 Suggested by Michael Hirst in personal communication. 39 See W.E. Wallace: 'How Did Michelangelo Become a Sculptor?', in exh. cat. The Genius of the Sculptor in Michelangelo's Work, Montreal (Montreal Museum of Fine Arts) 1992, pp.154-55. 40 I owe this suggestion to Michael Hirst. For Michelangelo in Ghirlandaio's workshop, seej. Cadogan: 'Michelangelo in the workshop of Domenico Ghirlandaio', the burlington magazine 135 (1993), pp.30-31. The payments to Giuliano da Sangallo run from 1487 to 1490 and were first published by G. Bruscoli: L' Ado- razione dei Magi, tavola di Domenico Ghirlandaio nella chiesa dello spedale degli Innocenti. Per le nozze Canevaro-Ridolfi, Florence 1902, pp.13- 23. New transcriptions can be found in J. Cadogan: Domenico Ghirlandaio, artist and artisan, New Haven and London 2000, p.351. 41 See note 35 above. 42 Gaye, op. cit. (note 5), II, pp. 57-5 8. 43 Hirst, op. cit. (note 2), p. 764. 44 Poggi, op. cit. (note 5), I, pp.257- 58, docs. 1289 and 1291. Giovanni appears again in documents published in ibid., I, pp.136 and 258, docs. 717 and 1291. In 1446 Giuliano's grandfather Alamanno di Jacopo Salviati was operaio, in which office he was involved with the commission for the prestigious tabernacle of Corpus Christi, placed in the chapel of S. Stefano; see ibid., I, p.219, doc. 1094.

THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE • CL • OCTOBER 2OO8 667




in September 1502.45 That tradition has recently been revived by Lorenzo Polizzotto, who published part of a letter written shortly after Piero 's election to the gonfaloniera- to a vita in which Soderini is compared to the prophet David.46 Polizzotto further speculates that Soderini was involved with the commission when he served in the regular office of Gonfaloniere for* two months in March and April 1501.47 But there is no evidence'for Soderini's involvement with the commission in August 1501: his name appears nowhere in the documented history of the commission, the Gonfaloniere was never a member of the Florentine Wool Guild and thus could not be nominated as an operaio.

Soderini's involvement with the statue must be dated to shortly before the summer of 1504, when the David was installed in front of Palazzo della Signoria, Soderini's official residence as head of the city-government.48 It is indeed difficult to believe that Soderini was not involved with the decision to install it there rather than its intended location on a buttress of S. Maria del Fiore. But that decision must have been rather a late call. When on 25th January 1504, with the statue 'quasi finita9, the committee - which included Giuliano da Sangallo - was called on to advise on the statue's location and it became clear that an installation on one of the buttresses was no longer a serious option, one of those present, the woodcarver Monciatto, was still unaware ofthat decision, recalling that the statue 'was made to be placed on the pilasters outside the church, or else on the buttresses around it', adding: 'I don't know your reasons for not putting it there'.49 There is evidence to suggest that it was the Gonfaloniere who had the last word. Six months before the committee met, Soderini had reformed the operai del palagio, relieving the operai of their responsibility for the

payments for decoration of the palace and handing the responsibility over to the Signoria. While the eight priori of the Signoria changed office every two months Soderini had been elected for life, so this reform endowed the Gon- faloniere with effective legislative power over the building and decoration projects at the Palazzo and its adjacent square.50 In this respect, it is also important to remember that the statue stood on Piazza della Signoria for a few months in the spring of 1504 before the final decision on its location was taken; it thus stood within Soderini's direct jurisdiction. And although the Gonfaloniere was absent from the advisory committee, he was represented by the two heralds of the Signoria. Whereas most speakers at the committee opted for the David to be installed under the Loggia dei Lanzi, the heralds' call to place it to the left of the palazzo's entrance and hence physically closest to Soderini's apartments was eventually heeded.51 Indeed, by the end of the meeting, the second herald advised that the Signoria, presided over by Soderini, should be consulted before a definitive decision was made.52

The marble David, then, may present us with a similar case to that of Michelangelo's bronze David, commissioned in June 1501 by the Florentine Signoria as a diplomatic gift for the French Marshal de Gié.53 Both Condivi and Vasari attributed that commission to the intervention of Soderini,54 but thanks to archival discoveries made by Francesco Caglioti, however, we now know that Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici was responsible for awarding the bronze commission to Michelangelo in June 1502, a few months before Soderini's election as Gonfaloniere for life.55 It was only in 1508 that Soderini intervened in person and managed to bring the project to a successful conclusion.56

45 Vasari, op. cit. (note 20), I, pp.19- 21, wrote: '. . . Pier Soderini, fatto gonfaloniere a vita allora di quella città, aveva avuto ragionamento molte volte di farlo condurre a Lionardo da Vinci et era allora in pratica di darlo a Maestro Andrea Contucci dal Monte San Savino, eccellente scultore, che cercava di averlo; e Michelagnolo, quantunque fussi dificile a cavarne una figura intera senza pezzi - al che fare nonbastava a quegli altri V animo di non finirlo senza pezzi, salvo che a lui, e ne aveva avuto desiderio molti anni innanzi -, venuto in Fiorenza tentò di averlo'. S. Levine: 'The Location of Michelangelo's "David": The Meeting of January 25, 1504', The Art Bulletin 56 (1974), pp. 47-49, attached much weight to Vasari's passage and argued that from the start the David was commissioned to stand in front of Palazzo della Signoria by the city-government, over which Soderini presided. The assumption is repeated in many Michelangelo monographs based on Vasari's account. Barocchi, in her commentary to Vasari, op. cit. (note 20), II, p. 202, refuted the idea, suggesting it belonged more to Vasari's times than to the situation in 1501-04:

' L'interpretazione politica, essente nel Condivi,

ha tutta Vapperenza di una illazione a posteriori, giacché V "insegna del palazzo" presuppone la collocazione in Piazza della Signoria, decisa solo quando la statua era quasi compiuta'. For a convincing critique of Levine's use of the archival documents, see N.R. Parks: 'The placement of the "David": A review of the documents', The Art Bulletin 57 (!975)» pp-500-570. The contemporary comment of the woodcarver Monciatto, referred to below in note 49, is pertinent. 46 ASF, Carte Strozziane, serie III, vol.138, fols. 59fr. (letter written by Marco Strozzi, Canon of S. Maria del Fiore, to Matteo Bigazzi da Cascia, Canon of S. Lorenzo). I am grateful to Lorenzo Polizzotto for providing me with the archival reference before the publication of his 'Iustus ut palma florebit: Piero Soderini and Florentine justice', in F.W. Kent and C. Zika, eds.: Religious rituals, images and words: The varieties of cultural expression in late medieval and early modern Europe, Turnhout 2005, pp. 263-76. 47 Soderini's bi-monthly tenure is documented in G. Cambi: Istorie fiorentine, in I. di San Luigi, ed.: Delizie degli eruditi toscani, Florence 1785-86, XXI, p. 159. 48 For Soderini's private apartments in the palazzo, see N. Rubinstein: The Palazzo Vecchio, 1298-1532. Government, architecture, and imagery in the civic palace of

the Florentine Republic, Oxford 1995, pp. 43-45, 76-77 and 97-100. 49 Seymour, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 144-45: fu fada per mettere in su e pilastri di fuori 0

sproni intorno alla chiesa: la cause di non vele mettere, non so, et quivi a me pareva stessi bene in ornamento della chiesa et de' consoli, et mutato loci . 50 The account books in ASF, Operai di Palagio, voi. io, fols.54v- 56r, suggests this. See A. Cecchi: Review of Rubinstein, op. cit. (note 48), the burlington MAGAZINE I38 (1996), p. 33I. 51 Seymour, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 142-45: 'Havete due luoghi dove può supportare tale statua, el primo dove è la luditta, el secondo el mezzo della corte del palazzo, dove è el Davit:

primo perche la luditta è segno mortifero, e' non sta bene havendo noi la + per insignia et el giglio, non sta bene che la donna uccida Ihomo, et maxime essendo stata posta chon chattiva chonstellatione, perché da poi in qua siate iti de male in peggio: perdessi poi Pisa. El Davit della corte è una figura et non è perfecta, perche la gamba sua di drieto è schiocha; per tanto io consiglieri che si ponesse questa statua in una de' dua luoghi, ma più tosto dove è la luditta'. 52 Ibid., pp.148- 49: 'et avanti che si disponghino le magnificentie V. dove à a stare, lo conferieta chon li Signori, perché vi à di buoni ingiegni' . 53 For archival documentation of the lost statue, see Gaye, op. cit. (note 5), II, pp.52- 55, 58-61, 77-79, 101-03, 105-06 and 108-09; supplemented by L. Gatti: '"Delle cose de' pictori et Sculptori si può mal promettere cosa certa": la diplomazia Fiorentina presso la corte del Re di Francia e il "David" bronzeo di Michelangelo Buonarroti', Melanges de l'Ecole Française de Rome 106 (1994), pp.43 3-472; F. Caglioti: TI "David" bronzeo di Michelangelo (e Benedetto da Rovezzano): il problema dei pagamenti', in idem, M. Fileti Mazza, and U. Parini eds.: Ad Alessandro Conti (1946-1994), Pisa 1996, pp.84-132. *4 Vasari, op. cit. (note 20), I, p.23; Condivi, op. cit. (note 20), p.22. « F. Caglioti: Donatello e i Medici: Storia del 'David' e della 'Giuditta', Florence 2000, I, pp.315-16. 56 The first trace of Soderini's intervention appears in a letter from Tommaso di Balduccio to Michelangelo of 2nd September 1508; see Barocchi and Ristori, op. cit. (note i), I, p. 83. The subsequent correspondence on the statue is published in Gaye, op. cit. (note 5), II, pp. 108-09.




Documents

“Giuliano Salviati, Michelangelo and the ‘David’,” The Burlington Magazine 150 (October 2008): 664-68